Is Obama's Legacy Killing the Democrat Party?

[Nyvin]

It's actually really normal. Look at the state/local governments at the end of Bush's second term after the 2008 elections, it shows almost exactly the same picture.

The same is more or less true for Clinton's term, and Reagan/Bush's terms. Granted HW Bush didn't have much to start with, lol.

The end story is that the nation moves the opposite direction from the President. Also we're coming to end of the decades long realignment of southern whites moving away from the Democratic Party.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The stunning losses for Democrats under Obama keep piling up, yet Progressives seem clueless. Witness the pathetic quality of the Democrat Candidates running for President. Lincoln Chaffee anyone? A story in Vox highlights the Obama legacy and the damage he has done to the Democrat Party.. A key quote:



"Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy."


What do you think Obama has done for the Democrat Party?



Don’t believe the Democratic Party is in crisis? Then read this tweet.

Yeah, and the standard liberal answer to all this is that Republicans only win when there's low voter turnout. Has it occurred to them that there's a reason that so many Democratic voters have not voted? Has it dawned on them that those people might be saying, "You've done such a lousy job that I'm just not going to vote"?

Until Obama came long, Democrats could correctly argue that modern Democratic presidents were more fiscally conservative than modern Republican presidents. Like it or not, that happens to be true. But after Obama, that argument will be gone for many years. Obama has shattered all records for debt accumulation and just last week signed a bill that will add $80 billion in spending and that allows him to borrow as much as he wants until he leaves office.

As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now down to just 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when the president took office.

Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era

Yes, we can thank God we have Republican leadership in Congress. You know Congress, those people that make our laws and has the country's checkbook?

 

[Nyvin]

"Is Obama's Legacy Killing the Democrat Party?"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

First, Webster's called they are concerned about your overuse of the word 'fallacy'.

The fact is Democrats have lost 1,200 seats nationally during Obama's presidency, those are stunning losses. You have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a smaller Democratic party minority in congress. His one big achievement Obamacare is so unpopular his own party forced him to go on national TV and take the blame for it. Romney won the majority of independents in 2012. I'd call that a near complete rejection of the Democrats and their stupid ideas.

I'd advise Democrats to stop lying that's doing most of the damage but I know it would fall on deaf ears.

A fallacy is a fallacy. The president has won many victories over his enemies, not the least being the two smashing presidential elections. The dems are not afraid of a GOP that is afraid to change.

And Hispanics will not vote GOP as long as the nativists remain outspoken in their hatred.

Okay, so DumBama won twice, but the Democrats lost in other elections. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the American public likes DumBama on a personal note, but doesn't like his or the liberal policies.

Here in Ohio DumBama won twice as well, but last night, the marijuana legalization lost by almost a 2 to 1 margin.

There is no Obama for next election; nobody even close.

The Marijuana measure in Ohio was a terrible bill. There were a plethora of legalization advocates against it because it would've given a monopoly to 10 wealthy growers.

 

[Nyvin]

The stunning losses for Democrats under Obama keep piling up, yet Progressives seem clueless. Witness the pathetic quality of the Democrat Candidates running for President. Lincoln Chaffee anyone? A story in Vox highlights the Obama legacy and the damage he has done to the Democrat Party.. A key quote:



"Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy."


What do you think Obama has done for the Democrat Party?



Don’t believe the Democratic Party is in crisis? Then read this tweet.

Yeah, and the standard liberal answer to all this is that Republicans only win when there's low voter turnout. Has it occurred to them that there's a reason that so many Democratic voters have not voted? Has it dawned on them that those people might be saying, "You've done such a lousy job that I'm just not going to vote"?

Until Obama came long, Democrats could correctly argue that modern Democratic presidents were more fiscally conservative than modern Republican presidents. Like it or not, that happens to be true. But after Obama, that argument will be gone for many years. Obama has shattered all records for debt accumulation and just last week signed a bill that will add $80 billion in spending and that allows him to borrow as much as he wants until he leaves office.

As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now down to just 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when the president took office.

Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era

Yes, we can thank God we have Republican leadership in Congress. You know Congress, those people that make our laws and has the country's checkbook?

The Republicans pushed for tons of spending increases, mostly military, and tons of tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy.

They don't care about balancing the budget even half as much as you think they do.

Besides 90% of all the legislation that actually moves through the House only does so with a huge majority of Dems voting yes. Hence why Boehner was forced to retire.

 

[bedowin62]

The stunning losses for Democrats under Obama keep piling up, yet Progressives seem clueless. Witness the pathetic quality of the Democrat Candidates running for President. Lincoln Chaffee anyone? A story in Vox highlights the Obama legacy and the damage he has done to the Democrat Party.. A key quote:



"Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy."


What do you think Obama has done for the Democrat Party?



Don’t believe the Democratic Party is in crisis? Then read this tweet.

Yeah, and the standard liberal answer to all this is that Republicans only win when there's low voter turnout. Has it occurred to them that there's a reason that so many Democratic voters have not voted? Has it dawned on them that those people might be saying, "You've done such a lousy job that I'm just not going to vote"?

Until Obama came long, Democrats could correctly argue that modern Democratic presidents were more fiscally conservative than modern Republican presidents. Like it or not, that happens to be true. But after Obama, that argument will be gone for many years. Obama has shattered all records for debt accumulation and just last week signed a bill that will add $80 billion in spending and that allows him to borrow as much as he wants until he leaves office.

As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now down to just 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when the president took office.

Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era

Yes, we can thank God we have Republican leadership in Congress. You know Congress, those people that make our laws and has the country's checkbook?

The Republicans pushed for tons of spending increases, mostly military, and tons of tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy.

They don't care about balancing the budget even half as much as you think they do.

Besides 90% of all the legislation that actually moves through the House only does so with a huge majority of Dems voting yes. Hence why Boehner was forced to retire.

good point dummy!! makes you wonder why then harry reid OBSTRUCTED over THREE HUNDRED bills passed in the Republican House if so many Democrats had to have voted for them huh??

kind of damages the left-wing talking point that the reason Reid wouldnt even consider them or bring them to the floor for DEBATE MUCH LESS A VOTE was because, as Dems said "they had no chance of passing".

Actually they were OBSTRUCTED because the WOULD HAVE PASSED.

Hence why Reid lost his Senate majority.

 

[bedowin62]

almost nothing left-wingers try to pass off holds up to scrutiny

if a left-winger tells the truth it's usually by accident

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The stunning losses for Democrats under Obama keep piling up, yet Progressives seem clueless. Witness the pathetic quality of the Democrat Candidates running for President. Lincoln Chaffee anyone? A story in Vox highlights the Obama legacy and the damage he has done to the Democrat Party.. A key quote:



"Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy."


What do you think Obama has done for the Democrat Party?



Don’t believe the Democratic Party is in crisis? Then read this tweet.

Yeah, and the standard liberal answer to all this is that Republicans only win when there's low voter turnout. Has it occurred to them that there's a reason that so many Democratic voters have not voted? Has it dawned on them that those people might be saying, "You've done such a lousy job that I'm just not going to vote"?

Until Obama came long, Democrats could correctly argue that modern Democratic presidents were more fiscally conservative than modern Republican presidents. Like it or not, that happens to be true. But after Obama, that argument will be gone for many years. Obama has shattered all records for debt accumulation and just last week signed a bill that will add $80 billion in spending and that allows him to borrow as much as he wants until he leaves office.

As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now down to just 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when the president took office.

Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era

Yes, we can thank God we have Republican leadership in Congress. You know Congress, those people that make our laws and has the country's checkbook?

The Republicans pushed for tons of spending increases, mostly military, and tons of tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy.

They don't care about balancing the budget even half as much as you think they do.

Besides 90% of all the legislation that actually moves through the House only does so with a huge majority of Dems voting yes. Hence why Boehner was forced to retire.

You have no idea what you're talking about. What was the sequester about? What was the government shutdown about? Why did we lose our three star credit rating for the first time in US history?

It's all about the money. DumBama always wanted to spend more and Republicans less. It's been the biggest argument between them since Republicans regained leadership.

Yes, the Republicans believe in a strong US military and lower taxes. How anybody could find that to be a bad thing is way beyond me.

 

[Nyvin]

The stunning losses for Democrats under Obama keep piling up, yet Progressives seem clueless. Witness the pathetic quality of the Democrat Candidates running for President. Lincoln Chaffee anyone? A story in Vox highlights the Obama legacy and the damage he has done to the Democrat Party.. A key quote:



"Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy."


What do you think Obama has done for the Democrat Party?



Don’t believe the Democratic Party is in crisis? Then read this tweet.

Yeah, and the standard liberal answer to all this is that Republicans only win when there's low voter turnout. Has it occurred to them that there's a reason that so many Democratic voters have not voted? Has it dawned on them that those people might be saying, "You've done such a lousy job that I'm just not going to vote"?

Until Obama came long, Democrats could correctly argue that modern Democratic presidents were more fiscally conservative than modern Republican presidents. Like it or not, that happens to be true. But after Obama, that argument will be gone for many years. Obama has shattered all records for debt accumulation and just last week signed a bill that will add $80 billion in spending and that allows him to borrow as much as he wants until he leaves office.

As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now down to just 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when the president took office.

Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era

Yes, we can thank God we have Republican leadership in Congress. You know Congress, those people that make our laws and has the country's checkbook?

The Republicans pushed for tons of spending increases, mostly military, and tons of tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy.

They don't care about balancing the budget even half as much as you think they do.

Besides 90% of all the legislation that actually moves through the House only does so with a huge majority of Dems voting yes. Hence why Boehner was forced to retire.

good point dummy!! makes you wonder why then harry reid OBSTRUCTED over THREE HUNDRED bills passed in the Republican House if so many Democrats had to have voted for them huh??

kind of damages the left-wing talking point that the reason Reid wouldnt even consider them or bring them to the floor for DEBATE MUCH LESS A VOTE was because, as Dems said "they had no chance of passing".

Actually they were OBSTRUCTED because the WOULD HAVE PASSED.

Hence why Reid lost his Senate majority.

Almost anything that has passed the House that became law required a Democratic majority of yes votes.

Boehner threw multiple red meat bills through the House to try to appease the crazies, none of them worked, he still ended up retiring. It's stupid easy to pass legislation through the House when you have a 240 seat majority, it's actually getting past the other two branches that becomes difficult.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"Is Obama's Legacy Killing the Democrat Party?"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

First, Webster's called they are concerned about your overuse of the word 'fallacy'.

The fact is Democrats have lost 1,200 seats nationally during Obama's presidency, those are stunning losses. You have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a smaller Democratic party minority in congress. His one big achievement Obamacare is so unpopular his own party forced him to go on national TV and take the blame for it. Romney won the majority of independents in 2012. I'd call that a near complete rejection of the Democrats and their stupid ideas.

I'd advise Democrats to stop lying that's doing most of the damage but I know it would fall on deaf ears.

A fallacy is a fallacy. The president has won many victories over his enemies, not the least being the two smashing presidential elections. The dems are not afraid of a GOP that is afraid to change.

And Hispanics will not vote GOP as long as the nativists remain outspoken in their hatred.

Okay, so DumBama won twice, but the Democrats lost in other elections. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the American public likes DumBama on a personal note, but doesn't like his or the liberal policies.

Here in Ohio DumBama won twice as well, but last night, the marijuana legalization lost by almost a 2 to 1 margin.

There is no Obama for next election; nobody even close.

The Marijuana measure in Ohio was a terrible bill. There were a plethora of legalization advocates against it because it would've given a monopoly to 10 wealthy growers.

It played a part--yes. The only reason it played a part is because of the confusion. When people are confused about an issue here in Ohio, they usually vote against it.

However, a near 2 to 1 margin is another story. Had the issue lost by 10% or so, you may have a point.

 

[bedowin62]

people upset with republican spending formed the Tea Party. Republicans might not "care about balancing the budget even half as much as you think they do", but even that half is more than Democrats care bout balancing it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We will find out next year, WQ.

As the article states Jake...we already know. Obama has killed the Democrat Party Nationally. The losses have been stunning under his Presidency. That cannot be argued.

We will find out next year, WQ.

As the article states Jake...we already know. Obama has killed the Democrat Party Nationally. The losses have been stunning under his Presidency. That cannot be argued.

That is the article's opinion, and it is flat wrong. If the GOP does not clean up its fiasco of an election season with its front runners, HRC will take the Presidency, very easily.

The Dems are almost a lock for a four or five seat majority in the Senate.

The GOP will keep a solid hold on the House.

You have to live in reality not your heart's desire, WQ.

 

[Nyvin]

"Is Obama's Legacy Killing the Democrat Party?"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

First, Webster's called they are concerned about your overuse of the word 'fallacy'.

The fact is Democrats have lost 1,200 seats nationally during Obama's presidency, those are stunning losses. You have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a smaller Democratic party minority in congress. His one big achievement Obamacare is so unpopular his own party forced him to go on national TV and take the blame for it. Romney won the majority of independents in 2012. I'd call that a near complete rejection of the Democrats and their stupid ideas.

I'd advise Democrats to stop lying that's doing most of the damage but I know it would fall on deaf ears.

A fallacy is a fallacy. The president has won many victories over his enemies, not the least being the two smashing presidential elections. The dems are not afraid of a GOP that is afraid to change.

And Hispanics will not vote GOP as long as the nativists remain outspoken in their hatred.

Okay, so DumBama won twice, but the Democrats lost in other elections. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the American public likes DumBama on a personal note, but doesn't like his or the liberal policies.

Here in Ohio DumBama won twice as well, but last night, the marijuana legalization lost by almost a 2 to 1 margin.

There is no Obama for next election; nobody even close.

The Marijuana measure in Ohio was a terrible bill. There were a plethora of legalization advocates against it because it would've given a monopoly to 10 wealthy growers.

It played a part--yes. The only reason it played a part is because of the confusion. When people are confused about an issue here in Ohio, they usually vote against it.

However, a near 2 to 1 margin is another story. Had the issue lost by 10% or so, you may have a point.

No, it was a huge turn off. It was almost a monopoly give-a-away to people who were already wealthy. It definitely was not popular with most people in Ohio, I don't think confusion is the right word.

 

[bedowin62]

Yeah, and the standard liberal answer to all this is that Republicans only win when there's low voter turnout. Has it occurred to them that there's a reason that so many Democratic voters have not voted? Has it dawned on them that those people might be saying, "You've done such a lousy job that I'm just not going to vote"?

Until Obama came long, Democrats could correctly argue that modern Democratic presidents were more fiscally conservative than modern Republican presidents. Like it or not, that happens to be true. But after Obama, that argument will be gone for many years. Obama has shattered all records for debt accumulation and just last week signed a bill that will add $80 billion in spending and that allows him to borrow as much as he wants until he leaves office.

As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now down to just 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when the president took office.

Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era

Yes, we can thank God we have Republican leadership in Congress. You know Congress, those people that make our laws and has the country's checkbook?

The Republicans pushed for tons of spending increases, mostly military, and tons of tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy.

They don't care about balancing the budget even half as much as you think they do.

Besides 90% of all the legislation that actually moves through the House only does so with a huge majority of Dems voting yes. Hence why Boehner was forced to retire.

good point dummy!! makes you wonder why then harry reid OBSTRUCTED over THREE HUNDRED bills passed in the Republican House if so many Democrats had to have voted for them huh??

kind of damages the left-wing talking point that the reason Reid wouldnt even consider them or bring them to the floor for DEBATE MUCH LESS A VOTE was because, as Dems said "they had no chance of passing".

Actually they were OBSTRUCTED because the WOULD HAVE PASSED.

Hence why Reid lost his Senate majority.

Almost anything that has passed the House that became law required a Democratic majority of yes votes.

Boehner threw multiple red meat bills through the House to try to appease the crazies, none of them worked, he still ended up retiring. It's stupid easy to pass legislation through the House when you have a 240 seat majority, it's actually getting past the other two branches that becomes difficult.

the republican majority was 240 seats idiot? dont you mean they had a majority, and they had 240 members?

didnt you just say legislation HAD to have a "huge majority of dems voting yes"??????????????????????????????????????????

now you say it's "stupid easy" to pass legislation through the House; while out of the other side of your mouth saying they were "red meat bills..........to appease the crazies"????

so Dems voted for "red meat bills" that "appeased the crazies" in the Republican Party???

and isnt it idiotic and redundant (or moot) to say bills that became law required a majority of democrat votes when it was already mentioned that Reid blocked votes on the ones that DIDNT become law?

then it is still relevant to say it not only took Democrat votes, they had to be ALLOWED to be voted on in the Senate dimiwt. HENCE you havent rebutted any part of the notion that Reid BLOCKED THEM BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE PASSED.

WOW such moronic double-speak

 

[bedowin62]

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[bedowin62]

The Dems are almost a lock for a four or five seat majority in the Senate.

really???

can i have the whole list of awesome democrats poised to give democrats a four or five seat majority in the Senate?

please??

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First, Webster's called they are concerned about your overuse of the word 'fallacy'.

The fact is Democrats have lost 1,200 seats nationally during Obama's presidency, those are stunning losses. You have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a smaller Democratic party minority in congress. His one big achievement Obamacare is so unpopular his own party forced him to go on national TV and take the blame for it. Romney won the majority of independents in 2012. I'd call that a near complete rejection of the Democrats and their stupid ideas.

I'd advise Democrats to stop lying that's doing most of the damage but I know it would fall on deaf ears.

A fallacy is a fallacy. The president has won many victories over his enemies, not the least being the two smashing presidential elections. The dems are not afraid of a GOP that is afraid to change.

And Hispanics will not vote GOP as long as the nativists remain outspoken in their hatred.

Okay, so DumBama won twice, but the Democrats lost in other elections. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the American public likes DumBama on a personal note, but doesn't like his or the liberal policies.

Here in Ohio DumBama won twice as well, but last night, the marijuana legalization lost by almost a 2 to 1 margin.

There is no Obama for next election; nobody even close.

The Marijuana measure in Ohio was a terrible bill. There were a plethora of legalization advocates against it because it would've given a monopoly to 10 wealthy growers.

It played a part--yes. The only reason it played a part is because of the confusion. When people are confused about an issue here in Ohio, they usually vote against it.

However, a near 2 to 1 margin is another story. Had the issue lost by 10% or so, you may have a point.

No, it was a huge turn off. It was almost a monopoly give-a-away to people who were already wealthy. It definitely was not popular with most people in Ohio, I don't think confusion is the right word.

Well let me put it this way:

Non marijuana users could probably care less about any monopoly. Drug users could care less about any monopoly as long as they could legally buy pot.

So who experienced this huge turn-off that you're talking about?

 

[WelfareQueen]

We will find out next year, WQ.

As the article states Jake...we already know. Obama has killed the Democrat Party Nationally. The losses have been stunning under his Presidency. That cannot be argued.

We will find out next year, WQ.

As the article states Jake...we already know. Obama has killed the Democrat Party Nationally. The losses have been stunning under his Presidency. That cannot be argued.

That is the article's opinion, and it is flat wrong. If the GOP does not clean up its fiasco of an election season with its front runners, HRC will take the Presidency, very easily.

The Dems are almost a lock for a four or five seat majority in the Senate.

The GOP will keep a solid hold on the House.

You have to live in reality not your heart's desire, WQ.

Jake.....unlike you, I'm not gazing into a crystal ball and making predictions. Just the facts..okay? Since Obama became President in 2008 this is what has occurred.

"Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy."

 

[JakeStarkey]

We will find out next year, WQ.

As the article states Jake...we already know. Obama has killed the Democrat Party Nationally. The losses have been stunning under his Presidency. That cannot be argued.

We will find out next year, WQ.

As the article states Jake...we already know. Obama has killed the Democrat Party Nationally. The losses have been stunning under his Presidency. That cannot be argued.

That is the article's opinion, and it is flat wrong. If the GOP does not clean up its fiasco of an election season with its front runners, HRC will take the Presidency, very easily.

The Dems are almost a lock for a four or five seat majority in the Senate.

The GOP will keep a solid hold on the House.

You have to live in reality not your heart's desire, WQ.

Jake.....unlike you, I'm not gazing into a crystal ball and making predictions. Just the facts..okay? Since Obama became President in 2008 this is what has occurred.

"Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy."

One side figures and not the whole truth. But if it turns out your way, then you got it right. But you have not at all.

 

[Nyvin]

A fallacy is a fallacy. The president has won many victories over his enemies, not the least being the two smashing presidential elections. The dems are not afraid of a GOP that is afraid to change.

And Hispanics will not vote GOP as long as the nativists remain outspoken in their hatred.

Okay, so DumBama won twice, but the Democrats lost in other elections. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the American public likes DumBama on a personal note, but doesn't like his or the liberal policies.

Here in Ohio DumBama won twice as well, but last night, the marijuana legalization lost by almost a 2 to 1 margin.

There is no Obama for next election; nobody even close.

The Marijuana measure in Ohio was a terrible bill. There were a plethora of legalization advocates against it because it would've given a monopoly to 10 wealthy growers.

It played a part--yes. The only reason it played a part is because of the confusion. When people are confused about an issue here in Ohio, they usually vote against it.

However, a near 2 to 1 margin is another story. Had the issue lost by 10% or so, you may have a point.

No, it was a huge turn off. It was almost a monopoly give-a-away to people who were already wealthy. It definitely was not popular with most people in Ohio, I don't think confusion is the right word.

Well let me put it this way:

Non marijuana users could probably care less about any monopoly. Drug users could care less about any monopoly as long as they could legally buy pot.

So who experienced this huge turn-off that you're talking about?

They buy pot now anyway, of course they care about a monopoly. If you want to research the issue a bit you'd see the ballot measure was backed specifically by the interests groups who would've been part of the 10 legal growers in the state. The Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project declined to support the ballot initiative.

There were multiple polls showing Ohio supports legalization, just not that corporate giveaway that issue 3 was. The Kent State poll shows 56% supporting legalization in Ohio. The ballot measure was horrible policy and not the correct way to implement legalization. Support for legalization nationwide is something 60% nowadays, with most of the opposition made up of old seniors. It's just a matter of time before it's fully legalized everywhere.

 

[WelfareQueen]

We will find out next year, WQ.

As the article states Jake...we already know. Obama has killed the Democrat Party Nationally. The losses have been stunning under his Presidency. That cannot be argued.

We will find out next year, WQ.

As the article states Jake...we already know. Obama has killed the Democrat Party Nationally. The losses have been stunning under his Presidency. That cannot be argued.

That is the article's opinion, and it is flat wrong. If the GOP does not clean up its fiasco of an election season with its front runners, HRC will take the Presidency, very easily.

The Dems are almost a lock for a four or five seat majority in the Senate.

The GOP will keep a solid hold on the House.

You have to live in reality not your heart's desire, WQ.

Jake.....unlike you, I'm not gazing into a crystal ball and making predictions. Just the facts..okay? Since Obama became President in 2008 this is what has occurred.


"Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy."

One side figures and not the whole truth. But if it turns out your way, then you got it right. But you have not at all.

Jake....I'll repeat.....these are facts. Period. If you have any facts that contradict those in the article please put them forward......otherwise......meh.