Hieronymus
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2016
- 8,427
- 2,998
- 52
- Country
- Netherlands
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
evidence of substantial voter fraud.What evidence?
It's under investigation.
Upvote
0
evidence of substantial voter fraud.What evidence?
That's your translation.
I just said what i said.
I'll repeat: what evidence? Under investigation by whom?
You are evading.evidence of substantial voter fraud.
It's under investigation.
I don't think so.We all get it how it works.
Losing 35+ seats and 7(?) governorships during a booming economy is pretty pathetic. The overwhelming factor here is Trump and how many people he repels.
Maybe you should consult a more diverse set of political analysts.
Closer to 40 seats now. The 7+ governships Trump lost will hurt even worse, as we are coming up to redistricting time, and those states will have a much harder time rigging districts to favor republicans.
And that matters; 2016 election, if there was no Gerrymandering, the democrats would have taken the House.
Without rigged districts, the republicans are in big trouble.
The president doesn't lose governorships.
They aren't even a federal office.
What evidence my friend? I've read accusations, I've not read of any actual evidence.Well, there seems to be evidence of substantial voter fraud, so we should wait and see what the investigations will bring forth.
Latest X22Report video on Youtube is very informative.
Trump suffered the worst midterm loss in a century, says JP Morgan
Investment bankers may have spent last night watching online election trackers with the rest of us, but the morning after, they can fire up their spreadsheets and take a shot at telling us what it all means.
JP Morgan Asset and Wealth Management’s Michael Cembalest took a look at the vote results (pdf). Adjusted for the strength of the economy, he says they represent the worst performance for a president’s party since 1918. He graced us with this chart:
“There have been large midterm swings before, but usually when markets were bad, when the economy was bad, or both,” Cembalest writes. “The chart tells the story: midterm House seats lost since 1910 are shown alongside changes in inflation, employment, equity markets and home prices. Based on the hand the GOP started with, they should probably have been able to retain the House. Sometimes, however, money can’t buy you love.”
Political scientists say that economic performance is an important factor for election results, with a strong economy generally protecting incumbents. In the chart above, you can see that in action—usually happy workers (strong labor markets) or happy investors (strong asset markets) will buoy the party in power. When things go south in one or both quadrants, they take big losses.
You can also see in the chart that voters respond to more than simply economic fundamentals—see 1994 or 2006. But it’s surprising to see a loss of more than 30 seats at a time when economic indicators suggest boom times. It might also suggest that the indicators aren’t fully capturing the lived experience of many voters at a time of high economic inequality.
Trump suffered the worst midterm loss in a century, says JP Morgan
Morgan suggests that if the economy continues to do well, Trump might be hard to beat in 2020 anyway.
That's quite some math there!
Yep. It reflects the history of midterm elections. Normally, under a good economy, the party in the WH does very well. When the economy is really bad, the party in the WH does very badly. So it's not surprising that coming out of the Great Recession, the democrats lost a lot of seats. It's very surprising that in the 8th year of an economic expansion, Trump took a beating like that.
It's a deviation from what we would expect to see.
Clinton lost the House and Senate in 1994. Trump lost the House, while the Senate actually gained seats for Republicans in 2018.
Even more recently, someone else lost even more. But I'm sure it will be called a "whataboutism" in order to brush it away: Under Obama, Democrats suffer largest loss in power since Eisenhowe...
Yeah, i know you won't watch.Ah, You Tube. So it must be true.
I noticed how you conveniently ignored the vast majority of my post where I showed your information to be in error.