special electio for Ohio house seat tomorrow
 

In a district the GOP has held for decades, where Trump won in 2016, the democrat candidate is neck and neck with the republican, in the latest polls. Would be a big, big win for the democrats.

I think the GOP will pick up Senate seats in November, only because of how amazingly fortunate they are with the seats that are up (way more democrats up than republicans, and several democrats are up in states where Trump won big).

In the house, I presume it will be at least a blue trickle, if not a blue tsunami.

the dems are taking a page From trump... blue trickle, equals a blue tsunami.

if it ends up true or not .. why use them... just like Trump and his supporters seeing fact do not matter .. its working for him

The fact that it's even a close race is a win for Dems.

you sound desperate...:huh:

If it turns out to be close, that does mean something. Right now the polls say it's close, but the polls also said Trump was going to get creamed. I am dubious of polls, as we all should be.

A close loss isn't "a win". It's problematic for the GOP in this district, it's not a win. A loss isn't a win, no matter how hard you try to spin it that way.

Of course he's desperate. Look at election results for the last 8 years. We were desperate in 2008.

Sure it is, it's why the GOP is sweating...

No desperation here, I'd just like to see Congress do their job and provide some oversight over a corrupt administration. I'd think all Americans would want this.

Of course, when the GOP was desperate in 2008, we didn't engage in riots or claim that the Russians brainwashed us all into voting for Obama.

While there were some kooks who claimed he wasn't born here, the vast majority of the GOP went back to the business of improving the message, the Tea Party was created, and we opened up a can of whoop ass that has paid massive dividends ever since.

The democrats take a different approach, blaming the Russians, embracing MS13, attacking Trump for continuing Obama's immigration policy of separating kids from parents, pretending the low unemployment is bad, nominating socialists and parading them around, parading around a fake Indian, claiming (for the first time in 10 years) that debt is bad, claiming (for the first time in 10 years) that a soaring stock market is bad because of income inequality, claiming (for the first time in 10 years) that using the nuclear option isn't democratic, and suggesting that letting Willie Horton use the ladies room if he feels like it, is a good idea.

How much kool-aid have you had to drink this morning?

Of course they're sweating, the president's party almost always loses seats in the first midterm (I heard only 2 exceptions in the last 70 years, no idea if that's true), combined with the most offensive POTUS ever, combined with a media campaign against him, the likes of which we have never seen before. They'd be crazy if they weren't sweating.

"I'd just like to see Congress do their job and provide some oversight over a corrupt administration"

If the oversight was fair and accurate, I'd agree. Neither side is capable of that anymore. I have no idea what to believe, or what's true, or who is lying.

It's going to be fascinating to see how the midterms play out. Many competing trends at odds with each other (president's party usually takes a beating, but it's often about the economy, which is doing well).

I think the GOP gains senate seats, I can't see how the Dems don't gain house seats. Really curious to see what happens here in the People's Republic Of Connecticut, which has slowly turning to the right as people are finally getting tired of massive tax hikes and massive deficits every single year...

You lobbed a vague, unsubstantiated insult and then scurried off without any supporting evidence? I'm stunned, I have to lie down.

"blaming the Russians"
The investigation is not over, is it?
"embracing MS13"
the Democrats no more embraced MS13 than Trumplicans embraced white supremacists
"attacking Trump for continuing Obama's immigration policy of separating kids from parents"
The Bush and Obama administrations policy was not to seperate ALL from their children as the policy was under the current administration
"pretending the low unemployment is bad"
I think the correct word would be claiming, much like Trump claimed that the unemployment numbers were false before he was elected
"nominating socialists and parading them around"
Some nominate a socialist or two, some nominate a white supremacist or child molester
"parading around a fake Indian"
The only parading done in that case is by Trumplicans claiming that 10 years ago she said, much like Obama's birth certificate or Trumps Swedish grandfather
"claiming (for the first time in 10 years) that debt is bad"
Asking why Trumps campaign promise that he would reduce the debt like no one else ever is false
"claiming (for the first time in 10 years) that a soaring stock market is bad because of income inequality"
Being concerned about income inequality and it's effects on our democratic society
"claiming (for the first time in 10 years) that using the nuclear option isn't democratic"
You got me, they made a stupid move five years ago
"suggesting that letting Willie Horton use the ladies room if he feels like it, is a good idea."
That's about the most prejudices you can possibly get into one statement

A little more on blaming the Russians, from the WaPo
While the intelligence agencies are silent on the impact of Russia’s attack, outside experts who have examined the Kremlin campaign — which included stealing and sharing Democratic Party emails, spreading propaganda online and hacking state voter rolls — have concluded that it did affect an extremely close election decided by fewer than 80,000 votes in three states. Clint Watts, a former FBI agent, writes in his recent book, “Messing with the Enemy,” that “Russia absolutely influenced the U.S. presidential election,” especially in Michigan and Wisconsin, where Trump’s winning margin was less than 1 percent in each state.

We still don’t know the full extent of the Russian interference, but we know its propaganda reached 126 million people via Facebook alone. A BuzzFeed analysis found that fake news stories on Facebook generated more social engagement in the last three months of the campaign than did legitimate articles: The “20 top-performing false election stories from hoax sites and hyperpartisan blogs generated 8,711,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook.” Almost all of this “fake news” was either started or spread by Russian bots, including claims that the pope had endorsed Trump and that Hillary Clinton had sold weapons to the Islamic State.

Elsewhere on social media, tens of thousands of Russian bots spread pro-Trump messages on Twitter, which has already notified about 1.4 million users that they interacted with Russian accounts. The Russian disinformation, propagating hashtags such as #Hillary4Prison and #MAGA, reflected what the Trump campaign was saying. The Russian bots even claimed after every presidential debate that Trump had won, whereas objective viewers gave each one to Clinton.

Russia also hacked voting systems in at least 39 states, and while there is no evidence that vote tallies were changed, Russians may have used the stolen data to target their social media or shared the results with the Trump campaign. The Senate Intelligence Committee found that “in a small number of states” the Russians may have been able to “alter or delete voter registration data,” potentially disenfranchising Clinton voters.


President Trump. (Carlos Barria/Reuters)
And then there was the crucial impact of the Russian hacks of Democratic documents disseminated primarily by WikiLeaks. The first tranche of stolen documents — more than 19,000 emails and 8,000 attachments — was strategically released on July 22, 2016, three days before the Democratic convention. The resulting news coverage disrupted the Clinton campaign’s plans by creating the impression that the Democratic National Committee was biased against Bernie Sanders and forcing DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign.


The second tranche of stolen documents was released on Oct. 7, just 29 minutes after The Post reported on the “Access Hollywood” videotape in which Trump is heard boasting about grabbing women by the genitals. These emails, stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, distracted voter attention by revealing the transcripts of lucrative speeches Clinton had given to Goldman Sachs, a populist boogeyman.

A third release of stolen emails, on Oct. 11, revealed that Democratic operative Donna Brazile, while working at CNN, had provided debate questions to Clinton during the primaries and that senior Democratic operatives, who were themselves Catholics, had exchanged emails disparaging Republicans who cherry-picked their faith for political gain. This fueled Trump’s narrative that the election was “rigged” and that the “Clinton team” was, as he said, “viciously attacking Catholics and Evangelicals.” The latter charge, unfair as it was, proved especially important in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — swing states with lots of Catholic voters.

Little wonder that Trump said “I love WikiLeaks” and mentioned its revelations 164 times in the last month of the campaign. “This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable,” Trump said on Oct. 12. Eight days later, he marveled, “Boy, that WikiLeaks has done a job on her, hasn’t it?”

Now, by contrast, Trump and his apologists pretend that the Russian intervention — including the WikiLeaks revelations — was no big deal. That beggars belief. Even if the Russians had failed, they still attacked our democracy. Yet they didn’t fail: Trump won. Russian disinformation wasn’t the only factor in the outcome and was probably less important in the end than FBI Director James B. Comey’s announcement 11 days before the election that he was reopening the Clinton email investigation. But Watts concludes: “Without the Russian influence effort, I believe Trump would not have even been within striking distance of Clinton on Election Day.” That is the inconvenient truth the Putin Republicans won’t admit.

"The investigation is not over, is it?"

Will it ever be over?

"The Bush and Obama administrations policy was not to seperate ALL from their children as the policy was under the current administration"

Oh, So how come I never heard any liberals go berserk that SOME separation was OK? Sure seemed like they were opposed to all separation, even when they had to invent it, like TIME magazine did on their cover.

What happens to American citizens who are processed through our criminal justice system? Do they bring their kids, or are they separated? They are separated. How come the left never cared?




""pretending the low unemployment is bad"
I think the correct word would be claiming"

Whatever. That ditz from Queens, who is a hero of the party, thinks low unemployment is bad. This is what she said. That just makes all kinds of sense. And soon, she will be writing federal laws. Hooray!

"nominating socialists and parading them around"
Some nominate a socialist or two, some nominate a white supremacist or child molester"

Who nominated an admitted (or convicted) child molester, and which party, knowing he was a child molester, send them to highlight at fundraisers? Please elaborate, I cannot wait to hear it.



"The only parading done in that case is by Trumplicans claiming that 10 years ago she said, much like Obama's birth certificate or Trumps Swedish grandfather"

So you are claiming that we invented the lie that Warren claims to be an Indian? That it's a fake scandal? The birthers were known to be kooks because they kept claiming he wasn't born here, after evidence was shared. What evidence is there, that Warren is an Indian? Trump offered to donate $1 million to her favorite charity if she'd take a DNA test, and she refused. Why in Gods name would she deny her favorite charity (probably some fun-filled group of Marxist bra-burners), a million bucks, while at the same time being able to show that all the doubters were wrong? I can think of one reason...you?? How many reasons?

"Being concerned about income inequality and it's effects on our democratic society"

yet you didn't give a rats azz about income inequality when the stock market SOARED during the Obama years. How come? Answer - your concern over income inequality is selective, which means it's fake.

""suggesting that letting Willie Horton use the ladies room if he feels like it, is a good idea."
That's about the most prejudices you can possibly get into one statement"

How is it wrong? If Willie Horton says "today, I identify as a woman", liberals feel that he is then allowed into the ladies room. How is that wrong? We're all supposed to take the word for every man who says "I am a woman, now let me follow your daughter into the bathroom", and none of you thinks that a predator might lie to take advantage of your breathtaking naivete? Predators lied to become priests, and went through the trouble of going to the monastery, just so they could get access to little boys. You don't think they'd claim to be transsexual?

Jim, the vast majority of child separations before Trump were cases with other criminal factors or usually suspicion of child trafficking in which case the parents were reunited as soon as the case cleared. It happened occasionally, not 2,000 kids in just a few months.

The policies are nothing alike.

As for the rest of it, are you OK? I'm serious here.

I'm OK.

Let's pick income inequality. Nothing exacerbates income inequality like a surge in the stock market, right? So why were liberals pointing to the stock market performance, again and again, as evidence that Obama was doing a good job handling the economy (which I have said I agree with)? Why I sit OK when income inequality obviously got worse under Obama, but it's terrible when it happens under Trump?

As to transgenders in the ladies room...you don't think predators would ever resort to lying, to gain access to their victims? They wouldn't sink that low?

The answers to all these questions is the same...

liberal=good, conservative=bad, no exceptions, not ever.

Someone should have told the priests that all they had to do was go to the bathroom, they were men and allowed in, they didn't have to bother going to seminary school to be able to molest little boys.

Pete, yoru list of republican perverts is impressive. However, what I asked, was what admitted (or convicted) perverts were THEN celebrated by the GOP. You see, the democrats already know that the Queens ditz and Bernie are socialists, and send them to highlight fundraisers.

How do I know who on your list, had admitted to being a deviant, but was still celebrated by the GOP after it was known that they were perverts? Huge difference. Yuuge difference. We have our weirdos, we just don't celebrate them as frequently as your side.

"Someone should have told the priests that all they had to do was go to the bathroom, they were men and allowed in, they didn't have to bother going to seminary school to be able to molest little boys. "

Not what they wanted.

If I want to stare at women going to the bathroom, all I need to do is declare that I identify as a woman. You can't concede that some predators might falsely make that claim, to gain access to the ladies' room? How can you be sure?

a bunch are repeated...he was probably so anxious with the cut and paste didn't even read it ....I don't usually spend much time on his cut and pastes but scrolling past it identical names jumped out...horrible waste of thread space

Democrats have had income inequality as an issue since I can remember. Recently, hell, remember the Occupy Movement? While not a mainstream Dem thing at it's heart was income inequality.

A sexual predator can today dress up as a woman and go into the ladies room, yet, it's a extremely rare occurrence. I'd be much more concerned with someone who not only identifies as a woman -- but looks like a woman -- being forced to use the men's room.

yes...since before it existed.......

Occupy Wall Street is a pretty good point, thought I'd argue that at t's heart was feral anarchy and envy. But a good point is a good point.

" it's a extremely rare occurrence"

Fortunately, you are again correct, it's rare. But your side made it easier, to appease a very small percentage of the population. I want true transgender people to feel secure everywhere they go, I really do, but it can't always be at the expense of everyone else.

with 98% of precincts in, it’s a virtual tie. looks like the polls were pretty accurate. can’t call it great news for trump or the gop.

the gop may need terrific 3q gdp growth, which will be announced just before the elections.

spence has another valid point, it’s good news for the democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Red Sox swept the Yankees last weekend...a couple of the games were close so the Yankees are considering it a win for the team and good news for the franchise :jester:

:hihi:

A close race that won't be called for a couple of weeks as they go though the absentee ballots.

Why was it so close in a district Trump won so handily? Was it that democrats in the district, sickened by Trump, turned out in huge numbers? If so, I get that. Or was it that people who voted for Trump, are turned off? If that's what it was, I don't get it. On what basis would you have voted for him, and not liked what has happened so far? His personal behavior is just as sleazy and offensive as it was during the campaign, so I can't see how any of that would be a surprise. And he's doing almost exactly what he said he'd do with taxes and ISIS and the economy. Unless true, hard-core conservatives think he flopped healthcare and building the wall and the debt...

How about because of his promise to drain the swamp while ushering in one of the most corrupt administrations we've ever seen? How about undermining long-standing institutions like the FBI and freedom of the press? How about House Republicans failing to fulfill their oversight obligations and instead acting as the Presidents patsy? How about his abhorrent treatment of children and families at the border? How about his neglect of our national security failing to address election meddling? How about his dishonesty surrounding multiple affairs? How about his embrace of our adversaries while pissing on our allies?

I could go on for pages with this stuff and little of it has to do with partisan politics.

Have you seen his rallies lately? "I'd rather be Russian than a democrat" shirts, QAnon everywhere...if this is the future of the GOP be afraid.

It’s why I still proudly wear my (insanely discounted) Patriots 19-0 shirt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"How about because of his promise to drain the swamp while ushering in one of the most corrupt administrations we've ever seen?"

That could well be...

"How about undermining long-standing institutions like the FBI'

There's your blind partisanship. Between the two of us, one of us has shown an ability to criticize his own side, and to give credit to the other side. From where I sit, the FBI and the DOJ earned some very harsh criticism. I wouldn't deliver the message the way Trump did, but the FBI/DOJ came across to me as Hilary's private investigators. Granted it was a small number of people, but they were in very key positions and behaved atrociously, and justice was the last thing they were after. In their own words for God's sake, their agenda was to stop Trump from getting elected. That choice is up to us, not to the DOJ or the FBI, and if that happened the other way around where the DOJ tried to sabotage Hilary's campaign, you'd shriek in horror, and you'd be correct to do so.

"freedom of the press?"

Again, there's your liberal=good, conservative=bad blindness. Again, Trump expresses himself very poorly in these situations, but the media deserves a lot more criticism than the FBI. The reason we give the press such special protections is because the founding fathers foresaw how important it is that citizens have access to the truth. That's "the truth". Not a rabid, bash-Trump-at-all-costs agenda, not a let's-get-democrats-elected-at-all-costs agenda, which is a good chunk of what's going on. If Fox is in the tank for the GOP, and everyone else is in the tank for the democrats, no one is getting the truth. The media isn't quite "the enemy of the people", but they deserve huge doses of criticism. They are pathetic.

'How about his abhorrent treatment of children and families at the border? "

Who even knows what that was, with websites posting photos that were actually taken during the Obama years, and TIME magazine running a fake photo on the cover? You yourself admitted that Obama also separated kids from parents, so to you the issue isn't the separation but the degree to which it's utilized, yet every single story I saw, 100% of them, decried separation in a general sense, not the fact that Trump was doing it more frequently. No truth to the reporting, no consistency to the liberal outrage. Zero.

"How about his neglect of our national security failing to address election meddling?"

Pretty sure the meddling in the 2016 presidential election, happened when your wet dream was still POTUS, so as a mere candidate, what did Trump have the authority to do? Not a whole lot. If your man-crush hadn't mocked Romney at the notion that Russia was a threat (atta boy, Columbo), perhaps the 2016 meddling would have been thwarted. But you blame someone who was a private citizen at the time, not the guy who was POTUS at the time. Brilliant.

"How about his dishonesty surrounding multiple affairs? "

Everyone who voted for him, already knew he was a sleaze. Nothing to change that since the election, why would that change the way anyone thought after they voted for him..

'I could go on for pages with this stuff and little of it has to do with partisan politics."

You are ever, ever not about partisan politics. Partisan politics are to you, what "the force" is to Luke Skywalker, it's your religion, and you are the high priest of that religion.

Not your best showing. I asked what we know about Trump now, that we didn't know on election night. I agree he has a long list of flaws, but we knew that on election night.

Great Election season, another round of pointless arguments that will upset people destroy friendships and help us all focus intenly about what is wrong with America. Trump sucks, Dems suck. Meanwhile this great country and people chug in oblivious to the hacks (both parties) that we foolishly elect. Until we have term limits and break up the lobysists and legal insider trading nothing will change.