President Trump- The Implications

[guido911]

And this is just wrong...on so many levels. The democrats are just demoralized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3eA04i285A&feature=youtu.be

[erfalf]

A little more context of the 6th district.

In the 2016 congressional election, Price received 61.6% of the vote over next closest Rodney Stooksbury. A record of Mr. Stooksbury cannot be found anywhere nor did he raise a single dollar for the campaign.

2014 Price won 66-33 over Robert G. Montigel, who as far as I can tell raised a little over 10k. Price raised 1.84 million.

2012 Price won 64-35 over Jeff Kazanow, who raised about 45k.

2010 Price essentially won unopposed as the next highest vote-getter was a write in candidate.

In the 2016 Presidential the counties that make up this district voted as follows (I understand that this district is only portions of each of those but I don't think data exists that specific):

Cobb County - 47.9-45.8 Clinton over Trump
Fulton County - 67.7-26.8 Clinton over Trump
Dekalf County - 79.1-16.2 Clinton over Trump

I think it is extremely weak minded of the press (as usual) to take one or two data points and extrapolate that the district leans heavily Republican when it is clearly not the case.

It also puts into context exactly how significant the spending was this time around. All the "statistics" out of context are just obfuscating reality.

[Hoss]

So much for draining the swamp.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/donald-trump-poor-person-cabinet/index.html

Headline:  "Trump: 'I just don't want a poor person' in Cabinet economic jobs"

[erfalf]

So much for draining the swamp.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/donald-trump-poor-person-cabinet/index.html

Headline:  "Trump: 'I just don't want a poor person' in Cabinet economic jobs"

You know as well as I, wealth is generally viewed as an indicator of smarts or success. It ain't always accurate. The Donald is just the king of foot in mouth disease so he sounds like a super donkey when he says things that generally the vast majority of the population agree with.

Besides show me a poor person working in the upper echelon of the federal government. It ain't gonna happen. There may be varying degrees of rich, but they are all rich. Or if they aren't they get rich quick once they get to D.C. And that is a whole nother problem.

[Hoss]

You know as well as I, wealth is generally viewed as an indicator of smarts or success. It ain't always accurate. The Donald is just the king of foot in mouth disease so he sounds like a super donkey when he says things that generally the vast majority of the population agree with.

Besides show me a poor person working in the upper echelon of the federal government. It ain't gonna happen. There may be varying degrees of rich, but they are all rich. Or if they aren't they get rich quick once they get to D.C. And that is a whole nother problem.

Success?  Sure.  Smarts?  You need only look so far as the current occupant of the WH to see that's debunked.

[erfalf]

Success?  Sure.  Smarts?  You need only look so far as the current occupant of the WH to see that's debunked.

Hey I didn't say it was true all the time, just that it was a general perception thing.

[BKDotCom]

Hey I didn't say it was true all the time, just that it was a general perception thing.

Now I'm confused.  Is Betsy DeVos qualified or not?!
She's definitely not poor.
I guess she's more than qualified.

[Hoss]

Now I'm confused.  Is Betsy DeVos qualified or not?!
She's definitely not poor.
I guess she's more than qualified.

See my (sarcastic) draining the swamp comment.

[guido911]

So much for draining the swamp.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/donald-trump-poor-person-cabinet/index.html

Headline:  "Trump: 'I just don't want a poor person' in Cabinet economic jobs"

So if you are wealthy, you are the swamp. Congrats. You have gone full retard.

[saintnicster]

So if you are wealthy, you are the swamp. Congrats. You have gone full retard.

There have been so many things thrown around, can you remind me what "Drain the Swamp" means in the context that Trump used it?

[BKDotCom]

There have been so many things thrown around, can you remind me what "Drain the Swamp" means in the context that Trump used it?

I take it to mean.   "removal of corrupt, pay-to-play, special-interest, self-serving politicians"

I interpret "'I just don't want a poor person' in Cabinet economic jobs" as.    just the opposite

Of course trump has admitted "Drain the swamp" was a iie

[cannon_fodder]

A little more context of the 6th district
. . .
I think it is extremely weak minded of the press (as usual) to take one or two data points and extrapolate that the district leans heavily Republican when it is clearly not the case.

It also puts into context exactly how significant the spending was this time around. All the "statistics" out of context are just obfuscating reality.

Shenanigans. Arguing that this district doesn't lean Republican is nonsense.

1) Using your data- in the past 4 Congressional races in this district, the Republican won by an average of 30 points
2) There has not been a Democrat representing the district since Carter was in the White House.
3) Since 2000, The Republican presidential candidate has won the district by more than 25 points each time (with the exception of Trump, who won by 1)
4) Republicans have an advantage in voter registration
5)  The basic demographics of the district would indicate a Republican advantage
6) The Cook Partisan Index has this district basically as safe of a Republic District as Tulsa or OKC is, without the districts dislike of Trump it would exceed our Republican lean
7) The Republican legislature of Georgia got to draw the district map in 2011... I'm guessing they didn't choose to make it less likely they would win
8 ) The Republican President of the United States got to choose who he tapped to HHS... I'm guessing he didn't choose someone in an at-risk district
9) Excluding Trump's poor showing, there has not been a trend towards a growing Democratic base in the district

To really drive the point home, a Republican has won this district in each of the following elections:
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1999
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
and now 2017.

There are no gaps in there where a Democrat snuck in.

The only reason this district was in play is because in the last Presidential election Trump carried it by only 1 point  (Obama lost both times by > 20 points, Kerry lost by 40 points, Gore lost by 34 points).  The ONLY measure that indicates this district is anything but solid Republican is the lack of enthusiasm for Trump. The Democrats hoped voters dislike of Trump could be translated into taking over a solid Republican district. It turns out that dislike was only good for an extra 25 or so points in the poll, so they still lost.  They tried so very hard that the loss is a real slap to the face for them too.

Still, the attempt to spin this district as anything but GOP territory is either disingenuous or blind.

[guido911]

There have been so many things thrown around, can you remind me what "Drain the Swamp" means in the context that Trump used it?

No idea who is in the swamp. I mean, other than rich people according to the donkey ached Hoss

[BKDotCom]

[BKDotCom]

Sean Spicer better hope there are no tapes.