2018 - Elections and Trends

[Ghost of LL 15544]

1 hour ago, Pancho Negro said:

Just got a call from RPM out of Montgomery, AL (with a Houston number????) polling me on my favorable/unfavorable rating for trump, which candidates I'm voting for in the state races during the midterms, my political leaning, and who I'm voting for between Sarah Davis and Allison Sawyer. 

Called on my celly

 

Maybe another poll coming soon, but RPM sounds like a right wang machine, no?

Never heard of 'em.

[Foosters 17889]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I know Trump and McConnell will whine that Dems are using (making up) this Kavanaugh issue for political gains.     And why shouldn't they leverage a situation for their own goals?  Are they saying that they wouldn't do the same?   They're doing it as well.

Refuse to hold a vote?

 

wait

[Gil Bang 26050]

 

[Mack Tripper 696]

Seems like we’re getting multiple FL polls per day.

[cactusflinthead 27606]

 

[Aqua Buddha 14624]

11 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Someone one here (Maybe Ghost of LL) pointed out the worst thing that could have happened to Scott was Gillum and DeSantis being the nominees for governor.  Nelson is pretty meh and they last thing Scott wanted was an energized minority vote.

[Js1 85607]

6 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Someone one here (Maybe Ghost of LL) pointed out the worst thing that could have happened to Scott was Gillum and DeSantis being the nominees for governor.  Nelson is pretty meh and they last thing Scott wanted was an energized minority vote.

Dis true.  Gillium will pull Scott over the finish line.  Even though I don't think Nelson needs it - the fundamentals of the race are firmly in Nelson's favor (incumbent of the minority party in a wave year for the minority party).  Which is why I think Florida, Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota are way overblown. 

[Js1 85607]

Mike Rawlings (Dallas Mayor) endorsed Allred.  While not shocking (both are Democrats), mayors typically stay out of it because they have to work with the incumbent on getting funding from Congress.  Rawlings and Sessions have worked together for roughly 7 years and he's been very praiseful for Sessions delivering for Dallas in the past.

Rawlings might see the writing on the wall for Sessions in 2018.

Quote

Hours after the poll was completed, Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings endorsed Allred over Sessions. In the past Rawlings, a Democrat, has praised for Sessions and his ability to deliver for Dallas.

"I have always tried to do the right thing for the city of Dallas, and it is now obvious that politically our country is headed in the wrong direction. I cannot sit on the sidelines while we have a chance to change that direction," Rawlings said. "This is why I am wholeheartedly endorsing Colin Allred for Congress. Not only does he know and love our city, but his common sense values and caring demeanor will benefit us. He's the real thing. He is the right man for America, and he is the right man for Dallas."

But Boothe pointed out the work Sessions has done in boosting Dallas, including infrastructure improvements and the reimbursement of funds to Presbyterian hospital after the 2014 Ebola crisis. Boothe revealed a July 18 letter from Rawlings to Sessions thanking the lawmaker for securing $368 million to protect the city against flooding.

"Thanks Pete. I know this wouldn't have happened without you," Rawlings scribbled after the letter's closing.

 

[Js1 85607]

 

[Js1 85607]

Fake news red wave 

 

[Bateshorn 9942]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Fake news red wave 

 

It appears to be a huge problem.  I'm hearing the enthusiams on the right is very low.  Basically the fox/trump echo chamber of "Polls lie, we win" is really threatening to depress turnout.

[Js1 85607]

Just now, Bateshorn said:

It appears to be a huge problem.  I'm hearing the enthusiams on the right is very low.  Basically the fox/trump echo chamber of "Polls lie, we win" is really threatening to depress turnout.

Read it yesterday, but its like 57% of Republicans do not believe the Democrats will win the House and it's not even close to being in danger.

[Mack Tripper 696]

[Mack Tripper 696]

[HenryJames 66189]

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

what does "a dem candidate could not get arrested in this district" mean?

[Huckleberry 33115]

Can't get arrested is a phrase meaning you're such a nobody that you don't even get noticed when you're committing a crime.

[Chuckie Finster 22754]

So this is the first set of midterms that I've followed for an entire cycle.  In past years when a "wave" hit, did most people anticipate what was going to occur?  Or was election night a surprise (in either direction)?

[Brisketexan 105448]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

So this is the first set of midterms that I've followed for an entire cycle.  In past years when a "wave" hit, did most people anticipate what was going to occur?  Or was election night a surprise (in either direction)?

Usually there's some anticipation, but the surprise is in the matter of degree.  And that's not exclusive to mid-terms.

I remember cracking up in (200?) when the Dems got their asses handed to them across the board, and James Carville put a waste basket over his head on live TV.

[Js1 85607]

10 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

So this is the first set of midterms that I've followed for an entire cycle.  In past years when a "wave" hit, did most people anticipate what was going to occur?  Or was election night a surprise (in either direction)?

It was usually around mid-September that everything seemed to crest into the wave. Which makes sense, because everything gears up post-Labor Day. So the # of races that move into toss-up or towards the "wave" party tends to increase in September.

Election night will still have many surprises. For instance - a few toss-up districts will somehow stay R, but a few lean/likely R districts will unexpectedly go D.  The Senate and House elections could go in completely opposite directions, though unlikely (this already looks like 2010 when the Rs botched a bunch of favorable Senate races with horrible candidates).

Luckily, we should know early on what kind of night it will be. If Democrats easily start winning the competitive seats in NJ/PA/VA by high single digits or double digits, it'll be a wave that's going to go across the country in House districts. Same with Manchin - if he is called big winner early in WV, expect that to domino towards FL, IN, MO, ND, MT and the open races in TN, AZ, NV.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Js1

[Js1 85607]

LA Times generic ballot shows the following movement among women voters (this is really fucking bad for Team Rape):

• All women - +5D (+27 D)
• Suburban women - +9D (+26D)
• White married women - +8D (+5R)
• White non-college women - +10D (+19R)

[Chuckie Finster 22754]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

LA Times generic ballot shows the following movement among women voters (this is really fucking bad for Team Rape😞

• All women - +5D (+27 D)
• Suburban women - +9D (+26D)
• White married women - +8D (+5R)
• White non-college women - +10D (+19R)

How has nobody coined "Rape-publican" yet?

[kevwun 15935]

Clayton Williams was born a couple of decades too soon.  He would have ended up as a Presidential candidate in the current Republican party.

Edited September 26, 2018 by kevwun

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

This is the first time I've been aware of a wave coming.  

 

I don't want to be Trump and just assume because I didn't know of something before that others didn't either, but I feel like the general awareness of a wave is out there unlike before.  I think that could have weird effects come vote time.  The underdogs could be more likely to vote to blunt the effects since the knowledge is so widespread.

[Mack Tripper 696]

LA Times generic ballot shows the following movement among women voters (this is really fucking bad for Team Rape):

• All women - +5D (+27 D)
• Suburban women - +9D (+26D)
• White married women - +8D (+5R)
• White non-college women - +10D (+19R)

And that poll was mostly completed before the Kavanaugh clusterfuck.

[Js1 85607]

13 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

This is the first time I've been aware of a wave coming.  

 

I don't want to be Trump and just assume because I didn't know of something before that others didn't either, but I feel like the general awareness of a wave is out there unlike before.  I think that could have weird effects come vote time.  The underdogs could be more likely to vote to blunt the effects since the knowledge is so widespread.

I mean, everyone was mostly aware of 2010 and 2014. It did not lead to increased D turnout to blunt the wave. In fact, I think the waves got bigger. Three issues at stake:

1. It's getting too late to change a lot of minds

2. The bigger the wave appears, the more likely to depress R turnout because it's inevitable.

3. So many Republicans don't even believe there's a chance the House is going to flip, because Trump said so, red wave, polls are wrong, etc.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

19 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Clayton Williams

 

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

it's inevitable.

 

 

[Aqua Buddha 14624]

This isn't just a wave, it's a political realignment, much like 1994.  (I don't really consider 2006 or 2010 realignments.)  Before 1994, you had a lot of Democratic Congressmen from districts that consistently voted Republican for president.  (Mostly in the Da Souf.)  They held them through incumbency, inertia, and generally shitty opposition over the years.  Fast forward to now and you have the exact same thing but opposite parties.  GOP holds a lot of suburban districts that have voted Democratic over the years.  (Mostly in the coastal burbs.)

This will be like 1994 and the GOP might have similar structural problems for years like the Democrats did in the 90's and 2000's.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

11 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

This isn't just a wave, it's a political realignment, much like 1994.  (I don't really consider 2006 or 2010 realignments.)  Before 1994, you had a lot of Democratic Congressmen from districts that consistently voted Republican for president.  (Mostly in the Da Souf.)  They held them through incumbency, inertia, and generally shitty opposition over the years.  Fast forward to now and you have the exact same thing but opposite parties.  GOP holds a lot of suburban districts that have voted Democratic over the years.  (Mostly in the coastal burbs.)

This will be like 1994 and the GOP might have similar structural problems for years like the Democrats did in the 90's and 2000's.

There's something to this for sure.   The anti-Trump former Republicans on this board (i.e., those with a brain and actual principles) sure sound like they are being pushed into the D party by necessity.   Meaning, not just a temporary thing.   I wonder how it will all shake out, though, with the rising Democratic Socialist stuff on the other end of the party.   

[Aqua Buddha 14624]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

There's something to this for sure.   The anti-Trump former Republicans on this board (i.e., those with a brain and actual principles) sure sound like they are being pushed into the D party by necessity.   Meaning, not just a temporary thing.   I wonder how it will all shake out, though, with the rising Democratic Socialist stuff on the other end of the party.   

Same thing in the 80's and 90's.  You had a lot of conservative Democratic voters who had voted Democratic for years but also voted maybe Nixon but then Reagan.  The base of the party drifted father and farther away from the middle of the road voter to the point those conservative Dems wondered why they were still Dems.

[Bateshorn 9942]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Usually there's some anticipation, but the surprise is in the matter of degree.  And that's not exclusive to mid-terms.

I remember cracking up in (200?) when the Dems got their asses handed to them across the board, and James Carville put a waste basket over his head on live TV.

I think this was 2002.  In all fairness, everyone thought the R's would lose a few seats because of history, but they actually picked up seats.  It's a good data point for what a popular president can do for his party.  If Trump had played to the middle and rode the economy, you'd probably be looking at a Dem wipe out in the Senate. 

Instead, they'll probably lose the House, maybe the Senate, and definitely the gerrymander pen in multiple swing states like WI, FL, MI, OH, etc. This election is really gonna be felt in the 2022 midterms.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Bateshorn

[Js1 85607]

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

I think this was 2002.  In all fairness, everyone thought the R's would lose a few seats because of history, but they actually picked up seats.  It's a good data point for what a popular president can do for his party.  If Trump had played to the middle and rode the economy, you'd probably be looking at a Dem wipe out in the Senate. 

Popular president from national crisis

Country riding high from 9/11 unity

"Success" of the War in Afghanistan and we hadn't yet shit our pants and started going into Iraq

[Bateshorn 9942]

Just now, Js1 said:

Popular president from national crisis

Country riding high from 9/11 unity

"Success" of the War in Afghanistan and we hadn't yet shit our pants and started going into Iraq

It's true.  The GOP also played up Nat. Sec. fears in the fall.  That's the election where Max Cleland, a Vietnam triple amputee, lost to Saxby Chambliss after Chambliss accused him of being soft on national defense and aiding and abetting terrorism.    I know a lot of Democrat offices that refused to even answer phone calls from Chambliss for the rest of his tenure.

It was a weird election for sure.

 

In general, for those who are wondering, this is about what a wave election feels and looks like.  Lots of retirements, toss ups turn to lean opposite.  Then the Leans become Toss ups.  Then about this point, the Safe districts start becoming Leans.   There's probably gonna be some sort of October surprise.  If it holds true to form, there are several GOP members who have no idea they are in trouble, at all, and won't find out until their local news declares victory for their opponent (i.e. "getting Charlie Bass'ed") on election night.

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

24 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Same thing in the 80's and 90's.  You had a lot of conservative Democratic voters who had voted Democratic for years but also voted maybe Nixon but then Reagan.  The base of the party drifted father and farther away from the middle of the road voter to the point those conservative Dems wondered why they were still Dems.

We could be seeing the mirror of that. The GOP has drifted so far right the middle of the road abandons them.

[Js1 85607]

Gillium's +9 in the Q-Pac poll is now pushing him out of the MOE (+4.5 in RCP and +5 in the month of September)

As important as the House and Senate is, the governor's mansions are extremely important to prevent partisan gerrymandering as Democratic governors veto bad maps in 2021.

Current governor map: 33 R, 16 D

Potential new map in 2019 based on current polling and trends: 26 R, 24 D

• R to D flips: Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Florida, Maine, Nevada, Illinois, New Mexico
• I to R flip: Alaska (3 way race and the D and I are going to split votes)

Best case map in 2019: 28 D, 22 R

• Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma and Ohio also flip

Edited September 26, 2018 by Js1

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

14 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I think this was 2002.  In all fairness, everyone thought the R's would lose a few seats because of history, but they actually picked up seats.  It's a good data point for what a popular president can do for his party.  If Trump had played to the middle and rode the economy, you'd probably be looking at a Dem wipe out in the Senate. 

Instead, they'll probably lose the House, maybe the Senate, and definitely the gerrymander pen in multiple swing states like WI, FL, MI, OH, etc. This election is really gonna be felt in the 2022 midterms.

Never understood Trump's need to punish those that didn't vote for him.

[Bateshorn 9942]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Gillium's +9 in the Q-Pac poll is now pushing him out of the MOE (+4.5 in RCP and +5 in the month of September)

As important as the House and Senate is, the governor's mansions are extremely important to prevent partisan gerrymandering as Democratic governors veto bad maps in 2021.

Current governor map: 33 R, 16 D

Potential new map in 2019 based on current polling and trends: 26 R, 24 D

• R to D flips: Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Florida, Maine, Nevada, Illinois, New Mexico
• I to R flip: Alaska (3 way race and the D and I are going to split votes)

Best case map in 2019: 28 D, 22 R

• Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma and Ohio also flip

Iowa is non partisan redistricting, so it's out as a real factor. There, it's more about building up the Dem bench for a future Senate run.

There's a pile of seats to be found in WI, MI, FL (Which has been gerrymandered by the GOP since 1990!).

Georgia is potentially a honeypot for Dems if the legislature is forced into a compromise or non partisan redistricting plan.

Kansas is also interesting, in that the GOP will probably have to give up KS-3 to the Democrats if Yoder loses this November (which it looks like he will).  It'll take it from a toss up to a lean D.

[atomheartbevo 89837]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

I mean, everyone was mostly aware of 2010 and 2014. It did not lead to increased D turnout to blunt the wave. In fact, I think the waves got bigger. Three issues at stake:

1. It's getting too late to change a lot of minds

2. The bigger the wave appears, the more likely to depress R turnout because it's inevitable.

3. So many Republicans don't even believe there's a chance the House is going to flip, because Trump said so, red wave, polls are wrong, etc.

I think a part of it involves us seeing it play out among our friends and family on social media. 

We had social media before 2016, but prior to that, it didn’t feel like people were engaging nearly as much as they did starting in 2016. That could be simply that Hillary and Trump polarized everybody a lot more than Romney and Obama in 2012, but I also think the rise of smartphones and tablets being so ubiquitous helped as well - it was just too damn easy to tell everybody where you stood. 

Which leads me to this - I think it’s going to be easier to determine the tight races through social media. Trump will be twittershitring every race that somebody tells him is close.  If somebody like Cruz ratchets up the personal attacks on social media, that means his internal numbers are not good, etc.  

[atomheartbevo 89837]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

Seems like $13 in the family bank account would resonate with a lot of Trumpkins. 

This is the kind of fucked up world that Republicans are living in, that it’s okay to openly mock poor people. 

Pretty sure Jesus had a few things to say about poor people. 

[Js1 85607]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Seems like $13 in the family bank account would resonate with a lot of Trumpkins. 

This is the kind of fucked up world that Republicans are living in, that it’s okay to openly mock poor people. 

Pretty sure Jesus had a few things to say about poor people. 

Sinema pulled herself up by her bootstraps (with a little help from our amazing government programs that feed poor kids and provide them grants to go to college).

You think she'd be the face of the GOP's Slorching campaign.

[swraith 347]

LA Times generic ballot shows the following movement among women voters (this is really fucking bad for Team Rape):

• All women - +5D (+27 D)
• Suburban women - +9D (+26D)
• White married women - +8D (+5R)
• White non-college women - +10D (+19R)

I do not understand the format of this data. What are the differences in the 2 numbers ?Can you explain it to me in 5th grader language? Not being sarcastic.

[Js1 85607]

1 minute ago, swraith said:

 

 

I do not understand the format of this data. What are the differences in the 2 numbers ?Can you explain it to me in 5th grader language? Not being sarcastic.

 

The movement of female voters between their last poll and this poll (overall voting intention)

All women - moved 5 points more Democratic, D now leads with all women by 27 points (from +22)

Suburban women - moved 9 points more Democratic, D now leads with suburban women by 26 points (from +17)

White married women - moved 8 points more Democratic, R now leads with white married women by only 5 points (from +13)

White non-college women - moved 10 points more Democratic, R now leads with white non-college women by 19 points (from +29)

[swraith 347]

Makes sense. Thanks.

[gmr548 16617]

Read it yesterday, but its like 57% of Republicans do not believe the Democrats will win the House and it's not even close to being in danger.

Let them reap what they sow.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[cactusflinthead 27606]

 

[Mack Tripper 696]

From that article - 400,000 new registrations since March of this year. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Just now, Mack Tripper said:

From that article - 400,000 new registrations since March of this year. 

Context-free articles suck.

400,000 new ones between March 2014 and November 2014 too.

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtml

[Js1 85607]

TLDR -

California counts SLOW.  Some races might not be decided for weeks. Washington too with mail-in ballot.  And rank choice voting in Maine in a competitive district. (~13 or so competitive races amongst these 3 states)

Senate could appear 50/49 for a few weeks until the Mississippi run-off concludes.  3 candidates means no one is getting 50%+1 vote.

Quote

Prepare to Be Disappointed on Election Night

by Nathan L. Gonzales September 26, 2018 · 10:42 AM EDT

After two years of campaigning in the latest most consequential election of our lifetimes, election night could be a huge letdown. The disappointment is not about which party prevails Nov. 6, but the reality that a combination of close races and West Coast contests could prevent enough races from being called to determine majorities in Congress until days later.

In the Senate, more than 10 races could finish within single digits, and a handful of those contests look like they’re neck and neck. The close margins could make it difficult for media outlets to project a winner on election night. Since Republicans have just a two-seat majority, every Senate race matters, so anything left uncalled could make it difficult to figure out who will control the chamber next year.

Even if all the races are called, the special election in Mississippi is likely to go to overtime. Neither former Democratic Rep. Mike Espy nor appointed-GOP Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith is likely to receive a majority of the vote on Nov. 6 since candidates from both parties appear on the same ballot, which will include Republican state Sen. Chris McDaniel. So the race will move to a Nov. 27 runoff.

Hyde-Smith is likely to win the election in the end (even if Espy finishes first in the initial balloting on election night), but if the Senate majority is hanging in the balance and hinging on a single seat, media outlets might be reluctant to declare a majority, especially after Democrats won a Senate special election in Alabama less than a year ago.

That means the Senate majority may not be known until after Thanksgiving, which could affect the urgency and importance of a lame-duck session if Democrats take control.

In the House, beyond the many races that could be too close to call on election night, the dozen competitive races on the West Coast could delay a majority call.

In California, home to at least nine competitive races, it could take days to count all ballots. After the June 5 primary, it took three weeks to determine which Democrat would take on GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher in the 48th District.

Everyone votes by mail in Washington, which is hosting three competitive races. In both states, the ballots need to be postmarked by Nov. 6 to be counted, so election officials won’t even have all of the ballots on election night.

There are also other smaller potential wrinkles, including Maine’s 2nd District. It seems less likely that GOP Rep. Bruce Poliquin or Democratic state Rep. Jared Golden will receive a majority in the initial voting with two other candidates on the ballot, so the race will move through the new ranked-choice system.

In June, it took eight days for Golden to be declared the winner of the Democratic primary after going through the new process. It’s possible the fight for the House hinges on the 2nd District outcome and is delayed by a few days.

Those people looking for finality on Nov. 6 could be sorely disappointed. But don’t say you weren’t warned.

 

[Mack Tripper 696]

23 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Context-free articles suck.

400,000 new ones between March 2014 and November 2014 too.

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtml

Thanks. I'm out of ammo to pos rep this. Man, I already knew about what they were, but those turnout numbers are BRUTAL. 

Edited September 26, 2018 by Mack Tripper

[David Dennison 18951]

15 minutes ago, Js1 said:

TLDR -

California counts SLOW.  Some races might not be decided for weeks. Washington too with mail-in ballot.  And rank choice voting in Maine in a competitive district. (~13 or so competitive races amongst these 3 states)

Senate could appear 50/49 for a few weeks until the Mississippi run-off concludes.  3 candidates means no one is getting 50%+1 vote.

 

I'm just guessing, but I'm pretty sure we'll know who controls the House on election night.