Jump to content


The 2022 Congressional Elections

TGHusker

By TGHusker,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts


Dr. Strangelove Backup

Dr. Strangelove

Posted
Posted

Dr. Strangelove's updated 2022 Predictions for the election, because I know the board deeply cares about my thoughts:

 

House: Rs gain 24 seats.

Senate: Rs gain 3 seats. 

 

If Republicans win 4 seats tomorrow, they have a realistic shot at controlling 60 seats in 2024. They'd have to win 6 seats, but they're almost certain to pick up 4 (Montana, Ohio, Wisconsin, West Virginia). They'd face realistic pickup opportunities in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. They'd even have a chance to push the map into Michigan and Maine. Democrats are extremely unlikely to hold control of the Senate - and thus the ability to nominate judges - for a very long time. Probably at least a few decades. It's more likely that the Democratic Party realigns themselves much like Rs did in 2016 before the current coalition wins the Senate again. 

 

Lastly, it seems like Trump plans on running again and his odds of winning are probably above 60%, but that will increase after the Federal Reserve pushes rates to the point of a recession. The results tomorrow are going to determine if he controls a filibuster proof tri-fecta or not.

Link to comment

teachercd Head Coach

teachercd

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Dr. Strangelove's updated 2022 Predictions for the election, because I know the board deeply cares about my thoughts:

 

House: Rs gain 24 seats.

Senate: Rs gain 3 seats. 

 

If Republicans win 4 seats tomorrow, they have a realistic shot at controlling 60 seats in 2024. They'd have to win 6 seats, but they're almost certain to pick up 4 (Montana, Ohio, Wisconsin, West Virginia). They'd face realistic pickup opportunities in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. They'd even have a chance to push the map into Michigan and Maine. Democrats are extremely unlikely to hold control of the Senate - and thus the ability to nominate judges - for a very long time. Probably at least a few decades. It's more likely that the Democratic Party realigns themselves much like Rs did in 2016 before the current coalition wins the Senate again. 

 

Lastly, it seems like Trump plans on running again and his odds of winning are probably above 60%, but that will increase after the Federal Reserve pushes rates to the point of a recession. The results tomorrow are going to determine if he controls a filibuster proof tri-fecta or not.

So you are thinking my wager on the GOP controlled house and senate will hit?  

Link to comment
Moiraine Head Coach

Moiraine

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

Americans aren't going to like the Republican Utopia they vote in. We have a dumb electorate. 

 

 

 

 

Fg-rOroXwAEP4LJ?format=jpg&name=orig

 

 

 

I mean... sure. Press Hochul on the "we don't feel safe" thing, but recognize that Republicans are in no way going to make them safer. 

 

 

 

They won't like it and then they'll blame Obama

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

NM11046 All-American

NM11046

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, nic said:

Colorado senator Bennett's wife caught on camera saying the Dems will quietly defend the police.

 

 

 

Accuracy in Media (AIM) is an American non-profit conservative[1][2] news media watchdog founded in 1969 by economist Reed Irvine.

AIM supported the Vietnam War and blamed media bias for the U.S. loss in the war. During the Reagan administration, AIM criticized reporting about the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador. During the Clinton administration, AIM pushed Vince Foster conspiracy theories. During the George W. Bush administration, AIM accused the media of bias against the Iraq War, defended the Bush administration's use of torture, and campaigned to stop the United States from signing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It described 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama as "the most radical candidate ever to stand at the precipice of acquiring his party's presidential nomination. It is apparent that he is a member of an international socialist movement." It also criticized the media's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.[3]

AIM, which opposes the scientific consensus on climate change, has criticized media reporting on climate change. The organization gives out the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award. Past recipients include Marc Morano (who runs the climate change denial website ClimateDepot), Tucker Carlson, and Jim Hoft (who runs the far-right conspiracy website Gateway Pundit).

 

Controversies[edit]

War coverage[edit]

AIM was critical of media reports about the harmful effects of Agent Orange, a military herbicide with adverse health effects for humans, in the Vietnam War.[4] AIM blamed the U.S. media for the loss in the Vietnam War.[4] AIM criticized the 1983 PBS documentary series Vietnam: A Television History as being pro-communist. According to The New York Times, one of AIM's greatest accomplishments was the documentary, Television's Vietnam: The Real Story in response to the PBS series.[6][4][16]

AIM charged the alliance conducting the NATO Kosovo intervention in 1999 with distorting the situation in Kosovo and lying about the number of civilian deaths in order to justify U.S. involvement in the conflict under the Clinton administration.[17]

AIM supported the Iraq War and accused the media of bias against the Iraq War in 2007,[5] and alleged bias in mainstream media's coverage of the 2012 Benghazi attack.[13] In 2008, AIM asserted "Waterboarding Is Not Torture" in a sub-heading. The article said that Guantanamo Bay detainees "are enjoying hotel living conditions" and that torture is what "left-wingers associate with anything that makes an accused terrorist uncomfortable".[5]

Human rights[edit]

In 1982, The New York Times reporter Raymond Bonner broke the story of the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador. The report was strongly criticized by AIM and the Reagan administration, and Bonner was pressured into business reporting, later deciding to resign.[citation needed]

AIM was critical of journalist Helen Marmor, who in 1983 produced a documentary for NBC concerning the Russian Orthodox Church.[18] AIM contended that "it ignored the repressive religious policies of the Soviet state."

Vince Foster conspiracy theory[edit]

AIM received a substantial amount of funding from Richard Mellon Scaife who paid Christopher W. Ruddy to investigate allegations that President Bill Clinton was connected to the suicide of Vince Foster.[19] AIM contended that "Foster was murdered",[20] which is contrary to three independent reports including one by Kenneth Starr.[21] AIM faulted the media for not picking up on the conspiracy,[22] and applied itself for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure of Foster's death-scene photographs. Its suit to compel disclosure was denied by the District Court of Columbia in a summary judgment, unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.[23]

AIM credited much of its reporting on the Foster case to Ruddy.[24] Yet, his work was called a "hoax" and "discredited" by conservatives such as Ann Coulter,[25] it was also disputed by the American Spectator, which caused Scaife to end his funding of the Arkansas Project with the publisher.[26] As CNN explained on February 28, 1997, "The [Starr] report refutes claims by conservative political organizations that Foster was the victim of a murder plot and coverup", but "despite those findings, right-wing political groups have continued to allege that there was more to the death and that the president and First Lady tried to cover it up."[27]

United Nations[edit]

AIM has been critical of the United Nations and its coverage by the media. In February 2005, AIM alleged that United Nations correspondents, including Ian Williams, a correspondent for The Nation had accepted money from the UN while covering it for their publications. AIM also asserted that the United Nations Correspondents Association may have violated immigration laws by employing the Williams' wife.[28][29] Williams and The Nation denied wrongdoing.[30][31]

AIM has campaigned against the United States signing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).[5] AIM writes, "UNCLOS is a foot in the door for a wide-ranging international agenda... America's survival as a sovereign nation hangs in the balance."[5] AIM argued that signing up to UNCLOS could lead to the prohibition of spanking children.[5]

Climate change[edit]

AIM rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[5] In 2008, AIM wrote, "the theory of man-made global warming is designed to increase government control over our economy and our lives through higher taxes and energy rationing."[5]

In November 2005, AIM columnist Cliff Kincaid criticized Fox News for broadcasting a program The Heat is On, which reported that global warming represents a serious problem (the program was broadcast with a disclaimer). Kincaid argued the piece was one-sided and stated that this "scandal" amounted to a "hostile takeover of Fox News."[32] In 2006, Kincaid criticized Fox for "tilting to the left" on the issue of climate change.[33]

AIM criticized the media for not covering a 1995 study on climate change, which it argued cast doubt on climate change. One of the authors of the study responded to AIM, "The paper... focused on a discrepancy between observations and theoretical climate model predictions—the sort of thing that climate change deniers love to take out of context and hype. The conservative organization Accuracy in Media took note of the study, citing lack of media coverage of it as some sort of evidence of media bias in coverage of climate change—something that I, to this day, find puzzling as the paper actually dealt with a relatively obscure technical detail of climate models and hardly challenged the mainstream view that human activity was leading to the warming of the globe."[34]

Barack Obama[edit]

In 2008, AIM described Barack Obama, who was at the time a candidate in the 2008 presidential election, as "the most radical candidate ever to stand at the precipice of acquiring his party's presidential nomination. It is apparent that he is a member of an international socialist movement."[5] AIM titled one of its reports, "Is Barack Obama a Marxist Mole?"[5] In the lead-up to the 2008 election, AIM wrote, "there is a pattern of people who hate America showing up at critical junctures in Obama's life and career to influence and advise him."[5]

COVID-19 Pandemic[edit]

In March 2020, the president of AIM, Adam Guillette, took a stance on the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, asserting that the media is exaggerating the pandemic.[3]

Accuracy in Media Award[edit]

The organization gives out the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award, which has attracted controversy for some of its recipients.

In 2010, AIM gave the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award to political activist Marc Morano, who is known for running the website ClimateDepot, which rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[35][36][37]

In 2011, AIM gave the award to Tucker Carlson.[38]

In 2013, AIM gave the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award to Jim Hoft, who runs The Gateway Pundit, a website renowned for publishing falsehoods and hoaxes.[39][40][41]

Hitler Truck[edit]

In 2022, AIM sponsored an ad campaign against antisemitism that used a truck with a digital image of Hitler giving the Nazi salute. The image included the text: “All in favor of banning Jews, raise your right hand.” Several rocks were thrown at the truck. The use of the imagery was criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and the UC Berkeley chapter of Hillel International[42]

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...