2018 US Elections

Raoul said:
Click to expand...


While it is true that the age gap is large and trending larger, using 2014 as a starting point is misleading since it gives the idea of a monotonic increase. This analysis of exit poll data from the 80s shows that 2014 was a weird year - I'd guess that general turnout and youth turnout was so low that it didn't really reflect the partisan divide among young people. Instead if you look at 2012 and 2008, you see a roughly similar division as in 2016. In fact the youth vote for both Obama elections was far more Democratic than for Clinton, but the divide was less pronounced because old people, especially in 08, were less Republican.

2018 does stand out, but it might be an exceptional midterm driven by hatred of Trump rather than the sign of a new massive age divide.
 
I don't know anything about Tim Ryan, but Nancy Pelosi did have a fairly progressive voting record before (and after) she became speaker. What was bad were her leadership skills. Ryan isn't even a member of the progressive caucus (which Pelosi was). It doesn't bode well for his politics.
 
A worry now is how many voters in Broward county decide to not bother voting in future elections, as its now evident that the people running their elections are complete morons.
 
How many seats have the Dems picked up so far and how many are we looking at?
 
Adisa said:
How many seats have the Dems picked up so far and how many are we looking at?
Click to expand...

House
Dems: 231 (38 flips)
GOP: 200 (2 flips)
To come: 4 seats which are leaning blue apparently.

Senate
Dems: 47 (2 flips)
GOP: 51 (3 flips)
To come: 2 seats, Scott vs Nelson in Florida and Espy vs Hyde-Smith in Mississippi. Both are close but I'd be pleasantly surprised if either go to the democrats.
 
Pexbo said:
House
Dems: 231 (38 flips)
GOP: 200 (2 flips)
To come: 4 seats which are leaning blue apparently.

Senate
Dems: 47 (2 flips)
GOP: 51 (3 flips)
To come: 2 seats, Scott vs Nelson in Florida and Espy vs Hyde-Smith in Mississippi. Both are close but I'd be pleasantly surprised if either go to the democrats.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
 
Pexbo said:
House
Dems: 231 (38 flips)
GOP: 200 (2 flips)
To come: 4 seats which are leaning blue apparently.

Senate
Dems: 47 (2 flips)
GOP: 51 (3 flips)
To come: 2 seats, Scott vs Nelson in Florida and Espy vs Hyde-Smith in Mississippi. Both are close but I'd be pleasantly surprised if either go to the democrats.
Click to expand...
Espy vs Hyde-Smith is not close at all. The only reason why Hyde-Smith didn't win in the first round is because Mississippi (in addition to having a stupid name) allows multiple candidates from a party to candidate and then if no one reaches 50%, the top two go in the second round. The second Republican was well into double digits, and more than likely, the vast majority of those votes will go for Hyde-Smith.
 
Revan said:
Espy vs Hyde-Smith is not close at all. The only reason why Hyde-Smith didn't win in the first round is because Mississippi (in addition to having a stupid name) allows multiple candidates from a party to candidate and then if no one reaches 50%, the top two go in the second round. The second Republican was well into double digits, and more than likely, the vast majority of those votes will go for Hyde-Smith.
Click to expand...

She’s been making an absolute dick out of herself which has the potential to turn off moderates and independents and galvanise the democrats.
 
Pexbo said:
She’s been making an absolute dick out of herself which has the potential to turn off moderates and independents and galvanise the democrats.
Click to expand...
It is a deep red state, it won't happen. I know that it happened in Alabama, but Roy Moore was special even for a Republican.
 
Revan said:
It is a deep red state, it won't happen. I know that it happened in Alabama, but Roy Moore was special even for a Republican.
Click to expand...

And she’s making all the same mistakes he did.

I agree with you, she’s likely to win it but I think it will be closer than you suggest.
 
Adisa said:
Click to expand...


Meanwhile:

North Carolina: Democrats won more than 50% of the vote for less than a quarter of house seats (10 - 3)
Wisconsin: Democrats won more than 50% of the vote for just over a third of house seats. (5 - 3)
Pennsylvania *: Democrats won by 10% but only managed an equal share of house seats (9 - 9)
Michigan: Democrats won by 8% but only managed an equal share of house seats. (7 - 7)
Arizona: Democrats won more than 50% of the vote but only 45% of districts. (5-4)

In the 12 states in which the statewide vote was 10 points or closer the Dems got less than their fair share in 9 and more than their fair share in 1 (Iowa**). Only in Colorado and Florida were the allocations of seats equitable.

* And this is after the state drawn maps had been thrown out for gerrymandering.
** The reason they got more than their fair share in Iowa is that it is small and the districts themselves are very swingy. Last time out Republicans got more than their fair share.
 
Pexbo said:
House
Dems: 231 (38 flips)
GOP: 200 (2 flips)
To come: 4 seats which are leaning blue apparently.

Senate
Dems: 47 (2 flips)
GOP: 51 (3 flips)
To come: 2 seats, Scott vs Nelson in Florida and Espy vs Hyde-Smith in Mississippi. Both are close but I'd be pleasantly surprised if either go to the democrats.
Click to expand...

Nate Silver was accurate.

I think I remember 39 being the average flip. So we may end up with 42.
 
Red Dreams said:
Nate Silver was accurate.

I think I remember 39 being the average flip. So we may end up with 42.
Click to expand...
He was really good, as usual. Even in Senate he predicted a +1 for Republicans (technically it was around +0.6-0.7) while the election brought a +2 (in all likelihood) but for a poll that is still very good.
 
For First Act in Power, Democrats Consider Making Their Own Agenda Impossible to Pass
This week, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi unveiled a list of new procedural rules that her caucus intends to implement when the next Congress is seated. Most of these measures are unobjectionable “good government” reforms. But one of them would create a new — and all-but-insurmountable — obstacle to the passage of many of the policies that the Democratic Party claims to support.

The rule, proposed by Pelosi and Massachusetts representative Richard Neal, would “require a three-fifths supermajority to raise individual income taxes on the lowest-earning 80 percent of taxpayers.”
...
Equating support for middle-class families — with opposition to increasing their tax rates — is a conservative project, which Democrats have no business advancing. If the party wishes to establish structural barriers to policies that would hurt the middle class, why not require a three-fifths majority to cut Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security?
...
All this would be a bit less problematic if the Democratic Party had overcome its allergy to deficit spending. But it hasn’t: In addition to forbidding tax increases on the bottom 80 percent, Pelosi has vowed to honor the “pay as you go” rule, which requires the House to fully finance any and all new government spending.
Taken together, these two requirements could make Medicare for All impossible to pass out of the House.
...
When voters went to the polls earlier this month, 123 House Democrats, and many of the party’s House candidates, had pledged to support Medicare for All. If the new Democratic majority decides to make that goal more difficult to achieve — as its first act upon taking office — then it will recklessly betray many of the people whose votes, dollars, phone calls, and door-knocking put them into power.
Click to expand...


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018...majority-rule-for-tax-hikes-on-bottom-80.html
 
Robert Kuttner said:
You kind of expect this lame spinning from the Journal. Far more insidious is the corporate Democrat spin machine called Third Way.

To hear this band of Wall Street Democrats tell it, centrist Democrats had a great night, while progressives were losers. This selective use of statistics has all the intellectual honesty of an offering prospectus for subprime derivatives. Third Way bragged that 23 of its endorsed candidates were among those who flipped Republican seats. Yes, but in fact many of those were substantive progressives, including Sharice Davids (Kansas), Jason Crow (Colorado), Anne Kirkpatrick (Arizona) and Abigail Spanberger (Virginia). As a House member, even Beto O’Rourke (!) was part of the supposedly centrist New Democrat Coalition...

Here’s the point. The grassroots energy is clearly with progressives. And if the Democrats can win in Trump country by running progressives, why on earth should they run Wall Street-friendly centrists, even if centrists can also sometimes win? Progressives are more likely to win back Trump voters and more likely to address the deep-seated economic frustrations that incubate Trumpism, and more likely to bridge over schisms of race that otherwise fragment the Democratic coalition.

The 2018 midterms bode well for 2020, not just for a big Democratic victory but ― just as importantly ― for a progressive victory.
Click to expand...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...be9a4cce4b044bbb1a6c979?utm_source=reddit.com

Pelosi still refuses to support single-payer enhanced “Medicare for all.” As on many other issues, she—and others, such as the more corporate-friendly House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer—are clinging to timeworn, Wall Street-friendly positions against powerful political winds generated by years of grassroots activism.

Increasingly, such leadership is isolated from the party it claims to lead. Yet the progressive base is having more and more impact. As a Vox headline proclaimed, more than a year ago, “The stunning Democratic shift on single-payer: In 2008, no leading Democratic presidential candidate backed single-payer. In 2020, all of them might.” The Medicare for All Caucus now lists 76 House members.

Any progressive should emphatically reject Pelosi’s current embrace of a “pay-go” rule that would straitjacket spending for new social programs by requiring offset tax hikes or budget cuts. Her position is even more outrageous in view of her fervent support for astronomical military spending. Like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (who was just re-elected to his post), Pelosi went out of her way last winter to proclaim avid support for President Trump’s major increase in the already-bloated Pentagon budget, boasting: “In our negotiations, congressional Democrats have been fighting for increases in funding for defense.”
Click to expand...

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-pelosi-problem-runs-deep/
 
K Street will remain open.
Pelosi represents the Establishment to True Progressives.
If the Democrats do not run on single payer, free college Tuition and a dignified Retirement, expect 4 more years of Trump.

Bernie has already earned my vote.
It will take a True progressive to beat him to the nomination if that is possible. Honestly I cannot see it.

Any appointed corporate stooge will not get my vote.
 
Btw, why do especially Dems go to Iowa when they are considering to run for office?

I am a bit ignorant about that state. I thought it was just a red state with nothing significant to aid Dems in near future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.