Jump to content

Election Results And Thoughts Here!


Reagan
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Fox News is predicting red to have majority in the House but blue will have majority in the Senate.

Looks like no red tsunami this election.

Not sure what you’re watching.  Bill Hemmer just indicated that it was very likely that the Senate could go Red.

Tsunami would be nice but majority is good enough.  I guess there are still enough voters that like high inflation and no energy independence to stall a tsunami.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Not sure what you’re watching.  Bill Hemmer just indicated that it was very likely that the Senate could go Red.

Tsunami would be nice but majority is good enough.  I guess there are still enough voters that like high inflation and no energy independence to stall a tsunami.

Think they consider the fact that if Senate stays 50-50 (which that looks like how it's going to end) then blue still has the upper hand due to VP being able to be a tie breaking vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This if the situation.

It looks like the Republicans will control the House with about a 98% certainty at this point.

It looks like the Democrats will control the Senate with about a 98% certainty at this point.

The Republican minimum goal was to take at least one house. That would effectively kill any legislation for the next 2 years without their consent. Any legislation will have to be bipartisan. 

 The next goal would be to take both houses. The benefit of taking the Senate would be that any nominations by Biden would have to get Republican approval. For the most part that is not that big of a deal unless Biden gets to nominate another Supreme Court justice.

 So the Republicans appear to have taken the House but it isn’t official yet. If that holds up, they have met their goal of ending unrestricted Democrat legislation. They almost had that anyway with the filibuster in the Senate but the Democrats kept pushing to end the filibuster. With controlling either house it ends all doubt.

It is assumed that if the Republicans take the House that Kevin McCarthy will be elected as the Speaker of the House. I have seen discussions tonight about a narrow win in the House like if the Republicans only held a 5 vote majority, would give him a hard time keeping 3 RINO Republicans from switching sides on some votes and allowing a bill to pass without Republican approval. That would be incorrect. No bill can come up for a vote without the approval of the Speaker. So even if the Democrats technically had the votes to narrowly pass a bill, McCarthy could kill it by not bringing it up for a vote.

 Even if McCarthy is able to get bills passed easily, it won’t matter s the Senate will not pass the safe bill without bipartisan support. If the Republicans did manage to ram a bill through in both houses, Biden could simply veto it. 

So the bottom line has always been to take at least one house while understanding that even with both houses, the Republicans cannot get a law enacted without Biden’s approval.

It appears that the Republicans will achieve that goal and effectively kill any free spending without them approving until at least the next presidential election.

Unless Biden gets to nominate another Supreme Court justice, the Democrats keeping the Senate is almost nothing more than pride.

In my opinion…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

This if the situation.

It looks like the Republicans will control the House with about a 98% certainty at this point.

It looks like the Democrats will control the Senate with about a 98% certainty at this point.

The Republican minimum goal was to take at least one house. That would effectively kill any legislation for the next 2 years without their consent. Any legislation will have to be bipartisan. 

 The next goal would be to take both houses. The benefit of taking the Senate would be that any nominations by Biden would have to get Republican approval. For the most part that is not that big of a deal unless Biden gets to nominate another Supreme Court justice.

 So the Republicans appear to have taken the House but it isn’t official yet. If that holds up, they have met their goal of ending unrestricted Democrat legislation. They almost had that anyway with the filibuster in the Senate but the Democrats kept pushing to end the filibuster. With controlling either house it ends all doubt.

It is assumed that if the Republicans take the House that Kevin McCarthy will be elected as the Speaker of the House. I have seen discussions tonight about a narrow win in the House like if the Republicans only held a 5 vote majority, would give him a hard time keeping 3 RINO Republicans from switching sides on some votes and allowing a bill to pass without Republican approval. That would be incorrect. No bill can come up for a vote without the approval of the Speaker. So even if the Democrats technically had the votes to narrowly pass a bill, McCarthy could kill it by not bringing it up for a vote.

 Even if McCarthy is able to get bills passed easily, it won’t matter s the Senate will not pass the safe bill without bipartisan support. If the Republicans did manage to ram a bill through in both houses, Biden could simply veto it. 

So the bottom line has always been to take at least one house while understanding that even with both houses, the Republicans cannot get a law enacted without Biden’s approval.

It appears that the Republicans will achieve that goal and effectively kill any free spending without them approving until at least the next presidential election.

Unless Biden gets to nominate another Supreme Court justice, the Democrats keeping the Senate is almost nothing more than pride.

In my opinion…..

I thought Biden could veto a bill but that it could go to the Senate where it would need a 2/3 majority to override the veto. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Givin what’s taken place over the last two years…..common sense would suggest a red wave.

so why isn’t there one?

The Republican Party is, like it or not, the Trump Party to the general public and a lot of people love him…. But even more people hate him. 
 

Don’t get me wrong, any reasonable person would look around and vote for change… but people have biases and prejudices and unfortunately, they come into play when people vote. It’s an intangible thing, but it’s real. I think that the damage that’s been done over the last six years to conservatism and the Republican brand will take years to overcome. 
 

If you stood around in 2020 and said “I don’t see how this happened” and are standing around today saying “i don’t see how this happened”…. guess what? It’s not that everybody else is just stupid. If you’ve been dumbfounded twice in a row, you might be the one who’s missing something obvious. 
 

The abortion argument didn’t win this election cycle. The bad economy/inflation didn’t cost the Dems this cycle. The Rs have a perception problem and it’s costing them bigly. 

At a certain point the Rs are going to have to look in the mirror and ask “how can we keep being the right answer, but still losing? What are we doing to keep costing ourselves elections that we should be winning on paper?”  The Democrats should  deservedly be getting smashed everywhere for their performance.  But they’re not. 
 

Long story made short, voters don’t like us. My feeling is that we’ve laid down with a guy who went out of his way to be unlikable and it’s all just working against us now.  We are the party of the red-hatted, hateful, mean-spirited bullies who assaulted the Capitol. It’s not hard to see when you look at the big picture. 
 

I’ll repeat… 2024 will be a bloodbath for Rs if Trump even announces again. If your instinct is to say “Trump wasn’t even on the ballot! That’s just your TDS talking” you’re probably not capable of a big picture conversation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The red tsunami ran into the orange road block.  If trump had put his time and influence into backing the best candidates instead of the best election deniers, the red wave would’ve come to fruition.  Democrats won almost every major election where trump backed someone.  In most cases, his influence was enough to get his pick on the ballot, but also a kiss of death in the actual election.  For all of their dumb choices and terrible policies, the dems correctly saw this coming, and their gamble to help endorse election deniers has paid off by greatly reducing the amount of seats the republicans were able to flip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

The red tsunami ran into the orange road block.  If trump had put his time and influence into backing the best candidates instead of the best election deniers, the red wave would’ve come to fruition.  Democrats won almost every major election where trump backed someone.  His influence was enough to get his pick on the ballot, but also a kiss of death in the actual election.  

Bingo. 

I don’t know which are worse…the people who would vote D because they don’t like him, or his supporters who can’t see the influence he has on other voters. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Think they consider the fact that if Senate stays 50-50 (which that looks like how it's going to end) then blue still has the upper hand due to VP being able to be a tie breaking vote.

Definitely looking more that way for the Senate, like I said before, Pennsylvania voters have been amazing me for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the spin, Republicans gain the House but are still losers, lol.

Blaming Trump is way too simplistic, this country is getting more dependent on government (more blue) and it will continue way after your Boogie Man Trump is gone. You “experts” claiming all the Republican’s problems are solved when he’s gone are ridiculous, the expanding dependent blue voters remain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

The red tsunami ran into the orange road block.  If trump had put his time and influence into backing the best candidates instead of the best election deniers, the red wave would’ve come to fruition.  Democrats won almost every major election where trump backed someone.  In most cases, his influence was enough to get his pick on the ballot, but also a kiss of death in the actual election.  For all of their dumb choices and terrible policies, the dems correctly saw this coming, and their gamble to help endorse election deniers has paid off by greatly reducing the amount of seats the republicans were able to flip.

I know you want to be fair. How many Obama, Biden, Hillary backed candidates lost, or are they insignificant for your assessment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Member Statistics

    43,622
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Mercy
    Newest Member
    Mercy
    Joined

×
×
  • Create New...