What's new
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 (1 Viewer)

TobiasFunke said:
Now over $80,000, or $10,000 per candidate ?

Here's an article about how the Dems are overwhelming the GOP in fundraising for federal House races thanks to small-dollar donations.
Click to expand...
I wish the money pouring in gave me a greater sense of confidence. 

I don't trust the Republicans to do the right thing on Nov. 6, which is to stay home. The country has suffered enough.

 
roadkill1292 said:
I wish the money pouring in gave me a greater sense of confidence. 

I don't trust the Republicans to do the right thing on Nov. 6, which is to stay home. The country has suffered enough.
Click to expand...
It means nothing (except to MT) but my sister said she and her husband aren't going to vote this time around because they are "annoyed at everything" and "the Democrats are going to steal the election anyway".

So that's 2, in Arkansas, in a safe district :bag:

 
TobiasFunke said:
Great idea here on how to give to make a difference.  Dems in high-visibility races seems to have all the money they need these days- even Jacky Rosen, who I mentioned last week, apparently has a decent chunk of change now (although I still think she might be in trouble and every dollar helps).  So these two prominent social media progressive types highlighted eight state senate races where a $10 donation will go a lot further and have set up a single fundraising link with the money to be split evenly among the eight. Here's a link to the article about the effort, with profiles of each candidate and an explanation as to why they were picked.
Click to expand...
Donated.  Thanks for sharing.  ☝️

 
Dedfin said:
It means nothing (except to MT) but my sister said she and her husband aren't going to vote this time around because they are "annoyed at everything" and "the Democrats are going to steal the election anyway".

So that's 2, in Arkansas, in a safe district :bag:
Click to expand...
Seems like odd logic.  I like democracy, I don’t like the people currently in charge, so I won’t do anything to change it.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
People keep saying the 2020 Senate races are great for Dems but I don't see it.  Here's the list:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2020

I see maybe 3 or 4 decent but not great pickup opportunities for Dems.  And the overwhelming likelihood is that Dems will lose the Alabama seat.   
Click to expand...
Was thinking the exact same thing. Other than CO, there weren't really any big GOP upsets in blue states in '14, which limits the obvious pick-up opportunities. If Collins retires, that's an easy flip, and it's possible Dems can just beat her head-on. But otherwise it will take Dems winning on hostile terrain like IA and GA.

Will also be interesting to see if Beto loses this year and decides to try again vs. Cornyn in '20.

 
zftcg said:
Was thinking the exact same thing. Other than CO, there weren't really any big GOP upsets in blue states in '14, which limits the obvious pick-up opportunities. If Collins retires, that's an easy flip, and it's possible Dems can just beat her head-on. But otherwise it will take Dems winning on hostile terrain like IA and GA.

Will also be interesting to see if Beto loses this year and decides to try again vs. Cornyn in '20.
Click to expand...
It's not just the red seats in play, it's the fact that the blue seats are pretty much all safe. It underlines the importance of keeping the margin close out of the midterms.

Assume CO and AL cancel each other out.  If so, and if the margin is still 51/49 going in, I'd say the Dems are the favorites to win the Senate. They'd only need one or two seats, depending on the presidential election. Kay Hagan would be favored if she tried to reclaim her seat in NC: she lost it by just 1.5% during a very GOP-friendly cycle with a GOP governor spearheading a voter suppression effort; neither of those factors will be present in two years. Trump is surprisingly unpopular in Iowa, Joni Ernst is definitely vulnerable there. Susan Collins' situation is well-known. David Purdue is a first-termer in a state Trump won by just 7 points and which might actually elect a black woman governor next month. Arizona's demographics in a presidential year will be much more friendly for Dems than they are in a midterm year, and Sinema is a coin flip to win a Senate seat there this year. 

So there's five very winnable seats, even without wildcard states that have elected Dems to the Senate recently like Montana or Alaska, and most likely no losses (after canceling out AL and CO). The big question is how many you need to pick up. Huge difference between 51/49 and 54/46, both of which are equally likely IMO.  And the fewer you need, the easier to focus your resources.

 
I'll also add that the following cycle has a similar Dem/GOP split, with 12 D incumbents and 22 R incumbents, and with a similar alignment of mostly safe Dem incumbents and a mix of safe and risky R incumbents. 

So basically this is an absolutely terrible cycle for Dem Senate vulnerability, one they've been dreading since 2012, but Trumpism has given them a rare opportunity to minimize the damage. If they come through November with 48+ senators I would bet a lot of money that they'll take back the Senate at some point during the six year cycle.

 
TobiasFunke said:
It's not just the red seats in play, it's the fact that the blue seats are pretty much all safe. It underlines the importance of keeping the margin close out of the midterms.

Assume CO and AL cancel each other out.  If so, and if the margin is still 51/49 going in, I'd say the Dems are the favorites to win the Senate. They'd only need one or two seats, depending on the presidential election. Kay Hagan would be favored if she tried to reclaim her seat in NC: she lost it by just 1.5% during a very GOP-friendly cycle with a GOP governor spearheading a voter suppression effort; neither of those factors will be present in two years. Trump is surprisingly unpopular in Iowa, Joni Ernst is definitely vulnerable there. Susan Collins' situation is well-known. David Purdue is a first-termer in a state Trump won by just 7 points and which might actually elect a black woman governor next month. Arizona's demographics in a presidential year will be much more friendly for Dems than they are in a midterm year, and Sinema is a coin flip to win a Senate seat there this year. 

So there's five very winnable seats, even without wildcard states that have elected Dems to the Senate recently like Montana or Alaska, and most likely no losses (after canceling out AL and CO). The big question is how many you need to pick up. Huge difference between 51/49 and 54/46, both of which are equally likely IMO.  And the fewer you need, the easier to focus your resources.
Click to expand...
This should go without saying, but it will also matter a lot how the presidential election is going. If Trump is getting his clock cleaned by Warren or Harris or whoever, that will obviously put a lot of seats in play. But if, as I suspect, it ends up being a close race with Trump focusing on riling up his base, that will make it much harder for Dems to win in redder states (similar to the trend we've been seeing over the past few weeks in Senate polls.)

 
zftcg said:
This should go without saying, but it will also matter a lot how the presidential election is going. If Trump is getting his clock cleaned by Warren or Harris or whoever, that will obviously put a lot of seats in play. But if, as I suspect, it ends up being a close race with Trump focusing on riling up his base, that will make it much harder for Dems to win in redder states (similar to the trend we've been seeing over the past few weeks in Senate polls.)
Click to expand...
Of course. I'm assuming it'll be close to a 50/50 presidential race, which seems inevitable unless there's a significant change to the economy.

I'm just trying not to think about that race too much because it's going to be such an awful, miserable experience.

 
Cuban-American protesters swarm Shalala event after Castro sympathizer was to appear.

"By Wednesday, Shalala’s campaign issued an update scrubbing Lee’s name from the list of scheduled guests and said Lee “will not be attending.” But after positioning herself as conservative on Cuba when her main rival in the Democratic primary traveled to the island, Shalala might have blown any residual good will."

Never invite Barbara Lee to Miami if you want the Cuban vote. Whoever invited her should be fired. Ms. Lee should know that she can't help Shalala win Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's district. Or Carlos Curbelo's district. 

Nate Silver has Shalala with a 52-45 lead, but there's a lot of variation in the polls. Nate has Curbelo in a 50-50 race, with momentum going to his challenger.

Nate has Nelson with a 51-49 lead, but with some recent polls favoring Scott. Gillum has a 3-point lead in the governor race.

 
Why these mid terms are different

From BBC

The office of Georgia's secretary of state says 69,049 people turned up to vote on Monday, the first day they could do so in person. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that some people in Cobb County had to queue for two hours to vote - more than three weeks before the election is held.

Compare that number with the first day of early voting in the last mid-terms in 2014 - only 20,898 people voted then.

The total of people who had voted early in Georgia (by mail or in person) is up 170% on 2014.

There might other factors at play in Georgia - there's a particularly close race for governor between Stacey Abrams (who could become the first black female governor) and Brian Kemp. And as we reported last week, there is real concern over the suppression of the black vote in Georgia.

But what's happening in Georgia is also happening elsewhere - in neighbouring Tennessee, for example.

The Tennessean newspaper reports that in Davidson County (where the state capital Nashville is located), 10,249 people turned up on the first day of early voting on Wednesday.

That's just 2,000 people fewer than turned out on the first day of early voting in the 2016 presidential election. Generally, presidential elections tend to get a significantly higher turnout than mid-terms.
Click to expand...

 
TobiasFunke said:
Great idea here on how to give to make a difference.  Dems in high-visibility races seems to have all the money they need these days- even Jacky Rosen, who I mentioned last week, apparently has a decent chunk of change now (although I still think she might be in trouble and every dollar helps).  So these two prominent social media progressive types highlighted eight state senate races where a $10 donation will go a lot further and have set up a single fundraising link with the money to be split evenly among the eight. Here's a link to the article about the effort, with profiles of each candidate and an explanation as to why they were picked.
Click to expand...
This effort is probably well over $150,000 at this point. The guys running it are looking to expand to other state-level candidates.

Here's a story about one of the eight candidates benefiting from the effort, and what our money has done for her campaign to flip the Minnesota House of Representatives.  Give it a read if you need a little pick-me-up this morning.

 
TobiasFunke said:
This effort is probably well over $150,000 at this point. The guys running it are looking to expand to other state-level candidates.

Here's a story about one of the eight candidates benefiting from the effort, and what our money has done for her campaign to flip the Minnesota House of Representatives.  Give it a read if you need a little pick-me-up this morning.
Click to expand...
This is so awesome! Thanks for sharing this TF. How many here threw in?

 
msommer said:
Why these mid terms are different

From BBC
Click to expand...
Interesting - thanks for posting.  I think there’s a couple ways to read this but only one that I believe.  Cobb is one of the largest and richest counties in Georgia.  Most think of Cobb as it was 20 years ago - white, mostly affluent and Evangelical.  It’s the county I grew up in and that was my experience. It’s changed and is now “only” 63% white.  It is 51% female so about average there.  

Cobb went for Hillary in the 2016 election and has been trending blue for a while now.  

I think if you’re a Republican you hope this push is from Evangelicals who are energized by new SCOTUS appointments.  For that demographic abortion is still a huge issue that many rank ahead of anything else.  But honestly, with the changes this county has seen I don’t think that’s likely - What I do think is likely is that what’s happened the last two years has turned a lot of people in this county off and women in particular will come out to vote against a Trump agenda and hopefully for Abrams.  I think it’s alao telling that Cobb is just 12% 65 and older.  I expect Cobb to be solid blue this midterm.  But Georgia is a large state with a lot of rural areas who support Trump. I’m not completely confident in Abrams winning the state but she’ll take metro Atlanta bigly, IMO.

Census stats were taken from here - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/cobbcountygeorgia

 
TobiasFunke said:
I want to make sure to reach across the aisle to our conservative friends as well.  Here's an article about some Republican congressmen who could use your help paying their legal fees to fight indictments and allegations of election law violations. Plenty of options available!
Click to expand...
At another board one of the righties called lawsuits against Republicans for election law violation as "Democratic voter suppression tactics." I crap you not.

 
msommer said:
Why these mid terms are different

From BBC
Click to expand...
Don't read too much into early-voting numbers.

Don't read too much into early-voting numbers.

Don't read too much into early-voting numbers.

DO NOT READ TOO MUCH INTO EARLY-VOTING NUMBERS!

(Sorry, not criticizing you. Just repeating my mantra in order to keep myself sane.)

All kidding aside, there is a lot of debate over the significance of early voting; the argument is that EVs are almost exclusively people who were going to vote anyway, so the numbers don't really shed much light on how the race will turn out.

 
zftcg said:
All kidding aside, there is a lot of debate over the significance of early voting; the argument is that EVs are almost exclusively people who were going to vote anyway, so the numbers don't really shed much light on how the race will turn out.
Click to expand...
I agree with this completely! 

 
538 podcast yesterday reiterated that there is a 40% chance that either the dems take the senate or the repubs hold the house

 
the moops said:
538 podcast yesterday reiterated that there is a 40% chance that either the dems take the senate or the repubs hold the house
Click to expand...
And from today's "Significant digits" piece:

The midterm elections are 19 (!) days away, and our governors forecast has arrived! Overall, 193 million people are forecast to be governed by Democrats and 135 million people by Republicans. However, that corresponds to 23.6 and 26.4 states, respectively. The closest races are in Georgia, Nevada and Ohio. [FiveThirtyEight]
Click to expand...
Minority rule rulez!

 
TobiasFunke said:
This effort is probably well over $150,000 at this point. The guys running it are looking to expand to other state-level candidates.

Here's a story about one of the eight candidates benefiting from the effort, and what our money has done for her campaign to flip the Minnesota House of Representatives.  Give it a read if you need a little pick-me-up this morning.
Click to expand...
Now that the original effort to fund key state legislature campaigns is over the $200,000 mark, the long-awaited sequel is here.

Give Smart 2: Give Smarter

Looks like they're already up over $55,000, setting up the possibility of Give Smart 3: Give With a Vengeance.  For those who missed it earlier, here's some backstory about this effort. That writeup also includes a link to more detailed information about the eight candidates they chose for this round.

We're all we got, we're all we need.

 
Jackstraw said:
As a dem I'd rather have the senate. Gum up those federal court nominations.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. But the demographics are aligned right now that about 30% of the population will dominate the Senate for years to come. We'll be lucky to have social security or Medicare by the time that bunch is through ravaging the nation and a big enough portion of the electorate finally cries "enough."

 
roadkill1292 said:
Oh yeah. But the demographics are aligned right now that about 30% of the population will dominate the Senate for years to come. We'll be lucky to have social security or Medicare by the time that bunch is through ravaging the nation and a big enough portion of the electorate finally cries "enough."
Click to expand...
I think GA, NC, NV, AZ, FL are all itching to turn blue forever soon. Maybe not 2018 or 2020, but soon.

 
Dedfin said:
I think GA, NC, NV, AZ, FL are all itching to turn blue forever soon. Maybe not 2018 or 2020, but soon.
Click to expand...
From a first past the post, horse race POV, watching demographics change states' colors over the years certainly is something interesting to observe. I'm guilty of doing it all the time. But it really gets in the way of debating more modern and effective voting methods that enhance the democratic process, things like proportional voting, approval voting and instant runoff.

You pointed out five really good candidates for turning blue, as domestic immigrants flock to the cities and the hispanic populations continue to grow. Oddly enough, some of the old Rust Belt states are swinging in the other direction. But those states are losing representatives while the southern and western states are gaining them.

Oh, Congress needs to be 200% bigger, too.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Newsweek: "Democrats Have Forgotten The Working Class. It Will Cost Them" (7/14/22 14:39 PST)
Replies
19
Views
937
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top