OKAY you folks just aren't trying at all — Page 2

My dream ticket in 2020 would be former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm/Tim Ryan bu it's my understanding that she's ineligible due to some born in Canada rule that didn't apply to Ted Cruz. I'd love to see them take the fight to the GOP in the Rust Belt. Hopefully, the next Democratic potus will nominate Granholm to serve as her or his Secretary of State. I cringe every time I hear Rex Tillerson utter some more nonsense.

Trump didn't win this district by 20+ points last fall; he won it by barely over a point. Handel increased that Republican victory margin.

What? You mean compared to Price's reelection last year? Well, duh. I'm saying that some people believe that Trump handily took the district in the presidential race last year (which would suggest that Democrats have gained traction there over the past eight months). And that isn't true.

My mistake for misreading the race you were discussing. The incorrect comparisons to last year's presidential election isn't something I made up, though: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jun/21/joy-reid/joy-ann-reid-mistakes-size-trump-victory-georgia-d/

Miss American said: "Thank you, South Florida. One would have thought between the discussion in the thread and the fact I mentioned the district, it would have been enough to make people understand what I was saying, but I should remember that some people have to have things spelled out. That's assuming they aren't just being disingenuous in the first place, which, sadly, has often been my expeirence with GOP defenders like Broadway Concierge."

GOP hater here. The point of comparing Trump's margin to Handel's margin is that the Democrats aren't doing a very good job putting up an effective opposition to Trump. In an off-year election like this, I'd normally expect the opposition party to outperform their party's previous presidential candidate.

It makes little sense to compare this election to the previous regular election in that district, because at that time the GOP was the opposition party, and I'd expect them to do better than average.

Updated On: 6/22/17 at 12:41 PM

So you joined it to carry water for the GOP but not for their policies? Hmm.

kdogg, they overperforned in a seat that was put in play because the GOP specifically thought it would a cakewalk. I don't understand how this race or any other since 2016 can suggest that 6 months into his term that the Democrats aren't putting up effective opposition, when you consider they are contending with gerrymandering and voter suppression, not to mention a seat in the South that was all but impossible to win.

kdogg36 said: GOP hater here. The point of comparing Trump's margin to Handel's margin is that the Democrats aren't doing a very good job putting up an effective opposition to Trump. In an off-year election like this, I'd normally expect the opposition party to outperform their party's previous presidential candidate.

It makes little sense to compare this election to the previous regular election in that district, because at that time the GOP was the opposition party, and I'd expect them to do better than average."



In 2009, Democrats won all 5 special elections. We all know how 2010 turned out for them.

Miss American said: "So you joined it to carry water for the GOP but not for their policies? Hmmm..




That's what he always does. He knows there's no defending these people so he tries to speak in generalities. When you attempt to nail him down to a position and ask him to defend his previous GOP, he takes on his holier than thou attitude.

LYLS3637 said: "This "Pelosi is a liability" crap reminds that if conservatives demonize and tear down a successful woman enough, self-proclaimed liberals/progressives will eventually join in."

I know it's the other chamber, but I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren - who really does try to offer a full-throated alternative to Trump's nonsense - become the public leader of the party.

I realize there's rampant sexism, especially in politics, but that doesn't hold water here. Pelosi is not offering exciting ideas, and I don't think she has the temperament to make people excited about them anyhow. That's not because of her sex.

Uncle Charlie has it right Lyl. She is a tumor just like Hillary.

As Speaker, Nancy Pelosi was very good at getting the votes. She encountered none of the embarrassments of her successors. Obama would not have been able to accomplish as much as he did without her. That said, she has become the target for the neocons, and she will continue to be that through the midterms. If the Dems took the House back, she could still be effective at getting the votes, but she is jeopardizing that outcome by remaining the face of that House majority.

LYLS3637 said: "South Florida said: "Uncle Charlie has it right Lyl. She is a tumor just like Hillary."



So then Obama is a tumor, Biden is a tumor, John Lewis is a tumor, Chris Von Hollen is a tumor, Jim Clyburn is a tumor, Steve Israel is a tumor. The entire DCCC leadership is a tumor.

You're placing the blame entirely on the women. 2010 didn't happen because of Nancy Pelosi. If anything, the person that bears the most blame for the 2010 slaughter is Barack Obama, and yet he remains on the pedestal while the battle tested women are told to go away and shut the f&ck up.

Use Pelosi as the scapegoat if you want to, but if the Dems screw up 2018, it will not be because of her.



I'm certainly not placing Obama on a pedestal. He had some major successes domestically but his foreign policy had some major shortcomings. though he was intelligent, compassionate and wanted to do the right thing for the country so compared to what we have now, he really does look like the second coming.

I know it's easier to just whine about how we hate strong women but let's looks at the facts. 2010 was bad across the board but in 2012, Obama got re-elected by 5 million votes and 126 electoral votes, bigger margins than Trump yet the Dems were only able to regain 8 of the 63 seats they lost in the house in 2010 despite a major win at the top of the ticket. That's really not good. In 2014, they not only lost those 8 seats but 6 more, and lost another 13 in 2016. It's great to be battle tested but if you are the party's leader in the House and the Dems have lost almost every single battle under your leadership (and I would argue only gaining back 8 seats in 2012 could easily be viewed as a loss as well), a reasonable person would think it's time for a change though I'm sure you believe she owns no responsibility for that and is just a scapegoat. She may have skills at wrangling votes but if you can't get your people elected in the first place, you don't have anyone to wrangle.

But you keep pushing your "it's because she's a strong woman narrative". With your desperately clutching to a false, unproven narrative and ignoring the facts right in front of your face, you'd actually make a perfect Trump supporter. Maybe you are, since his supporters would love nothing more than Pelosi to stay in power.

Updated On: 6/23/17 at 02:09 PM

UncleCharlie said: "I'm certainly not placing Obama on a pedestal. He had some major successes domestically but his foreign policy had some major shortcomings. though he was intelligent, compassionate and wanted to do the right thing for the country so compared to what we have now, he really does look like the second coming.

I know it's easier to just whine about how we hate strong women but let's looks at the facts. 2010 was bad across the board but in 2012, Obama got re-elected by 5 million votes and 126 electoral votes, bigger margins than Trump yet the Dems were only able to regain 8 of the 63 seats they lost in the house in 2010 despite a major win at the top of the ticket. That's really not good. In 2014, they not only lost those 8 seats but 6 more, and lost another 13 in 2016. It's great to be battle tested but if you are the party's leader in the House and the Dems have lost almost every single battle under your leadership (and I would argue only gaining back 8 seats in 2012 could easily be viewed as a loss as well), a reasonable person would think it's time for a change though I'm sure you believe she owns no responsibility for that and is just a scapegoat. She may have skills at wrangling votes but if you can't get your people elected in the first place, you don't have anyone to wrangle.

But you keep pushing your "it's because she's a strong woman narrative". With your desperately clutching to a false, unproven narrative and ignoring the facts right in front of your face, you'd actually make a perfect Trump supporter. Maybe you are, since his supporters would love nothing more than Pelosi to stay in power."

The fact right in front of your face is that while more Democrats than Republicans voted in 2012 (securing Obama's 2nd term and 23 of out of a possible 33 Democratic Senate seats), the party faced new, harshly gerrymandered Congressional districts. Which brings me back to 2010 when Barack Obama and the Democratic Party made a colossal strategic error leading to a Tea Party wave across Congress and state legislatures (who drew the new Congressional lines). You didn't hear me say Pelosi is blameless. But she's just one cook in the kitchen and not even "mostly" responsible for why the Democratic Party is where it is.

The narrative you push isn't used on Chuck Schumer. It's not used on Jim Clyburn. It's not used on Barrack Obama. It's not used on Joe Biden. Hell, the Left didn't spout that kind of contempt at Harry Reid. But when it comes to Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, the blame just pours. I'm not "desperately clutching" at anything, but you certainly are.