US Politics: Red Whine Hangover

[Fez]

10 hours ago, Triskjavikson said:

Here's a depressing column on the Senate for 2020.

That column isn't wrong about those states, but it ignores the states that actually cause Democrats to be optimistic about 2020. Gardner in Colorado, Ernst in Iowa, Collins in Maine (especially if she retires), Tillis in North Carolina, and the special election for McCain's seat are the five top targets, with Perdue in Georgia and Daines in Montana being second tier reaches. Beyond that, things get much harder, on par of with the Tennessee and Texas races this year, both of which seem to have trended hard away from Democrats in the past couple weeks.

If Democrats can hold serve in the senate this year, picking up Nevada and Arizona and losing no more than North Dakota and one other, they're in excellent shape to pick up the senate in 2020. If they lose a bunch of seats this year, which is possible (Manchin still looks solid, but there's been ominous noise about Montana and Indiana, and Missouri has always been razor edge), then yeah, the chances of winning in 2020 start looking pretty dicey.

However, if they do win in 2020 (and even if they don't for that matter), Democrats do have an excellent 2022 map because of how bad they blew 2016; with Republicans defending seats in Florida, Georgia, Iowa (Grassley's seat, but he'll probably be retiring), North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Now, with luck, there will be a Democratic president at that point, so the usual midterm trends won't be as favorable, but there's still good opportunities there.

And then 2024 bring us back to this year's map, only in a Presidential year, so maybe things look worse for the remaining red state Democrats who end up winning this year. Or maybe not, since these are all senators who had won in 2012, also a Presidential year.

Point is, nothing is a given in politics. This year's map is really bad, everyone acknowledges this, and the margin after this election will help narrow down what possibilities can happen in future. It is possible to imagine Republicans setting themselves up for a longterm Senate majority, at least until some future re-alignment. Its also possible to imagine Democrats setting themselves up for a longterm Senate majority beginning in 2020. And, even though the odds have been slipping (despite things still looking great in the House and Senate), its also possible to imagine Democrats sneaking into a majority beginning this year. If they win Arizona and Nevada, plus one of ND/TN/TX (none of which individually look great), and hold everything else, they've got it.

And finally, its unlikely but possible, to imagine a 50-50 senate (winning AZ and NV, losing ND, and everything else holds serve) where Democrats make a Godfather offer to Murkowski to caucus with them. 

[Mexal]

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

The orange buffoon clown tries his hand at opinion writing.
Not surprisingly he writes something that is ignorant, dishonest, and dumb.

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/10/17959968/trump-usa-today-op-ed-medicare-health-care

 

1. He didn't write it. Basically a press release.

2. The fact that USA Today published this bullshit drives me nuts.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Fez

There’s only one senate seat in 2020 that matters to me, and you missed it.

Speaking of 2018 elections, new polls out here have Tina up +16 and Walz up +17. I was wondering why they were so high and then I figured it out.

Amy is +30. You can always count on her to drag everyone else across the line in MN.

[Fez]

19 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

@Fez

There’s only one senate seat in 2020 that matters to me, and you missed it.

Which one? McConnell? Cause he sure isn't losing, no matter how much Democrats target him.

[IheartIheartTesla]

2020 is too far away. For the 2018 map, the last week or so have been bad for the Democrats in the Senate - can be put down to Heitkamp/Beto/Bredesen losing ground to their opponents. The problem with all of these are that they are in quite red states and a little bit of it is probably Republicans coming home. Manchin, the exception,  is still holding steady and I havent seen any great movement in his lead (I guess Tester is also an exception to that rule)

Of course, things can change in a few weeks. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, Fez said:

Which one? McConnell? Cause he sure isn't losing, no matter how much Democrats target him.

turtle stew! Turtle Stew!!! TURTLE STEW!!!!!

Jokes aside, it’s not like he typically wins by a large margin, and Democrats can win statewide offices in Kentucky. It will just require a lot of money and enthusiasm.   

[Ice Queen]

13 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Manchin is too arrogant to learn a lesson. He also deserves to lose after going hard right with a Kavanaugh vote. Fuck him, even more so because he is a gaslighting rape apologist piece of shit. He very much is useless. 

Please tell me what votes of his are valuable? A supreme court vote? Lol. He showed that to be bullshit. That was one of the most important things to happen and he spat in every ones face and went on gaslighting the victim.

Who he helped get in will help to undo everything he could possibly vote with Dems on. He's useless scum. 

 

I have been arguing with people about this--your approach is short-sighted and dumb. We need Manchin in that seat no matter how we feel about him personally. West Virginia is the last bastion of the Blue Dogs, for the moment, until a better candidate comes along, I'm not going to pretend to know what his motives were, but I'll take someone who votes with the Dems 40% of the time vs. someone who votes with the Republicans 100% of the time. Can WV Dems do better? Yes, no question. But don't push too hard to the left or you'll lose that seat for all time to the Republicans. 

We need to think strategically. You, and many others who would love to see all seats to be held by progressives, aren't being very tactical. You're reacting. WV and WPA aren't progressive (yet). As someone said, all politics are local. You're not going to get an Elizabeth Warren there. Be happy for every D there is instead of wishing he'd lose simply because they didn't vote the party line. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and as a party we need to be smarter than that. Our democracy depends on it. 

Edit: This sums it up pretty well. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/410713-joe-manchin-future-republican

 

 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

That column isn't wrong about those states, but it ignores the states that actually cause Democrats to be optimistic about 2020. Gardner in Colorado, Ernst in Iowa, Collins in Maine (especially if she retires), Tillis in North Carolina, and the special election for McCain's seat are the five top targets, with Perdue in Georgia and Daines in Montana being second tier reaches. Beyond that, things get much harder, on par of with the Tennessee and Texas races this year, both of which seem to have trended hard away from Democrats in the past couple weeks.

If Democrats can hold serve in the senate this year, picking up Nevada and Arizona and losing no more than North Dakota and one other, they're in excellent shape to pick up the senate in 2020. If they lose a bunch of seats this year, which is possible (Manchin still looks solid, but there's been ominous noise about Montana and Indiana, and Missouri has always been razor edge), then yeah, the chances of winning in 2020 start looking pretty dicey.

However, if they do win in 2020 (and even if they don't for that matter), Democrats do have an excellent 2022 map because of how bad they blew 2016; with Republicans defending seats in Florida, Georgia, Iowa (Grassley's seat, but he'll probably be retiring), North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Now, with luck, there will be a Democratic president at that point, so the usual midterm trends won't be as favorable, but there's still good opportunities there.

And then 2024 bring us back to this year's map, only in a Presidential year, so maybe things look worse for the remaining red state Democrats who end up winning this year. Or maybe not, since these are all senators who had won in 2012, also a Presidential year.

Point is, nothing is a given in politics. This year's map is really bad, everyone acknowledges this, and the margin after this election will help narrow down what possibilities can happen in future. It is possible to imagine Republicans setting themselves up for a longterm Senate majority, at least until some future re-alignment. Its also possible to imagine Democrats setting themselves up for a longterm Senate majority beginning in 2020. And, even though the odds have been slipping (despite things still looking great in the House and Senate), its also possible to imagine Democrats sneaking into a majority beginning this year. If they win Arizona and Nevada, plus one of ND/TN/TX (none of which individually look great), and hold everything else, they've got it.

And finally, its unlikely but possible, to imagine a 50-50 senate (winning AZ and NV, losing ND, and everything else holds serve) where Democrats make a Godfather offer to Murkowski to caucus with them. 

I imagine that Alabama will be a difficult seat to hold in 2020.  IMHO, the Senate will go to whichever party wins the Presidency that year.

[Corvinus85]

20 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

So on the heels of both the U.S. government and the IPCC releasing reports saying that climate change is way worse than we thought, and while a hurricane is smashing the panhandle, Trump is saying that the climate is actually fabulous and he’s whining that he might not be able to hold a rally tonight.

Moron

And it's time to allow the sale E15 in the summer, too, on top of all this. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Speaking of 2018 elections, new polls out here have Tina up +16 and Walz up +17. I was wondering why they were so high and then I figured it out.

Amy is +30. You can always count on her to drag everyone else across the line in MN.

Another factor may be that Trump has a net approval of -16 in Minnesota according to Morning Consult.  (He seems particularly unpopular up there - at -15 in Wisconsin and -13 in Michigan.)  But, so sorry to interrupt your love affair with Klobuchar.

50 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The problem with all of these are that they are in quite red states and a little bit of it is probably Republicans coming home.

I'd say a lot of it is Republicans coming home.  This happens every cycle, right around this time.

[drawkcabi]

A comedian is heckled not to talk about Trump.

Later he's privately warned if he keeps this up he'll get a bullet in the head.

 

[Maithanet]

44 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'd say a lot of it is Republicans coming home.  This happens every cycle, right around this time.

Indeed, I was always pretty sanguine about the Democrats taking the Senate.  The map is just so bad, everything really has to go right for them, and right now that isn't happening.

The good news is that the House has not really seen that trend.  While the House map is still bad for Democrats, district level polling and generic ballots are still showing a strong (if not overwhelming) chance the Dems take the House.  538's House forecast has had the Democrats between 73% and 83% since September 1, and they're currently right in the middle of that.  77% still makes my stomach turn given how incredibly bad it would be if the Democrats fall short, but it's a lot better than I thought it would be a year ago. 

And the Governor's map is almost as bad for Republicans as the Senate map is for Democrats.  This is a huge year for redistricting (not to mention just general rule of law and checks on Trump), and the Democrats are on track for big wins at the state level. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

One thing that has me worried is I haven’t seen any ground game. Maybe it’s different in other places, and where I live is relatively safe, but it’s been a ghost town. No calls from phone bankers after the primaries (I got some texts beforehand). No canvassers either trying to talk to you or just leave campaign lit. No town hall requests. No lawn signs. Nothing. It’s been all quiet other than the constant ads. I’ve worked on a number of campaigns and I’ve never seen this.

It seems bizarre given that every major seat is up for election year…..

[Morpheus]

Trump and Kanye have killed my last brain cells.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

One thing that has me worried is I haven’t seen any ground game. Maybe it’s different in other places, and where I live is relatively safe, but it’s been a ghost town. No calls from phone bankers after the primaries (I got some texts beforehand). No canvassers either trying to talk to you or just leave campaign lit. No town hall requests. No lawn signs. Nothing. It’s been all quiet other than the constant ads. I’ve worked on a number of campaigns and I’ve never seen this.

It seems bizarre given that every major seat is up for election year…..

But if the statewide races in Minnesota are essentially already decided (and it looks that way), then I'm not too surprised there isn't as much activity.  Although there's still the need to (try and) flip the state legislatures.  I certainly hope that the areas with competitive house races are getting the full court press in terms of ground game. 

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Corvinus said:

And it's time to allow the sale E15 in the summer, too, on top of all this. 

I don’t understand this, my car manual specifically warns I’m not to use any fuel higher than E10. I drive a Toyota. Do American cars take higher levels of Egasoline? Is this yet another plot to force the world to support US farmers?

[Zorral]

10 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah, but just imagine knucklehead Rick Santorum reading that passage from Madison.

"Class! What's this about class? That's Marxist talk!"

"Hee Haw. Hee Haw. Hee Haw."

Anyway, I'm not sure how much classical political economy Madison had read, but the classical political economist were much more up front in using the concept of class to do analysis. Marx didn't just start from scratch.

We do know certainly that among the more than 1500 4000  volumes of Madison's personal library, and from the citations in his contributions to the Federalist Papers, Adam Smith and Locke (who wote the constitution for slave importing territory / colony of South Carolina) were well-read indeed.  As were surely, judging by his letters Godwin and Malthus (he disagreed with Godwin's critique and with most of Malthus's arguments).  He and Th. Jefferson spent hours discussing many books, f2f, as well as by letter, throughout their lifetimes.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But if the statewide races in Minnesota are essentially already decided (and it looks that way), then I'm not too surprised there isn't as much activity.  Although there's still the need to (try and) flip the state legislatures.  I certainly hope that the areas with competitive house races are getting the full court press in terms of ground game. 

I’m not worried about the statewide races. There are three House races that should be really competitive and only one seems like it’s getting a lot of action (MN 3, currently held by a Republican). That race is getting a ton of action, but the other two aren’t. I have a friend on Radinovich’s campaign and what he’s telling me leaves a lot to be desired, and friends in CD-2 are really glum despite the fact that the Republican is beatable. It’s understandable that the metro isn’t getting a ton of action, but the suburbs should be and they really aren’t. I worried that a lot of Dems are just too overconfident. My personal experience is that you still have an active ground game even if your race seems safe and you have a hyper aggressive one in competitive race, and I’m just not seeing it.

Let me put it like this, nobody is calling for donations either. I’ve never seen that before. I’ve been out of the loop for a few years, but if they’re still using VAN statewide, I should be getting called left and right for just that alone.  

[Guy Kilmore]

7 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

I’m not worried about the statewide races. There are three House races that should be really competitive and only one seems like it’s getting a lot of action (MN 3, currently held by a Republican). That race is getting a ton of action, but the other two aren’t. I have a friend on Radinovich’s campaign and what he’s telling me leaves a lot to be desired, and friends in CD-2 are really glum despite the fact that the Republican is beatable. It’s understandable that the metro isn’t getting a ton of action, but the suburbs should be and they really aren’t. I worried that a lot of Dems are just too overconfident. My personal experience is that you still have an active ground game even if your race seems safe and you have a hyper aggressive one in competitive race, and I’m just not seeing it.

Let me put it like this, nobody is calling for donations either. I’ve never seen that before. I’ve been out of the loop for a few years, but if they’re still using VAN statewide, I should be getting called left and right for just that alone.  

It's been way too quiet and I'm in one of those competitive districts. The only point of contact I've gotten has been from Klobouchar.

[Zorral]

1 minute ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

I’m not worried about the statewide races. There are three House races that should be really competitive and only one seems like it’s getting a lot of action (MN 3, currently held by a Republican). That race is getting a ton of action, but the other two aren’t. I have a friend on Radinovich’s campaign and what he’s telling me leaves a lot to be desired, and friends in CD-2 are really glum despite the fact that the Republican is beatable. It’s understandable that the metro isn’t getting a ton of action, but the suburbs should be and they really aren’t. I worried that a lot of Dems are just too overconfident. My personal experience is that you still have an active ground game even if your race seems safe and you have a hyper aggressive one in competitive race, and I’m just not seeing it.

Let me put it like this, nobody is calling for donations either. I’ve never seen that before. I’ve been out of the loop for a few years, but if they’re still using VAN statewide, I should be getting called left and right for just that alone.  

You saw what happened in Minnesota, right?  That's one of many ways the gop silences challengers by force. There's a video of the event here:

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/410743-minnesota-gop-lawmaker-yanks-mic-from-female-challengers-hands

Another method of stopping challengers, particularly by making sure their wimminzes don't see them on social media -- by "inviting" them to take a 10-day social media fast -- right before the midterms (how many Mormons are on the Judiciary Committee, hmmmm?):

http://www.ldsliving.com/President-Nelson-Invites-the-Women-of-the-Church-to-Help-Gather-Israel-Follow-These-4-Challenges/s/89443

https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/10/mormon-women-social-media-fast.html

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/10/09/there-may-be-another/