Jump to content
Jordan Washington chats with Bobby for Burnt Ends ×

2018 - Elections and Trends

atomheartbevo

By atomheartbevo
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

You said it in the only way that matters: you voted for it. 

Gatorubet
Gatorubet

I told my friends at work today to get ready for some excuse destroying reality.   We are no longer going to be able to excuse the behavior of voters in this election as 'being foolish', 'hoping Trump

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Fire protection. Police protection. Local road construction and maintenance. Interstate highway construction and maintenance. Airport operation, air traffic control, airline safety

GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted
9 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?

Yes, more sanctions that are actually enforced once Trump is removed. That caused them enough pain that they caused this mess in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17259

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

Yes, more sanctions that are actually enforced once Trump is removed. That caused them enough pain that they caused this mess in the first place.

Then you methodically get all the allies to ratchet up their participation as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23245

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

Yes, more sanctions that are actually enforced once Trump is removed. That caused them enough pain that they caused this mess in the first place.

One of their goals with Trump was getting sanctions lifted.  They almost pulled it off.  I’m all for more sanctions but it’s a bit naive to think that would deter them from even more aggressive activity given how rewarding this must be for the Kremlin now.  My point is, Putin isn’t afraid of the democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5003

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That doesn’t hurt Putin.  It just shows the world what he’s capable of and how weak America really is.

Putin wins

Bullshit.  It's easy to get this vision of Putin as some master strategician, sitting back, cooling conquering the world while the US burns.  But it's bullshit.  Putin, and Russia, have been losing grounds for years.  And not just with the break-up of the USSR.  As time goes on, they struggle more and more to keep their sphere of influence.  Even in Syria, they are fighting to retain ground, and their only naval base on the Mediterranean.  Having the US in turmoil is inflicting damage, but it does little to help him.  The power vacuum is more likely to be filled by Europe than a hobbled Russia.  Having a relatively strong, Russian-friendly, US is a much better course of action.  It's a bad move to trade influence for chaos, but that's what is coming out of this ordeal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23245

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tuco said:

Bullshit.  It's easy to get this vision of Putin as some master strategician, sitting back, cooling conquering the world while the US burns.  But it's bullshit.  Putin, and Russia, have been losing grounds for years.  And not just with the break-up of the USSR.  As time goes on, they struggle more and more to keep their sphere of influence.  Even in Syria, they are fighting to retain ground, and their only naval base on the Mediterranean.  Having the US in turmoil is inflicting damage, but it does little to help him.  The power vacuum is more likely to be filled by Europe than a hobbled Russia.  Having a relatively strong, Russian-friendly, US is a much better course of action.  It's a bad move to trade influence for chaos, but that's what is coming out of this ordeal. 

I don’t think you appreciate just how much Putin hates the United States.  He has always blamed the United States for destroying his Soviet Union.  Every single grievance Putin’s Russia has is America’s fault, even today.  He is a bigger victim than Trumpkin snowflakes. Hurting the United States is an outright gain in itself for Putin.

Putin wants good a relationship with our leaders for economic gain but he mostly wants our entire system of government to collapse on itself and he wants to take the credit if it should happen.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15225

Posted
Posted

I really don't understand any methodology that would rank TX32 and TX07 "toss-ups" and then rank TX23 "lean Republican."  Don't get me wrong--I think all three flip to the Democrats.  But if I were to rank them, I'd say Will Hurd is in a lot more trouble than Sessions or Culberson.  Hurd is in a district that is barely Republican in a good Republican environment; I don't see any basis to believe that he survives a good Democratic year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 82351

Posted
Posted
Just now, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

That seems like bad news for D.  If all ten flip and everything else stays the same it still is a R house. 

I mean, you're truly assuming all 24 R-held tossups don't flip.  That's like assuming Trump isn't going to step on his dick tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15225

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Can’t win anything without cheating. Or changing the rules in the middle of election year

 

Wouldn't that mean that you have two R's on the ballot, meaning they'll split the Republican vote and the Democrat would most likely win?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32141

Posted
Posted
Wouldn't that mean that you have two R's on the ballot, meaning they'll split the Republican vote and the Democrat would most likely win?

From what I gather they should actually both be listed as -R on the ballot but they are changing the rules so that one is going to be -U on the ballot so less of the vote is split.  

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 82351

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

From what I gather they should actually both be listed as -R on the ballot but they are changing the rules so that one is going to be -U on the ballot so less of the vote is split.  

 

 

YuP

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RayDog

RayDog 682

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

He has Ojeda's race (WV-03) as "leans Republican."  Not hardly.  If that's a "leans Republican" race, then the GOP is looking at a total bloodbath.

The leading ks3 Democrat is polling 7 points ahead of Yoder.

Most of the Republican tossups or leans might be better put in the Democratic lean category once you look at the race in detail. All the websites have been slow to adjust.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15225

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

He has Ojeda's race (WV-03) as "leans Republican."  Not hardly.  If that's a "leans Republican" race, then the GOP is looking at a total bloodbath.

I agree.  Just knowing what I know about a few of those races, I think the characterization of those races owes only to the power of incumbency.  If TX23 didn't have a Republican incumbent, it'd be a Lean or even Likely D.

And that raises the question--is incumbency an advantage in these districts?  I think in some of them it might be.  But in places like TX32 (and possibly in TX31), I don't think it is.  Perhaps recognizing that, they have TX31 (Carter) rated the same as TX23 (Open), which probably wouldn't be the case if Smith were running again.

All of which is a long way to say that I still don't know what's going to happen.  But I feel better and better about predicting that the Dems are going to take the House.  And I feel even more optimistic about the chances of a huge (i.e. 50+ seats) gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 82351

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, RayDog said:

The leading ks3 Democrat is polling 7 points ahead of Yoder.

Most of the Republican tossups or leans might be better put in the Democratic lean category once you look at the race in detail. All the websites have been slow to adjust.

 

In 2010, these prognosticators didn't really start discussing a GOP House of Representatives being a foregone possibility until Labor Day.  It's the end of July and they're already putting it at over 50% odds of a Democrat House and 50/50 odds the Democrats gain the Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

In 2010, these prognosticators didn't really start discussing a GOP House of Representatives being a foregone possibility until Labor Day.  It's the end of July and they're already putting it at over 50% odds of a Democrat House and 50/50 odds the Democrats gain the Senate.

I still dont see the Senate happening. Hope I'm wrong though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 82351

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I still dont see the Senate happening. Hope I'm wrong though. 

Here's the funny thing on the Senate - two crucial states don't allow IVR polling (ND and Indiana).  We really have no idea what's happening there.

Secondly, the rate of minority party incumbents getting re-elected in midterms where they do not control the Presidency is like 88% or something ridiculous.  History is not on the side of Heitkamp, Donnelly, Manchin, McCaskill, etc. losing their seats.  For the open seats in TN and AZ, it's like 70% or something for the out-of-party candidate getting elected.   Incumbent minority-party Senators losing in midterms, really can only think of it happening in 98 and 02.  And in both those years, Clinton and Bush were above 60% in approval.  Very rare.

Thirdly, these things usually snowball.  Winning control of the House by gaining 24+ seats should also correlate to the wave breaking your way in the Senate.  The only outlier was 2010 and 2014 with really bad GOP candidates like Angle, O'Donnell, Murdoch, Akin.  If they call a big Manchin win early, I do expect you to see everything else break towards the party out of power, as it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RayDog

RayDog 682

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I still dont see the Senate happening. Hope I'm wrong though. 

I think the Democrats will end up with 52 or 53. NV, AZ, and TN look like they will flip. The close races with Democratic incumbents IN, ND, FL, and MO could all win based on the current levels if voter enthusiasm.

I also think Beto wins Texas. It seems that few people actually looked at the decline in Republican votes by county from 2012 to 2016, with Republican's percentage dropping 7.5% on average in the 11 largest counties with 50% of the voters, and 3.5% in the next 15 largest counties with another 25% of the voters. If you extrapolate that rate of change 2 years Texas is a +/- 2% toss up before factoring in a blue wave.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15225

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Thirdly, these things usually snowball.  Winning control of the House by gaining 24+ seats should also correlate to the wave breaking your way in the Senate.  The only outlier was 2010 and 2014 with really bad GOP candidates like Angle, O'Donnell, Murdoch, Akin.  If they call a big Manchin win early, I do expect you to see everything else break towards the party out of power, as it does.

This is a really good point that I think people ignore.  For some reason, people assume that all these Senate races happen in a vacuum, as though what happens in Missouri doesn't have any bearing on what's happening in Montana or Tennessee.  But we know that's not the case.

Whether it's a snowball effect (e.g., partisans become discouraged/encouraged as polls show a party trailing/leading) or the effect of a national message breaking through, Senate races generally trend in the same direction.  The exception, of course, is where you have uniquely bad candidates, but those favor the incumbents.  Where you have a pro-minority party wave, state lines don't provide a firebreak (to mix the metaphor).

And frankly, given just how Republican their states are, that's Heitkamp's and Donnelley's only chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 82351

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

This is a really good point that I think people ignore.  For some reason, people assume that all these Senate races happen in a vacuum, as though what happens in Missouri doesn't have any bearing on what's happening in Montana or Tennessee.  But we know that's not the case.

Whether it's a snowball effect (e.g., partisans become discouraged/encouraged as polls show a party trailing/leading) or the effect of a national message breaking through, Senate races generally trend in the same direction.  The exception, of course, is where you have uniquely bad candidates, but those favor the incumbents.  Where you have a pro-minority party wave, state lines don't provide a firebreak (to mix the metaphor).

And frankly, given just how Republican their states are, that's Heitkamp's and Donnelley's only chance.

They bring that up during 2016 too.  It was "hey if Pennsylvania is close, Michigan/Wisconsin is going to be close and some of these other states are going to swing in one direction all together" which we saw with those 3, Ohio, Iowa, NH, VA, CO, MN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15225

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Dropout said:

Appreciate the introduction to Ojeda.

Maybe I’m missing it... but I never see TX26 listed on these charts w likely lean or tossup. It has me assuming there are others not listed. Could someone explain?

Is there any reason to think TX26 is in play?  Because I'd be shocked if it were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 13897

Posted
Posted

I'll saw this but I've been extremely impressed with the Democratic candidates nationwide.  Some of them have never run for office before but they have great stories, compelling reasons to run for office, and a desire to change direction of the country and not just their party.  The Democratic Party has sucked ass at candidate recruitment the past 10 years and it's refreshing to see the new and younger candidates step to the forefront.

They may not all win but it's a breath of fresh air to have them in the conversation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 13897

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

 So Republicans are down to just dumb people and my family.  Or am I being redundant? 

You should see the Okie contingent on my Facebook feed.  They think Trump is god and some of these people are true dumb shits and that has nothing to do with their Trump support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 13897

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Js1 said:

New Q-Poll: D+12

Lead with women by 25!

Lead with independents by 17

Lead with college educated whites by 13(!!!) - goodbye suburban Republican districts

This is not to be understated.  These upscale white suburbs are the cornerstone of these gerrymandered districts.  If they slip at all, the GOP is fucked.  (That's what happened in Virginia.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15225

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

This is not to be understated.  These upscale white suburbs are the cornerstone of these gerrymandered districts.  If they slip at all, the GOP is fucked.  (That's what happened in Virginia.)

And that's why I could see a Republican loss of 70 seats.*  The gerrymander is built on the assumption that college-educated whites are a Republican constituency, and if they're not, then your gerrymander is broken.  It is what happened in Virginia, but it's a nationwide problem for Republicans.  

 

 

 

 

* That's not a prediction.  It's a recognized possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5003

Posted
Posted

I temper my interest in polling percentages with the recognition that turnout is the variable no one can really predict.  I feel that Republicans turnout will be suppressed by 1) people turned off by Trump, 2) people turned off by Republicans not supporting Trump, 3) people turned off by the failure to deliver on promises - increasing deficits, ACA, etc..

But, it's a midterm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...