Jump to content

2018 - Elections and Trends


atomheartbevo

Recommended Posts

Here come the millennial socialists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/opinion/democratic-socialists-progressive-democratic-party-trump.html

The Millennial Socialists Are Coming

Michelle Goldberg

By Michelle Goldberg

Opinion Columnist

  • June 30, 2018
    •  
    •  
    •  
    • 1750
Image01goldberg-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&a
CreditIllustration by Selman Design; Photographs by Tammy Bradshaw, Seth Wenig/Associated Press, Mark Makela for The New York Times, and Jeff Swensen for The New York Times.

In May, three young progressive women running for the state Legislature in Pennsylvania, each endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, won decisive primary victories over men heavily favored by the political establishment. Two of the women, Summer Lee, 30, and Sara Innamorato, 32, ousted incumbents, the distant cousins Dom Costa and Paul Costa, members of an iconic Pennsylvania political family.

Elizabeth Fiedler, 37, announced her run three months after giving birth to her second child, and she had a nursery in her Philadelphia campaign office so other parents could drop off their kids before canvassing shifts. Talking to voters, she spoke of depending on Medicaid and CHIP for her kids’ health insurance, and of the anxiety she felt during two weeks when their insurance lapsed.

Lee was open about the more than $200,000 in student loans that have weighed on her since graduating from law school, which gave her a visceral sense, she told me, of the “need for free, quality education for everybody.” (An African-American woman running in a largely white district, she ended up with 68 percent of the vote.) Innamorato spoke about how her father’s opioid addiction had pushed her and her mother from the middle class. “I’ve lived the struggles of my district,” she told me.

 
Imagemerlin_140495652_ba446e79-71c1-49ef-9397
Elizabeth Fiedler, a first-time candidate who won a primary for state representative in Pennsylvania.CreditTammy Bradshaw
Image
01Goldberg4-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&au
Sara Innamorato, a Democratic Socialist, won the Democratic Party’s nomination for state representative in her district in Pittsburgh.CreditJeff Swensen for The New York Times

Their races were part of a grass-roots civic renewal that is happening across this country, something that is, for me, the sole source of optimism in this very dark time. Marinating in the news in New York City, I’m often sick with despair. An authoritarian president of dubious legitimacy and depraved character is poised to remake America for generations with a second Supreme Court pick. The federal government is a festival of kleptocratic impunity. Kids the same age as my own are ripped from their migrant parents.

 
Image
merlin_140354673_1e8cdd1d-7a5e-4611-ab29
Summer Lee defeated a longtime incumbent in a primary for a State Senate seat in Pennsylvania.CreditMark Makela for The New York Times

But all over the nation, people, particularly women, are working with near supernatural energy to rebuild democracy from the ground up, finding ways to exercise political power however they can. For the middle-aged suburbanites who are the backbone of the anti-Trump resistance, that often means shoring up the Democratic Party. For younger people who see Donald Trump’s election as the apotheosis of a rotten political and economic system, it often means trying to remake that party as a vehicle for democratic socialism.

 

Today, the victories of Lee, Innamorato and Fielder look like a portent. On Tuesday, a similar pattern played out on a grander scale in New York City, when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old democratic socialist, shook the Democratic Party by toppling Joseph Crowley, a 19-year incumbent, chairman of the Queens County Democratic Party and potential heir to House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Weeks before the election, Crowley’s own polling showed him up by 36 percentage points. Ocasio-Cortez ended up winning by 15.

 
Image
merlin_140379000_cb2f6c7a-6073-4313-9cce
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old political newcomer who upset United States Representative Joe Crowley in a Democratic primary in New York.CreditSeth Wenig/Associated Press

She did it the same way as the women in Pennsylvania — by mobilizing scores of volunteers and connecting with voters one-on-one. “There were folks on the ground there for months without any national attention, talking to people at the subway stops,” said Zephyr Teachout, a candidate for New York attorney general who endorsed Ocasio-Cortez in May.

Given the overwhelmingly Democratic makeup of her district, Ocasio-Cortez will almost certainly win the general election. Neither Lee, Fiedler nor Innamorato is facing a serious Republican challenger, so they are set to become legislators as well.

On Twitter, Trump has fantasized about a red wave that will sweep even more Republicans into power in November and reinforce his rule. But the real red wave may be democratic socialism’s growing political influence, especially among young people. “She really showed that you can run on these issues and win,” Maria Svart, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, said about Ocasio-Cortez’s platform, which includes Medicare for All, abolishing the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and a federal jobs guarantee.

The D.S.A., to which Ocasio-Cortez belongs, is the largest socialist organization in America. Its growth has exploded since the 2016 election — when, of course, avowed democratic socialist Bernie Sanders ran in the Democratic primary — from 7,000 members to more than 37,000. It’s an activist group rather than a political party, working with Democrats in the electoral realm while also agitating against injustice from the outside.

Many of the D.S.A.’s goals, reflected in Ocasio-Cortez’s platform, are indistinguishable from those of progressive democrats. But if the D.S.A. is happy to work alongside liberals, its members are generally serious about the “socialist” part of democratic socialist. Its constitution envisions “a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.”

Talk of popular control of the means of production is anathema to many older Democrats, even very liberal ones. It plays a lot better with the young; one recent survey shows that 61 percent of Democrats between 18 and 34 view socialism positively. The combination of the Great Recession, the rising cost of education, the unreliability of health insurance and the growing precariousness of the workplace has left young people with gnawing material insecurity. They have no memory of the widespread failure of Communism, but the failures of capitalism are all around them.

The D.S.A. alone neither claims nor deserves sole credit for the victories of candidates it endorses. Many groups came together behind Ocasio-Cortez, including the populist Brand New Congress and local chapters of the resistance group Indivisible. Nor was the D.S.A. the prime mover behind the Fiedler, Lee and Innamorato wins, though it helped in all of them.

Indeed, while there’s a lot of talk about an ideological civil war among Democrats, on the ground, boundaries seem more fluid. In Pennsylvania recently, I met with moderate suburban resistance activists who’d volunteered for Innamorato, thrilled to support a young woman who could help revitalize the Democratic Party.

Barry Rush is a 63-year-old retiree who used to vote for both Democrats and Republicans, but who, horrified by Trump, now devotes himself full time to a liberal group called Progress PA. His main concern is electing Democrats — “I’m gonna pull the Smurf lever till this gets fixed,” he says of voting blue — and he knows that the Democratic Party needs young people. He was heartened by all the millennials at Innamorato’s victory celebration: “There were 500 kids there!” he said. It gave him hope for his grandkids.

The young members of the D.S.A., meanwhile, are hopeful because their analysis helps them make sense of the Trump catastrophe. They often seem less panicked about what is happening in America right now than liberals are, because they believe they know why our society is coming undone, and how it can be rebuilt.

“The Trump disaster is that everyone feels threatened individually, and feels like they have to fight Trump and fight this administration,” Arielle Cohen, the Pittsburgh D.S.A.’s 29-year-old co-chair, told me as I sat with her and two other chapter leaders in a small coffee shop in the city’s East End. “And socialists are saying, this has actually been going on for a long time. It’s not just Trump. It’s not just who’s in office.”

There is a strange sort of comfort in this perspective; the socialists see themselves as building the world they want to live in decades in the future rather than just scrambling to avert catastrophe in the present.

 

Talking to Cohen and others from the D.S.A.’s Pittsburgh chapter, which has more than 620 members, I was struck by the work they put into building community. On some days that public schools are closed, the D.S.A.’s socialist-feminist committee puts on all-day events with child care and free lunches. Like several other chapters, the Pittsburgh D.S.A. holds clinics where members change people’s burned-out car brake lights for free, helping them avoid unnecessary police run-ins while making inroads into the community. A local mechanic named Metal Mary helped train them.

Democratic socialist chapters have constant streams of meetings and social events, creating an antidote to the isolation that’s epidemic in American life. “Everything is highly individualized, and it is isolating,” Svart said. “People are very, very lonely. Suicide rates have gone up astronomically. And we do create a community for folks.” This fusion of politics and communal life isn’t so different from what the Christian right has offered its adherents. Such social capital is something no amount of campaign spending can buy.

After Ocasio-Cortez’s win, Pelosi denied Republican claims that socialism is ascendant in the Democratic Party. It’s hard to blame her for being defensive, since for generations “socialist” was considered a slur, and it’s one that’s hurled at Democrats indiscriminately. But I think she’s wrong. There are more candidates like Ocasio-Cortez out there, and the Democrats should welcome them. It needs their youth and zeal and willingness to do the work of rebuilding the party as a neighborhood institution. And they’re coming, whether the party’s leadership likes it or not.

In Pennsylvania, unlike many other states, being a state legislator is a full-time job. When I met Lee a month after her victory, she was thinking about all she needed to learn once she gets to Harrisburg, the capital. But she was also confident that she and others like her are ready to remake the Democratic Party.

“If what we did here in Pennsylvania shows anything, it’s that we can do that,” she said. “We can go up against the establishment. We can support our own candidacies. We can run positive campaigns. We can do all that, and we can actually win. And then we can do it again, and we can do it everywhere.”

 
 

I invite you to follow me on Twitter (@michelleinbklyn) and join me on Facebook.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter. [/spoiler[

 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised that socialism is losing its stigma in America, after 8 years of the right associating the term with everything Obama did.  It really seems to have taken the edge off, the more people look back fondly on his presidency. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't see how creating less losers in the United States could be a bad thing.

http://fortune.com/2018/06/04/trump-policies-u-n-report-u-s-poverty/

 

UN Report on US poverty:

40 million Americans live in poverty; 18.5 million live in extreme poverty; and 5.3 million Americans live in “Third World conditions of absolute poverty.”

In 2016, 18 per cent of children (13.3 million) were living in poverty, and children comprised 32.6 per cent of all people in poverty.

On a given night in 2017, about 21 per cent (or 114,829) of homeless individuals were children.

In terms of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states, the U.S. has the highest youth poverty rate and the highest infant mortality rate.

The report also focuses on the consolidation of wealth in the U.S.:

“The share of the top 1% of the population in the United States has grown steadily in recent years. In 2016 they owned 38.6 per cent of total wealth.”

Overall, the report highlights how Americans view wealth and poverty through the lens of the American dream — with hard work, anyone can succeed — and worries that it’s not a reality.

“High child and youth poverty rates perpetuate the intergenerational transmission of poverty very effectively, and ensure that the American dream is rapidly becoming the American illusion,” the report states. “The equality of opportunity, which is so prized in theory, is in practice a myth, especially for minorities and women, but also for many middle-class White workers.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Republicans really love capitalism vs. socialism, they need to make sure capitalism wins for everyone.  The genius of FDR is that he saved capitalism by bringing in some socialistic programs.  You can't have a democracy where everyone is poor except for the extremely rich.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dropout said:

Damn right millennial socialism is coming

Yeah, this.  

 

They've been told capitalism is great but they have huge student loan bills and mediocre job prospects.  You can argue the details all you want but that's how they see it.  Boomer Steve had a high school diploma but still had a solid life so of course he thinks capitalism is great.  Never mind that Steve benefited from socialistic things like public education, high marginal tax rates, and massive government infrastructure programs.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Yeah, this.  

 

They've been told capitalism is great but they have huge student loan bills and mediocre job prospects.  You can argue the details all you want but that's how they see it.  Boomer Steve had a high school diploma but still had a solid life so of course he thinks capitalism is great.  Never mind that Steve benefited from socialistic things like public education, high marginal tax rates, and massive government infrastructure programs.

Never, ever, ever bring up history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Yeah, this.  

 

They've been told capitalism is great but they have huge student loan bills and mediocre job prospects.  You can argue the details all you want but that's how they see it.  Boomer Steve had a high school diploma but still had a solid life so of course he thinks capitalism is great.  Never mind that Steve benefited from socialistic things like public education, high marginal tax rates, and massive government infrastructure programs.

Don't forget healthcare. It's been my view for some time that the agent for socialism is going to be frustration with how healthcare is handled in the US. Millennials are still young, but they have older family members, and can recognize that at this rate healthcare will be a huge crisis once they age. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Yeah, this.  

 

They've been told capitalism is great but they have huge student loan bills and mediocre job prospects.  You can argue the details all you want but that's how they see it.  Boomer Steve had a high school diploma but still had a solid life so of course he thinks capitalism is great.  Never mind that Steve benefited from socialistic things like public education, high marginal tax rates, and massive government infrastructure programs.

The high dollar student loans complaint never really resonated with me. If you make a rational decision as to where to go to school and for what kind of degree in order to pursue a certain profession then the amount of student loans and job prospects is not a reflection of capitalism, but a result  of the career you choose.

If people are mad that college is expensive then I agree. It should only be for those who a) can afford it before they attend or b) students that are pursuing a degree that will result in a job after getting a degree that can pay off those student loans. Graduates should not be mad that they chose a degree with no job prospects, rack up mammoth student loans, and then extra expect someone else to pick up the tab.

Personally I would rather us focus on improving and making trade schools more prevalent for those that can’t or shouldn’t attend University.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised that socialism is losing its stigma in America, after 8 years of the right associating the term with everything Obama did.  It really seems to have taken the edge off, the more people look back fondly on his presidency. 
Agreed. The right-wing media has probably inadvertently promoted socialism through its monotonous histrioncs whenever discussing the issue. Paying for healthcare and higher education through progressive taxation sounds less and less scary when it becomes increasingly evident the right is void of alternatives. In their purest states, both capitalism and socialism consume and destroy themselves. By being hell-bent on opposing even a little socialism in the capitalist gene pool, the right has endangered the very thing it wants to protect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Enchubben said:

The high dollar student loans complaint never really resonated with me. If you make a rational decision as to where to go to school and for what kind of degree in order to pursue a certain profession then the amount of student loans and job prospects is not a reflection of capitalism, but a result  of the career you choose.

You're talking about 17 and 18 year olds.. making a rational decision when deciding what school, what degree and what future career.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Some of them might be capable of that, but that's also a big ask for a senior in college. Decide what future career you want, when you haven't really explored what it takes to get there. There's a lot of blame to hand out in this one, it aint just the student but the parents, colleges, guidance office, student loan providers, etc.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Enchubben said:

The high dollar student loans complaint never really resonated with me. If you make a rational decision as to where to go to school and for what kind of degree in order to pursue a certain profession then the amount of student loans and job prospects is not a reflection of capitalism, but a result  of the career you choose.

If people are mad that college is expensive then I agree. It should only be for those who a) can afford it before they attend or b) students that are pursuing a degree that will result in a job after getting a degree that can pay off those student loans. Graduates should not be mad that they chose a degree with no job prospects, rack up mammoth student loans, and then extra expect someone else to pick up the tab.

Personally I would rather us focus on improving and making trade schools more prevalent for those that can’t or shouldn’t attend University.

The issues with what you're proposing is that only the rich could afford college. Grants help a lot of students from lower SES as well as minorities get a chance at college. Not all of them graduate, but making higher education more attainable is necessary if you want people to have some mobility. If you limited college to only those who could afford to pay for it before beginning, you're narrowing the pool by an immense factor.

As for your second point, I'd argue that you're asking 17-18 year olds to make a prediction on the job market 4-8 years in advance for whatever degree they end up getting. Graduates have a right to be upset if they work towards a degree only to have it not be used like they imagined, or have the job market become extremely tight. Frankly, getting a good paying job as a young graduate is becoming increasingly difficult. 

I'd agree with a focus on trade schools, but I think more students should be pushed towards community colleges as they aren't as expensive to attend so they can lessen the burden for the future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Enchubben said:

The high dollar student loans complaint never really resonated with me. If you make a rational decision as to where to go to school and for what kind of degree in order to pursue a certain profession then the amount of student loans and job prospects is not a reflection of capitalism, but a result  of the career you choose.

If people are mad that college is expensive then I agree. It should only be for those who a) can afford it before they attend or b) students that are pursuing a degree that will result in a job after getting a degree that can pay off those student loans. Graduates should not be mad that they chose a degree with no job prospects, rack up mammoth student loans, and then extra expect someone else to pick up the tab.

Personally I would rather us focus on improving and making trade schools more prevalent for those that can’t or shouldn’t attend University.

1234

I attended a wedding a few weeks ago and was seated with fairly recent graduates (3-4 years post). I was surprised by their frustration at the job market and opportunities as most went to good to great schools (e.g. Berkeley, UC systems) and had quality degrees (e.g. economics, engineering). They all attended coding bootcamp and now are programmers in the bay area. They had to pay for coding bootcamp after graduating from a quality university with a respectable degree. While the job is way better and pay decent, it is ridiculous to blame the youth as the decent pay jobs are few and far between at the lower level.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

You're talking about 17 and 18 year olds.. making a rational decision when deciding what school, what degree and what future career.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Some of them might be capable of that, but that's also a big ask for a senior in college. Decide what future career you want, when you haven't really explored what it takes to get there. There's a lot of blame to hand out in this one, it aint just the student but the parents, colleges, guidance office, student loan providers, etc.

Can't say I disagree with anything you posted here - plenty of blame to go around; not just the students. I also don't think that means we need to crowdfund bad choices or experimentation in college degree programs with tax dollars because a bunch of recent graduates are upset with student loans and think post secondary education should be free or a burden on the collective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Skyline said:

The issues with what you're proposing is that only the rich could afford college. Grants help a lot of students from lower SES as well as minorities get a chance at college. Not all of them graduate, but making higher education more attainable is necessary if you want people to have some mobility. If you limited college to only those who could afford to pay for it before beginning, you're narrowing the pool by an immense factor.

As for your second point, I'd argue that you're asking 17-18 year olds to make a prediction on the job market 4-8 years in advance for whatever degree they end up getting. Graduates have a right to be upset if they work towards a degree only to have it not be used like they imagined, or have the job market become extremely tight. Frankly, getting a good paying job as a young graduate is becoming increasingly difficult. 

I'd agree with a focus on trade schools, but I think more students should be pushed towards community colleges as they aren't as expensive to attend so they can lessen the burden for the future. 

Probably should start a whole new thread on education costs etc since this has little to do with an election., but I disagree with the second part there. If they chose a degree plan that doesn't result in the career they imagined upon graduation, or have trouble getting a job with that degree at all, they must have chosen their degree poorly, or performed poorly while at university. That is on the student, and yes maybe their parents, guidance counselors etc. Yes, sometimes a cyclical downturn in the economy or a particular industry may be at fault at the particular time of graduation, but that impact isn't solely felt by recent graduates - that's all workers.  

In regards to the high paying - I find that a lot of recent graduates these days, at least from the major Texas public universities my firm recruits at, expect to make salary commensurate with mid level management right out of school and to live a lifestyle closer to their parents at the end of their careers rather than their peers. These lifestyle expectations and choices often make student loan repayment a distant priority and thus the burden of never ending student loan repayment and outrage about the cost of university.  

The students that mike educated decisions on their degree plan and career path, and make sound financial decisions both during college and thereafter shouldn't be punished with the burden of those that make unwise decisions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eventually the solution to the wealth inequality problem will be make the wealthy very unhappy.  If they were smart, they would embrace small changes now in the hopes of preventing the massive wealth confiscation that will eventually occur.   Wealth just won’t be more even on its own.  And the wealthy might be able to contribute enough political donations to hold it off but they won’t be able to stop it once the lower and middle class start to account for 90-95% of the population.  At that point, even the gop will have to adopt socialist policies to stay relevant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Skyline said:

The issues with what you're proposing is that only the rich could afford college. Grants help a lot of students from lower SES as well as minorities get a chance at college. Not all of them graduate, but making higher education more attainable is necessary if you want people to have some mobility. If you limited college to only those who could afford to pay for it before beginning, you're narrowing the pool by an immense factor.

As for your second point, I'd argue that you're asking 17-18 year olds to make a prediction on the job market 4-8 years in advance for whatever degree they end up getting. Graduates have a right to be upset if they work towards a degree only to have it not be used like they imagined, or have the job market become extremely tight. Frankly, getting a good paying job as a young graduate is becoming increasingly difficult. 

I'd agree with a focus on trade schools, but I think more students should be pushed towards community colleges as they aren't as expensive to attend so they can lessen the burden for the future. 

A liberal arts education still provides a good platform for future earning.  Student loans force the focus on entry level jobs.  In reality, entry level jobs are always going to suck unless they require specific technical skillsets.  The real problem with student loans is that they don't allow graduates much time to move past entry level.  Instead, they are forced to let their loans capitalize interest which snowballs to a point where it will never be affordable.  So they can work through the entry level job and default on the loans, or they can forgo a job with a career track and do something like tend bar which will forever cap their earning potential at slightly better than white collar entry level.  While grants and state funding would certainly be helpful, a 5 or 10 year interest free grace period would perhaps be more helpful.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

It would seem to me that today's liberal is most concerned with what government can give them.  Today's conservative is most concerned with what government can take from them.

Today's conservative is just as concerned with what the government can give them. Conservatives love big government as long as it's spending money on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Today's conservative is just as concerned with what the government can give them. Conservatives love big government as long as it's spending money on them.

Prime examples are corporate welfare and subsidies. Speaking of which I’ve seen some of the conservative farmers starting to ask for more subsidies to offset their losses due to the new foreign tariffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem to me that today's liberal is most concerned with what government can give them.  Today's conservative is most concerned with what government can take from them.

And folks, there are millions of folks simple-minded enough to believe this.

Kind of like how Emory told us for years that the GOP was going to save us from the looming deficit...and instead, they’ve accelerated it. Up is down, every accusation is a confession.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Today's conservative is just as concerned with what the government can give them. Conservatives love big government as long as it's spending money on them.

No doubt.  

 

I’ll share this with the caveat that 2016 showed polling is flawed and that I think Dems will outperform polls in midterms. 

https://www.axios.com/poll-democrats-2018-midterms-senate-5eb4075f-4325-46aa-bda5-699b814d9dd7.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

This is just amazing. 

 

He's sort of right. Today's "conservative" is worried about government taking away their subsidies, taking away their tax breaks, taking away their ability to make private behaviors illegal. There's a lot to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

No doubt.  

 

I’ll share this with the caveat that 2016 showed polling is flawed and that I think Dems will outperform polls in midterms. 

https://www.axios.com/poll-democrats-2018-midterms-senate-5eb4075f-4325-46aa-bda5-699b814d9dd7.html

So they are using SurveyMonkey.  Where have I heard of that company...oh yeah.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/surveymonkey-shows-hillary-clinton-likely-victor-2016-election-democrat-advantages-across-battlegrounds-final-hours/

Quote

SurveyMonkey Shows Hillary Clinton as Likely Victor for 2016 Election, the Democrat Has Advantages Across All Battlegrounds in Final Hours

Unprecedented Polling Effort Across 97 Races Shows Democrats Also Poised to Take Senate

Palo Alto, California, November 7, 2016 — Today, SurveyMonkey, the world’s leading online survey platform, released final polling estimates for the 2016 presidential, U.S. Senate and gubernatorial elections. Just ahead of tomorrow’s election, SurveyMonkey and NBC News showed Hillary Clinton with a clear and consistent national lead, beating Donald Trump 47 to 41 percent, with 6 percent for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 3 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

“Our polls have shown Clinton’s lead in the national popular vote to be remarkably stable despite the many apparent twists and turns in the campaign,” said Jon Cohen, SurveyMonkey’s Chief Research Officer. “All fall, Clinton has maintained a lead over Trump, with her margin hovering in a narrow band between 4 and 6 percentage points.”

Which proves your point.  

Although I think Axios is playing up clickbait as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

So they are using SurveyMonkey.  Where have I heard of that company...oh yeah.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/surveymonkey-shows-hillary-clinton-likely-victor-2016-election-democrat-advantages-across-battlegrounds-final-hours/

Which proves your point.  

Although I think Axios is playing up clickbait as well.

Axios was tweeting it as a BOMBSHELL!

First off, they get a D- by 538. Terrible. Remember when they showed Hillary only down by 2 in Mississippi? LOL. An entire month of polling? We've already gone through 69 major political bombshells in the past month.

Secondly, a net loss of 1 seat by the Dems in 2018 Senate would be EXCEEDING expectations. Picking off 2 R-held seats and only losing 3 of the 6 vulnerable seats (MO, ND, IN, FL, WV, MT) with all 3 of the "losses" within the MOE.  Also, these same BOMBSHELL numbers also show them doing exceedingly better in most matchups than they did in the spring polls:

March -> July

Tester losing by 13 to generic R --> Tester +8
Manchin losing by 9 to generic R --> Manchin +13
McCaskill losing by 8 to Hawley --> McCaskill +2
Donnelly losing by 6 to generic R --> Donnelly -2
Baldwin leading generic R by 3 --> Baldwin +13-16
Stabenow leading generic R by 4 --> Stabenow +12
Brown leading Renacci by 5 --> Brown + 8
Casey leading Barletta by 9 --> Casey + 14

The only matchups that got worse were Heitkamp (-2 to -5), Nelson (+10 to -3 but this has been the swingiest Senate polling all cycle) and Bredesen (+1 in April, now -14 but this looks wrong compared to what's been released).  Still has Sinema and Rosen leading in AZ and NV.

Edited by Js1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The map for both the House and Senate are bad for the Dems, but the Senate map is atrocious. It's going to take a blue wave to retake the House, but would take a blue tsunami to retake the Senate. Anyone setting that as the expectation is likely to be disappointed. I hope it happens, but it's really unlikely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pods said:

The map for both the House and Senate are bad for the Dems, but the Senate map is atrocious. It's going to take a blue wave to retake the House, but would take a blue tsunami to retake the Senate. Anyone setting that as the expectation is likely to be disappointed. I hope it happens, but it's really unlikely. 

Like I said, if the Dems. somehow picked off 2 and only lost 3 of their own, that would be very much exceeding expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Like I said, if the Dems. somehow picked off 2 and only lost 3 of their own, that would be very much exceeding expectations.

Completely agree. That would be a major victory. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I don't think SurveyMonkey tries to be a scientific poll - like with respect to managing demographics and such.  Could be wrong, but it's a feedback marketing company first.

This. It’s not a great polling company. I think anyone can sign up and they ask you age, race, etc. Seems unscientific and totally prone to manipulation. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axios has he scoop on the upcoming Larry Saboto Crystal Ball showing where voter registration is stacking up.  In the 31 states where you register by party, 19 have more Ds registered, 12 have more Rs.

 

By my count, that number includes more Ds than Rs in 6 states won by Trump, and more Rs than Ds in only one state won by Hillary, New Hampshire.  If we were looking at a presidential election, those 7 states would represent a swing toward the democrats of 81 electoral votes.

 

https://www.axios.com/democrats-crush-republican-party-registration-2018-midterms-872f7ad2-7a3b-4f7c-97b0-8070448e2df4.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pods said:

The map for both the House and Senate are bad for the Dems, but the Senate map is atrocious. It's going to take a blue wave to retake the House, but would take a blue tsunami to retake the Senate. Anyone setting that as the expectation is likely to be disappointed. I hope it happens, but it's really unlikely. 

The House is going to be a bloodbath. The Republicans are going to get slaughtered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Skyline said:

DhxoalqXkAA8ZEe.jpg:large

 

 

It's funny--I was coming to post about that before I even say Silver's tweets.  Those two lines have been diverging with some consistency for weeks--going back to mid-May.  

And to Nate's point--it coincides with a news-y period (including news on North Korea that most pundits thought was favorable to the Republicans).  And this is supposed to be a non-newsy period.  The middle of summer is when it's supposed to be quiet in DC.  If there's this much going on now, it's going to be even more intense in October.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...