Jace, Extat Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Wouldn't mind seeing Beto on the Veep slot in 2 years, especially if the other texas Senate seat is up and he could run for that as well. Make use of that $$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Sad thing is, we're going to hear for the next few years how poorly the Dems did even though they'll win the House vote by +9 and take 30+ seats. And right now, Trump and allies are saying their immigration rhetoric has been validated. Next two years is going to be painful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Mexal said: Sad thing is, we're going to hear for the next few years how poorly the Dems did even though they'll win the House vote by +9 and take 30+ seats. And right now, Trump and allies are saying their immigration rhetoric has been validated. Next two years is going to be painful. None of that matters if you have the House. Just bar talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 This is huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Just now, Mexal said: Sad thing is, we're going to hear for the next few years how poorly the Dems did even though they'll win the House vote by +9 and take 30+ seats. And right now, Trump and allies are saying their immigration rhetoric has been validated. Next two years is going to be painful. Its accurate though. The Democrats supposedly had a lot of enthusiasm, were going against an unpopular potus, and raised something like double the money - and this is what they got. No big governorships. Losses in the Senate. Barely able to take the house, and likely not able to hold it in 2020. The immigration lies and the court packing worked. Not insanely well, but well enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Mexal said: This is huge. Nice! Still waiting for any definitive evidence that "non-partisan" commissions are better than state governments. They are in Arizona. They're not in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Its accurate though. The Democrats supposedly had a lot of enthusiasm, were going against an unpopular potus, and raised something like double the money - and this is what they got. No big governorships. Losses in the Senate. Barely able to take the house, and likely not able to hold it in 2020. The immigration lies and the court packing worked. Not insanely well, but well enough. It's not accurate. If the Dems win 35+ seats in the House and +9% in the House vote, that's a wave. That's bigger than 2006. Dems were always projected to lose the Senate because they had a horrible map and they barely lost a few governorships that they were never favored to win (except Florida which polling clearly doesn't work). Sorry Kal, it has no super marquee wins (besides Kansas) but it's a solid night for the Dems all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: Its accurate though. The Democrats supposedly had a lot of enthusiasm, were going against an unpopular potus, and raised something like double the money - and this is what they got. No big governorships. Losses in the Senate. Barely able to take the house, and likely not able to hold it in 2020. They took the House, which you rendered impossible for quite an interminably long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durckad Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Is... is lokisnow posting under Kal's name somehow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, Triskele said: Obviously a lot will depend on where Trump is at and who the Dems is, but what makes you say this now? It's fun to be a dick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Triskele said: That seems...quite pessimistic right at this moment (my bolding). Obviously a lot will depend on where Trump is at and who the Dems is, but what makes you say this now? Because midterms have less turnout for the party in power, and a lot of those wins are going to still be in places that are gerrymandered and won't be changed until 2022. Basically, unless dems have a 7-10% advantage they'll lose. And I dont think that's a likely thing to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Just now, Kalbear said: Because midterms have less turnout for the party in power, and a lot of those wins are going to still be in places that are gerrymandered and won't be changed until 2022. Basically, unless dems have a 7-10% advantage they'll lose. And I dont think that's a likely thing to be the case. The urban/rural divide ain't changing and Florida gaining 1.5m+ eligible voters is big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: Because midterms have less turnout for the party in power, and a lot of those wins are going to still be in places that are gerrymandered and won't be changed until 2022. Basically, unless dems have a 7-10% advantage they'll lose. Um, there's also the fact presidential electorates are much more democratic than midterm electorates, so I don't know how you know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Another way to say it is this: did Obama regain the House in 2012? Nope, because the gerrymandering was in by then. And even though he won by 3%, the house stayed mostly in Republican control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: Another way to say it is this: did Obama regain the House in 2012? Nope, because the gerrymandering was in by then. And even though he won by 3%, the house stayed mostly in Republican control. Gerrymandering in 2010 isn't the same in 2020. Even with the gerrymandering, GOP is losing 35+ seats and demographic shifts will continue. Also a number of states are passing independent commissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Just now, Kalbear said: Another way to say it is this: did Obama regain the House in 2012? Nope, because the gerrymandering was in by then. And even though he won by 3%, the house stayed mostly in Republican control. What does gerrymandering have to do between the 2018 and 2020 elections? You're not making any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Just now, DMC said: Um, there's also the fact presidential electorates are much more democratic than midterm electorates, so I don't know how you know this. Again, because it was that way in 2012. Here's another thought experiment - do you think Republican voters are more or less likely to turn out more with Trump on the ticket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Again, because it was that way in 2012. Here's another thought experiment - do you think Republican voters are more or less likely to turn out more with Trump on the ticket? GOP voters are likely to die, as they are old white people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Just now, Mexal said: Gerrymandering in 2010 isn't the same in 2020. Even with the gerrymandering, GOP is losing 35+ seats and demographic shifts will continue. Some of that is true, but not everywhere. And with Kemp in Georgia, desantis in Florida, not everywhere is getting better. The natural state with a standard split from, say, 2012 or 2016 is Republicans win. While suburbs have gone more to dems, it isn't the only thing going on, and similarly rural areas are even more entrenched to the GOP. Let me ask you this: why would you think that the dems could hold a 7 seat advantage in a incumbent potus reelection cycle when gerrymandering is still in play in many places? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.