Tuesday's Big Winner? Hillary Clinton!

[candycorn]

In 2016 the Republicans will have to defend up to 25 Senate seats to the Democrats' 10.

In 2016 the Democrats that stayed home yesterday will be out to vote.

In 1986, Reagan and the GOP suffered a midterm defeat just like this one for the Democrats. It did not lead to President Dukakis.

History isn't taught in red states.

Really?

I did a damned good job of it in two red states.

What a silly thing to post.

You should teach your fellow reds that a President losing congressional support in the 6th year of his presidency is pretty common then; many of them do not seem to know it.

Except in 2006. As I recall, EVERYONE made it clear that it was PROOF that America was not interested in Bush's agenda. EVERYONE.

I wasn't here in 2006; neither were you. However I doubt EVERYONE made the same wrong assessment that the GOP is making today.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no mess. The mess was in 2008/2009. The mess is being cleaned up.

Delusional till the end I see. The mess now is all obutthurts.

We have UE under 6% and 3.5% GDP growth and gas prices around $3.

If you think that's a mess and 2008/2009 wasn't, you're even more stupid than I thought you were,

and you weren't doing that well beforehand.

So if everything was going so great why did the Democrats get soundly defeated in almost every race?

Probably for the same reason Reagan and the GOP lost in 1986.

Why did that happen?

Reagan wasnt running in 1986.

Neither was Obama yesterday dumbass.

Why did the Republicans get so soundly defeated in 1986 if Reagan was such a totally awesome president?

 

[Jarhead]

In 2016 the Republicans will have to defend up to 25 Senate seats to the Democrats' 10.

In 2016 the Democrats that stayed home yesterday will be out to vote.

In 1986, Reagan and the GOP suffered a midterm defeat just like this one for the Democrats. It did not lead to President Dukakis.

History isn't taught in red states.

Really?

I did a damned good job of it in two red states.

What a silly thing to post.

You should teach your fellow reds that a President losing congressional support in the 6th year of his presidency is pretty common then; many of them do not seem to know it.

Except in 2006. As I recall, EVERYONE made it clear that it was PROOF that America was not interested in Bush's agenda. EVERYONE.

I wasn't here in 2006; neither were you. However I doubt EVERYONE made the same wrong assessment that the GOP is making today.

I am not talking about "on here". And you are wrong. For weeks following the election in 2006, it was all about Bush and the fact that America spoke.
You can claim otherwise. That's fine with me. But I was there. I know what took place.

 

[The Rabbi]

Delusional till the end I see. The mess now is all obutthurts.

We have UE under 6% and 3.5% GDP growth and gas prices around $3.

If you think that's a mess and 2008/2009 wasn't, you're even more stupid than I thought you were,

and you weren't doing that well beforehand.

So if everything was going so great why did the Democrats get soundly defeated in almost every race?

Probably for the same reason Reagan and the GOP lost in 1986.

Why did that happen?

Reagan wasnt running in 1986.

Neither was Obama yesterday dumbass.

Why did the Republicans get so soundly defeated in 1986 if Reagan was such a totally awesome president?

I dont know.
But if you have to go back 30 years to make excuses for the Democrats face-plant fail last night you're really digging deep.

 

[candycorn]

History isn't taught in red states.

Really?

I did a damned good job of it in two red states.

What a silly thing to post.

You should teach your fellow reds that a President losing congressional support in the 6th year of his presidency is pretty common then; many of them do not seem to know it.

Except in 2006. As I recall, EVERYONE made it clear that it was PROOF that America was not interested in Bush's agenda. EVERYONE.

I wasn't here in 2006; neither were you. However I doubt EVERYONE made the same wrong assessment that the GOP is making today.

I am not talking about "on here". And you are wrong. For weeks following the election in 2006, it was all about Bush and the fact that America spoke.
You can claim otherwise. That's fine with me. But I was there. I know what took place.

Where was "there"? And if there were some "here" making the level-headed observation that a 6 year POTUS almost always loses support, that destroys your EVERYONE argument.

America did speak...the message is to stop fighting and start fixing in both cases. Will the Party's listen? No.

 

[Jarhead]

Really?

I did a damned good job of it in two red states.

What a silly thing to post.

You should teach your fellow reds that a President losing congressional support in the 6th year of his presidency is pretty common then; many of them do not seem to know it.

Except in 2006. As I recall, EVERYONE made it clear that it was PROOF that America was not interested in Bush's agenda. EVERYONE.

I wasn't here in 2006; neither were you. However I doubt EVERYONE made the same wrong assessment that the GOP is making today.

I am not talking about "on here". And you are wrong. For weeks following the election in 2006, it was all about Bush and the fact that America spoke.
You can claim otherwise. That's fine with me. But I was there. I know what took place.

Where was "there"? And if there were some "here" making the level-headed observation that a 6 year POTUS almost always loses support, that destroys your EVERYONE argument.

America did speak...the message is to stop fighting and start fixing in both cases. Will the Party's listen? No.

so you are taking "everyone" literally.

Let me say it this way....

The big 3 reported on the "anti Bush" election 6 times more often than they did this election
( What election Big 3 networks ignore anti-Obama election WashingtonExaminer.com )

Now, if you don't think they followed up on their "accurate" reporting, then you just don't want to recognize the truth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have UE under 6% and 3.5% GDP growth and gas prices around $3.

If you think that's a mess and 2008/2009 wasn't, you're even more stupid than I thought you were,

and you weren't doing that well beforehand.

So if everything was going so great why did the Democrats get soundly defeated in almost every race?

Probably for the same reason Reagan and the GOP lost in 1986.

Why did that happen?

Reagan wasnt running in 1986.

Neither was Obama yesterday dumbass.

Why did the Republicans get so soundly defeated in 1986 if Reagan was such a totally awesome president?

I dont know.
But if you have to go back 30 years to make excuses for the Democrats face-plant fail last night you're really digging deep.

I didn't make any excuses. You're the one who can't understand how a President's party in the 6th year of his presidency can lose badly despite there being a good economy.

Wasn't the economy good in 1986?

Wasn't the economy good in 2006, when the GOP also got trounced?

 

[candycorn]

You should teach your fellow reds that a President losing congressional support in the 6th year of his presidency is pretty common then; many of them do not seem to know it.

Except in 2006. As I recall, EVERYONE made it clear that it was PROOF that America was not interested in Bush's agenda. EVERYONE.

I wasn't here in 2006; neither were you. However I doubt EVERYONE made the same wrong assessment that the GOP is making today.

I am not talking about "on here". And you are wrong. For weeks following the election in 2006, it was all about Bush and the fact that America spoke.
You can claim otherwise. That's fine with me. But I was there. I know what took place.

Where was "there"? And if there were some "here" making the level-headed observation that a 6 year POTUS almost always loses support, that destroys your EVERYONE argument.

America did speak...the message is to stop fighting and start fixing in both cases. Will the Party's listen? No.

so you are taking "everyone" literally.

Let me say it this way....

The big 3 reported on the "anti Bush" election 6 times more often than they did this election
( What election Big 3 networks ignore anti-Obama election WashingtonExaminer.com )

Now, if you don't think they followed up on their "accurate" reporting, then you just don't want to recognize the truth.

They

You should teach your fellow reds that a President losing congressional support in the 6th year of his presidency is pretty common then; many of them do not seem to know it.

Except in 2006. As I recall, EVERYONE made it clear that it was PROOF that America was not interested in Bush's agenda. EVERYONE.

I wasn't here in 2006; neither were you. However I doubt EVERYONE made the same wrong assessment that the GOP is making today.

I am not talking about "on here". And you are wrong. For weeks following the election in 2006, it was all about Bush and the fact that America spoke.
You can claim otherwise. That's fine with me. But I was there. I know what took place.

Where was "there"? And if there were some "here" making the level-headed observation that a 6 year POTUS almost always loses support, that destroys your EVERYONE argument.

America did speak...the message is to stop fighting and start fixing in both cases. Will the Party's listen? No.

so you are taking "everyone" literally.

Let me say it this way....

The big 3 reported on the "anti Bush" election 6 times more often than they did this election
( What election Big 3 networks ignore anti-Obama election WashingtonExaminer.com )

Now, if you don't think they followed up on their "accurate" reporting, then you just don't want to recognize the truth.

Funny...I turned on CNN this morning and there was Chris Christie on TV. I turned over to ABC and saw him on GMA.

Must be more of that "liberal media" ignoring the GOP.

 

[candycorn]

Ann Coulter from 2006:

In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" -- especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" -- as MSNBC calls it -- rather than the death throes of a dying party.

A historic victory for Diebold US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[AmericanFirst]

Delusional till the end I see. The mess now is all obutthurts.

We have UE under 6% and 3.5% GDP growth and gas prices around $3.

If you think that's a mess and 2008/2009 wasn't, you're even more stupid than I thought you were,

and you weren't doing that well beforehand.

So if everything was going so great why did the Democrats get soundly defeated in almost every race?

Probably for the same reason Reagan and the GOP lost in 1986.

Why did that happen?

Reagan wasnt running in 1986.

Neither was Obama yesterday dumbass.

Why did the Republicans get so soundly defeated in 1986 if Reagan was such a totally awesome president?

Hey dumbass, you idiot libtards got your ass handed to you, we don't care to hear what you say.

 

[Kosh]

For the far left, loosing is the new winning!

 

[AmericanFirst]

So if everything was going so great why did the Democrats get soundly defeated in almost every race?

Probably for the same reason Reagan and the GOP lost in 1986.

Why did that happen?

Reagan wasnt running in 1986.

Neither was Obama yesterday dumbass.

Why did the Republicans get so soundly defeated in 1986 if Reagan was such a totally awesome president?

I dont know.
But if you have to go back 30 years to make excuses for the Democrats face-plant fail last night you're really digging deep.

I didn't make any excuses. You're the one who can't understand how a President's party in the 6th year of his presidency can lose badly despite there being a good economy.

Wasn't the economy good in 1986?

Wasn't the economy good in 2006, when the GOP also got trounced?

You finally acknowledged the economy was good in 2006. Well, thanks for proving it was the idiot dimwits in congress that screwed things up not Bush.

 

[DriftingSand]

In 2016 the Republicans will have to defend up to 25 Senate seats to the Democrats' 10.

In 2016 the Democrats that stayed home yesterday will be out to vote.

In 1986, Reagan and the GOP suffered a midterm defeat just like this one for the Democrats. It did not lead to President Dukakis.

History isn't taught in red states.

Really?

I did a damned good job of it in two red states.

What a silly thing to post.

You should teach your fellow reds that a President losing congressional support in the 6th year of his presidency is pretty common then; many of them do not seem to know it.

Since the original and correct meaning of "red" is anyone associated and in favor of Marxist Socialism I'd say that you and your fellow Dummycrats are about as "red" as you can get.

Look ... here's the deal. You had your asses handed to you. Find a corner and skulk for a few days then learn to like it.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Really?

I did a damned good job of it in two red states.

What a silly thing to post.

You should teach your fellow reds that a President losing congressional support in the 6th year of his presidency is pretty common then; many of them do not seem to know it.

Except in 2006. As I recall, EVERYONE made it clear that it was PROOF that America was not interested in Bush's agenda. EVERYONE.

I wasn't here in 2006; neither were you. However I doubt EVERYONE made the same wrong assessment that the GOP is making today.

I am not talking about "on here". And you are wrong. For weeks following the election in 2006, it was all about Bush and the fact that America spoke.
You can claim otherwise. That's fine with me. But I was there. I know what took place.

Where was "there"? And if there were some "here" making the level-headed observation that a 6 year POTUS almost always loses support, that destroys your EVERYONE argument.

America did speak...the message is to stop fighting and start fixing in both cases. Will the Party's listen? No.

America spoke, it was saying enough of Obutthurt and the dimwits bullshit. Dimwits are crying the blues.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

2016 is a long way off everything depends on how obama handles not getting his way anymore.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Hillary Clinton spent an enormous amount of political capital campaigning for democrats and every one of them lost. Arkansas democrats lost the senate and governorship.

Democrats are hanging all their hopes on overcoming a white majority with welfare loving non whites. To do this they expect the level of third world immigration to dramatically rise. This is their entire plan. If it fails they got nothing.

"welfare loving non whites" - amazing.

how is that wrong, that's what people like you try and do......because a black that speaks English and is self sufficient is an uncle tom.