In this context, it seems you think it was Jesus whom Catholics believe was immaculately conceived. It was not. No, he lost to Dukakis.
I can't believe I have to take time from Belize, on my vacation, to ask you.... What are you talking about? Is that what you gleaned from this?
I do 20-25 miles most Sunday afternoons. Of course, I don't have to carry food and shelter with me, and while there are hills and the sidewalks aren't the least bit even most places, it isn't the same. And re: Moore: I don't think it's the least bit funny. But stuffing Moore into the GOP clown car to replace Sessions in the Senate doesn't change all that much. And it might force the alleged sane Republicans to try to take back their party, or leave it. Of course it's moot if they get him off the ticket. They retain the seat, possibly with someone who can get things done within the law, which will be worse
Yeah. Started off the week carrying 37 pounds (4 litres of water will do that) because we were unsure about potable water quality. Very rough first day, then we ate/drank a third of the problem.
I'm terrified of what his likely election means. It means Republican partisans prefer a pedophile over a Democrat.
Okay, so I tend to stay away from this part of town, but wanted to see what y'all are saying about the child sex abuser. 1 - One a male would even have the thought that a child sex abuser should be elected to office, let alone voicing it. 2 - In the context the Moore/Jones race is close, it was pointed out that when Moore was elected to his most recent position, he won by only 3%. 3 - Mitch McConnell's statement today was absolutely amazing. For those who have not seen/heard it: (First 10 seconds.) And while Moore is a anti-establishment guy, he is also a Republican and needs Republican votes to win. McConnell's statement says it is more important to lose this race than have such a toxic person in the Senate.
https://twitter.com/AliLapp Read through those numbers. Those are horrific numbers for incumbents. The dam is about to break.
Indeed. I was about to post that link as well. Doesn't look good at all. We may have a bloodbath next year in the mid terms. Big picture, all these Republicans will pay a political price for supporting GOP tax bill. It’s unpopular and voters are less likely to support a GOPer who votes for it.— Alixandria Lapp (@AliLapp) November 14, 2017
These tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies. Republican incumbents who never had to run a tough race don't like the prospect of one, and retire. That makes the seat better for Democratic pickups. Leading to more retirements.
This is exactly why I think the tax bill has a good shot. If you're going out anyways, why anger the establishment? Most of these people need to plan for careers post politics. The best available job for a retiring politician is private sector lobbying.
Except do you see all the lobbying groups arming up against this thing? They don't want a former member of Congress who goes on quixotic crusades to head their lobbying outreach.
I can't wait for the tax reform/cut to pass so I can pay higher taxes and have my health care costs increase too! So much winning.
Assuming state legislatures flip, as a political scientist, should the Dems re-gerrymander? My sense is that the number of good-government types who would be offended by a mid-census redistricting is vanishingly small, and in what figures to be an extremely high turnout election in 2020, insignificant as a voting bloc. It's all reward, no risk. Do you agree or disagree?
No. They should eliminate state gerrymandering by changing their constitutions to set independent commissions to do it, with heavily-regulated rules about how districts can look. I want to be in the party that has a majority of support on policy. That's democracy.
OK, I didn't write well. It wasn't supposed to be about the method of redistricting. It was about the basic idea of mid-census redistricting. I'll say this...a pro-Democratic gerrymander seems a hell of a lot more "fair" than not letting them vote next time. Just sayin'.
Not to me. A one-off election ban would let Trump voters return in 2022 and 2024, whereas a gerrymander affects four, five elections down the road.
OK, back to the question...my assessment is that the number of voters Dems would lose due to implementing a highly unusual mid-census redistricting is a tiny, tiny, tiny, number, so they should do it. Do you agree, or do you think they'll lose a meaningful number of swing voters offended by the power grab?