Ahhhhhh.... Not the cunning linguist you think you are... not by a mile.
ROTFLOL... may I suggest Hooked on Memory Improvement?
Or perhaps the back-link button to review what YOU wrote.
Perhaps a remedial English course from the school at the end of this thread?
Remember this? You wrote it:
Yes, of course, I remember writing it. I even stand by it.
There is a distinct difference between simply calling something a victory and calling it a
decisive victory. There are
different flavors and varieties of victory -- pyrrhic being one of them, decisive being another.
The one thing that all flavors of victory have in common is that the victor achieved some variation of the result they desired. The difference is the degree to which the victor got what they wanted, and what the cost of victory was.
Equating "victory" and "decisive victory," as you are attempting to do, is like trying to equate a high wind warning to a tornado watch. Yep, they're both awfully windy, but the tornado has especially destructive qualities that puts it in a class by itself.
You simply cannot call a victory decisive where nothing has actually been decided. The people, as a collective whole, sent just enough Republicans to Washington that
neither party can claim definitive control over any branch of government.
Republicans won the election both decisively and historically.
I honestly don't know your stand well enough to know if you're a Republican water-boy, a hater of the Democrat party, or some of each. Regardless, you're quite emphatically promoting one party over the other.
The result seems to be that you're viewing this entire situation of rah-rah Republicans, boo-boo Democrats. I, for my part, hate
both parties, so I tend to take a somewhat more objective view.
Think about it like this: The Republicans had the Presidency and both houses of Congress for 6 years. In that 6 years, they blew their wad so hard that they lost a lot more control than they thought they would in the 2006 mid-terms, and they lost even worse in 2008. The Democrats, for their part, capitalized on the anger at Bush going into 2006, continued hyping it into the 2008 elections, and then blew
their wad on health care.
This historic victory you're touting is only historic because the Republicans got the snot kicked out of them in 2006 and 2008 and are
only now making a comeback. In other words, it's historic because they started
so far behind the line that just about any kind of victory for them could be touted as historic.
In other words, it's not that they're great, it's that after 4 years they're finally reconnecting with the electorate and regaining some lost ground.