US Politics: Dead Pimps Need Not Apply

[lokisnow]

Democrat Katie porter is now 1011 votes behind Mimi Walters in congrsssional district 45 in california

Democrat Gil Cisneros is now 1957 votes behind young Kim in CD39. (I like Kim though, she seems pretty amazing overall in terms of story and background)

democrat T.J. Cox is now 2079 votes behind David Valadao 

i discovered the twitter catargetbot while googling for results and it’s very handy. Did you know Thurmond FINALLY pulled ahead of that miserable billionaire backed scab out to ruin our schools marshall tuck? So happy that happened!

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Yeah, so the final tally is looking very likely to be D+38 seats in the House

I was gonna wait to brag until the numbers are official - and it still may change - but I believe somebody here predicted +38 

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

its a wave y’ll. And if it had been a tsunami ( if Kavanaugh and the caravan never happened) it could have easily been democrats winning 30 out 35 seats! (But probably still about the same in the house because of gerrymandering)

There's also the House popular vote, which is at about 6.5% and should rise to at least 7%.  Compare that to 2010 - R +6.8%; 2006 - D +8%; and 1994 - R +7.1%.  Plus, there's the gubernatorial elections (+7), which were R+6, D+1, and R+11 in the three prior elections, respectively.  (Unfortunately, wasn't able to quickly find the total or "national" gubernatorial vote for this year, and not doing it myself.  If anyone knows where to find that please pass it on.)  This was clearly a wave.  A slow wave, but a wave.

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I was saying R+4 because that was what we were saying Tuesday, and what it looked like then. R+4 is basically impossible to beat in 2020. 53 seats by comparison is much more obtainable to overcome, though realistically you'd need to take 4 seats more.

Yeah R+2 looks a lot better than it did last Tuesday when Sinema and Tester were losing, and it gives them much (much) more of a chance - and much more of a chance than they had last week.  If it's a favorable Dem environment, like you said completely possible they could pickup Colorado, Maine, Arizona, North Carolina and Iowa, and only lose Bama.  

[Gertrude]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

When parties have preferred candidates, and it becomes obvious, people get upset. 

Let me add to this. The Democratic platform is theoretically about leveling the playing field for all Americans. In this situation, Hillary was leveraging her name, power and money to get ahead in the primary - that's what pissed me off. If you can't keep it level in your own party, then fuck off when you promise to do that for regular Americans.

[Fez]

The race hasn't been called yet, but worth nothing that as Sinema's margin has been growing, the Democratic nominee for Arizona Secretary of State, Hobbs, has been pulling closer and closer as well. Today she took the lead outright, by 5,600 votes; and the remaining vote should be nearly as favorable for her as it is for Sinema.

This is key for two reasons: One, a Democratic SoS can do a lot to allow easier access to voting for 2020; and Two, Arizona does not have a Lt. Governor. The SoS is first in the line of succession (and gets to be Acting Governor when the Governor is out-of-state). Which means if Gov. Ducey was at all considering appointing himself to McCain's old seat (since Kyl's stronger suggested he'll resign in January) he can longer do so without handing over the governor's mansion to a Democrat.

[The Marquis de Leech]

13 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Even the Panhandle, that was just devastated in a hurricane and all but ignored by Trump, went red.

The Florida Panhandle was heavily Republican to start with.

Honestly, lumping Florida in with Mississippi and Alabama is ludicrous.

[lokisnow]

BOOM ! There it is, democrats flipped two seats in the California state senate and probably crossed the threshold to a 2/3 majority again in that chamber. They’ve secured it in the assembly as well. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2018-11-12/democrats-gain-veto-proof-majority-in-california-legislature

[The Marquis de Leech]

3 hours ago, lokisnow said:

BOOM ! There it is, democrats flipped two seats in the California state senate and probably crossed the threshold to a 2/3 majority again in that chamber. They’ve secured it in the assembly as well. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2018-11-12/democrats-gain-veto-proof-majority-in-california-legislature

I'm guessing this is less about overcoming the veto, and more about the tax-raising implications?

[IheartIheartTesla]

Yeah, Sinema has won, continuing Arizona's trend towards purple.

I have to say, it is exciting seeing a realignment of the US political landscape in real time. Watching Arizona and Georgia move that way; New Mexico used to be a battleground but now its solidly blue. At the same time, Ohio and Iowa are steadily moving red, and I'm not sure where the Midwest is at this point (oscillating back and forth?). Part of it stems from migration for sure, for instance from California to Texas (and Arizona?), and from everywhere to the outlying Atlanta suburbs like Gwinnett. I think the best way for the Democrats forward is to spread themselves a bit thinner, we dont need so many of them in New York and California.

[IheartIheartTesla]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

I was gonna wait to brag until the numbers are official - and it still may change - but I believe somebody here predicted +38 

I was a bit too optimistic with D+45 and D+1 in the House and Senate. I honestly thought there was some late breaking movement towards the Dems to be gained in House seats, and of course though IN/FL would go the Dems way (as well as AZ and NV); and allowed myself TX as a moonshot.

[Maithanet]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Yeah, Sinema has won, continuing Arizona's trend towards purple.

I have to say, it is exciting seeing a realignment of the US political landscape in real time. Watching Arizona and Georgia move that way; New Mexico used to be a battleground but now its solidly blue. At the same time, Ohio and Iowa are steadily moving red, and I'm not sure where the Midwest is at this point (oscillating back and forth?). Part of it stems from migration for sure, for instance from California to Texas (and Arizona?), and from everywhere to the outlying Atlanta suburbs like Gwinnett. I think the best way for the Democrats forward is to spread themselves a bit thinner, we dont need so many of them in New York and California.

It's interesting, but the Senate map is looking increasingly horrifying, IMO.  If Ohio and Iowa are moving towards more red than purple (and I agree, all signs say they are), then it is looking more and more likely that we're going to be in a situation where a Democratic President is going to make no judicial appointments whatsoever over a 4 or 8 year term, and Republicans will support their Senators in that effort. 

Let's rank the states by Cook Partisan Index.  If you assume Democrats will win all 40 seats from the 20 most liberal states (at the moment they have 38, due to CO and ME) then Democrats need to have at least 10 senators from this group of "purple" states:

NH, PA, WI, FL, NC, AZ, IA, OH, AZ, GA. 

Democrats winning a few of those is totally doable.  At the moment they hold 7 of the 20.  Winning and holding ten or eleven of them?  Pretty damn hard.  Republicans haven't had to sweat to hold a GA seat in decades.  Democrats just lost a Florida Senate seat in a great year for them. 

I really worry about the implications of this given how warlike Mitch McConnell has made the Senate. 

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Yeah, Sinema has won, continuing Arizona's trend towards purple.

I have to say, it is exciting seeing a realignment of the US political landscape in real time. Watching Arizona and Georgia move that way; New Mexico used to be a battleground but now its solidly blue. At the same time, Ohio and Iowa are steadily moving red, and I'm not sure where the Midwest is at this point (oscillating back and forth?). Part of it stems from migration for sure, for instance from California to Texas (and Arizona?), and from everywhere to the outlying Atlanta suburbs like Gwinnett. I think the best way for the Democrats forward is to spread themselves a bit thinner, we dont need so many of them in New York and California.

I don't get the interpretation that Iowa is "clearly moving red." In the US House they went from 1 D and 3 R to 3 D and 1 R. The Dems picked up five seats in the state House of representatives (though losing three in the state Senate) and defeated the incumbent Republican for the statewide race of State Auditor.  I think a good part of Reynolds' win may be that the same sort of suburban women who shifted from the Republicans to the Democrats in the US House races decided it was acceptable to vote for Reynolds because she was a woman.  I don't think Iowa shifted toward the Dems in the way Michigan and Pennsylvania did, but I think the results show it is still a "Purple" state.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/07/iowa-election-2018-results-midterm-elections-kim-reynolds-abby-finkenauer-cindy-axne-house-takeaway/1732470002/

[Centrist Simon Steele]

10 hours ago, Gertrude said:

Let me add to this. The Democratic platform is theoretically about leveling the playing field for all Americans. In this situation, Hillary was leveraging her name, power and money to get ahead in the primary - that's what pissed me off. If you can't keep it level in your own party, then fuck off when you promise to do that for regular Americans.

This is a really good argument, and one I've never been able to vocalize. The process seemed very Republican in the last primary. I hope the party will do things different going forward. Trump has sucked all the air out of the room, so I'll be very honest, I'm not sure what the Dems are doing right now. Well...except winning! That's a nice change.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, karaddin said:

I'm really surprised that your view on this stands in such contrast to your normal negative outlook. I really don't see this happening, Trump declaring the election void and being supported by the military and the police (functionally another military) isn't Trump losing in a way that will dislodge them, it's just another kind of winning. It's only if the armed forces don't support him that he's failing to win.

Oddly he was one of the first to put a positive spin on the midterms, and he’s been gushing with enthusiasm since.

The body snatchers are among us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Centrist Simon Steele]

10 hours ago, Triskele said:

I suppose it's worth pointing out that Sinema's win represents yet another "first" in this election.  She's the first openly bi-sexual US Senator.  

This is great. Colorado just elected the first openly gay senator, and I'll be honest, I didn't even know he was gay until after he won. It doesn't seem, despite the right attacking gay/bi lifestyles all the time, that these candidates were attacked on their sexuality. I actually think these are really good signs of the country reacting to Trump in the right way.

[Ormond]

Just now, Simon Steele said:

This is great. Colorado just elected the first openly gay senator, and I'll be honest, I didn't even know he was gay until after he won. It doesn't seem, despite the right attacking gay/bi lifestyles all the time, that these candidates were attacked on their sexuality. I actually think these are really good signs of the country reacting to Trump in the right way.

Correction: Colorado just elected the first openly gay male GOVERNOR.

[IheartIheartTesla]

15 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I don't get the interpretation that Iowa is "clearly moving red." In the US House they went from 1 D and 3 R to 3 D and 1 R. The Dems picked up five seats in the state House of representatives (though losing three in the state Senate) and defeated the incumbent Republican for the statewide race of State Auditor. 

Yes, I admit I didnt pay close attention to what happened there in 2018, my impression was solely on 2012 to 2016 where it went from D+6 to R+9, a 15 point shift that I felt meant it was too far gone (but of course, it can reverse itself just as much over 4 years). 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

That's rigging the system for your candidate. I feel like a number of Dems like to participate in thought experiments about "what it really means to rig something." Elizabeth Warren believes the process was rigged. Donna Brazile, who, again, fed Hillary questions, says it was rigged. And whatever Brazile's role in that, she claims it was Hillary's team who rigged the process, not the party--that Hillary had insiders working for her and rigging the outcome. Democrats are trying to move away from the view that the people don't get a say in the nominees. Debbie W.S. allowed Hillary to hire people into the DNC as a favor for Hillary paying down the DNC's debt. If you don't believe Brazile's honest, I totally get it, but she was the head of DNC. She probably has some knowledge on this. 

When parties have preferred candidates, and it becomes obvious, people get upset. You leave room for populists like Bernie. Or worse, pseudo-populists like Trump. I'm not interested in going through this again, but I struggle to see how people ignore evidence. 

It’s more like putting your thumb on the scale. That’s not the same as rigging it. And the former happens at every level of politics. Here’s two real life personal experiences, and since you mentioned the debates, I’ll keep it to just that:

First, for a state senate debate, there were 100 or so people allowed in. They were each allowed to submit a question, and the five most commonly asked questions would be asked during the debate. So I made sure the first 75 or so people in line were supporters of my candidate, and I wrote the questions for them. Furthermore, I wrote them in a way to confuse my boss’s opponent, because my former boss is a Harvard trained lawyer and his opponent was merely a high school graduate. Early on I picked up that he had a weak lexicon, so I made the questions as wonky as possible. End result, he was slaughtered.

Second, for a gubernatorial debate at the state fair, there was only seating for about 200 people. So my fellow organizers and I made sure that we had twice that many people volunteer to attend. Our campaign was able to force the debate to take place at 8 A.M. The opposing candidate may have had 25 supporters there tops, and when the debate was reaired in the evening, it made him look like a fool.

These are the realities of life in politics. You need to accept that. I learned it the hard way in college when I was elected to student government and quickly realized that the fraternities and sororities ran the place. The system was not rigged against Sanders. He just lacked the means to create structural advantages. And there is no level of politics where that does not exist.

[BigFatCoward]

Dirty stinking cheat. 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

To be REALLY FUCKING CLEAR, since people apparently can't read - this guy is entirely full of shit. He hasn't been in contact with her since 2008 in any professional capacity. This is what HE wants. She does not want this, and isn't going to go for it. 

To be clear, you're very much right on this, and I just now noticed my oversight in failing to describe him as her FORMER chief campaign strategist, and that Clinton dropped him like a bad habit after 2008.

My post was meant to be more tongue-in-cheek, hence my comment about him writing an op-ed while in the midst of a coke bender.

[Maithanet]

To me, I don't expect Clinton to run, because she's smart enough to know that her moment has passed, and there's no path for her to win the primary. 

So whether she "wants" to run again isn't really relevant.