US Politics: Wondering the Acosta

[DMC]

Just now, Maithanet said:

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. 

Oh yeah I'm sure they're outliers like that in most cycles.  I just suspect there's not many.

[Kalbear]

I think it's more important to point out that regardless of whether or not you consider 2018 a win or a tie for Republicans, that losing two senate seats in a wave election is considered 'expected' is a good sign that Dems aren't going to have 60 seats any time soon, and 50 seats is a reach most of the time. 

[Maithanet]

Just now, DMC said:

Oh yeah I'm sure they're outliers like that in most cycles.  I just suspect there's not many.

Well I think that what Wasserman was pointing out is that in 2018 there weren't ANY, and that because of increasing polarization, those kind of outliers are getting less and less common. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

that losing two senate seats in a wave election is considered 'expected' is a good sign that Dems aren't going to have 60 seats any time soon, and 50 seats is a reach most of the time. 

Well I don't think anyone's denying that.

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Well I think that what Wasserman was pointing out is that in 2018 there weren't ANY, and that because of increasing polarization, those kind of outliers are getting less and less common. 

Yeah.  I'm just saying it's a bit overhyped.  What would be interesting is narrowing the parameters.  Like - how many from 52-48 or something, etc?  That I'd like to look at, because I bet there's a significant trendline.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Well I don't think anyone's denying that. 

 

@Gorn was, which is where this little tiff happened.

Just now, DMC said:

 

Yeah.  I'm just saying it's a bit overhyped.  What would be interesting is narrowing the parameters.  Like - how many from 52-28 or something, etc?  That I'd like to look at, because I bet there's a significant trendline.

I suspect 2008 and 2010 have a LOT of outliers in that regard. 

[Jace, Extat]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

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.

 

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think it's more important to point out that regardless of whether or not you consider 2018 a win or a tie for Republicans, that losing two senate seats in a wave election is considered 'expected' is a good sign that Dems aren't going to have 60 seats any time soon, and 50 seats is a reach most of the time. 

It's all of that and more. That Democrats are chasing popular positions that actively damage our ability to make successful governing even possible. You cannot win the Senate running on healthcare.

You cannot win the Senate running on abortion or women's rights.

You cannot win the Senate running on immigration, or equality under the law, or whatever-the-fuck AOC's twitter posse is up in arms about.

And you sure as shit can't win the Senate running on impeachment.

What more evidence do we need that despite the near-universal popularity of Democratic positions on these issues (except impeachment, that's just a Democrat thing even though @Martell Spy 's linked articles would have you believe otherwise) they aren't going to win back the fucking Senate!?!

[Gorn]

42 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

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. 

OK, I'll bite. Iowa and North Carolina voted for Obama; Alaska, Missouri and Louisiana had Democratic senators within recent memory; Montana and West Virginia already have Democratic senators; Texas and Georgia came to within a couple of percentage points in a non-presidential election year.

Are Democrats going to win all of these races, or half of them, or even a quarter of them? Probably not. Would I bet money on (D) in any individual race? No. But if you attack on 22 different fronts, you will get a breakthrough somewhere you don't expect it.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

You cannot win the Senate running on healthcare.

You cannot win the Senate running on abortion or women's rights.

You cannot win the Senate running on immigration, or equality under the law, or whatever-the-fuck AOC's twitter posse is up in arms about.

And you sure as shit can't win the Senate running on impeachment.

Well, you kind of answered your own question with this diatribe.  No, the Dems can't win the Senate on a national agenda of social rights, immigration or impeachment - although healthcare is a winning issue for them so not sure what you're saying about that.  Point is, the Dems can only retake the Senate if they run candidates that are palatable to those states.  And that means accepting people that might be disagreeable to many liberal dogmas.  Which is why I'm wholeheartedly against the increasing necessity to make candidates pass a purity/litmus test on all issues.

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, you kind of answered your own question with this diatribe.  No, the Dems can't win the Senate on a national agenda of social rights, immigration or impeachment - although healthcare is a winning issue for them so not sure what you're saying about that.  Point is, the Dems can only retake the Senate if they run candidates that are palatable to those states.  And that means accepting people that might be disagreeable to many liberal dogmas.  Which is why I'm wholeheartedly against the increasing necessity to make candidates pass a purity/litmus test on all issues.

My diatribe is still borne of the fact that in the era of partisanship we exist in, Republicans and the Donald are going to paint every Senate race with the Democratic presidential nominees raising their hands for these idiotic sweeping general statements that are harmful to the party's ambition of, y'know, taking back the government. And a bunch of folks can't understand why that's going to end in catastrophe with their, as you say, purity and litmus tests.

[DMC]

Yeah, um, that's politics.  Just like every Democratic MC candidate is gonna run against Trump.  I don't think what you're referring to will matter much at all.  Then again, I guess that's derived from the fact I also don't think candidates themselves matter much at all.  It's almost all party.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, um, that's politics.  Just like every Democratic MC candidate is gonna run against Trump.  I don't think what you're referring to will matter much at all.  Then again, I guess that's derived from the fact I also don't think candidates themselves matter much at all.  It's almost all party.

I'm trying to say that Democrats are more interested in chasing popular positions than winning positions. And I can't understand why people think that's a good thing.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I'm trying to say that Democrats are more interested in chasing popular positions than winning positions. And I can't understand why people think that's a good thing.

At the national level, there is no difference between popular and winning positions.  So I'm not sure what you're referring to.

[Larry of the Lawn]

15 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I'm trying to say that Democrats are more interested in chasing popular positions than winning positions. And I can't understand why people think that's a good thing.

Ok, how do the Dems win the Senate?  

[Jace, Extat]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

At the national level, there is no difference between popular and winning positions.  So I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Is that so? I can state definitively that Hillary Rodham Clinton had the most popular political positions in 2016. Did she win that race?

7 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Ok, how do the Dems win the Senate?  

Stop talking so much about issues that make mildly racist and sexist white people uncomfortable.

You can have your values/moral satisfaction or you can have a chance at protecting some of those values. There's no in-between.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I can state definitively that Hillary Rodham Clinton had the most popular political positions in 2016. Did she win that race?

Did she?  What did Hillary run on, other than..Hillary?  I'm sure her platform on her website was very well done.  That doesn't mean she emphasized the issues well enough.  Anyway, the Republican candidate was probably going to win that race.  That may well be the case next year also if the economy stays anywhere remotely as healthy as it is right now.  I'm not sure how you transcend that trend.  Only way, in my view, doesn't really have anything to do with issues - it's about enthusiasm. 

JFK won in 1960 when he probably shouldn't of based on economic and presidential approval indicators (the best two we got).  Other than that election though, the results are pretty damn dependent on those two.  And why did JFK win?  Because we was fucking JFK, and Nixon was Nixon.  You want the person that excites the most, policy be damned.  Issue publics are for the GOP at this point - immigration, the courts.  But I've never had much faith in the efficacy of that.

[Zorral]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/11/twitter-is-down.html

(Coming back bit by bit by now though....)

Some friends contacting me with this news mentioned that twitter went down at the same time TVillain was hosting his white supremacist 'alternate' social media conference sorts in the White House (Twitter, FB, etc. were pointedly not included in this meeting).

https://slate.com/technology/2019/07/trump-social-media-summit-facebook-twitter.html

 

 

[Raja]

Excellent news.

Barr is such a toad, standing up there and congratulating him for dropping the question and doing what the census department said all along that they could do. Can't stand the sight of him.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

At the national level, there is no difference between popular and winning positions.  So I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I'd say 1972 is a good example. McGovern's policy positions were actually fairly popular while Nixon's were mixed to not very popular. It didn't matter though as Nixon went on to win one of the biggest landslides ever. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Ladies, Gentlemen and Jace, I give you the President of the United States of America:

 

 

@Ormond, you're my second favorite personality psychology professor (the one I had wore wolf themed shirts to class every day). Is there a niche diagnosis for someone who constantly has to brag about their looks while tearing down others' appearance? Or is it just a defense mechanism and his is on the same steroids Jose Canseco took? 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'd say 1972 is a good example

I....very strongly disagree.  Nixon's approval was solidly approaching 60 for the entire year and the economy was rock solid.  That means reelection is pretty much a given.  Maybe not the asskicking he gave McGovern, but anybody was gonna lose.