The welfare caravan

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by azeri98

I don't trust polls, all I know id the Republicans got their asses handed to them in the rust belt. The states that won them the Presidency, that's what I go by, not polls.

I explained why the Republicans "got their asses handed to them". Do you understand the power of incumbency? (Rhetorical question: apparently not!).

If you handicap horse races as superficially as you analyze politics, you must be a huge loser.

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by azeri98

I don't trust polls, all I know id the Republicans got their asses handed to them in the rust belt. The states that won them the Presidency, that's what I go by, not polls.

Good for you. Nice to know that..Thanks

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I explained why the Republicans "got their asses handed to them". Do you understand the power of incumbency? (Rhetorical question: apparently not!).

If you handicap horse races as superficially as you analyze politics, you must be a huge loser.

Thanks for the insult, keep thinking that way and you will be backing a loser in 2020.It's not the reason they lost, the people of Wisconsin. Penn and Michigan were tired of Trump's antics, they actually have some class unlike some posters on here, does God tell you to act that way? The Democrats had lots of 1st time candidates beat Republican incumbents all over the country, that throws your whole theory out the window. A lot of posters on here were critical of Democrats being sore losers after Trump won , I was one of them, now the Republicans are acting like sore losers.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Tom

She did,
6 more curbs to fall off from.

Or 6 more years of running for president.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by azeri98

Thanks for the insult, keep thinking that way and you will be backing a loser in 2020.It's not the reason they lost, the people of Wisconsin. Penn and Michigan were tired of Trump's antics, they actually have some class unlike some posters on here, does God tell you to act that way? The Democrats had lots of 1st time candidates beat Republican incumbents all over the country, that throws your whole theory out the window. A lot of posters on here were critical of Democrats being sore losers after Trump won , I was one of them, now the Republicans are acting like sore losers.

Actually, it was constructive criticism intended to improve your handicapping. You should be thanking me.

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Actually, it was constructive criticism intended to improve your handicapping. You should be thanking me.

Where did I mention handicapping anywhere? Maybe you should go read your bible for more clarity. You didn't answer my question about incumbency? Why did so many Republican incumbents lose to 1st time Democrats, most of them had little to no political experience at all?

[barahona44]

Originally Posted by azeri98

Where did I mention handicapping anywhere? Maybe you should go read your bible for more clarity. You didn't answer my question about incumbency? Why did so many Republican incumbents lose to 1st time Democrats, most of them had little to no political experience at all?

Or WHY did all those Republicans decide to "retire"? Saw the handwriting on the wall, I'd venture to say.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by azeri98

most of them had little to no political experience at all?

You say that like its a bad thing.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by barahona44

Or WHY did all those Republicans decide to "retire"? Saw the handwriting on the wall, I'd venture to say.

Those Republicans that "chose" to retire, were actually part of the drain the swamp campaign by POTUS....Doesn't matter who's dirty, they're going down.....More to come who thought they couldn't be caught.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by barahona44

Or WHY did all those Republicans decide to "retire"? Saw the handwriting on the wall, I'd venture to say.

The next two years look very bad for politicians who want to advance their agenda, and very good for those of us who believe that a government governs best that governs least. I see two years of gridlock in Washington with a Dem House focused on attacking Trump, a GOP Senate incapable of getting anything done that requires more than 50 Senators and the Veep, and a president that cannot work with either of the above and thinks that he can run the country with executive orders.

Trump is threatening to shut down the government if Congress doesn't approve funding for his wall. That would be the wall that he was going to make Mexico pay for. We can only hope he does.

[ElKabong]

Originally Posted by barahona44

Or WHY did all those Republicans decide to "retire"? Saw the handwriting on the wall, I'd venture to say.

I'd have to agree with you

[hcap]

Originally Posted by barahona44

Or WHY did all those Republicans decide to "retire"? Saw the handwriting on the wall, I'd venture to say.

Paul Ryan saw the writing on the wall MONTHS in advance. My guess is Mitch McConnell after 2 years of a failing, flailing Chumpy, and Dem House, will also make an equally accurate prediction

[woodtoo]

Some of the wall is looking like a giant Christmas tree covered with silver tinsel.
Beautiful!!!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by azeri98

Where did I mention handicapping anywhere? Maybe you should go read your bible for more clarity. You didn't answer my question about incumbency? Why did so many Republican incumbents lose to 1st time Democrats, most of them had little to no political experience at all?

I already addressed that issue with Hcap. There were so many Republicans running for the House that Trump wisely chose to spend his time campaigning for those seats that would count the most -- those being in the Senate, where Trump has gained 3 or 4 seats.

Originally, I said that 45 Republicans retired this year from the House, but the number was "only" 40, as someone else here has correctly pointed out.

With the announcement that Tom Garrett, Republican of Virginia, will not seek re-election, 40 House Republicans have said they’ll retire at the end of this term. That’s much more than would typically do so by this stage, according to data compiled by Daniel Donner of Daily Kos Elections. (emphasis mine)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-tracker.html

This fact alone represented a huge handicap to the Republicans since the advantages to the incumbency factor are equally as large.

The incumbent is the existing holder of a political office. It is usually used in reference to elections where races can often be defined as being between an incumbent and non-incumbents. Incumbents have structural advantages over challengers during elections. The percentage of incumbents who win reelection after seeking it in the U.S. House of Representatives has been over 80% for more than 50 years, and is often over 90%. Additionally, shifts in congressional districts due to reapportionment or other longer- term factors may make it more or less likely for an incumbent to win re-election over time. A race without an incumbent is referred to as an open seat because of the lack of incumbency advantage and they are the most contested races in an election.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bo...nal-elections/

So... the Republican candidates running for the House had 40 OPEN seats. They enjoyed no incumbency advantage.

Conversely, the dimwits only had to suffer through 19 retirements this year!

https://electoral-vote.com/evp2018/H...tirements.html

Stick around. You'll learn a lot from me.

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by Clocker

You say that like its a bad thing.

I didn't mean it as a bad thing, i'm one for term limits on house members and senators just like there is for the President, I was just asking Boxcar, if incumbency was the main reason the Reps lost the house why did Rep incumbents in red states like Utah, Georgia, Florida and Texas lose to Democratic newbies