2024 Field

thethe said:
In case you forgot that this was the metric you are using as support for "historical underperformance"
Click to expand...

And here is some more help for you so that maybe you'll get to that epiphany.

1992 - Dems control 267
2000 - R's control 221
2008 - D's control 257
2016 - R's control 241
2020 - D's control 222

Get the picture?

Lets not forget that the R's won 13 seats in 2020 but of course lost the presidency (Despite winning 19/20 bellweathers and volumes of statistical evidence showing the jump in voter participation in dense urban areas was almost impossible).
 
thethe said:
Winning a seat you previously controlled does nothing for the "Amount of seats gained" (<----This is your metric to determine "Historical Underperformance")

So still....I'm waiting on an answer.
Click to expand...

In 1994 republicans won 230 seats

In 2010, republicans won 242 seats

In 2018, democrats won 235 seats

In 2022, republicans won 212 seats


I don't know what point you're trying to make but it is a very stupid one. As the leader of the party, Trump oversaw a historical underperformance, and could not overtake the senate, despite the unimaginably favorable political conditions for republicans.

The fact that you are wasting your brain cells trying to pretzel your way into defending this is bizarre.
 
sturg33 said:
In 1994 republicans won 230 seats

In 2010, republicans won 242 seats

In 2018, democrats won 235 seats

In 2022, republicans won 212 seats


I don't know what point you're trying to make but it is a very stupid one. As the leader of the party, Trump oversaw a historical underperformance, and could not overtake the senate, despite the unimaginably favorable political conditions for republicans.

The fact that you are wasting your brain cells trying to pretzel your way into defending this is bizarre.
Click to expand...

Another example of chaning your narrative on the fly.

First it was seats 'Gained' now its seats 'won'.

Convenient once I show you how stupid your point was when you start brining in context. But this is what I'm paid to do - analysis.
 
thethe said:
Another example of chaning your narrative on the fly.

First it was seats 'Gained' now its seats 'won'.

Convenient once I show you how stupid your point was when you start brining in context. But this is what I'm paid to do - analysis.
Click to expand...

I change because you bizarrely cry about that not being a fair metric

So I give you a different metric

I guess that ones not fair either.

Turns out wring, it was actually a LANDSLIDE VICTORY for republicans as thethe constantly predicted leading up to. Well done republicans! You got those 9 seats flipped!!
 
sturg33 said:
I change because you bizarrely cry about that not being a fair metric

So I give you a different metric

I guess that ones not fair either.

Turns out wring, it was actually a LANDSLIDE VICTORY for republicans as thethe constantly predicted leading up to. Well done republicans! You got those 9 seats flipped!!
Click to expand...

No you changed because you realized the metric you gave me WITHOUT CONTEXT is a low level talking point and it didn't work.

But cute attempts at trying to low key avoid the fact that you can't be consistent for even 15 minutes.
 
thethe said:
No you changed because you realized the metric you gave me WITHOUT CONTEXT is a low level talking point and it didn't work.

But cute attempts at trying to low key avoid the fact that you can't be consistent for even 15 minutes.
Click to expand...

Your totally right it was a LANDSLIDE!!!

Sure sure, they had the lowest amount of seats won in decades, but it was actually a great performance! Go Trump!!!
 
sturg33 said:
Your totally right it was a LANDSLIDE!!!

Sure sure, they had the lowest amount of seats won in decades, but it was actually a great performance! Go Trump!!!
Click to expand...

Can you point to where I said it was a landslide in the last 30 minutes?

I understand you need to completely make things up but the whole purpose was to debate "historical underperformance"

Now that I have throughly shown you it wasn't that you have to make things up that I said.
 
sturg33 said:
230
242
235


222

Thethe says the 222 was not underperformance
Click to expand...

I said it wasn't a "Historical Underperformance"

But of course we had things like voting machines going down and obvious mail in ballot fraud (Which you don't want to talk about anymore). So yeah - Stuff happened.
 
sturg33 said:
230
242
235


222

Thethe says the 222 was not underperformance
Click to expand...

So 2022 was poor compared to other off-year results for the party not in control of the white house. whether you look at levels or gains. just want to verify this is what the data show.
 
I'm told that the guy working his off everyday is actually running a campaign trying not to win

[Tw]1698705238092349908[/tw]
 
F5L6YXvXQAEB1xo


Orlando, Florida 2023
 
Lol that.must have been in July 2020 because he began rejecting the administration guidelines and got a phone call from Mr. Trump himself that he'd better get in line (he didnt)
 
thethe said:
Course corrected I'm sure
Click to expand...

we have two people

they both started down the same trajectory.

one remained on that trajectory and is still there to this very day. he believes he did everything correct and made no mistakes

the other course corrected and went a different trajectory... one you and I both agree was the better course. he faced relentless attacks from the media, the left, and the president, but stood his ground. he admitted to making a mistake and has vowed to never let it happen again

which of these two is a better leader?
 
such a shame. there is no doubt Trump decided not to pardon them because he was afraid of negative media coverage. same excuse he made for not removing Fauci.

weak

[tw]1698805848636612977[/tw]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top