Trump admitted that Russia helped elect him.
"Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax...And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected."
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1134066371510378501?s=21
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Thursday, August 1, 2019
Friday, June 28, 2019
Can the Democrats Win again in 2020?
It depends on several factors...
1) Whether the Democrats are allowed to vote.
2) Whether their votes are counted.
3) Whether Russia intervenes again to help Trump.
4) Whether the media gives Trump free campaign air time like it did in 2016.
5) Whether the FBI Director intrudes to help Trump like he did in 2016.
1) Whether the Democrats are allowed to vote.
2) Whether their votes are counted.
3) Whether Russia intervenes again to help Trump.
4) Whether the media gives Trump free campaign air time like it did in 2016.
5) Whether the FBI Director intrudes to help Trump like he did in 2016.
Saturday, May 25, 2019
Yes, Russia Elected Trump
From Newsweek:
EVIDENCE RUSSIA TIPPED ELECTION FOR TRUMP ‘STAGGERING,’ SAYS FORMER U.S. INTEL CHIEF JAMES CLAPPER
"James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, has spoken out about Russia’s bid to subvert the 2016 presidential election."
. . .
''Surprising even themselves, they swung the election to a Trump win. To conclude otherwise stretches logic, common sense and credulity to the breaking point. Less than eighty thousand votes in three key states swung the election. I have no doubt that more votes than that were influenced by this massive effort by the Russians.”
https://tinyurl.com/yy3ubhoj
Saturday, April 20, 2019
Misty Predicts Clinton Victory
4004 PM: Mistysea [Quote] -- 7:07am -- Sat, Jun 29, 19 pst
Mistysea
Election predictions are silly.
6648 PM: Mistysea [Quote] -- 7:50am -- Thu, Jul 11, 19 pst
Mistysea
Dudley: I don't predict elections.
9085 PM: Mistysea [Quote] -- 6:58am -- Mon, Oct 10, 16 pst
Mistysea
Tree: I have openly said for months, that Hillary will win. Are you unable to comprehend what I post?
Mistysea
Election predictions are silly.
6648 PM: Mistysea [Quote] -- 7:50am -- Thu, Jul 11, 19 pst
Mistysea
Dudley: I don't predict elections.
9085 PM: Mistysea [Quote] -- 6:58am -- Mon, Oct 10, 16 pst
Mistysea
Tree: I have openly said for months, that Hillary will win. Are you unable to comprehend what I post?
Saturday, November 10, 2018
Shutime Predicts
7904 PM: Shutime [Quote] -- 10:24am -- Sun, Sep 30, 18 pst
The Dems will be crying after they fail to get the House.
The Dems will be crying after they fail to get the House.
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Yes, It's a Wave!
Yes, it is a "wave." At least it is according to Nate Cohn of the NYTIMES. Cohn writes:
https://tinyurl.com/yc3ghlh5
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/upshot/2018-midterms-blue-wave-democrats.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
See also:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/08/yes-mr-president-tuesday-was-blue-wave/?utm_term=.7c253bb43d6e
_____________________________________________
They are poised to win more seats this year than they did in 2006, despite far fewer opportunities.
By Nate Cohn
Nov. 7, 2018
It wasn’t necessarily the night of either party’s dreams. The Democrats are poised to gain around 35 House seats after Tuesday’s elections. Republicans seem likely to gain a few seats in the Senate, and they triumphed in some high-profile governor’s races.
But Democrats faced formidable structural disadvantages, unlike any in recent memory. Take those into account, and 2018 looks like a wave election, like the ones that last flipped the House in 2010 and 2006.
In the House, where the Democrats had their strongest showing, it’s impressive that they managed to fare as well as they did. In a sense, Republicans had been evacuated to high ground, away from the beach.
At the beginning of the cycle, only nine Republicans represented districts that tilted Democratic in the previous two presidential elections. Even in a wave election, these are usually the only incumbents who are standing on the beach with a greater than 50 percent chance to lose.
There were 24 such Republicans in 2006, and 67 such Democrats in 2010.
Democrats had so few opportunities because of partisan gerrymandering and the tendency for the party to win by lopsided (and thus inefficient) margins in urban areas. It gave Republicans a chance to survive a hostile national political climate that would have doomed prior parties. By some estimates, Republicans could have survived while losing the popular vote by nearly a double-digit margin.
The Democratic geographic disadvantage was even more significant in the Senate this cycle. There, Democrats were defending 10 seats carried by the president, including five that he won by at least 18 points.
As a whole, the House Democratic candidates overcame all of these disadvantages. They are on track to win more seats than Democrats did in 2006, with far fewer opportunities. They even managed to win more seats in heavily Republican districts than the Republicans managed to win in heavily Democratic districts in 2010.
Democrats pulled it off with an exceptionally deep and well-funded class of recruits that let the party put a very long list of districts into play. In prior years, the party in power wouldn’t have even needed to vigorously contest many of these races.
This year, Republicans generally succeeded in recruiting high-performing candidates to Senate contests in Florida, North Dakota and Arizona, even in a national political environment that sent House Republicans for the doors.
Democratic House candidates were helped by the declining value of incumbency, which made it harder for Republicans to outrun disapproval of the president.
The same forces, however, made it harder for Democratic senators to run as far ahead of the national party as they had in the past, and often their states had shifted far to the right since their last election.
In general, the split decision between the House and the Senate can be attributed mainly to the combination of the growing relationship between presidential vote and congressional vote and the declining value of incumbency. The apparent loss of Senator Bill Nelson in Florida, in particular, is not consistent with a typical wave election result. But this is the main driver of the difference between the results in the two chambers.
Democrats benefited from a huge number of Republican retirements, and they have flipped eight of those seats so far.
Many retirements were inevitable, but the number — the highest since 1992, a redistricting year — was not. Democrats also benefited from a string of court decisions that eroded or outright eliminated Republican gerrymanders in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and, most recently, Pennsylvania.
It is hard to measure the accumulated effect of these decisions. But it could have easily represented the Democratic margin of victory in Virginia’s Seventh District and in Pennsylvania’s Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and 17th. That’s atop Democratic gains already realized in 2016 in Florida and Virginia.
The Democratic disadvantage in the Senate isn’t going anywhere. State lines aren’t about to be redrawn, after all, and Hillary Clinton won just 19 states in 2016 while winning the national popular vote.
Perhaps Democrats still would have won the House without redistricting efforts and with a more typical number of Republican retirements. We still don’t know the full picture because the counting has not been completed. But Democrats are likely to win the national popular vote in this election by seven to eight points once late votes — which typically lean Democratic — are counted.
That would be a slightly larger margin than Republicans achieved in 2010 or 1994. It would be about the same as the Democratic advantage in 2006. It would be, in a word, a wave.
Nate Cohn is a domestic correspondent for The Upshot. He covers elections, polling and demographics. Before joining The Times in 2013, he worked as a staff writer for The New Republic.
A version of this article appears in print on Nov. 7, 2018.
"Democrats are likely to win the national popular vote in this election by seven to eight points once late votes — which typically lean Democratic — are counted."
"That would be a slightly larger margin than Republicns achieved in 2010 or 1994. It would be about the same as the Democratic advantage in 2006. It would be, in a word, a wave."
https://tinyurl.com/yc3ghlh5
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/upshot/2018-midterms-blue-wave-democrats.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
See also:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/08/yes-mr-president-tuesday-was-blue-wave/?utm_term=.7c253bb43d6e
_____________________________________________
Why Democrats’ Gain Was More Impressive Than It Appears
They are poised to win more seats this year than they did in 2006, despite far fewer opportunities.
By Nate Cohn
Nov. 7, 2018
It wasn’t necessarily the night of either party’s dreams. The Democrats are poised to gain around 35 House seats after Tuesday’s elections. Republicans seem likely to gain a few seats in the Senate, and they triumphed in some high-profile governor’s races.
But Democrats faced formidable structural disadvantages, unlike any in recent memory. Take those into account, and 2018 looks like a wave election, like the ones that last flipped the House in 2010 and 2006.
In the House, where the Democrats had their strongest showing, it’s impressive that they managed to fare as well as they did. In a sense, Republicans had been evacuated to high ground, away from the beach.
At the beginning of the cycle, only nine Republicans represented districts that tilted Democratic in the previous two presidential elections. Even in a wave election, these are usually the only incumbents who are standing on the beach with a greater than 50 percent chance to lose.
There were 24 such Republicans in 2006, and 67 such Democrats in 2010.
Democrats had so few opportunities because of partisan gerrymandering and the tendency for the party to win by lopsided (and thus inefficient) margins in urban areas. It gave Republicans a chance to survive a hostile national political climate that would have doomed prior parties. By some estimates, Republicans could have survived while losing the popular vote by nearly a double-digit margin.
The Democratic geographic disadvantage was even more significant in the Senate this cycle. There, Democrats were defending 10 seats carried by the president, including five that he won by at least 18 points.
As a whole, the House Democratic candidates overcame all of these disadvantages. They are on track to win more seats than Democrats did in 2006, with far fewer opportunities. They even managed to win more seats in heavily Republican districts than the Republicans managed to win in heavily Democratic districts in 2010.
Democrats pulled it off with an exceptionally deep and well-funded class of recruits that let the party put a very long list of districts into play. In prior years, the party in power wouldn’t have even needed to vigorously contest many of these races.
This year, Republicans generally succeeded in recruiting high-performing candidates to Senate contests in Florida, North Dakota and Arizona, even in a national political environment that sent House Republicans for the doors.
Democratic House candidates were helped by the declining value of incumbency, which made it harder for Republicans to outrun disapproval of the president.
The same forces, however, made it harder for Democratic senators to run as far ahead of the national party as they had in the past, and often their states had shifted far to the right since their last election.
In general, the split decision between the House and the Senate can be attributed mainly to the combination of the growing relationship between presidential vote and congressional vote and the declining value of incumbency. The apparent loss of Senator Bill Nelson in Florida, in particular, is not consistent with a typical wave election result. But this is the main driver of the difference between the results in the two chambers.
Democrats benefited from a huge number of Republican retirements, and they have flipped eight of those seats so far.
Many retirements were inevitable, but the number — the highest since 1992, a redistricting year — was not. Democrats also benefited from a string of court decisions that eroded or outright eliminated Republican gerrymanders in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and, most recently, Pennsylvania.
It is hard to measure the accumulated effect of these decisions. But it could have easily represented the Democratic margin of victory in Virginia’s Seventh District and in Pennsylvania’s Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and 17th. That’s atop Democratic gains already realized in 2016 in Florida and Virginia.
The Democratic disadvantage in the Senate isn’t going anywhere. State lines aren’t about to be redrawn, after all, and Hillary Clinton won just 19 states in 2016 while winning the national popular vote.
Perhaps Democrats still would have won the House without redistricting efforts and with a more typical number of Republican retirements. We still don’t know the full picture because the counting has not been completed. But Democrats are likely to win the national popular vote in this election by seven to eight points once late votes — which typically lean Democratic — are counted.
That would be a slightly larger margin than Republicans achieved in 2010 or 1994. It would be about the same as the Democratic advantage in 2006. It would be, in a word, a wave.
Nate Cohn is a domestic correspondent for The Upshot. He covers elections, polling and demographics. Before joining The Times in 2013, he worked as a staff writer for The New Republic.
A version of this article appears in print on Nov. 7, 2018.
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Dudley Sure of Election Outcome
8458 PM: Dudley [Quote] -- 7:13am -- Tue, Oct 23, 18 pst
Dudley
Wanna make a bet Old Post? If the democrats win back the House I'll leave the room for a year . . .
Dudley
Wanna make a bet Old Post? If the democrats win back the House I'll leave the room for a year . . .
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Trump Acknowledges Russian Interference in Election
From the "Washington Post" - "The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and that the effort was specifically aimed at helping Trump win."
Trump says that interference will continue in 201
''I'm very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election.'' Donald Trump - July, 2018
https://tinyurl.com/yd3ayb58
Trump says that interference will continue in 201
''I'm very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election.'' Donald Trump - July, 2018
https://tinyurl.com/yd3ayb58
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Harvard - Media Bias - 2016 Election
Harvard study documents anti-Clinton media bias
"A new report by Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society has conclusively documented what many of us have suspected, and what Hillary Clinton observes in her new book, What Happened: media coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign heavily favored Donald Trump. The researchers further concluded that not only are right-wing and mainstream media polarized politically, but they operate according to different ethical and journalistic standards."
"The report, titled “Partisanship, Propaganda, & Disinformation:
Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election,” found that
unethical journalistic practices driven by the desire to produce
“clickbait,” coupled with the viral sharing power of social media,
resulted in a proliferation of disinformation and propaganda that tipped
the election in Donald Trump’s favor."
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/news-features/harvard-study-documents-anti-clinton-media-bias
Read the PDF here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
The Rapist Felon is the ONLY president in US history to go on record requesting Russia commit felonies against us on his behalf. -
Gene Lyons shared on Facebook this piece by Jim Fallows. Lyons: "My old friend Jim Fallows dissects the political/theatrical aspects ...
-
The judge clarified. In order for the jury to find in Carrol's favor, it BY NECESSITY had to conclude Trump DID rape her. He made that c...