Tremendous Tentacles

[Just Walkin']

Any of our Georgia correspondents able to report on the Rumble in Roswell between Karen "Tentacles" Handel and Jon "Han Solo" Ossoff?

[gj]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:55:33 -0700 (PDT), "Just Walkin'"
<kens...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Any of our Georgia correspondents able to report on the Rumble in Roswell between Karen "Tentacles" Handel and Jon "Han Solo" Ossoff?

Ossoff is the favorite. Handel's hanging herself with these horrible
ads she's running. It makes her appear more detached than ever. She
isn't addressing any issues with any details. Very by the book 'we're
going to lower taxes, create jobs, etc." Not that I care, I'm a long
way from district 6.

-GJ 2.1

[marcus]

Of course I hope that Ossoff wins, but I think this race has been blown waaay out of proportion. This district is not really a microcosm of America.

Now if this were happening in a district that went for Trump overwhelmingly, particularly in one of the rust belt states, then it might lead to a good trend. for the Democrats.

[Grave Digger]

====

at 55 million dollars this is the best we can get...he looks too much like Anthony Weiner . he might be sending pictures any second. get the kids out of the room.

cheers
gd

[RichL]

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 5:33:54 PM UTC-4, marcus wrote:

For what it's worth...

The South Carolina Fifth District's special election to replace OMB director Mick Mulvaney was won by the Republican candidate 52% - 48%. This is a district that Trump won overwhelmingly in November. And Mulvaney was Congress's Head Teabagger. I think that should make Republicans nervous.

[gj]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:18:03 -0400, gj <geminij...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Update. I got that one wrong.

-GJ 2.1

[luisb...@aol.com]

I'll say one thing--you're persistent. Nervous? Reps won without putting a cent into the race. Then they won.

[luisb...@aol.com]

I think more is important is why it happened. One important reason: Bernie was backing him.

BTW, whoever said Bernie could have beat Trump if they'd only get out of his way is, imo, out of touch.

[Earl Browder]

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 08:55:11 UTC-4, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>Reps won without putting a cent into the race.

Not sure how you can say that. The race cost a total of more than $50 million dollars, with Ossoff spending something like $31 million and Handel spending something like $20 million.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/20/us/politics/georgia-6th-most-expensive-house-election.html?_r=0

Handel raised $2 million in campaign contributions from individuals, about $12.2 million from Republican campaign organizations, and $6 million from outside groups. The largest percentage of the money she took in came from two Republican congressional organizations.

[Just Kidding]

All true I'm sure, but I believe he was referring to the S.C.
election, Earl.

[marcus]

Are you sure? I heard that Sanders refused to campaign for him because he Ossoff wasn't progressive.

[Earl Browder]

Ah, that clears that up. Got distracted by the fact that virtually all the recent discussion of campaign money focused on the Georgia race.

However, even in South Carolina, "without putting a cent into the race" is a bit of an exaggeration. The Republican congressional campaign committee did fork over about $100,000 to the GOP candidate. And with the Democrats having virtually conceded the district from the outset, Republicans saw no reason to divert any more funds than that from heavily-contested Georgia to barely-contested South Carolina.

[DianeE]

------------
That was me, and I don't care what you think. Sanders is a charismatic
figure with passion and integrity. The Democrats need to find
candidates like him and then we will start winning. He would have
mopped the floor with Trump in a debate, which is why Trump backed out
of the one they had scheduled. There are two reasons for this. First,
Sanders has the experience to know what he's talking about and would
have shown Trump up as the ignoramus he is. Second, Sanders is as much
a New York street fighter as Trump is, and he wouldn't have stood there
flapping his jaw when subjected to Trump's insults, the way all his
Republican rivals did, and ultimately the way Clinton did when he said
"Because you'd be in jail." Sanders would have snapped right back when
he did that. Clinton lost the election right there in that moment, IMO.

[Grave Digger]

====


baby...can you tell us how you really feel 'bout the burn?
:))

love and hate

nor

[marcus]

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 1:59:34 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:

AL FRANKEN in 2020...seriously!

[Just Kidding]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 14:00:27 -0400, DianeE <Spam...@ThankYou.net>
wrote:

Isn't it funny, though, how so many Republicans talk about how Trump
beat Clinton because she was such a horrible candidate yet they
neglect the fact that Trump beat about a hundred of their candidates
in the primary? So how bad were they?

[Just Kidding]

Still an asshole.

[Grave Digger]

> AL FRANKEN in 2020...seriously!

=====
Now that's beyond the theater of the absurd...Is it Saturday night?
Stuart Smalley....give me a fucking break....maybe Pocahontas as the VP.
I don't even smoke but I need a cigarette

Love and Hate

nor

[Just Walkin']

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 1:31:19 PM UTC-5, marcus wrote:
>
>
> AL FRANKEN in 2020...seriously!

You watch too much TV.

[marcus]

I don't know how Cruz can even look himself in the mirror after all the things Trump said about him, his family, and his father.

Pitiful how the Reps cling to this piece of shit currently occupying our nation's White House

[marcus]

I'm serious.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 11:02:03 AM UTC-4, Earl Browder wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 08:55:11 UTC-4, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >Reps won without putting a cent into the race.
>
>
> Not sure how you can say that.

S. Carolina.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 2:42:19 PM UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:

I find funnier people who actually believed Hillary had a chance. Clearly there were quite a few.

Also funny is the "she won the pop vote by 3m" crowd. Neither she nor Trump were playing for the pop vote.

It's official. The front page of the Times declares in large, prominent letters today: "‘Our Brand Is Worse Than Trump’" This headline will be heard 'round the world. Anybody who enjoys my comments knows I'm not a "I told you so" type person. If I were, my comments would take up pages. But I have to admit that I've been warning. It took GA to wake people up...sort of. But it's too late. They've had since the Trump win to do something. They didn't. They kept playing the Russia/Comey/Kushner card actually believing that would save their sorry asses. And now the conclusion on the wall is that 2018 is lost. But it always was because of all the obstruction of justice, collusion, etc. yammering. Once again, they did it to themselves. This is beyond stupid--it's bizarre.

[marcus]

I don't believe all this panic...especially from the Times The Republicans won in Montana, and two southern states...big deal. What did they expect?

[M. Rick]

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 5:59:01 PM UTC-7, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> I find funnier people who actually believed Hillary had a chance. Clearly there were quite a few.

She was the clear favorite and that's why nobody on this group was willing to bet against her. I don't recall you predicting a Trump win. I recall a lot of wrong predictions during the primary and whining about the media. I would have bet on Clinton, and lost.

> Also funny is the "she won the pop vote by 3m" crowd. Neither she nor Trump were playing for the pop vote.

If someone says things like "the American people hated Clinton so they voted for Trump" then it helps to clarify by showing the popular vote vs. the electoral vote.

[Just Kidding]

Tom Price won this seat by 23 points in the 2016 election. Ossoff lost
by 4 points. That's good for the Democrats because in the mid-term
elections the Republicans won't be able to take very many seats for
granted and will have to expend resources on them that they never did
before. Now explain for me why the result was bad for the Democrats.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 9:34:10 PM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 5:59:01 PM UTC-7, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> > I find funnier people who actually believed Hillary had a chance. Clearly there were quite a few.
>
> She was the clear favorite and that's why nobody on this group was willing to bet against her. I don't recall you predicting a Trump win. I recall a lot of wrong predictions during the primary and whining about the media. I would have bet on Clinton, and lost.

Nope. I said clearly and emphatically that Hillary will not win. Christie, etc. is and was noise. I didn't say she has an X% chance of losing. I said straight up: she will not win. Period. End of story.

The practical side of what I said was exhorting you libbies fairly early to become Repubs just to vote in your primary. My argument was: Hillary isn't going to win. That's a given. Therefore, this election is about deciding which of the Repubs you like best, and you can do it by voting in the primary.

You should have seen you and others totally flip out when I correctly called Hillary's demise and made it worse by suggesting (ye gods!) that y'all vote GOP. You wouldn't do that even to shore up your own interests. That comes from the ideology I keep talking about as though I'm talking to wall.

>
> > Also funny is the "she won the pop vote by 3m" crowd. Neither she nor Trump were playing for the pop vote.
>
> If someone says things like "the American people hated Clinton so they voted for Trump" then it helps to clarify by showing the popular vote vs. the electoral vote.

Is that why a leading Dem is now going on natl TV and calling the Democratic brand "toxic?" Because the American people DON'T hate her? Personally, I believed before that it went way beyond Clinton. I think these hard-fought special elections taking place right now are amply demonstrating my point. Follow the Dem experts if you want. I'm keeping my eye on the meter.

[Earl Browder]

From February to June 1974, when President Nixon was on the ropes and moving towards resignation, five special elections were held for House seats vacated by Republicans. One of them, in fact, was the Michigan seat Gerald Ford had surrendered when he was sworn in as vice-president. Defying all expectations, the Democrats won all five of those seats, throwing the Republican party into a state of panic and demoralization as the November 1974 midterm elections loomed. When the dust had settled on those elections, the Democratic majority in the House had grown by 49 seats--from 242-192 to 291-144, a better than 2-1 majority.

I think the Democrats' hope this year in these special elections was to throw the Republicans into a panic similar to that of 1974. That would have dampened their efforts to recruit first-rate House candidates for 2018 and also harmed their fund-raising efforts, since contributors like giving to likely winners. Obviously, that's very unlikely to happen now.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:34:21 PM UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:

>
> Tom Price won this seat by 23 points in the 2016 election. Ossoff lost
> by 4 points. That's good for the Democrats because in the mid-term
> elections the Republicans won't be able to take very many seats for
> granted and will have to expend resources on them that they never did
> before. Now explain for me why the result was bad for the Democrats.

Essentially it's bad because this GA guy was a kind of "new Democrat" who is moderate in his views. If he'd won, it would be a signal that this new approach actually works with the voters. Even with all the money in the world it didn't work, which augurs badly for the elections in two years.

I am far from an expert about politics--I just observe. In fact, politics is BS imo. But it's still interesting and colorful. I wish I bet. I encountered many people online pre-election who had put a fair amount on Trump to win. Boo-yah to them. However, it strikes me as typical Democratic insanity that Dems would fund somebody running in a well-to-suburb because those voters are doing well under Trump. And on top of that, the guy didn't even live in the District! It seems like a really stupid place to make their stand.

Notice how the NY Times is offering nails and wood to the Dems who want to crucify Pelosi right now.

[luisb...@aol.com]

I would have thought that Nixon's plight would have made Democratic wins expected. In any event, the '74 elections brought in the Watergate wave. But Trump is nowhere near the kind of hot water Nixon was in during those special elections.

In any case, the total rout of Repubs post Nixon left the GOP desperate. They didn't know how they'd ever get back on their feet. The leadership's answer was "go moderate" to make the public believe they were reforming after Nixon and Watergate. It totally failed as a strategy. The most visible failure was Ford's loss to Carter. The moderates all hated Reagan partly because his strategy, which turned out to be the winning one, was to play it more conservative, not less. He reasoned that the first people to worry about are your GOP base. If you get them, the rest will probably follow. At the time, it was a totally unorthodox strategy. It worked like a charm.

I'm still waiting for the Dems to do a similar thing. They are making the same mistake the GOP moderates made during the post-Watergate era, essentially trying to be a little more Republican. The more lefty Dems believe that Democratic roots is Bernie. IMO he's not. Dem roots are hard-working, largely urban voters who want to do better in life through their own hard work. The collapse of the "blue wall" for Trump tells that whole story. Dems were offering "free stuff" as the rightists like to say. But people want jobs and an industrial policy, not free stuff.

[M. Rick]

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 8:03:03 PM UTC-7, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> Nope. I said clearly and emphatically that Hillary will not win.

I don't remember that. I remember the posters here refusing to bet on the primaries and the election.

>The practical side of what I said was exhorting you libbies fairly early to become Repubs just to vote in your primary. My argument was: Hillary isn't going to win. That's a given.

Certainly was not a given. How much money did you make betting on Trump?

>Therefore, this election is about deciding which of the Repubs you like best, and you can do it by voting in the primary.

In that case I would have voted for the Republican most likely to lose the election, since I wanted Hillary Clinton to win. I implored most of the posters here to vote for Trump in the general election because they have so much in common with Trump. Horrible people deserve a horrible President. But in the popular vote, the plurality for Clinton was less horrible than the minority for Trump. That's the bright side.

[Just Walkin']

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 9:34:21 PM UTC-5, Just Kidding wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 17:58:59 -0700 (PDT),
>

> Tom Price won this seat by 23 points in the 2016 election. Ossoff lost
> by 4 points. That's good for the Democrats because in the mid-term
> elections the Republicans won't be able to take very many seats for
> granted and will have to expend resources on them that they never did
> before. Now explain for me why the result was bad for the Democrats.

When I lived in the district in the nineties, we ran Michael Coles, founder of Great American Cookie Co. and cross-country bicycle enthusiast against Newt Gingrich, by then already a brand name. We got 44 points but lost. Hard to believe Ossoff only picked up 4 points with all them young people running around down there...

[Just Kidding]

Not really a fair comparison. By the time those specials were held
we'd had the Watergate hearings, the Saturday Night Massacre, the
White House tapes, and the initiation of impeachment proceedings.
We're not nearly that far down the road yet with Trump.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 11:37:40 PM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 8:03:03 PM UTC-7, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> > Nope. I said clearly and emphatically that Hillary will not win.
>
> I don't remember that. I remember the posters here refusing to bet on the primaries and the election.
>
> >The practical side of what I said was exhorting you libbies fairly early to become Repubs just to vote in your primary. My argument was: Hillary isn't going to win. That's a given.
>
> Certainly was not a given. How much money did you make betting on Trump?
>
> >Therefore, this election is about deciding which of the Repubs you like best, and you can do it by voting in the primary.
>
> In that case I would have voted for the Republican most likely to lose the election, since I wanted Hillary Clinton to win.

My argument then--as now--was that Hillary wasn't going to win. It was a given. After losing in 2008, Hillary wasn't going to be president of the USA. I strongly suspected that Dems wouldn't win because there weren't any other viable Dems. So it now became a matter of which GOP person do you prefer. The strategy was clear.

> I implored most of the posters here to vote for Trump in the general election because they have so much in common with Trump. Horrible people deserve a horrible President. But in the popular vote, the plurality for Clinton was less horrible than the minority for Trump. That's the bright side.

Yeah, I guess. If you think that's it's bright that the urban centers are a kind of herd, then yippee!

[Rachel]

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 9:55:34 AM UTC-7, Just Walkin' wrote:
> Any of our Georgia correspondents able to report on the Rumble in Roswell between Karen "Tentacles" Handel and Jon "Han Solo" Ossoff?

i keep thinking this says Tremendous Testicles...sigh...

testicular fortitude...ultra strength...

[Earl Browder]

But Trump's disapproval ratings--now around 60%--are already pretty close to what Nixon's were (he topped out at 66% as he resigned) and Nixon wasn't being accused of having sold out his country's interests to the Russians for money. I've seen quite a number of Democrats predicting that Trump won't last out the year and concerned that Pence will turn out to be even worse from a policy point of view.

[Grave Digger]

> But Trump's disapproval ratings--now around 60%--are already pretty close to what Nixon's were (he topped out at 66% as he resigned) and Nixon wasn't being accused of having sold out his country's interests to the Russians for money. I've seen quite a number of Democrats predicting that Trump won't last out the year and concerned that Pence will turn out to be even worse from a policy point of view.

+++++
He was rocking in Iowa....
I wouldn't pay no mind to those numbers..they be make believe. There be no chance of a Trump impeachment...better chance of the Hildabeast staying at the grey bar hotel for five to ten. There are times when the good are crucified before they can bring peace and harmony to our world.There are too many bitches in this political world

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg29g6D0sPs

love and hate

[marcus]

Watch this space.

[gj]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 08:51:36 -0700 (PDT), "Just Walkin'"
<kens...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The truth is that the threat of impeachment is the gun the GOP - not the Democrats - are holding to the president's head to make sure he signs their health/tax bills and cooperate with their foreign policy plans.

Exactomongo! They know he's a loose cannon. But he's their loose
cannon.

-GJ 2.1

[M. Rick]

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 8:35:24 AM UTC-7, Earl Browder wrote:
>I've seen quite a number of Democrats predicting that Trump won't last out the year and concerned that Pence will turn out to be even worse from a policy point of view.

He's even worse from a human point of view.

[Just Kidding]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:47:27 -0400, gj <geminij...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I think he's more of a tool than a cannon.

[Just Kidding]

Some things will never change....still an asshole.

[Grave Digger]

>
> Some things will never change....still an asshole.>>>

=====


now that's not nice.....I think you need to put a finsky in the swear jar


love and hate

nor