That does not bode well for you, dear reader.
I'm kidding. I really don't have much to discuss this morning. The rabid Democrats are determined to turn back the clock somehow to a Time Before Trump. The incoming House Judiciary Chairman is talking impeachment for Kavenaugh, for Trump, for anyone who dares to not toe the progressive party line. I am not sure how he will find a magic number of Senators to actually vote to remove the hated Trumpster and his minions. Details, details. Do the Democrats think if they remove Kavenaugh the replacement will be less conservative? The new Republican majority can no longer be held hostage by Susan Collins. Should they somehow get rid of Trump before Kavenaugh do they think Pence will appoint a liberal justice? If so, the Dem leadership is getting a jump on that recreational pot smoking in Michigan.
It is with incredulous head scratching that I read of the various liberal morons decrying the "loss of the Senate popular vote". HUH? Yes, they are confused why the total number of votes tallied by Democrat winners of Senate seats are higher than those of winners for Republican seats, yet the Republicans gained seats overall.
I wish I was kidding about that.
First, this confusion demonstrates an astounding lack of Constitutional understanding. First only 1/3 of the Senate is elected every two years, so the overall makeup can only be changed by a limited extent. More importantly, that is not how the Senate works. Every state gets two senators. Period. So states with large populations will by design cast more votes for their TWO senators. California is more populous than Montana, so any senator running in California must get more votes than one running in Montana. And no, there has been no secret, vote-suppressing gerrymandering going on in smoke-filled Republican back rooms* that causes California to get only two senators. (yes that has been argued). If you believe that you are so stupid you must need written instructions to take a crap.
I am bordering on TLDR, so I will not even get into the ridiculous argument that white women voted against their interest when they failed to elect the Democrats. One leader of the
Only Liberal Woman's March actually said these women might need re-education. Calling Chairman Mao, your inheritors are calling. And am I the only one who thinks calling out white women is racist?
What if a conservative singled out a person of color? That is what I thought.
*funny how there was no complaints about gerrymandering when the Democrats controlled most state houses until the early 1990s. Why do Democrats always assume there is cheating or nefarious forces at work when the American people reject their message?
**it is a girl