U.S. Politics: From Russia, With Love

[denstorebog]

15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Hell, turnout wasn't enough to get Osoff voted in, and that was with only 100 days of Trump in office and everyone hating his ass. 

I missed this one, but ... what? As pointed out, winning outright required him to grab HALF of all votes in a heavily red district, even with a couple of competing Democratic candidates and lots of Republican candidates to choose from. And he actually came insanely close. Between their three candidates, the Democrats got exactly 49%.

Now, in the run-off, a poll from last week has him and Handel at a tie (actually with a 1% lead to Ossoff). Since Ossoff overperformed in the first round, I'd say he stands a pretty good chance. There's still a month to go, but he just bought something like $5 million worth of ads, an amount of money he mainly amassed from grassroots donors. If you don't see something interesting going on here, I can see why you're generally feeling discouraged.

That being said, I really think it's important that he wins this one. Quist's chances are much lower in Montana, and people aren't good at dealing with even expected defeats once they've gotten their hopes up, which could impact donations and engagement a bit over the next months.

[Inigima]

I 100% do not care at all about how close Ossoff got, or will get, unless he winds up in office. The Democrats badly need to stop viewing losing by less as winning. I'll be watching this one.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, Inigima said:

I 100% do not care at all about how close Ossoff got, or will get, unless he winds up in office. The Democrats badly need to stop viewing losing by less as winning. I'll be watching this one.

Losing by less is important when the districts are so red because it implies that they'll win the less red districts. But those aren't up until the midterms because Trump only appointed Reps from dark red districts to his administration.

[denstorebog]

13 minutes ago, Inigima said:

I 100% do not care at all about how close Ossoff got, or will get, unless he winds up in office. The Democrats badly need to stop viewing losing by less as winning. I'll be watching this one.

Let me get this straight. If the Minnesota Girl Scout Football Club lost to FC Barcelona by 3-4, you'd focus on how FC Barcelona expectedly won?

This is exactly why it's such a shame that this year's special elections are so heavily favoring Republicans. If Demoncrats flipped a few easy seats, people would be all over it, and it would be a rallying cry for Team Blue going into 2018. But if they overperform by 10-15 points in a red district and lose, people can't see the larger perspective, even if they should, and it's a disappointment. Jeez, the human psyche.

[Maithanet]

16 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Let me get this straight. If the Minnesota Girl Scout Football Club lost to FC Barcelona by 3-4, you'd focus on how FC Barcelona expectedly won?

The Democrats are not the Minnesota Girl Scout team.  If the Steelers beat the Browns yet again, Browns fans shouldn't get too excited that the game was closer than usual.  You can take some solace in close losses in Deep Red districts, but the House map is tilted in the Republicans favor, so you have to win on their turf to take the House.  If you go 0-fer on open seats in Republican districts, then this "momentum" isn't too much to get excited about. 

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

He got 48% in a district that normally goes 60% Republican. That's nothing to scoff at. 

They went Trump  +2 though. If people were really that disappointed in Trump I'd expect that to be higher. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

  If you go 0-fer on open seats in Republican districts, then this "momentum" isn't too much to get excited about. 

Not necessarily. The best outcome might be a close loss. If he wins he will most likely lose in 2018, and a close loss will keep the base hungry for 2018. A victory could create complacency. 

[Fez]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They went Trump  +2 though. If people were really that disappointed in Trump I'd expect that to be higher. 

Some of the Republicans were distancing themselves from Trump as well though, and Ossoff couldn't directly target any of them because there were so many and he couldn't undercut his message for the run-off.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Some of the Republicans were distancing themselves from Trump as well though, and Ossoff couldn't directly target any of them because there were so many and he couldn't undercut his message for the run-off.

Yup, and the Republican who took second place wasn't one of the pro-Trump candidates. I can't find a break down, but my best guess is only about 30% or so went to candidates that were explicitly pro-Trump.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yup, and the Republican who took second place wasn't one of the pro-Trump candidates. I can't find a break down, but my best guess is only about 30% or so went to candidates that were explicitly pro-Trump.

She's going very pro-Trump, however.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

On 5/2/2017 at 8:13 AM, aceluby said:

Come on.  You can't make the claim that the theory is incorrect due to lack of evidence, and then propose a different theory utilizing the same lack of evidence.  

Either they are both possible and there's no clear evidence to prove otherwise (which is true), or there is evidence to support your theory.  And given that your theory is based solely on suggestions with no clear evidence, how about we move on and just say we'll never know and there will never be enough evidence to prove it one way or the other?

I'm a bit late to this, but more economically progressive Senate candidates like Russ Feingold lost by even more than Clinton did in their states.

 

On 5/2/2017 at 8:18 AM, Tywin et al. said:

Trust me, if you were on the ground here in the Midwest you'd just how obvious it is.

That reminds of this rebuttal* of that general sentiment here:

* Not the idea that people are angry, but that you can glean any actionable insights from your anecdotal observations of people's anger.

Quote

Whoever you are, my “talking to real people in the Midwest” credentials are better than yours. I am a psychiatrist. I work in Michigan. My job is pretty much talking to former industrial workers about all the ways their lives have gone wrong, eight hours a day, every day. I am aware that these people are very angry.

But is it the level of anger where 46% of them will vote Trump? Or the level of anger where 48% of them will vote Trump? Because Hillary got about 47% of the vote in Michigan, so those two points are the difference between Trump winning the state and becoming President, versus losing the state and fading into ignominy. I do not think there is any level of deep connection to the collective consciousness of Michigan that allows you to distinguish between a 48%-Trump level of anger versus a 46%-Trump level of anger. Which means that even if you psychoanalyze Michiganders eight hours a day you still have to read the polls like everyone else. And the polls said that it was more like a 46% level of anger. And they were wrong.

 

[Inigima]

4 hours ago, Fez said:

Losing by less is important when the districts are so red because it implies that they'll win the less red districts. But those aren't up until the midterms because Trump only appointed Reps from dark red districts to his administration.

Call me when they win those less red districts. I understand that it could mean that, but until it actually does mean that, it means bupkus.

4 hours ago, denstorebog said:

Let me get this straight. If the Minnesota Girl Scout Football Club lost to FC Barcelona by 3-4, you'd focus on how FC Barcelona expectedly won?

This is exactly why it's such a shame that this year's special elections are so heavily favoring Republicans. If Demoncrats flipped a few easy seats, people would be all over it, and it would be a rallying cry for Team Blue going into 2018. But if they overperform by 10-15 points in a red district and lose, people can't see the larger perspective, even if they should, and it's a disappointment. Jeez, the human psyche.

Do you have any idea how patronizing you sound? I'm not an idiot, I understand the idea that it might predict victories elsewhere. But right now it doesn't mean shit, because the change in outcomes is nil until Democrats actually win some seats. I'm sick to death of hearing how the Democrats "should" win things. Hillary Clinton "should" have won the Presidential election. Guess what? We still have President Orange Hitler. Until a Democrat's ass is in a seat, I don't care what you or any other commentator reads in the stars.

[Fez]

15 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Call me when they win those less red districts. I understand that it could mean that, but until it actually does mean that, it means bupkus.

You're wrong. It means something because it is a motivating factor for fundraising and candidate recruitment efforts. Unless there are any surprise retirements/deaths none of those less red districts will be up until the midterms, but Democrats need to be getting ready for those midterms already. And they need to point to whatever they can for motivation. 

[Fez]

The House just passed the spending deal 309-118. I haven't seen the breakdown, but I suspect every Democrat voted for it, which means Republicans didn't quite get their "majority of the majority" in favor. However, that is enough votes that they could technically override a Trump veto; not that I expect one (also the politics of the vote change a lot if Trump did veto).

The Senate is up next, but I suspect they won't have unanimous consent, so they won't be able to vote until Friday. I'd put the over-under there at 80 votes in favor.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

That reminds of this rebuttal* of that general sentiment here:

* Not the idea that people are angry, but that you can glean any actionable insights from your anecdotal observations of people's anger.

 

I don't recall discussing people's anger, just voting behavior. And honestly, someone who is doing political canvassing all day is going to have a better understanding of the mood of a community than a psychiatrist. 

[Mindwalker]

So DT is now really optimistic he'll solve the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict. Whew, good thing that'll be out of the way soon. i always thought it should be a piece of cake.

[Crazydog7]

10 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

So DT is now really optimistic he'll solve the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict. Whew, good thing that'll be out of the way soon. i always thought it should be a piece of cake.

 

Obviously no one knows more about the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict then he does. 

[Dr. Pepper]

In a few weeks he'll tell us that no one knew how complicated it is.  

[Kalbear]

Golda Meir is very upset that it hasn't been resolved yet.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Golda Meir is very upset that it hasn't been resolved yet.

And let's not forget King David. If King David had been later, there probably never would've been an Israeli/Palistinian conflict.