"The Best Mix Of Hard-Hitting REAL News & Cutting-Edge Alternative News On The Web"
November 7, 2018
Liberals 'Shaking With Outrage' Blame 'White Women' For Lack Of 'Blue Wave' Materializing - Are These People Capable Of Taking One Minute To Celebrate Their Wins?
First and foremost, thanks to ANP readers and commenters for spending midterm election with us, with over 800 comments in the midterm election thread, there is no better a group to spend the evening with.
The much talked about "blue wave' never materialized, though the Democrats did win control of the House of Representatives, with the Republicans gaining seats in the senate to keep control of the upper chamber.
The results were expected, and predicted, as was the lack of a huge "blue wave," which turned into a purple puddle, at least for those of us not paying attention to the predictions of the mainstream media. This is perhaps why conservatives today, while not thrilled to have lost control of the House, are handling it much better than triggered liberals that are bemoaning a number of things, incapable of taking even a day to celebrate the gains they did make.
Liberals and the media (same thing, I know) had themselves convinced, despite more reasoned minds trying to temper their expectations, that they would see a huge blue wave that would take control of both the Senate and the House, much like what happened in 2010 for the Republicans when they won 63 House seats and six senate seats to take control of both houses of congress.
LIBERALS NOW ATTACKING 'WHITE WOMEN'
Silly me, I awoke this morning expecting that liberals would be celebrating taking control of the House and conservatives would be happy to have gained seats in the Senate...... I was only half right.
I should have remembered the perpetually outraged liberals would somehow find something to be outraged about. (Or heartbroken, like CNN's Van Jones)
Rather than celebrating their gains, we see liberals "literally shaking" in outrage and anger over Robert Francis O'Rourke aka "Beto" O'Rourke losing his bid to unseat Texas Senator Ted Cruz. When I say "literally shaking," I am not exaggerating as people took to social media to make the same claim, almost verbatim.
That Texas Senate race is where the attacks against "White Women," started, as a writer for Samantha Bee, Travon Free, produced a graph showing the demographics of who voted for Cruz versus O'Rourke, while declaring "Black women voted 95% for Beto. White women did what white women do."
Somehow "white women" voting for Cruz, whose father was Cuban born, rather than voting for the 4th generation white American man, O'Rourke, is somehow racist.
Don't look at me, I didn't say it, Travon there did! As Twitchy shows us, many in that comment thread pointed out the illogical nature of that assertion, as one person responds "39% voted for the white guy while 59% voted for the minority guy. What's the problem?"
The attacks against white women do not stop there as we see the African American "senior writer" over at Rolling Stone, Jamil Smith, sharing a NYT article titled "At Trump Rallies, Women See a Hero Protecting a Way of Life," and attempts to "mansplain," to use liberal terminology, to white women why they are not voting correctly.
Smith states "White women are a Republican constituency, and in many states they again voted as if patriarchy would protect them. 50 percent or more for DeSantis, Cruz, and Kemp. I am unsure when they will understand the damage that they do, and not just to themselves."
Others joined him in bashing "white women," as another African American, this time a woman, puts out three graphs showing the breakdown of voting demographics in not just the Cruz/O'Rourke race, but also the Abrams/Kemp and DeSantis/Gillum races in Georgia and Florida respectively, as she writes "61% of white women voted for Cruz over Beto. 76% of white women voted for Kemp over Abrams. 51% of white women voted for DeSantis over Gillum. White women: What will you do to be accountable to women, trans, queer, and non binary people of color in your everyday lives?"
As a "White woman" let me take a moment to respond to that bit of idiocy.
Nothing. I am not "accountable" to other women, transgenders, queers, non-binary (whatever that means) nor people of color. I am accountable to getting food on my table, helping to keep a roof over our heads, helping out our grown children when we can, and supporting the person running for office that I agree with on the majority of issues. Period.
No one of any race, religion, or demographic has the right to demand my accountability.
If they were so worried about "accountability," one would have to wonder how four Democratic men facing sexual misconduct allegations, in the #MeToo era, were voted into office on Tuesday by Democrat men and women?
As Fox News reports "House Reps. Keith Ellison, Tony Cárdenas and Bobby Scott, and Sen. Bob Menendez, all came out victorious on Tuesday, despite being accused of misconduct."
Then comes another high and mighty black woman, saying "White Women. I swear to God. Y’all are infuriating. And before you #NotAllWhiteWomen me (which will get you blocked) tell me you are COMMITTED to flipping 10 of your alabaster friends from red to blue by 2020. It’s not enough to be “not racist.” You must be *anti-racist.*"
Perhaps she should check her own racism in the mirror before opening her trap. This "alabaster" woman is committed to convincing more and more liberals to #WalkAway and more African Americans to join the #Blexit (Blacks Exiting the Democrat party).
I guess white women are the new "white terrorists" because *GASP* we dare vote for what we believe is best for us as families and individuals, and aren't fond of identity politics."
NEXT LIBERAL COMPLAINT "GERRYMANDERING" AND "SENATE POPULAR VOTE"
Liberals so incensed that they did not see their major "blue wave" which would capture the senate and in fact lost Senate seats, are now citing other clueless liberal talking heads by decrying "gerrymandering for Senate seats, and claiming that the "Senate Popular vote" should have made it so they won the Senate.
First, what is Gerrymandering? Via Britannica: "Gerrymandering, in U.S. politics, drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one party an unfair advantage over its rivals."
Gerrymandering applies to local contests within a state, and even in some cases House seats which are drawn up by districts. Senate races on the other hand are state races, there are no separate "districts" involved, yet we are seeing liberals complaining about gerrymadering in the Senate races.
Hot Air highlights the idiocy of this argument in one succinct paragraph: "Obviously, though, that idea breaks down into complete stuttering idiocy when it’s applied to the Senate, where the boundaries of each “district” are the state’s boundaries. They don’t change."
The "Senate popular vote" argument actually started before the election when nervous liberals like Vox's Ezra Klein started bemoaning the "house popular vote," (which also isn't a thing), warning people that if Democrats won the "house popular vote" but didn't take the House majority, a crisis would ensue.
Needless to say he was nearly laughed off Twitter for his hot take. National Reviews' Charles Cooke explains Kleins grasping at straws: "Pretty much every Ezra Klein tweet follows this pattern: "[Institution] must be [changed in particular way] because [it isn’t doing what I want]. And I’m not a hypocrite because [a recent study I’ve played with] changes everything/[I’m using a different word this time]."
Then the midterms, Democrats took the House, but Republicans gained seats in the Senate and kept control of the upper chamber and BOOM, then comes the complaints about the "Senate Popular Vote."
Here is an example of the complaints, by people that should know better, like the following statement from Evan Hill, who has written for NYT Opinion, Slate and Buzzfeed, according to his bio, who states "Democrats have a 12-point lead in the overall popular vote for the Senate and have lost three seats."
One again I'll refer to Hot Air who manages to untangle the stupidity of the "senate popular vote" argument in a manner that I simply cannot compete with:
Complaining about the “Senate popular vote” is one of those things that seems so deeply stupid that it makes me suspicious that there’s a nuance to the argument that I’m missing. People can’t possibly be whining that the a legislative body that’s designed to control for population differences between the states isn’t … accurately reflecting population differences between the states. Can they? The House is the chamber that reflects population differences by apportioning more seats to more populous states. The Senate’s the chamber that places all 50 states on an equal footing. Different structures for different functions. By design. Since the beginning. Signed and endorsed by the Founders themselves. What am I missing?
It gets stupider. One of the less interesting Senate races last night for Republicans was Kevin de Leon’s challenge to Dianne Feinstein in California. Feinstein is a Democrat, of course. De Leon … is also a Democrat. California has a “jungle primary” system in which all candidates compete in the same race and then the top two finishers advance to the general election, regardless of party. California is so blue that both of those finishers this year were Dems. Feinstein got 3.4 million votes last night while de Leon raked in 2.8 million — more than six million between them, thanks to the fact that the country’s most populous state is dominated by liberals. The “Senate popular vote” scolds are either ignoring California’s outsized effect on the overall “popular vote” margins or they’re suggesting without really stating that California simply deserves more senators. Never mind that — say it one more time — the entire point of the Senate is to give big states and small ones equal power. If you’re a Californian who doesn’t like that, move.
Then he concludes:
The “House popular vote” at least involves a chamber where all seats are on the ballot. Not so with the Senate. Only a third of seats are on the line every two years, although it often feels like less since election-watchers pay close attention only to battlegrounds. Most of the states up for grabs yesterday were solidly red or blue (mostly blue) and their outcomes were a foregone conclusion. Bernie Sanders won, for instance, as did Elizabeth Warren. Which means that the “Senate popular vote” is a metric of just a third of the chamber, and not even a third equally divided between the parties. As Markay notes, with Democrats fighting on what was mostly their own turf, it was all but a foregone conclusion that they’d win the “popular vote,” particularly with California in the mix — and that did translate to winning a majority of the contests. Just not the ones that made any difference to control of the chamber, which is why these infants are shrieking about unfairness.
The “Senate popular vote” is such a dumb, clearly flawed talking point that it’s already being cycled out for whinier yet more coherent complaints about America’s white women letting the sisterhood down by not voting uniformly for Democrats. In lieu of an exit question, follow this thread from Ricochet contributor Bridget Phetasy, rounding up the latest idiocy. Congrats on being “footsoldiers for the patriarchy,” ladies.
There is no way to adequately describe the screeching, the attacks on "white women," and the jaw-dropping stupidity about the "senator popular vote," which again, isn't even a real thing due to the nature of the Senate, nor the fact that in each Senate election cycle there are only 1/3 of the Senate seats up for grabs, being seen all across social media today, all because the "blue wave" wasn't big enough for their liking.
BOTTOM LINE
While the midterm clutching of pearls on the part of liberals contains no limit of whining and crying, President Trump just managed to say to them something my mother used to tell us when we were children....... "you want something to whine about, I'll give you something to whine about."
ANP NEEDS YOUR HELP. With digital media revenue spiraling downward, especially hitting those in Independent Media, it has become apparent that traditional advertising simply isn't going to fully cover the costs and expenses for many smaller independent websites.
Any extra readers may be able to spare for donations is greatly appreciated.
One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card:
