Midterm results don't really bother me much

[gtopa1]

It was pretty much in keeping with history. No Liberals were voted out, only Republican-Lite in states that Obama didn't win, anyway, except for CO.

NC
AR
LA
KY
GA
AK

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

OTOH, Jeane Shaheen embraced Obama and his policies and won.

So it's not a repudiation of Obama in any way. It's a repudiation of Democrats trying to distance themselves from all the success of the Obama terms, in an effort to endear themselves to wingnuts, while alienating their base.

There is a lot of reasons to look at it that way. Republican gubenatorial pick-ups have me more concerned than Senatorial losses short-term. Long term, Obama not being able to appoint whom he wants to replace old justices on the high court are major losses in my view however.

You may think so, but if the Candidate is good then I doubt that there will be a problem...in 2016.

Greg

 

[TooTall]

It was pretty much in keeping with history. No Liberals were voted out, only Republican-Lite in states that Obama didn't win, anyway, except for CO.

NC
AR
LA
KY
GA
AK

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

OTOH, Jeane Shaheen embraced Obama and his policies and won.

So it's not a repudiation of Obama in any way. It's a repudiation of Democrats trying to distance themselves from all the success of the Obama terms, in an effort to endear themselves to wingnuts, while alienating their base.

There is a lot of reasons to look at it that way. Republican gubenatorial pick-ups have me more concerned than Senatorial losses short-term. Long term, Obama not being able to appoint whom he wants to replace old justices on the high court are major losses in my view however.

If you meant the Supreme Court appointments by 'high court', not to worry. The 51 vote nuclear option exempts Supreme Court nominations and still requires 60 votes to break the filibuster.

 

[gtopa1]

It was pretty much in keeping with history. No Liberals were voted out, only Republican-Lite in states that Obama didn't win, anyway, except for CO.

NC
AR
LA
KY
GA
AK

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

OTOH, Jeane Shaheen embraced Obama and his policies and won.

So it's not a repudiation of Obama in any way. It's a repudiation of Democrats trying to distance themselves from all the success of the Obama terms, in an effort to endear themselves to wingnuts, while alienating their base.

There is a lot of reasons to look at it that way. Republican gubenatorial pick-ups have me more concerned than Senatorial losses short-term. Long term, Obama not being able to appoint whom he wants to replace old justices on the high court are major losses in my view however.

If you meant the Supreme Court appointments by 'high court', not to worry. The 51 vote nuclear option exempts Supreme Court nominations and still requires 60 votes to break the filibuster.

I wonder if the Pubbies will do a Reid and just change the rules??

Greg

 

[candycorn]

It was pretty much in keeping with history. No Liberals were voted out, only Republican-Lite in states that Obama didn't win, anyway, except for CO.

NC
AR
LA
KY
GA
AK

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

OTOH, Jeane Shaheen embraced Obama and his policies and won.

So it's not a repudiation of Obama in any way. It's a repudiation of Democrats trying to distance themselves from all the success of the Obama terms, in an effort to endear themselves to wingnuts, while alienating their base.

There is a lot of reasons to look at it that way. Republican gubenatorial pick-ups have me more concerned than Senatorial losses short-term. Long term, Obama not being able to appoint whom he wants to replace old justices on the high court are major losses in my view however.

If you meant the Supreme Court appointments by 'high court', not to worry. The 51 vote nuclear option exempts Supreme Court nominations and still requires 60 votes to break the filibuster.

The DEMS don't have 51 votes any longer so it does worry me.

 

[candycorn]

It was pretty much in keeping with history. No Liberals were voted out, only Republican-Lite in states that Obama didn't win, anyway, except for CO.

NC
AR
LA
KY
GA
AK

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

OTOH, Jeane Shaheen embraced Obama and his policies and won.

So it's not a repudiation of Obama in any way. It's a repudiation of Democrats trying to distance themselves from all the success of the Obama terms, in an effort to endear themselves to wingnuts, while alienating their base.

There is a lot of reasons to look at it that way. Republican gubenatorial pick-ups have me more concerned than Senatorial losses short-term. Long term, Obama not being able to appoint whom he wants to replace old justices on the high court are major losses in my view however.

If you meant the Supreme Court appointments by 'high court', not to worry. The 51 vote nuclear option exempts Supreme Court nominations and still requires 60 votes to break the filibuster.

I wonder if the Pubbies will do a Reid and just change the rules??

Greg

They should. If I were them, I would.

 

[TooTall]

It was pretty much in keeping with history. No Liberals were voted out, only Republican-Lite in states that Obama didn't win, anyway, except for CO.

NC
AR
LA
KY
GA
AK

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

OTOH, Jeane Shaheen embraced Obama and his policies and won.

So it's not a repudiation of Obama in any way. It's a repudiation of Democrats trying to distance themselves from all the success of the Obama terms, in an effort to endear themselves to wingnuts, while alienating their base.

There is a lot of reasons to look at it that way. Republican gubenatorial pick-ups have me more concerned than Senatorial losses short-term. Long term, Obama not being able to appoint whom he wants to replace old justices on the high court are major losses in my view however.

If you meant the Supreme Court appointments by 'high court', not to worry. The 51 vote nuclear option exempts Supreme Court nominations and still requires 60 votes to break the filibuster.

The DEMS don't have 51 votes any longer so it does worry me.

There have only been three Supreme Court nominees rejected since LBJ was President and all three were voted down by Democrat majorities.

 

[candycorn]

It was pretty much in keeping with history. No Liberals were voted out, only Republican-Lite in states that Obama didn't win, anyway, except for CO.

NC
AR
LA
KY
GA
AK

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

OTOH, Jeane Shaheen embraced Obama and his policies and won.

So it's not a repudiation of Obama in any way. It's a repudiation of Democrats trying to distance themselves from all the success of the Obama terms, in an effort to endear themselves to wingnuts, while alienating their base.

There is a lot of reasons to look at it that way. Republican gubenatorial pick-ups have me more concerned than Senatorial losses short-term. Long term, Obama not being able to appoint whom he wants to replace old justices on the high court are major losses in my view however.

If you meant the Supreme Court appointments by 'high court', not to worry. The 51 vote nuclear option exempts Supreme Court nominations and still requires 60 votes to break the filibuster.

The DEMS don't have 51 votes any longer so it does worry me.

There have only been three Supreme Court nominees rejected since LBJ was President and all three were voted down by Democrat majorities.

No comfort in that factoid.

 

[Stephanie]

If Obama's policies were successful, they would've won. It's great seeing liberals going out of their minds. Lol

Its hilarious I have been laughing it up since Tuesday.

so have I. and threads started like this one is just icing on the cake

I'm not bothered oh no no no I'm not, really

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It was pretty much in keeping with history. No Liberals were voted out, only Republican-Lite in states that Obama didn't win, anyway, except for CO.

NC
AR
LA
KY
GA
AK

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

OTOH, Jeane Shaheen embraced Obama and his policies and won.

So it's not a repudiation of Obama in any way. It's a repudiation of Democrats trying to distance themselves from all the success of the Obama terms, in an effort to endear themselves to wingnuts, while alienating their base.

One race in an uber liberal state and that means the election wasn't a repudiation of Obozo. LOL.

"I'm for some of his policies and I'm against some of his policies." - Jeane Shaheen

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Actually Mary Landrieu came out first in her election, but under the Louisiana system will go into a runoff.

Historically accurate though -- as long as there have been these two parties, whichever one holds the White House almost always loses ground in the mid-terms. There have been three exceptions since the Civil War. What would have been news would be if that did not happen. It's well-established pattern.

The Senate rarely changes leadership. Obama's policies were behind these losses. Consider getting a yellow lab puppy.

 

[Mac1958]

It was pretty much in keeping with history. No Liberals were voted out, only Republican-Lite in states that Obama didn't win, anyway, except for CO.

NC
AR
LA
KY
GA
AK

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

OTOH, Jeane Shaheen embraced Obama and his policies and won.

So it's not a repudiation of Obama in any way. It's a repudiation of Democrats trying to distance themselves from all the success of the Obama terms, in an effort to endear themselves to wingnuts, while alienating their base.

There is a lot of reasons to look at it that way. Republican gubenatorial pick-ups have me more concerned than Senatorial losses short-term. Long term, Obama not being able to appoint whom he wants to replace old justices on the high court are major losses in my view however.

If you meant the Supreme Court appointments by 'high court', not to worry. The 51 vote nuclear option exempts Supreme Court nominations and still requires 60 votes to break the filibuster.

I wonder if the Pubbies will do a Reid and just change the rules??

Greg

Yup. This is what happens when you tinker with rules for political expediency.

The other guys may have a chance to do the same thing.

I'm told politicians are intelligent. Hmm.

.

 

[Wildman]

Midterm results don't really bother me much

....... ....... ....... ....... ha ha ha !!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Here's another excuse for losing the mid-term:

The President was locked up in the White House and was unable to get out to defend his policies.

 

[jknowgood]

Face it subversives ....

Ok, it's fine for you to put your little picture up, but I'll bet you cry like a spoiled kid when I call you a teabagger don't you.

Do you cry when I call you subversive pond scum? How old are you child, to think words would make any adult cry?

I'm actually quite used to crap like that and much worse coming from teabaggers continuously. I just think it is time that you received a little of that back. Obviously, the right isn't nearly as used to receiving the same, as evidenced by all the whining. If you can't take it, then don't do it.

 

[Truman123]

Face it subversives ....

Ok, it's fine for you to put your little picture up, but I'll bet you cry like a spoiled kid when I call you a teabagger don't you.

Do you cry when I call you subversive pond scum? How old are you child, to think words would make any adult cry?

I'm actually quite used to crap like that and much worse coming from teabaggers continuously. I just think it is time that you received a little of that back. Obviously, the right isn't nearly as used to receiving the same, as evidenced by all the whining. If you can't take it, then don't do it.

View attachment 33957

That rarely happens with me. Usually they deny facts.

There are some smart Republicans, even on this forum, who defy the rule.

As per writers and/or politicians, a couple of them come to mind. I rarely agree with, but do enjoy reading, both George F. Will and Pat Buchanan.


Most Republicans, especially those that post here or anywhere, lack a rudimentary understanding of even their native language.

 

[jknowgood]

What are you 5 years old and getting picked on by a school bully! How stupid can you be thinking names mean anything to me BUT I do know that you pond scum subversives don't like being made out to be the Communists, Socialists, Marxists, and demented fools that ALL of you are. So please continue calling us teabaggers, and we will continue calling you pond scum, subversives!

It' not a matter of being picked on. The right's behavior has been the same for years, and I don't expect it to stop any time soon. I just decided to join in. It's just shocking to you because you rarely see it coming from the other direction.

You pond scum are LOSERS and we won't let you forget it, so live with that thought, child!

What ever you say teabagger.

I acknowledge your surrender, subversive!

Claim victory and run and hope nobody noticed that your claim of Mexican shoot on sight policy just isn't true. Typical teabagger.

You keep saying we are teabaggers, we how did it feel to get teabagged last Tuesday? I'm sure you enjoyed it, you surely talk about it enough.

 

[deltex1]

It was pretty much in keeping with history. No Liberals were voted out, only Republican-Lite in states that Obama didn't win, anyway, except for CO.

NC
AR
LA
KY
GA
AK

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

OTOH, Jeane Shaheen embraced Obama and his policies and won.

So it's not a repudiation of Obama in any way. It's a repudiation of Democrats trying to distance themselves from all the success of the Obama terms, in an effort to endear themselves to wingnuts, while alienating their base.

How could you be bothered by this election when you were confused enough to vote for Obabble back in 08?

 

[jon_berzerk]

It was pretty much in keeping with history. No Liberals were voted out, only Republican-Lite in states that Obama didn't win, anyway, except for CO.

NC
AR
LA
KY
GA
AK

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

OTOH, Jeane Shaheen embraced Obama and his policies and won.

So it's not a repudiation of Obama in any way. It's a repudiation of Democrats trying to distance themselves from all the success of the Obama terms, in an effort to endear themselves to wingnuts, while alienating their base.

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

I agree, every Dem should run in 2016 on how they fully supported Obama.

i hope so

--LOL

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It was pretty much in keeping with history. No Liberals were voted out, only Republican-Lite in states that Obama didn't win, anyway, except for CO.

NC
AR
LA
KY
GA
AK

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

OTOH, Jeane Shaheen embraced Obama and his policies and won.

So it's not a repudiation of Obama in any way. It's a repudiation of Democrats trying to distance themselves from all the success of the Obama terms, in an effort to endear themselves to wingnuts, while alienating their base.

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

I agree, every Dem should run in 2016 on how they fully supported Obama.

i hope so

--LOL

Liberals are pissed that a lot of Americans have rejected their gift of obama and his failed policies. America wants obama like a hooker wants the clap.

 

[Truman123]

It was pretty much in keeping with history. No Liberals were voted out, only Republican-Lite in states that Obama didn't win, anyway, except for CO.

NC
AR
LA
KY
GA
AK

All of these Senators/Candidates were Blue Dog Democrats who ran from Obama and his policies, which is why they lost.

OTOH, Jeane Shaheen embraced Obama and his policies and won.

So it's not a repudiation of Obama in any way. It's a repudiation of Democrats trying to distance themselves from all the success of the Obama terms, in an effort to endear themselves to wingnuts, while alienating their base.

How could you be bothered by this election when you were confused enough to vote for Obabble back in 08?

Do you realize that when you change the name of a politician whose policies you disagree with you come off looking childish?

I'm genuinely curious as to what you think about doing it.

Are we all supposed to be amazed at your little name change and laugh in wonderment at your humor?

You sound like a 12 year old making fun of a teacher.