You're probably bored now hearing me cite how many seats the Democrats lost nationwide, national, state, local, in those three elections, In the 2010 midterms, the 2014 midterms, and in 2016. It's over 1500 seats.
As the Prime Minister of India, Modiji is as much responsible for the welfare of Punjab as I am and his political affiliations are really not material when it comes to the betterment of any State or its people, including Punjab.
Look, Congress has allocated more money to finance the upcoming Iraqi elections than it has for the American elections. There's something wrong with that.
'Elections have consequences,' President Obama said, setting his new policy agenda just three days after taking office in 2009. Three elections later, the president's party has lost 70 House seats and 14 Senate seats. The job of Republicans now is to govern with the confidence that elections do have consequences, promptly passing the conservative reform the voters have demanded.
What action the Centre has taken against the Punjab government for the alleged embezzlement of food stocks? Under what condition the CCL was given to Punjab? Isn't offering and accepting the loan request by the Punjab government to cover up the scam indicates a nexus between the Centre and the State?
My protest about the post exchange seating bore some results. More seats were allocated for blacks, but there were still separate sections for blacks and for whites. At least I had made my men realize that something could be accomplished by speaking out, and I hoped they would be less resigned to unjust conditions.
We all must recognize that homeland security funds should be allocated by threat and no other reason.
I love Punjab and really enjoy playing for the Punjab team in IPL, but when you have your own state team, anyone would like to play for that.
We will stand by Punjab, Punjabis and Punjabiat, unlike Parkash Singh Badal, who makes Chandigarh, river waters and other emotive issues his bread and butter during the elections.
Democrats are not a national party. They have lost governorships, state legislatures, mayoralties. They have lost 1,500 seats since elections, 2010, '12, '14, it's been devastating. And it's all Obama.
Here's the deal: when conservatives lose elections, they change their strategy. When liberals lose elections, they want to change the rules.
We want perfect elections, not just any kind of elections. And it's the electoral commission that organizes elections in the country - this is what most people forget. We have an independent commission which, acccording to our constitution, is in charge of organizing elections.
We use the Air Force analogy: there were expensive things they had to do to get a cockpit suitable for a lot of pilots, like wraparound windshields, but their initial solutions, when they realized average didn't work, were adjustable seats. How in the world did they not already have adjustable seats in their planes? We're looking for adjustable seats for education, for basic things that we can do.
The professionals at the State Board of Elections must assume control of the county board of elections operations in Bladen County, which has shown itself incapable of managing fair elections.
It's going to be very important that we as women's rights advocates are involved in redistricting of both the states legislatures and of the House of Representatives and that we not lose seats but we gain seats for talented women and our country, but we're lacking behind.
Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?