zoonation
Footballguy
True. I just don’t see it happening. But I didn’t see trump winning either.Matthias said:Free money? No way. Especially at -215.
True. I just don’t see it happening. But I didn’t see trump winning either.Matthias said:Free money? No way. Especially at -215.
No potential presidential nominee could win a senate seat in Texas. But Beto is exactly wheat they are looking for in 2020. They don’t even have a real candidate right now imo.Not sure how to run for President when you can't win a Senate seat.
Nate SilverVerified account @NateSilver538
If you made me head of the Polls Marketing Council* I'd insist on the slogan "Polls: Not Great. But Better Than All That Other Bull####."
Donald Trump probably couldn't win a Senate seat in New York.Radio Free Homer said:Not sure how to run for President when you can't win a Senate seat.
Indiana looks like the biggest trouble spot for the Dems to me. I think Nate Silver mentioned recently that less populated states have a much stronger incumbency advantage, which makes sense- the fewer people, the easier to shake everyone's hands and tailor your politics for them and so on. Indiana is bigger than all the swing states except Florida and Missouri. Also, while all of the incumbents already won a race in a less friendly environment for Dems in 2012, Donnelly and McCaskill got big boosts when their opponents went off the reservation on rape/abortion. Can't count on something like that happening again. The others won without that scale of unforced error.I think TN, not TX, is the key race. I would be surprised if Beto won and Bredesen lost.
Dems have a good chance to pick up NV/AZ. Meanwhile, Dem incumbents are in the most trouble in FL/ND. If they pull one of those out (and incumbents in MO/IN/WV/MT hold on), then they only need one more.
An aside here- Six months ago people lamented the absence of a single prominent Dem voice under 50. Now there's at least three- O'Rourke, Gillum and Ocasio-Cortez. Some might fall off if they lose, but others will definitely take their place. This stuff happens quickly and is difficult to forecast.No potential presidential nominee could win a senate seat in Texas. But Beto is exactly wheat they are looking for in 2020. They don’t even have a real candidate right now imo.
I think the democrats need to be more locally appealing. In some areas that is more progressive, in others it is less. I am okay with that.
Cortez isn’t even close to ready for the national platform. She would get destroyed.An aside here- Six months ago people lamented the absence of a single prominent Dem voice under 50. Now there's at least three- O'Rourke, Gillum and Ocasio-Cortez. Some might fall off if they lose, but others will definitely take their place. This stuff happens quickly and is difficult to forecast.
If people who want that will vote, we'll all be in better shape.
I wasn't suggesting she should run for President in 2020. She's not eligible anyway. I was just pointing out that until very recently everyone was bemoaning the lack of young leadership on the left, and now we have it. This stuff moves fast.Cortez isn’t even close to ready for the national platform. She would get destroyed.
She'll never win the approval of the Ren Hoek crowd because she's not quite anti-Zionist enough.And Cortez might not be ready for a presidential debate or something yet, but she's way better than the older generation when it comes to using social media. This is basically a "how-to" for politicians on twitter.
It'd be a lot easier if the national party and DCCC weren't backing well-off millionaires on the take from weapons/pharmaceutical/oil industries over their progressive counterparts. I think Dems are much better positioned to build an opposition party, a good one, than the Republicans are at this point. The reason I'm hard on Dems is that I feel they've done so little to change the makeup of the party and hold themselves accountable since getting wiped out by Trump.If people who want that will vote, we'll all be in better shape.
I think you're wrong about this on a number of fronts, as I've been documenting in this thread. It hasn't been as great a pivot as some would like, of course, but at some point we need to accept that progress is being made.It'd be a lot easier if the national party and DCCC weren't backing well-off millionaires on the take from weapons/pharmaceutical/oil industries over their progressive counterparts. I think Dems are much better positioned to build an opposition party, a good one, than the Republicans are at this point. The reason I'm hard on Dems is that I feel they've done so little to change the makeup of the party and hold themselves accountable since getting wiped out by Trump.
But you're probably right about civic engagement. There's no such thing as an Anarchist Party. But if it can be a local measure like legalizing drugs or something like that, there's no real good reason not to help that along.
“Wiped our by Trump” means getting almost 3 million more votes than Trump. The idea that the Dems should burn the party down when they actually won more votes in the last election and have been dramatically outperforming 2016 results in recent special elections is perhaps the worst analysis I’ve seen on this board in a decade.It'd be a lot easier if the national party and DCCC weren't backing well-off millionaires on the take from weapons/pharmaceutical/oil industries over their progressive counterparts. I think Dems are much better positioned to build an opposition party, a good one, than the Republicans are at this point. The reason I'm hard on Dems is that I feel they've done so little to change the makeup of the party and hold themselves accountable since getting wiped out by Trump.
But you're probably right about civic engagement. There's no such thing as an Anarchist Party. But if it can be a local measure like legalizing drugs or something like that, there's no real good reason not to help that along.
That is because we feel comfortable where we are as a party.It'd be a lot easier if the national party and DCCC weren't backing well-off millionaires on the take from weapons/pharmaceutical/oil industries over their progressive counterparts. I think Dems are much better positioned to build an opposition party, a good one, than the Republicans are at this point. The reason I'm hard on Dems is that I feel they've done so little to change the makeup of the party and hold themselves accountable since getting wiped out by Trump.If people who want that will vote, we'll all be in better shape.
But you're probably right about civic engagement. There's no such thing as an Anarchist Party. But if it can be a local measure like legalizing drugs or something like that, there's no real good reason not to help that along.
I agree 100%“Wiped our by Trump” means getting almost 3 million more votes than Trump. The idea that the Dems should burn the party down when they actually won more votes in the last election and have been dramatically outperforming 2016 results in recent special elections is perhaps the worst analysis I’ve seen on this board in a decade.
Something like 40% of the country didn't even vote in the last election. For most people there wasn't anything resembling a real choice. Some turnout.I think you're wrong about this on a number of fronts, as I've been documenting in this thread. It hasn't been as great a pivot as some would like, of course, but at some point we need to accept that progress is being made.
But then I think referring to an election in which you get 2.7 million more votes than your opponent in the presidential race, and gain both seats and voter shares in both the House and Senate, and lose the presidential election only because your opponent puts together the perfect combination of 80,000 votes across three states thanks in part to voter suppression laws, as getting "wiped out" by your opponent betrays just a little bit of bias.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/10/13576488/democratic-party-smoking-pile-rubble“Wiped our by Trump” means getting almost 3 million more votes than Trump. The idea that the Dems should burn the party down when they actually won more votes in the last election and have been dramatically outperforming 2016 results in recent special elections is perhaps the worst analysis I’ve seen on this board in a decade.
You are aware this is not an outlier, this is the norm.Something like 40% of the country didn't even vote in the last election. For most people there wasn't anything resembling a real choice. Some turnout.
It's sucked for a long time.You are aware this is not an outlier, this is the norm.
Turnout was up compared to 2012. Down less than 3% from 2008. Up from 2004, and up substantially from, 2000 and 1996. In fact I'd say that 2016 was an above-average year for turnout since the 1960s. And then of course there's the voter suppression issue, which is an artificial limitation on turnout (one that, paradoxically, the Dems really can't bring up).Something like 40% of the country didn't even vote in the last election. For most people there wasn't anything resembling a real choice. Some turnout.
Most of them I'm sure felt like the political system abandoned them a long time ago. Like Ocasio said, the swing is not going to be Left/Right/Independents. It's going to be nonvoting to voters.
You were hard on Dems before Trump. That’s why you didn’t vote.It'd be a lot easier if the national party and DCCC weren't backing well-off millionaires on the take from weapons/pharmaceutical/oil industries over their progressive counterparts. I think Dems are much better positioned to build an opposition party, a good one, than the Republicans are at this point. The reason I'm hard on Dems is that I feel they've done so little to change the makeup of the party and hold themselves accountable since getting wiped out by Trump.
But you're probably right about civic engagement. There's no such thing as an Anarchist Party. But if it can be a local measure like legalizing drugs or something like that, there's no real good reason not to help that along.
I agree with this. But it's not a Democrat issue, it's an American issue.It's sucked for a long time.You are aware this is not an outlier, this is the norm.
Another five thirty eighty piece, this one by Clare Malone, ventured the opinion (based on polling) that Dem voters were becoming as entrenched in their policy preferences as Repubs were. And those policies were moving steadily left, with support growing not only for single payer but for expanded financial help for attending college and even for changing up the nature of our government itself.Matthias said:
So far, Republicans are staying pretty quiet about all this, probably confident that the existing system and their own exploitation of the voting rules will be enough to prevent majority leftist rule in the future. They can keep making it more difficult for poor people and people with criminal records to vote, make it more difficult for kids to attend college (and become Dem voters) and keep tightening the screws on any and all immigration because those new Americans aren't likely to vote for a party that thinks diversity is a weakness.Democratic voters have become a disillusioned bunch; 68 percent say that significant changes are needed to the design and structure of government itself. The party, meanwhile, has struggled to solidify its fundamental identity in the post-2016 universe. In this uncertain climate, rising Democratic stars have trafficked in the new currency of institution-shifting proposals.
That's nice to read, but I'm not going to get my hopes up based on what pollsters say anymore. No let up until the vote is in, counted and verified.Matthias said:
Wow, that's such a Samantha thing to say!I knew nothing about cynthia Nixon, but chapo trap house had a cool interview with her, you can find it Here. I def appreciate her point of view, especially regarding labor rights.
I too will be voting for Nixon, but I anticipate in November I will be voting for Cuomo.Matthias said:I'm going to vote in tomorrow's primary just to vote for Nixon.
Well, you are using Trump as a baseline so that worst analysis has some competition. I'd guess millions of those votes you got were anti-Trump votes. Time will tell.“Wiped our by Trump” means getting almost 3 million more votes than Trump. The idea that the Dems should burn the party down when they actually won more votes in the last election and have been dramatically outperforming 2016 results in recent special elections is perhaps the worst analysis I’ve seen on this board in a decade.
And I'm sure that millions of Trump votes were anti-Hillary votes.Well, you are using Trump as a baseline so that worst analysis has some competition. I'd guess millions of those votes you got were anti-Trump votes. Time will tell.
Winning california by 4.4 million votes and new york by 1.7 million. Feel free to win by 5 million and 2 million. That doesn't really help the dems.“Wiped our by Trump” means getting almost 3 million more votes than Trump. The idea that the Dems should burn the party down when they actually won more votes in the last election and have been dramatically outperforming 2016 results in recent special elections is perhaps the worst analysis I’ve seen on this board in a decade.
It does when the topic is the "will of the people". All those Californins and New Yorkers are people, and their votes count.Winning california by 4.4 million votes and new york by 1.7 million. Feel free to win by 5 million and 2 million. That doesn't really help the dems.
Which would be more representative of the will of the people: An election determined by the Electoral College as it stands now, or an election where everyone who voted had their vote count as one vote and the candidate with the most votes wins?Winning california by 4.4 million votes and new york by 1.7 million. Feel free to win by 5 million and 2 million. That doesn't really help the dems.
It is unlikely that the Democrats could find another candidate so repugnant to independents and progressives as Clinton, so losing those votes probably evens out the gains from anti-Trump crossover voters.Well, you are using Trump as a baseline so that worst analysis has some competition. I'd guess millions of those votes you got were anti-Trump votes. Time will tell.
You know there are two houses of Congress, right?I definitely see a gigantic Blue wave coming.
I agree, most probable is no change. 52/48 more probable than 50/50Fivethirtyeight's Senate forecast is live: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/
Topline number: GOP has 2/3 chance of retaining control, which also happens to be their chances of winning both Texas and Tennessee. Dem incumbents all favored to win, although FL/ND are both very close. Most likely outcome is no change in balance (is, remain 51/49).
Not according to the model.I agree, most probable is no change. 52/48 more probable than 50/50
That is a fantastic ad.More of this, please. Give me 30 and 60 second versions to run as ads. Get it all over social media.
That is really, really good.More of this, please. Give me 30 and 60 second versions to run as ads. Get it all over social media.
“Goodbye Willie, I don’t support socialist commies! You’re not going to advertise on my FB page either. Like we say in Texas, Now Git!”