Election 2018 Thread (An Adult Finally Has the Gavel)

[PleaseBlitz]

Here is the Emerson poll on Wisconsin.  https://www.emerson.edu/sites/default/files/Files/Academics/ecp-pr-wi-7.28.18.pdf

Quote

Evers appears in a strong position for a General Election run against incumbent Governor Scott Walker. Evers leads 48% to 41%, with 7% undecided. One variable that could factor in to the Evers lead is Governor Walker's popularity in the state is underwater, with a 40% approval and 46% disapproval. Independents disapprove of Walker 47% to 36%, and break for Evers over Walker 47% to 34%.

 

 

Not as big a lead as last week's NBC/Marist poll, but still a solid lead for Evers.  

[Larry]

2 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

What does that mean in 2020?  Will voters vote for Ds again if they have nothing to show for it?

 

I'm not really sure it would be fair for the voters to punish a Dem Party who failed to accomplish much, when they (hypothetically) have a slim majority in the House, and are minorities everywhere else.  

 

Although we both know that the voters have been known to hand out blame/credit to political parties who don't deserve it.  It happens.  

 

I suppose it's conceivable that a majority-Dem House could pass some "show votes" on things that they know won't go any further.  (In fact, some of them would be counting on it not going further.)  (See: several of Paul Ryan's House "budgets".)  

 

Maybe some kind of legal recognition for Dreamers.  That would be a political payoff for the Dems, and safe, since they know it will never even get a vote in Skippy's Senate.  I could see that happening.  (I could also see the Dems not being unified enough to pass it.  They are the Dems, after all.)  

 

[PleaseBlitz]

3 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

What does that mean in 2020?  Will voters vote for Ds again if they have nothing to show for it?

 

Can you explain this further?  What do you mean by "nothing to show for it"?  Assuming Dems get the House but not the Senate, Dems still won't be in a position to push an agenda, but they'll be able to stop a lot of Trump's bull****, which is a pretty big deal.

 

To answer your question, yes, I think Dems will come out in droves to vote against Trump, which is the same thing as voting for Dems.  The big fear at this point is, like 2016, people that should vote Dem but stay home because their favored candidate doesn't win the primary and they are idiot crybabies.  That's a worry 2+ years down the line tho.  

[Kilmer17]

What bull**** can they stop?  It's not like he and Congress are passing a bunch of laws.  Can they stop his tweets?  His meetings?  His insanity?

 

They will be able to investigate.  Which is something the public absolutely loves in lieu of governing.

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I'm not really sure it would be fair for the voters to punish a Dem Party who failed to accomplish much, when they (hypothetically) have a slim majority in the House, and are minorities everywhere else.  

 

Although we both know that the voters have been known to hand out blame/credit to political parties who don't deserve it.  It happens.  

 

I suppose it's conceivable that a majority-Dem House could pass some "show votes" on things that they know won't go any further.  (In fact, some of them would be counting on it not going further.)  (See: several of Paul Ryan's House "budgets".)  

 

Maybe some kind of legal recognition for Dreamers.  That would be a political payoff for the Dems, and safe, since they know it will never even get a vote in Skippy's Senate.  I could see that happening.  (I could also see the Dems not being unified enough to pass it.  They are the Dems, after all.)  

 

 

I could see one or two R's that cross the aisle on certain votes, like on Dreamers.  If there is a blue wave, some small number of senators in swing states will start distancing themselves from Trump.  

[Larry]

13 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I could see one or two R's that cross the aisle on certain votes, like on Dreamers.  If there is a blue wave, some small number of senators in swing states will start distancing themselves from Trump.  

 

A bill concerning Dreamers is a poison vote for the GOP.  

 

It would be like voting on closing the "gun show loophole".  It would force every single R (and several Ds) to choose between.

 

1)  Voting against something that's supported by 92% of the voters.

2)  Or voting against the NRA.  

 

No Republican has the guts to make that choice.  Therefore, the only way they can save themselves, is to never allow such a proposal to come to a vote.  

 

Pretty sure that voting on the Dreamers is in the same category.  Any way they vote, it's likely to cost them their job.  

 

[PleaseBlitz]

25 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

A bill concerning Dreamers is a poison vote for the GOP.  

 

It would be like voting on closing the "gun show loophole".  It would force every single R (and several Ds) to choose between.

 

1)  Voting against something that's supported by 92% of the voters.

2)  Or voting against the NRA.  

 

No Republican has the guts to make that choice.  Therefore, the only way they can save themselves, is to never allow such a proposal to come to a vote.  

 

Pretty sure that voting on the Dreamers is in the same category.  Any way they vote, it's likely to cost them their job.  

 

 

Yea, you are probably right.  McConnell may be a ****head, but he's good at his job.  

[DogofWar1]

Since this seems to be where the bigfoot talk is concentrated:

 

 

 

[88Comrade2000]

7 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

You are constantly one of the best political analysts here (though a bit hyperbolic at times, maybe on purpose).  But this is probably the best thing you've written in a while.

 

I have no doubt that the Dems make huge gains.  I think it's likely they take the house and possible they take the senate.  

 

But what happens the day after that?

I go back and forth on 2018.  Some days I think the Dems win big, other days I think they barely win or fall short.

 

Today: 7/30/18: I feel the Dems get the 23 seats they need to take the house.  They end up with just a narrow margin, either just 23 seats or 25-26 seats. I think in  the Senate GOP either picks up a seat or losses 1 seat. Either way; the story here is that the Dems don't get wiped out.  The favorable map for the GOP fails to translate into huge gains for them.   I think the Dems do wins some governorships and state legislatures; as they start to erase the 2010 disaster.

 

What direction does the party go after the election. That is what 2020 will be about.  The progressive base wants to go full Bernie.  If the nominee is Bernie or a Berniesque candidate; they will lose in 2020.  The country isn't ready for full progressive agenda.  Free college? Guaranteed income/job?  Healthcare for all?  Sounds  great but how do you pay for all that.  If the Dems don't nominate a progressive candidate; will the base stay home or vote for Trump, third party?

 

Also, impeachment.  I think there's enough there to impeach Trump. Impeaching him will not lead to his removal; there aren't the votes for that.  Also, the impeachment is likely to go against the Dems in 2020.  Impeaching Trump leads to even more support for him in 2020 and thus his reelection.  The GOP didn't do well by impeaching Clinton.

 

Impeachment and the battle for Democrats soul; will tell us whether or not they even have a shot  in 2020.  Right now, I say Trump gets reelected; even with proof of him colluding with Russia and him being a traitor.

 

Of course, 2020 is long way from now; so my views will change plenty of times.

 

[FanboyOf91]

 

[FanboyOf91]

Still can't believe Putnam is toast.

[FanboyOf91]

If Trump hadn't won in 2016, the Dems would have gotten creamed this year.

 

 

[Major Harris]

20 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

 

Maybe it's just me but id have a real problem trusting anyone who voted for Trump. That's historic levels of poor judgement. That's said, he'd be the closer of the candidates who would match my views so I'd have voted for him if I could.

 

I'd be curious how the folks will vote but I try not to talk WV politics with them. Even the Dems there are largely Republicans. 

 

Also..Runaway Beer Truck (it has to be said when Schmidt's name is dropped).

 

 

People make mistakes.  It’d be foolish to hold one vote against him while he champions worker rights, education, medical marijuana and other things we should be focusing on.  He doesn’t take money from energy companies.  That’s a ****ing unicorn in WV. 

[twa]

[PleaseBlitz]

 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

I updated my voter registration yesterday from L to D.

 

Libertarian seems to going extreme conservative. Its not the "live and let live" granola movement their "legalize weed" platform makes it out to be. Or may be attractive to some 18 year old college hippie who only equates libertarian with weed.

 

The real kicker is abortion. Libertarians thinks people should be free in absolute terms, including stores being free to discriminate against anyone for any reason, including race. Govt cant force someone to have a drivers license to drive etc. 

 

So, obviously, libertarians very strongly oppose govt mandates on what a person can do with their own body, right? Nope. They decide that issue is a "states right" issue .. so the dont offend their uber racist backwoods sovereign citizen brigade.

[FanboyOf91]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

I updated my voter registration yesterday from L to D.

 

Libertarian seems to going extreme conservative. Its not the "live and let live" granola movement their "legalize weed" platform makes it out to be. Or may be attractive to some 18 year old college hippie who only equates libertarian with weed.

 

The real kicker is abortion. Libertarians thinks people should be free in absolute terms, including stores being free to discriminate against anyone for any reason, including race. Govt cant force someone to have a drivers license to drive etc. 

 

So, obviously, libertarians very strongly oppose govt mandates on what a person can do with their own body, right? Nope. They decide that issue is a "states right" issue .. so the dont offend their uber racist backwoods sovereign citizen brigade.

One thing I have found when researching Libertarians is they are diverse in their thoughts.  I read, talked to, went to meetings, etc a lot of Libertarians during the 2016 election.  They were not shy about saying "I defer from the party on topic X" and could actually have an adult discussion about it.  Unlike the GOP and Dems where it is too the party line or get killed.  Just something to think about.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

6 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

One thing I have found when researching Libertarians is they are diverse in their thoughts.  I read, talked to, went to meetings, etc a lot of Libertarians during the 2016 election.  They were not shy about saying "I defer from the party on topic X" and could actually have an adult discussion about it.  Unlike the GOP and Dems where it is too the party line or get killed.  Just something to think about.

 

The Libertarian Party is a landfill.  Like most landfills, there’s a lot of variety in there.  

[visionary]

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[PleaseBlitz]

https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/three-fronts-2018-election

 

The Three Fronts of the 2018 Election

 

Quote

Three themes seem to be developing in this 2018 midterm election. First, the challenge for Republicans of holding onto their House majority is looking increasingly difficult. Second, the fight over the Senate looks very, very tough for Democrats—while the cliché is that demographics are destiny, in Senate races in recent years, geography is destiny. Third, the fight in the states over governorships and state legislative posts is tough for Republicans, specifically control of legislative chambers and with that, the advantage in drawing congressional and state legislative redistricting maps in 2021.

 

As Democrats learned in 2010, a bad year in the last midterm election before redistricting is the defeat that keeps on defeating, for the next decade. The question is whether it will be bad for Republicans, really bad, or really, really bad. With the House on two-year terms, all but two governorships and most legislative seats on the four-year plan, and the Senate with six-year terms, each of the three arenas are on very different cycles, creating distinctly varying dynamics. But midterms for presidential parties are almost uniformly bad.

 

The House, with its overall results the most sensitive to national moods and trends, looks awfully tough for Republicans. There are an enormous number of Republican seats in jeopardy with very few opportunities for the GOP to offset their losses by grabbing Democratic seats. In The Cook Political Report’s latest House ratings, examining every district from the 1st District of Alabama through Wyoming’s at-large seat, 10 Republican seats are rated either Leaning or Likely Democratic—in other words, probably turnover districts; an ample down payment, given that Democrats need a net gain of 23 to take a majority. Conversely, there is only a single Democratic seat that is in either the Lean or Likely Republican column. In the Toss-Up column, there are 24 Republican-held seats and only two Democratic seats. While Democrats have two of their own seats (both open) in the Lean Democratic column, Republicans have 25 of their own seats that are just Lean Republican.

 

More at link.

[China]

Yes, Bigfoot Erotica Is Absolutely a Thing

 

For all the peculiarities of the last several years of United States politics, few could have expected to see Bigfoot pornography at the center of a contentious race for a U.S. House of Representatives seat. Over the weekend, Leslie ****burn, a Democratic candidate for Virginia’s 5th Congressional District, accused her Republican opponent, Denver Riggleman, of being “caught on camera campaigning with a white supremacist,” a reference to his recent appearance with Isaac Smith, head of the white nationalist group Unity & Security for America, at a Republican campaign office in the state.

 

Openly associating with racists has become pretty standard for Republicans, which perhaps explains why ****burn added, “Now he has been exposed as a devotee of Bigfoot erotica.” Accompanying the tweet was a screenshot of a post from Riggleman’s Instagram page, showing a drawing of Bigfoot with its genitals obscured by a censor bar.

 

Uh. What?

 

After her initial Bigfoot erotica tweet, ****burn posted another screenshot from Riggleman’s Instagram (which has since been set to private) of Bigfoot with a censor bar, only this one with Riggleman’s face superimposed.

 

“My ‘buddies’ thought this pic was fitting for my birthday next week, and to celebrate my new book release in about a month or 2… ‘Mating Habits of Bigfoot and Why Women Want Him,’” Riggleman’s caption read.

 

****burn’s campaign manager, Louise Bruce, addressed the matter with utter seriousness in an interview with The Daily Progress. “Leslie has been traveling throughout the district meeting with real people about real issues that matter to them,” Bruce said. “Meanwhile, Mr. Riggleman is home scrubbing his social media of ‘Bigfoot erotica’ and who knows what else.”

 

Click on the link for the full article