2018 - Elections and Trends

[Mojo Hand 4580]

6 hours ago, kevwun said:

That's why I think Trump's approval numbers among Republicans have always gone up.  It's like a jar of salt water in the sun.  The water level is dropping, so the salinity level is increasing.  The pool of people who will admit to being Republican to pollsters is shrinking.

Is this reflected in data?  

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Is this reflected in data?  

I've looked for it before but I didn't find recent polls.  Nothing in 2018.

Edit:

Actually,  here is something useful:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Basically says it isn't true.

 

Here is now since the week of the election.

(Republican - Independent - Democrat)

2018 Jun 1-13	27	43	29
2018 May 1-10	26	43	29
2018 Apr 2-11	24	45	29
2018 Mar 1-8	23	45	29
2018 Feb 1-10	28	42	27
2018 Jan 2-7	22	44	32
2017 Dec 4-11	25	46	27
2017 Nov 2-8	25	42	30
2017 Oct 5-11	24	42	31
2017 Sep 6-10	29	40	30
2017 Aug 2-6	28	41	28
2017 Jul 5-9	25	45	28
2017 Jun 7-11	26	42	30
2017 May 3-7	29	40	28
2017 Apr 5-9	25	44	28
2017 Mar 1-5	26	42	30
2017 Feb 1-5	31	37	31
2017 Jan 4-8	28	44	25
2016 Dec 7-11	28	39	29
2016 Nov 9-13	27	40	30

Edited July 20, 2018 by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I found this in Google, which purports to be a chart of that Gallup data:

I guess it shows a drop-off in Rs post-Trump, but there are similar drops historically for both parties. 

[Mdhorn 5819]

15 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Here is the Hail Mary of the right for November:  football season.  

 

https://deadspin.com/the-nfl-is-so-bad-at-this-1827743995

 

They are going to make sure the anthem protests are front and center September and October so the whites have something to be mad about for GOTV.

and opening gas reserves so gas prices go down.  

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

your chart seems to be much more dramatic than mine.  howeva, if those lines hold true and they are amplified by engaged left GOTV, I think a generic D +10 from where we were in the 2016 election seems feasible.

[Ghost of LL 15225]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I found this in Google, which purports to be a chart of that Gallup data:

I guess it shows a drop-off in Rs post-Trump, but there are similar drops historically for both parties. 

I disagree with your conclusion.  Historically, a drop in the Republican identifiers corresponds with an increase in the Republican leaners.  The implication is that people go from being partisans to "independents" who lean Republican (and one would expect that they lean very hard Republican).

But over the last two years, you don't see that corresponding increase in leaners.  While the percentage of Republican identifiers has gone down roughly 4%, the percentage of Republican leaners has been unchanged.

What has changed is the number of Democratic leaners, which looks like it has increased 1-2%.  That might imply that some formerly Republican partisans have skipped the Republican-leaner stage and gone straight to being Democratic leaners

That trend--lower GOP identifiers at the same time that you have an increase in Democratic leaners--has one parallel on the chart: 2005-2006.  And we all know what happened in the 2006 midterms.

 

[Larry T. Spider 1740]

On 7/18/2018 at 4:52 PM, David Dennison said:

This is why Democrats lose.

Sadly very true. I know a ton of people under 30 that didn’t vote. All would have voted for HRC. Republicans are much more reliable voters for some reason. Some of it has to do with age but there’s more to it imo. They want to be inspired by their candidate vs voting R as a routine every two years.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I disagree with your conclusion.  Historically, a drop in the Republican identifiers corresponds with an increase in the Republican leaners.  The implication is that people go from being partisans to "independents" who lean Republican (and one would expect that they lean very hard Republican).

But over the last two years, you don't see that corresponding increase in leaners.  While the percentage of Republican identifiers has gone down roughly 4%, the percentage of Republican leaners has been unchanged.

What has changed is the number of Democratic leaners, which looks like it has increased 1-2%.  That might imply that some formerly Republican partisans have skipped the Republican-leaner stage and gone straight to being Democratic leaners

That trend--lower GOP identifiers at the same time that you have an increase in Democratic leaners--has one parallel on the chart: 2005-2006.  And we all know what happened in the 2006 midterms.

 

I wasn't so much drawing a conclusion about the election as I was responding to the discussion about how much Trump's high popularity among Republicans is affected by Rs fleeing the party because of this unprecedented situation.   From that data, at least, it doesn't seem like an unusual amount of people fleeing the president's party.   It looks like in 2007-2009, the Dems lost even more partisans and leaners at the same time.  That is, it just seems like normal pendulum swinging in the first term, not any sort of recognition from Rs that Trump is uniquely bad.

And I agree that the Dems will do well this fall, but I'm not sure that they will do as well as they should.  Trump's 90% approval among Rs seems pretty real for a first term president. 

[Ghost of LL 15225]

26 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I wasn't so much drawing a conclusion about the election as I was responding to the discussion about how much Trump's high popularity among Republicans is affected by Rs fleeing the party because of this unprecedented situation.   From that data, at least, it doesn't seem like an unusual amount of people fleeing the president's party.   It looks like in 2007-2009, the Dems lost even more partisans and leaners at the same time.  That is, it just seems like normal pendulum swinging in the first term, not any sort of recognition from Rs that Trump is uniquely bad.

And I agree that the Dems will do well this fall, but I'm not sure that they will do as well as they should.  Trump's 90% approval among Rs seems pretty real for a first term president. 

The number of Republican identifiers is as low as it's ever been--the only time that is close is 2013.  But in 2013, the GOP made up for it with an increased number of independent Repubican leaners.  So I do think it's an unusual number of people fleeing the president's party.

On top of that, this is a sustained decline.  In previous pendulum swings, you've seen a decline last for a year.  Not much more.  Only in the midst of the Iraq War did the decline last significantly longer than a year.  As of now, however, the decline seems to be continuing through he 1-year barrier.  And I think that's significant.

[MidTexHorn 773]

Interesting stuff. Trump is a polarizing figure. My hard core Republican friends and family are strongly in favor of him and will no doubt turnout. But I've run into a number of folks who are more like me as well - folks who have traditionally voted Republican, view themselves as moderate or economically conservative/socially liberal. The folks I've talked to in this camp are horrified by not only Trump but by the fact that the Republicans are so supportive of him. It'll be interesting to see what happens with these folks over the next couple elections and beyond. For me, I've moved all the way over to the Dem side although I'll never formally join the party. For some, the move may be temporary and only last an election or two, which of course is what @bad_teammate seems to think is a fait accompli.

[cactusflinthead 26790]

I don't want to defend zork, really I don't but you mfers are kicking him for the wrong reasons. Yeah, he gives a shit about that race in NY the same reason I give a shit about the one in WV. Because it all counts. Spread your money around. 

Ojeda, I am gonna tell you all one more time, WV that went strong to very scrong for Trump is going to elect a Democrat. Monmouth had him up by six from 6/14-6/19. 

I don't care if he is pointing out the weakness of her. She better grow some thick skin and do that fast. She better figure out how play the game or there's the door. The man had it for a long time and sat on his ass and didn't campaign. That is the lesson of Hillary. Campaign mfer. Get off your ass and don't expect Wisconsin and the rest of the rust belt to vote for you, Gotta to say hey every once in a while. Ojeda gets this. He understands what it takes to put boots on the ground because that is who he is. 

yeah. if they don't take the Senate it don't mean shit. Until they can start appointing judges in the House. yeah, yeah sure they can holler and make things tough in the House but appointments come down in the Senate and LeaderKentucky ain't gotta do shit. 

been seeing a lot of Beto signs around

I know who my rep is. Michael Burgess is a charlatan and a fraud, I wish him ignominious defeat, But, I ain't betting that way.

[Mapache 1117]

 

[David Dennison 17657]

More bad news for The Donald and Republicans.

[tantric superman 4667]

Hey, if you have an Kansas relatives, or if you just think we need to get rid of Trump Rubber Stamps, give some money to Honest Tom Niermann.

https://www.niermannforcongress.com/

The family is great -- I'm friends with his terrific brother Mark. 

He's a moderate compared to the two other top guys on the Dem side.  Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez going to push for one or both of the Progressives.

https://theintercept.com/2018/07/21/bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-kansas-james-thompson-brent-welder/

 

[Js1 82350]

Y'all, Don Blankenship is filing for third party in WV! Here's to another Cocaine Mitch ad.

Quote

To Cocaine Leader Mitch McConnell: NEVER, EVER THREATEN WEST VIRGINIA AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A STATE THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

Manchin will win and probably change parties after the election since he's pretty much a Trumpublican now anyway. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Y'all, Don Blankenship is filing for third party in WV! Here's to another Cocaine Mitch ad.

 

I hope he makes the ballot, so he can split the GOP vote. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Manchin will win and probably change parties after the election since he's pretty much a Trumpublican now anyway. 

I think the opposite. Hes acting favorable to Trump because WV likes Trump. He will move towards the Dems after the election. 

[Js1 82350]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Manchin will win and probably change parties after the election since he's pretty much a Trumpublican now anyway. 

You have a weird outlook on things.

He only votes with Trump ~60% of the time for a red-state Democrat where Trump won by 42 points.  He only one of 4 Democrats who vote with Trump 50%+ or more - Manchin (Trump won his state by 42), Heitkamp (Trump won her state by 35), Donnelly (Trump won his state by 19) and Jones (Trump won his state by 27).

He voted yes on the motion for congressional approval of tarrifs, voted for reinstating net neutrality, voted against the GOP immigration proposal, voted against the tax scam both times, voted against all of the ACA repeals and voted no on:  Mulvaney, Price, Ross, Devos.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

Was reading some contemporary American political philosophy yesterday and something noteworthy was the description of the Democrats as the party of passion that makes poor political calculations because they're so emotionally invested.  

The Republicans were described as the party of mercenaries that are much better at the political chess match in America, and have been for a long time.  The mercenary description seemed to fit for me because I cannot think of one Republican, outside of maybe McCain, with any sense of passion, duty, or service to the American people.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I think the opposite. Hes acting favorable to Trump because WV likes Trump. He will move towards the Dems after the election. 

I hope I am wrong and you are right. 

It's very possible I'm wrong but after Manchin voted for the obviously unqualified and massively conflicted guy to run the criminal division of the DOJ, his allegiances seems uncertain at the least.  

[Mojo Hand 4580]

If Manchin was gonna flip, why wouldn't he have done it already? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

If Manchin was gonna flip, why wouldn't he have done it already? 

He can play both sides better as a democrat right now.  His vote is more valuable. 

If the Senate flips to blue, he would have more leverage as a Republican and probably more support from his constituents. 

[Dertyberd 394]

17 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Was reading some contemporary American political philosophy yesterday and something noteworthy was the description of the Democrats as the party of passion that makes poor political calculations because they're so emotionally invested.  

The Republicans were described as the party of mercenaries that are much better at the political chess match in America, and have been for a long time.  The mercenary description seemed to fit for me because I cannot think of one Republican, outside of maybe McCain, with any sense of passion, duty, or service to the American people.  

st.  

It's an apt description.  The amount of dollars and opportunity on the R side of lobbying and campaigning blows away anything relative on the D side.  R's have the ability to cultivate their young talent in a way that spots "business minded" folks (looking to get paid well) and place them into a decent paying jobs (lobbying firms/PAC's/Chambers of Commerce)with serious career growth opportunities that foster a mercenary mentality (loyalty to the paycheck).  D's lack this loose structure of like minded groups that can actually pay a living wage.  Non-profits, environmental, grass roots campaigning just doesn't allow to pay off student loans while learning the ropes of the game.  You never hear of Republicans "selling out" because that is how it is set up in the first place.  You are not there for a cause or the greater good, but a paycheck.  Simple really.  

Edited July 24, 2018 by Dertyberd
copied the wrong quote first time

[Js1 82350]

No wave, no wave, you're the wave!

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_pa_072418/

This new PA-17 has a PVI of R+3.  Rothus is a 3-term incumbent. Lamb was just elected.

Lamb leads by 12 in projected midterm model, 13 with standard turnout model and 15 with a Dem. surge turnout.

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13267]

Manchin will win WV especially if Blankenship runs as an Independent.   And that will ensure that Manchin will end his career as a Dem Senator.  He will be 71 next month, and one more term will most likely be his last.

I don't understand why anyone thinks that Manchin or Jones (AL) should vote 100% with other Dems.  the parties aren't a monolith.  Just as some Rep Senators sometimes vote on the other side.     It's not like McConnell has an automatic 51 votes and Schumer 49.   Yes, the vote is often that count but the majority often has to compromise internally to get to 51.   

[Chuckie Finster 22252]

Random thought I had the other day that I just can't shake.

So let's assume for a second that Russia will launch an unprecedented attack on the midterms this year.  I'm talking "hack into voting systems" level of election interference.

I think we all have just assumed that this scenario would "benefit" Republicans, but if Russia's goal was to create chaos, wouldn't it be a sneakily effective move for them to prop up Democrats? 

Can you imagine the fallout if the blue wave is bigger than expected?  If impeachment/removal becomes a legitimate possibility?  And just try to process what would happen if Trump and Co. find hard evidence that Democrats were aided by Russia?   And the general public has associated Russia with Republicans for a few years now, so at least initially, I don't think many would suspect Putin at all.

I think Putin likes having control over Trump and won't do anything to risk that changing, but they could make shit really crazy if they unexpectedly "switched sides."

[Js1 82350]

25 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Manchin will win WV especially if Blankenship runs as an Independent.   And that will ensure that Manchin will end his career as a Dem Senator.  He will be 71 next month, and one more term will most likely be his last.

I don't understand why anyone thinks that Manchin or Jones (AL) should vote 100% with other Dems.  the parties aren't a monolith.  Just as some Rep Senators sometimes vote on the other side.     It's not like McConnell has an automatic 51 votes and Schumer 49.   Yes, the vote is often that count but the majority often has to compromise internally to get to 51.   

Honestly, as long as Manchin, Jones, Heitkamp, Donnelly, McCaskill vote for Schumer to be Senate Majority Leader, it's whatever.  It's about who is controlling committees and what legislation/nominees is hitting the floor.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

12 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Random thought I had the other day that I just can't shake.

So let's assume for a second that Russia will launch an unprecedented attack on the midterms this year.  I'm talking "hack into voting systems" level of election interference.

I think we all have just assumed that this scenario would "benefit" Republicans, but if Russia's goal was to create chaos, wouldn't it be a sneakily effective move for them to prop up Democrats? 

Can you imagine the fallout if the blue wave is bigger than expected?  If impeachment/removal becomes a legitimate possibility?  And just try to process what would happen if Trump and Co. find hard evidence that Democrats were aided by Russia?   And the general public has associated Russia with Republicans for a few years now, so at least initially, I don't think many would suspect Putin at all.

I think Putin likes having control over Trump and won't do anything to risk that changing, but they could make shit really crazy if they unexpectedly "switched sides."

Why Russia wins NO MATTER WHAT! 

Ive kinda been saying this for a while.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Nice Guy Eddie 13267]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Honestly, as long as Manchin, Jones, Heitkamp, Donnelly, McCaskill vote for Schumer to be Senate Majority Leader, it's whatever.  It's about who is controlling committees and what legislation/nominees is hitting the floor.

Agree and why wouldn't they vote Schumer as the Majority Leader.  They will be rewarded with good assignments.   And Schumer will have the same power that McConnell had when Obama was President:  be a complete obstructionist.   It's much easier to lead as Majority Leader when the Prez is on the other side.  you don't need to actually pull together a majority on an issue.  You just don't need to bring it up for a vote.   And unless you face half of your majority getting upset, you're in a great position.

[Chuckie Finster 22252]

19 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Random thought I had the other day that I just can't shake.

So let's assume for a second that Russia will launch an unprecedented attack on the midterms this year.  I'm talking "hack into voting systems" level of election interference.

I think we all have just assumed that this scenario would "benefit" Republicans, but if Russia's goal was to create chaos, wouldn't it be a sneakily effective move for them to prop up Democrats? 

Can you imagine the fallout if the blue wave is bigger than expected?  If impeachment/removal becomes a legitimate possibility?  And just try to process what would happen if Trump and Co. find hard evidence that Democrats were aided by Russia?   And the general public has associated Russia with Republicans for a few years now, so at least initially, I don't think many would suspect Putin at all.

I think Putin likes having control over Trump and won't do anything to risk that changing, but they could make shit really crazy if they unexpectedly "switched sides."

 

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Holy shit, Trump reads Surly.

 

 

[Ghost of LL 15225]

43 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Random thought I had the other day that I just can't shake.

So let's assume for a second that Russia will launch an unprecedented attack on the midterms this year.  I'm talking "hack into voting systems" level of election interference.

I think we all have just assumed that this scenario would "benefit" Republicans, but if Russia's goal was to create chaos, wouldn't it be a sneakily effective move for them to prop up Democrats? 

Can you imagine the fallout if the blue wave is bigger than expected?  If impeachment/removal becomes a legitimate possibility?  And just try to process what would happen if Trump and Co. find hard evidence that Democrats were aided by Russia?   And the general public has associated Russia with Republicans for a few years now, so at least initially, I don't think many would suspect Putin at all.

I think Putin likes having control over Trump and won't do anything to risk that changing, but they could make shit really crazy if they unexpectedly "switched sides."

I've had the same thought.  But I think the level of Russian coordination with Republicans and Republican-leaning groups (e.g., the NRA) indicates that they're too committed to the GOP to switch sides.

[Fozzz 152]

Ojeda rules.

 

 

[Js1 82350]

Ojeda is a guy who can win and then replace Manchin if he retires in 2024. 

[Aqua Buddha 13897]

Toss up, my ass.  Ojeda wins that running away.

[Aqua Buddha 13897]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I've had the same thought.  But I think the level of Russian coordination with Republicans and Republican-leaning groups (e.g., the NRA) indicates that they're too committed to the GOP to switch sides.

Yeah, they might like the chaos but if they manage to piss off both parties, then they'll both unite and come down hard.  They're in with the GOP at this point.

[Ghost of LL 15225]

2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Toss up, my ass.  Ojeda wins that running away.

I think I agree with this.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I hope I am wrong and you are right. 

It's very possible I'm wrong but after Manchin voted for the obviously unqualified and massively conflicted guy to run the criminal division of the DOJ, his allegiances seems uncertain at the least.  

Regardless, I'd much rather Manchin have the chance to prove one of us right or wrong.  The alternative is to have Morrissey who will be much worse than even the evil Manchin you envision happening.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

15 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I've had the same thought.  But I think the level of Russian coordination with Republicans and Republican-leaning groups (e.g., the NRA) indicates that they're too committed to the GOP to switch sides.

The Russians will cut the GOP’s throat in a heartbeat to bring down America.  

They’ll take their chances with the democrats again if they have to (they’re big softies).

The bottom line is Russia doesn’t need to do a fucking thing at this point.  Their job is over. But they’re still going to fuck with us because that’s their national pastime.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Aqua Buddha 13897]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I think I agree with this.

He'll also be a star with the beltway media crowd.  He won't adhere to party lines and will be a total breath of fresh air within in the Democratic Party.

[Js1 82350]

This is an interesting statistic and arguably what swung 2016 - how people voted who hated both candidates (and broke for Trump).

That NBC poll from yesterday finds voters who hate both parties swing to the Democrats 55-25, 68% disapprove of Trump and 63% are enthusiastic about voting.

[Hank Kingsley 19819]

 

[Aqua Buddha 13897]

The Republican fear machine is obsessed with Pelosi and now OC but they need to be worried about Ojeda.

[Chuckie Finster 22252]

NSIAP:

 

[atomheartbevo 88750]

1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

So let's assume for a second that Russia will launch an unprecedented attack on the midterms this year.  I'm talking "hack into voting systems" level of election interference.

I think we all have just assumed that this scenario would "benefit" Republicans, but if Russia's goal was to create chaos, wouldn't it be a sneakily effective move for them to prop up Democrats? 

If you want to prop up the Democrats, you keep Trump and the Republicans in power (or partially in power) through 2020.

Edited July 24, 2018 by atomheartbevo

[GSU&UT 1798]

2 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Random thought I had the other day that I just can't shake.

So let's assume for a second that Russia will launch an unprecedented attack on the midterms this year.  I'm talking "hack into voting systems" level of election interference.

I think we all have just assumed that this scenario would "benefit" Republicans, but if Russia's goal was to create chaos, wouldn't it be a sneakily effective move for them to prop up Democrats? 

Can you imagine the fallout if the blue wave is bigger than expected?  If impeachment/removal becomes a legitimate possibility?  And just try to process what would happen if Trump and Co. find hard evidence that Democrats were aided by Russia?   And the general public has associated Russia with Republicans for a few years now, so at least initially, I don't think many would suspect Putin at all.

I think Putin likes having control over Trump and won't do anything to risk that changing, but they could make shit really crazy if they unexpectedly "switched sides."

I swear I posted a response before to possibly you, but this makes sense until you realize that (or at least I'd hope) a democratic controlled congress would really punish Russia with legislation. To me it seems more like it would disenfranchise the majority of the US if Republicans maintained controlled and continued sucking Trump's Russia loving dick.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

9 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

democratic controlled congress would really punish Russia with legislation. 

How? I’m all for a full embargo on Russia but I don’t even think the democrats would go that far.

Outside of more sanctions, what are the democrats going to do to Putin?

[Chuckie Finster 22252]

10 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I swear I posted a response before to possibly you, but this makes sense until you realize that (or at least I'd hope) a democratic controlled congress would really punish Russia with legislation. To me it seems more like it would disenfranchise the majority of the US if Republicans maintained controlled and continued sucking Trump's Russia loving dick.

On the surface, I agree with you.  Grab Congress now and grab the Presidency in 2020 seems like a logical plan to flush out Russia.  But when you think about how crazy shit is now, and HOW MUCH CRAZIER it would get with a Democrat controlled Congress, it really makes you wonder how much damage this country could withstand in those two years.  

[Tuco 5003]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Manchin will win and probably change parties after the election since he's pretty much a Trumpublican now anyway. 

Fun fact for the day: West Virginia is a blue state, despite how they vote for national candidates.  As of last month, 42.5% of registered voters in WV were Democrat compared to 32.1% Republican.  In Nov 2016, it was 44.7% to 31.2%, so it is trending Republican.  But, for now, the Dem label doesn't really hurt Manchin. 

link

[Tuco 5003]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

How? I’m all for a full embargo on Russia but I don’t even think the democrats would go that far.

Outside of more sanctions, what are the democrats going to do to Putin?

Impeach Trump; investigate and publish Russian inroads in to conservative organizations.