Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on October 30, 2014, 11:14:45 AM
-
Just thought I would chronicle their demise in this thread. Check back for regular updates. And someone let me know when the funeral is.
And yes, if the party actually dies, or suffers mortal wounds, I'll post it right here.
Majority Of Millennials Turn On Obama, Favor a GOP-Led Congress
Oct 29, 2014
By BENJAMIN SIEGEL
Many Democrats who are fighting to win re-election next week were swept into office with President Obama in 2008, with the help of millennial voters.
Now, more than half of likely 18-29 year-old voters want a Republican-led Congress, according to a new poll from the Harvard University Institute of Politics.
It’s a marked shift for the youngest and largest generation of voters, who have supported Democrats reliably since 2004.
The group now appears more in line with the rest of the country.
Economic, Political Discontent Make for a Midterm Double Punch
Record Disapproval for Dems in Congress, Poll Shows
Millennials who said they will “definitely be voting” favor a Republican-led Congress 51-47 percent, according to the poll. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released earlier this week found that roughly half of Americans plan to vote for Republicans this election, 50-44 percent.
The two polls had identical approval ratings for Obama’s performance, at 43 percent.
Get real-time results pushed to your phone on Election Night. Click here to sign up for the races that matter most to you.
According to Harvard/IOP poll, 46 percent of young Hispanic voters approve of the president, down from 60 percent this spring, a troubling sign for Democrats counting on Hispanic support in places like Colorado.
The poll found that millennials continue to support Democrats overall, and trust the party to handle issues like race relations, immigration and foreign policy, but the fact that the millennials most motivated to vote favor Republicans makes the group a “swing constituency,” according to John Della Volpe, the IOP’s director of polling.
According to Della Volpe, many of the millennials voting next week have come of age under Obama with no memory of the second Bush administration that drove many young voters to the Democratic Party in 2008.
“We may be looking at the third wave of millennials,” Della Volpe said. “Their first experience is really about two major events: a recession and a gridlocked Congress … When you look at is this way, it’s not surprising that they’re up for grabs.”
Republican National Committee spokesman Raffi Williams said today the poll showed that millennials are “sick and tired of the false promises from Democrats.”
Democrats said the poll showed frustration with Washington gridlock, and not the Democratic Party.
“Young people are looking for solutions, be they from inside or outside of government, but they approach this conversation from a core belief in the values that Democrats continue to stand for,” said Democratic National Committee spokesperson Rob Flaherty.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-millennials-turn-obama-favor-gop-led-congress/story?id=26553815
-
You can say what you want about political parties- good and bad, but truth is BOTH parties sold America down the river long ago
The Republicans though - at least they stand for SOMETHING and talk about the rule of law, federalism, states rights, checks and balances, separation of powers, proper judicial review and it's application and try harder to remain consistent than the huge number of socialist, communists etc.. of the Democratic party
-
You can say what you want about political parties- good and bad, but truth is BOTH parties sold America down the river long ago
The Republicans though - at least they stand for SOMETHING and talk about the rule of law, federalism, states rights, checks and balances, separation of powers, proper judicial review and it's application and try harder to remain consistent than the huge number of socialist, communists etc.. of the Democratic party
I think on paper that conservatism is superior to liberalism, but I agree that both parties suck. Money has corrupted the system. There are very few in DC that I respect, regardless of party.
-
It is dead. Bush and his retarded former followers killed the repub party at the executive level. That's why the American people voted a black muslim commie into presidency. Next elected will be a woman Democrat.
You deserve it for bush. Its your punishment but you will benefit from it. You wont have to deal with another horrible repub. Complain all you want but deep down inside you know Dems are better.
-
It is dead. Bush and his retarded former followers killed the repub party at the executive level. That's why the American people voted a black muslim commie into presidency. Next elected will be a woman Democrat.
You deserve it for bush. Its your punishment but you will benefit from it. You wont have to deal with another horrible repub. Complain all you want but deep down inside you know Dems are better.
Why do you think Republicans hold the House, are poised to take the Senate, and hold a majority of governorships and state legislatures?
-
Why do you think Republicans hold the House, are poised to take the Senate, and hold a majority of governorships and state legislatures?
Why do you think a black commie muslim president was voted in TWICE in America to be the most powerful man in the world?
-
It is dead. Bush and his retarded former followers killed the repub party at the executive level. That's why the American people voted a black muslim commie into presidency. Next elected will be a woman Democrat.
You deserve it for bush. Its your punishment but you will benefit from it. You wont have to deal with another horrible repub. Complain all you want but deep down inside you know Dems are better.
So you're not even American? Another bleeding heart foreigner who worships Obama and knows what's better for us than we do?
He was elected twice most likely because the majority of Americans are easily fooled and many are painfully dumb, ignorant, indifferent, etc.
-
I think on paper that conservatism is superior to liberalism, but I agree that both parties suck. Money has corrupted the system. There are very few in DC that I respect, regardless of party.
If you think conservatism is better than being a progressive you are out of your mind...Conservatism means standing still.......denying science.....keeping minorities in their place, and limited thinking all so as to maintain the status quo.....Liberalism means moving forward towards a more inclusive society.....yes money has corrupted both parties..I agree with that..
-
If you think conservatism is better than being a progressive you are out of your mind...Conservatism means standing still.......denying science.....keeping minorities in their place, and limited thinking all so as to maintain the status quo.....Liberalism means moving forward towards a more inclusive society.....yes money has corrupted both parties..I agree with that..
So? Comminists like yourself should be excluded
-
If you think conservatism is better than being a progressive you are out of your mind...Conservatism means standing still.......denying science.....keeping minorities in their place, and limited thinking all so as to maintain the status quo.....Liberalism means moving forward towards a more inclusive society.....yes money has corrupted both parties..I agree with that..
yup and liberalism is all about free love, gay sex and taking money from others to help support your drug habits.
Hyperbole...not just for libtards anymore ;)
-
yup and liberalism is all about free love, gay sex and taking money from others to help support your drug habits.
Hyperbole...not just for libtards anymore ;)
Last I heard, there are a whole lot of Rebublicans/conservatives involved in free sex, gay sex, and usiung drugs as well......Liberals are just not hypocritical about it.....
-
Last I heard, there are a whole lot of Rebublicans/conservatives involved in free sex, gay sex, and usiung drugs as well......Liberals are just not hypocritical about it.....
yes b/c no liberals deny science, try to keep minorities in their place and limit thinking...LMFAO really retard?
-
If you think conservatism is better than being a progressive you are out of your mind...Conservatism means standing still.......denying science.....keeping minorities in their place, and limited thinking all so as to maintain the status quo.....Liberalism means moving forward towards a more inclusive society.....yes money has corrupted both parties..I agree with that..
What's a progressive? It's just another word for "liberal," because liberal became a dirty word.
But I disagree. Liberalism, which stands for bigger government, higher taxes, class warfare, government dependency, etc. is a proven failure and is bad policy.
True conservatism, which stands for smaller government, lower taxes, individual responsibility, a strong national defense, etc. is just flat out better policy. Better for Americans individually and collectively.
The problem is conservatives who get elected resort to becoming the typical politician, concerned only with staying in power, catering to special interests, following the money, etc.
-
What's a progressive?
I think it's code for "keeps winning the white house".
All kidding aside, until the GOp wins the white house, they're going to be ineffective. Executive order is insanely powerful now, and obama is using it almost as much as Bush did. House repubs could manage a stalemate for 4 years, but obama still got his bullshit thru, half of it. owning the senate is nice, but without the white house, repubs aren't going to be able to change anything.
-
Why do you think a black commie muslim president was voted in TWICE in America to be the most powerful man in the world?
You answer my question and I'll answer yours.
-
Why do you think Republicans hold the House, are poised to take the Senate, and hold a majority of governorships and state legislatures?
Because Dems never do well in mid terms.
-
Because Dems never do well in mid terms.
O Rly? So why didn't they retake the House in 2012? And what difference would midterms make if the Republican Party is dead? Unless it's not really dead?
Also, that doesn't explain Republicans holding a majority of governorships and state legislatures.
-
How can this be? ???
Obama’s Midterm Loss Record Could Make History
By Stuart Rothenberg
Oct. 30, 2014
President Barack Obama is about to do what no president has done in the past 50 years: Have two horrible, terrible, awful midterm elections in a row.
In fact, Obama is likely to have the worst midterm numbers of any two-term president going back to Democrat Harry S. Truman.
Truman lost a total of 83 House seats during his two midterms (55 seats in 1946 and 28 seats in 1950), while Republican Dwight Eisenhower lost a combined 66 House seats in the 1954 and 1958 midterms.
Obama had one midterm where his party lost 63 House seats, and Democrats are expected to lose another 5 to possibly 12 House seats (or more), taking the sitting president’s total midterm House loses to the 68 seat to 75 seat range.
Most recent presidents have one disastrous midterm and another midterm that was not terrible.
The GOP lost 30 House seats in George W. Bush’s second midterm, but gained 8 seats in his first midterm for a net loss of 22 seats. The party lost 26 seats in Ronald Reagan’s first midterm, but a mere 5 seats in his second midterm for a net loss of 31 seats.
Democrats got shellacked in 1994, losing 54 seats in Bill Clinton’s first midterm, but the party gained 5 House seats in 1998, Clinton’s six-year-itch election, for a net Clinton loss of 49 House seats. (The figures don’t include special elections during a president’s term.)
Looking at Senate losses, Republicans lost a net of 5 seats in George W. Bush’s two midterms, while Republicans lost a net of 7 seats during Ronald Reagan’s two midterms and Democrats lost a net of 8 seats during Bill Clinton’s two midterms. (Again, these numbers do not reflect party switches or special elections.)
Democrats have a chance to tie the number of Senate losses that Republicans suffered during the midterms of Eisenhower, when the GOP lost a net of 13 Senate seats (12 in 1958 and only one in 1954).
Democrats lost 6 Senate seats in 2010 and seem likely to lose from 5 to as many as 10 seats next week. That would add up to Obama midterm Senate losses of from 11 seats to as many as 16 seats.
Democrats will likely not exceed the number of Senate losses they incurred during the two Truman midterms, in 1946 and 1950, when the party lost a remarkable net of 17 seats.
Are the Democrats’ losses due to the increasingly partisan nature of our elections and the makeup of the past two Senate classes, or is the president at least partially to blame because he failed to show leadership on key issues and never successfully moved to the political center?
The answer, most obviously, is, “Yes.”
http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/obama-poised-to-set-new-midterm-loss-record/
-
O Rly? So why didn't they retake the House in 2012? And what difference would midterms make if the Republican Party is dead? Unless it's not really dead?
Also, that doesn't explain Republicans holding a majority of governorships and state legislatures.
I said Dems do not do well in midterms. 2012 was not a midterm election was it? Just the opposite of what I said. If the Dems could mobilize the voters to turn out for the midterms the way they can for the POTUS election, the results would be different.
::)
-
I said Dems do not do well in midterms. 2012 was not a midterm election was it? Just the opposite of what I said. If the Dems could mobilize the voters to turn out for the midterms the way they can for the POTUS election, the results would be different.
::)
without welfare and obamaphone being offered to the Andre's of the world - makes it harder to do
-
without welfare and obamaphone being offered to the Andre's of the world - makes it harder to do
It's true to an extent. A vast number of people will only vote for selfish reasons and not for the greater good as a whole. In both parties.
-
I said Dems do not do well in midterms. 2012 was not a midterm election was it? Just the opposite of what I said. If the Dems could mobilize the voters to turn out for the midterms the way they can for the POTUS election, the results would be different.
::)
::) If "Dems do not do well in midterms" that means they "do well" in general election years like 2012. If so, why didn't they take the House in 2012?
And again, even if we're talking about midterms, what difference does it make if "Dems do not well," if the opposition is dead?
-
::) If "Dems do not do well in midterms" that means they "do well" in general election years like 2012. If so, why didn't they take the House in 2012?
And again, even if we're talking about midterms, what difference does it make if "Dems do not well," if the opposition is dead?
I said Dems don't do well in midterms. I never mentioned nor insinuated anything about the general elections. You are the one trying to equate that into me claiming they always do well during general election years.
My statement is about midterms, if you want to talk about something irrelevant to what I said you can converse with yourself.
::)
-
I said Dems don't do well in midterms. I never mentioned nor insinuated anything about the general elections. You are the one trying to equate that into me claiming they always do well during general election years.
My statement is about midterms, if you want to talk about something irrelevant to what I said you can converse with yourself.
::)
You have claimed, repeatedly, that the Republican Party is dead. So now you're saying they're only dead during general election years? ::)
And how do you explain Republicans holding a majority of governorships and state legislatures? Is that a "midterm" thing too?
-
The GOP is dying. Infighting is the only reason your party lost to the most beatable candidate in modern history.
As far as why they hold the majority of gov'ships and House, if Dems did better during the midterms that would not be the case. This is common sense really. I can see why you don't understand it.
-
You have claimed, repeatedly, that the Republican Party is dead. So now you're saying they're only dead during general election years? ::)
And how do you explain Republicans holding a majority of governorships and state legislatures? Is that a "midterm" thing too?
The Republican party is dead ideologically....it serves no purpose other than to say "no" to everything.....they have no major legislative achievements in the last few years that I can think of other than the Bush Prescription Drug bill which cost billions upon billions and was unfunded...Obama has pushed through so much major legislation.....The Repubs spent four years talking about Obama's birth certificate and doing nothing
-
The GOP is dying. Infighting is the only reason your party lost to the most beatable candidate in modern history.
As far as why they hold the majority of gov'ships and House, if Dems did better during the midterms that would not be the case. This is common sense really. I can see why you don't understand it.
I see. So now it is "dying," instead of "dead." ::)
Even though you have moved the goal posts, your contention still makes no sense. If the GOP was "dying," it would never make gains. It would not keep increasing its numbers at the state and national levels.
And the midterm analysis does not apply to elections at the state level. Those elections are staggered all over the place.
Your contention would make much more sense if the numbers were flipped and the Democrat Party was in control of Congress, a majority of governorships, and a majority of state legislatures.
-
The Republican party is dead ideologically....it serves no purpose other than to say "no" to everything.....they have no major legislative achievements in the last few years that I can think of other than the Bush Prescription Drug bill which cost billions upon billions and was unfunded...Obama has pushed through so much major legislation.....The Repubs spent four years talking about Obama's birth certificate and doing nothing
And what successful achievements has the left brought? Almost everything they have passed has been done by executive order or behind the repubs back while on recess..(Obamacare, cough cough)
-
The Republican party is dead ideologically....it serves no purpose other than to say "no" to everything.....they have no major legislative achievements in the last few years that I can think of other than the Bush Prescription Drug bill which cost billions upon billions and was unfunded...Obama has pushed through so much major legislation.....The Repubs spent four years talking about Obama's birth certificate and doing nothing
Holy smokes. Dude. :-\
I've said for years that the Democrat Party is intellectually bankrupt. They have zero major legislative accomplishments. Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster. You should to talk to business people to see just much chaos it is causing. And the shoe hasn't dropped for small businesses, because Obama keeps delaying the mandate till after elections. He is doing that because costs are going to greatly increase.
I can say some of the same things about the GOP. They got nothing. Wasted the last six years failing to come up with an alternative to Obamacare, failed to put forward plans to get us out of debt.
But to say they spent four years talking about Obama's birth certificate is false. It was a handful of Republicans and that issue isn't the reason why they don't have a leader a coherent vision.
-
the party out of power does better in the off-years.
2006 was all dems.
If Cruz wins in 2016, it'll be dems doing wll in 2018.
-
And what successful achievements has the left brought? Almost everything they have passed has been done by executive order or behind the repubs back while on recess..(Obamacare, cough cough)
list his acomplishments for someone like you would be a waste of time....since you never acknowledge the truth anyway.....as for Obamacare being done behind the Republican's backs they were there to vote on it....
-
And what successful achievements has the left brought? Almost everything they have passed has been done by executive order or behind the repubs back while on recess..(Obamacare, cough cough)
Correct!
This is why I scratch my head when Repubs say "just wait til we win the senate, everything will change!"
They're unwilling to impeach, even though they'd have an assured win.
So they just want ot be able to rule both houses while obama does whatever the fck he wants :(
-
list his acomplishments for someone like you would be a waste of time....since you never acknowledge the truth anyway.....as for Obamacare being done behind the Republican's backs they were there to vote on it....
African ball washing
-
The GOP is dying. Infighting is the only reason your party lost to the most beatable candidate in modern history.
nah its hard to beat someone who promises the majority of people shit while taking from others.
Entitlements are already over 70% of the budget and thanks to programs like the the last promise (Obamacare) will continue to grow at a good clip for the forseeable future.
The problem with the democrats platform is that it is extremely short sighted....sooner or later they wont be able to cut defense spending or tax enough to support all the promises they make during the campaigns.
-
nah its hard to beat someone who promises the majority of people shit while taking from others.
tony, you've always been honest and unafraid to say things that go against standard GOP party line.
If promising entitlements work so well...
If Lib prez keeps winning races...
If majority of americans back liberal positions on most issues...
At some point, do you admit that 50.1% of this country probably are liberal shitbags who are lazy and want their entitlements? I've contended the problem isn't the media tricking people, isn't guilt or whatever else - it is that (like most of europe), the USA has probably moved to a spot where a little more than half of the country really are liberal.
Not saying they're correct. Just saying repubs don't win by bashing media or whatver - they win by converting 5% of the population to adopting conservative value system. Thoughts?
-
tony, you've always been honest and unafraid to say things that go against standard GOP party line.
If promising entitlements work so well...
If Lib prez keeps winning races...
If majority of americans back liberal positions on most issues...
At some point, do you admit that 50.1% of this country probably are liberal shitbags who are lazy and want their entitlements? I've contended the problem isn't the media tricking people, isn't guilt or whatever else - it is that (like most of europe), the USA has probably moved to a spot where a little more than half of the country really are liberal.
Not saying they're correct. Just saying repubs don't win by bashing media or whatver - they win by converting 5% of the population to adopting conservative value system. Thoughts?
no need for flattery my politically hermaphroditic friend....
Iono like its been said many times on here politics is a pendulum and sooner or later it will swing back to the right. Whether that swing is due to a majority of people realizing that simply taking from one to give to another wont work in the long run or a Greece like event is the question.
Fact of the matter is we simply cannot keep heading the way we are heading and sooner or later people will figure that out.
-
I see. So now it is "dying," instead of "dead." ::)
Even though you have moved the goal posts, your contention still makes no sense. If the GOP was "dying," it would never make gains. It would not keep increasing its numbers at the state and national levels.
And the midterm analysis does not apply to elections at the state level. Those elections are staggered all over the place.
Your contention would make much more sense if the numbers were flipped and the Democrat Party was in control of Congress, a majority of governorships, and a majority of state legislatures.
No. You just want to fall back on your usual tactic of arguing semantics in an effort to make a point. Which is irrelevant by now. My statement was specifically about Dems and midterms. You trying to talk about anything else just shows that you are either trying to deflect what I said or are too stupid to comprehend it.
" ::) "
-
nah its hard to beat someone who promises the majority of people shit while taking from others.
Entitlements are already over 70% of the budget and thanks to programs like the the last promise (Obamacare) will continue to grow at a good clip for the forseeable future.
The problem with the democrats platform is that it is extremely short sighted....sooner or later they wont be able to cut defense spending or tax enough to support all the promises they make during the campaigns.
Shouldn't be too hard to beat someone that is an illegal occupant of the White House, wasn't born in the USA and is disqualified from holding office, has a failed health care system after him, crashed the economy, is destroying the country, supporting muslim terrorists, etc....
But yet the party rejected a conservative candidate and instead ran the most liberal one they had in Romney. Yeah, that makes perfect sense and is a great argument, errrrr..... excuse for why Obama won a second term.
-
list his acomplishments for someone like you would be a waste of time....since you never acknowledge the truth anyway.....as for Obamacare being done behind the Republican's backs they were there to vote on it....
So what you're really saying is you can't say what his successful (meaning popular) policies are. Can you.
-
So what you're really saying is you can't say what his successful (meaning popular) policies are. Can you.
I dont think we should equate "successful" with "popular".
IMO, successful should mean "Good for the economy, growth, and prosperity of the USA".
You could give away soething random like "Free $1000 to everyone in USA who has ever been arrested" and it'd be WILDLY POPULAR, while crippling the US economy. Popular yet NOT successful.
-
Shouldn't be too hard to beat someone that is an illegal occupant of the White House, wasn't born in the USA and is disqualified from holding office, has a failed health care system after him, crashed the economy, is destroying the country, supporting muslim terrorists, etc....
But yet the party rejected a conservative candidate and instead ran the most liberal one they had in Romney. Yeah, that makes perfect sense and is a great argument, errrrr..... excuse for why Obama won a second term.
Only because Obama's handlers and the fuckwits in the lib media keep it from public. That guy doesn't have an American bone in his body and like 99.9% of libs, is about as patriotic.
-
I dont think we should equate "successful" with "popular".
IMO, successful should mean "Good for the economy, growth, and prosperity of the USA".
You could give away soething random like "Free $1000 to everyone in USA who has ever been arrested" and it'd be WILDLY POPULAR, while crippling the US economy. Popular yet NOT successful.
You have to. Because libs like you equate passing a bill with success. It's only successful if it's popular. The majority of the American public didn't want obamacare (or almost anything else he sleezed his way through) yet he shoved it down are throats dispite it being utterly unpopular. Can't understand why libs think the way they do. Maybe you can tell me.
-
Only because Obama's handlers and the fuckwits in the lib media keep it from public.
FOX news did a whole lotta stories on the Birther issue. And every time, you had hosts like Rush, Bill-O and Hannity refusing to agree with the birthers.
So either Rush/Hannity/OReillay are:
1) fuckwits that don't believe it, or
2) Obama supporters, keeping the story secret, or
3) so unpatriotic they didn't bother to research it
THIS is the problem. They DO have the platform to inform 100% of Americans about the fake ass birth cert. They've been shown TONS of items showing its' weak forgery nature (often, on the air, on their own shows). And they're refusing to stand up and say "Ya know what, I think this dude is actually an illegal alien".
Can't blame obama handlers and fckwits... Unless you're willing to put Hannity, Rush, and Bill OReilly in that category too :(
-
You have to. Because libs like you equate passing a bill with success. It's only successful if it's popular.
I just said I believe the opposite to be true:
IMO, successful should mean "Good for the economy, growth, and prosperity of the USA".
And YOU were the one that said "successful = popular", right here:
So what you're really saying is you can't say what his successful (meaning popular) policies are.
???
-
I just said I believe the opposite to be true:
And YOU were the one that said "successful = popular", right here:
???
You and liberals alike think a bill is a success just because it passes. What I'm saying is it NOT a success if the majority of the people don't want it.
-
Iono like its been said many times on here politics is a pendulum and sooner or later it will swing back to the right. Whether that swing is due to a majority of people realizing that simply taking from one to give to another wont work in the long run or a Greece like event is the question.
Wise words. I said that in 2009:
Don't worry though.. .in 8 years, the pendulum will swing. The upper middle class will be healthy again, and people will vote a repub in, in 2016 or 2020. He'll hook up the rich like Reagan and Bush did, and the cycle will continue.
There were always the people who considered the pendulum theory to be ignorant:
ahhh yes the old pendulum theory which is simply ignorant...
And in the spirit of unity, I think you, me, and 80% of getbig would agree that:
Pendulum.
Bush was going overboard spending to the benefit of the wealthy, then Obama went overboard spending for the poor.
Now we need a fiscal conservative to come in and slash the spending.
-
You and liberals alike think a bill is a success just because it passes. What I'm saying is it NOT a success if the majority of the people don't want it.
Wait, you just said I considered a bill to be "successful if it passes".
Now, since I've proven that to be not the case, you've invented a new item you think I believe, that:
You and liberals alike think a bill is a success just because it passes.
Are you saying you no longer believe the 1st thing you said? Cause this is something entirely new.
Anyway, before we go down that rabbit hole with a 3rd or 4th new position you invent for me, I think I should be very clear here:
I think a bill is "successful" by different standards, depending upon who is employing them.
In LIBERAL standards, a bill is successful if it furthers liberal goals and agenda.
Likewise, in CONSERVATIVE standards, a bill is successful if it furthers liberal goals and agenda.
Since BOTH of these groups believes their ideology/agenda/goals are good for the USA, I think this should clear things up quickly.
"Popular" changes from week to week. But "passes" remains successful, according to the group that wanted it. I think we can find some common ground of agreement there.
-
Wait, you just said I considered a bill to be "successful if it passes".
Now, since I've proven that to be not the case, you've invented a new item you think I believe, that:
Are you saying you no longer believe the 1st thing you said? Cause this is something entirely new.
Anyway, before we go down that rabbit hole with a 3rd or 4th new position you invent for me, I think I should be very clear here:
I think a bill is "successful" by different standards, depending upon who is employing them.
In LIBERAL standards, a bill is successful if it furthers liberal goals and agenda.
Likewise, in CONSERVATIVE standards, a bill is successful if it furthers liberal goals and agenda.
Since BOTH of these groups believes their ideology/agenda/goals are good for the USA, I think this should clear things up quickly.
"Popular" changes from week to week. But "passes" remains successful, according to the group that wanted it. I think we can find some common ground of agreement there.
Thats bullshit. If a bill passes by executive order because obama wants it and no one else does that's not a success. A bill is usually a success if the American people say it is not because Someone passes behind the backs of the people.
-
Thats bullshit. If a bill passes by executive order because obama wants it and no one else does that's not a success. A bill is usually a success if the American people say it is not because Someone passes behind the backs of the people.
By LIBERAL standards, any bill that obama passes IS A SUCCESS because it furthers their fcked up agenda.
Just as any conservative would consider executive orders that successfully did these things:
--- ended obamacare 100%
--- ended entitlements
--- indicted obama for war crimes
to be A SUCCESS.
Bush gave us PLENTY of executive orders that we could consider to be SUCCESSES, such as better military independence, slashed pork spending, energy, enemy combatants, and more:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/orders/
Even if "the american people" represented by Congress didn't agree with him.
Most, if not all of these bills were a SUCCESS because they made America stronger, and avoided the red tape, pork, addendums/ride-ons that destroy many good pieces of legislation. Bush made the good stuff happen, even if it was unpopular, such as military commissions, enemy combatants, torture, etc.
Don't you consider these Bush executive orders to be a SUCCESS, coach?
-
Thats bullshit. If a bill passes by executive order because obama wants it and no one else does that's not a success. A bill is usually a success if the American people say it is not because Someone passes behind the backs of the people.
Bottom line - In my own personal opinion, a bill is successful if it makes America stronger, and better.
Libs and Repubs agree - they just wear their own goggles saying what is better.
We don't say it enough here on getbig, but we all love the USA... we just wear different kinds of goggles when looking at the things that should be done to make it better.
-
By LIBERAL standards, any bill that obama passes IS A SUCCESS because it furthers their fcked up agenda.
Just as any conservative would consider executive orders that successfully did these things:
--- ended obamacare 100%
--- ended entitlements
--- indicted obama for war crimes
to be A SUCCESS.
Bush gave us PLENTY of executive orders that we could consider to be SUCCESSES, such as better military independence, slashed pork spending, energy, enemy combatants, and more:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/orders/
Even if "the american people" represented by Congress didn't agree with him.
Most, if not all of these bills were a SUCCESS because they made America stronger, and avoided the red tape, pork, addendums/ride-ons that destroy many good pieces of legislation. Bush made the good stuff happen, even if it was unpopular, such as military commissions, enemy combatants, torture, etc.
Don't you consider these Bush executive orders to be a SUCCESS, coach?
You keep living in the past. Last I checked Bush wasn't president. Why do keep bringing him up? Bush was vastly more successful than Obama. All of the bullshit the libs said about Bush is being proved wrong almost on a daily basis. OBama on the other hand was a failure before even taking office and quite frankly his qualifications only limit him to cleaning the officer instead of being any kind of executive. When are you gojg to admit obama is an utter failure that should be brought up on charges and given his due sentence.
-
Bottom line - In my own personal opinion, a bill is successful if it makes America stronger, and better.
Libs and Repubs agree - they just wear their own goggles saying what is better.
We don't say it enough here on getbig, but we all love the USA... we just wear different kinds of goggles when looking at the things that should be done to make it better.
None. Not ONE bill has made America stronger or better. That's a fact.
-
Shouldn't be too hard to beat someone that is an illegal occupant of the White House, wasn't born in the USA and is disqualified from holding office, has a failed health care system after him, crashed the economy, is destroying the country, supporting muslim terrorists, etc....
But yet the party rejected a conservative candidate and instead ran the most liberal one they had in Romney. Yeah, that makes perfect sense and is a great argument, errrrr..... excuse for why Obama won a second term.
barking up the wrong tree there brain child. I never bought into the birther thing and like most govt ct's dont give it much if any credibiliity.
NOW, do you want to address the fact that entitlement are now more than 70% of the budget and growing?
-
Wise words. I said that in 2009:
There were always the people who considered the pendulum theory to be ignorant:
And in the spirit of unity, I think you, me, and 80% of getbig would agree that:
ahhh why am I not surprised you would not only cut my quote in half by use it out of context....
-
barking up the wrong tree there brain child. I never bought into the birther thing and like most govt ct's dont give it much if any credibiliity.
NOW, do you want to address the fact that entitlement are now more than 70% of the budget and growing?
Hey Tony, I'm not choosing sides here but the 70%-thing is hard to address for me because I have no idea what % other countries spend.
Also, shouldn't entitlements (which I think means $ toward living expenses for mostly poor people) be expected to be one of the main expenses of a 1st world country?
-
Hey Tony, I'm not choosing sides here but the 70%-thing is hard to address for me because I have no idea what % other countries spend.
Also, shouldn't entitlements (which I think means $ toward living expenses for mostly poor people) be expected to be one of the main expenses of a 1st world country?
HOLY SHIT SON, what does it matter what other countries spend on their entitlements?
you think over 70 cents of every dollar you give to the govt (assuming you pay income taxes) is ok?
-
HOLY SHIT SON, what does it matter what other countries spend on their entitlements?
you think over 70 cents of every dollar you give to the govt (assuming you pay income taxes) is ok?
I back you - until we include "social security" in the entitlements argument.
My grandpa works for 55 years and retires at age 69 or 70. And he gets some snot-nosed politician saying that he isn't "entitled" to the $ he involuntary had taken away by the govt for over 5 decades.
Now, if you want to enact social security reform, I'm all for that. But keep that a separate issue by not lumping it in with welfare moms. I think we need SS reform in a BIG way - there are WAY too many people that have a heart attack at 40 due to weight/diabetes/general diabeetus that end up living off the govt teet for another 35 years, while working under table. I'd beat them all with a fire hose. No way should a person pay for 5 years and live off it for 50 years, we're in agreement.
So are you cool with removing "social security" from the list of "entitlements" when we bitch about them? My grandpa would be pleased.
-
HOLY SHIT SON, what does it matter what other countries spend on their entitlements?
you think over 70 cents of every dollar you give to the govt (assuming you pay income taxes) is ok?
The so called "war on poverty" is a colossal failure! Giving people money, housing etc. accomplishes nothing but creating a ./gov dependent voter. Which ever side promises the most free shit gets the votes. It's going to be interesting see when it all comes crashing down and the ./gov checks stop going out. What are those millions of people going to do? Better be prepared to defend yourself from the welfare zombies when they come for your stuff........
-
I back you - until we include "social security" in the entitlements argument.
My grandpa works for 55 years and retires at age 69 or 70. And he gets some snot-nosed politician saying that he isn't "entitled" to the $ he involuntary had taken away by the govt for over 5 decades.
Now, if you want to enact social security reform, I'm all for that. But keep that a separate issue by not lumping it in with welfare moms. I think we need SS reform in a BIG way - there are WAY too many people that have a heart attack at 40 due to weight/diabetes/general diabeetus that end up living off the govt teet for another 35 years, while working under table. I'd beat them all with a fire hose. No way should a person pay for 5 years and live off it for 50 years, we're in agreement.
So are you cool with removing "social security" from the list of "entitlements" when we bitch about them? My grandpa would be pleased.
hey boss if you take more than you give, you didnt contribute overall you are a net drain. I agree you should get all of the money you gave in back and then some to compensate for the sacrifice.
social security is certainly an entitlement in certain situations.
-
And what successful achievements has the left brought? Almost everything they have passed has been done by executive order or behind the repubs back while on recess..(Obamacare, cough cough)
You mean the congress that has taken the most vacation in history while passing the least amt of legislation in history? that one? The one who shut downt he gov over a passed law (ACA), that effective group? regardless of what you think, this congress has been the most lame duck in history, it's not up for debate, we also witnessed history as their degree of obfuscation reached a climax with a GOP senator, fillibustering his own proposal lol. All they do is complain and try and deflect blame.
While they were on recess? LOL.
-
None. Not ONE bill has made America stronger or better. That's a fact.
Fact huh ::) Joe I am unsure you know what a fact is, because your opinion is not fact. His economic bills saved many key industries and have America bouncing back much faster then countries in similar peril, in fact he achieved what Romney claimed he would in 4 years, in only two. The ACA has been beneficial as it has reduced the number of uninsured, reduced health costs on the young and has seen a minor reduction in healthcare spending. However, more time is needed as you know with your level headed approach ::)
The deficit is shrinking faster then anytime in history largely due to a few of his economic policies, this was a crying point for the right (I dont' think its all that integral), but it's being done. His approach to both Ebola (you nutcases wanted flights/travel halted) and ISIS have been spot on, no americans dying, no massive spending etc.
-
You mean the congress that has taken the most vacation in history while passing the least amt of legislation in history? that one? The one who shut downt he gov over a passed law (ACA), that effective group? regardless of what you think, this congress has been the most lame duck in history, it's not up for debate, we also witnessed history as their degree of obfuscation reached a climax with a GOP senator, fillibustering his own proposal lol. All they do is complain and try and deflect blame.
While they were on recess? LOL.
You didn't answer the question. Lets try this again.
-
Fact huh ::) Joe I am unsure you know what a fact is, because your opinion is not fact. His economic bills saved many key industries and have America bouncing back much faster then countries in similar peril, in fact he achieved what Romney claimed he would in 4 years, in only two. The ACA has been beneficial as it has reduced the number of uninsured, reduced health costs on the young and has seen a minor reduction in healthcare spending. However, more time is needed as you know with your level headed approach ::)
The deficit is shrinking faster then anytime in history largely due to a few of his economic policies, this was a crying point for the right (I dont' think its all that integral), but it's being done. His approach to both Ebola (you nutcases wanted flights/travel halted) and ISIS have been spot on, no americans dying, no massive spending etc.
LMFAO what economic bills are you speaking of necrosis?
you do know that the sequester which you blame on the reps is responsible for the majority of the deficit reduction dont you?
so you blame the reps for shutting down the govt but give obama the credit for its benefits?
obamacare has actually increased the cost of healthcare and added to entitlements which already make up over 70% of the budget....
-
https://www.lordabbett.com/en/perspectives/economicinsights/dramatically-dropping-deficits-keep-dreaming.html
"1) The sequester cut spending after the first quarter of calendar 2013. It is, in fact, safe to say that the entire spending decline was due to it. Had it not occurred, the deficit would have come in at closer to $764 billion—still a significant improvement over fiscal 2012, but less dramatic than was actually recorded. Though the sequester will likely become more significant going forward, additional absolute cuts are unlikely."
-
HOLY SHIT SON, what does it matter what other countries spend on their entitlements?
you think over 70 cents of every dollar you give to the govt (assuming you pay income taxes) is ok?
It matters at least some in that it gives us a basis of comparison, doesn't it? I mean, if we're paying more but our citizens are receiving less (as seems to be the case with health care) I think that's worth knowing.
I'm not sure if 70% of the every dollar I pay in income tax going to entitlements is ok or not. I guess it depends on what else needs to be paid for by tax money. And I'm not well versed enough in the subject to have a strong opinion about it. I'm all ears if you have more info/links about the subject, though.
-
social security is certainly an entitlement in certain situations.
I can find certain situations in ANY job, agency, etc where it's an entitlement. Every school has an idiot with a clipboard making $62k a year that hides and does nothing. Every fire station has a fat guy who doesn't go on calls or oversee anything, but has been there decades and just collects a check to be there. Every police dept has a sgt whose job is covered by 2 other guys, who does nothing but sit at a desk all day and be redundant.
I don't consider police, teachers, and fire dept to be "entitlements".
Repubs need to take social securuty out of the speeches. Just cause there are "some situations" doesn't mean most people are leeches. YES, cut the welfare to near zero, cut it to 2-year limits, cut it for potheads, and slash most of those govt teet programs that are total garbage.
But they don't dare call it entitlements for the man who worked 55 years and now has to be mocked by 32 year old House members whose only job was college and running for city council. fck them, that makes me mad. How dare Paul Ryan say we need to raise the retirement age? Tell grandpa that 55 years wasn't enough? Work from the time you're 14 on... but no, 67, you are a liberal worthless prick trying to get some of your money back, that you earned in a lifetime of work?
and when the Paul Ryans of the world try to say this about VETERANS.... screw those politicians! Take social security out of the definition, reform soc security to remove the fraud/waste, and yes, I back it 100%. But hating on grandpa for wanting to reture before 70? come on. :(
-
It matters at least some in that it gives us a basis of comparison, doesn't it? I mean, if we're paying more but our citizens are receiving less (as seems to be the case with health care) I think that's worth knowing.
I'm not sure if 70% of the every dollar I pay in income tax going to entitlements is ok or not. I guess it depends on what else needs to be paid for by tax money. And I'm not well versed enough in the subject to have a strong opinion about it. I'm all ears if you have more info/links about the subject, though.
no a comparison doesnt matter for shit, the issue is what really needs to be paid for by our tax dollars....
-
I can find certain situations in ANY job, agency, etc where it's an entitlement. Every school has an idiot with a clipboard making $62k a year that hides and does nothing. Every fire station has a fat guy who doesn't go on calls or oversee anything, but has been there decades and just collects a check to be there. Every police dept has a sgt whose job is covered by 2 other guys, who does nothing but sit at a desk all day and be redundant.
I don't consider police, teachers, and fire dept to be "entitlements".
Repubs need to take social securuty out of the speeches. Just cause there are "some situations" doesn't mean most people are leeches. YES, cut the welfare to near zero, cut it to 2-year limits, cut it for potheads, and slash most of those govt teet programs that are total garbage.
But they don't dare call it entitlements for the man who worked 55 years and now has to be mocked by 32 year old House members whose only job was college and running for city council. fck them, that makes me mad. How dare Paul Ryan say we need to raise the retirement age? Tell grandpa that 55 years wasn't enough? Work from the time you're 14 on... but no, 67, you are a liberal worthless prick trying to get some of your money back, that you earned in a lifetime of work?
and when the Paul Ryans of the world try to say this about VETERANS.... screw those politicians! Take social security out of the definition, reform soc security to remove the fraud/waste, and yes, I back it 100%. But hating on grandpa for wanting to reture before 70? come on. :(
like I said brainchild if youre taking more than you put in yes its an entitlement.
How much did your grandpa put in?
How much has he taken out?
-
like I said brainchild if youre taking more than you put in yes its an entitlement.
How much did your grandpa put in?
How much has he taken out?
But like I said... People "take out more than they take in", in just about every industry and division of govt. Surely some members of congress whose inactivity is noted, would fall into that category.
But we don't include them. So why include social security?
IMO, we should revamp SS completely. And we should take it out of that entitlement word.
-
But like I said... People "take out more than they take in", in just about every industry and division of govt. Surely some members of congress whose inactivity is noted, would fall into that category.
But we don't include them. So why include social security?
IMO, we should revamp SS completely. And we should take it out of that entitlement word.
agreed lets get rid of all the waste and chains around our necks instead of doing exactly what you just condemned politicians for.
If youre taking out more than you put in youre a net drain....and yes thats an entitlement
how much did your grandpa put in 240?
how much has he taken out?
-
agreed lets get rid of all the waste and chains around our necks instead of doing exactly what you just condemned politicians for.
If youre taking out more than you put in youre a net drain....and yes thats an entitlement
how much did your grandpa put in 240?
how much has he taken out?
I dont know his numbers.
I'm saying if you want to shame 100% of welfare moms by calling it entitlement, i'm not going to disagree with you.
But wanting to shame everyone who gets SS - and by calling it entitlements, you DO... that disgusts me.
I'm all for locking up 100% of those punk asses getting a SS check while working and cutting off those who get it and haven't put in.
But IMO, no person who EVER worked 5 decades and paid in, and is just about to start it, should have to face shame of a politician shitting on them for entitlements. They worked, they earned, ,they don't deserve that.
-
I dont know his numbers.
I'm saying if you want to shame 100% of welfare moms by calling it entitlement, i'm not going to disagree with you.
But wanting to shame everyone who gets SS - and by calling it entitlements, you DO... that disgusts me.
I'm all for locking up 100% of those punk asses getting a SS check while working and cutting off those who get it and haven't put in.
But IMO, no person who EVER worked 5 decades and paid in, and is just about to start it, should have to face shame of a politician shitting on them for entitlements. They worked, they earned, ,they don't deserve that.
its a very simple equation 240.
what you take out > what you put in = entitlement
It doesnt matter if youre a welfare mom or a person who paid in 40 years.
We can talk about who is more deserving of that entitlement but it doesnt change the fact that they are both receiving entitlements...
-
They worked, they earned, ,they don't deserve that.
If youre taking out more than you put in, you dont deserve that....thats an entitlement!!!
again you can argue who is more deserving of that entitlement but its still an entitlement
-
nah its hard to beat someone who promises the majority of people shit while taking from others.
Entitlements are already over 70% of the budget and thanks to programs like the the last promise (Obamacare) will continue to grow at a good clip for the forseeable future.
The problem with the democrats platform is that it is extremely short sighted....sooner or later they wont be able to cut defense spending or tax enough to support all the promises they make during the campaigns.
They were growing under Republicans as well....but the Republicans and conservatives have brainwashed you into thinking otherwise.....so you continue to believe the myth of Republican financial austerity....but the actually spend as much as /democrats...its just that Dems actually tax and pay for it...Repubs spend and borrow.
-
So what you're really saying is you can't say what his successful (meaning popular) policies are. Can you.
of course I can....I have about 15 or 20 that come to mind right away but again why waste my time?...you will still deny it anyway won't you? 8)
-
Only because Obama's handlers and the fuckwits in the lib media keep it from public. That guy doesn't have an American bone in his body and like 99.9% of libs, is about as patriotic.
I just love it when you out yourself as crazy....you conservatives just can't help it!!!....LOL...good job! ;)
-
You mean the congress that has taken the most vacation in history while passing the least amt of legislation in history? that one? The one who shut downt he gov over a passed law (ACA), that effective group? regardless of what you think, this congress has been the most lame duck in history, it's not up for debate, we also witnessed history as their degree of obfuscation reached a climax with a GOP senator, fillibustering his own proposal lol. All they do is complain and try and deflect blame.
While they were on recess? LOL.
GREAT POST......TRUTH 8)
-
They were growing under Republicans as well....but the Republicans and conservatives have brainwashed you into thinking otherwise.....so you continue to believe the myth of Republican financial austerity....but the actually spend as much as /democrats...its just that Dems actually tax and pay for it...Repubs spend and borrow.
no doubt they do, guess what they dont run on it like the dems do...Thats the point of the post brainchild, try and keep up or stay out of the conversation if you cant.
We were talking about elections....
Also they dont cover it by taxing, we are still running a deficit. What happens when you cant tax anymore andre?
-
no doubt they do, guess what they dont run on it like the dems do...Thats the point of the post brainchild, try and keep up or stay out of the conversation if you cant.
We were talking about elections....
Also they dont cover it by taxing, we are still running a deficit. What happens when you cant tax anymore andre?
its a shame you can't respond to a post without a put down, but I guess that's part of your way of deflecting....of course the Dems run on it..thats unashamedly their modis operandi.....but they get elected...so its what the American people want..the Dems are quite open about this..no secret there
-
its a shame you can't respond to a post without a put down, but I guess that's part of your way of deflecting....of course the Dems run on it..thats unashamedly their modis operandi.....but they get elected...so its what the American people want..the Dems are quite open about this..no secret there
wait your retarded ass calls me brainwashed b/c I said exactly what you just posted and I insulted you?
HAHAHAH are you fucking high or just a moron?
-
of course the Dems run on it..thats unashamedly their modis operandi.....but they get elected...so its what the American people want..the Dems are quite open about this..no secret there
thats the fucking point brainchild, its hard to compete against someone who promises free shit.
Lets see free shit or personal responsibility....hmmm
-
thats the fucking point brainchild, its hard to compete against someone who promises free shit.
Lets see free shit or personal responsibility....hmmm
you're still falling for that "personal responsibility, family values" bullshit.....more brainwashing.....did the repubs take personal responsibility for all the sex scandals they're involved in where they are caught cheating on their wives? lots of hypocrisy
-
you're still falling for that "personal responsibility, family values" bullshit.....more brainwashing.....did the repubs take personal responsibility for all the sex scandals they're involved in where they are caught cheating on their wives? lots of hypocrisy
LMFAO all politicians are hypocrites, reps and dems alike dumb ass
Simply b/c a person who is an elected dem/rep doesnt live up to the goals of their party doesnt invalidate the goals of the party.
Plenty of hypocrisey to go around there andre, difference is I can call both parties out and you cant.
-
thats the fucking point brainchild, its hard to compete against someone who promises free shit.
Lets see free shit or personal responsibility....hmmm
you are right they are mutually exclusive and hard work will always trump a crooked corrupt system.
-
you are right they are mutually exclusive and hard work will always trump a crooked corrupt system.
its hyperbole obviously to make a point.
but the bottom line results of their policies are not that far off....now tell us all how obama saved the economy with cash for clunkers and the stimulus.
-
of course I can....I have about 15 or 20 that come to mind right away but again why waste my time?...you will still deny it anyway won't you? 8)
Yet you can't type out one?
-
Republican party isn't dying, only changing. The Libertarian wing of the Republican party is quite popular with the youngsters. And the Republicans will still win local and state elections.
-
Yet you can't type out one?
I only try to prove things to people who are rational and have critical thinking skills....with you, why bother?..you don't agree with any viewpoint other than your own
-
Republican party isn't dying, only changing. The Libertarian wing of the Republican party is quite popular with the youngsters. And the Republicans will still win local and state elections.
true that. libs rule the coastlines. repubs rule the middle of the country.
-
Actually the Libertarians have never been, or never will be, a wing of the Republican party. As the Tea Party will never be part of the the Republican or any other party. Even conservative Republicans are thinking twice about their membership. RINO's becoming a big issue here with the GOP..
This mid term election is all about rejection of current Washington policies. Hope and change; to rid the country of the dangerous attempted of taking this country back to the bad old days. Imploding, from within, for the last 6 years.
-
No. You just want to fall back on your usual tactic of arguing semantics in an effort to make a point. Which is irrelevant by now. My statement was specifically about Dems and midterms. You trying to talk about anything else just shows that you are either trying to deflect what I said or are too stupid to comprehend it.
" ::) "
You have said repeatedly that the Republican Party is dead. Now you have changed that statement to "dying." Regardless, your prior statements didn't have anything to do with midterm elections.
I understand you don't want to back off your comments, but the facts really don't agree with you. You have no explanation for why Republicans control so many states. If they party was dead, that wouldn't be the case, or at a minimum, there would be a solid trend showing massive losses at the state level across the country.
-
Actually the Libertarians have never been, or never will be, a wing of the Republican party. As the Tea Party will never be part of the the Republican or any other party. Even conservative Republicans are thinking twice about their membership. RINO's becoming a big issue here with the GOP..
This mid term election is all about rejection of current Washington policies. Hope and change; to rid the country of the dangerous attempted of taking this country back to the bad old days. Imploding, from within, for the last 6 years.
If the Libertarians are running in Republican primkaries then this indicates that tthe Republican voters are those they most identify with thus this means they are a wing of the Repbulican party.....I dont see Rand Paul running in Democratic primaries are participating in Democtratic debates..
-
If the Libertarians are running in Republican primkaries then this indicates that tthe Republican voters are those they most identify with thus this means they are a wing of the Repbulican party.....I dont see Rand Paul running in Democratic primaries are participating in Democtratic debates..
Did your check show up today?
-
yup and liberalism is all about free love, gay sex and taking money from others to help support your drug habits.
Hyperbole...not just for libtards anymore ;)
youre joking right?
Your boy 33386 cornered that market long ago
-
.......http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dre/politics/election-lab-2014
Not holding my breath. The corruption among the Dem party is ALL about lying, cheating and stealing elections.
-
youre joking right?
Your boy 33386 cornered that market long ago
Hope and Change sucker
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/03/midterm-polling_n_6093696.html
-
Bump for Andreisatwink :D
-
Republicans control the Senate, increased their hold of the House to a level not seen in decades, and made gains at the state level, including terrific performances in gubenatorial races.
Doesn't sound like the GOP is dead to me.
-
Headline on the front page of huffingtonpost:
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2244682/original.jpg)
-
THE GOP IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!
House of Rep
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/incls/ap_results/2014_midterm/live_map_house.png?1415202087417)
-
THE GOP IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!
House of Rep
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/incls/ap_results/2014_midterm/live_map_house.png?1415202087417)
Wow. Speak on this Lurker. Where you stay? :)
-
2014 Governor results
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/incls/ap_results/2014_midterm/live_map_governor.png?1415202197596)
-
2014 Senate Results
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/incls/ap_results/2014_midterm/live_map_senate.png?1415202274259)
-
Before anyone get's drunk on gloating lets have a moment of perspective. Unless Republicans move on amnesty and border security the election results are only a momentary reprieve.
-
Before anyone get's drunk on gloating lets have a moment of perspective. Unless Republicans move on amnesty and border security the election results are only a momentary reprieve.
I'm not gloating. Just questioning the contention that the GOP is dead.
I doubt anything gets done the next two years, but gridlock is good. Better to have no new laws than bad ones (like Obamacare).
-
Republicans control the Senate, increased their hold of the House to a level not seen in decades, and made gains at the state level, including terrific performances in gubenatorial races.
Doesn't sound like the GOP is dead to me.
they're not dead. they're just powerless to stop a president bent on destroying the USA using executive orders.
Well, not entirely powerless. they control the purse strings and could impeach... but i doubt they have the balls to exercise either :(
-
I'm not gloating. Just questioning the contention that the GOP is dead.
I doubt anything gets done the next two years, but gridlock is good. Better to have no new laws than bad ones (like Obamacare).
I'm not accusing you of gloating. It was a general warning against gloating, myself included. I was just saying that work needs to be done.
-
How much work can the GOP get done when the clown still has veto power?
-
I'm not accusing you of gloating. It was a general warning against gloating, myself included. I was just saying that work needs to be done.
Iin 2010, there was tons of gloating, because the future seemed to bright.
After 4 years of gridlock, and exec power like crazy, we now see that the repubs can only really do TWO things in controlling senate too.
They can cut the funding - and they probably will not.
They can impeach obama - and they probably will not.
So the big "win" was really something like "now we're in good shape if we win White House in 2016".
however, there are tens of millions of people who don't bother in off-year elections that will certainly show up to vote (D) in a presidential election. The win in 2010 was way more brutal and in 2012, ROmney still got beaten (after the major tea party force was unable to even secure a tea party candidate).
Run another RINO in 2016, and (it's a lot of repubs saying it now too) - Dems will probably win white house again.
-
they're not dead. they're just powerless to stop a president bent on destroying the USA using executive orders.
Well, not entirely powerless. they control the purse strings and could impeach... but i doubt they have the balls to exercise either :(
::)
-
I'm not accusing you of gloating. It was a general warning against gloating, myself included. I was just saying that work needs to be done.
Understood. Thanks. I won't be holding my breath waiting for anything substantive to get done.
-
More proof of the GOP's demise. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=554739.0
-
As Democrats take stock of their grievous losses in the 2014 elections, party leaders are confronting a challenge perhaps even more daunting than their defeats in the House and Senate: the virtual wipeout of the Democratic talent pool across the country.
After the Republican waves of 2010 and 2014, the party is depleted not just in its major-league talent, but also in its triple-A recruitment prospects. It amounts to a setback, Democrats say, that will almost certainly require more than one election cycle to repair.
At the start of the 2014 campaign, Democrats envisioned an election that would produce new national stars for the party in at least a few tough states – Georgia Sen. Michelle Nunn or Kentucky Sen. Alison Lundergan Grimes, for instance, or maybe even Texas Gov. Wendy Davis. Even if the party fell short in those “reach” states, Democrats hoped to produce new heavyweight blue-state Democrats – Maryland Gov. Anthony Brown, the country’s only black state executive; or Maine Gov. Mike Michaud, who would have been the first openly gay candidate elected governor.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
-
d
-
Republican Midterm Dominance Extends to Executive Mansions
Forget the Senate: The GOP also took control of hotly contested governor's seats.
Nov. 5, 2014, in Annapolis, Md.
By Joseph P. Williams Nov. 5, 2014
While most of the nation’s attention was focused on their Senate bloodbath, the Democrats’ bad night got even worse at the state level Tuesday. Republicans seized the governorships in six battleground states – including in President Barack Obama’s home state of Illinois – and retook the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts.
In total, Republicans had won or led in 26 of 36 state governor's races by early Wednesday morning.
The Republican midterm dominance included perhaps the most-watched gubernatorial race this cycle, in which embattled Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker weathered political scandals and a 2012 recall vote to win another term. He handily defeated Mary Burke, a businesswoman and promising Democratic political newcomer who seemed well-suited to take on what many saw as a vulnerable, marginally popular incumbent.
Their heated race featured millions of dollars in outside spending, mostly by Republican-affiliated groups, and a rare campaign trail appearance by Obama, who stumped in support of Burke.
At the same time, GOP incumbent governors John Kasich of Ohio and Rick Snyder of Michigan, running in what had been considered highly competitive races, easily defeated their Democratic challengers. In the process, both solidified their credentials for a possible spot on the GOP’s 2016 presidential ticket.
Republicans also took control of the governor’s mansions in three Democratic bastions: Maryland, where Democratic Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown lost to Republican businessman Larry Hogan; Arkansas, where Asa Hutchinson – a former congressman and George W. Bush administration official – defeated former Democratic Rep. Mike Ross; and Massachusetts, where Attorney General Martha Coakley – whom Scott Brown defeated in the campaign to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in 2010 – lost a nail-biter of a race to health care executive Charlie Baker.
In Maryland, Brown – who served two terms under popular governor (and potential Democratic presidential challenger) Martin O’Malley – was unable to hold what had been a substantial lead over Hogan. In Arkansas, Ross’ defeat came despite the efforts of former President Bill Clinton, a still-popular favorite son who campaigned hard for Ross in the final days of the contest.
Republicans led in or took nearly every competitive governor’s race this cycle – including in Colorado, where GOP challenger Bob Beauprez was poised to defeat incumbent Democrat John Hickenlooper; the two had been running neck-and-neck in the polls. The case was the same in Florida, where incumbent Gov. Rick Scott and Republican-turned-Democrat Charlie Crist were locked in a bitter grudge match for months.
Scott won by the thinnest of margins, and did it despite his own ugly voter approval ratings, which sank to around 39 percent toward the end of his first term. Crist’s poll numbers, however, weren’t much better, languishing at about the same level, and nationwide commentary focused on the fact that voters had to pick between two candidates no one much liked.
While the fight for control of the Senate dominated the political headlines during the midterm cycle, the executive mansion wins could pay big dividends for Republicans. Many of the GOP’s conservative policies are set at the state level, and Walker and others could be considered contenders for the GOP’s 2016 presidential nomination.
There was one bright spot in an otherwise dark night for Democrats. In Pennsylvania, Democratic challenger Tom Wolf beat the incumbent Republican, Tom Corbett, in a historic election – the first time in 40 years a sitting governor in the state has been defeated.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/05/republican-midterm-dominance-extends-to-governors-races
-
d
Correct - the problem of the stupid people who voted for this African communist pos is still with us
-
Quinn declines to concede governor’s race, waiting for final tally
Gov. Pat Quinn tells supporters he will not concede the election until every vote is counted. Quinn, a Democrat, is the first governor to lose re-election in a president’s home state since 1892.
Tyler Pager, Breaking News Editor
November 5, 2014 •
CHICAGO — Despite multiple outlets calling the Illinois gubernatorial election in favor of Republican challenger Bruce Rauner, Gov. Pat Quinn refused to concede the election Tuesday night.
Quinn, who has served as Illinois’ governor since 2009, said he wanted to make sure every vote was counted before relinquishing his seat.
“I don’t believe in throwing in the towel if that many votes are being counted,” he said. “Until that happens, I don’t think we should make any judgment on this election.”
With 99 percent of the state’s precincts reporting, Rauner captured 51 percent of the vote to Quinn’s 46 percent. Quinn’s loss marked the first time that the governor of a president’s home state lost a re-election bid since 1892.
. . .
http://dailynorthwestern.com/2014/11/05/city/quinn-declines-to-concede-governors-race-waiting-for-final-tally/
-
Correct - the problem of the stupid people who voted for this African communist pos is still with us
cool story bro
-
cool story bro
You will kneepad Hillary too and you know it. Cool story bro - kneepadding Hillary - lmfao
-
The GOP has some interesting possibilities for President in 2016. Walker in WI, Kasich in OH, Martinez out in NM, Sandoval in NV....not to mention the two heavyweights in Christie (ha...I said heavyweight) and Bush. If Hillary! is the choice for the Dems...and that is by no means certain...you can't really criticize the GOP for running another Bush. The GOP has a number of people they can run with clout in swing states. The dems have Hillary!..a flawed candidate with tons of baggage and who else? Warren? Cuomo? Warren is so far left and she's done nothing outside of being a one term Senator. Do you think they can sell that package again? And Cuomo? He's from New York...apart from the firefighters and Derek Jeter the rest of the country hates New Yorkers.
I don't see a really compelling dem for 2016...I see a number of really solid options for the GOP.
-
The downward spiral of the Republican Party continues.
What Just Happened In The Senate Race In Alaska Could Be Considered Righting A Political Wrong
...there is just one senate contest still to be decided...
NORVELL ROSE — NOVEMBER 12, 2014
Incumbent U.S. Senator Mark Begich of Alaska won his seat in 2008 by defeating the longest-serving Republican member of the upper chamber, Ted Stevens. But many of Stevens’ allies and supporters at the time said that Begich’s victory was tainted, even illegitimate.
Just days before the election, you may recall, Stevens was found guilty by a Washington D.C. federal jury on seven felony counts. However, the conviction of the popular GOP senator was later set aside due to prosecutorial misconduct, and Stevens record was cleared.
It was too late — Begich was already installed as Alaska’s junior senator. Soon, though, the one-termer will be out of office.
As Fox News reports, Republican Dan Sullivan has defeated Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Begich in Alaska’s U.S. Senate race. Just about a week after election day, the Associated Press has declared Sullivan the winner, bringing to 53 the number of seats the GOP has now captured.
The Washington Times explains the delay in determining who won the hard-fought Alaska race:
The Alaska race was too close to call on Election Night last week, with Sullivan up by about 8,100 votes, but it became evident Tuesday when the state began counting about 20,000 of absentee and questioned ballots that Begich could not overcome Sullivan.
But while the race has been declared, Sen. Begich has not conceded. According to his campaign:
“Sen. Begich believes every vote deserves to be counted in this election. There are tens of thousands of outstanding votes and Sen. Begich has heard from rural Alaskans that their votes deserve to be counted and their voices deserve to be heard. He will honor those requests.”
Assuming the current status of the Alaska race holds, there is just one senate contest still to be decided. That’s the runoff on December 6th in Louisiana between Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Rep Bill Cassidy (R-LA).
Ironically, Senate Democrats may push for a vote on the Keystone XL pipeline in the coming weeks, according to Democratic aides — a move that could help Landrieu, who is currently viewed as the underdog in the runoff.
President Obama and many of his Democrat allies have long dragged their feet on reaching a conclusion about whether to okay construction of the pipeline.
But now, says NBC News, Democrats may suddenly become aggressive champions of Keystone XL:
While no decisions have been made to go forward with the plan, the strategy would see a vote on the controversial pipeline before the Republican majority is sworn-in, and would allow Landrieu, and other moderate Democrats, to vote in support of approving it.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/just-happened-senate-race-alaska-considered-righting-political-wrong/#O0J0MLCMG4s8UwGG.99
-
Pretty funny (and informative) read.
Election Night Reality vs. MSNBC's Pre-Election Wishful Thinking
By Ann Coulter | November 6, 2014
After Tuesday night, Republicans' main objective is clear: Convince Oregon Measure 88 to run for president.
Measure 88 won more votes than anything else on the Oregon ballot. More votes than pot legalization. More than the incumbent governor, the incumbent senator or any of the six other ballot measures. The widely popular, landslide vote on Measure 88 prohibits illegal immigrants from getting driver's licenses.
In the nightmare scenario for MSNBC, by midnight Tuesday night, Republicans had 52 Senate seats -- 53 with their probable win in the Louisiana runoff in December, 54 if they win Alaska and 55 if they win Virginia. And I'm not even counting Democratic flips.
Don't you wish all these new Republicans were joining Republican senators Richard Lugar, Mike Castle and whatever Republican was running against Todd Akin? How about Rob Simmons in Connecticut, who would be the senator from Connecticut if self-serving GOP consultants hadn't gone for the money-bags, unelectable candidate instead?
Without tea party challenges and greedy Republican consultants, Republicans would be looking at 59 Senate seats in the next Congress. Maybe 61 with Democrat flips.
One more wave election, and it wouldn't matter who the president is.
And what if the money and energy wasted this year saving incumbent senators Mitch McConnell, Thad Cochran and Pat Roberts from tea party challenges had been spent on Senate elections in New Hampshire, Virginia or Minnesota? These guys weren't Arlen Specter! They weren't even John McCain or Marco Rubio.
(The only person who had a worse night on Tuesday than MSNBC's Rachel Maddow was Marco Rubio, who just lost the only argument for not primarying him in 2016.)
Republicans won every possible Senate and governor's seat, but one: long-shot, come-from-behind Scott Brown in New Hampshire. A month ago, no one thought we'd even be talking about New Hampshire on election night.
But Brown was such a fantastic candidate, aggressively denouncing amnesty and open borders, that he managed to single-handedly turn a safe seat for the Democrats into a bloodbath. He is surely responsible for at least one Republican Senate win by forcing Democrats to divert precious resources to New Hampshire.
Without many silver linings, all of MSNBC's bitterness election night was directed at Scott Brown.
An angry Rachel Maddow repeatedly told her little joke about Brown being the first man to lose to two women in two states. Hey, Rachel: Martha Coakley just became the first woman in the same state to lose to a man in two elections for two different offices -- senator and governor!
It was a tough night for Rachel. For those of you who haven't seen her show, words cannot capture the giggling, smirking, cutesy antics that accompany her remarks.
Exactly two months ago, Rachel was hyping Princeton's Sam Wang, who, in 2012, "correctly predicted all 33 U.S. Senate races"! I don't remember those being that hard to predict, but it impressed Rachel. "According to Sam Wang`s calculations," Maddow smirked on Sept. 3, "the odds of the Democrats holding onto the Senate nationwide for the whole country, those odds move to 85 percent."
Election results by midnight Tuesday:
-- Senate Republicans: 52
-- Senate Democrats: 44
Less than a month ago, Rachel devoted several shows to a complicated argument about how the Democrats could win the Senate election in South Dakota. "Now, today, the new unthinkable," she began. "The Democratic Party today just announced that, hey, South Dakota is hereby a contested race. South Dakota. Democrats all of a sudden think they can maybe win in South Dakota. ... Woo-hoo!"
Tuesday night election results in South Dakota:
-- Republican Mike Rounds: 51.1 percent
-- Democrat Rick Weiland: 29 percent
One month ago, Rachel was gloating about Kansas governor Sam Brownback heading to defeat because of his experiment with "massive" tax cuts. "The result of Sam Brownback's experiment," she said, "is, number one, that Kansas is broke. Number two, that Sam Brownback is losing his re-election bid to a centrist Democrat who warned that Kansas couldn`t afford those cuts."
Tuesday night election results in Kansas:
-- Sam Brownback: 49.9 percent
-- Paul Davis: 46.1 percent
Rachel on Arkansas, earlier this year:
"Basically the unanimous Beltway common wisdom was Mark Pryor, Democratic senator from Arkansas, was definitely going to lose this year. ... Except that it is not at all what happened. Check this out. Mark Pryor has been polling 10 and 11 points ahead of this Tom Cotton guy who is running against him. Senator Pryor is up in this race by double digits."
(Translation of "this Tom Cotton guy": magna cum laude graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School; second lieutenant in the U.S. Army; infantry officer and platoon leader with the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq; U.S. representative from Arkansas.)
Tuesday night election results in Arkansas:
-- Tom "This Guy" Cotton: 56.5 percent
-- Mark Pryor: 39.5 percent
And what ever happened to A-Star-Is-Born, Wendy Davis? MSNBC spent all of 2013 telling us she was going to be the next governor of Texas.
Rachel began referring to Davis' opponent, Greg Abbott, as the man "best known as the Republican running for Texas governor against Democrat Wendy Davis." On June 26, 2014, Rachel spent airtime commemorating the one-year anniversary of Davis' filibuster for abortion!
Tuesday night election results in Texas:
-- Greg Abbott: 59.4 percent
-- Wendy Davis: 38.9 percent
I could go on and on. Rachel sneering about Thom Tillis, Rachel giggling about Mitch McConnell, Rachel laughing at Nathan Deal, Rachel mocking Rick Scott, Rachel dismissing Scott Walker.
Instead, let's review a few of Tuesday's highlights:
-- A former House impeachment manager is now governor of Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas.
-- The deep blue states of Maryland and Massachusetts will now have Republican governors.
-- Republicans have just elected: the youngest member of Congress (Elise Stefanik of New York); the first black female representative from Utah (Mia Love); the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction (Tim Scott). The two black senators from the South before that were also Republicans, as was the first black senator from the North, Edward Brooke.
-- Americans really don't want driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
-- Sandra Fluke lost.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ann-coulter/2014/11/06/election-night-reality-vs-msnbcs-pre-election-wishful-thinking#sthash.3WszNIu3.dpuf
-
In the post Watergate 70's...when Carter won and the Deems had large majorities in the Senate and House... republicans were fought to be in deep shit for a generation St least. In 1980..four years later..the GOP takes the Senate and the White house and makes huge gains in the House.
In 1992, Clinton wins and the GOP faces a Dem Senate and House. Surely..the GOP was screwed for decades. In 1994 the GOP takes back the House and Senate . in 2000, the GOP takes the White House as well.
In 2006,the tide turns. Democrats win a majority in the House and Senate and in 2008 Obama gets elected and brings a veto proof Senate with him. Surely the GOP is screwed now... until 2010 when they win back the House and 2014 when they take the Senate.
Politics is cyclical... reality tends to run in a circle while ideology tends to be more linear. Sometimes, the reality of what the people want intersects with your line of thinking. Holding to too narrow a line lessens the geometry quite a bit.
-
In the post Watergate 70's...when Carter won and the Deems had large majorities in the Senate and House... republicans were fought to be in deep shit for a generation St least. In 1980..four years later..the GOP takes the Senate and the White house and makes huge gains in the House.
In 1992, Clinton wins and the GOP faces a Dem Senate and House. Surely..the GOP was screwed for decades. In 1994 the GOP takes back the House and Senate . in 2000, the GOP takes the White House as well.
In 2006,the tide turns. Democrats win a majority in the House and Senate and in 2008 Obama gets elected and brings a veto proof Senate with him. Surely the GOP is screwed now... until 2010 when they win back the House and 2014 when they take the Senate.
Politics is cyclical... reality tends to run in a circle while ideology tends to be more linear. Sometimes, the reality of what the people want intersects with your line of thinking. Holding to too narrow a line lessens the geometry quite a bit.
A lot of truth to this. It's similar to sports franchises. Winning and losing are cyclical. I don't think either party is dead or will ever die.
That said, I do think liberalism is a proven failure in politics. Liberal candidates will still win elections, but the ideology itself is a failure.
-
You will kneepad Hillary too and you know it. Cool story bro - kneepadding Hillary - lmfao
Just like you kneepadded Trump, Palin , Herman Edwards, and Romney....all losers
-
Just like you kneepadded Trump, Palin , Herman Edwards, and Romney....all losers
I always thought he got a bad rap as a coach. Still appreciate his football insight on ESPN though.
-
I always thought he got a bad rap as a coach. Still appreciate his football insight on ESPN though.
hahahahaa..my bad!...meant Herman Cain....good catch! :D
-
hahahahaa..my bad!...meant Herman Cain....good catch! :D
Failbama is the biggest loser ever - no one or nothing compares to the epic nature of the disaster that is the ofagget junta
-
hahahahaa..my bad!...meant Herman Cain....good catch! :D
lol :D
-
Failbama is the biggest loser ever - no one or nothing compares to the epic nature of the disaster that is the ofagget junta
what loser are you supporting this year???
-
what loser are you supporting this year???
you black libs are really a hoot - that piece of filth you worship Obama is putting a knife in the back of black people everywhere w amnesty for illegals and you still support him. Priceless.
-
you black libs are really a hoot - that piece of filth you worship Obama is putting a knife in the back of black people everywhere w amnesty for illegals and you still support him. Priceless.
sigh,..it is really odd you constantly bring it back to black people...like you actually care....again almost 40% of whites voted for him.....thats a lot of whites who according to you worship Obama and are getting a knife in the back
-
sigh,..it is really odd you constantly bring it back to black people...like you actually care....again almost 40% of whites voted for him.....thats a lot of whites who according to you worship Obama and are getting a knife in the back
95% of moron blacks voted for him.
-
95% of moron blacks voted for him.
40% of whites and 75% of Asians agreed with the so-called morons
-
40% of whites and 75% of Asians agreed with the so-called morons
Says a lot right? Gruber was 100% correct - you libs are FNG morons
-
Says a lot right? Gruber was 100% correct - you libs are FNG morons
everytime you get hit with facts you resort to unintelligible insults??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-
The evidence of the Republican Party's demise just keeps pouring in.
Will GOP's control of the South play significant role in 2016 races?
Published December 08, 2014
FoxNews.com
The defeat Saturday of Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu was essentially the final act in the Republican Party’s control this fall of the South -- a transition expected to have a significant impact on the 2016 White House races.
The victory by Republican challenger and Louisiana Rep. Bill Cassidy means that Democrats in January will be left without a single U.S. senator or governor across nine states -- stretching from the Carolinas to Texas.
And GOP runoff victories Saturday in two Louisiana House districts ensure the party of at least 246 seats, the largest Republican advantage since the Truman administration after World War II.
Furthermore, Republicans in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas will control nearly every majority-white congressional district and both state legislative chambers.
But will the conservative-leaning voters who appeared this year to have written a closing chapter for the white Southern Democrat have the same impact on the 2016 presidential races?
"The Republican presidential nomination will run through the South," says Ferrell Guillory, a Southern politics expert based at the University of North Carolina. "As Mitt Romney found (in 2012), that...makes it harder to build a national coalition once you are the nominee."
Democrats on Sunday argued that the GOP’s control of the South is not an insurmountable problem for Hillary Clinton, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or any other liberal member of their party who makes a 2016 presidential run.
“Right now, there are really two electorates -- the midterm and the presidential. It’s a different math,” Democratic National Committee spokesman Michael Czin told FoxNews.com, pointing out that voter-turnout within his party is expected to be significantly higher in 2016.
Democratic strategist and pollster Ben Tulchin said the 2008 and 2012 elections prove that “Democrats don’t need the Deep South to win.”
In 1976, former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter became one of the last true Southern Democrats to win the White House. He won every Southern state except Oklahoma and Virginia. In 1992 and 1996, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, considered a more conservative Democrat, won only a handful of Southern states in winning the presidency.
Tulchin also argued a moderate Republican will likely have more problems in 2016 in the Deep South than a liberal Democrat, considering the early South Carolina primary, followed by those in other states across the region, could hurt somebody like New Jersey GOP Gov. Chris Christie.
“His best hope there is the conservative candidates split that vote,” said Tulchin, president of San Francisco-based Tulchin Research.
The region also is home to GOP Sens. Ted Cruz, of Texas, and Kentucky's Rand Paul, both Tea Party favorites and popular presidential hopefuls.
Other Democrats argue that an election without Obama and his widely unpopular agenda in that region also improves their chances.
“The No. 1 thing to be competitive in the South is to have Barack Obama not be president anymore,” North Carolina pollster Tom Jensen, who runs the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling, told Politico. “It’s just a simple reality that Southern whites really, really despise him in a way they have not despised any other president.”
Democrats also argue that changing demographics, such as the growing minority populations in Georgia, North Carolina and Texas, will help.
Louisiana Republican Party Chairman Roger Villere rejects the notion that Southerners could complicate Republican electoral fortunes in the long-term.
"Whether it was the old Southern Democrats or Republicans now, we've pushed the liberal wings of the parties for a long time," he said. "I think it's good for the party and for the country."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/08/will-gop-control-south-play-significant-role-in-2016-races/
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/09/in-the-states-the-gop-is-in-its-best-position-since-the-great-depression
LOL - where is Straw, Andreisatwink, etc?
-
Following Saturday's runoff in Louisiana, we are about to close the books on the 2014 election, once and for all. Only one major race remains: The recount in Arizona's 2nd congressional district between Rep. Ron Barber (D-Ariz.) and Republican Martha McSally.
But with Rep. Bill Cassidy's (R-La.) defeat of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) on Saturday, we now have a more conclusive look at where the GOP stands. And you could make a pretty compelling case that, in the states (i.e. not the presidency), Republicans are more powerful than at any point since the the start of the Great Depression.
To wit:
House
Republicans will control at least 246 out of 435 seats. That's tied for the most since the 1929-30 Congress (the GOP also had 246 seats in 1948-49). And if McSally wins -- she currently leads -- it will be the single biggest GOP majority since the onset of the Depression.
Here's how that looked before this election.
Senate
Republicans will control 54 out of 100 seats. That's tied for their fourth-highest number of seats since that same 1929-30 Congress, but the larger three were majorities of 55 seats -- i.e. only one more seat.
Governors
Republicans will control 31 out of 50 seats. That's tied for their fourth-biggest number since -- you guessed it -- 1929 and 1930, according to the National Governors Association. But again, the three previous highs were 32 seats -- just one more seat.
State legislatures
Republicans control more than 4,100 out of 7,383 seats -- about 56 percent. That's their highest since 1920, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. They also control 69 out of the 99 state legislative chambers (including Nebraska, which is technically nonpartisan and has only one chamber, but which is for all intents and purposes under GOP control) -- the highest since at least 1900, which is the oldest data NCSL has.
Sponsor Generated Content
Smart parking to the rescue
By Xerox
Through technology and data, parking systems are improving city congestion.
READ MORE
Combine it all, and it's pretty clear the GOP's position in the states is better than it has been since the Great Depression. Republicans had 55 Senate seats and 32 governorships in 1997 and 1998, but they had significantly fewer House seats and state legislative power at the same time.
Taking the longer view, of course, 54 Senate seats isn't an overwhelming amount of power -- nor is holding 57 percent of House seats. The eight-decade high is as much a reflection of the Democratic dominance of the latter half of the 20th century as it is a resounding statement by the GOP (look at the House chart above; Democrats have routinely had very big majorities that the GOP is only now matching).
The last time the GOP clearly had more power than today was in the early 1920s, when it controlled more than 70 percent of governorships, 69 percent of the House and more than 60 percent of Senate seats.
Of course, throughout the 1920s, the GOP also had the presidency. And until Republicans take that back, it's hard to call them dominant.
But if they can do that in 2016 and hold on to their position in the states, they stand to exercise greater power than they've had in a very long time.
Aaron Blake covers national politics and writes regularly for The Fix.
-
ABC Skips Own Poll Finding Percentage of Dems in U.S. at a 'Record Low'
By Scott Whitlock | December 17, 2014
ABC News on Wednesday ignored its own poll, one finding that the percentage of Americans who call themselves Democrats is at a "record low." Instead, the network relegated the survey, conducted with the Washington Post, to ABCNews.com. This is despite the ample two-hour running time of Good Morning America.
On the website, Gary Langer explained, "Just 26 percent of Americans now identify themselves as Democrats, down from 32 percent six weeks ago to the fewest since ABC/Post polling began in 1981." He added, "The number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats has dropped to a record low in nearly 34 years..., marking the party’s challenges after its poor showing in the 2014 midterm elections."
Langer noted, "The Republican Party, by contrast, has gained sharply in popularity, if not allegiance."
What did GMA cover instead? The network spent over five minutes on a fashion make-over story called "60 Minutes to Party Ready." Clearly, the program could have found time for the poll.
Online, ABC detailed:
The Republicans in Congress, moreover, lead Barack Obama by 47-38 percent in trust to handle the economy, a clear GOP advantage on this central issue for the first time in his presidency.
Beyond the economy, 43 percent also trust the Republicans over Obama to handle the nation’s main problems in general, while 39 percent pick Obama – not a meaningful difference in this case, but the first time the GOP has held even a numerical advantage vs. Obama on the question. And with no help from his initiative on immigration, the president trails the GOP by 9 points in trust to handle that issue, as well.
The only hint that ABC even conducted a poll came when GMA co-host George Stephanopoulos informed viewers of unrelated results: "As our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows, [Jeb Bush is] an early frontrunner in what could be a crowded Republican field."
The Washington Post on Tuesday mentioned the survey's finding that the majority of U.S. citizens think enhanced interrogation tactics are justified. But the article failed to mention the record low number of Americans calling themselves Democrats.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/12/17/abc-skips-own-poll-finding-percentage-dems-us-record-low#sthash.RsMpuJEz.dpuf
-
ABC Skips Own Poll Finding Percentage of Dems in U.S. at a 'Record Low'
By Scott Whitlock | December 17, 2014
ABC News on Wednesday ignored its own poll, one finding that the percentage of Americans who call themselves Democrats is at a "record low." Instead, the network relegated the survey, conducted with the Washington Post, to ABCNews.com. This is despite the ample two-hour running time of Good Morning America.
And yet the stupid Republican party overwhelmingly supported a $1.1 trillion budget plan that funded crapcare, did nothing to challenge the unconstitutional executive action on immigration by the idiotinchief and completely gave up control of the budget for the entire next year.
Voting doesn't make a difference.
-
And yet the stupid Republican party overwhelmingly supported a $1.1 trillion budget plan that funded crapcare, did nothing to challenge the unconstitutional executive action on immigration by the idiotinchief and completely gave up control of the budget for the entire next year.
Voting doesn't make a difference.
Man, they had obama on the ropes, too. They could have pushed a two MONTH budget. Then the new congress/senate could have DEFUNDED obamacare AND amnesty. Stopped obama's garbage in its tracks.
NOW? Now they took away year 1 of the power... and year 2 will be re-election + presidential primaries, so don't expect any boat-rocking progress at that point. The Senate win will have minimal effect over the next 2 years now, in terms of spending or stopping obama. Thanks, Boehnner.
-
Man, they had obama on the ropes, too. They could have pushed a two MONTH budget. Then the new congress/senate could have DEFUNDED obamacare AND amnesty. Stopped obama's garbage in its tracks.
NOW? Now they took away year 1 of the power... and year 2 will be re-election + presidential primaries, so don't expect any boat-rocking progress at that point. The Senate win will have minimal effect over the next 2 years now, in terms of spending or stopping obama. Thanks, Boehnner.
Boehner is Obama but in Orange = both are equally worthless pos and Kenyan traitors. Send both back to Africa
-
Boehner is Obama but in Orange = both are equally worthless pos and Kenyan traitors. Send both back to Africa
The republican party isn't dead, BUT they are doing everything they can to ensure the new congress/senate are powerless, weak, and tied to spending, obamacare and amnesty.
Then the new congress can *shrug* and say "not our fault, we inherited this mess..." and nothing changes.
boehnner is the enemy of conservatives now, and anyone who denies it is also an enemy of consevatism.
-
The republican party isn't dead, BUT they are doing everything they can to ensure the new congress/senate are powerless, weak, and tied to spending, obamacare and amnesty.
Then the new congress can *shrug* and say "not our fault, we inherited this mess..." and nothing changes.
boehnner is the enemy of conservatives now, and anyone who denies it is also an enemy of consevatism.
I think the problem is that Obama has figured out that he doesn't need the congress.....they've always been hostile to him any way and have never tried to help him in any way...I still think Obama holds a grudge against them because many repubs tried to de-legitimize him in his first term...he's just going to do anything he wants and is going to dare the congress to repeal or defund.....if they try, he will veto....then if they override his veto (which is highly unlikely) then he can claim he did all he could and congress was intransigent.....
-
I think the problem is that Obama has figured out that he doesn't need the congress.....they've always been hostile to him any way and have never tried to help him in any way...I still think Obama holds a grudge against them because many repubs tried to de-legitimize him in his first term...he's just going to do anything he wants and is going to dare the congress to repeal or defund.....if they try, he will veto....then if they override his veto (which is highly unlikely) then he can claim he did all he could and congress was intransigent.....
Unfortunately, he is relying on people like you who don't care about the Constitution and the separation of powers. Hopefully, he gets slapped down by the courts again.
-
I think the problem is that Obama has figured out that he doesn't need the congress
BUT BUT BUT Obama DOES need congress. They just gave him 1.1 trillion... and that is how he pays for obamacare, amensty, etc.
There is NO AMNESTY if they cut his budget. OR if they put someting in the budget saying "no amnesty".
They didn't do that. He needs them, and they played ball - cause their goals (adding amnesty, etc) aren't that different.
-
Unfortunately, he is relying on people like you who don't care about the Constitution and the separation of powers. Hopefully, he gets slapped down by the courts again.
he hasn't technically been slapped down by the courts UNTIL the Supreme court does it....No other court can overturn Obama's exec orders.....local courts often rule against fed laws....thats nothing new....As for the constitution, what Obama has done is legal.....if it wasn't believe me, as much as the Repubs hate Obama they would have impeached him already 8)
-
he hasn't technically been slapped down by the courts UNTIL the Supreme court does it....No other court can overturn Obama's exec orders.....local courts often rule against fed laws....thats nothing new....As for the constitution, what Obama has done is legal.....if it wasn't believe me, as much as the Repubs hate Obama they would have impeached him already 8)
What?? Wrong. The "judicial branch" includes all lower courts, not just the supreme court. Just like the federal just that recently slapped down Obama's immigration move.
Obama has been checked several times by the courts. Hopefully, it happens again.
-
McSally Win Gives GOP Largest House Majority in 83 Years
Wednesday, 17 Dec 2014
Republicans will have their largest U.S. House majority in 83 years when the new Congress convenes next month after a recount in Arizona gave the final unresolved midterm race to a Republican challenger.
Retired Air Force Col. Martha McSally won a House seat over Democratic incumbent Ron Barber by 167 votes out of nearly 220,000 cast, according to results released Wednesday.
Barber was district director for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords when he and the congresswoman were wounded in a mass shooting at a political event in Tucson in January 2011. Barber then won a special election to fill out the remainder of Giffords' term after she stepped down in early 2012. He went on to defeat McSally in that year's general election to win a full term in Congress, in a race separated by fewer than 2,500 votes.
Special: Al Gore Attacks Scientist for Exposing Global Warming Lie
Barber said he wouldn't contest the results and that he called McSally to congratulate her. "I want her to be successful because the people of southern Arizona deserve that," he said.
McSally said it was time to unite after a long campaign battle and that she plans to focus on economic development and border security. "These things are not politically charged, and really it's where the majority of people that I talk to, where they want my focus to be," she said. "So my intent is to represent them on the things that unite us and not the things that divide us."
Giffords and her husband, retired Navy captain and NASA astronaut Mark Kelly, congratulated McSally and reminded her that they support more gun control, an issue that came up in the campaign when their political action committee attacked McSally for not backing a law banning misdemeanor-convicted stalkers from buying guns. The ad was pulled after McSally said she had been a victim of stalking and supported keeping guns out of stalkers' hands.
"While it's no secret that we supported our friend Congressman Ron Barber in this hard-fought race, we are pleased that this campaign included an important and substantive debate on how to reduce gun violence in our communities," their statement read.
McSally, 48, was the first woman to fly in combat for the Air Force. Her victory came in a year that saw the GOP make big gains across the country. The results of the mandatory recount mean Republicans will hold their largest House majority since the administration of President Herbert Hoover, controlling 247 seats to 188 for Democrats.
The 2nd District was the last outstanding congressional race from the Nov. 4 general election.
The Tucson-area district is one of the most competitive in the nation. Giffords narrowly won her 2010 race over a Republican challenger in the months before she was wounded in the shooting that killed six and wounded her, Barber, and 11 others.
Barber was next to her when a gunman opened fire, striking her in the head and him in the face and leg.
Barber said he won't consider whether to run again until after the holidays. "The bottom line about this experience, it's been the most incredible honor of my life," he said.
Barber said extremely low Democratic turnout was a big factor in his loss, but McSally said her campaign was much more organized and experienced this year.
"Last time I only had 205 total days as a candidate from when I decided to step up and run for office with no political experience," McSally said. "I don't think we were really taken seriously as a candidate last time, so we kind of snuck up on them and almost pulled it off in 2012."
The 2nd District this election was considered a battleground, and millions of dollars in outside advertising poured into the race, on both sides. "They knew we were a serious threat this time," she said.
Special: Many Risk a Heart Attack and Don't Know It. Take Dr. Crandall's Online Test Today.
McSally led Barber by 161 votes after all ballots were counted last month. But the margin was so small it triggered an automatic recount that added six votes to her margin.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper announced the results in court Wednesday.
Barber, 69, had fought in several venues to get additional votes counted but was turned away at every effort. Separately, a group of voters tried to get the state Supreme Court to halt the recount because of the computer program used. That too was rejected.
McSally's win gives the GOP a 5-4 advantage in the Arizona congressional delegation.
http://www.Newsmax.com/Politics/GOP-Arizona-election-Congress/2014/12/17/id/613681/#ixzz3MIBv8PxI
-
No no no, Chris Mathews, it's the GOP that's coming apart. Don't you read getbig.com?
Chris Matthews: Democratic Party 'Coming Apart,' 'Devolving' Into 'Every Man for Himself'
By Kyle Drennen | April 22, 2015
Appearing on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports on Wednesday, Hardball host Chris Matthews sounded the alarm over the left-wing being in disarray: "The Democratic Party is not unified right now. It's coming apart, you can see it, it's devolving. And so everybody – it's every man for himself, every politician for themselves right now."
Matthews made the comments in response to a question by fill-in host Peter Alexander asking about Hillary Clinton's position on the Obama administration's proposed trade deal. Matthews argued: "Intellectually I think she probably is for the trade deal. But the pressure on her from all the Democratic interest groups right now.... does she want to make enemies with organized labor? Probably no."
Continuing to warn of doom for Democrats, Matthews proclaimed:
The Democratic Party, if you care about the party, does well when it's more than the sum of its parts. Under the Clintons, under the Kennedy administration, it was always for something bigger than just a bunch of interest groups. And the minute it becomes just interest groups it gets about 44% and loses the next general election.
It has to be for something commanding, something national, something unifying, something, okay, inspiring. It can't just be protect your rear end. And unfortunately, that's what it's beginning to look like lately as the President fades, you know, the President's fading into his later part of his second term. And they're just doing everything for themselves. It makes sense politically. It's not nice to look at, though.
Here is a transcript of the April 22 exchange:
12:09 PM ET
(...)
PETER ALEXANDER: Hillary Clinton, does she have to pick a side on this [trade deal], be more a little more clear about her position?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: You know, this morning, Al Hunt made the point from Bloomberg that she ought to do a Sister Souljah moment and just say she's for trade. Intellectually I think she probably is for the trade deal. But the pressure on her from all the Democratic interest groups right now – and this goes to the issue of Iran, everything you think about right now, all the usual interest groups, the pro-Israeli hardliners, people like that, are all saying, "What side are you on?"
And the Democratic Party is not unified right now. It's coming apart, you can see it, it's devolving. And so everybody – it's every man for himself, every politician for themselves right now. And that's what's going on. Every issue that comes up now, they're not looking to the leadership at the White House. They're thinking, how do they save their butts politically? And Hillary's, you know, thinking about, does she want to make enemies with organized labor? Probably no.
ALEXANDER: Every man – these days, every man and every woman for themselves.
MATTHEWS: And I wish-
ALEXANDER: So we'll wait and see. We're listening to her right now, she's-
MATTHEWS: A little comment, Thomas [sic]. The Democratic Party, if you care about the party, does well when it's more than the sum of its parts. Under the Clintons, under the Kennedy administration, it was always for something bigger than just a bunch of interest groups. And the minute it becomes just interest groups it gets about 44% and loses the next general election.
It has to be for something commanding, something national, something unifying, something, okay, inspiring. It can't just be protect your rear end. And unfortunately, that's what it's beginning to look like lately as the President fades, you know, the President's fading into his later part of his second term. And they're just doing everything for themselves. It makes sense politically. It's not nice to look at, though.
(...)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2015/04/22/chris-matthews-democratic-party-coming-apart-devolving-every-man#sthash.2KtPMl2U.dpuf
-
Hannity DEMOLISHED Rinos during the first half hour of his radio show today. He said they're worse than Liberals, because at least we know what to expect from liberals. When Repub establishment, led by Mccain, shit all over Cruz on issue of immigration, they're essentially handing election to democrats by muddying the waters for repub voters.
I've never heard him shit on RINOs like this. He used the word over and over.
-
Hannity DEMOLISHED Rinos during the first half hour of his radio show today. He said they're worse than Liberals, because at least we know what to expect from liberals. When Repub establishment, led by Mccain, shit all over Cruz on issue of immigration, they're essentially handing election to democrats by muddying the waters for repub voters.
I've never heard him shit on RINOs like this. He used the word over and over.
Link?
-
Link?
i was listening live. i'm sure the transcript is on line. he started his show demolishing RINOs, absolutely wrecking mccain and his bullshit stance on amnesty.
Hannity took his marching orders in Nov 2012 and suddenly got behind amnesty when reince priebus ordered it... but after eric cantor lost his job over it, repubs woke up and decided the pro-amnesty position means they lose their seats in congress - the base is VERY passionate about it, no matter how much the RINOs and clinton-voter "repubs" on getbig try to say amnesty is A-okay. It's fucking not, and Ted Cruz agrees.
Hannity is a troll that will carry the water, but on April 22, 2015, he was 100% correct abouot the bullshit RINOs on amnesty. They're worse than dems, because at least you know what dems are going in.
-
Tribal politics ::)
lol..the weak minded followers wait on orders on high for their stances on an issue...
so weak
-
i was listening live. i'm sure the transcript is on line. he started his show demolishing RINOs, absolutely wrecking mccain and his bullshit stance on amnesty.
Hannity took his marching orders in Nov 2012 and suddenly got behind amnesty when reince priebus ordered it... but after eric cantor lost his job over it, repubs woke up and decided the pro-amnesty position means they lose their seats in congress - the base is VERY passionate about it, no matter how much the RINOs and clinton-voter "repubs" on getbig try to say amnesty is A-okay. It's fucking not, and Ted Cruz agrees.
Hannity is a troll that will carry the water, but on April 22, 2015, he was 100% correct abouot the bullshit RINOs on amnesty. They're worse than dems, because at least you know what dems are going in.
Ill try and find it.
-
No no no. It's the Republican Party that has the vanishing future. . . . . Somebody let the author know . . . .
Democrats' Vanishing Future
Hillary Clinton is not the only Democratic comeback candidate on the 2016 ticket. Senate Democrats are betting on the past to rebuild their party for the future.
BY JOSH KRAUSHAAR
May 21, 2015 One of the most underappreciated stories in recent years is the deterioration of the Democratic bench under President Obama's tenure in office. The party has become much more ideologically homogenous, losing most of its moderate wing as a result of the last two disastrous midterm elections. By one new catch-all measure, a party-strength index introduced by RealClearPolitics analysts Sean Trende and David Byler, Democrats are in their worst position since 1928. That dynamic has manifested itself in the Democratic presidential contest, where the bench is so barren that a flawed Hillary Clinton is barreling to an uncontested nomination.
But less attention has been paid to how the shrinking number of Democratic officeholders in the House and in statewide offices is affecting the party's Senate races. It's awfully unusual to see how dependent Democrats are in relying on former losing candidates as their standard-bearers in 2016. Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, Pennsylvania's Joe Sestak, Indiana's Baron Hill, and Ohio's Ted Strickland all ran underwhelming campaigns in losing office in 2010—and are looking to return to politics six years later. Party officials are courting former Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina to make a comeback bid, despite mediocre favorability ratings and the fact that she lost a race just months ago that most had expected her to win. All told, more than half of the Democrats' Senate challengers in 2016 are comeback candidates.
On one hand, most of these candidates are the best choices Democrats have. Feingold and Strickland are running ahead of GOP Sens. Ron Johnson and Rob Portman in recent polls. Hill and Hagan boast proven crossover appeal in GOP-leaning states that would be challenging pickups. Their presence in the race gives the party a fighting chance to retake the Senate.
But look more closely, and the reliance on former failures is a direct result of the party having no one else to turn to. If the brand-name challengers didn't run, the roster of up-and-coming prospects in the respective states is short. They're also facing an ominous historical reality that only two defeated senators have successfully returned to the upper chamber in the last six decades. As political analyst Stu Rothenberg put it, they're asking "voters to rehire them for a job from which they were fired." Senate Democrats are relying on these repeat candidates for the exact same reason that Democrats are comfortable with anointing Hillary Clinton for their presidential nomination: There aren't any better alternatives.
For a portrait of the Democrats' slim pickings, just look at the political breakdown in three of the most consequential battleground states. Republicans hold 12 of Ohio's 16 House seats, and all six of their statewide offices. In Wisconsin, Republicans hold a majority of the state's eight House seats and four of five statewide partisan offices. In Pennsylvania, 13 of the 18 representatives are Republicans, though Democrats hold all the statewide offices. (One major caveat: Kathleen Kane, the Democrats' once-hyped attorney general in the state, is under criminal investigation and has become a political punchline.) These are all Democratic-friendly states that Obama carried twice.
If Strickland didn't run, the party's hopes against Portman would lie in the hands of 30-year-old Cincinnati Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, who would make unexpected history as one of the nation's youngest senators with a victory. (Sittenfeld is still mounting a long-shot primary campaign against Strickland.) Without Feingold in Wisconsin, the party's only logical option would be Rep. Ron Kind, who has regularly passed up opportunities for a promotion. Former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett already lost to Gov. Scott Walker twice, and businesswoman Mary Burke disappointed as a first-time gubernatorial candidate last year. And despite the Democratic establishment's publicized carping over Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, the list of alternatives is equally underwhelming: His only current intra-party opposition is from the mayor of Allentown.
In the more conservative states, the drop-off between favored recruits and alternatives is even more stark. Hagan would be a flawed nominee in North Carolina, but there's no one else waiting in the wings. The strongest Democratic politician, Attorney General Roy Cooper, is running for governor instead. And in Indiana, the bench is so thin that even the GOP's embattled governor, Mike Pence, isn't facing formidable opposition. Hill, who lost congressional reelection campaigns in both 2004 and 2010, is not expected to face serious primary competition in the race to succeed retiring GOP Sen. Dan Coats.
Even in the two swing states where the party landed young, up-and-coming recruits to run, their options were awfully limited. In Florida, 32-year-old Rep. Patrick Murphy is one of only five House Democrats to represent a district that Mitt Romney carried in 2012—and his centrism has made him one of the most compelling candidates for higher office. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee quickly rallied behind his campaign (in part to squelch potential opposition from firebrand congressman Alan Grayson). But if Murphy didn't run, the alternatives would have been limited: freshman Rep. Gwen Graham and polarizing Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz being the most logical alternatives.
In Nevada, Democrats boast one of their strongest challengers in former state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, vying to become the first Latina ever elected to the Senate. But her ascension is due, in part, to the fact that other talented officeholders lost in the 2014 statewide wipeout. Democratic lieutenant-governor nominee Lucy Flores, hyped by MSNBC as a "potential superstar," lost by 26 points to her GOP opponent. Former Secretary of State Ross Miller, another fast-rising pol, badly lost his bid for attorney general against a nondescript Republican. By simply taking a break from politics, Cortez Masto avoided the wave and kept her prospects alive for 2016.
This isn't an assessment of Democratic chances for a Senate majority in 2017; it's a glaring warning for the party's longer-term health. If Clinton can't extend the Democrats' presidential winning streak—a fundamental challenge, regardless of the political environment—the party's barren bench will cause even more alarm for the next presidential campaign. And if the Democrats' core constituencies don't show up for midterm elections—an outlook that's rapidly becoming conventional wisdom—Democrats have serious challenges in 2018 as well. It's why The New Yorker's liberal writer John Cassidy warned that a Clinton loss next year could "assign [Republicans] a position of dominance."
By focusing on how the electorate's rapid change would hand Democrats a clear advantage in presidential races, Obama's advisers overlooked how the base-stroking moves would play in the states. Their optimistic view of the future has been adopted by Clinton, who has been running to the left even without serious primary competition.
But without a future generation of leaders able to compellingly carry the liberal message, there's little guarantee that changing demographics will secure the party's destiny. The irony of the 2016 Senate races is that Democrats are betting on the past, running veteran politicians to win them back the majority—with Clinton at the top of the ticket. If that formula doesn't work, the rebuilding process will be long and arduous.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/democrats-vanishing-future-20150521
-
Team Repub vs Team Demo...
so fucking stupid.. Childish. But easy to follow i guess
-
Team Repub vs Team Demo...
so fucking stupid.. Childish. But easy to follow i guess
Good thing you don't play that game. . . .
-
Good thing you don't play that game. . . .
what happened to you, Bum???...you used to be reasonable and you and I would agree all the time...what radicalized you :D?
-
what happened to you, Bum???...you used to be reasonable and you and I would agree all the time...what radicalized you :D?
Dude you must be hitting the pipe. We rarely agree. lol I haven't changed one bit. Still the same. Call things exactly as I see them. Unapologetically.
-
Dude you must be hitting the pipe. We rarely agree. lol I haven't changed one bit. Still the same. I wrongly Call things exactly as I see them. Unapologetically.
FIXED
-
FIXED
Sometimes right. Sometimes wrong.
But at least I'm not like you and other Obamabots: never in doubt, seldom right. :)
-
Good thing you don't play that game. . . .
shit naw... thats for children, low level thinkers, lazy shits and people that feel a need to belong to something for identity. As well as people that arent fact based... At one point in time Herman Cain and Sarah Palin were actual viable candidates... disgusting
-
shit naw... thats for children, low level thinkers, lazy shits and people that feel a need to belong to something for identity. As well as people that arent fact based... At one point in time Herman Cain and Sarah Palin were actual viable candidates... disgusting
lol. Dude. Stop. You are a partisan. You know it. I know it. Just own it already. Nothing to be ashamed of.
-
shit naw... thats for children, low level thinkers, lazy shits and people that feel a need to belong to something for identity. As well as people that arent fact based... At one point in time Herman Cain and Sarah Palin were actual viable candidates... disgusting
Palin panzer division lol. "I believe Herman Cain!"
My favorite way saying palins 5 community college journalism degree pwned obamas yale then Harvard law.
-
Another person who didn't get the memo that the GOP is already dead.
RNC's Priebus: Republican Party 'Cooked' If We Lose 2016
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=2913194b-ae64-47b8-bd5a-b2d000445fc1&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: RNC's Priebus: Republican Party 'Cooked' If We Lose 2016 (Photo by T.J. Kirkpatrick/Getty Images)
By Bill Hoffmann
Friday, 16 Oct 2015
The Republican Party is "cooked" if it fails to take back the White House in 2016, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus says.
In a Washington Post piece published Thursday and titled "The GOP was Right to Fear Clinton," columnist Eugene Robinson said Republicans lack a "compelling" message on many issues:
"How can government help the middle class? With a higher minimum wage? With a mandate for businesses to offer paid family leave? With assistance in paying for higher education, perhaps even free tuition at public universities? With trade and tax policies that encourage keeping jobs in the United States?" Robinson writes.
"The Democratic candidates understand that these are the issues people care most about. [Donald] Trump gets it, too, in his own bombastic way. A party that goes into the election without a compelling message on jobs and incomes — I'm talking to you, GOP establishment — is begging to lose."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/reince-priebus-republican-party-cooked/2015/10/16/id/696580/#ixzz3okurQvao
-
Another person who didn't get the memo that the GOP is already dead.
RNC's Priebus: Republican Party 'Cooked' If We Lose 2016
the GOP is town. Half tea party, half RINO/moderates.
until they get their shit together, the 40% of nation that are dems will keep getting 53% for POTUS on election day.
-
Good thing the RNC is broke too. No wait . . . .
The DNC Has More Debt Than Cash On Hand
Republicans label DNC 'dead broke'
BY: Brent Scher
October 22, 2015
(http://s4.freebeacon.com/up/2012/09/Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz-AP.jpg)
The Democratic National Committee’s current debts outweigh the amount of cash it has on hand by more than $1.2 million, according to the group’s Wednesday filing with the Federal Election Committee.
The filing revealed that the DNC currently owes $6.7 million in debts and obligations that it cannot cover with the $5.5 million worth of cash it has on hand.
The debts include a $2 million loan that it still has not paid back to Amalgamated Bank, which is a labor union-owned bank that serves as the primary bank of the DNC and often gives it large loans.
The loan that is still owed was taken in the weeks before the 2014 midterm elections, in which the Democrats failed to maintain control in the Senate and Republicans gained a bigger majority in the House.
Making problems worse for the DNC is that its Republican counterpart is not experiencing the same fundraising problems. The RNC’s filing reveals that it has $19.4 million in cash on hand and only $1.8 million in debt.
The lopsided fundraising advantage has the RNC using the words of likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to mock its rival, writing in a memo that the DNC is “dead broke.”
“One cannot overstate the gravity of the problem this creates for embattled front runner Hillary Clinton, who will finally know what it means to be ‘dead broke’ when she completes her takeover of the DNC,” wrote RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh.
The DNC’s $1.2 million shortfall is the latest problem for chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.).
It was revealed last year that Schultz is seen as incompetent by many in the party and that she was almost replaced after the 2012 election. She became the target of the President Barack Obama’s White House, which labeled her to the press as a “liability” that cares more about her “own political ambitions than helping Democrats win.”
The RNC memo makes clear that they think they will have the advantage over the DNC going into 2016.
“It would be foolhardy to assume the DNC’s dire financial state is permanent, but there is no denying Democrats will enter 2016 with a distinct organizational and financial disadvantage,” said Walsh. “While the DNC worries about making payroll and keeping the lights on, we’ll continue moving forward with the most ambitious get-out-the-vote operation the Republican Party has ever built.”
—
UPDATE 4:05 p.m: This article previously stated that the $2 million loan from Amalgamated Bank was in addition to the DNC’s $6.7 million in debts.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-dnc-has-more-debt-than-cash-on-hand/
-
Definitely a death spiral.
Republican Bevin wins Kentucky governor race
Published November 03, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/876/493/Kentucky-Gov%20660.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Kentucky-Gov 660.jpg
(AP)
Republican Matt Bevin, a businessman and Tea Party favorite, beat Democrat Jack Conway on Tuesday to win the race for Kentucky governor -- becoming only the second GOP governor in the state in four decades.
The off-year election, one of many state and local contests held Tuesday across the country, was seen by some as a test for outsider candidates at a time when several such candidates are seeking the GOP presidential nomination. Bevin, who has run as an outsider ever since he unsuccessfully challenged Sen. Mitch McConnell last year, was declared the winner over state Attorney General Conway in the gubernatorial race shortly after polls closed Tuesday evening.
Independent Drew Curtis was a distant third in Tuesday's election.
The office is currently held by a Democrat. Bevin's election gives Republicans control of the state's executive branch along with a commanding majority in the state Senate. Democrats still have an eight-seat majority in the state House of Representatives.
Throughout his campaign, Bevin cast himself as an outsider, in both government and politics. The 48-year-old investment manager has never held public office and was shunned by the state's Republican political establishment when he challenged McConnell in the 2014 Senate primary. He never took any meaningful steps to repair those relationships after the race, often deflecting assistance from party officials and likely affecting his fundraising ability.
He relied more on the details of his personal story — his Christian faith and his four adopted children from Ethiopia — than his political policies.
Bevin's campaign was mostly self-funded, and he preferred to speak to small gatherings of voters instead of courting influential donors. His running mate, Jenean Hampton, is a retired Air Force officer who moved to Kentucky from Detroit and whose only political experience is a lopsided loss to the former speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives in 2014. Now, Hampton will become the first black person to ever hold statewide office in Kentucky.
Conway conceded the race shortly before 9 p.m. at the Frankfort Convention Center, telling the quiet crowd it was not the result he had hoped for, "but it is the result we respect." He said he called Bevin and wished him well.
"It was a cordial phone call. I told him I remain positive about moving this state forward, and if he ever needed any assistance, this Democrat was at his disposal," Conway said.
Bevin ran an aggressive campaign, often arguing with reporters and even dropping by the state Democratic Party headquarters, twice, to argue with them about their signs criticizing him as dishonest. But it appeared Bevin was able to tap into voters' growing frustration with their government to overcome any concerns they may have had about his temperament. He has promised some sweeping changes, most notably repealing the state's expanded Medicaid program and kynect, the state-run health insurance exchange. Those decisions will affect the health insurance of about a half-million people.
Focus will almost immediately shift to the state House elections in 2016, where McConnell has vowed to flex his powerful fundraising muscle to help Republicans to take over the only Southern state legislative body controlled by Democrats.
The results Tuesday were also a potentially troubling sign for Democrats ahead of next year's presidential election.
Bevin waged a campaign to scale back the state's Medicaid expansion that was made possible by President Obama's health care overhaul. He also played up his support of Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/03/republican-matt-bevin-elected-governor-kentucky-2nd-republican-governor-in-4/
-
Republicans Score Big Victories From Coast to Coast
By Cathy Burke
Wednesday, 04 Nov 2015
Republicans and conservatives notched stunning wins in elections across the country in victories amid voter sentiment fueled by a "year of the outsider."
Voters in Kentucky, Virginia, Ohio, Mississippi, and in cities like Houston and San Francisco soundly rejected Democratic candidates or Democrat-backed measures.
Here's a sampling of the conservative wave:
Matt Bevin's upset victory in the Kentucky's governor's race makes him just the second Republican to govern the state in four decades, The Washington Post notes.
And in bemoaning the defeat of Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway, Democratic Governors Association head Elisabeth Person called the win a consequence of "Trumpmania" in a "year of the outsider," the Post reports.
But the victory also illustrated how a conservative voters' base came out in droves, likely in response to social issues including the effort to defund Planned Parenthood and the anti-same sex marriage fight of court clerk Kim Davis, the Post reports.
Republicans held their seats in Virginia's state Senate — a rebuke to Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe and blow to his party hoping to bolster the tie-breaking authority of Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, the Post notes.
Voters in Houston crushed an ordinance that was designed to protect the rights of LGBT citizens, while Ohio voters soundly rejected marijuana legislation.
In San Francisco — where the gunshot death of Kate Steinle allegedly by illegal immigrant Francisco Sanchez enflamed voters — the sheriff who defended the city's "sanctuary" policy went down in flames, the Post reports.
Mississippi GOP Gov. Phil Bryant re-election only illustrated the "south is becoming even redder," according to the Post's blog writer James Hohmann. In that state's elections, The Clarion Ledger reports, the GOP increased its majority in its House and toppled the House minority leader.
Hohmann writes the Bevin win in Kentucky also puts "another big nail in the coffin for big labor unions in the South," considering the governor-elect's aim to make Kentucky a "right to work" state.
"Bevin is certainly an ideologue, but I've seen him show signs of a profound pragmatic streak," writes Hohmann.
"He told me last week that he'll lead in the tradition of a former KFC CEO, a moderate Democrat, who was not beholden to anyone and cleaned up state government in the '70s. His efforts to make nice with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who attacked him fiercely last year, show that he's capable of becoming a serious politician."
Hohmann warns that despite the wave of conservative and GOP victories, turnout was "very low" across the country, warning: "Republicans could over interpret the results at their own peril."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/conservatives-score-victories/2015/11/04/id/700500/#ixzz3qXvq6TIs
-
Why do people keep donating money to a party that's dead?
RNC Breaks Record, Raising $8.7M in October
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=a480b707-eff8-41e8-8ffd-c79af155f291&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: RNC Breaks Record, Raising $8.7M in October RNC Chairman Reince Priebus (Getty Images)
Monday, 23 Nov 2015
The Republican National Committee says it raised a presidential off-year fundraising record of $8.7 million last month — and has collected $89.3 million so far in the 2016 the election cycle.
"With just under a year until Election Day 2016 we're seeing great enthusiasm for the GOP," the RNC's chairman, Reince Priebus, said in a statement.
The breakdown of the October fundraising shows 99 percent of the donations have been $200 or less, with the average $69, the RNC says.
The RNC also announced it had $20.4 million in cash on hand.
"Our team is hard at work training, recruiting, and registering volunteers and voters in every community and every battleground state," Priebus added.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/RNC-breaks-record-fundraising/2015/11/23/id/703256/#ixzz3sQPAXnHj
-
Why do people keep donating money to a party that's dead?
there are people that still believe Herman Cain never told a lie.
there are people that still believe Palin is brilliant and mature.
there are people that still believe the earth is flat or only 6000 years old.
-
there are people that still believe Herman Cain never told a lie.
there are people that still believe Palin is brilliant and mature.
there are people that still believe the earth is flat or only 6000 years old.
There are people who believe we faked the moon landing. (You)
There are people who believe the government conspired with foreign terrorists to attack us on 911. (You)
There are people who believe we shot a missile into the Pentagon on 9/11. (You)
There are people who believe we secretly made two airliners disappear on 9/11, kidnapped the passengers, and secretly released them overseas. (You)
Should I go on? :)
-
Republican frontrunner (the dude you'll be cheerleading shortly) donald trump believes THOUSANDS of people were on the streets of jersey city on 9/11 cheering.
it's simple not true, but he and carson both said it was yesterday. Carson has flipflopped already.
-
Republican frontrunner (the dude you'll be cheerleading shortly) donald trump believes THOUSANDS of people were on the streets of jersey city on 9/11 cheering.
it's simple not true, but he and carson both said it was yesterday. Carson has flipflopped already.
Trump gets away with so many lies it's amazing.....there were some people who sympathized with the 9/11 hijackings but there was never "thousands of people" on the streets cheering
-
Trump gets away with so many lies it's amazing.....there were some people who sympathized with the 9/11 hijackings but there was never "thousands of people" on the streets cheering
and it's not even news. Just like he can say he only likes the servicemen who DIDNT cet captured.
Repubs are SO SO SO much against obam/hilary, they will support anyone. He could literally club a baby seal on national TV and they couldn't care less.... just beat hilary. Be as loud and rude and crass and unprofessional as you want - just beat hilary.
they settled on loser RINOs in 2008 and 2012 too. See how that ended up.
-
DNC Drowning in Debt; RNC War Chest Getting Deeper
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=d77177db-054a-4c8e-9762-db5f3e9cd25d&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: DNC Drowning in Debt; RNC War Chest Getting Deeper DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (AP)
By Sandy Fitzgerald | Friday, 27 Nov 2015
The Republican National Committee has a war chest of $20 million on hand, while the Democratic National Committee is sinking deeper in the hole as little cash is coming in while the party's debts continue to rise, according to new reports.
"With just under a year until Election Day 2016 we’re seeing great enthusiasm for the GOP," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a press release, reports Fox News.
The RNC announced last week it brought in a total of $8.7 million in October, setting a record for fundraising during a off year for presidential races, and according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the party has raised $89.3 million duirng this election cycle. It has more than $20 million in chash on hand, and owes $1.8 million.
The DNC, though, has raised a total of $53.2 million, and has just $4.7 million in cash in hand, but $6.9 million in debts it owes. In October alone, the DNC raised just under $4.5 million, but spent $5.2 million.
The DNC's debt is partly from a $2 million loan from union-owned Amalgamated Bank, according to The Washington Free Beacon, and and could cause problems for DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is already coming under criticism from her party leadership for how the primary debate schedule is being handled.
The issue may also hinder Democrats' push to reclaim the House and Senate and win the presidential race,The Free Beacon said.
But Republican strategist Ron Bonjean told Fox that the numbers show the DNC "simply can't get its act together," and most likely Democrats will have to start relying on outside sources, rather than their own party's committee.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/DNC-RNC-War-Chest/2015/11/27/id/703716/#ixzz3sjQIHeXn
-
DNC Drowning in Debt; RNC War Chest Getting Deeper
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=d77177db-054a-4c8e-9762-db5f3e9cd25d&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: DNC Drowning in Debt; RNC War Chest Getting Deeper DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (AP)
By Sandy Fitzgerald | Friday, 27 Nov 2015
The Republican National Committee has a war chest of $20 million on hand, while the Democratic National Committee is sinking deeper in the hole as little cash is coming in while the party's debts continue to rise, according to new reports.
"With just under a year until Election Day 2016 we’re seeing great enthusiasm for the GOP," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a press release, reports Fox News.
The RNC announced last week it brought in a total of $8.7 million in October, setting a record for fundraising during a off year for presidential races, and according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the party has raised $89.3 million duirng this election cycle. It has more than $20 million in chash on hand, and owes $1.8 million.
The DNC, though, has raised a total of $53.2 million, and has just $4.7 million in cash in hand, but $6.9 million in debts it owes. In October alone, the DNC raised just under $4.5 million, but spent $5.2 million.
The DNC's debt is partly from a $2 million loan from union-owned Amalgamated Bank, according to The Washington Free Beacon, and and could cause problems for DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is already coming under criticism from her party leadership for how the primary debate schedule is being handled.
The issue may also hinder Democrats' push to reclaim the House and Senate and win the presidential race,The Free Beacon said.
But Republican strategist Ron Bonjean told Fox that the numbers show the DNC "simply can't get its act together," and most likely Democrats will have to start relying on outside sources, rather than their own party's committee.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/DNC-RNC-War-Chest/2015/11/27/id/703716/#ixzz3sjQIHeXn
who cares?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-
The Republican Party still hasn't gotten the memo that their party is dead.
-
(https://i.reddituploads.com/44b119fcc94d43af9840627050be0ec9?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=1718ed509c971d4acd0a6ca0704c54c2)
-
Any word on that Ted Cruz sex orgy tape? The one where he fucks a donkey?
Anyone?
Hello?>
-
:D
(https://i.reddituploads.com/87ae060ba582444e980096cd161a1d40?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=96be492568f098d17cde72b570671702)
(https://i.reddituploads.com/1fdaf8b375ce43a69143fdfd9a0bb28a?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=3a8cdbcbcce946fe64d7d2ce6347e39b)
-
Any word on that Ted Cruz sex orgy tape? The one where he fucks a donkey?
Anyone?
Hello?>
It will be out any day now.
-
The Republican Party as we know it may die now to give birth to a new, Trump Republican Party for generations to come.
-
:D
(https://i.reddituploads.com/87ae060ba582444e980096cd161a1d40?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=96be492568f098d17cde72b570671702)
(https://i.reddituploads.com/1fdaf8b375ce43a69143fdfd9a0bb28a?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=3a8cdbcbcce946fe64d7d2ce6347e39b)
typical back stabbing snake politicians
-
Startling.
3 Charts That show the Clear Message Republicans Sent America in State Elections This Year
By Jenni Fink
http://ijr.com/2016/11/735686-3-charts-that-show-the-clear-message-republicans-sent-america-in-state-elections-this-year/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=partners&utm_campaign=bencarson&utm_term=prm6
-
My FB is comedy gold by these liberal twinkies
-
Startling.
3 Charts That show the Clear Message Republicans Sent America in State Elections This Year
By Jenni Fink
http://ijr.com/2016/11/735686-3-charts-that-show-the-clear-message-republicans-sent-america-in-state-elections-this-year/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=partners&utm_campaign=bencarson&utm_term=prm6
"94 year record with 33 governorships." :o
-
Kennedy Wins Louisiana Senate Race; Gives GOP 52-seat Majority
By Todd Beamon | Saturday, 10 Dec 2016
Republican Louisiana State Treasurer John Kennedy won a runoff election Saturday, defeating Democratic Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell and increasing the GOP's control of chamber to four seats.
NOLA.com called the race for Kennedy, 65, within an hour after the polls closed.
With 48 percent of the votes counted by then, Kennedy was leading Campbell 63-37 percent.
The runoff was for the seat of Republican Sen. David Vitter, who is retiring after two terms in the Senate. He lost the governor's race last year.
Neither Kennedy nor Campbell won a majority in the Nov. 8 election, causing the runoff. Polls had shown Kennedy with a comfortable lead.
Kennedy's victory extends Republican control of the Senate to 52 seats, versus 48 for the Democrats.
Republicans also won two open U.S. House seats in runoffs: Clay Higgins, a former sheriff's captain known as the "Cajun John Wayne," won in the 3rd District representing southwest and south-central Louisiana — and state Rep. Mike Johnson took 4th District covering northwest Louisiana.
An Oxford-educated lawyer from south Louisiana, Kennedy was re-elected to his fifth term as treasurer in 2015.
Kennedy had run for Senate twice before, losing to Vitter as a Democrat in 2004 and to Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu in 2008 as a Republican.
The Senate runoff drew national attention, with President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence each traveling to Louisiana to rally for Kennedy.
The Republican Party provided resources and staff to assist Kennedy's campaign, while national Democratic organizations largely abandoned Campbell, assuming an easy win for the GOP.
In Baton Rouge on Friday, Trump urged Bayou State voters to back Kennedy.
"We have to get the people to go to the polls," Trump told a rally at the Dow Chemical Hangar as part of his "thank you" tour of battleground states. "If you go to the polls, he's going to win.
"If you don't go to the polls, he's not going to win."
Republican National Committee co-chair Sharon Day said Saturday that Kennedy's win capped "a year of historic Republican wins up and down the ballot."
"With 52 seats in the U.S. Senate, we are excited for Republicans to confirm a conservative Supreme Court justice and begin working with President-elect Trump to pass an agenda of change for the American people," she added.
"Whether it's winning the White House, Congress, or state-level races, Republicans have much to celebrate this year."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said that "voters in Louisiana and across the country made it clear this year they are eager for a new direction from the White House.
"They kept Republican majorities in Congress to work with the new administration to help strengthen our national and economic security.
"Senate Republicans are ready to lead and we look forward to John joining our team."
In the Senate race, Kennedy touted his support for Trump and slammed Obamacare.
"The good thing about this race is that nobody's going to confuse the two of us," Kennedy said of his opponent. "He's a liberal. I'm a conservative.
"He supported [Hillary] Clinton. I supported Mr. Trump.
"He believes government can spend the money you earn better than you can. I don't."
The House seats were open because Republicans Charles Boustany and John Fleming unsuccessfully sought the Senate seat instead of re-election.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/kennedy-louisiana-senate-repubican/2016/12/10/id/763303/
-
Yes, the Republican party is dead.
Bwahahaha! ;D
Democrats lost over 1,000 seats under Obama
Published December 27, 2016
FoxNews.com
President Obama claims he could have won a third term if he had been allowed to run – but even if he's right, his coattails haven’t done much for the rest of his party.
While Obama’s tireless campaigning, broad demographic appeal and message of “hope” and “change” helped propel him to two terms in the White House, his skills on the stump haven’t translated down the ballot.
The Democratic Party suffered huge losses at every level during Obama’s West Wing tenure.
The grand total: a net loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency.
The latter was perhaps the most profound example of Obama's popularity failing to translate to support for his allies. Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of state under Obama, brought the first family out for numerous campaign appearances. In September, Obama declared that his “legacy’s on the ballot.”
Less than two months later, Americans voted for Donald Trump.
OBAMA: I COULD HAVE WON THIRD TERM
But 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue wasn’t the only locale to see a big partisan change since Obama took office in January 2009, according to figures from Ballotpedia.
Democratic U.S. Senate seats fell from 55 to 46. Their share of the House plummeted from 256 seats to 194. Republicans still control both chambers going into the next session.
Democratic governerships also became a rarity during this eight-year period, slipping from 28 to 16.
The Obama years, which saw the rise of the Tea Party as well as a new movement form around Trump that is still being defined, coincided with a loss of 958 state legislative seats for Democrats.
Still, Obama said in an interview which aired Monday that, if he were allowed to run for a third term, he would have been victorious.
“I am confident in this vision because I’m confident that if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it,” Obama told ex-adviser David Axelrod for “The Axe Files” podcast.
Trump responded, "no way!"
While Obama and others note that Clinton still won the popular vote last month, and Democrats shaved down the Republican majority on Capitol Hill, others in the party have voiced concerns about where Democrats go from here.
“We’re not even a national party at this point,” Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, said last month as he made a failed run at the House minority leader position. “We have some support on the coasts, but we’ve lost the support of middle America, and we’ve got to make some changes. So I’m pulling the fire alarm here, because the house is on fire.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/27/democrats-lost-over-1000-seats-under-obama.html?refresh=true
-
Democrats in the Wilderness
Inside a decimated party's not-so-certain revival stragegy.
By Edward-Isaac Dovere
January/February 2017
"But they are stuck in the minority in Congress with no end in sight, have only 16 governors left and face 32 state legislatures fully under GOP control. Their top leaders in the House are all over 70. Their top leaders in the Senate are all over 60. Under Obama, Democrats have lost 1,034 seats at the state and federal level--there's no bench, no bench for a bench, virtually no one able to speak for the party as a whole."
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/democrats-trump-administration-wilderness-comeback-revival-214650
-
Democrats in the Wilderness
Inside a decimated party's not-so-certain revival stragegy.
By Edward-Isaac Dovere
January/February 2017
"But they are stuck in the minority in Congress with no end in sight, have only 16 governors left and face 32 state legislatures fully under GOP control. Their top leaders in the House are all over 70. Their top leaders in the Senate are all over 60. Under Obama, Democrats have lost 1,034 seats at the state and federal level--there's no bench, no bench for a bench, virtually no one able to speak for the party as a whole."
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/democrats-trump-administration-wilderness-comeback-revival-214650
Didn't Okrah's sex slave Gayle taunt the RNC leader with a the Republican Party "obituary" at some point?
-
:D
(https://i.reddituploads.com/87ae060ba582444e980096cd161a1d40?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=96be492568f098d17cde72b570671702)
(https://i.reddituploads.com/1fdaf8b375ce43a69143fdfd9a0bb28a?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=3a8cdbcbcce946fe64d7d2ce6347e39b)
Zero respect for these two groveling bitches. Add Lying Ted Cruz to the mix.
-
Zero respect for these two groveling bitches. Add Lying Ted Cruz to the mix.
Triggered
-
Dems acknowledge anti-Trump message falling short after Georgia loss
By Joseph Weber
Published June 21, 2017
Democrats acknowledged Wednesday that their anti-Trump campaign message has failed to connect with voters this year in the wake of two more party losses in House special elections.
Voters "want us to focus on jobs and the economy,” Illinois Democratic Rep. Cheri Bustos told Fox News’ “Happening Now” on Wednesday. “I get almost no questions about Russia. I get no recommendations that I [should] support impeachment. … All of the other sideshows are not what people want us to focus on.”
The moment of reflection comes after Republican Karen Handel defeated Jon Ossoff in Georgia’s closely watched House runoff, despite millions in out-of-state donations pouring into his campaign amid Democratic hopes that an Ossoff win would deliver a rebuke to President Trump.
Instead, Republicans cited Handel’s win as a rebuke to Democratic “obstruction.”
Democrats had entered the 2017 special elections expecting to ride the wave of opposition to Trump – hoping his low approval ratings, popular-vote loss and now-persistent allegations his campaign team colluded with Russians to influence the election would translate to Democratic support at the polls.
However, Democrats have lost all four House races so far this year where they sought to flip a Republican-held seat.
Georgia’s race marked their highest-profile defeat, in what became the costliest-ever House election.
The campaigns and outside groups combined to spend over $50 million. In terms of individual donations, Ossoff vastly outpaced Handel, with nearly $24 million to her $4.5 million -- though Handel was boosted by outside groups.
Democrats on Tuesday also lost a special election for the House seat held by Mick Mulvaney, now the White House budget director.
The other two races this year where Democrats failed to turn a seat from red to blue were in Kansas and Montana -- with their last chance coming Aug. 15 for the Utah seat of outgoing Rep. Jason Chaffetz.
Bustos was not the only Democrat to lament the conditions of the party in the wake of Tuesday’s losses.
As the final returns in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District were tallied, Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton tweeted the loss “better be a wakeup call” for Democrats.
“Business as usual isn't working. Time to stop rehashing 2016 and talk about the future,” he continued in a series of tweets that within minutes became post-election news. "We need a genuinely new message, a serious jobs plan that reaches all Americans and a bigger tent, not a smaller one. Focus on the future."
At the House Democrats’ weekly meeting the next morning on Capitol Hill, caucus Chairman Joe Crowley addressed Moulton’s frustration.
The New York lawmaker said he also was “disappointed” and the party would evaluate the results of all 2017 races and have a “healthy debate” in which members will “have an opportunity to express their concerns.”
To the question of whether Democrats had focused too much on Trump and national issues, Crowley said the party’s 2018 strategy to win control of the House by taking 24 GOP-held seats would include a mix of national and local issues.
“We can walk and chew gum at the same time,” he said.
Ohio Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan, who unsuccessfully challenged Nancy Pelosi for her leadership post, was quoted in The New York Times saying, “Our brand is worse than Trump.”
Pelosi, meanwhile, remained upbeat – telling colleagues in a letter Wednesday, “The House was in play before the Georgia race. The House remains in play now.” She said Democrats will have to put forth their “message.”
While Democrats tried to tie Handel to Trump, Republicans linked Ossoff to House Minority Leader Pelosi -- with TV ads and mailers featuring images of her and reminders about Ossoff’s campaign getting millions from wealthy East and West coast liberals like her.
Crowley suggested that tying a candidate to party leader is standard campaign practice, a line repeated hours later by Michigan Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell.
“There are always questions about leadership. … That’s a reality of elections. It’s all of our responsibility,” she told Fox News’ “America’s News HQ,” amid renewed questions about Washington Democrats having failed to connect with working Americans.
David Payne, a Republican strategist and president of digital communications firm Codavate, said Wednesday that the parties were equally guilty of invoking Trump and Pelosi and that “local politics still reigns supreme.”
“They wanted to nationalize the race,” Payne said. “They wanted to turn it into something like a beat down.”
He pointed out that Ossoff eventually dumped the “Make Trump Furious” motto and made fiscally conservative promises like tax cuts for businesses in a district held by Republicans for nearly four decades.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who once held the Georgia seat in question, wrote on FoxNews.com, “For the Left this race had been portrayed as a referendum on Trump. After Trump’s tweets and robocalls, there was a verdict. Trump won.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/21/dems-acknowledge-anti-trump-message-falling-short-after-georgia-loss.html
-
The Hill: Gov. Justice's WVa Flip Gives GOP Control of 26 States
Thursday, 03 Aug 2017
West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice's reported decision to ditch the Democratic Party and become a Republican means the GOP controls all three levers of government in 26 states, The Hill reported.
With his expected announcement Thursday night, Justice will be the 34th GOP governor in America; Republicans already control both chambers in West Virginia's state legislature, The Hill noted.
Republicans also hold the governorship and both legislative chambers in Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and New Hampshire.
In Nebraska, a unicameral legislature is ostensibly nonpartisan, but in practice, it is controlled by Republicans, The Hill reported.
Democrats hold 15 governorships and control both chambers of the legislature in six states: Oregon, California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware.
Republicans control both chambers in Montana, Louisiana, North Carolina, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, where Democrats are governors.
And Democrats hold both legislative chambers in Nevada, New Mexico, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont, where there are GOP governors.
Five states have divided legislatures, and chambers in three of those states — Washington, New York and Alaska — are governed by bipartisan coalitions, The Hill reported.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/west-virginia-jim-justice-republican-democrat/2017/08/03/id/805697/
-
The Hill: Gov. Justice's WVa Flip Gives GOP Control of 26 States
Thursday, 03 Aug 2017
West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice's reported decision to ditch the Democratic Party and become a Republican means the GOP controls all three levers of government in 26 states, The Hill reported.
With his expected announcement Thursday night, Justice will be the 34th GOP governor in America; Republicans already control both chambers in West Virginia's state legislature, The Hill noted.
Republicans also hold the governorship and both legislative chambers in Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and New Hampshire.
In Nebraska, a unicameral legislature is ostensibly nonpartisan, but in practice, it is controlled by Republicans, The Hill reported.
Democrats hold 15 governorships and control both chambers of the legislature in six states: Oregon, California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware.
Republicans control both chambers in Montana, Louisiana, North Carolina, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, where Democrats are governors.
And Democrats hold both legislative chambers in Nevada, New Mexico, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont, where there are GOP governors.
Five states have divided legislatures, and chambers in three of those states — Washington, New York and Alaska — are governed by bipartisan coalitions, The Hill reported.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/west-virginia-jim-justice-republican-democrat/2017/08/03/id/805697/
Convention of the States, when?!
-
Joe Manchin the next to flip??
-
RNC outraises DNC in record-breaking November
BY BRETT SAMUELS - 12/20/17
The Republican National Committee announced Wednesday it raised $8.2 million in November, outraising the Democratic National Committee by $2.5 million.
The RNC’s November haul brings its 2017 fundraising total to $121.4 million. It is also the most the national campaign committee has ever raised in the November of a non-election year, according to the RNC.
The DNC, meanwhile, raised $5.7 million in November and has raised roughly $62 million so far in 2017, according to fillings with the Federal Election Commission.
The DNC remained well behind Republican fundraising despite significant electoral victories last month in Virginia and New Jersey, although their fundraising totals were up month-over-month.
The disparity builds on October fundraising totals, when the RNC hauled in $9.2 million, compared to the DNC's $3.9 million.
While the DNC's fundraising has been sluggish, the RNC has seen a boost in fundraising since President Trump took office.
The RNC was scrutinized earlier this month when it reinstated its support for Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. Moore, who lost his Dec. 12 special election to Democrat Doug Jones, was facing allegations of sexual misconduct, including that he molested a 14-year-old when he was 32.
The RNC initially rescinded its support in November, but backed Moore again following Trump’s endorsement of the candidate.
Wednesday's announcement comes on the heels of Republicans passing sweeping tax-reform legislation. The bill passed without a single Democratic vote, and will be sent to Trump for his signature.
The legislation slashes the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, repeals ObamaCare’s mandate requiring most individuals to buy insurance and opens up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/365926-rnc-out-raises-dnc-in-november-despite-democratic-election-wins
-
DNC Takes Out $1.7 Million Loan, Bringing Total Debt Above $6 Million
freebeacon ^ | March 21, 2018 | Paul Crookston
Posted on 3/22/2018, 6:35:38 AM by MarvinStinson
Records show the Democratic National Committee had to take out another loan in February, as the 2018 midterm elections loom.
The national arm of the Democratic Party took out a $1.7 million loan in February, raising the national party’s total debt above $6 million, the Daily Caller reported.
This comes as the DNC has consistently failed to keep up with its Republican counterpart's fundraising. The RNC brought in $12.8 million in February while the DNC only raised $6.9 million.
The DNC now has just over $10 million on hand compared to the $42 million the RNC has on hand. Still, RNC chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel expressed caution, telling Politico Wednesday that midterm elections tend to be "very difficult for a sitting president."
"Their first midterm, [parties in the White House] usually lose seats," McDaniel said. "We understand that, and so we’ve been preparing for that all year."
She said Trump has been engaged in the party’s strategy going into the 2018 elections.
"Most of our conversations are related to the midterms," she said. "In some cases, we’ll go through numbers. We take our data to the White House. He dials in. He wants to know. He’s very focused on that. We’ll talk about specific candidates, where we think that race will go, and what he can be doing to help."
The DNC is seeking to turn the page after the 2016 elections, when its financial woes led to taking out a loan from Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Clinton’s influence over the party became the subject of controversy after it came out that the DNC was working to help her in the presidential primary against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.).
The DNC fundraising has improved since 2016–although it still lags behind the RNC’s–and DNC Chairman Tom Perez has insisted that things are going well. That insistence, however, has sometimes been misdirected, as was the case when he ran afoul of the Washington Post Fact-Checker earlier this month. Perez had said the party raised a record amount of cash in January of this year even though there were several instances in recent years when it raised more in January.
Perez said Republicans lead in fundraising because "they’ve got a lot more rich donors," but the RNC has outraised the DNC in small donations in recent years.
-
This week in politics: RNC breaks another record, builds on fundraising advantage
By CAITLIN CONANT CBS NEWS August 20, 2018
The Republican National Committee raised $14.2 million in July -- the most it has ever raised in that month in a non-presidential year -- bringing its total haul for the cycle to $227.2 million. Despite historic odds and voter enthusiasm favoring Democrats, the RNC is finding record-setting support among its donors, according to numbers shared first with CBS News. The RNC raised more in July of this year than it did in 2010 and 2014 combined.
"We've used our unprecedented grassroots support to build the biggest field program we've ever had to defend our House and Senate majorities," RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement to CBS News. "History might be against us, but we're making sure every voter knows we're the party of results. All the Democrats have is resistance."
After transferring 8 million dollars split evenly between the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) in July, the RNC started August with $41.9 million cash-on-hand and no debt.
According to its last FEC report at the end of June, the RNC had more than five times as much in the bank as the Democratic National Committee.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/this-week-in-politics-rnc-breaks-another-record-builds-on-fundraising-advantage/
-
Interesting.
Apparently the "average Joe" doesn't approve of the whacko left.
-
Dead yet?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2018/senate/
-
Rather Beaumarchais really...
-
Trump and GOP Report $105 Million Haul in Second Quarter
(https://s2.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/pA6qO1gd_7F5sfazhRxDzQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3E9NzU7dz02NDA7c209MQ--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/bloomberg_politics_602/cb67cdca32703d48d5bc19805e98c163)
President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee raised $105 million during the second quarter of the year and had $100 million cash on hand, Trump’s campaign manager said Tuesday, an ominous sign for Democrats in a crowded field of contenders seeking to challenge him in the general election.
“Eye-popping numbers,” the campaign’s communications director Tim Murtaugh said in a tweet. “Shows the incredible strength of support for the President, his policies and successes.”
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-gop-report-105-million-120252727.html
-
RNC raises record-setting $23.5M in August, as GOP momentum builds
By Gregg Re | Fox News
The Trump campaign says the key is winning over Hispanic voters in a state that hasn't been red since 2004.
EXCLUSIVE: The Republican National Committee (RNC) is expected to announce this week that it raised a record-setting $23.5 million in August and had $53.8 million cash on hand as of the end of that month -- signaling growing GOP momentum heading into the 2020 elections.
It isn't unusual for a committee to perform well when its party controls the White House. But, even accounting for that advantage, the RNC's numbers were significant: the August fundraising total was the highest recorded in August during an off-cycle year by either the RNC or DNC, and the RNC has not had as much cash on hand since September 2016, just before Election Day.
The RNC's figures included only money directly contributed to the committee and did not include money contributed to any other joint committee.
RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel told Fox News that Democrats actually helped boost the fundraising totals.
“Thanks to boycotts from Hollywood liberals and the Castro brothers doxxing private citizens who support President Trump, the RNC’s fundraising hit record levels in August," McDaniel said.
Dan Bishop wins razor-thin election in North Carolina following Trump MAGA rallyVideo
That was a reference to last month's decision by Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, to name and shame Trump donors publicly in San Antonio -- a move backed by his brother, presidential candidate Julián Castro. It later emerged that some of the individuals also had donated to the White House hopeful.
McDaniel added: "The more Democrats demonize President Trump and his supporters, the more boots we can put on the ground to re-elect him. Between the President’s accomplishments and our grassroots infrastructure, Republicans are going to be unstoppable in 2020!”
The money is expected to go partly toward an aggressive strategy to turn liberal-leaning states red in 2020. Trump has been looking to find the next Wisconsin or Michigan — states that Democrats generally have won in presidential elections but that could surprise under certain conditions, as they did in 2016. Also on the Trump team's shortlist: Nevada, New Hampshire and Minnesota.
To that end, Trump hosted a fiery rally in blue-leaning New Mexico on Monday, then blitzed into California to raise an estimated $15M on Tuesday at high-dollar fundraisers.
"The more Democrats demonize President Trump and his supporters, the more boots we can put on the ground to re-elect him."
— RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel
The RNC's efforts also apparently paid off -- by the Democrats' own admission -- in North Carolina earlier this month, when Republicans swept two closely contested special elections there.
The RNC had been active on the ground in North Carolina working on the special elections since June. The party brought on nearly two dozen full-time staffers and invested over $1.5 million in the state, while also making nearly a half-million voter contacts through phone-bank work and door-to-door canvassing.
On the eve of the special elections, Trump held a rally in the eastern portion of the more closely contested district – Fayetteville, a city in Cumberland County, which has leaned toward the Democrats. RNC data indicated that, for North Carolina GOP state Sen. Dan Bishop to win, he would need to win over some Democratic-leaning Trump supporters in that district.
Even Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairwoman Cheri Bustos acknowledged that the president's targeted rally in Fayetteville contributed to Bishop's win, writing in a statement, "We fell an inch short tonight, but it took more than $6 million in outside Republican spending and a last-minute Trump rally" to seal Democratic candidate Dan McCready's fate in the 9th District.
"Our data told us how many voter contacts needed to be made and helped the president make an informed decision about where he should hold his rally," RNC Chief of Staff Richard Walters told Fox News at the time. "This winning formula will be key for President Trump and Republicans in 2020."
The RNC and DNC are expected to file their fundraising totals with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Friday.
DNC fundraising has lagged behind the RNC this year. The Democrats raised just $7.7 million in July while the RNC brought in $20.8 million, according to FEC filings. The DNC, meanwhile, closed out July with a little over $9 million in cash, filings showed.
The Trump campaign and RNC have pulled in a combined $210 million since the start of 2019, FEC records showed. That's more than all the current Democrats seeking to replace Trump raised combined during that period.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rnc-raises-record-setting-august-money-gop-momentum
-
Trump and RNC raised massive $125 million in third quarter
The president and the Republican National Committee have a combined $156 million in the bank.
By MAGGIE SEVERNS and ALEX ISENSTADT
10/01/2019
President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign and the Republican National Committee raised a combined $125 million over the past three months, Trump’s campaign announced Tuesday — a massive total that disturbed some Democrats who believe their party should be more focused on countering Trump’s head start in the 2020 presidential election.
The two committees ended September with more than $156 million cash on hand, they announced. They did not disclose individual totals for the Trump campaign or for the Republican National Committee, which will be reported later this month.
The haul underscores the strength of a Trump fundraising apparatus, which has capitalized on the grievances of his supporters to bring in an avalanche of cash. The reelection effort, for example, has developed a merchandising operation that churns out items like plastic straws and T-shirts poking fun at Trump antagonist Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
And Trump’s fundraising machine got a boost in recent days as House Democrats endorsed an impeachment inquiry. It brought in $8.5 million dollars online in the two days after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formalized the impeachment push. Since last week, the reelection campaign has sent out millions of emails and texts asking small-dollar donors to help fight back. The campaign said it had attracted 50,000 new givers in the same 48 hours.
The party’s cash-on-hand total is particularly substantial: Republicans pointed out that the $156 million figure is more than twice as much as former President Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee had at the same point before the 2012 election.
The RNC has consistently outraised the DNC by large margins this year, and the GOP committee had $53.8 million on hand at the end of August, compared with the DNC's $8.2 million. Four Democratic presidential candidates have released third-quarter fundraising numbers so far: Bernie Sanders ($25.3 million), Pete Buttigieg ($19.1 million), Kamala Harris ($11.6 million), and Cory Booker ($6 million).
. . .
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/01/donald-trump-campaign-millionsfundraising-016251
-
The nomination of Donald Trump, a businessman, is a sign of the times for the Republicans.
According to a recently-released list of the top campaign contributions from organizations by the Center for Responsive Politics, corporations form a sizeable chunk of political donors to the Grand Old Party. The list offers a couple of surprises and contrary perspectives.
For example, most campaign finance rhetoric in mainstream media tends to focus on the Republicans. However, as the list shows, Democrats are ahead of the GOP in the contribution game by almost a billion dollars. Further, Democratic presidential candidate Hilary Clinton has trounced Trump's fundraising efforts, according to recent SEC filings.
Only fifteen of the top 100 campaign donors identify as solidly Republican and conservative, compared to 32 such Democrat donors. (See also: The Biggest Donors to the GOP.)
However, Republicans score big in the number of organizations that lean toward their free market and conservative ideology. Based on the share of their contributions to their respective political parties, there are 15 such organizations in the country. As opposed to only six for Democrats.
Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire founder of Las Vegas Sands, is the single biggest donor to the Republican and conservative cause. Apart from donating through his outfit, Adelson also uses Adelson Clinic, a not-for-profit clinic for drug abuse treatment run by his wife Dr. Miriam Adelson, to donate freely to the Republicans. This year he has said that he is planning to spend more than $100 million to get presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump elected.
The remaining funds in the Republican coffers come from an assortment of corporates that range from stalwarts in the banking industry to Koch Industries (which has interests across numerous industries) to industry giants, such as General Electric Corp. and Honeywell International.
With the exception of Koch Industries (which donates 95% of its total campaign contributions to the Republican cause), most corporations have split their loyalty between parties. For example, JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Citigroup Inc. (C) both donated 48% and 52% to Democrats and Republicans, respectively. Bank of America Corp (BAC) is the most far-right with 41% of its contributions going to Democrats and 59% to Republicans.
(https://www.investopedia.com/thmb/4ITOHhlqowoHZ07V4A6fMUVIhbU=/819x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/republicandonors-5bfd76b2c9e77c0058b2a0f9)
(https://www.investopedia.com/thmb/5Exo4F6DU9EXE010sOemh0JXfx0=/819x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/chartrepublican-5bfd76af46e0fb0051f95a65)
https://www.investopedia.com/news/top-republican-donors/
-
DNC Drops Lackluster Fundraising Numbers During Dem Debate
By ZACHARY EVANS
November 21, 2019
Candidates in a Democratic presidential debate, November 20, 2019, Atlanta (Brendan McDermid / Reuters)
The Democratic National Committee released its fundraising numbers during the presidential primary debate on Wednesday night, revealing that the committee lags far behind Republicans in funding for the 2020 elections.
The DNC has $8.7 million in cash on hand, but it is $7 million in debt, according to its October Federal Election Commission filing. The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, had raised $156 million and had $61.4 million cash on hand as of the end of October.
However, it was noted that the DNC is competing for donations with a wide field of presidential candidates, ten of which participated in Wednesday night’s primary debate. At this point in 2011, when former president Barack Obama stood for reelection, the DNC had raised roughly $150 million.
Bernie Sanders revealed he had personally raised $25.3 million over the past three months, leading Democratic presidential candidates in fundraising. Pete Buttigieg raised $19.1 million over the same period, followed by Kamala Harris with $11.6 million. Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren haven’t yet released their fundraising numbers.
The RNC has used the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against President Trump to great effect in its fundraising efforts, receiving record-breaking levels of donations in October and September with its “Stop the Madness” campaign.
“While Democrats are focused on their sham impeachment charade, Republicans had another record-breaking fundraising month in October — the best off-cycle October in our party’s history,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel told the Washington Examiner. “In 2020, voters will choose results over the Democrats’ polarizing political rhetoric, and the RNC is in the strongest position possible to reelect President Trump and Republicans up-and-down the ballot.”
The RNC has been using some of its funds to help House Republicans seeking to topple Democrats in vulnerable districts.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/dnc-drops-lackluster-fundraising-numbers-during-dem-debate/
-
Slowest death ever.
Republicans on Verge of Outnumbering Democrats in Florida for First Time
By Charlie McCarthy | Monday, 20 September 2021
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/republicans-florida-democrats-registered-voters/2021/09/20/id/1037119/
-
quiet so
Republicans just want to sell the country for a long term profit while the dems want it all upfront. Headed to the same conclusion either way.
I used to think the saying that both parties were "two sides of the same coin" was bullshit. Not anymore.
I'm old enough now to stop listening to the talk and watch the results.
-
Slowest death ever.
Republican Youngkin wins Virginia governor's race in blow to Democrats, NBC News projects
The GOP victory came in a state President Joe Biden won by 10 percentage points, sending a warning to Democrats about their midterm election prospects.
Updated Nov. 3, 2021
By Alex Seitz-Wald and Henry J. Gomez
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/polls-close-soon-virginia-s-closely-watched-gubernatorial-election-n1283066
-
The death spiral continues.
Registered Republicans overtake Democrats in Florida for first time, DeSantis says
BY ROMY ELLENBOGEN
UPDATED NOVEMBER 05, 2021
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article255575861.html#storylink=cpy
-
Gallup: Republicans Now Outnumber Democrats for First Time Since 1991
https://palaceintrigueblog.com/2022/01/17/gallup-republicans-now-outnumber-democrats-for-first-time-since-1991/
-
panic is setting in
the crying tonight will be epic for old strawdyke and his clan here of merry morons
the 5 amigo's
straw
oak
funk
lurk
prime
(and prospect / fluffer abraham)
-
Thank you Donald Trump
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/more-than-1-million-voters-switch-registration-gop-suburbs-break-biden
-
Poll: Republicans Outnumber Democrats, Reversing Decades-Long Trend
Karl Salzmann
August 1, 2023
More Americans are Republicans than Democrats, according to multiple Gallup polls this year, upending a trend that has been going on since 1988.
Gallup's most recent monthly poll, conducted throughout July, found that 27 percent of the country are Republicans, compared with 25 percent who are Democrats. Independents, at 45 percent, outnumber members of either party.
Many of those independents lean Republican, however. When the poll factors in the number of independents who lean Republican, 45 percent of respondents support the GOP, compared with 42 percent of respondents who either are Democrats or independents who lean Democratic.
Republicans have repeatedly outnumbered Democrats this year, the Gallup monthly polls show, reversing Democrats' longtime dominance in party identification. Since 1988, the poll has shown a trend of more Americans identifying as Democrats than Republicans. Recently, the pollster found that, from 2016 to 2020, more people either identified as or leaned Democratic, according to yearly averages.
In 2022, though, Gallup found party membership tied, just as the media started reporting on what the Associated Press called "a political shift" toward the GOP.
"Across 31 states, about two-thirds of voters who have switched their official party registrations in the past year have switched to the Republican Party," the AP reported. That shift was "pronounced"—and "dangerous for Democrats"—in the suburbs of cities such as Denver and Pittsburgh. While an expected Republican wave did not materialize in the 2022 midterms, Republicans took control of the House and won the popular vote.
The poll comes as Democratic president Joe Biden faces record-low approval ratings. A Pew Research Center poll in June found Biden's approval rating at only 35 percent. A Washington Post poll, meanwhile, found that just 38 percent of Democrats want Biden to run for reelection.
https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/republicans-outnumber-democrats/
-
Gallup: Republicans Now Outnumber Democrats for First Time Since 1991
https://palaceintrigueblog.com/2022/01/17/gallup-republicans-now-outnumber-democrats-for-first-time-since-1991/
Hmm.
(https://i0.wp.com/palaceintrigueblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/h9n2s0qhku-xz-tl9dailq.png?resize=768%2C448&ssl=1)
-
Hmm.
(https://i0.wp.com/palaceintrigueblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/h9n2s0qhku-xz-tl9dailq.png?resize=768%2C448&ssl=1)
Why are you posting a poll from two years ago in response to a 2023 poll?
-
Why are you posting a poll from two years ago in response to a 2023 poll?
Oh I don't know. Maybe because it is shown on the link you posted. https://palaceintrigueblog.com/2022/01/17/gallup-republicans-now-outnumber-democrats-for-first-time-since-1991/
BTW when was The Palace Intrigue article you posted published? I cannot find the date.
Here is another Gallop poll from their article published January 2023. It seems to be the most recent Gallop poll regarding party preferences on their site.
(https://news.gallup.com/poll/467897/party-preferences-evenly-split-2022-shift-gop.aspx)
https://news.gallup.com/poll/467897/party-preferences-evenly-split-2022-shift-gop.aspx
-
Oh I don't know. Maybe because it is shown on the link you posted. https://palaceintrigueblog.com/2022/01/17/gallup-republicans-now-outnumber-democrats-for-first-time-since-1991/
BTW when was The Palace Intrigue article you posted published? I cannot find the date.
Here is another Gallop poll from their article published January 2023. It seems to be the most recent Gallop poll regarding party preferences on their site.
(https://news.gallup.com/poll/467897/party-preferences-evenly-split-2022-shift-gop.aspx)
https://news.gallup.com/poll/467897/party-preferences-evenly-split-2022-shift-gop.aspx
What was your point in posting the poll results from two years ago?
-
Dallas mayor leaves Democratic Party, switches to GOP: 'American cities need Republicans'
Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson was elected in 2019 and has been a vocal supporter of law enforcement
By Andrew Mark Miller Fox News
Published September 22, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dallas-mayor-leaves-democratic-party-switches-to-gop-american-cities-need-republicans
-
Dallas mayor leaves Democratic Party, switches to GOP: 'American cities need Republicans'
Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson was elected in 2019 and has been a vocal supporter of law enforcement
By Andrew Mark Miller Fox News
Published September 22, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dallas-mayor-leaves-democratic-party-switches-to-gop-american-cities-need-republicans
We don't need more republicans we need more conservative constitutionalists....an d we needed them over a decade ago.
Probably too late now.
-
Been saying that since they supported Trump . You can't with a straight face say you value republican ideals and vote for this man.. If you do, you are ignorant
-
Been saying that since they supported Trump . You can't with a straight face say you value republican ideals and vote for this man.. If you do, you are ignorant
Does the Democratic party value classic liberal ideals?
They've been anti-free speech, pro big corporation, pro cancel culture, pro government overreach.
-
Does the Democratic party value classic liberal ideals?
They've been anti-free speech, pro big corporation, pro cancel culture, pro government overreach.
Democratic party is not "democratic". Regressive leftists. They need to change the name.
-
Been saying that since they supported Trump . You can't with a straight face say you value republican ideals and vote for this man.. If you do, you are ignorant
Ridiculous. Trump governed as the most conservative president since Reagan. It looks like people are making reasoned, not emotional, decisions.
-
Does the Democratic party value classic liberal ideals?
They've been anti-free speech, pro big corporation, pro cancel culture, pro government overreach.
Absolutely not.
Absolutely correct.
-
Democratic party is not "democratic". Regressive leftists. They need to change the name.
You probably aren't far off.
-
Exclusive — Christian Ziegler: Florida Has Seen 850,000 Registered Voters Swing Republican
HANNAH BLEAU 30 Sep 2023
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/09/30/exclusive-christian-ziegler-florida-has-seen-850000-registered-voters-swing-republican/