T1B

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-dem ... yptr=yahoo

Where have I seen this movie before? The press says too close to call. The result, a fairly comfortable Republicans win....again.

Rachelle Madcow blames the rain.

Good to see that Dick Cheney has the Enron weather machine back into the lineup, obviously with Russian help.

Ohh for 5 on special elections since the election. Good going dems.

Hey dems, keep up the Russkie witch hunt. It is working soooooooo well so far.

Well someone made out well with all the money they pumped into promoting Pajama Boy. The majoity of the people aren't buying what they are selling and they can't seem to understand or don't want to. 2018 is coming up fast.

I love how republicans are spinning this as a bellweather test of how the nation feels. This district hasn't elected a democrat to this seat since 1978, and a democrat hasn't garnered a majority of the presidential votes since at last century.

Yeah, that's a good test for how the whole nation feels.

Diego in Seattle wrote:I love how republicans are spinning this as a bellweather test of how the nation feels. This district hasn't elected a democrat to this seat since 1978, and a democrat hasn't garnered a majority of the presidential votes since at last century.

Yeah, that's a good test for how the whole nation feels.

Spinning?

Non-Dems are laughing at party that puts up a 30 year old pajama boy that doesn't live in the district, collected campaign donations from across the nation, spent a record amount of money and still got their ass handed to them, again.

Ithas nothing to do with national feelings as much as the pulse of the voters in that district. The DNC thought that because Trump narrowly carried the district last year, and that their Pajama Boy/non-resident picked up almost 50% of the first primary that this was a winner for them. Both sides pumped in outside money, the DNC by far the most. The results speak for themselves. The DNC needs candidates that people will vote for, period.

Sirfindafold wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:I love how republicans are spinning this as a bellweather test of how the nation feels. This district hasn't elected a democrat to this seat since 1978, and a democrat hasn't garnered a majority of the presidential votes since at last century.

Yeah, that's a good test for how the whole nation feels.

Spinning?

Non-Dems are laughing at party that puts up a 30 year old pajama boy that doesn't live in the district, collected campaign donations from across the nation, spent a record amount of money and still got their ass handed to them, again.

Go back to posting pics of the Lost In Space robot, as reading comprehension is obviously not your forte.

How much was donated to his campaign and where he lives had nothing to do with whether he won or lost. That particular district hates anyone other than republicans and wasn't going to elect anyone but a Republican.

Would you consider the loss by a Republican in a district in Seattle, San Francisco or Boston to be an indictment against the Republican party?

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Sirfindafold wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:I love how republicans are spinning this as a bellweather test of how the nation feels. This district hasn't elected a democrat to this seat since 1978, and a democrat hasn't garnered a majority of the presidential votes since at last century.

Yeah, that's a good test for how the whole nation feels.

Spinning?

Non-Dems are laughing at party that puts up a 30 year old pajama boy that doesn't live in the district, collected campaign donations from across the nation, spent a record amount of money and still got their ass handed to them, again.

Go back to posting pics of the Lost In Space robot, as reading comprehension is obviously not your forte.

How much was donated to his campaign and where he lives had nothing to do with whether he won or lost. That particular district hates anyone other than republicans and wasn't going to elect anyone but a Republican.

Would you consider the loss by a Republican in a district in Seattle, San Francisco or Boston to be an indictment against the Republican party?

Enjoy your "moral victory" you kiddie diddling cuck.

l to r. Diego, McGoober, Mikey, Screwey.

Sirfindafold wrote:

l to r. Diego, McGoober, Mikey, Screwey.

Hey, I'm sort of hot. In a middle-aged desperate housewives kind of way

Didn't the last POS right wing fuck face win by 20 points?

Roach wrote:
Your thoughts MS? Or are you indisposed pissing your panties and shitting up the holding cell.

Have a nice day.

They are almost as fucked up as you and trump and 88dickstosuck. Almost. And there in lies the rub.

I don't see a downside to Ossoff losing.

It would have been nice if he had won, but on the bright side he got the GOP to spend $18 million on a seat that's been held by their party for over 40 years.

Diego in Seattle wrote: How much was donated to his campaign and where he lives had nothing to do with whether he won or lost. That particular district hates anyone other than republicans and wasn't going to elect anyone but a Republican.

Would you consider the loss by a Republican in a district in Seattle, San Francisco or Boston to be an indictment against the Republican party?

So you are saying that this guy had little chance of winning. If that is true why did the Dems spend between 22-30 million dollars to lose? You also mention they got the Republican Party to spend 18 million. Maybe that arguement makes sense had they spent 5 million or so but not when they spent quite a bit more. Either the Dems just wanted to throw money away, (possible as that is what they tend to do in Congress and the White House) or they thought they had a legit chance to win.

As for the GOP losing in one of these liberal enclaves, I would call it a colossal failure if they spent $25 million to do so.

Left Seater wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: How much was donated to his campaign and where he lives had nothing to do with whether he won or lost. That particular district hates anyone other than republicans and wasn't going to elect anyone but a Republican.

Would you consider the loss by a Republican in a district in Seattle, San Francisco or Boston to be an indictment against the Republican party?

So you are saying that this guy had little chance of winning. If that is true why did the Dems spend between 22-30 million dollars to lose? You also mention they got the Republican Party to spend 18 million. Maybe that arguement makes sense had they spent 5 million or so but not when they spent quite a bit more. Either the Dems just wanted to throw money away, (possible as that is what they tend to do in Congress and the White House) or they thought they had a legit chance to win.

As for the GOP losing in one of these liberal enclaves, I would call it a colossal failure if they spent $25 million to do so.

Your last line pretty much sums up how I feel about the dems spending so much. But I get the feeling that it's even more egregious in that the candidate was one who matched their agenda rather than the voters of that district. Perhaps there was a better candidate who would have more moderate, but that isn't what the dem leadership wants these days. IOW, the same problem that the repugs have had for years.

OMG you are a pussy.
.net doesnt post here. :doh: