The strange greatness of Donald Trump

[Mountain Man]

Why, the democratic party already won in a virtual landslide in the last election.

No they didn't. They underperformed compared to historical averages.

[Mountain Man]

Have you seen this, MM?

Report: Obama’s Spying On The Press Was Far More Extensive Than Previously Thought





Note: This post was intended to seek MM's opinion on a matter that is discussed in the article by following the link, and is not intended to be an argument, an argument by weblink, a weblink argument, or a weblink -- any similarity to an argument by weblink is purely coincidental, and is not intended to represent any person living, dead or otherwise. No animals have been harmed in the posting of this query. Query by no means refers to any segment of society denoted by sexual preference, gender identity, selection of male or female bathroom, or expression of drama. Please feel free to report this post to the moderation team using the report function, or, in CP's case, the amen button.

I haven't seen that, but it doesn't surprise me. Remember Mad Maxine Waters boasting about Obama's extensive database on every citizen?

[JimL]

No they didn't. They underperformed compared to historical averages.

MM, you really need to get your head out of the fake news bubble. The 38 seats that the dems gained is the largest change of seats since watergate. The popular vote differential was 9 million votes won by the dems. Yeah, that's 9 million. That's an 8.1% spread which is the largest differential than the republican wave, 7.1% in 1994, the democrat wave, 8% in 2006, the republican wave, 7.2% and 5.7% in 2010 and 2014. Added to that historic shellacking, it would have been a lot worse had it not been for the republican re-districting done after the 2010 wave. Get a clue will you!

[Mountain Man]

While Tuesday night was not a complete win for Republicans, there was no blue wave, either. By most measures, Republicans beat the odds of history and nearly everyone’s expectations, while Democrats were left disappointed as the fantasy of Beto O’Rourke, Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams and others winning fizzled. Not one new progressive Democrat was successful bursting onto the scene. It will take a few days to process the meaning of this year’s election returns, but the instant analysis is clear: Democrats may have won the House, but Trump won the election.

As I always say, in politics, what is supposed to happen tends to happen. I predicted in August that the Democrats would take the House but that alone was not enough for most Democrats. As much as this year’s midterms offered an obvious opportunity to rebuke President Trump, little of what the arrogant Democrats and members of the mainstream media expected would happen actually did. So much of what they said turned out to be wrong that it will take a while before the significance becomes clear. And if the 2018 midterms prove anything, it is that Trump is standing strong while Democrats and their allies who thought Trump would have been affirmatively rejected are in fact the ones who have themselves been denied.

Democrats have underperformed in comparison with the historical markers and general expectations of a midterm cycle. The president’s party loses 37 seats in the House on average in midterm elections when his approval is below 50 percent — but Democrats aren’t projected to pick up nearly that many seats. No liberal will want to admit it, but Trump is an asset to the Republican Party, while President Barack Obama was a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Let the message be clear: Voters had a chance to repudiate Trump and they did not. Much of the commentariat has said this year’s elections are about who we are as a country and what America is all about. Well, a lot of America seems to be about supporting Trump. The Democrats thought Trump’s negatives would be enough to propel them to victory. The 2018 results show it is clear they need a different plan if they think they can win in 2020.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.a7a9a1fa58cb

And this from the Trump-hating Washington Post!

[JimL]

The part in the parenthesis. You know, like creating perjury traps for someone who hadn't done anything wrong.


Sorry about using a few polysyllabic words. Hope they didn't confuse you too much.

Really grasping at straws now aren't you rogue? Tell us who was trapped into perjuring themselves?

[JimL]

While Tuesday night was not a complete win for Republicans, there was no blue wave, either. By most measures, Republicans beat the odds of history and nearly everyone’s expectations, while Democrats were left disappointed as the fantasy of Beto O’Rourke, Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams and others winning fizzled. Not one new progressive Democrat was successful bursting onto the scene. It will take a few days to process the meaning of this year’s election returns, but the instant analysis is clear: Democrats may have won the House, but Trump won the election.

As I always say, in politics, what is supposed to happen tends to happen. I predicted in August that the Democrats would take the House but that alone was not enough for most Democrats. As much as this year’s midterms offered an obvious opportunity to rebuke President Trump, little of what the arrogant Democrats and members of the mainstream media expected would happen actually did. So much of what they said turned out to be wrong that it will take a while before the significance becomes clear. And if the 2018 midterms prove anything, it is that Trump is standing strong while Democrats and their allies who thought Trump would have been affirmatively rejected are in fact the ones who have themselves been denied.

Democrats have underperformed in comparison with the historical markers and general expectations of a midterm cycle. The president’s party loses 37 seats in the House on average in midterm elections when his approval is below 50 percent — but Democrats aren’t projected to pick up nearly that many seats. No liberal will want to admit it, but Trump is an asset to the Republican Party, while President Barack Obama was a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Let the message be clear: Voters had a chance to repudiate Trump and they did not. Much of the commentariat has said this year’s elections are about who we are as a country and what America is all about. Well, a lot of America seems to be about supporting Trump. The Democrats thought Trump’s negatives would be enough to propel them to victory. The 2018 results show it is clear they need a different plan if they think they can win in 2020.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.a7a9a1fa58cb

And this from the Trump-hating Washington Post!

Consider the biased source (Ed Rogers) before reading his opinion. I gave you the numbers, and the numbers don't lie. It was an historic drubbing, and it is only going to get worse for the GOP next time. Why do you think they work so hard with their repressing the vote tactics, extreme unconstitutional redistricting. Even though you extremists love and idolize the wannabe dictator Trump, he is bringing the GOP down, not lifting them up.

[Cow Poke]

Why, the democratic party already won in a virtual landslide in the last election.

Keep telling yourself that, Jimmy.

[JimL]

Keep telling yourself that, Jimmy.

Don't need to, CP, it's one of those fact thingies you're always waiting on.

[Cow Poke]

Don't need to, CP, it's one of those fact thingies you're always waiting on.

It is what it is, JimmySue.... the sun will still rise in the morning and set in the evening, and life will go on.

[rogue06]

MM, you really need to get your head out of the fake news bubble. The 38 seats that the dems gained is the largest change of seats since watergate.

What about the 63 seats the Republicans picked up in 2010 during Obama's first mid-term (not to mention the 6 Senate seats whereas the Democrats actually lost seats in the Senate in 2016).

So who told you this was the biggest pickup since Watergate and given the facts are you going to continue to trust them?

[Mountain Man]

Consider the biased source (Ed Rogers) before reading his opinion. I gave you the numbers, and the numbers don't lie. It was an historic drubbing, and it is only going to get worse for the GOP next time. Why do you think they work so hard with their repressing the vote tactics, extreme unconstitutional redistricting. Even though you extremists love and idolize the wannabe dictator Trump, he is bringing the GOP down, not lifting them up.

Democrats picked up a perfectly average number of seats in the House for an off-year election, but they LOST seats in the Senate, which is almost unheard of. Democrats also lost very significant governor races that they should have won. So yes, from a historical perspective, they underperformed. They kept predicting a "blue wave", but it turned out to be little more than a ripple in a kiddie pool.

[JimL]

What about the 63 seats the Republicans picked up in 2010 during Obama's first mid-term (not to mention the 6 Senate seats whereas the Democrats actually lost seats in the Senate in 2016).

So who told you this was the biggest pickup since Watergate and given the facts are you going to continue to trust them?

My mistake, they actually won 41 seats, which was the 3rd largest p/u, not the first, but that was a result of the 2010 election where republicans won big, and then went hard on extreme re-districting. The proof in the pudding is the popular vote differential in which dems outperformed republicans by 9 million votes which was a larger vote differential than the repubs in 2010. One thing we can all agree on, republicans sure know how to rig elections! With a little help from the Russians that is. Btw, how does it feel to be on the same side as V. Putin?

[rogue06]

My mistake, they actually won 41 seats, which was the 3rd largest p/u, not the first, but that was a result of the 2010 election where republicans won big, and then went hard on extreme re-districting.

The Democrats still controlled the Senate and of course Obama was president. IOW, the Republicans couldn't do much redistricting without a whole lotta help from the Democrats.

The proof in the pudding is the popular vote differential in which dems outperformed republicans by 9 million votes which was a larger vote differential than the repubs in 2010.

Focusing on margins on a national level is utterly pointless since it does not matter how many votes you get in California. It just won't affect what takes place elsewhere.

One would hope that lesson would have sunk in since 2016.

Moreover, as has been noted, the Democrats managed to lose ground in the Senate which is practically unheard of.

One thing we can all agree on, republicans sure know how to rig elections! With a little help from the Russians that is.

Why would any sane, rational person (or even me), deign to humor your delusions?

[lilpixieofterror]

My mistake, they actually won 41 seats, which was the 3rd largest p/u, not the first, but that was a result of the 2010 election where republicans won big, and then went hard on extreme re-districting. The proof in the pudding is the popular vote differential in which dems outperformed republicans by 9 million votes which was a larger vote differential than the repubs in 2010. One thing we can all agree on, republicans sure know how to rig elections! With a little help from the Russians that is. Btw, how does it feel to be on the same side as V. Putin?

I like how your blind faith in a long disproved narrative continues.

[JimL]

The Democrats still controlled the Senate and of course Obama was president. IOW, the Republicans couldn't do much redistricting without a whole lotta help from the Democrats.

Republicans due to the 2016 wave election held the governorships and so didn't need democrats in order to redistrict, and they did, big time, along with their voter repression tactics.

Focusing on margins on a national level is utterly pointless since it does not matter how many votes you get in California. It just won't affect what takes place elsewhere.

Of course it matters because, both sides are vying for votes in each state.

One would hope that lesson would have sunk in since 2016.

It's a canard.

Moreover, as has been noted, the Democrats managed to lose ground in the Senate which is practically unheard of.

The Democrats had many more seats to defend in 2018, I believe it was 22 compared to 8 for the republicans. This time around it'll be just the reverse with the republicans having to defend some 25 or so seats.

Why would any sane, rational person (or even me), deign to humor your delusions?

Well obviously you wouldn't, but you live in the bubble where you have alternate facts.