Wake up, liberals: There will be no 2018 “blue wave,” no Democratic majority and no impeachment

"blue wave"

 

I knew that eventually Andrew Jackson would come up with a statement that I could agree with.

I agree 100%.

Yup. I agree 100% with this as well.

This too is true.

An excellent observation.

If those on the left believe that they can win by simply being anti-Trump, their problems run deeper than many expected.

And therein lies the truth that many on the political left would rather not acknowledge.

Frankly, the party system is quickly becoming irrelevant. Anybody who thinks Trump is a Republican or Sanders is a Democrat really has no clue. So why did they run under those banners? Because those parties have convinced the electorate that they're providing the only viable candidates. If you want to be elected president, you have to have a D or an R next to your name. All I can say is Dems better hope that Trump isn't able to get this economy moving...

Would that be the same polling operations that told us that there was no way Trump would run for president? The ones that said there was no way Trump would win the GOP nomination? The ones that said there was no way that Trump could actually become president? Are those the polling folks we're speaking about? But I do agree with your last sentence: deny that it is happening at your own risk...

 

Paging Andrew Jackson.

 

Cyanotic Tsunami.

 

Hillary is still sporting her seizure glasses.

Notice its a rainy day and she's the only one sporting sunglasses.

Dems should go with her again.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...nglasses-chappaqua-memorial-day-parade-photo/

 

BZZZT WRONG!

I am talking about the actual VOTING RESULTS at the POLLS!

 

It's a statewide district, impossible to gerrymander.

 

She has her zippy shoes on, she's runnin'!

 

The heaviest gerrymandered districts are Democrat, and in States where the Democrats have controlled the redistricting process for years:

New York 15th D+44 Democratic
New York 13th D+43 Democratic
California 13th D+40 Democratic
Illinois 7th D+38 Democratic
New York 7th D+38 Democratic
California 12th D+37 Democratic
California 37th D+37 Democratic
New York 5th D+37 Democratic
New Jersey 10th D+36 Democratic
New York 8th D+36 Democratic
California 34th D+35 Democratic
California 44th D+35 Democratic
Massachusetts 7th D+34 Democratic
New York 9th D+34 Democratic
California 40th D+33 Democratic
Illinois 4th D+33 Democratic
Michigan 13th D+33 Democratic
Washington 7th D+33 Democratic
New York 12th D+31 Democratic
Michigan 14th D+30 Democratic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index#By_congressional_district

Texas 13th R+33 Republican
Texas 11th R+32 Republican
Georgia 9th R+31 Republican
Kentucky 5th R+31 Republican
Alabama 4th R+30 Republican

Democrats, in districts that they control have far MORE 30+ seats than the GOP.

At +30 you are only theoretically accountable to the electorate, and that's the problem with the Democrat Party.

 

Truth Cluster Bomb!

 

Only since Baker VS Carr. And now they have themselves twisted into a pretzel where gerrymandering is good, depending on skin color, but, not too much, nor too little Gerrymandering. The search is on for the bowl of porridge that SCOTUS finds to be just right.

Better, yet, have them get their noses back out of it and resume the posture that existed from the signing until 1962.

 

Kewl, I didn't know that. Montana has a population of a little over 1 million and the average congressional district is approx 710,000 so it isn't likely Montana will get a second House rep for a while.

Steve

 

Yup. I have no clue why anyone would run for the House Montana, rather than the Senate. But smart guys do, this is Dick Cheney's old seat.

 

Try Wyoming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming's_at-large_congressional_district

Steve

 

Ooops!

 

PDT Budget Trims the "Get Whitey" Bureaucracy

There are thousands of bureaucrats in the federal government whose only job is to find racist white people. And sexist men. And non-progressive-thinking people who don't want disguised men in girls' bathrooms.

In Trump's new budget, he wants to cut back on some of this effort:

The Trump administration is planning to disband the Labor Department division that has policed discrimination among federal contractors for four decades[.] ... [T]he move would fold the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, now home to 600 employees, into another government agency in the name of cost-cutting.

Did you know that there are actually 600 government employees, in just one agency alone, whose job is to not to respond to, but actually to search for discrimination?

Unlike the EEOC, which investigates complaints it receives, the compliance office audits contractors in a more systematic fashion and verifies that they "take affirmative action" to promote equal opportunity among their employees.

In other words, the compliance office threatened companies to give racial preferences to minorities, even when they haven't been accused of any wrongdoing.

Some companies have questioned the more aggressive approach, noting the office has consistently found since 2004 that 98 percent of federal contractors comply with the law.

This bureaucracy isn't interested in the law. It's interested in imposing racial preferences. And the Labor Department is not the only agency with its fingers on the racial justice scale.

The new leadership at the Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, has proposed eliminating its environmental justice program which addresses pollution that poses health threats specifically concentrated in minority communities.

Why should minority communities get more help with pollution than white neighborhoods? I never knew that pollution migrates to black communities. Is pollution racist?

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, has revoked a rule ensuring that transgender people can stay at sex-segregated shelters of their choice[.]

Do you think in addition to homeless shelters there should be genderless shelters, for people both without a home and without a gender?

The efforts to reduce the federal profile on civil rights reflects the consensus view within the Trump administration that Obama officials exceeded their authority in policing discrimination on the state and local level, sometimes pressuring targets of government scrutiny to adopt policies that were not warranted.

You think?

Obama made a cottage industry of shaking down companies for alleged racism and insisting that his own preferred version of racism, called "affirmative action," be put into place. It's great to see that Trump is planning to reduce some of this nonsense.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...rim_get_whitey_bureaucracy.html#ixzz4ib71mY2e

Maybe 2018 will be a[nother] wave election!

 

I actually do give her credit for determination. She is the walking wounded - cannot be easy.

 

The strategy is to divide the opposition to create a losing minority in as many districts as possible. They usually do that by cramming as many as possible into 1 solid opposition district - a few in larger states.

 

TY, I assumed they had 2. Nevertheless, Montana frequently elects Democrats. It is far from a solid Republican state.

 

As others have said, you are ignorant of basic politics. You just hear the dems throwing out the word "gerrymandering" and think it always applies. Montana is a single Congressional district. There can be no gerrymandering.

 

Why post about it, if you don't know anything about it? Google is your friend.

 

No worries:

The Cook Partisan Voting Index, also called PVI, is a measurement of how strongly a United States congressional district or state leans toward the Democratic or Republican Party, compared to the nation as a whole.

Montana's Congressional District is 11 points more Republican than the country as a whole. And in Presidential elections, it is also 11 points more Republican than the nation as a whole. To your point, it does have a Democrat Gov and one Democrat Senator.

 

Look at the list again. Looks to me more like some well seated Dems make damn sure they will never risk a competitive election again.

New York 15th D+44 Democratic
New York 13th D+43 Democratic
California 13th D+40 Democratic
Illinois 7th D+38 Democratic
New York 7th D+38 Democratic
California 12th D+37 Democratic
California 37th D+37 Democratic
New York 5th D+37 Democratic
New Jersey 10th D+36 Democratic
New York 8th D+36 Democratic
California 34th D+35 Democratic
California 44th D+35 Democratic
Massachusetts 7th D+34 Democratic
New York 9th D+34 Democratic
California 40th D+33 Democratic
Illinois 4th D+33 Democratic
Michigan 13th D+33 Democratic
Washington 7th D+33 Democratic
New York 12th D+31 Democratic
Michigan 14th D+30 Democratic

Those are, for the vast majority, strong Dem districts, drawn by Dems. The GOP doesn't even have a fraction of that many +30 seats.

 

Why would I do that? If you wanted to know you would find out for yourself. I'd rather just leave you there - wondering.

 

Walking wounded????? Your boy Dump is more of a laughing stock than Hillary ever was. His polls have tanked. Republicans have even said they won't vote for his new (death sentence) plan. And btw...how's that wall a com'in?