Election 2018 Thread (An Adult Finally Has the Gavel)

[nonniey]

39 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Leaving the seat open for nearly a year? That's leaving that district without representation for a long time.  If that was a district that was majority GOP, they would probably have a special election sooner.

 

The could have the election when the primaries were held.  

..... 

That still doesn't explain why it is idiotic for a Republican Governor to not rush to get a Democrat back into congress.

[PleaseBlitz]

11 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

And that is why I'm not suggesting abandoning the issue, just softening the stance.  Many pro-gun people I know, and me personally, support stronger common sense restrictions.  Pretty much all the stuff I didn't call out in the last post were things that most of us support.  And it would still be additional gun control so no reason for Dem voters to get upset. 

 

I think the stance is pretty soft as is in general and, as i stated above, every competent D candidate is going to match their stance on the issue to reflect their specific district or state. There are no national elections in 2018. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

18 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I think the stance is pretty soft as is in general and, as i stated above, every competent D candidate is going to match their stance on the issue to reflect their specific district or state. There are no national elections in 2018. 

I think the bolded part is only partly true.  For the most part, they still have to toe the party line.  For example, you don't see them coming out saying they are against reinstating the Assault Weapon Ban (just picking a random example).  Either they support it or are mum on the issue.  To get my vote, they would have to be closer to my stance and because it is so important to me I need them to vocalize their stance.

 

Also of note is that it doesn't really matter what a candidate says because we all know they will toe the party line instead of doing what they think is right for their constituents. 

[PleaseBlitz]

Doug Jones did not, in any way, toe the party line. He toed the NRA line that we should enforce the laws already in place (ie, not do anything) and expand background checks to gun show sales (which i believe most gun owners support).  He also said he loves to hunt and owns a ****ton of guns. Because that was the no brainer position to take in a statewide election in Alabama.  Nobody has to adopt a position that is unpopular in their election. 

 

And it sounds like, depending on where you live, the Dems arent going to get your vote. Thats okay. Single issue anti gun control voters are not who they need, and in a lot of the toss up districts any votes gained by pandering to those types will not have a net gain  because it will decrease turnout among their base (who generally favor more gun control and are just about equally uncompromising on that issue).

[TheGreatBuzz]

25 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Doug Jones did not, in any way, toe the party line. He toed the NRA line that we should enforce the laws already in place (ie, not do anything) and expand background checks to gun show sales (which i believe most gun owners support).  He also said he loves to hunt and owns a ****ton of guns. Because that was the no brainer position to take in a statewide election in Alabama.  Nobody has to adopt a position that is unpopular in their election. 

 

And it sounds like, depending on where you live, the Dems arent going to get your vote. Thats okay. Single issue anti gun control voters are not who they need, and in a lot of the toss up districts any votes gained by pandering to those types will not have a net gain  because it will decrease turnout among their base (who generally favor more gun control and are just about equally uncompromising on that issue).

@PleaseBlitz  Maybe we are just talking past each other but I think your second paragraph is wrong for several reasons.

 

As for Jones, of course he couldn't be anti-gun.  He was in freaking Alabama.  And that is why I said "for the most part". 

 

Now there is a good chance that Dems could get my vote.  And seeing as how I am registered in FL, I think they would like it.  I'm not single issue voter, but it is an important issue for me.  There are other issues also.  And some I agree with the Dems on to varying degrees.  One, I was using gun control as an example of how the Left could gain some former GOP votes.  It isn't the only issue though.  Two, I've said several times that it isn't an issue of "anti gun control voters".  You aren't ever getting them.  It's for those of us who want SOME increases (or at least aren't against it even if they don't WANT it) just not as much as the current D platform states.  No reason that should decrease the base that much.  They would still be supporting increased gun control.  You can say that people like me aren't who they need but I think you are wrong.  Either you start working on getting people like me (middle of the road people, especially ones in swing states) or you stick with the current pitting the Left and Right rosters against each other and hoping more of your players show up.  How has that been working?

[PleaseBlitz]

Everyone thinks they are middle of the road and that their vote is like the critical tipping point. 

 

In most cases, Dems just need to run solid candidates and ride the anti-Trump wave to the House majority. They should avoid these culture war issues like the plague and run against Trump, tax cuts for billionaires and Republican’s inabilty to govern but for those tax cuts for the wealthy. Trump has a 58% unfavorable rating.  This is not just the people that arent Trump supporters, this is the % of people who actively dislike Trump. 58%.  Last time a President was that unpopular despite a good economy, W lost 30 seats. 

 

To answer your question about how it’s working out, given that the Democrat cruised to easy victories in VA and NJ, the VA statehouse elections were a historic shift despite awful gerrymandering and Alabama elected a Democrat senator, it’s working out very well recently and they should stick to that playbook of keeping the base fired up and turning out in huge numbers, not **** it up going after people inclined to vote R. 

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

26 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Everyone thinks they are middle of the road and that their vote is like the critical tipping point. 

 

In most cases, Dems just need to run solid candidates and ride the anti-Trump wave to the House majority. They should avoid these culture war issues like the plague and run against Trump, tax cuts for billionaires and Republican’s inabilty to govern but for those tax cuts for the wealthy. Trump has a 58% unfavorable rating.  This is not just the people that arent Trump supporters, this is the % of people who actively dislike Trump. 58%.  Last time a President was that unpopular despite a good economy, W lost 30 seats. 

 

To answer your question about how it’s working out, given that the Democrat cruised to easy victories in VA and NJ, the VA statehouse elections were a historic shift despite awful gerrymandering and Alabama elected a Democrat senator, it’s working out very well recently and they should stick to that playbook of keeping the base fired up and turning out in huge numbers, not **** it up going after people inclined to vote R. 

 

 

But I am actually middle of the road.  That's why people on both sides here disagree with me.  And I vote in Florida, a critical tipping point. 

 

I didn't really watch the VA or NJ election closely so I can't speak too much on that.  But I wouldn't tout the AL win too much.  You BARELY beat out a child molester.  Like I said, you can either rely on lining up your rosters and see who is more excited or start focusing on stealing from your opponents roster.    Sure, your roster is excited because Trump is an epic train wreck.  What is your plan when you don't have that to ride anymore?

[PleaseBlitz]

17 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

But I am actually middle of the road.  That's why people on both sides here disagree with me.  And I vote in Florida, a critical tipping point. 

 

I didn't really watch the VA or NJ election closely so I can't speak too much on that.  But I wouldn't tout the AL win too much.  You BARELY beat out a child molester.  Like I said, you can either rely on lining up your rosters and see who is more excited or start focusing on stealing from your opponents roster.    Sure, your roster is excited because Trump is an epic train wreck.  What is your plan when you don't have that to ride anymore?

 

Im a solid liberal and people on both sides here disagree with me all the time. I was recently called “an Ayn Rand type” in a thread about video game transactions. 

 

Beating out a child molester in Alabama is still a huge deal when said child molester had the full backing of the conservative media and the President who had won the state the previous year by 30 points. But sure, Roy Moore was one of the most flawed candidates i can remember. That said, Rs keep nominating crazy people for the sole reason that they are anti establishment who yak about draining the swamp. See “Chemtrail” Kelli Ward in AZ. The sane folks that take governance seriously are, almost by definition, part of the establishment wing. Bannon has a bunch of yahoos lined up to challenge competent conservatives, and that bodes well for the left. 

 

And Virginia is the most consequential election since Trump took office. A solid conservative and good candidate in terms of resume and demeanor, got routed in a swing state that had a Republican governor as recently as 2014. And top of that, the House of Delegates election resulted in the biggest net pickup since 1899. That is not a typo, 1899. Turnout was the highest in 20 years and the increase voted almost entirely for Northam. The local experts have near unanimously attributed it to voters rebuking Trump. https://wtop.com/virginia/2017/11/va-election-analysis-rebuke-trump-explains-democratic-wins/. What i think that shows is that typical swing states like VA, FLA and PA are going to lean left fairly heavily and that states that traditionally lean a bit right like Iowa will be the tossups. WVs senate seat is currently listed as a tossup in the Cook Report because the incumbant Democrat knows what issues not to touch (eg guns) and sticks to kitchen table issues. WV voted for Trump like 70/30, it was the state he won by the most. If I had to bet, it would be on the Dem, Joe Manchin, winning again. 

 

And i have no idea what the plan is post Trump. He’ll be around for 3 more election cycles. Hopefully by that time both the House and Senate are in Democrat hands along with half or more governors and state legislative bodies, and then after the census the congressional lines get drawn more fairly. Im not even looking at 2019 or 2020 yet, Im only concerned with 2018 and specifically the House. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I guess we have different opinions on what the future holds and what is the best path forward.  Only time will tell.  Still fun to discuss though.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

53 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

This is an excellent piece, thanks for posting.

[Bozo the kKklown]

Dems need to run against the super wealthy who are not paying their fair share. Make that the campaign plan from now until they start paying.

[Burgold]

5 hours ago, nonniey said:

That still doesn't explain why it is idiotic for a Republican Governor to not rush to get a Democrat back into congress.

If we want to put it in ideal terms versus party terms. Right now, Alabama is only getting half the representational power it deserves. Fifty percent of its voice and its ability to influence is on the sideline. Half of Alabama has been silenced.

 

Pretty idiotic.

 

In reality, it's not idiotic, but it is petty.

[twa]

Just now, Burgold said:

If we want to put it in ideal terms versus party terms. Right now, Alabama is only getting half the representational power it deserves. Fifty percent of its voice and its ability to influence is on the sideline. Half of Alabama has been silenced.

 

Pretty idiotic.

 

In reality, it's not idiotic, but it is petty.

 

aren't both seats being filled by a appointee?

[nonniey]

7 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

..... That said, Rs keep nominating crazy people for the sole reason that they are anti establishment who yak about draining the swamp. See “Chemtrail” Kelli Ward in AZ. The sane folks that take governance seriously are, almost by definition, part of the establishment wing. Bannon has a bunch of yahoos lined up to challenge competent conservatives, and that bodes well for the left........ 

 

I'd put my money on Martha McSally to defeat Ward in the primaries. and then sail to an easy win in the general. But you are right about what Bannon wants to do but he was weakened last week which may (hopefully) derail his plans for the upcoming primaries. 

[88Comrade2000]

13 hours ago, nonniey said:

That still doesn't explain why it is idiotic for a Republican Governor to not rush to get a Democrat back into congress.

No, for the GOP governor to keep the vacant isn't idiotic, if you look at from a partisan point of view.

 

It's idiotic, that the GOP governor is denying his citizens representation in congress in a timely manner; simply because that district is Democratic.

 

The American people are slowly seeing how corrupt the GOP is. What they will do to get power. To keep power.  To just ram through their legislation without doing the things you normally do when you bring up legislation.  Ram through judges, because they agree with your ideology; doesn't matter if they are competent or not. Etc...

 

Enjoy your time in control because the fall is coming; starting in 2018.  Now, it may take a whole a decade for the GOP to be completely defeated but they will. How many people that will be turned off from ever voting for the GOP; will increase during the Trump era. Whether that's 4 or 8 years of Trump.  Part that will be due to Trump but a large part of that will be the GOP themselves.  By the 2028, 2030 and 2032 elections; the GOP will be nothing but a minority fringe party.

 

S

[nonniey]

"........By the 2028, 2030 and 2032 elections; the GOP will be nothing but a minority fringe party."

 

And you and (and skinsmarydu) think that would be good thing?

[88Comrade2000]

14 minutes ago, nonniey said:

"........By the 2028, 2030 and 2032 elections; the GOP will be nothing but a minority fringe party."

 

And you and (and skinsmarydu) think that would be good thing?

Yes.  There will be viable alternative to whatever the Dem party becomes by then but it won't be the GOP.  The GOP is morally bankrupt as a party.

Honestly, I can see entire political landscape change during the 20's. 

 

There will be a left leaning Progressive party- probably the Dems.  There will be a right leaning Conservative party - probably whatever replaces the GOP. I do think there will be a Centrist Party.  

[skinsmarydu]

Hey, all I did was like an overall fantastic post. 

[nonniey]

1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Yes.  There will be viable alternative to whatever the Dem party becomes by then but it won't be the GOP.  The GOP is morally bankrupt as a party.

Honestly, I can see entire political landscape change during the 20's. 

 

There will be a left leaning Progressive party- probably the Dems.  There will be a right leaning Conservative party - probably whatever replaces the GOP. I do think there will be a Centrist Party.  

What you describe would be a victory by the Bannons and Hannity's. This "Conservative" (ain't Conservative at all imo)  party that would replace the GOP would a construction of Bannon's and would really be Populist Nationalists.

[visionary]

 

[Going Commando]

21 hours ago, nonniey said:

What you describe would be a victory by the Bannons and Hannity's. This "Conservative" (ain't Conservative at all imo)  party that would replace the GOP would a construction of Bannon's and would really be Populist Nationalists.

 

 I've got new for you, those people already run your party.

[Burgold]

46 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

 I've got new for you, those people already run your party.

Yeah, the only thing worse than the tilt of populist nationalism in the GOP is their horrible, short-sighted, burn the country down policies. Seriously, if you look at health reform and the tax bills, you might come to the conclusion that Congress is even more dangerous than Trump/Bannon/Moore.

[nonniey]

5 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

 I've got new for you, those people already run your party.

Yes and no in a sense that Trump is the President and he is a populist but most of the rest of the elected politicians are not, nor are most registered Republicans.

[88Comrade2000]

On 12/17/2017 at 12:46 PM, nonniey said:

What you describe would be a victory by the Bannons and Hannity's. This "Conservative" (ain't Conservative at all imo)  party that would replace the GOP would a construction of Bannon's and would really be Populist Nationalists.

Bannon isn't going to win much.  Trump may have ran as a right wing populist but everything he's done isn't really helping populism.  I think he got more of the populist vote on economics. His policies don't help his voters.

 

I think many of them may drift to the left wing populism of Bernie Sanders eventually, after they see Trump not doing jack for them.  His tax plan, will actually make it even more easier for companies to move overseas.