Right. I the last election stolen in Chicago right here on the tip of my tongue.........ummmmm.ahhhhhhh.....hmmmmmmmm.....let me see......just a minute........oh yeah what's his name.......Daley..noooooo..........JFK.........noooooo. GMAFB..... How about Crook County?

 

and a quick move of the goal post... I didn't realize you were specifically talking about Chicago. If you are talking in general, some could argue Republicans stole the 2000 election.

 

Chicago has always been a democratic haven. For you to be even remotely surprised at the shenanigans going on here is mind boggling.

 

Can you believe this Brownback disaster is going to win re-election in this woebegone state of Kansas?

Do you folks laugh out loud when you hear the word "Kansas?" and/or "Brownback?" My gosh.

This one would have.

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/201...caught-on-tape/

 

So it turns out that this was a completely routine case of someone from a liberal group that collects absentee ballots turning them in. Whoops.

 

http://lwvaz.org/files/voter_fraud_no_it_is_not.pdf

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizon...llots/17756311/

 

This quote is from the Republican official who originally reported this illegal ballot-box stuffing routine absentee ballot delivery. This is how he chooses the describe the guy dropping off the ballots:

I don’t know if that person in the video is an illegal alien, a dreamer or a citizen. What I do know is that he was a vulgar, disrespectful, violent thug who has no respect for our laws. I would have followed him to the parking lot to take down his tag number, but I feared for my life.

 

But really, here's the best part from the AZ Central story:

 

LaFaro acknowledged the Republican Party has been doing the same thing when it sends get-out-the-vote volunteers to canvass neighborhoods. But he argued it was on a much smaller scale compared with Democratic-leaning groups.

lol

Wait, it gets better!

 

Thursday night, Mitt Romney made an appearance in Mesa, Arizona, to campaign for Republican gubernatorial candidate Doug Ducey. A graphic on a couple of conservative blogs, reproduced up top, urged attendees to “Bring your Early Ballots!” so GOP get-out-the-vote volunteers could collect them and get them to the county elections office. Our favorite little irony: On one rightwing blog, “Sonoran Alliance,” the Romney event notice, complete with invitation to bring those early ballots, appeared immediately above a piece complaining that “Ballot Stuffing is Legal in Arizona.”

Read more at http://wonkette.com/564273/arizona-gop-wil...jSYyCfCO3Sh4.99

 

 

Wait, it gets better!

It should be wrong regardless of who does it. There is no way to know who filled out the ballot.

Please agree with me or talk me off the ledge. ...

 

I'm SO f***ING frustrated with these elections. First of all, Brownback is a historically bad candidate and must go.

 

But second, I am listening to all the ads and all the Republican candidates here are running on is "we must stop Obama and his policies. Help us stop him."

Now, I am just sick and tired of this non sequitir. OK ... everybody hates Obama and despises his policies and what he's done to the USA. Fine.

But you know and I know if he could run for president again, he'd win in a landslide. So how does this make any sense?? Republican candidates know they can win by distancing themselves from The Big O. Yet we Americans would re-elect Obama again if we could in a couple years.

How do you explain this s***? Maybe the USA really truly will have a 25 year great depression like the email I just received. We probably deserve it if anybody does.

Edited November 3, 201411 yr by greg775

Please agree with me or talk me off the ledge. ...

 

I'm SO f***ING frustrated with these elections. First of all, Brownback is a historically bad candidate and must go.

 

But second, I am listening to all the ads and all the Republican candidates here are running on is "we must stop Obama and his policies. Help us stop him."

Now, I am just sick and tired of this non sequitir. OK ... everybody hates Obama and despises his policies and what he's done to the USA. Fine.

But you know and I know if he could run for president again, he'd win in a landslide. So how does this make any sense?? Republican candidates know they can win by distancing themselves from The Big O. Yet we Americans would re-elect Obama again if we could in a couple years.

How do you explain this s***? Maybe the USA really truly will have a 25 year great depression like the email I just received. We probably deserve it if anybody does.

 

The nation as a whole leans Democratic so the Democrats have an advantage in Presidential elections. Many individual districts, especially in Kansas, lean Republican so being anti-Obama works there.

 

Candidates in Chicago and New York are not running anti-Obama campaigns.

The Washington Post and CNN are predicting, with greater than 90% probability, that the voters are sick of the Dems and want Repub's back in power. Can we start making posts about how the American public has spoken, it's time for a change, liberals need to lay down and acquiesce, etc. etc.?

The nation as a whole leans Democratic so the Democrats have an advantage in Presidential elections. Many individual districts, especially in Kansas, lean Republican so being anti-Obama works there.

 

Candidates in Chicago and New York are not running anti-Obama campaigns.

Depends on how you cut the data. In some instances, you could say the nation, in terms of states and geographic regions, leans heavily republican with select areas on the coasts which are highly populated lean democratic.

At some point the democrats got my email. I seriously get about 50 emails a day from some democratic bs looking for funds.

 

Chicago elections are still horsehit and rigged. I live in Chicago and the city and state results do not seem possible. My alderman got 90% of the vote and the guy did not have a real job prior to becoming alderman. My state rep is even worse and she got 90% as well.

The Washington Post and CNN are predicting, with greater than 90% probability, that the voters are sick of the Dems and want Repub's back in power. Can we start making posts about how the American public has spoken, it's time for a change, liberals need to lay down and acquiesce, etc. etc.?

Never happen. Could win by 15% and it wouldn't be a mandate, it would just be 'voters throwing a tantrum'.

Never happen. Could win by 15% and it wouldn't be a mandate, it would just be 'voters throwing a tantrum'.

 

Of course, we would know that more voters are Democratic than are Republican, which casts doubt on what conclusions we should take from the outcome of congressional elections. According to data from the Princeton Election Consortium, Democrats would have to win by about 4.5% to have a 1-seat majority in the House.

 

FWIW, the same forecasts (from Princeton Election Consortium) have control of the Senate being, essentially, a coin flip. Pollsters struggle with the natural selection biases that make opinion polling look more Republican than they are really are. That is, Republicans are more likely to have landlines and respond to these calls than Democrats. They all apply adjustments, but they all still leaned Republican in 2012 because they underestimated the voter turnout of Democrats.

 

In mid-terms, traditionally there is a 2-3 point bias one way or the other. And it is not due to an intentional bias on the part of pollsters, but rather unforeseen changes in the electorate mixed with less polling data. Polls are actually getting worse year after year as well, since there aren't really as many universal ways to reach people like there was in the day of near-universal landlines.

I will be pretty surprised if Republicans don't come out of this year's election with control of the Senate. If a couple of races (Louisiana and one other) are close enough, they'll go to run-offs and we might not know who has control until December or January, but I still expect them to control. PEC has it at 40% +/- 15% Dems holding the Senate , Nate Silver's group has it more around 35% Dem control with a smaller +/-.

 

I expect the trend to continue of substantially more people actually voting for Democrats for the House but Republicans retaining control because of a combo of gerrymandering and natural demographics clustering dem voters, which is amplified by locking us in at 435 reps since the 1920's or 30's.

 

I will be pretty surprised if Republicans don't come out of this year's election with control of the Senate. If a couple of races (Louisiana and one other) are close enough, they'll go to run-offs and we might not know who has control until December or January, but I still expect them to control. PEC has it at 40% +/- 15% Dems holding the Senate , Nate Silver's group has it more around 35% Dem control with a smaller +/-.

 

I expect the trend to continue of substantially more people actually voting for Democrats for the House but Republicans retaining control because of a combo of gerrymandering and natural demographics clustering dem voters, which is amplified by locking us in at 435 reps since the 1920's or 30's.

 

Latest update from Nate Silver has the Dem odds down to 24.5%.

Co-posting in both threads:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-...ing-the-senate/

 

Nate Silver's final analysis gives the Republicans a 76.2 chance of taking the Senate, with 53 Republican seats (22.5%) and 52 Republican seats (21.4%) being the most likely outcomes. Nate has the Kansas race as the only one without an at least 2:1 favorite.

I'm a Republican, but I don't like Republicans anymore. I wonder what I should be. I wonder if a lot of people are like me in that regard. It's an embarrassing party.

I think Obama was a horrific, do nothing president BTW. It's like he's afraid to lead for some reason. I also simply abhor Hilly. So I'm definitely not a Demo.

greg,

 

Most people are independents. You don't really need to identify with a political party. To be honest, I actually beleieve that is detrimental to the country for people to do.

Edited November 7, 201411 yr by pettie4sox

http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-ne...nternet-2014-11

 

Ted Cruz just went full retard.

LOL this is what Republicans don't need.

I honestly don't think it's a bad move. Cynical, yes, but he just needs to get his troops aligned against net neutrality. Most people don't know anything about it and won't, so if he can be the first to go out there and say it's Obamacare for the Internet, that will be a ton of people's first impression of it. Right now you can nary find a regular person who knows anything about net neutrality and thinks it isn't something worth striving for - but you can change that if you just start saying vague, negative things about it.

 

Think of all the people who, to this day, think Obamacare is a government-run insurance company. Not only is that not true and missing the point of the law, these are the same people who will gleefully accept Medicare (aka, the government-run insurance company) one day. Republicans got out there, though, and strategically turned folks against it before they knew what it was. Dems, per usual, sat on their hands.

 

The ugly truth about the poor messaging on this topic for Dems is that they have big businesses in their pockets, too. There's a lot of lobbying going on for this - not to mention the likely fact that most of them don't really understand net neutrality, either.

Edited November 10, 201411 yr by Jake

Republicans seem to understand modern politics and media coverage much better than the democrats.

Ted Cruz just went full retard.

Dude. Not. Ok.

Dude. Not. Ok.

 

It's a reference to a movie, keep it within the context in which it was clearly meant.

 

The point is/was, you don't go full retard, and Ted Cruz just did.

 

This politically correct s*** is absurd at this point in which you can't even reference a f***ing mainstream Hollywood movie anymore.

 

Edited November 10, 201411 yr by Y2HH

<!--quoteo(post=3075130:date=Nov 10, 2014 -> 01:11 PM:name=Balta1701)-->

<!--quotec-->Dude. Not. Ok.

 

It's a reference to a movie, keep it within the context in which it was clearly meant.

 

The point is/was, you don't go full retard, and Ted Cruz just did.

 

This politically correct s*** is absurd at this point in which you can't even reference a f***ing mainstream Hollywood movie anymore.

 

 

Tropic Thunder was an epic movie.

<!--quoteo(post=3075130:date=Nov 10, 2014 -> 01:11 PM:name=Balta1701)-->

<!--quotec-->Dude. Not. Ok.

 

It's a reference to a movie, keep it within the context in which it was clearly meant.

 

The point is/was, you don't go full retard, and Ted Cruz just did.

 

This politically correct s*** is absurd at this point in which you can't even reference a f***ing mainstream Hollywood movie anymore.

 

And of course, everyone has seen that movie.