Guachi
guachi.bsky.social
Guachi
@guachi.bsky.social
1.1K followers 260 following 7.6K posts
I like cycling and US policy/public policy. It's great because there is zero overlap and makes for a very interesting feed. Great to see so many of you move here from Twitter! Keep Bluesky great.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Reposted by Guachi
If nothing else, the last nine months should have made it clear that elections matter. But what’s remarkable about America is that we have the power, as citizens, to change this country by voting. Go to IWillVote.com.
I saw that post a few days ago. It's a legit good question, too.
Schumer and Jeffries definitely voted for Cuomo. If Hochul is smart she'll say "I don't know if Mamdani is the future of the Democratic party but I do know Jeffries and Schumer aren't. I will endorse a credible challenger to both of them"
I didn't know De Jong was #1. There were, as of 2000, 5792 people in the US with the surname De Jong and only 375 with Meijer, though it is the name of a large chain store based on the most Dutch part of the US. There are 24886 Meiers, though.
I hope Ds don't cave but I think there is a very good chance they do something stupid like vote for a 2 year extension and get nothing in return. That would be a gift to Republicans.
It's filmed in a mall and for that it will always be timeless.
Two hours?

Good luck! You'll probably be really sore but then you'll feel great mentally for doing something so hard.
You never post anything remotely worth blocking. But even better you never post anything that generates posts by others worth blocking.

You don't troll so don't invite heated responses.

You also aren't a "quote-reply guy", which is infinitely worse than a reply guy.
I think each of the seven largest corporations on the planet paid bribes to destroy the White House. So, yeah, they believe they'll never face consequences.
I had my books packed away for years while I was in the military. When I finally got them on the shelf I organized them by rough category and then by size because that looks nice.
Jeffries is such an atrocious communicator. It really is embarrassing.
I think the people recommending this course of action don't really care too much about the Democratic party brand.
At least, I assume Nichols would support anti-SSM candidates as it really is the same logic and same support levels we are talking about as with abortion rights, which have been consistently around 60% for decades.
Actual abortion restricting candidates. He thinks they were forced out of the party rather than retired/voted out in the general.

The "accept pro-life candidates" logic applies equally to SSM but no one seriously suggests Ds should run SSM opponents, except Nichols but he's being a clown about it.
"If a drug costs $100 and you reduce its price by 500%, what's its new price?"
Why was a non-profit administering the program?
As a bike racing fan it was so obnoxious for people (either side) who knew nothing about the sport to suddenly care about women's pro cycling. Name one female pro cyclist. One!

"Don't rise to the bait on sports" is great advice.
It makes as much sense running against SSM as it does abortion rights as both have similar approval ratings. And abortion rights have been at around 60% for decades.

If Tom thinks Ds should accept pro-life candidates then he should accept anti-SSM candidates for the same reason.
You keep missing the point. Repeatedly. Nichols says Ds should accept some pro-life candidates when abortion rights have ~60% approval.

Gay rights *also* have ~60% approval now. Why wouldn't the same logic apply to accepting anti-gay marriage candidates?
Surely, there must be *some* district where being anti-gay marriage is a "good fit for the district". Which districts do you think those are?
Yes, he is or he never, ever would have replied to a post about running against gay marriage *now*. The post never mentioned Obama or 2008 at all, but Nichols brought up both on his own volition.
Gay marriage had 35% approval in 2008. It has 65% approval now. What Obama did in 2008 regarding gay marriage has no actual relevance to what Democrats should do now on gay marriage.

Do you think Ds should run against gay marriage in 2025?
Then Nichols is wrong and being pro-life or pro-choice was irrelevant. The D was going to lose either way.
Gay marriage in 2008 had an approval of about 35%. It's now about 65%. It's not even the same universe.

Exactly which districts in the US in 2025 should Ds run anti-gay marriage candidates?