Passing thought: Has anybody noticed that when Democrats win close elections it’s a mandate, but when Republicans win close elections, it’s not legitimate?
Addendum,Eric
James Miller sees my comment, and asks:
I’m wondering if all those California flip-flops (from R to D) after election day will get any scrutiny now that Florida is wrapped up.
Well, first of all, scrutiny by whom? the Democrats who supposedly just won those elections? You know better. Scrutiny by the Press? Same answer.
In any event, I’m of the opinion that the GOP would be wise to lay low on that subject for a while. That’s for several reasons.
First because the GOP ends up looking like the cry babies that the Democrats have been for a long time. That’s not going to win us any friends in the voting booth.
And frankly, I’m not worried about it, really. It’s been my long-term experience the strongest argument against the re-election of Democrats is the painful results of Democrat policies.
As an example let’s imagine that the fires in California occurred prior to the midterms. Can you possibly imagine anyone with a brain in their head voting Democrat once the word gets out that the reason the fires got so out of control was because of forestry mismanagement which in turn was because of Democrat policies in California? (A point which even Governor moonbeam admits [1] to quietly now)
How many hundreds of lives? How many billions of dollars?
Does anyone imagine, at any level that this isn’t going to be remembered in two years?