What's new

US Politics

cbr030718dAPR.jpg


Suburban voters angry with Trump threaten GOP’s grip on House


The Washington Post
Kari Lydersen, Michael Scherer

In a suburb outside of Chicago, Sullivan is determined to replace her congressman, six-term Rep. Peter J. Roskam (R), whom she has supported in the past. His sin, she said, was his affiliation with President Trump.

“Just the lack of respect for women, the authoritarianism, it’s too much,” said Sullivan, 47, a digital consultant. “As a professional woman, it’s very difficult for me to reconcile.”

She is not alone. In Illinois’ 6th Congressional District, 62,990 people voted Democratic last week for seven candidates, up from just 8,615 in the 2014 primary. In a district that voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 and Hillary Clinton in 2016, a warning is being sent in letters as big and bold as any that have hung on a Trump building.

If Republicans want to hold onto the House, they will have to compete in communities that had little to do with the working-class regions that sent Trump to the White House in 2016: affluent, white-collar suburbs of Democratic cities. Many of the most competitive House seats this year are in the tony bedroom communities of Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Philadelphia, New York and Washington.

The balancing act for these Republicans is appealing to moderate voters enraged by Trump while trying to avoid alienating a party base enamored with the president. Democrats had targeted Roskam early on — a GOP incumbent in a Clinton seat. Beyond those races, the Democrats’ House win this month in a suburban-and-rural Pennsylvania district Trump won handily, as well as last year’s wins in Alabama and Virginia, underscore that dozens more districts are competitive.

Suburban voters tend to be richer and better-educated than the country as a whole. That is bad news for Republicans, who are struggling with a massive divide among white voters. Those with college degrees disapprove of the president by a margin of about 20 points. Those without college degrees approve of him by nearly the same margin.

Residents of the 21 Republican seats recently rated by the Cook Political Report to be the most vulnerable to Democratic takeover have a median household income 33 percent higher than the country as a whole, according to an analysis by The Washington Post. Thirty percent of the voters in those districts are college-educated whites, well higher than the 23 percent average for the country. Read more




yep, lost bigly, with a yuge less than 1000 vote margin. Honestly, haven't paid too much attention to it but the winner was apparently leaning firmly to the right on stuff like gun control etc ?

Rabzon mian, not my country, not my business.. don't care about your local politics there, why should I ?

but take off these partisan horse blinders about the guy, maybe you hate him for your reasons and that is fine, keep hating..

but please realize that this is a very charismatic man, his superpowers are showmanship.. he wielded them brilliantly all through 15 and 16.. look where he is now.

He actually began his campaign with the Obama birther stuff in 2012 or around that, the birther stuff might or might not be true, but it should not be such blasphemy to question things in a place like the USA

Stormy Daniels, and isn't she lovely <3

is NOT going to stop him being reelected
You may try to downplay it, which I can understand, but trust me, Trump and the Republican establishment did not see it that way, after all, this was a district gerrymandered by and for the Republican, for them it was a YUGE loss. Trump tried everything he could, he went there twice to campaign for Saccone, he also sent his VP Mike Pence, his son, daughter and aide Kellyanne Conway there. The timing of Trump’s announcement of tariffs on steel and aluminum was seen by many as an effort by him to help Saccone, but lol, nothing worked.

As I explained in my previous post, Republican Rep Tim Murphy, who disgracefully resigned last year, had won the district by 34 points in 2010 and by 28 points in 2012, and didn’t even have a Democratic challenger in 2014 and 2016. Even though Pres Obama had won the state, but Mitt Romney defeated him with 17 points and Trump carried the district by nearly 20 points. Based on these results, Conor Lamb, outperformed his partisan baseline by more than 22 points.

He is a Conservative Democrat, also commonly known as the blue dog Democrat. The funny thing is that before the election, Trump and the Republicans were portraying him as a hardcore Liberal, but after he won the election they falsely started claiming that he had run to the right, which, of course, was a lie. The fact is, Conor Lamb supported enhanced background check system quite similar to what the Democrat Sen Joe Manchin and Republican Sen Patrick Toomey had proposed, unfortunately, their background checks proposal was defeated in the Senate by the Republicans. He also opposed Trump/Republican corporate tax cuts, and strongly opposed Trump/Republican agenda against Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare.

Trump fights back, he’ll get in the gutter and beat you to a pulp if you sling shit at him
But, he never fights back against Stormy Daniels and Comrade Putin? :lol:
 
.
. .
cjones08102017.jpg


Sinclair Broadcast Group owns close to 200 local TV stations, has become Trump’s propaganda mouthpiece, it reminds me of what I have read about Pakistan’s PTV. In the 60s Pakistan used to have just one TV channel, PTV (Pakistan television Corporation), it was a propaganda mouthpiece for successive governments, but thank goodness those days are gone, today Pakistan has many private channels and the media is considered quite free.

Sinclair, for a long time has been spreading BS right-wing propaganda, since Trump was elected, it now spreads pro-Trump propaganda and echo his talking points, in other words, Trump has hundreds of PTV’s at his service.

But now, shamelessly they have gone little further, they are forcing all its news anchors across the country to parrot Trump’s “fake news” BS.

Here’s an example:

The Post-Intelligencer published one of the scripts this week; in it, the authors lament the “trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories” and the “sharing of biased and false news,” referencing President Trump’s preferred term for the press, “fake news.”

Hi, I’m(A) ____________, and I’m (B) _________________…

(B) Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Northwest communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that KOMO News produces.

(A) But we’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media., Blah, blah, blah.

Now watch the video and be amazed:

 
Last edited:
.
Now watch the response and be amazed:


(22.24 minute mark)

But of course Ben Shapiro is clearly Nazi Alt right so what does he know ;)
 
.
Another sweet victory, the blue wave continues! :usflag:




Republican Walker sounds alarm, Democrats see hope after win

Associated Press. SCOTT BAUER

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The dominating victory by a liberal candidate in Wisconsin's Supreme Court race emboldened Democrats deflated by years of defeats, pushing Republican Gov. Scott Walker to issue a series of warnings Wednesday about a possible "blue wave" in the red state.

Democrats heralded Rebecca Dallet's victory as the clearest sign yet voters are back on their side after seven years of Republican control of the Wisconsin Statehouse and Donald Trump's 1-point victory in the state in 2016.

"Last night is another indication that every Republican in Wisconsin should be running scared," said Democratic strategist Joe Zepecki on Wednesday. "The progressive candidate here over-performed recent history in every type of community, rural, urban, suburban, exurban and that puts everything in play for this fall."

Walker, who is up for re-election in November, extolled supporters on Twitter to see the warning signs.

"We are at risk of a Blue Wave in Wisconsin," Walker said in a fundraising email Wednesday. "After these two defeats, it is clear that our big bold reforms are in jeopardy."

Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a top GOP target, also is on the ballot in November, along with the entire state Assembly and half the Senate.

AAvriYs.jpg

The Associated Press FILE - In this June. 1, 2017, file photo, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge and Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate, Rebecca Dallet poses for a photo in Madison, Wis. The battle for a supposedly nonpartisan seat on the Wisconsin…


Dallet won 24 counties across the state that Trump had carried in 2016, a troubling sign for Republicans. Her win also comes after a surprise Democratic victory in a special state Senate election that had been under Republican control for 17 years and that Trump carried.

Three months ago, Walker called the special election loss a "wake up call."

Those two wins, coupled with Doug Jones' victory over Republican Roy Moore for an Alabama U.S. Senate seat in December, shows Democrats are on pace for big gains nationally in November, said Paul Maslin, a Wisconsin-based national Democratic pollster.

"Everything is lining up in one direction," Maslin said. "There's no question they're headed for a major defeat and we're headed for a major victory. ... Our people are motivated and are taking action in the best way possible which is at the ballot box."

But Republicans argue spring elections — where turnout is roughly half of what it will be in November — are poor indicators of what will happen in the fall. Still, longtime political observers in Wisconsin on both sides agreed the win emphasizes that Democrats are more energized at the moment than Republicans.

"It's clearly a wake-up call," said Republican strategist Brandon Scholz. "I don't think a poorly run campaign makes a blue wave, but I do think the Republicans are challenged with having to draw the passion factor equal."

Walker last month was forced to call special elections for two other legislative vacancies after three judges ordered him to proceed against his wishes. Those elections, for seats that had been held by Republicans until they left to join Walker's administration, will be June 12.

Martha Laning, director of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, cast the Dallet victory was a referendum on Walker since he had endorsed her opponent in the officially nonpartisan race.

"How many more wake-up calls do Walker and the GOP need before they realize their extremism is out-of-touch with Wisconsin values?" Laning said.


Dallet trounced conservative challenger Michael Screnock by 12 points — 56 percent to 44 percent — to become the first liberal candidate to win election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court when there's an open seat since 1995. Her victory means that six of the seven seats on the state's highest court will be women, but conservatives will still control it 4-3.

Only Washington state has more women on its highest court, but in percentage terms Wisconsin is the highest, according to the University of Minnesota's Smart Politics.

Turnout was 22.2 percent, the highest for a spring election since 2011 and second-highest over the past 12 Supreme Court elections.

Dallet's candidacy won support from national Democrats, something never-before-seen in a state Supreme Court race, with an endorsement from U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, of New Jersey, former Vice President Joe Biden recording robocalls and a group run by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder dumping half a million dollars into the contest.

Holder, who sued to force Walker to call the two upcoming legislative special elections, said the Dallet win was really about Walker.

"Under the leadership of Scott Walker and his administration, the right to vote has been systematically attacked and the concerns of corporations, outside special interests and the Republican party placed ahead of the people," he said in a statement. "Today, the voters of Wisconsin took a critical first step toward a state government that better reflects their needs and interests." Source


Now watch the response and be amazed:


(22.24 minute mark)

But of course Ben Shapiro is clearly Nazi Alt right so what does he know ;)
Sorry, I don’t have the time to watch the clip now, but I will check it out tonight.

Cheers.
 
.
Sorry, I don’t have the time to watch the clip now, but I will check it out tonight.

Cheers.

Hope you are well my friend and good to see you still active here heh.

BTW Ben Shapiro is worth subscribing to, just to get the other side perspective (without being "Trumptard" etc) on the matters of note. Extra information and perspective never hurts after all.
 
. .
Now watch the response and be amazed:


(22.24 minute mark)

But of course Ben Shapiro is clearly Nazi Alt right so what does he know ;)

He's actually pretty level-headed. And he's right about Laura Ingraham that she shouldn't be fired for what she said. Despite the fact that it was really uncalled for and she has a big mouth, she's entitled to that big mouth and I'm sure she's aware that there are consequences for what media personalities say, especially ones of her caliber. But what she said about David Hogg was definitely stupid and even childish but even so, she doesn't deserve to be fired for that. Chastised, maybe. Lose some of her sponsors, ok. Fired? No. And Shapiro even brought up CNN's Brian Seltzer commenting that whatever Ingraham said and said the same thing, she wasn't deserving of a firing. I agree, a balanced perspective is a very good thing.

Latest developments are pretty interesting. Trump not getting his financing for the wall in the last package is trying something else. After saying he would use part of the military budget to "protect the border" he's getting the "army" which is in this case the National Guard deployed to guard a stretch of land along the border that belongs to the army which amounts to roughly 30 miles out of the 1900+ long border. I think that's hilarious since I'm not sure if illegals would actually cross army-owned land areas where they're stationed? It's a desperate sign.

And all the criticism of previous presidents is just awful. He's so tactless when it comes to his self-aggrandizing and trying to stroke his own image by insulting previous presidents is actually not only just another reflection of his horrible character, but it's just a further step by this guy in the painful destruction of the reputation of what was once the hallowed presidency of the United States.

I ironic part is his terrible criticism always comes back and slaps him in the face, just like it did again this week when he said the US is pulling out of Syria when all he touted about during the campaign on many occasions that he would ever advertise the military's moves lol. What a shlep.
 
.
He's actually pretty level-headed. And he's right about Laura Ingraham that she shouldn't be fired for what she said. Despite the fact that it was really uncalled for and she has a big mouth, she's entitled to that big mouth and I'm sure she's aware that there are consequences for what media personalities say, especially ones of her caliber. But what she said about David Hogg was definitely stupid and even childish but even so, she doesn't deserve to be fired for that. Chastised, maybe. Lose some of her sponsors, ok. Fired? No. And Shapiro even brought up CNN's Brian Seltzer commenting that whatever Ingraham said and said the same thing, she wasn't deserving of a firing. I agree, a balanced perspective is a very good thing.

Agree about the Ben analysis, its why I really watch him, he sort of represents the "logic-driven center" to me now....that nice place to be for me at one time (and I still have much grounding there)....that I still like to check whats going on with finger to the wind etc.

All I want is equal standards applied to everyone. Certain media ppl have been attacking Kyle Kashuv (another parkland survivor that is not quite in the MSM limelight like Hogg ....namely because he is pro gun rights and thus inconvenient to cover) quite atrociously (not calling them simply whiner etc but all sort of nasty nasty stuff, like real libel kind of stuff), but apparently thats completely fine according to many of the same people crying foul about Laura.

Latest developments are pretty interesting. Trump not getting his financing for the wall in the last package is trying something else. After saying he would use part of the military budget to "protect the border" he's getting the "army" which is in this case the National Guard deployed to guard a stretch of land along the border that belongs to the army which amounts to roughly 30 miles out of the 1900+ long border. I think that's hilarious since I'm not sure if illegals would actually cross army-owned land areas where they're stationed? It's a desperate sign.

Its a fine idea to do imo (Ben is also supportive of it overall). Dubya and Obama both did this at various times too.

California probably won't be part of it (yay for Jerry Brown!), but it will afford extra protection in the current holes from Brownsville to about Yuma....till the proper wall funding is acquired later.

Besides if there are good results, won't the left's argument that a wall really isn't needed be bolstered? :P Left really should pick a consistent argument (and then we can actually debate the logic of it using facts) rather than rail against everything on the Anti-Trump feelz. Swing voters are already getting quite tired and weary of it (just like with the Trump tweeting and uninformed over-reactions etc).

And all the criticism of previous presidents is just awful. He's so tactless when it comes to his self-aggrandizing and trying to stroke his own image by insulting previous presidents is actually not only just another reflection of his horrible character, but it's just a further step by this guy in the painful destruction of the reputation of what was once the hallowed presidency of the United States.

Part of Trump's nature :P. I'm no fan of the way Obama and his henchmen in the PACs went after Mitt Romney in (quite untrue but optically expedient) character assassin way....nor how Obama now feels its ok to criticize (esp in the way he has) a current president, out of line with what the policy has always been thus far. Nor how Obama weaponised the IRS against the Tea Party...and the multitude of other things he did past the exterior presentation/optics*.

*Which in Canada's case Trudeau has over-commited too and is very likely a one term PM as a result.

Look I get Trump is a bit of a brash sleazeball rather than a hidden under-current one that Presidents tend to be (there's a hillarious line from the TV Show Mindhunter** when the guy asks the psychology expert....which presidents were sociopaths?..... and she answers...erm which ones weren't? LOL).....but I think the US overall (and especially since the Clinton/Monica + other women + bimbo eruption squad of Hillary etc.. thing) have moved on to judging really by policy rather than character (not saying this is a good thing, its just what has happened).

**which i highly recommend btw if you havent watched

This is the only reason why Trump still does well with say Evangelical support, even though he is clearly less than ideal character wise for what an Evangelical would espouse in a person. Ben also analyses this phenomenon well if you follow him.

I ironic part is his terrible criticism always comes back and slaps him in the face, just like it did again this week when he said the US is pulling out of Syria when all he touted about during the campaign on many occasions that he would ever advertise the military's moves lol. What a shlep.

Its not even in the top 75% percentile of the larger phenomenon/trend with announcement/attack/blah on twitter + scaleback (and how that fits in with the consistency of the earlier campaign platforms) tbh really. Again this is all being baked into the wider public perception of Trump now. The delivery/policy sandwich will be what charges the base (with the hot sauce of the extra stuff that they like) for their turnout....the swing vote doesn't care and/or hates the hot sauce but will judge on the sandwich made regarding turnout.....and the lefties/hard dems/anti-trumpsters simply hate trump hot sauce and all trump sandwiches period LOL...and will turnout to voice that. Lets see how it all goes down.

I for one feel the left will have to deliver a much cleaner, concise and relevant message to USA. Otherwise they are just going to (even when they take over at some point the presidency again) will simply stoke an even bigger Trumpian figure down the road. It really shouldnt be a game of who can polarise and coalesce more to the extremes (which by current measures favours the left currently given near full control of the traditional routes of information/perception and large domination of the new alternatives still).....very sad to see this taking root....it will spell doom if left unchecked....it comes from a primal feel that if I cant win/prosper in some way I perceive individually, I will the salt the land so no one can....and the country shall only exist by tyranny of majority period and for nothing else (Jefferson warned about this big time). Such a condition breaks apart anything over time, even something as great, mighty and as close to theoretical political ideal (imo) as the USA.

@Joe Shearer @Desert Fox
 
. . . . .
.
Back
Top Bottom