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.
Lol, again, I'm loving the spin. Okay, first off, this was anything but a "trouncing" in the House. The Democrat showing was nothing special, not to mention the fact that these results were completely expected seeing as how this was a mid term election after a party shift in the White House. And the fact that the Democrats actually lost seats in the Senate is actually quite telling. And I must say I truly hope Democrats get over this obsession with Robert O'Rourke. Yes, just in case some of you actually don't know this, the guys name isn't "Beto". And the fact that none of you seem to have figured out that Mr. O'Rourke is actually one of those "evil white men" that the left despise, not to mention that he's using the nickname "Beto" to pander to the Hispanic community. He's freaking Irish American sporting a Spanish nickname. And you guys are drooling all over the guy.
Actually I knew his name was Roberto and his nickname Beto was given to him by his mother to distinguish him from his grandfather. Beto has "it" and I wouldn't rule out further big things politically for him. Hmmm Ted Cruz or Beto as an evil white man? Ted!
Lol, I like the spin. How about this one. The only reason the Democrats actually won the number of seats they won was because of the number of elections that had no incumbent Republican to run against. It's much easier to win against "the new guy" than against an incumbent with an established base. Had these 44 Republicans actually run again instead of retiring, the "blue wave!Lol" would have been even smaller. There, a little spin from the other side of the spectrum. Enjoy.
With 40 or so retirements, Democrats should have won about 20 of those seats plus the 32 normal mid term pickup for the party out of power, for a total of 52.
The Democratic party has underperformed since 2010. If it was a pro sports team, the entire coaching staff would have been long gone.
To say that the Democrats won 30 or more seats in the House understates the true total. We must remember that for a year prior to the election there was a huge wave of Republicans quitting or retiring, many of them motivated by fear of losing the election.
The most prominent example is Speaker Ryan. He didn't retire, he LOST -- just like a sports team that doesn't show up to play, a team that forfeits the game. A forfeit is a lost.
Many of the 44 Republicans who gave up their seats should be added to the 30+ seats that the Dems won in the election to get a true picture of the size of the Blue Wave.
The dems took LESS seats in this mid-term then in historically the past.
False. It is poised to be the Democrats biggest house gain since the 1974 post Watergate election where the party added 48. The Dems now look like they will gain some 35+ seats
While the party not in the WH typically gains seats in midterms, adding more than 30 seats is not the norm. The GOP gained just 13 seats back in the last midterm election in 2014.
The dems took LESS seats in this mid-term then in historically the past.
Dems won the most House seats since the Watergate election of 1974; the final count will be around 35-40 seats. They also picked up 7 governorships and about 350 state legislative seats.
Republicans were confident of gains in the Senate due to the 9 Democratic incumbents facing re-election in states won in 2016 by Donald Trump.
Four D incumbents were defeated in Florida, Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota. Democrats were re-elected in Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. A Republican seat was picked up by the Democrats in Nevada. The race in Arizona will determine if the R gain in the Senate is 2 or 3 seats. If you a Republican last year that with that dream map, they would net 2 seats, I think they would have been a little disappointed.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 11-11-2018 at 04:59 PM..
False. It is poised to be the Democrats biggest house gain since the 1974 post Watergate election where the party added 48. The Dems now look like they will gain some 35+ seats
While the party not in the WH typically gains seats in midterms, adding more than 30 seats is not the norm. The GOP gained just 13 seats back in the last midterm election in 2014.
The R's gained 63 House seats and 9 Senate seats in 2010, the midterm elections after Obamas first win. R's gained 54 House and 9 Senate seats in 1994, Clinton's first midterm.
Mid-30's gain at best in the House and losing Senate seats against a guy as divisive and outspoken as Trump, a NaziFascistTraitorDictatorTheocratRacist,Homophobi cCorruptSexualPredator ??? You think that's a winning Blue Wave ???
Mid-30's gain at best in the House and losing Senate seats against a guy as divisive and outspoken as Trump, a NaziFascistTraitorDictatorTheocratRacist,Homophobi cCorruptSexualPredator ??? You think that's a winning Blue Wave ???
Agreed. Trump could very well win again in 2020. Immigration is a huge issue with many voters - I hear it every day on C-Span. You gotta member the "caravan is coming." And the way the Chinese are 'eating our lunch.' Even those most hurt by the tariffs still vote Trump. The stock market is heading for a collapse next year I think because of the tariffs and ballooning deficits from the tax bill. BOTH Trump policies.
I can't stand the guy - find him so personally offensive and stupid - it wouldn't matter if I agreed with his policies - he is an international embarrassment, a plague on this country, imo. But, some love his crude, smartass ways. Others are single issue voters on immigration or the Supreme Court and downline courts. So, no matter how disgusting he is, they won't vote against the party. Trump represents a battle for the soul of this country.
You sound like Jim Acosta. You have no idea why those people left congress, so you just make something up that supports your view.
Reasons for leaving elective office can be complicated. Sometimes there is more than one reason. I think it is safe to say that Paul Ryan didn't particularly like Trump or the difficulty involved in working with him. However, did his family play into it? I'm sure that it did. I also think he understands history. History tells us that the party that does not occupy the White House gains seats in midterm elections. I think the notion of being in the majority with its perks is appealing. When there is a realization that you are likely to be in the minority, staying on doesn't seem like a good deal. I think that accounted for many of the retirements.
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.
