Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

The Republican Party

Recommended Posts

^ 1) This is a non-story, the local party has already disavowed him and they are not choosing to run a real candidate in this district.

2) The guy has run for various offices and lost since the mid 90s

3) anyone can get their name on a ballot by collecting enough signatures. Just because he puts an R behind his name does not mean the party will give him resources (*Except in Alabama) The rules of the party allow for anyone who gets the signatures to get on the ballot. I believe it is the same in the DNC too.

 

^^Fixed that!  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KABOOM!

 

GOP Rep. Tom Rooney says that the “entire Republican staff" is currently under investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans want to be dictators:

 

"...forcibly removing a judge for making decisions that offend the governing party is, to put it gently, not tolerable in a democracy. It’s a profound threat to the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers."

 

The Great Republican Power Grab

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/opinion/republicans-gerrymandering-power.html/


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans want to be dictators:

 

"...forcibly removing a judge for making decisions that offend the governing party is, to put it gently, not tolerable in a democracy. It’s a profound threat to the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers."

 

The Great Republican Power Grab

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/opinion/republicans-gerrymandering-power.html/

 

The more I listen to GOP party leadership, the more I believe these old white guys truly believe their talking points about illegals aliens stealing elections from the GOP, taking all their jobs, etc.  This only furthers their willingness to cheat to keep a grasp on power.  Something has to be done about drawing districts--it's obscene that they can lose the popular vote in a state and still walk away with 70%+ of the seats in the legislature!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Even if you disagree with your kid's politics, it's bizarre to actively work against your own offspring's success. It's especially bizarre to do so to the highest degree permitted by law. I'm sure they have very joyful gathering's around the holidays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Even if you disagree with your kid's politics, it's bizarre to actively work against your own offspring's success. It's especially bizarre to do so to the highest degree permitted by law. I'm sure they have very joyful gathering's around the holidays.

 

Oh come on, if Hillary's Republican dad was alive and donating to Trump you'd be all over that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Even if you disagree with your kid's politics, it's bizarre to actively work against your own offspring's success. It's especially bizarre to do so to the highest degree permitted by law. I'm sure they have very joyful gathering's around the holidays.

 

When even your parents think you're a total DB who would be bad for America... you might be a Republican. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Even if you disagree with your kid's politics, it's bizarre to actively work against your own offspring's success. It's especially bizarre to do so to the highest degree permitted by law. I'm sure they have very joyful gathering's around the holidays.

 

Oh come on, if Hillary's Republican dad was alive and donating to Trump you'd be all over that.

 

I doubt you'd see this sort of behavior from Republican parents - Republicans tend to have more family values than those on the left. For example, if I had a kid grow up to be politically identical to you or jonoh81 here, I might not give to their political campaign, but I certainly wouldn't give to their opponent, and I certainly wouldn't hope for their defeat. The success and well being of my family and loved ones overwhelmingly trumps something like petty political differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Even if you disagree with your kid's politics, it's bizarre to actively work against your own offspring's success. It's especially bizarre to do so to the highest degree permitted by law. I'm sure they have very joyful gathering's around the holidays.

 

Oh come on, if Hillary's Republican dad was alive and donating to Trump you'd be all over that.

 

I doubt you'd see this sort of behavior from Republican parents - Republicans tend to have more family values than those on the left. For example, if I had a kid grow up to be politically identical to you or jonoh81 here, I might not give to their political campaign, but I certainly wouldn't give to their opponent, and I certainly wouldn't hope for their defeat. The success and well being of my family and loved ones overwhelmingly trumps something like petty political differences.

 

 

LOL.  I guess if defending pedophiles and spousal abuse is a family value then sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Even if you disagree with your kid's politics, it's bizarre to actively work against your own offspring's success. It's especially bizarre to do so to the highest degree permitted by law. I'm sure they have very joyful gathering's around the holidays.

 

Oh come on, if Hillary's Republican dad was alive and donating to Trump you'd be all over that.

 

I doubt you'd see this sort of behavior from Republican parents - Republicans tend to have more family values than those on the left.

 

Come on...man...no one's buying this shIt anymore. Give it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Even if you disagree with your kid's politics, it's bizarre to actively work against your own offspring's success. It's especially bizarre to do so to the highest degree permitted by law. I'm sure they have very joyful gathering's around the holidays.

 

 

Oh come on, if Hillary's Republican dad was alive and donating to Trump you'd be all over that.

 

I doubt you'd see this sort of behavior from Republican parents - Republicans tend to have more family values than those on the left. For example, if I had a kid grow up to be politically identical to you or jonoh81 here, I might not give to their political campaign, but I certainly wouldn't give to their opponent, and I certainly wouldn't hope for their defeat. The success and well being of my family and loved ones overwhelmingly trumps something like petty political differences.

 

Seriously?

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's cute that GOPers still pretend to be about family values and deficits.  but for that matter can anyone please tell me what the current GOP stands for?  I mean this in all seriousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grassley and Graham are raising questions about a newly discovered Susan Rice email that recounts a January 2017 conversation with Obama, Yates and Comey. And says Obama said twice that “our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.”

 

12:22 PM - 12 Feb 2018

 


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's cute that GOPers still pretend to be about family values and deficits.  but for that matter can anyone please tell me what the current GOP stands for?  I mean this in all seriousness.

 

The GOP stands for the GOP, as in its amassing and protection of power for power's sake. Not for some lofty goal or vision. And certainly not for the nation. Unfortunately, most of the Democrats are in a similar boat, thus their recent voting of Pelosi over Ryan as minority leader in the House. Those without a party are the only Americans left in this country. The Republicans and Democrats have their own little fiefdoms to which they given their priority.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grassley and Graham are raising questions about a newly discovered Susan Rice email that recounts a January 2017 conversation with Obama, Yates and Comey. And says Obama said twice that “our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.”

 

12:22 PM - 12 Feb 2018

 

 

Looks like a big scandal here.  Obama wanted it done by the book.  he is supposed to ask them for their loyalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's cute that GOPers still pretend to be about family values and deficits.  but for that matter can anyone please tell me what the current GOP stands for?  I mean this in all seriousness.

 

The GOP certainly stands for lower taxes.  Obviously those of us who once stood for lower deficits don't have a home in either party now.  If the Democrats could credibly promise that tax increases would be used to lower deficits rather than expand the entitlement state, I'd consider switching back.

 

The GOP stands for the right to life.  Not a guarantee of material well-being, but a right to at least a shot.

 

The GOP stands for reducing the regulatory reach of the central state.  Even Donald Trump, the most statist Republican president by disposition in modern memory, has significantly scaled back the aggression of the federal regulatory state against the private sector--most notably including at the EPA and CFPB, but also at Education and Energy.  In this, GOP unified control of Washington is actually delivering a genuine limitation of government.  Of course, since many of these actions are solely executive (barring the measures repealed via the CRA), a future Democratic president could reimpose many of them--but that's something that's fair game for the political process.

 

The GOP stands for judicial philosophy anchored in rules rather than emotions ("empathy").

 

That said, the list of what the GOP stands for is clearly shorter than what it stands against.  That is where its real appeal lies for much of its base.  The GOP is generally actually not that fazed by the old progressive epithet that it's the "party of no."  The GOP basically holds forth KJP and his ilk (who casually consider <a href="https://www.urbanohio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2170.msg894940.html#msg894940">mass depopulation, including by human agency, as healthy for the planet</a>), and says "do you want your life micromanaged by that guy?  No?  OK, vote for us."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ a agree with most of your post and thanks for pointing those things out.  I do have to wonder how the federal government deciding not prosecute businesses for poisoning the environment or ripping people off creates more freedom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at a lot of the EPA's recent rollbacks, especially outside the carbon-regulation sphere, they're not going back to the pre-EPA days, they're going back to the pre-Obama days.  The GOP simply stands against the progressive presumption that regulation should be a one-way ratchet: ever tighter.

 

With respect to the CFPB, as to how its deregulation increases freedom, that's easy--the financial institution is given freedom from the regulation, and the consumer has the same right to walk away from a bad deal that they always had, so their freedom is not lessened.  With respect to whether people will actually feel that increases their quality of life, I actually tend to agree, though I share some of Mulvaney's concerns about the CFPB's structure.  I actually think this is one where the Republican establishment (of which Mulvaney is a member in good standing, despite his occasional tea-party rhetoric) underestimates both the anger and the associated regulatory appetite of its own base.  But in terms of what they stand for, they certainly stand for reducing the regulatory reach of the federal government--even if it costs them popularity or even elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at a lot of the EPA's recent rollbacks, especially outside the carbon-regulation sphere, they're not going back to the pre-EPA days, they're going back to the pre-Obama days.  The GOP simply stands against the progressive presumption that regulation should be a one-way ratchet: ever tighter.

 

With respect to the CFPB, as to how its deregulation increases freedom, that's easy--the financial institution is given freedom from the regulation, and the consumer has the same right to walk away from a bad deal that they always had, so their freedom is not lessened.  With respect to whether people will actually feel that increases their quality of life, I actually tend to agree, though I share some of Mulvaney's concerns about the CFPB's structure.  I actually think this is one where the Republican establishment (of which Mulvaney is a member in good standing, despite his occasional tea-party rhetoric) underestimates both the anger and the associated regulatory appetite of its own base.  But in terms of what they stand for, they certainly stand for reducing the regulatory reach of the federal government--even if it costs them popularity or even elections.

 

environmental regulation - why was growth of regulation welcome up to a certain point?  I guess the question is - Why now?  Why didn't we decide in 1977 that we had enough regulation and continue to allow paint manufacturers to use lead in residential paint.  I mean - removing lead created an undue burden on business.

 

So when an unregulated financial institution goes belly-up are we going to let them fail or bail them out again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the answer to that is obvious enough.  The low-hanging fruit were the first to be picked.  Later regulations tended to aim at smaller and smaller risks at higher and higher costs.  Everyone has a breaking point.  I'll bet even you do, somewhere, even if it hasn't been reached yet.  It is literally impossible to eliminate every single environmental risk, and it is only a subset of those that can be addressed at an any given cost (with the question of whether that cost is acceptable or not of course being a political judgment call).  Democrats tend to be more cost-tolerant.  Republicans tend to be more risk-tolerant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the answer to that is obvious enough.  The low-hanging fruit were the first to be picked.  Later regulations tended to aim at smaller and smaller risks at higher and higher costs.  Everyone has a breaking point.  I'll bet even you do, somewhere, even if it hasn't been reached yet.  It is literally impossible to eliminate every single environmental risk, and it is only a subset of those that can be addressed at an any given cost (with the question of whether that cost is acceptable or not of course being a political judgment call).  Democrats tend to be more cost-tolerant.  Republicans tend to be more risk-tolerant.

 

Doesn't our knowledge of toxins and pollutants increase every year.  Again, in 1977 someone could've made the same argument that the risk of lead paint isn't worth the additional costs.  Or removing lead from gasoline, etc.  Tobacco companies and politicians (including Mike Pence) wouldn't even admit a link between smoking and cancer existed until the 1990s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Donald Trump, the most statist Republican president by disposition in modern memory, has significantly scaled back the aggression of the federal regulatory state against the private sector--most notably including at the EPA and CFPB

 

Yes, regulations in the financial and banking industries were so good before and consumers absolutely didn't get hammered unjustly in 2008.  Nope.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's cute that GOPers still pretend to be about family values and deficits.  but for that matter can anyone please tell me what the current GOP stands for?  I mean this in all seriousness.

 

The GOP certainly stands for lower taxes.  Obviously those of us who once stood for lower deficits don't have a home in either party now.  If the Democrats could credibly promise that tax increases would be used to lower deficits rather than expand the entitlement state, I'd consider switching back.

 

The GOP stands for the right to life.  Not a guarantee of material well-being, but a right to at least a shot.

 

The GOP stands for reducing the regulatory reach of the central state.  Even Donald Trump, the most statist Republican president by disposition in modern memory, has significantly scaled back the aggression of the federal regulatory state against the private sector--most notably including at the EPA and CFPB, but also at Education and Energy.  In this, GOP unified control of Washington is actually delivering a genuine limitation of government.  Of course, since many of these actions are solely executive (barring the measures repealed via the CRA), a future Democratic president could reimpose many of them--but that's something that's fair game for the political process.

 

The GOP stands for judicial philosophy anchored in rules rather than emotions ("empathy").

 

That said, the list of what the GOP stands for is clearly shorter than what it stands against.  That is where its real appeal lies for much of its base.  The GOP is generally actually not that fazed by the old progressive epithet that it's the "party of no."  The GOP basically holds forth KJP and his ilk (who casually consider <a href="https://www.urbanohio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2170.msg894940.html#msg894940">mass depopulation, including by human agency, as healthy for the planet</a>), and says "do you want your life micromanaged by that guy?  No?  OK, vote for us."

 

Every single one of these things needs a huge * next to them. 

 

We've seen who the real tax cuts are for.  Meanwhile, they're screwing all of our futures.

 

Except for single moms, gays, black people selling cigarettes on the street, neo-Nazi protesters...

 

The anti-regulation stance has literally nothing to do with improving the economy.  It was booming for years before Trump was there, and that was with all the regulations in place that they've since gotten rid of.  The idea that regulation was destroying the economy is supremely ironic when it was the very lack of regulation that was a huge factor in the Great Recession.  How many consumer protections have been removed, again?  Now, Republicans expect to keep selling this narrative. That we can have clean air, water and land with no environmental protections, that coal will survive if only there weren't so many gosh-darn regulations, that ignoring climate change will make it go away, etc. etc.  Republicans are first class bullsh*t artists whose primary stance is lining their own pockets by removing any and all restrictions from doing so. 

 

We already know that empathy and compassion are totally useless on the Right.  Yes, the "law and order" party that is currently totally fine defending pedophiles, money launderers, traitors, wife beaters, violating constitutional rights such as voting... I see no indication that the Right cares about the law. 

 

Maybe some of these things were true at one time, but certainly not in many years.

 

I also don't think KJP was advocating genocide that you seem to believe.  I read it more that if you guys just want to shrug your shoulders and pretend like there's nothing we can do about climate change is only going to make extreme measures more likely down the line.  What those might include, I don't know, but it's going to be a little pain now, or a whole lot more later.  The choices will only get harder over time.  Then again, I guess this is where that lack of empathy comes back in.  If you can't even feel empathy for your common man in 2018, you're not going to feel anything for your children's children. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So when an unregulated financial institution goes belly-up are we going to let them fail or bail them out again?

 

I realize I responded on the environmental regulation front and not on this one earlier.  I think that is an extremely interesting question.  I've really been trying to guess what Trump would do here.  You can't take his statements at face value, of course.  That goes without saying.  You have to get to his id, as well as the more honed instincts of those around him.  I really don't know.  His presidency has been more establishmentarian than many predicted (whether those predictions to the contrary were hopes or fears).  The bank bailout in 2008-2009 had a lot of bipartisan support and a lot of bipartisan opposition.  Trump does not fear chaos.  The threat that refusing to bail out the banks and letting the failures ripple out through the system would unleash chaos would not faze him as much as it fazed many more establishment figures.  But his financial team is dyed-in-the-wool Wall Street henchmen.

 

If another financial bubble bursts and he did draw a line in the sand, and said no, these chips will fall where they will, even if they take down Citi and JPMorgan Chase ... would Bernie Sanders lock arms with him?  Would Elizabeth Warren?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the answer to that is obvious enough.  The low-hanging fruit were the first to be picked.  Later regulations tended to aim at smaller and smaller risks at higher and higher costs.  Everyone has a breaking point.  I'll bet even you do, somewhere, even if it hasn't been reached yet.  It is literally impossible to eliminate every single environmental risk, and it is only a subset of those that can be addressed at an any given cost (with the question of whether that cost is acceptable or not of course being a political judgment call).  Democrats tend to be more cost-tolerant.  Republicans tend to be more risk-tolerant.

 

Doesn't our knowledge of toxins and pollutants increase every year.  Again, in 1977 someone could've made the same argument that the risk of lead paint isn't worth the additional costs.  Or removing lead from gasoline, etc.  Tobacco companies and politicians (including Mike Pence) wouldn't even admit a link between smoking and cancer existed until the 1990s. 

 

And these politicians only need to visit Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, etc to see how private industry acted as stewards of their own pollutants.  Any member who votes against environmental regulations should be supplied drinking water from brown fields if they trust industry to self-police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when an unregulated financial institution goes belly-up are we going to let them fail or bail them out again?

 

I realize I responded on the environmental regulation front and not on this one earlier.  I think that is an extremely interesting question.  I've really been trying to guess what Trump would do here.  You can't take his statements at face value, of course.  That goes without saying.  You have to get to his id, as well as the more honed instincts of those around him.  I really don't know.  His presidency has been more establishmentarian than many predicted (whether those predictions to the contrary were hopes or fears).  The bank bailout in 2008-2009 had a lot of bipartisan support and a lot of bipartisan opposition.  Trump does not fear chaos.  The threat that refusing to bail out the banks and letting the failures ripple out through the system would unleash chaos would not faze him as much as it fazed many more establishment figures.  But his financial team is dyed-in-the-wool Wall Street henchmen.

 

If another financial bubble bursts and he did draw a line in the sand, and said no, these chips will fall where they will, even if they take down Citi and JPMorgan Chase ... would Bernie Sanders lock arms with him?  Would Elizabeth Warren?

 

Thanks for the reply.  I guess what I was getting at here is that GOP has been all about deregulation but when banks were in trouble they supported bailing them out.  Thus doesn't seem like a small government policy.  If banks expect a bail out, they should have rules and regulations.  We both know if there's another collapse we will socialize the losses again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when an unregulated financial institution goes belly-up are we going to let them fail or bail them out again?

 

 

 

Doesn't our knowledge of toxins and pollutants increase every year.  Again, in 1977 someone could've made the same argument that the risk of lead paint isn't worth the additional costs.  Or removing lead from gasoline, etc.  Tobacco companies and politicians (including Mike Pence) wouldn't even admit a link between smoking and cancer existed until the 1990s. 

 

And these politicians only need to visit Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, etc to see how private industry acted as stewards of their own pollutants.  Any member who votes against environmental regulations should be supplied drinking water from brown fields if they trust industry to self-police.

 

Also it's not just private sector who is polluting, federal regs have pressured local governments to clean up their act. This has provided significant benefits to our quality of life.

 

City of Akron, Ohio, Agrees to Improve Sewer System to Resolve Clean Water Act Violations

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/city-akron-ohio-agrees-improve-sewer-system-resolve-clean-water-act-violations

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when an unregulated financial institution goes belly-up are we going to let them fail or bail them out again?

 

 

 

Doesn't our knowledge of toxins and pollutants increase every year.  Again, in 1977 someone could've made the same argument that the risk of lead paint isn't worth the additional costs.  Or removing lead from gasoline, etc.  Tobacco companies and politicians (including Mike Pence) wouldn't even admit a link between smoking and cancer existed until the 1990s. 

 

And these politicians only need to visit Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, etc to see how private industry acted as stewards of their own pollutants.  Any member who votes against environmental regulations should be supplied drinking water from brown fields if they trust industry to self-police.

 

Also it's not just private sector who is polluting, federal regs have pressured local governments to clean up their act. This has provided significant benefits to our quality of life.

 

City of Akron, Ohio, Agrees to Improve Sewer System to Resolve Clean Water Act Violations

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/city-akron-ohio-agrees-improve-sewer-system-resolve-clean-water-act-violations

 

Columbus recently completed a billion-dollar project to eliminate sewage overflows into the Scioto for the same reason.  Along with the dam removals and new parks they've been doing, water quality has significantly improved, the riverfront odors have disappeared and water recreation has increased. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when an unregulated financial institution goes belly-up are we going to let them fail or bail them out again?

 

I realize I responded on the environmental regulation front and not on this one earlier.  I think that is an extremely interesting question.  I've really been trying to guess what Trump would do here.  You can't take his statements at face value, of course.  That goes without saying.  You have to get to his id, as well as the more honed instincts of those around him.  I really don't know.  His presidency has been more establishmentarian than many predicted (whether those predictions to the contrary were hopes or fears).  The bank bailout in 2008-2009 had a lot of bipartisan support and a lot of bipartisan opposition.  Trump does not fear chaos.  The threat that refusing to bail out the banks and letting the failures ripple out through the system would unleash chaos would not faze him as much as it fazed many more establishment figures.  But his financial team is dyed-in-the-wool Wall Street henchmen.

 

If another financial bubble bursts and he did draw a line in the sand, and said no, these chips will fall where they will, even if they take down Citi and JPMorgan Chase ... would Bernie Sanders lock arms with him?  Would Elizabeth Warren?

 

Thanks for the reply.  I guess what I was getting at here is that GOP has been all about deregulation but when banks were in trouble they supported bailing them out.

 

So have the Democrats.  Glass-Steagall was repealed under President Clinton.  The bank bailout was a coalition-splitting vote on both sides (it's been so long since we've had anything but a party-line vote that we've practically forgotten that other kinds used to exist).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Politico article itself says that the RCP average still has Republicans trailing on the generic ballot, D+7.  The Politico/Morning Consult poll showing R+1 is, IIRC, one of the polls that goes into that average.  So Politico (the news outlet) in that story was reporting on both its own poll and on the average that the poll is one data point within (the political media can be shamelessly self-referential ... here is our poll, and here is our news about some newsworthy polls).

 

The spread of the polls can be legitimately interesting, though.  If the generic ballot is D+7 with a range of D+6 to D+8, that says something very different than if the generic ballot is D+7 with a range of R+20 to D+34 (exaggerating, of course, but you get the point).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ this is a nationwide poll, it does not say what is going to happen in an individual district. Plus, it often takes a few weeks for the results of the poll to start resonating more in nationwide matchups.

 

Also, remember these polls do not mean much beyond a D+15 or R+15 sentiment. Remember for much of the last few elections the Dems had an advantage on the generic ballot too and it really did not get them anywhere.

 

What I think this says is that there may not be the wave election that was predicted last year, but it does not mean the GOP wont lose seats even if they have an advantage in the generic poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, remember these polls do not mean much beyond a D+15 or R+15 sentiment. Remember for much of the last few elections the Dems had an advantage on the generic ballot too and it really did not get them anywhere.

 

You might be thinking about party ID, for which Dems usually have an advantage and it doesn't mean much. Dems haven't had a substantial lead in these generic ballot polls in a decade.

 

The GOP has gained in the past couple weeks, I would blame it on the shutdown debacle, but Dems were up high enough before that they are still in very good shape for this coming November. Look at these old generic congressional ballots from the past several elections, they each turned out to be reasonaly accurate within about a percent. (You have to look at the second line, the first line is the actual election results while "RCP Average" is the poll.)

 

2010, poll consistent with GOP shellacking

 

2012, poll consistent with no change in control of congress

 

2014, poll consistent with GOP victory

 

2016, poll shows a tiny dem lead, slightly off from actual results

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I should be over it, but the speed at which the organized conservative movement became the ideological home of Marion Le Pen, Seb Gorka, Nigel Farage, Dinesh D'Souza and their ilk remains shocking to me.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...