it ain’t the DNC that’s saying it, you are correct there. mostly hollywood liberals.

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/democrats...n-party-voters
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and spence is right that the closeness of this race, in this district, is a good sign for the democrats chances of re-taking the house in november. .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who says the dem lost in Ohio? He’s trailing by 1500 votes and there are still 8000 to count.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hold that thought
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your in the I am just here for the supreme court seat Crowd ..

I would love to see and hear what is your definition far more diverse at Trumps rally means ...


let me guess this https://news.iheart.com/featured/rus...-of-the-crowd/

http://www.capitalgazette.com/multim...6693-132.html#

I guess theres the proof ...[/QUOTE]

My definition of far more diverse in regard to Trump rallies is that the crowds are made up of the great "diversity" of the American public, not just the two cherry picked types that Spence noted.

Which is why I said "apparently". Talk to your airheaded, fellow world travelers in Hollywood.

Deep thinker Alyssa Milano goes further, she thinks that the Russians (Russians!!!) manipulated the Green Party apparatus, to sabotage the Democrat's chances there. Obviously not many people listen to her, but not enough people are laughing at her, only people on my side are laughing at her. I hope she gets a prominent speaking engagement at the next democrat national convention.

My definition of far more diverse in regard to Trump rallies is that the crowds are made up of the great "diversity" of the American public, not just the two cherry picked types that Spence noted.[/QUOTE]

"Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote"
And here is the research paper, with the who and why
http://www.pnas.org/content/115/19/E4330

:claps: :btu:

Kasich? Hahaha - you wouldn't have voted for him ; ) In the General? You would have voted for Kasich over Hillary or Bernie?

I don't believe you. You posts are like Bernie is typing them for you (or has redistributed your fingers to various keys ; ) )

BTW - this uber Right Wing NearFascist right here did vote for him in the Primaries

Alyssa Milano :laughs: She is like the less-smart aunt of She Guevara

How did you even hear about this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Probably her Twitter feed. Unfortunately she has the same Cell Phone Filters as the Pres

Maybe cherrypicked from here, though a lot of people seized on celebrities tweets, including the head tweeter's tweets


ByS. E. Cupp @secupp

The polls closed on Tuesday evening in Ohio. Yet, as I write this, the only thing clear about Republican Troy Balderson’s slight edge over Democrat Danny O’Connor is that nothing is clear. The race for an open seat in Congress is a few hundred votes apart and still too close.

But this razor-thin, near-tie in a special election — for a seat that will be up for a vote again in November — is nevertheless a huge “trouncing,” both sides are claiming, and proof their party is sure to dominate the midterms.

Late on Tuesday night, as votes were still being counted, the Republican National Committee blasted out their congrats to Balderson, writing: “With President Trump’s support that helped lead him to victory, Troy Balderson’s win tonight is another example of the so-called ‘blue wave’ being nothing but a ripple.”

Er, no. If anything, it’s an example of unexpectedly high Democratic turnout in a district Trump won in 2016 by 11 points. And, to be clear, history, as well as nearly every predictive analysis of the midterms, suggests Republicans will perform poorly in November, particularly in the House.

But welcome to Trump’s America, where losses are wins, ties are trouncings, waves are ripples and facts matter not at all.

This kind of fact-free spin is hardly new in politics, of course. Democrats, too, spun the results as proof of a blue wave. But I was curious to see how average folks interpreted what was essentially a tie in the era of “fake news” and Trump’s “alternative facts.”

And, not surprisingly, there was blind rage and willful ignorance on both sides.

I tweeted the RNC’s statement, and noted the fact — repeat, fact — that Balderson at that time was up .9 points in a Trump +11 district.

I got replies from the left claiming that O’Connor’s likely loss was proof Republicans and Trump — who is poised to be 14 for 14 in primary endorsements — were totally owned:

Doug Johnson (@bleacherscreech) wrote: “10.9% swing in a red gerrymandered district. Whistling past the graveyard #GOP?”

Lynne Charlotte (@lynne_kern) wrote: “Looks like the ripple is in the win. The wave 🌊? NOVEMBER HERE WE COME!”

Ulsterman (@alexcoleraine) wrote: “Tsunamis start off as a ripple, until they hit the shore. Enjoy this ‘victory’ for it will be short lived!”

From the right, my mere questioning of the RNC’s dopey spin made me a Democrat:

dbg (@dbg0501) wrote, “Keep crowing about your moral victories. Whatever makes you feel good. The fact that you’d want a Pelosi running the House is quite telling.”

Others were more creative.

It was the calendar’s fault, said one.

ConservativeEsquire (@ConservEsq) wrote: “People go on vacation in August. Republicans who live in suburbs go on vacation in August.”

Still others blamed the media (of course they did).

Kevin Stuckey (@drberzerko) wrote, “I guess with 90% negative stories by your colleagues and censorship by social media it’s probably a bigger win than your pea brain can admit.”

For a few celebrities, it was all the fault of Green Party candidate Joe Manchik, whose 1,100 votes could have pushed O’Connor over the line:

Billy Eichner (@billyeichner) wrote: “Dear Green Party: Can you PLEASE wait to make your symbolic votes at a time when our government isn’t being overrun by white supremacists??? Come @ me I don’t care.”

And Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) seconded the motion: “You know what sucks? Because of our unwillingness to pass policy that protects our election integrity, I immediately think the Green Party votes tonight are Russian meddling. Why else would anyone cast a protest vote in Ohio when there’s so much at stake?”

Of course, a pungent bouillabaisse of factors could have all contributed to Tuesday’s results. But it’s still just a near tie — in one special election, in one district, in one state.

Apparently, in 2018, that means definitively that my side is kicking your side’s ass. Or just as easily, vice versa.

secuppdailynews@yahoo.com

I stumbled upon the link I posted. For some reason, Americans, particularly democrats, give a political platform to celebrities. You hadn't noticed that, huh?

Pete -

If anyone on the right sees this as a reason to feel better about our chances of holding the house in November, they are either lying or delusional.

The left can legitimately claim that there is good news in a close loss, if it turns out to be a close loss.

The President's party usually loses Houses seats in the first midterm, and I can easily be convinced that this President, with the help of a media that's absolutely committed to helping democrats, could be poised to lose more seats than usual. But a roaring economy, you'd think, would help to mitigate that. At the same time, the democrats really have nowhere to go but up at this point, the pendulum has to swing back to the left at some point.

As I've said, I'm fascinated to see what happens. The dems probably re-take the house, the dems probably lose a couple of senate seats, who knows what happens at the state level. Can't wait to see what happens in CT.

Because unlike you, I don't get all of my news from reading The Daily Worker and watching Al Jazeera.

I think Kasich would have pulled a lot of Clinton voters. Aside from some social issues I think they would have both governed from the middle but we wouldn't have the conservative media whining about all the Clinton scandals every day. I would have certainly considered it.

Not sure what the Daily Worker even is. As for al Jazeera, it's actually one of the biggest news organizations in the world and is known for fairly good quality reporting. I don't watch it here but often in Europe it's about the only English language news on TV other than the BBC.

Oh for Christs sake come on. Those Clinton voters were rioting at the Ohio state capital and hanging Kasich in effigy, when Kasich took a hatchet to union benefits and collective bargaining. Kasich is a union buster in the mold of Scott Walker, and had he won the nomination, the entire media would have portrayed him as hating working people.

And the Repub. seem to constantly try to elect celebrities - when they can find one.

Maybe Scott Baio will run for office.

I never said the GOP forbids any interaction with Hollywood, and we have our share of idiots. But Hollywood leans way left. Way, way, way left. And the Democrats National Party does everything it can to exploit that, as the GOP would if Hollywood wasn't so homogeneously liberal.

Hmmm - could be from the Twitters - I just looked and Lo(w) and Behold(en to weird conspiracies) and there is is:

https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/st...5774552014848?


:btu: Hahaha

Don't you mean "wa wa wa"? Isn't that what Cha-Chi used to say on Happy Days?

And I didn't make up the Alyssa Milano thing, she tweeted it. She might have been drunk, or painting indoors with the windows closed at the time, but she tweeted it. She's all kinds of smart.

I didn't say all Clinton voters Jim.

So Jim follows Alyssa Milano on Twitter? It's all coming together then...

No - but Baio is low hanging fruit.

And yes I know she tweeted it - I saw it and linked to it...

Not necessarily - twitter users have a habit of replicating good and bad tweets - but you already know this

I've actually never been on twitter, they were making fun of her on Fox. Deservedly so.

You were watching Fox, I'm astounded.

I can't watch Hannity. Most of the others, are better than everyone else's best. In any event, they appear to have reported this one correctly, did they not?

You are unaware, or are denying, that a liberal said something laughably stupid. We're all astounded.

I don't think you have to look very far to find people saying stupid things. Reporting on matters of insignificance is pretty lame though. I'd pay more attention to what those in influential positions are spouting off on.

"I don't think you have to look very far to find people saying stupid things"

True enough, but I can spot that and ignore it. I'm looking for people saying smart things, and there's more of that on Fox, than on any other network. It's the only network where thoughtful liberals and thoughtful conservatives are each given the chance to make their case. Brett Baier's show at 6:00 would very regularly have Charles Krauthammer and Juan Williams together. Watching a segment with those two guys, is how you learn.

The other networks don't come close, the other networks have almost nothing other than hosts who are the left-wing equivalent of Sean Hannity. On Fox, he's an outlier in terms of his thoughtless ideology. On the other networks, 90% of the hosts are pure ideologues. The ratings speak for themselves.

Using this ignorant logic,can we assume that guys like yourself,Pete,and WD40 follow Trump on that platform?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't watch Fox



Saw it on the twitters

Juan Williams is a token lefty for the network. They rarely even let him speak. I see conservatives all the time on the other networks.

The difference is, even if there's bias against Trump...they don't just make crap up like on Fox.

I don't have a Twitter account, never used it.

"Juan Williams is a token lefty for the network. They rarely even let him speak"

You have no idea what you're talking about. He has hosted the prime time shows when the hosts are out.

"I see conservatives all the time on the other networks."

Me too. And they are attacked, not allowed to make their case. On Fox, liberals are often told, "that's a good point".

spence, by the way, do you know why juan williams is at fox? he was at NPR. but the liberals there, despite all their claims about tolerance, inclusiveness, and concern for minorities, threw his black azz to the curb the first time he said something that disagreed with liberalism. at fox he hosts a show. so who is more open minded?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s a shame you missed my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thats why as an independent voter , I am flexible I am not beholden to any partys position.. I understand a stupid idea is just that
reguardless what party floats the idea

I even liked Bob dole.. and nancy pelosi should ride off into the sunset..with Waters taking away republicans 2nd best vote getter next to maxine waters 2 women and a black women who could they attack if that trifecta was absent ??? you would still have what your team calls the Hollywood elite to make fun of but seeing the only people who pay attention to them seems to be you and other conservatives

its such a novel idea... lets present the ideas of people not elected by the people who have no power in policy as Leaders of a movement and re sell it (LIE) thats part of the Liberal agenda and the base takes the hook every time ..

unless of course their name ends in Ivanka Trump or K. Kardashian

case in point

US midterms: Ivanka Trump ‘to be dispatched to suburban districts’ where president's hardline policies are turning off supporters funny how that works

"Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote"
And here is the research paper, with the who and why
http://www.pnas.org/content/115/19/E4330[/QUOTE]

Your link was a lengthy and difficult read. But I did plod through it. Can't say it was worth it. What is it with psycho-babblers who can only speak in jargon with labels denoting supposedly hidden underlying causes rather than using plain language to discuss the obvious?

Anyway, the article totally debunks Spence's characterization of Trump's rallies being represented by stuff like shirts with "I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat", and QAnon being everywhere. And it supports what I said about them being attended by diverse American crowds. According to your article, Trump voters were not just uneducated, anti-immigrant, sexist, racist, bigots. Your article says that "Voters who shifted to become Trump voters between the two elections [2012 and 2016] seem to have done so because of increasing distance between their own views and those of the Democratic candidate on trade, immigration, and China as well as due to the decreasing distance between their own views and those of the Republican candidate." In addition, those who sensed a rising threat to their dominant group status, were particularly likely to shift in support of Trump. And that the Democrat position on trade became far less tenable to the average American than the Republican position.

Trump ralliers are mostly average Americans not fringe kooks.

As far as the dominant status threat, that seems to be an obvious motivation. What dominant group anywhere in the world would not fear a threat to their status if the obvious trend in demographics portends and end to their dominance? And the minorities that will become the future's dominant status may well fear the same threat.

Your article identifies the current dominant status as being, white, men, Christian. Well, both parties have significant voters with those identities. And they are not kooks or fringe lunatics.