Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Firstly, those moderates had absolutely no power or conscience as we can see by the party line votes of the GOP - so presenting them as "working across the aisle" is quite a stretch.
But the important dynamic, if you are correct, is whether the landslide popular vote WAS a vote against Trumpism. It surely makes sense that it was because the market was not crashing as bad and the propaganda was put out that the economy was fantastic (it's not...and it wasn't).....
So why else would the moderate voters vote differently than the last election?
If this is true and we have MORE Trumpers in the GOP House and Senate...and the same feelings continues..then more people will vote against the remaining Trumpers. They will be painted during election time, as well they should be, to be supporters of the Orange One and his manners and chaos and failures.
Historically the die is/was cast for most Presidents within the first two years. I think we can accurately predict that year #3 is not going to be vast Trump gains in anything. Even the most prolific Presidents in history (LBJ, Teddy R, etc.) got more done in the first 18-24 months than years (even two termers) afterwards.
We can discuss the nuances, but Trump is likely to end up exactly where he is now - deal last among all POTUSes in history. That takes some doing since many of us here would do much better in the job (we've had some poor and mediocre leaders over history)
Well, I certainly hope you are right on all fronts. I wasn't going against the democratic sweep, I was just pointing out that the republicans rejected those moderates in their party by not turning out for them. My point was that the only republicans left are pure Trump acolytes and of course it is hoped that more democrats will rally to the cause and send these politicians packing in the long run. We know who the enemy is, it's the other side. Look at what's happening in Wisconsin and Michigan, the republicans are placing political explosive charges to destroy the power of the governor, in the state capital, on their way out the door.
So it's a clear case of us or them.
They all voted to end Obamacare and its protections, not just for ACA plans, but for everyone, and for the tax cut for the rich. We are better off with Democrats who will do what is best for their districts and not what Trump tells them to do because they might get primaried otherwise. And the democrats that replaced them are moderates as well.
Regarding the bolded,
Yes we are. There is no disagreement there. My only point was there was more than the Democrat Blue Wave happening here. There was also a sidereal process, which was the Trump Republicans rejecting the republican moderates in their party which the Democrats picked up.
We as democrats should be aware that the gloves are off. There are no restraints. there are only Trumplicans and democrats and it's all hardball from here on out. Michigan and Wisconsin are a good example of the politics we will face moving forward.
Actually, I don't see one wrong fact in the post or story. But maybe you can point it out.
I think there is a MISUNDERSTANDING among some that the number of HOUSE SEATS is being discussed with the history part....whereas the article makes it clear that it is the PERCENTAGE of popular vote.
To wit:
"This year's 8.6 point House popular vote win for the Democrats is the greatest on record for a minority party heading into an election. This dates all the way back to 1942, when the Clerk of the House started listing the House popular vote in its after-election statistics document. That is, the Democratic performance this year was better than the minority party's in the previous 38 elections."
Using those qualifications, admittedly cheery-picked (what else is new), the article and statement are true. And, they picked up 40 seats......that not being the statistic being discussed, but true anyway.
Actually, I don't see one wrong fact in the post or story. But maybe you can point it out.
I think there is a MISUNDERSTANDING among some that the number of HOUSE SEATS is being discussed with the history part....whereas the article makes it clear that it is the PERCENTAGE of popular vote.
To wit:
"This year's 8.6 point House popular vote win for the Democrats is the greatest on record for a minority party heading into an election. This dates all the way back to 1942, when the Clerk of the House started listing the House popular vote in its after-election statistics document. That is, the Democratic performance this year was better than the minority party's in the previous 38 elections."
Using those qualifications, admittedly cheery-picked (what else is new), the article and statement are true. And, they picked up 40 seats......that not being the statistic being discussed, but true anyway.
popular vote? Why are you adding up the votes of completely separate elections in different states?
Voters in swing or gop district were voting against Trumpism, not FOR a Democrat. It is the rare bird who follows what their particular house member does on a day to day basis.
Obviously your "side" will throw chit at the wall and see if you can convince these voters to dump the Dems in two years, but since Citizens United is in force, that means you will need to have a LOT more money than the Dems raise. Well, with that 8 or 9% difference in voting patterns, it will be hard for the GOP to raise a lot more money than the incumbents and Dems.
Also, the new tax law stops deducts for most people for charitable giving. That means I get tempted to contribute MORE toward "activism" since I don't get a deduct for either. Thanks Trump!
I'm not making predictions - just saying that most people do not study their reps. Especially in a POTUS year. They will be voting for or against chaos, bullying, lies and all the Trump factors. Period.
No matter how your phraseology goes a vote against Trumpism is still a vote for a Democrat.
The stat (largest gain since 1974) is interesting because the Republican's largest gain during that period was 64 seats in 2010.
Prior to that seat change, they gained 54 in 1994.
This seat change resulted in Republicans gaining control of the House for the first time since 1952 and was dubbed the Republican Revolution of 1994 because the Senate was also flipped in a significant way.
Since then, Democrats have held the House for 4 out of 24 years, and while credit is due where it is due (several state houses and governorships also flipped), "blue wave" seems a bit of a stretch for a party that seems incapable of closing the deal 83% of the time.
Of course, this is good news for Trump because his poll numbers will increase and he should have little trouble coasting into a second term.
No matter how your phraseology goes a vote against Trumpism is still a vote for a Democrat.
Sounds good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
