Jump to content

Huckleberry

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    13705
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    21

Posts posted by Huckleberry

  1. My side isn't going to win, dude. The Libertarians have a habit of nominating not actually libertarian candidates who also happen to suck in general.

     

    2020 will be a referendum on Trump if nothing major changes. The best bet for Democrats is to feed the beast that was slightly awakened yesterday. We just saw Presidential turnout for a midterm. Both sides will be rabid. The GOP will paint the Democrat candidate as an anti-Trump socialist devil no matter who it is.

     

    You don't win that kind of election by appealing to the middle. That's exactly how you lose. You need to get your base just as rabid as the other side's base and try to give the middle slightly fewer bad reasons to vote against you.

     

     

  2. I apologize to all the Democrats on this forum that I thought were being silly when they kept complaining about how conservatives always suggest that Democrats should run a Republican if they want to win. I am sorry for doubting you.

  3. 2 minutes ago, Jack said:

    Not even the most left leaning news source is claiming such a thing.  Last night was a major disappointment because the maps were pretty much identical to the 2016 election and a vast majority of the seats up for election this time were Republicans.  Next time, it's the Dems that have seats at risk and areas Trump won in 2016.  Senate might go to 60 in 2020.  Dems need to get their shit together and fast.

    Huh? Initial forecast was for D+35 in the House. Current forecast is D+36.

    In the Senate there were 26 D seats up for reelection (including the two "independents") and 9 R seats. In 2020 that will be 11 D seats and 21 R seats.

    Based on specific areas it's not exactly a great map for Democrats in 2020 but it's certainly not any worse than this year's.

  4. 1 minute ago, woohorn said:

    Would every action taken be invalid? Should Rosenstein ignore orders? IDK, but Senate Rs aren't going to be happy about Sessions firing, so maybe they don't look the other way.

    Oh yes, they will be quite upset. Their brows will furrow and everything.

    • Like 6
  5. 3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    Good find. That paper assumes a 68.9% preference among felons for Gore over Bush based on matching to non-felons on a variety of demographics and SES variables. Interestingly, Clinton (1996) goes 85.4%. However, that assumption is not totally transportable given the 2016 breakdowns.  Would be interesting to see the analysis replicated for 2016 (or for 2018 using the senate race or the governor race).

     

    Exactly, uneducated whites have shifted sharply to the Trump GOP.

  6. 2 minutes ago, Lurch said:

     


    My totally uneducated opinion on it is that criminals tend to be poor and poor tend to vote D.

     

    Speaking of totally uneducated, white felons tend to be uneducated whites. And that is a Republican demographic.

    I think the Florida felon vote will be about a 50/50 split. Not surprising, there's apparently some sort of Florida law that says nobody can win an election with 51%+ of the vote.

  7. 3 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

    This will be good.  Obama got obliterated much worse than this his 1st term but won even bigger the 2nd time.  

    In what world is 332-206 bigger than 365-173? Obama got 33 fewer electoral votes in his second election.

  8. 56 minutes ago, Js1 said:

    There's supposedly 100k in Pima and 472k in Maricopa.  These are "early ballots that were mailed out but dropped off in-person."  IF they followed Election Day split in the 2 counties, Sinema would be up +300 but since they are early votes, they could track more Democrat, but who knows.

    Someone is going to win by the SKIN of their teeth in Arizona. 

    Damn that could be really close. I've got it at Sinema 1,128,401 and McSally 1,127,777 if those are the outstanding vote totals and the ratios stay the same. Are there other votes in red counties, though?

  9. 4 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

    words

    The Beto thing is easily extinguished with the simple picture of him as a three-year-old. Nobody who isn't already dead set on voting for the Republican will think a three-year-old was plotting to gain political favor.

    The actual real issue for him is that he's not actually charismatic. He's nowhere near Bill Clinton in that department, not even close.

    • Like 1
  10. I was looking at the results, regardless of what party was in power, compared with job approval. Seems like the net change in seats falls inline. 
    I could argue Trump had an amazing night because he was only the third President in 100 years to lose seats in the House while gaining seats in the Senate during a midterm. In seriousness I would not call it an amazing night.
    Right, it falls in line with approval. Trump has poor approval ratings, and likewise his party lost a bunch of House seats.

    It's not good or bad in terms of expectations, but it's bad in terms of losing 30-35 seats in the House.
  11. Yes... historically bad

    image.png

    So it was 7th worst out of 19 and the second worst midterm since WWII for a Republican President if we throw out the midterm election immediately following Watergate?

     

    That actually does sound worse than I first thought.

     

  12. Gotta kill those strawmen.
    Answer this: who wins the B1G area primaries between Beto and Sanders?  How much worse does that get with a normal progressive and not a socialist?
    That's not a strawman, those are actual arguments that have been made. Do you know what a strawman is?

    And O'Rourke wins them by even more than Clinton did.
  13. 2 hours ago, Kyle said:
    I appreciate the thoughtful response. We can respectfully agree to disagree on asylum, illegality, etc. I realize the cloak of asylum was used as the story, but  questions of granting asylum is another complexity to a tough political and moral issue. I concede I'm not an expert on the nuances of asylum, but I would happily buy you any bottle of whiskey if most of the members of the caravan ultimately entered the country legally and followed the appropriate procedures.

    Not really. There are laws, if you don't break them then you haven't done anything illegal. This isn't something we can debate, that's just the way it is.

    And again, this isn't the first caravan. They have happened before and they have followed the legal process before. You keep acting like you want to analyze things dispassionately but then simply continue to ignore facts. You also claim objectivity but then use phrases like "cloak of asylum" despite actual historical evidence that it's true, refusing to recognize the military deployment as a dirty trick while simultaneously accusing the migrants of dirty tricks.

  14. 3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Since when is Beto a centrist? 

    Supporters of the opposing party pick whichever description hurts the candidate in their opinion. Not surprising, but certainly not accurate or informative either.

  15. 3 minutes ago, Kyle said:

    A "dirty trick" and a "political stunt" are two different things. Is your contention there is not a caravan of Central Americans attempting to enter the U.S. illegally? I can see where there would be value in have a military presence there to retain order given how these guys treated their entry into Mexico. Nuance is important - sending troops before the election absolutely was political but not without merit or value IMHO - unless you think the caravan was just a fabrication.

    Yes, that is absolutely my contention. The caravan intends to enter the United States at a port of entry and submit claims for asylum. That is 100% legal. Additionally, these caravans are a regular occurrence; the fact that you're only just now hearing about them should tell you something if you're actually a moderate who wants to look at things analytically.

    For now I will assume you're being truthful about your intentions, so go research the caravan and asylum and then consider that you're basing your entire argument on the lie that they are trying to enter illegally. Or you could just ask yourself a simple question: If you were trying to sneak across a border would you broadcast your group to the world?

    • Like 2
  16. 2 minutes ago, Kyle said:

    Agreed.

    So how do you not see that it was a trick deployed under false pretenses? The military was never actually going to do anything at the border, they were sent weeks before the immigrants will arrive, etc. It was 100% false pretenses and fabrications. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

  17. 1 minute ago, JBJ said:

    I think you missed the point.  He'll get slaughtered Super Tuesday by a more progressive candidate.  The primaries exist to reinforce the base and keep his type out.

    2016 - The Democrats rig their primaries! The progressive candidate Sanders should have won, they cheated him out of it to protect their more centrist candidate!
    2018 - The more centrist candidate will never win the primaries. Those exist to reinforce the base and select the less centrist candidate.

  18. 4 minutes ago, Kyle said:

    Words matter. If you want to have a reasonably dialogue, it has to begin with personal integrity. Sending troops to the border is not a dirty trick. One can agree or disagree with it, but it is not a dirty trick by any definition.

    What was the "false pretense" or "complete fabrication of the truth?" 

    Immigration is a extremely complex moral and political question that requires more than hyperbolic emotion to solve.

    Sending the military to the border for the purpose of confronting a caravan of immigrants who are over a thousand miles away is absolutely a political stunt. What exactly do you think the troops were supposed to accomplish at the border?

    • Like 1
  19. 5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

    Sorry, just read there's 600,000 total votes outstanding.  Not sure they've processed all or any of the early votes.  This is from the NBC embed on the ground in Phoenix.  What's being reported might just be yesterday in-person. 

    Okay, that actually makes sense. Nationwide we've seen that voter totals are running roughly the same as 2016. Arizona had over 2.5M votes in that election. So far only about 1.7M votes have been reported in this race.

×
×
  • Create New...