- That some favored Democrats winning state races, along with some down race success in Virginia represented a radical wave movement for the Democrats.
- That despite years of tangible data and analysis from serious election prognosticators suggesting otherwise, you can make a determination from special and off year elections as to how the net regular election cycle will go.
- That all of this taken into consideration, and even in spite of a low number of pick up opportunities, that the Democrats are poised for big gains in 2018.
Assuming all of this to be true (and it's very likely not) it would appear that your liberal punditry believes very strongly that what all of this suggests is that it's a rejection of Donald Trump.
I guess I would wonder out loud why it's important to make this determination? Wouldn't a Party want to take personal credit for the assumed upcoming election successes? Wouldn't they want to say it's their values, their policies, their candidates that Americans are embracing? Instead, it's if they are saying... "hey, with Donald Trump as President, our name calling, identity politics, and finger pointing might actually work to win an election or two."
The best case scenario for this belief is that the Democrats might have at best two good election cycles, Donald Trump loses reelection, and then they are still sitting exactly where they were in 2016 with no new ideas, with no new policy initiatives, and with no candidates to light a true fire of inspiration. Just the negativity that has garnered them the lowest amount of elected officials in nearly a hundred years.
Why would this be the preferred way of thinking? Do liberals really hate Donald Trump more than they love themselves?
96 comments:
A question for Ch Truth.
I remember how, when Obama during his first term was either slightly below or slightly above water in the polling, and
you announced dire consequences for Democrats, seeing as how in your opinion Obama's chances of reelection were nil, for (you predicted) he would eventually be dipping into the thirties.
Trump has never once been above water on the RealClearPolitics average and is already dipping into the thirties,
so why shouldn't Republicans be fearing even more the same dire consequences you predicted for Obama?
Since Trump has won, which one of his campaign promises has he accomplished?
Two hacks that can't answer CH.
James -
I guess I would answer that question if any of what you stated about me was actually factual.
The reality is that I predicted a big 2010 gain for the Republicans (like most reasonable prognosticators) because of the dynamics of Obamacare and the unpopular nature of Obamacare and more specifically how it was rammed through without any bi-partisan participation.
More to the point, the polling was in favor of the Republicans, which is what matters in my projections.
Oh, yeah.... we were right.
I also successfully projected that Obama would win reelection in 2012 against Romney, and got every Senate race correct that year.
So... what exactly was your point, James?
The Democrats love the country. Donald Trump loves himself.
The Democrats want to keep us safe.
They want Americans want Americans to have health care.
The Democrats want to keep Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
The Democrats want to actually repair our deteriorating infrastructure and not increase the national debt by $1.2 Trillion dollars.
The Democrats want to protect us from Donald J. Trump. This is the one that will trigger a landslide victory over the President who is the worst in history.
I distinctly remember you predicting that Obama was in trouble and would have a hard time being reelected.
Since that is a fact you do not care to face, and since I cannot access the archives, there is little ground for me to do anything other than once more point out that you out and out lie when it suits you.
Ended DACA
Ended Clear streams act, getting the Gov off my many land holdings, no lie
Go out of climate hoax
Shall I go on alky?
You are an interloper in that shack.
James said...
Many years ago when machine guns were outlawed, they pretty well disappeared. Why? Why did criminals stop using them?
Simply because merely POSSESSING one, in a home or in the trunk of a car, could cause a criminal to do SERIOUS prison time.
Very, very few people have been killed by machine guns since they became illegal for ordinary citizens to own.
_______________
So why don't we have a constitutional right to bear machine guns? Because they are too deadly.
Why don't we have a constitutional right to bear grenade launchers? Because they are too deadly.
Why don't we have a constitutional right to bear flame throwers? Too deadly.
Bazookas? Too deadly.
Surface to air missile launchers? Too deadly.
Mortars? Too deadly.
So why should we have a constitutional right to bear semi-automatic rifles?
A mother in the Texas church covered her children, three girls and a boy, with her body trying to save them. She and two of her little daughters were killed and her little son was shot FIVE times by the semi-automatic rifle-wielding assailant.
But you and too many other 2nd amendment espousers want to leave semi-automatic weapons on the protected list, so that the gun industry can continue to make their huge profits and contribute much, much money to NRA servile politicians.
-- How sad, sad, sad was that shoot up in that tiny little church, and who knows, there might have been less deaths if semi-automatic weapons were not so readily available. They should have been outlawed long ago the way machine guns were. But this will keep on happening until finally politicians do what any sane and reasonable person can see needs to done.
You'll have to wait for WP, CH.
These two are incapable of logical responses.
They don't have a cut n paste to address CHT questions.
November 9, 2017 at 8:51 AM
And now, once more with feeling (emotion) it can be said...
WP Hamilton said...
JAMES ASKED:
Why should we have a constitutional right to bear semi-automatic rifles?
__________
WP: Because they are effective self-defense weapons.
We do not need weapons to shoot down fighter jets or military tanks, nor those which can indiscriminately injure or kill large groups of people. That may be what you mean by "too deadly", but if so the AR-15 and other semi-auto rifles are not deadly in that sense.
I am not responding from the standpoint of a philosophical antipathy respective of reasonable control of deadly weapons. However, I will reflexively oppose an argument which is an emotional appeal based on imagery conjured by false associations and this is one such. It is not only morally wrong to deceive people in that fashion but counterproductive as a persuasive argument - and if it ever does succeed to any extent, the gains if any will always be at risk.
It works best, in the long run, to be honest with people.
November 8, 2017 at 1:22 PM
______________________
The Rev. James Boswell . said...
So let's be honest with people, Wp:
If machine guns being made illegal led to a situation in which very few deaths by machine guns resulted, why wouldn't the same be true for weapons that come close to being machine guns (and can be made even more so with bump stocks)?
What is "emotional" about pointing out that if we do not allow our citizenry to legally arm themselves with machine guns, bazookas, flame throwers, grenade launchers, or surface to air launchers, why should we not want our citizenry armed with weapons that are nearly as deadly as machine guns?
And again I say, if you were that mother in that church trying to protect her four little children by covering them with her own body, you might find yourself wishing that weapons like the one the assailant was using had been banned. Nor would you draw too fine a distinction between whether the assailant was using an "assault rifle" or merely a semi-automatic rifle.
But I guess that puts the matter in a way that you find too "emotional."
November 9, 2017 at 8:39 AM
The Rev. James Boswell further said:
Many years ago when machine guns were outlawed, they pretty well disappeared. Why? Why did criminals stop using them?
Simply because merely POSSESSING one, in a home or in the trunk of a car, could cause a criminal to do SERIOUS prison time.
Very, very few people have been killed by machine guns since they became illegal for ordinary citizens to own.
_______________
Why don't we have a constitutional right to bear machine guns? Because they are too deadly.
Why don't we have a constitutional right to bear grenade launchers? Because they are too deadly.
Why don't we have a constitutional right to bear flame throwers? Too deadly.
Bazookas? Too deadly.
Surface to air missile launchers? Too deadly.
Mortars? Too deadly.
So why should we have a constitutional right to bear semi-automatic rifles?
A mother in the Texas church covered her children, three girls and a boy, with her body trying to save them. She and two of her little daughters were killed and her little son was shot FIVE times by the semi-automatic rifle-wielding assailant.
But you and other 2nd amendment espousers want to leave semi-automatic weapons on the protected list, so that the gun industry can continue to make their huge profits and contribute much, much money to NRA servile politicians.
-- How sad, sad, sad was that shoot up in that tiny little church, and who knows, there might have been less deaths if semi-automatic weapons were not so readily available. They should have been outlawed long ago the way machine guns were. But this will keep on happening until finally politicians do what any sane and reasonable person can see needs to be done.
November 9, 2017 at 8:51 AM
Yep.
Alky and pedal two idiots in the same safe space pod.
Spam by the pedo.
Spam by the pedo
The "pedo" wrote that all himself.
The "pedo" wrote that all himself.
Roger's reality based predictions.
The reality is that I am predicting a big 2018 gain for the Democrats (like most reasonable prognosticators) because of the dynamics of Republican "tax reform " and the unpopular nature of Donald J Trump and more specifically how it will rammed through without any bi-partisan participation. And yes, our esteemed host will support it unequivocally.
Everything has been charged with the election of the President Trump. All standard beliefs have been put in doubt because he was elected. Beyond any reasonable doubt that he's a failure to to this point in time, and because he will not change, the voters will overwhelmingly reject his party, and yes it is his party to a historical defeat.
The "pedo" wrote that all himself.
The pedophile can't write shit on his own.
Unless it's to swoon over post pubescent teenagers.
The pedophile can't write shit on his own.
Unless it's to swoon over post pubescent teenagers.
The pedophile can't write shit on his own.
Unless it's to swoon over post pubescent teenagers.
I distinctly remember you predicting that Obama was in trouble and would have a hard time being reelected
You can remember that zombies roamed the earth and ate the brains of small children for all I care.
Your "recollection" is nonsense. As a factual truth, Obama's approvals were not an issue in 2012. His approvals in late 2012 were in the upper 40s (47-49) suggesting a close reelection. There was a time where they were in the low forties (in 2011) and had they stayed in the low forties, he would have had an issue being reelected.
The fact is that I don't get election projections wrong. Two states in Presidential elections (Wisconsin 2004 and North Carolina 2008) and only a three Senate races wrong (including the Franken/Coleman recount). I refused to project the 2016 election due to what I believed was a general problem with polling and the fact that I couldn't get a handle on Trump support. That being said, my personal spreadsheet got the Hillary popular vote win within a couple of percentage points.
I am still wondering what your point is?
I never projected an Obama loss.
I have not yet may any projections about the upcoming elections (other than to not read much into special and off year elections). The time to worry about 2018 will be in 2018 and the time to worry about 2020 will be in 2020.
Trump is proving to be a calamity for the GOP.
And I predict that will only become more and more obvious as a disgusted electorate continues to speak.
The reality is that I am predicting a big 2018 gain for the Democrats (like most reasonable prognosticators)
You mean like Charlie Cook?
Topline: The 2016 election resulted in a House breakdown of 241 Republicans and 194 Democrats. Today, there are four vacancies (one Democratic and three Republican). At the moment, President Trump's low popularity and Democrats' enthusiasm make a wave election quite possible and put the GOP's majority at great risk. But given Republicans' redistricting advantages and how well sorted-out the House has become, it could still be difficult for Democrats to pick up the 24 seats they would need to win control.
Topline: Both parties have advantages this cycle. For Republicans, the numbers are on their side. There are 34 races, including the special election in Alabama, and Democrats must defend 25 of those seats, compared to nine for Republicans. They also benefit from a friendly map in that Democrats are defending 10 seats in states that President Trump won in 2016. By contrast, there is only one GOP seat – U.S. Sen. Dean Heller in Nevada – up in a state that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton carried. Democrats are banking on the mid-term election curse in which the party in power tends to lose seats in the Senate and/or the House in mid-term elections, as well as Trump’s unpopularity and an energized base to help keep their losses to a minimum. An early read of the cycle suggests that there might not be much change in the make up of the Senate after Election Day. At this point, the range is +/- one seat for Democrats, which would have to be considered a victory. A bad night for Democrats would be the loss of three or four seats. At this point, the one certainty is that the majority is not in play.
http://cookpolitical.com/index.php/ratings
I distinctly remember you indicated that Obama was in serious trouble, based on his polling.
You deny that, you lie.
I am confident in my prediction because Trump's approval ratings are averaging at 37%, and it's not going to change.
I never saw you predict a big gain by the Democrats.
James...
I have been projecting since 2004 back when I had my own virtual personal server, advertisers and everything else.
The one thing I can tell you (and anyone who has followed me can affirm) - I have always made projections 100% based on my polling spreadsheets. Never once did have I ever said... well the polls say this, but I am projecting that.
While the 2012 election polling was very close (if I recall somewhere within a percentage by the averages) the state polling showed Obama winning the electoral college. Those are verifiable facts that you could go look up.
The only way I predicted a Romney win (which I didn't) was if Romney was ahead in the polls (which he wasn't). Because I don't predict based on how I want the election to go. I predict to be RIGHT.
So you can continue (as a fake Christian) to lie about me if you choose. But nobody here is going to believe you.
I never saw you predict a big gain by the Democrats.
I don't make generic projections, Roger... as you well know. I run spreadsheets on individual Presidential and Senate state wide races and project each one separately.
I won't make any predictions in November of 2017 about November 2018 because it's simply not prudent to do so.
James - what was my final personal thought process on the 2016 Presidential election?
Tell us what you remember?
Apparently they don't have a winning message....
I am confident in my prediction because Trump's approval ratings are averaging at 37%, and it's not going to change.
So basically you're ignoring:
1. Economic performance GDP growth.
2. Ubemployment
3. Consumer confidence and
4. Right track, wrong track number.
In 2010 Obama had a sterling approval rating yet his party got shellacked in the mid-terms.
You're concentrating on the wrong indicator.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
I am confident in my prediction because Trump's approval ratings are averaging at 37%, and it's not going to change.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
really, alky?
boy, you never learn the lesson, do ya?
all the cool kids polls had hillary winning by from 85% to 15% (NYT) to 98.5% to 1.5% (huffpo)
how'd THAT work out for ya, captain landslide?
you can continue to hang your hat on those media manufactured polls, and you'll continue to be wrong. but at least you'll be consistent.
Go back in the archives, Ch, and you will see that you were at one time using Obama's polling at a point when he had dropped either below 50% or almost so to argue that he would continue to decline and that someone that low already in the polls would stand little chance of reelection. That was your thought process at that time. Of course, when Obama rebounded, you fell silent regarding that.
___________
You ask me, "James - what was my final personal thought process on the 2016 Presidential election?
Tell us what you remember?"
Ch, by that time you and practically every other poll watcher with the least degree of ability and integrity knew that those predicting a Romney victory were doomed to disappointment. Only the most die hard of the die hard were still saying that we Obama supporters would be DEVASTATED.
I never heard you say that, nor any reasonably objective forecaster.
House Democrats Expand Target List for Midterms
Greg Sargent: “House Democratic strategists, convinced that Tuesday’s results represent a massive voter uprising against Trumpism that will continue through next year, are adding nearly a dozen new GOP districts to their list of 2018 takeover targets, in an effort to expand the map to keep pace with the rapid deterioration of the GOP’s political fortunes.”
___________________
Do not dare call this momentum or Wp will get upset.
Uh Oh.
Senate GOP Tax Plan Breaks with Trump
Politicalwire.com
also
Kelly Pressured Acting DHS Secretary to Expel Hondurans
Here come the 40 year old sexual accusations against roy moore. They are unreported, unproven, unprovable either way, have never been raised before now.
How in the world does he prove himself innocent??
Greg Sargent: “House Democratic strategists, convinced that Tuesday’s results represent a massive voter uprising against Trumpism that will continue through next year, are adding nearly a dozen new GOP districts to their list of 2018 takeover targets, in an effort to expand the map to keep pace with the rapid deterioration of the GOP’s political fortunes.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
well, here's at least ONE source of the alky's pontifications.
LOL.
democrats by a landslide in 2018!!! woo hoo!!!
Ever notice when James decides to "really lie" he uses his "Pastor" label.
What a fucking insult to the church.
By The Washington Post
CLOSE
Follow on Twitter
Leigh Corfman says she was 14 years old when an older man approached her outside a courtroom in Etowah County. She was sitting on a wooden bench with her mother, they both recall, when the man introduced himself as Roy Moore.
It was early 1979 and Moore -- now the Republican nominee in Alabama for a U.S. Senate seat - was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. He struck up a conversation, Corfman and her mother say, and offered to watch the girl while her mother went inside for a child custody hearing.
"He said, 'Oh, you don't want her to go in there and hear all that. I'll stay out here with her,' " says Corfman's mother, Nancy Wells, 71. "I thought, how nice for him to want to take care of my little girl."
Alone with Corfman, Moore chatted with her and asked for her phone number, she says. Days later, she says, he picked her up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, she says, he took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes. He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.
So basically you're ignoring:
1. Economic performance GDP growth.
2. Ubemployment
3. Consumer confidence and
4. Right track, wrong track number.
I took every single one of them into consideration. 4 especially is a big negative on Trump, because even Trump lovers think we are going in the wrong direction.
The economy won't matter because Trump will never change.
Exactly. She has never reported any of that to anyone at any time. Now nearly 40 years later, how is he supposed to defend against the allegation?
If machine guns being made illegal led to a situation in which very few deaths by machine guns resulted, ...
Your "If" is an incorrect assumption. Several incorrect assumptions actually, since machine guns are not currently illegal. You can legally purchase and own pre-1986 automatic weapons, with some restrictions.
But aside from that, how many fatalities were machine-gunned in the US from 1934 until the act "outlawing" them? I'm sure this will surprise you (since we're being honest here, right?) but the answer is ONE. One civilian-operated machine gun since then, one death.
So you're touting a "massive reduction" of one to none over a period of more than 80 years.
But OK, you want to know what's the difference. Machine guns are designed for military use; infantry are trained with them. For civilians they are not as effective for self-defense, pointless actually. They are difficult to use with any accuracy and burn through your ammo. The only advantage is that you can spray a lot of bullets, quickly, over a large area. That should be obvious, and that is not a legitimate objective for an individual defending himself or his property.
You need to come to grips with the fact, James, that the purpose of a self-defense firearm is to shoot someone. You can have fun at the range, you can use a hunting rifle for self-defense, you can keep a collection, but the ultimate purpose is shooting someone. You don't like it, neither do I, but trying to ban guns because they might be used to shoot people (which is your boiled down argument here) is a non-starter. That's what they're for, that's why there is a constitutional right, and that's why people have them. Your arguments can only be accepted by those who already agree with you.
Dems and libs are trying desperately to make yesterday about trump. It is absurd. Two states hillary won. NJ was about Christie. The gop candidate in VA went out of his way to disassociate himself with trump.
Your "If" is an incorrect assumption. Several incorrect assumptions actually, since machine guns are not currently illegal. You can legally purchase and own pre-1986 automatic weapons, with some restrictions.
______________
MAJOR RESTRICTIONS, WP. Restrictions that make it almost impossible for an ordinary citizen legally to own one, and the restrictions in some states are even tougher than in others.
_____________________
These Senate seats were the ones contested in 2012, mid-terms of Obama's second term. The Democrats held 21 of those seats plus 2 independents vs the Republican 10. Gaining two of those seats bucked the historical odds.
Polls aside, I want to ask the simple question: are the Republicans prospects better or worse now in those 10 Republican districts than they were in 2012? It would be something spectacular for the Democrats to gain a majority, but picking up even 3 or 4 seats in the face of the Republican Congress' problems is not unreasonable.
James said...Greg Sargent: “House Democratic strategists, convinced that Tuesday’s results represent a massive voter uprising against Trumpism that will continue through next year, are adding nearly a dozen new GOP districts to their list of 2018 takeover targets, in an effort to expand the map to keep pace with the rapid deterioration of the GOP’s political fortunes.”
___________________
Do not dare call this momentum or Wp will get upset.
Good grief, Greg Sargent is saying something similar to what I said, but using over-simplified hyperbole for sound-bite purposes.
"massive voter uprising against Trumpism", what do you think that means? People are going to vote for Democrats in Congress because they're "uprising" against Trump? Well, that's literally stupid and too easy a way to lose for "Democratic strategists" to base campaigns on. What it really means is, the elections showed that unpopular Trump initiatives and policies can be used as hot-button campaign issues.
NYTimes: Suburbs Rebel Against Trump, Threatening Republicans in Congress
Suburbs Rebel Against Trump, Threatening Republicans in Congress https://nyti.ms/2j9uO4z
Just like I said. I did not see this until now.
It is about Trump. Republicans are increasingly frightened and don't know how to handle it.
Exactly would
"Democratic strategists" to base campaigns on. What it really means is, the elections showed that unpopular Trump initiatives and policies can be used as hot-button campaign issues.
MAJOR RESTRICTIONS, WP. Restrictions
So you acknowledge that they are NOT illegal - the first false assumption is disposed of. Now as for the second false assumption, that it has resulted in a reduction of civilian machine-gun killings ...
WP...
First, the GOP is only technically defending 8 seats (9 if you consider the special election in Alabama next month).
The reality is that a majority the GOP Senate Seats up in 2018 (those contested in 2012) are not really competitive no matter the circumstances...
To put it in perspective... of the eight Republicans running for reelection:
Heller in Nevada is clearly the most vulnerable in a slightly blue state.
Jeff Flake's replacement in Arizona is considered the next most vulnerable in a +5 GOP state.
Then you are looking at Ted Cruz in Texas as the third most vulnerable in Texas.
After that you have Mississippi, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming.
So the only chances (I see) for the Democrats to win back a majority is to win in Alabama, win both Nevada, and Arizona and not loose a single seat that they are defending.
Or hope McCain steps down before then, win in Nevada, both Arizona seats, and not loose a single seat that they are defending.
They are defending in Indiana, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota, and West Virginia... all demographically difficult for the Democrats. Probably the best they can hope for is to keep those red state Senators for another 6 years, because in this day of partisanship... it's hard to find crossover voters.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Since Trump has won, which one of his campaign promises has he accomplished?
He put a science denier in charge of EPA. Someone ideologically opposed to affordable health care for the poor in charge of Health. Foxes in the hen-house in Energy. And he dropped some symbolic bombs in Syria. These were all promised (I think). His core supporters are happy with all that.
First, the GOP is only technically defending 8 seats (9 if you consider the special election in Alabama next month).
Yes, as opposed to 10 seats they were defending in 2012. My point is, the numbers aren't that different from 2012, and Dems picked up 2.
Jeff Flake's replacement in Arizona ...Ted Cruz in Texas ... Or hope McCain
Those don't sound vulnerable to you?
Since Trump has won, which one of his campaign promises has he accomplished?
Judges Judges Judges!
No yesterday was not about trump for the reasons I said.
Those don't sound vulnerable to you?
Heller is vulnerable.
Whoever gets the nod is vulnerable in Arizona is vulnerable.
after that... No... Ted Cruz does not strike me as particularly vulnerable. He won by 16 last time, raised his profile, and will have more money than most third world countries to campaign with.
Since the Democrats need three seats to gain a majority... they need something very serious to bounce their way, and bounce their way, and bounce their way, and bounce their way, and bounce their way again...
No yesterday was not about trump for the reasons I said.
One of the big things being ignored, is that the Democrats (mostly liberal PACs) outspent the GOP in that state by extremely large margins at the assembly race level. Northam also outspent Gillepsie, but it was by a smaller margin.
While some of that could be better fundraising, much of it was attention. There was a lot of suggestion that the local Republicans were sort of caught flat footed on ths one.
That sort of spending advantage won't happen in 2018. While the GOP is out fundraising the Democrats in certain areas, and the Democrats are out fundraising the GOP in others... there isn't likely to be a huge money advantage either way.
Cruz is more vulnerable than you might think, and I think he knows it. Most recently, Cruz was virulently anti-Trump and that hurts him in Texas. I'm not saying that Democrats can use it, but it hurts him. Opposition to Trump policies helps O’Rourke, while Trump coat-tails won't help Cruz.
Cruz made his stand to repeal Obamacare in the shutdown showdown, and he lost. He anti'd up again, promising partial repeals this Summer, and failed again.
He needs to be able to say that he's helped Texas specifically, while remaining true to his conservative Tea-Party principles, and he has some weaknesses there. Cruz has the advantage as things stand now, but he's not in a great position either.
Wall Street Journal reported
GOP Senators: Moore Should Quit Race If Sexual-Misconduct Claims Are True
wp Besides unqualified appointees and judges,.. .... . ...
Nada amigo
Cruz will hold onto the job.
4 especially is a big negative on Trump, because even Trump lovers think we are going in the wrong direction.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
yeah, that's it alky.
3% GDP and low unemployment has trump lovers pissed of from coast to coast.
boy, do we long for the days of 0linsky's 0.7% GDP.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
It is about Trump. Republicans are increasingly frightened and don't know how to handle it.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
nice media-crafted narrative you got there alky. if only it were true.
So do we think the tv networks will report that roy moore is 'firing back' against unsubstantiated allegations? That's always the spin when it's a dem.
nice media-crafted narrative you got there sober Roger says is the truth. So despite being ignorant, the racist rodent bastard is just stupid and denies the truth.
The Democrats want to actually repair our deteriorating infrastructure and not increase the national debt" Alky
your team already added 12.5 Trillion to the National Debt.
No thanks "those shovel ready jobs where not so shovel ready" JV Obama
I am confident in my prediction because Trump's approval ratings are averaging at 37%, and it's not going to change.
So basically you're ignoring:
1. Economic performance GDP growth.
2. Unemployment
3. Consumer confidence and
4. Right track, wrong track number.
In 2010 Obama had a sterling approval rating yet his party got shellacked in the mid-terms.
You're concentrating on the wrong indicator. "
Don't forget that Obama put his own party into massive debt. Saved only by the complete take over of the Clinton Machine.
Corker is going to hold hearings on the President and his access to the "football"
They took it away from Nixon before he had officially left office of the President.
kd is invisible
Republican senators are calling for Moore to step down.
Cruz is more vulnerable than you might think
I guess as vulnerable as a high profile incumbent who won by 16 points and lives in a fairly deep red state can be...
I think you have to ask yourself... how well does any Democrat represent a state like North Dakota (where Trump won 63% to 27%) or West Virginia (Where Trump won 69% to 26%)... when it really boils down to it?
Would you rather be running in a state where your Presidential candidate won by nine points, or where your Presidential candidate lost by over 30?)
It was early 1979 and Moore -- now the Republican nominee in Alabama for a U.S. Senate seat - was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. He struck up a conversation, Corfman and her mother say, and offered to watch the girl while her mother went inside for a child custody hearing.
"He said, 'Oh, you don't want her to go in there and hear all that. I'll stay out here with her,' " says Corfman's mother, Nancy Wells, 71. "I thought, how nice for him to want to take care of my little girl."
Alone with Corfman, Moore chatted with her and asked for her phone number, she says. Days later, she says, he picked her up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, she says, he took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes. He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.
"I wanted it over with - I wanted out," she remembers thinking. "Please just get this over with. Whatever this is, just get it over." Corfman says she asked Moore to take her home, and he did.
Two of Corfman's childhood friends say she told them at the time that she was seeing an older man, and one says Corfman identified the man as Moore. Wells says her daughter told her about the encounter more than a decade later, as Moore was becoming more prominent as a local judge.
Aside from Corfman, three other women interviewed by The Washington Post in recent weeks say Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18 and he was in his early 30s, episodes they say they found flattering at the time, but troubling as they got older. None of the women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.
Wendy Miller says she was 14 and working as a Santa's helper at the Gadsden Mall when Moore first approached her, and 16 when he asked her on dates, which her mother forbade. Debbie Wesson Gibson says she was 17 when Moore spoke to her high school civics class and asked her out on the first of several dates that did not progress beyond kissing.
Gloria Thacker Deason says she was an 18-year-old cheerleader when Moore began taking her on dates that included bottles of Mateus Rose wine. The legal drinking age in Alabama was 19.
Of the four women, the youngest at the time was Corfman, who is the only one who says she had sexual contact with Moore that went beyond kissing. She says they did not have intercourse.
This has the stink of a political hit job.
Democrats are the best at gutter politcs.
Moore is done.
Dems can't win on ideas and policy, but win on scum and gutter dwelling.
Moore must dropout.
"It was early 1979 and Moore -- now the Republican nominee in Alabama for a U.S. Senate seat - was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. He struck up a conversation, Corfman and her mother say, and offered to watch the girl while her mother went inside for a child custody hearing........"
They are post pubescent girls, are they not? James finds that age group sexy.
How many women accused Trump of sexual assault while he was running for President?
How many ever reported it (when it happened) or are still actively making the allegations?
This is simply the Democratic Party these days.
The question is will it work? Should it force Moore out if there is no proof to the allegations?
Anyone know what Moore's lead in the polls are today?
Moore's lead is 6 points. Far less than it ought to be for a conservation Republican running against a pro-abortion Democrat in Alabama.
He's not very likeable.
Ty, this could do it, flip the seat.
It is the Chicago way. Jv obama taught the radicalized democrat party of today very well.
HB, is this how you want to win election?
There hasn't been any public polling recently (at least two weeks). The last poll was 11 percent, and the suggestion within the campaigns was that internals were showing double digits (on both sides).
Just think if Bubba tried to run today...
Today's jv radicalized Dems would flock to him.
"Just think if Bubba tried to run today..."
There isn't a liberal who wouldn't have given him a third term - and they'd vote for him today.
Hillary was to be bubba's 3rd turd.
If Bubba ran today there still wouldn't be any expose in the Washington Post.
I flipped channels last night for abc,cbs and nbc. Not a story on any of them on the Trump Win, one year ago, just to painful.
President Trump is having a very successful Asian trip.
On of Moore's big allies, the Ag Commissioner or something like that, told the press that if she were 16 instead of 14, it would have been perfectly acceptable. In Alabama anyone 16 years old or older is considered fair game. It might not hurt Moore at all.
James said:
If machine guns being made illegal led to a situation in which very few deaths by machine guns resulted, ...
WP said:
Your "If" is an incorrect assumption. Several incorrect assumptions actually, since machine guns are not currently illegal. You can legally purchase and own pre-1986 automatic weapons, with some restrictions.
JAMES SAID:
MAJOR restrictions, WP. MAJOR restrictions. Restrictions that make it almost impossible for an ordinary citizen legally to own one, and the restrictions in some states are even tougher than in others.
____________________
Wp said:
Machine guns are designed for military use; infantry are trained with them. For civilians they are not as effective for self-defense, pointless actually. They are difficult to use with any accuracy and burn through your ammo. The only advantage is that you can spray a lot of bullets, quickly, over a large area. That should be obvious, and that is not a legitimate objective for an individual defending himself or his property.
You need to come to grips with the fact, James, that the purpose of a self-defense firearm is to shoot someone. You can have fun at the range, you can use a hunting rifle for self-defense, you can keep a collection, but the ultimate purpose is shooting someone. You don't like it, neither do I, but trying to ban guns because they might be used to shoot people (which is your boiled down argument here) is a non-starter. That's what they're for, that's why there is a constitutional right, and that's why people have them. Your arguments can only be accepted by those who already agree with you.
_______________
James says:
You, Wp, need to come to grips with the fact that machine guns were designed to shoot people, including those of the Tommy gun variety (easily hand held) which were used to shoot lots of people by, e. g., Chicago gangsters before they were made banned. Since they became illegal even to possess, few people (almost none) have been killed by them.
Semi-automatic weapons should have been subjected to the same restriction. Lives might have been saved in that Texas church.
But you will defend the right to own such a weapon, even in the face of the Texas church carnage, including that poor mother who tried to cover her four children with her own body and was killed along with two of her daughters while her little son was shot five times but is still hanging on to life.
Also in the face of the little Sandy Hook school girl who said, "Mama, I'm okay, but all my friends are dead."
*before they were banned.
Since you're posting this on multiple threads, I'll just address your second false assumption and asK:
Have you acknowledged yet that there were practically no machine gun killings between 1934 and the time they became restricted?
Post a Comment