What do you call it when both sides lose?

Kyshia · 2018-11-07T21:17:40.917Z

gwhit:

Don’t take what some say as having any thought behind it, they think Nancy Pelosi is a socialist. It like they don’t even understand what a corporate democrat like her is and how many in Dem party look at her as more of a GOP that does not hate minorities ie a moderate Republican.

They used to use Communist instead of socialist, but then they realized that saying “commie, commie, commie” all of the time made them look dated, McCarthyesque, and silly.

Socialist is a good transitional buzzword until they find something that makes more–by which I mean less–sense.

Toll_Collector · 2018-11-07T21:30:07.192Z

Absolution:

It’s called a Democratic blowout because the loss of a few seats in the Senate means nothing to the already minority Democrats now that they can control all legislation by virtue of holding the House. More importantly, they can now expose Trump, and that’s exactly what will happen. It won’t just be a drumbeat of anti-Trump rhetoric, it will be a fire hose of actual evidence of Trump’s fraud and criminality. He’ll still have his most hardcore base, because racism and xenophobia in America are very strong. But anyone else that sides with Trump will clearly be painted with the same excrement as Trump, softening up the Senate for the next election. Further, the Democrats can introduce wave after wave of legislation that’s overtly beneficial to middle class Trump voters who were fooled into thinking that Trump gives a rat’s ass about them. When those bills fail to advance in the Senate, everyone will see who the Republicans are who blocked them, and Trump is powerless to do anything about it. Finally, control over the House gives the Democrats a strong platform to groom and promote their next presidential candidate, who will probably be running against Pence. (And no, I do not think the Senate will convict Trump; I think there will be incontrovertible evidence of the Trump crime family’s wrongdoing, and Trump will resign in shame before the 2020 election.)

That would truly be something new to behold. Something different for a change. I’ll believe it when I see it.

reflechissez · 2018-11-07T21:35:40.941Z

Toll_Collector:

Absolution:

It’s called a Democratic blowout because the loss of a few seats in the Senate means nothing to the already minority Democrats now that they can control all legislation by virtue of holding the House. More importantly, they can now expose Trump, and that’s exactly what will happen. It won’t just be a drumbeat of anti-Trump rhetoric, it will be a fire hose of actual evidence of Trump’s fraud and criminality. He’ll still have his most hardcore base, because racism and xenophobia in America are very strong. But anyone else that sides with Trump will clearly be painted with the same excrement as Trump, softening up the Senate for the next election. Further, the Democrats can introduce wave after wave of legislation that’s overtly beneficial to middle class Trump voters who were fooled into thinking that Trump gives a rat’s ass about them. When those bills fail to advance in the Senate, everyone will see who the Republicans are who blocked them, and Trump is powerless to do anything about it. Finally, control over the House gives the Democrats a strong platform to groom and promote their next presidential candidate, who will probably be running against Pence. (And no, I do not think the Senate will convict Trump; I think there will be incontrovertible evidence of the Trump crime family’s wrongdoing, and Trump will resign in shame before the 2020 election.)

That would truly be something new to behold. Something different for a change. I’ll believe it when I see it.

Obamacare…

Vigilante · 2018-11-07T21:37:16.450Z

Yeah how could we lose something(the Senate) that we never had?

Vigilante · 2018-11-07T21:37:42.937Z

Dissident_Aggressor:

A Browns/Raiders matchup?

Damn funny

bootz · 2018-11-07T22:06:44.228Z

OP said that

Tilly_jow · 2018-11-07T22:11:32.998Z

bootz:

OP said that

It was your OP.

bootz · 2018-11-07T22:12:05.921Z

and I said republicans lost.

Toll_Collector · 2018-11-08T00:01:39.037Z

reflechissez:

Obamacare…

Then we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes “overtly beneficial to middle class”.

Impenitent · 2018-11-08T00:21:47.982Z

gridlock 10chars

Axxowiz · 2018-11-08T00:56:38.736Z

I don’t know I agree it was a good night for democrats in the house, but according to 538 the senate map in 2020 is a lot worse than 2018 and the only way to have overcame that was to come out last night with +1 democrat for the senate. There is a real chance the republicans will have over 60 Senators by 2020 (think long game Supreme Court justices over 80 years old).

reflechissez · 2018-11-08T07:16:10.925Z

Axxowiz:

I don’t know I agree it was a good night for democrats in the house, but according to 538 the senate map in 2020 is a lot worse than 2018 and the only way to have overcame that was to come out last night with +1 democrat for the senate. There is a real chance the republicans will have over 60 Senators by 2020 (think long game Supreme Court justices over 80 years old).

The 2020 map is a lot worse for whom?

Kyshia · 2018-11-08T09:56:13.893Z

Impenitent:

gridlock 10chars

Gridlock was surely a happy word for you several years ago. Is it a happy word for you now?

TriggerWarning · 2018-11-08T10:27:45.463Z

I call it a victory for the American people. Neither party is wholly right or wholly wrong on anything. Whats best for the American people is when there is compromise or failing that nothing happening. We will now either get compromise or we will get gridlock. Either way neither side will be able to push through their most radical agendas.

bootz · 2018-11-08T16:55:31.477Z

you have to be really creative to make up something good about the midterms for Republicans.

what is clear is that the agenda is not being well received. Otherwise they would have won.

the fact that democrats offered nothing and won is more disconcerting.

Trump has failed in evolving to policy instead of personality.

you cannot promote policy on Twitter.

bootz · 2018-11-08T16:56:32.094Z

definitely yes, the alternative is bigger government, there is no small government party anymore.

Axxowiz · 2018-11-08T21:41:19.437Z

Think about, we have been told for the last year that the midterms would be a complete bloodbath and repudiation of Trump, something similiar or worse than the midterms circa 2010 when Obama lost 63 house seats and 6 Senate seats.

When in fact Trump lost about the average amount of seats in the house during midterms of a new president and did historically better in the senate. I agree losing the house sucks, but picking up a few senate seats during a massive voter turnout and the most money ever spent on a midterm against you isn’t nothing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/0E4ECDBC-E292-11E8-AACB-D25BA978757B

If people want to call it a blue wave their entitled to do so in reality Trump lost the average amount of seats in the house during a first term Presidents midterm and did historically better in the senate.

bootz · 2018-11-08T22:54:29.388Z

Given that I am not a Trump supporter I may be biased. Maybe the senate seats that were lost came in on Obama’s coat tails. maybe they were really red seats anyway.

The fact is there is little policy discussion, it reminds me of Clinton in 1998, but people liked Bill.

I would prefer that somebody took a leadership role in policy explanation and discussion as opposed to dueling talking points with no substance.

we do not talk about deficits since 2009, last word was they are immoral.

we do not talk about the role of government in a free society, we do not bring up things that matter.

DOLOOP · 2018-11-08T23:03:09.386Z

NebraskaFootball:

Cratic3947:

OK, you are right. I had heard that somewhere and didn’t check it out. But Trump’s strategy did keep the senate and he picked up 3 seats… So, that’s Cool. Great for conformations, and judges. And he won’t be impeached.

That is fair enough. Although, it was never really in doubt in regards to the Senate. It is arguable the GOP did better here than some predicted though, true. But the ground was historically poor for Democrats to gain control of the Senate, and really to not lose some seats. But the loss of the House, loss of Governorships and State Houses were pretty brutal for the GOP. And in total was a net loss for the GOP in these midterms. Especially when you consider the economy being as good as it is currently.

Democrats won 22 Senate Races. Republicans won 13. That’s how difficult the senate map was.

Cratic3947 · 2018-11-08T23:09:49.473Z

Cynic:

During the supposed “best economy ever” Trump got wasted on every front except the Senate, especially at the state level. The Senate had 42 secure seats and was never considered to be in play…

Obama was in the middle of an economic disaster that was handed to him…

It was a clear loss.

It was a lost. Obama’s loss was due to passing Obama care. Trump did better than Clinton too. But, I’d much rather kept the house.

I think Rush is correct, had not 40 or so reps believed in the blue wave and retired, we would have kept 1/2 those seats at least… Also losses were heaviest among those who distanced themselves from Trump.