Jump to content

US Elections - The white power-suit vs the white-power suit


all swedes are racist

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

It's interesting that Hispanics is only Clinton +30, but anecdotally, there are a lot of Mexican American's who basically say, "I'm a citizen, he was only talking about illegals." Not to mention the South and Central Americans.

And, also anecdotally, there is some resentment from indigenous Spanish American hispanics towards mexican immigrants.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

It's interesting that Hispanics is only Clinton +30, but anecdotally, there are a lot of Mexican American's who basically say, "I'm a citizen, he was only talking about illegals." Not to mention the South and Central Americans.

Are there not a fair number of Hispanic social conservatives? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Oh, and the crosstabs on that Texas poll are interesting too:

men: Trump +6
women: Trump +1
age 18-29: Clinton +21
age 30-44: Clinton +8
age 45-64: Trump +14
age 65+: Trump +22
whites: Trump +37
blacks: Clinton +78
Hispanics: Clinton +30
Dems: Clinton +89
GOP: Trump +77
Indies: Trump +19

That's a much smaller gender gap than I expected. Hillary might still have room to grow.

Which the local GOP will interpret as justification for complete denial of voting rights for minorities.  And anybody under the age of 30.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Are there not a fair number of Hispanic social conservatives? 

It's more that Texas Hispanics tend to be more conservative than Hispanics elsewhere (the Texas Republican Party knows it needs to retain some non-white support or it'll be facing a demographic time-bomb twenty years from now. Donald Trump is a disaster for them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Fez said:

To my understanding, there has never been any evidence of the top pollsters, or any of the live caller pollsters really, herding their results. That is a phenomenon of robocall and internet panel pollsters trying to better match the live call pollsters. Also, the live call pollsters still vary in their estimates of Clinton's lead, going between +7 and +15; which is a pretty wide variance. Plus there is IBD/TIPP out there on that island with the LA Times and Raz, showing a +2 Trump lead.

As for gerrymandering, it has been proven that a 59-41 average district spread is the ideal goal. However, there are almost no states where Republicans were able to get districts that favorable on average. They did use computers to do the best they could of course, so there probably aren't any dummy-manders (except for Arkansas; never forget that that is a map that Democrats drew); but Democrats also don't need a 20 point win to take the House. General consensus is that if Democrats win by 8 points they have a realistic chance of taking the House, and if they win 10 points they almost certainly will take it. But it also depends on how Democrats do in the various states.

Charlie Cook rates 201 Republican and 177 Democratic seats as solid, but the remaining 57 are winnable by either side. It would take a real wave for Democrats to win most of the 13 likely Republican seats, but the remaining 44 seats would probably all go Democratic with an 8 point national win. Which would give Democrats a 221-214 House majority. Democrats would probably still lose a few of those 44 races at an 8 point national margin, maybe enough to not take the majority on its own, so the question would be how many of the other 13 races or any of the 201 solid seats could they pick off. But by the time you get to a 10 point national margin, its probably not much of a question anymore.

Yeah I think the gerrymandering is much stronger than that. I don't think the house flip. And if it doesn't flip the point is really moot because regardless of what outcomes happen in this election in the senate house or presidency, come January 2019, republicans will have more seats in the house and more seats in the senate than they have at this time in 2016, and that will be true without republicans changing a single thing in their platform or outlook and probably tacking In a trump direction as a party.

i mean really even if trump loses, and republicans retained the house, why should republicans change anything they do? they're still guaranteed mammoth success in the 2018 midterms by doing exactly what they are now doing, so there's no real need for them to change when it is impossible to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Oh, and the crosstabs on that Texas poll are interesting too:

They're interesting. But as with most polls, the subsamples for all the different groups (except gender) are probably too small to make any definitive conclusions.

4 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Yeah I think the gerrymandering is much stronger than that. I don't think the house flip. And if it doesn't flip the point is really moot because regardless of what outcomes happen in this election in the senate house or presidency, come January 2019, republicans will have more seats in the house and more seats in the senate than they have at this time in 2016, and that will be true without republicans changing a single thing in their platform or outlook and probably tacking In a trump direction as a party.

i mean really even if trump loses, and republicans retained the house, why should republicans change anything they do? they're still guaranteed mammoth success in the 2018 midterms by doing exactly what they are now doing, so there's no real need for them to change when it is impossible to lose.

The point isn't moot at all. Even if its a 2-year rental, if Democrats control the trifecta again they can get a lot of work done in that time. And while the 2018 midterm probably won't be great for Democrats, I'm willing to bet damn near anything that Republicans won't have a larger majority in either the House or Senate than they do now. Even if Democrats don't take the House back this year, they are going to win more seats this election than Republicans will win back in 2018. As for Senate, Republicans were supposed to win it in 2012, instead they lost two seats; Democrats were supposed to win it this year, and it looks near-certain that they will, but only because of Trump. The 2018 map is rough for Democrats, but its best not to try to forecast it this early out.

As for what Republicans should do if they keep the House but nothing else, first of all nothing is guaranteed yet. For one thing, most of the Republican gerrymanders are based on the idea that the suburbs of most cities are light red. If they start going blue this year, and stay blue-ish in 2018 because many of those suburban women are done with the Republican party, most of those gerrymanders are now worthless.

Also, there's a decent chance that Republicans will be literally split in two by that point. There's no reason to think that Trump, or his followers, will disappear and fall back in line after this election. If they start refusing to vote for establishment Republicans, and those 20% of Republicans that are still moderate-ish refuse to vote for the for Trump-backed Republicans; the party will no longer viable for most state-level elections and quite a few congressional and local districts.

Next, controlling just the House isn't really that much of a back-up prize. They can keep the congressional gridlock going. But all that means is that more and more power will be concentrated in the White House and the judiciary. The majority of judges in this country are already Democratically appointed, and a Democratic senate can get a lot more confirmed in the next two years. Meanwhile a Clinton Administration will continue the Obama and Bush administrations' use of executive authority. The longer Republicans are unable to win national elections, the longer they'll be locked out of that power.

 Finally, if Democrats have the trifecta, they'll be able to run on quite a record of accomplishments in two years.

Its impossible to say for certain whether any or all those things will come to pass. But they may, as might other developments. And that's why it doesn't do any good to start worrying about 2018 right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions about congressional leadership. What would Chuck Schumer be like as a majority leader? Does he have a good relationship with Hillary from their time in the Senate together? Would a Democratic House go with Pelosi again? Why? What is her relationship with Hillary like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Questions about congressional leadership. What would Chuck Schumer be like as a majority leader? Does he have a good relationship with Hillary from their time in the Senate together? Would a Democratic House go with Pelosi again? Why? What is her relationship with Hillary like?

Schumer strikes me as a much more effective sort than Harry Reid.

Pelosi was perfectly OK as Speaker, and in the still-unlikely event of a Democratic House majority, I think she'd be perfectly OK again (the problem chamber 2007-2011 was always the Senate, not the House).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Questions about congressional leadership. What would Chuck Schumer be like as a majority leader? Does he have a good relationship with Hillary from their time in the Senate together? Would a Democratic House go with Pelosi again? Why? What is her relationship with Hillary like?

Thanks to his time in the House, Schumer is one of the main Senate Democrats that has very little respect for Senate traditions or congeniality; he just wants to get things done. At one time that made him a minority in the Senate caucus, but at this point most Democratic Senators are with him. Leahy isn't (or wasn't, two years ago), but I'm not sure who else isn't at this point. Point is, as majority leader he's very likely to start amending senate rules as soon as Republicans start obstructing again. He probably won't have the votes to completely turn the Senate into the House, but the filibuster for SCOTUS justices will probably disappear as will the legislative filibuster (if Democrats take the House). He and Clinton started off on the wrong foot, but got close pretty quickly. His main pressure won't be Clinton, it will be balancing his relationships with Wall Street against what Warren/Sanders want, and he'll probably try to relieve that pressure by pushing as hard as he can on other liberal priorities instead.

If Democrats take the House, they probably go with Pelosi again. If they wouldn't, she'd have resigned after 2010; she stayed as minority leader because the caucus wants her to be Speaker again. The only issue would be if the House majority is very small (which is probably would be). If the majority is less than 5 seats, there's a chance she can't wrangle everybody. When Paul Ryan was elected speaker, 2 Democrats voted for Democrats other than Pelosi in protest against her; 3 did when Boehner was last elected. And if Democrats do take the majority, a lot of the new members will be Blue Dogs in pretty red districts; and Pelosi is unpopular enough if those districts that they might force the issue. If that happens, its near certain Steny Hoyer would become Speaker instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

If Democrats gain regain control of the Senate, then I'd like someone as majority leader who'd stay her hawkish tendencies. I dont think Schumer is that person, based on his opposition to the Iran deal.

Speaking of the Senate, who will be the President pro tempore if the Democrat's are in charge?

Schumer is a party loyalist first and foremost. He'll follow Clinton's lead on foreign policy, whatever it is.

The President pro tempore would be Leahy again. He's up for re-election this year but is going to win in a blowout, and he hasn't given any indication that his will be his last race either (although six years is a long time and he is 76 already).

Second most senior Democrat is Barbara Mikulski, but she's retiring this year; third most senior is Harry Reid, who is also retiring; fourth most senior is Diane Feinstein, she's up for re-election in 2018 and hasn't committed to running again yet; fifth most senior is Barbara Boxer, who is retiring this year; six most senior is Patty Murray, who is running for re-election this year and will easily win. Really goes to show how much of an anomaly Leahy is; him and Orrin Hatch and Thad Cochran are the only ones left who were first elected in the 1970s. There have been 271 people elected as Senators since Leahy won his first senate election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

While technically Bernie Sanders is no longer a member of the Democratic party (I think), since the person is chosen informally it might be a nice gesture to have him be second in line - I presume since he is 75 years old he would be in the running.

It not informal, its strictly based on senate seniority; only counting members of whichever party is in the majority at the time. And age is not a factor in seniority, its based on how long senators have continously served in the senate; with tiebreakers based on certain other credentials (previously served in the senate, previously served in the House, etc.)

Sanders is an independent again and not a Democrat; but he counts in seniority for committee assignments so I assume he does for this as well. However, Sanders has only served in the senate since 2007, he'll be 14th in seniority among Democrats next Congress. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

He just doesn't stop. Now he is accussing Democrats of making up phony polls to suppress supporters

on 7 november, the argument will be that the video images of him standing in the back dressed stupidly looking stupid are actually a robot copy of him from the democratic-stalinist-hitlery future sent back to confuse the electorate and suppress his silent majority and steal freedom for moslem mexicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sologdin said:

on 7 november, the argument will be that the video images of him standing in the back dressed stupidly looking stupid are actually a robot copy of him from the democratic-stalinist-hitlery future sent back to confuse the electorate and suppress his silent majority and steal freedom for moslem mexicans.

I didn't realize he had such strong opinions on serving asparagus at breakfast.

Not surprising though I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...