U.S. Politics NEXT!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Morpheus said:

Nikki Haley is awful. She got a lot of credit for getting the new NK sanctions, but she is terrible diplomat and she always sides with the most regressive elements when it comes to human rights and LGBT protection. 

Funny thing is a little over a year ago I thought Haley would be a shoe in to become the Republican nominee in 2020. Oh how things have changed.

[Maithanet]

DMC, I think we're arguing two different things.  Most of what you said above I agree with fine.  I am not advocating that the House margin is at all a useful predictor of the 2018 elections.  I was taking issue with statements like this:

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

The point is in 2012, the Democrats had 193 seats, won the popular vote by 1.2 percent, and picked up 8 seats.  The Democrats currently have 193 seats, and the districts are drawn the same as they were in 2012, so that pickup rate is actually encouraging (although I'm certainly not saying it will be exactly replicated - meaning extrapolated to say, picking up 32 seats if they win by 5). 

This is treating the D+1 as independent, when it was part of a larger swing from the R+7 in the previous election.  That large +8 swing resulted in picking up 8 seats.  If Democrats had instead lost the House vote, say R+1 in 2012, they still would have picked up 4 seats (losing FL-18, AZ-2, UT-4 and NC-7), just as they picked up 6 seats in 2016 with an R+1. 

If you were to "extrapolate" from the 2012 experience (and I agree, you should not do that), you would need to say that a +8 swing (not +1.2 as you indicate above) in the House margin for the Democrats resulted in a pickup of 8 seats.  Such extrapolation would get the plainly ridiculous idea that Democrats need a 24 point swing to pick up 24 seats and take the House. 

[lokisnow]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think it’s doable at the district level if you’re willing to put in the time and money. That would give us a much clearer picture of the mood of the public. I just get a little nervous about those numbers because I feel like there’s a good chance they’re over sampling urban areas which would skew the data.

Also, on a somewhat related note, I saw something on T.V. last night that’s a cause for optimism for Democrats. We’ve all seen the stat that there are 23 Republicans who represent districts that Clinton won, but there are also 13 Republicans that represent districts Trump won by less than five points, and 23 Republicans that represent districts Trump won by less than ten points. There are a lot of seats to pick off.

I bet democrats only run in five of those races though, because aiming to lose by not attempting to win is their branded and officially promoted strategy

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

DMC, I think we're arguing two different things.

Yes, it seems clear we are.  All I was saying is that gaining 8 seats from only a 1.2% advantage in the popular vote is a pretty good rate - and is comparable because it's the exact same amount of Dem MCs that they have now and happened with the districts the same as they are (although, again, I don't like comparing midterms to presidential cycles).  

14 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This is treating the D+1 as independent.

[...]

If you were to "extrapolate" from the 2012 experience (and I agree, you should not do that), you would need to say that a +8 swing (not +1.2 as you indicate above) in the House margin for the Democrats resulted in a pickup of 8 seats.

Yes, this is our difference - I am treating the popular vote as independent because I don't think the swing matters - so that's why I was using the +1.2 rather than the +8.

[Maithanet]

I was curious to how much larger of a wave the Democrats would have needed in 2012, 2014 and 2016 to win the election.  Here's what I found.

2012

House Margin = D+1.2

# of Democrats = 201, needed 19 more seats to reach majority

Margin swing needed to take those 19 seats for majority (MI-11 is the Swing Seat, won by R+ 6.4%) or D+7.6

2014

House Margin = R+ 5.7

# of Democrats = 188, needed 32 more seats to reach majority

Margin swing needed to take majority (PA-16 is swing seat, won by R+15.4%) or D+9.7

2016

House Margin = R+ 1.1

# of Democrats = 194, needed 24 more seats to reach majority

Margin swing needed to take majority (MI-11 is the Swing Seat, won by R+12.8%) or D+11.7

 

Well that's depressing.  That gives us a range of between 7.6 and 11.7, which is much worse than the range I've seen in a lot of articles of democrats needing between +6 and +8.  Does someone want to check my work here, did I screw something up? 

[lokisnow]

+11.6 sounds about right, the software that drew the 2010 district boundaries ran millions of simulations testing the lines against various waves and in most scenarios republicans should retain the majority even if they lose by ten to twelve.

democrats are going up against sophisticated technology in trying to retake the house and they will lose.

and even if they win, they will lose almost every single seat in 2020 and return to about 195 seats because of regression to the mean.

All efforts should be focused on state governships, because the same software drew the state legislature boundaries too and we cannot win in those contests either.

republicans won in 2010. and they have a software enforced 30-40 years of control over all levels of state and federal government, that isn’t going to ever change in our lifetimes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I bet democrats only run in five of those races though, because aiming to lose by not attempting to win is their branded and officially promoted strategy

Oh stop. They’ll challenge most if not all of them.

 

[DMC]

34 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

and even if they win, they will lose almost every single seat in 2020 and return to about 195 seats because of regression to the mean.

That's...not how regression works.  Nobody has any idea what the "mean" for 2020 will be right now.

[Sivin]

Luis Gutierrez has the charisma of a wet sock. 

[Sivin]

Willie Kristol is back on CNN and I gotta say the fucker is growing on me. 

When someone made the comment that the Dem wave in Virginia was the biggest since the 1880's I felt like I could see the words "When they were vengeful confederates" churn through his brain but he actually acknowledges reality (a rare conservative feat these days) and just passively nodded his head and talked more shit about Donnie. 

[James Arryn]

One issue not being discussed enough is that the simplest argument against Trump’s administration that will actually play across the lines...ie, that he hasn’t gotten shit done...is fading. Sure, what he’s actually getting done is terrible, but that’s subjective and nuanced and won’t play as easily as ‘like him or not, he keeps his promises. How many politicians do that?’ 

I can see that playing to the kind of ‘who would you have a beer with.’ voters who don’t really pay too much attention to actual issues.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Sure, what he’s actually getting done is terrible, but that’s subjective and nuanced and won’t play as easily as ‘like him or not, he keeps his promises. How many politicians do that?’ 

I think versus what he's promised, to actually what he's delivered it isn't all that subjective and nuanced. There has been plenty of analysis on that corporate tax bill and what it does. Trump ran as a populist and has been so plutocrat friendly he makes Reagan look like Norman Thomas.

And that needs to be repeatedly hammered home. It's certainly isn't going to get the Republican true believers, but certainly there is got to be at least a few people that voted for Trump that don't always play team Republican.

23 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I can see that playing to the kind of ‘who would you have a beer with.’ voters who don’t really pay too much attention to actual issues.

Certainly this how a lot of voters think. But not all. And what we need here is a few Democratic pit bulls to rip Trump's throat out over the things he said he was going to do, but did not.

[Which Tyler]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-42462190/fake-news-blunder-from-us-envoy-to-the-netherlands

'Fake news' blunder from US envoy to the Netherlands

The new US ambassador to the Netherlands, Pete Hoekstra, has denied he had ever said there were "no-go zones" in the Netherlands, calling it "fake news".

He was being quizzed about comments he had made about Islamic extremism in the country.

But Dutch journalist Wouter Zwart showed him a clip of the comments from 2015.

[Seli]

5 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-42462190/fake-news-blunder-from-us-envoy-to-the-netherlands

'Fake news' blunder from US envoy to the Netherlands

The new US ambassador to the Netherlands, Pete Hoekstra, has denied he had ever said there were "no-go zones" in the Netherlands, calling it "fake news".

He was being quizzed about comments he had made about Islamic extremism in the country.

But Dutch journalist Wouter Zwart showed him a clip of the comments from 2015.

That is only half the fun. After being confronted with the clip he denied ever using the term 'fake news' in his initial denial.

edit: and all of it on camera

[Which Tyler]

5 minutes ago, Seli said:

That is only half the fun. After being confronted with the clip he denied ever using the term 'fake news' in his initial denial.

edit: and all of it on camera

What?

Just...

Return him to sender and ask for a replacement envoy.

[Morpheus]

The. Best. People.

[Martell Spy]

Why is the GOP Tax Bill So Unpopular? Maybe It’s All Relative.
The social science research that explains why Republicans are losing the battle of public opinion.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/21/unpopular-gop-tax-bill-relative-deprivation-216158

Republicans warn Trump of 2018 bloodbath
The White House knows the midterm election will probably be bad. Behind the scenes, top aides are scrambling to avoid the worst.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/21/2018-midterms-republicans-trump-warning-312404?lo=ap_b1

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

One issue not being discussed enough is that the simplest argument against Trump’s administration that will actually play across the lines...ie, that he hasn’t gotten shit done...is fading. Sure, what he’s actually getting done is terrible, but that’s subjective and nuanced and won’t play as easily as ‘like him or not, he keeps his promises. How many politicians do that?’ 

I can see that playing to the kind of ‘who would you have a beer with.’ voters who don’t really pay too much attention to actual issues.

I've seen a lot of people argue that saying that he is getting terrible things done could be as effective, if not more, than saying he's not doing anything. People react more to negative stimuli. 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

One issue not being discussed enough is that the simplest argument against Trump’s administration that will actually play across the lines...ie, that he hasn’t gotten shit done...is fading. Sure, what he’s actually getting done is terrible, but that’s subjective and nuanced and won’t play as easily as ‘like him or not, he keeps his promises. How many politicians do that?’ 

I can see that playing to the kind of ‘who would you have a beer with.’ voters who don’t really pay too much attention to actual issues.

I dunno, most low information white voters think politics doesn’t matter nor effect them, so getting nothing done is fine by them. How is that any different from any other meaningless (in their eyes) political thing?

it is the high information republican activists that have been angered by the get nothing done performance, but they’re never not going to vote for trump.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Maybe I overlooked it, but I don't think I've seen this posted here yet:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/22/trump-dossier-fbi-james-baker-david-corn-mother-jones-316157

Quote

House Republicans are investigating contact between the FBI's top lawyer and a Mother Jones reporter in the weeks before the left-leaning outlet broke the first news story about the existence of a disputed dossier alleging ties between President Donald Trump and the Kremlin, according to two congressional GOP sources who described documents linking the two men.

.......................

The congressional sources said there's no conclusive evidence that Baker aided Corn's reporting or acted as a source. But Republicans are pointing to the connection to cast suspicion about whether FBI officials had a hand in directing the details of the dossier to reporters, and the two sources said they expect it to be a focus of GOP investigators' upcoming lines of inquiry.

Baker's connection to Corn comes as Republicans in Congress have been raising questions about the FBI's handling of the now-famous Steele dossier, named for Christoper Steele, the agent subsequently identified as the author of the document.

Great. This will be used to disqualify the entire investigation.