Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Twitter)   TFG the Great and Terrible? More like TFG the Terrible   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Followup, shot  
•       •       •

3625 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 May 2022 at 7:05 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



56 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-05-18 11:17:54 PM  
Original Tweet:

 
2022-05-19 1:06:49 AM  
Well, if you replace 'Great' with 'Gross'...
 
2022-05-19 1:27:58 AM  
Percentages without the number of candidates in each primary are meaningless. Don't be that "lying with statistics" guy.
 
2022-05-19 1:30:28 AM  
Gratelyest Turruble
 
2022-05-19 7:08:03 AM  

fragMasterFlash: Percentages without the number of candidates in each primary are meaningless. Don't be that "lying with statistics" guy.


That said, this ain't looking good for Dear Leader. It's clear that his influence is waning. Not a lot he can do to stop the bleeding either.
 
2022-05-19 7:09:53 AM  
Dr. Oz doesn't even live in Pennsylvania. Talk about a carpet bagger.
 
2022-05-19 7:12:16 AM  

fragMasterFlash: Percentages without the number of candidates in each primary are meaningless. Don't be that "lying with statistics" guy.


Normally yes, but in this instance it's a measure of Trump loyalty WITHIN the GQP, not the populace at large.
 
2022-05-19 7:13:42 AM  

fragMasterFlash: Percentages without the number of candidates in each primary are meaningless. Don't be that "lying with statistics" guy.


Shh. We can't rehabilitate the Republican party unless we can say "Well all that Trump stuff is over now, we're fiscally responsible socially moderate again, right? Ignore the fact that a bunch of us are gearing up for mass murder."
 
2022-05-19 7:14:01 AM  
So this gob wad counts someone winning unopposed that he had sponsored  as a win for him.......gah, the most repulsive person ever.

/most faulted too
 
2022-05-19 7:14:58 AM  
I'd call him ballot cancer but cancer can fark off as well. He's more ballopecia, thinning votes so you let the votes you still have get spread over the areas where you're bald and try to convince everyone that you aren't bald.
 
2022-05-19 7:17:11 AM  

fragMasterFlash: Percentages without the number of candidates in each primary are meaningless. Don't be that "lying with statistics" guy.


Correct. I'm too lazy to look up full results, but I know at least Oz, Mastriano, and Vance either won or are projected to win their primaries, and virtually every primary voter will be voting for their party's candidate in November regardless of whether they like him or not.
 
2022-05-19 7:32:27 AM  
In what way is this some sort of "gotchya"?!

Mastriano got over 40%.  All the rest combined didn't get that much.  So that's a HUGE decisive win.

And Oz is part of the winning 2/3 in his race.

So how is the supposed to poke fun at Drumpf killing candidates?  The fact that they got such big numbers at all is the exact opposite of what the joke implies.

Drumpf is STILL a major player in that party.  And he is bolstering candidates!

If you all think this is some kind of win for our side, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.
 
2022-05-19 7:32:50 AM  

fragMasterFlash: Percentages without the number of candidates in each primary are meaningless. Don't be that "lying with statistics" guy.


When n% voted for the TFG person, it is still correct to say 100 - n% did not vote for the TFG person.
 
2022-05-19 7:33:37 AM  

fragMasterFlash: Percentages without the number of candidates in each primary are meaningless. Don't be that "lying with statistics" guy.


Why does it matter? Just because someone runs doesn't mean they're somehow guaranteed to receive votes. There are plenty of crowded primaries where the victor receives more than 50 percent of the vote.

And if anything, this shows that a Trump endorsement cannot even clear the primary field. If Trump was a true machine politician, that's what the endorsement would do -- all of the other candidates would honor it and drop out.
 
2022-05-19 7:34:03 AM  

vernonFL: Dr. Oz doesn't even live in Pennsylvania. Talk about a carpet bagger.


You rang....?

media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-19 7:34:55 AM  

eKonk: fragMasterFlash: Percentages without the number of candidates in each primary are meaningless. Don't be that "lying with statistics" guy.

Correct. I'm too lazy to look up full results, but I know at least Oz, Mastriano, and Vance either won or are projected to win their primaries, and virtually every primary voter will be voting for their party's candidate in November regardless of whether they like him or not.


Oz is too close to call.
 
2022-05-19 7:35:13 AM  
He's been recycling the same crap recently. Will he break out the big 2016 electoral map again?
 
2022-05-19 7:39:24 AM  
His guy David Perdue is losing bigly in Georgia too. Kemp is leading 60% to Perdue's 28%. That's got to piss him off, he hates Kemp for daring to tell him that he lost the election.
 
2022-05-19 7:41:41 AM  
Now do all the little races where the seed of shiat being farked up starts.
 
2022-05-19 7:41:50 AM  

durbnpoisn: In what way is this some sort of "gotchya"?!

Mastriano got over 40%.  All the rest combined didn't get that much.  So that's a HUGE decisive win.


There's nothing decisive about a 43 percent win -- more than 50 percent of primary voters didn't like him, but were unable to coalesce around another candidate.

If PA was a state with runoff elections, there's no reason to think that he'd win the runoff.

There are plenty of examples where the candidate who lead in the first round of voting lost in the runoff because they couldn't pickup any more votes. For instance, in the Atlanta mayoral election last year, the candidate who received 41 percent of the vote in the first round lost in the runoff 37 to 63. As the results showed, ~40 percent support was the runner-up's ceiling (and both candidates were Black democrats, so there was no partisanship or race issues at play between them).
 
2022-05-19 7:47:30 AM  
There's that ~30% again...
 
2022-05-19 7:47:45 AM  
ah yes, the magical powers of trump's golden brown touch

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-19 7:48:29 AM  

thornhill: durbnpoisn: In what way is this some sort of "gotchya"?!

Mastriano got over 40%.  All the rest combined didn't get that much.  So that's a HUGE decisive win.

There's nothing decisive about a 43 percent win -- more than 50 percent of primary voters didn't like him, but were unable to coalesce around another candidate.

If PA was a state with runoff elections, there's no reason to think that he'd win the runoff.

There are plenty of examples where the candidate who lead in the first round of voting lost in the runoff because they couldn't pickup any more votes. For instance, in the Atlanta mayoral election last year, the candidate who received 41 percent of the vote in the first round lost in the runoff 37 to 63. As the results showed, ~40 percent support was the runner-up's ceiling (and both candidates were Black democrats, so there was no partisanship or race issues at play between them).


Clearly you don't know how primaries work.  If we were only talking about 2 people, then yeah, you'd be right.

When you are one of 5 or 6 candidates, getting 40% of the total is HUGE.
 
MFK
2022-05-19 7:57:07 AM  

durbnpoisn: thornhill: durbnpoisn: In what way is this some sort of "gotchya"?!

Mastriano got over 40%.  All the rest combined didn't get that much.  So that's a HUGE decisive win.

There's nothing decisive about a 43 percent win -- more than 50 percent of primary voters didn't like him, but were unable to coalesce around another candidate.

If PA was a state with runoff elections, there's no reason to think that he'd win the runoff.

There are plenty of examples where the candidate who lead in the first round of voting lost in the runoff because they couldn't pickup any more votes. For instance, in the Atlanta mayoral election last year, the candidate who received 41 percent of the vote in the first round lost in the runoff 37 to 63. As the results showed, ~40 percent support was the runner-up's ceiling (and both candidates were Black democrats, so there was no partisanship or race issues at play between them).

Clearly you don't know how primaries work.  If we were only talking about 2 people, then yeah, you'd be right.

When you are one of 5 or 6 candidates, getting 40% of the total is HUGE.


Yeah. The PA governor's race is an existential threat to our nation
 
2022-05-19 8:00:27 AM  

durbnpoisn: Mastriano got over 40%.  All the rest combined didn't get that much.  So that's a HUGE decisive win.


Your point stands, but I really have to call you out for just this one comment... *snerk*
 
2022-05-19 8:04:44 AM  

durbnpoisn: thornhill: durbnpoisn: In what way is this some sort of "gotchya"?!

Mastriano got over 40%.  All the rest combined didn't get that much.  So that's a HUGE decisive win.

There's nothing decisive about a 43 percent win -- more than 50 percent of primary voters didn't like him, but were unable to coalesce around another candidate.

If PA was a state with runoff elections, there's no reason to think that he'd win the runoff.

There are plenty of examples where the candidate who lead in the first round of voting lost in the runoff because they couldn't pickup any more votes. For instance, in the Atlanta mayoral election last year, the candidate who received 41 percent of the vote in the first round lost in the runoff 37 to 63. As the results showed, ~40 percent support was the runner-up's ceiling (and both candidates were Black democrats, so there was no partisanship or race issues at play between them).

Clearly you don't know how primaries work.  If we were only talking about 2 people, then yeah, you'd be right.

When you are one of 5 or 6 candidates, getting 40% of the total is HUGE.


As I said before, there are plenty of crowded primaries where the winning candidate received more than 50 percent of the vote. Just because someone's name is on the ballot doesn't mean they're guaranteed to receive a certain number of votes, making it impossible for any candidate to clear 50 percent when there are more than 3 or 4 candidate running. For example, the Oregon Democratic primary had 5 candidates; the victor received 58 percent of the vote. In NC, the Dem Senate primary had 5 candidates; the victor received 81 percent of the vote.

In fact, the reason for a crowded primary is that polling shows voters are unable to coalesce around a single candidate, which means you can win the race with a plurality, which then encourages lots of fringe people to run.

/I've campaigned managed state-wide elections, but please keep lecturing me.
 
2022-05-19 8:05:00 AM  

MFK: durbnpoisn: thornhill: durbnpoisn: In what way is this some sort of "gotchya"?!

Mastriano got over 40%.  All the rest combined didn't get that much.  So that's a HUGE decisive win.

There's nothing decisive about a 43 percent win -- more than 50 percent of primary voters didn't like him, but were unable to coalesce around another candidate.

If PA was a state with runoff elections, there's no reason to think that he'd win the runoff.

There are plenty of examples where the candidate who lead in the first round of voting lost in the runoff because they couldn't pickup any more votes. For instance, in the Atlanta mayoral election last year, the candidate who received 41 percent of the vote in the first round lost in the runoff 37 to 63. As the results showed, ~40 percent support was the runner-up's ceiling (and both candidates were Black democrats, so there was no partisanship or race issues at play between them).

Clearly you don't know how primaries work.  If we were only talking about 2 people, then yeah, you'd be right.

When you are one of 5 or 6 candidates, getting 40% of the total is HUGE.

Yeah. The PA governor's race is an existential threat to our nation


State GOP leaders are pissed that the primary got out of their control and Mastriano won.  They don't think he has a prayer against Shapiro.
 
2022-05-19 8:05:15 AM  
This would be more accurate with a "Stupid" tag and a headline changed to "Subby"
 
2022-05-19 8:07:44 AM  

durbnpoisn: In what way is this some sort of "gotchya"?!

Mastriano got over 40%.  All the rest combined didn't get that much.  So that's a HUGE decisive win.

And Oz is part of the winning 2/3 in his race.

So how is the supposed to poke fun at Drumpf killing candidates?  The fact that they got such big numbers at all is the exact opposite of what the joke implies.

Drumpf is STILL a major player in that party.  And he is bolstering candidates!

If you all think this is some kind of win for our side, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.


👆he's correct, you know
 
2022-05-19 8:09:55 AM  

durbnpoisn: In what way is this some sort of "gotchya"?!

Mastriano got over 40%.  All the rest combined didn't get that much.  So that's a HUGE decisive win.

And Oz is part of the winning 2/3 in his race.

So how is the supposed to poke fun at Drumpf killing candidates?  The fact that they got such big numbers at all is the exact opposite of what the joke implies.

Drumpf is STILL a major player in that party.  And he is bolstering candidates!

If you all think this is some kind of win for our side, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.


And far more important - Trump's strategy for winning in 2024 does not even involve getting more votes - either popular or EC.
If Americans do not turn out and oppose the Trumpers in November, they'll have the numbers in the legislatures to do it.
2024 will be too late.
 
2022-05-19 8:10:28 AM  

GoldSpider: MFK: durbnpoisn: thornhill: durbnpoisn: In what way is this some sort of "gotchya"?!

Mastriano got over 40%.  All the rest combined didn't get that much.  So that's a HUGE decisive win.

There's nothing decisive about a 43 percent win -- more than 50 percent of primary voters didn't like him, but were unable to coalesce around another candidate.

If PA was a state with runoff elections, there's no reason to think that he'd win the runoff.

There are plenty of examples where the candidate who lead in the first round of voting lost in the runoff because they couldn't pickup any more votes. For instance, in the Atlanta mayoral election last year, the candidate who received 41 percent of the vote in the first round lost in the runoff 37 to 63. As the results showed, ~40 percent support was the runner-up's ceiling (and both candidates were Black democrats, so there was no partisanship or race issues at play between them).

Clearly you don't know how primaries work.  If we were only talking about 2 people, then yeah, you'd be right.

When you are one of 5 or 6 candidates, getting 40% of the total is HUGE.

Yeah. The PA governor's race is an existential threat to our nation

State GOP leaders are pissed that the primary got out of their control and Mastriano won.  They don't think he has a prayer against Shapiro.


And that right there works to our advantage.

MFK: Yeah. The PA governor's race is an existential threat to our nation


No.  It's not.  But the fact that Drumpf is still calling the shots is absolutely an existential threat.  The fact that he is still relevant, and not in the slightest bit of trouble for all the criming he's done, is an existential threat.

If you don't see that or believe it, well, that's a threat too.  Because too many people think that it's no big deal.
 
2022-05-19 8:17:53 AM  

durbnpoisn: In what way is this some sort of "gotchya"?!

Mastriano got over 40%.  All the rest combined didn't get that much.  So that's a HUGE decisive win.

And Oz is part of the winning 2/3 in his race.

So how is the supposed to poke fun at Drumpf killing candidates?  The fact that they got such big numbers at all is the exact opposite of what the joke implies.

Drumpf is STILL a major player in that party.  And he is bolstering candidates!

If you all think this is some kind of win for our side, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.


First of all, your handle...enjoyed it for the first time about a month and a half ago...immediately became my favorite...at least as of that day.  Something new everyday...but I digress.  I'm with you here.  Seems like it proves the irredeemable 30% number - except in PA, where it's arseholes all the way down.  I suppose the hope being you can peel off some moderates in the general.  But moderating from that extreme is still extreme...once you get out of the primary unfortunately, to your point, the question and thus the curve changes.  These fukers not seeing 10% in the primary is the problem - especially in our "norms" based system.  We've been busy normalizing shiat behavior for quite some time now.  Justice you say?  I'll give you justice 'til it hurts.
 
2022-05-19 8:21:56 AM  

durbnpoisn: No. It's not.


Yes, it is. The governor/legislature of Pennsylvania has the power to hand that state's electoral vote to the arbitrary candidate of choice in the event of real or imaginary "fraud".
Trump is going to win in 2024, with a huge minority of votes, and Dems and Libs will be left scratching their heads and wondering what happened.
Try reading  your Constitution - it is a document that was specifically written to keep a small cadre of white men in power forever.
If you don't show up at the polls in 2022, there will be no point in 2024.
Last chance, folks.
ALL state and local contests matter now, and may determine the future POTUS.
 
2022-05-19 8:22:03 AM  

thornhill: durbnpoisn: thornhill: durbnpoisn: In what way is this some sort of "gotchya"?!

Mastriano got over 40%.  All the rest combined didn't get that much.  So that's a HUGE decisive win.

There's nothing decisive about a 43 percent win -- more than 50 percent of primary voters didn't like him, but were unable to coalesce around another candidate.

If PA was a state with runoff elections, there's no reason to think that he'd win the runoff.

There are plenty of examples where the candidate who lead in the first round of voting lost in the runoff because they couldn't pickup any more votes. For instance, in the Atlanta mayoral election last year, the candidate who received 41 percent of the vote in the first round lost in the runoff 37 to 63. As the results showed, ~40 percent support was the runner-up's ceiling (and both candidates were Black democrats, so there was no partisanship or race issues at play between them).

Clearly you don't know how primaries work.  If we were only talking about 2 people, then yeah, you'd be right.

When you are one of 5 or 6 candidates, getting 40% of the total is HUGE.

As I said before, there are plenty of crowded primaries where the winning candidate received more than 50 percent of the vote. Just because someone's name is on the ballot doesn't mean they're guaranteed to receive a certain number of votes, making it impossible for any candidate to clear 50 percent when there are more than 3 or 4 candidate running. For example, the Oregon Democratic primary had 5 candidates; the victor received 58 percent of the vote. In NC, the Dem Senate primary had 5 candidates; the victor received 81 percent of the vote.

In fact, the reason for a crowded primary is that polling shows voters are unable to coalesce around a single candidate, which means you can win the race with a plurality, which then encourages lots of fringe people to run.

/I've campaigned managed state-wide elections, but please keep lecturing me.


This.
 
2022-05-19 8:23:28 AM  

fragMasterFlash: Percentages without the number of candidates in each primary are meaningless. Don't be that "lying with statistics" guy.


Statistics!  Fun with numbers!
 
2022-05-19 8:24:01 AM  
Trump went straight chalk and his last minute endorsements hurt more than they helped. What a farking loser.
 
2022-05-19 8:28:40 AM  

MFK: durbnpoisn: thornhill: durbnpoisn: In what way is this some sort of "gotchya"?!

Mastriano got over 40%.  All the rest combined didn't get that much.  So that's a HUGE decisive win.

There's nothing decisive about a 43 percent win -- more than 50 percent of primary voters didn't like him, but were unable to coalesce around another candidate.

If PA was a state with runoff elections, there's no reason to think that he'd win the runoff.

There are plenty of examples where the candidate who lead in the first round of voting lost in the runoff because they couldn't pickup any more votes. For instance, in the Atlanta mayoral election last year, the candidate who received 41 percent of the vote in the first round lost in the runoff 37 to 63. As the results showed, ~40 percent support was the runner-up's ceiling (and both candidates were Black democrats, so there was no partisanship or race issues at play between them).

Clearly you don't know how primaries work.  If we were only talking about 2 people, then yeah, you'd be right.

When you are one of 5 or 6 candidates, getting 40% of the total is HUGE.

Yeah. The PA governor's race is an existential threat to our nation


It is if it puts you one step closer to a constitutional convention.
 
2022-05-19 8:29:27 AM  

durbnpoisn: MFK: Yeah. The PA governor's race is an existential threat to our nation

No.  It's not.


Actually, it basically is.  Mastriano wins and PA goes Trump in 2024 no matter what the popular vote is.  His platform is effectively "Trump won and I'll make sure no Democrat "steals" the election again" mixed in with some "Ivermectin for all, masks for none"

It's hard enough for the Democrats to overcome the GQP bias in the electoral college without starting 20 votes down.
 
2022-05-19 8:30:56 AM  

shastacola: His guy David Perdue is losing bigly in Georgia too. Kemp is leading 60% to Perdue's 28%. That's got to piss him off, he hates Kemp for daring to tell him that he lost the election.


My wife and I voted for Kemp. My God, that ballot is awful.
 
2022-05-19 8:33:45 AM  

MFK: eah. The PA governor's race is an existential threat to our nation


YES, it most certainly the f**k IS.

ALL RACES MATTER NOW.
 
2022-05-19 8:37:30 AM  
Don't forget, Great also means Large.
 
2022-05-19 8:46:55 AM  

dionysusaur: Don't forget, Great also means Large.


Starbucks sizes: grande, venti, trenta, trumpa

"Yeah, gimme a trumpa house blend with room for ivermectin."
 
2022-05-19 8:57:31 AM  

Lochsteppe: dionysusaur: Don't forget, Great also means Large.

Starbucks sizes: grande, venti, trenta, trumpa

"Yeah, gimme a trumpa house blend with room for ivermectin."


One covfefe, coming up.
 
2022-05-19 8:58:15 AM  
20 - 40% was what Trump was winning in the 2016 primaries, too. Just sayin'.
 
2022-05-19 9:00:40 AM  

Weaver95: fragMasterFlash: Percentages without the number of candidates in each primary are meaningless. Don't be that "lying with statistics" guy.

That said, this ain't looking good for Dear Leader. It's clear that his influence is waning. Not a lot he can do to stop the bleeding either.


The Minus Touch in action once again!

Everything he touches dies.

/I sorely wish he hadn't touched America.
 
2022-05-19 9:01:35 AM  

fragMasterFlash: Percentages without the number of candidates in each primary are meaningless. Don't be that "lying with statistics" guy.


Yup, had me thinking for a second that Vance lost...
 
2022-05-19 9:05:26 AM  

jso2897: durbnpoisn: No. It's not.

Yes, it is. The governor/legislature of Pennsylvania has the power to hand that state's electoral vote to the arbitrary candidate of choice in the event of real or imaginary "fraud".
Trump is going to win in 2024, with a huge minority of votes, and Dems and Libs will be left scratching their heads and wondering what happened.
Try reading  your Constitution - it is a document that was specifically written to keep a small cadre of white men in power forever.
If you don't show up at the polls in 2022, there will be no point in 2024.
Last chance, folks.
ALL state and local contests matter now, and may determine the future POTUS.


From that point of view, you are absolutely correct.

A PA governor that is hell bent of installing Drumpf as leader regardless of the vote is absolutely an existential threat.  I was wrong to say that it wasn't.
 
2022-05-19 9:09:00 AM  

vernonFL: Dr. Oz doesn't even live in Pennsylvania. Talk about a carpet bagger.


You know the way people for the last 6 years have explained that the Alt Right wasn't Nazis because insert reason
I wonder if someone will be along to actually your postvand say carpet bagger only applies to Northerners moving into the south, during reconstruction so Oz is not a carpet bagger
 
2022-05-19 9:09:00 AM  
He can ignore all the ones that failed because they were failures.  He'll harp on the victories and claim his record is still 110%.  Which is also a record.

Low energy.  Without me, they wouldn't have even voted for themselves.  Zero votes.  I did them a favor.  Doesn't count.  RINO, RINO, RINO.
 
2022-05-19 9:15:31 AM  

weirdneighbour: So this gob wad counts someone winning unopposed that he had sponsored  as a win for him.......gah, the most repulsive person ever.

/most faulted too


TFG watching a ping pong match
Kids in the Hall: Ping Pong
Youtube dtE5CQEqc6U
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.