ADVERTISEMENT

Montana GOP Candidate physically attacks reporter

ItsMillerTime said:
Oh! Ha! That's just like that joke Kate McKinnon made on SNL. It was so funny then. Thank you for using it again!
Click to expand...
You're welcome. And for the record, I'll take the Gates', the Bezos', the Jobs', and the other "betas" any day over tuff (with two f's) guys like you and Gianforte anyday. They've created thousands of jobs and billions towards GDP.

You sit at a keyboard though, so...
 
INRanger27 said:
You're welcome. And for the record, I'll take the Gates', the Bezos', the Jobs', and the other "betas" any day over tuff (with two f's) guys like you and Gianforte anyday. They've created thousands of jobs and billions towards GDP.

You sit at a keyboard though, so...
Click to expand...

lol. I've worked in tech my entire life. I appreciate your assumption that Tech=Beta Male.

No one dared ever cross those guys. Not now. And not when they were working out of a garage.

Ben Jacobs on the other hand. Is a loser...

Coincidentally. Gianforte is a Tech Millionaire as well. Poor, poor example.
 
Last edited:
ItsMillerTime said:
lol. I've worked in tech my entire life. I appreciate your assumption that Tech=Beta Male.

No one dared ever cross those guys. Not now. And not when they were working out of a garage.

Ben Jacobs on the other hand. Is a loser...
Click to expand...

And before you start, yes I know Bezos didn't start in a garage. I worked for Amazon for many years.
 
ItsMillerTime said:
And before you start, yes I know Bezos didn't start in a garage. I worked for Amazon for many years.
Click to expand...
Right. When Bezos was a nobody startup entrepreneur before anybody knew what Amazon was, nobody crossed him.

Tech is full of wanna-be tough guys. I worked in tech for a few years coming out of the Army. Plenty of wanna-be tough guys. All behind the keyboard. Some particular badasses would go hunting on the weekends...super Alphas those guys. Just ask em.

I don't take umbrage with your calling Jacobs a loser. I don't know him from any asshole. I take umbrage with your chest thumping and your dismissal of Jacobs' victim hood while simply doing his job. He's allowed to do his job without being battered, even if he is a "beta." This isn't Russia. This is a country founded by both nerds and strongmen working hand in hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sglowrider
NPT said:
That's the key along with being able to put out a lot of BS that people want to hear and in most cases do is smoothly and with a straight face. Learning to lie with a straight face is also important.
Click to expand...

I don't even think you need a straight face anymore. Also doesn't hurt to be independently weathly. How many competent people lose elections because their sleazebag opponents are better funded?
 
Trying to shift this back to Montana...

Looks like it will be close. Gianforte seems on track to win, but not by nearly as much as he "should." It's still too early to tell if the body slam had any effect. The early voting is also closer than it "should" be.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Trying to shift this back to Montana...

Looks like it will be close. Gianforte seems on track to win, but not by nearly as much as he "should." It's still too early to tell if the body slam had any effect. The early voting is also closer than it "should" be.
Click to expand...

goat can you please remove the troll? He's now threatened posters in the duterte thread.
 
zeke4ahs said:
My voting demographic is educated women. 62 percent of non college educated white women voted for Trump. College educated women voted for Hillary 51-45, and if you move on to post graduate work even more voted for Hillary. So I am indeed speaking for the majority of women in my demographics, even though I've never said I speak for all women. But as a reference, 85% of the phone calls that representatives have been getting are from women, the large majority of those attending town halls are women, and you are going to see a huge number of women running for office now. Like I said, lots of pi$$ed off women, mainly at men with attitudes like you and those that are amused at a President that treats women the way Donnie does.
Click to expand...
You skipped over how college educated white women voted. What was that percentage? Your demographic is college educated white women - and your demographic voted for Trump.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
We haven't seen this much "fun" in a long time. Some of this is really getting out of hand. The number of posts we've deleted in the past two days is astounding.
Click to expand...

Happy to oblige.

But if you want to moderate a popular message board, general consensus is you should lean more towards the "Wild West" than heavy censorship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
More on the topic at hand: MONTANA.

Quist is outperforming the 2016 House race, but not the 2016 gubernatorial race. That speaks to a close race, but all the numbers are trending to a single-digit win for Gianforte. So Quist probably won't win, but he's still looking to do well enough that the GOP will need to take stock of what this means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing
Harry Enten at 538 with a live blog post about why a close loss by Quist is meaningful. I'm just going to quote it verbatim:

We’ve gotten some questions and comments from readers to the effect of: What are you stupid? How can you say a Democrat losing by several percentage points good for the party?

It’s a fair question. At the end of the day, Democrats need to win Republican-held seats to take back the House. But Montana’s seat wouldn’t be a top pickup opportunity. There are 120 Republican-held seats that lean more Democratic on the presidential level than Montana’s. So looking at the Montana race by itself isn’t helpful if you’re interested in the national picture.

Instead, we look at how much better Quist is doing than we’d expect given the presidential lean in Montana. If he loses by say 8 points. It means he outperformed Montana’s default political lean — how it would vote in a presidential election that was tied nationally — by 13 points. There are 64 GOP-held seats that are 13 points redder than the nation as a whole or less. Now, Democrats likely won’t win all 64, but that’s why a mid-single digit loss for a Democrat in Montana suggests that a lot of seats are in play for them in 2018.​
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Harry Enten at 538 with a live blog post about why a close loss by Quist is meaningful. I'm just going to quote it verbatim:

We’ve gotten some questions and comments from readers to the effect of: What are you stupid? How can you say a Democrat losing by several percentage points good for the party?

It’s a fair question. At the end of the day, Democrats need to win Republican-held seats to take back the House. But Montana’s seat wouldn’t be a top pickup opportunity. There are 120 Republican-held seats that lean more Democratic on the presidential level than Montana’s. So looking at the Montana race by itself isn’t helpful if you’re interested in the national picture.

Instead, we look at how much better Quist is doing than we’d expect given the presidential lean in Montana. If he loses by say 8 points. It means he outperformed Montana’s default political lean — how it would vote in a presidential election that was tied nationally — by 13 points. There are 64 GOP-held seats that are 13 points redder than the nation as a whole or less. Now, Democrats likely won’t win all 64, but that’s why a mid-single digit loss for a Democrat in Montana suggests that a lot of seats are in play for them in 2018.​
Click to expand...

yea except it's a special election... A +/- for specials would be more relevant.
 
zeke4ahs said:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...ter-body-slam-didnt-come-out-of-nowhere-.html
For anyone that said this has no correlation to Trump.
Would have been a more interesting race and more telling had there not been so much early voting. Because of that, it's hard to distinguish whether the assault helped or hurt Gianforte.
Click to expand...
What was the predicted margin in the last poll before the assault? If the final result is significantly different, it would be worthy of some study. If that happens, you should recommend one of your girls research it. It could be interesting.
 
Aloha Hoosier said:
What was the predicted margin in the last poll before the assault? If the final result is significantly different, it would be worthy of some study. If that happens, you should recommend one of your girls research it. It could be interesting.
Click to expand...

don't know what specifically the polls were, but they generally aren't very accurate for special elections, and usually there are few polls for special elections.
 
toastedbread said:
don't follow... It would be a +/- for incumbent party and special elections. We could compare how Gianforte did relative to how other incumbent special election reps did.
Click to expand...
I guess you could, but that wouldn't be very informative. This is a Montana election. The most informative data is on other Montana elections. D+12 in Montana doesn't mean the same as D+12 in California.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
I guess you could, but that wouldn't be very informative. This is a Montana election. The most informative data is on other Montana elections. D+12 in Montana doesn't mean the same as D+12 in California.
Click to expand...

eh let's say on average the party in control of the seat lost 5 points in the special relative to a general or midterm. Now lets say gianforte lost 15 points compared to the prior gop rep. That's what im getting at. It's important to look at the effect of specials as a whole, and not simply montana in a vacuum.
 
toastedbread said:
eh let's say on average the party in control of the seat lost 5 points in the special relative to a general or midterm. Now lets say gianforte lost 15 points compared to the prior gop rep. That's what im getting at. It's important to look at the effect of specials as a whole, and not simply montana in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're getting at. I'm saying the +/- means different things depending on the starting point. It's a lot easier for a heavily-GOP state to go D+10 than a heavy Dem state, simply because there are more potential defectors (and that's just one example of why interstate comparisons are tricky, and it's not even always true). That's why places like 538 - while they compare states to the national average - base the vast majority of their numbers on statewide polls and results. Numbers just don't translate will across state lines.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
I understand what you're getting at. I'm saying the +/- means different things depending on the starting point. It's a lot easier for a heavily-GOP state to go D+10 than a heavy Dem state, simply because there are more potential defectors (and that's just one example of why interstate comparisons are tricky, and it's not even always true). That's why places like 538 - while they compare states to the national average - base the vast majority of their numbers on statewide polls and results. Numbers just don't translate will across state lines.
Click to expand...

this is what im talking about

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...rgia-can-and-cant-tell-us-about-the-midterms/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back