Skip to main content

... about 1986.

What happened in 1986?

Why, the Republicans lost control of the U.S. Senate, which they had held since GOP patron saint Ronald Reagan had swept into office in 1980. How many Senate seats did they lose?


That's right, Ronald Reagan lost the U.S. Senate in the 6th year of his Presidency when the Republicans were ousted from eight Senate seats. The Republicans also lost 5 seats in the Democratic House of Representatives , but the Democrats already controlled 253, so didn't have much room to grow.

Did this end the Republican's national election hopes? Well, not quite, considering in 1988 George Bush Sr. racked up 426 electoral votes in a landslide victory. And while Bush may have lost the presidency four years later, a newly-invigorated Republican party romped in 1994 to take control of Congress, which they would control for a decade.

The Democrats will come back, there's no question about it. That's what a two-party system means. The 2016 Senate map in particular will prove brutal for the Republicans. Mitch McConnell's tenure as majority leader will be brief. The question is and will always be: what will it take to drive Democratic base voters to the polls consistently in the numbers needed to win, even in midterms?


Ladies... do you think you should have the right to not have a picture taken up your skirt against your will by some pervert who will later use it for his own gratification? Think your child should be protected from it?

Well, too bad, says the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals:

Texas court upholds legality of "upskirt" photos

Criticising an anti-"€œcreepshot" law as a "€œpaternalistic" intrusion on a person's right to be aroused, the Texas court of criminal appeals struck down part of the state's "improper photography or visual recording"€ statute which banned photographing, broadcasting or transmitting a visual image of another person without the other'€™s consent and with the intention to "arouse or gratify ... sexual desire".

The case stemmed from the arrest of a man in his early 50s named Ronald Thompson who was stopped in 2011 at Sea World in San Antonio after parents reported him swimming with and taking pictures of children aged 3-11. The local district attorney's office said that he tried to delete the photographs before his camera was seized and a police examination of it revealed 73 images of children in swimsuits "with most of the photographs targeting the children's breast and buttocks areas".

That's right. If some creep is taking pictures of your children's buttocks and chests, there's nothing you can do about it. It's his constitutional right!

But it gets worse:

The judges said that photographs were "inherently expressive"€, like other artistic mediums such as films or books, and so the process of creating them, as well as the images themselves, was part of an American'€™s right to free speech because "€œthought is intertwined with expression".
Do you see that? Taking pictures of kid's privates is "inherently expressive." It's art!

So if this ruling were to have precedent, would it overturn a host of child pornography convictions? I mean, if taking pictures of kid's privates is an inherent artistic expression, then how can we can convict anyone of doing so? Or trading and viewing them online?

The article notes that a prosecution of taking such upshots failed in Boston earlier this year, but that was because the law wasn't written broadly enough to cover non-nude photographs. Lawmakers reacted swiftly to correct that little oversight. But in this case, the court is saying such a law would be too broad.

Just another case of your nether regions are fair game.


Now this is is DELICIOUS.

Neal Boortz gives his summary of why Romney lost, and he seems to be one of the conservatives who gets it: social issues are costing Republicans elections and will continue to do so for years to come unless they back off of the big three: Abortion, Gays and Immigration.  Link below the fold!

Continue Reading

Folks, don't let the Republicans get away with the spin that we all know is pure BS.

They say it was status quo.

They say it was "razor-thin" for Obama.

They say Obama has no mandate.

They say Romney lost because of Romney, not because of Republicanism.

These claims are all 100% malarkey.

Continue Reading

Not much of a diary, I know, but I'm about to pass out from exhaustion.  Happy exhaustion!

But let it be known: Rasmussen polling is a fraud that exists to prop up Republican candidates.  Oh, sure, we all knew that... but the actual numbers prove it beyond doubt.

Nationally, Rasmussen polled at 49%-48%.  The actual result was (so far) 50%-49% Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.

In Colorado, Rasmussen polled at 50%-47% for Romney. The actual result was 51%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.

In Florida, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 50%-49% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.

In Iowa, Rasmussen polled at 49%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 52%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll, doubled.

In New Hampshire, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 52%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.

In Ohio, Rasmussen polled at a 49%-49% tie.  The actual result was 50%-48% for Obama, a two-point swing.

In Virginia, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 50%-48% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.

In Wisconsin, Rasmussen polled at a 49%-49% tie.  The actual result was 52-47% for Obama, a six-point swing.

In other words, in all the races that mattered, Rasmussen got it egregiously wrong.  They didn't call a single battleground state right except for North Carolina, and even there it appears that they overestimated the margin of Romney's win.  

Rasmussen was consistently, egregiously biased in favor of the Republican nominee.  We have the proof.


Other one was getting unwieldy.  

Continue Reading

I know this isn't a political diary, but I thought maybe some would like a break from healthcare debates and what not to discuss one of my favorite subjects... movies!  Herein is my summation and review of Quentin Tarantino's new film, Inglourious Basterds.

Like most people, I was first introduced to Quentin Tarantino through his film Pulp Fiction, a movie that still stands as one of the most individual examples of unique filmmaking in recent decades.  Since then, I have not been a huge Tarantino fan, although I have seen several of his movies, for better or for worse (Jackie Brown and Kill Bill - better; From Dusk til Dawn - worse).  So while I appreciate Tarantino's unique take on filmmaking, I'm by no means a fanboy.


If you have seen this movie, how would you rate it?

35%28 votes
29%23 votes
16%13 votes
2%2 votes
2%2 votes
0%0 votes
11%9 votes

| 78 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading

This is a plea to all of my friends on DKOS to not fall into the trap of living and dying by the purported exit poll results that are leaked throughout the day.  Folks like Matt Drudge love to release numbers that simply are meaningless in terms of predicting the actual outcome.  Remember four years ago?  Many thought Kerry had it in the bag because of some exit poll numbers released.  Whatever is released will never give an accurate picture of the final vote tallies.

Continue Reading

CNN strategists predict Obama victory

Even the Republicans put Obama comfortably over 300 Electoral Votes.  Some choice tidbits:

Continue Reading

There is a new AP-Ipsos poll out on MSNBC that gives Congressional Democrats proof of what they need to do going forward to fulfill the will of the American people as their representatives:  keep standing up to Bush.

Continue Reading

Given the absolute furor that erupted in today's Cheers and Jeers edition over certain assertions that the Emperor Augustus hosted orgies, as well as the vitriolic disagreement over whether or not the loss of three legions at Teutoburg Forest was indeed a worse military disaster than Iraq, I thought it would be a good idea to get some perspective on the enigmatic creatures that were the Roman emperors, and just how lousy many of them were.  While it may pain many of us to say, we have to admit that we could have done a lot worse than Bush if any of these characters had been our leader.  Join me below the fold, if you please.


Who's the worst of the worst?

25%14 votes
14%8 votes
5%3 votes
11%6 votes
0%0 votes
11%6 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
1%1 votes
16%9 votes
1%1 votes
11%6 votes

| 54 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading
It's been called by the O(R)egonian, so it must be true:

Kulongoski wins re-election over Ron Saxton.  Thank Gawd!

Kulongoski wins re-election

 See Photo

Democratic incumbent Ted Kulongoski has won re-election as Oregon governor.

The Oregonian has declared Kulongoski will defeat Republican Challenger Ron Saxton. Early returns show Kulongoski leading 53 percent to 41 percent.

The incumbent Democrat won re-election despite polls showing voters unhappy with the governor's leadership. In a recent statewide poll conducted for The Oregonian and KATU(2), 42 percent of voters agreed the state is "headed in the right direction," and 41 percent.

Post your congrats to Ted here. :)

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site