2018 - Elections and Trends

[Js1 85056]

I did always picture Brisket as Gina Davis with a beard.

[The Royal We 3059]

Lulz.

I have to laugh to keep from crying.

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3867]

3 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

Where did you see that number reported for provisionals?

Also LOL at poor snowflake Slorchy getting his widdle feelings hurt that he has to neg my non political posts as retaliation.

The Columbus Dispatch.  http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180807/12-congressional-district-troy-balderson-almost-certain-winner-of-tight-race

[Anastasis 23375]

Twitters unloading on the people who voted for the Green Alien Offspring Party. Oh, and of course the master puppeteer of it all .... Russia!!! LULZ.  

https://twitter.com/search?q=green party&src=typd

Edited August 8, 2018 by Anastasis

[Tuco 5076]

Trump's tweet from last night seems more like excuses than confidence. 

Quote

When I decided to go to Ohio for Troy Balderson, he was down in early voting 64 to 36. That was not good. After my speech on Saturday night, there was a big turn for the better. Now Troy wins a great victory during a very tough time of the year for voting. He will win BIG in Nov.

 

[Js1 85056]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Twitters unloading on the people who voted for the Green Alien Offspring Party. LULZ.  

I kind of see it.  Who shows up to a special election and votes for the green candidate? 

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3867]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Well OH 12 is also gerrymandered to fuck over the Columbus voters that make up 1/3 of its population. It's a bellwether in that regard.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of districts gerrymandered in the same way. Dems need to overcome the gerrymander in some of these districts.

OH 12 has had 1 Democrat win in the last ~85 years.

[Tuco 5076]

11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I kind of see it.  Who shows up to a special election and votes for the green candidate? 

Family members.  High school friends. 

But, to your point, if they voted for the Green Party member instead of the Dem, it's likely they would have just stayed home if Green candidate wasn't on the ballot.  It's unfortunate more people didn't vote for O'Connor - Republicans, Democrats who stayed home, people who showed up to vote Green.  It's stupid to pile on the Green voters. 

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3867]

54 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Afraid not, last night was a clear indication the democrats will come up just short, claim victory, and rural America is still filled with morons racist AF.

I'm not sure there are enough rural and rich suburbanite votes for Balderson to overcome traditional election turnout in Franklin.

Worthington and Dublin are going to get gerrymandered out of the 12th next redistricting.

Edited August 8, 2018 by ShaggyBevo RIP

[David Dennison 18608]

52 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Afraid not, last night was a clear indication the democrats will come up just short, claim victory, and rural America is still filled with morons racist AF.

You're wrong.

November is going to be a bloodbath.

[Brisketexan 104465]

33 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I did always picture Brisket as Gina Davis with a beard.

She's a good bit taller than I am.

And skinnier.

And a woman.

Who's somewhat attractive.

So, we're kinda 0 for 4 here....add to that the fact that I don't have a beard....shit, your accuracy level is enough to qualify you to be POTUS.  Congrats!

[Js1 85056]

Okay, fine, you can be Susan Sarandon. But only 2016 Susan Sarandon:

[David Dennison 18608]

There are 23 districts held by Republicans that went for Clinton in 2016.

Democrats need to flip 24 seats to take the House.

Last night the Democrats lost by less than a percentage point in a district that Trump won by 11. It's been a GOP seat since the early 80s.

Last night was a very, very bad omen for the Republican Party.

[tantric superman 4667]

I've always imagined brisket as throwing down a Dali vibe.

Dali in cargo shorts manning a smoker?

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Either way.  We will still have a racist moron problem in America and I have no idea how that gets fixed. 

Maybe we should work on the moron part first and the racist part will work itself out. 

[Washpark 176]

[Brisketexan 104465]

23 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Okay, fine, you can be Susan Sarandon. But only 2016 Susan Sarandon:

Say what you want....but Susan has....merits...

[Brisketexan 104465]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Either way.  We will still have a racist moron problem in America and I have no idea how that gets fixed. 

Maybe we should work on the moron part first and the racist part will work itself out. 

If you're arguing from a position of facts and logic...you don't convince morons and racists.  You don't convert morons and racists.

You crush them.  It's like arguing with a toddler.  Quit wasting your fucking time, spank his ass, and put him in the corner.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If you're arguing from a position of facts and logic...you don't convince morons and racists.  You don't convert morons and racists.

You crush them.  It's like arguing with a toddler.  Quit wasting your fucking time, spank his ass, and put him in the corner.

Yeah well, easy for you to say. You’re probably not surrounded by racist morons in your community that hold positions of power. 

[Js1 85056]

Racist Corey Stewart is going to drag down Republicans in Virginia in November, handing many toss-up House seats to the Democrats

https://news.vcu.edu/article/Kaine_leads_US_Senate_race_by_23_points

Kaine +23 (lots of undecideds)

Democrats +19 on the GCB in the state

 

Don't nominate a racist.

[Brisketexan 104465]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah well, easy for you to say. You’re probably not surrounded by racist morons in your community that hold positions of power. 

Dude....I live in Texas.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Dude....I live in Texas.

Rural Texas? 

[Brisketexan 104465]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Rural Texas? 

Texas Texas.  The one with Abbott, Patrick, Paxton, and Miller as our statewide leaders.  In Texas, you don't have to go out to the country to find moronic leadership.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah well, easy for you to say. You’re probably not surrounded by racist morons in your community that hold positions of power. 

I'm surrounded by racist morons in my COUNTRY that hold positions of power.

[Bateshorn 9882]

2 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

Yeah, I think the takeaway is that the Dems are still solidly on track to take the House, but we're not at the R nightmare scenario where the gerrymanders domino against them.  Yet. 

Uh,  this is a huge problem for the GOP.  Anything GOP+10 and down is in deep trouble.  There are at least 70 seats that fit this category(more I think).   I think losing 30 is probably a good night for the GOP.

If Pelosi were to announce she wasn’t running for Speaker, I think it could be Katy Bar The Door.

More importantly,  it looks like a lot of Dem governors are going to be elected in purple states, wiping out a significant portion of the GOPs redistricting gains in 2020

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Bateshorn

[Biff Tannen 45477]

I'm starting to think even if the Dems win it all back, we are already too deep.  It would take MASSIVE repeals and rollbacks to undo the fuckery that has already been done in less than two years by this admin.  I don't think anyone has the stones to do it.

[Js1 85056]

11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm starting to think even if the Dems win it all back, we are already too deep.  It would take MASSIVE repeals and rollbacks to undo the fuckery that has already been done in less than two years by this admin.  I don't think anyone has the stones to do it.

Honestly, 2019-21 is about having investigative and subpoena power.  Actual oversight.  It'll be impossible to repeal/rollback anything without the Senate and he won't sign what Miller tells him not to.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Honestly, 2019-21 is about having investigative and subpoena power.  Actual oversight.  It'll be impossible to repeal/rollback anything without the Senate and he won't sign what Miller tells him not to.

Oh, so we are fucked.  As I thought.  Brisket pour the whiskey!

[Ghost of LL 15348]

59 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There's only one clear indication:

Heads.  On pikes.  "We almost got him!" is meaningless.

Heads.  On pikes.  That's all that matters.

My take: the same as it has been.  Nobody is coming to save the Republic.  We're intent on self-immolation, and we'll just add logs to the fire.  A random spritz of water here and there ain't gonna do shit.  We've chosen our path, now we're committed to it.

You know--for such a smart motherfucker, I don't understand how you're so bad at math.  To wit:

• There's really no basis at this point to anticipate anything less than a swing toward the Democrats of 8 points over their performance in 2016.  That's consistent with every piece of data we have--special elections, the generic ballot, polls in individual races, etc.  And 2016 was an election in which the Democratic candidate won by 1%, so we're talking a nationwide popular vote of D+9%, at a bare minimum.  That's more than enough to take the House.
• Look at this district--it's 88% white.  That means that even if we assume that every single non-white voter voted R, the R's only got 57% of the white vote.  That's not great.  Trump won whites by 21 points.  OH12 cuts that by a third.  And that's not a district in which you would expect to see that much loss among whites.  It's a heavily exurban and rural district.  But that outcome reflects the loss of suburban educated whites--it's a real thing that is going to cost Republicans a large number of seats.
• By the way--88% white is very white.  There are only about 60 House districts that are as white or whiter.

But forget the math for a second, and let's look back at our experience in politics.  We both know that waves build as they get closer to shore.  In 1994, nobody ever considered WA04 would be a swing district.  But in the last two weeks of the campaign, the floor fell out from Democrats and Tom Foley was out on his ass.  The same thing happened in 2010--everybody knew it was going to be a good Republican year, but nobody saw 63 seats coming.

The Democrats are going to take the House.  There's no question about that.  The results last night only confirmed what all the other data points have been showing.  And the high likelihood is that they won't take it by just one or two seats, though in the House the majority is all that matters.

But the results from last night should also make one more confident about the Senate.  There is a national shift, and those Senate races don't behave in a vacuum.  The Democratic candidates are likely to win in Nevada and Arizona, and Bredesen has to be favored in Tennessee.  And as of right now, where do you see the Republicans picking up two seats (even conceding Indiana)?  Florida?  Ok--maybe, but that really tosses away the Republican dreams of a B1G Empire from not so long ago.

And anyway--don't the Democrats really just need the House?  Do they really need the Senate?  The House gives them the platform for the hearings they want to conduct.  It gives them an avenue to obstruct practically everything Trump wants to do.  And it creates new bodies on the bench--something the Democrats desperately need.

2018 is going to be a great year for Democrats.  Your argument to the contrary is really naught but schtick at this point.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Texas Texas.  The one with Abbott, Patrick, Paxton, and Miller as our statewide leaders.  In Texas, you don't have to go out to the country to find moronic leadership.

Right, I get that but I attend meetings surrounded by people that have completely checked out.  These are the leaders in my community and all they can talk about is suppporting the Republicans and Trump. They’re all boomers and watch nothing but Fox News.  I guess I’ll just have to wait for them to die off because confronting them head on would not be in my best interests.  I do challenge them from time to time but that usually doesn’t produce much of anything positive.

This past weekend for 30 minutes, I sat down with the democrat challenging the republican incumbent in my district and donated to his campaign but I know he has virtually no shot. 

It sucks.

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

46 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You're wrong.

November is going to be a bloodbath.

Is sunshine pumping for the Democrats the only play in your book?

[Dahobbs 17420]

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If you're arguing from a position of facts and logic...you don't convince morons and racists.  You don't convert morons and racists.

You crush them.  It's like arguing with a toddler.  Quit wasting your fucking time, spank his ass, and put him in the corner.

I was somewhat concerned the analogy was going to be completed by saying you crush toddlers. 

[Ghost of LL 15348]

13 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Is sunshine pumping for the Democrats the only play in your book?

So tell me--what data point can you identify that indicates to you that this isn't going to be a very good year for Democrats?

[Js1 85056]

13 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

So tell me--what data point can you identify that indicates to you that this isn't going to be a very good year for Democrats?

But...but...they didn't win a seat that was a 14 point advantage for the Republicans.

They lost by a fucking point.  In a seat that they shouldn't be competitive in and, frankly, isn't the type of seat they are trying to flip.  They're trying to flip the 70 seats that are more favorable to them.  They shouldn't even have been within 7 points.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Js1

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

13 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

So tell me--what data point can you identify that indicates to you that this isn't going to be a very good year for Democrats?

That's irrelevant to my point. Study his body of work. 

[Brisketexan 104465]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I was somewhat concerned the analogy was going to be completed by saying you crush toddlers. 

 

24 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

You know--for such a smart motherfucker, I don't understand how you're so bad at math.  To wit:

• There's really no basis at this point to anticipate anything less than a swing toward the Democrats of 8 points over their performance in 2016.  That's consistent with every piece of data we have--special elections, the generic ballot, polls in individual races, etc.  And 2016 was an election in which the Democratic candidate won by 1%, so we're talking a nationwide popular vote of D+9%, at a bare minimum.  That's more than enough to take the House.
• Look at this district--it's 88% white.  That means that even if we assume that every single non-white voter voted R, the R's only got 57% of the white vote.  That's not great.  Trump won whites by 21 points.  OH12 cuts that by a third.  And that's not a district in which you would expect to see that much loss among whites.  It's a heavily exurban and rural district.  But that outcome reflects the loss of suburban educated whites--it's a real thing that is going to cost Republicans a large number of seats.
• By the way--88% white is very white.  There are only about 60 House districts that are as white or whiter.

But forget the math for a second, and let's look back at our experience in politics.  We both know that waves build as they get closer to shore.  In 1994, nobody ever considered WA04 would be a swing district.  But in the last two weeks of the campaign, the floor fell out from Democrats and Tom Foley was out on his ass.  The same thing happened in 2010--everybody knew it was going to be a good Republican year, but nobody saw 63 seats coming.

The Democrats are going to take the House.  There's no question about that.  The results last night only confirmed what all the other data points have been showing.  And the high likelihood is that they won't take it by just one or two seats, though in the House the majority is all that matters.

But the results from last night should also make one more confident about the Senate.  There is a national shift, and those Senate races don't behave in a vacuum.  The Democratic candidates are likely to win in Nevada and Arizona, and Bredesen has to be favored in Tennessee.  And as of right now, where do you see the Republicans picking up two seats (even conceding Indiana)?  Florida?  Ok--maybe, but that really tosses away the Republican dreams of a B1G Empire from not so long ago.

And anyway--don't the Democrats really just need the House?  Do they really need the Senate?  The House gives them the platform for the hearings they want to conduct.  It gives them an avenue to obstruct practically everything Trump wants to do.  And it creates new bodies on the bench--something the Democrats desperately need.

2018 is going to be a great year for Democrats.  Your argument to the contrary is really naught but schtick at this point.

You know that I count one thing -- Wins.

I don't care if you're winning every objection, pretrial hearing, etc.  When it comes time for the final judgment, THAT'S when I count the W or L.  Moral victories are for aggies.

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I was somewhat concerned the analogy was going to be completed by saying you crush toddlers. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

It's not about moral victories.  It's about predicting actual results in November based on data from lead-up elections. 

[Brisketexan 104465]

12 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

It's not about moral victories.  It's about predicting actual results in November based on data from lead-up elections. 

I've had enough of predictions.  The current electoral atmosphere is too fucking volatile and unpredictable.  I'll wait till the game is actually played.  Getting one's hopes up now is utter folly.

[Ghost of LL 15348]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You know that I count one thing -- Wins.

I don't care if you're winning every objection, pretrial hearing, etc.  When it comes time for the final judgment, THAT'S when I count the W or L.  Moral victories are for aggies.

Yes--and this was a lousy discovery motion.  The trial is in November.  And is there any reason why Democrats shouldn't be confident of that outcome?

[Brisketexan 104465]

14 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yes--and this was a lousy discovery motion.  The trial is in November.  And is there any reason why Democrats shouldn't be confident of that outcome?

Gee, why oh why would the Dems have ANY reason to think they could lose elections that they should win......

Oh, yeah.....I rememember....

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

14 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And is there any reason why Democrats shouldn't be confident of that outcome?

Sorry, couldn't resist. 

[Js1 85056]

100,000 voters in the Midwest won't affect New Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, California, etc.  You know that, Brisket.

[Brisketexan 104465]

12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

100,000 voters in the Midwest won't affect New Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, California, etc.  You know that, Brisket.

Gerrymandered districts.

Purposeful disenfranchisement and purging of likely dem voters.

And the list goes on.

Hope is a drug.  Just say no to drugs.

We are the United States of Dumbfucks.  Whoever captures the Dumbfuck vote runs the show.  The GOP is the party of dumbfuckery.  Don't bet against the dumbfucks winning.  Never bet against the dumbfucks winning.

[Ghost of LL 15348]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Gee, why oh why would the Dems have ANY reason to think they could lose elections that they should win......

Oh, yeah.....I rememember....

Jesus Christ--for what office did they nominate Hillary this time?

[Brisketexan 104465]

11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Jesus Christ--for what office did they nominate Hillary this time?

Don't need a Hillary to demonize when you have the threat of a "Speaker Pelosi" to wave around and say "oogah boogah!" about.

[Ghost of LL 15348]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Don't need a Hillary to demonize when you have the threat of a "Speaker Pelosi" to wave around and say "oogah boogah!" about.

And what happens when she announces that she's not going to run for speaker?

[lemonlime 5503]

11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And what happens when she announces that she's not going to run for speaker?

They'll demonize Maxine Waters, Alexandra Ocasio, or Elizabeth Warren.  

[Brisketexan 104465]

12 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And what happens when she announces that she's not going to run for speaker?

Like facts matter?  Have  you been paying ANY attention?

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Hope is a drug says the guy who willfully ignores all objective data to predict doom and gloom.  Every accusation is a confession. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

13 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And what happens when she announces that she's not going to run for speaker?

it will be Maxine Waters, Goofy Pocahontas, or some other minority they have lined up to vilify. 

They're good at this.