Red Mosquito

Monkey_Driven wrote:Would love to see the racial breakdown of those polled.

This PDF has a breakdown of these results starting on Page 6: https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/u ... xqk93.pdf/

Not sure about the sampling breakdown.

Well, Republican Party registration is 88% white.

This has been a Republican district since 1973

What are the odds on all of these guys/gals becoming lobbyists?

bune wrote:

What are the odds on all of these guys/gals becoming lobbyists?

Analysts on the cable channel Trump wanted when he instead was elected?

or that, yeah.

Four Texas reps retiring. Four.

Correction: Talking Points claims this is number five.

McParadigm wrote:Correction: Talking Points claims this is number five.

This is why I can't trust the news you post

It's completely normal for so many from the incumbent president's party to retire in a re-election year though right?

meatwad wrote:It's completely normal for so many from the incumbent president's party to retire in a re-election year though right?

I would love to see numbers on this. It feels odd to me, almost certain it didn't happen with Obama in 2012, but maybe I'm not remembering 2004 very well?

Republican retirements have been ramping up slowly since hitting a low point in 2010, when the tea party surge gave them a 60+ seat jump in the House.

2010: 13 retirements, massively successful election
2012: 14
2014: 16
2016: 20, mostly in the aftermath of the Republican primary
2018: 26, mostly due to savage internal polling
2020: 12 already, with multiple Republican strategists suggesting many more announcements are coming. This is probably going to be the third straight election year with more than 20 “pure” (not running for other office) Republican retirements, which hasn’t happened in at least half a century and maybe ever.

For reference, in 2008 they had 27 retirements leading up to an election where Democrats gained 8 senate seats and 21 House seats. High retirement numbers usually mean bad internal polling for some, plus a handful of folks in safe seats retiring rather than waiting to become part of the minority party.

Is 20+ in a range of 13-27 statistically significant?

Mickey wrote:Is 20+ in a range of 13-27 statistically significant?

For any given 2 year period, 20 is a rare number to reach. But to put the impact of it happening 3 elections in a row into perspective, let’s assume that 6 more retirements are announced in the coming months:

1974-1978: 45 retirements
1980-1984: 32
1986-1990: 31
1992-1996: 50*
1998-2002: 45
2004-2008: 49
2010-2014: 43
2016-2020: 64


* 1992 happened to be a year with 50+ retirements total, and then a lot of swing state Rs retired in the face of Clinton scandal backlash. Those retirement numbers helped end Newt’s career.

Guys

Maybe they're just opening up the opportunity for more good, young, common sense republicans like Dan Crenshaw for the sake of the party.

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Mickey wrote:Is 20+ in a range of 13-27 statistically significant?

For any given 2 year period, 20 is a rare number to reach. But to put the impact of it happening 3 elections in a row into perspective, let’s assume that 6 more retirements are announced in the coming months:

1974-1978: 45 retirements
1980-1984: 32
1986-1990: 31
1992-1996: 50*
1998-2002: 45
2004-2008: 49
2010-2014: 43
2016-2020: 64


* 1992 happened to be a year with 50+ retirements total, and then a lot of swing state Rs retired in the face of Clinton scandal backlash. Those retirement numbers helped end Newt’s career.

this was helpful, thanks McP

Yeah this is really helpful contextualization.

washing machine wrote:Maybe they're just opening up the opportunity for more good, young, common sense republicans like Dan Crenshaw for the sake of the party.

there's no way you typed that with a straight face.