CDZ How many net senate seats will the Ds lose in 2018?

[Meathead]

.
Since we're talking about schools now, are you in favor of tax money paying for kids to go to private schools that are affiliated with religion?

As long as they offer a better education alternative, I don't care if they're religiously affiliated or not. And when I mean religiously affiliated, I don't mean where they spend all day studying the Bible or the Koran.

Parents definitely need alternatives to education in shitholes.

So you'd be okay funding kids to go to and Islamic academy????

OK, who can't read now?

 

[candycorn]

.
Since we're talking about schools now, are you in favor of tax money paying for kids to go to private schools that are affiliated with religion?

As long as they offer a better education alternative, I don't care if they're religiously affiliated or not. And when I mean religiously affiliated, I don't mean where they spend all day studying the Bible or the Koran.

Parents definitely need alternatives to education in shitholes.

So you'd be okay funding kids to go to and Islamic academy????

OK, who can't read now?

Apparently you. Its a simple yes or no question; the answer to which is either "yes" or "no".

 

[DarkFury]

.
Since we're talking about schools now, are you in favor of tax money paying for kids to go to private schools that are affiliated with religion?

As long as they offer a better education alternative, I don't care if they're religiously affiliated or not. And when I mean religiously affiliated, I don't mean where they spend all day studying the Bible or the Koran.

Parents definitely need alternatives to education in shitholes.

So you'd be okay funding kids to go to and Islamic academy????

Not happy but it is choice.

 

[candycorn]

.
Since we're talking about schools now, are you in favor of tax money paying for kids to go to private schools that are affiliated with religion?

As long as they offer a better education alternative, I don't care if they're religiously affiliated or not. And when I mean religiously affiliated, I don't mean where they spend all day studying the Bible or the Koran.

Parents definitely need alternatives to education in shitholes.

So you'd be okay funding kids to go to and Islamic academy????

Not happy but it is choice.

See Meathead, if that moron can answer a question; what is your excuse?

 

[Meathead]

.
Since we're talking about schools now, are you in favor of tax money paying for kids to go to private schools that are affiliated with religion?

As long as they offer a better education alternative, I don't care if they're religiously affiliated or not. And when I mean religiously affiliated, I don't mean where they spend all day studying the Bible or the Koran.

Parents definitely need alternatives to education in shitholes.

So you'd be okay funding kids to go to and Islamic academy????

Not happy but it is choice.

See Meathead, if that moron can answer a question; what is your excuse?

Since you can't read, what would be the point of repeating my answer? Now go away and annoy someone else.

 

[candycorn]

.
Since we're talking about schools now, are you in favor of tax money paying for kids to go to private schools that are affiliated with religion?

As long as they offer a better education alternative, I don't care if they're religiously affiliated or not. And when I mean religiously affiliated, I don't mean where they spend all day studying the Bible or the Koran.

Parents definitely need alternatives to education in shitholes.

So you'd be okay funding kids to go to and Islamic academy????

Not happy but it is choice.

See Meathead, if that moron can answer a question; what is your excuse?

Since you can't read, what would be the point of repeating my answer. Now go away and annoy someone else.

I get it; you're too much of a pussy to say one way or another. A trait of many conservatives.

 

[DarkFury]

As long as they offer a better education alternative, I don't care if they're religiously affiliated or not. And when I mean religiously affiliated, I don't mean where they spend all day studying the Bible or the Koran.

Parents definitely need alternatives to education in shitholes.

So you'd be okay funding kids to go to and Islamic academy????

Not happy but it is choice.

See Meathead, if that moron can answer a question; what is your excuse?

Since you can't read, what would be the point of repeating my answer. Now go away and annoy someone else.

I get it; you're too much of a pussy to say one way or another. A trait of many conservatives.

He may have not sorted out the finer points of his thoughts yet. He's a very solid poster who looks at all angles.

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing succeeds like success. As soon as there is a crisis that hits (actually or figuratively) those who are called middle American (middle income America, main street America, Joe Six Pack, whatever you want to call it), Trump is in huge trouble since he has zero convictions and even fewer workable plans to address any issues.

Oh and you have been right how many times in the last two years? Oh gee zero!
He like Ronald Reagan has the staff to get the job done.

Reagan had experienced staff who were able to cover for his weaknesses. Team Trump is fumbling around with no idea what to do

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing succeeds like success. As soon as there is a crisis that hits (actually or figuratively) those who are called middle American (middle income America, main street America, Joe Six Pack, whatever you want to call it), Trump is in huge trouble since he has zero convictions and even fewer workable plans to address any issues.

Under normal conditions, Republicans should pick up 3-5 seats

But Dems just have to wait to play their Trump card

 

[Pogo]

The 2018 Senate map just keeps getting better for Republicans

9 Dem seats where Trump won. 1 red for the Beast.

States "where Rump won" ---- by razor thin margins, in states that rarely swing that way in an exquisitely-timed perfect-storm moment.

But enough of that -- back to the big historical picture. Looks to me generally like Democrats mostly defending reliably Democrat seats and Republicans mostly defending reliably Republican ones. Brace for non-impact.

 

[Meathead]

The 2018 Senate map just keeps getting better for Republicans

9 Dem seats where Trump won. 1 red for the Beast.

States "where Rump won" ---- by razor thin margins, in states that rarely swing that way in an exquisitely-timed perfect-storm moment.

But enough of that -- back to the big historical picture. Looks to me generally like Democrats mostly defending reliably Democrat seats and Republicans mostly defending reliably Republican ones. Brace for non-impact.

Don't be daft. Do you honestly think::WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, FL, ND, MT, and MO are reliably Dem?!

Those are 9 states that went for Trump.

You should get a job a Democrat pollster.

 

[Pogo]

The 2018 Senate map just keeps getting better for Republicans

9 Dem seats where Trump won. 1 red for the Beast.

States "where Rump won" ---- by razor thin margins, in states that rarely swing that way in an exquisitely-timed perfect-storm moment.

But enough of that -- back to the big historical picture. Looks to me generally like Democrats mostly defending reliably Democrat seats and Republicans mostly defending reliably Republican ones. Brace for non-impact.

Don't be daft. Do you honestly think::WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, FL, ND, MT, and MO are reliably Dem?!

Those are 9 states that went for Trump.

You should get a job a Democrat pollster.

I;m seeing California, Washington, Maine, Vermont, Mass, RI, Connecticut, New Yawk, Jersey, New Mexico and Minnesota, which are usually locks, then I'm seeing Michigan, Wiscaaaaaaaaaahnsin and maybe Virginia which lean that way, then I'm seeing Flah-dah, Ohio and Missouri which are, as far as state trends, toss-ups with popular incumbents. Another popular incumbent in Montana and North Dakota holding a strong farm-labor tradition. If I were the DP I'm most concerned with West Virginia and Indiana, but not a whole lot beyond.

Rump won some of those states, which was strictly an anomaly that wouldn't have happened had the election been held as little as a week sooner or a week later. Again, big picture historically. What matters is not a snapshot taken on one day of November 8 but the ongoing historical pattern.

Then I'm seeing Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Utah, Wyoming and Nebraska, all reliably red, Aridzona a bit less so, and Nevada a toss-up.

All of which is still a cluster of general indices --- again we do not know who they're running against, and we do not know what events they or their opponents will become associated with in the next year and a half, so there ain't much to go on but that's all we have for now.

Let's review in a year and a half.

 

[Meathead]

The 2018 Senate map just keeps getting better for Republicans

9 Dem seats where Trump won. 1 red for the Beast.

States "where Rump won" ---- by razor thin margins, in states that rarely swing that way in an exquisitely-timed perfect-storm moment.

But enough of that -- back to the big historical picture. Looks to me generally like Democrats mostly defending reliably Democrat seats and Republicans mostly defending reliably Republican ones. Brace for non-impact.

Don't be daft. Do you honestly think::WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, FL, ND, MT, and MO are reliably Dem?!

Those are 9 states that went for Trump.

You should get a job a Democrat pollster.

I;m seeing California, Washington, Maine, Vermont, Mass, RI, Connecticut, New Yawk, Jersey, New Mexico and Minnesota, which are usually locks, then I'm seeing Michigan, Wiscaaaaaaaaaahnsin and maybe Virginia which lean that way, then I'm seeing Flah-dah, Ohio and Missouri which are, as far as state trends, toss-ups with popular incumbents. Another popular incumbent in Montana and North Dakota holding a strong farm-labor tradition. If I were the DP I'm most concerned with West Virginia and Indiana, but not a whole lot beyond.

Rump won some of those states, which was strictly an anomaly that wouldn't have happened had the election been held as little as a week sooner or a week later. Again, big picture historically. What matters is not a snapshot taken on one day of November 8 but the ongoing historical pattern.

Then I'm seeing Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Utah, Wyoming and Nebraska, all reliably red, Aridzona a bit less so, and Nevada a toss-up.

All of which is still a cluster of general indices --- again we do not know who they're running against, and we do not know what events they or their opponents will become associated with in the next year and a half, so there ain't much to go on but that's all we have for now.

Let's review in a year and a half.

Seriously, you should get a job at the DNC. I hear they need more people to tell them they've got a lock on all those states Trump won.

 

[Pogo]

The 2018 Senate map just keeps getting better for Republicans

9 Dem seats where Trump won. 1 red for the Beast.

States "where Rump won" ---- by razor thin margins, in states that rarely swing that way in an exquisitely-timed perfect-storm moment.

But enough of that -- back to the big historical picture. Looks to me generally like Democrats mostly defending reliably Democrat seats and Republicans mostly defending reliably Republican ones. Brace for non-impact.

Don't be daft. Do you honestly think::WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, FL, ND, MT, and MO are reliably Dem?!

Those are 9 states that went for Trump.

You should get a job a Democrat pollster.

I;m seeing California, Washington, Maine, Vermont, Mass, RI, Connecticut, New Yawk, Jersey, New Mexico and Minnesota, which are usually locks, then I'm seeing Michigan, Wiscaaaaaaaaaahnsin and maybe Virginia which lean that way, then I'm seeing Flah-dah, Ohio and Missouri which are, as far as state trends, toss-ups with popular incumbents. Another popular incumbent in Montana and North Dakota holding a strong farm-labor tradition. If I were the DP I'm most concerned with West Virginia and Indiana, but not a whole lot beyond.

Rump won some of those states, which was strictly an anomaly that wouldn't have happened had the election been held as little as a week sooner or a week later. Again, big picture historically. What matters is not a snapshot taken on one day of November 8 but the ongoing historical pattern.

Then I'm seeing Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Utah, Wyoming and Nebraska, all reliably red, Aridzona a bit less so, and Nevada a toss-up.

All of which is still a cluster of general indices --- again we do not know who they're running against, and we do not know what events they or their opponents will become associated with in the next year and a half, so there ain't much to go on but that's all we have for now.

Let's review in a year and a half.

Seriously, you should get a job at the DNC. I hear they need more people to tell them they've got a lock on all those states Trump won.

Seriously, you need to move on from November 8. Living in the Past is for Jethro Tull.

 

[Picaro]

And congressional seats in the reapportionment election of 2022?

The investigations of the Democratic Party coming up will be naming many of the corrupt enablers of the crime syndicate, and throw in the violent racist bigot and the terrorist cult member the Party elected as their new chairman and co-chairman, a clear signal they're going to be even more insane and stupid than they already are, look for at least 6 Senate wins over the next four years and about 30 Congressional seats. These are bare minimums; the potential is much higher, it depends on how well Trump's wing can bitch slap the GOP establishment back into their sewers.

 

[Meathead]

The 2018 Senate map just keeps getting better for Republicans

9 Dem seats where Trump won. 1 red for the Beast.

States "where Rump won" ---- by razor thin margins, in states that rarely swing that way in an exquisitely-timed perfect-storm moment.

But enough of that -- back to the big historical picture. Looks to me generally like Democrats mostly defending reliably Democrat seats and Republicans mostly defending reliably Republican ones. Brace for non-impact.

Don't be daft. Do you honestly think::WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, FL, ND, MT, and MO are reliably Dem?!

Those are 9 states that went for Trump.

You should get a job a Democrat pollster.

I;m seeing California, Washington, Maine, Vermont, Mass, RI, Connecticut, New Yawk, Jersey, New Mexico and Minnesota, which are usually locks, then I'm seeing Michigan, Wiscaaaaaaaaaahnsin and maybe Virginia which lean that way, then I'm seeing Flah-dah, Ohio and Missouri which are, as far as state trends, toss-ups with popular incumbents. Another popular incumbent in Montana and North Dakota holding a strong farm-labor tradition. If I were the DP I'm most concerned with West Virginia and Indiana, but not a whole lot beyond.

Rump won some of those states, which was strictly an anomaly that wouldn't have happened had the election been held as little as a week sooner or a week later. Again, big picture historically. What matters is not a snapshot taken on one day of November 8 but the ongoing historical pattern.

Then I'm seeing Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Utah, Wyoming and Nebraska, all reliably red, Aridzona a bit less so, and Nevada a toss-up.

All of which is still a cluster of general indices --- again we do not know who they're running against, and we do not know what events they or their opponents will become associated with in the next year and a half, so there ain't much to go on but that's all we have for now.

Let's review in a year and a half.

Seriously, you should get a job at the DNC. I hear they need more people to tell them they've got a lock on all those states Trump won.

Seriously, you need to move on from November 8. Living in the Past is for Jethro Tull.

Seems to me you're living in the past. Sure. the Rust Belt is reliably Democrat. Go tell them at the DNC. They'll love it.

 

[Meathead]

And congressional seats in the reapportionment election of 2022?

The investigations of the Democratic Party coming up will be naming many of the corrupt enablers of the crime syndicate, and throw in the violent racist bigot and the terrorist cult member the Party elected as their new chairman and co-chairman, a clear signal they're going to be even more insane and stupid than they already are, look for at least 6 Senate wins over the next four years and about 30 Congressional seats.

Yeah, you ain't seen nothing yet!

 

[Pogo]

States "where Rump won" ---- by razor thin margins, in states that rarely swing that way in an exquisitely-timed perfect-storm moment.

But enough of that -- back to the big historical picture. Looks to me generally like Democrats mostly defending reliably Democrat seats and Republicans mostly defending reliably Republican ones. Brace for non-impact.

Don't be daft. Do you honestly think::WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, FL, ND, MT, and MO are reliably Dem?!

Those are 9 states that went for Trump.

You should get a job a Democrat pollster.

I;m seeing California, Washington, Maine, Vermont, Mass, RI, Connecticut, New Yawk, Jersey, New Mexico and Minnesota, which are usually locks, then I'm seeing Michigan, Wiscaaaaaaaaaahnsin and maybe Virginia which lean that way, then I'm seeing Flah-dah, Ohio and Missouri which are, as far as state trends, toss-ups with popular incumbents. Another popular incumbent in Montana and North Dakota holding a strong farm-labor tradition. If I were the DP I'm most concerned with West Virginia and Indiana, but not a whole lot beyond.

Rump won some of those states, which was strictly an anomaly that wouldn't have happened had the election been held as little as a week sooner or a week later. Again, big picture historically. What matters is not a snapshot taken on one day of November 8 but the ongoing historical pattern.

Then I'm seeing Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Utah, Wyoming and Nebraska, all reliably red, Aridzona a bit less so, and Nevada a toss-up.

All of which is still a cluster of general indices --- again we do not know who they're running against, and we do not know what events they or their opponents will become associated with in the next year and a half, so there ain't much to go on but that's all we have for now.

Let's review in a year and a half.

Seriously, you should get a job at the DNC. I hear they need more people to tell them they've got a lock on all those states Trump won.

Seriously, you need to move on from November 8. Living in the Past is for Jethro Tull.

Seems to me you're living in the past. Sure. the Rust Belt is reliably Democrat. Go tell them at the DNC. They'll love it.

As we already said --- we'll review in a year and a half. If you show up.

 

[GHook93]

I was hoping for more tangible accomplishment of the incoming Trump presidency, but the GOP should come out on top.

They will easily win IN, MO, MT, ND, WV and FL (popular FL gov Rick Scott is running).

The GOP will also be competitive in OH, PA,
WI, MI and VA. Maybe even MN, NJ and ME.

The GOP is not vulnerable anywhere except NV, but I believe Heller will pull it out.

I see 60 votes by nights end. They will have 58 foresure, then I think they will still 2 of the vulnerable D's seats.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[DarkFury]

I was hoping for more tangible accomplishment of the incoming Trump presidency, but the GOP should come out on top.

They will easily win IN, MO, MT, ND, WV and FL (popular FL gov Rick Scott is running).

The GOP will also be competitive in OH, PA,
WI, MI and VA. Maybe even MN, NJ and ME.

The GOP is not vulnerable anywhere except NV, but I believe Heller will pull it out.

I see 60 votes by nights end. They will have 58 foresure, then I think they will still 2 of the vulnerable D's seats.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I agree with Nevada but those coal states could go VERY red. Trump DID just get them a deal to sell coal to China.