Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

2018 Elections Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just got back from a polling place with my LD's State Senate candidate. We're a traditionally red Arizona district with two insanely terrible Republican incumbents and a fairly sane Senate Republican

I helped get a lesbian Native American elected to Congress.  In Kansas.   And helped prevent Kris Kobach from being in charge of an entire state.   How was your autumn?

Tonight, Ann Coulter tweeted "Kansas is dead to me".   But cut her some slack.  She's been pissed off at us ever since we dropped a house on her sister.  

The economy is doing great while Republicans are in charge. Yet it looks very much like, despite this, Republicans are going to lose. 

This phenomenon has happened before, to both parties. So it makes me wonder if the rule, “It’s the economy, stupid” only applies when times are bad? Then it’s obviously the number one focus. But perhaps when things are good, the public focuses on other issues? 

I don’t know; this is just speculation. 

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

The economy is doing great while Republicans are in charge. Yet it looks very much like, despite this, Republicans are going to lose. 

This phenomenon has happened before, to both parties. So it makes me wonder if the rule, “It’s the economy, stupid” only applies when times are bad? Then it’s obviously the number one focus. But perhaps when things are good, the public focuses on other issues? 

I don’t know; this is just speculation. 

I think it is more that the current GOP has crossed a line in supporting a wanna be despot.  Decency and the rule of law are under attack, and there is really no modern precedent to relate to.    

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zoonation said:
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

The economy is doing great while Republicans are in charge. Yet it looks very much like, despite this, Republicans are going to lose. 

This phenomenon has happened before, to both parties. So it makes me wonder if the rule, “It’s the economy, stupid” only applies when times are bad? Then it’s obviously the number one focus. But perhaps when things are good, the public focuses on other issues? 

I don’t know; this is just speculation. 

I think it is more that the current GOP has crossed a line in supporting a wanna be despot.  Decency and the rule of law are under attack, and there is really no modern precedent to relate to.    

Those would qualify as other issues lol :lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, [scooter] said:

:loco:

You understand why people are pointing out the hypocrisy of campaigning on the strength of her genitalia, shaming women into voting for her because she's a woman, and then ####ting on the progressive lgbt female in favor of the corrupt insider who happens to be a white man, right? 

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

You understand why people are pointing out the hypocrisy of campaigning on the strength of her genitalia, shaming women into voting for her because she's a woman, and then ####ting on the progressive lgbt female in favor of the corrupt insider who happens to be a white man, right? 

Hillary also campaigned on the strength of her many years of public service, arguing that such qualifications made her better than someone who had never had an elected or unelected position in government.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ren hoek said:
9 hours ago, [scooter] said:

:loco:

You understand why people are pointing out the hypocrisy of campaigning on the strength of her genitalia, shaming women into voting for her because she's a woman, and then ####ting on the progressive lgbt female in favor of the corrupt insider who happens to be a white man, right? 

That's not how hypocrisy works.

Hypocrisy is when you falsely use one person's words (such as Hillary Clinton) to call another person (such as Madeline Albright) a "hypocrite".

If Madeline Albright had stated that women should use gender as the sole factor in their voting decisions, then you might have had a point.

But she didn't, so you don't.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, timschochet said:

The economy is doing great while Republicans are in charge. Yet it looks very much like, despite this, Republicans are going to lose. 

This phenomenon has happened before, to both parties. So it makes me wonder if the rule, “It’s the economy, stupid” only applies when times are bad? Then it’s obviously the number one focus. But perhaps when things are good, the public focuses on other issues? 

I don’t know; this is just speculation. 

Economic performance is less correlated with electoral success in midterms than in presidential elections. Also it generally matters more about the direction rather than the absolute numbers (I've even heard that the single most important indicator is growth during Q2 of an election year.)

That said, Trump's approval ratings are below where you would expect them to be given economic conditions, and Obama's were higher. So maybe partisanship is overtaking the economy as a more relevant factor. Or maybe Obama was seen as a nice guy and Trump as a jerk.:shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, [scooter] said:

That's not how hypocrisy works.

Hypocrisy is when you falsely use one person's words (such as Hillary Clinton) to call another person (such as Madeline Albright) a "hypocrite".

If Madeline Albright had stated that women should use gender as the sole factor in their voting decisions, then you might have had a point.

But she didn't, so you don't.

Quote

Between 20 and 40 new women are poised to enter the House come January 2019, shattering the previous record of 24 set in 1992's "Year of the Woman." And the impending surge is being driven entirely by Democrats, including insurgent progressives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley, who defeated 20-year Democratic incumbents. The number of Republican women in the House, meanwhile, is poised to decline. 

Hypocrites!!!!11111juan

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SacramentoBob said:

Hypocrites!!!!11111juan

Who did the Dem establishment support in Tom Carper's (the Iraq War supporting wife beater) primary against Kerri Harris, Joe Crowley's primary against Ocasio-Cortez, and Andrew Cuomo's (laughably corrupt scumbag) primary against Cynthia Nixon?  Who did Gillibrand, Clinton, Biden, and party chair Tom Perez endorse in those races?  Go ahead.  I'll sit here and wait.

The party has no problem backing women and minorities so long as they're neoliberal corporate tools, because the party is owned by corporate donors.  If it's a progressive or justice democrat sort, it's like they don't exist.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

ren hoek said:


The party has no problem backing women and minorities so long as they're neoliberal corporate tools, because the party is owned by corporate donors. If it's a progressive or justice democrat sort, it's like they don't exist.


Right. This actually disproves your entire theory. The party DOESN'T blindly endorse candidates based on genitalia. Any attempt to push that talking point is a strawman.

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


Right. This actually disproves your entire theory. The party DOESN'T blindly endorse candidates based on genitalia. Any attempt to push that talking point is a strawman.

No, it affirms it.  The theory isn't that they blindly endorse based on genitalia.  The theory is that the DNC/DCCC party brass only engages in identity politics when it suits the transnational corps that own the party, in a very cynical way, and discards them when it doesn't.  

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

No, it affirms it.  The theory isn't that they blindly endorse based on genitalia.  The theory is that the DNC/DCCC party brass only engages in identity politics when it suits the transnational corps that own the party, in a very cynical way, and discards them when it doesn't.  

Let's say all conservative politicians and voters disappeared one day, like a rapture or something. Do you think the DNC along with the Democratic, et al voters would exist as it does? Or do you think they'd change at all? If so how? TIA

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

No, it affirms it.  The theory isn't that they blindly endorse based on genitalia.  The theory is that the DNC/DCCC party brass only engages in identity politics when it suits the transnational corps that own the party, in a very cynical way, and discards them when it doesn't.  

So your concern is that identity politics, while important, are secondary to actual policy considerations for them.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

Let's say all conservative politicians and voters disappeared one day, like a rapture or something. Do you think the DNC along with the Democratic, et al voters would exist as it does? Or do you think they'd change at all? If so how? TIA

I don't think the people running it would change anything.  The party would probably split along some sort of Bernie/Hillary fissure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

I don't think the people running it would change anything.  The party would probably split along some sort of Bernie/Hillary fissure. 

Yeah, I think the DNC as we know it would go away and most D representatives will be significantly more left. I guess this is where we differ and since this is fantasy there's no way to confirm it besides referencing speeches.

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

So your concern is that identity politics, while important, are secondary to actual policy considerations for them.

If by "actual policy considerations" you mean subservience to huge corporations, yes.  My concern is that identity politics are being used to position the Democratic party as "good guys" while, at its very best, it is about .2% less worse than the Republicans. 

It's the flip side of the same sort of focus Republicans had on gay marriage/abortion during the Bush years.  A way to grandstand on social issues that costs them nothing and doesn't address the actual systemic, racist problems in this country.  Like abolishing the private prison system, ending cash bail, decriminalizing drugs, police accountability, restoring voting rights to prisoners, supporting the prison strike, backing labor, BDS, any number of things that an actual left party should have no problem expressing solidarity with. 

 

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

His concern/obsession is putting Hillary Clinton in a negative light. 

I think the people who reflexively defend her every single time her name gets mentioned no matter how valid the criticism is are more pervasive than people who are critical of her in the first place.  

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

:shrug:

You're talking about someone who is widely and strongly despised. How big is this army of Hillary defenders in your mind?

I know. You don't think you're biased. You frequently come up short in seeing it in yourself 

Of course I'm biased.  It's called, having an opinion.  Not sure how many defenders she has, just feels ridiculously overrepresented on this board sometimes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Of course I'm biased.  It's called, having an opinion.  Not sure how many defenders she has, just feels ridiculously overrepresented on this board sometimes. 

By who?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Waleed Shahid‏ @_waleedshahid 3h3 hours ago

The @nytimes officially condemns Cuomo and demands he apologize to @CynthiaNixon. “This is the lowest form of politics, and the most dangerous, exploiting the festering wounds and fears along ethnic and religious lines.”

Did Cuomo send the mailer?  I thought he didn't know about it until after it had already gone out from the NYDNC?  

Quote

“I didn’t know about the mailer,” Mr. Cuomo said at a news conference Sunday in Manhattan. “I haven’t seen the mailer.”

 

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

Waleed Shahid‏ @_waleedshahid 3h3 hours ago

The @nytimes officially condemns Cuomo and demands he apologize to @CynthiaNixon. “This is the lowest form of politics, and the most dangerous, exploiting the festering wounds and fears along ethnic and religious lines.”

Shahid is Nixon's policy director quoting a NYT opinion piece.

That being said, Orthodox Judaism and the Yeshiva society should be questioned. It's as bad as Christian Fundamentalism or Jihadist Islam. Secular Jews in Israel have a problem with their Orthodox brethren.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Gawain said:

Shahid is Nixon's policy director quoting a NYT opinion piece.

That being said, Orthodox Judaism and the Yeshiva society should be questioned. It's as bad as Christian Fundamentalism or Jihadist Islam. Secular Jews in Israel have a problem with their Orthodox brethren.

I know.  Apparently it's the whole editorial board.  They did manage to squeeze in a tortured paragraph about Cuomo deserving a third term somehow.  Probably to save face on their embarrassing endorsement of him on the 4th.  

I remember when Cuomo marched shoulder to shoulder with the Israeli culture minister who incited a race riot against black people in Tel Aviv.  

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

Waleed Shahid‏ @_waleedshahid 3h3 hours ago

The @nytimes officially condemns Cuomo and demands he apologize to @CynthiaNixon. “This is the lowest form of politics, and the most dangerous, exploiting the festering wounds and fears along ethnic and religious lines.”

The piece was written by the NYT's editorial board. Describing it as "official" is a disingenuous act of partisanship.

Also, the editorial did not "demand" that Cuomo apologize. It said that Cuomo "had an obligation" to apologize.

Words (and their definitions) matter.

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

The conventional wisdom for several months now has been that Republicans would lose the House but increase their hold on the Senate. Is it possible they could lose the Senate as well? 

Anything’s possible but it’s highly unlikely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Anything’s possible but it’s highly unlikely. 

Hey, nobody thought Trump had a chance.  Anything is possible.  We need to get a foreign adversary with lots of smart computer nerds on the Dems side.  

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

The conventional wisdom for several months now has been that Republicans would lose the House but increase their hold on the Senate. Is it possible they could lose the Senate as well? 

I’d give it about 15-20% right now

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

Seems high.  Hope you're right.

2018 US Senate Election - Majority Outcome

Republican Majority -$215  Democrat Majority +$450 No Overall Majority +$350

 

2018 US House of Representatives Election - Majority Outcome

Republican Majority +$150  Democrat Majority -$200 No Overall Majority +$2500

 

 

2018 US Senate Election Winner - Texas

Ted Cruz $-170   Beto O'Rourke +140

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

2018 US Senate Election - Majority Outcome

Republican Majority -$215  Democrat Majority +$450 No Overall Majority +$350

 

2018 US House of Representatives Election - Majority Outcome

Republican Majority +$150  Democrat Majority -$200 No Overall Majority +$2500

 

 

2018 US Senate Election Winner - Texas

Ted Cruz $-170   Beto O'Rourke +140

I have never been a better, can someone explain these dollar amounts to me?

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

I have never been a better, can someone explain these dollar amounts to me?

-170 means you would need to bet 170 to win 100.   +140 means if you bet 100, you would win $140.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, joffer said:

It really is starting to look like Cruz/Beto is the key race. GOP PAC money is pouring into that race now.

Texas has been so disappointing for Democrats in past elections. It's hard for me to believe that this will be reversed until it happens.

If a Democrat ever wins a statewide election in Texas, it will signal a fundamental change in American politics. Republicans need Texas to counter California and the northeast. If the Democrats ever get all 3, the GOP becomes a permanent minority party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, joffer said:

It really is starting to look like Cruz/Beto is the key race. GOP PAC money is pouring into that race now.

I think it may have been discussed in the Beto thread but it’s a shame that he may lose.  But I’m curious what people think he could do to stay relevant and potentially make a run in 2024/2028 - if he loses this I assume 2020 is a non-starter??

Edited by AAABatteries
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sheriff Bart said:

2018 US Senate Election - Majority Outcome

Republican Majority -$215  Democrat Majority +$450 No Overall Majority +$350

 

2018 US House of Representatives Election - Majority Outcome

Republican Majority +$150  Democrat Majority -$200 No Overall Majority +$2500

 

 

2018 US Senate Election Winner - Texas

Ted Cruz $-170   Beto O'Rourke +140

If I was richer I’d throw 50k on GOP senate majority.  Seems like free money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I think it may have been discussed in the Beto thread but it’s a shame that he may lose.  But I’m curious what people think he could do to stay relevant and potentially make a run in 2024/2028 - if he loses this I assume 2020 is a non-starter??

Why would 2020 be a non-starter?  Look at Barack and Clinton before him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...