Let's Review the Election Results

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by WTF

Yea...who ever made that bet with you did not understand politics. Good bet on your part.

I think I won a bet with dilbert.

dilbert...whatever the bet was , you don't have to pay up. You had no chance. Wasn't really a fair bet.

LOL


there was never a bet. you never consummated the bet with a official bet statement in that thread.


I was going to make side bet, that didn't happen because you didn't make an official bet statement.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Well I won $500 dollars - no blue wave! Whoohoo!

The election was what I kinda expected.

I knew Cruz would win in Texas - although I am not a Cruz fan, he can help Trump.

I wish they all could work together to help the American people. Maybe one day.

who did you bet with?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by bambino

When you take into account 42 Republican seats were up due to retirement. The Dems picking up 27 seats is hardly a wave. They lost seats in the Senate. No blue wave. There was a green wave, as in money spent on the mid terms.

that was a low tide.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by garhkal

They won 25 house seats and flipped 5 governors seats. Republicans won ONE more seat int he senate. Certainly feels like a blue wave hit to me.

It was a weak wave, a low tide, certainly no Tsunami.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

It was a weak wave, a low tide, certainly no Tsunami.

You are correct but the only thing that went wrong for the Democrats on Tuesday was the Senate vote. They weren't expected to win back the Senate. But they weren't expected to lose almost ALL the toss-up contests, even though the majority were in red states -- Indiana, ND, Missouri, Arizona. Democrats did win in Nevada, Montana and WV, the latter 2 also being solid red states. Florida is the one that hurts most for Democrats.

Meanwhile, despite several on this forum downplaying it, winning the House was significant and they have a 26 seat lead with 15 seats yet to be decided. And I believe the Democrats picked up 6 on Governor races.

So it may not have been a "Blue Wave" but in my opinion the Democrats faired better Tuesday night than the Republicans.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Let's just say we have a difference of opinion as to the significance of the House and Senate results.

Yes, Trump losing 28 seats is not historically significant. Gaining Senate seats is historically significant.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bambino

Yes, Trump losing 28 seats is not historically significant. Gaining Senate seats is historically significant.

Until you look at where the Senate seats were won. All historically red states except for Florida. You may think it historically significant but not one of the Senate victories was an upset. The FACT is that the Democrats achieved their primary objectives -- win back control of the House and win back some Governorships. And the total seats lost in the House by Republicans will probably be quite a bit more than 28. Right now the split is 223-197 with 15 yet to be decided. That is +26 for Democrats already. No, not historically significant but that is not significant.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bambino

Yes, Trump losing 28 seats is not historically significant. Gaining Senate seats is historically significant.

The numbers are historically significant.

What is politically significant is the result of Trump campaigning for winners and Obaminable/Osprey campaigning for losers; plus at the moment only two socialists were elected: one re-elected the other idiot a "freshperson."

The strategic significance is what elected Democrats and what they promised to get there. #1: "No Pelosi"! #2: Pro-controlled borders! #3: Pro-miliary. (Not 100% with everyone, but they are on record.)

The small majority will require the Democratic leadership to compromise, and the anti-never Trumpers planning multiple time-wasting investigations and RE-INVESTIGATIONS with an effort to IMPEACH the POTUS will create an opportunity for short-termers.

For the pundits to tout this as a repudiation of Trump is just more hype. The Republicans in the House shot themselves in the foot by DOING LITTLE IN TWO YEARS when they had a golden opportunity for more!

All races have already been "decided"! The "decision" is not reported!

The Anti/Never Trumpers in this country will paint this as a repudiation of Trump playing the numbers game .... There was NO BLUE WAVE! There was hardly a blue ripple. Winning the House was statistically no significant accomplishment particularly when the margins were so close throughout the country and the candidates had to distance themselves from the Democrat Leadership in the House and more closely align with Trump ..... with exception of loons like Sheila Lee Jackson who took about 75% of the vote in her election!!!!!! And a vowed Socialist from New York City! The Senate will approve Trump's picks .... over-ride House loons ... . vote "Not Guilty" with respect to any impeachment .... and send legislation to the House that will EMBARRASS the Democrats if they don't vote to approve the laws.

And if Trump doesn't like the end product: VETO.

Even in football the other side gets a field goal from time to time.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Until you look at where the Senate seats were won. All historically red states except for Florida. You may think it historically significant but not one of the Senate victories was an upset. The FACT is that the Democrats achieved their primary objectives -- win back control of the House and win back some Governorships. And the total seats lost in the House by Republicans will probably be quite a bit more than 28. Right now the split is 223-197 with 15 yet to be decided. That is +26 for Democrats already. No, not historically significant but that is not significant.

They were INCUMBENT DEMOCRATS that lost. Incumbents are re-elected at a 90% clip. If Bush was in the WH, the Dems would have won those seats. What Trump did was HISTORIC in the Senate races.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bambino

They were INCUMBENT DEMOCRATS that lost. Incumbents are re-elected at a 90% clip. If Bush was in the WH, the Dems would have won those seats. What Trump did was HISTORIC in the Senate races.

You are wasting your breath, Sir!

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The numbers are historically significant.

What is politically significant is the result of Trump campaigning for winners and Obaminable/Osprey campaigning for losers; plus at the moment only two socialists were elected: one re-elected the other idiot a "freshperson."

The strategic significance is what elected Democrats and what they promised to get there. #1: "No Pelosi"! #2: Pro-controlled borders! #3: Pro-miliary. (Not 100% with everyone, but they are on record.)

The small majority will require the Democratic leadership to compromise, and the anti-never Trumpers planning multiple time-wasting investigations and RE-INVESTIGATIONS with an effort to IMPEACH the POTUS will create an opportunity for short-termers.

For the pundits to tout this as a repudiation of Trump is just more hype. The Republicans in the House shot themselves in the foot by DOING LITTLE IN TWO YEARS when they had a golden opportunity for more!

All races have already been "decided"! The "decision" is not reported!

The Anti/Never Trumpers in this country will paint this as a repudiation of Trump playing the numbers game .... There was NO BLUE WAVE! There was hardly a blue ripple. Winning the House was statistically no significant accomplishment particularly when the margins were so close throughout the country and the candidates had to distance themselves from the Democrat Leadership in the House and more closely align with Trump ..... with exception of loons like Sheila Lee Jackson who took about 75% of the vote in her election!!!!!! And a vowed Socialist from New York City! The Senate will approve Trump's picks .... over-ride House loons ... . vote "Not Guilty" with respect to any impeachment .... and send legislation to the House that will EMBARRASS the Democrats if they don't vote to approve the laws.

And if Trump doesn't like the end product: VETO.

Even in football the other side gets a field goal from time to time.

Sounds kinda desperate to me LL.

If all of this is as locked as you say it is, then why the panic?

Why did Twitler lose his shit again yesterday?

[Austin Ellen]

+1

They way the dems were talking about this "Blue Wave" and what really transpired were worlds apart. I wasn't disappointed in the results.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The numbers are historically significant.

What is politically significant is the result of Trump campaigning for winners and Obaminable/Osprey campaigning for losers; plus at the moment only two socialists were elected: one re-elected the other idiot a "freshperson."

The strategic significance is what elected Democrats and what they promised to get there. #1: "No Pelosi"! #2: Pro-controlled borders! #3: Pro-miliary. (Not 100% with everyone, but they are on record.)

The small majority will require the Democratic leadership to compromise, and the anti-never Trumpers planning multiple time-wasting investigations and RE-INVESTIGATIONS with an effort to IMPEACH the POTUS will create an opportunity for short-termers.

For the pundits to tout this as a repudiation of Trump is just more hype. The Republicans in the House shot themselves in the foot by DOING LITTLE IN TWO YEARS when they had a golden opportunity for more!

All races have already been "decided"! The "decision" is not reported!

The Anti/Never Trumpers in this country will paint this as a repudiation of Trump playing the numbers game .... There was NO BLUE WAVE! There was hardly a blue ripple. Winning the House was statistically no significant accomplishment particularly when the margins were so close throughout the country and the candidates had to distance themselves from the Democrat Leadership in the House and more closely align with Trump ..... with exception of loons like Sheila Lee Jackson who took about 75% of the vote in her election!!!!!! And a vowed Socialist from New York City! The Senate will approve Trump's picks .... over-ride House loons ... . vote "Not Guilty" with respect to any impeachment .... and send legislation to the House that will EMBARRASS the Democrats if they don't vote to approve the laws.

And if Trump doesn't like the end product: VETO.

Even in football the other side gets a field goal from time to time.

[nevergaveitathought]

one outcome of the election is getting trump's judicial nominations through the senate never was easier than now

with ruth buzzy ginsberg having fallen and been sent to the hospital, its only a matter of time

can you imagine the caterwauling when that eventuality draws nigh?

[dilbert firestorm]

4 pickups to 1 pickup in the senate. not too shabby.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bambino

When you take into account 42 Republican seats were up due to retirement. The Dems picking up 27 seats is hardly a wave.

After taking some time to examine the results from Tuesday, I came up with the following, with some House district races still undecided:

27 House districts flipped from Republican to Democrat.

Of those 27, exactly six (6) were in districts where a Republican House member retired, creating an opening. Which obviously means there were 21 House races (so far) where Democrats defeated incumbent Republicans.