Meanwhile, in Mitt's LaLa Land

Well, we have already seen the 'Conservative' meltdown with the Obama as President, and having a majority only in the Senate. And that will end very shortly, and then you fellows will still be in the meltdown mode.
 
Democrats were secure in holding the senate too.

No they weren't. Most Democrats knew they were probably going to lose the senate because there were too many seats they were defending and too many vacancies.

Please, don't make up your own narrative.

Here's the reality. The Presidential Electorate is different from the midterm electorate. People actually show up for presidential elections.
 
What is it about Mitt that causes Libtards to wet their pants?


I don't know. Please do tell.

Actually, I think that if Mitt runs again, it could be a good thing. I thought he ran a bad campaign, but I never held him to be a bad guy.

Were he to run again and then also be nominated again, then his history would, at least up to the general election, completely parallel that of Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican Governor from New York who ran three times (1940, 1944, 1948), was nominated two times (1944, 1948) and lost to two different Democratic candidates. Just for fun, Dewey, had he won, would have been the youngest President ever and also the first one born within the 20th century (at that time). He was born in 1902 and turned 37 during the 1940 primaries.
 
Contrary to the 'counting chickens' we saw the 'Conservatives' doing in 2012, most of the liberals on this board stating that we expected a 52 to 54 GOP Senate as a result of this election. No surprise. 54.
 

Forum List

Back
Top