2018 Midterms

[elliseamos]

It’s been pretty amazing this morning to watch conservative after conservative not equate last nights loss with their own choices and actions as a party. It’s all “fundraising and get out the vote“ talk.

I'm on my phone, but would put the "everything is fine" comic here (feel free to delete my post and put the comic here instead).

[McParadigm]

The level of “pretty bad” here is impressive. A 20 point shift in a coal country district where the organization spent like maniacs and the president personally campaigned. They can’t afford to spend like this in 50 races at once, and there are nearly 100 races that were considered to be in more danger than this one.

[elliseamos]

The level of “pretty bad” here is impressive. A 20 point shift in a coal country district where the organization spent like maniacs and the president personally campaigned. They can’t afford to spend like this in 50 races at once, and there are nearly 100 races that were considered to be in more danger than this one.

Somewhere, alone, Hillary is plotting how to screw this up.

[McParadigm]

Poor Paul Ryan. His strategy was to create tax cuts that would bring in big donor money and make for easy election messaging. The money didn’t help at all, and the messaging fell flat.

[bada]

the messaging fell flat.

[McParadigm]

538 weighs in.

One special election is not enough to draw midterm conclusions from, but when it fits so clearly into an existing pattern, it’s safe to say something’s going on. Counting Tuesday’s result, Democratic candidates in federal special elections have now outperformed the normal partisan leans of their state or district by an average of 17 percentage points. In recent midterm election cycles, that number has tracked closely with the eventual national popular vote for the U.S. House.

The big-picture takeaway is this: If Democrats can win districts like Pennsylvania 18, they won’t need to stretch and scrape together a House majority. According to FiveThirtyEight’s partisan lean measure, 118 Republican-held districts nationwide are less red than the Pennsylvania 18th is. Of course, the entire country is unlikely to shift 22 points to the left in November the way the 18th did — and the country may not even shift the full 17 points implied by the aggregate of special-election results — but Republicans should still be very worried.

[bune]

The obvious response is to ban voting.

[McParadigm]

The obvious response is to ban voting.

The modern GOP approach has been to gift to donors, sell to the base, flirt with moderates, and suppress the rest.

Suppression is very likely to resurface in the coming months.

[4/5]

The obvious response is to ban voting.

The modern GOP approach has been to gift to donors, sell to the base, flirt with moderates, and suppress the rest.

Suppression is very likely to resurface in the coming months.

It backfired pretty badly in 2012 when Democrats did a pretty good job informing people about voter ID laws and other suppression tactics and minority voter turnout ending up being the highest ever and black voter turnout was higher than white turnout for the first time ever.

[wease]

Has it been called yet?

[Bi_3]

The level of “pretty bad” here is impressive. A 20 point shift in a coal country district where the organization spent like maniacs and the president personally campaigned. They can’t afford to spend like this in 50 races at once, and there are nearly 100 races that were considered to be in more danger than this one.

BUT, Lamb wasn't exactly running on the mainstream Dem platform. Former soldier, doesn't hate white people, anti-Pelosi, supporting miners... these are not exactly things that would fly in most blue states. You can't tie his performance to his party affiliation.

[epilogue]

The level of “pretty bad” here is impressive. A 20 point shift in a coal country district where the organization spent like maniacs and the president personally campaigned. They can’t afford to spend like this in 50 races at once, and there are nearly 100 races that were considered to be in more danger than this one.

BUT, Lamb wasn't exactly running on the mainstream Dem platform. Former soldier, doesn't hate white people, anti-Pelosi, supporting miners... these are not exactly things that would fly in most blue states. You can't tie his performance to his party affiliation.

But...

1. For universal health care
2. Against Trump’s tax cut
3. For expanded background checks
4. For stronger unions
5. Against cuts to Social Security
6. For a woman’s right to choose
7. For medical marijuana

[Bi_3]

The level of “pretty bad” here is impressive. A 20 point shift in a coal country district where the organization spent like maniacs and the president personally campaigned. They can’t afford to spend like this in 50 races at once, and there are nearly 100 races that were considered to be in more danger than this one.

BUT, Lamb wasn't exactly running on the mainstream Dem platform. Former soldier, doesn't hate white people, anti-Pelosi, supporting miners... these are not exactly things that would fly in most blue states. You can't tie his performance to his party affiliation.

But...

1. For universal health care
2. Against Trump’s tax cut
3. For expanded background checks
4. For stronger unions
5. Against cuts to Social Security
6. For a woman’s right to choose
7. For medical marijuana

Those are majority positions in PA (minus the healthcare)

[elliseamos]

The level of “pretty bad” here is impressive. A 20 point shift in a coal country district where the organization spent like maniacs and the president personally campaigned. They can’t afford to spend like this in 50 races at once, and there are nearly 100 races that were considered to be in more danger than this one.

BUT, Lamb wasn't exactly running on the mainstream Dem platform. Former soldier, doesn't hate white people, anti-Pelosi, supporting miners... these are not exactly things that would fly in most blue states. You can't tie his performance to his party affiliation.

But...

1. For universal health care
2. Against Trump’s tax cut
3. For expanded background checks
4. For stronger unions
5. Against cuts to Social Security
6. For a woman’s right to choose
7. For medical marijuana

I'm confused, Bi, why would "former soldier" equate to non-dem? Also, I think many in the party are anti-Pelosi. And, I'd be curious how many "blue states" are mining states anyway. Overall, just curious how much of your post was kidding.

[McParadigm]

If the positions you take had ever been more important than the D next to your name, these would have always been competitive districts for the last century. Dems always run moderates with some conservative talking points in them. Conor Lamb is exactly the archetype of the red state democrat candidate.

If they’re rolling out the same candidate type as ever, and yet adding 20 points to their results, then youre barking up the wrong tree by overanalyzing the candidate.

[digster]

Yeah, despite the polarization of the parties, you typically see moderate candidates in districts where they are trying to pick up a contested seat. It's no different with the Republicans; they may be off the deep end, but they're not going to run Louie Gohmert if they're trying to pick up a seat in Long Island.

[Bi_3]

The level of “pretty bad” here is impressive. A 20 point shift in a coal country district where the organization spent like maniacs and the president personally campaigned. They can’t afford to spend like this in 50 races at once, and there are nearly 100 races that were considered to be in more danger than this one.

BUT, Lamb wasn't exactly running on the mainstream Dem platform. Former soldier, doesn't hate white people, anti-Pelosi, supporting miners... these are not exactly things that would fly in most blue states. You can't tie his performance to his party affiliation.

But...

1. For universal health care
2. Against Trump’s tax cut
3. For expanded background checks
4. For stronger unions
5. Against cuts to Social Security
6. For a woman’s right to choose
7. For medical marijuana

I'm confused, Bi, why would "former soldier" equate to non-dem? Also, I think many in the party are anti-Pelosi. And, I'd be curious how many "blue states" are mining states anyway. Overall, just curious how much of your post was kidding.

Honestly, I don’t even know anymore

[B]

I thought Democrats hated our soldiers.

[epilogue]

I thought Democrats hated our soldiers.

That's what my Republican friends tell me.

[Monkey_Driven]

I spit on at least one veteran for every vote for a Democrat.