The Fire Bell In The Night

[/dev/null]

For whom does the Fire Bell toll?

 

It Tolls 306-232 for Trump

[B-Man]

DRAINING OUT ALL THE EXCITEMENT WITH A TRUTHFUL HEADLINE:

 

 Moderate Democrat defeats Bush family surrogate in Virginia.

Edited November 10, 2017 by B-Man

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

21 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Oh good, we're back to whining about the Electoral College.  Get over it, losers.

 

And I've said it before and I'll say it again: if the Dems put up Warren as their nominee in 2020 against Trump it'll just prove they learned nothing from 2016 and they'll lose.  Again.

 

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

23 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

 

This is reminiscent of stuff I heard in August 2016.  Hmm... 

 

Yes, God forbid someone call the Democratic party to account for their ****ty politicking and ****ty candidates

#SP was because you called me a loser.  

 

 

so again I say 

 

#SP

[row_33]

14 hours ago, OJABBA said:

hahaha, yeah "anyone coulda beat Trump".

 

Trump made mincemeat out of everyone they put in his path. Like him or not, he knows how to go for the jugular. I actually thought he was pretty restrained with Hillary.

 

yes, any Dem candidate except for Hillary would have easily whipped Trump.

 

the 100% correct hatred of her from everyone not in her cult is tangible with all 5 senses.

 

[/dev/null]

 

[K-9]

On 11/9/2017 at 9:34 PM, Doc Brown said:

There's an obvious difference between competing with Trump in the Republican primaries compared to competing with him as a Democrat in the general election.  Trump won Michigan by 10,704 votes (.2 points), Wisconsin by 22,748 votes (.7 points), and Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes (.7 points).  That's 77,774 votes combined.  Hillary ran the worst campaign I've ever seen for a major party nominee and her negatives were somehow as low as Trump who was caught on tape after the Republican primaries joking he can use his power to grab women by the pink fortress.  Hillary deserved to lose, but my point is you run anybody that's just a little more popular than Hillary (Richie was a dumb example because he wouldn't qualify as he's only 34) and those three states remain blue. Democrats win the presidential election.

 

That's why I think the odds are against Trump winning in 2020 unless the Democrats manage to find somebody more unpopular than Hillary (or run Hillary again) to be their nominee.  Trump was right in saying that the electoral college is more difficult for a Republican to win.  

The more I research the outcomes in those three states, the more I'm convinced it's not a simple question of Clinton's popularity; she won the popular vote after all. It was a combination of a concentrated ground game in a few districts that were more heavily researched and I have to tip my hat to the GOP strategists who saw chinks in Clinton's armor in those locales later in the campaign and then hammered home Trump's populist themes especially about the return of factory jobs in those areas. I agree 100% that the arrogance of the Clinton campaign and the lack of a strong ground game in those districts (before it was too late and they started to scramble in those areas) all contributed to one of the worst run campaigns in my lifetime. Turnout would have made the difference but the Clinton campaign just took it for granted. She deserved to lose those districts. 

[OCinBuffalo]

1. Please Democrats, run Warren.  It's almost better for Trump, and down-ticket Rs, than keeping Pelosi. Almost. Let us be talked down to about social justice, and PC nonsense...by somebody who faked their heritage for career advancement. Better still I'd love to hear about high finance...from somebody whose financial government agency brain child is failing totally. This is just the common knowledge. Put that up against Trump's economy. Warren has never run against a serious opponent with real, grassroots political power, and, she is such a lightweight: intellectually, morally, leadership-wise. Warren can't take a political punch. Every time she does get hit: she runs and hides from all media for 3-4 months. Trump will hit her every hour, of every day. She will buckle, because she won't be able to hide, and, if she can't take 1 punch, how is she going to take 3-4 a day? By all means, run her and let's see if I'm right.

 

2. Biden and Bernie. Both too old, too wacky, and both have been on the wrong side of history/votes for their entire careers. They won't run, because their records say they can't. Come on, why are we even talking about this? Biden has been so wrong on foreign policy it's amazing. 30 years of never being right, not once. Bernie is a socialist. End of story. All these clowns who say Bernie could've beaten Trump?  Every day it would have been "Bernie the Commie wants to take your freedom away, while I want to protect you from him". Too easy for Trump. Bernie would have lost worse than Hillary...which is exactly why the DNC rigged the race against him.

 

3. By all means, pretend that these elections mean that more than 25% of the country is ready to embrace your identity politics agenda. Sure, everybody wants massive personal income tax increases, to pay for other people's free college and health care: these elections said so!  That's exactly what the white, working class people, who want to do the jobs they are in, want: take more $ from them, to pay for somebody else getting free stuff.

 

4. Don't even stop to consider that the DNC has $4 million while the RNC has $40, because....wait....does $ matter in elections, or not? You hate Citizens United, yet you dumped record sums into the GA 6th and VA governor's race. The state D parties were all cleaned out by Hillary, so they have no $ either. Yeah....but none of that matters...because your ideas, which none of you can agree on, will win the day?

 

Yeah, these elections might have meant a lot. Unfortunately for you and most of your kind: they will mean nothing, because you still think its about Trump, which means you've learned nothing.

[Philly McButterpants]

On 11/9/2017 at 10:05 AM, B-Man said:

MICHAEL BARONE: 2016 is looking like the new normal.

 

If you wanted to predict the results of Tuesday’s gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, you would have been wise to ignore the flurry of polls and campaign events. You would have paid no heed to the conventional wisdom that Republican Kim Guadagno was uncompetitive against Democrat Phil Murphy in New Jersey, while Republican Ed Gillespie had a solid chance to beat Ralph Northam in Virginia.

 

In fact, Northam’s 9 point victory margin in Virginia was not much different from Murphy’s 13 point margin in New Jersey. And both almost precisely mirrored the 2016 presidential results. Hillary Clinton carried New Jersey 55 to 41 percent; Murphy won it by 56 to 43 percent. Clinton carried Virginia 50 to 44 percent; Northam won it 54 to 45 percent. The two Democrats, lacking Clinton’s reputation for dishonesty, gained a few points she lost to third-party candidates; the two Republicans got almost exactly the same percentages as Trump.

 

It’s neither a catastrophe for the GOP nor a breakthrough for the Dems. Nobody should get cocky,

 

especially since voters basically hate both parties.

 

But, but, but the NYT and WaPo, those bastions of "fair and balanced" reporting are telling me that Dems winning Blue states is the harbinger of DOOM for the Republicans.  I don't understand??  

[Prickly Pete]

11 hours ago, OCinBuffalo said:

1. Please Democrats, run Warren.  

 

It would be like having a school librarian as the president. Could you imagine how quickly Putin, China, and Iran would challenge her? 

 

My line about Warren will always be "She'd run a great candlelight vigil".

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2017 by OJABBA

[Tiberius]

6 hours ago, OJABBA said:

 

It would be like having a school librarian as the president. Could you imagine how quickly Putin, China, and Iran would challenge her? 

 

My line about Warren will always be "She'd run a great candlelight vigil".

 

 

 

As opposed to having our red haired lap dog slobbing his knob. I'll take Warren over lap dog 

[Tiberius]

22 hours ago, K-9 said:

The more I research the outcomes in those three states, the more I'm convinced it's not a simple question of Clinton's popularity; she won the popular vote after all. It was a combination of a concentrated ground game in a few districts that were more heavily researched and I have to tip my hat to the GOP strategists who saw chinks in Clinton's armor in those locales later in the campaign and then hammered home Trump's populist themes especially about the return of factory jobs in those areas. I agree 100% that the arrogance of the Clinton campaign and the lack of a strong ground game in those districts (before it was too late and they started to scramble in those areas) all contributed to one of the worst run campaigns in my lifetime. Turnout would have made the difference but the Clinton campaign just took it for granted. She deserved to lose those districts. 

I have a different take. In hindsight she should have spent more time and resources in those states, but who knows if that would have worked. Clinton was going after places like Arizona and Georgia, which seemed winnable after the debates. If you remember the debates, she clearly had Trump on the ropes and left him a stammering, angry maniac. The race did kind of seem over. The debates were so clearly one sided that Clinton did look to expand the map. Is that arrogance? Not sure, but a larger mandate from the electorate would have been more political capital to spend. But then the FBI came out and said something about emails and Trump's lie machine took over. After that the polls showed a 2% lead which she won by, actually. But did not translate to a EC victory but a big loss for the country 

[K-9]

14 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I have a different take. In hindsight she should have spent more time and resources in those states, but who knows if that would have worked. Clinton was going after places like Arizona and Georgia, which seemed winnable after the debates. If you remember the debates, she clearly had Trump on the ropes and left him a stammering, angry maniac. The race did kind of seem over. The debates were so clearly one sided that Clinton did look to expand the map. Is that arrogance? Not sure, but a larger mandate from the electorate would have been more political capital to spend. But then the FBI came out and said something about emails and Trump's lie machine took over. After that the polls showed a 2% lead which she won by, actually. But did not translate to a EC victory but a big loss for the country 

I understand your larger point, but they were in clear panic mode at the 11th hour when polling in key districts in those three states showed her losing and they responded with too little too late. I think she took those places for granted while Trump hit them hard and often with his populist themes. Huge tactical error on Clinton's part. 

[B-Man]

Let´s end the ´Joe Biden for president´ delusion right now CNBC, by Jake Novak

Original Article       No !   Keep it up.....

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Let´s end the ´Joe Biden for president´ delusion right now CNBC, by Jake Novak

Original Article       No !   Keep it up.....

He would have a lot of support on this board against Trump. So many of the posters have said that it was only because of Hillary they supported Trump. So Biden would be ok, right? 

[B-Man]

PARTY OF YOUTH: The Democrats’ old-people problem.

 

Quote

 

Democrats are rethinking their future — but doing it with the leadership of old men and women deeply rooted in the past. The top three House Democrats in leadership are all nearly 80 years old.

 

By the numbers: The average age of Democrats serving under them is 61. Three of the most talked-about 2020 contenders are Sen. Bernie Sanders, 76; Sen. Elizabeth Warren, 68; and former Vice President Joe Biden, 74.

 

Why it matters: Older Democratic leaders are unwilling to give up their seats, even as younger Democrats call for “a new generation of leaders,” as top House Democrat Linda Sanchez said when she asked for Nancy Pelosi to step down. And former DNC Chair Howard Dean told MSNBC: “Our leadership is old and creaky, including me.”

 

 

 

 

Yeah, but that’s nothing compared to his party’s ideas.

[row_33]

A Dem from Bama is basically a GOP vote no matter how you slice it.

 

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

He would have a lot of support on this board against Trump. So many of the posters have said that it was only because of Hillary they supported Trump. So Biden would be ok, right? 

This Joe Biden?

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+joe+biden+the+villages&&view=detail&mid=EED9318CCDF862598D6AEED9318CCDF862598D6A&rvsmid=AFF3ED78A0AD4FF39F86AFF3ED78A0AD4FF39F86&FORM=VDQVAP

[row_33]

have to wait and see what the actual choices are for POTUS in 2020, then we will logically weigh with reason who is the better candidate, as we always do.

 

[Tiberius]

34 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

This Joe Biden?

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+joe+biden+the+villages&&view=detail&mid=EED9318CCDF862598D6AEED9318CCDF862598D6A&rvsmid=AFF3ED78A0AD4FF39F86AFF3ED78A0AD4FF39F86&FORM=VDQVAP

I guess that's a no, then? So maybe Hillary wasn't that bad...

21 minutes ago, row_33 said:

have to wait and see what the actual choices are for POTUS in 2020, then we will logically weigh with reason who is the better candidate, as we always do.

 

Ya right. You are so far up Trump's butt