Posted on 09/13/2016 9:09:27 PM PDT by Helicondelta
It’s still early, but at this point in the 2016 campaign, it’s not unreasonable to think that Hillary Clinton could cost the Democrats the Senate. Her campaign is not building any sort of wave or momentum that is producing a downdraft that could deliver the Senate majority to the Democrats. By most measures, the Democrats should retake the Senate in 2016. Republicans are defending 24 Senate seats, and the Democrats are defending only 10.
Despite having a generally weak bench, the Democrats have done a pretty good job at candidate recruitment. But Clinton’s lackluster, dull and uninspiring campaign, not to mention the fact that Democratic candidates cannot vouch for her honesty, is depriving them of their chance.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
There are so many listed on twitter tonight, it’s impossible to transfer them all over here.
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=news&q=%23DNCLeaks&src=tyah
This WaPo reporter should go into hiding. Bad thing happen to reporters who say bad things about Clintons.
Holy cow: Cankles as little as a TWO point lead in CO???
Article on Breitbart but can’t find it-—cited on Twitter. Latest polls show 5- point difference in stat Cankles thought safe but one poll has it at two.
CO would be huge-—a 12-point swing and with IA and ME elector, that is already 13 EVs that Romney never got.
Wait a minute that can not be right. This is a black woman and I understand they are all suffering from income equality so how could she come up with that money.
She got the position because she was the only qualified woman in the world.
Thank you for referencing that article Helicondelta. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.
Patriots are reminded that a Senate controlled by a simple majority is basically a lame-duck Senate. This is because the fur doesn’t fly, removing a House-impeached president from office (1.3.6), or overturning a presidential veto (1.7.2), unless the Senate can secure a constitutionally mandated 2/3 majority vote, a 2/3 House majority also required for overturning veto.
I suspect that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress is very happy that the Senate doesn’t have the 2/3 vote, regardless that low-information patriots have had three election cycles to have hypothetically replaced every member of the Senate by now, but have failed to do so.
The last paragraph needs to replaced with clear thought, English is not enough.
He just throws that in the first paragraph. By what measures, exactly? He doesn't bother to list them. He just seems to take for granted that everyone agrees with him, without justification, that the Senate belongs to the Democrats.
She should have invested in a face transplant.
As much as I personally detest Johnny Isakson, he is up over double digits against his opponent. This Georgia news syndicate that keeps playing up Georgia is purple on the verge of going blue is pure bullshit.
160K a year * 4 = 640k
Where does the other 200k+ come from?
They do that all the time. They live in a bubble where "everyone agrees", "everyone knows", etc. etc.
If they think having lackluster Hillary as the nominee will suppress democrat votes, imagine what removing the First Female Nominee from the ballot would do to democrat votes. Popcorn time!
Ed Rogers | Media Matters for America
McConnell’s double budget betrayal begins
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/09/mcconnells-double-budget-betrayal-begins
You keep on advocating repeal of the 17th Amendment and now suggest that any conservative disagreeing is a "low information patriot."
Translating your argument into understandable English and brushing the foam off the beer, you have a problem with popular election of United States senators. You would prefer that the special interests directly BUY all the seats in the Senate by paying off corrupt, slimy little nationally unknown state legislators. Are you a state legislator salivating over Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Energy, Big Labor, Big Construction, etc. bidding up and up the price of your vote? Do you dream that generations of your family yet unborn will bless your memory for raking in millions in payoffs just for cooperating in the sale of the Senate to "the interests?"
Even if you are not a state legislator, those ARE the dreams of every state legislator in the land if the people should ever be suicidal enough and stupid enough to give up their right to elect their own senators. Under our 17th Amendment system, we have no one to blame but ourselves for the Ted Kennedys, Harry Reids, Schmucky Chewmers, et al. Under your proposal, we would be consigned to fatalism and despair over the impossibility of getting state legislators to behave in such a way as to benefit the citizens rather than themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.