special electio for Ohio house seat tomorrow

[Jim in CT]

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.

[wdmso]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

you sound desperate...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

you sound desperate...

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

you sound desperate...

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.
I thought you didn't like Rick Davis who was the architect of that? And now regrets it because of your next paragraph

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.

"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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"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

"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 in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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 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...

[Pete F.]

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.

[Jim in CT]

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

[scottw]

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

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[Jim in CT]

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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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

[Duke41]

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.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Duke41

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.

What he said!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

What I see is they spent 5 million to win a seat in a district that was considered a safe Republican one.
Multiply that by the number of open seats and consider that the master tweeter has started a battle with the Koch brothers and everyone else that doesn’t agree with him completely
How do you think that’s gonna work
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What I see is they spent 5 million to win a seat in a district that was considered a safe Republican one.
Multiply that by the number of open seats and consider that the master tweeter has started a battle with the Koch brothers and everyone else that doesn’t agree with him completely
How do you think that’s gonna work
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He doesn't play well with folks who aren't inclined to kiss his ring, much like his predecessor.

The democrats will most likely gain seats in the house, good chance they retake the house. They most likely lose seats in the Senate. Curious to see what happens at the state level, especially here in CT.

I'm also curious to see what happens if the GDP growth is another big number next quarter, which will be right before the midterms. Might not be enough to save the GOP lead in the house.

Starting a civil war with the Koch brothers might not be a great strategy.

[Pete F.]

There are some honest politicians
https://youtu.be/zw30izSSCsw
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There are some honest politicians
https://youtu.be/zw30izSSCsw
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Would have voted from him hands down.. But being an ultra liberal (By SB standards ) I would have been accused of trying to Save the White Rino's who are facing extinction. in the New GOP

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Would have voted from him hands down.. But being an ultra liberal (By SB standards ) I would have been accused of trying to Save the White Rino's who are facing extinction. in the New GOP

on what basis would you say that moderate conservatives are facing extinction?

we can’t all be as united as your party. no confluctbthere between the moderates and the extremists, nope. there is pure harmony in the left, and a brutal civil war on the right, which will result in the democrats running everything come november. do i have that right?

trump and the koch brothers are at odds. those are two powerful forces in the GOP. but moderates in both sides are more electable, than extremists, in most places.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

How about . . . ushering in one of the most corrupt administrations we've ever seen

Has this been verified? Is this opinion, hearsay, spin, innuendo, a lie?

How about undermining long-standing institutions like the FBI and freedom of the press?

Trump made the FBI ineffective, or incapable, or obsolete? According to you, and PeteF, it is about to bring down a presidency? That seems extremely strong, effective, in no way undermined. If anything, according to that, Trump actually sharpened its knives. Are you trying to have it both ways?

And I'm trying to figure out how Trump has in any way weakened the freedom of the Press. It daily "exposes" Trump and convinces you and Pete and wdmso and Nebe and Got Stripers that Trump is totally corrupt, incompetent, stupid, a clown, a con man, a traitor, a sexual deviant like no other, a pathological liar, a psychopath, while it is in no way prevented or diminished from doing so. It seems that Trump has, rather than undermining Press Freedom, he has also sharpened its knives. Again, are you trying to have it both ways.

How about House Republicans failing to fulfill their oversight obligations and instead acting as the Presidents patsy?

Wow!! The President's patsies? Obama had his House Democrats solidly behind him but were not patsies, Trump has a good number of enemies in his party's House, but they're patsies.

The Republican House oversight is fulfilling its obligations as it sees it by trying to get at the truth of charges against Trump and charges of FBI and Department of Justice malfeasance. That you don't like what they're doing, in your eyes, gives you the authority to say they are patsies. Seems to me more like you are spinning.

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

Following the law, which others did before him (but not as "abhorrently" in your spinning eyes), can be a bitch. The law does abhorrent things to people every day . . . but that doesn't bring a tear to your eyes. The notion that it was abhorrent looks, to me, to be another daily abhorrent attempt by anti Trump media (you know, fake news) to paint the Prez with all that bad stuff you believe . . . or swallow.

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

He has "addressed" it. Obviously not to your liking. Do you find it strange that this "meddling" is just now requiring attention? He has been addressing our national security more forcefully, in some ways, than his predecessor.

How about his dishonesty surrounding multiple affairs?

Pretty common, to be expected. What . . . do you expect him to be more honest about it than the parade of past President's? Or the past President's wives who knew but buttoned their lips or denied or aggressively tried to destroy the aggrieved women? Would you have thought better of Trump if he said yeah, I did it? Would that have stopped you, or the fake news, from hating Trump?

How about his embrace of our adversaries while pissing on our allies?

You're, on purpose, using the words "embrace" and "pissing," and if you were honest, which I don't think you are, you would know those are false characterizations.

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.

I have probably seen a lot more of his rallies than you have. They are far more diverse than the stinky little pigeon hole you want to cram them into. You're a lot like fake news, you see only what you want, and spin it in the most demeaning and false ways to trash it.

if this is the future of the GOP be afraid.[/QUOTE]

And then, you do exactly what you accuse Trump of doing, you try to arouse fear.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I have probably seen a lot more of his rallies than you have. They are far more diverse than the stinky little pigeon hole you want to cram them into. You're a lot like fake news, you see only what you want, and spin it in the most demeaning and false ways to trash it.

if this is the future of the GOP be afraid.

And then, you do exactly what you accuse Trump of doing, you try to arouse fear.[/QUOTE]


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 ...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

[/COLOR]

And then, you do exactly what you accuse Trump of doing, you try to arouse fear.[/COLOR]

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.