They gerrymander the hell out of the district, pass archaic and useless voter ID and cross-check laws to keep legal citizens from voting and still barely hold that seat. What does that say about their "mandate"? I just wonder how many legal citizens of that district were not allowed to vote at their legal polling place? Or is that just "fake news"?

Shows that the support for the president is unwavering outside liberal circles.

seahawk wrote:

Shows that the support for the president is unwavering outside liberal circles.

Or that in some areas, carrying a (D) after your name is sitll toxic.

I particularly enjoyed Karen Handel complaining about Ossoff getting outside support while saying nothing about Paul Ryan, Pence, Cruz, and others coming to the district to campaign for her while allowing super PACs to air ads on her behalf.

She marginally improved Trump's performance in the district, but still underperformed Price significantly.

End result of all the special elections so far: Democrats have improved their standing. Districts won by incumbents by over 20 points were cut to single digit victories. The seats are in GOP hands for the time being; the true test will be the 2018 midterm. Republicans should be concerned about this.

seb146 wrote:

I just wonder how many legal citizens of that district were not allowed to vote at their legal polling place?

Do the research and let us know. Might be interesting.

Good news.

The simple fact is that Democrats won't be able to spend such vast amounts of money on individual Congressional races during the Midterms. So although the Republican margin of victory has indeed been cut:
a) The Republicans still won
b) The margin was cut at a huge monetary cost to the Democratic Party

The race in Georgia's 6th Congressional District was an anomaly. I'd be very careful before making too many predictions based on this election, no matter which party you happen to reside in.

KLDC10 wrote:

I'd be very careful before making too many predictions based on this election, no matter which party you happen to reside in.

A very wise conclusion. Let's not forget that prior to the 2010 elections, Democrats also swept the special elections held in that timeframe. And we all know what happened afterwards.

If you look at the history of the seat, the republicans can't be too enthusiastic about the margin of victory last night. t was a win, but a lot of strategists and pols will be reading some tea leaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%2 ... l_district

Wasn't this supposed to be a "referendum on Trump?" Oh, the (D) lost? Guess that means the next one will actually be the referendum, right?

This (D) apparently raised 5 times as much money as his Republican challenger, and still couldn't close the deal. I guess it's all that voter surpression we're not hearing about...

I am honestly very worried about the Democratic Party right now. The Democratic Party seems to forget that policies that are good for people in San Francisco, Hollywood, and the Northeast just are not that good or popular in many other places. Until they find a message that can resonate in these places, I am afraid that what happened in Georgia last night will continue to be the result. Which is really sad, because I feel we need two strong parties in this country. This helps keep the other side in check and prevents them from going too crazy in either the left or the right direction.

I think Nancy Pelosi should resign as Minority Leader. She has done a lot of good for the Democratic Party over the years, but she is currently a millstone for any Democrat trying to win in a district that is something other than a deep shade of Blue. The question is who would replace her? You don't want someone like Maxine Waters becoming the voice of your party. DWS is hated by the base. A guy I would think would be good would be a guy like Stephen Lynch of MA. He has strong union ties, and he has the type of personality that could easily reach out to voters in red leaning districts. I hope the Democrats get this right, because I want to see the party thrive again.

Republicans Retain Georgia Congressional Seat

God I wish I'd seen that coming.

coolian2 wrote:

Republicans Retain Georgia Congressional Seat

God I wish I'd seen that coming.

I bet all these Hollywood celebrities and out of state interests that spent 45 million dollars on a congressional seat race wish that too.

Fools and their money.

casinterest wrote:

If you look at the history of the seat, the republicans can't be too enthusiastic about the margin of victory last night. t was a win, but a lot of strategists and pols will be reading some tea leaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%2 ... l_district

Didn't Trump only win this district by 1-2%? So Handel winning by ~5% would be an improvement, especially since Dems through a boatload of money at the race. We heard all about how important this would be when it went to a runoff from the media, and how it was a huge statement for the Dems...

I digress, special elections are mandates for just about nothing. They are generally outliers, and don't represent any national sentiment generally, which shouldn't be shocking because they are so localized. It shouldn't be a surprise the this district stayed Red, the more surprising thing is how much money the Dems just pissed away.

Republicans won by single digits in districts that skew heavily towards Republicans. Romney et al. won by over 20 points.

Handel was a veteran politician and nearly got outvoted by a rookie Democrat. These special elections were held in areas that Republicans considered safe (one of the reasons they were chosen for Cheeto von F*ckstick's administration in the first place -- it certainly wasn't because they were the best and brightest).


Not sure if that makes the Republican Party sleep well at night.

And if you think the Democrats are pissing away money, just think of all the money Republicans will burn through protecting more and more of these seats coming into play.

seahawk wrote:

Shows that the support for the president is unwavering outside liberal circles.

Don't look at Trump's margin, look at Tom Price's margin (23%) against Handel (4%)

And I have said this before in threads, we are still living in an Obama era USA, wait until after November when Trump's budget hits AND when the President, Congress and the Senate actually get something done.

johnboy wrote:

And if you think the Democrats are pissing away money

Obviously did.
Depending on whose numbers you choose the Democrats spent between $450.00 to $500.00 per vote.

**********

Now is the time to get in the advertising business full stop. Mid terms coming up.
Hillary spent $1,000,000,000.00 on her losing campaign.
Last weeks excuse was Ms Butterworth for her loss. I will have to mail my cereal box tops and a quarter in and wait for my decoder ring to arrive to find out what that means.

*********

Obviously by from track record, a lot of money is being spent sending the wrong message.


Okie

Democrats might have seemingly wasted a lot of money on the race, but I'd suggest taking a good look at the first graphic in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/upsho ... .html?_r=0

They contrasted Democrat's vote shares in this year's 4 special elections against an aggregate of former presidential and congressional elections in the same districts - they were all significantly outperformed. If this was the referendum on Trump then Dems failed it but despite not being able to actually win seats yet the Trump effect has provided them with record-breaking vote shares in some deep red districts. So I really don't know if this is a reason for conservatives to fall into arrogant complacency...

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will be able to spend the same per seat that they did in Georgia. While ithe GOP did win, they also lost market share - something like from 23% to 5%. Trump is supposed to be a businessman - think he can understand that loss of market share? Ugh!

Now that the election is over the GOP can pull their "new, kind" TrumpCare replacement out of the closet and voters will have some months too see if they are better off. There will also be the Trillion Dollar Tax cut for the wealthy. Let the voters see how that works for them, especially with the health care cuts.

The 2018 Election is going to be interesting. The GOP will be3 able to brag that they killed ObamaCare, giving us TrumpCare. Will the voters be impressed?

As with the presidential election the democratic candidate significantly outspent the republican - but still lost. It doesn't seem like a "gain" for the democrats.
All that has happened is that once again California and New York liberals have shown that their money can't buy an election. Nor having Hollywood and the media establishment cheering for you at the top of their voice.
Wonder how many of these races it will take for the DNC to learn their lesson.
Or they can keep being content with participation trophies.

Ken777 wrote:

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will be able to spend the same per seat that they did in Georgia. While ithe GOP did win, they also lost market share - something like from 23% to 5%. Trump is supposed to be a businessman - think he can understand that loss of market share? Ugh!

Now that the election is over the GOP can pull their "new, kind" TrumpCare replacement out of the closet and voters will have some months too see if they are better off. There will also be the Trillion Dollar Tax cut for the wealthy. Let the voters see how that works for them, especially with the health care cuts.

The 2018 Election is going to be interesting. The GOP will be3 able to brag that they killed ObamaCare, giving us TrumpCare. Will the voters be impressed?

The democrats out spent the republicans 7-1 in GA to the tune of over $25 million dollars. One has to wonder what the result would have been given parity in campaign spending.

They media trying to cling on to anything made more of this that it actually was. Things won't start to get real till after health care.

seahawk wrote:

Shows that the support for the president is unwavering outside liberal circles.

Yeah no.

Shows that inbreeding and copious amounts of moonshine cause you to make bad decisions.

Republicans are "winning" seats by single digit per cents in districts that historically vote Republican by large double digit per cents. Think about that. If Republicans hold their strongest seats by narrow margins, imagine what purple seats will do.

ual777 wrote:

The democrats out spent the republicans 7-1 in GA to the tune of over $25 million dollars. One has to wonder what the result would have been given parity in campaign spending.

And the spending behind Hillary was between 2 and 3 times what was spent behind Trump. That should be a hint and a half about how effective it is to give Democrats money to spend. And they still haven't learned: Hating Trump is not a platform.

coolian2 wrote:

Shows that inbreeding and copious amounts of moonshine cause you to make bad decisions.

A snotty childish post, as usual. Also shows how much you know about that particular district.

Ken777 wrote:

The GOP will be3 able to brag that they killed ObamaCare, giving us TrumpCare. Will the voters be impressed?

It depends on how good their communication is. Obamacare was dying even before Trump came into office. There are now 45 counties with no Obamacare option at all, and it about 1/3rd of the country have only a single Obamacare option. Obamacare was and is a failure, as we always knew it would be. Will the GOP alternative be better? Maybe - it's hard to do worse. Personally I think that as long as Mandatory Healthcare is not adjusted to only cover accidents and catastrophic or serious chronic illness, it will never work in the US. (and remember I am a supporter of a universal healthcare policy). Obamacare went too far, insuring things that should not be insured, thus exploding costs.

https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/6/9/15768108/obamacare-washington-missouri-ohio

http://time.com/money/4470574/obamacare-providers-2017/

Dreadnought wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

Shows that inbreeding and copious amounts of moonshine cause you to make bad decisions.

A snotty childish post, as usual. Also shows how much you know about that particular district.

Sad!

Dreadnought wrote:

Hating Trump is not a platform.

Maybe it should be. In every single race, aside from national Democrats pouring money into two races (MTAL and GA-6), the race was run at the local level. Ossoff and Parnell actually never even referenced Trump in order to see if they could sway moderate Republicans. The strategy failed, but only because at the end of the day, people chose to stick with party over everything else.

In GA-6, for example, Ossoff was pounded by his inexperience (which should be an advantage given who occupies the White House), being an outsider (again, look to the White House), and was tied to just about anything you could imagine (terrorism, illegal immigration, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, communists, etc.). All Handel had to do was say she was NOT Ossoff and she won.

In SC-5 (a race no one expected to be so close), one of two things happened: people switched to vote for Parnell or Republicans stayed home. But it was another race where both candidates steered clear of Trump. So while the GOP retained both seats, clearly there's some discomfort with Trump hovering in the background. If Trump were as popular as he believes himself to be, these races would have been blowouts.

You learn from failures. This was a snapshot of the mood in June 2017, too early to see the mood for the midterm election in 2018. However, let's assume Trump's approval ratings remain as they are or drop further. This teaches Democrats that in some districts steering clear of Trump instead of full-blown criticism is not the best strategy.

So, you are correct. Hating Trump is not a platform, but when your opponent's platform is merely to tie you to everything wrong with the world while promising to be a rank and file voting member, it doesn't hrt to give it a shot, especially on a person that's not as popular as he thinks himself to be.

I've just been looking over the raw vote numbers for the Special Election and the regular Congressional Election in 2016. They're really quite interesting:

2016:
Tom Price (R): 201,088 (62%)
Rodney Stooksbury (D): 124,917 (38%)

2017:
Karen Handel (R): 134,595 (52%)
Jon Ossoff (D): 124,893 (48%)

So, although Ossoff managed to leverage Democratic support, that support was actually very slightly less than 2016. In fact, it seems that the reason the race was so close is because Republican turnout was way down. This makes sense, given that in November 2016, there was more than one race on the ballot paper.

That means that, for all of the money poured into this campaign, the Democrats did not manage to achieve a higher number of actual votes than they did in the same District in 2016.

KLDC10 wrote:

That means that, for all of the money poured into this campaign, the Democrats did not manage to achieve a higher number of actual votes than they did in the same District in 2016.

Try looking at statistics for 2014 (or trends in any midterm election for that matter), which would be way more representative.

Or just cherry pick to suit your bias.

jetero wrote:

Try looking at statistics for 2014 (or trends in any midterm election for that matter), which would be way more representative.

Or just cherry pick to suit your bias.

Actually, no it wouldn't. Given the national attention that this race received, and the fact that the Democrats fired up their base as if it was a referendum on Trump, the closest comparison is with the 2016 Election cycle.

Moral of the story, don't be a party of No. Republicans didn't win 2016 elections because they were a party of NO for 8 years, particularly Tea Party types.

Also, sitting at home watching Chris Como, Jake Tapper, Wolf Blitzer and Stephen Colbert wouldn't win elections, go vote.

KLDC10 wrote:

jetero wrote:

Try looking at statistics for 2014 (or trends in any midterm election for that matter), which would be way more representative.

Or just cherry pick to suit your bias.

Actually, no it wouldn't. Given the national attention that this race received, and the fact that the Democrats fired up their base as if it was a referendum on Trump, the closest comparison is with the 2016 Election cycle.

"It has to be that way because I want it to be that way."

As I said, cherry pick to suit your bias.

jetero wrote:

"It has to be that way because I want it to be that way."

As I said, cherry pick to suit your bias.

Again, incorrect. I wrote earlier in the thread that this election was an anomaly, and that both sides should be careful about making predictions. All I did was compare the special election with the most recent prior election in the district. This was not a "normal" Congressional race, so looking at the numbers for the 2014 midterms would not be more representative. The closer comparison (though still not perfect) is with 2016.

KLDC10 wrote:

jetero wrote:

"It has to be that way because I want it to be that way."

As I said, cherry pick to suit your bias.

Again, incorrect. I wrote earlier in the thread that this election was an anomaly, and that both sides should be careful about making predictions. All I did was compare the special election with the most recent prior election in the district. This was not a "normal" Congressional race, so looking at the numbers for the 2014 midterms would not be more representative. The closer comparison (though still not perfect) is with 2016.

By your sole decree?

Once you've done an exhaustive study of midterm election turnouts versus presidential election turnouts, including those for races with "national interest" or are therefore not "normal" (also by your decree), then I'll listen. Otherwise your comparative "analysis" is an opinion, and a biased one at that.

If you want to just state that the Democrats pissed away a lot of money, well, that's a fact.

Dreadnought wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

The GOP will be able to brag that they killed ObamaCare, giving us TrumpCare. Will the voters be impressed?

It depends on how good their communication is. Obamacare was dying even before Trump came into office. There are now 45 counties with no Obamacare option at all, and it about 1/3rd of the country have only a single Obamacare option. Obamacare was and is a failure, as we always knew it would be. Will the GOP alternative be better? Maybe - it's hard to do worse. Personally I think that as long as Mandatory Healthcare is not adjusted to only cover accidents and catastrophic or serious chronic illness, it will never work in the US. (and remember I am a supporter of a universal healthcare policy). Obamacare went too far, insuring things that should not be insured, thus exploding costs.


ObamaCare did have problems and I believe that one factor was the lack of a public option. A public option in all states would provide the level of competition needed to keep the insurance companies very competitive. As it is there is a situation where the insurance companies can leave areas as a leverage for the GOP to do their bidding - hence TrumpCare.

There is also the problem of the GOP using "hatred" of ObamaCare to win elections. Might flip to TrumpCare in the next election, but McConnell. The TrumpCare bill will be far worse then ObamaCare because it is designed as a path to a Trillion Dollar Tax Cut for the Billionaires Boys Club. Look for a Billion in ads to get it passed and keeps it going past the 2018 Election, But look for huge problems for "normal" folks.

Universal health care in this country depends on a Medicare type contribution and medical cards for all. The Aussies call it MediBank and it works. That pulls a very large amount of cash out of current spending on health insurance for government employees. Politicians tend to avoid this cost, which is amazing to me. BTW, the Aussie system is very successful for the private insurance industry. So profitable that the government incorporated MediBank Private and joined the competition. When you have core health care for all you eliminate cost shifting and that sucks down costs. You lower costs because folks don't have to go to the ER for something that can be handled in a Doctor's office.

BTW, what did ObamaCare covered that should not have been covered?

apodino wrote:

I am honestly very worried about the Democratic Party right now. The Democratic Party seems to forget that policies that are good for people in San Francisco, Hollywood, and the Northeast just are not that good or popular in many other places. Until they find a message that can resonate in these places, I am afraid that what happened in Georgia last night will continue to be the result. Which is really sad, because I feel we need two strong parties in this country. This helps keep the other side in check and prevents them from going too crazy in either the left or the right direction.

I think Nancy Pelosi should resign as Minority Leader. She has done a lot of good for the Democratic Party over the years, but she is currently a millstone for any Democrat trying to win in a district that is something other than a deep shade of Blue. The question is who would replace her? You don't want someone like Maxine Waters becoming the voice of your party. DWS is hated by the base. A guy I would think would be good would be a guy like Stephen Lynch of MA. He has strong union ties, and he has the type of personality that could easily reach out to voters in red leaning districts. I hope the Democrats get this right, because I want to see the party thrive again.

Your comments are right on target.

Ken777 wrote:

Universal health care in this country depends on a Medicare type contribution and medical cards for all. The Aussies call it MediBank and it works. That pulls a very large amount of cash out of current spending on health insurance for government employees. Politicians tend to avoid this cost, which is amazing to me. BTW, the Aussie system is very successful for the private insurance industry. So profitable that the government incorporated MediBank Private and joined the competition.

I tend to agree with expanding Medicaid to cover catastrophic illness/accidents. That would free up private insurers to cover more optional stuff - dental care, holistic medicine, etc.

Ken777 wrote:

When you have core health care for all you eliminate cost shifting and that sucks down costs. You lower costs because folks don't have to go to the ER for something that can be handled in a Doctor's office.

Not sure where you get this concept. If you mandate the provision of regularly needed services and make a third party pay for it, two things happen: 1) People consume more than they really need, and 2) Suppliers raise their prices because they know the consumer doesn't care.

If you think that Medical Care (including visits for a cold) should be a right, how about other things? Food - what more essential right could there be than a right to food? So let's say we had the ObamaFood program, where a third party (government or otherwise) pays your food bills. You go to Kroger and fill your cart. You probably take more than you really need, because you don't have to pay, and there is no need for you to keep within a budget. Filet mignon and lobster every night. And of course Kroger will notice that you don't seem to care what it costs - the price of milk goes to $30 per gallon - customers are still buying it.

And the taxpayers get stuck with the tax bill. As someone once said, a democracy can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the ensuing loose fiscal policy.

As it is, close to 50% of the population pay no federal taxes at all, so this seems to be a breaking point - when those leaching off government programs outnumber those who contribute to them. This was of course the Alinsky strategy - force the collapse of society by overwhelming the social welfare system. We know why he wanted that - he was a nihilist who wanted to destroy society and replace it with something that will supposedly be better. My question to you is, do YOU want that?

Ken777 wrote:

BTW, what did ObamaCare covered that should not have been covered?

Here's a partial list from the ACA website. Some of them are reasonable, but a lot of them are not. Like the first item on the list - Condoms are what, 50 cents per piece at Walgreens? Pay for it yourself. A lot of these are normal costs - not "insurable". Insurable costs are things that you pray never happen. Catastrophic illness like cancer, stroke, or getting hit by a bus. Just like you are insured for house fires and car accidents, but you are not insured to cover servicing your HVAC system or changing the oil.

1. Contraception, including the abortion-inducing “morning after” pill and vasectomies;
2. Maternity and newborn care
3. Mental health and substance abuse counseling and treatment
4. Prescription drugs
5. Pediatric services
6. Behavioral health treatment
7. Rehab treatment
8. Dental and vision care
9. Alcohol Misuse screening and counseling
10. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of certain ages
11. Blood Pressure screening for all adults
12. Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
13. Colorectal Cancer screening for adults over 50
14. Depression screening for adults
15. Diabetes (Type 2) screening for adults with high blood pressure
16. Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
17. HIV screening for everyone ages 15 to 65, and other ages at increased risk
18. Immunization vaccines for adults–doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary: Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Herpes Zoster, Human Papillomavirus, Influenza (Flu Shot), Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Meningococcal, Pneumococcal, Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussi, Varicella
19. Obesity screening and counseling for all adults
20. Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk
21. Syphilis screening for all adults at higher risk
22. Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for tobacco users
23. Anemia screening on a routine basis for pregnant women
24. Breast Cancer Genetic Test Counseling (BRCA)for women at higher risk for breast cancer
25. Breast Cancer Mammography screenings every 1 to 2 years for women over 40
26. Breast Cancer Chemoprevention counseling for women at higher risk
27. Breastfeeding comprehensive support and counseling from trained providers, and access to breastfeeding supplies, for pregnant and nursing women
28. Cervical Cancer screening for sexually active women
29. Chlamydia Infection screening for younger women and other women at higher risk
30. Contraception: Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, as prescribed by a health care provider for women with reproductive capacity.
31. Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling for all women
32. Folic Acid supplements for women who may become pregnant
33. Gestational diabetes screening for women 24 to 28 weeks pregnant and those at high risk of developing gestational diabetes
34. Gonorrhea screening for all women at higher risk
35. Hepatitis B screening for pregnant women at their first prenatal visit
36. HIV screening and counseling for sexually active women
37. Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Test every 3 years for women with normal cytology results who are 30 or older Osteoporosis screening for women over age 60 depending on risk factors
38. Rh Incompatibility screening for all pregnant women and follow-up testing for women at higher risk
39. Sexually Transmitted Infections counseling for sexually active women
40. Syphilis screening for all pregnant women or other women at increased risk
41. Tobacco Use screening and interventions for all women, and expanded counseling for pregnant tobacco users
42. Urinary tract or other infection screening for pregnant women
43. Well-woman visits to get recommended services for women under 65
44. Autism screening for children at 18 and 24 months
45. Behavioral assessments for children at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
46. Blood Pressure screening for children at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years , 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
47. Cervical Dysplasia screening for sexually active females
48. Depression screening for adolescents
49. Developmental screening for children under age 3
50. Dyslipidemia screening for children at higher risk of lipid disorders at the following ages: 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
51. Fluoride Chemoprevention supplements for children without fluoride in their water source
52. Gonorrhea preventive medication for the eyes of all newborns
53. Hearing screening for all newborns
54. Height, Weight and Body Mass Index measurements for children at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years,11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
55. Hematocrit or Hemoglobin screening for children
56. Hemoglobinopathies or sickle cell screening for newborns
57. HIV screening for adolescents at higher risk
58. Hypothyroidism screening for newborns
59. Immunization vaccines for children from birth to age 18 —doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary: Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Human Papillomavirus, Inactivated Poliovirus, Influenza (Flu Shot), Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Meningococcal, Pneumococcal, Rotavirus, Varicella
60. Iron supplements for children ages 6 to 12 months at risk for anemia
61. Lead screening for children at risk of exposure
62. Medical History for all children throughout development at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
63. Obesity screening and counseling
64. Oral Health risk assessment for young children Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years.
65. Phenylketonuria (PKU) screening for this genetic disorder in newborns
66. Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling and screening for adolescents at higher risk Tuberculin testing for children at higher risk of tuberculosis at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
67. Vision screening for all children.

apodino wrote:

I think Nancy Pelosi should resign as Minority Leader. She has done a lot of good for the Democratic Party over the years, but she is currently a millstone for any Democrat trying to win in a district that is something other than a deep shade of Blue. The question is who would replace her? You don't want someone like Maxine Waters becoming the voice of your party. DWS is hated by the base. A guy I would think would be good would be a guy like Stephen Lynch of MA. He has strong union ties, and he has the type of personality that could easily reach out to voters in red leaning districts. I hope the Democrats get this right, because I want to see the party thrive again.

I think Tim Ryan from OH is still a valid choice for leadership, and the WHOLE leadership team needs to go. As long as Pelosi is in the group, everyone will have baggage.

Pelosi and the team should promise to step down from their posts after the next election, regardless of whether they win the majority or not.

Maxine Walters should NOT be included in the team, and neither should DWS.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Maxine Walters should NOT be included in the team

Oh please oh please oh PLEEEEEEEEEEAAAAASE make her Minority leader. She is the best comedy act in DC.

I can't understand how she's still in Congress. it's like having Bozo the Clown as your congressman - funny for one term, but eventually you should get real.