Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Here , statistic dude.
I am well aware of the pew graphic, which only shows 60 years, or about 30% of our entire electoral history. Pretty limited, what?
You said since WWll. I'd agree if it went into the twenties or fifties. Then it would be catastrophic.
No coating to it...it is reality and looking at the win as a mandate or over stepping boundaries is a death sentence for the GOP...Boehner understands this.
It's a mandate against Obama and the party direction.
By the democrats.
What's mandate? The last mid-term?
36% of all RVs actually cast ballots last November. That was the most pathetic voter turnout since 1942.
The R's won 53% of the ballots cast, on the whole.
53% of 36% = 19.1%. So, 19.1% of all possible voters made a "mandate".
Riiiiiiiiight.......
Little research shows mid terms bounce around in the 40% range . 36% isn't that far out of norm.
False. 36% is definitely under the norm.
You are talking with the electoral statistics dude here in USMB. I am the one person you cannot bullshit about this stuff.
national-1789-present - United States Elections Project
Try again.
That being said, the people who don't get off their lazy ass and go vote have only themselves to blame if the result is not what they wanted.
That was the most pathetic voter turnout since 1942.
No coating to it...it is reality and looking at the win as a mandate or over stepping boundaries is a death sentence for the GOP...Boehner understands this.
It's a mandate against Obama and the party direction.
By the democrats.
What's mandate? The last mid-term?
36% of all RVs actually cast ballots last November. That was the most pathetic voter turnout since 1942.
The R's won 53% of the ballots cast, on the whole.
53% of 36% = 19.1%. So, 19.1% of all possible voters made a "mandate".
Riiiiiiiiight.......
Little research shows mid terms bounce around in the 40% range . 36% isn't that far out of norm.
False. 36% is definitely under the norm.
You are talking with the electoral statistics dude here in USMB. I am the one person you cannot bullshit about this stuff.
national-1789-present - United States Elections Project
Try again.
That being said, the people who don't get off their lazy ass and go vote have only themselves to blame if the result is not what they wanted.
Before you run off, your graph doesn't account for population changes since 1788 does it?
That was the most pathetic voter turnout since 1942.
Say what?
That was the most pathetic voter turnout since 1942.
Say what?
I simply compared to the last time that VT was worse, and that was the year 1942. But that didn't indicate a time frame for exclusively measuring any kind of statistic. It was a 1 to 1 comparison. You do understand the difference, right?
Oh, and you might want to read the rules about quoting another member.
That was the most pathetic voter turnout since 1942.
Say what?
I simply compared to the last time that VT was worse, and that was the year 1942. But that didn't indicate a time frame for exclusively measuring any kind of statistic. It was a 1 to 1 comparison. You do understand the difference, right?
Oh, and you might want to read the rules about quoting another member.
You made the statement.
Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box.
That was the most pathetic voter turnout since 1942.
Say what?
I simply compared to the last time that VT was worse, and that was the year 1942. But that didn't indicate a time frame for exclusively measuring any kind of statistic. It was a 1 to 1 comparison. You do understand the difference, right?
Oh, and you might want to read the rules about quoting another member.
You made the statement.
You took the statement out of context, and in quoting, you did not quote all of the content. By not quoting it all, you changed the meaning due to lack of context
Here, a little help for you, before you start to do damage to yourself:
USMB Rules and Guidelines US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box.
Hope that helps. Test drive completed. There is hope for you.
That was the most pathetic voter turnout since 1942.
Say what?
I simply compared to the last time that VT was worse, and that was the year 1942. But that didn't indicate a time frame for exclusively measuring any kind of statistic. It was a 1 to 1 comparison. You do understand the difference, right?
Oh, and you might want to read the rules about quoting another member.
You made the statement.
You took the statement out of context, and in quoting, you did not quote all of the content. By not quoting it all, you changed the meaning due to lack of context
Here, a little help for you, before you start to do damage to yourself:
USMB Rules and Guidelines US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box.
Hope that helps. Test drive completed. There is hope for you.
Yeah, I saw that and it doesn't change the context. Hope I didn't beat you up too bad. Take care.
Correct.Rightwing extremists are simply going to have to accept the fact that they're a minority in the GOP – a loud, intimidating minority – but a minority nonetheless; and rightwing extremists are also going to have to consider the possibility that starting next year their failed, extreme agenda will be ignored by the GOP mainstream, more interested in responsible governance and retaining control of Congress come 2017 than appeasing the TPM and others on the radical right.
This weekend's budget agreement is likely just the beginning where irresponsible extremists such as Ted Cruz will continue to be frustrated by a GOP establishment focused on retaining political power and influence, not preserving the purity of rightist dogma venerated by the TPM.
Don't know if you noticed, but more and more Conservative 'extremists' are winning elections. So much that the clowns in charge of GOP are bypassing their base and funding people to run against these people. These clowns have been going against the GOP base for some time. Sooner or later revolt will happen.
You just committed an electoral error that is common, namely, the easy desire to compare mid-term election results to general election predictions. There is an entirely different "clientele" that shows up for presidential elections, and millions, millions, millions more go to vote.
After the 2010 midterms, the Right was crowing that Obama was cooked. He won re-election two years later.
It's not the extremes that hold this great Union of ours together: it's the middle.
Actually, not so strange.Say what?
I simply compared to the last time that VT was worse, and that was the year 1942. But that didn't indicate a time frame for exclusively measuring any kind of statistic. It was a 1 to 1 comparison. You do understand the difference, right?
Oh, and you might want to read the rules about quoting another member.
You made the statement.
You took the statement out of context, and in quoting, you did not quote all of the content. By not quoting it all, you changed the meaning due to lack of context
Here, a little help for you, before you start to do damage to yourself:
USMB Rules and Guidelines US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box.
Hope that helps. Test drive completed. There is hope for you.
Yeah, I saw that and it doesn't change the context. Hope I didn't beat you up too bad. Take care.
Actually, it does, but you are missing the point. Entirely.
Why do Righties always feel the psychological need to "win" something?
It is so very strange.
Say what?
I simply compared to the last time that VT was worse, and that was the year 1942. But that didn't indicate a time frame for exclusively measuring any kind of statistic. It was a 1 to 1 comparison. You do understand the difference, right?
Oh, and you might want to read the rules about quoting another member.
You made the statement.
You took the statement out of context, and in quoting, you did not quote all of the content. By not quoting it all, you changed the meaning due to lack of context
Here, a little help for you, before you start to do damage to yourself:
USMB Rules and Guidelines US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box.
Hope that helps. Test drive completed. There is hope for you.
Yeah, I saw that and it doesn't change the context. Hope I didn't beat you up too bad. Take care.
Actually, it does, but you are missing the point. Entirely.
Why do Righties always feel the psychological need to "win" something?
It is so very strange.
Actually, not so strange.I simply compared to the last time that VT was worse, and that was the year 1942. But that didn't indicate a time frame for exclusively measuring any kind of statistic. It was a 1 to 1 comparison. You do understand the difference, right?
Oh, and you might want to read the rules about quoting another member.
You made the statement.
You took the statement out of context, and in quoting, you did not quote all of the content. By not quoting it all, you changed the meaning due to lack of context
Here, a little help for you, before you start to do damage to yourself:
USMB Rules and Guidelines US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box.
Hope that helps. Test drive completed. There is hope for you.
Yeah, I saw that and it doesn't change the context. Hope I didn't beat you up too bad. Take care.
Actually, it does, but you are missing the point. Entirely.
Why do Righties always feel the psychological need to "win" something?
It is so very strange.
It's because they are, for the most part, ideologues – where they adhere blindly to sanctioned conservative dogma ignoring the facts that conflict with that dogma. And because they can't justify their dogma with facts and objective evidence, they perceive 'winning' as 'justification.'
Looks like Boehner is well received among his colleagues. It will be interesting to see how much support Gowdy can garner. Both He and McConnell drink from the liberal fountain and need to go.
Boehner 8217 s 8216 Failures 8217 Might Get Him Tossed as Speaker if Trey Gowdy and His Supporters Have Their WayIn 2012, AMA stated:
“’Speaker Boehner has been an abysmal failure as speaker, and his latest purge is the nail in the coffin for conservatives.’
Ryun added, ‘Boehner has never won a negation battle with the White House or Senate—and he’s been nothing short of an embarrassing spokesman for the Conservative Movement. It’s time for him to go.’”
Yep, they sure as heck aren't Conservatives.....that's for sure. Gave O just about everything he wanted.John 'Arlen' Boehner.
Yep, they sure as heck aren't Conservatives.....that's for sure. Gave O just about everything he wanted.John 'Arlen' Boehner.
They most certainly are conservative. You seem to be under the impression that conservatives believe in small government when in fact they love big government as long as they get to run it.
