This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Just as I predicted......Democrat loses in Georgia

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

The Democrat had to win the primary by over 50%, and when he did not, the 39% of Republicans which did not vote in the primary, showed up in sufficient numbers to win. The Republicans have structural advantages in Georgia, but there is another election just one year in the future. Tenacity has been lacking. They need to simply announce that "I will be back".

You need to get candidates who will run, and who will talk issues and substance. Tenacity. This was easy to predict.

View user profile
Not a surprise.

The fact that the election was close only higlights the Dems' conundrum.

They are performing strongly in well-educated, affluent, urban areas, but are badly underperforming in poorly-educated, rural areas.

Unless they can reverse that trend, they will continue to suffer losses.

View user profile
Sal wrote:They are performing strongly in well-educated, affluent, urban areas, but are badly underperforming in poorly-educated, rural areas.

Unless they can reverse that trend, they will continue to suffer losses.

Doesn't that at least partially if not largely depend on how well those rural areas fare economically under the Trump administration? It may take a while for them to realize things are not getting better, but it has to dawn on them one of these days.

View user profile
One factor in continuing democratic election losses, is that they continue to run campaigns based on saving us all from their opponent, rather then selling a democratic plan for the future that inspires anyone.

They continue to reject what Warren and Sanders are successfully selling.

We may have to put up with a Trump and right wing, racist, Jesus-freaking save the rich government until our country explodes.

Reality.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:The Democrat had to win the primary by over 50%, and when he did not, the 39% of Republicans which did not vote in the primary, showed up in sufficient numbers to win.  The Republicans have structural advantages in Georgia, but there is another election just one year in the future.   Tenacity has been lacking.  They need to simply announce that "I will be back".

You need to get candidates who will run, and who will talk issues and substance.  Tenacity.   This was easy to predict.

It's my sad duty to report that our esteemed colleague, 2seaoat, won't be with us for a while. He's recuperating from a neck injury he incurred while trying to kiss his own ass.

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
Wordslinger wrote:One factor in continuing democratic election losses, is that they continue to run campaigns based on saving us all from their opponent, rather then selling a democratic plan for the future that inspires anyone.

They continue to reject what Warren and Sanders are successfully selling.

We may have to put up with a Trump and right wing, racist, Jesus-freaking save the rich government until our country explodes.  

Reality.

I agree completely. I saw many of Ossoff's interviews and he was running like a Republican-lite. The big problems in this country, the high poverty levels, the skewed tax structure etc. are the things Sanders and Warren are ranting against and rightly so. He kept away from the issues that will ultimately get the attention of the "Reagan Democrats".

Morning Joe is on and he's saying Dems can't win running further to the left. Well, they certainly have to be further to the left than Ossoff was. Although he had plenty of money and plenty of volunteers something sure didn't work. He lost by, what ?, five points? The Dems lost the other House race yesterday too by a much closer margin.

I just hope the Dems take this as a lesson and learn SOMETHING from it that will give them that "ahhahh" moment that will start to turn things around.

View user profile
I don't know if running a farther-left candidate would work in the South. The South's been trained to believe all kinds of crazy things about "liberals" so, as far as the South goes, something more moderate would probably fly better. Other regions, maybe go farther-left. The South... I don't think it'd get good results. I know a lot of people who were willing to vote for Hillary but (stupidly) would not have voted for Bernie because he scared 'em. Me, I preferred Hillary but would have voted for whatever would've beaten the Republican. It's not that I love Democrats as much as I hate Republicans -- they're held my state back long enough.

Losing sucks, but, knowing the tribalism here, and people's stubborn propensity for voting against their own interests, it doesn't surprise me too much that a Democrat didn't win. O' course, I hoped it'd turn out different, but that'd have been a happy surprise.

A few good signs:

1. Ossoff was a young, inexperienced candidate not even from the district, and he still got close... in Georgia. Freakin' Georgia. This means there are a lot more Democrats in "red states" than people suspect, and they're enthusiastic. So, we should stop just ceding any state to the Republicans. We should make them fight for every state. Yeah, we'll still lose for a while, but if we show we're putting up a fight, more people get enthusiastic about joining the battle. It's too easy for Democrats in the South to just give up. We kill that complacency, we'll be getting somewhere.

2. Republicans had to fight hard and funnel a lot of money in a very close race to hold on to Georgia. I repeat, freakin' Georgia. That should have been a gimmie state for them. The fact that they had to fight for it, tooth and nail, means that "gimmie states" are a fading idea for Republicans in the era of Trump.

3. And, yeah, we had to spend a lot of money, too... but the fact that so much money was collected for an uphill battle in a state that wouldn't ordinarily even be a contest proves that Democrats do have enthusiasm. We want to win enough to put up a scrap in frickin' Georgia. So in more fertile ground, we'll likely see better results.

4. This got national attention. This country has such a will to fight Republicans that even Georgia is being viewed as hopeful. This may be a good sign for voter turnout in 2018. Especially since, by then, Republicans are almost certain to be demoralized. Their president is doing a rotten fucking job. He's an incompetent headcase who doesn't even want to be there anymore, and he's almost certain to be a drag. Even though the Republicans held on to Georgia, ordinarily that would've been a cake walk for them. They can be happy about it, but, they better watch their backs.

So, yeah, disappointed. But not discouraged. Smile

View user profile

Guest


Guest
Just shows more rejection of the Democrat ideology of which most people, after 8 years of Obama, do not want to return to. I have lots of friends and family in that area. Ossoff had no chance and won't have a chance even if he runs again. More outside money than inside money was spent by the Dems and they still lost. Dems aren't for the middle class and upper middie class. They are for more freebies and handouts... hint hint wealth redistribution. It's been solidly rejected ...again.


New day, same ol' Jim Crow:



Here's the last minute attack ad on Ossoff. When asked about the ad, candidate Handel, aka Peach Pan Dowdy, said she thought it was awful. Riiiiight!!!



View user profile
It's my sad duty to report that our esteemed colleague, 2seaoat, won't be with us for a while. He's recuperating from a neck injury he incurred while trying to kiss his own ass.


No, once again you were wrong. You did not understand conceptually why he had to win the primary with low voter turnout. Go find your post where you were telling me I was an idiot. You probably forgot. Nothing new here.

Sorry, for all the people that think Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have winning ideas, I have swampland to sell you. Bernie was attacked by Hillary for his stance on guns. Bernie has a very good position on trade and can sell that to Blue Collar working democrats. However, this idea of free tuition and cancellation of student loans is oil and water with traditional working people who were once the base of the democratic party. Sorry, I think it is insane. So does America. When traditional white working class Democrats reject their economic interests and vote for a Republican, the overwhelming sentiment is that the Democrats give things away. To over come this stereotype which has mostly a racial basis, is not a battle Bernie or Warren or going to win. This idea of migrating to positions of Warren and Bernie are a winning formula is insane, not because they do not have some very good solutions for America, but because their solutions when giving something to one interest group is perceived as taking from another interest group, and Americans want the give aways to stop.

View user profile

Guest


Guest
RealLindaL wrote:
Sal wrote:They are performing strongly in well-educated, affluent, urban areas, but are badly underperforming in poorly-educated, rural areas.

Unless they can reverse that trend, they will continue to suffer losses.

Doesn't that at least partially if not largely depend on how well those rural areas fare economically under the Trump administration?  It may take a while for them to realize things are not getting better, but it has to dawn on them one of these days.

Don't count on the rural vote as their values and morals are polar opposite of the democratic party. Obama screwed hard working people by redistributing their wealth to the people who want handouts.

Guest


Guest
2seaoat wrote:The Democrat had to win the primary by over 50%, and when he did not, the 39% of Republicans which did not vote in the primary, showed up in sufficient numbers to win.  The Republicans have structural advantages in Georgia, but there is another election just one year in the future.   Tenacity has been lacking.  They need to simply announce that "I will be back".

You need to get candidates who will run, and who will talk issues and substance.  Tenacity.   This was easy to predict.

You were wing in 2010 saying the GOP would never take the House, wrong in 2014 when you said the GOP would never take the Senate, and wrong in 2016 when you said Trump could not win. Glad you don't make your money in predictions.

You were wing in 2010 saying the GOP would never take the House, wrong in 2014 when you said the GOP would never take the Senate, and wrong in 2016 when you said Trump could not win. Glad you don't make your money in predictions.

You are confused or a liar. It is very easy to go back and find my election predictions. I NEVER said the Democrats would win in the 2014 senate races where the Republican's had a structural advantage. Please find where I made that stupid prediction. I did say that the Democrats had a structural advantage in 2016, but the gerrymandered districts in Wisconsin, and Rubio running again in Florida made that prediction wrong as a number of factors turned a Democratic structural advantage into a loss and a bad prediction in 2016. I did change my prediction before the election when I was getting crazy bad numbers in the senate race in early polls in Wisconsin.

In regard to the house election in 2010, I believe you are right. I expected the Democrats to keep the house, but never anticipated the damage of gerrymanded districts and how that would impact where the majority of votes in America were for Democrats, yet more reps were elected. The Supremes taking the Wisconsin case is huge to bring an end to unfair maps.

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:
Doesn't that at least partially if not largely depend on how well those rural areas fare economically under the Trump administration?

I'm afraid rationality is no longer a component of the Republican calculus.

Through constant messaging that has brainwashed the core combined with electoral finagling and gerrymandering, the Republican base has been well positioned and well programmed to vote in robotic lockstep for anyone who has an (R) placed next to their name.

Mindless fealty to party even when contrary to economic self-interest is a fearsome weapon, and the Republican party has it in spades.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:

 Bernie has a very good position on trade and can sell that to Blue Collar working democrats.   However, this idea of free tuition and cancellation of student loans is oil and water with traditional working people who were once the base of the democratic party.  Sorry, I think it is insane.  So does America.   When traditional white working class Democrats reject their economic interests and vote for a Republican, the overwhelming sentiment is that the Democrats give things away.   To over come this stereotype which has mostly a racial basis, is not a battle Bernie or Warren or going to win.  This idea of migrating to positions of Warren and Bernie are a winning formula is insane, not because they do not have some very good solutions for America, but because their solutions when giving something to one interest group is perceived as taking from another interest group, and Americans want the give aways to stop.

This is utter nonsense, not that that's any surprise considering the source!

What you're saying is that traditional blue-collar Dems don't want their kids to go to college. You must not know may blue-collar workers. Having spent a good part of my formative years among UAW workers, I can tell you that getting a college education for their kids is a primary motivating force.

These guys--that's the politically correct, gender inclusive "guys" for all you bomb-throwing feminists out there--want their kids to do better than working on a line or in a foundry. They work their asses off in miserable jobs just so their kids can do better.

When they find out that, even after all that hard work, tuition costs have increased faster than they can keep up, you can bet your ass they want relief. What you're saying is a slap in the face of every hard working, blue-collar parent who sacrificed to make his or her kids lives better.

All Bernie or Warren has to do is hammer the fact that student loans can not be discharged through bankruptcy and a line is drawn in the sand.

Two-thirds of American college students graduate with college debt, and  that debt now tops $1.2 trillion. By every indication, college is now more expensive than it has ever been, out of reach of not only poor Americans, but even middle class ones. While  various reforms made in the past few years may have helped slow the growth of college costs, they continue to outpace Americans’ ability to pay.

Although this is happening in the world’s richest country, there are many places abroad where college is virtually free. The Washington Post’s Rick Noack  points out seven places where Americans can study for free or at very low cost – and in English! Students just have to be willing to leave the country:

1. Brazil: Brazil’s universities charge registration fees, Noack notes, but they do not require regular tuition. Many of them also offer courses in English.

2. Germany: Germany has 900 programs in English, and is eager to attract foreign students to tuition-free universities due to the country’s shortage of skilled workers.

3. Finland: Finland doesn’t have tuition fees but the government does warn foreigners that they have to cover living expenses. Imagine going to college and only worrying about room and board.

4. France: France does charge tuition – but normally around 200 dollars at public universities. A far cry from what you’d pay in the United States, even in a state school.

5. Norway: Norwegian students, including foreigners studying in the country, do not have to pay any college tuition. Be forewarned, however, of the harsh winters and high cost of living.

6.  Slovenia: If Eastern Europe is more your thing, Noack notes that Slovenia has 150 English-language programs, and only charges a registration fee – no tuition.

7.  Sweden: Sweden, a country which has so successfully solved so many of its social problems that  there are now U.S. Sitcoms about the glories of moving there, has over 300 English-language programs. Although college there is free,  cost of living may be pricey for foreigners.
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/02/7_countries_where_college_is_free_partner/

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

Guest


Guest
2seaoat wrote:You were wing in 2010 saying the GOP would never take the House, wrong in 2014 when you said the GOP would never take the Senate, and wrong in 2016 when you said Trump could not win. Glad you don't make your money in predictions.

You are confused or a liar.   It is very easy to go back and find my election predictions.  I NEVER said the Democrats would win in the 2014 senate races where the Republican's had a structural advantage.  Please find where I made that stupid prediction.   I did say that the Democrats had a structural advantage in 2016, but the gerrymandered districts in Wisconsin, and Rubio running again in Florida made that prediction wrong as a number of factors turned a Democratic structural advantage into a loss and a bad prediction in 2016.  I did change my prediction before the election when I was getting crazy bad numbers in the senate race in early polls in Wisconsin.

In regard to the house election in 2010, I believe you are right.  I expected the Democrats to keep the house, but never anticipated the damage of gerrymanded districts and how that would impact where the majority of votes in America were for Democrats, yet more reps were elected.  The Supremes taking the Wisconsin case is huge to bring an end to unfair maps.

You lie!

Guest


Guest
Obama only won in 2008 due to approximately 5.7 million illegals voting in the election.

http://eaglerising.com/44907/surprise-2008-election-may-have-been-decided-by-illegal-votes/

Hmmmmm wrote:Obama only won in 2008 due to approximately 5.7 million illegals voting in the election.

http://eaglerising.com/44907/surprise-2008-election-may-have-been-decided-by-illegal-votes/

Whenever you post crapola like this, any tiny (and I DO mean tiny) scintilla of credibility you may've enjoyed on any point of yours whatsoever, goes rushing down the drain with a big sucking sound.

View user profile

Guest


Guest
ok we disagree

Guest wrote:ok we disagree

No, we don't simply disagree. You're just F.O.S. Besides, I was talking to Hmmmm, or however many m's there were in his handle -- not to some nameless "guest."

What kind of perverted pleasure do you receive from continually changing your screen name? It's an insanely stupid game and I'm about done playing.

Goodnight all.

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:
Guest wrote:ok we disagree

No, we don't simply disagree.  You're just F.O.S.  Besides, I was talking to Hmmmm, or however many m's there were in his handle -- not to some nameless "guest."

What kind of perverted pleasure do you receive from continually changing your screen name?  It's an insanely stupid game and I'm about done playing.

Goodnight all.

cheers cheers cheers

View user profile
Hi Knot, ol' pal.  Good to see you.   Smile    Smile    Smile

View user profile
I'm impressed once again... lol. The dems go from a "referendum on trump"... to no big deal... lol.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:I'm impressed once again... lol. The dems go from a "referendum on trump"... to no big deal... lol.

Are you really this simple-minded? Aren't you embarrassed to display your monumental ignorance so often?  You can't even express your opinions intelligently. You seem to be almost, I don't know...  brain damaged, maybe?

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum