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.pecorino said:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
2018 Elections Thread (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter squistion
- Start date
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
"We care about everybody and they don't." If we start seeing that other places you'll know it tests well. Seems like a great line.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Not stalker material at all.squistion said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
If that’s not the national slogan for Democrats in 2018, the Democratic Party should be drawn and quartered.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I think it's exactly the number of seats the Dems need (24).Is it?
Expecting more like 40-50 myself.
Hilts
Footballguy
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).
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
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.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Not really aand yet, here we are with Trump as President.
. 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,Not really a
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
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.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
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
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I will concede to being certain Hillary was gonna win.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Who knew statistics could be so hard.Not really a
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.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
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.
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.
squistion
Footballguy
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
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/06/aclu-2018-midterms-327115
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
squistion said:
Wow! Good for them. (And us all.)
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."squistion said:
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew
Footballguy
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."
The Indestructible
Footballguy
Conor Lamb, the Democrat running in PA's special election to replace Tim Murphy (R), said he won't support Pelosi as house leader.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
dozer
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Model has Dems winning 38 House seats.
Going to try and keep a list of these as we go through the year.
Going to try and keep a list of these as we go through the year.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
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.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Nate Silver also suggests that we libs shouldn't get carried away, this remains an uphill fight because of the geographic dispersion of voters.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
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.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
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.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
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.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
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.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
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."
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
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."
roadkill1292
Footballguy
That sounds reasonable. Except for everybody loving Oprah, of course.
(that's a joke, Scooby)
squistion
Footballguy
Local California media is reporting that Darrell Issa won’t seek re-election in 2018.
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/951121465147043842
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/951121465147043842
roadkill1292
Footballguy
"Issa bout time."
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Chelsea Manning has filed to run for the U.S. Senate in Maryland, according to federal election filings.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/chelsea-manning-files-to-run-for-us-senate-in-maryland/2018/01/13/6439f0d0-f88c-11e7-beb6-c8d48830c54d_story.html?utm_term=.465c6fb31040&tid=sm_tw
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/chelsea-manning-files-to-run-for-us-senate-in-maryland/2018/01/13/6439f0d0-f88c-11e7-beb6-c8d48830c54d_story.html?utm_term=.465c6fb31040&tid=sm_tw
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gachi
Footballguy
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.
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.
msommer
Footballguy
