Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

LIVE: Trump’s Press Conference to Discuss Midterms

LIVE: Trump’s Press Conference to Discuss Midterms

Democrats took the House, but Republicans gained seats in the Senate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B-2-zUYeic

President Donald Trump tweeted that he will hold a press conference at 11:30AM ET to discuss the Republicans “success” in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

Like previous administrations, the party of the president lost the House, but the Republicans made decent gains within the Senate.

Like I said, history shows that the party of the sitting president usually loses the House during the midterms in his first term. Right now the Democrats have gained 26 seats, but Professor Jacobson said that number may end up being between 30-35.

The professor also mentions that this is a lot better than the 54 seats Clinton lost in 1994 and the 63 Obama lost in 2010.

We always knew the Republicans would hold the Senate and even gain some seats. They flipped Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota. They may flip Florida once the recount finishes and the Republican barely leads Montana’s Democrat incumbent Jon Tester.

The Democrats managed to flip Nevada, but if the numbers hold, the Republicans will keep Arizona out of the Democrats’ hands.

Trump also tweeted this:

There is no guarantee she will become Speaker of the House again. CNN found that 12 Democrats who pledged to vote against Pelosi were re-elected along with seven new Democrats who made that same pledge during the campaign.

Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) is one of the few who doesn’t hide his disdain for Pelosi, stating that people are “afraid of her” and so they don’t challenge her:

“Which is pretty pathetic,” he told CNN in an interview two weeks ago. “If your leadership is based on fear, that’s terrible. That’s what Donald Trump does for god sakes, based on fear. I think what we want in a leader is someone that’s empowering.”

Fireworks!

Declassify ALL the documents:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

If the dems split the Speaker vote and the republicans vote unanimously, could we get a GOP Speaker?

    Immolate in reply to MTED. | November 7, 2018 at 12:17 pm

    I doubt the Dems would allow a Republican speaker to spite one another. I do think that we should be willing to wield our influence to ensure that the lesser of evils is chosen.

    Milhouse in reply to MTED. | November 8, 2018 at 12:25 am

    No, a majority is needed, so for any Republican to win they’d have to attract some Democrat votes.

I had to hunt for Graham’s reaction to this election, but somebody managed to cover it.

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham declares the midterms ‘Kavanaugh’s revenge’

http://m.theweek.com/speedreads/806275/gop-sen-lindsey-graham-declares-midterms-kavanaughs-revenge

Just thinking. As a Republican congressman looking ahead to the next two years under Dem leadership, what would I be thinking?

1. Most/many of the hard-core NeverTrumpers and RINOs either retired or lost.

2. The effect of Trump campaigning for those who openly supported him were wildly successful. Even many of the tepid supporters probably won thanks to Trump.

3. Senate is now more solidly Republican thanks to Trump.

4. Ryan is gone in 2 months.

5. The Masters of the Universe and Hollywood just took another bath to gain so little.

6. Pelosi has already said that any impeachment action by will have to be bipartisan.

Does Trump seem more vulnerable heading into the 2020 elections? Pelosi doesn’t seem to think so.

It sure would have been better had Paul Ryan gone out after fighting for Trump and then leading a successful campaign to retain the House but he didn’t do either and Trump can still rightfully boast of a historic victory in the tepid “blue wave” results.

So it seems to me that the new GOP House members should be much more respectful of the Trump agenda heading into the 2020 elections. The Dems will be facing total war from the left trying to snatch total control of the party. Trump glides to victory.

I believe that Pelosi will find it much harder this time around to win GOP votes and most of the threats of endless investigations will dissipate quickly. Trump is holding a stronger hand. The 2020 elections don’t look good as it is for the Dems. Let’s see how fast Pelosi moves to quash Mad Max and Adam “The Leak” Schiff once, as I expect, Trump again moves aggressively to change the subject into a tweet-driven news cycle where the media can’t keep up.

Expect more…..WINNING!!!!!

    healthguyfsu in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 7, 2018 at 12:24 pm

    6. Pelosi has already said that any impeachment action by will have to be bipartisan.

    So, she (or at least someone on her staff) can do math.

      Think about it. A day before Pelosi’s victory speech, she was talking about “striking hard” and fast. Today, she was focusing on bipartisanship and a return to civility.

      Yesterday, Biden was predicting that Trump would challenge the election result should the Democrats win.

      Today, Trump congratulates the Dems and Pelosi for doing a “great job” saying she deserves to be elected Speaker.

      Trump is already taking the wind out of Pelosi’s sails to set her up if she cannot control the nuts of her party. I doubt this will help her in her battle against the nuts for the Speakership.

We have resident downthumbers today….having fun with that blue tide pool??

I’m loving this press conference. It reminds me of George HW Bush, only better. Bush would talk on a range of issues with ease in a relatively unstructured setting. This is Trump’s great strength, with the added ability to deal with rudeness.

Here’s what we WON’T have now…

1. tax reform or cuts

2. health care reform that makes ANY sense

3. much of any expansion of our military

4. any GOOD reform of the judiciary

5. any intelligent address of entitlements

Here’s something you CAN count on…

A HUGE bipartisan boondoggle “infrastructure” program which will be ANOTHER crony grifter-thon.

Watch and see…

    If we are going to have to listen to another of your doom and gloom forecasts for Trump’s latest win, how about showing us what a “bon vivant” you are by buying us all a round?

      Ragspierre in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 7, 2018 at 2:17 pm

      Sure. What are you having?

      Now try something approaching an intelligent comment regarding what I wrote.

      You might start with trying…however vainly…to cast this loss as a “T-rump victory”.

      Then you can take on each of my observations and try…however vainly…to show the are wrong or “doom and gloom” versus just realistic.

        “4. any GOOD reform of the judiciary”

        Yes, even though the Senate is now at least 3 seats stronger for Trump, he’ll never get those nominations past Pelosi’s House. Wow. Talk about dumb. I won’t even bother with the rest. Too much stupidity, too little time.

        Now finish your drink and go take a nap. Adults are trying to have an intelligent conversation. That’s a good chap. Now scoot!

          Ragspierre in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 7, 2018 at 2:40 pm

          You poor malignant idiot!

          The CONGRESS has a Constitutional function in reforming the judiciary.

          You’re so stupid you didn’t know this!

          Not CONFIRMING a judge here or there, but the basic structure of THE JUDICIARY. What a dope…!!!

          “4. any GOOD reform of the judiciary”

          Yes, even though the Senate is now at least 3 seats stronger for Trump, he’ll never get those nominations past Pelosi’s House. Wow. Talk about dumb.

          Indeed, talk about dumb. Dumb enough to think judicial reform has something to do with nominations. Judicial reform can only be achieved by legislation, which, yes, has to get through the House, and now good reforms won’t. Bad reforms, goo-goo reforms (if you don’t know that term look it up), may very well pass, with the help of some less intelligent R senators.

        daniel_ream in reply to Ragspierre. | November 7, 2018 at 2:50 pm

        Now try something approaching an intelligent comment regarding what I wrote.

        Why should? You’re consistently rude and childish to everyone here. Why reward that behaviour by giving you attention?

          Ragspierre in reply to daniel_ream. | November 7, 2018 at 2:55 pm

          That’s a testable hypothesis.

          TRY formulating a respectful, intelligent comment regarding what I said.

          Over to you…

          Again, if the Prof had any respect for us, he wouldnt subject us to Rags.

          Fen, I suggest you look in a mirror; you’ve become a caricature of your take on Rags. Do you read your posts? You bait Rags, then feign surprise when he responds. That’s weak beta-male stuff that stands you in no good stead.

          As to the prof, he does respect his readers and VERY much so, and every single LI reader but you know it. I am fuming mad that you would suggest otherwise. You have personally stalked me in these threads, issuing threats, and basically being completely unhinged over one innocent remark. Following your logic, why should I be “subjected” to YOU? Oh, right, the prof you keep bashing wants divergent voices here. “Divergent” does not mean attacking your host, though you seem intent on doing just that.

          I’m curious, how do you see a “battle” between you and the prof playing out? On his turf?

          Hit “pause” Fen and regroup as a normal person. Post hasty.

          Ragspierre in reply to daniel_ream. | November 7, 2018 at 7:28 pm

          That’s a testable hypothesis.

          TRY formulating a respectful, intelligent comment regarding what I said.

          Over to you…

        @Rags: Allow me to clue you in on the purpose of dialogue. It’s to share thoughts and ideas. There is no point having a dialogue with someone who “knows” everything and believes that everyone who disagrees is an idiot to be mocked and insulted. Try this: “I don’t know! But this is what I believe and here is why. What do YOU believe and why?” Basic stuff.

        Why do you even bother posting your insulting diatribes? You have been so toxic everywhere you’ve set-up camp that you have isolated yourself in your own paranoid, seething bubble of rage. A political party of one. What is the joy of being hated? You need to disabuse yourself of being the “only one” who gets it. “I’m Okay, The Rest of You Suck!” and “How to NOT Make Friends and Still Influence People” is not a good idea. After what, 12-15 years, do you really believe it works? Your own blog died a very ignominious death. Did that not teach you anything? Stop pontificating and start listening for a change. You might learn something.

        We are all just commenting on a blog thread. That’s all. So get a life already. You aren’t advancing your cause by eventually losing everybody. Is it worth it? I can go months without posting anything and I don’t miss it. I don’t spend much time on this. No one should.

        But it is great entertainment watching you suffer while obsessing with your mysterious “strawberry incident”. What is wrong with you anyway? Seriously, get help.

          Ragspierre in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 8, 2018 at 8:45 am

          When you are really sick, deep down at your core, sometimes it helps to vomit like this, you latest, puke of nonsense.

          I hope it was cleansing for you. It would be a start.

    (reads for a while) (thinks about it)

    …Wait, you’re saying we were going to get any of that with Republicans holding the House with a half-dozen or less seats!?

    I’m unmoved by anyone’s spin today, yours included. You’re welcome to your political ideals, but it seems plain that there was never going to be all of that, regardless of whether Republicans kept the House, and indeed regardless of if Cruz won the nomination and actually managed to defeat Hillary Clinton. The loss of something I would never have had simply does not impress me.

      Ragspierre in reply to JBourque. | November 7, 2018 at 4:02 pm

      Well, no. I wouldn’t make the case about certainly getting any of it.

      I CAN make the case we certainly WON’T get any of it.

      I like the prospects of good possibilities. I’ll that those over bad certainties any day.

        Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | November 8, 2018 at 12:47 am

        Jbourke makes a good point, though. A House with a bare R majority would also certainly not have passed any of those things. It would have meant an R speaker and R control of the committees, so that Nunes could continue to probe the real FBI/DOJ scandals, and to keep Nadler, Waters, et al from going crazy as they will. But legislation of the sort you’re talking about, if it couldn’t pass last time it certainly wouldn’t this time. So you’re effectively crying over spilt unicorn milk.

And all of that will reside squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats…except the Judiciary as Trump will continue to appoint judges who will respect the constitution and the laws as written.

    Milhouse in reply to mailman. | November 8, 2018 at 12:50 am

    The laws as written is the problem. Congress writes those laws, and a lot of them are bad and need to be changed. If we had activist R judges we could hope that if they got a majority they might change them by fiat, but since we’re nominating honest judges we know they won’t. So if Congress won’t change them either they will remain the law.

      mailman in reply to Milhouse. | November 8, 2018 at 9:59 am

      Then you end up being EXACTLY the same as the Democrats…using the Judiciary to rewrite laws that should be the preserve of Congress and the Senate.

      Here’s an idea. Hows about we let Congress and Senate do their jobs and if people don’t like a particular law then they can petition their representatives to get something done about it. WHAT shouldn’t be happening is an out of control liberal Judiciary taking it upon themselves to determine which laws are acceptable and which laws are..well…rwaaaaacist.

Pleased that a deeper Senate will be Trump’s firewall with the House – pleased that the country will get to see the D’s freak-flag on full display in the run-up to 2020. Chuckled to myself as it unfolded here last evening (PST) when I remembered how many times the R controlled house voted to repeal or gut Obamacare only to have the D controlled senate or Obummer say “uh, No.”

So for the next 2 years, we’re in for lotsa smoke, noise, cheering and jeering and more than likely, business as usual from an otherwise isolated and effectively emasculated House. And 2 years of the D’s explaining to their constituents why they can’t get anything done thereby demoralizing them by 2020.

The more effort that dems put into impeachment is effort that won’t be applied destructively elsewhere. Klinton was only bearable because the entire congress was distracted with taking him down or saving him, hence the country did better in their absence.

And, we get to see Occasionally-Conscious make a fool of herself. I wonder how well she will react when told to “get in line.” My prediction is that she gets crapped on more by her own party than the Rs. The next time I visit a coin show, I’m going to look for a fake quarter to mail to her so she can buy a fake clue.

Like previous administrations, the party of the president lost the House

Considering the 20 presidents we’ve endured since 1900, this has only happened in a mid-first term election with one Republican president (Eisenhower) and three Democrats (Truman, Clinton, Obama).

Hardly a trend; not even a fad. Going by the numbers, this was the worst mid-first-term House loss for the Republicans since President Taft.

It’s no decisive victory for the Donks, but it hardly merits a casual dismissal, either.

    healthguyfsu in reply to tom_swift. | November 7, 2018 at 4:59 pm

    You can say it’s a big deal, and of course the loss of progress that will plague DC now is a big deal.

    I don’t think anyone said it was good. However, it is a trend in the era of social media and the internet with the exception of W, and he didn’t lose it right away but he lost it during his terms.

    There are just far too many casual voters in both parties out there that think the country is good enough as long as their party holds the WH.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend