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
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.
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!
Man, anyone who puts that much effort into not seeing racism isn't trying to convince her readers, she's trying to convince *herself.*
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
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.
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.