Wow, Republicans expanded their majority in the House last night

[RealDave]

A family of 4 with income of $97K could quality for a subsidy.

A single person making $47K could quality.

Not near poverty levels at all.

Again, Shut The Fuck Up & get informed.

My God people.

Policies have provider networks. You can choose a policy with coverage only within your network or a policy that covers 100% in network & only 50% out of network. Just like you can choose a plan with your doctor in the network or not.

The way it has always been.

You people don't know shit. You never did. Your party let you wallow in a market where premiums rose by double digits or more every year, had pre-existing conditions, and maximum payouts. You were so stupid you were happier than a pig in shit.

Here we go, proof of millions of Americans losing their doctors, hospitals, and facing dramatic increases in health care costs as a result of the ACA, and you still ramble the same Leftie talking points, not giving a shit about how it affected people's lives.

And you guys wonder why you lost the election? LOL

Because of the ACA? Really?

First of all, no one made anyone buy insurance through the exchanges.

Second, The ACA reduced the growth of premiums

Third, insurance policies typically end at the end of the year. Insurance companies can offer these for renewal or replace them with different policies., This is not losing one's insurance. Losing coverage is no longer being able to buy coverage.

Fourth, you don't even know how the exchanges & subsidies work.

Yes, you mental midget, when your hospital or physician refuses your insurance, it increases beyond your ability you've basically lost your health care.

Unlike you, I would not buy a policy that did not include my hospital.

The idea you think there are policies sold where there are no providers proves what a dumbasss you are.

You have severe reading comprehension problems. The hospitals and doctors were rejecting people's insurances that they used to accept before. All because of the ACA. Again, the govt. can't FORCE a private business to operate at a loss or lose money.

Now you are just lying.

There is no way a hospital would refuse insurance mid year. My God, you are one desperate little man.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are as fucking stupid as the moron Trump.

The smaller states have an advantage in the EC.

There are small blue states as well, dipweed, however not as many electoral votes as the blue more populous states such as CA and NY. Which is why the electoral system is a more fair and just system, the county AS A WHOLE isn't held hostage to a monopoly of highly populous states that are aligned with one party or another.

There are more red small states tan blue ones. My God, do you ever get anything right?

Again the dumb hack shows his ignorance by not knowing the established fact that Democrats have an automatic advantage in the electoral college. Which is why Trump's victory was even more significant.

How the Electoral College favors Democrats and why Republicans must change it

This electoral history, however, is misleading for one very important reason: The Electoral College advantage Democrats now have due to the big blue states.

The Democrat will almost always win the following states: California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Republicans haven't won New York, Oregon, Washington, or Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide win.

They haven’t won California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania since 1988. Those states are worth 183 electoral votes. Thus, the Democrat likely enters the 2016 election with a base of 242 electoral votes.

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016, that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé or the improving state of the economy. It’s the electoral college.

Now you think Karl Rove is the know-it-all?

Electoral votes are by the number of House members + the number of Senators. The number of House members is by population.

If we would split up California into 3 states all blue, then this area would have the same number of Representatives but now 6 Senators & hence more votes.

If we took WY & ID & merged them, they would have at most the same number of Representatives but now just two Senators or less votes

People in small states have more pack per electoral votes than larger states.

So Yes, Ksarlo Rove ios an asshole & you miust be too for bel;ieving that POS.

Hello again, dickhead, did you bother clicking on the second link? It was actually Leftie controled Washington Post that was explaining prior to the election how Democrats have a built in advantage. I'd tell you not to give up your daytime job, but knowing you're a useless fucking bum living off the govt. it isn't necessary.

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016, that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé or the improving state of the economy. It’s the electoral college.

Yes, the somewhat arcane — yet remarkably durable — way in which presidential elections are decided tilts toward Democrats in 2016, as documented by nonpartisan political handicapper Nathan Gonzales in a recent edition of the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report.

Gonzales notes that if you add up all of the states that are either “safe” for the eventual Democratic nominee or “favor” that nominee, you get 217 electoral votes. (A candidate needs to win 270 to be elected president.) Do the same for states safe or favoring the Republican standard-bearer, per Gonzales’s rankings, and you get just 191 electoral votes.

That Democratic advantage becomes even more pronounced if you add to the party’s total the states that “lean” Democratic, according to Gonzales. Put Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), Iowa (6) and Nevada (6) into the Democratic column and the party’s electoral vote count surges to 249 — just 21 votes short of winning a third straight presidential race. (Gonzales doesn’t rate any states as “lean Republican.”)

The problem with this argument is that reality disagrees. No matter how sound you may or may not find the logic behind the argument the reality is that the EC has broken for the Republican twice in recent years and both times the popular vote broke to the democrat. That established the fact that the EC was an advantage for the right in those elections. That is established history.

 

[busybee01]

You continue to deny reality. Trump will be the leader of the Republican Party. The fact is that the mid-terms are off-year as well since there will be no Presidential race. We do have data to look at and it does tell us something. Then you have Democrats picking up seats in the Philadelphia suburbs for the first time. The Republicans should be worried about the mid-terms especially if you have a bunch of flakes running.

Your chance to turn the House and Senate came and went in 2016. Now it's the Left that is more vulnerable in both the Senate and the House. You guys are due for a major shellacking in 2018.

Facing the truth of what happened in Virginia and a few other elections does not make you a leftist. It is Republicans who are vulnerable in the House. They have gone against the will of the voters constantly. Voters do not support Republican plans for healthcare. That will likely play a major role in 2018.It is Republicans who likely will be on the defensive.

Same trash talking occured before the 2016 elections. Who will you guys whine about this time when you get you asses kicked again? Russian content farmers? LOL.

We have data to look at this time. In the Philadelphia suburbs, Democrats were elected in local races which had never happened before. Trump won these suburbs in 2016. I did not vote for Clinton or Trump but I believe we need to force both parties to work together. If that means a Democrat House then so be it.

Cause when we had a Democrat House, Senate, and presidency they really "worked" with the other side...or perhaps they shoved a socialist health care bill down the throats of the American people that caused far more people off their health care plans, while increasing its cost dramatically. Which is one of the many reasons why in the eight years of Obama, the Dems lost the House, Senate, and finally the presidency.

Obamacare is more popular than what the Republicans have put forward. Since Trump became President, the approval ratings of Obama and George W Bush are higher than ever. The Republicans may be poised to lose the House in 2020 and the White House in 2020.

 

[busybee01]

Facing the truth of what happened in Virginia and a few other elections does not make you a leftist. It is Republicans who are vulnerable in the House. They have gone against the will of the voters constantly. Voters do not support Republican plans for healthcare. That will likely play a major role in 2018.It is Republicans who likely will be on the defensive.

Same trash talking occured before the 2016 elections. Who will you guys whine about this time when you get you asses kicked again? Russian content farmers? LOL.

We have data to look at this time. In the Philadelphia suburbs, Democrats were elected in local races which had never happened before. Trump won these suburbs in 2016. I did not vote for Clinton or Trump but I believe we need to force both parties to work together. If that means a Democrat House then so be it.

Cause when we had a Democrat House, Senate, and presidency they really "worked" with the other side...or perhaps they shoved a socialist health care bill down the throats of the American people that caused far more people off their health care plans, while increasing its cost dramatically. Which is one of the many reasons why in the eight years of Obama, the Dems lost the House, Senate, and finally the presidency.

Sorry, but the ACA did not throw off more people than it gained.

Most health insurance policies last for a year. Insurance companies routinely cancel policies & offer replacements.,

Just how dishonest are you people?

That's right, keep denying the consequences of the disaster called the ACA, and other Obama / Democrat fuckups, and see how far it gets you guys. There are states that have only one or two providers and even they are moving out, plus there plans that doctors and hospitals are refusing, and then to top it off, people like myself are seeing their plans go up significantly, up to 100%, literally making them choose whether to pay for their mortgage or car payments or their health insurance.

its really funny how brainwashed parrots like you pretend that they're concerned about people losing their health insurance, meanwhile the ACA has caused Americans far more loss of health insurance and financial hardships.

Those have accelerated since Republicans took over. Republicans are doing everything they can to destroy it. They will be held accountable in 2020.

 

[Roudy]

There are small blue states as well, dipweed, however not as many electoral votes as the blue more populous states such as CA and NY. Which is why the electoral system is a more fair and just system, the county AS A WHOLE isn't held hostage to a monopoly of highly populous states that are aligned with one party or another.

There are more red small states tan blue ones. My God, do you ever get anything right?

Again the dumb hack shows his ignorance by not knowing the established fact that Democrats have an automatic advantage in the electoral college. Which is why Trump's victory was even more significant.

How the Electoral College favors Democrats and why Republicans must change it

This electoral history, however, is misleading for one very important reason: The Electoral College advantage Democrats now have due to the big blue states.

The Democrat will almost always win the following states: California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Republicans haven't won New York, Oregon, Washington, or Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide win.

They haven’t won California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania since 1988. Those states are worth 183 electoral votes. Thus, the Democrat likely enters the 2016 election with a base of 242 electoral votes.

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016, that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé or the improving state of the economy. It’s the electoral college.

Now you think Karl Rove is the know-it-all?

Electoral votes are by the number of House members + the number of Senators. The number of House members is by population.

If we would split up California into 3 states all blue, then this area would have the same number of Representatives but now 6 Senators & hence more votes.

If we took WY & ID & merged them, they would have at most the same number of Representatives but now just two Senators or less votes

People in small states have more pack per electoral votes than larger states.

So Yes, Ksarlo Rove ios an asshole & you miust be too for bel;ieving that POS.

Hello again, dickhead, did you bother clicking on the second link? It was actually Leftie controled Washington Post that was explaining prior to the election how Democrats have a built in advantage. I'd tell you not to give up your daytime job, but knowing you're a useless fucking bum living off the govt. it isn't necessary.

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016, that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé or the improving state of the economy. It’s the electoral college.

Yes, the somewhat arcane — yet remarkably durable — way in which presidential elections are decided tilts toward Democrats in 2016, as documented by nonpartisan political handicapper Nathan Gonzales in a recent edition of the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report.

Gonzales notes that if you add up all of the states that are either “safe” for the eventual Democratic nominee or “favor” that nominee, you get 217 electoral votes. (A candidate needs to win 270 to be elected president.) Do the same for states safe or favoring the Republican standard-bearer, per Gonzales’s rankings, and you get just 191 electoral votes.

That Democratic advantage becomes even more pronounced if you add to the party’s total the states that “lean” Democratic, according to Gonzales. Put Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), Iowa (6) and Nevada (6) into the Democratic column and the party’s electoral vote count surges to 249 — just 21 votes short of winning a third straight presidential race. (Gonzales doesn’t rate any states as “lean Republican.”)

The problem with this argument is that reality disagrees. No matter how sound you may or may not find the logic behind the argument the reality is that the EC has broken for the Republican twice in recent years and both times the popular vote broke to the democrat. That established the fact that the EC was an advantage for the right in those elections. That is established history.

Yes, duh! The Dems have an inherent advantage, unless the president ends up being a total disaster, like Carter and Obama! Wake up and realize the failures. Bill Clinton was a good president but he was a corrupt liar and a pervert that sexually assaulted and raped women.

 

[Roudy]

Here we go, proof of millions of Americans losing their doctors, hospitals, and facing dramatic increases in health care costs as a result of the ACA, and you still ramble the same Leftie talking points, not giving a shit about how it affected people's lives.

And you guys wonder why you lost the election? LOL

Because of the ACA? Really?

First of all, no one made anyone buy insurance through the exchanges.

Second, The ACA reduced the growth of premiums

Third, insurance policies typically end at the end of the year. Insurance companies can offer these for renewal or replace them with different policies., This is not losing one's insurance. Losing coverage is no longer being able to buy coverage.

Fourth, you don't even know how the exchanges & subsidies work.

Yes, you mental midget, when your hospital or physician refuses your insurance, it increases beyond your ability you've basically lost your health care.

Unlike you, I would not buy a policy that did not include my hospital.

The idea you think there are policies sold where there are no providers proves what a dumbasss you are.

You have severe reading comprehension problems. The hospitals and doctors were rejecting people's insurances that they used to accept before. All because of the ACA. Again, the govt. can't FORCE a private business to operate at a loss or lose money.

Now you are just lying.

There is no way a hospital would refuse insurance mid year. My God, you are one desperate little man.

Yeah? Is that why my agent called and told me all the good hospitals in my area no longer accept my insurance? I then changed insurance twice and finally the one that the hospitals and clinics accepted (at a higher price for me) ended up moving out of my state because they lost their shirt. Then I signed up with another company, a lower plan, at 59% higher rate. Do you idiots think all your bullshit and propaganda is going to make a difference when everyday families are getting hit by this catastrophe called Obamacare?

 

[Roudy]

Same trash talking occured before the 2016 elections. Who will you guys whine about this time when you get you asses kicked again? Russian content farmers? LOL.

We have data to look at this time. In the Philadelphia suburbs, Democrats were elected in local races which had never happened before. Trump won these suburbs in 2016. I did not vote for Clinton or Trump but I believe we need to force both parties to work together. If that means a Democrat House then so be it.

Cause when we had a Democrat House, Senate, and presidency they really "worked" with the other side...or perhaps they shoved a socialist health care bill down the throats of the American people that caused far more people off their health care plans, while increasing its cost dramatically. Which is one of the many reasons why in the eight years of Obama, the Dems lost the House, Senate, and finally the presidency.

Sorry, but the ACA did not throw off more people than it gained.

Most health insurance policies last for a year. Insurance companies routinely cancel policies & offer replacements.,

Just how dishonest are you people?

That's right, keep denying the consequences of the disaster called the ACA, and other Obama / Democrat fuckups, and see how far it gets you guys. There are states that have only one or two providers and even they are moving out, plus there plans that doctors and hospitals are refusing, and then to top it off, people like myself are seeing their plans go up significantly, up to 100%, literally making them choose whether to pay for their mortgage or car payments or their health insurance.

its really funny how brainwashed parrots like you pretend that they're concerned about people losing their health insurance, meanwhile the ACA has caused Americans far more loss of health insurance and financial hardships.

Those have accelerated since Republicans took over. Republicans are doing everything they can to destroy it. They will be held accountable in 2020.

No actually the con man Obama and the Dems pushed all the radical changes that Americans will be hit with until after the elections, to provide cover for his crooked incumbent Hillary. It didn't work. We'll see who's going to be held accountable.

 

[Roudy]

Your chance to turn the House and Senate came and went in 2016. Now it's the Left that is more vulnerable in both the Senate and the House. You guys are due for a major shellacking in 2018.

Facing the truth of what happened in Virginia and a few other elections does not make you a leftist. It is Republicans who are vulnerable in the House. They have gone against the will of the voters constantly. Voters do not support Republican plans for healthcare. That will likely play a major role in 2018.It is Republicans who likely will be on the defensive.

Same trash talking occured before the 2016 elections. Who will you guys whine about this time when you get you asses kicked again? Russian content farmers? LOL.

We have data to look at this time. In the Philadelphia suburbs, Democrats were elected in local races which had never happened before. Trump won these suburbs in 2016. I did not vote for Clinton or Trump but I believe we need to force both parties to work together. If that means a Democrat House then so be it.

Cause when we had a Democrat House, Senate, and presidency they really "worked" with the other side...or perhaps they shoved a socialist health care bill down the throats of the American people that caused far more people off their health care plans, while increasing its cost dramatically. Which is one of the many reasons why in the eight years of Obama, the Dems lost the House, Senate, and finally the presidency.

Obamacare is more popular than what the Republicans have put forward. Since Trump became President, the approval ratings of Obama and George W Bush are higher than ever. The Republicans may be poised to lose the House in 2020 and the White House in 2020.

The approval ratings of the Democratic party and the crooked media are even lower. Go figure.

 

[FA_Q2]

There are more red small states tan blue ones. My God, do you ever get anything right?

Again the dumb hack shows his ignorance by not knowing the established fact that Democrats have an automatic advantage in the electoral college. Which is why Trump's victory was even more significant.

How the Electoral College favors Democrats and why Republicans must change it

This electoral history, however, is misleading for one very important reason: The Electoral College advantage Democrats now have due to the big blue states.

The Democrat will almost always win the following states: California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Republicans haven't won New York, Oregon, Washington, or Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide win.

They haven’t won California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania since 1988. Those states are worth 183 electoral votes. Thus, the Democrat likely enters the 2016 election with a base of 242 electoral votes.

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016, that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé or the improving state of the economy. It’s the electoral college.

Now you think Karl Rove is the know-it-all?

Electoral votes are by the number of House members + the number of Senators. The number of House members is by population.

If we would split up California into 3 states all blue, then this area would have the same number of Representatives but now 6 Senators & hence more votes.

If we took WY & ID & merged them, they would have at most the same number of Representatives but now just two Senators or less votes

People in small states have more pack per electoral votes than larger states.

So Yes, Ksarlo Rove ios an asshole & you miust be too for bel;ieving that POS.

Hello again, dickhead, did you bother clicking on the second link? It was actually Leftie controled Washington Post that was explaining prior to the election how Democrats have a built in advantage. I'd tell you not to give up your daytime job, but knowing you're a useless fucking bum living off the govt. it isn't necessary.

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016, that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé or the improving state of the economy. It’s the electoral college.

Yes, the somewhat arcane — yet remarkably durable — way in which presidential elections are decided tilts toward Democrats in 2016, as documented by nonpartisan political handicapper Nathan Gonzales in a recent edition of the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report.

Gonzales notes that if you add up all of the states that are either “safe” for the eventual Democratic nominee or “favor” that nominee, you get 217 electoral votes. (A candidate needs to win 270 to be elected president.) Do the same for states safe or favoring the Republican standard-bearer, per Gonzales’s rankings, and you get just 191 electoral votes.

That Democratic advantage becomes even more pronounced if you add to the party’s total the states that “lean” Democratic, according to Gonzales. Put Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), Iowa (6) and Nevada (6) into the Democratic column and the party’s electoral vote count surges to 249 — just 21 votes short of winning a third straight presidential race. (Gonzales doesn’t rate any states as “lean Republican.”)

The problem with this argument is that reality disagrees. No matter how sound you may or may not find the logic behind the argument the reality is that the EC has broken for the Republican twice in recent years and both times the popular vote broke to the democrat. That established the fact that the EC was an advantage for the right in those elections. That is established history.

Yes, duh! The Dems have an inherent advantage, unless the president ends up being a total disaster, like Carter and Obama! Wake up and realize the failures. Bill Clinton was a good president but he was a corrupt liar and a pervert that sexually assaulted and raped women.

That has nothing to do with my point or the simple fact that when the EC does not follow the popular vote it has always broken for the republican rather than the democrat.

 

[Roudy]

Again the dumb hack shows his ignorance by not knowing the established fact that Democrats have an automatic advantage in the electoral college. Which is why Trump's victory was even more significant.

How the Electoral College favors Democrats and why Republicans must change it

This electoral history, however, is misleading for one very important reason: The Electoral College advantage Democrats now have due to the big blue states.

The Democrat will almost always win the following states: California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Republicans haven't won New York, Oregon, Washington, or Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide win.

They haven’t won California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania since 1988. Those states are worth 183 electoral votes. Thus, the Democrat likely enters the 2016 election with a base of 242 electoral votes.

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016, that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé or the improving state of the economy. It’s the electoral college.

Now you think Karl Rove is the know-it-all?

Electoral votes are by the number of House members + the number of Senators. The number of House members is by population.

If we would split up California into 3 states all blue, then this area would have the same number of Representatives but now 6 Senators & hence more votes.

If we took WY & ID & merged them, they would have at most the same number of Representatives but now just two Senators or less votes

People in small states have more pack per electoral votes than larger states.

So Yes, Ksarlo Rove ios an asshole & you miust be too for bel;ieving that POS.

Hello again, dickhead, did you bother clicking on the second link? It was actually Leftie controled Washington Post that was explaining prior to the election how Democrats have a built in advantage. I'd tell you not to give up your daytime job, but knowing you're a useless fucking bum living off the govt. it isn't necessary.

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016, that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé or the improving state of the economy. It’s the electoral college.

Yes, the somewhat arcane — yet remarkably durable — way in which presidential elections are decided tilts toward Democrats in 2016, as documented by nonpartisan political handicapper Nathan Gonzales in a recent edition of the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report.

Gonzales notes that if you add up all of the states that are either “safe” for the eventual Democratic nominee or “favor” that nominee, you get 217 electoral votes. (A candidate needs to win 270 to be elected president.) Do the same for states safe or favoring the Republican standard-bearer, per Gonzales’s rankings, and you get just 191 electoral votes.

That Democratic advantage becomes even more pronounced if you add to the party’s total the states that “lean” Democratic, according to Gonzales. Put Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), Iowa (6) and Nevada (6) into the Democratic column and the party’s electoral vote count surges to 249 — just 21 votes short of winning a third straight presidential race. (Gonzales doesn’t rate any states as “lean Republican.”)

The problem with this argument is that reality disagrees. No matter how sound you may or may not find the logic behind the argument the reality is that the EC has broken for the Republican twice in recent years and both times the popular vote broke to the democrat. That established the fact that the EC was an advantage for the right in those elections. That is established history.

Yes, duh! The Dems have an inherent advantage, unless the president ends up being a total disaster, like Carter and Obama! Wake up and realize the failures. Bill Clinton was a good president but he was a corrupt liar and a pervert that sexually assaulted and raped women.

That has nothing to do with my point or the simple fact that when the EC does not follow the popular vote it has always broken for the republican rather than the democrat.

Yes, the EC does not follow the popular vote and that's how the founders designed it, so that smaller less populous states have a voice as well. But the EC in recent history does provide an advantage for Dems., and it will take a disastrous presidency to flip states that usually vote blue. And that's exactly what happened in 2016.

 

[Faun]

Facing the truth of what happened in Virginia and a few other elections does not make you a leftist. It is Republicans who are vulnerable in the House. They have gone against the will of the voters constantly. Voters do not support Republican plans for healthcare. That will likely play a major role in 2018.It is Republicans who likely will be on the defensive.

Same trash talking occured before the 2016 elections. Who will you guys whine about this time when you get you asses kicked again? Russian content farmers? LOL.

We have data to look at this time. In the Philadelphia suburbs, Democrats were elected in local races which had never happened before. Trump won these suburbs in 2016. I did not vote for Clinton or Trump but I believe we need to force both parties to work together. If that means a Democrat House then so be it.

Cause when we had a Democrat House, Senate, and presidency they really "worked" with the other side...or perhaps they shoved a socialist health care bill down the throats of the American people that caused far more people off their health care plans, while increasing its cost dramatically. Which is one of the many reasons why in the eight years of Obama, the Dems lost the House, Senate, and finally the presidency.

Obamacare is more popular than what the Republicans have put forward. Since Trump became President, the approval ratings of Obama and George W Bush are higher than ever. The Republicans may be poised to lose the House in 2020 and the White House in 2020.

The approval ratings of the Democratic party and the crooked media are even lower. Go figure.

Why lie?

The Democrat party leads the Republican Party by double digits in every one of the latest polls. By nearly 2 to 1 in the most recent poll, which just came out on Monday.

Quinnipiac 11/13

• Republican: 15%
• Democrat: 29%

Marist 11/9

• Republican: 23%
• Democrat: 33%

ABC News 9/21

• Republican: 22%
• Democrat: 35%

CNN 9/20

• Republican: 20%
• Democrat: 32%

Congress

 

[busybee01]

There are more red small states tan blue ones. My God, do you ever get anything right?

Again the dumb hack shows his ignorance by not knowing the established fact that Democrats have an automatic advantage in the electoral college. Which is why Trump's victory was even more significant.

How the Electoral College favors Democrats and why Republicans must change it

This electoral history, however, is misleading for one very important reason: The Electoral College advantage Democrats now have due to the big blue states.

The Democrat will almost always win the following states: California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Republicans haven't won New York, Oregon, Washington, or Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide win.

They haven’t won California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania since 1988. Those states are worth 183 electoral votes. Thus, the Democrat likely enters the 2016 election with a base of 242 electoral votes.

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016, that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé or the improving state of the economy. It’s the electoral college.

Now you think Karl Rove is the know-it-all?

Electoral votes are by the number of House members + the number of Senators. The number of House members is by population.

If we would split up California into 3 states all blue, then this area would have the same number of Representatives but now 6 Senators & hence more votes.

If we took WY & ID & merged them, they would have at most the same number of Representatives but now just two Senators or less votes

People in small states have more pack per electoral votes than larger states.

So Yes, Ksarlo Rove ios an asshole & you miust be too for bel;ieving that POS.

Hello again, dickhead, did you bother clicking on the second link? It was actually Leftie controled Washington Post that was explaining prior to the election how Democrats have a built in advantage. I'd tell you not to give up your daytime job, but knowing you're a useless fucking bum living off the govt. it isn't necessary.

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016, that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé or the improving state of the economy. It’s the electoral college.

Yes, the somewhat arcane — yet remarkably durable — way in which presidential elections are decided tilts toward Democrats in 2016, as documented by nonpartisan political handicapper Nathan Gonzales in a recent edition of the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report.

Gonzales notes that if you add up all of the states that are either “safe” for the eventual Democratic nominee or “favor” that nominee, you get 217 electoral votes. (A candidate needs to win 270 to be elected president.) Do the same for states safe or favoring the Republican standard-bearer, per Gonzales’s rankings, and you get just 191 electoral votes.

That Democratic advantage becomes even more pronounced if you add to the party’s total the states that “lean” Democratic, according to Gonzales. Put Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), Iowa (6) and Nevada (6) into the Democratic column and the party’s electoral vote count surges to 249 — just 21 votes short of winning a third straight presidential race. (Gonzales doesn’t rate any states as “lean Republican.”)

The problem with this argument is that reality disagrees. No matter how sound you may or may not find the logic behind the argument the reality is that the EC has broken for the Republican twice in recent years and both times the popular vote broke to the democrat. That established the fact that the EC was an advantage for the right in those elections. That is established history.

Yes, duh! The Dems have an inherent advantage, unless the president ends up being a total disaster, like Carter and Obama! Wake up and realize the failures. Bill Clinton was a good president but he was a corrupt liar and a pervert that sexually assaulted and raped women.

Not really. Clinton was a weak candidate. Obama would have beaten Trump soundly and Romney would have beaten Clinton soundly. Even with a weak candidate like Clinton, the Democrat has to get 1.5% more above what Clinton got in every state and they win.

 

[Roudy]

Oh look...fake polls concocted by fake news organizations. How cute!

 

[DarkFury]

Republicans still have twice as many Governors as the Democrats. This is not a big deal. Well, I guess it is if you're a Democrat sycophant desperately looking for a bright spot to cheer you up.

What matters is SCOTUS and that has been decided!

 

[Roudy]

Again the dumb hack shows his ignorance by not knowing the established fact that Democrats have an automatic advantage in the electoral college. Which is why Trump's victory was even more significant.

How the Electoral College favors Democrats and why Republicans must change it

This electoral history, however, is misleading for one very important reason: The Electoral College advantage Democrats now have due to the big blue states.

The Democrat will almost always win the following states: California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Republicans haven't won New York, Oregon, Washington, or Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide win.

They haven’t won California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania since 1988. Those states are worth 183 electoral votes. Thus, the Democrat likely enters the 2016 election with a base of 242 electoral votes.

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016, that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé or the improving state of the economy. It’s the electoral college.

Now you think Karl Rove is the know-it-all?

Electoral votes are by the number of House members + the number of Senators. The number of House members is by population.

If we would split up California into 3 states all blue, then this area would have the same number of Representatives but now 6 Senators & hence more votes.

If we took WY & ID & merged them, they would have at most the same number of Representatives but now just two Senators or less votes

People in small states have more pack per electoral votes than larger states.

So Yes, Ksarlo Rove ios an asshole & you miust be too for bel;ieving that POS.

Hello again, dickhead, did you bother clicking on the second link? It was actually Leftie controled Washington Post that was explaining prior to the election how Democrats have a built in advantage. I'd tell you not to give up your daytime job, but knowing you're a useless fucking bum living off the govt. it isn't necessary.

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

In 2016 race, an electoral college edge for Democrats

No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016, that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé or the improving state of the economy. It’s the electoral college.

Yes, the somewhat arcane — yet remarkably durable — way in which presidential elections are decided tilts toward Democrats in 2016, as documented by nonpartisan political handicapper Nathan Gonzales in a recent edition of the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report.

Gonzales notes that if you add up all of the states that are either “safe” for the eventual Democratic nominee or “favor” that nominee, you get 217 electoral votes. (A candidate needs to win 270 to be elected president.) Do the same for states safe or favoring the Republican standard-bearer, per Gonzales’s rankings, and you get just 191 electoral votes.

That Democratic advantage becomes even more pronounced if you add to the party’s total the states that “lean” Democratic, according to Gonzales. Put Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), Iowa (6) and Nevada (6) into the Democratic column and the party’s electoral vote count surges to 249 — just 21 votes short of winning a third straight presidential race. (Gonzales doesn’t rate any states as “lean Republican.”)

The problem with this argument is that reality disagrees. No matter how sound you may or may not find the logic behind the argument the reality is that the EC has broken for the Republican twice in recent years and both times the popular vote broke to the democrat. That established the fact that the EC was an advantage for the right in those elections. That is established history.

Yes, duh! The Dems have an inherent advantage, unless the president ends up being a total disaster, like Carter and Obama! Wake up and realize the failures. Bill Clinton was a good president but he was a corrupt liar and a pervert that sexually assaulted and raped women.

Not really. Clinton was a weak candidate. Obama would have beaten Trump soundly and Romney would have beaten Clinton soundly. Even with a weak candidate like Clinton, the Democrat has to get 1.5% more above what Clinton got in every state and they win.

Dufus, the main reason Clinton lost was she stuck herself too close to Obama, and ran as his incumbent, while he campaigned as if he was the one that was running.