Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
The Sandbox - AustinThe Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here. If it's NOT an adult-themed topic, then it belongs here
I didn't think there was any "wave" Did you think there was a "Blue wave"?
I think there was a Blue Wave in the House. Most flipped seats for the Democrats since 1974. And that was due to Watergate. This result was due to Trump. Somewhere between 35 and 40 House
seats will end up being flipped when the dust settles.
6 governorships flipped from red to blue. Several state legislatures flipped from red to blue.
The results in the Senate could have been much worse for Democrats. I predicted a loss of at least 1 seat and the end result will be a maximum of 2. Yes 3 incumbent Democrats lost in ND, Indiana, and Missouri. Probably Florida too. But Democrats flipped seats in Nevada and Arizona. And held seats in heavily Republican states of West Virginia and Montana. And I'll bet if you examine the voting results in ALL those states, the Republican candidates won a lower percentage of the popular vote than Trump did in 2016.
So since I don't know the definition of a "Blue Wave", I will simply say the election results on November 6th were much more positive for Democrats than Republicans. MUCH MORE!
A "Blue Wave" would of been reclaiming both the House and the Senate. The bottom line answer is no, that did not happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
I think there was a Blue Wave in the House. Most flipped seats for the Democrats since 1974. And that was due to Watergate. This result was due to Trump. Somewhere between 35 and 40 House
seats will end up being flipped when the dust settles.
6 governorships flipped from red to blue. Several state legislatures flipped from red to blue.
The results in the Senate could have been much worse for Democrats. I predicted a loss of at least 1 seat and the end result will be a maximum of 2. Yes 3 incumbent Democrats lost in ND, Indiana, and Missouri. Probably Florida too. But Democrats flipped seats in Nevada and Arizona. And held seats in heavily Republican states of West Virginia and Montana. And I'll bet if you examine the voting results in ALL those states, the Republican candidates won a lower percentage of the popular vote than Trump did in 2016.
So since I don't know the definition of a "Blue Wave", I will simply say the election results on November 6th were much more positive for Democrats than Republicans. MUCH MORE!
A "Blue Wave" would of been reclaiming both the House and the Senate. The bottom line answer is no, that did not happen.
There is no official definition of what is or is not a "Blue Wave". Here is one definition under which the 2018 elections would qualify as a "Blue Wave" for the Democrats, since I consider the House results as making major gains.
In political science, a wave election is one in which a political party makes major gains. Although there is no precise definition of what constitutes a wave election, the term is used in the United States when one party makes major gains in the House and Senate.
The Real Metaphor of the ‘Blue Wave’
During the midterms, a small phrase suggested a bigger problem: America still isn’t sure how to talk to itself.
One report announced the results of the 2018 midterms like this: “Democratic ‘Blue Wave’ Washes Over House as Republicans Keep Senate.” Another shared the results like this: “Democrats Take Control of House as ‘Blue Wave’ Wipes Out Republicans.” But then there was this: “Democrats Seize U.S. House But Trump Averts ‘Blue Wave.’” And also this: “The Blue Wave Ran Into Trump’s Red Wall.” And also this: “Blue wave? What blue wave?”
Our bet was never about whether or not there would be a "Blue Wave" Sweetie. Our bet was that my side would win, and we did. Period.
I would agree that no matter how one looks at it, the Democrats came out far ahead in the mid-term elections when you consider the Senate, House, Governorships, and state legislatures.
Ok I heard it from a politician's mouth - The notion of a blue wave refers to a theorized Democratic sweep,specifically
the idea that the party could win back control of the House and Senate.
Once again - that did not happen. The Dems did not win. But hey, y'all think whatever makes you feel better. De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.
I didn't think there was any "wave" Did you think there was a "Blue wave"?
I never subscribed to the concept of a "wave." Check my postings. I don't think I mention it once.
You on the other hand have been ranting about it for I don't know how long. Now that the mid terms are over, another person who posted here says that most everything you claim was going to happen did not. Anyone with vision enough to see light knows that there was a change in the balance of party politics power. You won't admit to how much. If things were "red" before the midterm, they definitely have a hue of "violet." I was asking you what shade.
Myself, I really don't care about a so called wave. I'm not in the red, blue, whatever colour kiddie pool. That is why I don't care. And I know that you won't give a straight answer.
You still won't admit the Wall bit was a scare tactic. Possibly used as the means of misdirection as to other aims of the boss man or the party. And I told you, at the time, that the repubs didn't need the dems. Case in point: Obamacare. That was pushed though with the "Party of No" in full affect. Since you won't admit to losing vital ground during the mid terms, i'll put it to you in the ugly light of day: that wall won't be laid out because the repubs didn't jump on it like the dems did for health care.
So, i'd like to know what you are doing for god and party to get that wall built. I know you don't want your buddy to look stupid.
Jeeze, is a yes or no answer so hard to contemplate?
Apparently, it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Precious_b
I never subscribed to the concept of a "wave." Check my postings. I don't think I mention it once.
You on the other hand have been ranting about it for I don't know how long. Now that the mid terms are over, another person who posted here says that most everything you claim was going to happen did not. Anyone with vision enough to see light knows that there was a change in the balance of party politics power. You won't admit to how much. If things were "red" before the midterm, they definitely have a hue of "violet." I was asking you what shade.
Myself, I really don't care about a so called wave. I'm not in the red, blue, whatever colour kiddie pool. That is why I don't care. And I know that you won't give a straight answer.
You still won't admit the Wall bit was a scare tactic. Possibly used as the means of misdirection as to other aims of the boss man or the party. And I told you, at the time, that the repubs didn't need the dems. Case in point: Obamacare. That was pushed though with the "Party of No" in full affect. Since you won't admit to losing vital ground during the mid terms, i'll put it to you in the ugly light of day: that wall won't be laid out because the repubs didn't jump on it like the dems did for health care.
So, i'd like to know what you are doing for god and party to get that wall built. I know you don't want your buddy to look stupid.
Ok I heard it from a politician's mouth - The notion of a blue wave refers to a theorized Democratic sweep,specifically
the idea that the party could win back control of the House and Senate.
Once again - that did not happen. The Dems did not win. But hey, y'all think whatever makes you feel better. De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.
It doesn't matter to me at all if anyone thinks, or does not think, there was a "Blue Wave" for Democrats on November 6th.
Democrats took SOLID control of the House. They won 6 additional governorships. They took back several state legislatures. They in all likelihood lost 1 Senate seat in a year when 25 of the 36 seats up for re-election in the Senate were owned by Democrats, several in states that Trump won in 2016 (Montana, ND, Ohio, Missouri, Arizona, Indiana, West Virginia, Florida). So, assuming Florida goes Republican, Republicans were able to win only 4 of the 8 states that Trump had won 2 years earlier.
And you think Democrats did NOT come out for the better on election day? Talk about denial.
Once again - they did not not reclaim the Senate. The way all the Dems were talking it was going to be a slaughter for the Republicans and that did not happen. The fake news was so wrong about that - and that is a fact.
Whatever, God bless the Texas and the God bless the next 6 years of Donald J. Trump.
Once again - they did not not reclaim the Senate. The way all the Dems were talking it was going to be a slaughter for the Republicans and that did not happen. The fake news was so wrong about that - and that is a fact.
Whatever, God bless the Texas and the God bless the next 6 years of Donald J. Trump.
Well, the Dems got Subpoena Power and you can bet they'll use it, and after they start getting the records that Trumpy boy wants to keep hidden, you can bet it's not gonna be 6 yrs, maybe not even 2 more. The Trumpy mafia will collapse like the paper house it is..
