Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

As you stated, they suffered experienced the consequences of being "forced to resign, lost elections, or lost primaries" because of it.  Post-Trump win, other "violations" of this nature on both sides of the aisle have also had the same consequences so I'm not quite understanding your point here.

* 'suffered' is not a word that should be used to describe these consequences. 

But...is/did Trump? Has he lost any support over this? Over the other sexual harassment claims? Over being a proven serial cheater? Over other "un-Christian" acts/sins/words?  Because.....the right wing pundits and posters seem to have shrugged it all off, or use the "Well, look what BILL did" defense.

And was Roy Moore forced to give up his spot in the election? Did he lose in a landslide out in Alabama?

Patrick Meehan, of PA, has STILL not resigned (though he won't see reelection) and settled his own sexual harassment suit using taxpayer money.

Blake Farenthold, of TX, has not resigned (though he won't seek reelection) and settled a sexual harassment suit using taxpayer money.

It is NOT the same as it was, pre-Trumpism.  Those two congressmen would have been run out on a rail, in the not too distant past.  Roy Moore would have been widely criticized by EVERYONE, rather than having most Republicans in office, on TV, etc say "Well, if he pulls out "we" lose and it's better than having the democrat win".  WHAT??!! No, no it's not. Not for the country and not even for THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!  This president would never have been elected if the evangelical/"religious right"/devout voters held him to the same standard they've held candidates to since.....forever.  Hell, GARY HART withdrew....the favorite for the democratic nomination for president....over stories of an affair.  That was just 20 years ago.....times have drastically changed.  And so have those voters, and their commitment to voting for candidates that exemplify their faith.

The Repubs are no more the "moral majority".  They no longer have that claim. 2016 gave an inkling of that.  2017 closed the coffin door and nailed it shut.

Here I'm addressing both pilferk and tim_m's posts because I think we're all basically agreeing while accusing each side of using the same tactics.

I've watched the 2 dems who have faced similar accusations pretty much resign within a week or two.

I'm not saying the dems are the new moral majority.  But this past year, the moral high ground is definitely theirs....

Yes as a person of faith myself, I do find the partisan personal aspect of political mudslinging alarming & disturbing especially by the so-called moral majority.  He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...(John 8:7)

Unfortunately, this outlook is rampant not only in threads like this but also in the media (both sides).  Who had sex with whom should not be the LEAD* story of any political news show when there are so many other REAL issues that affect peoples every day life.  Should it be reported on the news?  Yes, of course.  But it shouldn't be the lead or take up the majority of the newscast.... we have late-night tv pundits to do that.

Its not the sex act (at least for me), it's the cover up.  Or it's the act of sexual harassment. What two people do, inside or outside of their marriage is none of my business (and not really all that interesting to me).  That's between Don and Melania (as Monica...who was a consenting adult...was between Bill and Hillary).

The "lead story" here, really, isn't that Trump was cheating with Daniels.  It's that he potentially used campaign money to pay her off (or someone else made a "contribution in kind" and paid her off...to keep her quiet specifically during the election).

Or it's that she was physically threatened, allegedly, if she didn't sign the agreement (coercian).

That's what lands it in the news...but thats not really what we're discussing. Or it's not what I'm discussing.

The point (or my point anyway) is that: He's committed an amoral act that those who cite morality and goodness and godliness are willing to shrug off because the guy has an (R) after his name.  Because they sure wouldn't give the same considerations to someone with a (D).  And that's quite a bit different than what we've seen in the past.  If you're saying it's all about forgiveness and accepting human weakness...shouldn't that loving acceptance and understanding be applied regardless of political affiliation?  You can't have it both ways.

We've gotten to the point where the moral objections aren't really moral at all.  They're political...and forgiveness, largely, is only suggested/applied to the guys in red by the voters we're talking about.

The "moral majority" is dead. Killed by Trumpism. Preach piety, vote perversity (as long as it wears a red tie, and self identifies as a Republican).

*quantified, of course, if said LEAD story is about rape/sexual harassment by a former governor/president and his wife who mercilessly harassed/impugned her husband's victims.

I'm glad you've posted this full throated condemnation of Trump, given the 19 women who have accused him of harassment and improper sexual contact...and his wife, Melania, who has publicly treated those women horribly (and called them all liars and worse). I'm sure you lump his daughter in there, who has likewise spoken out against these women (after condemning Bill Clinton and suggesting (which they did) parading out his accusers at his wife's presidential debate).

Oh, wait....you're not.

This masterfully proves my point:  It's OK for it to be the lead story when it's "the other guy and his wife"......just not when it's "your guy and his wife and daughter".  

[pilferk]

Not saying what happened prior to his presidency is not relevant.  But unlike Bill C, Trump's infidelity isn't an impeachable offense as it did not happen when he was President. The court of public opinion will rule on Trump over this.

Again, Bill C's infidelity (aka the blowjob) also wasn't impeachable.  Lying about it, under oath, was.

Likewise, for Trump:

Illegal campaign contributions could rise to that level (at least for censure).

Physical intimidation and coersian, if done with his knowledge and on his behalf, also would.

If the crime is committed in pursuit of the presidency, it's relevant.  Hell, any felony committed by a presidential candidate, if they are indicted during their presidency, could be an impeachable offense.  It doesn't HAVE to occur while they are the president.

[tim_m]

Funny most of us thought the Russia investigation would bring down Trump, now it looks like it might be all the porn stars he was banging and paid off during the campaign which might be illegal contributions.

  
There's something there with Stormy Daniels, you don't pay hush money to someone if nothing happened.

 But we are talking about Teflon Don here.  And it isn't like he did this while Potus in the oval Office with an intern & cigars involved.  

Was it bad behavior? Absolutely.

It wasnt the blow job that took Clinton down. It was lying about it.

And this is akin to saying all the past trangressions and harassments and philandering by Clinton, prior to his presidency, should be/have been off limits and irrelevant to the national discussion.

Do you actually feel that way? Do the rest of the conservatives/Repubs? Because it sure gets talked about a lot (even now, to justify Trump).

What was it mamma said about two wrongs?

Lastly, libs/dems dont claim to be the moral majority, nor do they get a decent percentage of votes from the evangelical/devout population, who would find this conduct a disqualifier (and they would be vocal about it, if history is to be believed) in any other(esp Democratic) candidate.

Not saying what happened prior to his presidency is not relevant.  But unlike Bill C, Trump's infidelity isn't an impeachable offense as it did not happen when he was President. The court of public opinion will rule on Trump over this.

 

The actual infidelity may not but Trump org's involvement in the coverup may be

[tim_m]

As you stated, they suffered experienced the consequences of being "forced to resign, lost elections, or lost primaries" because of it.  Post-Trump win, other "violations" of this nature on both sides of the aisle have also had the same consequences so I'm not quite understanding your point here.

* 'suffered' is not a word that should be used to describe these consequences. 

But...is/did Trump? Has he lost any support over this? Over the other sexual harassment claims? Over being a proven serial cheater? Over other "un-Christian" acts/sins/words?  Because.....the right wing pundits and posters seem to have shrugged it all off, or use the "Well, look what BILL did" defense.

And was Roy Moore forced to give up his spot in the election? Did he lose in a landslide out in Alabama?

Patrick Meehan, of PA, has STILL not resigned (though he won't see reelection) and settled his own sexual harassment suit using taxpayer money.

Blake Farenthold, of TX, has not resigned (though he won't seek reelection) and settled a sexual harassment suit using taxpayer money.

It is NOT the same as it was, pre-Trumpism.  Those two congressmen would have been run out on a rail, in the not too distant past.  Roy Moore would have been widely criticized by EVERYONE, rather than having most Republicans in office, on TV, etc say "Well, if he pulls out "we" lose and it's better than having the democrat win".  WHAT??!! No, no it's not. Not for the country and not even for THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!  This president would never have been elected if the evangelical/"religious right"/devout voters held him to the same standard they've held candidates to since.....forever.  Hell, GARY HART withdrew....the favorite for the democratic nomination for president....over stories of an affair.  That was just 20 years ago.....times have drastically changed.  And so have those voters, and their commitment to voting for candidates that exemplify their faith.

The Repubs are no more the "moral majority".  They no longer have that claim. 2016 gave an inkling of that.  2017 closed the coffin door and nailed it shut.

Here I'm addressing both pilferk and tim_m's posts because I think we're all basically agreeing while accusing each side of using the same tactics.

I've watched the 2 dems who have faced similar accusations pretty much resign within a week or two.

I'm not saying the dems are the new moral majority.  But this past year, the moral high ground is definitely theirs....

Yes as a person of faith myself, I do find the partisan personal aspect of political mudslinging alarming & disturbing especially by the so-called moral majority.  He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...(John 8:7)

Unfortunately, this outlook is rampant not only in threads like this but also in the media (both sides).  Who had sex with whom should not be the LEAD* story of any political news show when there are so many other REAL issues that affect peoples every day life.  Should it be reported on the news?  Yes, of course.  But it shouldn't be the lead or take up the majority of the newscast.... we have late-night tv pundits to do that.

Its not the sex act (at least for me), it's the cover up.  Or it's the act of sexual harassment. What two people do, inside or outside of their marriage is none of my business (and not really all that interesting to me).  That's between Don and Melania (as Monica...who was a consenting adult...was between Bill and Hillary).

The "lead story" here, really, isn't that Trump was cheating with Daniels.  It's that he potentially used campaign money to pay her off (or someone else made a "contribution in kind" and paid her off...to keep her quiet specifically during the election).

Or it's that she was physically threatened, allegedly, if she didn't sign the agreement (coercian).

That's what lands it in the news...but thats not really what we're discussing. Or it's not what I'm discussing.

The point (or my point anyway) is that: He's committed an amoral act that those who cite morality and goodness and godliness are willing to shrug off because the guy has an (R) after his name.  Because they sure wouldn't give the same considerations to someone with a (D).  And that's quite a bit different than what we've seen in the past.  If you're saying it's all about forgiveness and accepting human weakness...shouldn't that loving acceptance and understanding be applied regardless of political affiliation?  You can't have it both ways.

We've gotten to the point where the moral objections aren't really moral at all.  They're political...and forgiveness, largely, is only suggested/applied to the guys in red by the voters we're talking about.

The "moral majority" is dead. Killed by Trumpism. Preach piety, vote perversity (as long as it wears a red tie, and self identifies as a Republican).

*quantified, of course, if said LEAD story is about rape/sexual harassment by a former governor/president and his wife who mercilessly harassed/impugned her husband's victims.

I'm glad you've posted this full throated condemnation of Trump, given the 19 women who have accused him of harassment and improper sexual contact...and his wife, Melania, who has publicly treated those women horribly (and called them all liars and worse). I'm sure you lump his daughter in there, who has likewise spoken out against these women (after condemning Bill Clinton and suggesting (which they did) parading out his accusers at his wife's presidential debate).

Oh, wait....you're not.

This masterfully proves my point:  It's OK for it to be the lead story when it's "the other guy and his wife"......just not when it's "your guy and his wife and daughter".  

I am very interested to see how this years midterms shake out. There's been record numbers voting in the primaries, plus we got for the first time people born this century voting and they are having none of this Trumpian bs.

[sandman]

plenty of hypocrites on both sides. all those people that defended Clinton and questioned why anyone was even talking about the blow job, are total hypocrites as well.

as for Bill Clinton, most right wingers don't care about his blow job. and most will admit that republicans went after Clinton in any way they could to try to bring him down, even when it didn't make sense, and that Rs kinda looked stupid doing it. Democrats are now in the same boat. Liberals don't care if it's Russia, or consensual sex with a porn star. they just want him taken down. why anyone would rather have Pence as president is beyond me, but hatred and being a sore loser can be blinding.

but there is a big difference - Bill Clinton is a rapist.

and he didn't really pay a price for anything. the biggest impact was in the 2000 election. Gore panicked and separated himself from Clinton. and he lost the election because of it. so the republican efforts paid off, but only because of Gore/DNC stupidity.

[chineseblues]

If bill Clinton is a rapist, donald trump is a child rapist (he has many pedo friends and has been sued by several underage girls).

[tim_m]

Trump has been accused of raping a 13 year old, his ex wife and sexually assaulting more then a dozen women. He's no being sued by a second porn star that he was banging so that she can tell her story.

[pilferk]

plenty of hypocrites on both sides. all those people that defended Clinton and questioned why anyone was even talking about the blow job, are total hypocrites as well.

Yeah, luckily, I wasn't one to defend Clinton. You have only to look back at my posts in this thread to see that. 

And the blowjob WAS just a blowjob....and it involved consenting adults. That's between him and Hillary and Monica.  Honestly, I feel the same way about Trumps affair with Daniels, in terms of the actual act.  BUT if adultery REALLY bugs someone, and they voted  Republican......they just voted for a serial cheater who they KNEW, prior to voting, had cheated on his first 2 wives.  And now we have pretty good evidence that he's done it again. So.....again, back to my original point.

For me,  LYING about the blowjob, though....perfectly legit reason to be concerned.  Just like the potential illegal campaign contributions and coercian are, via Trump.

Although, again...the dems also haven't targeted their brand as being "the moral majority".  The Repubs did. For a VERY long time. So a tad (more than a tad) less hypocrisy on their parts.

as for Bill Clinton, most right wingers don't care about his blow job. and most will admit that republicans went after Clinton in any way they could to try to bring him down, even when it didn't make sense, and that Rs kinda looked stupid doing it.

They held themselves up, back then, as the moral majority.

Are you saying I'm right and that's all smoke and mirrors?  Wow...that's a pretty stunning admission, IMHO.

And, they sure haven't let it go.  If you think the Repubs achieved this type of self awareness, they're sure still hiding it well (and not admitting it in public)!

Democrats are now in the same boat. Liberals don't care if it's Russia, or consensual sex with a porn star. they just want him taken down. why anyone would rather have Pence as president is beyond me, but hatred and being a sore loser can be blinding.

1) If there was collusion with Russia, it's a big fucking deal.  And not trying to minimize or eliminate their effective attacks on our elections are also a big fucking deal.  I don't care if you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent, member of the Green Party, or member of the United Political Satanist Party...you should care about this.  You want it investigated until there is literally no stone left to look under....unless you're more worried about party power than you are about the country.  And if you're the president, and you didn't do anything wrong....you don't give a shit.

I felt the same way about the Whitewater investigation with the Clintons, during his presidency.  Let them look (and, incidentally, he did!).

But, you know...rah rah rah, sis boom bah...YAY TEAM!!! Beat those libs now beat those libs....

2) Just like with Bill: It's not the consensual sex (although it looks like women are coming out of the woodwork now, with nondisclosure agreements funded by various Trump friends and campaign donors) thats a problem. It's the illegal campaign contributions and allegations of coercian.  You are LITERALLY echoing the EXACT sentiments the Dems did for Clinton ("Man, it was JUST A BLOWJOB...why are all these Repubs so upset...maybe they need one").  And Repubs flipped their fucking lids over it.  Shoes on the other foot, and the moral repugnancy they extolled, in relation to Bills Blowjob has magically disappeared and become...well, you just spouted the party line (and do so, again, below), so....there you go.

Which, again, just further proves my point.  It's not about the morality, anymore.  The moral majority is dead.

but there is a big difference - Bill Clinton is a rapist.

ALLEGEDLY.

He is certainly a serial sexual harasser.

And the allegations pointed at Trump, from those 19 women, are very similar.  I mean, the guy was actually accused of rape by his first wife (who reneged after divorce settlement talks started to go her way), along with at least one other person.

Do you believe them, too? Because you have just as much evidence.

They're both, in terms of moral fiber and character, scumbags.  And Trump's "scumbaggery" is long known and documented.  Clintons really came to light after his election.

Clinton's "crimes", no matter how heinous, don't excuse, or lessen, Trumps own moral failings.  Yet, as you do here, Repubs sure like to use him as an excuse.  You did exactly what I pointed out in the previous post "BUT LOOK WHAT BILL DID!!!".

That's obfuscation and misdirection.  Clinton is not in office....either of them, actually.

And all this outrage, pointed toward Bill, while ignoring (and not directing an equal amount of it) Trump rings...false.  Sorry, it does.  Either you find this stuff morally repugnant or you don't. 

But the fact is....most Repubs won't.  Because it's "he plays for the other team, so we HATE him, he is evil, he is a rapist, he is THE DEVIL!! LOCK HIM UP!!!" and then its "Well, he's on my team, and he made a mistake, and we don't have all the facts, and maybe they were paid off, and MAIN STREAM MEDIA".

and he didn't really pay a price for anything. the biggest impact was in the 2000 election. Gore panicked and separated himself from Clinton. and he lost the election because of it. so the republican efforts paid off, but only because of Gore/DNC stupidity.

Because he was never actually convicted of anything, other than lying about the blowjob.  And he did pay a (historically precedented) legal price for that.  Just because that crime doesn't traditionally carry the death penalty, or whatever harsh penalty the Repubs would prefer to be levied, doesn't mean it wasn't a penalty.

Just like I wouldn't expect, even if the Daniels thing turned into an illegal campaign contribution charge, Trump to do hard time over it. Censure would be totally appropriate.  Coercian would be a different consideration, likely.

Gore lost because he was the single most boring, most professorial, most unlikable candidate they could have run. He was a great VP (largely for those exact reasons), but a HORRIBLE presidential candidate. It was like listening to the sound of paint drying.  And....he lost (or didn't, depending on which reports you read regarding the actual Florida vote recounts) by a few votes in Florida.  Given all his shortcomings (like his, and his wife's, propensity for censorship), he did pretty well, IMHO.

I didn't vote for him (which I guess isn't all that surprising, considering)...and it had nothing to do with Clinton.  I voted for Nader.

[pilferk]

If bill Clinton is a rapist, donald trump is a child rapist (he has many pedo friends and has been sued by several underage girls).

I mean....while I find the 13 year old claim a little "wonky", it's true that, in reality, the level of corroboration is exactly the same.

Trumps first wife's claim, however, I find VERY credible.......even though she pulled it back once divorce negotiations were well under way.

While there's no proof.....It seems like there's a decent chance she renegged for better terms, as a condition of the NDA she signed during that divorce settlement.

Having said that, it's "he said, she said" and, I agree, if you're going to call Clinton a rapist...you should be willing to call Trump one, too.

I would not go so far with either of them, but I would, for sure, call them both scumbags and serial sexual harassers.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

One thing to keep in mind here is that Stormy Daniels isn't an innocent victim.  She was a porn star that Trump should have steered clear of but he did not. This was before he was in politics so probably didn't consider that it could bite him in the ass a decade later. Yes, still a dumb move, marriage vows mean something to some people but not him. Lots of people with great wealth and power don't care. I suspect there is more money in it for her trying to tell her story in addition to getting paid off to be quiet about it a few years ago.

 

[pilferk]

I am very interested to see how this years midterms shake out. There's been record numbers voting in the primaries, plus we got for the first time people born this century voting and they are having none of this Trumpian bs.

We'll see.

So far, there is a pretty wide enthusiasm gap in favor of the dems.  But we'll see if the dems manage to actually run candidates who can WIN in their districts, but are actually more moderate, and reflect their districts...and might diverge from one or two of the dems core platform planks.  

If the Repubs continue to nominate people like the guy in Illinois.....they're fucked.  

Usually it is  a VERY bad sign for a party when a bunch of their existing legislators "retire" and there are a TON of repubs choosing not to run this year.  

But a LOT can happen between now and November.  I wouldn't be counting on a "big blue wave" at this point.  And I certainly, given who is up for election this year, would not expect to make any progress in the Senate.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

But a LOT can happen between now and November.  I wouldn't be counting on a "big blue wave" at this point.  And I certainly, given who is up for election this year, would not expect to make any progress in the Senate.

This is what sucks about the system. Its more about keeping the job instead of doing the job.

[pilferk]

One thing to keep in mind here is that Stormy Daniels isn't an innocent victim.  She was a porn star that Trump should have steered clear of but he did not. This was before he was in politics so probably didn't consider that it could bite him in the ass a decade later. Yes, still a dumb move, marriage vows mean something to some people but not him. I suspect there is more money in it for her trying to tell her story in addition to getting paid off to be quiet about it a few years ago.

1) Mostly true.  And I totally view her as a mercenary out for some cash.  Hell, she almost admits it, over and over again.  She's not doing this out of the kindness of her heart, out of any sense of romantic "jilting" or because she doesn't want Trump to be president.  So...what else does that leave?

2) Exactly...not to this guy.  And yet.........to the folks that profess that marriage is sacred, the morally conservative republican
segment.....crickets.

3) While the AFFAIR took place pre-politics, the "cover up" process did not.  That was much more recent. And since thats the part thats really relevant.....

Edit:
4) Its funny that you glibly "excuse" Trumps actions as almost accidental, like his dick just fell into the siren that is Sonny Daniels, or that he had no control, or that cheating on his pregnant wife wouldn't be considered a moral failing by most of the Republican voters. While I agree, it's important to understand Ms. Daniels motivations, it's equally important to remember that TRUMP is not some innocent victim caught up in things beyond his control, either.  He made the choice to engage in a sexual relationship with Ms. Daniels (and possibly others).  Whether he had political aspirations at that point is really not relevant.  We hold LOTS of politicians responsible for things they did before they had political aspirations, because they speak to judgement and character. Then and now.

At least, "we" used to.

[pilferk]

But a LOT can happen between now and November.  I wouldn't be counting on a "big blue wave" at this point.  And I certainly, given who is up for election this year, would not expect to make any progress in the Senate.

This is what sucks about the system. Its more about keeping the job instead of doing the job.

Sort of.  But for the Senate, it's really about who is up for election.  There's 35 seats up this year, and 26 are already in democrat hands.  Of the 9 seats up for Republicans, 7 of them are "bastion" seats. 

Dems would have to hold all 26 seats, and flip 2 of the 9 Repubs seats, 7 of which are like +10-ish Republican strongholds.

Even "big blue waves" can't beat math.

If the Dems control the senate in January 2019.....the Repubs have suffered a catestrophic, party changing, loss.  A historic thumping of epic proportions...worse than anything we've seen in my lifetime (including the "big red wave" we saw in the early 2000s). 

To keep all 26 seats the dems have is going to be tough enough (9 of those seats are competitive).

[tim_m]

I am very interested to see how this years midterms shake out. There's been record numbers voting in the primaries, plus we got for the first time people born this century voting and they are having none of this Trumpian bs.

We'll see.

So far, there is a pretty wide enthusiasm gap in favor of the dems.  But we'll see if the dems manage to actually run candidates who can WIN in their districts, but are actually more moderate, and reflect their districts...and might diverge from one or two of the dems core platform planks.  

If the Repubs continue to nominate people like the guy in Illinois.....they're fucked.  

Usually it is  a VERY bad sign for a party when a bunch of their existing legislators "retire" and there are a TON of repubs choosing not to run this year.  

But a LOT can happen between now and November.  I wouldn't be counting on a "big blue wave" at this point.  And I certainly, given who is up for election this year, would not expect to make any progress in the Senate.

You gotta admit the results of recent special elections are good signs. They don't need major gains in the senate though. They can win a few and take over. The wave has to come in the house.

[pilferk]

You gotta admit the results of recent special elections are good signs. They don't need major gains in the senate though. They can win a few and take over. The wave has to come in the house.

House is actually easier, because EVERY seat is up for grabs. With some of the redistricting we've seen recently, and with some of the special election results we've seen.....Dems have a decent shot of flipping the house to a very narrow Dem majority.  Anything more than 10 to 15 seat majority though is gonna take a throttling of epic proportions.  But I'd be much less suprised to see that in the House vs the Senate.  Still surprised...but LESS surprised.

With the senate, just the way it works out this year...there are more Blue seats (by a LOT) up this year vs Red.  26 of 35 seats up for election are already in Dem hands.  That means they have to win 28 of 35 Senate races to get control of the Senate, or 80%.  That's a TALL order and would require a mid-term throttling that's never been seen in my lifetime. 

My way of example, in 2010 (the "big red wave" mid-terms) there were 37 seats up.  19 Dem, 18 Repub.  Repubs won 24 of those 37 seats, or 65% of the total up for grabs....and it was considered a HISTORIC drubbing.  So, starting from relatively even ground, the Repubs were +6.

Starting from VASTLY uneven footing, already at +17 going in, the Dems are going to have a hard time even breaking even, this mid term, in the Senate.  Just doing THAT would be a pretty decent victory.  If they pick up +1 AND somehow manage to take the house, it would be a "wildest dream" scenario for them.  If they take the house and go +2 to the Senate.....the Repubs are fucked. Like "Long term screwed, restructure the party or die" kinda fucked.

If that actually happened, the Repubs would have to run screaming from Trumpism like it's on fire, and somehow figure out how to "replace" the 33% of the country they'd alienate doing it.  It might actually SPLIT that party it would be so bad. That being said....I don't think there's much of a realistic chance we see it happen.  But.....you never know.

[tim_m]

You gotta admit the results of recent special elections are good signs. They don't need major gains in the senate though. They can win a few and take over. The wave has to come in the house.

House is actually easier, because EVERY seat is up for grabs. With some of the redistricting we've seen recently, and with some of the special election results we've seen.....Dems have a decent shot of flipping the house to a very narrow Dem majority.  Anything more than 10 to 15 seat majority though is gonna take a throttling of epic proportions.  But I'd be much less suprised to see that in the House vs the Senate.  Still surprised...but LESS surprised.

With the senate, just the way it works out this year...there are more Blue seats (by a LOT) up this year vs Red.  26 of 35 seats up for election are already in Dem hands.  That means they have to win 28 of 35 Senate races to get control of the Senate, or 80%.  That's a TALL order and would require a mid-term throttling that's never been seen in my lifetime. 

My way of example, in 2010 (the "big red wave" mid-terms) there were 37 seats up.  19 Dem, 18 Repub.  Repubs won 24 of those 37 seats, or 65% of the total up for grabs....and it was considered a HISTORIC drubbing.  So, starting from relatively even ground, the Repubs were +6.

Starting from VASTLY uneven footing, already at +17 going in, the Dems are going to have a hard time even breaking even, this mid term, in the Senate.  Just doing THAT would be a pretty decent victory.  If they pick up +1 AND somehow manage to take the house, it would be a "wildest dream" scenario for them.  If they take the house and go +2 to the Senate.....the Repubs are fucked. Like "Long term screwed, restructure the party or die" kinda fucked.

If that actually happened, the Repubs would have to run screaming from Trumpism like it's on fire, and somehow figure out how to "replace" the 33% of the country they'd alienate doing it.  It might actually SPLIT that party it would be so bad. That being said....I don't think there's much of a realistic chance we see it happen.  But.....you never know.

All the news i've heard though is Republicans saying they expect to lose the senate.

[tim_m]

So now we have news Trump tried to pay Karen Mcdougal for sex. So now has Trump paid prostitutes?

[tim_m]

Trump replaces his national security adviser with a columnist. Please someone tell me this is all a bad dream and i will wake up soon.

[GypsySoul]

So now we have news Trump tried to pay Karen Mcdougal for sex. So now has Trump paid prostitutes?

Today the stock market dropped by over 700 points, new tariffs are being imposed on China, there's a facebook app data scandal, the national security advisor was replaced and the top private lawyer to the president resigned from that position.... but you and CNN's top story is about a playboy playmate feelings are still hurt because 12 years ago an alleged affair wasn't true love like she had thought.

Trump replaces his national security adviser with a columnist. Please someone tell me this is all a bad dream and i will wake up soon.

John R. Bolton
Education: Yale Law School, Yale University
United States Assistant Attorney General - 1988-1989
Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs - 1989-1993
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs - 2001-2005
United States Ambassador to the United Nations - 2005-2006