A little perspective on 2014 Senate

[JoeB131]

You remind me of the videos of a kid riding a bicycle and trying to ride the rail down a flight of steps. The bike goes out from under him and he does a split over the rail. He then proceeds to run around holding his crotch crying it ain't so bad I just need to run it off.

You remind me of the kid who pulls the wings off a fly. He usually grows up to be a sociopath.

 

[Freewill]

A little better prespective, since we know that population increases over time let us look at the percentage of vote:

List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

56	2008	Barack Obama	Democratic	52.93%	7.27%	69,498,516	9,550,193	John McCain	Republican	57.48%
51	1988	George H.W. Bush	Republican	53.37%	7.72%	48,886,597	7,077,121	Michael Dukakis	Democratic	50.15%
40	1944	Franklin Roosevelt	Democratic	53.39%	7.50%	25,612,916	3,594,987	Thomas Dewey	Republican	55.90%
35	1924	Calvin Coolidge	Republican	54.04%	25.22%	15,723,789	7,337,547	John Davis	Democratic	48.90%
39	1940	Franklin Roosevelt	Democratic	54.74%	9.96%	27,313,945	4,966,201	Wendell Willkie	Republican	62.50%
12	1832	Andrew Jackson	Jacksonian	54.74%	17.81%	702,735	228,628	Henry Clay	National Republican	55.40%
20	1864	Abraham Lincoln	Republican	55.03%	10.08%	2,211,317	405,090	George McClellan	Democratic	73.80%
42	1952	Dwight Eisenhower	Republican	55.18%	10.85%	34,075,529	6,700,439	Adlai Stevenson	Democratic	63.30%
22	1872	Ulysses Grant	Republican	55.58%	11.80%	3,597,439	763,729	Horace Greeley	Liberal Republican	71.30%
11	1828	Andrew Jackson	Jacksonian	55.93%	12.25%	642,806	140,839	John Quincy Adams	National Republican	57.60%
30	1904	Theodore Roosevelt	Republican	56.42%	18.83%	7,630,557	2,546,677	Alton Brooks Parker	Democratic	65.20%
43	1956	Dwight Eisenhower	Republican	57.37%	15.40%	35,579,180	9,551,152	Adlai Stevenson	Democratic	60.60%
37	1932	Franklin Roosevelt	Democratic	57.41%	17.76%	22,821,277	7,060,023	Herbert Hoover	Republican	56.90%
36	1928	Herbert Hoover	Republican	58.21%	17.41%	21,427,123	6,411,659	Al Smith	Democratic	56.90%
50	1984	Ronald Reagan	Republican	58.77%	18.21%	54,455,472	16,878,120	Walter Mondale	Democratic	53.11%
34	1920	Warren Harding	Republican	60.32%	26.17%	16,144,093	7,004,432	James Cox	Democratic	49.20%
47	1972	Richard Nixon	Republican	60.67%	23.15%	47,168,710	17,995,488	George McGovern	Democratic	55.21%
38	1936	Franklin Roosevelt	Democratic	60.80%	24.26%	27,752,648	11,070,786	Alf Landon	Republican	61.00%
45	1964	Lyndon Johnson	Democratic	61.05%	22.58%	43,127,041	15,951,287	Barry Goldwater	Republican	61.92%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[JoeB131]

A little better prespective, since we know that population increases over time let us look at the percentage of vote:

Um, no, guy, percentage doesn't matter to the point I was trying to make.

You guys are going to act like Obama should stop being President because he lost the senate.

But Ike, Reagan, Clinton and Bush all lost the Senate and they kept on being President.

So it only becomes wrong when the Black Guy does it.

 

[Freewill]

A little better prespective, since we know that population increases over time let us look at the percentage of vote:

Um, no, guy, percentage doesn't matter to the point I was trying to make.

You guys are going to act like Obama should stop being President because he lost the senate.

But Ike, Reagan, Clinton and Bush all lost the Senate and they kept on being President.

So it only becomes wrong when the Black Guy does it.

No one said any such thing. Look at the vote totals for the Bush years and the Obama years, much higher for Obama yet his percent of pop. vote was less. LESS THEN BUSH!! Less the Lincoln in the middle of the civil war.

Don't worry the pain will eventually stop.

 

[JoeB131]

No one said any such thing. Look at the vote totals for the Bush years and the Obama years, much higher for Obama yet his percent of pop. vote was less. LESS THEN BUSH!! Less the Lincoln in the middle of the civil war.

The problem with your analysis is that you are counting percentage without counting voter participation.

Yes, George H.W. Stupid. (I'm going to stop referring to that family as Bush and just call them the Stupids) got a slightly higher percetage of those who voted, but a lot more of the population voted in 2008 and 2012.

So unfortunately, what we are going to get is Presidential elections where most of us vote and we vote for Progress, and midterms where only the most racist, backwards and stupid people vote and we get regression.

In effect, the country is going to become ungovernable, if it hasn't already.

 

[Ernie S.]

In those nine states, GOP candidates got roughly 80% of the number of votes that Romney got while Democrat candidates got roughly 60%. Sounds like a firm ass kicking to me.

dueling apathy is not a mandate.

What ever you say, Joe.

 

[Ernie S.]

Then either issue a ******* apology or STFU. YOU called me a racist. It's up to you to back that up.

 

[Ernie S.]

I am always willing to help those less fortunate BEFORE they steal from me....

What do you do besides chiding Conservatives to do more?

what is this brain damage you Wingnuts have that you think the fact that once in your life you did a decent thing excuses your support for the status quo?

The problem is not that you didn't do something nice. We all do something nice. And sometimes we do nice thing for people who take advantage of our good nature.

Point is, there are millions of people who are unfortunate, and most of us can't take care of them all.

But what we CAN do and SHOULD do is change society to give them oppurtunities.

You see, I don't support liberalism today because I'm a 'bleeding heart' who weeps for people. I have little patience for people who can help themselves and won't.

I support liberalism because the conservative answers which I did believe in for decades clearly don't work. We've tried trickle down, faith-based iniatives for 30 years now. They don't work. The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer.

The last 5 years is pretty typical of my life. I have always helped people less fortunate than me. The difference is that I don't demand that you share the cost. Charity is voluntary. When it is mandated, it becomes less efficient and meaningless.

Do what I do, if you can afford it. Make a real difference.
I have recounted 4 success stories out of 4 individuals. Shall we compare that to the success rate of your pet social programs?



Yes, Joe. The rich have gotten richer. That's what people do. Ambitious, innovative people with a strong work ethic become successful.

And yes, the gap between the rich and poor has grown. The poor have sat on their collective asses with their basic needs met by the system and have not needed to come up with a novel ideal or marketable skill. They have developed an entitled attitude where there is no need to work hard to get by.
They sit there, complacent and well fed while ambitious people succeed. They are not materially any poorer over time, just poorer in comparison to those who made an effort.

I have shown you that one on one, private charity works better than government social programs. This is likely due to my judgment in selecting those I think are worthy of my effort.
Faith based initiatives have a decent success rate as well because they deal with people who seek out parochial solutions.
It seems that government based programs have the poorest success rate and after trillions of dollars fighting the war on poverty, we have always more poor people.

Why not go with a model that has shown success? Why not take welfare out of the federal budget and leave emergency, short term programs in place state by state and encourage private charities with tax incentives to deal with more of the chronic poor.

 

[Ernie S.]

No one said any such thing. Look at the vote totals for the Bush years and the Obama years, much higher for Obama yet his percent of pop. vote was less. LESS THEN BUSH!! Less the Lincoln in the middle of the civil war.

The problem with your analysis is that you are counting percentage without counting voter participation.

Yes, George H.W. Stupid. (I'm going to stop referring to that family as Bush and just call them the Stupids) got a slightly higher percetage of those who voted, but a lot more of the population voted in 2008 and 2012.

So unfortunately, what we are going to get is Presidential elections where most of us vote and we vote for Progress, and midterms where only the most racist, backwards and stupid people vote and we get regression.

In effect, the country is going to become ungovernable, if it hasn't already.

Joe....... Geesus! You are a one man campaign for bringing back the negative rep system...

You are really a pathetic human being, aren't you.
I'm sorry that you are so alone, but if you conduct your private life like you conduct yourself here, you have only yourself to blame.

 

[Stephanie]

No one said any such thing. Look at the vote totals for the Bush years and the Obama years, much higher for Obama yet his percent of pop. vote was less. LESS THEN BUSH!! Less the Lincoln in the middle of the civil war.

The problem with your analysis is that you are counting percentage without counting voter participation.

Yes, George H.W. Stupid. (I'm going to stop referring to that family as Bush and just call them the Stupids) got a slightly higher percetage of those who voted, but a lot more of the population voted in 2008 and 2012.

So unfortunately, what we are going to get is Presidential elections where most of us vote and we vote for Progress, and midterms where only the most racist, backwards and stupid people vote and we get regression.

In effect, the country is going to become ungovernable, if it hasn't already.

Joe....... Geesus! You are a one man campaign for bringing back the negative rep system...

You are really a pathetic human being, aren't you.
I'm sorry that you are so alone, but if you conduct your private life like you conduct yourself here, you have only yourself to blame.

His life is so miserable that he is the biggest DOWNER on this board. I pay little attention to him

 

[Ernie S.]

A little better prespective, since we know that population increases over time let us look at the percentage of vote:

Um, no, guy, percentage doesn't matter to the point I was trying to make.

You guys are going to act like Obama should stop being President because he lost the senate.

But Ike, Reagan, Clinton and Bush all lost the Senate and they kept on being President.

So it only becomes wrong when the Black Guy does it.

All 4 worked with the opposition. Will barack obama? Or will he decide to rule by fiat like a modern day Idi Amin?

 

[Ernie S.]

No one said any such thing. Look at the vote totals for the Bush years and the Obama years, much higher for Obama yet his percent of pop. vote was less. LESS THEN BUSH!! Less the Lincoln in the middle of the civil war.

The problem with your analysis is that you are counting percentage without counting voter participation.

Yes, George H.W. Stupid. (I'm going to stop referring to that family as Bush and just call them the Stupids) got a slightly higher percetage of those who voted, but a lot more of the population voted in 2008 and 2012.

So unfortunately, what we are going to get is Presidential elections where most of us vote and we vote for Progress, and midterms where only the most racist, backwards and stupid people vote and we get regression.

In effect, the country is going to become ungovernable, if it hasn't already.

Joe....... Geesus! You are a one man campaign for bringing back the negative rep system...

You are really a pathetic human being, aren't you.
I'm sorry that you are so alone, but if you conduct your private life like you conduct yourself here, you have only yourself to blame.

His life is so miserable that he is the biggest DOWNER on this board. I pay little attention to him

I'm getting to that point, Stef. It's no longer fun to slap his silly ass.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Watching all the insane crowing about an off year election, you have to consider the following.

President Obama got 69 Million votes in 2008 and 66 million in 2012. These are STILL the two highest vote totals ever achieved by ANYONE in the history of the United states.

So how many votes were expended to send knuckle-draggers to the Senate in nine states?

NC	Tillis	1,413,269
CO	Garner	965,496
LA	Cassidy	602,439
IA	Ernst	586,921
AR	Cotton	476,309
WV	Capito	280,123
MT	Daines	210,863
SD	Rounds	140,721
AK	Sullivan	110,203

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Grand total of all the seats that flipped?

4,786,344

Yup. less than 8% of what Obama got in 2012.

Since Romney had 60 million votes himself, what does your numbers prove? Also you didn't account for the additional House seats won. Why can't you pussyfied liberals admit your ass was kicked by the American people who were fed up by your thuggish ways of rule? If your so ******* loved and the people are on your side, why didn't you win this time? If Obama continues to be the asshole he is, you can expect another trouncing in 2016' with or without Obama's amnesty.

The People reject Democrats; you've shown your spots.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

1. Hmm, let's see. Votes from one state are going to equal votes from 50 states? You libs are pathetic in your efforts to minimize the carnage you just experienced.

Carnage? More like a Blitzkrieg.

Armageddon.

The Siege of AR-558.

The Siege of AR-558 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[AvgGuyIA]

And that changes the results of the midterms or there impact on Obama's final two years as President how?

It doesn't. Liberals are looking for any explanation as to why they were so swiftly humiliated in the elections. We call that being in a state of denial.

Doesn't matter what you call it. We are well aware of the outcome of the election, and know it doesn't amount to as much as you want it to. You're just disappointed because we didn't melt down and cry behind the couch like you did when Obama won two times.

And oh how we cried. The world weeps because of his elections.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Again this was a typical midterm...

Not when the usual turnover is just 2 Senators at most. We have 7 so far. Count on 2 more shortly. I only wished Gillespie had called for a recount to make it 10.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Sure you are. Libertarian, Independent, what ever you say. Say what ever you need to keep your self respect. I believe you, but how do you explain your ballot always exactly matching every other crazy teabagger?

Hush your yap before we sic Iceweasel on you.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

do you kids have any idea how ******* stupid this 4th grade post appears to us who have an adult brain ? i know it is impossible to embarrass a libernut, but you should be, for posting this type of

So how about addressing the point.

How does less than five million votes for slackjawed morons in backwater states nullify 66 million votes nationally?

thanks.

Are you still trying to float this nonsensical analysis? LOL. We have better things to do like stopping Obama in his tracks. Everyone in the country knew what the stakes were this election. Your side sat out because they know Obama's policies are losers.

 

[Papageorgio]

IF you can, please explain this "rich people" obsession you have and feel that only Republicans are the "RICH" ??

i know you are some kind of high-functioning retard, so I'll try to make this simple for you.

It's not who is rich. It's who is putting the interests of the rich ahead of working people.

Unions smashing, right to work, cutting welfare to give tax breaks, free trade... that's the GOP schtick.

Frankly, I don't care if George Soros is rich, if he isn't ******* with me.

So, you honestly believe that Soros, Buffett, Kerry and on and on aren't about protecting what they have at your expense?

 

[BULLDOG]

And you calling me a drooling retard is so mature. I've called you little more than teabagger.....A name proudly chosen by your own party.

And so appropriate....

Teabagger is an appropriate name.

Hardly, when meant as a pejorative the way you use it.

Look TEA Party people tied teabags to their hats and naively called themselves tea baggers. If you were sympathetic to their views and used the term in the intended connotation, then fine. Using it as a pejorative is akin to the disconnect with blacks calling each other nigga and the shit storm I'd stir up if I used the word in anger here.

Feel free to call me teabagger. It doesn't hurt me a bit. What should I call you?

I'm surprised you would bother to ask. Teabaggers have so many vile things to say, I would think you might already have your favorite. I'm still in awe of a mentality that thinks your litany of vile epithets are just normal conversation, but get the vapors when someone calls you a teabagger. A name chosen by your own party.

So you can't answer my direct question. Cool.

Please point out the vile epithets I use in normal conversation. Democrat? Liberal? Progressive?
While I think all three are vile, I'm sure you believe they all are complimentary.

I explained how TEA Party people began to call themselves "teabaggers" and I'm certain even a vile Progressive like you knows that there was no pejorative, sexual connotation intended. It was vile Democrats that saw a connection to an urban slang phrase and began to use it the way you do.

Again, what should I call you?

Call me what ever you like. I still find it curious that the right wing has, and continues to degrade anyone who doesn't agree with them through insults. That's the right wing's main strategy. Dehumanize and belittle so it's easier to deny what is our obligation to all our citizens. The fact that you say Democrats, Liberals, and Progressive are vile tells me all I need to know about you. With that attitude, I'm not sure why you would be so scared of one particular term. Could it be because teabagger hits too close to home?