Repubs 4, Dims 0

[toms...@gmail.com]

http://www.politico.com/playbook

[Willie Brennan]

wrote in message
news:8dc44c29-77eb-49a0...@googlegroups.com...

>http://www.politico.com/playbook

Fact is, many Dems are smart people, they can see through the bullshit just
like we can. And that, is going to hurt the Libshit Snowflakes in the next
elections.

I love how Pelose, Chuckie, and Hilly are fucking themselves and their
party.

[DumbedDownUSA]

toms...@gmail.com wrote:

> http://www.politico.com/playbook

[DumbedDownUSA]

toms...@gmail.com wrote:

> http://www.politico.com/playbook

So what was the swing?

I have no idea but a quick google suggests this was a safe republican
seat with 72% of the vote last time. What was it this time?

Is that unimportant?

It seems to me you are crowing about holding onto a very safe seat by a
relatively small margin.

That's a bit lame.

[toms...@gmail.com]

I just listened to another Libtard make the same, lame argument. Bottom line: a loss is a loss (just ask Shrillary). To answer your question, Dims spent a boat load of money to increase Dim turnout, and they still fell short. Is this their (flawed) strategy for 2018? If so, Soros is going to have to write some BIG checks!

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-21 6:04 PM, Moderate wrote:
> toms...@gmail.com Wrote in message:

>>
>> I just listened to another Libtard make the same, lame argument. Bottom line: a loss is a loss (just ask Shrillary). To answer your question, Dims spent a boat load of money to increase Dim turnout, and they still fell short. Is this their (flawed) strategy for 2018? If so, Soros is going to have to write some BIG checks!
>>
>

> How much of that money went to support single mothers? Poverty?
> Homeless? Veterans? Healthcare National debt?
>
> The mush heads don't care.
>

You realize it is the Republicans plan to basically reduce funding to
every group you just mentioned...

...and give tax cuts to the uber-rich...

...right?

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:04:02 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>toms...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
>>

>> I just listened to another Libtard make the same, lame argument. Bottom line: a loss is a loss (just ask Shrillary). To answer your question, Dims spent a boat load of money to increase Dim turnout, and they still fell short. Is this their (flawed) strategy for 2018? If so, Soros is going to have to write some BIG checks!
>>
>

>How much of that money went to support single mothers? Poverty?
> Homeless? Veterans? Healthcare National debt?
>
>The mush heads don't care.

You didn't read what was spent by the GOP. They must not care either.

[Carbon]

> ....and give tax cuts to the uber-rich...
>
> ....right?

At no time does it ever dawn on any of these low-information propaganda victims that they have again been conned into voting against their own interests.

As for the propagandists, they count on being able to get away with lying to the suckers even as they laugh at their gullibility:

Jared Kushner on Trump's birtherism: "He doesn't really believe it, Elizabeth. He just knows Republicans are stupid and they'll buy it."

https://goo.gl/ziqDWt

There you go, you fools. A rare honest moment from Trump's inner circle. Enjoy.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Dimocrats want to increase taxes on EVERYBODY because they want bigger, more expensive government which everybody will have to pay for, EITHER thru taxes or more expensive goods and services, or both. Republicans want to decrease taxes for EVERYBODY by decreasing the size of government. BTW, the so-called uber rich DON'T get paychecks: they own the companies! Haven't you dimwits figured this out after all this time? I guess not...

[DumbedDownUSA]

toms...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 3:10:31 PM UTC-7, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > toms...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.politico.com/playbook
> >
> > So what was the swing?
> >
> > I have no idea but a quick google suggests this was a safe
> > republican seat with 72% of the vote last time. What was it this
> > time?
> >
> > Is that unimportant?
> >
> > It seems to me you are crowing about holding onto a very safe seat
> > by a relatively small margin.
> >
> > That's a bit lame.
>
> I just listened to another Libtard make the same, lame argument.

No you didn't.

Your mistake as always is making assumptions about things of which you
have absolutely no knowledge.

Your first thought is to make a dergatory remark no matter how
untruthful.

That says a lot about you and your ilk for whom the first line of
argument is ad hominen attack.

I don't know what impression you think it gives but it makes you look
unintelligent and extremely ignorant.

> Bottom line: a loss is a loss (just ask Shrillary). To answer your
> question, Dims spent a boat load of money to increase Dim turnout,
> and they still fell short. Is this their (flawed) strategy for 2018?
> If so, Soros is going to have to write some BIG checks!

So this is why the insult; you have no reasonable response.

Of course the more intelligent observer might note that is was not
actually a loss for the dems, it was a hold for the republicans.

So the dems couldn't quite turn a massive majority.

I don't think I'd be crying too much if I was them and I certainly
wouldn't be crowing as loud if I were you.

It's a bit like a major league team doing a victory lap for narrowly
beating a part time side.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> toms...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> >

> > I just listened to another Libtard make the same, lame argument.
> > Bottom line: a loss is a loss (just ask Shrillary). To answer your
> > question, Dims spent a boat load of money to increase Dim turnout,
> > and they still fell short. Is this their (flawed) strategy for
> > 2018? If so, Soros is going to have to write some BIG checks!
> >
>

> How much of that money went to support single mothers? Poverty?
> Homeless? Veterans? Healthcare National debt?
>
> The mush heads don't care.

OMG, do you hear yourself?

How old are you? Five?

Are all your comments as well thought out? How deos that go "I think
I'll have a few then go post on t'internets"?

[MNMikeW]

Carbon wrote:

>
> https://goo.gl/ziqDWt
>
> There you go, you fools. A rare honest moment from Trump's inner circle. Enjoy.

BWHAHAHHA! You are quite the left-wing propaganda enthusiast.

[Alan Baker]

What are yo saying, Mikey?

Are you claiming that that wasn't said?

[toms...@gmail.com]

You're the one that has their head up their ass. Dims spent the MOST MONEY IN HISTORY to try to win a congressional seat and they FAILED. Period. Dims are so upset that they are now talking about booting Pelosi, which is the first sign of intelligence I have seen from them in many years. You are one of those saying "We are doing the right thing, we just need to do more of it."

I guess we could give you guys a "participation trophy" if that makes you feel better.

[Alan Baker]

"MOST MONEY IN HISTORY"?

Got a cite for that?

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-22 9:39 AM, Moderate wrote:
> toms...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
>>

>> You're the one that has their head up their ass. Dims spent the MOST MONEY IN HISTORY to try to win a congressional seat and they FAILED. Period. Dims are so upset that they are now talking about booting Pelosi, which is the first sign of intelligence I have seen from them in many years. You are one of those saying "We are doing the right thing, we just need to do more of it."
>>
>> I guess we could give you guys a "participation trophy" if that makes you feel better.
>>
>

> Also the polls showed they would win. Like they show Trump with
> low approval numbers.
>

You do recognize the difference between a prediction based on a poll...

...and the results of the poll itself, right?

Fact: ALL the polls show that Trump's approval rating has fallen.

[Willie Brennan]

wrote in message
news:2941ae6f-6ac7-4049...@googlegroups.com...

Looks like you have your own little stalker, POS Shit Stain Baker.

IT is a fucking coward. If I ever have the pleasure of running into that
POS, I'm going to spit in IT'S ugly face. My bet, IT will lick it off and
slink away.

[B...@onramp.net]

By quoting Jared Kushner?

[toms...@gmail.com]

https://www.opensecrets.org/

[Alan Baker]

Which states very clearly that the Republicans spent even more...

...but I guess to you that doesn't count, right?

[toms...@gmail.com]

I do, do you?

>
> Fact: ALL the polls show that Trump's approval rating has fallen.

Fact: most "journalists" are liberal Dimocrats and Trump's news coverage has been overwhelmingly negative, including totally fake stories.

So why would you expect anything different?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-22 11:39 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> Google most expensive campaign.
>
> It was widely reported.
>

Not my job.

But it's not clear that "tom" isn't interested in the whole picture,
because his link shows that the Republicans outspent the Democrats.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-22 11:40 AM, toms...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 9:51:54 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2017-06-22 9:39 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>> toms...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
>>>>
>>>> You're the one that has their head up their ass. Dims spent the MOST MONEY IN HISTORY to try to win a congressional seat and they FAILED. Period. Dims are so upset that they are now talking about booting Pelosi, which is the first sign of intelligence I have seen from them in many years. You are one of those saying "We are doing the right thing, we just need to do more of it."
>>>>
>>>> I guess we could give you guys a "participation trophy" if that makes you feel better.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Also the polls showed they would win. Like they show Trump with
>>> low approval numbers.
>>>
>>
>> You do recognize the difference between a prediction based on a poll...
>>
>> ...and the results of the poll itself, right?
>
> I do, do you?

Yup. Clearly you don't if you think you can dismiss a poll's results by
citing an analysts predictions based on poll results.

>
>>
>> Fact: ALL the polls show that Trump's approval rating has fallen.
>
> Fact: most "journalists" are liberal Dimocrats and Trump's news coverage has been overwhelmingly negative, including totally fake stories.

What "totally fake" stories?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-22 11:40 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> No, what is the difference?
>

The difference is that a poll tells you with a certain statistical level
of accuracy what people believe, think or feel about certain things.

A prediction about election results attempts to take that information
and predict what they will DO.

But polls don't suffer from gerrymandering or the intentional prevention
of certain demographics from exercising their franchise (as has been
found to have happened by the courts).

[Carbon]

Mike is an idiot. This is all he knows how to do.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Only your complete lack of intelligence and patently dishonest nature
are preventing you from grasping the point.

> I guess we could give you guys a "participation trophy" if that makes
> you feel better.

"you guys"?

Who the fuck are you talkng about you dumb moron.

(A legitimate conclusion drawn from evidence provided by yourself.)

[toms...@gmail.com]

You, as usual, are wrong; Ossoff spent FIVE TIMES more than Handel.

[DumbedDownUSA]

toms...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 9:36:37 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> > On 2017-06-22 9:33 AM, toms...@gmail.com wrote:

> > >
> > > You're the one that has their head up their ass. Dims spent the
> > > MOST MONEY IN HISTORY
> >

> > "MOST MONEY IN HISTORY"?
> >
> > Got a cite for that?
> >
>

> https://www.opensecrets.org/

That does not actually directly support your claim.

In fact it rather looks like the republicans spent the "MOST MONEY IN
HISTORY" but I don't see a break down to make a solid conclusion.

So if you don't wnat your assertion to be graded as yet another Trumpet
falsehood how about providing some actual support for your assertion.

[B...@onramp.net]

Not as long as we have this absolute maniac as POTUS

[DumbedDownUSA]

> So how does that impact the polls being wrong? It doesn't.

The polls weren't wrong, you are, unsurprisingly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s_6th_congressional_district_special_election,_2017#Polling

The latest polls had Handel ahead in 2 out of three and tied in the
third.

[MNMikeW]

Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker<alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> Where is that stated?

He has no idea WTF he's talking about. R's spent about 5 mill, D's
spent almost 24 mill.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html

[Alan Baker]

I didn't say "Handel", did I?

Outside money:

'Where Handel has Ossoff beat, however, is in outside spending totals.
Super PACs have not been shy about showing their support for either
candidate, but Handel has been the beneficiary of twice as much outside
money as Ossoff. Outside spending boosting her campaign or attacking
Ossoff totaled $18.2 million as of June 19, against just under $8
million by groups backing Ossoff or opposing Handel.'

Oops.

[Alan Baker]

Incorrect. From your own cite:

'But the Republican Also
Benefited From Outside Money

Although Mr. Ossoff’s campaign far outraised Ms. Handel’s, she had much
more outside support from party committees and “super PACs.” These
groups spent more than $25 million on the race, primarily on advertising
against the other side.'

You seem to have a very convenient ability to only read the bits you like.

[DumbedDownUSA]

So Trumpets believe that journalists fake the polls?

You're too much. No, stop it.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-06-22 12:22 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> Where is that stated?
>

Combine what Handel spent (referenced in the article but here is their
source):

<https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00633362/>

With what outside money spent on defeating Osoff:

'Where Handel has Ossoff beat, however, is in outside spending totals.
Super PACs have not been shy about showing their support for either
candidate, but Handel has been the beneficiary of twice as much outside
money as Ossoff. Outside spending boosting her campaign or attacking

Ossoff totaled $18.2 million as of June 19'

And she spent more than he did.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

> So how does that impact the polls being wrong? It doesn't.
>

The predictions being wrong doesn't make the polls wrong, doofus.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Mikey math 5+24=55

[Alan Baker]

One of the best cases of selective blindness I've ever seen.

:-)

[DumbedDownUSA]

Another clearly dishonest misrepresentation and deviation.

The question is how much the Dems spent vs the Reps and your assertion
in answer is clearly dishonest on more than one level.

Fucking lying Trumpets.

Quote *expenditure* that supports your claim or admit ignorance and
dishonesty, Trumpet.

[Alan Baker]

Funny how he invoked spending by the Democrats...

...but now only wants to talk about money directly spent by the candidates.


:-)

[toms...@gmail.com]

WHEN are you going to get the message? Dimocrats spent $32M, give or take, and they LOST! Now many want Pelosi out, which I think is their smartest move in years. Repeat: you guys LOST, what you're doing ISN'T WORKING!!!

[toms...@gmail.com]

Yeah, right - the polls were SO ACCURATE last Nov. NEWSFLASH: when something ain't working try something DIFFERENT!

[Alan Baker]

Where do you get your new figure?

Fact: the Republicans spent more than the Democrats.

[Alan Baker]

> No, the results made the polls and predictions wrong.

Nope. They made the predictions wrong.

>
> When I accepted Carbon's $100 bet I went against the polls. I
> predicted correctly.
>
> Carbon welched.
>

[Alan Baker]

The polls aren't the predictions, doofus.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> "DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.a...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> > Moderate wrote:
> >>
> >> So how does that impact the polls being wrong? It doesn't.
> >
> > The polls weren't wrong, you are, unsurprisingly.
> >
> >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s_6th_congressional_district_special_election,_2017#Polling
> >
> > The latest polls had Handel ahead in 2 out of three and tied in the
> > third.
> >
>

> Not according to your cite or the actual polls.

I see your problem there. You're illiterate... or are you just lying
again?

Obviously I am taking that infromation directly from the cited page.

Do you need help finding it? Perhaps you don't know what month it is?

/spoonfeeding mode/

1. Click on the link.
2. Wait for the page to load. (perhaps you are still on a 56k)
3. Scroll down the page until you get to the latest polls preceeding
the election. (June 15th to 20th)
4. They look something like this, i.e. *exactly* as I stated.

WSB/Landmark Communications[83] June 18, 2017 49% 49%
Trafalgar Group[84] June 17–18, 2017 49% 51%
CSP Polling[85] June 15–17, 2017 48% 49%

5. Lie, deflect, ignore or whatever else you usually do when faced with
honest rebuttal of your false claims.

/spoonfeeding mode off/