Jolly Wins! ObamaCare Loses!

[Statistikhengst]

In a bad way compared to their expectations leading up to this point. In a bad way for Obama’s last few years where none of his agenda will go anywhere because he will no longer have a cooperative legislative branch. The fact is that the democrats have been telling everyone how the Republican Party is dying. How the republicans cannot win an election. How they are destined to lose the house.

Now that reality is setting in, they are going to have to accept the fact that this hyperbole has no substance whatsoever.

This gets tiring, but apparently, RWNJs like it to be tiring.

Electoral history was on the side of Jolly (R) from the get-go:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...pared-to-presidential-terms-1855-present.html

Exact chart:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...WmxQNjAtOFFvM3p4S3NvTWRGNGc&usp=sharing#gid=0

(that was hours and hours of work, btw)

And my estimate and prediction, here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...re-was-an-election-last-night-in-fl-13-a.html

No polling that I know of to date. But the electoral history of this District indicates:

Advantage GOP.

It might be helpful to remember that one race does not make a trend. This year should be a GOP year, anyway. That is in-line with electoral history.

RWNJ? Really? The best you have for my post is asinine insults. Perhaps you can point out where I have stated something that is worthy of the nut job title? No? I thought not – why not try and address the points instead.

It’s only getting tiring because you are arguing against something that I have not stated and addressing points that I have not raised. You completely ignored the post that you quoted – if you were going to do that then why bother quoting it.

You are taking the history of this race out of context with its current political landscape. The reality here is that this is exactly the type of race that the democrats need to take in order to change the landscape over the next two years. They need to overcome the traditional midterm loss to take the house and make the last two years of Obama’s presidency effective. They have been predicting the end of the Republican Party for years now – it’s time to put their money where their mouth is. This is not likely to happen but it certainly is not impossible and a win here would have shown that they have a better fighting chance.


If the dems cannot take seats like this while even outspending the republican opponent then it is unlikely that they can take the house back. Without the house, the next two years are going to be very unproductive for Obama. Even worse, should they lose the senate, the republicans will have enough control over the dialogue to give them a fighting chance in 2016. If the dems manage to take the house and hold the senate then that sets them up very nicely for 2016 (unless the screw it up which is likely given past total control time periods). Granted, this race has implications for house seats but no real indication on senate ones who’s races are entirely different animals from the house.

I can cut to the chase for you there, buddy, since you obviously did not read one ******* bit of the information I posted.

The DEMS are not going to win the House back. They will be lucky to end up with a Null-Sum game at the end. I bet that they lose maybe 11-12 more seats, under the current conditions.

The GOP is VERY likely to pick up the Senate. Even if the GOP loses KY (which is a real possibility) and GA (could also happen), there are at least 8 really reachable targets for the GOP and it looks right now that 5 of them are already in the bag. How the DEMS spend in the Fall will tell us what they think their own chances are, but it looks grim for the DEMS. And we know it.

Don't forget, I am a Democrat, I voted for Obama and would do it again, in a heartbeat, mostly because the GOP put up two crappy candidates in a row.

But electoral history is electoral history and it is clearly against the Democratic Party in this mid-term cycle, just like it was in 2010. It is absolutely irrelevant what is going on - or not going on - with Obamacare. The Crimea is absolutely irrelevant in this mid-term election. It doesn't matter if unemployment goes down 1 point or up 1 point. Regardless of political climate, the opposition party has made gains, mostly substantial gains, in one or probably both Houses of the Congress in virtually all mid-terms, esp. in a 2nd term mid-term. How much clearer do I have to ******* spell that out for you? It was all there at the links I provided, stuff I researched LONG before you guys were howling like banshees. Reading and comprehension are your friends.

In 1954 and 1958, Eisenhower's GOP took massive hits in the Congress, despite the fact that most people were very tired of 24 years of DEM rule in the Executive (hence, Eisenhower's massive landslide in 1952) and Eisenhower himself was a very, very popular president. The was also not the kind of economic mini-depression like we have gone through. If it was always only about issues, based on Eisenhower's popularity, the GOP should have romped in congress, but it didn't. Eisenhower took more of a hit in 1958 in 1954, in his second term.

In the 20th century up until now, the opposition party has made gains in every single mid-term save 1934, 1938, 1962, 1978, 1998 and 2008. That's just six cycles.

That leaves us with 1902, 1906, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1922, 1926, 1930, [B 1942, 1946, 1950[/B], 1954, 1958, 1966, 1970 (slightly), 1974 (massively), 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994 (massively), 2006 and 2010. That's 22 out of 28 mid-term cycles where the opposition party made measurable gains in congress.

22 / 28 = 78.57%. I give it a good 90% chance that the GOP has a wave in November, right in line with electoral history since 1854, or 160 years.

And after November, that statistic will be 23 / 29, or 79.31%

The bolded years = 2nd term mid-terms or years that felt like it (see: Truman, 1946)

It has all to do with voter habits and mentality. The economy could be purring along and all could be well in the world and the DEM would STILL be very likely to lose in the fall. I don't have to measure the intensity of even one issue to see that coming. The only real surprise in the last years was that the GOP didn't take the Senate in 2010.

I am predicting FOR YOUR TEAM, and you all are still pissed. Damn, get some common sense, people!

At some point in time, you need to start reading for content instead of just coming out with raw anger.

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] - they always this mad over nothing? Really? Are they always this childish, even when someone is speaking ON THEIR BEHALF? Wow. ******* amazing.

 

[Jroc]

This gets tiring, but apparently, RWNJs like it to be tiring.

Electoral history was on the side of Jolly (R) from the get-go:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...pared-to-presidential-terms-1855-present.html

Exact chart:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...WmxQNjAtOFFvM3p4S3NvTWRGNGc&usp=sharing#gid=0

(that was hours and hours of work, btw)

And my estimate and prediction, here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...re-was-an-election-last-night-in-fl-13-a.html





It might be helpful to remember that one race does not make a trend. This year should be a GOP year, anyway. That is in-line with electoral history.

RWNJ? Really? The best you have for my post is asinine insults. Perhaps you can point out where I have stated something that is worthy of the nut job title? No? I thought not – why not try and address the points instead.

It’s only getting tiring because you are arguing against something that I have not stated and addressing points that I have not raised. You completely ignored the post that you quoted – if you were going to do that then why bother quoting it.

You are taking the history of this race out of context with its current political landscape. The reality here is that this is exactly the type of race that the democrats need to take in order to change the landscape over the next two years. They need to overcome the traditional midterm loss to take the house and make the last two years of Obama’s presidency effective. They have been predicting the end of the Republican Party for years now – it’s time to put their money where their mouth is. This is not likely to happen but it certainly is not impossible and a win here would have shown that they have a better fighting chance.


If the dems cannot take seats like this while even outspending the republican opponent then it is unlikely that they can take the house back. Without the house, the next two years are going to be very unproductive for Obama. Even worse, should they lose the senate, the republicans will have enough control over the dialogue to give them a fighting chance in 2016. If the dems manage to take the house and hold the senate then that sets them up very nicely for 2016 (unless the screw it up which is likely given past total control time periods). Granted, this race has implications for house seats but no real indication on senate ones who’s races are entirely different animals from the house.

I can cut to the chase for you there, buddy, since you obviously did not read one ******* bit of the information I posted.

The DEMS are not going to win the House back. They will be lucky to end up with a Null-Sum game at the end. I bet that they lose maybe 11-12 more seats, under the current conditions.

The GOP is VERY likely to pick up the Senate. Even if the GOP loses KY (which is a real possibility) and GA (could also happen), there are at least 8 really reachable targets for the GOP and it looks right now that 5 of them are already in the bag. How the DEMS spend in the Fall will tell us what they think their own chances are, but it looks grim for the DEMS. And we know it.

Don't forget, I am a Democrat, I voted for Obama and would do it again, in a heartbeat, mostly because the GOP put up two crappy candidates in a row.

But electoral history is electoral history and it is clearly against the Democratic Party in this mid-term cycle, just like it was in 2010. It is absolutely irrelevant what is going on - or not going on - with Obamacare. The Crimea is absolutely irrelevant in this mid-term election. It doesn't matter if unemployment goes down 1 point or up 1 point. Regardless of political climate, the opposition party has made gains, mostly substantial gains, in one or probably both Houses of the Congress in virtually all mid-terms, esp. in a 2nd term mid-term. How much clearer do I have to ******* spell that out for you? It was all there at the links I provided, stuff I researched LONG before you guys were howling like banshees. Reading and comprehension are your friends.

In 1954 and 1958, Eisenhower's GOP took massive hits in the Congress, despite the fact that most people were very tired of 24 years of DEM rule in the Executive (hence, Eisenhower's massive landslide in 1952) and Eisenhower himself was a very, very popular president. The was also not the kind of economic mini-depression like we have gone through. If it was always only about issues, based on Eisenhower's popularity, the GOP should have romped in congress, but it didn't. Eisenhower took more of a hit in 1958 in 1954, in his second term.

In the 20th century up until now, the opposition party has made gains in every single mid-term save 1934, 1938, 1962, 1978, 1998 and 2008. That's just six cycles.

That leaves us with 1902, 1906, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1922, 1926, 1930, [B 1942, 1946, 1950[/B], 1954, 1958, 1966, 1970 (slightly), 1974 (massively), 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994 (massively), 2006 and 2010. That's 22 out of 28 mid-term cycles where the opposition party made measurable gains in congress.

22 / 28 = 78.57%. I give it a good 90% chance that the GOP has a wave in November, right in line with electoral history since 1854, or 160 years.

And after November, that statistic will be 23 / 29, or 79.31%

The bolded years = 2nd term mid-terms or years that felt like it (see: Truman, 1946)

It has all to do with voter habits and mentality. The economy could be purring along and all could be well in the world and the DEM would STILL be very likely to lose in the fall. I don't have to measure the intensity of even one issue to see that coming. The only real surprise in the last years was that the GOP didn't take the Senate in 2010.

I am predicting FOR YOUR TEAM, and you all are still pissed. Damn, get some common sense, people!

At some point in time, you need to start reading for content instead of just coming out with raw anger.

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] - they always this mad over nothing? Really? Are they always this childish, even when someone is speaking ON THEIR BEHALF? Wow. ******* amazing.

One day you might like to start a thread explaining how Obama was better than any other candidate. Really? and you'd vote for him again? Maybe you could start a movement to repeal the 22 amendment so we could have Obama in perpetuity.


Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDouNtnR_IA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDouNtnR_IA[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

If we don't get the democrats out of office, this country is doomed. It scares me to think all we have to put up against Putin is a community organizer. Welcome to the Cold War part deux.

What should the administration be doing that it's not doing, re Russia?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Willie, there is no hope for this nation until the designations "blue" and "red" are reversed, and put back where they belong.

Since you don't work, who pays for your health insurance?

I've told you....I hold a high position at Stark Industries.

Corner office, in fact.



But as we're getting into personal information, ........which is your favorite over-night facility: refrigerator boxes, splintered pallets, Dumpsters, garbage cans, or subway grates?

You spelled 'snark' wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RWNJ? Really? The best you have for my post is asinine insults. Perhaps you can point out where I have stated something that is worthy of the nut job title? No? I thought not – why not try and address the points instead.

It’s only getting tiring because you are arguing against something that I have not stated and addressing points that I have not raised. You completely ignored the post that you quoted – if you were going to do that then why bother quoting it.

You are taking the history of this race out of context with its current political landscape. The reality here is that this is exactly the type of race that the democrats need to take in order to change the landscape over the next two years. They need to overcome the traditional midterm loss to take the house and make the last two years of Obama’s presidency effective. They have been predicting the end of the Republican Party for years now – it’s time to put their money where their mouth is. This is not likely to happen but it certainly is not impossible and a win here would have shown that they have a better fighting chance.


If the dems cannot take seats like this while even outspending the republican opponent then it is unlikely that they can take the house back. Without the house, the next two years are going to be very unproductive for Obama. Even worse, should they lose the senate, the republicans will have enough control over the dialogue to give them a fighting chance in 2016. If the dems manage to take the house and hold the senate then that sets them up very nicely for 2016 (unless the screw it up which is likely given past total control time periods). Granted, this race has implications for house seats but no real indication on senate ones who’s races are entirely different animals from the house.

I can cut to the chase for you there, buddy, since you obviously did not read one ******* bit of the information I posted.

The DEMS are not going to win the House back. They will be lucky to end up with a Null-Sum game at the end. I bet that they lose maybe 11-12 more seats, under the current conditions.

The GOP is VERY likely to pick up the Senate. Even if the GOP loses KY (which is a real possibility) and GA (could also happen), there are at least 8 really reachable targets for the GOP and it looks right now that 5 of them are already in the bag. How the DEMS spend in the Fall will tell us what they think their own chances are, but it looks grim for the DEMS. And we know it.

Don't forget, I am a Democrat, I voted for Obama and would do it again, in a heartbeat, mostly because the GOP put up two crappy candidates in a row.

But electoral history is electoral history and it is clearly against the Democratic Party in this mid-term cycle, just like it was in 2010. It is absolutely irrelevant what is going on - or not going on - with Obamacare. The Crimea is absolutely irrelevant in this mid-term election. It doesn't matter if unemployment goes down 1 point or up 1 point. Regardless of political climate, the opposition party has made gains, mostly substantial gains, in one or probably both Houses of the Congress in virtually all mid-terms, esp. in a 2nd term mid-term. How much clearer do I have to ******* spell that out for you? It was all there at the links I provided, stuff I researched LONG before you guys were howling like banshees. Reading and comprehension are your friends.

In 1954 and 1958, Eisenhower's GOP took massive hits in the Congress, despite the fact that most people were very tired of 24 years of DEM rule in the Executive (hence, Eisenhower's massive landslide in 1952) and Eisenhower himself was a very, very popular president. The was also not the kind of economic mini-depression like we have gone through. If it was always only about issues, based on Eisenhower's popularity, the GOP should have romped in congress, but it didn't. Eisenhower took more of a hit in 1958 in 1954, in his second term.

In the 20th century up until now, the opposition party has made gains in every single mid-term save 1934, 1938, 1962, 1978, 1998 and 2008. That's just six cycles.

That leaves us with 1902, 1906, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1922, 1926, 1930, [B 1942, 1946, 1950[/B], 1954, 1958, 1966, 1970 (slightly), 1974 (massively), 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994 (massively), 2006 and 2010. That's 22 out of 28 mid-term cycles where the opposition party made measurable gains in congress.

22 / 28 = 78.57%. I give it a good 90% chance that the GOP has a wave in November, right in line with electoral history since 1854, or 160 years.

And after November, that statistic will be 23 / 29, or 79.31%

The bolded years = 2nd term mid-terms or years that felt like it (see: Truman, 1946)

It has all to do with voter habits and mentality. The economy could be purring along and all could be well in the world and the DEM would STILL be very likely to lose in the fall. I don't have to measure the intensity of even one issue to see that coming. The only real surprise in the last years was that the GOP didn't take the Senate in 2010.

I am predicting FOR YOUR TEAM, and you all are still pissed. Damn, get some common sense, people!

At some point in time, you need to start reading for content instead of just coming out with raw anger.

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] - they always this mad over nothing? Really? Are they always this childish, even when someone is speaking ON THEIR BEHALF? Wow. ******* amazing.

One day you might like to start a thread explaining how Obama was better than any other candidate. Really? and you'd vote for him again? Maybe you could start a movement to repeal the 22 amendment so we could have Obama in perpetuity.

Stats calculations of a solid GOP victory taking the Senate and holding the House are great for Republicans.

And Stats has every right to support his candidate and feel he is the best as do you for yours. You would have voted for a third Reagan term if possible.

Is simply that any Dem supporting Board member simply ticks you off?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since you don't work, who pays for your health insurance?

I've told you....I hold a high position at Stark Industries.

Corner office, in fact.



But as we're getting into personal information, ........which is your favorite over-night facility: refrigerator boxes, splintered pallets, Dumpsters, garbage cans, or subway grates?

You spelled 'snark' wrong.

It seems that, no matter where you go, you take the psycho path.

 

[hangover]

Jolly Wins! ObamaCare Loses!

6 million signed up now. You cons just keep living in denial. Using Florida as a barometer is like taking a poll from an insane asylum. Well they do let those nut jobs vote, don't they.

I agree, the Democrats need to run on the success of Obamacare. Don't you?

About as much as running the con success of overturning it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well if the GOP happens to get to 51 seats in the Senate we'll at least get to be entertained by a few zillion conservative flip flops on the merits of the filibuster.

 

[Jroc]

I can cut to the chase for you there, buddy, since you obviously did not read one ******* bit of the information I posted.

The DEMS are not going to win the House back. They will be lucky to end up with a Null-Sum game at the end. I bet that they lose maybe 11-12 more seats, under the current conditions.

The GOP is VERY likely to pick up the Senate. Even if the GOP loses KY (which is a real possibility) and GA (could also happen), there are at least 8 really reachable targets for the GOP and it looks right now that 5 of them are already in the bag. How the DEMS spend in the Fall will tell us what they think their own chances are, but it looks grim for the DEMS. And we know it.

Don't forget, I am a Democrat, I voted for Obama and would do it again, in a heartbeat, mostly because the GOP put up two crappy candidates in a row.

But electoral history is electoral history and it is clearly against the Democratic Party in this mid-term cycle, just like it was in 2010. It is absolutely irrelevant what is going on - or not going on - with Obamacare. The Crimea is absolutely irrelevant in this mid-term election. It doesn't matter if unemployment goes down 1 point or up 1 point. Regardless of political climate, the opposition party has made gains, mostly substantial gains, in one or probably both Houses of the Congress in virtually all mid-terms, esp. in a 2nd term mid-term. How much clearer do I have to ******* spell that out for you? It was all there at the links I provided, stuff I researched LONG before you guys were howling like banshees. Reading and comprehension are your friends.

In 1954 and 1958, Eisenhower's GOP took massive hits in the Congress, despite the fact that most people were very tired of 24 years of DEM rule in the Executive (hence, Eisenhower's massive landslide in 1952) and Eisenhower himself was a very, very popular president. The was also not the kind of economic mini-depression like we have gone through. If it was always only about issues, based on Eisenhower's popularity, the GOP should have romped in congress, but it didn't. Eisenhower took more of a hit in 1958 in 1954, in his second term.

In the 20th century up until now, the opposition party has made gains in every single mid-term save 1934, 1938, 1962, 1978, 1998 and 2008. That's just six cycles.

That leaves us with 1902, 1906, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1922, 1926, 1930, [B 1942, 1946, 1950[/B], 1954, 1958, 1966, 1970 (slightly), 1974 (massively), 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994 (massively), 2006 and 2010. That's 22 out of 28 mid-term cycles where the opposition party made measurable gains in congress.

22 / 28 = 78.57%. I give it a good 90% chance that the GOP has a wave in November, right in line with electoral history since 1854, or 160 years.

And after November, that statistic will be 23 / 29, or 79.31%

The bolded years = 2nd term mid-terms or years that felt like it (see: Truman, 1946)

It has all to do with voter habits and mentality. The economy could be purring along and all could be well in the world and the DEM would STILL be very likely to lose in the fall. I don't have to measure the intensity of even one issue to see that coming. The only real surprise in the last years was that the GOP didn't take the Senate in 2010.

I am predicting FOR YOUR TEAM, and you all are still pissed. Damn, get some common sense, people!

At some point in time, you need to start reading for content instead of just coming out with raw anger.

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] - they always this mad over nothing? Really? Are they always this childish, even when someone is speaking ON THEIR BEHALF? Wow. ******* amazing.

One day you might like to start a thread explaining how Obama was better than any other candidate. Really? and you'd vote for him again? Maybe you could start a movement to repeal the 22 amendment so we could have Obama in perpetuity.

Stats calculations of a solid GOP victory taking the Senate and holding the House are great for Republicans.

And Stats has every right to support his candidate and feel he is the best as do you for yours. You would have voted for a third Reagan term if possible.

Is simply that any Dem supporting Board member simply ticks you off?

Nope.... blind ideology and failure to recognize the damage done to our Constitution and to our country by Barack Hussein Obama ticks me off. Especially when seemingly intelligent people can even see it.... Now go beg for more rep fake.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6 million signed up now. You cons just keep living in denial. Using Florida as a barometer is like taking a poll from an insane asylum. Well they do let those nut jobs vote, don't they.

I agree, the Democrats need to run on the success of Obamacare. Don't you?

About as much as running the con success of overturning it.

Over 300 posts in the thread and none of it sunk into the congealed gears of your mind…

Write this down: the Democrat ran on support of ObamaCare....

....the Republican ran on ending it.



Who won?

 

[Synthaholic]

What we learned from Florida-13 - CNN.com



http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...12/.../lessons-from-florida-special-election/

CNN





4 days ago - The results of Tuesday's special congressional election in Florida tells us a few ... Democrats and Republicans totally disagree about the significance of the GOP's ..... Sinks' campaign outspent Jolly's 4 to 1 like I said earlier. 1.


here ya go Syn-tard

You are a complete retard:

I already gave the proof of the campaign spending earlier in this thread – go back and look if you really care for the truth.

The facts are that Sink’s campaign DID outspend Jolly's by close to a 4-1 margin. That number is rather misleading though. When advertising spending from all sources is taken into account, Sink only outspent Jolly by 800K. Not that such is a small number – it is still a very significant chunk of cash in a congressional election but it is not 4-1.

In the end, the democrat lost while outspending the republican. Take that for what it is worth.


edit: hell - ill make it easy - page 15 post 222

The only thing that matters is dollars spent. It doesn't matter if it came from a super-PAC or Jolly's piggy bank.

 

[Synthaholic]

If we don't get the democrats out of office, this country is doomed. It scares me to think all we have to put up against Putin is a community organizer. Welcome to the Cold War part deux.

So, you would rather have trigger-finger McCain in there, who sees everything as a nail that needs to get hit by our military hammer?

What would that kind of reckless rhetoric get us? Do you think Putin would be intimidated by Grandpa McCain's bluster? He would say "I dare you", and McCain would get us all killed.

Obama is handling this the best way possible. Imposing sanctions will hurt the billionaire/oligarchs who actually have influence over Putin.

 

[Synthaholic]

If we don't get the democrats out of office, this country is doomed. It scares me to think all we have to put up against Putin is a community organizer. Welcome to the Cold War part deux.

It's hard to watch. Hard to believe Obama is so weak

-Geaux

What would you have him do?

 

[Synthaholic]

5 million signups and growing!

Obamacare Enrollment Reaches 5 Million

 

[Geaux4it]

5 million signups and growing!

Obamacare Enrollment Reaches 5 Million

Does that count all the dead folk in the graveyard? Maybe that's why they we can't find out how many actually paid the premium.

For real- The ones needed, the healthy, are not signing up.

-Geaux

Obama pleads with youth: Sign up for Obamacare

As the March 31 Affordable Care Act sign-up deadline looms, President Barack Obama is making personal appeals to this nation-state's youth to bail him out – one more time.

The enrollment deadline is just two weeks hence, yet the critically important participation of young people remains below government projections.

Indeed, according to The Hill, the youth sign-up rate is significantly lower than the administration had planned for, much lower than where it needs to be in order that the program is considered successful.

The problem is that with fewer young and healthy people onboard, the higher premiums will be for older and sicker people – the people who most are in need of “affordable” health insurance.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16714261-obama-pleads-with-youth-sign-up-for-obamacare

 

[Synthaholic]

^^^ butthurt

 

[Geaux4it]

^^^ butthurt

We’re young, but we aren’t stupid

The White House is desperate to sign up Nevada’s Millennials for Obamacare. With the March 31 enrollment deadline closing fast, the latest figures show that only 22 percent of the state’s Obamacare sign-ups are between ages 18 and 34. That’s a far cry from the 40 percent that the White House wants.

Blame the Obamacare marketing team. Since the exchanges launched in October, the team’s attempts to persuade us to sign up have been inappropriate, incoherent and simply insulting.

We?re young, but we aren?t stupid | Las Vegas Review-Journal

 

[Gadawg73]

GOP takes the Senate back
BOOK IT.
But it amazes me the DUMB ASSES here.
The ONLY way to repeal Obamacare is with a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
The stupid ***** here are so ignorant that they do not understand a PRESIDENTIAL VETO.
Both Chambers would need 2/3 vote to over ride a veto.
DUMB ASSES.
No wonder Republicans get their asses kicked. Their supporters here have NO ******* CLUE how the law works.
And even funnier is the state legislature elections where they run on "I will repeal Obamacare".
LOL
DUMB ASSES.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are a complete retard:

-image removed for brevity-

I already gave the proof of the campaign spending earlier in this thread – go back and look if you really care for the truth.

The facts are that Sink’s campaign DID outspend Jolly's by close to a 4-1 margin. That number is rather misleading though. When advertising spending from all sources is taken into account, Sink only outspent Jolly by 800K. Not that such is a small number – it is still a very significant chunk of cash in a congressional election but it is not 4-1.

In the end, the democrat lost while outspending the republican. Take that for what it is worth.


edit: hell - ill make it easy - page 15 post 222

The only thing that matters is dollars spent. It doesn't matter if it came from a super-PAC or Jolly's piggy bank.

That’s right, all that matters is dollars spent.

And Sink OUTSPENT Jolly. Period.

 

[FA_Q2]

5 million signups and growing!

Obamacare Enrollment Reaches 5 Million

And success was reaching 7 million. Oh wait, were not going to hit that?
Well then, success is reaching 6 million then. We’re not going to hit that either?

Fine, we will just state success is ‘millions.’


Funny how you can tout hitting 5 million when that number was well below targets when this was launched. I guess we can simply redefine success until it looks good.