US Politics: Wondering the Acosta

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

My response to Kal was specifically regarding the House and rejecting the idea that the 2018 House gains were not geographically spread out.  They were. 

The senate map is shitty for democrats and will remain shitty for democrats for an indeterminate amount of time. 

Well, alright... *kicks at nothing* I didn't really wanna crush nobody's dreams today anyways.

[Gorn]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Bullshit. The senate map didnt do this in 2018. The dems lost seats. Not just hard seats like ND either - they lost Florida as an incumbent and Missouri as an incumbent. 

The main changes in the House were in previously gerrymandered seats that went a bit more fair and essentially all of California. It wasnt nearly as nationally spread as I'd like. 

Haven't you spent the entire 2016-2018 period telling everyone in these threads that Democrats had zero chances of winning the House due to gerrymandering? And the two years before that telling everyone how Clinton is the strongest possible candidate on D side who has zero chance of losing to Trump?

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Haven't you spent the entire 2016-2018 period telling everyone in these threads that Democrats had zero chances of winning the House due to gerrymandering? And the two years before that telling everyone how Clinton is the strongest possible candidate on D side who has zero chance of losing to Trump?

Which seats Democrats gonna pick up next year? Let's hear your analysis, Mr. Ex Post Facto. 

I'll make it easy and just give you Arizona and Colorado. Take me from there, please. But don't forget to take Alabama off the map.

[Zorral]

46 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Dude that entire quote gets wrapped up in a limp opinion supported by no evidence to speak of. 

You didn't read the other piece, did you, in which two professional political scientists who have a DR. on front of their names did a study -- how the Pelosi's of this world don't even bother, much less care, about what voters care about.

Foo.  You're no fun.  I hold you personally responsible for millennials becoming nuns.

https://www.huffpost.com/highline/article/millennial-nuns/

[Jace, Extat]

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You didn't read the other piece, did you, in which two professional political scientists who have a DR. on front of their names did a study -- how the Pelosi's of this world don't even bother, much less care, about what voters care about.

Foo.  You're no fun.  I hold you personally responsible for millennials becoming nuns.

https://www.huffpost.com/highline/article/millennial-nuns/

I didn't, because I don't need a study to confirm an obvious truth and pass it off as groundbreaking insight into political realities.

[Mexal]

 

[Raja]

I hope this is true! Even though this being in the spotlight already might have had some effect, as some people ( and the courts) have noted.

 

[Paladin of Ice]

On 7/9/2019 at 10:47 PM, Triskele said:

I thought it might be fun as well as interesting to do a straw poll of sorts where people state, at this early moment in the process, which candidate they're for if they had to choose right now.

I'm strongly for Warren at this point, and right now it would take something pretty big to change my mind. Come the general election, of course, I'll vote for whoever is the nominee.In terms of favorites I tend to think of it in tiers, so Warren is the only top tier candidate, next one contains a couple of decent contenders like Harris, Booker, and maybe Castro.

Below that is Sanders, who I was behind for quite awhile in 2016 but I slowly soured on him over the course of the primary. Below that is Biden.

Then come all the also rans like Inslee, Bullock, and Hickenlooper, who I honestly don't think are worthy of contemplating, because their chances are 0. I've got nothing against them, but it ain't gonna happen, and I hope they all get it through their heads and drop out soon. I'd put "Mayor Pete" in that same tier, he's honestly a net "Meh" from me, since every time I hear something good about him or he does something I like, he doesn't something bad to balance it out. I think he has no business being in this. O'Rourke also falls into the category of not really worth discussing, as he's already shown himself to be an empty suit who's not to be up to the task and is in the middle of torpedoing his own campaign.

Bottom tier basically consists of Seth Moulton, Williamson, (even if she wasn't completely off her rocker, she's an anti-vaxxer and I'm a medical technician, so that's an automatic "FUCK NO!!!" from me) and Tulsi Gabbard, who can fuck right off.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

My response to Kal was specifically regarding the House and rejecting the idea that the 2018 House gains were not geographically spread out.  They were. 

20 of 50 states isn't particularly spread out. That was my point.  As an example, 11 of the districts that had Republicans that also voted for Clinton in 2016 were in California - and ALL of them went to Dems. 

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

Haven't you spent the entire 2016-2018 period telling everyone in these threads that Democrats had zero chances of winning the House due to gerrymandering? 

I said it would not be a massive change and that gerrymandering was going to make a lot of places very hard to flip. Which...it did. I didn't say that they had zero chance - only that it wasn't going to be some massive 10%+ boost, and if the polling wasn't particularly accurate you could result in something far closer to a very tiny minority. And honestly, if it wasn't for California that's exactly what it looked like after night one, where people were openly stating that it wasn't as much of a wave as they thought.

Another aside - 4 of the districts won were in Pennsylvania, which had their map redrawn thanks to gerrymandering turnover. All went to Dems. 

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

And the two years before that telling everyone how Clinton is the strongest possible candidate on D side

Dunno about strongest possible, but she was certainly stronger than Sanders and O'Malley given that Sanders and O'Malley lost to her.

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

who has zero chance of losing to Trump?

Yeah, that I didn't say whatsoever. I was incredibly pessimistic about Clinton's chances and laughing at people like @lokisnow who gave her a 99.5% chance of winning or some bullshit. I pointed out that the polls that had her up had a major inaccuracy in that they assumed a certain value of turnout from demographic groups, and if those groups change then the polls are going to be wrong. (and that is literally exactly what happened). 

[ThinkerX]

I seem to recollect the republicans lucked out (cheated their way to victory?) in three or four senate races that came right down to the wire (recounts and lawsuit territory) in 2018.  That, I believe is what gave them their senate majority.  Which makes me wonder just how much trouble republican senators could be in should they back something really unpopular.  

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, ThinkerX said:

I seem to recollect the republicans lucked out (cheated their way to victory?) in three or four senate races that came right down to the wire (recounts and lawsuit territory) in 2018.  That, I believe is what gave them their senate majority.  Which makes me wonder just how much trouble republican senators could be in should they back something really unpopular.  

This is delusionally revisionist but also kinda accurate while being willfully naive at the same time. They already did something 'really unpopular' with the ACA repeal and tax cuts. They STILL FUCKING WON!!!

I don't mean to keep reverting to all caps but goddamn people, what mythical line do you think Republicans have yet to cross that will get them punished? They openly prop up and defend an active enemy of the state in Russia now! And yeah, they held on to a couple of seats through voter suppression tactics that are still going to be used. 

I just don't understand what people think has changed... is it me? I've been wrong before, I often prefer to be wrong because I'm a pessimist, but what am I missing???

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I seem to recollect the republicans lucked out (cheated their way to victory?) in three or four senate races that came right down to the wire (recounts and lawsuit territory) in 2018.  That, I believe is what gave them their senate majority.  Which makes me wonder just how much trouble republican senators could be in should they back something really unpopular.  

I think you are remembering wrong.  There was one North Carolina House election where the Republicans almost assuredly cheated their way to victory, and that election was so compromised that the courts ordered a redo.  There were also allegations of fraud in the GA governor's race, and to a lesser extent the FL governor's and Senate race.  But that's really it that I recall. 

In order to call the republican majority in the senate into question, you'd have to challenge not just the Florida result but the Texas and Missouri results as well, which the Republicans won by 215,000 and 140,000 votes, respectively.  I guess that kind of fraud is possible, but it's a pretty huge allegation. 

[Gorn]

2 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Which seats Democrats gonna pick up next year? Let's hear your analysis, Mr. Ex Post Facto. 

I'll make it easy and just give you Arizona and Colorado. Take me from there, please. But don't forget to take Alabama off the map.

I don't know. If it's a normal election year, you're probably right. However, any election after an earth-shaking event such as ACA repeal would not be a normal election, it would be a wave election. And weird things happen in wave elections. Things like Democrats winning Senate seats in Alaska and Montana, or Republicans winning in Illinois and Massachusetts.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Gorn said:

I don't know. If it's a normal election year, you're probably right. However, any election after an earth-shaking event such as ACA repeal would not be a normal election, it would be a wave election. And weird things happen in wave elections. Things like Democrats winning Senate seats in Alaska and Montana, or Republicans winning in Illinois and Massachusetts.

But we had a 'wave' that netted a score of Democratic house gains and regression in the Senate. So I ask again, not out of malice but exasperation, where do you see the gains happening? Because it's clear to me that Democrats are fucking ourselves by chasing popular support instead of regional gains. 

All that shit about raising hands to shame everyone into line about providing healthcare for 'X' or abolishing private insurance were so tactically stupid I wondered in the moment if MSNBC's entire staff had their families taken hostage by Fox News.

[Fragile Bird]

Did anyone mention already that Tom Steyer announced two days ago? I was very busy this week and just skimmed through a few pages.  Just saw a campaign ad on CNN ( I haven't watched any tv either).

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

I mean, it's a good point to emphasize I suppose, but isn't this kind of obvious?  The balance of the scales is always decided within the 45-55 range, even before the rise in polarization.  I'd like to see how many districts flipped that weren't in those benchmarks in previous elections, because I suspect Wasserman is implicitly overstating the uniqueness of this.

38 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

They STILL FUCKING WON!!!

No, they didn't win.  Well, they won Florida, which was disappointing.  But other than that the Senate map went how it should have went in 2018, and they picked up seats that are competitive elsewhere (Arizona with Sinema, Nevada with Rosen).  It's rather officious and myopic to say the Dems "lost" the Senate in 2018.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, they didn't win.  Well, they won Florida, which was disappointing.  But other than that the Senate map went how it should have went in 2018, and they picked up seats that are competitive elsewhere (Arizona with Sinema, Nevada with Rosen).  It's rather officious and myopic to say the Dems "lost" the Senate in 2018.

Eh. I believe I read that dems lost more incumbent senator seats than had ever happened before. That's kind of a big deal, even if we know the source (namely partisanship is the best predictor for everything now). 

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

No, they didn't win.  Well, they won Florida, which was disappointing.  But other than that the Senate map went how it should have went in 2018, and they picked up seats that are competitive elsewhere (Arizona with Sinema, Nevada with Rosen).  It's rather officious and myopic to say the Dems "lost" the Senate in 2018.

That's idealistic interpretation and you know it. Democrats had an almost 8 percent advantage in voter turnout and left the evening with less seats in the Senate. That's called losing, I don't care how you try to qualify it.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I believe I read that dems lost more incumbent senator seats than had ever happened before.

Huh?  They lost 4 seats and picked up 2.  Compare that to just 2010 where they lost 6 and gained 0.  Wherever you read that is wrong.

2 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Democrats had an almost 8 percent advantage in voter turnout and left the evening with less seats in the Senate. That's called losing, I don't care how you try to qualify it.

Maybe, for a start, understanding that the national average has nothing to do with the third of the country that conducts Senate elections every cycle.  So no, it's not idealistic interpretation, it's attempting to be accurate and objective interpretation.

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean, it's a good point to emphasize I suppose, but isn't this kind of obvious?  The balance of the scales is always decided within the 45-55 range, even before the rise in polarization.  I'd like to see how many districts flipped that weren't in those benchmarks in previous elections, because I suspect Wasserman is implicitly overstating the uniqueness of this.

I don't have a good resource for a full comparison, but just a quick look found NY-25, which went for Obama 59-40, but went for Republican Ann Burkele in 2010. 

But that's a somewhat unfair comparison, since it's comparing a Democratic wave election (2008) with a Republican wave election (2010).  In 2018, it was a comparison between a neutralish election (2016) and the 2018 Democratic wave.