Dear Republicans; you didn’t build that
Of course, everyone knows that Republicans took back control of the Senate last night and held on to the House and everyone is in a great mood. But, I’d remind Republicans that they really didn’t do anything to win – the elections were theirs to lose and, for once, they didn’t make any big mistakes which would scare voters away. Most of the Republicans’ Joe Bidens kept their mouths shut and they all kept their feet close together in the bathroom stalls.
Votes were cast against a completely incompetent White House, voters weren’t supporting some over-arching ideal that the Republicans supported – they were voting against a return to Iraq, an intrusive IRS, another round of gun-grabs, mistreatment of veterans, a huge and expanding debt, yet another illegal immigrant crisis on the border, sending troops to Africa to stomp out Ebola weeks after it became an epidemic.
A Republican in New York, Michael Grimm, won reelection even though he’s facing a 20-count federal indictment. So, really, how hard is it to win an election for Republicans in this environment?
My point is this; Republicans have a history of acting like Democrats when they get in the majority and they fritter away their opportunity to distinguish themselves from Democrats. That’s how they lost Congress in 2006 – Republican voters left them.
I was push-polled the other day by a Democrat candidate on the phone. They made their candidate sound like he would bring me my own Skittle-shitting unicorn, but I told them that the specter of a Nancy Pelosi-run House would keep me from voting for a Democrat, no matter how wonderful their candidate sounded. However, a John Boehner-run House is nearly as terrifying to me. Boehner would enact liberal legislation just so no one calls him names at the Huffington Post or on MSNBC or just to piss off the Tea Party.
No one is asking me, but if the Republicans want to get me back, they need to slash spending where it needs to be slashed – start with your own salaries and staff expenditures. Show America that you’re willing to make sacrifices that Congress has been so good at making everyone else suffer. Stop that sequester thing that is hamstringing our national defense and make the tough decisions on budget cuts across the government – be brave for once and stop hiding.
Govern like you don’t need votes – lead instead of following the polls. Do what is right for the entire country, instead of pandering to a constituency.
Yeah, I know, I’m pissing into the wind and Republicans will drive away conservatives in the next two years and we’ll get another dipshit push-poll president in the White House in 2016.
Category: Politics
Preaching to the choir.
yeah that.
Gravel…And the congregation all said…AMEN!
Right on the money. With no viable third party (and by that I mean one with similar resources to the two major parties), it seems to me every two to six years we will continue this new paradigm. Unless we were able to vote out the entire congress at one time we are just doomed to repeat what we saw last night. Voting against a party and not for the most qualified individual, which basically guarantees another group of low information legislators starting to campaign for the next election starting today. You pointed out the crook in New York that was elected with a twenty count indictment over his head. The State Senator in the next district from me was convicted of signing his own signature petitions and was elected(a democrat) . And finally our governor is under a federal corruption investigation right now but was re-elected by a two to one margin. I expect republican leadership will cave in to what ever President Mom Jeans wants and in the next election we will be electing more democrats.
Politics is a scam.
SFC. Lilyea, would it be okay if the platoon enjoys their breakfast of FRIED CHICKEN before they read this particular blog article you have written?
Only if they voted Democrat.
In that case, Jonn – wouldn’t it be fried crow vice chicken? (smile)
I guess I didn’t get the memorandum. I voted Republican, and I was eating a delicious breakfast of fried chicken. It tasted great. Fried Chicken for breakfast tastes like … VICTORY. But okay, back to work.
There’s some truth in what you say above, Jonn. The GOP needs to deliver some adult leadership.
But at least now – well, starting in January, anyway – we have a chance for some common-sense, adult leadership in Congress. Previously, we had zero chance, since Senate stupidity cancelled/blocked anything worthwhile coming from the House.
Am I optimistic? Maybe – but only slightly. But some chance is far better than none at all.
Concur. I’m cautiously optimistic because there are a number of new GOP faces in office this time around. People like Mia Love, and Tim Scott.
We’ll see how it all pans out, but for a day or so, I’m going to relish in the tears of the leftists who live on my street.
I agree that it is Cs (conservatives) not merely Rs that we need BUT, jeez Jonn, can’t we have this day to gloat and laugh at the progressive/liberal/communist/obama lovin’ bastards? Screw that conciliatory stuff. Screw that work together stuff. And screw that radically transform America stuff. The Republicans won–and won big. It is time to get this train on another track. Boot Bonehead, I say. And kick Reid in the pants and take away his restroom key.
Reagan took the presidency in 1980 because he campaigned for the office as soon as he lost the primaries in 1976. There’s no time for gloating if we’re going to take the government back.
Okay, I’ll gloat privately.
Someone pointed out this morning that the moderate Democrats were voted out of office in many states, leaving the more leftist liberal-progressives in place.
What we need is someone with some common sense who appeals to people across the board, on both sides of the fence.
And we need to find this person starting now.
I’m not disagreeing with you but in my opinion what we need is a super majority of citizens who value opportunity more they they value benefits. We need voters smart enough to realize that if one party has to buy it’s votes with promises of amnesty and cradle to grave subsidies, then they must have a pretty shitty underlying ideology.
We need another leader with the vision and values of Reagan, but moreover, we need an citizenry that is intelligent enough to respond accordingly. Unfortunately, critical thinking skills are at an all time low… thank you teachers’ unions and Dept. of Education. The way I see it, we are forked.
Sorry, dear, but Reagan’s dead and only ones that come close are considered as extreme right wing tea baggers by the leftists and establishment republicans.
Yeah, but I don’t want Reagan back, OT. He’s resting quietly. Let him sleep.
What we need is someone who can and wants to work on a bipartisan basis, and doesn’t see taxpayers like you and me a deep pockets and bottomless cookie jars to buy votes.
I think what needs to change is the voters, not the politicians. If the voters show some common sense, the politicians will follow suit, or end up flipping hamburgers for a living — their choice.
Pinto Nag…Amen to that.
Jonn…Thank you. It is time NOW for the conservatives to choose and REALLY TRULY VET, a good solid candidate for 2016 and start them on the trail. 10 to 15 Republicans with their hats in the ring in a national debate looks and sounds like they haven’t a clue who they are, what they’re about or want and have no solid platform or voice to offer America. Please RNC listen up and don’t do that happen AGAIN!
Like X1000 Sparks.
Absolutely spot on, Sparks.
And it needs to be someone who can keep his/her silly mouth shut re: off-the-cuff stuff. It isn’t even about issues, it’s about foot-in-mouth disease.
As well as …
… pick and “really truly vet” strong candidates for Senator and Representative for the next rounds of elections. Particularly in the “light blue” and “light red” states.
There is much truth in that Jonn, I also think the Republicans need to realize the simple demographics of this election cycle. James Carville once said, “it’s the economy stupid.”…he meant that for the internal audience of Clinton workers in 1992, not for general consumption but he is spot on. The voters who defected from the Democrats this time around have been a lot of those middle class small property and business owners who received a lot of benefits from those policies of the 80s and 90s and who received next to nothing from the current so called expansion that has seen the top 1% take 90% of the gains this time around. Hondo mentions they have some chance, I would agree they do indeed but it’s a small one really as Hondo says. Those voters will defect in two years if they feel the Republicans attempts at relief are designed to make the 1% even richer as the Democrats have managed to do. People vote their opinion of their current and prospective economic prospects. Thinking people vote for more idealistic, so called “mandates” is what gets parties wiped out in a follow up election. No one votes for those esoteric ideals if they feel the current administration is devaluing their property and their economic futures. Carville was famously correct in 1992 and his observation is still correct. We vote pocketbooks first and ideals second. It will be a supreme failure in 2016 for the Republicans if they don’t start learning that reality rather quickly. I also think a great deal of Republican gains this time around were due to keeping the far right loons quiet and out of center stage. That’s how in states like mine there is a Republican governor, the people in the middle as independents and Democrats voted for a man who might lower their taxes and do something to attract real jobs to the state. If Baker had come off sounding like a far right platform guy, Coakley would have won easily here. Even Democrats like fiscal responsibility at the local and national level if… Read more »
This country needs a Leader, NOW! Time to toss aside the good ole boy party politics as usual in DC, but I do not see enough of the entrenched political class being removed to do that.
I wish I could be as overjoyed as many of my conservative friends are this morning… I just do not see much hope of real change. I do hope that I am proven wrong though.
I don’t know, I have hope. Us kicking out a lot of these guys shows that we have the drive, and I think most of the newly gained Republican seats are to be held by Conservatives.
I think we can get it done.
It is great to wake up and find that the GOP has won a huge landslide all across the nation.
Now we have to continue to hold their feet to the fire.
There is still work to do as if we let them play in DC we will end up getting screwed yet again…
I’m just wondering if the lib’s will continue to drive the stake further into the heart of the Demonrats or if they wil sit down and shut up…
I’m hoping for the latter, but I doubt it will happen…
With all due respect, Stixx, the Republicans didn’t win shit. People voted against the Democrats and the R’s just happened to be there. This was not a conservative mandate, this was a general repudiation of the perception of the current lot of shitbirds – I seriously doubt in most cases anyone likes the incoming shitbirds any better. Look at our state – you seriously think Patrick is that beloved? Hell, no – Van der Putte was rejected. This election was an extreme example of the “lesser of two evils” theory.
David…I agree and hopefully the new Senate and House will not yawn and rest on their “lesser evil than the other guy vote”. I hope they seize this opportunity to make enough difference between now and 2016 that Americans will have a clear record of success to see and then vote accordingly.
With term limits on the executive branch and none on the legislative, our tires are out-of-round. Politics have compensated for that and we can no longer drive straight.
A term limit for the President was put in place because, in part, of both the historical example set by Washington and the thought that the physical toll on a President is too great. Look at Obama now from 6 years ago. Look at Bush at the beginning of his term and compare that to when he left office.
However, we do have term limits for the House and the Senate.
It is called “the ballot box.”
If you don’t like your Senator or Representative, vote them out. It is that simple. “Term limits” or the call for term limits always applies to the other Senators and Representatives and seldom the people that call for term limits vote for.
Actually, gitarcarver – the Presidential term limit came into being as a direct reaction to FDR’s 12+ year Imperial Presidency vice any real concern for the welfare of the POTUS. Prior to that time, the limitation was only traditional. FDR ignored that tradition, and reigned (intentional usage) as our first Imperator until the day he died.
I’m guessing if the GOP hadn’t achieved control of both houses of Congress in 1946 we wouldn’t have that restriction today. But maybe we would.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The ballot box will only take us so far. I noticed that there were a number of seats where, in the House especially, where the Republican candidate was running unopposed. How does the ballot box help there? Those who vote a straight party ticket alone would see that candidate into office. I sincerely believe the lack of term limits on Congress has done nothing but led to entrenched, powerful politicians who are ripe for corruption by the power they wield. All one need do to see that point is look at the finances of a politician before they take office and after serving a few terms. They all enrich themselves through the offices they hold.
If the Republican were “termed out,” what would happen then? An empty seat?
I can’t remember the last time I saw anyone run unopposed in both a primary and a general election.
But please explain why, if I am happy with my representative and think he or she is representing my wishes well, should he be prevented from continuing to represent me if the majority of citizens agree?
No one is asking me, but if the Republicans want to get me back, they need to slash spending where it needs to be slashed – start with your own salaries and staff expenditures.
Actually, I would prefer they increase the salaries of Representatives and Senators.
The top 100 CEO’s of this country make an average of $11.6 million dollars a year. Senators make about $200,000.
Who can affect the economy and the daily lives of people more? The 100 CEO’s or elected officials?
I am not saying that $200,000 is chump change, but if we believe that the best minds and workers in other industries and endeavors get paid the most money, why do we limit Senators and Representatives to a salary which smarter people can eclipse? In some ways, I think the call to lower salaries has the best and the brightest people looking elsewhere for a job or a calling.
Sure, sure, 200K a year, but while they’re at it the can ‘insider-trade’ themselves (and their families) into multi-millionaires.
F them. No sympathy from me on their pay and benefits.
” … at it THEY can … ” sorry for the typo, not enough coffee yet.
Not just no, but hell no.
I respectfully disagree with your entire premise gitarcarver.
Hopefully I’ll have time to expand on that statement later today.
Agree fully. Senators and Representatives are IMO hugely underpaid given their responsibilities.
The Federal Government spends roughly $4 trillion a year. There are 535 voting members of Congress. Allocating each a proportional share and accounting for the fact that concurrence of both Houses of Congress is required to pass any law, that means each Representative is responsible for managing ($2 trillion / 435) = approx $4.6 billion a year. Each Senator manages ($2 trillion / 100) = $20 billion annually.
Best proposal I ever heard was to front a Representative or Senator a large sum of money ($10 million or so), pay their staff, and give them a housing/travel allowance while serving – but then not give them a penny more in salary regardless how long they hold office. If they’re good financial managers, they could live very well off of that up-front payment for the rest of their lives – and they’d be independently wealthy, so bribes shouldn’t be that much of an issue. If someone “takes the money and runs”, good riddance. That means they were looking to “score”, and weren’t someone you wanted in Congress anyway.
Most Senators and Representatives aren’t there for the money. They’re power junkies. Reducing financial temptations enticing them to do under-the-table stuff is IMO a good idea.
“Best proposal I ever heard was to front a Representative or Senator a large sum of money ($10 million or so), a staff, and housing/travel allowances while serving – and then not a penny more in salary regardless how long they hold office. If they’re good financial managers, they could live very well off of that for the rest of their lives – and they’d be independently wealthy, so bribes shouldn’t be that much of an issue. If someone “takes the money and runs”, good riddance.
Most Senators and Representatives aren’t there for the money. They’re power junkies. Reducing financial temptations enticing them to do under-the-table stuff is IMO a good idea.”
The crooked ones will still be crooked.
True, Gravel – but also irrelevant. A committed crook is a committed crook. If they get into a key position, all you can do in that case is catch and incarcerate them.
What you want to do here is minimize the temptation for those who are basically decent, but who might succumb if they get caught in a financial pinch. The current system doesn’t do that. A $200k salary sounds good – until you run the numbers with DC tax rates, then realize they have to maintain 2 homes (one in their home district and one in DC). Oh, and they also have to and live most of the time in an area where an apartment in a safe part of town can run $2500+ a month, easy (and purchasing or renting a decent house can easily cost 1.5x to 2x that).
Don’t get me wrong. I have my issues with Congress – mostly concerning them not doing their freaking job, or being more concerned with scoring “political points” than making sound public policy. But being “overpaid” isn’t one of them.
“Don’t get me wrong. I have my issues with Congress – mostly concerning them not doing their freaking job, or being more concerned with scoring “political points” than making sound public policy.”
If they’re not doing their job then they’re being overpaid.
Au contraire, amigo. The fact that they’re doing something other than what they’re being paid to do is quite irrelevant to the question of whether or not the salary they’re being paid to do their actual job is adequate.
Yet we voters keep letting them do that, without consequences, election after election.
Give them a large sum of money in order to reduce financial temptations.
I’d be interested in the data that supports this hypothesis.
Give me large sums of money and I’ll promise to NOT run for office. 😀
That’s the only way that really works.
Same principle as appointing judges for life, GDContractor – except the temptation avoided is fiscal vice political.
Good luck on finding data. I don’t think we’ve tried it anywhere yet.
But, anecdotally, it does seem harder to bribe a rich man than a poor one. I understand you generally have to offer far more to a rich guy than some poor stiff who needs $15k to keep his house from being foreclosed.
Maybe it is worth a try, but my anecdotal evidence is that I have never met a rich person who’s obsession with making money ceased upon them becoming rich. I tend to agree with 2/17 Air Cav’s comment below that salary is irrelevant.
I would start the cutting with foreign aid, before I cut any American’s salary.
Any country that is not an outright true ally (Pakistan is an example) should lose all aid/money from the U.S. Government.
You want to play both sides of the fence, and only be an ally when it’s your interest, and work against us behind our backs? Well screw you, find another cash cow.
Pinto Nag – foreign aid is only around 1% of Federal spending. There are cuts to be made there, but they’re chump-change compared to the places where meaningful cuts are needed.
If we really want to fix things, we need to tackle the 2 800-lb gorillas called Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid/other Federal medical assistance.
Those two are now the two largest categories of Federal spending, and account for almost half of all Federal spending. We don’t get a handle on those, anything else we’re doing is simply p!ssing in the wind.
37.5 BILLION (plus or minus) was spent on foreign aide in 2013 … at least according to the websites I found.
Even if that’s not precise, but just in the ballpark, that’s a huge chunk of change.
Gravel: it seems large, yes. But when compared to annual spending of over 4,000 billion – it’s not particularly significant.
When someone’s bleeding to death, you stop the arterial bleeding first. The small cuts on the hands and forearm that aren’t gushing can wait.
I don’t disagree (and I like the triage example) that 37.5 Billion is a very small part of a 4,000 Billion budget, but it’s no paltry sum, and is very significant. Especially considering that we’re passing large portions of that 37 Billion to countries that are not truly allies.
Furthermore, we wouldn’t need to spend 4,000 Billion (or 4 Trillion) if our elected leaders would stop spending 37 Billion here, 100 Billion there, 250 Billion over there. Falling into the trap of ‘it’s just a small amount, in the overall scheme of things’ is one of the ways we got into this quagmire. Every ‘small amount’ adds up.
We’re hemorrhaging badly from all the those “small cuts.”
Gravel – um, not really. Two categories (Social Security and Federal Medical assitance) account for nearly 50% of Federal spending – and they’re growing the fastest. DoD accounts for another roughly 20%, but it’s shrinking.
Further, cutting the “small stuff” ain’t as easy as you might think. For example: foreign aid includes aid to Israel and other allies – as well as much I consider bullsh!t. I doubt more than 1/3 to 1/2 can actually be cut.
Same is true of larger programs like SNAP (I’d be OK with cutting that dramatically) – but some of it is legit. Factoring all that in, I’d guess that a “hard cut” approach might recover 5% or 10% of total Federal spending, tops if applied to all programs outside DoD/Social Security/Medical assistance. Add hard cuts in DoD, and you get maybe 5% more (and probably way less). And that ain’t gonna fix our problems.
If we want to get a handle on this, we absolutely, positively HAVE to address Social Security and Medical assistance spending. Otherwise, we’re p!ssing in the wind.
I don’t disagree about getting a handle on domestic spending issues like Social Security.
Someone stated on some TV show (can’t source it, don’t even remember which channel it was on) that roughly 100 million people were on some sort of federally funded assistance. That’s 1/3 of the population of the U.S. and it’s crazy. Yes, we’re spending way to much on those programs too, especially when a lot of those programs are redundant.
I’m just saying that there’s a lot of room for cutting elsewhere as well. A 10% cut here, a 25% cut there adds up. Foreign aid is just an example. There are plenty of other things that can be cut as well … and some of them, like the F35 program, and the ‘let’s blow billions on BDUs’ program, need to be cut completely out.
It’s time for elected leaders to stop groping the teats of the cash cow and milking it for all it’s worth. And then, when she runs dry, buying more milk from China.
Don’t disagree that cuts pretty much everywhere are in order, Gravel.
But if we don’t reign in Social Security and Federal Medical spending, cuts elsewhere just ain’t gonna matter.
If we keep medicare, medicaid, social security, and the DOD and drop everything else – we have a $3 trillion dollar budget. If we drop DOD from that, we have a $2.3 trillion dollar budget. DOD is less than one third of the medicare, medicaid, social security total. Everything that is not medicare, medicaid, social security, and DOD comes to about the same as the DOD budget — about $700 billion.
Regarding your federal benefits statement, this doesn’t give a hard number. But the data it provides allows you to infer that the number is easily close to 100M, if not 150M.
They’re apparently counting all Federal benefits – both earned (VA, Federal/military pensions) and benefits granted by legal fiat – e.g., “get them by breathing” benefits – like SNAP and housing assistance).
Even though it’s from the WaPo, the numbers look fairly solid.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-receives-benefits-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts/
well, the CEO of my company directly affects the welfare of 1.2 million employees. I know of very few legislators who singlehandedly have that kind of clout.
Theoretically there is a reason it is called public SERVICE. I remember a while back when Howard Baker proposed making the legislative positions non-paying positions… almost all of ’em enter office wealthier than most of us to begin with (and leave a DAMN sight wealthier, which should also be cause for concern. Oh, and Baker was a sitting Senator at the time.
This. 🙂
David – not a good example, amigo. Not every decision of a corporate CEO affects everyone, just like not every vote in Congress matters equally.
Further, try telling that (Congressional votes don’t matter) to anyone who opposes the asinine abomination we call ObamaCare. Had the Democrats not had 60 votes (58 plus 2 “Independents” who voted with them virtually 100% of the time) in the Senate in Dec 2009, they couldn’t have forced cloture of an anti-ObamaCare fillibuster. And had they had a 4 less votes in the House at the same time, it would not have passed there either.
That single vote in the Senate screwed 300,000,000+ persons.
Hondo- I am guessing you have never worked for a Chinese company?
Nope. Don’t really care to, either.
It’s an ‘interesting’ culture.
I spent some time in the Orient. I’d agree – the culture can be quite “interesting”.
Well, when millions and millions are spent trying to win an office that pays a fraction of what was spent trying to get it, AND the net worth of the critters consistently rises out of proportion to what other investors realize, I’d say that the salary is damn near irrelevant.
Yep
Here is my idea – no pension for congress critters. They can put money in an IRA, but NO pension. And regular Obamacare. The no pension should get rid of career reps.
Susan…Agreed. In a land far, far away and another time and planet that would be wonderful. I’d love to see it happen but in reality they will always care for themselves first.
Actually, Susan, that fits in quite well with what I proposed above. No salary after the up-front payment, either.
Here’s my idea, for the 2016 thingy:
In regard to the electoral college, while it worked for 18th and early 19th century election processes, it no longer reflects the will of the voting public.
Therefore, do one of the following:
– either eliminate it altogether and count only the popular vote,
OR
– revise it to properly reflect the actual votes PER CANDIDATE in each state.
I think if either of these were put into force, more people would turn out when the presidential elections come around.
And no, I don’t need a lecture about this business, Hondo. The electoral college is outdated and no longer accurately reflects the true will of the people of this country. It may have been fine for the 18th and 19th centuries before the invention of the telegraph, but that time is long past.
“However, a John Boehner-run House is nearly as terrifying to me.” Me too. What are the chances if any, that the House and Senate Republicans will get together and shit can him and put in a new Speaker? I’m seriously asking for answers to this too.
This.
I’m in Ohio and I can’t stand that shitweasle.
I want a poster of Bonehead with tears in his eyes and these words beneath it: Congressman Shit Pickle. (If he remains the House majority leader, we may as well mail it in.)
Too many RINOs make me skeptical that anything much will change, they will just continue taking more and more of our hard-earned money but spend it in different ways.
I have a burning question… Why the hell did over 100,000 people in Colorado vote FOR Cory Gardner AND Hickenlooper? How does that make any sense? Beauprez ran a good campaign, didn’t say or do anything stupid, and Hick is an incompetent, indecisive joke. What the hell?
At least the legislature went red, so maybe they can undo all the crap from the last couple of years.
And Evie Hudak’s underling got voted out too – yeah! Which leads to another question… the recalls resulted in two Dems losing their jobs and being replaced. Yet the two replacements both lost. So the people in those districts voted for the recall, voted to boot them, but replaced them with more of the same 6 months later. Huh?
In summary, I’m leaving my Wyoming or Bust sign up. Just too many people from the left coasts moving here and bringing their ‘progressive’ politics with them for my comfort. 2/3 of the people living here were not born here, it’s no longer my Colorado.
Same in Montana,
Same in Wyoming,
Same in the Dakotas.
They’re a freakin’ disease wherever they go.
And don’t forget Arizona. We’re still predominantly conservative, but less and less every year, and for how much longer………
Liberals are like a bacterial or fungal infection. They ruin one location, then migrate only to fuck another one up!
AND SO IT BEGINS …
Senator Harry Reid (D, Nevada) is claiming that last nights elections are proof that ‘the people’ want the Republicans and Democrats to compromise now.
Yeah, sure Senator, after you running rough-shod over the Senate for the last 8 years.
We lost control, now it’s time to make smores around the campfire with out good buddies the Republicans and sing Kumbaya.
Go piss up a rope you shitweasel.
Edit: “… with OUR good …”
Perhaps the current Senate Minority Leader needs to explain the acronym “GFY” to the outgoing Senate Majority Leader.
😀
According to what I just heard on AM radio about the election, the people of MD turned out in HIGH numbers to send the
Apparently, it is not just a GOP majority. The number of people who turned out to vote in MD was higher than usual, according to an AM radio program I listened to when I went out to get the mail.
Now, why was I listening to AM radio when I got the mail? I don’t know. I just thought I should. I’m psychic.
Also, IL ex-Gov Quinn carried ONLY ONE COUNTY in the entire state of Illinois: Cook County, and evne there, crooked politics did not work as well as usual. The entire rest of the state went red.
Rauner didn’t talk much or discuss details about what he intends to do, which seems to be going on with many GOPers. Let’s keep an eye on him, see what happens. He has to work with that deeply-entranched decmocrap Dan Madigan.
That part about robocalls to election judges? Can you say ‘felony’? I know that you can. That got a lot of attention from the election boards – the wrong kind.
But that’s not all. These two commenters added that when bodaprez made a speech, he not only spoke as if he didn’t know that an election was underway (or concluded and the democraps lost), he also mostly kept referring to ‘minimum wage’ and not much else. Apparently, bodaprez thinks his intentions to commit unconstitutional acts will be okay with eveyrone.
But that’s not all: Hellary appeared in several places to bolster and boost democrap candidates. Everyone whose candidacy for office (mostly Senate) was part of that endorsement trip lost, and in some cases, lost badly.