Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by eel river, Nov 7, 2017.
Yes it is. Understand that it helps them to dry their liberal tears.
And fill their Depends, lets not forget
Dem winning Dem seats in blue state. Humm...
Apparently, you don't grasp that geographically, the majority of the state isn't blue. For example, a conservative's conservative who held his seat for many terms was whooped by a far-left transgender Democrat.
"Unofficial returns showed Democrats unseating at least a dozen Republicans and flipping three seats that had been occupied by GOP incumbents who did not seek reelection. Four other races were so close that they qualify for a recount, and the outcome will determine control of the chamber. The results marked the most sweeping shift in control of the legislature since Reconstruction."
As I indicated above, I thought the same thing until I looked at the state house seats. It was not simply dems winning dem seats. There was a significant shift in traditionally R districts, too. It was a shellacking. There was a very significant enthusiasm shift between 2016 and 2017. Argue all you want about how much was due to low Hillary enthusiasm in 2016 vs Trump/Republican fatigue now but don't even begin to try to argue it didn't occur. If you think the R's can hold the House and Senate with that kind of a gap (polls right now have generic Democrats walloping generic Republicans by an 11% margin) you are in for a surprise.
If Tuesday's mood holds brace yourself for a huge loss of seats in 2018. @eel river and @hartfish are correct in that if the R infighting continues none of us (except the few lefties here) will be happy.
How many seats were gained? Most sweeping shift in control since the 1870s? Larger that the shift in the House back in 2010 when the Repubs gained 63 seats? The Reconstruction era shift was Dems gaining 94 seats in 1874.
Or are we just talking about a State legislature?
Yes, and no. If it was just a state legislature alone it could be easier to discount as localized but it was not. The VA state races were a shellacking but combining that with the other losses makes a stronger case for concern. Most who discount the losses, like I was originally, aren't looking at the whole picture.
After reading a few articles, it seamed pretty one sided. As was stated numerous times in previous posts.
Most folks (especially here) are trying to minimalize it so it doesn't seem so bad. Probably not a good idea if this is what the masses are saying. Candidates need to sit up, take notice, potentially change their game plan for future races.
Yes, but - isn't VA turning more Dem as those employed in the Beltway expand beyond their traditional areas of residence?