Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
squistion

2018 Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 8:00 PM, tosberg34 said:

After last election I don't know if we should be looking at polls and getting all giddy.

I think the hope for a bloodbath is just setting yourself up for another massive letdown again.

The poll numbers weren't very far off in the last election. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 11:17 PM, pecorino said:

Personally, I don’t care what platform the Dems run on. I refuse to vote for any Republican who has not called out Trump, which is just about all of them. As a conservative, I am ashamed by what the Republican Party has become. They deserve to be decimated and I’d encourage others to join me, independent of the issues. That said, aside from the abortion issue, I expect the Dems to roll out a decent platform that I can live with. 

This is what's going to cost the GOP, bigtime. Hundreds of conservative politicians who know that Trump is a disgusting bigot and is making our country look like a bunch of buffoons, internationally, and none of them have the balls to say anything about it. If you're standing by with your mouth shut as Little Hitler is running rampant, you are just as guilty as he is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2017 at 11:05 PM, squistion said:

Yes, one of three pieces of property he owns.

Not stalker material at all.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz

Share this post


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

I literally had to do the math to figure out if this would be sufficient in the House.  

Is it? :oldunsure: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

Yeah, this'll play.

Hey other Democrats- do that.

If that’s not the national slogan for Democrats in 2018, the Democratic Party should be drawn and quartered. 

Share this post


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

Yeah, this'll play.

Hey other Democrats- do that.

A meaningless annoyance but an annoyance nonetheless, but the video said everybody. His post says everyone. 

Good slogan and video. Conjures up feelings of that Bernie video that had Simon and Garfunkel playing. Much better to come up with something like this that sounds like you're for, and with, the people instead of some slogan that makes it sound like the people are needing to back the politician (cough, I'm with her, cough). 

Edited by Hilts
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

A meaningless annoyance but an annoyance nonetheless, but the video said everybody. His post days everyone. 

Good slogan and video. Conjures up feelings of that Bernie video that had Simon and Garfunkel playing. Much better to come up with something like this that sounds like you're for, and with, the people instead of some slogan that makes it sound like the people are needing to back the politician (cough, I'm with her, cough). 

Totally agree. Jeremy Corbyn's "For the many, not the few" slogan was a good model for the Dems as well. It could be something simple as "for the people," a nice nod to the Gettysburg address. Play to the populist movement while also making it clear that you stand with the truly oppressed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tosberg34 said:

and yet, here we are with Trump as President.  :shrug:

 

Not really a :shrug:. It makes sense if you understand things like margin of error, the electoral college, and the various differences between polls, probabilities and predictions.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Not really a :shrug:. It makes sense if you understand things like margin of error, the electoral college, and the various differences between polls, probabilities and predictions.

Sure it is.  You guys were 300% sure HRC was going to win based on the polls.  You're doing the same thing again for 2018 midterms,

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tosberg34 said:

Sure it is.  You guys were 300% sure HRC was going to win based on the polls.  You're doing the same thing again for 2018 midterms,

Anyone who was around here in 2016 will tell you that I was not remotely sure she would win and was trying to convince others to take the threat of a Trump presidency seriously pretty much all the time. I even got the "how" part right, noting the correlation between voting tendencies in the Great Lakes states and the good chance Trump would win Wisconsin thanks to the recent voter suppression measures there.

I am fairly certain that the Dems will pick up seats in the House in 2018, but I am far less certain that they will pick up enough to become the majority or that the will gain seats in the Senate.

You don't get to just make #### up about what other people think and say for purposes of winning an argument.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, tosberg34 said:

Sure it is.  You guys were 300% sure HRC was going to win based on the polls.  You're doing the same thing again for 2018 midterms,

I don’t know who “you guys” were, but I personally told tim and many others that I believed if it was Clinton vs. Trump we had a really strong chance of President Trump about ten months before the election and repeated that for basically the entire election cycle. Tobias agreed 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2017 at 4:33 PM, bananafish said:

Claude Taylor‏Verified account @TrueFactsStated 23h23 hours ago

Offer. We are rolling out a series of hard hitting billboards like one below on Matt Gaetz, Steve King, Dana Rohrabacher, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes and Darrell Issa. If any Dem House candidates wants to cosponsor a billboard going after their GOP opponent-Mad Dog PAC will pay half.

I like it

 

On 12/29/2017 at 5:48 AM, TobiasFunke said:

Yeah, this'll play.

Hey other Democrats- do that.

I don't like the first ad. The second one is almost great -- it should lose the "this is what separates us from the other side ... they don't [care about people]" stuff at the very end.

scoobygang mentioned in another thread that people like Ivan and Yankee who've historically disagreed with him on most political issues have recently found a lot more common ground with him. If I may presume to put myself in that same category, I think I can say that it's not because scoobygang has made such compelling arguments that he's brought me over to his side on a host of issues. It's kind of weird because scoobygang makes exactly the sorts of arguments that I'd expect to win me over -- they are factually informed and sensibly rooted in reason rather than emoticons -- and yet to the extent he's changed my mind on various subjects, it's usually on fairly peripheral issues rather than something fundamental like "the left is correct more often than the right." The people who have changed my mind on that latter issue are people like Trump and the other Bannonites and their fans. I haven't been pushed leftward so much by good arguments on the left as I have by bad arguments on the right. I've been agreeing with scoobygang more often not primarily because scoobygang's arguments are intelligent and reasonable, but more because the people most prominently disagreeing with him are thickheaded louts whose side I don't want to be on. And I suspect that's pretty normal.

So I agree with the spirit of what that first ad is trying to do. Iowans in Steve King's district will be persuaded to vote Democrat in the next election not by convincing them that Democratic politicians or policies are awesome, but by convincing them that Steve King is an embarrassing racist. So far, so good.

The problem is not the strategy, but the tactic. When a bunch of Democrats call Steve King an embarrassing racist, it's pretty weak evidence that he's an embarrassing racist; and especially to the moderate Republicans the ad is presumably trying to target, it's rather off-putting. It's kind of like how I can call my brother a jerk, but if somebody else calls him that, I'm taking my brother's side. When Democrats call Steve King an embarrassing racist, a lot of Republicans might vote for Steve King just to stick up for the Republican family against an outside attack. (In addition, the cutesy check-boxes are too smug by half.)

I'd much prefer an ad that embraces the "show, don't tell" philosophy. Instead of calling Steve King names in conclusory fashion, give people enough information to draw their own inferences. Instead of saying that he's an embarrassing racist, put up a quote by King saying something that normal, thoughtful people will read and conclude on their own: man, that guy's an embarrassing racist. Just calling him an embarrassing racist is likely to backfire because it will put moderate Republicans on the defensive -- and people are seldom persuaded to come over to your side when you put them on the defensive. They're more likely to resent you out of spite. It'd be better to not do that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2017 at 0:02 PM, TobiasFunke said:

Not really a :shrug:. It makes sense if you understand things like margin of error, the electoral college, and the various differences between polls, probabilities and predictions.

 

Who knew statistics could be so hard.

National polling was solid within the margin of error (especially in %of total vote) Some state by state polling not as much.  And any polling for EC was off by enough.  But given the closeness of the race in key areas...being off even within the margin of error was enough.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth Warren‏ @elizabethforma 31 Dec 2017

We have a battle coming in Massachusetts in 2018. Billionaire Breitbart donor Robert Mercer started funding nasty attack ads against me months ago. @realDonaldTrump is tweeting his socks off to beat us next November. I’m not taking anything for granted.

 

Share this post


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

The American Civil Liberties Union is jumping into the 2018 midterms with plans to spend upward of $25,000,000 promoting ballot initiatives and issues in contested races across the country.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/06/aclu-2018-midterms-327115

 

Quote

The ACLU raised $93 million online in the 12 months after Donald Trump was elected president, up from $5.5 million the year before, and its membership quadrupled to 1.6 million

:eek: Wow! Good for them. (And us all.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, squistion said:

The American Civil Liberties Union is jumping into the 2018 midterms with plans to spend upward of $25,000,000 promoting ballot initiatives and issues in contested races across the country.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/06/aclu-2018-midterms-327115

I like the ACLU and I'm encouraged that it's increased the size of its membership rolls and the amount of funds it's raised. But I don't like the idea of it becoming "the NRA of the left."

For one thing, while I know that others might disagree, I'm not completely convinced that the NRA is a major force for good in the world. Maybe becoming more like the NRA isn't the ideal strategy for making America honorable again? "But the NRA is bad because it's on the right! It'd be awesome if it were on the left!" I disagree. The NRA isn't bad because it's on the right. It's bad because it's sold out to the gun manufacturing lobby, having become more of a trade association that mongers fear to sell guns than it is a civil rights organization interested in protecting constitutional liberties. Let's not make it the ACLU's role model.

Moreover, the ACLU should not self-identify as a left-leaning organization. It's a civil rights organization. It's true that encroachments on civil rights are coming mostly from the right these days, which often puts the ACLU on the left as a practical matter. But one of the things I've long admired about the ACLU is that it protects civil rights against encroachment by either side. It protects religious organizations under the Free Exercise Clause as eagerly as it opposes state sponsorship of religion under the Establishment Clause. It protects freedom of speech for anti-abortion protesters and for pro-choice advocates alike. It shouldn't fight for the left against the right; it should fight for freedom against authoritarianism.

Fortunately, the "NRA of the left" talk in that article looks like it's coming from Politico, not from the ACLU itself.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I like the ACLU and I'm encouraged that it's increased the size of its membership rolls and the amount of funds it's raised. But I don't like the idea of it becoming "the NRA of the left."

For one thing, while I know that others might disagree, I'm not completely convinced that the NRA is a major force for good in the world. Maybe becoming more like the NRA isn't the ideal strategy for making America honorable again. "But the NRA is bad because it's on the right! It'd be awesome if it were on the left!" I disagree. The NRA isn't bad because it's on the right. It's bad because it's sold out to the gun manufacturing lobby, having become more of a trade association that mongers fear to sell guns than it is a civil rights organization interested in protecting constitutional liberties. Let's not make it the ACLU's role model.

Moreover, the ACLU should not self-identify as a left-leaning organization. It's a civil rights organization. It's true that encroachments on civil rights are coming mostly from the right these days, which often puts the ACLU on the left as a practical matter. But one of the things I've long admired about the ACLU is that it protects civil rights against encroachment by either side. It protects religious organizations under the Free Exercise Clause as eagerly as it opposes state sponsorship of religion under the Establishment Clause. It protects freedom of speech for anti-abortion protesters and for pro-choice advocates alike. It shouldn't fight for the left against the right; it should fight for freedom against authoritarianism.

Fortunately, the "NRA of the left" talk in that article looks like it's coming from Politico, not from the ACLU itself.

I was about to add that. It looks like the ACLU just has more money and, thus, is going to throw money at the issues. For whatever reason, Politico is applying left/right politics to that.

 

"Most of the ACLU’s spending in 2018 will be directed at Republicans, though operatives haven’t ruled out indirectly going after Democrats on the wrong side of their issues, too. It will not form a PAC or endorse candidates, moves that would mean losing its 501(c)(4) nonprofit status, instead limiting its activity to promoting issues and initiatives. Among them are voting rights, the travel ban, disability rights, reproductive rights and immigration."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

came across this.  nice to see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed Royce, CA-39 not seeking re-election

Edited by joffer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, joffer said:

Ed Royce, CA-39 not seeking re-election

Ed Royce Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee

Share this post


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

Model has Dems winning 38 House seats.

Going to try and keep a list of these as we go through the year.  

If you're looking for more race-by-race detail you can find it here and here. They're updated all the time- you can see the retirement of Ed Royce yesterday moved his district (CA-39) from an R lean to a D lean in the first and a toss-up in the second. No predictions but they give you a good idea of what would have to happen for the House to change hands. It's not as easy as people might think.  Even if the Dems win every race that leans Dem AND every tossup held by a Dem according to Cook (unlikely, they'll probably drop a small handful here and there) they still need to pick up 22 seats from the tossup held by R/lean R pile. Certainly possible, but far from a lock. It would help if the decision in North Carolina yesterday holds and they're forced to redistrict, that would probably add two seats for the Dems.

Here's a good weekly series on House races that gets into many of them in more detail. It's particularly helpful because it gets into some of the options for primaries, which people will have to start thinking about pretty soon.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nate Silver also suggests that we libs shouldn't get carried away, this remains an uphill fight because of the geographic dispersion of voters.

Quote

Just how bad is this map for Democrats? It’s bad enough that it may be the worst Senate map that any party has faced ever, or at least since direct election of senators began in 1913. It’s bad enough that Democrats could conceivably gain (for example) 35 or 40 seats in the House … and yet not pick up the two seats they need in the Senate.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

Nate Silver also suggests that we libs shouldn't get carried away, this remains an uphill fight because of the geographic dispersion of voters.

 

That's Senate-only, though.  I think most of us have said something similar around here.  The Alabama win last month makes it possible, but it's still not likely.  It's just a crazy confluence of factors this year.

The good news on that side is that it all evens out in the end.  In 2020 and then again in 2022 the GOP will be up against it, with a bunch of first-timers and or senators in states that Clinton won or narrowly lost on the ballot.  Obviously a lot can change between now and then, but if the GOP only manages to hold serve in the Senate this year that puts them in serious trouble after that.

Share this post


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

That's Senate-only, though.  I think most of us have said something similar around here.  The Alabama win last month makes it possible, but it's still not likely.  It's just a crazy confluence of factors this year.

The good news on that side is that it all evens out in the end.  In 2020 and then again in 2022 the GOP will be up against it, with a bunch of first-timers and or senators in states that Clinton won or narrowly lost on the ballot.  Obviously a lot can change between now and then, but if the GOP only manages to hold serve in the Senate this year that puts them in serious trouble after that.

But even if we keep the liberal SCOTUS justices holding on, two years is a lot of time to continue to completely remake the federal judiciary at the lower level.  I still don't blame Reid.  We'd reached a point where we couldn't have a fully functioning federal judiciary under the rules in place.  But it's only good for us if we start winning elections in the Senate.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

But even if we keep the liberal SCOTUS justices holding on, two years is a lot of time to continue to completely remake the federal judiciary at the lower level.  I still don't blame Reid.  We'd reached a point where we couldn't have a fully functioning federal judiciary under the rules in place.  But it's only good for us if we start winning elections in the Senate.  

Yeah, that ship has sailed unfortunately. It's possible the Dems win the Senate this year but I think it's pretty clear that it would be harder than winning back the House.

The good news on that front, I guess, is that by getting rid of filibusters even for Supreme Court candidates the GOP has set up the Dems with a chance to just get rid of the filibuster completely whenever they do take back the Senate. Which would be great for Dems, as the party that generally prefers a more active federal government. Imagine all the legislation they could pass (or force a GOP president to veto) if they controlled both houses and didn't need 60 votes in the Senate.

Share this post


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

But even if we keep the liberal SCOTUS justices holding on, two years is a lot of time to continue to completely remake the federal judiciary at the lower level.  I still don't blame Reid.  We'd reached a point where we couldn't have a fully functioning federal judiciary under the rules in place.  But it's only good for us if we start winning elections in the Senate.  

Yeah this is the whole ballgame for me.  If Kennedy doesn't retire this year there's a chance we can move the Court to the left.  But Dems need to take the Senate in 2018.  Because the chances of no deaths/retirements from 2018-2020 seem pretty freaking small.  And Roberts-Alito-Thomas-Gorsuch-new Trump appointee can stick around for a really long time.  And it seems not unlikely that there could be more than one new Trump appointee which would lock down the Court for decades.

Share this post


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

That's Senate-only, though.  I think most of us have said something similar around here.  The Alabama win last month makes it possible, but it's still not likely.  It's just a crazy confluence of factors this year.

The good news on that side is that it all evens out in the end.  In 2020 and then again in 2022 the GOP will be up against it, with a bunch of first-timers and or senators in states that Clinton won or narrowly lost on the ballot.  Obviously a lot can change between now and then, but if the GOP only manages to hold serve in the Senate this year that puts them in serious trouble after that.

Also, The Donald's favorable job ratings have risen a point and a half, all the way up to 38.5%.

It was interesting to see some numbers the past few days about the "generic" gap between Dems and Donald, which have been pretty wide but that those shrink considerably when specific Democrats are brought into the picture. It's almost like the country has an ongoing "Hillary Syndrome."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

Also, The Donald's favorable job ratings have risen a point and a half, all the way up to 38.5%.

It was interesting to see some numbers the past few days about the "generic" gap between Dems and Donald, which have been pretty wide but that those shrink considerably when specific Democrats are brought into the picture. It's almost like the country has an ongoing "Hillary Syndrome."

This is pretty standard IIRC.  Generic opposition candidates usually poll better than real people, because people hear "generic candidate" and think "ideal candidate who opposes what I oppose and has no flaws."

Share this post


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

This is pretty standard IIRC.  Generic opposition candidates usually poll better than real people, because people hear "generic candidate" and think "ideal candidate who opposes what I oppose and has no flaws."

That sounds reasonable. Except for everybody loving Oprah, of course.

(that's a joke, Scooby)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sticking with a 52-seat gain for Dems in the House for now.  That was based on a back of the envelope look at the data in the third bullet (which has been ~steady for months now) plus off-year election results (specials + VA/NJ).

But the last time there were this many majority-party retirements in the House?  1994, when 30 Dems jumped before they could be pushed.  Republicans gained 54 seats that year.  So what we're seeing now is another data point suggesting a Dem Tsunami in November.

The bolded is my favorite part of all this though.

Quote

But other indicators are clearly flashing GOP warning signs. Democrats have benefited from significant recruitment advantages — there are at least a half dozen former Army Rangers and Navy SEALs running as Democrats this year, for example — as Republicans struggle to convince incumbents to run for reelection.

At least 29 House seats held by Republicans will be open in November following announced retirements, a greater number for the majority party than in each of the past three midterm elections when control of Congress flipped.

The president’s own job approval, a traditional harbinger of his party’s midterm performance, is at record lows as he approaches a year in office, according to Gallup. Polls asking which party Americans want to see control Congress in 2019 show a double-digit advantage for Democrats.

“When the wave comes, it’s always underestimated in the polls,” said a conservative political strategist who has met with GOP candidates. “That is the reason that Republicans are ducking for cover.”

 

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beto O'Rourke, dem who's trying to unseat Ted Cruz, wants some type of mandatory "national service" for 1 year for every citizen after they graduate high school. 

I think he has a real shot at beating Cruz but I think he alienated a lot of his millennial base with this one. 

Also, Texas is gerrymandered to hell and I don't know if the Supreme Court is going to strike it down or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, squistion said:

Like I was with Arpaio, I'm surprised she's allowed to run

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.