RE âElections are the one opportunity we have to see what the people think. And what they think is clear: Trump sucks.â
So last time, when seriously super-sucky suckiness was already shown, THE PEOPLE CLEARLY thought that was OK?
BIT OF A PROBLEM.
Plus, your post/source contains a logical contradiction.IF elections are the one opportunity you have to see what the people think, then the last Presidential election is the only valid available indication of the peoples thinking on Trump.
Democratic candidates winning in Blue-heavy districts and states is not an indicator of âpeople are tired of Trumpâ etc. Itâs business as usual in these areas. The earlier defections of Democrats to the Republican party is a more reliable indicator of political trends toward the Republican (conservative?) side of the spectrum.
I think it would be prudent to wait until weâre closer to the mid-terms for reassessment. Probably around June or July after the Gallup poll is released.
Since neither is a deep blue state, can you point to the GOP victories?
I think the polls arenât as useful as election results. Based on the results we have now, we can draw conclusions now, but they will be weak. Predicting the midterms will get easier closer to the midterms, but to spin the recent elections as neutral or positive for dumpy is weak sauce at best
I see it as more tempest in a teapot and neutral to national politics in a non-presidential or midterm election year. Most people donât participate in state or municipal elections even though the impacts are more easily influenced and directly affect the lives of the voters who live there.
Mississippi flipping two state seats blue is one I would call a victory for democrats. Will it play out trending blue in the midterms or after remains to be seen.
I wouldnât call Georgia a âDeep Red State" either. Theyâve been more left or middle-of-the road excepting the rural voters that trend red.
As for GOP âvictoriesâ Iâm more familiar with national level or in Texas (where Iâm from). GOP still hasnât touched on other issues I believe are essential to investigate (insider trading and stock market manipulation), but itâll never happen because everybody in congress is using the corruption and legal loopholes to enrich themselves at our expense.
DaVinci created one of the first known globes of the earth (1504), going against the church views of a flat earth. In those times, the Church was a very powerful political power, much more powerful than today and not a political power one wanted to upset
Just googled and read an article about that. Interesting stuff.
Geoocentric Dogma - not flat earth at the time. The danger wasnât necessarily Heliocentric Theory as it was that certain scientific theories could be seen as challenging the authority of the Catholic Church to interpret scripture - the source and justification of their political power until the 1700âs with the rise of imperial authority and the industrial revolution.
All about power and money, if the Church would have agreed the earth was round, then they had to give up on other science too. So kill all ideas of science and get people to just follow the Churchâs interpretation of the Bible instead
You feel that way even though the site you link shows Republicans winning 6 or the last 7 Presidential (8 of last 11, 10 of last 14) elections in Georgia? (and you canât just remove a big part of the demographic that runs deep red to show that the state is more left or center).
Iâd think defection of Democrat politicians to the Republican side might indicate a certain lack of integrity of those politicians, though I suppose that isnât incompatible with an underlying right-wing affinity,