Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
squistion

2018 Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

Didn't find a thread started specifically on this topic and thought that McMullins' prediction on Trump's game plan was worth discussing:

Quote

Evan McMullin‏ @Evan_McMullin 12h12 hours ago

Whether by instinct or design, Trump's racially charged comments are meant to

inspire his supporters to despise other Americans more than they may otherwise

grow to dislike him. In 2016, Hillary was his foil. In 2018 and 2020, it will be minorities.

https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/status/936095494459346944

 

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, squistion said:

Didn't find a thread started specifically on this topic and thought that McMullins' prediction on Trump's game plan was worth discussing:

 

I think this will ultimately be one of the things that brings him down.  This is just MO, but people want to project his race baiting and racial sensitivities and now downright racist comments on the people who voted for him.  I think it's a little unfair as I'm not sure it was completely clear to them what this man was/is.  I think it's completely obvious now and anyone who continues to support him is rightfully questioned about it.  I think he has lost and will continue to lose a lot of support because of this.  Is there a disturbing number of racists in the country?  Yes, but I don't think that number is anywhere close to 63M and the result is that Democrats are going to win bigly in 2018 and Trump will lose pretty handily in 2020 if he elects to run again.  I think what you will see is low turnout as people will still say they can't vote for a Democrat but they won't be able to vote for Trump either.  Combined with a highly motivated left/liberal/democratic side I think we are going to be surprised at the results.  I reserve the right to backtrack on this if he's impeached or steps down - people will very quickly be back on board with their "side" - they won't see the party as the problem but Trump himself.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Harris‏ @MarkHarrisNYC 2h2 hours ago

A year ago I felt the midterms would be our next chance.

Now I feel they'll be our last chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever is in, vote them out or you are part of the problem and have no basis to #####. That goes for you goose stepping Ds & Rs alike.

Of course, it won't matter because everyone running is a POS loser but it should make you feel better if you can boot one of them out. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, lod001 said:

Whoever is in, vote them out or you are part of the problem and have no basis to #####. That goes for you goose stepping Ds & Rs alike.

Of course, it won't matter because everyone running is a POS loser but it should make you feel better if you can boot one of them out. 

You forgot to kick your hamster!

*breathe FarveCo, breathe...

and don't forget...

we will always be here..

when you use a new alias*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planning ahead here in California:

Steve Marmel‏Verified account @Marmel Dec 2

We need 23 seats to #FlipTheHouse in 2018. We have 14 GOP in Cali.

LaMafia McClintock Cook Denham Valadao Nunes McCarthy Knight Royce Calvert Walters Rohrabacher (R-Moscow) Issa Hunter

Adopt your district, remove a complicit. Let's lead the way. #GOPTaxScam #Indivisble /1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how the Dems win the House:  Run various versions of this ad over and over and over until it dominates the midterm conversation. 

Forget about Trump and Roy Moore- the hatred and disgust and embarrassment isn't going anywhere, you don't need to fan the flames. Forget about Russia, unless Trump goes off the rails and goes full dictator and the GOP signs off on it. Just hit 'em on economic inequality and health care with both barrels.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Here's how the Dems win the House:  Run various versions of this ad over and over and over until it dominates the midterm conversation. 

Forget about Trump and Roy Moore- the hatred and disgust and embarrassment isn't going anywhere, you don't need to fan the flames. Forget about Russia, unless Trump goes off the rails and goes full dictator and the GOP signs off on it. Just hit 'em on economic inequality and health care with both barrels.

I live in a purple district with a Republican Congressman, wide range of incomes, unusually high diversity for a flyover state.  Done some work for a non-partisan voter registration/GOTV organization.  

My experience mirrors the post above.  Talk about Trump’s corruption to an adult unregistered voter and you get an eye roll and a comment about how they are all crooks.  Ask about health care and you get some heartfelt responses, either from their own experience or someone close to them.  Ask about economic opportunities in the future and you get genuine concern if their kids will have a better life than they have.  And all this predates the tax bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

I live in a purple district with a Republican Congressman, wide range of incomes, unusually high diversity for a flyover state.  Done some work for a non-partisan voter registration/GOTV organization.  

My experience mirrors the post above.  Talk about Trump’s corruption to an adult unregistered voter and you get an eye roll and a comment about how they are all crooks.  Ask about health care and you get some heartfelt responses, either from their own experience or someone close to them.  Ask about economic opportunities in the future and you get genuine concern if their kids will have a better life than they have.  And all this predates the tax bill.

I generally agree with you guys, but I don't think the Dems should ignore Roy Moore. Moore is an easy one for people to understand, especially in these days of the "MeToo" movement. The important point here to stress is not Moore himself but the RNC supporting him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I generally agree with you guys, but I don't think the Dems should ignore Roy Moore. Moore is an easy one for people to understand, especially in these days of the "MeToo" movement. The important point here to stress is not Moore himself but the RNC supporting him.

I don't know that they should ignore it, I'm just saying they don't have to really hammer it. Once the ball is rolling it kind of takes care of itself, and I assume it will reduce turnout and enthusiasm for GOP candidates.  What the Dems need to work on IMO is also giving people a reason to turn out to vote for them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I don't know that they should ignore it, I'm just saying they don't have to really hammer it. Once the ball is rolling it kind of takes care of itself, and I assume it will reduce turnout and enthusiasm for GOP candidates.  What the Dems need to work on IMO is also giving people a reason to turn out to vote for them.

Yeah, we already tried getting people to vote against someone.  I don't like the way that turned out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's a really bold prediction.  You're saying President Trump is going to demonize minorities?

Man, I don't know if I'll believe that until I see it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2017 at 6:30 AM, TobiasFunke said:

I don't know that they should ignore it, I'm just saying they don't have to really hammer it. Once the ball is rolling it kind of takes care of itself, and I assume it will reduce turnout and enthusiasm for GOP candidates.  What the Dems need to work on IMO is also giving people a reason to turn out to vote for them.

Electoral strategies are often framed as a trade-off between, on the one hand, attracting swing voters by being moderate, and on the other hand, turning out your base by being a loony extremist.

There’s a bit of a conflict in the literature about what's more important. It looks like trying to attract swing voters is kind of pointless because there just aren’t very many of them. To be a swing voter, a person has to at least kind of pay attention to the actual issues while keeping an open mind. The problem is: Who does that? So in theory, maybe focusing on getting your base out to vote by being a loony extremist is the best strategy. (And it has the benefit of helping you in the primary as well.)

As an empirical matter, however, it looks like moderate candidates actually do better in general elections than extremists, by and large. So maybe there’s something to be said for being a moderate after all...

There’s a new paper that makes sense of this apparent conflict.

It turns out that people really are too uninformed and stubborn to be swing voters, so turnout is the key after all. But it also turns out that being a looney extremist doesn’t motivate your own base to turn out so much as it motivates your opponent’s base to turn out.

So being a moderate is good, but it’s not because it helps attract swing voters. It’s because it helps prevent riling up the other side to come out in droves to vote against you.

Here’s the paper.

Applying this to the discussion above ... I do think it will make sense for Democrats to avoid making the next elections all about Trump. We* should focus more on boring, substantive issues instead. The problem with making it about Trump — attacking him over elitist argle-bargle like “honor” or “integrity” or “spelling” — is that it will inspire the #MAGA crowd to get out the vote.

We should emphasize mundane things like affordable health insurance, the environment, NATO, NAFTA, student loan reform, prison overcrowding, transportation, infrastructure....

We should not make Trump supporters feel like they are being attacked. We should make them feel like they are bored out of their freaking minds.

That will be the winning strategy: boredom. It’s not sexy, but that’s kind of the point.

___
*I am going to refer to Democrats as “we” until Trump is out of office.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 Republican Senator Seats up for Election:

John Barrasso - Wyoming - this seems safe - won 75-21 in 2012 - 67% Trump in 2016

Bob Corker - Tennessee - Corker won 65-30 in 2012, but this becomes a bit of a wild-card with a Trump-inspired GOP candidate - still relatively safe - 61% Trump in 2016

Ted Cruz - Texas - Cruz won 56-40 in 2012, Trump won 52-43.  Not sure who is running for the Dems - but the right candidate could put this seat in play.  Trump stumping for Cruz would be interesting

Deb Fischer - Nebraska - beat Bob Kerrey - 58-42, Trump won 59-34 - seems safe

Jeff Flake - Arizona - Flake won 49-46, Trump won 49-45 - with Flake out, and a Trump candidate in, this looks like a good test for the Dems.

Orrin Hatch - Utah - the seat is safe - but it may not be a pro-Trump Senator - if Hatch stays out, and Romney runs...

Dean Heller - Nevada - Heller won 46-45, Trump lost 46-48 - this is probably the easiest seat for the Dems to pick up - if they don't screw it up...

Rodger Wicker - Mississippi - Wicker won 57-40, Trump won 58-40, this seat is safe.

 

So, if the Dems hold their own seats - 23, plus Bernie Sanders and Angus King as Independents - then Nevada, Arizona, and Texas become huge battlegrounds in 2018.

Dems have a few seats open in GOP-tilting states:

Tammy Baldwin - Wisconsin - won 51-46 in 2012, Trump won 47-46 - can't ignore this, but Dems should hold here.

Sherrod Brown - Ohio - won 51-45, Trump won 52-45 - probably a turn-out election - Dems need to get out the vote here.

Bob Casey, Jr - Pennsylvania - relatively safe seat, though Trump narrowly won PA

Joe Donnelly - Indiana - won in 2012 50-44 - but it was a Tea Party revolt that led to Incumbent Richard Lugar losing in the primary.  Trump won 57-38, and this seat will be hard for Dems to keep - imo

Heidi Heitkamp - North Dakota - narrowly won in 2012 - 50-49 (3000 votes), Trump won 63-27 - another seat that will be difficult to hold.

Joe Manchin - West Virginia - won 2012 61-37, but Trump won 68-26.  Assuming Manchin is the candidate, I think Dems hold here.

John Tester - Montana - won 48-46, Trump won 56-36, another tough seat to hold.

 

 

My prediction is that the Dems will pick up Arizona and Nevada, but lose Indiana and North Dakota - leaving the GOP with the majority in the Senate.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Norman Paperman said:

 

Ted Cruz - Texas - Cruz won 56-40 in 2012, Trump won 52-43.  Not sure who is running for the Dems - but the right candidate could put this seat in play. 

 

Congressman Beto O'Rourke is running for the Dems.  https://betofortexas.com/

Also, in all likelihood your list of Dem-held but open seats should include Minnesota, because Franken's resigning and the rumor is that the governor is going to appoint someone that will not run herself in 2018.

Your analysis seems pretty solid to me, I'm still hoping Indiana and North Dakota stay Democrat but it's a tough lift.  Also, if Alabama does the right thing tonight (unlikely), Dems would take the Senate by winning AZ and NV and holding onto all their seats.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2017 at 8:44 AM, TobiasFunke said:

Here's how the Dems win the House:  Run various versions of this ad over and over and over until it dominates the midterm conversation. 

Forget about Trump and Roy Moore- the hatred and disgust and embarrassment isn't going anywhere, you don't need to fan the flames. Forget about Russia, unless Trump goes off the rails and goes full dictator and the GOP signs off on it. Just hit 'em on economic inequality and health care with both barrels.

LOL at using the DiCaprio as Gatsby picture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dems only take the Senate if there is a tidal wave against the GOP.  I think that's clear.  It would take a near perfect storm and if that happens, then even the super safe-seeming GOP seats could be in jeopardy.  It really requires a massive off-year turnout.  But that's why you compete in every state.  I do think Cruz is vulnerable.  I think he's the one most susceptible to being linked to Trump and Moore.  And the message is easy.  Ted Cruz has no principles beyond keeping his own power.  He will align with pedophiles and people who insult his wife and libel his father.  Does he really have the integrity to represent Texas?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that @Norman Paperman's analysis is probably about right on the Senate side. If the Dems break even that would be a pretty good result for them. It's not just the imbalance in open seats, it's also where the 8 GOP seats are located. Best case scenario only four of them (AZ, NV, TN and TX) are even remotely in play, and even in this climate I'd favor the GOP in three of those.

Things on the House side keep getting better and better, though. These graphs about House challengers who have raised more than $5K at various points in previous election cycles are striking.  At this stage of the game there's more than double the number of Dem challengers lining up for 2018 as the second-highest total since the 2004 elections (GOP challengers in 2009 during the Tea Party wave).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Alabama Senate race seems to be a good example of the principle stated in paper I cited above. Jones seems to have won largely because he had great turnout among black voters. I don't think his turnout was so high because Jones himself is a tremendously dynamic and exciting candidate. It's because Moore was such a horror show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beto in Texas.  After tonight I have a glimmer of hope.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Flake will think about running after all. Bannon's candidate just lost in Alabama. Even if it's mostly because he touched kids, it's an astounding defeat for his team. This should put a serious dent into those wanting to push he McConnell crowd out the door. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug Jones’s win has me energized for the 2018 House races.  

My home district (KS-03, Kansas City suburbs) is a purple district targeted by Swing Left.  The incumbent is unremarkable and beatable.  His attempts to repeal ACA and lack of support for DACA has gotten some folks off the sidelines and passionate about sending him home.

Meanwhile, in KS-04 (Wichita and southern Kansas) the Dem candidate is James Thompson, a veteran and civil rights lawyer who hasn’t held office before but was inspired to hop in the ring from watching Bernie Sanders campaign.  He ran in a special election earlier this year (seat was previously held by CIA Director Mike Pompeo) and cut Pompeo’s MOV by more than half in six weeks of campaigning with little money and less name recognition.  He kept his staff intact for the 2018 election.  In celebration of Jones’s win I donated to his campaign; he’s a great person and would be an outstanding ambassador of my state in Washington.  

Turnout will be big in 2018 here; a tremendously unpopular term-limited Governor is finally leaving office and his replacement will be chosen November 2018.  

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The Alabama Senate race seems to be a good example of the principle stated in paper I cited above. Jones seems to have won largely because he had great turnout among black voters. I don't think his turnout was so high because Jones himself is a tremendously dynamic and exciting candidate. It's because Moore was such a horror show.

True that. 

Another interesting thing is that Barkley seems to legitimitely be pursuing a platform there. I would assume that could help energize the minority voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The Alabama Senate race seems to be a good example of the principle stated in paper I cited above. Jones seems to have won largely because he had great turnout among black voters. I don't think his turnout was so high because Jones himself is a tremendously dynamic and exciting candidate. It's because Moore was such a horror show.

Or because the turnout operation was good and because Trump is a disaster. Jones was at 40% before the Post story. And that was assuming a lower turnout. Exit polls showed nearly 60% had made up their minds before November  

I’m just not sure that this is only a Roy Moore thing.  Maybe that depressed White Republican turnout. But why would it spur black turnout uniquely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The Alabama Senate race seems to be a good example of the principle stated in paper I cited above. Jones seems to have won largely because he had great turnout among black voters. I don't think his turnout was so high because Jones himself is a tremendously dynamic and exciting candidate. It's because Moore was such a horror show.

I have to disagree with the Just new part. The turnout was high because he was a prosecutor who stood up for the AA community and he campaigned there from the start.  He was a dynamic candidate for that community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Or because the turnout operation was good and because Trump is a disaster. Jones was at 40% before the Post story. And that was assuming a lower turnout. Exit polls showed nearly 60% had made up their minds before November  

I’m just not sure that this is only a Roy Moore thing.  Maybe that depressed White Republican turnout. But why would it spur black turnout uniquely?

I thought going in it would be a referendum on Moore more than anything but voter turnout would give a glimpse in to the Trump factor.  Now, I’m not so sure - they showed several graphics last night about the prior elections for Roy Moore and he only won with percentages like 54, 52 and the like.  The guy was not popular before the sexual allegations - after, he was maybe the most poisonous candidate you’ll see.  I’m still optimistic that there will be  motivated voters in 2018 but I’m not sure how much last night tells us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AAABatteries said:

I thought going in it would be a referendum on Moore more than anything but voter turnout would give a glimpse in to the Trump factor.  Now, I’m not so sure - they showed several graphics last night about the prior elections for Roy Moore and he only won with percentages like 54, 52 and the like.  The guy was not popular before the sexual allegations - after, he was maybe the most poisonous candidate you’ll see.  I’m still optimistic that there will be  motivated voters in 2018 but I’m not sure how much last night tells us.

Exit polls showed support and opposition to Trump dead even at 48%. Probably not a one to one correlation with Jones votes, but further evidence, that this was something more than a vote against Moore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we get one candidate somewhere that just screams “repeal and replace otrumpatax”

 

”trumptax” needed some more syllables. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

 

I’m just not sure that this is only a Roy Moore thing.  Maybe that depressed White Republican turnout. But why would it spur black turnout uniquely?

Taken by itself I would have said it was only about Moore. But when you add this result to what happened in Virginia, I think a pattern is emerging, and it’s not good for Republicans anywhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Taken by itself I would have said it was only about Moore. But when you add this result to what happened in Virginia, I think a pattern is emerging, and it’s not good for Republicans anywhere. 

Oh, I'm sure the Dems can get to primary the candidates in the centre with some true progressives, that will fix things

/NCC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that don't think gerrymandering matters, Jones won one of the seven AL CDs last night.  It's going to prevent a tsunami, but any CD that has a large university or a large percentage of college educated persons is certainly in play most anywhere (Bama's in the one Jones won and AU's county swung 40 points from Trump.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, msommer said:

Oh, I'm sure the Dems can get to primary the candidates in the centre with some true progressives, that will fix things

/NCC

But by the same token, even though Jones' message was about economic pragmatism, he still lost among just about every category of white people.  And his biography had to be compelling to the minority turnout that was a massive contributor to him winning the election.  So he certainly didn't validate every argument the Mark Penn types are saying.  Because they're saying to abandon identity politics.  The lesson is that this isn't the Scylla and Charybdis here.  It's perfectly conceivable to run a campaign that addresses dinner table issues like jobs while still addressing issues of social justice.  Jones took some centrist positions (against the $15 minimum wage, which makes sense in Alabama), but he was solidly pro-choice and pro-LGBTQ rights.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trends in places that have held prominent off-year/special elections since the 2016 presidential election:

KS-4 in 2016: Mike Pompeo 61%, Daniel Giroux 30% (R+31)

KS-4 in 2016 (presidential results): Trump 60%, Clinton 33% (R+27)

KS-4 in 2017: Ron Estes 53%, James Thompson 46% (R+7)

 

GA-6 in 2016: Tom Price 62%, Rodney Stooksbury 38% (R+24)

GA-6 in 2016 (presidential results): Trump 48%, Clinton 47% (R+1)

GA-6 in 2017 (initial round): Jon Ossoff 48%, Karen Handel 20%, Bob Gray 11%, Dan Moody 9%, Judson Hill 9%.

GA-6 in 2017 (runoff): Handel 52%, Ossoff 48% (R+4)

 

MT-AL in 2016: Ryan Zinke 56%, Denise Juneau 40% (R+16)

MT in 2016 (presidential results): Trump 57%, Clinton 36% (R+21)

MT-AL in 2017: Greg Gianforte 50%, Rob Quist 44% (R+6)

 

SC-5 in 2016: Mick Mulvaney 59%, Fran Person 39% (R+20)

SC-5 in 2016 (presidential results): Trump 57%, Clinton 39% (R+18)

SC-5 in 2017: Ralph Norman 51%, Archie Parnell 48% (R+3)

 

NJ GOV in 2013: Chris Christie 60%, Barbara Buono 38% (R+22)

NJ in 2016 (presidential results): Clinton 55%, Trump 41% (D+14)

NJ GOV in 2017: Phil Murphy 56%, Kim Guadagno 42% (D+14)

 

VA GOV in 2013: Terry McAuliffe 48%, Ken Cuccinelli 45% (D+3)

VA in 2016 (presidential results): Clinton 50%, Trump 44% (D+6)

VA GOV in 2017: Ralph Northam 54%, Ed Gillespie 45% (D+9)

 

AL in 2016 (presidential results): Trump 62%, Clinton 34% (R+28)

AL Sen 2017: Jones 50% Moore 48% (D+2)

 

I don't have numbers but from what I hear (and what we saw in VA) it's going even better in state government races.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Or because the turnout operation was good and because Trump is a disaster. Jones was at 40% before the Post story. And that was assuming a lower turnout. Exit polls showed nearly 60% had made up their minds before November  

I’m just not sure that this is only a Roy Moore thing.  Maybe that depressed White Republican turnout. But why would it spur black turnout uniquely?

Moore was a horror show before the Post story.

Moore spurred black turnout because he’s a racist. Also because he’s terrible and extremist in other ways, and most blacks in Alabama are Democrats. Moore probably spurred turnout among Democrats in other demographics as well, because terrible, extremist candidates promote turnout by members of the opposing party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

Moore was a horror show before the Post story.

Moore spurred black turnout because he’s a racist. Also because he’s terrible and extremist in other ways, and most blacks in Alabama are Democrats. Moore probably spurred turnout among Democrats in other demographics as well, because terrible, extremist candidates promote turnout by members of the opposing party.

OK, I don't disagree.  But Jones was polling pretty well in hypothetical races against Strange before the primary too.  When POTUS is even or underwater in approval rating a little more than a year after he carried a state by 28 points,  I think its fair to conclude that he was his own drag on the race.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:yes:

Kevin M. Kruse‏ @KevinMKruse 3h

Maybe instead of blowing money on pointless TV ads urging Republicans to impeach their own party's president, liberal billionaires could fund the NAACP's 2018 get-out-the-vote campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nate Silver‏ @NateSilver538 1h1 hour ago

I'd guess that these 3 scenarios are about equally likely at this point:

1) Republicans narrowly keep House, hold steady or gain in Senate;

2) Democrats win 25-35 seats and flip House, Senate is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

3) Dem tsunami with 40+ House seats (maybe well more); Senate flips too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:yes:

Jon Favreau‏ @jonfavs 18h18 hours ago

Democrats flip Arizona and Nevada, we take back the Senate. No more Trump agenda.

No more Trump judges. No more Trump nominees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

:yes:

Jon Favreau‏ @jonfavs 18h18 hours ago

Democrats flip Arizona and Nevada, we take back the Senate. No more Trump agenda.

No more Trump judges. No more Trump nominees.

He forgot to mention “and hold on to all our existing seats” which is probably the more difficult challenge.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

He forgot to mention “and hold on to all our existing seats” which is probably the more difficult challenge.

That's probably still true, but when the President is topping out below 50% approval in his stronghold states, those holds don't seem as tough an ask anymore.  And Texas and Tennessee are probably worth really putting some effort in. 

In Alabama, we managed the win the seat and STILL be able to tie the mainstream party to Moore because McConnell, Cruz, and the RNC ####ed out.  We have the seat and we still can run ads that tie Cruz to Moore for months on end.  WIn/win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Juxtatarot said:

I don't understand how the House could be in play due to all the gerrymandering.  

It’s really tough because of the gerrymandering.  But there’s a slim chance.

Democrats need to pick up 24 seats to get control of the House.  

In 2016, there were 23 districts that elected a Republican Congressperson while also voting Clinton over Trump.  

So Democrats would have to successfully defend all of their seats, pick up every single seat that voted Clinton for POTUS but Republican in the House, and find another seat to win.

So, yeah it’s a tough climb.  

It’s possible some Republicans in blue states like California and New York might be in trouble if the current form of the tax bill becomes law.  The tax bill amazingly has a lower approval rating than Trump has. 

ETA: to highlight how bad gerrymandering is in some states... in the Alabama Senate election this week, Roy Moore got more votes in six of Alabama’s seven Cogressional districts despite Doug Jones getting more votes statewide.  Had that election been determined electoral college-style using Alabama’s Congressional districts, Moore would have won in a landslide. 

Edited by Bruce Dickinson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

It’s really tough because of the gerrymandering.  But there’s a slim chance.

Democrats need to pick up 24 seats to get control of the House.  

In 2016, there were 23 districts that elected a Republican Congressperson while also voting Clinton over Trump.  

So Democrats would have to successfully defend all of their seats, pick up every single seat that voted Clinton for POTUS but Republican in the House, and find another seat to win.

So, yeah it’s a tough climb.  

It’s possible some Republicans in blue states like California and New York might be in trouble if the current form of the tax bill becomes law.  The tax bill amazingly has a lower approval rating than Trump has. 

I don't think it's "might". People like King, Issa, Rohrabacher, Walters, Knight, NJ2, MacArthur, Lance, Faso, Tenney, Katko are all extremely endangered even without the tax bill.  Throw that in and well I won't be surprised if the majority of those Reps go down.  Then you throw in the upper middle west and it's doable map to flip (and that doesn't include some of the Texas districts).  

I suppose it's possible that every person in Trump's base turns out, but as AL, VA, and NJ have shown,  I sort of doubt it.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

It’s really tough because of the gerrymandering.  But there’s a slim chance.

Democrats need to pick up 24 seats to get control of the House.  

In 2016, there were 23 districts that elected a Republican Congressperson while also voting Clinton over Trump.  

So Democrats would have to successfully defend all of their seats, pick up every single seat that voted Clinton for POTUS but Republican in the House, and find another seat to win.

So, yeah it’s a tough climb.  

It’s possible some Republicans in blue states like California and New York might be in trouble if the current form of the tax bill becomes law.  The tax bill amazingly has a lower approval rating than Trump has. 

ETA: to highlight how bad gerrymandering is in some states... in the Alabama Senate election this week, Roy Moore got more votes in six of Alabama’s seven Cogressional districts despite Doug Jones getting more votes statewide.  Had that election been determined electoral college-style using Alabama’s Congressional districts, Moore would have won in a landslide. 

Here's some data on gerrymandering and how it will impact the 2018 elections.

The basic conclusion is that post-2010 census gerrymandering costs the Dems about 20 seats in every Congress since then, and that they will need to win by about 4 points on nationwide House ballots in order to retake the House.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas is inching slowly but inexorably into a state where white people don't constitute a majority of voters. Dems' challenge remains the same, however -- getting the turnout. But Donald is showing a remarkable ability to get Dems to turn out.

Demographics continues to be the GOP's biggest long term vulnerability and let's face it, their policies are not attractive to the voting blocs that are growing every year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.