As I pointed on the other threads, you really look that pathetic and as dumb as the defensive player in a football game that jumped up and down wildly after making a stop of the opponent late in the game.
The amusing thing was seeing one of the opponent players walk calmly next to him tap his shoulder and point at the score board.
Even the announcers did make fun of that player.
Now that is a Fail.
You have become a reverse barometer for reality. Your only hope is to start saying ‘The Democrats have blue skies and easy sailing ahead’!
But the NJ race says nothing about NJ getting redder?
I said McCauliffe would win. He survived my prediction. But then, he survived a President who was dragging him down as well.
Being down by only 4 qualifies as “redder”. Im not saying that NJ is an any danger of going red, or is even going to be more friendly to Republicans going forward. I’m just arguing that the result of one race means nothing.
It mean nothing in 2009, I think we’d all agree on that, wouldn’t we?
He “survived” by having this President campaign for him. There’s no reason to believe that McAuliffe’s association with the President hurt him in any way- people who didn’t like the President (from the right) were already unlikely to vote for him.
Then explain how an easy win turned into a nailbiter.
It was never going to be an easy win. There was a brief spike during the shutdown, and maybe a few outlier polls, but for the most part he had a moderate lead the whole time. If this was a few points closer, than that’s interesting (and from what I’ve read, this appears to be due to the instability of a third party candidate getting more than marginal support), but it’s not an indication of some great weakness. McAuliffe is a bad candidate who most Democrats don’t like- and he still beat the Republican because he was even worse. If it’s a sign of anything, it’s a sign that the Republicans are unable to put electable candidates up for office, in many elections.
Now we agree. However, if Democrats are counting on that to happen, that’s not exactly a winning strategy. Sounds like 2014 is going to be a lot of “Run away from Obamacare, hope Republicans nominate extreme candidates”.
I am a little confused. Are you arguing that the result of the race in NJ means nothing, but the result in Virginia means something?
Obamacare had very little to do with this election. Virginia voters’ opinions about the ACA mirror the country at large- a slight majority disapprove of the ACA, but far more people want to fix it than kill it.
The ACA approval ratings have not significantly changed in the last few weeks, surprisingly enough. Cuccinelli bragged that he was the first AG to not allow the ACA exchanges into his state- and that backfired.
If it had anything to do with the election, it was this- as was shown in the shutdown, and repeated in this election, no-holds-barred opposition to the ACA is a political loser.
I will predict that Republicans will somehow try to take credit for the success of Obamacare in 2014.
The story writes itself: our bitching and moaning led to improvements to the website. And the website IS Obamacare. Therefore, the GOP is wholly responsible.
Are you trying to knock adaher off his throne?
All elections mean “something”, but few mean that a state is trending one way or another. Virginia wasn’t becoming redder in 2009 and it isn’t becoming bluer in 2013. Neither is New Jersey.
Then why did the anti-ACA candidates win a majority? And if you look at the exit polls, the GOP won the 18-24 age group. That’s got to be a big red flag for Democrats.
McCauliffe’s support among the youngest was the lowest of any age group, a dismal 39%. Hat tip to Marley for the link:
Perhaps fear needs to use the toilet too.
Do you think the website cannot be fixed?
A) That’s not a sure thing. Britain just had to give up on a project of similar scope.
B) It’s not just the website. Fix the website without fixing the underlying systems, and you get a disaster. Paper applications can’t be processed either until that gets fixed.
C) It’s not just the systems. The cancellation notices are not IT problems. THe high rates are not IT problems. The young not signing up are not IT problems.