Well heck, racism is when you lynch minorities because there's hate in your heart. Trumpism is more about treating them like hostile foreigners because they don't really "get" American culture -- that's not racism, that's just common-sense science!
That's interesting — because the Wall Street Journal found that suburban men broke 50-47 for Republicans, suburban women broke 58-22 for Democrats, and the overall suburban break was 53-44 Democrats. This suggests that the men aren’t the ones they should be trying to win over — that is, if they’re actually interested in winning elections.
Well, the Republicans probably can't win at 50-47 in men. That is worse than the average suburban vote in 2016, which was 50-45 Trump. I could not find a suburban gender breakdown for 2016 in literally minutes of searching, but the Republicans lost suburban men some, too. Probably not as heavily as they lost women, but lose they did. So they probably need to regain both men and women in the suburbs, which hopefully won't happen
See, that's my point -- if they wanted to get more votes, suburban men is a less productive demo than suburban women; if they win back the men they had, they only gain a few points, but if they started seriously going for suburban women, they might make up the loss. Fortunately for humanity, none of these guys can talk to women.
AFAIK, neither Gillum nor Abrams has actually lost their respective races yet so there's that. Also, of course, neither went anywhere near anything socialist. The only reason their elections have been close has been voter suppression against Democrats. We all know that and so does Selena (unless she's a real moron). Burt basically, Selena has painted herself into a narrative corner and can't figure out how to get out without messing up the floor royally. Tough luck Selena but that's what you get working for a rag like the Washington Examiner.
Brian Kemp is the kind of person that matches her narrative--small town, ambitious (never mind him growing up near UGA and being groomed from the beginning for Republican stardom), so it fits her mind that Kemp was a "weak" candidate (who had his thumb on the scales of the election machinery but whatever).
It's one of those uniquely Southern and uniquely awful things we have to deal with down here, like boiled peanuts, shiplap on interior walls and Newton Leroy Gingrich.
The reason why the Dems didn't win 63 seats was some guy named Gerry Mander, and his buddy John Roberts. "There is no longer such a (racial) disparity" my asshole.
Are Zito and Huckasan related or just soul sisters?
It's like some sort of Zen koan. Why did the conservative candidate lose? Because the Democrat was conservative!
Is it too early for a drink?
It's Conservatism O' Clock somewhere. . .
Never!
Phew, thanks!
Man, anyone who puts that much effort into not seeing racism isn't trying to convince her readers, she's trying to convince *herself.*
Well heck, racism is when you lynch minorities because there's hate in your heart. Trumpism is more about treating them like hostile foreigners because they don't really "get" American culture -- that's not racism, that's just common-sense science!
GAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's interesting — because the Wall Street Journal found that suburban men broke 50-47 for Republicans, suburban women broke 58-22 for Democrats, and the overall suburban break was 53-44 Democrats. This suggests that the men aren’t the ones they should be trying to win over — that is, if they’re actually interested in winning elections.
Well, the Republicans probably can't win at 50-47 in men. That is worse than the average suburban vote in 2016, which was 50-45 Trump. I could not find a suburban gender breakdown for 2016 in literally minutes of searching, but the Republicans lost suburban men some, too. Probably not as heavily as they lost women, but lose they did. So they probably need to regain both men and women in the suburbs, which hopefully won't happen
See, that's my point -- if they wanted to get more votes, suburban men is a less productive demo than suburban women; if they win back the men they had, they only gain a few points, but if they started seriously going for suburban women, they might make up the loss. Fortunately for humanity, none of these guys can talk to women.
AFAIK, neither Gillum nor Abrams has actually lost their respective races yet so there's that. Also, of course, neither went anywhere near anything socialist. The only reason their elections have been close has been voter suppression against Democrats. We all know that and so does Selena (unless she's a real moron). Burt basically, Selena has painted herself into a narrative corner and can't figure out how to get out without messing up the floor royally. Tough luck Selena but that's what you get working for a rag like the Washington Examiner.
Brian Kemp is the kind of person that matches her narrative--small town, ambitious (never mind him growing up near UGA and being groomed from the beginning for Republican stardom), so it fits her mind that Kemp was a "weak" candidate (who had his thumb on the scales of the election machinery but whatever).
It's one of those uniquely Southern and uniquely awful things we have to deal with down here, like boiled peanuts, shiplap on interior walls and Newton Leroy Gingrich.
The reason why the Dems didn't win 63 seats was some guy named Gerry Mander, and his buddy John Roberts. "There is no longer such a (racial) disparity" my asshole.