• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton greeted by sobbing women on Capitol Hill

NIMBY said:
Some of this is repeated from #96 as I thought I lost that post.

The numbers that have been posted for GOP incumbent Senators and trump in OH, NC, FL, IA, WI, PA, GA, and AZ clearly show the reverse coattail effect I spoke of in June before disappearing for 5 months.

I haven't seen the full House numbers yet but the pattern appears the same. Paul Ryan has no idea what he's talking about with trump's coattail effect, except in isolated races like Sen. Blunt barely winning.

The total GOP votes for the House is actually greater than the DEMs in 2016 as compared to the large loss in 2012 .
Click to expand...

I totally agree on the reverse coat tails. Republican House candidates defeated the Democratic House candidates 49.9-47.3 in the total popular vote whereas Clinton beat Trump 48.1-46.1. House Republican candidates received 3.8% higher vote total than Trump, but the House Democrats also beat Hillary Clinton by 1.2. points.

For the senate here is a good article and it has a table on most Republican senate candidates doing better than Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-senate-popular-vote/?utm_term=.5352f5f332cf
 
yankintx said:
Cry Baby is the the Great Whiner, an international embaresement.
Click to expand...

You seem to be good at the crybaby whiner posts. Let's see more. I want MORE whiner crybaby posts. I take pleasure in reading crybaby whiner posts.
 
Perotista said:
Ellison hasn't been chosen yet, at least that I know. Yes on the reverse coat tails, most Republican senators up for re-election out polled Trump. It was either you or someone else who lamented about the Democrats ignoring flyover country, which I think has been the case since Casey back in 2006 with his emphasis on the flyover country with excellent candidates recaptured both the House and Senate. Relying only on the Northeast, west coast, Illinois and Minnesota will only keep the Democrats in the minority in congress.

Trump came within 2 points in Minnesota, so maybe Illinois might be the only real reliable Midwestern state left. Personally, I think the Democrats needs some young blood in the leadership positions and I am not talking Ellison. It took out of the box thinking to break the GOP southern lock back in 1992 with Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Having Pelosi and Schumer from deep blue California and New York isn't about to attract new blood or entice anyone in flyover country to look kindly upon the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Ellison means two more disastrous elections, especially the all-important 2020 Census remaps.

70 of 102 counties in Illinois voted trump--Sanders ran close here and won MI and WI.

Not 1980 but we're heading there to irrelevance.

I'd like to see the POTUS election by congressional district, my preferred technique like ME and NE.
The CD method would force DEMs to spread out to rural.
I believe Romney beat Obama with the CD method.

I'll always believe that Perot, Perot's mistake, and Atwater's death gave it to Clinton.

Losing the House in 1994 was a rebuke to Clinton.

The GOP incrementally took back the House remaps, starting in 1990.
 
eohrnberger said:
If that really fair? I'm sure those women have talents, perhaps even if undiscovered ones.
Click to expand...

I love and respect women but some of them went ballistic on me when they found out I did not vote for Hillary.
 
Anthony60 said:
I'm sure that there would be instances were people disagreed with what I found attractive, but I've never thought of Hillary in that way at all.
Click to expand...

Each to their own, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and all that. :)
 
NIMBY said:
Ellison means two more disastrous elections, especially the all-important 2020 Census remaps.

70 of 102 counties in Illinois voted trump--Sanders ran close here and won MI and WI.

Not 1980 but we're heading there to irrelevance.

I'd like to see the POTUS election by congressional district, my preferred technique like ME and NE.
The CD method would force DEMs to spread out to rural.
I believe Romney beat Obama with the CD method.

I'll always believe that Perot, Perot's mistake, and Atwater's death gave it to Clinton.

Losing the House in 1994 was a rebuke to Clinton.

The GOP incrementally took back the House remaps, starting in 1990.
Click to expand...

Why Perot originally dropped out in 1992 is still a mystery to me. I didn't buy his reason of Bush and company spoiling or disrupting his daughters wedding. I don't know anyone within his camp that did buy it. For whatever reason he did drop out, he has kept it to himself.

1994 was a rebuke on Bill Clinton and the Democratic House for raising taxes. Not to forget it was the Democrats and Bill Clinton that raised the amount of taxable social security from 50% to 85%. Old folks are more likely to vote than the young and old folks certainly did in 1994.

As for Illinois, there is Chicago and there is Illinois. Much like Georgia, there is Atlanta and then there is Georgia. 2/3rds of the Democratic strength lies in the metro Atlanta area with islands in Augusta and Columbus. Instead of CD's that you like, I favor Georgia's way. A candidate must receive 50% plus one vote or have a runoff between the top two candidates.

Or a combination. Any candidate that receives 50% plus one votes takes all the electoral votes. If no candidate receives 50% plus one, then go by congressional districts with the candidate who won the state with a plurality getting the two electoral votes for the senators. That would be fine with me too. Having a candidate take all the electoral votes without getting a majority, 50% plus one, doesn't seem right.

The states have the authority to choose how they award their electoral votes, so no constitutional amendment would be needed.
 
Perotista said:
Why Perot originally dropped out in 1992 is still a mystery to me. I didn't buy his reason of Bush and company spoiling or disrupting his daughters wedding. I don't know anyone within his camp that did buy it. For whatever reason he did drop out, he has kept it to himself.

1994 was a rebuke on Bill Clinton and the Democratic House for raising taxes. Not to forget it was the Democrats and Bill Clinton that raised the amount of taxable social security from 50% to 85%. Old folks are more likely to vote than the young and old folks certainly did in 1994.

As for Illinois, there is Chicago and there is Illinois. Much like Georgia, there is Atlanta and then there is Georgia. 2/3rds of the Democratic strength lies in the metro Atlanta area with islands in Augusta and Columbus. Instead of CD's that you like, I favor Georgia's way. A candidate must receive 50% plus one vote or have a runoff between the top two candidates.

Or a combination. Any candidate that receives 50% plus one votes takes all the electoral votes. If no candidate receives 50% plus one, then go by congressional districts with the candidate who won the state with a plurality getting the two electoral votes for the senators. That would be fine with me too. Having a candidate take all the electoral votes without getting a majority, 50% plus one, doesn't seem right.

The states have the authority to choose how they award their electoral votes, so no constitutional amendment would be needed.
Click to expand...

IIRC, it was Perot's appearance in front of the SCLC and his use of the phrase "you people" .
 
NonoBadDog said:
You seem to be good at the crybaby whiner posts. Let's see more. I want MORE whiner crybaby posts. I take pleasure in reading crybaby whiner posts.
Click to expand...

Hit a nerve? Get used to it
 
Perotista said:
This was a very unique and unconventional election. Usually the candidate with the highest favorable rating wins. Or one could turn it around and say the candidate with the highest unfavorable rating loses. It has been this way since Gallup started keeping track of favorable/unfavorable ratings. One prior to this election could look at the favorable rating of the candidates and pretty much know who was going to win. Not this election, conventional was thrown out the window.

Clinton had a 38% favorable with Trump at 35% and Trump became the first candidate to win an presidential election with a favorable rating lower than his opponent. So many people disliked both candidates, 25% per Gallup, 22% of all Americans per YouGov. Perhaps the difference was Trump excited and energized his supporters where Clinton's were mostly ho hum in the key states. It could be as simple as that. Another way to look at it, most Republicans came home to Trump in the last two weeks of the campaign, a lot of Democrats didn't. But that may go back to the enthusiasm gap and the anti voters.
Click to expand...

another option could be these POLLS are complete bull****, and out-of-touch.
Only two POLLS got it right this time, all of the zillions of others where completely out in left field.
If you put stock in POLLS, rather than your own eyes and ears, then there is a major disconnect to begin with.

Like the POLLS that say 20% of children in the USA are STARVING. Complete bull****.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Moar, I want moar crying. Jan 20 is close. :2dance::sword::2party:
Click to expand...

Just read the Dons tweets, its like a man child throwing his toys out of his pram.
 
yankintx said:
Just read the Dons tweets, its like a man child throwing his toys out of his pram.
Click to expand...

The washington establishment and the liberal news media are freaking out because trump is making them look like fools.

Which they are

He does not need CBS or NPR to get his message out to the people and that makes liberals less powerful

And angry
 
Last edited:
NIMBY said:
IIRC, it was Perot's appearance in front of the SCLC and his use of the phrase "you people" .
Click to expand...

If you listed to any of Perot's stump speeches, etc, the phrase "You People," he used all the time. for example, "You people can make all the difference." "You people can decide this election," or "You people can show the way to bringing down the national debt." Saying "You People," as a reference to the audience he was speaking to was a natural for him. He did all the time, not only in front of the NAACP, but in front of every other rally or audience he spoke to.
 
Im sure Hillary haters were disappointed that lock her up was no more than campaign retoric, imagine, Cry Baby breaking a campaign promise lol. I would not hold your breath waiting on that Wall, or is it a fence?
 
Mac77 said:
The washington establishment and the liberal news media are freaking out because trump is making them look like fools.

Which they are

He does not need CBS or NPR to get his message out to the people and that makes liberals less powerful

And angry
Click to expand...

Na, it just makes Cry Baby look like he is, a baffoon
 
yankintx said:
Im sure Hillary haters were disappointed that lock her up was no more than campaign retoric, imagine, Cry Baby breaking a campaign promise lol. I would not hold your breath waiting on that Wall, or is it a fence?
Click to expand...

The difference between Trump supporters and you is that most of us are savvy enough and intelligent enough to take him seriously, but take the way he expresses himself figuratively as he intends it. Your side refused to take him seriously but took everything he said literally playing right into his hand to show irrational statements, intellectual dishonesty, etc. from the left, especially the media for the hatred and intolerance that they are.

And he's President. And Hillary is not.
 
MorrisDay said:
I love and respect women but some of them went ballistic on me when they found out I did not vote for Hillary.
Click to expand...

Why? 42% of women voted for Donald Trump.

It's not like Hillary had some lock-down on the women vote.
 
yankintx said:
Na, it just makes Cry Baby look like he is, a baffoon
Click to expand...

Because trump thinks lib flag burners crawled out from under a wet rock?

That makes trump look lucid
 
NonoBadDog said:
You seem to be good at the crybaby whiner posts. Let's see more. I want MORE whiner crybaby posts. I take pleasure in reading crybaby whiner posts.
Click to expand...

Greetings, NonoBadDog. :2wave:

Perfect! :thumbs: :lamo
 
polgara said:
Greetings, NonoBadDog. :2wave:

Perfect! :thumbs: :lamo
Click to expand...

Hi Polgara. I am finishing the leaves for our log dining table today. Some friends are coming up to get Christmas trees from our property. We are going to lunch with some other friends. I am making banana bread and hot cocoa today. We have a blizzard moving in and I have gas. It's a wonderful day.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Hi Polgara. I am finishing the leaves for our log dining table today. Some friends are coming up to get Christmas trees from our property. We are going to lunch with some other friends. I am making banana bread and hot cocoa today. We have a blizzard moving in and I have gas. It's a wonderful day.
Click to expand...

It sure is! :thumbs: It's 23 degrees here, but all is nice and warm in the house, so let the weather show off a little - outside!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom