7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

"The 41-seat gain was the Democrats' largest gain of House seats since the post-Watergate 1974 elections, when they picked up 49 seats. The Democrats also won the popular vote by a margin of 8.6%, the largest margin on record for a party that previously held a minority in the House. Turnout was the highest for a midterm election in more than a century, with over half the electorate casting ballots."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

And it's useful to point out that the gain in seats would have been more had the Republicans in various states not engaged in extreme gerrymandering after the 2010 elections.

Google this to read this idiots reasoning for a huge laugh! GOOD luck LOSER

Newt Gingrich: House Republicans in 2020 can have a great year

10 hours ago, englishoak said:

Uh huh..The opposition party tends to be more energized in a midterm, its perfectly normal and n fact the most common outcome in midterms. Since the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s, the president's party has lost ground in 36 of the 39 midterm elections.

 

Not gloating just pointing out areas the Dems are losing out, dont make me wrong. 

 

The rest is the usual excuses with no answers and just reinforces the Orange man bad vitriol. Thats not going to cut it imo. Nor is Bloomberg credible but go ahead, copy the billionaire popular celebrity businessman model without Trumps personality vs the original and see how that goes....   

Clinton was an exception!

21 hours ago, Tug said:

Now that’s bizzare lol attack on democracy ehh bizzare imo but I digress Nancy in a brilliant move held them back so trumps attempt at extorting a nation at war was fully exposed and the republican controlled senate will pay the price for not holding a trial we will rember come 2020 and down ballot as well

Looks like the votes are there to curb.

Went yesterday ann they did not ask about 20K or financials. 

On 1/13/2020 at 6:43 PM, donnacha said:

Hillary was probably the worse choice of presidential candidate in over a century. I would agree that it was more a case of Hillary losing 2016 rather than Trump actually winning it.

Kellyanne Conway was the first female general election campaign manager in US history. She did a good job in difficult and unpredictable circumstances. Amazing how American feminists don't seem to be celebrating her achievement.

No one "corralled" the electoral college. They merely insisted that the electors honored the intention of the voters, which was to return a Republican president.

Are you seriously saying that the Democrats would not do the same? Have you forgotten how many arms the Clinton campaign twisted during the primaries to divert support intended for Bernie.

Russia? Seriously?

Have you really no awareness that the entire Russia narrative collapsed in on itself and actually helped Trump?

Regular people aren't dumb. The same as with all the gymnastics around Brexit in the UK, people saw through the machinations and, when it came time to vote, punished all the players who had sought to subvert their democratic will.

This nonsense might play well on TV panels and in the opinion pieces, but the vast majority of people have no patience for it.


 

Just replying to your "Russia? Seriously?"

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/nyt-russians-hacked-burisma-ukrainian-gas-company-at-center-of-impeachment-76688965844

11 hours ago, donnacha said:

Pretty much all politicians who achieve high office in any country are. You need the ability to persuade a wide range of people to do your bidding and, then, later, to discard them without a thought.

Obama's treatment of Oprah is a case in point.

Read any non-sycophantic biography to find countless other well-documented examples.


 

You totally lost me thier. Unfollowed you but I'm sure you care less. Lets us meet up when the election is over please to see which of us really understood correctly.

19 minutes ago, donnacha said:

If you get the joke, he is deeply and consistently entertaining. This is trolling as a form of high art. Exquisite.

He has also, uniquely for a politician, over-delivered on expectations. Only the hardcore pro-worker, anti-immigration activists, such as Ann Coulter, are unhappy at this stage because they did not get their wall.

Trump is a monster, but no more than any other leading American politician, including smooth psychopaths such as Bill Clinton and Obama.

It is not really about Trump, he just happens to be the guy who noticed the thousand dollar note on the ground that none of the other politicians would pick up. It is really about the people shaking up an establishment that allowed itself to drift way too far away from their interests and their sensibilities.

People know that they are held in utter contempt by the establishment. They see that Trump is too, but is reliably willing to hit back. They know that he is a self-obsessed fabulist, but they prefer that to the barely disguised contempt of Hillary.

 

You need to clarify why your saying Obama is:

56 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Okay. If I understand you correctly, you are 100% certain that the Democrats will gain the presidency in November.

So, if it turns out you are wrong, will you come back here and apologize for being so deluded?

Will you come back and beg me to share the political insights that gave me such a firmer grasp of electoral realities?

Of course you won't. *Sigh*.

 

You did see my post on my avatar bet? You did see I am now following you as well? So we each accept each other "gets to beg" each other back for forgiveness, right?

4 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Gee, can you give me a bit more than that then? You mean you dont look at ALL potentialities?

Pretty simple. First it was history repeating itself when that many Democrates won. The margin is pretty large too now. Every reason that down balloting with be even greater.  Second the 40 Republicans retiring is big too. Although 40 newly elected members are also up for re-election. Thirdly why won't voters still want a check on this president if he would win.

6 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Ha, I was just kidding about California, I typo all the time myself ????

Okay, well, I won't deny that Trump was lucky and, as such, 2020 will be a very interesting election.

Again, though, one part of that luck was Hillary being the worst possible candidate, I just wonder, really, how much better would Biden, Sanders, or Warren really be?

Sanders is kind of fun and, I believe, sincere in what he says. There is no way, however, that Americans will fall for Socialism at this stage, not when so many Americans are actually doing well.

The other two are boring as all Hell, with Warren reaching almost Hillary levels of untrustworthiness, social awkwardness, and inedibility.

Also, Trump will have had 4 years of a successful presidency under his belt this time, despite a constant onslaught from the media and legal establishment. At this stage, most people have a grudging admiration for the man.

Remember, last time, we were told that the White House would be in chaos and the country would be doomed with Trump as leader? Well, here we are, 4 years later, and everything is pretty good. That is going to count for something at the ballot box.

 

Thats why I agree Bloomberg could take that Biden alternative over easily  and run from there. This was the Bloomberg postings, right? By the way your: "successful presidency" is clearly an oxymoron.

20 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Okay. If I understand you correctly, you are 100% certain that the Democrats will gain the presidency in November.

So, if it turns out you are wrong, will you come back here and apologize for being so deluded?

Will you come back and beg me to share the political insights that gave me such a firmer grasp of electoral realities?

Of course you won't. *Sigh*.

 

Yes I have a bet here already with another poster where we each gets to change each others avatar. Makes my day as his is Adam  Schiff . LOL

41 minutes ago, donnacha said:

How astute of them ????
 

 

And democratic voters as a whole are more radical than the swing voters you need to lure away from Trump.

That might be a problem.
 

 

No, I have not. That is essentially my point.

None of the leading candidates are the silver bullet you need to take out Trump. The two curveball candidates who could have presented a real challenge to Trump, Yang and Gabbard, were sidelined from the start.
 

 

You are measuring the wrong thing. You need to think not in terms of how legitimate you consider their respective fortunes to be but, rather, of the thing that resonates with voters: star power.

Trump managed to remain pretty much the biggest name on prime time American TV for over a decade. The entire premise of the show was his canny wisdom and decisive nature ("You're fired!").

You might know who Bloomberg is, especially if you are from the coasts or an avid follower of mayoral politics. For most Americans, however, Bloomberg is just another old white billionaire, and his fellow Democrat candidates are already ripping him apart for that crime.

Again, we can talk about how flawed Trump is, we can talk about how much better someone else might be, but none of that is relevant to the question of whether any current candidate could actually beat Trump in the election later this year.

For what it is worth, I believe there is one person who, even if introduced at this late stage, would absolutely beat Trump, and another who would have a pretty good shot.

Oprah would beat Trump hands down, but was needlessly slighted by the Obamas after she helped them win, and will never be forgiven by the Clinton machine for that betrayal.

Michelle Obama would be an extremely partisan president but, in the current climate, it would be almost impossible for anyone campaigning against a black woman. Also, the media would be almost unanimously behind her.

 

Yang has won all the debates but your right he has yet to be relevant currently. 

13 minutes ago, donnacha said:

I was hearing the same thing before the 2016 election.

It doesn't matter how much you, personally, hate, or how much all your friends agree, or how much all the websites you choose to read agree.

All that matters is what happens when real Americans - the ones who don't spend their time fuming about politics and angrily submitting online polls - go to the ballot box and decide who they trust to not tank the economy.

Just to be clear, I respect your opinion and am not saying you are clueless, even though you did manage to misspell the word "California" in your username.

 

Sorry for not getting california right but I did have a three user flub. That 70,000 vote was reality. After 2018, that feeling from voters won't diminish. Not going to pull that amazing inside straight twice.

42 minutes ago, phkauf said:

Bloomberg has no chance at securing the Democratic nomination - the progressives hate him for his policies when he ran NYC (as a Republican I might add), the blacks and latinos hate him for his stop and frisk policies as Mayor (which he now says was bad but they are not stupid and don't forget), he has zero personal charisma and is as irascible as Prayut, and wait until all the dirt comes up about the sexual harassment at his company that was settled with non-disclosure agreements. 

I lived in NYC during his terms as mayor and generally liked the guy, although a little too nanny state minded at times. I think he really did some great things for NYC, but he rubbed A LOT of people the wrong way. 

I hate to tell people what to do with their money and Bloomberg is very, very philanthropic, but I wish he would spend his money on things like curing diseases or poverty or homelessness than <deleted> it away on political ads and consultants. I read he has already spent over $200 million, just think about what that could accomplish in cancer research or helping the homeless or helping the people addicted to pain meds. 

He could end up being the one that truely meets the "can beat trump" That is a real path. 

55 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The activist democratic party base that dominates primaries is naturally more progressive than democratic voters as a whole. That's why Sanders might be nominated (though I think Warren has been bumped out). HOWEVER democrats in general care about one thing more than any other thing. The best chance to beat 45. Most democrats do NOT think that is Sanders. That's why I think Bloomberg has a real shot. Of course there is always Biden but have you ever seen a weaker so called front runner?

 

I think Bloomberg would match up wonderfully with 45 and it's clear to me that 45 has a well justified inferiority complex when compared to the real billionaire of his old New York neighbor. Bloomberg will make the president look SMALL. 

100% agree.But you to realize Hillary was by far weaker as the Republican deamonized her perfectly. Hence trump getting caught trying  to put in place a Biden mistrust.

56 minutes ago, donnacha said:

There is some validity to that ... but ... the problem is which Democrat do you see beating him?

From the polling I've seen, key demographics - such as soccer moms - are not fond of Trump, they would prefer someone "better", but, when given a choice between, say, Trump and Warren, or Trump and Bernie, they have a good hunch that it will be families like theirs that will end up paying for all their more radical plans.

In that sense, Bloomberg has a good point, a more moderate candidate would be more electable ... but ... the base have been placed in such a spin by "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they can only really get excited about the more extreme candidates. Look at the effect that shafting Bernie had on Hillary's turnout.

On paper, Biden seems the safest pick, mainly because his association with Obama gives him the black vote, but are voters going to feel more or less confident about his capabilities after several months of campaigning?

You have to bear in mind that Trump is an extraordinarily good campaigner, and genuinely has more energy, more charisma, and, like it or not, a higher operational IQ than any of the Democrats.

 

His read was spot on. He knew just how to touch that base just so. The more awe and shock the better for his base. Kellyanne Conway was able to coral the electoral college with Hillary's and Russia's help

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Naw dude, its just the same old urban vs rural, elites vs regulars, Coast vs Heartland, etc. No biggy. The anti Trumpers will get over it as the USA proceeds to move forward. Once 2020 comes and Trump gets relected and the Congress goes Repub, watch how things go gangbusters then.

 

Bloomberg is actually an accomplished guy even though he has some silly political positions. He did a good job in NYC, although he now has to apologize for the unwoke things he did. That being said, if it was him against the rest of the Dem field, he would be the only one I would distastefully pull the levers for, since ideological purity has to go bye bye some times.

 

In point of fact, he is the best candidate against Trump in the Dem field in terms of the electorate as a whole. But the socialists dont like him, he cant compete with Trump vis a vis the black/"latino" vote, and hes boring and whiny. 

Alot of what your saying is ok. That idea Congress is going Republican is reason though to think you have no real insightfulness.

1 hour ago, donnacha said:

At this stage, Democrats need to focus their energy on 2024.

Trump has 2020 in the bag precisely because those ensconced in the mainstream media bubble cannot see past their hatred of him. The majority of voters understand only too well that this contempt for Trump is only a proxy for the profoundly anti-democratic contempt that the elites have for them. This is exactly the same blindness that seized the UK elites over Brexit.

Trump has many flaws but has, somehow, managed to deliver on much of what he promised. The performance of the American economy is astonishing, and that matters to those Americans who do not have guaranteed jobs, property, or ample savings. These are the same people who voted for Obama's "Hope" and "Change".

You can say that it is all a fluke, that Trump has simply been lucky, or that the economic growth is all thanks to Obama, but none of that matter in electoral terms. As far as most people outside the mainstream media and coastal bubbles are concerned, this bizzare, over-the-top Trump guy has delivered.

 

If that is true please explain the 52 to 58 DIS approval, continuously . I am 100% sure he will LOSE. He has NOT delivered and only made America the laughing stock of the WORLD

9 hours ago, opalred said:

a good man that believes in the country and its people at last

I stronly support him and have great respect for any person who will admit thier own mistakes. trump has never been truthful.

Independent voting for ANYBODY but trump and will support Republican as well.

3 hours ago, baansgr said:

Isn't the US economy doing rather well....why so much animosity against Donald

Obama inherited near bankrupt economy. Bush left him with having to bail it out as his only first act. If ypu want to give a President credit,only he deserves it.  Look at historical data for proof.

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It is to laugh.

Democrats won House midterms by largest margin since Watergate scandal, report says

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/21/democrats-won-house-midterms-largest-margin-since-watergate/2084052002/

 

The One Issue That’s Really Driving the Midterm Elections

Ask voters what they care about, and they’re very clear.

Here’s an amazing political statistic: In 2016, the Affordable Care Act came up in just 10 percent of pro-Democrat campaign advertisements and 16 percent of pro-Republican ones. This year, it came up in more than half of Democratic ads and nearly a third of those for Republicans.

Those numbers, which come from the Wesleyan Media Project, help demonstrate the way the law’s politics have gone topsy-turvy and its political sway has grown since President Donald Trump came into office. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/healthcare-midterm-elections-trump/574780/

 

Congressional Retirement Tracker 2020: House Republicans Head for the Exits

House Republican retirements are continuing to pile up, a sign many members aren’t enjoying their time in the minority and don’t think they’ll return to power any time soon.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5yp37/republican-greg-walden-quits-congressional-retirement-tracker-for-2020

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/?ex_cid=irpromo

 

Thanks for the facts reflecting just the opposit of was just said. Some keep repeating oping the lie becomes truth. Nancy's Hosue will soon gain many more seat than the majority they have, facts back up this assertion. Not empty repetition which is all they have.

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

No polls predicted hilary would win. Polls dont predict. But im sure you and trump use them if in your favor.

Amybody paying attention knew trump had a chance electorally.

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

Same polls that predicted Hillary would win.

That line is stale.