GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread

[136or142]

Ossoff has political experience, just not held elected office.

[136or142]

Ossoff probably wasn't the best candidate Dems could've chosen.

Sigh, care to tell us which was the best candidate?

Let me guess we should just run bernie-esque candidates across the board regardless of social/demographic profile?

That's not what I was thinking at all. Dems should have ran a candidate who isn't a 30 year old documentary filmmaker with no political experience.

Justin Trudeau was a local high school drama teacher...

You are aware that his father was a former infamous Prime Minister of Canada right? You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Justin Trudeau had also been an M.P for seven years before becoming Prime Minister.

[136or142]

Whatever the final result in South Carolina, Norman ran as 'the most conservative Republican in the State Legislature" (or the state house, either one) who promised he was not going to Washington to advance legislation, but basically to block everything.  Maybe this is some evidence that, while the so-called 'Freedom Caucus' Republicans can win their party's nominations, they're going to increasingly struggle to win the general election.

I'm not sure if the 'Freedom Caucus' is seen as pro Trump or anti Trump by the idiot Trump supporters.

[136or142]

This election proves to me that the Republican Party is no longer a political party, it is a cult of low-IQ extremists that has no objectives for governing. It exists only to hold onto power at any cost. It is incredibly sad that getting people to vote Democratic when an incumbent President is disliked by 60% of voters is like trying to get people to shop at Kmart. America is doomed.

57.1% of the people in the great GA-6 have a four-year degree or better, and 79.5% went to some college.  Let's compare that to nearby GA-4, a D+24 district represented by a Democrat, where 29% have a four-year degree or better, and 61.6% went to some college.

You really shouldn't call either party's voters low-IQ when there are literally millions of each, but at least don't sound low IQ yourself while doing it.

It's the socially liberal SJWs who defend the idiot Republican cultists who I dislike the most.

the idiot Trump cult may be capable in their line of work, but they've all been programmed to mindlessly chant "fake news" at every story critical of President Trump or the Republican Party.  

You can also look at the thousands of Republicans who pointed out that 'carbon is the stuff of life' after some fossil fuel association put out an anti global warming ad stating just that.  Every one that I saw regurgitated the tag line in that ad word for word.  

If you look at the polling on people who 'believe' global warming is real, it's almost entirely Republicans who are the deniers, and and overwhelming number of Republicans are deniers, so this isn't a case of me believing that a relatively small number of Republican who post on message boards falsely represent the vast majority of Republicans.

I presume they must have some capabilities to hold a job to afford the internet, but base Republican voters are idiot cultists.

[136or142]

And would you all suggest that out of the tens of millions of people that voted for Democrats in 2016, the most loyal ones are not in large part "idiots"?

Yes, some hard core Democrats mindlessly regurgitate what the Democratic Party leaders say as well, but I don't see how anybody can dispute the material difference between the Republican base and the Democratic base in terms of their willingness to believe and regurgitate absolute nonsense, such as I pointed above.  

1.The hard core idiot Republican base is about 35% of total voters.  These are the people who continue to support President Trump.  I don't think the idiots on the Democratic side is anywhere near that large.

2.The Republican Party has an infrastructure of non elected dissemblers at Fox 'News' on talk radio (not just Rush Limbaugh and other national high profile radio show hosts, but in every state there are local versions, like Lars Larson in Oregon and Washington state), newspapers like the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner and the New York Post, and internet sites like World Net Daily and Breitbart.    I know of no such equivalence on the Democratic Party side.

The idiot Republican base here and elsewhere would say "New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Rachel Maddow..." what have you, but while these outlets obviously make mistakes from time to time I think there is no question that these outlets have a standard of basic intellectual honesty (not that every opinion journalists at those newspapers or guests on CNN do) that Rush Limbaugh et al do not have.  

Unless you can show to me an equivalent cast of high profile dissemblers on the left who the idiot Democratic base mindlessly regurgitates, I think it's fair for me to say that your comment is based on nothing more than the mindlessly lazy thinking of 'both sides do it/both sides are equally bad."

The best I think you could probably come up with are 'The Young Turks' but then, as we saw in the election, unlike the base idiot Republican dissemblers of whom some were Never Trumpers until he won their party's nomination, The Young Turks hardly ever embraced Hillary Clinton.

[136or142]

And would you all suggest that out of the tens of millions of people that voted for Democrats in 2016, the most loyal ones are not in large part "idiots"?

Yes, some hard core Democrats mindlessly regurgitate what the Democratic Party leaders say as well, but I don't see how anybody can dispute the material difference between the Republican base and the Democratic base in terms of their willingness to believe and regurgitate absolute nonsense, such as I pointed above.  

1.The hard core idiot Republican base is about 35% of total voters.  These are the people who continue to support President Trump.  I don't think the idiots on the Democratic side is anywhere near that large.

2.The Republican Party has an infrastructure of non elected dissemblers at Fox 'News' on talk radio (not just Rush Limbaugh and other national high profile radio show hosts, but in every state there are local versions, like Lars Larson in Oregon and Washington state), newspapers like the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner and the New York Post, and internet sites like World Net Daily and Breitbart.    I know of no such equivalence on the Democratic Party side.

The idiot Republican base here and elsewhere would say "New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Rachel Maddow..." what have you, but while these outlets obviously make mistakes from time to time I think there is no question that these outlets have a standard of basic intellectual honesty (not that every opinion journalists at those newspapers or guests on CNN do) that Rush Limbaugh et al do not have.  

Unless you can show to me an equivalent cast of high profile dissemblers on the left who the idiot Democratic base mindlessly regurgitates, I think it's fair for me to say that your comment is based on nothing more than the mindlessly lazy thinking of 'both sides do it/both sides are equally bad."

The best I think you could probably come up with are 'The Young Turks' but then, as we saw in the election, unlike the base idiot Republican dissemblers of whom some were Never Trumpers until he won their party's nomination, The Young Turks hardly ever embraced Hillary Clinton.

AM Joy (which is a pretty good show sometimes), Bill Maher, etc. are the equivalents.

I don't know who AM Joy is.  Bill Maher has a lot of problems, but I haven't seen anything from him saying things that are simply false in the way that Limbaugh, Fox 'News', Breitbart, New York Post... do.  

Also, what is the totally number of Democrats who use AM Joy or Bill Maher for the primary news sources?  With the idiot Republican base, I think virtually all of them only read, listen to or watch those sources.

There is simply no equivalent of these outlets on the left as there is on the right, and to the degree that there are left wing dissemblers (from an earlier day I would have mentioned the left wing loony conspiracy theorist Ray Talifero on KGO in San Francisco) they have nowhere near the impact.

I should point out here for people who aren't familiar with KGO and who might think "ah far left liberal talk show station from San Francisco", their prime time weekday host (8:00 PM) I believe was the mostly right wing Bill Wattenberg (he was a nuclear physicist whose prime interest was in promoting nuclear power and frequently alleged that anybody who opposed nuclear power was either a dupe or part of an anti nuclear power conspiracy) but he was also mostly on the right.  Ray Talifero was essentially buried by being on from 1-5 AM (not that he deserved a prime time spot.)

I believe KGO also had a right leaning host during the home drive prime time spot (3-? PM.)  Like a lot of talk radio stations, KGO had a news/weather/sports traffic program for the early work drive prime time spot (7A.M to ?.)