That would be awesome! She's a ******* idiot.
The morning after the mid term elections
- Thread starter Coach
- Start date
That would be awesome! She's a ******* idiot.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 15,544
- Reaction score
- 3,801
- Points
- 113
And let's not forget Oprah either.
Dem's spent a projected $2.5 billion in spending for the mid terms, far more than Republicans did.
Nah the republicans ran ****** candidates... here is a news flash... the swing vote doesn’t care about party affiliations... if you run **** you lose
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
Walker was a 3 term incumbent, I would think that was a solid candidate.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
ELECTION WAS A DEMOCRAT DISAPPOINTMENT
The pissed-off progressives failed.
The lesson of Election Day is that the angry left was rejected.
Democrats lost their three marquee races, failed in every contest where Barack Obama rallied, barely won the House and underperformed every House projection, and saw their enrollment surge mirrored and muted by a similar uptick in Republican ranks.
And if last night was a referendum on Trump, then Trump must not be doing so bad. He had one of the smallest first-midterm House losses in modern times, and he increased his party’s control of the Senate in a significant fashion.
And the only place the “We Hate Trump” campaign worked for Democrats was in areas where they had dramatic enrollment advantages, typically of 50% or more.
Yes, they took control of the House of Representatives, but by an anemic and unconvincing margin.
They needed a net gain of 23 seats. Most projections expected them to get 50. They got 27. That contrasts with net Republican gains of 63 in Obama’s first midterm and 54 in Clinton’s first midterm.
That means, in the context of their times, Americans were more trusting of Trump and his Republicans after two years than Americans were of Obama and Clinton and their Democrats after their first two years.
He might be, as the Democrats campaigned, the worst president ever, but he’s better than Obama and Clinton.
Yes, Democrats won the House, but they will have a small margin, and certainly no mandate.
And where their superstars ran, they came up empty.
Stacey Abrams lost in Georgia, in spite of Oprah. Andrew Gillum lost in Florida, in spite of Obama. And Beto O’Rorke lost in Texas, in spite of the news media.
And the news media got it wrong from coast to coast.
The weeks-long characterization of the electoral dynamic was disgust with Donald Trump and an embrace of the Democratic Party. Newscast after newscast, column after column. A tidal shift was proclaimed.
But it simply didn’t happen.
The news media completely missed the sentiment of support for Trump, which also percolated and rose, and ended up being dead wrong in their precharacterization of the election and its outcome. Some will see that as incompetence, others will see it as complicity.
The media saw what it always sees – support for its progressive agenda.
The media didn’t see what it never sees – the earnest feelings of those Americans who view life differently.
Americans who wonder if the media was reporting or advertising.
What does Democrat control of the House mean? Chairs will be shuffled, staffers will lose jobs, investigations will be held, and Nancy Pelosi will wield the gavel.
But a narrow margin like this makes impeachment unlikely, as not every Democrat congressperson could politically survive voting for it. Nor could every Democrat congressperson survive being a Trump obstructionist for two years. That makes compromise more likely – as Nancy Pelosi pledged last night – and that would be a good thing.
In the other half of Congress, the increased Republican margin in the Senate primarily benefits Donald Trump.
He has a bulwark against impeachment, should articles be reported out of the House. He also has, more practically, a big enough majority to protect himself from the saboteurs of his own party – people like Mitt Romney or Rand Paul who are of the Jeff Flake and John McCain bent, seeing a narrow Republican margin as a way to foil Trump and enhance their own self-importance.
That margin will also make confirming judges easier – including to the Supreme Court.
It was supposed to be the national rebuke to Trump and the Republicans, a referendum on a president everyone supposedly hated. It was supposed to be the launching pad of the next wave of Democrat giants.
But it was none of those things.
It was a House reversal less than half the size of that dealt Barack Obama, it was a Trump victory everywhere he rallied, it was a failure in each of the marquee races, and it was no bellwether of future elections.
It was a much-hyped dud.
And it ought to give the Democrats serious concerns about 2020.
http://www.boblonsberry.com/writings.cfm?go=4
The pissed-off progressives failed.
The lesson of Election Day is that the angry left was rejected.
Democrats lost their three marquee races, failed in every contest where Barack Obama rallied, barely won the House and underperformed every House projection, and saw their enrollment surge mirrored and muted by a similar uptick in Republican ranks.
And if last night was a referendum on Trump, then Trump must not be doing so bad. He had one of the smallest first-midterm House losses in modern times, and he increased his party’s control of the Senate in a significant fashion.
And the only place the “We Hate Trump” campaign worked for Democrats was in areas where they had dramatic enrollment advantages, typically of 50% or more.
Yes, they took control of the House of Representatives, but by an anemic and unconvincing margin.
They needed a net gain of 23 seats. Most projections expected them to get 50. They got 27. That contrasts with net Republican gains of 63 in Obama’s first midterm and 54 in Clinton’s first midterm.
That means, in the context of their times, Americans were more trusting of Trump and his Republicans after two years than Americans were of Obama and Clinton and their Democrats after their first two years.
He might be, as the Democrats campaigned, the worst president ever, but he’s better than Obama and Clinton.
Yes, Democrats won the House, but they will have a small margin, and certainly no mandate.
And where their superstars ran, they came up empty.
Stacey Abrams lost in Georgia, in spite of Oprah. Andrew Gillum lost in Florida, in spite of Obama. And Beto O’Rorke lost in Texas, in spite of the news media.
And the news media got it wrong from coast to coast.
The weeks-long characterization of the electoral dynamic was disgust with Donald Trump and an embrace of the Democratic Party. Newscast after newscast, column after column. A tidal shift was proclaimed.
But it simply didn’t happen.
The news media completely missed the sentiment of support for Trump, which also percolated and rose, and ended up being dead wrong in their precharacterization of the election and its outcome. Some will see that as incompetence, others will see it as complicity.
The media saw what it always sees – support for its progressive agenda.
The media didn’t see what it never sees – the earnest feelings of those Americans who view life differently.
Americans who wonder if the media was reporting or advertising.
What does Democrat control of the House mean? Chairs will be shuffled, staffers will lose jobs, investigations will be held, and Nancy Pelosi will wield the gavel.
But a narrow margin like this makes impeachment unlikely, as not every Democrat congressperson could politically survive voting for it. Nor could every Democrat congressperson survive being a Trump obstructionist for two years. That makes compromise more likely – as Nancy Pelosi pledged last night – and that would be a good thing.
In the other half of Congress, the increased Republican margin in the Senate primarily benefits Donald Trump.
He has a bulwark against impeachment, should articles be reported out of the House. He also has, more practically, a big enough majority to protect himself from the saboteurs of his own party – people like Mitt Romney or Rand Paul who are of the Jeff Flake and John McCain bent, seeing a narrow Republican margin as a way to foil Trump and enhance their own self-importance.
That margin will also make confirming judges easier – including to the Supreme Court.
It was supposed to be the national rebuke to Trump and the Republicans, a referendum on a president everyone supposedly hated. It was supposed to be the launching pad of the next wave of Democrat giants.
But it was none of those things.
It was a House reversal less than half the size of that dealt Barack Obama, it was a Trump victory everywhere he rallied, it was a failure in each of the marquee races, and it was no bellwether of future elections.
It was a much-hyped dud.
And it ought to give the Democrats serious concerns about 2020.
http://www.boblonsberry.com/writings.cfm?go=4
How the midterms should be judged?
Dow was up 545 points today. I'd say we're all doing OK after the vote.
Dow was up 545 points today. I'd say we're all doing OK after the vote.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Midterms are so yesterday's news
BOOM!
Sessions resigns!
BOOM!
President Trump's new Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who has criticized the Mueller probe, will now oversee it
President Donald Trump's new acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, will oversee special counsel Robert Mueller's probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
"The Acting Attorney General is in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice," a spokesperson for the department says when asked if Whitaker would oversee Mueller's investigation."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/trum...-nbc-news.html
BOOM!
Sessions resigns!
BOOM!
President Trump's new Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who has criticized the Mueller probe, will now oversee it
President Donald Trump's new acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, will oversee special counsel Robert Mueller's probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
"The Acting Attorney General is in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice," a spokesperson for the department says when asked if Whitaker would oversee Mueller's investigation."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/trum...-nbc-news.html
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 4,780
- Points
- 113
I'm sure that will cause the latest Liberal meltdown. In my mind it's perfectly fair because previously people that despise Trump were overseeing the investigation. Turnabout is fair play.
Trump is guilty, and no one should get in the way of Mueller finding it.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
LOL
U ain't seen nothing yet!
White House Suspends CNN's Jim Acosta's Press Pass
After sparring with President Donald Trump earlier this afternoon, CNN's White House Correspondent, Jim Acosta, has been denied access to the White House.
According to reports, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said they revoked Acosta's hard press pass, meaning Acosta must be escorted on property.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...ends-cnn-jim-acostas-hard-press-pass-n2535549
Acosta the groper
Last edited:
Accosta's behavior was despicable.
CNN will reward him with his own show.
CNN will reward him with his own show.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2014
- Messages
- 14,737
- Reaction score
- 17,172
- Points
- 113
We have no time for riots, we have to work so that the Dems base can riot while living on the food stamps we worked for.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Dems really crying now
Where does Beto go from here? Hint: He’s not running in 2020.
O’Rourke has shut down the talk, including on Monday when he once again ruled out a presidential bid in two years. “I will not be a presidential candidate in 2020,” he told reporters in Houston. “That is as definitive as it gets.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/beto-go-hint-hes-not-running-2020-163312205.html?
Where does Beto go from here? Hint: He’s not running in 2020.
O’Rourke has shut down the talk, including on Monday when he once again ruled out a presidential bid in two years. “I will not be a presidential candidate in 2020,” he told reporters in Houston. “That is as definitive as it gets.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/beto-go-hint-hes-not-running-2020-163312205.html?
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
He's pulling a Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan did two things that made it obvious to me that he was a weirdo. The first was when he claimed a marathon time one hour better than he ran. Nobody forgets their marathon time, and nobody normal would falsely claim a stunning time that could easily be checked. He's apparently some fitness P90X fanatic. He knows what a ridiculously good marathon time is. The second indicator was when he put special rules about him accepting the Speaker role, and they were agreed to. I knew two things at that point - he's a narcissistic delusional weirdo, and the Republicans in congress were a bunch of dickless losers. I see almost complete parallels here with Beto and the dems.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2014
- Messages
- 14,737
- Reaction score
- 17,172
- Points
- 113
Beta might have a closet full of skeletons he doesn't want discovered.
Just ask your question and sit down and don't keep arguing with the President when he gives an answer you don't like.
The Reps may have retained the House if those retiring RHINOS hadn't bought into the "Blue Wave" scam.
Genius take from Limbaugh:
Retiring RHINOS bought into the medias "Blue Wave" scam..
Lost in all of this was the 40 to 45 Republican congressional retirements. Forty sitting Republicans retired. I started asking Republicans why. And what I was told, “Well, you know, many of them are committee chairmen and they’re term limited out and they don’t want to hang around going back as regular members.” Well, maybe.
But I don’t think that was solely it.
I think that the Republican Party in the House of Representatives had a whole bunch of people in there that didn’t like Trump. And I think they had a whole lot of people who thought that Trump was gonna bring massive landslide defeat to the party and they wanted to get out before it happened.
They didn’t want to be a part of it; so they announced their resignations. And one of the things I think that convinced these Republicans that there was gonna be this massive Trump wipeout was all this incessant chatter about the blue wave brought on by the media.
And I think these Republicans, these moderate RINO Never Trumper Republicans bought in to a gigantic scam that the media and the Democrats ran on this blue wave business. They bought it hook, line, and sinker.
They thought there’s no chance, Trump is hated and despised, we’re getting out. And so they did. And when you lose 45 incumbents, don’t care who they are, because 98% of incumbents win reelection in the House, 98%. When 40 to 45 of your sitting Republicans get out of there, that presents another challenge, because those are open seats, become brand-new candidates on both sides. Incumbency is lost as a benefit.
I’m gonna get to this ’cause I’ve hyped it enough here, ’cause I have a theory, and I think it’s the first example not so much of voter suppression, but I think what happened hastened a bunch of Republican retirements from the House. There were 40 or 45 — I’ve heard both numbers. I thought it was 45 but I keep hearing people say 40, the exact number is not relevant to my point. It’s one of those two.
When you lose 45 incumbents, that is a monumental thing to overcome because of the tendency of incumbents in the House to get reelected, 98% reelection rate for incumbents. In fact, that stat has been one of the many complaints about politics in Washington and how tough it is for outsiders to get in because the powers of incumbency with fundraising and special interest backing is so crucial and hard to overcome.
Well, back in December of 2017, we had the first generic ballot poll which showed the Democrats with a 13-point margin. The media started hyping it, they started talking about it with polling data, without polling data. And a bunch of Republicans — you have to go back, 2017, throughout that year there were a lot of Republicans who hated Donald Trump and did not want to acknowledge that he was president, just like a bunch of Democrats.
Some of them were Never Trumpers. Some of them were RINOs. But many of them were scared to death of what Republicans have been scared to death of for years and that’s the Washington press corps. And so these guys started talking about this massive blue wave that was coming, and they associated it with the fact that Trump’s election was stolen, the Russians stole the election.
That first year, 2017, the intensity of this stuff, you know, we forget it because memories are replaced by reality at the moment. But it was intense! You had Republican leadership in the House not supportive of Trump. You had Republicans not helping Trump with anything.
Repeal and replace Obamacare was not happening because a bunch of Republicans believed this garbage that Trump had stolen the election; so they thought he was not gonna be around long.
They thought he was gonna be impeached or indicted or something. And this was all created by the media.
Genius take from Limbaugh:
Retiring RHINOS bought into the medias "Blue Wave" scam..
Lost in all of this was the 40 to 45 Republican congressional retirements. Forty sitting Republicans retired. I started asking Republicans why. And what I was told, “Well, you know, many of them are committee chairmen and they’re term limited out and they don’t want to hang around going back as regular members.” Well, maybe.
But I don’t think that was solely it.
I think that the Republican Party in the House of Representatives had a whole bunch of people in there that didn’t like Trump. And I think they had a whole lot of people who thought that Trump was gonna bring massive landslide defeat to the party and they wanted to get out before it happened.
They didn’t want to be a part of it; so they announced their resignations. And one of the things I think that convinced these Republicans that there was gonna be this massive Trump wipeout was all this incessant chatter about the blue wave brought on by the media.
And I think these Republicans, these moderate RINO Never Trumper Republicans bought in to a gigantic scam that the media and the Democrats ran on this blue wave business. They bought it hook, line, and sinker.
They thought there’s no chance, Trump is hated and despised, we’re getting out. And so they did. And when you lose 45 incumbents, don’t care who they are, because 98% of incumbents win reelection in the House, 98%. When 40 to 45 of your sitting Republicans get out of there, that presents another challenge, because those are open seats, become brand-new candidates on both sides. Incumbency is lost as a benefit.
I’m gonna get to this ’cause I’ve hyped it enough here, ’cause I have a theory, and I think it’s the first example not so much of voter suppression, but I think what happened hastened a bunch of Republican retirements from the House. There were 40 or 45 — I’ve heard both numbers. I thought it was 45 but I keep hearing people say 40, the exact number is not relevant to my point. It’s one of those two.
When you lose 45 incumbents, that is a monumental thing to overcome because of the tendency of incumbents in the House to get reelected, 98% reelection rate for incumbents. In fact, that stat has been one of the many complaints about politics in Washington and how tough it is for outsiders to get in because the powers of incumbency with fundraising and special interest backing is so crucial and hard to overcome.
Well, back in December of 2017, we had the first generic ballot poll which showed the Democrats with a 13-point margin. The media started hyping it, they started talking about it with polling data, without polling data. And a bunch of Republicans — you have to go back, 2017, throughout that year there were a lot of Republicans who hated Donald Trump and did not want to acknowledge that he was president, just like a bunch of Democrats.
Some of them were Never Trumpers. Some of them were RINOs. But many of them were scared to death of what Republicans have been scared to death of for years and that’s the Washington press corps. And so these guys started talking about this massive blue wave that was coming, and they associated it with the fact that Trump’s election was stolen, the Russians stole the election.
That first year, 2017, the intensity of this stuff, you know, we forget it because memories are replaced by reality at the moment. But it was intense! You had Republican leadership in the House not supportive of Trump. You had Republicans not helping Trump with anything.
Repeal and replace Obamacare was not happening because a bunch of Republicans believed this garbage that Trump had stolen the election; so they thought he was not gonna be around long.
They thought he was gonna be impeached or indicted or something. And this was all created by the media.
Will it be called Trump talk and consist of 1 hr of straight trumpbashing, cause if so it will fitt with the other 23 hrs of programming on CNN lol
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Hilarious!
Michael Moore says Kamala, Cory Booker won't defeat Trump, urges Dems to nominate Michelle Obama
Moore made the comments on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” following the results of the 2018 midterm elections, where Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives.
Moore, who predicted Trump’s victory in 2016, went on to ask who, in two years' time, could possibly challenge the president, whom he described as a “true danger” and an “evil genius.”
After show co-host Mika Brzezinski floated the name of Harris, Moore shot back that neither the California Democrat nor Booker of New Jersey could win against Trump.
“No," he said about Harris. "Love her. No, not going to happen. Cory — love him. No. We cannot run a politician against [Trump]. We will lose.”
“Why aren’t we thinking along the lines of ‘Who can defeat him?’ We will lose in 2020,” he added.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...t-trump-urges-dems-to-nominate-michelle-obama
Michael Moore says Kamala, Cory Booker won't defeat Trump, urges Dems to nominate Michelle Obama
Moore made the comments on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” following the results of the 2018 midterm elections, where Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives.
Moore, who predicted Trump’s victory in 2016, went on to ask who, in two years' time, could possibly challenge the president, whom he described as a “true danger” and an “evil genius.”
After show co-host Mika Brzezinski floated the name of Harris, Moore shot back that neither the California Democrat nor Booker of New Jersey could win against Trump.
“No," he said about Harris. "Love her. No, not going to happen. Cory — love him. No. We cannot run a politician against [Trump]. We will lose.”
“Why aren’t we thinking along the lines of ‘Who can defeat him?’ We will lose in 2020,” he added.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...t-trump-urges-dems-to-nominate-michelle-obama
Last edited:
President Wookie...yeah right Michael, you fat commie *******.
Hit. I could stare at that .gif for a long time......
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 11,930
- Reaction score
- 15,738
- Points
- 113
Similar threads
