Messages sent, will they be heard?

Red wave disappoints, but…

Election results trickle in, but the Red Wave I was hoping for will be less impressive than I had hoped. But the underlying numbers send some messages about 2024.

Abortion was a bigger deal than it should have been, and by 2024, the States will have resolved the issue. In 2024 it won’t be a decisive issue.

HOPEFULLY, this election will be the end of Trump as a candidate. If the GOP does not take the Senate, it will be because Trump was able to get poor candidates nominated for no reason other than their loyalty to him. Even if Trump doesn’t get the message, the GOP has to see that his sun has set and turn their eyes to Florida.

There are lessons for Democrats too, many races they will win, they will do so in a disappointing manner. For example, VA-07 and VA-10 were 10 to 20 point margins last time and were squeakers this time. That is a pattern across the country. Safe seats are no longer safe, and had the GOP chosen better candidates not mired by connections to Trump, would have flipped. Democrats should take this as a warning to listen to their constituents more and to Pelosi and Schummer less,

Finally, Every State should send their election officials to Florida to learn how to run an election. Florida learned its lesson from Bush and Gore, and conducted fair, honest and accurate elections statewide that enjoy the confidence of the people. That we may not know how the election really turned out for weeks and in many cases, litigation will drag on for months, would be embarrassing for a third world country. So, get the Sects of State nationwide down to Florida, Xerox their election laws and procedures, and go home and fix this mess before 2024.

136 thoughts on “Messages sent, will they be heard?

  1. Given the history of off-year elections, economic conditions leaving millions feeling pain and insecurity, and the unfavorable view of the President this SHOULD have been the year for a GOP blowout. Why wasn’t it? In a word – decency. I think this writer for USA Today nails it . . .

    “Call me idealistic, but I’ll posit a good number of Americans don’t love it when a political party broadly embraces a bullying figure like former President Donald Trump. Some don’t take kindly to political candidates who deny election results, or those who say they’ll only accept an election that they win. Some don’t like seeing politicians enthusiastic about taking rights away from women, or from married gay and lesbian couples. Some don’t appreciate a party that scapegoats transgender children to score political points, or one that accuses teachers of being groomers or pedophiles.”

    The damage done to the GOP by Trumpism will not disappear when he does. Your new man on a white horse from Florida shows little interest in addressing this basic problem because he can’t. That is the nature of the Trumpist GOP. If he doesn’t feed the extremists, someone else will.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. So, the message on the left has not been heard.

      Your writer expands the polarization that Trumps narcissism brought to the contests to include abortion on demand, gay marriage, which no one is suggesting should be wound back, and the gender issues that are only popular with a tiny sector of the vote.

      It is 99% Trump fatigue, and little else.

      Abortion as an issue is short lived, Once the States have found consensus, probably at 15 weeks on demand followed by true health issues and fetal abnormality, there will be little left to fight over. Only the extremists on both ends will be unable to live with that.

      Transitioning minors is extremely unpopular, as is indoctrinating children on the issue in schools. You can thank the migration of Latino voters to the GOP largely for that.

      But by all means, choose those hills to die on.


      1. I promise you, the issue of “winding back gay marriage” is very real. In the election before last, my Republican neighbors put up a sign in their yard saying “Marriage is between a man and a woman!”

        And not only are the Theocrats chomping at the bit to write state level abortion bans, they’re already targeting birth control:

        If the Constitution of the United States does not guarantee autonomy over one’s own body then all other guarantees are useless.

        If “freedom of religion” means you’re only free to follow one religion, the guarantee is useless.

        So yeah, protecting a woman’s right to choose and protecting gay rights are both hills I’d be willing to die on.

        So, how about you? You willing to die on a hill to keep your assault weapons?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. The point of being armed is so someone else dies on that hill. But it won’t come to that.

          As far as same sex marriage is concerned, my position is unchanged, We Libertarians were the first non-gay organization to join Equality Virginia to fight the “Defense of Marriage” Amendment(the Second was the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom)

          We held a forum on the issue then, and walked past the angry Baptist protestors to get in.

          We will be backing the effort to repeal the amendment in the coming General Assembly session.

          The abortion issue has a short shelf life. Consensus around a reasonable compromise in the State legislatures will make the issue moot.

          Other than a few extremists, no one supports a ban on birth control at least prior to implantation. Opposition to public funding of Planned Parenthood is not opposition to birth control, nor is oppostion to abortion drugs. Don’t conflate the issue.


          1. “The point of being armed is so someone else dies on that hill. But it won’t come to that.”
            Are you sure? Abortion rights were “settled law” until they weren’t. Gun control is even less “settled” than abortion rights were.

            I appreciate your defense of gay rights. Unfortunately, the majority of the conservative cabal disagrees with you. Not only do they want to ban gay people from getting married, they want to ban interracial marriage as well.

            You say the abortion issue has a short shelf life. I beg to differ. The battle for abortion rights has been being fought since women’s suffrage was on the ballot. We “extremists” have been fighting for the rights of women and minorities for a very, very, very long time. The shelf life has not been short; will not be short.

            I’m so old, my grandmother wasn’t allowed to won property. My mother wasn’t allowed to vote. I’m so old, I was denied birth control when I was first married. Don’t tell me the theocrats won’t ban birth control if given half an opportunity. I’ve been there!

            Liked by 2 people

          2. You are probably right that there would be wide opposition still to a total ban on abortion, but how many people would be unwilling to accept a ban on abortion after 15 weeks when the life or health of the mother and infant are not at risk?

            There are really not that many women unwilling to accept that, especially now that early pregnancy tests are available.


          3. How many conservatives are willing to “murder” a fetus before 15 weeks? They’ve already proven they are quite willing to let a woman die to protect a fetus… whether it’s viable or not. And if she has a miscarriage they don’t approve of, they’ll charge her with murder. Hell, they tried to force a 10 year old girl to go through with a pregnancy. I never heard one of them calling for the head of the pedophile who raped her, but I heard a lot of cries demanding she be forced to deliver the rapist’s baby.

            Theocrats will not compromise. They are convinced they speak for God.

            The point is, the decision is not for them or anyone, except the woman and her doctor, to make. Period! You can not legislate your religious beliefs onto other people. We’ve tried that before. It was called “the Dark Ages.”

            Liked by 2 people

          4. “Theocrats will not compromise. ”

            And yet it seems you are the one rejecting any mention of a compromise.

            The Governor and State GOP leaders have suggested the 15 week plus health option.

            You reject it on the assumption that someone else will not, Why?


          5. Roe v Wade blocked any attempt to reach compromise for 60 years, who had the opportunity to bite you?

            Again, it appears you are the one unwilling to seek consensus.

            Note that this is not a problem in Europe, where later term abortions have restricted for decades.


          6. Roe v Wade was under attack from day one. The theocrats never gave up. Neither will I. Body autonomy is not an issue to be compromised.

            You must feel as though your body deserves protection. You claim that’s why you need a gun. You won’t compromise. You’d kill to protect your body. Yet, you’d deny a woman the right to protect her body.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. Of course not.

            But I would not claim a right to shoot an inconvenient child. I do not care what a woman does with her own body, but I do see a clear duty to protect a helpless child.


          8. It’s not a “child.” It’s a fetus. And it can become just as dangerous to a woman as a grown man with a gun in his hand.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. Because you say so?

            At what point a fetus becomes a person due the same protection under the Rule of Law is not up to you, or me, or to unelected judges.

            It is not a question science can answer, though it can give guidance. But in the end, it is a question of how the people define the beginning of life, for the purpose of law.

            What other way could there be to define that?

            Just bow down to you? Or me?


          10. You are right. It is not a question science can answer. It is a question of how the people define the beginning of life. And, believe it or not, women are PEOPLE.

            To define is to choose. Women have the right to choose.

            Liked by 2 people

          11. No, women do not have the right to choose to commit murder.

            Under what conditions an abortion is murder is for the people as a whole, not the individual, to determine.

            For an individual to determine who is or is not due the protection of the Rule of Law makes a mockery of the Rule of Law itself.


          12. People as a whole have voted overwhelmingly that abortion is not murder. Yet, here we are. Majority rule means nothing to the theocrats.

            Liked by 2 people

          13. Aside from the millions of women who have marched for abortion rights around the country, abortion rights were on the ballot in five states in this past election.

            Kentucky tried to add an amendment to their constitution to ban abortion. It was voted down 52.4% to 47.6%

            In Vermont there was a proposal to create a constitutional right to personal reproductive autonomy. It won by a vote of 77.2% to 22.8%

            In Michigan the proposal would create a state constitutional right to reproductive freedom, including decisions “about all matters relating to pregnancy,” such as abortion and contraception. It won 56.7% to 43.3%

            In Montana the measure would enact a law making any infant “born alive” at any gestational age a legal person, a protection that already exists under a federal law passed 20 years ago. It would criminalize health care providers who do not make every effort to save the life of an infant “born during an attempted abortion” or after labor or C-section. Doctors say they are concerned that the law will limit palliative care for infants who are born but will not survive. It was voted down by 52.4% to 47.6%

            In California the State Constitution would be amended to protect a person’s reproductive freedom “in their most intimate decisions,” including the right to abortion and contraceptives. It won by 64.9% to 35.1%

            That’s five states that include both conservative and liberal states, voting on several levels of reproductive rights. ALL of them, males and females, voted for the rights of living human beings over the rights of an unborn fetus. (Not that you care, but the Bible says that too.)

            Liked by 1 person

          14. Did you not notice the way each proposal was worded? One required a vote against abortion; one required a vote for abortion; one required doctors to care for aborted fetuses; some included birth control, others didn’t. And what about the states where the issue never gets to a ballot but politicians enshrine laws against the will of the people? (Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. “Vote ’em out!” Well what about the raped 10 years old who will have to give birth in 9 months. She can’t wait for the next election.)

            The point is, the people — majority of the people everywhere — wanted the reproductive rights that had been guaranteed by Roe v Wade.

            Conservative politicians see reproductive rights as a great talking point… something they can use to whip up the base without having to bother explaining their positions on those boring issues of cutting taxes for the rich, deregulating banks, polluting the air and water, and all of those everyday things they do but don’t want to talk about.

            We had a system that worked. We had a system that the majority of the people wanted and have proven they wanted, but the theocrats destroyed it and are going to great efforts to see it never gets fixed.

            Liked by 2 people

          15. People want lots of things, though I am not sure the exact framework of Roe was what they wanted. But our Constitution does not allow for judges to give them what they want outside the scope of the Constitution.

            So, now it is up to the People, speaking through their legislatures, to decide on what they want.


          16. Until this bogus Supreme Court ruled against it, people assumed they had the right to privacy, to discuss reproductive matters with their doctors, and the right to liberty to do whatever they and their doctors chose. The founding fathers never wrote in a Constitutional right to body autonomy. That was one of the truths that were thought to be “self-evident.” The preamble doesn’t say you have a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unless you are a pregnant woman, in which case, the fetus rules.”

            If an individual does not have autonomy over their own body, nothing else matters.

            Liked by 2 people

          17. It’s only a “baby” in your mind. In reality, it is a fetus, a part of a woman’s body just as sure as her kidney or her appendix. It can be removed but it can not be murdered because it was never born. If there is no bodily autonomy over a fetus, there is no bodily autonomy over a kidney. But, since men have kidneys, I don’t expect that particular piece of bodily autonomy to be taken away… but you can’t be sure… can you? Maybe some day the courts will rule, if you don’t give your kidney to save an innocent child’s life, you are a murderer!

            Liked by 2 people

          18. Those choices had been made. A stacked Supreme Court destroyed those choices. It will take years to restore them. But, make no mistake, they WILL be restored.

            Liked by 2 people

          19. “Because that’ the way Quenn Lois sees it?

            Uh, that would be because words have meanings. A “fetus” is not a “baby.”
            From the dictionary “baby: a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.”

            “Don’t the people of the several states get to make their own choices?”
            The correct question is “Don’t people get to make their own choices?”

            As a reminder, women are people too. The idea that FUNDAMENTAL human rights are up for a vote by “local political leaders” is anathema. You are not much of a Libertarian if you cannot understand and accept that simple truth. The only reason such a truth would be denied is some sort of deep seated misogyny. IMHO.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. If every individual gets to decide when it’s a baby for themselves, and when it’s a fetus they can kill at will, how is that different from me deciding Democrats aren’t really people and I can shoot them at will?

            We can’t have a code of law that is different for every person. The people decide what the law recognizes as a baby. Let the process work. Most legislatures haven’t even met since Dobbs.


          21. That is not up to you, or Lois, or me to determine.

            That judgment, for legal purposes, must be made by the people, through their legislatures

            There is no other legitimate way.

            It’s a baby when the people say it’s a baby.


          22. “There is no other legitimate way.”

            Putting fundamental human rights up to the votes “local political leaders” could not be LESS legitimate. The only logical defense for your claim is to admit that you believe women and girls are second class citizens whose bodies belong to the state and who do not have the same right to bodily autonomy that you do.

            Liked by 1 person

          23. One more time.

            I don’t care what women do with their own bodies. It is the body of the baby, once for legal purposes, a baby is present, that we are concerned with.

            That is the issue you simply ignore,

            Who decides when, for legal purposes, a baby is present?

            It can’t be an individual choice, or anyone could decide who is a person and who is not and can be killed.

            The answer might be obvious to you, and equally obvious to a religious fanatic, but very different. So the people must define the beginning of human life.


          24. Your logic continues to beg the question. A fetus is not a “baby” and ending an unwanted pregnancy is not the legal equivalent of murdering a Democrat. Even the so-called pro-lifers understand that they are different since they generally do not advocate the death penalty for the woman and medical providers who conspire to commit “murder.”

            Try thinking of the right to abortion as the equivalent to the right of self-defense. If another “person” was certain to inflict pain, disfigurement and the significant risk of death on you, you would not hesitate to use one of your guns to stop them.

            Or, to put it another way, the state cannot force you to suffer pain, disfigurement or the risk of death for another “person.” You can choose to do so, but cannot be forced. You own your body. So does each and every woman and girl who must choose whether to continue a pregnancy they do not want.

            Liked by 1 person

          25. “Or, to put it another way, the state cannot force you to suffer pain, disfigurement or the risk of death for another “person.” ”

            Sure it can. It does it all the time.

            If you invite a passenger aboard a ship, or even discover a stowaway, you have an obligation, under international law, to provide for them, even if they are consuming your resources, until they can be put off at the next safe port. Even if it means you will go hungry or thirsty.

            The unborn babies have been invited aboard in most cases, and at worst are unintentional stowaways.


          26. “Sure it can. It does it all the time.”

            Uh, we are talking about bodily autonomy. Not economics. If that stowaway needed a pint (or a drop) of your blood to avoid death you cannot be compelled to give it.


          27. No, we are not talking about bodily autonomy, we are talking about the Rule of Law prohibiting murder.

            And you also cannot kill the stowaway.

            The only real issue here is at what point the fetus becomes a baby.


          28. “The only real issue here is at what point the fetus becomes a baby”

            That is not the real issue. Say it is a “baby” from the moment of conception. The principle is the same – the state should not be able to compel people to sacrifice their body for another “person.” Anyone can CHOOSE to do so, but they cannot be compelled. Unless they are a woman. To justify such compulsion you have to affirm that a woman’s rights are inferior to your own.

            Liked by 1 person

          29. If anything, having been invited aboard, the baby’s rights are stronger than the stowaway’s.

            But you are at least consistent, You never want anyone to bear the consequences of their own actions.


          30. Invited aboard?
            So, this really is what it seems to be – the “conservative” icky dislike of female sexuality. She was asking for it. Right? And now she has to pay the price.

            “But you are at least consistent, You never want anyone to bear the consequences of their own actions.”

            Another personal and dishonest insult. That is very uncivil. You do this all the time. And then whine about civility.

            Liked by 1 person

          31. An accurate observation is not an insult.

            I am rather fond of female sexuality, but not irresponsibility. Birth control is readily available and engaging in unprotected sex is an invitation to pregnancy.

            Pregnancy is an entirely predictable consequence of unprotected sex, and those wo take that risk should be responsible for the outcome.


          32. “An accurate observation is not an insult.”
            Yours is hardly an accurate observation. It is a baseless insult. And it is NOT civil.

            “Birth control is readily available . . .”
            You always seem to forget that we are not always – in fact not usually – talking about mature, self-reliant educated women when we are discussing the need for access to abortion. Very frequently it is about very young girls who have been deliberately kept ignorant, shamed, and/or who have been abused or raped.

            Liked by 1 person

          33. ” I doubt seriously a significant number of abortions are on girls unable to understand birth control.”

            Approximately 10% of girls seeking abortions are teenagers. That is a significant number.

            Liked by 1 person

          34. “You think that all, or even most, teenagers are unaware of birth control?”

            You seem to think that teenagers and other young people are miniature versions of you. They are not. Some are totally misinformed – deliberately in many cases by their “old-fashioned” parents. Some may be aware of effective birth control but have no way to access it – especially since you people have been doing your best to block planned parenthood.

            Your basic argument that pregnancy is the just reward for unprotected sex is a barbaric anachronism.

            Liked by 1 person

          35. For the last 20 years, school nurses have been able to arrange for birth control without the parent’s knowledge for older teens who have reached the age of consent(I think 16 and up)


          36. “…those wo take that risk should be responsible for the outcome.”

            All birth control have different failure rates. So a married couple who already have all the children they can afford or want practice birth control, but it fails. Their risk is to have sex within their marriage using accepted methods of birth control. Abortion opponents are not happy about the most effective methods because they consider them abortifacients.

            Oz said it best. Women’s reproductive health is a matter for them, their doctors and local politicians.

            Talk about autocracy.

            Liked by 2 people

          37. “….at what point the fetus becomes a baby.”

            Traditionally, when it is born and the cord is cut. With medical science, viability, with huge amounts of expensive special care, is about 24 weeks. And even that will saddle the person with lifelong physical issues.

            Taking away the access to abortion in later terms is not curtailing “convenience”. Women who decide to abort late term are almost always for a matter of medical disaster, some of which can’t be diagnosed until after 16 weeks. The most stringent laws affect those people. Even if exceptions for the life of the mother is at risk. It has already happened where hospital won’t permit legal abortions in banned states because of potential legal liability should the choice be questioned.

            Liked by 2 people

          38. Then argue your case to the legislature, but it is not up to you or me to impose our view on the law. That is for the people speaking through their legislatures.

            Your dedication to democracy seems to be inconsistent.


          39. 15 weeks is not a compromise. Roe v Wade was a compromise. One that everyone accepted EXCEPT for the Theocrats now running GOP policy. If you think this is going away and that women are going to just meekly accept the decisions of “local political leaders” on their most personal choices you are living in a dream world.

            Your attitude would be comparable to me insisting that you should “compromise” and
            agree to limit all your guns to 3-round magazines.

            Liked by 2 people

          40. Roe v Wade was not a compromise in any way.

            It was judicial fiat, something prohibited by our Constitution.

            We now have the opportunity to find a compromise for the first time in 60 years.

            I cannot put my finger on that line of the Constitution that says the right to abort babies shall not be infringed.


          41. “Roe v Wade was not a compromise in any way.”

            Bull. One extreme says a fertilized egg is a human being. The other extreme says abortion is a woman’s choice right up to birth. Roe v Wade WAS a compromise and one that everyone except the Theocrats was content to accept.

            There is nothing in the Constitution that addresses the issue of abortion one way or another. However, in two passages “born” is referred to with respect to questions of citizenship and elegibility for office.

            Liked by 1 person

          42. A compromise could be reached by the people or their elected representatives, who would then have to face the voters.

            A ruling by the lifetime appointed court is a fiat.

            Our Constitution requires law be made by those who must face the voters.


          43. “ Our Constitution requires law be made by those who must face the voters.”

            Gerrymandering kinda killed that.

            But, more importantly, the Court is there when the laws are unconstitutional

            Liked by 3 people

          44. Yeah, I heard a Democrat last night attributing Rubio’s Senate win in Florida to Gerrymandering. And the commentators were taking her seriously. It’s the universal excuse.

            True the courts are there when the laws are unconstitutional, as was the case with Roe and NY’s gun laws.


          45. Have you ever been to St Petersburg. FL? The locals call it God’s Waiting Room. Miles and miles of blue haired widows line the boardwalk. Hundreds of women play Mah Jong in the hotel ballrooms every day after lunch,

            Florida has more people per capita over 80 than any other State except Hawaii, HI has a lot of people of Japanese extraction and they just live long time, FL is full of retirees and widows.

            That FL’s death toll was as low as it was is teatament to their public health focus.


          46. Not really. But if you really believe that, tell me how bad the VA economy was? I worked M-F 7:30-4:30 . Business was slower than normal, but it went on and on and on.

            The continuing overstatement of how bad things were in the country, but the states were just fine, is just another attempt at blame game politics. Many governors ran on how strong their states were during the pandemic, but those runing for Senator and Representatvivetalked about how terrible it was. How is that possible?


          47. “Our Constitution requires law be made by those who must face the voters.”

            Our Constitution also protects fundamental individual rights. There is nothing more fundamental than dominion over your own body. Believe it or not, that is even more fundamental than your right to carry a de facto assault rifle.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. “It is 99% Trump fatigue, and little else.”

        I think you are dead wrong. Of course decent people are sick of Trump. But that is not the problem crippling the GOP. It is the fact that the poison he unleashed has left the GOP very sick and it will remain so even after Trump has gone to be with Jesus.

        For example, consider the rhetoric spewed by an ambitious GOP “moderate” – Nikki Haley.

        “Legal immigrants are more patriotic than the leftists these days. They knew they worked to come into America, and they love America. They want the laws followed in America, so the only person we need to make sure we deport is Warnock.”

        There is too much bile in such a statement to unpack here, but, it is poisonous.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Well, other than deporting Warnock, she is correct.

          I have met a lot of legal immigrants when I was in practice and they are models of the American dream.

          There is a work ethic and entrepreneurial spirit there which is admirable.


          1. “Well, other than deporting Warnock, she is correct.”

            And there is the problem. More poison. Ignorant, baseless, and egregious insults flow constantly from “conservatives.” Most of America is “leftist” by the lights of shitheads who challenge the patriotism of others while supporting, justifying, or minimizing armed insurrection against the Constitution.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “How is that relevant to a compliment to the character of legal immigrants?”

            You really think that was a compliment? It was not. It was an egregious and ugly slap at the patriotism, respect for the law, and work ethic of “leftists.” She was full of shit and so are you.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Nope, she is right on.

            The entrepreneurial zeal and work ethic of recent immigrants is way beyond that of most native born Americans and certainly whiney leftists who hate this country and think they cannot get ahead without government’s thumb in the scale.


          4. Your thinking almost never goes beyond stereotypes. In this case your stereotypical legal immigrant is a really outstanding guy, while your stereotypical “leftist” is a lazy ass whiner.
            Like I said before, Ms. Haley is full of shit and so are you.

            And back to the point, you are both manifestations of the noxious poison that has infiltrated every part of the “conservative” movement.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Yellow card One more “full of shit” and you’re gone.

            It has nothing to do with stereotypes, it is people I know. One of my patients in Norfolk was a recent immigrant from Nigeria. Here three years, he had a janitorial company with 20 or more employees. The guy who put in our paver patio was here from Brazil 2 years and employed 2 crews, Damned good work too. 4 years and not a single paver is crooked.

            People come here with nothing and shortly are bosses all the time. If you don’t admire that, and don’t see the contrast with those already here who constantly whine about lack of opportunity you are willfully blind.


          6. “Yellow card One more “full of shit” and you’re gone.”

            Oh my. Censorship What happened to free speech? You can insult my patriotism and work ethic at will, but I dare not respond appropriately?

            You are trying to take Hayley’s insult to the patriotism and work ethic of the majority of people in this country and spin it into simple praise for some immigrants that you have met. You may not like the well-understood idiomatic expression, but it applies perfectly.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. “We are going to have civility here, whether it exists elsewhere or not.”

            So, when someone doubles down on an egregious and dishonest insult questioning my patriotism, love of country, and work ethic what is the “civil” way to respond? If someone says that a United States Senator should be deported why is she not “full of shit?”


          8. No one said anything about YOUR work ethic. A observation about leftists as a class compared to recent immigrants was made, and I would say it is accurate, but not to be applied to individuals.


          9. You call me a “leftist.” You tell lies about “leftists.” You insult “leftists.” Well, we “leftists” are the members of the majority party in this country and we “leftists” are sick and tired of your constant lies and insults.

            And back to the original point, this diarhea of ugliness and lies that you people display is the real legacy of Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump – the poison that is destroying the GOP from within.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Seriously? I won’t buy that until you threaten those on your side of discussions with the same kind of threats thrown at me and Paul. Mr. Smith and Mr. Roberts’ alter-ego RE, are prime examples that you IGNORE regularly.

            Liked by 1 person

      3. “ So, the message on the left has not been heard.”

        I think it is the Republicans who ignored the message. Historically, the president’s party loses Congress bigly.

        Republicans need to can the primaries and go back to smoke filled rooms if they want to select electable candidates.

        Plus, there was little policy promoting, just fear messaging. There was little reason to vote for a Republican other than the candidate was not a Democrat. That may seem logical to the MAGA voter, but that gets you nowhere when the country is looking for solutions. And this is particularly true when the GOP puts out candidates who are fixated on the last election because that was the only way to win primaries.

        Republicans lost Congress in 2018 because of the no platform problem. Apparently they are either slow learners or someone has videos of the candidates shacking up with gazelles.

        Finally, abortion is an issue and if Republicans push some extreme bills in the states, which some will, it will still be an issue in 2024. A party can’t tell over half the population that they are merely life support systems for uteruses under penalty of law without political repercussions. OZ fumbled when he said the reproduction issues for women are for them, their doctors and local politicians.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. I agree about the primaries. Conventions restricted to party members would produce better candidates, especially with the mischief that can be done when a state does not register by party.

          I do not agree about fear messaging.
          It was not the GOP telling people that the democratic process was in danger.

          It was not the GOP telling women to resort to coat hangers for unwanted pregnancies.

          It was not the GOP telling young people they would be roasted by climate change.

          Fearmongering was pretty much a Democrat tactic. And it is hard to overcome that, as people tend to believe in boogey men when they don’t understand.

          This is a fairly sophisticated audience but I struggle trying to get the truth about climate science across. How much of that is partisan desire to believe the party line, but it may be that it is just a difficult concept for those who haven’t followed it closely for 30 years. We tend to defer such things to the news media for guidance, and it is hard to overcome a partisan press when trying to get a message across in 90 seconds.

          It’s just too easy to wave coat hangers and show graphics of the globe on fire.

          Further, much of the GOP alternative is to NOT do things. Like not spend trillions we don’t have on things that do us no good.

          So, conservatism and real science are difficult policies to sell. but that’s what we have.


          1. “It was not the GOP telling people that the democratic process was in danger.”

            Because THEY were the ones endangering it. The extremists there, at least.

            “Fearmongering was pretty much a Democrat tactic”

            More proof that your blinders will NEVER come off. Fear of the “other” is PAGE ONE of the GOP playbook.

            The GOP alternative, until this week, was to do what ever Trump said to do. They have ZERO platform. There is a difference between NOT doing things and NOT governing. They want the power, but not the responsibility that goes with it. THAT is today’s GOP in a nutshell, IMO.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. I was hoping there would be a Red Wave. Today I am disappointed.

    How to account for the outcome?

    I suspect Trump fatigue played a role, but it is not my top choice for explaining GOP losses. Since Trump himself was not on the ballot anywhere, there is little direct evidence that anyone voted against him.

    I suspect election fraud occurred on a widespread basis, but have no evidence for that, either. Hopefully, some analysis will be done to address this concern. In particular I’d like to know the ratio of early voting to the total vote and the ratio of mail-in voting to in-person voting.

    I suspect some version of voter apathy played a big role, although this, too, is just a guess until it can be confirmed by analysis.

    More generally, I imagine that a lot of Americans are aware that the big problems in this country cannot be resolved. Inflation, for example, can’t be fixed, because the excess money created over recent years is already in circulation; the war in Ukraine cannot be stopped because the U.S. would lose hegemonic power; our schools cannot be fixed because our culture is sick. Red Wave/Blue Wave; both are futile hopes.


        1. “You offer a psychological opinion without basis.”

          It is not an opinion without basis. It is a FACT based on your testimony. DUH!!!!

          “I suspect election fraud occurred on a widespread basis . . .”

          Liked by 2 people

        2. It is not a fact that my suspicion is based on the electoral loss. You are welcome to try to prove that it is, but you can’t read my mind.


        3. “It is not a fact that my suspicion is based on the electoral loss…”

          But it IS a fact that you stated that it was. Clearly and unambiguously.

          If what you post does not reflect what you think then why are you posting at all? You rejected the idea that it was Trump fatigue that caused poor GOP performance and immediately offered widespread fraud as a better explanation.

          Why do you so frequently backpeddle on very clear statements? Frankly, it is kind of wierd.

          Liked by 2 people

    1. If there was election fraud, there were enough watchers this time that it would be proven. I will wait for proof,

      One thing for sure, Florida got the election process right. We should all learn from that and put that issue behind us.


      1. FL counted 7.2 million votes by 9PM and counted 99% of the votes by midnight

        AZ currently has 63% of the vote counted (1.7 million votes). Officials say it could take until Friday to have 90-99% in.

        This is why so many people lack confidence in the vote. When it takes so long to do something as simple a counting the votes, as FL demonstrates, people will naturally wonder WTF is going on in AZ?


        1. “Arizona law has permitted voting by mail for more than two decades, with approximately 80% of voters in the state choosing to vote by mail. In Arizona, counties utilize tamper-evident envelopes for mailed ballots. Mail ballots are authenticated through a signature verification process conducted by trained election officials, and a voter is contacted if the signature on their ballot-by-mail affidavit appears inconsistent with the signature in their registration record.”

          AZ had one county that demanded only hand counting by the election deniers but I believe they lost a court battle.

          AZ is a swing state. Slower counting delayed with all kinds of challenges was the strategy to create the impression of fraud.

          AZ didn’t have a huge problem before Trump. Why is that I wonder.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. “If AZ has used mail in ballots for 2 decades . . .”

            Nice Catch-22. You demand that mail-in ballots be carefully vetted but when that inevitably takes some time you whine about that too.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Florida is a Republican state by big margins. Why would Republicans want to create chaos there? The only elections they want to screw up are the swing states.

            Liked by 3 people

          3. “Is anybody questioning Floridia’s totals from last night?”

            I am not. But you people seem to be questioning Arizona’s because they are proceeding slowly and, presumably, carefully.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. “I don’t think AZ is going to cheat, but its sluggishness will invite speculation.”

            And, if they got done super fast and you people did not like the outcome, that too would “invite speculation.” The reality is that democracy-hating election deniers and Big Lie spreaders will “speculate” no matter what.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. When did they START counting? Was it wen they wee received or do they have to wait until election day to statrt?

            Too many different variables in different states for your statement to hold water that only Florida got it right. PA did just fine, as did Virginia, California, New York (mostly) and many others, both blue and red.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. “I suspect election fraud occurred on a widespread basis, but have no evidence for that, either.”

      Suspicions without evidence. Theories without proof. You have officially graduated from the Rudy Giuliani school of lack of legal theory.

      The red trickle was not caused by fraud. There have been no allegations of it by any candidates, winners or losers. Yet here you are, Dr. Counterfactual, spewing nonsense without any basis in fact.

      Trump endorsed candidates lost because normal people came to their senses and voted in greater numbers than the “crazies”.. Personally, I was quite pleased that my home state of PA got away from Dr. Oz and Mastriano, the anti-Semite insurrectionist.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I assumed they were. Giuliani told the AZ Speaker that he had theories, just no evidence regarding fraud in the 2020 election. The pressure on the Speaker was enormous to decertify.

        Luckily, he was the rare principled Republican who told Giuliani and Trump, who called him personally, that he would not break the law.

        The Giuliani Gambit.

        It is the underlying grift of the Big Lie.

        Liked by 3 people

  3. “There is one thing more fundamental that dominion over your body. The prohibition from being murdered for someone else’s convenience.”

    Really? Tell that to the kids at Uvalde who got their heads blown off so the adults didn’t have to give up their assault weapons.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Texans would not be inconvenienced by giving up their assault weapons. Hence, the shooter had easy access to the murder weapons. Those kids were murdered to facilitate the convenience of gun owners.

        Just like Texans, Virginia Beach has not finished building their monument to the victims of their last mass murder and yet, they just voted to sent a pro-gun candidate to the House. Spare me your “pro-life” diatribes.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. Thing of it is, you are opposed to making it hard for criminals and crazy people to get guns… even assault weapons that can kill 60 people per minute. You’d think someone who claims to value life so much wouldn’t mind giving up owning an assault weapon (which is useless for anything other than battle, mass murder, and giggles on a shooting range) to prevent a few mass murders. But NO! Sell those suckers at every gun show in the country.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Actually, it was the NRA that designed and got the NICS database provision passed. Like so many things, enforcement has become lax, but used properly it would have prevented many of those mass shootings,


          3. All a criminal background check does is tell a seller if a buyer is allowed to have an assault weapon. The seller is free to sell assault weapons to anybody who is not on the list… which is the vast majority of people.

            Again, assault weapons are useless except for war, mass murder, and giggles on a shooting range. It’s the “giggle buyers” who take them home, shoot them a few times, and leave them lying around to be stolen or picked up by a deranged relative and used for purpose #2.

            Terrorists have been told by their handlers not to try and smuggle weapons into the country. Because “you can buy anything you need once inside.”

            Liked by 2 people

          4. First, “assault weapon” is a pejorative term, we prefer ‘sport utility rifle.’

            Seriously, and assault rifle is very different from the ARs we can buy, First, they are select fire, semi-auto or full auto. The ARs we can buy are not made for full automatic fire, and if modified to do so, will overheat and lock up.

            But they are excellent light semi-auto rifles and great for home defense, especially for women.


          5. First, “assault weapon” is a pejorative term, we prefer ‘sport utility rifle.’

            Uh, it is an entirely descriptive term. “Sport utility rifle” is a laughable euphemism. Maybe you never have seen the kind of advertisements that are used to sell these guns. They are generally larded with terms like “tactical” and “military” and people wearing military gear. And don’t get me started on the “man license” campaign.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. A gun that can blow the head off of 20 first graders in 20 seconds, by any name, is still a gun that can blow the head off of 20 first graders in 20 seconds.

            If you need to have such a weapon for self defense, you live in a combat zone and, if you don’t have an army to go with that weapon, you’re going to die anyway.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. If I didn’t know you better, I’d think you were suggesting hand guns and shot guns should be banned in order to prevent school shootings. But, no. I’m pretty sure you’re chastising me for not using a “real weapon,” like a shot gun, as an example of ways to blow heads off of first graders.

            And yes, a hand gun or a shot gun may be more effective for the purpose, but Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster XM-15 ES2 at Sandy Hook, and Salvador Rolando Ramos used a Daniel Defense DDM4 V7 at Robb Elementary, and Nikolas Cruz used a Smith & Wesson M&P15 Sport II semi-automatic rifle at Parkland, so mentally ill mass murderers don’t do a lot of research before they go off. They just grab the weapon they see as having the most fire power. Hand guns and shot guns are just so boringly “last generation.” Your dad’s hand gun. Your granddad’s shotgun. No point in committing a mass murder without a macho weapon to prove yer creds.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. Nope. You miss the point again.

            Banning sport utility rifles counterproductive because other alternatives exist for the madman but there are no equivalents for home defense for unskilled men and women.

            I am proficient with a handgun out to 50 ft or so, and effective out to 100 ft. I can defend myself and my home with a handgun. But my wife can’t reliably hit a silhouette center of mass at 30 ft with a handgun. But with my AR, she can hit a beer can at 50ft every time. Rifles are just easier to shoot accurately if you aren’t going to practice a lot.

            So, taking away the effective weapon for home defense for no benefit just doesn’t make sense.


          9. During the Obama administration an effort was made to restrict arms from those who were receiving SS disability for mental problems. These were people who had to prove successfully that they were unable to handle their own affairs.

            This was rejected by the right.

            So now we can have a demented person strap on a 9mm and walk down the street in pajamas while he has certified himself as incompetent.

            And some were up in arms about helping a nursing home patient, or that same gun toting, pj adorned person, to vote.

            Right to life v. Right to life.

            Liked by 3 people

          10. Look, the gun lobby is not serious about
            keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable if they cannot even approve this low hanging fruit.

            It would be a simple matter to have the recipient of SS mental disability benefits apply for review.

            SSDI is not just for Grandad. There are a list of mental disorders, some quite serious that can get approval at most any age.

            Plus, the waiting period is 12 months of being so mentally disabled that you cannot work.

            So a manic depressive at 29 can now go out and arm himself, and, of course, in some states walk down the street with loaded guns.

            He has to be diagnosed and unable to work. Pretty serious impairment.

            Liked by 2 people

  4. ” Every State should send their election officials to Florida to learn how to run an election.”

    By this statement you seem to indicate that Virginia’s election was NOT run properly.

    If that is the case, then Kiggans lost and Luria won. 😇

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Quantity? Takes longer to cocunt more votes? And to do it accurately and properly.

        I suppose you supported a tax funded audit of the 2020 election here in a state that Biden won by 10 points, as our newly elected VA-02 Rep did in the State Senate? An audit that is already state law.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s