Ponnuru: "Republicans Should Start Worrying About Losing The House"

[chikenwing]

More hysterics,so your voting for Trump?

Huh?

you have posted hysterics,and are you voting for Trump,a simple question.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

More hysterics,so your voting for Trump?

Huh?

you have posted hysterics,and are you voting for Trump,a simple question.

I posted the opinion of Ramesh Ponnuru, a man known for his movies excoriating Obama, Hillary and Democratic politics. Hardly hysterics, unless of course you are a progressive. I will not vote for Trump, I fail to see anything that qualifies him for the office of president.

 

[Contumacious]

Here it comes. When one of the more respected Republican talking heads delivers this kind of message before there has even been a convention, you know there's trouble ahead. Donald Trump is single handedly turning this country blue.

Republicans need to start worrying about losing their majority in the House of Representatives.

Republicans accept the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, and they know that her election would probably end their majority in the Senate. But in a year that has upended political expectations, they have clung to one comforting assumption: Their hold on the House is secure.

Their majority is protected by gerrymandering, the geographic distribution of Republican voters, the power of incumbency and its own sheer size. Republicans have 247 seats in the House, the most since 1931. Democrats would have to win 30 to take back the chamber. And that includes many seats in districts that usually go Republican in presidential contests. That sets the House apart from the Senate, where to keep their majority Republicans will have to hold seats in states that usually vote for Democratic presidential candidates.
But Clinton’s lead in the polls is widening to the point that Republicans need to set aside their complacency. Split-ticket voting has declined over the last generation. If Clinton wins big — because Republican voters stay home, or swing voters choose her party, or both — House Republicans will struggle to win re-election. Henry Olsen, the co-author of a recent book about the Republican party, tells me that an eight-point win would put Republicans in the danger zone.
More at the link: Republicans Should Worry About Losing the House

Contumacious : "Americans Should Start Worrying About Losing The Country

Tyranny and misery are NOT fun: ask the Cubans, Venezuelans, Somalians and the people from any socialist "paradise"

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Here it comes. When one of the more respected Republican talking heads delivers this kind of message before there has even been a convention, you know there's trouble ahead. Donald Trump is single handedly turning this country blue.

Republicans need to start worrying about losing their majority in the House of Representatives.

Republicans accept the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, and they know that her election would probably end their majority in the Senate. But in a year that has upended political expectations, they have clung to one comforting assumption: Their hold on the House is secure.

Their majority is protected by gerrymandering, the geographic distribution of Republican voters, the power of incumbency and its own sheer size. Republicans have 247 seats in the House, the most since 1931. Democrats would have to win 30 to take back the chamber. And that includes many seats in districts that usually go Republican in presidential contests. That sets the House apart from the Senate, where to keep their majority Republicans will have to hold seats in states that usually vote for Democratic presidential candidates.
But Clinton’s lead in the polls is widening to the point that Republicans need to set aside their complacency. Split-ticket voting has declined over the last generation. If Clinton wins big — because Republican voters stay home, or swing voters choose her party, or both — House Republicans will struggle to win re-election. Henry Olsen, the co-author of a recent book about the Republican party, tells me that an eight-point win would put Republicans in the danger zone.
More at the link: Republicans Should Worry About Losing the House

Contumacious : "Americans Should Start Worrying About Losing The Country

Tyranny and misery are NOT fun: ask the Cubans, Venezuelans, Somalians and the people from any socialist "paradise"

Name one country on earth that has a conservative economic policy and a thriving middle class. Should be easy no?

 

[Bush92]

Here it comes. When one of the more respected Republican talking heads delivers this kind of message before there has even been a convention, you know there's trouble ahead. Donald Trump is single handedly turning this country blue.

Republicans need to start worrying about losing their majority in the House of Representatives.

Republicans accept the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, and they know that her election would probably end their majority in the Senate. But in a year that has upended political expectations, they have clung to one comforting assumption: Their hold on the House is secure.

Their majority is protected by gerrymandering, the geographic distribution of Republican voters, the power of incumbency and its own sheer size. Republicans have 247 seats in the House, the most since 1931. Democrats would have to win 30 to take back the chamber. And that includes many seats in districts that usually go Republican in presidential contests. That sets the House apart from the Senate, where to keep their majority Republicans will have to hold seats in states that usually vote for Democratic presidential candidates.
But Clinton’s lead in the polls is widening to the point that Republicans need to set aside their complacency. Split-ticket voting has declined over the last generation. If Clinton wins big — because Republican voters stay home, or swing voters choose her party, or both — House Republicans will struggle to win re-election. Henry Olsen, the co-author of a recent book about the Republican party, tells me that an eight-point win would put Republicans in the danger zone.
More at the link: Republicans Should Worry About Losing the House

Winning the House is a lot harder to win than winning the Senate or White House. People like me do not vote straight ticket and you should do the research on how many people vote straight ticket in today time and realize swing voters and independent voters like me will vote for the candidate they feel is best for the job no matter Democratic, Republican or third party\independent.

The Senate will fall if Clinton win but the House will stay GOP with a slight majority lead...

Which is why the article concluded that if Republican voters decide to sit it out or swing voters decide she is the lesser of two evils, Republicans could have a problem, especially if 8 points is all that is making the impossible, possible.

GOP voters will not sit out. The thought of a Hillary presidency is more than they can bare.

Some will. I know one who is going to vote for Hillary.

So you want a liberal Supreme Court? Your not a Republican at all, just a closeted Democrat.

 

[Contumacious]

Here it comes. When one of the more respected Republican talking heads delivers this kind of message before there has even been a convention, you know there's trouble ahead. Donald Trump is single handedly turning this country blue.

Republicans need to start worrying about losing their majority in the House of Representatives.

Republicans accept the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, and they know that her election would probably end their majority in the Senate. But in a year that has upended political expectations, they have clung to one comforting assumption: Their hold on the House is secure.

Their majority is protected by gerrymandering, the geographic distribution of Republican voters, the power of incumbency and its own sheer size. Republicans have 247 seats in the House, the most since 1931. Democrats would have to win 30 to take back the chamber. And that includes many seats in districts that usually go Republican in presidential contests. That sets the House apart from the Senate, where to keep their majority Republicans will have to hold seats in states that usually vote for Democratic presidential candidates.
But Clinton’s lead in the polls is widening to the point that Republicans need to set aside their complacency. Split-ticket voting has declined over the last generation. If Clinton wins big — because Republican voters stay home, or swing voters choose her party, or both — House Republicans will struggle to win re-election. Henry Olsen, the co-author of a recent book about the Republican party, tells me that an eight-point win would put Republicans in the danger zone.
More at the link: Republicans Should Worry About Losing the House

Contumacious : "Americans Should Start Worrying About Losing The Country

Tyranny and misery are NOT fun: ask the Cubans, Venezuelans, Somalians and the people from any socialist "paradise"

Name one country on earth that has a conservative economic policy and a thriving middle class. Should be easy no?

There is no such thing as a "conservative economic policy" - every country on the face of earth has adopted a FASCISTIC economic policy , ALL of them have a central bank



A Common Central Bank Tool: Fearmongering
By Tho Bishop

Mises.org


Today the [URL='http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2016/006.aspx']Bank of England announced that it would follow the lead of the Federal Reserve and maintain interest rates at .5%. The bank didn’t stop there, however, warning voters that next week’s Brexit referendum posed “the largest immediate risk facing UK financial markets, and possibly also global financial markets. “ Considering the growing public support for the UK’s separation from the EU, the statement can be seen as a last ditch effort by the BoE to push back against the effort and the move has been strongly criticized by British politicians skeptical of the EU.


[/URL]

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Here it comes. When one of the more respected Republican talking heads delivers this kind of message before there has even been a convention, you know there's trouble ahead. Donald Trump is single handedly turning this country blue.

Republicans need to start worrying about losing their majority in the House of Representatives.

Republicans accept the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, and they know that her election would probably end their majority in the Senate. But in a year that has upended political expectations, they have clung to one comforting assumption: Their hold on the House is secure.

Their majority is protected by gerrymandering, the geographic distribution of Republican voters, the power of incumbency and its own sheer size. Republicans have 247 seats in the House, the most since 1931. Democrats would have to win 30 to take back the chamber. And that includes many seats in districts that usually go Republican in presidential contests. That sets the House apart from the Senate, where to keep their majority Republicans will have to hold seats in states that usually vote for Democratic presidential candidates.
But Clinton’s lead in the polls is widening to the point that Republicans need to set aside their complacency. Split-ticket voting has declined over the last generation. If Clinton wins big — because Republican voters stay home, or swing voters choose her party, or both — House Republicans will struggle to win re-election. Henry Olsen, the co-author of a recent book about the Republican party, tells me that an eight-point win would put Republicans in the danger zone.
More at the link: Republicans Should Worry About Losing the House

Contumacious : "Americans Should Start Worrying About Losing The Country

Tyranny and misery are NOT fun: ask the Cubans, Venezuelans, Somalians and the people from any socialist "paradise"

Name one country on earth that has a conservative economic policy and a thriving middle class. Should be easy no?

There is no such thing as a "conservative economic policy" - every country on the face of earth has adopted a FASCISTIC economic policy , ALL of them have a central bank



A Common Central Bank Tool: Fearmongering
By Tho Bishop

Mises.org


Today the Bank of England announced that it would follow the lead of the Federal Reserve and maintain interest rates at .5%. The bank didn’t stop there, however, warning voters that next week’s Brexit referendum posed “the largest immediate risk facing UK financial markets, and possibly also global financial markets. “ Considering the growing public support for the UK’s separation from the EU, the statement can be seen as a last ditch effort by the BoE to push back against the effort and the move has been strongly criticized by British politicians skeptical of the EU.

Exactly and why you will never see a thriving middle class when conservatives rule. Republicans remain wrong in their regard to economics as they remain wrong in their regard to social policies.

 

[Contumacious]

Here it comes. When one of the more respected Republican talking heads delivers this kind of message before there has even been a convention, you know there's trouble ahead. Donald Trump is single handedly turning this country blue.

Republicans need to start worrying about losing their majority in the House of Representatives.

Republicans accept the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, and they know that her election would probably end their majority in the Senate. But in a year that has upended political expectations, they have clung to one comforting assumption: Their hold on the House is secure.

Their majority is protected by gerrymandering, the geographic distribution of Republican voters, the power of incumbency and its own sheer size. Republicans have 247 seats in the House, the most since 1931. Democrats would have to win 30 to take back the chamber. And that includes many seats in districts that usually go Republican in presidential contests. That sets the House apart from the Senate, where to keep their majority Republicans will have to hold seats in states that usually vote for Democratic presidential candidates.
But Clinton’s lead in the polls is widening to the point that Republicans need to set aside their complacency. Split-ticket voting has declined over the last generation. If Clinton wins big — because Republican voters stay home, or swing voters choose her party, or both — House Republicans will struggle to win re-election. Henry Olsen, the co-author of a recent book about the Republican party, tells me that an eight-point win would put Republicans in the danger zone.
More at the link: Republicans Should Worry About Losing the House

Contumacious : "Americans Should Start Worrying About Losing The Country

Tyranny and misery are NOT fun: ask the Cubans, Venezuelans, Somalians and the people from any socialist "paradise"

Name one country on earth that has a conservative economic policy and a thriving middle class. Should be easy no?

There is no such thing as a "conservative economic policy" - every country on the face of earth has adopted a FASCISTIC economic policy , ALL of them have a central bank



A Common Central Bank Tool: Fearmongering
By Tho Bishop

Mises.org


Today the Bank of England announced that it would follow the lead of the Federal Reserve and maintain interest rates at .5%. The bank didn’t stop there, however, warning voters that next week’s Brexit referendum posed “the largest immediate risk facing UK financial markets, and possibly also global financial markets. “ Considering the growing public support for the UK’s separation from the EU, the statement can be seen as a last ditch effort by the BoE to push back against the effort and the move has been strongly criticized by British politicians skeptical of the EU.

Exactly and why you will never see a thriving middle class when conservatives rule. Republicans remain wrong in their regard to economics as they remain wrong in their regard to social policies.

Oye Juan

Hablame de Venezuela

Donde esta la prospera clase media?


.

 

[bodecea]

I would like to see the democrats take over completely like they did between 2008 and 2010. We had literally no job creation back then. It may actually take several times until the public stops listening to these people but it will happen. I'm sorry to say this but the communist party in this country is really determined to run the country into the ground. It is only then that the people will begin to see how flawed democratic economic policies are.

Literally no job creation?

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Here it comes. When one of the more respected Republican talking heads delivers this kind of message before there has even been a convention, you know there's trouble ahead. Donald Trump is single handedly turning this country blue.

Contumacious : "Americans Should Start Worrying About Losing The Country

Tyranny and misery are NOT fun: ask the Cubans, Venezuelans, Somalians and the people from any socialist "paradise"

Name one country on earth that has a conservative economic policy and a thriving middle class. Should be easy no?

There is no such thing as a "conservative economic policy" - every country on the face of earth has adopted a FASCISTIC economic policy , ALL of them have a central bank



A Common Central Bank Tool: Fearmongering
By Tho Bishop

Mises.org


Today the Bank of England announced that it would follow the lead of the Federal Reserve and maintain interest rates at .5%. The bank didn’t stop there, however, warning voters that next week’s Brexit referendum posed “the largest immediate risk facing UK financial markets, and possibly also global financial markets. “ Considering the growing public support for the UK’s separation from the EU, the statement can be seen as a last ditch effort by the BoE to push back against the effort and the move has been strongly criticized by British politicians skeptical of the EU.

Exactly and why you will never see a thriving middle class when conservatives rule. Republicans remain wrong in their regard to economics as they remain wrong in their regard to social policies.

Oye Juan

Hablame de Venezuela

Donde esta la prospera clase media?


.

LOL, almost thirty years since communism failed in Eastern Europe and what has capitalism replace it with? You've got nothing on Venezuela.

 

[ScienceRocks]

social democracy isn't communism! Do you think britiain, germany and South Korea are communist?

Government investment and regulations is far preferable to not having it. I pray the republicans lose the house later this year so we can pass a goddamn budget.

 

[Contumacious]

Contumacious : "Americans Should Start Worrying About Losing The Country

Tyranny and misery are NOT fun: ask the Cubans, Venezuelans, Somalians and the people from any socialist "paradise"

Name one country on earth that has a conservative economic policy and a thriving middle class. Should be easy no?

There is no such thing as a "conservative economic policy" - every country on the face of earth has adopted a FASCISTIC economic policy , ALL of them have a central bank



A Common Central Bank Tool: Fearmongering
By Tho Bishop

Mises.org


Today the Bank of England announced that it would follow the lead of the Federal Reserve and maintain interest rates at .5%. The bank didn’t stop there, however, warning voters that next week’s Brexit referendum posed “the largest immediate risk facing UK financial markets, and possibly also global financial markets. “ Considering the growing public support for the UK’s separation from the EU, the statement can be seen as a last ditch effort by the BoE to push back against the effort and the move has been strongly criticized by British politicians skeptical of the EU.

Exactly and why you will never see a thriving middle class when conservatives rule. Republicans remain wrong in their regard to economics as they remain wrong in their regard to social policies.

Oye Juan

Hablame de Venezuela

Donde esta la prospera clase media?


.

LOL, almost thirty years since communism failed in Eastern Europe and what has capitalism replace it with? You've got nothing on Venezuela.

No te hagas el pendejo

El Capitalismo no tiene que ver con nada - el chavismo si.

Sabes que la hija de Chavez es BILLONARIA !!!!!!!!!!


.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Chavez is dead, I can only guess where you're trying to go with this.

 

[Contumacious]

Chavez is dead, I can only guess where you're trying to go with this.

The Venezuela Crisis


If you consider the most meaningful measure of a country’s economic output — GDP per capita over time — you’ll see that the fat years under Chávez did not actually happen. In fact, if you chart that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP per capita by year, you’ll see that Venezuela is significantly poorer today than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s. In fact, Venezuela’s per capita GDP reached its all-time low in 2003, under Chávez. This is no surprise: Making well-off countries poor and poor countries starving is what socialists do.

 

[bodecea]

Here it comes. When one of the more respected Republican talking heads delivers this kind of message before there has even been a convention, you know there's trouble ahead. Donald Trump is single handedly turning this country blue.

Winning the House is a lot harder to win than winning the Senate or White House. People like me do not vote straight ticket and you should do the research on how many people vote straight ticket in today time and realize swing voters and independent voters like me will vote for the candidate they feel is best for the job no matter Democratic, Republican or third party\independent.

The Senate will fall if Clinton win but the House will stay GOP with a slight majority lead...

Which is why the article concluded that if Republican voters decide to sit it out or swing voters decide she is the lesser of two evils, Republicans could have a problem, especially if 8 points is all that is making the impossible, possible.

GOP voters will not sit out. The thought of a Hillary presidency is more than they can bare.

Some will. I know one who is going to vote for Hillary.

So you want a liberal Supreme Court? Your not a Republican at all, just a closeted Democrat.

I certainly do.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Tell me how exactly can a dictatorship that hates the private sector, personal property and doesn't allow for the vote of the people to matter is related to social democracy? Social democracy is the opposite of all these things.

I could list a shit ton of things that would be worse or down-right ugly if we didn't have any regulations, public funding or laws in our society. For you to argue against such because some thug in south America uses something that is very much opposite shows one to be uneducated.

The problem with liberterianism is you make shit up to justify doing away with common sense regulations and investment into society by not understanding your ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[Contumacious]

Tell me how exactly can a dictatorship that hates the private sector, personal property and doesn't allow for the vote of the people to matter is related to social democracy? Social democracy is the opposite of all these things.

I could list a shit ton of things that would be worse or down-right ugly if we didn't have any regulations, public funding or laws in our society. For you to argue against such because some thug in south America uses something that is very much opposite shows one to be uneducated.

The problem with liberterianism is you make shit up to justify doing away with common sense regulations and investment into society by not understanding your ass from a hole in the ground.

Excuse the fuck out of me.

I don't oppose common sense regulations.

I support all the regulations imposed by the invisible hand of the market place.


.

 

[Anathema]

I certainly do.

Of course you do. A Conservative SCOTUS might actually force you to be a woman

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Tell me how exactly can a dictatorship that hates the private sector, personal property and doesn't allow for the vote of the people to matter is related to social democracy? Social democracy is the opposite of all these things.

I could list a shit ton of things that would be worse or down-right ugly if we didn't have any regulations, public funding or laws in our society. For you to argue against such because some thug in south America uses something that is very much opposite shows one to be uneducated.

The problem with liberterianism is you make shit up to justify doing away with common sense regulations and investment into society by not understanding your ass from a hole in the ground.

Excuse the fuck out of me.

I don't oppose common sense regulations.

I support all the regulations imposed by the invisible hand of the market place.


.

Too bad the invisible hand of the market place doesn't have the common sense to blow itself up before it collapses markets.

 

[Contumacious]

Tell me how exactly can a dictatorship that hates the private sector, personal property and doesn't allow for the vote of the people to matter is related to social democracy? Social democracy is the opposite of all these things.

I could list a shit ton of things that would be worse or down-right ugly if we didn't have any regulations, public funding or laws in our society. For you to argue against such because some thug in south America uses something that is very much opposite shows one to be uneducated.

The problem with liberterianism is you make shit up to justify doing away with common sense regulations and investment into society by not understanding your ass from a hole in the ground.

Excuse the fuck out of me.

I don't oppose common sense regulations.

I support all the regulations imposed by the invisible hand of the market place.


.

Too bad the invisible hand of the market place doesn't have the common sense to blow itself up before it collapses markets.

Oye Juan, fumas sinsemilla?

La economia de EEUU ha sido controlada por los fascistas desde el 1913.

El Sistema de Reserva Federal. Chico, no sea pendejo. Aprende, Yo no te cobro,


.