Goran and McGee wrong again. Dems winning elections after all.
« prev   misc   next »

2
2

Goran and McGee wrong again. Dems winning elections after all.

By joeyjojojunior following x   2017 Sep 13, 10:06am 788 views   40 comments   watch   quote     share  


http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/special-elections-oklahoma-new-hampshire/index.html
"On Tuesday night, Democrats flipped two Republican-held state legislative seats -- one in Oklahoma, one in New Hampshire -- that Donald Trump carried in the 2016 election.
That makes six turnovers from Republican to Democrat in contested state House and Senate races so far in 2017 -- and 26 out of 35 races (at the state legislative and congressional level) in which the Democratic nominee has overperformed Hillary Clinton's showing last November. (Worth noting: Republicans have yet to flip a Democratic-controlled seat so far this year.)"

Looking forward to 2018.
1 YesYNot   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 10:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

That combined with Republicans retiring in disgust should make things interesting. OTOH, there's a long way before the elections. tRump and his frenemies in Congress may yet do something other than finger pointing. It's still to be seen.
2 anonymous   ignore (5)   2017 Sep 13, 11:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Hey Chris Cililiza, the guy who said 100s of pages of Maddog's medical records weren't adequate in 2008 but a single one-sided page from Hillary's personal physician saying she was in OK health was plenty and it was nutty to demand more information while she wore her perscription, expensive German made anti-siezure glasses in public.

How many FEDERAL elections have the Democrats won? hahahahaha.

1. 26 of 35 State races the Dem Outperformed - but that doesn't mean they won.
2. Do you know how many State Legislature seats there are? Many states have both a House and Senate. This is a drop in the bucket, literally.


"Hey everybody, out of thousands and thousands of State seats, we won like 6 out of three dozen!!! We're winners!!!"
3 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 11:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Now I'm actually reading the article.

Yeah, both examples given in the article, the Republican resigned either because of Social Justice Shaming (visited r/TRP) or job opportunity (CoC Boss). Wonder how many of the other 6 of 1000s were vacated seats or had no incumbent.

God, Cilizia is an Dem Hack disguised as a Journalist. Although it was good of him to mention that 28 of 100 Oklahoma seats remain in Republican hands. I can just see all those Okies voting in many Anti-Redpill, Feminazi, Anthem-sitting, anti-Rule of Law, pro-Illegal Democratic Legislature this 2018.
4 justme   ignore (0)   2017 Sep 13, 11:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

This is a big deal. New Hampshire state Rep. Robert Fisher (R) resigned after being harassed and threatened online for being a men's human rights activist (MHRA).
5 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 12:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
Now I'm actually reading the article.

Yeah, both examples given in the article, the Republican resigned either because of Social Justice Shaming (visited r/TRP) or job opportunity (CoC Boss). Wonder how many of the other 6 of 1000s were vacated seats or had no incumbent.

God, Cilizia is an Dem Hack disguised as a Journalist. Although it was good of him to mention that 28 of 100 Oklahoma seats remain in Republican hands. I can just see all those Okies voting in many Anti-Redpill, Feminazi, Anthem-sitting, anti-Rule of Law, pro-Illegal Democratic Legislature this 2018.


None of them had an incumbent. They were all special elections.

But Dems won in districts that are typically +12 Rep. or +20 Rep. You can come up with all the excuses you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the country has definitely swung blue over the last year.
6 HEY YOU   ignore (7)   2017 Sep 13, 12:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

We've had Republicans & Democrats in office.
The only difference is Right or Left fubar.
7 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 1:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
None of them had an incumbent. They were all special elections.


You mean, that's why they were special elections. If there was an incumbent who didn't resign, they wouldn't have been special but would be 'regularly scheduled elections' held at the usual time. 6 of 35 out of 1000s ain't nothin' to brag about, esp. in a special election where the party faithful and not the ordinary voter tend to come out more. What happened with the other 29?

"we won 6 of 35 special elections, and lost the other 29!!! Yay!!!"

Remember: Losing by less is still losing.
8 Tenpoundbass   ignore (6)   2017 Sep 13, 2:43pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Yeah still don't have any voter integrity we're working on it. I would be my 100 to your million dollars that the voters that made the difference just showed up since November 9th.
The Liberal MSM was bragging at that time about getting new voters to flip those districts. New Rules are on the way you shitbirds are shipping your Voters out of California the GOP might go and flip that on you when they weed out the 4 million illegal voters there.
And there's nothing you can do but say "Muh open borders!"
9 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 2:58pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

McGee--

You misread again. 6 of 35 were party changes and all went Dem.
10 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 3:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

I didn't misread shit:

... and the other 29 weren't party changes.

This article is trying to infer that 2 flipped seats in two lousy state elections, and 6 flipped state legislature seats for all 2017, all of them special elections - vs. 1000s of seats in the various State Legislatures, not Congressional - is a sea change... gimme a break Charlie Brown.
11 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 4:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

There haven't been any non-special elections so there is obviously no data to compare with.
12 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 5:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
There haven't been any non-special elections so there is obviously no data to compare with.


Yep, therefore no conclusions to be drawn.
13 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 5:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
I didn't misread shit:


Of course you did. You implied that Dems only won 6 out of the 35 races. That is false.

Dems flipped 6 and Reps flipped 0
14 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 5:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
Yep, therefore no conclusions to be drawn.


lol- feel free to stick your head in the sand. It won't change the outcome in 2018. But, history has shown a pretty good relationship between special election results and general election results in the following year.

Other indicators are saying the same thing, btw. Number of Dem candidates, number of Republicans declaring that they won't run in 2018, etc.
15 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 5:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
lol- feel free to stick your head in the sand. It won't change the outcome in 2018. But, history has shown a pretty good relationship between special election results and general election results in the following year.


Feel free to extrapolate 6 special elections onto 1000s of seats in 50 states... LOL.

You also predicted Georgia would swing Democrat in the most expensive House campaign in history, with Dems from Techarch Valley and Hollywood dumping cash on what's his face.

I CAN HOLD MY BREATH FOR A LOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGG TIME!!!!
16 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 5:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says

You also predicted Georgia would swing Democrat in the most expensive House campaign in history, with Dems from Techarch Valley and Hollywood dumping cash on what's his face.


Actually I didn't. YOU, on the other hand, predicted that the Dem candidate would lose by 10 points.

Nice try though. I said it would be a close race. You said it would be a blowout R win. I was right, you were wrong.

TwoScoopsMcGee says
Feel free to extrapolate 6 special elections onto 1000s of seats in 50 states... LOL.


Yep, I do feel free to use statistics and past history to make extrapolations about how the electorate has swung since the last election. Smart people are able to do this easily. And the electorate has swung about 10 points more blue since Trump was elected.

You are free not to believe it, but like I said, the elections will happen whether you believe or not.
17 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 5:50pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

And btw--are you implying I'm a neoliberal??

bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I voted for the guy who actually would have accomplished the stuff you used to believe in.
18 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 5:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
Yep, I do feel free to use statistics and past history to make extrapolations about how the electorate has swung since the last election. Smart people are able to do this easily. And the electorate has swung about 10 points more blue since Trump was elected.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hoooohohooohohohohohohohohohohohoho LOL.

Wanna make that bet official? That the Dems take the House back in 2018? Because if the electorate has swung 10 pts to blue, that's what would happen.

Come on, dude, call it officially.


joeyjojojunior says
I voted for the guy who actually would have accomplished the stuff you used to believe in.

So you didn't vote for Clinton or Stein. Well, maybe Clinton is a man. Did you write in Bernie?
19 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 6:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

My Prediction held up perfectly:
TwoScoopsMcGee says
If Ossoff wins: "Nevermind the other 4 lost special elections, this one COUNTS!!! DEMS coming back in 2018!!!"

If Ossoff loses: "Well, this was a very tough race in a tough district, however, the fact that Ossoff came so close is a good sign that DEMS coming back in 2018!!!"


http://patrick.net/post/1307406/the-georgia-race
20 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 6:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Booger says

Cucks at CNN on seeing election results:


21 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 6:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
My Prediction held up perfectly:


Except the one where you said he'd win by 10 points, you mean?
22 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 6:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
Wanna make that bet official? That the Dems take the House back in 2018? Because if the electorate has swung 10 pts to blue, that's what would happen


Actually, that's not what would happen. That's how gerrymandered the Congressional Districts are at this point.

TwoScoopsMcGee says
So you didn't vote for Clinton or Stein. Well, maybe Clinton is a man. Did you write in Bernie?


I voted for Bernie in the primary.
23 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 6:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
Except the one where you said he'd win by 10 points, you mean?


You sure that it was me who said it? I'd love to see the link.

But whatever, he lost by about 3 points. I was right about losing and off by a few points. Pretty weak showing for spending $30M..
24 WookieMan   ignore (0)   2017 Sep 13, 6:18pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
Yep, I do feel free to use statistics and past history to make extrapolations about how the electorate has swung since the last election. Smart people are able to do this easily. And the electorate has swung about 10 points more blue since Trump was elected.

Completely anecdotal, but I'm just not seeing this where I'm from (IL). I'm generally surrounded by mid and far left people. IL has an upcoming governors election in 2018. It is literally about 1 year away from vote day. The dems don't have a consensus candidate at this point in my opinion. I think there's a lot of animosity towards the money politician (Hilary) and the peoples politician (Bernie) on the dems side. It appears, in my opinion, they can't really come together.

Rauner has literally not governed and the dems can't come together and get someone (with a consensus), at this point, to run against him. He's probably one of the most beatable republican governors in the country and I actually think he may stand a chance in Nov '18. It's really unfathomable that the dems can't get together and have a solid candidate run. I'm not predicting Rauner will win, but the odds aren't good for the dems less than 13 months in advance, without an actual candidate they can call their own.

I honestly think the dems are in for trouble in 2018. Again, this is based off my experience in IL. I'm just not seeing any unity on that side.
25 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 6:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
You sure that it was me who said it? I'd love to see the link.


Sure.

https://www.patrick.net/post/1305242/?offset=0#comment-1402068

"Only because there were several Republican contenders with similar levels of support, but only one Democratic Candidate with any substantial support for all democrats to rally around.
The Democrats are largely still Clintonista sheep, refusing to address the causes of their historic loss in a rigged election; the Republicans are having internal struggles.
Leading to a runoff where Ossoff will be destroyed."
26 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 6:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

WookieMan says
I honestly think the dems are in for trouble in 2018. Again, this is based off my experience in IL. I'm just not seeing any unity on that side.


I'm in IL too and the Gov. election hasn't even hardly started yet. Nobody is paying attention right now. It's too early to draw any conclusions.

Republicans weren't exactly united around a candidate in 2016 and it worked out OK for them.
27 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 13, 6:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
Pretty weak showing for spending $30M..


lol--it's not like Handel was hurting for money either. There was huge diminishing returns on the money--after a certain point, it really makes no difference. Especially in a local election. All that spending probably helped the Republican because it riled up voters that may have stayed home.
28 errc   ignore (2)   2017 Sep 14, 7:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Republicans weren't exactly united around a candidate in 2016 and it worked out OK for them.

----------

Republicans don't need to unify around one candidate. There's plenty of brain dead Christians who will always vote for any Republican. That's how Trump came to be president. Good fer nothing no goodnick Christians.

They have done more harm to the country then ISIS could ever dream of.

They'll get their comeuppance soon enough. And they'll blame the liberals
29 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 14, 5:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
"Only because there were several Republican contenders with similar levels of support, but only one Democratic Candidate with any substantial support for all democrats to rally around.
The Democrats are largely still Clintonista sheep, refusing to address the causes of their historic loss in a rigged election; the Republicans are having internal struggles.
Leading to a runoff where Ossoff will be destroyed."

Don't see 10 pts there. I followed the link and hit CNTL-F for find, looked for "10", didn't see any reference to 10 that I made.

But yeah, Ossoff was destroyed: Record Spending on a House Seat and he still lost. Elections are like Pass/Fail courses, you Win or you Lose.
30 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 14, 6:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
Don't see 10 pts there. I followed the link and hit CNTL-F for find, looked for "10", didn't see any reference to 10 that I made.

But yeah, Ossoff was destroyed: Record Spending on a House Seat and he still lost. Elections are like Pass/Fail courses, you Win or you Lose.


lol--so losing by 0.1% is getting destroyed? You are hilarious. Just own it when you're wrong.

But you're right, I think I tried to quantify "destroyed" and came up with 10 pts.
31 anonymous   ignore (5)   2017 Sep 14, 8:08pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
I'm in IL too and the Gov. election hasn't even hardly started yet. Nobody is paying attention right now. It's too early to draw any conclusions.

Usually I'd agree with you, but the leading dems are already starting tv ads. Rauner has too. For a governors race the money is going to be insane. Rauner has his own money and Ken Griffin's billions are an added bonus. Griffin has given a ton already and will continue to do so. All the dems candidates have money themselves and the ability to raise a ton of it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/13/illinois-governor-race-rauner-240480
Whether people want to be interested or not, it's going to be in their face 24/7. And most people I know are fed up with IL, so I have a feeling there's going to be some pretty good interest for this election, which I believe there already is compared to previous elections. Or they'll just beat the hell out of us with ads and everyone will become disenfranchised. So who knows. I don't have a horse in this race yet, but I'm not liking the choices so far.
32 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 14, 8:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
lol--so losing by 0.1% is getting destroyed? You are hilarious. Just own it when you're wrong.


Didn't he lose by 3-4 pts against a non-incumbent? Since we have winner take all elections, I'm not wrong.

joeyjojojunior says
But you're right, I think I tried to quantify "destroyed" and came up with 10 pts.


There you go.
33 anonymous   ignore (5)   2017 Sep 15, 3:02am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

No--you were obviously wrong about him getting destroyed.
34 BayAreaObserver   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 15, 8:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, and anyone else supporting Clinton and DNC views/policies need to disappear permanently for the good of the democratic party.

These names are "toxic" to voters and will do more damage going forward than Trump can tweet or pull off from behind the latest distraction from the White House.

Unfortunately this will not be the case. These people hanging around and staying in the public eye and mind for the 2018 midterms are going to be a disaster, especially when they are hell bent on defining what is important, themes and strategies and ignoring the obvious.

Locally here in Indiana, Ohio and other nearby states there is a small but steadily growing groundswell of resentment and feeling of betrayal amongst Trump voters and this is spreading to adjacent states.

Not tapping into this angst will guarantee more soul searching after the fall of 2018 and beyond and the DNC seems oblivious to all of this - yet - still.

Dubya knew enough to get out of the limelight and stay out for the good of the GOP when he left office save for some obligatory appearances but Clinton and DNC never quite seem to get the light bulb to go on.
35 WookieMan   ignore (0)   2017 Sep 15, 8:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anonymous says
joeyjojojunior says
I'm in IL too and the Gov. election hasn't even hardly started yet. Nobody is paying attention right now. It's too early to draw any conclusions.

Usually I'd agree with you, but the leading dems are already starting tv ads. Rauner has too. For a governors race the money is going to be insane. Rauner has his own money and Ken Griffin's billions are an added bonus. Griffin has given a ton already and will continue to do so. All the dems candidates have money themselves and the ability to raise a ton of it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/13/illinois-governor-race-rauner-240480
Whether people want to be interested or not, it's going to be in their face 24/7. And most people I know are fed up with IL, so I have a feeling there's going to be some pretty good interest f...


FYI this was me. Not logged in while in a different browser. @Patrick This anonymous this is getting confusing, but I suppose I really have no idea if some of the "anonymous" users are new or regular here. So maybe that was the goal.
36 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 15, 8:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

I know I'm fed up with IL.
37 Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Sep 17, 12:10pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

WookieMan says
Patrick This anonymous this is getting confusing


The goal was just to make it easier to bring in new users by eliminating the requirement to register with an email first.

But good point, it's confusing. I will create distinct usernames for anonymous users so you can at least see if it's the same user from one comment to the next.
38 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 17, 12:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anonymous says
No--you were obviously wrong about him getting destroyed.


Sorry, destroyed != 10 points. I looked it up in the dictionary. That's you reading into something what you want to read.

I'd also remind you that polls had Ossoff beating Handel going into Election Day. Hence the Long Faces on CNN that a Congressional Aide and Corporate Crony backed by Hollywood and Silly Con Valley millions couldn't win an incumbent-free election.
39 joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 17, 12:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Seriously--is it a requirement to lie if you're a fan of Trump?



40 iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 17, 1:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

joeyjojojunior says
Seriously--is it a requirement to lie if you're a fan of Trump?


Yes.

Comment as anon_1c765 or log in at top of page: