This is an absolute MUST watch !!!
This is an absolute MUST watch !!!
Trollminator wrote:
L L wrote:
So which of the senate races that I laid out do you think the Dems will lose?
Name 3
They have to lose 3 of them to not gain the senate.
I think they will lose N Dakota, Mississippi, Nebraska and probably Utah.
Mississippi, Nebraska and Utah are not currently held by Democrats and aren’t one of the four Republican toss up states I listed.
Wining those won’t stop a party change.
You have N Dakota flipping red.
You still need 2 more Dem states to flip or 2 Repub toss ups to hold onto out of NV, AZ, TX, TN
Good description of how the parties have changed since 2000... and evidence why it's so available for a newcomer from the outer flanks to oust a more moderate incumbent in a primary
https://twitter.com/CarrollDoherty/status/1034431979197005824
PrincessLoper wrote:
Gallant Pig Man==Lying Moron wrote:
Do your own research Princess
Flagpole. UR such a princess. Late nights in park restrooms must be good times 4U.
Hi Flagpole!
Not real wrote:
agip wrote:
You are right, and I'd add that you have SERIOUS quick scanning problems!
I apologized above, several moons ago.
I guess "my bad" is what passes for an apology from Millennials these days.
smh
Eat S.HIT and die
L L wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
I think they will lose N Dakota, Mississippi, Nebraska and probably Utah.
Mississippi, Nebraska and Utah are not currently held by Democrats and aren’t one of the four Republican toss up states I listed.
Wining those won’t stop a party change.
You have N Dakota flipping red.
You still need 2 more Dem states to flip or 2 Repub toss ups to hold onto out of NV, AZ, TX, TN
To simplify, Dems have 26 seats now, they need 28, which means they will need to grab 2 of the available 9 held by GOP, which are all not very competitive for Dems. I think they will lose at least N Dakota and don’t think they have a realistic shot at taking 3 to get a majority. I think they have the best shot at Nevada, but that will just leave them even. AZ is a long shot - I think the state is dying for a trumper with McCain gone. The number of seats for grabs is too low and of those the GOP is super strong. Let me put it to you this way, if they take the Senate somehow in this election that would signal a fundamental shift in US politics. I don’t think we are there yet, trumpers are still trumping.
Noticer of Flagpole wrote:
PrincessLoper wrote:
Flagpole. UR such a princess. Late nights in park restrooms must be good times 4U.
Hi Flagpole!
HI JAMIN . . . providing cover for your boy, hardloper, again. . . . that is soooooooo cute.
Trollminator wrote:
AZ is a long shot - I think the state is dying for a trumper with McCain gone..
In 2016 the election results in AZ were:
Trump 49.5%
Clinton 45.4%
Gary Johnson 3.9%
Jill Stein 1.2%
Johnson and Stien voters are far more likely to vote for a Democrat for senate that a Republican. AZ is a lot closer than you.
HI Flagpole wrote:
Noticer of Flagpole wrote:
Hi Flagpole!
HI FLAGPOLE . . . providing cover for your boy, FLAGPOLE, again. . . . that is soooooooo cute.
TRIGGERED DUMBOCRAT!
AZ goes Blue wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
AZ is a long shot - I think the state is dying for a trumper with McCain gone..
In 2016 the election results in AZ were:
Trump 49.5%
Clinton 45.4%
Gary Johnson 3.9%
Jill Stein 1.2%
Johnson and Stien voters are far more likely to vote for a Democrat for senate that a Republican. AZ is a lot closer than you.
I hope you are right, but what is the likelihood Dems hold N Dakota, Indiana, Missouri, Montana and West Virginia? I can see them easily losing 2 of those - trump won these by at least 20 points, so if judging by the closeness of the general election GOP is in much better shape for the Senate race. My prediction is they stay at 26 or move to 25 seats. I want to be very wrong, trust me, but I just don’t see it yet.
Trollminator wrote:
AZ goes Blue wrote:
In 2016 the election results in AZ were:
Trump 49.5%
Clinton 45.4%
Gary Johnson 3.9%
Jill Stein 1.2%
Johnson and Stien voters are far more likely to vote for a Democrat for senate that a Republican. AZ is a lot closer than you.
I hope you are right, but what is the likelihood Dems hold N Dakota, Indiana, Missouri, Montana and West Virginia? I can see them easily losing 2 of those - trump won these by at least 20 points, so if judging by the closeness of the general election GOP is in much better shape for the Senate race. My prediction is they stay at 26 or move to 25 seats. I want to be very wrong, trust me, but I just don’t see it yet.
WV was won by Democrat Manchin 60.6% to 36.5% for his Republican opponent. Before he was elected to the Senate Manchin was governor of WV. West Virginians like him a lot.
WV has had all Democrat senators (all males) since 1958, with the only exception being Republican Shelly Capito who was elected in 2014 (she easily beat a women running as a democrat).
Make of WV what you will, but they do like Democratic men as their senators and governors.
um well yah maybe not wrote:
Flagpole wrote:You are bringing up things I didn't not say or infer....
Steve, I'm not quite sure you know what "infer" means, for all your other evident genius...
I'm dying to read flagpole's explanation of how his usage of "infer" was somehow correct in this situation. It must have been, since he is never wrong, and since he has worked as a professional writer, among other things...?
XY wrote:
This is an absolute MUST watch !!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc4E7lvGsUk
I want my 12 minutes back.
Hard to believe Trump is stupid enough to deny the Puerto Rico death toll. He is being raked all over the place.
The guy has been such a relentless liar all of his life he actually believed nobody would ever call him on it, or notice the avalanche of evidence the other way.
I won't post a link. They are all over the place. It's like he is determined to push his approval rating even lower
XY wrote:
This is an absolute MUST watch !!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc4E7lvGsUk
Chewed up and spit out.
AZ goes Blue wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
I hope you are right, but what is the likelihood Dems hold N Dakota, Indiana, Missouri, Montana and West Virginia? I can see them easily losing 2 of those - trump won these by at least 20 points, so if judging by the closeness of the general election GOP is in much better shape for the Senate race. My prediction is they stay at 26 or move to 25 seats. I want to be very wrong, trust me, but I just don’t see it yet.
WV was won by Democrat Manchin 60.6% to 36.5% for his Republican opponent. Before he was elected to the Senate Manchin was governor of WV. West Virginians like him a lot.
WV has had all Democrat senators (all males) since 1958, with the only exception being Republican Shelly Capito who was elected in 2014 (she easily beat a women running as a democrat).
Make of WV what you will, but they do like Democratic men as their senators and governors.
Now Indiana. The incumbent is Dem Joe Donnelly.
-- Voted against the Dream Act
-- Get an A rating from the NRA
-- Is pro-life
-- His is mixed on LGBT issues
That makes him tough to beat by his republican opponent, Mike Braun, who happened to be a Democrat until 2012. Braun has limited political experience (just 3 years in the Indiana House), and has a net worth between $37 and $95 million.
The Indiana race favors the type of Democrat Donnelly is over a rich Republican who had been a Democrat.
Well there is always this wrote:
Jim Cantore wrote:
You really need to shut up about things you clearly are ignorant about.
Not FP's style, dude.
lol. Yes, indeed. In fact, it's the exact opposite of FPW's style. And that style is: to always open his mouth and lecture others about topics he has, at best, a modicum of knowledge about.
Awsi Dooger wrote:
Hard to believe Trump is stupid enough to deny the Puerto Rico death toll. He is being raked all over the place.
The guy has been such a relentless liar all of his life he actually believed nobody would ever call him on it, or notice the avalanche of evidence the other way.
I won't post a link. They are all over the place. It's like he is determined to push his approval rating even lower
Virtually everything Trump does is to satisfy his base even if it is to the point of aggravating independents who might move towards him if he would simply tone down the complete bafoonery.
come on, man! wrote:
um well yah maybe not wrote:
Steve, I'm not quite sure you know what "infer" means, for all your other evident genius...
I'm dying to read flagpole's explanation of how his usage of "infer" was somehow correct in this situation. It must have been, since he is never wrong, and since he has worked as a professional writer, among other things...?
You folks should probably give it up on this one. Flagpole's use was perfectly legitimate.
infer (v): to suggest or hint ("You are bringing up things I did not say or infer.")
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inferNow, if FP let's you 2? off the hook on this one then we can infer that he is indeed kind (while still being righteous).
Jim Cantore wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
I most certainly do know what I'm talking about. A stalled category 4 hurricane is much worse than a stalled category 2 hurricane, both in terms of wind damage but more importantly in terms of storm surge.
You are bringing up things I didn't not say or infer. I never said a fast moving storm of any strength was more dangerous than a slow moving Category 2 storm.
You have nothing to teach me, and it is clear you are not good at reading comprehension or debate.
This is the last time I’m going to respond to you since you are clearly dumb.
1) a stalled cat 4 is more dangerous than a stalled cat 2 - Are you that stupid that you needed to type that?
2) You fail to understand that if it remained a cat 4 that it would have been faster moving and smaller. Faster moving and smaller storms due LESS damage. You said it was helpful that it was now a cat 2 (you said ghis twice). This is not even close to true.
3) I AM bringing up things you did not say or infer. I simply pointed out that you were wrong when you said that since it was downgraded that it was “helpful.” It clearly (to intelligent people, at least) that it is not for the numerous reasons I stated.
4) That’s great that you never said a fast moving storm of any strength was more dangerous than slow moving cat 2. I never said you did.
You really need to shut up about things you clearly are ignorant about.
No, you are an idiot. I didn't suggest any of the things you said there. You CAN actually have a stalled category 4 storm due to another system holding it there, and meteorologists were suggesting that that COULD have been the case. Of course there is going to be a lot of damage from the rain and the storm surge, but again, a stalled category 4 is much worse than a stalled category 2, and a category 4 CAN stall just like a 2 can. YOU don't know what YOU are talking about. No matter what you say, a category 2 storm in this case is better than a category 4. You are simply wrong.