another meaningful win for Dems last night
 

There was a special House of Representatives election last night in western PA, in a district Trump won by 20 points. It's the second in a row (that I know of) where the democrats won a seat in a district that Trump easily carried.

The Democrats ran an interesting candidate, young guy early 30s, former marine, very conservative for a democrat. This was not someone from the Warren/Schumer wing of the party.

A very good chance they re-take the house in November.

I'll vote for a Dem like him - someone center, not leftist / Progressive

Same here. No loons from the far left please.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pro union, pro obama care, pro environment and air/water quality regulations, supports abortion rights, opposed the GOP tax bill. Yes, a veteran and gun owner as are tons of democrats. He is a democrat.

That and people were prob. tired of the POS "Dems. hate the Country, God and the Constitution".

I didn't say he was Pat Buchanan. I said he's not Pelosi/Schumer. I wouldn't vote for him based on a couple of his positions you rattled off, but a lot of people who voted for Trump, chose this guy. There may be a lot of democrats who were in the Marines, but not a lot of liberal democrats.

There was also likely some blowback against the GOP because the seat was vacated by a Republican who was having an affair, who was a total sleaze.

I'd suggest having Trump come campaign for you, just might not be the smartest thing these candidates should be asking for. I don't know if anyone saw most of his rally speech, man what a tool he is, if I were the candidate watching it I'd be thinking; OMG why did I bring him here.

do you guys remember anything???

Obama was the smartest...most popular....most bestest president ever....was fixing everything....and the media kissed his ass and licked his shoes on a daily basis

"Although the President's party usually loses congressional, statewide and local seats in midterm elections, the 2010 midterm election season featured some of the biggest losses since the Great Depression."

Trump is the dumbest, most vile and repulsive president ever....is destroying everything....and the media assaults him on a daily basis

it will be fun to see who loses more....:huh:

If it's a district he won by 20 points, I'm not sure why he wouldn't be able to help. That's what's interesting to me about this. Interesting and very concerning from my perspective.

I hear you, and I'm sure you have a point. But the GOP didn't make gains in solidly blue districts in 2010, they took back a lot of purple districts.

And I think the GOP will pick up seats in the Senate. The House will be interesting.

Are you forgetting a big reason the 2010 mid-terms turned out the way they did was because of the Tea Party rallying around record deficits and terrible unemployment that Obama inherited from Bush?

not possible....we were repeatedly told the tea party terrorists were an irrelevant tiny band of racists and malcontents that could not possibly have had the numbers to matter... let alone cause the historic losses for the O Man

A lot more crawled out from under their rocks than expected. Happens with ticks and locusts every so often too. :jester:

Occupy Wall Street is having just as much influence, right?

Actually Spence, it started over frustration over a homeowner bailout program that Rick Santilli (spelling) railed against, expressing frustration that those who chose to live within their means, should be forced to bail out those who bought more house than they could afford.

What a disaster it would have been for every home owner if the bailout didn't happen and the number of foreclosures were 2-3 times as high. One of Bush and Paulson's best decisions, followed my smart additions from Obama. A huge problem is that regulations that help to reduce the chance of another bust are either already chopped or are on the chopping block with Comrade Clementine in the Maralago House.

We shouldn’t bail out homeowners but the bankers that led them off into the bushes should get bailed out and not end up losing or in jail.
Don’t worry we’ll repeal Dodd Franks because it restricts banking.
History repeats I’ve seen a few real estate bubbles pop in my lifetime, it will be the stock market this time and we’ll be bailing out the ones that are too big to fail
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No one takes any pleasure in watching people file for bankruptcy or get foreclosed on. But a lot of middle class people who live paycheck to paycheck and who do all the right things, are tired of getting punished and being forced to pick up after other people's mistakes. The tea party literally began, when frustrated citizens who didn't make any dumb decisions, and who were struggling through a brutal recession, were told they had to give money to people who freely chose to buy more house than they could afford. They didn't feel obligated to do that. There is some logic to that position.

As usual, you portray your side in an oversimplified way, and demonize everyone on the other side, refuse to concede they may have a point.

The tea party didn't advocate bailing out banks, either. Is a speck of honesty too much to ask?

I didn't say we should or should not bail out homeowners. I was pointing out, correctly, what triggered the birth of the tea party.

"it will be the stock market this time and we’ll be bailing out the ones that are too big to fail"

Many feel we are due for a stock market correction and a recession. The tax overhaul, and especially the reduction in corporate income taxes, may delay that a bit. But it's coming.

The greatest irony is when you say someone else oversimplifies. It is like your defense mechanism. Talk about oversimplifying... They didn't want to give money to people who choose to buy more house then they could afford is a grand oversimplification. The majority of foreclosures happened when people lost their jobs and/or went to sell their houses and they were worth relatively nothing. 800000 a month loosing their jobs. Giving people the opportunity to refi at lower rates helped save the economy from depression. The net result was more money for every home owner. Those people you are referring to weren't punished, they were protected from having prior systemic mistakes destroy the economy for decades. Then these tea sippers into power people who want to set up the same conditions that allowed it. We will see where we are in five years if numblypeg gets reelected and they continue down this path.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"They didn't want to give money to people who choose to buy more house then they could afford is a grand oversimplification"

It's simple, I agree. But that's what led to the birth of the tea party. If you want to deny the earth is round to serve your agenda, knock yourself out.

"The majority of foreclosures happened when people lost their jobs and/or went to sell their houses and they were worth relatively nothing"

I think every foreclosure in history was caused by this. What was unique about the 2008 crash, is how many subprime mortgages were out there, houses that people (even when they were still working) never should have qualified for. It was the abandonment of sound mortgage underwriting, combined with the way these crappy mortgages were bundled into financial instruments that almost no one understands (credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations) that caused the crash.

"The net result was more money for every home owner."

if you ignore the fact that the bailout has to be paid for, you might be right. All ideas look great when, during the cost/benefit analysis, you focus on the benefit and ignore the cost.

I'm not saying I was opposed to the bailout, I have more empathy for people in despair than most folks do. I was pointing out what led to the genesis if the tea party, I was not taking a stance on whether or not the bailouts were a good idea,

"Those people you are referring to weren't punished"

They paid for mistakes that others made.

"We will see where we are in five years if numblypeg gets reelected and they continue down this path"

yes we will. Where would you say we are right now, 15 months into his presidency, from an economic perspective? I notice you didn't comment on that. Stock market, unemployment, GDP, homeownership, are those looking good, or no?

And my use of the word 'oversimplification' wasn't a defense mechanism. It was, in my opinion, an accurate depiction of your thoughtless (and yes, simple) implication that conservatives care less about people who struggle, than liberals. It would be very convenient for you if that were true, and if it were true, I'd probably be a liberal. It's not remotely close to being true.

That is a ridiculous leap. I never said it was about caring for people who struggled. It was about the national and international economic disaster it contributed to. It did not affect only the people with a mortgage, it by proxy affected every worker, business owner, the entire fabric of the well being of the country. Yes, that might have motivated Santelli, doesn't mean his ideas weren't short sighted and based on emotion and not a comprehensive evaluation of the potential outcomes. Bailout was a net gain for everyone given the +7 point swing in GDP that followed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

100 percent in agreement with you there and if others do not agree with that, then they live in fantasy land with orange people.

At 57 I am done with freeloaders. Entitlement is O- V - A OVER!!! You have to EARN it. The I want it all and want it now generation can suck it. I realize there are still plenty of young hard working people setting an example but it seems they are far and few between and it is really sad. I am smart enough to realize when I am old enough for my money to be returned to me, that I will have to make other accommodations for income thanks to our special people we call government.

Maybe it's about choices and accountability, you know , responsibility. I made sacrifices and busted butt to get thru 3 down cycles and never got bailed out by anyone. I help out others as I can whether it is financially when able or by donating my time or blood. Everyone can pitch in their way too, it is their choice. We are supposed to be a free country.

So you would have approved more of another depression, rather than a return to economic stability? Taxes weren't raised. They reduced and were at historic lows. The money has come back in multiples. The rate of increase in the deficit dropped. Federally backed loans make enormous amount of money for the government to begin with, but you would have let the entire economy completely tank because of the spirit of it? That is an emotional decision, not sound economic policy.

Artificially postponing recession(not depression) by bailing out your buddies instead of allowing ebbs and flows which seems more stable to me, is a mistake but I am not an economist, I just know right from wrong. The government is not supposed to be in the business of making money, that is not their purpose but you go ahead and ask me stupid conjecture about tanking. If you do things right to begin with instead of repeating the same mistakes, things would be fine.
So everything is just rosey in your world, but others not so much

Jim, as usual, you portray your side in an oversimplified way, and demonize everyone on the other side, refuse to concede they may have a point.

The HARP program wasn't simply giving money to people who freely chose to buy more house than they could afford, it allowed homeowners underwater because of the housing bubble bursting to refi.

The wasn't the necessarily the homeowner's fault, it was primarily a result of deregulation, predatory lending and corrupt banking practices.

You forgot getting people to buy a home that probably were not ready to buy a home and requiring people to make unsafe loans.

I really hope we are not approaching phase two of this...

The government didn't make money off of HARP. I am not sure where you are getting that. If you are talking about bailing out buddies, I assume you are referring to TARP which was the work of Bush and Paulson. Neither TARP or HARP postponed the recession, the recession had already occurred. The increase in gdp ended the recession. Regulations were put in place were to prevent repeating the same mistakes. First thing the current administration did was reverse many of those regulations setting the table for a repeat. It wasn't a stupid conjecture about tanking, it was about the reality of the potential outcomes of action vs inaction.

That was covered under "predatory lending."

There was some of that, sure. There was also some reckless risk-taking. I knew people who bought houses that cost 7X their annual income. Stupid.

Spence, I got sucked into a business deal with a good friend 7 years ago (former good fiend). Turned out it was basically a Ponzi scheme, lost about a year's gross pay. What government program can I go to, to get bailed out for my stupidity? Because what my family did, was spend a lot less and I took a job (which I don't especially like) which pays more. Will take 10 years to re-coup. Where's my HARP program that I get to withdraw money from?

Liberals aren't especially keen on the idea of responsibility. Everything is someone else's fault.

You were ok with Bush bailing out the banks, I take it. Also, if your stupidity (your word) was going to take down the entire economy of the US with it, there would likely be a program. If it were only those people who took those loans affected by it, there would not have been a program. When it causes the entire housing market to collapse and greatly impacts the ability of ALL businesses to borrow money, then it is within the function of the government to step in. At least in the opinion of most economists, the Bush administration, and the Obama administration.