What a whirlwind… I’m stunned. Couple points real quick and I’ll pontificate more later:
Scott Brown really, really, really regrets back stabbing the gun vote right now. All those people who stayed home because he is an anti-freedom dolt that thought running in NH as an anti-2nd RINO was a good idea, would have made him Senator elect this morning had they voted.
Congrats to Iowa & South Carolina for some good firsts. First woman in Iowa, and First black American in SC.
The Virginia race was worth the price of admission alone, and is a huge tell tail sign.
This wasn’t a wave election, it was a total fucking blood bath. The “bright spots” for Dems were holding (in tight races) seats they should have won +4 points.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Republicans generally do well in midterms because conservatives are very motivated to get involved in campaigning and actually turn up to vote. Presidential elections have a much higher overall participation so you get lots more libs voting. I think it’s going to be very difficult to elect a Republican president in the foreseeable future. [/quote]
This is spot on, and as of today, I agree that any Republican faces an uphill battle for POTUS. (I’d rather pass on the lack of freedom, people should be free to vote or not vote as they please.)
Couple points:
The Democrats have a very, very strong coalition right now, but it is much more fragile than most people assume. Now is not the time for arrogance or complacency, they can lose the momentum now that same-sex marriage is settled and (oddly enough) weed is pretty much going to be legal before 2020.
People aren’t sure, at this point, if the coalition is for Obama or for Democrats. I’ve seen reports that millennials, the fickly entitled brats they are, are already fed up with voting, getting excited, etc… And that is a huge base for the Dems.
If the coalition is for Obama and not the Dems… Rand is next POTUS. If it’s Dems and not just Obama (which is where I’m leaning right now), we stay Blue POTUS, and likely the Senate swaps back in 2016 (if that’s possible.)
After Regan they said liberalism was dead, after Bam, they said Republicans were dead…
If, and this is a HUGE if, the Republicans and Tea PArty types can embrace each other and work out their differences… Anyone who thinks “progressive liberal agenda” is a good phrase, needs to not be so confident about “Hil’ 2016”.
My understanding is that it is rather symbolic legislation anyway. The vast majority of sales have background checks across the country. The “gun show loop hole” is a fabrication to woo ignorant freedom-hating numbskulls.
This doesn’t change much. MA passed similar shit a long time ago. It’s one of the least of the worries as far as gun rights go.
My understanding is that it is rather symbolic legislation anyway. The vast majority of sales have background checks across the country. The “gun show loop hole” is a fabrication to woo ignorant freedom-hating numbskulls.
This doesn’t change much. MA passed similar shit a long time ago. It’s one of the least of the worries as far as gun rights go. [/quote]
The local PBS talking heads last night were commenting that it is probably the one and only type of gun-control legislation that could pass in WA, so I hope you are right. I still voted no.
My understanding is that it is rather symbolic legislation anyway. The vast majority of sales have background checks across the country. The “gun show loop hole” is a fabrication to woo ignorant freedom-hating numbskulls.
This doesn’t change much. MA passed similar shit a long time ago. It’s one of the least of the worries as far as gun rights go. [/quote]
The local PBS talking heads last night were commenting that it is probably the one and only type of gun-control legislation that could pass in WA, so I hope you are right. I still voted no. [/quote]
I would have too, lol. Because, on some levels it is de facto registration (which we already have nation wide anyway), and a gross violation of personal property rights.
However, in the wake of what happened in NY, CA & CT… If that is the “best” Bloomberg’s millions can do, I’m not worried about WA. Your RKBA is in much better shape than mine, or anyone in the aforementioned states.
If anti gun tyrants had to spend that much to get background checks passed… The gun culture is winning. You eat an elephant one bite at a time, and this, while it seems like a “loss” isn’t, just a “burp” in the middle of the meal that is freedom.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The NYT is suggesting the midterm elections be canceled. Just in time for what could be a troublesome election for Democrats.
[/quote]
What a total joke. Because the people they don’t like voting vote in both Presidential and Midterms we should do away with midterm?
That entire bullshit piece reads like “boo hoo, the uninformed people that vote for my team don’t give two shits about voting in midterms, we should get rid of midterms.”
Don’t bother getting people more engaged in politics by forcing quality candidates or holding those dumbasses accountable in the same rag this piece was printed in… No, eliminate the races you don’t tend to win.
Stupidity…
When did the Times become a liberal campus student newspaper?[/quote]
I have heard the same kind of shit. Because certain members of the population will not get off their ass and take 5 minutes to vote, midterm elections are not representative. Of course that’s total bullshit. If anything the opposite would be true. People who don’t know and don’t care what happens politically in this country only vote in hyped presidential elections because it’s the cool thing to do is not representative.
People not being bothered enough to vote is also a statement. They don’t care enough and don’t know shit about what’s going on.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So would it be fair to say that despite turnout being down, results were similar to 2010? Maybe not as drastic, but damn sure close.
Interesting indeed. [/quote]
I’d say more drastic than 2010, much more.
I don’t think many of you appreciate how fucking crazy Maryland flipping was, how close Virginia was and even a shit anti-2nd RINO in NH was within fighting distance.
I’ve hear reports (now of course, so who knows if they are true) Reid had been blasting Obama that this was going to happen for months, and he and POTUS are on the outs.
If that is true, and the Dems in the Senate stick with Reid… Obama’s brand is all about done, and all he has is his phone and his pen.
I’ve hear reports (now of course, so who knows if they are true) Reid had been blasting Obama that this was going to happen for months, and he and POTUS are on the outs.
If that is true, and the Dems in the Senate stick with Reid… Obama’s brand is all about done, and all he has is his phone and his pen. [/quote]
I can believe it. Obama’s so arrogant I don’t think he really cares if his actions now and in the future harm the Democratic Party. If he legislates by fiat for the next two years as he has threatened to do, the Dems will take a beating again.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t think many of you appreciate how fucking crazy Maryland flipping was [/quote]
Lol, ya…
There have now been 2 Republican MD governors in my life time, 3 In my dad’s, 5 in my grand mothers, and 6 in the history of the Party. MD is pretty blue because of population density.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So would it be fair to say that despite turnout being down, results were similar to 2010? Maybe not as drastic, but damn sure close.
Interesting indeed. [/quote]
I’d say more drastic than 2010, much more.
I don’t think many of you appreciate how fucking crazy Maryland flipping was, how close Virginia was and even a shit anti-2nd RINO in NH was within fighting distance.
2010 was a wave… 2014 was a blood bath. [/quote]
So with the (reported) reduced turnout, what does that say about the Dems?? I have not seen the final turnout numbers… Maybe this was a media ploy to reduce excitement amongst the GOP base??
