About Virginia…

One of the items from my 2014 election analysis that’s caught the most flak is my assertion that Virginia may have moved behind the “Blue Wall” in last week’s election. After all, Democratic Senator Mark Warner won his election by a hair and Republicans were winning Federal elections in Virginia pretty consistently up to 2004.

After looking at the numbers across several years, it’s pretty clear that I was actually too conservative. Virginia is as solidly behind the Blue Wall as New Hampshire. For the near future, Virginia is off the map of realistically competitive states in Presidential politics. Until the demographics or party alignments change, Democrats have 270 Electoral votes locked up before the candidates are even selected.

First, look at the 2014 results. This was a historically big year for Republicans nationally, so what did it mean for Virginia? The Republican wave, an off-year election, a very strong Republican Senate candidate, and dismal voter participation almost led to a Senate upset. Meanwhile Democrats lost one seat – that’s one – in the State Assembly.

To put it another way, absolutely every potential combination of forces was working strongly in the Republicans’ direction and we still failed to win Virginia’s US Senate seat or make significant gains in the Assembly. That was the pattern all over the country last week in blue states. The Republican wave moved the needle in places that are southern or rural. That’s about it. Virginia is increasingly urban. With every step toward urbanization it becomes less Southern.

This pattern has been in effect for more than a decade. Virginia Republicans had a good year in 2009 when Bob McDonnell won the Governor’s Office and Republicans won the other major statewide races but that was an isolated victory, largely a product of the Great White Freakout after Obama’s win. It’s the only time Republicans have swept Virginia’s statewide offices the past decade. Republicans have lost every statewide office in Virginia since McDonnell’s 2009 win.

The 2014 wave was not high enough to breach the Blue Wall in Virginia. That state is no longer dominated by its rural, Confederate heritage. Like Lindsay Graham said a few years ago, “we’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” This election did not change that. Virginia is off the Presidential map for Republicans.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Uncategorized
77 comments on “About Virginia…
  1. […] to lock them out of competition for the White House for the indefinite future. I explained that Virginia and New Hampshire were now beyond reach for a Republican nominee. I also explained that Georgia was […]

  2. jpherling says:

    If angry white guys are the backbone of the Republican party, what’s likely to happen in 2016 when the Democratic nominee will be white, and very possibly an angry and old, but very liberal white guy?

  3. […] Virginia included in that category, as I argued it should be, the 2014 results revealed a geographic block of nearly impenetrable Democratic support so large as […]

  4. MattH says:

    I have to say, as a Democrat (and a Virginian), I really enjoy your blog. It’s refreshing to see GOP commentary rooted in, you know, facts. (Sorry for the back-handed compliment…couldn’t think of a nicer way to say it.) And I agree with much of your diagnosis of the state-of-play for national politics and the near/medium-term prospects for Republicans.

    But, question…why the hyperbole? Your post about the 2014 elections said it was a dark week for anyone who wanted America to remain a vibrant and powerful nation (paraphrasing, because I couldn’t remember the exact terminology…). I get that you don’t support the Dems, but isn’t using terminology like that just encouraging/empowering the same types of mindless/rabidly partisan forces that gave rise to the Tea Party? The Dems are not perfect, but they are the only one of our two political parties that is *currently* trying to govern effectively and enact positive change peoples’ lives.

    Anyway, thanks again for the thoughtful analysis. (Also, why no “Democratic Party” tag…?)

  5. Quora says:

    How can the Republicans win in 2016?

    The issue template that influences Federal races is not the same as the template that influences state races. Chris Christie would not carry New Jersey in a Presidential election – go look at the numbers. Massachusetts has had Republican Governors more…

  6. Jeff Roe says:

    My response to the author’s OPINION: No one – even the Republican Party – thought Ronald Reagan could win either. Thanks for your OPINION.

    Good luck with all of that.

  7. […] his initial post-election analysis, Ladd was not firmly decided about Virginia, but concluded in a subsequent blog that if Republicans could not oust a Democratic incumbent like Mark Warner even in a midterm year […]

  8. […] his initial post-election analysis, Ladd was not firmly decided about Virginia, but concluded in a subsequent blog that if Republicans could not oust a Democratic incumbent like Mark Warner even in a midterm year […]

  9. […] post-election analysis, Ladd was not resolutely motionless about Virginia, though resolved in a subsequent blog that if Republicans could not reject a Democratic obligatory like Mark Warner even in a midterm […]

  10. dirtdog88 says:

    FYI, Virginia only holds state elections in odd numbered years. So you can’t draw conclusions about changes to the Virginia General Assembly from the 2014 election because the only state candidates were special elections.

    • goplifer says:

      Yup. That’s why you use 2013 as the most recent reference. That election was billed as a referendum on Obama and the ACA and it was a catastrophe for Republicans, losing every statewide race.

      In the past 15 years, the only strong statewide showing for Republicans came in 2009. So, anyway…like I said…

      • dirtdog88 says:

        Fair enough, but it wasn’t clear from your blog article that you were talking about both the 2013 and 2014 results. FWIW, the 2013 Attorney General was extremely close, resulting in a statewide recount. The Governor and LG races were a different story. RPVA had several moderate candidates that could have won a general election, but decided to hold a convention instead of a primary and party activists nominated hard right candidates who were easily (and pretty accurately in the LG case) painted as extremists in the general election. As a Virginia Democrat, all I can say is keep up they good work 🙂 That might work fine in some bright red Virginia districts like the 7th CD (home of Cantor), but its an increasingly risky tactic for statewide races.

  11. CaptSternn says:

    Lifer, I think it is a bit early to be calling the 2016 elections at this point. A really big “bit”. Two years is a very long time in politics, and the new congress hasn’t even been sworn in yet. Republicans have won seats in the house and the senate, eight seats in the senate so far with two still up for grabs. I am thinking one of those is still in play, but even if the republican doesn’t get it the republicans still have a good majority and a strong showing.

    It depends on what the GOP congress does over the next two years, and what Obama and the democrats do over the next two years. That’s what I said before this latest round of elections and I am still saying it. Democrats losing control of the senate can be a very big deal if republicans play their cards right, or it can be a disaster if they don’t.

    Republicans need to pass a lot of good bills in the house, and the GOP controlled senate needs to put them on the floor for debate and votes. Maybe put a lot of bills from the house that died on Reid’s desk out there and show that it has been the democrats that have been the obstructionist party, the party of “NO”. Let Obama’s veto pen get worn down to a nub, let democrats filibuster everything. That will be a boost for republicans come 2016.

    I do see some potential problems looming for the 2016 GOP presidential nominations. I would really like to see Ted Cruz as president, but the left will turn out to vote against a Hispanic man that doesn’t follow what they expect a Hispanic man to be and say. They will only accept “minorities” that say what they think “minorities” should be saying.

    Jeb Bush is poison because he is a Bush. Perry is bad because he is a Texas governor, and … well, Bush. Palin is impossible because she is a conservative woman, and liberals think such women should be sent to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Gets back to the left only supporting “minorities” if those “minorities” know their place and repeat the approved talking points. Don’t dare allow “those people” to get all uppity and have a different opinion other than the DNC apporved opinion.

    I doubt Ted Poe will even try, but maybe he would have a better chance. Cornyn? Well, Texas again, and that doesn’t sit well with the national stage at this point. Just being realistic.

    Then again, two years is a very long time in politics.

    What the republicans need to do is bring up a lot of bills for debate and vote, get them passed and send them to Obama. They also need to find a strongly conservative presidential candidate that is not poison, but not a “moderate” like McCain or Romney.

    Two years from the next round of elections, one year to set the stage. Interesting times.

    • flypusher says:

      “They also need to find a strongly conservative presidential candidate that is not poison, but not a “moderate” like McCain or Romney.”

      Which blue states does this hypothetical “strongly conservative candidate” win that McCain and or/ Romney fail to win?

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Which blue states does this hypothetical “strongly conservative candidate” win that McCain and or/ Romney fail to win?”

        Exactly. Ohio and Florida maybe? Others? It’s not like a republican didn’t win in 2000 and 2004, or republicans in 2010 or 2014. Where is your “permanant democratic majority” now? Not so good these days. How about “Battleground Texas”? Lost points rather than gaining points.

        Don’t be counting those chickens just yet, and nor will I.

      • flypusher says:

        “Exactly. Ohio and Florida maybe? ”

        Go two blog posts back, and look at the “blue wall”. Ohio and and Florida and not included in it. I know you have issues with map reading, but the blue states are unmistakable. Which ones does this conservative campion of yours flip?

        Are you even capable of an honest answer to a simple question?

    • goplifer says:

      Two years is an eyeblink. It’s all relative. And yes, I am making this bold prediction for 2016. Put it up on the CNN big board. Roll out Wolf Blitzer. Texas goes to the Republican candidate. I’m also calling California for the Democrats. If that seems stupidly obvious, then keep going down the list of the rest of the stupidly obvious calls and you get the outcome before we even start.

      “Allow me to ask you, then, how can man govern, if he is not only deprived of the opportunity of making a plan for at least some ridiculously short period, well, say, a thousand years , but cannot even vouch for his own tomorrow?”
      The Master & Margarita

      • flypusher says:

        There you go Sternn, Chris has called his spot, with specifics. Are you man enough to do the same?

  12. Crogged says:

    Wonder what Texas will be like if oil prices remain this low by, say, beginning of 2016?

    We’re seeing consolidation, again, in oilfield services (year after merger-LOOK we DOUBLED our EARNINGS-but, here’s your severance).

    So we have COBRA at some 3 time mulitiple over what exists on your current paycheck, or people start looking at the interwebs for insurance.

    But then we get the Supreme Court ruling that a drafting error means unconstitutional and we get to try one more time to actually understand how f____g insurance works best, large pool good-limited pool-bad.

    Or we buy insurance from Louisiana-you know it will be good with file’ and all dat…….

    • It wasn’t a drafting error. As Gruber noted, it was by intent. Nice try. If the legislators didn’t actually read the bill, too damn bad. That’s what comes of passing it to see what’s in it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        This guy Gruber is straight up saying that people are too stupid to run their own lives, not even trying to disguise it, and the liberals jump up and shout, “Yes we are too stupid to run our own lives.”

        You are correct, Kevin, it was done intentionally as an attempt to blackmail the states, just as was the Medicaid expansion and withholding funds. Now democrats don’t have the supermajority to go back and change it. They had to pass it so we could find out what was in it while they didn’t even know what was in it. Hello, surprise!

  13. Hainous says:

    Hi Chris,

    Big fan, but I’m curious as to how you can have such certainty about the future of Virginia. A look at the State Legislature shows pretty big Republican gains since 2000 (49 member minority to 68 members at the present), and the Senate, while more balanced, shows a couple Republican pickups in 2011, as well as a win in the special election this year (though I’m sure turnout there was extremely low). It may be that these are all rural seats, and obviously 2015 and 2016 will tell more, but this doesn’t seem as decisive an advantage as you say.




    • goplifer says:

      Ah, you’ve stumbled onto a very cool topic. Why is there so much more Republican representation in legislatures (like Congress)?

      The reason why the partisan makeup of the Virginia Assembly tells you nothing about it’s status in Presidential politics is that the two have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. Take Minnesota as an example.

      Since 1932, one Republican Presidential candidate has carried Minnesota (Nixon, 72). The Minnesota legislature changes hands back and forth regularly, but it has been Republican far more often than Democratic in recent decades. At the national level it is a blue state, getting bluer, and nobody is going to flip it. There might be four or five Republicans in the Minnesota House that could survive a Republican primary in Texas or Alabama. It’s not the same thing.

      Legislative offices that are district-based operate very differently from statewide offices. They almost always tilt toward making rural areas more powerful. Urban districts tend to be consistently uniform (there are some Philadelphia-centered districts in PA that had almost 100% vote totals) while the rural population, believe it or not, tends to be more politically split. This is especially true in blue states and helps explain why Pennsylvania and Ohio have Republican legislatures.

      Consequently you can get overall vote totals close to 50-50 with one party running away with the delegate count. Like this year, when a supposed Republican “wave” gave the GOP a 52-47 advantage in the vote count and almost 60% of the seats in Congress, or in the last election when Republicans held the House while losing the popular vote by more than a million votes.

      There’s another reason – the issues at play in a legislative race are simply not the same as the issues in a Federal race, especially the Presidency. I have poured energy and enthusiasm into state legislative campaigns for Republicans who I would never consider sending to the US Senate.

      Virginia is a blue state now and getting bluer.

      • Hainous says:

        These are good points. Certainly a Minnesota Republican (and probably an Illinois one too!) is not going to be in line with the national party.

        Given that there was enough will in the Virginia GOP to run that nutty Ken Cuccinelli/EW Jackson tag team for Governor/Lt. Governor, I’m surprised it doesn’t translate from local to a national level like it does in Texas.

  14. objv says:

    Greetings from behind the great, blue wall in California. Keep calm and carry on. 🙂

  15. kabuzz61 says:

    Crogged is so proud of Obama that he can’t fathom why people have rejected him and his policies. Not to worry, the grown ups are in charge. When it is all fixed, you children can get back in.

    • Crogged says:

      You are right. You have no logical reason to reject him-but believe you do and I don’t understand. In the adults in my world, that means the problem is you-but I don’t need to point that out to anyone who reads what you write here.

    • texan5142 says:

      What people, the rabid right?

      “Not to worry, the grown ups are in charge. When it is all fixed, you children can get back in.”

      You mean like GWB fixed it with an unfunded war and a crash of the financial institutions? or like Reagan fixed it, with record deficits and supply side economics?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Again, the wars were funded, congress voted to keep funding the actions about once a year or so, democrats voting in favor of the funding.

        This type of claim shows how uninformed the left is, how ignorant, and usually deliberate ignorance. Also shows the laziness, just repeat those soundbites, headlines and bumpersticker slogans.

        Not to mention the desire to pretend democrats didn’t win control of congress and spending in the 2006 elections. Things really went downhill after that and has not yet recovered. Maybe now that republicans will be running congress come January things will pick up, if Obama stops acting like an immature, spoiled, petulant little brat.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        comic-boy fumes, “Again, the wars were funded….”

        …using borrowed dollars, since government receipts were lower than expenditures.

        But hypocrisy, as we all know, is a Tea Party value.

      • texan5142 says:

        Citations needed please, thank you.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy – The budgets were passed without the war casts included. Those budgets ran deficits without those added costs so when the request for war appropriations came in a few months later the Congress and POTUS had to fund the war cost with additional borrowed money.

        So yes, technically the wars were funded, the problem is that they were funded with borrowed money.

      • CaptSternn says:


        Yes, bird, the wars were contributing factors in the deficits. The last GOP deficit, including the wars, was $161 billion.

        Texan, your link … http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

        Turtles, as with the bird, yes, the wars were funded and they were counted as part of the deficit, that last GOP deficit including the wars was $161 billion. And the tea party movement got started while Bush43 was president and republicans controlled congress. Reality is not your friend.

  16. texan5142 says:

    flypusher says:
    November 14, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    “Who was ragging on their education or credentials here? It’s their ideas and more importantly their actions that some of us take issue with”


  17. nofigleaf says:

    One other point about Virginia: The Republican Bob McDonnell probably would have lost in 2009 if the Democrats had chosen Brian Moran rather than Creigh Deeds in their primary. Deeds was a weak candidate and poor campaigner. The quality of the candidates, rather than their party, does matter in some races in some states and in some years. I agree that Virginia is behind the blue wall despite some inferences otherwise. The McDonnell win was, as you point out, an “isolated victory.” [Note: I’m a progressive independent (current Democrats are too conservative for me), but I enjoy reading your posts because you are one of the few reality-based Republicans. Your arguments and facts are spot on, and your writing is superb. Sadly for you (but happily for me), your fellow Republicans aren’t listening. I think they’re doomed.]

  18. kabuzz61 says:

    Wow! You notify Clinton and I will whomever wins the GOP primary so they don’t waste time or money running. Chris Ladd says it’s a lock.

    It wasn’t a dismal turnout. The dem’s tried and tried to get out their voters but they refused to go. Why? The answer you don’t want to hear. The dem’s aren’t liked by them at this time.

    So continue on with your ‘blue wall’ and master plans. Don’t forget your piece a few short years ago how the GOP has to change or it will wither and die. That was an excellent article.

    • flypusher says:

      “It wasn’t a dismal turnout. The dem’s tried and tried to get out their voters but they refused to go..”

      You realize those 2 sentences totally contradict each other, don’t you?

      Probably not.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Fly – It depends on your definition of dismal. High voter turnouts especially by the young and minorities are not a good thing for RWNJs so high turnout percentages by those groups is a dismal situation to the kitling.

    • goplifer says:

      An interesting argument would look like this:

      Your premise is wrong because you have failed to properly account for the something or other regarding the exurban deelie and such and forth. Your numbers regarding the drift in demographics have an error that undercounts the thing or other or something.

      A lousy argument looks like this:

      YOU’RE LYING BECAUSE YOU’RE BAD!!! My team rocks and everything I know about the world is right and you are telling lies.

      It’s compelling and enthusiastic, but it often fails to be persuasive…or accurate or true.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Not when your premise is incorrect. When GW Bush started spending too much in 2005, the conservative base stayed home during the midterms. Fast forward, the dem’s rebelled. Both for the same reason. They didn’t trust the president anymore after all the support that was given.

      You can dress it up all you want, but that is the political reality. Statistics are just short of lies as you can make them prove anything you want.

      I think you are wrong as your team is but not bad, and we shall see if the GOP can do better. I left them in the wind before and I’ll do it again if they underperform.

      Chris, you seem desperate to prove a point.

      • Turtles Run says:

        ” When GW Bush started spending too much in 2005, the conservative base stayed home during the midterms. ”

        Buzzy – So the GOP stayed home because of the amount of spending done by Bush in 2005? The deficit of 2005 was lower than the previous two years, so your claim is that because Bush’s deficit spending was lower “conservatives” stayed home.

        I see (rubbing my chin)

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Turtles, you do recall the unfunded Medicare prescription drug plan? Do you? There, there. It’s alright, you just forgot.

      • Turtles Run says:

        I do, but you specifically called out spending not the Medicare Perscription Plan.

        What is it that you always complain about? Oh yes, moving goal posts. Don’t hurt your back.

      • Crogged says:

        Yeah, I remember Medicare Plan D–Buzz why don’t you take a moment and look back at how it was passed in the US House by a certain Houston area majority leader? Every time “Obamacare” is brought up you say how you wish the Republican’s hadn’t set the standard the Dems used in 2009. Haven’t you? Once maybe?

        Free medicine to senior citizens wasn’t ‘buying votes’ was it?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Crogged, you’re making my argument for me. That is where the conservatives parted with the GOP.

        Turtles, not moving goal posts, that is an expensive bill. Billions. Liberals like to spend like drunken sailors but conservatives don’t.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “Liberals like to spend and pay for things like drunken sailors but conservatives like to spend but don’t like to pay for those things.”

        I do not recall the so-called conservatives protesting the costs of the unfunded wars or the cost of the unfunded tax cuts.

      • Crogged says:

        Oh, I see, you are conservative and believe in conservation, pragmatism and stability, which is why we need to change everything about American statutory law since the 1930’s to fit your view of the world. Thanks for the mud.

      • CaptSternn says:

        $10 trillion in new debt over the last eight years says that is not true, Turtles. Also, the wars were funded, congress voted for the funds about once a year or so, democrats voted in favor of those funds. And you don’t fund not taking all of what a person owns. That’s like claiming you had to pay for the money you didn’t get because you didn’t rob a bank today.

        Then again, you are in with the socialists, all property rightfully belongs to the federal government and anything that a person is allowed to keep or own is a government expense.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy – When you successor leaves you a $1.4T deficit and an economy sliding down the toilet with 750K job losses a month it is hard to right that ship is a couple of years. Feel free to go on your blaming Bush rant. But remember this the Bush years saw the deficits go up to $1.4T while Obama has seen them go down every year.

        Plus the GOTP ran a person for President in 2012 that promised to put $7 trillion of debt on the books right away. Hardly, the sign of a fiscal conservative but then you guys never were.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Exactly Turtles. The democrats had a super majority and spent and spent and didn’t oversee their appropriations. You finally get it. The executive branch can’t appropriate any money.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Turtles, congress controls spending. Democrats were in control of congress with the $1.4 trillion deficit, and Obama spent it. Obama is a democrat. The last GOP deficit was $161 billion. Still too much, but not the $10 trillion democrats have caused over the past eight years. You own it. Deal with it.

  19. flypusher says:

    Some inquiring minds still want to know which blue states a Ted Cruz or Rand Paul would have a realistic chance of flipping in ’16.

    Hell I’ll even lower that bar and accept way-out-there scenarios for that flipping.

    • goplifer says:


      First of all, the candidate only matters marginally. At this point, a historically great GOP candidate, someone we’ve never heard of who doesn’t currently exist, might be worth a 4-5pt bump over Romney, just enough to get to about 52% and in the process perhaps flip VA and Nevada to take a win. Remember, the GOP House candidates, in an absolute romp with horrible voter turnout, only won 52% of the vote in 2014.

      A lousy GOP candidate, like Cruz or Paul, will still probably only cost 4-5pts in the other direction. Lots of people will vote for them because it doesn’t matter and they can’t stomach a vote for the Democrat. It will be hard for even a bad Rep candidate to finish with less than 43 or 44 pct of the vote.

      Cruz is probably as bad as it gets because he has 0 appeal outside the Republican southern and empty-west core and he’s terrifying enough that Dems won’t stay home, even though it isn’t close. Cruz could break that margin on the downside.

      The real impact of the GOP Prez candidate is in the Senate and House elections. Cruz or Paul (or worse, this time we could perhaps even get someone worse) would tank the Congressional elections. A credible candidate like Bush or Portman might help the GOP hold some ground on Capitol hill while losing the Prez race.

      The only question we will be answering in 2016 is who holds Congress and by how much. The GOP Prez nominee will have a big influence on that outcome.

      • flypusher says:

        I was tossing that out as a challenge to those who maintain the problem is that the GOP Presidential nominees aren’t conservative enough, but I appreciate the additional analysis from you.

      • flypusher says:

        Also it will be interesting to see what issues actually get tackled in ’17. I had asked Bob Inglis during his UH seminar about when people in Congress would start serious efforts on carbon tax bills. He figured that it could start once Obama was officially a lame duck ( after midterms). So I’ll be watching for that, but I suspect it may take a new Prez to get that started.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        If you want to believe a dem is a shoo in for pres in 2016, I wouldn’t run Hillary. She is so easy to tie to Obama which the populace is so tired of. But you will.

        You know this is true. Also, just because you don’t like Cruz or Paul doesn’t wipe out their impressive credentials and education. It is a liberal tactic but it won’t work again. You need new tools.

      • Crogged says:

        Of course we can claim a sitting Senator isn’t ‘experienced’-seems like that strategy worked well for Republicans.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        The words were leadership experience, which as we see now, he does not possess.

      • flypusher says:

        “Also, just because you don’t like Cruz or Paul doesn’t wipe out their impressive credentials and education”

        Who was ragging on their education or credentials here? It’s their ideas and more importantly their actions that some of us take issue with.

      • goplifer says:

        And as a follow-up, no GOP Prez nominee has managed to win 51% of the popular vote since 1988.

      • Crogged says:

        Oh, if i stick the word ‘leadership’ in front of other words it changes meaning. This lack of ‘leadership experience’ is why you’re still hoping to overturn a law the leadership experience lacking president helped get passed and has survived three national elections and a Supreme Court decision. His bumbling cost Osama bin Laden his life and he amateurishly got Russia to get chemical weapons out of Syria. Now rather than nanny sit the Arab nations he uses American airpower to degrade the world threatening ISIS, but leaves the hard work of ‘boots on the ground’ to those people in the region, just like any pragmatic idiot would do. Then there’s the horror of what has happened with our economy since 2007 and 2008, all those private sector jobs and none of those Tea Party beloved ‘government jobs’ in lowering the jobless rate. Yeah, just like after Clinton left office and Bush was sworn in-the Onion headline was “Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Over”………..

      • texan5142 says:

        That was beautiful Crogged.

      • rightonrush says:

        Rand Paul is going to have to decide either run for Senate or for the presidency but not for both in the Kentucky primary. I don’t see Ky changing their constitution for Mr. Paul, he’s just not that special. Ted Cruz will bomb so fast that all he will be is a smear, not even Republicans outside of Texas can tolerate him.. That leaves Jeb….and Jeb. Portman doesn’t stand a chance because he has a gay son and he changed his mind regarding gay marriage.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Crogged, spoken like Brian Williams, MSNBC. and dem talking points.

        On Osama, if Obama had intell on his location confirmed by other nations intell services and he moved in on Osama but he wasn’t there, would you believe he tried or was deliberately making up the facts???

      • Crogged says:

        Are you confused, I thought you didn’t watch television news? You watch MSNBC and write third grade political strategy for Republicans?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Um, Crogged, maybe you didn’t really want to go there. Let’s see …

        The democrats didn’t exactly “survive” the last three elections. They took a shellacking in 2010 mainly over the PPACA and lost the house. They would have lost the senate f all seats were up for grabs at the time, not that I think it should be that way. They held the status quo in 2012, and have now lost at least eight senate seats and contro of the senate. Harry Reid will no longer be able to protect Obama, and the PPACA is once again going to the Supreme Court.

        Bin Laden is dead, but that is just one person. When Obama took the Oval Office, al Qaeda was defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the run in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The organization was nearly crushed. Now it is coming back strong, we have the splinter group ISIS on the rise and the Muslim Brotherhood is on the rise.

        Russia? Retook Crimea and Obama backed down on the missile defense system, a big win for Russia.

        The economic crash happened after the democrats gained real control over the federal government, and what little recovery has happened has been slow and small.

        We are having to go back into Iran, even with some boots on the ground, and the airstrikes, the very few airstrikes, are not really slowing down ISIS.

        There were two wars going on when Bush43 took office, one more than when Clinton took office, so there wasn’t really peace at that time. Republicans held control of the federal government from the 1994 elections until the 2006 elections, though democrats did hold the senate for the first two years of Bush43’s first term. The prosperity lasted from 1995 until 2007, while republicans were in control of things, with the exception of two recessions from the dot com crash and 9/11/2001 that didn’t last very long.

        This is what is scary and a big problem with our nation now, people like you, Texan, Turtles and others have no depth of understanding or knowledge. Y’all just trot out talking points that are not based on facts nor reality, just because you think they sound good, and y’all tend to vote based on the ignorance. It is deliberate ignorance because the information is out there, it has been repeated over and over, you have been informed, and yet you refuse facts and reality in favor of the lies and bumpersticker slogans.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Crogged has been schooled.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Iraq, not Iran. I can’t even claim a typo on that one as the “N” key is on the complete oppposite end of the keyboard as the “Q” key. D’oh!

      • CaptSternn says:

        Opppppposite. Ok, I give up on typing. I like my Alienware keyboard, but it does not suit me with my lack of typing abilities. Double “D’oh!”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 454 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: