Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Anybody want to open an office pool, selecting dates by which poor little antiparty will finally notice that he has described his own post perfectly here?I see you lost your debate on the other thread and ran
I also notice you have no substance here either, simply using attacks on others and no substantial information.
The 6th year election during a Presidency will pretty much always go in favor of the non-Presidential party. This is a well worn and understood fact of politics. So we know that the GOP were bound to come out favorably compared to the Democrats. That it happened doesn't really say anything favorable about the GOP's relationship with the American people, nor anything damning about the Dem's in that sense.
We also know that midterm elections typically have higher turnout for the GOP base voters. This year was no different. Again, that it happened says nothing in favor of the GOP, nor damning for the Dems. Though understanding this should underscore the above even more.
What is perhaps more interesting is that even with a higher GOP voter turnout, and GOP gains in the House, Senate, and Governorships, all the results prime results seem to be nothing more than political science fodder. They're either textbook examples of the same old cycles, or they're discombobulated expressions of disconnected uncertainty.
Let's look at Illinois as an example. The Governorship flipped red, with Rauner carrying nearly every district across the state. But the Senate race went to the Democrat. Eight out of 18 Congressional districts were won by the GOP. More interestingly, ten districts elected Democrats for Congress, yet most still supported the GOP gubernatorial candidate. Illinois other statewide elections are equally hodge-podge. Illinois' AG and Secy. of State went Dem, while the Comptroller's race when GOP, and the Treasurer's race is leaning GOP (though it's still too close to call). All in all, there's alot of multi-directional voting going on, and at the end of the day neither party can claim any substantive victory. While the GOP gains in the state's congressional caucus might seem like substantial signals against the backdrop of Illinois' heavily gerrymandered districting, it becomes instantly impossible to maintain such a view in light of ballot measures that supported a raise in minimum wage and constitutional amendments to mandate birth control coverage in all health care plans, and increasing taxes on millionaires.
Another example is the state of Maryland, where the Governorship also flipped red, yet the rest of the state's results demonstrate similar patterns. Republican Larry Hogan won the Governorship in a state that almost never elects Republican governors. Ever. Hogan carried almost every district in the state, including Democratic stronghold Baltimore County. Yet once again, several of these same districts picked Democratic Representatives to Congress, while other state offices were split.
The message is clear: The only special message to be had is that voters are less engaged than ever, and their voting behavior has more to do with predictable patterns than it does enthusiasm for the Republican brand. As Republicans, we need to be careful to avoid seeing this as a mandate, and instead see it as an opportunity to build upon first steps. There is a great deal of work to be done.
The 6th year election during a Presidency will pretty much always go in favor of the non-Presidential party. This is a well worn and understood fact of politics. So we know that the GOP were bound to come out favorably compared to the Democrats. That it happened doesn't really say anything favorable about the GOP's relationship with the American people, nor anything damning about the Dem's in that sense.
We also know that midterm elections typically have higher turnout for the GOP base voters. This year was no different. Again, that it happened says nothing in favor of the GOP, nor damning for the Dems. Though understanding this should underscore the above even more.
What is perhaps more interesting is that even with a higher GOP voter turnout, and GOP gains in the House, Senate, and Governorships, all the results prime results seem to be nothing more than political science fodder. They're either textbook examples of the same old cycles, or they're discombobulated expressions of disconnected uncertainty.
Let's look at Illinois as an example. The Governorship flipped red, with Rauner carrying nearly every district across the state. But the Senate race went to the Democrat. Eight out of 18 Congressional districts were won by the GOP. More interestingly, ten districts elected Democrats for Congress, yet most still supported the GOP gubernatorial candidate. Illinois other statewide elections are equally hodge-podge. Illinois' AG and Secy. of State went Dem, while the Comptroller's race when GOP, and the Treasurer's race is leaning GOP (though it's still too close to call). All in all, there's alot of multi-directional voting going on, and at the end of the day neither party can claim any substantive victory. While the GOP gains in the state's congressional caucus might seem like substantial signals against the backdrop of Illinois' heavily gerrymandered districting, it becomes instantly impossible to maintain such a view in light of ballot measures that supported a raise in minimum wage and constitutional amendments to mandate birth control coverage in all health care plans, and increasing taxes on millionaires.
Another example is the state of Maryland, where the Governorship also flipped red, yet the rest of the state's results demonstrate similar patterns. Republican Larry Hogan won the Governorship in a state that almost never elects Republican governors. Ever. Hogan carried almost every district in the state, including Democratic stronghold Baltimore County. Yet once again, several of these same districts picked Democratic Representatives to Congress, while other state offices were split.
The message is clear: The only special message to be had is that voters are less engaged than ever, and their voting behavior has more to do with predictable patterns than it does enthusiasm for the Republican brand. As Republicans, we need to be careful to avoid seeing this as a mandate, and instead see it as an opportunity to build upon first steps. There is a great deal of work to be done.
Stick to swimming, GERTRUDEThe 6th year election during a Presidency will pretty much always go in favor of the non-Presidential party. This is a well worn and understood fact of politics. So we know that the GOP were bound to come out favorably compared to the Democrats. That it happened doesn't really say anything favorable about the GOP's relationship with the American people, nor anything damning about the Dem's in that sense.
We also know that midterm elections typically have higher turnout for the GOP base voters. This year was no different. Again, that it happened says nothing in favor of the GOP, nor damning for the Dems. Though understanding this should underscore the above even more.
What is perhaps more interesting is that even with a higher GOP voter turnout, and GOP gains in the House, Senate, and Governorships, all the results prime results seem to be nothing more than political science fodder. They're either textbook examples of the same old cycles, or they're discombobulated expressions of disconnected uncertainty.
Let's look at Illinois as an example. The Governorship flipped red, with Rauner carrying nearly every district across the state. But the Senate race went to the Democrat. Eight out of 18 Congressional districts were won by the GOP. More interestingly, ten districts elected Democrats for Congress, yet most still supported the GOP gubernatorial candidate. Illinois other statewide elections are equally hodge-podge. Illinois' AG and Secy. of State went Dem, while the Comptroller's race when GOP, and the Treasurer's race is leaning GOP (though it's still too close to call). All in all, there's alot of multi-directional voting going on, and at the end of the day neither party can claim any substantive victory. While the GOP gains in the state's congressional caucus might seem like substantial signals against the backdrop of Illinois' heavily gerrymandered districting, it becomes instantly impossible to maintain such a view in light of ballot measures that supported a raise in minimum wage and constitutional amendments to mandate birth control coverage in all health care plans, and increasing taxes on millionaires.
Another example is the state of Maryland, where the Governorship also flipped red, yet the rest of the state's results demonstrate similar patterns. Republican Larry Hogan won the Governorship in a state that almost never elects Republican governors. Ever. Hogan carried almost every district in the state, including Democratic stronghold Baltimore County. Yet once again, several of these same districts picked Democratic Representatives to Congress, while other state offices were split.
The message is clear: The only special message to be had is that voters are less engaged than ever, and their voting behavior has more to do with predictable patterns than it does enthusiasm for the Republican brand. As Republicans, we need to be careful to avoid seeing this as a mandate, and instead see it as an opportunity to build upon first steps. There is a great deal of work to be done.
You'd be singing a different tune had the Dems kept the Senate and retook the House.
Shut the fuck up
Means so little, that after days of libs telling us it means nothing, you are compelled to regurgitate the week's garbage in a six paragraph screed.
Ass hurt much?
You'd be singing a different tune had the Dems kept the Senate and retook the House.
To the OP. You should really read this HuffPo piece. Maybe it will open your eyes to the historic firsts that happened. Including a Democratic candidate Alma Adams becoming the 100th woman in the 113th Congress after her victory in the special election to replace Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) on Tuesday.
OP, look behind you.....
That was good for a laugh,So how do you square the total drumming the Dems got at state and local elections,don't even think about the federal elections,explain the others loses?
That was good for a laugh,So how do you square the total drumming the Dems got at state and local elections,don't even think about the federal elections,explain the others loses?
That's the thing, they didn't get a "total drumming." I just gave you some examples to that end. Maybe the results in some deep red states like Texas could be described that way. But that doesn't really mean much, because those are deep red states. Again, entirely predictable and not really demonstrative of any sweeping embrace of our party by the American people.
The Dems had expected to take more States in governors and legislature.
They lost all the way around.
The Dems had expected to take more States in governors and legislature.
Did they, really? I think, at best, the talk was just that....talk. Nobody expected them to make such gains. It's simply counter to every bit of conventional wisdom.
They lost all the way around.
That's the thing, they didn't. State electing Republican governors were also electing Democratic US Senators and endorsing liberal ballot initiatives. A win is a win. But I think this was a bit of an ugly win, and we need to be diligent so we can begin to really solidify things in 2016.
That was good for a laugh,So how do you square the total drumming the Dems got at state and local elections,don't even think about the federal elections,explain the others loses?
That's the thing, they didn't get a "total drumming." I just gave you some examples to that end. Maybe the results in some deep red states like Texas could be described that way. But that doesn't really mean much, because those are deep red states. Again, entirely predictable and not really demonstrative of any sweeping embrace of our party by the American people.
