Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The Republican Party is going to get one Tuesday courtesy of Alabama nut job voters.

Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung.

I think the Senate can keep him out after he wins. Then the AL governor selects his replacement no?

Either way keeping the seat red is all that matters...and I'm glad that bothers you and your fellow hillary supporters.

Speaking of nut jobs, why don’t you and your formerly Republican wife take a day off and campaign for Doug Jones? He could use your support.

SDHornet wrote:I think the Senate can keep him out after he wins. Then the AL governor selects his replacement no?

Either way keeping the seat red is all that matters...and I'm glad that bothers you and your fellow hillary supporters.

This.
JSO, again, is evaluating the game before halftime.
Let this play out.

Hey JSO, my buddy in Birmingham says Doug Jones supporters have been going around the neighborhoods, tearing down Roy Moore yard signs and getting into shouting matches with people outside their homes. How's that for mental instability?

SDHornet wrote:I think the Senate can keep him out after he wins. Then the AL governor selects his replacement no?

Either way keeping the seat red is all that matters...and I'm glad that bothers you and your fellow hillary supporters.

Ibanez wrote:Hey JSO, my buddy in Birmingham says Doug Jones supporters have been going around the neighborhoods, tearing down Roy Moore yard signs and getting into shouting matches with people outside their homes. How's that for mental instability?

Par for the course.

CAA Flagship wrote:

SDHornet wrote:I think the Senate can keep him out after he wins. Then the AL governor selects his replacement no?

Either way keeping the seat red is all that matters...and I'm glad that bothers you and your fellow hillary supporters.

This.
JSO, again, is evaluating the game before halftime.
Let this play out.

Well, I'm not as confident of Moore winning now that it's election eve because RCP added two polls and it is one of the stranger things I've seen in polling. You've got a Fox News poll conducted 12/7 - 12/10 estimating Jones up by 10 and an Emerson poll conducted 12/7 - 12/9 estimating Moore up by 9.

I'd say now that on election eve there's not high confidence either way but if I had to bet I'd bet Moore wins.

Either way the Republicans are screwed.

SDHornet wrote:I think the Senate can keep him out after he wins. Then the AL governor selects his replacement no?

Either way keeping the seat red is all that matters...and I'm glad that bothers you and your fellow hillary supporters.

You just don't get it, SD. I am as conservative as they come. What I see is conservatives really, really screwing up by throwing their support behind people like Trump and now Moore. Short term gain at the price of long term disaster. I'm not saying the things I'm saying because I want liberals in control. Just the opposite. I'm saying what I'm saying because I see conservatives destroying their own movement by embracing people like Trump and Moore.

JohnStOnge wrote:

I‘m calling BS on this- there no way that in 2016 blacks and Asians made up 43% of the electorate in TX and 38% in FL...

JohnStOnge wrote:

SDHornet wrote:I think the Senate can keep him out after he wins. Then the AL governor selects his replacement no?

Either way keeping the seat red is all that matters...and I'm glad that bothers you and your fellow hillary supporters.

You just don't get it, SD. I am as conservative as they come. What I see is conservatives really, really screwing up by throwing their support behind people like Trump and now Moore. Short term gain at the price of long term disaster. I'm not saying the things I'm saying because I want liberals in control. Just the opposite. I'm saying what I'm saying because I see conservatives destroying their own movement by embracing people like Trump and Moore.

No I get it completely. Has nothing to do with "conservative". You people lost it when you threw support behind a sleazeball like Cruz who had zero chance of winning over independents due to the "creepy" factor.

You clearly haven't been watching the leftist media and how they have been using anything to eviscerate conks (some legitimate, but mostly glaring over reach). Because of the donks decision to double down on the far left agenda (see PC victim-hood culture, blatant bias for anything anti-Trump), it's win at all costs now for conks...with the end game of having enough senate seats to fill RBGs SCOTUS seat when she kicks the bucket. If you weren't so butt hurt about your girl hillary losing in spectacular fashion, you would understand what is at stake.

SDHornet wrote:I think the Senate can keep him out after he wins. Then the AL governor selects his replacement no?

Either way keeping the seat red is all that matters...and I'm glad that bothers you and your fellow hillary supporters.

Roll Tide!

... better keep yo brown ass out of Alybammy, boy....

JohnStOnge wrote:

SDHornet wrote:I think the Senate can keep him out after he wins. Then the AL governor selects his replacement no?

Either way keeping the seat red is all that matters...and I'm glad that bothers you and your fellow hillary supporters.

You just don't get it, SD. I am as conservative as they come. What I see is conservatives really, really screwing up by throwing their support behind people like Trump and now Moore. Short term gain at the price of long term disaster. I'm not saying the things I'm saying because I want liberals in control. Just the opposite. I'm saying what I'm saying because I see conservatives destroying their own movement by embracing people like Trump and Moore.

Because that's who they are, John. Wtf is so hard to understand? It's the nature of the beast.

The quicker this system collapses the quicker we can replace it with a modern form of government and start working our way back up from the bottom of the first world's longevity and infant mortality lists.

Burn, baby, burn!

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
You just don't get it, SD. I am as conservative as they come. What I see is conservatives really, really screwing up by throwing their support behind people like Trump and now Moore. Short term gain at the price of long term disaster. I'm not saying the things I'm saying because I want liberals in control. Just the opposite. I'm saying what I'm saying because I see conservatives destroying their own movement by embracing people like Trump and Moore.

Because that's who they are, John. Wtf is so hard to understand? It's the nature of the beast.

The quicker this system collapses the quicker we can replace it with a modern form of government and start working our way back up from the bottom of the first world's longevity and infant mortality lists.

Burn, baby, burn!

There's some truth here. But SD also has a point in that the Dems have focused on ancillary/gotcha type issues and continue to avoid big issue populism. We're a less rapey, mean, and outwardly racist version of conks is not a winning strategy.

JohnStOnge wrote:

SDHornet wrote:I think the Senate can keep him out after he wins. Then the AL governor selects his replacement no?

Either way keeping the seat red is all that matters...and I'm glad that bothers you and your fellow hillary supporters.

You just don't get it, SD. I am as conservative as they come. What I see is conservatives really, really screwing up by throwing their support behind people like Trump and now Moore. Short term gain at the price of long term disaster. I'm not saying the things I'm saying because I want liberals in control. Just the opposite. I'm saying what I'm saying because I see conservatives destroying their own movement by embracing people like Trump and Moore.

Some of our best friends are women, blacks and jews. One of our lawyers is a jew!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/ ... index.html

kalm wrote:Some of our best friends are women, blacks and jews. One of our lawyers is a jew!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/ ... index.html

That Roy Moore - a leftover of a bygone era.

kalm wrote:Some of our best friends are women, blacks and jews. One of our lawyers is a jew!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/ ... index.html

kalm wrote:Some of our best friends are women, blacks and jews. One of our lawyers is a jew!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/ ... index.html

Kayla Moore makes Sarah Palin look like Einstein.

kalm wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Because that's who they are, John. Wtf is so hard to understand? It's the nature of the beast.

The quicker this system collapses the quicker we can replace it with a modern form of government and start working our way back up from the bottom of the first world's longevity and infant mortality lists.

Burn, baby, burn!

There's some truth here. But SD also has a point in that the Dems have focused on ancillary/gotcha type issues and continue to avoid big issue populism. We're a less rapey, mean, and outwardly racist version of conks is not a winning strategy.

It doesn't matter what the Dems do in those terms in the final analysis. All of the underlying demographic and cultural trends are in their favor. Unless the Republicans do something to address that in an effective way, the handwriting is on the wall for them. As the cliche goes: "It's not a question of if..."

And the Republicans are now engaged in doing exactly the opposite of what they needed to do. They're validating the stereotype of Republicans being frothing at the mouth nut job xenophobic sexist racists.

But you know one thing I've been forced to come to grips with during the past 2 years is that the Republicans really do have a problem with a substantial portion of its base being nut job frothing at the mouth idiots. As I've written before I defended the Republican base many times over the years against the claims that they are ignorant and hateful. But there's no more defending them. Or I should say that there is no more defending those among them who created a situation where we having flipping Donald Trump as President of the United States and somebody like Roy Moore is probably about to be declared the winner of a Senate race.

SDHornet wrote: No I get it completely. Has nothing to do with "conservative". You people lost it when you threw support behind a sleazeball like Boobs who had zero chance of winning over independents due to the "creepy" factor.

C r u z consistently polled better against Clinton than Trump did. He was one of many better alternatives. When the whole gang was in the Republican primariesTrump never did better than 5th best against Hillary. When it got down to C r u z, Kasich, and Trump, Trump was 3rd of three in terms of polling against Hillary. He was never anywhere close to the strongest general election candidate the Republicans could have fielded.

And yes the overall vote polls I'm talking about were basically accurate. They said Clinton would beat Trump in the overall vote and she did.

MANY of the Republican candidates could have beaten Clinton the way things turned out with the FBI investigation and the last minute "re-opening" of the case and all. You didn't have to completely destroy the credibility of the Republican Party by branding it as the Party of Trump to win. And you could have had a Republican President who was not mentally ill and was actually qualified for the job.

JohnStOnge wrote:

SDHornet wrote: No I get it completely. Has nothing to do with "conservative". You people lost it when you threw support behind a sleazeball like Boobs who had zero chance of winning over independents due to the "creepy" factor.

C r u z consistently polled better against Clinton than Trump did. He was one of many better alternatives. When the whole gang was in the Republican primariesTrump never did better than 5th best against Hillary. When it got down to C r u z, Kasich, and Trump, Trump was 3rd of three in terms of polling against Hillary. He was never anywhere close to the strongest general election candidate the Republicans could have fielded.

And yes the overall vote polls I'm talking about were basically accurate. They said Clinton would beat Trump in the overall vote and she did.

MANY of the Republican candidates could have beaten Clinton the way things turned out with the FBI investigation and the last minute "re-opening" of the case and all. You didn't have to completely destroy the credibility of the Republican Party by branding it as the Party of Trump to win. And you could have had a Republican President who was not mentally ill and was actually qualified for the job.

Stop it, you're embarrassing yourself. Bush would've lost to Clinton - people didn't want the status quo and he didn't have the corrupt machine that Clinton had. Cruz would've lost to Clinton - Cruz is the anti-Christ, people tend to vote against the devil. Rubio was a lightweight and still is. Kasich is the only one who might have had a chance, the rest of the GOP field were a collection of buffoons. Unfortunately for Clinton, people decided they didn't like pay for play politics and corrupt political dynasties and the buffoon who did come out of the GOP happened to be the most social media savvy of them all and it worked for an electorate that wanted to give the middle finger to the status quo.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:
There's some truth here. But SD also has a point in that the Dems have focused on ancillary/gotcha type issues and continue to avoid big issue populism. We're a less rapey, mean, and outwardly racist version of conks is not a winning strategy.

It doesn't matter what the Dems do in those terms in the final analysis. All of the underlying demographic and cultural trends are in their favor. Unless the Republicans do something to address that in an effective way, the handwriting is on the wall for them. As the cliche goes: "It's not a question of if..."

And the Republicans are now engaged in doing exactly the opposite of what they needed to do. They're validating the stereotype of Republicans being frothing at the mouth nut job xenophobic sexist racists.

They guy who authored that study about longterm demographics pointing to a multi-decade Democratic hegemony already declared his own research to be flawed and incorrect. African-Americans are the only racial group that votes as a bloc, the non-uniform Hispanic group is extremely varied and does not vote as a bloc. You're the only one who is still citing that research as gospel, including the author of it as I indicated.