Midterm Election Gameday Thread

[Doc]

31 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

If you live in Florida, took the time to vote in the mid-terms, and were too unbelievably f'in stupid to find the Senate race on your ballot, then the only response to that is maybe you're too f'in unbelievably stupid to even make yourself a bowl of cereal for breakfast be allowed to vote.

 

But nice excuse. Keep running with it. It's much better than "I lost because all the white women did what their white husbands and fathers told them to do." 

FIFY.

[Doc Brown]

If you told Democrats in January 2017 in a 52-48 minority that you'd only lose one seat in 2018 when you had 26 Senators (to Republicans 9) up for reelection including 10 that are in states Trump won....I think they'd take it knowing they won the House.  Thanks goes out to Roy Moore and Jeff Flake.

[Deranged Rhino]

14 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

If you told Democrats in January 2017 in a 52-48 minority that you'd only lose one seat in 2018 when you had 26 Senators (to Republicans 9) up for reelection including 10 that are in states Trump won....I think they'd take it knowing they won the House.  Thanks goes out to Roy Moore and Jeff Flake.

 

They would.

 

The math most are forgetting when they try to turn the election into a mandate is the GOP lost 44 seats before the election even started - a record number. Most of those folk who left (not all, most) were some of the most entrenched swamp rats in the party. 

 

If you told (non partisan libertarians or independents) they'd be able to gut the worst neoconservative/compromised GOPers from the House and Senate, while retaining a 53-47 majority in the Senate as a bulwark against the progressive horde, I think they'd take it too. 

 

[Joe Miner]

12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

They would.

 

The math most are forgetting when they try to turn the election into a mandate is the GOP lost 44 seats before the election even started - a record number. Most of those folk who left (not all, most) were some of the most entrenched swamp rats in the party. 

 

If you told (non partisan libertarians or independents) they'd be able to gut the worst neoconservative/compromised GOPers from the House and Senate, while retaining a 53-47 majority in the Senate as a bulwark against the progressive horde, I think they'd take it too. 

 

 

What if you told them both in January 2017 that Trump would still be president?

[Azalin]

14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

If you told (non partisan libertarians or independents) they'd be able to gut the worst neoconservative/compromised GOPers from the House and Senate, while retaining a 53-47 majority in the Senate as a bulwark against the progressive horde, I think they'd take it too. 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

18 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

You miserable anti-dentite!

[Buffalo_Gal]

Keep ***** that chicken...
 

 

[IDBillzFan]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Keep ***** that chicken...
 

 

 

Did a white man not steal an election from an Asian woman in CA? Or was that different?

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

If you live in Florida, took the time to vote in the mid-terms, and were too unbelievably f'in stupid to find the Senate race on your ballot, then the only response to that is maybe you're too f'in unbelievably stupid to even make yourself a bowl of cereal for breakfast.

 

But nice excuse. Keep running with it. It's much better than "I lost because all the white women did what their white husbands and fathers told them to do." 

My thoughts exactly as I think you should be able to show a minimum cognitive ability to be able to vote.  Not having idiot proof ballots is one way to accomplish that.

 

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

They would.

 

The math most are forgetting when they try to turn the election into a mandate is the GOP lost 44 seats before the election even started - a record number. Most of those folk who left (not all, most) were some of the most entrenched swamp rats in the party. 

 

If you told (non partisan libertarians or independents) they'd be able to gut the worst neoconservative/compromised GOPers from the House and Senate, while retaining a 53-47 majority in the Senate as a bulwark against the progressive horde, I think they'd take it too. 

 

True, but enough Republican incumbents alone were defeated (24 at the moment) to lose the House by themselves regardless of retirees so calling the election a fluke and not doing an autopsy would be a mistake.

[Buffalo_Gal]

4 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Did a white man not steal an election from an Asian woman in CA? Or was that different?

And a white woman stole it from a black man in Michigan.

According to the Dems, it only works one-way though. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Doc Brown said:

True, but enough Republican incumbents alone were defeated (24 at the moment) to lose the House by themselves regardless of retirees so calling the election a fluke and not doing an autopsy would be a mistake.

 

I'm always for analysis, no matter the situation. It would be folly for either party not to do some soul searching after every loss or win. But 44-24 = +20. The GOP holds control of the House, quite easily, without those retirements (every race is different if they don't have to defend new comers as hard/had more time to find better candidates in some of the openings).

 

What I'm suggesting is what I've suggested for awhile now: the GOP was broken and fractured in 2016 thanks to Trump's victory. The uniparty members were exposed throughout that cycle and the first year of the administration, then shown the door (pundits and congressmen alike). They cleaned the party out before the midterms (to a large extent) and have been in that rebuilding phase since November of '16.

 

The DNC has yet to do so officially, instead the centrists are very publicly fighting the progressive fringe of the party, and the centrists are losing in droves. But because "orange man bad", the centrists in the democratic party are forced to stay quiet less they be ousted for being too soft on Trump. That combination may work for the next 6 years. But what happens in 2024 (assuming a Trump victory in 2020) when, the entire centrist DNC core is gone and replaced by socialist progressives?  

[Doc Brown]

7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I'm always for analysis, no matter the situation. It would be folly for either party not to do some soul searching after every loss or win. But 44-24 = +20. The GOP holds control of the House, quite easily, without those retirements (every race is different if they don't have to defend new comers as hard/had more time to find better candidates in some of the openings).

 

What I'm suggesting is what I've suggested for awhile now: the GOP was broken and fractured in 2016 thanks to Trump's victory. The uniparty members were exposed throughout that cycle and the first year of the administration, then shown the door (pundits and congressmen alike). They cleaned the party out before the midterms (to a large extent) and have been in that rebuilding phase since November of '16.

 

The DNC has yet to do so officially, instead the centrists are very publicly fighting the progressive fringe of the party, and the centrists are losing in droves. But because "orange man bad", the centrists in the democratic party are forced to stay quiet less they be ousted for being too soft on Trump. That combination may work for the next 6 years. But what happens in 2024 (assuming a Trump victory in 2020) when, the entire centrist DNC core is gone and replaced by socialist progressives?  

Twenty-four seats were flipped with a Democrat beating a Republican incumbent and there's a couple more that will lose.  Zero Democrat incumbents in the House lost.  That's enough to give Dems control of the House even without retirements.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Doc Brown

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Doc Brown said:

Twenty-four seats were flipped with a Democrat beating a Republican incumbent and there's a couple more that will lose.  Zero Democrat incumbents in the House lost.  That's enough to give Dems control of the House even without retirements.

 

44 vacancies require more funding, ground work, and campaigning in addition to defending seats. There's only so much time and money to go around. Overwhelmingly, the majority of those 44 were safe red seats occupied by congressmen with their campaign networks firmly established and finely tuned. Look at how much money was dumped into Barr's campaign - had they not been also trying to defend 44 more new candidates in other districts you would have seen much more money/energy devoted to a lot of those races. 

[/dev/null]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Keep ***** that chicken...
 

 

 

I wonder what his opinion is of the race for UT-4

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

I wonder what his opinion is of the race for UT-4

 

He's a Clinton/Kerry lackey, so I doubt he thinks much of anything without first asking their permission.

[Rob's House]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I'm always for analysis, no matter the situation. It would be folly for either party not to do some soul searching after every loss or win. But 44-24 = +20. The GOP holds control of the House, quite easily, without those retirements (every race is different if they don't have to defend new comers as hard/had more time to find better candidates in some of the openings).

 

What I'm suggesting is what I've suggested for awhile now: the GOP was broken and fractured in 2016 thanks to Trump's victory. The uniparty members were exposed throughout that cycle and the first year of the administration, then shown the door (pundits and congressmen alike). They cleaned the party out before the midterms (to a large extent) and have been in that rebuilding phase since November of '16.

 

The DNC has yet to do so officially, instead the centrists are very publicly fighting the progressive fringe of the party, and the centrists are losing in droves. But because "orange man bad", the centrists in the democratic party are forced to stay quiet less they be ousted for being too soft on Trump. That combination may work for the next 6 years. But what happens in 2024 (assuming a Trump victory in 2020) when, the entire centrist DNC core is gone and replaced by socialist progressives?  

That's actually a scary thought because most voters don't really follow that closely or understand the issues. 

 

I could easily see the hard left socialists taking power simply by turning out their base and carrying the know-nothings who used to stay home before the "everyone must vote" crap picked up steam.

[Deranged Rhino]

Say it with me now, she's an ***** of the highest order

 

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

53 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Say it with me now, she's an ***** of the highest order

 

 

 

 

 

Now can she provide any evidence other than "I didn't win?"

[Buffalo_Gal]

38 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Now can she provide any evidence other than "I didn't win?"

Her team was in charge of the interference.  {shrug} 

Absentee ballots need to go away for all but military and legally blind (who may need help with the ballot and want their vote private). You work overseas? Get your butt home to vote. Elderly? Contact your local social services department to get you a van ride for the day. Disabled? Same.  The shenanigans seem to happen with early voting and absentee voting, although I think the days of hacking the voting booths are not far off. 

Saying all that... I do not think the shenanigans in Georgia were against her.  The Democrats just didn't do enough to give her the governorship.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

There is no "progressive" left wing of the DNC. There are only two groups pretending to be progressives: socialists, and fascists. Leaving the majority of the DNC and their voters - who remain centrists - without a party of their own. Yet, that majority can't speak out. If they did, they'd be a victim of "group shaming" from both those fringe elements. 

 

There's still time for the silent majority to speak out against this trend... but will they?

[3rdnlng]

12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

There is no "progressive" left wing of the DNC. There are only two groups pretending to be progressives: socialists, and fascists. Leaving the majority of the DNC and their voters - who remain centrists - without a party of their own. Yet, that majority can't speak out. If they did, they'd be a victim of "group shaming" from both those fringe elements. 

 

There's still time for the silent majority to speak out against this trend... but will they?

They need to be somehow welcomed into the republican fold. Face it, Trump isn't a pure conservative but more of a pragmatist and he looks to solve problems. He may be boorish, but he's competent. There's room for moderates in the republican party.

[Witless Bills Fan]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

They need to be somehow welcomed into the republican fold. Face it, Trump isn't a pure conservative but more of a pragmatist and he looks to solve problems. He may be boorish, but he's competent. There's room for moderates in the republican party.

I don't even think the Republicans need to pull Dems. With the Mead party splitting the vote the Republicans should be in good shape.

 

Cool screen name, BTW.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

They need to be somehow welcomed into the republican fold. Face it, Trump isn't a pure conservative but more of a pragmatist and he looks to solve problems. He may be boorish, but he's competent. There's room for moderates in the republican party.

 

That's the brilliance (and danger) of the "Orange Man Bad" resistance thinking. The prog-fascists/socialists taking over the party have been able to do so without resistance because for two years there's been a (dis)information campaign waged to make Trump equal to Hitler.... and I wish that was hyperbole. That's allowed the silent majority to turn off their thinking caps and ignore the takeover of their own party from within because they're so focused on 45. 

 

It's been two years. Trump isn't Hitler. He hasn't done a single thing to roll back any rights or liberties of the country (the same of which could not be said for either 43 or 44 by this point of their first terms). If you strip away the media sensationalism about dog whistles and Russian collusion and honestly look at how he's run the executive you would discover he has yet to put forth any policy or agenda that could be defined as "extremely" conservative - let alone fascist or racist. There haven't been any new wars started, in fact two theaters have been dramatically de-escalated.

 

Is he boorish, uncouth, and unafraid to speak his mind? Absolutely. Is he a dictator hell bent on rolling back civil rights and protections? There's zero evidence of this. 

 

Yet: Orange Man is SOOOOO bad, the silent majority of rational people in the DNC have turned a blind eye to the take over of their own party by extremists who are advocating for the destruction of the republic and western enlightenment culture. 

 

It's time for people to wake up.

[DC Tom]

35 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That's the brilliance (and danger) of the "Orange Man Bad" resistance thinking. The prog-fascists/socialists taking over the party have been able to do so without resistance because for two years there's been a (dis)information campaign waged to make Trump equal to Hitler.... and I wish that was hyperbole.

 

 

Disinformation?  DIS-information?

 

How can you deny that Trump is literally Hitler, when he just awarded a medal to Orrin Hatch

 

That is clearly derived from "Hitler's Fried Egg" - the German Cross.

 

[3rdnlng]

18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That's the brilliance (and danger) of the "Orange Man Bad" resistance thinking. The prog-fascists/socialists taking over the party have been able to do so without resistance because for two years there's been a (dis)information campaign waged to make Trump equal to Hitler.... and I wish that was hyperbole. That's allowed the silent majority to turn off their thinking caps and ignore the takeover of their own party from within because they're so focused on 45. 

 

It's been two years. Trump isn't Hitler. He hasn't done a single thing to roll back any rights or liberties of the country (the same of which could not be said for either 43 or 44 by this point of their first terms). If you strip away the media sensationalism about dog whistles and Russian collusion and honestly look at how he's run the executive you would discover he has yet to put forth any policy or agenda that could be defined as "extremely" conservative - let alone fascist or racist. There haven't been any new wars started, in fact two theaters have been dramatically de-escalated.

 

Is he boorish, uncouth, and unafraid to speak his mind? Absolutely. Is he a dictator hell bent on rolling back civil rights and protections? There's zero evidence of this. 

 

Yet: Orange Man is SOOOOO bad, the silent majority of rational people in the DNC have turned a blind eye to the take over of their own party by extremists who are advocating for the destruction of the republic and western enlightenment culture. 

 

It's time for people to wake up.

I'm presently having a back and forth "discussion" with some woman on FB I really don't know. I thought the TDS could get bad here but she's nutso. I read over the whole thread that's gone on for about 3 days and realized that she was devoid of facts. The subject was about the caravan and was started by an actual friend who tried to claim that it was created as an election ploy. I looked at my responses and off the top of my head I was stating facts and opinions that were accurate and well formed. I say this because I was able to do this because of my time spent here reading other thoughts and links. It's not as if I was non political before and didn't try to keep up on things in the past but this place has helped me focus on more than just the surface. Kudos to PPP and its serious members.

[BeginnersMind]

42 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Trump isn't Hitler....,If you strip away the media sensationalism about dog whistles and Russian collusion and honestly look at how he's run the executive you would discover he has yet to put forth any policy or agenda that could be defined as "extremely" conservative - let alone fascist or racist. There haven't been any new wars started, in fact two theaters have been dramatically de-escalated.

 

Is he boorish, uncouth, and unafraid to speak his mind? Absolutely. Is he a dictator hell bent on rolling back civil rights and protections? There's zero evidence of this. 

 

3

 

Agreed with the above portion of your post. The left overreaction to Trump is mostly due to style, not policy.

 

If they could take a deep breath on his style, their biggest complaint would probably be on rolling back the failing ACA. And while I'm fine with what he did, he was unable to work with his majority to roll out a meaningful alternative, and that (along with many other important challenges) is getting kicked down the road again. That is his--and his party's--major fail in the last two years. 

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Agreed with the above portion of your post. The left overreaction to Trump is mostly due to style, not policy.

 

If they could take a deep breath on his style, their biggest complaint would probably be on rolling back the failing ACA. And while I'm fine with what he did, he was unable to work with his majority to roll out a meaningful alternative, and that (along with many other important challenges) is getting kicked down the road again. That is his--and his party's--major fail in the last two years. 

The dems now have the same problem in the House that the r's did. The problem for the dems though is that their radical arm consists of true believers that are hell bent on making the dems become socialists. The dems aren't used to fractures in their party. They always voted as a block and now have people vowing to replace the more moderate dems with socialists. Happy times ahead.

[BeginnersMind]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The dems now have the same problem in the House that the r's did. The problem for the dems though is that their radical arm consists of true believers that are hell bent on making the dems become socialists. The dems aren't used to fractures in their party. They always voted as a block and now have people vowing to replace the more moderate dems with socialists. Happy times ahead.

 

The Dems will work compromises among themselves but it won't matter. The Rs couldn't unite to figure out how to get much done in the last 2 years rolling out legislation so I'll be in no hurry to call them some kind of united party.

 

It gets old that they (any of the 535 "they" in Congress plus POTUS) can't work together in any meaningful way to reach a compromise. I don't blame one side. They are not doing their jobs when they won't work with the other side. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by BeginnersMind

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[BeginnersMind]

Can 2020 be a year where Florida just votes and we get results? We all know far too much about Florida election law and county geography. 

[Taro T]

35 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

About friggin' time.  

 

So how are they going to find an even more corrupt/ intentionally incompetent to replace her?

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, Taro T said:

About friggin' time.  

 

So how are they going to find an even more corrupt/ intentionally incompetent to replace her?

 

Probably ask Jim Acosta.

[Doc Brown]

12 minutes ago, Taro T said:

About friggin' time.  

 

So how are they going to find an even more corrupt/ intentionally incompetent to replace her?

I'm just wondering why Jeb Bush appointed her in the first place.

[Witless Bills Fan]

6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I'm just wondering why Jeb Bush appointed her in the first place.

It would have required more energy to appoint someone else.

[keepthefaith]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

I'm just wondering why Jeb Bush appointed her in the first place.

 

Olive branch to the other side at a time of bitterness or recognition that she represented the party of the majority of registered voters in that county?

 

 

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Olive branch to the other side at a time of bitterness or recognition that she represented the party of the majority of registered voters in that county?

 

 

No, the person who held the position prior to her, that he fired, was a democrat. He thought it was appropriate to hire another democrat.

[Deranged Rhino]

Grain of salt - I've not been able to confirm this other than the three people are indeed missing.

 

[plenzmd1]

22 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Her team was in charge of the interference.  {shrug} 

Absentee ballots need to go away for all but military and legally blind (who may need help with the ballot and want their vote private). You work overseas? Get your butt home to vote. Elderly? Contact your local social services department to get you a van ride for the day. Disabled? Same.  The shenanigans seem to happen with early voting and absentee voting, although I think the days of hacking the voting booths are not far off. 

Saying all that... I do not think the shenanigans in Georgia were against her.  The Democrats just didn't do enough to give her the governorship.

My daughter was pretty excited to vote this year for the first time..she is in college in Ohio and voted in the VA election. So add college kids to the exempt list too!!!

[B-Man]

 

 

 

,

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.