GOP Senators are in a Real Jam

[Hedgology]

You are ignoring 2018, like it didn't happen, like you say I am of 2016. So, why are YOU looking into the past now, when I'm about the present .

Is 2018 the present?

To be fair, those are your words. I think people voted for Obama to participate in the novelty of electing a black president. And it was an important moment to the black community.

Well, I'm sure many, many women did vote for Hillary because of her gender. But, yeah, Hillary in my opinion lost due to the DNC fumbling the primary and then doubling down on denials. So, your mis-characterizing my beliefs. Here's what I actually think. I think that 2020 will drive turnout among women and that will be bad for Republicans because of the data we've already reviewed, that you seem to think proves you right. :think:

There is nothing in the data that suggest that suggest that it will be bad for Republicans, or that turnout among women will be higher. You just made that up.

Yeah, don't care about your spin, Republicans sucked the big one with women.

That's your opinion. A -1% change isn't "sucking the big one." It's just mathematics.

 

[Hedgology]

I stand by my elaborate and nuanced analysis. You have a line on Nate Silver? He's probably dying to get the scoop from Captain Obvious! If more women come out to vote, Republicans do worse :lamo :lamo :lamo

You're assuming this, you're not proving this.

Yeah, still don't care about your silly partisan ramblings. Democrats kicked your ass, and no amount of Red washing will change that.

Democrats picked up seats during an election when they're out of power. Who could have forecasted that?

 

[Winston]

Is 2018 the present?

It's more the present than 2016. So, why are you so focused on the past?

There is nothing in the data that suggest that suggest that it will be bad for Republicans, or that turnout among women will be higher. You just made that up.

Democrats won women’s vote for Congress by 19 points, with 59 percent voting Democrat and 40 percent voting Republican — the largest margin seen in midterm exit polls, according to data from CNN.

Not bad for Republicans... That's good for Republicans?

And we go back, yes, I think 2020 will drive turnout among women. You don't. That's okay.

That's your opinion. A -1% change isn't "sucking the big one." It's just mathematics.

Republicans lost the female vote by 19 points in 2018, how do you like them mathematics?

 

[Winston]

You're assuming this, you're not proving this.

They lost the female vote by 19 points in 2018, yes they perform poorly with women! It's okay to admit that. If you don't want to, do some meditating, rest, reflect on life, go feed some ducks. Sit on a park bench and ponder your station in the world. But, to keep wasting my time with a phony debate.. come on!

Democrats picked up seats during an election when they're out of power. Who could have forecasted that?

Yeah, they picked up seats, due in part to women breaking for Dems by 19 points!

 

[Winchester]

impeached/resigned you thinking?

My money is on stroking out.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

How do they vote? They vote with Trump (unless they have permission of McConnell). Oh yeah, they will campaign that they were an 'independent voice' but their votes will betray them. They toe the party line when it is time to vote.

They first must win the primary.

All of that was pre November 6th. Now? Time will tell.

 

[Winston]

My money is on stroking out.

(devious laughter)

 

[Hedgology]

It's more the present than 2016. So, why are you so focused on the past?

That makes zero sense. There is no such thing as "more the present." Something is either in the present or it isn't.

2018 is not in the present.

Not bad for Republicans... That's good for Republicans?

And we go back, yes, I think 2020 will drive turnout among women. You don't. That's okay.

Once again, you're assuming this; you're not proving this.

Republicans lost the female vote by 19 points in 2018, how do you like them mathematics?

You clearly don't understand the holes in your logical progression. In 2016, Republicans lost the Female vote and still won the White House. Is losing the female vote bad for Republicans or not?

If it's not, clearly it doesn't matter who wins the female vote. If it is bad for Republicans, how do you explain why Republicans were able to win the White House BY SIMULTANTOUSLY LOSING THE FEMALE VOTE AND RUNNING AGAINST THE FIRST EVER PRESIDENTIAL FEMALE CANDIDATE?

That is a question that will never be asked, much less answered.

 

[Winchester]

I don't give a **** if Trump is on the ballot or not. It's 2020, 100 year anniversary of a woman's right to vote. They're going to be out voting in high numbers.

I think you're right on the turnout. Also the older one gets the more one realizes 100 years ago isn't really that much time. All of my grandparents were born before women could vote and I'm not that old yet.

 

[Hedgology]

They lost the female vote by 19 points in 2018, yes they perform poorly with women! It's okay to admit that. If you don't want to, do some meditating, rest, reflect on life, go feed some ducks. Sit on a park bench and ponder your station in the world. But, to keep wasting my time with a phony debate.. come on!

You do understand that two things can be true at the same time, correct? They won the White House with the same bad performance with women.

If this is true (as much as you don't want it to be) how can you claim that when women turnout is higher, Republicans do worse? There is clearly a real world example that disproves your argument.

Yeah, they picked up seats, due in part to women breaking for Dems by 19 points!

Winning because of women and winning women as a precentage of the electorate are not the same. I'm not sure why you are pretending like they are...

 

[justabubba]

My money is on stroking out.

ah, the 25th amendment angle

 

[Winston]

That makes zero sense. There is no such thing as "more the present." Something is either in the present or it isn't.

2018 is not in the present.

It's closer to the present than 2016. So, why are you so focused on the past? I thought you took issue with that.

Once again, you're assuming this; you're not proving this.

Yeah, 2020 will drive the women vote because of the anniversary. If you want some data on that, go ask 100 women on the subway if 2020 will be important to vote to them.

You clearly don't understand the holes in your logical progression. In 2016, Republicans lost the Female vote and still won the White House.

They lost it by 13 points. Dems gained 6 points in the female vote during the 2018 midterms. And the GOP lost 40 House seats. If the Dems gain another 6 points in the female vote, do you think that is a good thing for Republicans?

Is losing the female vote bad for Republicans or not?

Yeah, it's bad.

If it's not, clearly it doesn't matter who wins the female vote. If it is bad for Republicans, how do you explain why Republicans were able to win the White House BY SIMULTANTOUSLY LOSING THE FEMALE VOTE AND RUNNING AGAINST THE FIRST EVER PRESIDENTIAL FEMALE CANDIDATE?

That is a question that will never be asked, much less answered.

Well, first of all Republicans did lose the popular vote overall. They secured the White House by about 70,000 votes in 3 states. If you ask me, they won by pure luck through an archaic system and running against a deeply flawed candidate. Being the first ever female candidate, no doubt, was important to some women. However, to many women, Hillary was corrupt first and secondary the first female president. Who would want the first female president to be such a fail? Whereas, the 2020 anniversary isn't kneecapped by any baggage, it's just pure girl power that won't alienate anyone susceptible to far left memes on facebook. So, if the Dems continue to outperform the Republicans with women and turnout among women soars in 2020, the GOP may do poorly.

 

[Winston]

You do understand that two things can be true at the same time, correct? They won the White House with the same bad performance with women.

If this is true (as much as you don't want it to be) how can you claim that when women turnout is higher, Republicans do worse? There is clearly a real world example that disproves your argument.

Trump won 70,000 votes in 3 states to win the EC. Not sure why your touting that as some damning piece of evidence. And he lost the popular vote. People were still pretty pissed off at the DNC. Anger can be a huge motivator and right now, a ton of women are pissed at Trump and the GOP.

Winning because of women and winning women as a precentage of the electorate are not the same. I'm not sure why you are pretending like they are...

You are a big fan of reconstructing people's arguments for them. Do you have trouble reading or just hear the voices in your head? I said due in part.

 

[Winston]

I think you're right on the turnout. Also the older one gets the more one realizes 100 years ago isn't really that much time. All of my grandparents were born before women could vote and I'm not that old yet.

Thank you. Another poster in this thread is all butt hurt about that and is using all his DVR'd Hannity tapes to deflect, distract, and spin.

 

[Hedgology]

It's closer to the present than 2016.

No, it's not. It's the past. If you would like to say something happened more recently, that is different from saying, "it's more the present," which makes no sense. Words matter.

They lost it by 13 points. Dems gained 6 points in the female vote during the 2018 midterms. And the GOP lost 40 House seats. If the Dems gain another 6 points in the female vote, do you think that is a good thing for Republicans?

Again, you're conflating winning because of women and winning women as a precentage of the electorate.

Yeah, it's bad.

Prove it. We have recent examples that demostrate otherwise.

Well, first of all Republicans did lose the popular vote overall. They secured the White House by about 70,000 votes in 3 states. If you ask me, they won by pure luck through an archaic system and running against a deeply flawed candidate.

Irrelevant. Did they win or did they lose?

Being the first ever female candidate, no doubt, was important to some women. However, to many women, Hillary was corrupt first and secondary the first female president. Who would want the first female president to be such a fail? Whereas, the 2020 anniversary isn't kneecapped by any baggage, it's just pure girl power that won't alienate anyone susceptible to far left memes on facebook. So, if the Dems continue to outperform the Republicans with women and turnout among women soars in 2020, they may do poorly.

Now you're making excuses for your inaccurate claims. You claimed losing the female vote is bad for Republicans. In 2016, Republicans lost the female vote, and still won't. Clearly, your statements are inaccurate.

 

[Winston]

No, it's not. It's the past. If you would like to say something happened more recently, that is different from saying, "it's more the present," which makes no sense. Words matter.

Ah, and so the argument has come to my opponent quibbling about grammar. Mr. Hedgology please pass my paper, I need it to make it to the 8th grade, pretty please!

Again, you're conflating winning because of women and winning women as a precentage of the electorate.

I guess only in a Republican's world is losing the female vote by 19 points and 40 house seats: business as usual.

Prove it. We have recent examples that demostrate otherwise.

2018 midterms.

Irrelevant. Did they win or did they lose?

Relevant, a rainy day in three states could've given us Hillary, and then where would your argument be?

Now you're making excuses for your inaccurate claims. You claimed losing the female vote is bad for Republicans. In 2016, Republicans lost the female vote, and still won't. Clearly, your statements are inaccurate.

Nah, your just spinning because you lost. It's okay man. It will be alright to admit you dun ****ed up this thread. You'll get another shot at me.

 

[Hedgology]

Trump won 70,000 votes in 3 states to win the EC. Not sure why your touting that as some damning piece of evidence.

Because it really happened and it refutes your claim. There are other examples I could use, but this one is "more to the present."

You are a big fan of reconstructing people's arguments for them. Do you have trouble reading or just hear the voices in your head?

No one is reconstructuring your argument. If it is being done, is to make your argment better.

I said due in part.

No, you are clearly correlating voter distribution with election outcomes, which is a faulty argument.

They lost it by 13 points. Dems gained 6 points in the female vote during the 2018 midterms. And the GOP lost 40 House seats. If the Dems gain another 6 points in the female vote, do you think that is a good thing for Republicans?

 

[Winston]

Because it really happened and it refutes your claim. There are other examples I could use, but this one is "more to the present."



No one is reconstructuring your argument. If it is being done, is to make your argment better.



No, you are clearly correlating voter distribution with election outcomes, which is a faulty argument.

Look, I'm done with your nonsense, have fun losing more women in 2020.

 

[iguanaman]

Grand jury was just extended so I think Mueller will go for quite a while. Dems don't really want him out,they would prefer to run against him and use him as a reason for vote the entire democratic ticket.

I think that might be right as long as Trump can be neutered until then. Perhaps he is willing to behave but perhaps not. In that case he will force the Dems hand. There is honestly more than enough reasons for impeachment already.

 

[Hedgology]

Ah, and so the argument has come to my opponent quibbling about grammar. Mr. Hedgology please pass my paper, I need it to make it to the 8th grade, pretty please!

It's not really a grammar thing, it's a meaning issue. If you tell someone else not to dwell in the past, but choose to dwell on an event because it's a more recent part of the past, it doesn't change the fact that it's still in the past as well.

The point is, there is nothing that disqualifies 2016 any more than 2018. The fact that 2018 is more recent is irrelevant to the argument.

I guess only in a Republican's world is losing the female vote by 19 points and 40 house seats: business as usual.

Is it business as usual? You seem to think so, but you seem to ignore the fact that it doesn't seem to matter.

2018 midterms.

Then how do you explain other elections that are not the 2018 midterms. There is a word for people who only considered a small sample of data that supports a narrative. It's called "Cherry Picking."

Relevant, a rainy day in three states could've given us Hillary, and then where would your argument be?

Um, who cares? We can imagine many different things that would make history different, but history is what it is.

Nah, your just spinning because you lost. It's okay man. It will be alright to admit you dun ****ed up this thread. You'll get another shot at me.

Where was the spin? You want to acknowledge the fact that Republicans lost the women's vote and 40 congressional seats in 2018, but ignore the fact that Republicans lost the women's vote and still won the white house in 2016. And somehow, you think the same thing will happen again, but this time, the Democrats will win?

How does this line of reasoning work in your mind?

 

[Winston]

It's not really a grammar thing, it's a meaning issue. If you tell someone else not to dwell in the past, but choose to dwell on an event because it's a more recent part of the past, it doesn't change the fact that it's still in the past as well.

The point is, there is nothing that disqualifies 2016 any more than 2018. The fact that 2018 is more recent is irrelevant to the argument.




Is it business as usual? You seem to think so, but you seem to ignore the fact that it doesn't seem to matter.



Then how do you explain other elections that are not the 2018 midterms. There is a word for people who only considered a small sample of data that supports a narrative. It's called "Cherry Picking."





Um, who cares? We can imagine many different things that would make history different, but history is what it is.




Where was the spin? You want to acknowledge the fact that Republicans lost the women's vote and 40 congressional seats, but ignore the fact that Republicans lost the women's vote and still won the white house. And somehow, you think the same thing will happen again, but this time, the Democrats will win?

How does this line of reasoning work in your mind?

I have already refuted everything you said and you just pivot to more bull****. I'm done with ya on this topic man.

 

[Hedgology]

I have already made excuses for everything I said and you just pivot to more bull****. I'm done with ya on this topic man.

Fixed that for you...

 

[Winston]

Fixed that for you...

nah, you got destroyed.

 

[Saladin4]

I don't know what is going to change, and neither do you.



Wasn't there supposed to be a Blue Wave in November?

Plus 40 in the House...Sure wasn't a Red Wave...LOL...Please continue your trash talk...We need the laughs

 

[Hedgology]

Plus 40 in the House...Sure wasn't a Red Wave...LOL...Please continue your trash talk...We need the laughs

You didn't meet analyst expectations...