New question in Texas: Can Davis survive defeat?

[candycorn]

Cracks me up when an intellectually enlightened liberal takes a potshot at Texas. You know, that state with the best economy in the country. Yep, the conservatives have certainly turned the Lonestar state into a shithole alright.

Eagle Ford so far has dropped about 87 billion in economic impact on Texas. Any other state would be doing ok with that kind of bump. If you think Texas is doing good because of anything Perry, or any of the republican politicians have done, then why have such a large majority of schools had to sue the state over unconstitutional funding cuts?

Zero impact or growth would have resulted in the same electoral outcomes.

 

[BULLDOG]

Cracks me up when an intellectually enlightened liberal takes a potshot at Texas. You know, that state with the best economy in the country. Yep, the conservatives have certainly turned the Lonestar state into a shithole alright.

Eagle Ford so far has dropped about 87 billion in economic impact on Texas. Any other state would be doing ok with that kind of bump. If you think Texas is doing good because of anything Perry, or any of the republican politicians have done, then why have such a large majority of schools had to sue the state over unconstitutional funding cuts?

Zero impact or growth would have resulted in the same electoral outcomes.

Make up your mind. Your post that I responded to had to do with the Texas economy. Back up what you say instead of running to a different subject

 

[Antares]

Cracks me up when an intellectually enlightened liberal takes a potshot at Texas. You know, that state with the best economy in the country. Yep, the conservatives have certainly turned the Lonestar state into a shithole alright.

Eagle Ford so far has dropped about 87 billion in economic impact on Texas. Any other state would be doing ok with that kind of bump. If you think Texas is doing good because of anything Perry, or any of the republican politicians have done, then why have such a large majority of schools had to sue the state over unconstitutional funding cuts?

Zero impact or growth would have resulted in the same electoral outcomes.

Make up your mind. Your post that I responded to had to do with the Texas economy. Back up what you say instead of running to a different subject

That's what she does when you corner her.

 

[candycorn]

Cracks me up when an intellectually enlightened liberal takes a potshot at Texas. You know, that state with the best economy in the country. Yep, the conservatives have certainly turned the Lonestar state into a shithole alright.

Eagle Ford so far has dropped about 87 billion in economic impact on Texas. Any other state would be doing ok with that kind of bump. If you think Texas is doing good because of anything Perry, or any of the republican politicians have done, then why have such a large majority of schools had to sue the state over unconstitutional funding cuts?

Zero impact or growth would have resulted in the same electoral outcomes.

Make up your mind. Your post that I responded to had to do with the Texas economy. Back up what you say instead of running to a different subject

Well, that is what "king of cars" said. Truth be told that the "best economy" isn't the best economy at all when quality of life is measured....but that isn't what I said anyway.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

She'll probably turn to prostitution, like Sandra Fluke.

Yup, there be a prostitute...no doubt about it! But Wendy is better looking, and doesn't have a "Stach" on her lip.... A bag of quarters awaits her on the nearest street corner!

You guys totally need to keep doing that "War on Women" thing, it works so well for you.

Yup, it's amazing how unbridled and obvious they are.

 

[blackhawk]

You think they locked up their teabaggers? We still have free range Louie Gohmerts and Ted Cruzes running wild all over the place. If Wendy doesn't win, it won't be because the people of Texas don't support her. It will be because of gerrymandering and voter suppression. I challenge you to look at congressional maps around Austin and Houston, and find such one sided district lines in any state at any time. I mentioned those two towns only because they are well known, but the extreme gerrymandering is across the state.

Please...it's a state-wide election. Gerrymandering and suppression have nothing to do with it.

Texas is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

Thus...

Texas is a paradise for the uneducated, stupid, and dense. It's the 7th grader who drives to school after being flunked for 8 years and thinks it's funny that he knows so little.

In short, the best way to describe Texas is look at the 2012 election. Every poll had Obama ahead with a few outliers. When the polls were all pointing in one direction, the GOP came up with "unskewedpolls.com" to tell the real story. Shock of shocks; the original polls were right all along. So much so that the GOP candidate didn't have a concession speech written even though everyone and their dog knew he was going to lose.

Why Davis is losing is because she's simply not speaking their language. That of "everything is okay" in the state and that the yardstick that matters is which ever one has Texas finishing first. It's that simple.

There is to much stupid in that response to acknowledge it all. I will though say you have shown a great example of why Davis will lose she like you looks down her nose insults and talks down to people that do not agree with her she like many others on the left have this idea that simply because they have a D next to their name it makes them intellectually superior to everyone else.

I'm not a Democrat.

The facts are that Texas is owned by the GOP, the GOP was faced with staggeringly negative polling from day one of the 2012 election season. About 1/2 way through, it came up with it's own polling that was pulled out of thin air (unskewedpolls.com). The GOP candidate for President was even believing the made-up numbers by the time it was time to cast votes (the election ended in the 2nd debate), he hadn't come up with a concession speech eventhough it was clear he was losing.

Sorry, no argument is to be made on your part. It's a fact.

Your not a Democrat yeah whatever this thread was about Wendy Davis not the 2012 election all you and the rest of the left can do is make excuses for her instead of simply admitting she was a poor candidate who ran a bad campaign. That is the fact that can not be argued.

She is their version of Sharon Angle.

You think they locked up their teabaggers? We still have free range Louie Gohmerts and Ted Cruzes running wild all over the place. If Wendy doesn't win, it won't be because the people of Texas don't support her. It will be because of gerrymandering and voter suppression. I challenge you to look at congressional maps around Austin and Houston, and find such one sided district lines in any state at any time. I mentioned those two towns only because they are well known, but the extreme gerrymandering is across the state.

Please...it's a state-wide election. Gerrymandering and suppression have nothing to do with it.

Texas is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

Thus...

Texas is a paradise for the uneducated, stupid, and dense. It's the 7th grader who drives to school after being flunked for 8 years and thinks it's funny that he knows so little.

In short, the best way to describe Texas is look at the 2012 election. Every poll had Obama ahead with a few outliers. When the polls were all pointing in one direction, the GOP came up with "unskewedpolls.com" to tell the real story. Shock of shocks; the original polls were right all along. So much so that the GOP candidate didn't have a concession speech written even though everyone and their dog knew he was going to lose.

Why Davis is losing is because she's simply not speaking their language. That of "everything is okay" in the state and that the yardstick that matters is which ever one has Texas finishing first. It's that simple.

There is to much stupid in that response to acknowledge it all. I will though say you have shown a great example of why Davis will lose she like you looks down her nose insults and talks down to people that do not agree with her she like many others on the left have this idea that simply because they have a D next to their name it makes them intellectually superior to everyone else.

I'm not a Democrat.

The facts are that Texas is owned by the GOP, the GOP was faced with staggeringly negative polling from day one of the 2012 election season. About 1/2 way through, it came up with it's own polling that was pulled out of thin air (unskewedpolls.com). The GOP candidate for President was even believing the made-up numbers by the time it was time to cast votes (the election ended in the 2nd debate), he hadn't come up with a concession speech eventhough it was clear he was losing.

Sorry, no argument is to be made on your part. It's a fact.

Your not a Democrat yeah whatever this thread was about Wendy Davis not the 2012 election all you and the rest of the left can do is make excuses for her instead of simply admitting she was a poor candidate who ran a bad campaign. That is the fact that can not be argued.

IF that is your position, you should give examples (as I did). No democrat in today's environment would win state wide office. Bob Bullock would not get elected .

So feel free to give the examples which, we both know, you won't do.

You haven't given examples of anything you just keep avoiding the thread topic and making excuses for the fact the Democrats choose a poor candidate who has run a poor campaign. The reason Democrats can't get elected is because Texas has had good economic growth and job creation which has happened under Republican leadership if that was not the case Democrats could get elected. Unlike a lot of the nation we understand the concept of if it's not broke don't fix it nor do we embrace change just for the sake of change as the rest of the country has discovered just because you are promised change does not mean it will be change for the better. When a party's policies work for the people they tend to stay in power when they don't they find themselves in danger of losing the Senate.

 

[candycorn]

Please...it's a state-wide election. Gerrymandering and suppression have nothing to do with it.

Texas is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

Thus...

Texas is a paradise for the uneducated, stupid, and dense. It's the 7th grader who drives to school after being flunked for 8 years and thinks it's funny that he knows so little.

In short, the best way to describe Texas is look at the 2012 election. Every poll had Obama ahead with a few outliers. When the polls were all pointing in one direction, the GOP came up with "unskewedpolls.com" to tell the real story. Shock of shocks; the original polls were right all along. So much so that the GOP candidate didn't have a concession speech written even though everyone and their dog knew he was going to lose.

Why Davis is losing is because she's simply not speaking their language. That of "everything is okay" in the state and that the yardstick that matters is which ever one has Texas finishing first. It's that simple.

There is to much stupid in that response to acknowledge it all. I will though say you have shown a great example of why Davis will lose she like you looks down her nose insults and talks down to people that do not agree with her she like many others on the left have this idea that simply because they have a D next to their name it makes them intellectually superior to everyone else.

I'm not a Democrat.

The facts are that Texas is owned by the GOP, the GOP was faced with staggeringly negative polling from day one of the 2012 election season. About 1/2 way through, it came up with it's own polling that was pulled out of thin air (unskewedpolls.com). The GOP candidate for President was even believing the made-up numbers by the time it was time to cast votes (the election ended in the 2nd debate), he hadn't come up with a concession speech eventhough it was clear he was losing.

Sorry, no argument is to be made on your part. It's a fact.

Your not a Democrat yeah whatever this thread was about Wendy Davis not the 2012 election all you and the rest of the left can do is make excuses for her instead of simply admitting she was a poor candidate who ran a bad campaign. That is the fact that can not be argued.

She is their version of Sharon Angle.

Please...it's a state-wide election. Gerrymandering and suppression have nothing to do with it.

Texas is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

Thus...

Texas is a paradise for the uneducated, stupid, and dense. It's the 7th grader who drives to school after being flunked for 8 years and thinks it's funny that he knows so little.

In short, the best way to describe Texas is look at the 2012 election. Every poll had Obama ahead with a few outliers. When the polls were all pointing in one direction, the GOP came up with "unskewedpolls.com" to tell the real story. Shock of shocks; the original polls were right all along. So much so that the GOP candidate didn't have a concession speech written even though everyone and their dog knew he was going to lose.

Why Davis is losing is because she's simply not speaking their language. That of "everything is okay" in the state and that the yardstick that matters is which ever one has Texas finishing first. It's that simple.

There is to much stupid in that response to acknowledge it all. I will though say you have shown a great example of why Davis will lose she like you looks down her nose insults and talks down to people that do not agree with her she like many others on the left have this idea that simply because they have a D next to their name it makes them intellectually superior to everyone else.

I'm not a Democrat.

The facts are that Texas is owned by the GOP, the GOP was faced with staggeringly negative polling from day one of the 2012 election season. About 1/2 way through, it came up with it's own polling that was pulled out of thin air (unskewedpolls.com). The GOP candidate for President was even believing the made-up numbers by the time it was time to cast votes (the election ended in the 2nd debate), he hadn't come up with a concession speech eventhough it was clear he was losing.

Sorry, no argument is to be made on your part. It's a fact.

Your not a Democrat yeah whatever this thread was about Wendy Davis not the 2012 election all you and the rest of the left can do is make excuses for her instead of simply admitting she was a poor candidate who ran a bad campaign. That is the fact that can not be argued.

IF that is your position, you should give examples (as I did). No democrat in today's environment would win state wide office. Bob Bullock would not get elected .

So feel free to give the examples which, we both know, you won't do.

You haven't given examples of anything you just keep avoiding the thread topic and making excuses for the fact the Democrats choose a poor candi who has run a poor campaign. The reason Democrats can't get elected is because Texas has had good economic growth and job creation which has happened under Republican leadership if that was not the case Democrats could get elected. Unlike a lot of the nation we understand the concept of if it's not broke don't fix it nor do we embrace change just for the sake of change as the rest of the country has discovered just because you are promised change does not mean it will be change for the better. When a party's policies work for the people they tend to stay in power when they don't they find themselves in danger of losing the Senate.

If the DEMS didn't have 3-4 retirees, the GOP would not be getting the Senate next week. Rockefeller would not be losing West VA and Harkin would not be losing in Iowa.

So if/when the DEMS take the US Senate back in 2016, that will be because the GOP policies are failures?

 

[Antares]

There is to much stupid in that response to acknowledge it all. I will though say you have shown a great example of why Davis will lose she like you looks down her nose insults and talks down to people that do not agree with her she like many others on the left have this idea that simply because they have a D next to their name it makes them intellectually superior to everyone else.

I'm not a Democrat.

The facts are that Texas is owned by the GOP, the GOP was faced with staggeringly negative polling from day one of the 2012 election season. About 1/2 way through, it came up with it's own polling that was pulled out of thin air (unskewedpolls.com). The GOP candidate for President was even believing the made-up numbers by the time it was time to cast votes (the election ended in the 2nd debate), he hadn't come up with a concession speech eventhough it was clear he was losing.

Sorry, no argument is to be made on your part. It's a fact.

Your not a Democrat yeah whatever this thread was about Wendy Davis not the 2012 election all you and the rest of the left can do is make excuses for her instead of simply admitting she was a poor candidate who ran a bad campaign. That is the fact that can not be argued.

She is their version of Sharon Angle.

There is to much stupid in that response to acknowledge it all. I will though say you have shown a great example of why Davis will lose she like you looks down her nose insults and talks down to people that do not agree with her she like many others on the left have this idea that simply because they have a D next to their name it makes them intellectually superior to everyone else.

I'm not a Democrat.

The facts are that Texas is owned by the GOP, the GOP was faced with staggeringly negative polling from day one of the 2012 election season. About 1/2 way through, it came up with it's own polling that was pulled out of thin air (unskewedpolls.com). The GOP candidate for President was even believing the made-up numbers by the time it was time to cast votes (the election ended in the 2nd debate), he hadn't come up with a concession speech eventhough it was clear he was losing.

Sorry, no argument is to be made on your part. It's a fact.

Your not a Democrat yeah whatever this thread was about Wendy Davis not the 2012 election all you and the rest of the left can do is make excuses for her instead of simply admitting she was a poor candidate who ran a bad campaign. That is the fact that can not be argued.

IF that is your position, you should give examples (as I did). No democrat in today's environment would win state wide office. Bob Bullock would not get elected .

So feel free to give the examples which, we both know, you won't do.

You haven't given examples of anything you just keep avoiding the thread topic and making excuses for the fact the Democrats choose a poor candi who has run a poor campaign. The reason Democrats can't get elected is because Texas has had good economic growth and job creation which has happened under Republican leadership if that was not the case Democrats could get elected. Unlike a lot of the nation we understand the concept of if it's not broke don't fix it nor do we embrace change just for the sake of change as the rest of the country has discovered just because you are promised change does not mean it will be change for the better. When a party's policies work for the people they tend to stay in power when they don't they find themselves in danger of losing the Senate.

If the DEMS didn't have 3-4 retirees, the GOP would not be getting the Senate next week. Rockefeller would not be losing West VA and Harkin would not be losing in Iowa.

So if/when the DEMS take the US Senate back in 2016, that will be because the GOP policies are failures?

Dems are losing because of Obama,
It really is just that simple.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[candycorn]

Anyway,

Wendy Davis will run again in 2 years against Ted Cruz. She'll likely lose that race as well given the demographics in Texas. It largely depends on what Cruz does in the ensuing 2 years and how bad he gets trounced in the '16 primaries.

 

[williepete]

"You haven't given examples of anything you just keep avoiding the thread topic and making excuses for the fact the Democrats choose a poor candidate who has run a poor campaign. The reason Democrats can't get elected is because Texas has had good economic growth and job creation which has happened under Republican leadership if that was not the case Democrats could get elected."

I would like to point out that like in most states, Democrats and Republicans work together far better than they do in D.C. Not perfectly but like neighbors. Most state governments are far more bipartisan than D.C.

State, county and city politicians go home to the same communities. They can't insult the 'flyover states' and people they'll never meet. Local government works best. The D.C. brand, not so much.

Long past time we shrank D.C. that doesn't work and rely on local government that works better.

 

[Truman123]

She is a media-invented tool. Why anyone thought Abortion Barbie was a reasonable choice for governor is beyond me.

Right. She's no Sarah Palin.

 

[The Rabbi]

She is a media-invented tool. Why anyone thought Abortion Barbie was a reasonable choice for governor is beyond me.

Right. She's no Sarah Palin.

True.
Palin was actually elected governor.

 

[blackhawk]

There is to much stupid in that response to acknowledge it all. I will though say you have shown a great example of why Davis will lose she like you looks down her nose insults and talks down to people that do not agree with her she like many others on the left have this idea that simply because they have a D next to their name it makes them intellectually superior to everyone else.

I'm not a Democrat.

The facts are that Texas is owned by the GOP, the GOP was faced with staggeringly negative polling from day one of the 2012 election season. About 1/2 way through, it came up with it's own polling that was pulled out of thin air (unskewedpolls.com). The GOP candidate for President was even believing the made-up numbers by the time it was time to cast votes (the election ended in the 2nd debate), he hadn't come up with a concession speech eventhough it was clear he was losing.

Sorry, no argument is to be made on your part. It's a fact.

Your not a Democrat yeah whatever this thread was about Wendy Davis not the 2012 election all you and the rest of the left can do is make excuses for her instead of simply admitting she was a poor candidate who ran a bad campaign. That is the fact that can not be argued.

She is their version of Sharon Angle.

There is to much stupid in that response to acknowledge it all. I will though say you have shown a great example of why Davis will lose she like you looks down her nose insults and talks down to people that do not agree with her she like many others on the left have this idea that simply because they have a D next to their name it makes them intellectually superior to everyone else.

I'm not a Democrat.

The facts are that Texas is owned by the GOP, the GOP was faced with staggeringly negative polling from day one of the 2012 election season. About 1/2 way through, it came up with it's own polling that was pulled out of thin air (unskewedpolls.com). The GOP candidate for President was even believing the made-up numbers by the time it was time to cast votes (the election ended in the 2nd debate), he hadn't come up with a concession speech eventhough it was clear he was losing.

Sorry, no argument is to be made on your part. It's a fact.

Your not a Democrat yeah whatever this thread was about Wendy Davis not the 2012 election all you and the rest of the left can do is make excuses for her instead of simply admitting she was a poor candidate who ran a bad campaign. That is the fact that can not be argued.

IF that is your position, you should give examples (as I did). No democrat in today's environment would win state wide office. Bob Bullock would not get elected .

So feel free to give the examples which, we both know, you won't do.

You haven't given examples of anything you just keep avoiding the thread topic and making excuses for the fact the Democrats choose a poor candi who has run a poor campaign. The reason Democrats can't get elected is because Texas has had good economic growth and job creation which has happened under Republican leadership if that was not the case Democrats could get elected. Unlike a lot of the nation we understand the concept of if it's not broke don't fix it nor do we embrace change just for the sake of change as the rest of the country has discovered just because you are promised change does not mean it will be change for the better. When a party's policies work for the people they tend to stay in power when they don't they find themselves in danger of losing the Senate.

If the DEMS didn't have 3-4 retirees, the GOP would not be getting the Senate next week. Rockefeller would not be losing West VA and Harkin would not be losing in Iowa.

So if/when the DEMS take the US Senate back in 2016, that will be because the GOP policies are failures?

Still making the excuses I see as far as GOP policies and the Senate go in 2016 that will depend on how much of their legislation makes it to the Presidents desk and what he does with it. If he signs it into law and it does not work that will be GOP policy failures however the other possibility and more likely one is he will veto them in that case it would be rather silly to call something that was never put into effect a success or failure.

 

[S.J.]

I'm not a Democrat.

The facts are that Texas is owned by the GOP, the GOP was faced with staggeringly negative polling from day one of the 2012 election season. About 1/2 way through, it came up with it's own polling that was pulled out of thin air (unskewedpolls.com). The GOP candidate for President was even believing the made-up numbers by the time it was time to cast votes (the election ended in the 2nd debate), he hadn't come up with a concession speech eventhough it was clear he was losing.

Sorry, no argument is to be made on your part. It's a fact.

Your not a Democrat yeah whatever this thread was about Wendy Davis not the 2012 election all you and the rest of the left can do is make excuses for her instead of simply admitting she was a poor candidate who ran a bad campaign. That is the fact that can not be argued.

She is their version of Sharon Angle.

I'm not a Democrat.

The facts are that Texas is owned by the GOP, the GOP was faced with staggeringly negative polling from day one of the 2012 election season. About 1/2 way through, it came up with it's own polling that was pulled out of thin air (unskewedpolls.com). The GOP candidate for President was even believing the made-up numbers by the time it was time to cast votes (the election ended in the 2nd debate), he hadn't come up with a concession speech eventhough it was clear he was losing.

Sorry, no argument is to be made on your part. It's a fact.

Your not a Democrat yeah whatever this thread was about Wendy Davis not the 2012 election all you and the rest of the left can do is make excuses for her instead of simply admitting she was a poor candidate who ran a bad campaign. That is the fact that can not be argued.

IF that is your position, you should give examples (as I did). No democrat in today's environment would win state wide office. Bob Bullock would not get elected .

So feel free to give the examples which, we both know, you won't do.

You haven't given examples of anything you just keep avoiding the thread topic and making excuses for the fact the Democrats choose a poor candi who has run a poor campaign. The reason Democrats can't get elected is because Texas has had good economic growth and job creation which has happened under Republican leadership if that was not the case Democrats could get elected. Unlike a lot of the nation we understand the concept of if it's not broke don't fix it nor do we embrace change just for the sake of change as the rest of the country has discovered just because you are promised change does not mean it will be change for the better. When a party's policies work for the people they tend to stay in power when they don't they find themselves in danger of losing the Senate.

If the DEMS didn't have 3-4 retirees, the GOP would not be getting the Senate next week. Rockefeller would not be losing West VA and Harkin would not be losing in Iowa.

So if/when the DEMS take the US Senate back in 2016, that will be because the GOP policies are failures?

Still making the excuses I see as far as GOP policies and the Senate go in 2016 that will depend on how much of their legislation makes it to the Presidents desk and what he does with it. If he signs it into law and it does not work that will be GOP policy failures however the other possibility and more likely one is he will veto them in that case it would be rather silly to call something that was never put into effect a success or failure.

He'll veto everything that comes across his desk, then legislate what he wants from the Oval Office (or golf course) He's pushing for a Constitutional crisis and hoping his dictatorial violations will be accepted and set a precedent for future lawlessness by Democrats.

 

[candycorn]

Your not a Democrat yeah whatever this thread was about Wendy Davis not the 2012 election all you and the rest of the left can do is make excuses for her instead of simply admitting she was a poor candidate who ran a bad campaign. That is the fact that can not be argued.

She is their version of Sharon Angle.

Your not a Democrat yeah whatever this thread was about Wendy Davis not the 2012 election all you and the rest of the left can do is make excuses for her instead of simply admitting she was a poor candidate who ran a bad campaign. That is the fact that can not be argued.

IF that is your position, you should give examples (as I did). No democrat in today's environment would win state wide office. Bob Bullock would not get elected .

So feel free to give the examples which, we both know, you won't do.

You haven't given examples of anything you just keep avoiding the thread topic and making excuses for the fact the Democrats choose a poor candi who has run a poor campaign. The reason Democrats can't get elected is because Texas has had good economic growth and job creation which has happened under Republican leadership if that was not the case Democrats could get elected. Unlike a lot of the nation we understand the concept of if it's not broke don't fix it nor do we embrace change just for the sake of change as the rest of the country has discovered just because you are promised change does not mean it will be change for the better. When a party's policies work for the people they tend to stay in power when they don't they find themselves in danger of losing the Senate.

If the DEMS didn't have 3-4 retirees, the GOP would not be getting the Senate next week. Rockefeller would not be losing West VA and Harkin would not be losing in Iowa.

So if/when the DEMS take the US Senate back in 2016, that will be because the GOP policies are failures?

Still making the excuses I see as far as GOP policies and the Senate go in 2016 that will depend on how much of their legislation makes it to the Presidents desk and what he does with it. If he signs it into law and it does not work that will be GOP policy failures however the other possibility and more likely one is he will veto them in that case it would be rather silly to call something that was never put into effect a success or failure.

He'll veto everything that comes across his desk, then legislate what he wants from the Oval Office (or golf course) He's pushing for a Constitutional crisis and hoping his dictatorial violations will be accepted and set a precedent for future lawlessness by Democrats.

Another reason to chuckle...

One of the reasons for the decline in Obama's poll numbers is that he's not been able to pick a fight with the GOP opponents. This is because the GOP realized the election was shaping up okay for them and they went into "let's don't remind them of how crazy we are" mode. So that is why we've seen such a boring election season by and large.

Once he starts vetoing GOP bills to defund the government, up go his popularity rankings. I sort of hope the GOP actually does re-take the Senate if, for no other reason than that.

 

[S.J.]

She is their version of Sharon Angle.

IF that is your position, you should give examples (as I did). No democrat in today's environment would win state wide office. Bob Bullock would not get elected .

So feel free to give the examples which, we both know, you won't do.

You haven't given examples of anything you just keep avoiding the thread topic and making excuses for the fact the Democrats choose a poor candi who has run a poor campaign. The reason Democrats can't get elected is because Texas has had good economic growth and job creation which has happened under Republican leadership if that was not the case Democrats could get elected. Unlike a lot of the nation we understand the concept of if it's not broke don't fix it nor do we embrace change just for the sake of change as the rest of the country has discovered just because you are promised change does not mean it will be change for the better. When a party's policies work for the people they tend to stay in power when they don't they find themselves in danger of losing the Senate.

If the DEMS didn't have 3-4 retirees, the GOP would not be getting the Senate next week. Rockefeller would not be losing West VA and Harkin would not be losing in Iowa.

So if/when the DEMS take the US Senate back in 2016, that will be because the GOP policies are failures?

Still making the excuses I see as far as GOP policies and the Senate go in 2016 that will depend on how much of their legislation makes it to the Presidents desk and what he does with it. If he signs it into law and it does not work that will be GOP policy failures however the other possibility and more likely one is he will veto them in that case it would be rather silly to call something that was never put into effect a success or failure.

He'll veto everything that comes across his desk, then legislate what he wants from the Oval Office (or golf course) He's pushing for a Constitutional crisis and hoping his dictatorial violations will be accepted and set a precedent for future lawlessness by Democrats.

Another reason to chuckle...

One of the reasons for the decline in Obama's poll numbers is that he's not been able to pick a fight with the GOP opponents. This is because the GOP realized the election was shaping up okay for them and they went into "let's don't remind them of how crazy we are" mode. So that is why we've seen such a boring election season by and large.

Once he starts vetoing GOP bills to defund the government, up go his popularity rankings. I sort of hope the GOP actually does re-take the Senate if, for no other reason than that.

He'll veto anything that doesn't give him unbridled power. When the Republicans pass legislation that can create jobs, and he vetoes it, it will not boost his popularity, except with you freeloaders who aren't interested in working for a living.

 

[candycorn]

You haven't given examples of anything you just keep avoiding the thread topic and making excuses for the fact the Democrats choose a poor candi who has run a poor campaign. The reason Democrats can't get elected is because Texas has had good economic growth and job creation which has happened under Republican leadership if that was not the case Democrats could get elected. Unlike a lot of the nation we understand the concept of if it's not broke don't fix it nor do we embrace change just for the sake of change as the rest of the country has discovered just because you are promised change does not mean it will be change for the better. When a party's policies work for the people they tend to stay in power when they don't they find themselves in danger of losing the Senate.

If the DEMS didn't have 3-4 retirees, the GOP would not be getting the Senate next week. Rockefeller would not be losing West VA and Harkin would not be losing in Iowa.

So if/when the DEMS take the US Senate back in 2016, that will be because the GOP policies are failures?

Still making the excuses I see as far as GOP policies and the Senate go in 2016 that will depend on how much of their legislation makes it to the Presidents desk and what he does with it. If he signs it into law and it does not work that will be GOP policy failures however the other possibility and more likely one is he will veto them in that case it would be rather silly to call something that was never put into effect a success or failure.

He'll veto everything that comes across his desk, then legislate what he wants from the Oval Office (or golf course) He's pushing for a Constitutional crisis and hoping his dictatorial violations will be accepted and set a precedent for future lawlessness by Democrats.

Another reason to chuckle...

One of the reasons for the decline in Obama's poll numbers is that he's not been able to pick a fight with the GOP opponents. This is because the GOP realized the election was shaping up okay for them and they went into "let's don't remind them of how crazy we are" mode. So that is why we've seen such a boring election season by and large.

Once he starts vetoing GOP bills to defund the government, up go his popularity rankings. I sort of hope the GOP actually does re-take the Senate if, for no other reason than that.

He'll veto anything that doesn't give him unbridled power. When the Republicans pass legislation that can create jobs, and he vetoes it, it will not boost his popularity, except with you freeloaders who aren't interested in working for a living.

We'll see around June or July if the GOP can close the deal on Tuesday and try to pass their brand of misery. Start working on you explanations for his increase in popularity...I'll be bookmarking this one for use at that time.

 

[The Rabbi]

She is their version of Sharon Angle.

IF that is your position, you should give examples (as I did). No democrat in today's environment would win state wide office. Bob Bullock would not get elected .

So feel free to give the examples which, we both know, you won't do.

You haven't given examples of anything you just keep avoiding the thread topic and making excuses for the fact the Democrats choose a poor candi who has run a poor campaign. The reason Democrats can't get elected is because Texas has had good economic growth and job creation which has happened under Republican leadership if that was not the case Democrats could get elected. Unlike a lot of the nation we understand the concept of if it's not broke don't fix it nor do we embrace change just for the sake of change as the rest of the country has discovered just because you are promised change does not mean it will be change for the better. When a party's policies work for the people they tend to stay in power when they don't they find themselves in danger of losing the Senate.

If the DEMS didn't have 3-4 retirees, the GOP would not be getting the Senate next week. Rockefeller would not be losing West VA and Harkin would not be losing in Iowa.

So if/when the DEMS take the US Senate back in 2016, that will be because the GOP policies are failures?

Still making the excuses I see as far as GOP policies and the Senate go in 2016 that will depend on how much of their legislation makes it to the Presidents desk and what he does with it. If he signs it into law and it does not work that will be GOP policy failures however the other possibility and more likely one is he will veto them in that case it would be rather silly to call something that was never put into effect a success or failure.

He'll veto everything that comes across his desk, then legislate what he wants from the Oval Office (or golf course) He's pushing for a Constitutional crisis and hoping his dictatorial violations will be accepted and set a precedent for future lawlessness by Democrats.

Another reason to chuckle...

One of the reasons for the decline in Obama's poll numbers is that he's not been able to pick a fight with the GOP opponents. This is because the GOP realized the election was shaping up okay for them and they went into "let's don't remind them of how crazy we are" mode. So that is why we've seen such a boring election season by and large.

Once he starts vetoing GOP bills to defund the government, up go his popularity rankings. I sort of hope the GOP actually does re-take the Senate if, for no other reason than that.

Ah yes, the old chestnut: Obama isnt more popular because he hasnt been radical enough.
Yeah, that's not true either. He is President Fail, a total clusterfuck of policy.

 

[BULLDOG]

You haven't given examples of anything you just keep avoiding the thread topic and making excuses for the fact the Democrats choose a poor candi who has run a poor campaign. The reason Democrats can't get elected is because Texas has had good economic growth and job creation which has happened under Republican leadership if that was not the case Democrats could get elected. Unlike a lot of the nation we understand the concept of if it's not broke don't fix it nor do we embrace change just for the sake of change as the rest of the country has discovered just because you are promised change does not mean it will be change for the better. When a party's policies work for the people they tend to stay in power when they don't they find themselves in danger of losing the Senate.

If the DEMS didn't have 3-4 retirees, the GOP would not be getting the Senate next week. Rockefeller would not be losing West VA and Harkin would not be losing in Iowa.

So if/when the DEMS take the US Senate back in 2016, that will be because the GOP policies are failures?

Still making the excuses I see as far as GOP policies and the Senate go in 2016 that will depend on how much of their legislation makes it to the Presidents desk and what he does with it. If he signs it into law and it does not work that will be GOP policy failures however the other possibility and more likely one is he will veto them in that case it would be rather silly to call something that was never put into effect a success or failure.

He'll veto everything that comes across his desk, then legislate what he wants from the Oval Office (or golf course) He's pushing for a Constitutional crisis and hoping his dictatorial violations will be accepted and set a precedent for future lawlessness by Democrats.

Another reason to chuckle...

One of the reasons for the decline in Obama's poll numbers is that he's not been able to pick a fight with the GOP opponents. This is because the GOP realized the election was shaping up okay for them and they went into "let's don't remind them of how crazy we are" mode. So that is why we've seen such a boring election season by and large.

Once he starts vetoing GOP bills to defund the government, up go his popularity rankings. I sort of hope the GOP actually does re-take the Senate if, for no other reason than that.

Ah yes, the old chestnut: Obama isnt more popular because he hasnt been radical enough.
Yeah, that's not true either. He is President Fail, a total clusterfuck of policy.

Vetoing a bill to defund the government would only be radical in the mind of a teabagger.