~*Official Utterly Useless Old Woman, AOC, and UBI Thread*~

[Anathema-]

28 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

No, she'll end up going to the panhandle and FUCKING everything up for Gillum.

 

oh

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Heard a republican operative on the radio say they doubt a 'blue wave' because a) they doubt the polls because people are afraid to state their support for trump/kav in the polls (sound familiar?) and b) the top network for the kav hearings was state media (Fox news). I hope a great many people on the right think the polls are wrong and stay home (and that the left doubts it and go to the polls). Keep up this brilliant messaging folks.

 

They're are some reasons to don't but these ain't it

[PaladinSolo]

2 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Heard a republican operative on the radio say they doubt a 'blue wave' because a) they doubt the polls because people are afraid to state their support for trump/kav in the polls (sound familiar?) and b) the top network for the kav hearings was state media (Fox news). I hope a great many people on the right think the polls are wrong and stay home (and that the left doubts it and go to the polls). Keep up this brilliant messaging folks.

 

They're are some reasons to don't but these ain't it

It's funny cause all you have to do to realize the polls aren't bs is look at dem fundraising which has been off the charts in some areas like Texas of all places. 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

lol

[thewhyteboar]

Jason Kander announces he won't be running for mayor of KC, but will instead seek treatment for PTSD-related depression.

 

Good for him. Let him get the help he needs.

[thewhyteboar]

 

Pence is in my district today. I think Brown has a real shot.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

On 9/30/2018 at 7:32 PM, PaladinSolo said:

It's funny cause all you have to do to realize the polls aren't bs is look at dem fundraising which has been off the charts in some areas like Texas of all places. 

Turnout has underperformed in key states, though.  I believe more Republicans voted in Florida than Democrats despite favorable polling.  That should worry The Dems.

 

I for one would not be surprised if no blue wave emerges—Republicans are still riding the populist wave, and they’re worried about impeachment and Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

[SaysWho?]

38 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Turnout has underperformed in key states, though.  I believe more Republicans voted in Florida than Democrats despite favorable polling.  That should worry The Dems.

 

I for one would not be surprised if no blue wave emerges—Republicans are still riding the populist wave, and they’re worried about impeachment and Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

 

I wouldn't say it underperformed in Florida and should be put into context. 

 

1998:

 

Reps: 998k

Dems: 1.2 million

 

2002:

 

Reps: Jeb unopposed

Dems: 1.3 million

 

2006:

 

Reps: 985k

Dems: 857k

 

2010 primary turnout:

 

Reps: 1.282 million

Dems: 863k

 

2014 primary turnout:

 

Reps: 949k

Dems: 837k

 

2018:

 

Reps: 1.6 million

Dems: 1.5 million

 

Dems have lagged since 2002, and while Republicans saw bigger turnout, Dems saw a huge surge themselves. The interesting thing is that they still lost in 98 and 02 easily despite the larger primary vote. I've not seen them this competitive (leading) this close to an election in a long time, especially with a Democrat continuously leading in September/October. 2014 was interesting as Crist was way ahead early, but Scott went heavy on negative ads, and overall it was a Republican year. Crist was slightly ahead on election day but ultimately lost by a hair.

 

Make no mistake: Florida is never a Democratic slam dunk, but they are competitive in state-wide races (Scott barely won twice in big Republican years), and this is the strongest I've seen a Dem candidate in a long time. He's running a very good campaign.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Senate: GOP has double-digit lead in ND, slight lead in TN, toss-ups in IN/AZ/MO

[SaysWho?]

Tennessee is basically a complete toss-up at the moment going off just the polls.

 

Nelson's been doing better in Florida since the primaries wrapped up. Part of it might be institutional advantages, but part of it may be Scott's environmental record as red tide affects the state, and it has been shown that the septic system in St. Lucie is exacerbating the issue (which is something Scott reduced regulations on). Run-off of phosphorus into FL rivers can also act as bacteria reservoirs.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

57 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Tennessee is basically a complete toss-up at the moment going off just the polls.

 

Nelson's been doing better in Florida since the primaries wrapped up. Part of it might be institutional advantages, but part of it may be Scott's environmental record as red tide affects the state, and it has been shown that the septic system in St. Lucie is exacerbating the issue (which is something Scott reduced regulations on). Run-off of phosphorus into FL rivers can also act as bacteria reservoirs.

I have a very uneasy feeling that Dems might have enough to get the Senate.... Aside from menendez who loses, as a Democrat. In New Jersey, which loses the chamber.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I have a very uneasy feeling that Dems might have enough to get the Senate.... Aside from menendez who loses, as a Democrat. In New Jersey.

 

It's so lame that he couldn't just declare he wasn't running a long time ago; it's not like there aren't 1000 Dems who would have ran for that spot instead.

[Anathema-]

Praying that the democratic over-performance at the polls since 2016 holds.

[PaladinSolo]

Why do people keep thinking Menendez is going to lose?  He hasn't been down in a single poll and the most recent poll was from a high quality pollster had him at +11, previous poll from them had him +6, if anything hes gained support.

 

ND has been a likely loss for dems for a while as she hasn't led a single poll since February, at the same time other red state dems have been maintaining a steady lead or increasing it, with NV and AZ dems also leading.

 

 

[SaysWho?]

6 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Why do people keep thinking Menendez is going to lose?  He hasn't been down in a single poll and the most recent poll was from a high quality pollster had him at +11, previous poll from them had him +6, if anything hes gained support.

 

ND has been a likely loss for dems for a while as she hasn't led a single poll since February, at the same time other red state dems have been maintaining a steady lead or increasing it, with NV and AZ dems also leading.

 

 

 

It's not as much that I think he's going to lose (he could), but more that Dems shouldn't be spending a dime there but probably have to.

 

EDIT: Your point is often overlooked, though; he is leading in most polls. I just hope it doesn't get into toss-up category by late October.

[Joe]

I'm not voting for him.

[PaladinSolo]

Shit all i had to do was go on twitter.

 

 

[SaysWho?]

If Dems actually do gain, they better hope for another good cycle in 6 years.  

 

Then again, even though they have to defend a billion seats this year, what's the point of gaining control if you're just going to worry about playing defense when you're up for re-election?

[PaladinSolo]

Heres the DCCC cash flow for house candidates, and claiming they've seen a bump since Kavanaugh circus.

 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

51 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

If Dems actually do gain, they better hope for another good cycle in 6 years.  

 

Then again, even though they have to defend a billion seats this year, what's the point of gaining control if you're just going to worry about playing defense when you're up for re-election?

Next time this group is up is a presidential year which helps, maybe. Worst case it's after 8 years of trump and with a very different electorate.

[PaladinSolo]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

What's the large donor/small donor breakdown? Basically, how many of these are grassroots and how many are people maxing out the $2700? And how many are local contributions and not from across the country?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

To continue my optimistic streak:

 

 

[Chairslinger]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

To continue my optimistic streak:

 

 

 

Forgive my ignorance, but in what way did he carry 60 out of 100 Senate seats?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

5 hours ago, Chairslinger said:

 

Forgive my ignorance, but in what way did he carry 60 out of 100 Senate seats?

30 states.

[SaysWho?]

7 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

To continue my optimistic streak:

 

 

 

I've been well-aware of this for a while (how long will Dems hold onto Manchin's seat, for instance).

 

But a lot of these red-state Dems are red-state Dems in states that have been red states for decades. Democrats have been able to create their own identity in places like the Dakotas and Montana for a while. 

 

Let's also remember that Obama won most of the states not that long ago. Let's also remember that people were saying the same thing when Bush won most of the states and therefore "most of the Senate seats." Let's also remember that states that used to have complete Republican Senate representation no longer do (Virginia, for one, Maine for another). Let's also remember that Dems have become far more competitive in places like Colorado in the past decade. Let's also remember that the same can happen in Georgia and Texas and Arizona.

 

What Trump won in 2016 is not necessarily what Republicans will win in 2020 and 2024. Could be more states in 2020, could be fewer. I didn't see Republicans carry Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Nevada or New Mexico in 2008 after winning most of "real America" in 2004.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

3 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I've been well-aware of this for a while (how long will Dems hold onto Manchin's seat, for instance).

 

But a lot of these red-state Dems are red-state Dems in states that have been red states for decades. Democrats have been able to create their own identity in places like the Dakotas and Montana for a while. 

 

Let's also remember that Obama won most of the states not that long ago. Let's also remember that people were saying the same thing when Bush won most of the states and therefore "most of the Senate seats." Let's also remember that states that used to have complete Republican Senate representation no longer do (Virginia, for one, Maine for another). Let's also remember that Dems have become far more competitive in places like Colorado in the past decade. Let's also remember that the same can happen in Georgia and Texas and Arizona.

 

What Trump won in 2016 is not necessarily what Republicans will win in 2020 and 2024. Could be more states in 2020, could be fewer. I didn't see Republicans carry Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Nevada or New Mexico in 2008 after winning most of "real America" in 2004.

Another way to look at it (now that I've gotten some sleep) is that he won OH, MI, FL, PA, WI, and NC (12 seats)  by a very little amount and maybe a few others which were close, and I'd further argue that it was more of an anti Hillary vote than pro Trump. And this class of senators won their seats with Obama on their tickets in 2012

[SaysWho?]

7 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Another way to look at it (now that I've gotten some sleep) is that he won OH, MI, FL, PA, WI, and NC (12 seats)  by a very little amount, and I'd further argue that it was more of an anti Hillary vote than pro Trump.

 

A bit of that as well. Many of the "red" states are purple. Wisconsin went Democratic by less than or around 1% for Dems in 2000/2004, for example. Even Minnesota was decided by just a few points then. In 2008, Michigan and Wisconsin and Minnesota EASILY went Democratic, yet Republicans made gains in the first two in 2010.

 

It's true that the smaller states give a small population of America a lot of power, though that's also true for Vermont and Rhode Island. Democrats were able to find more power in the west during the 1990s and 2000s after losing power in the south, so temporary red/blue state may not be roadblocks for parties down the line.

 

I would urge people, if they have time to spare, to watch 1992's election night coverage. Vermont and New Jersey and Maine voting Democratic were huge deals that night after voting Republican since 1968. And a little-known state called California voted Democratic for the first time since 1964.

[SaysWho?]

 

[SuperSpreader]

I agree! Everyone is going to be surprised again how horrible America is before forgetting it in the fog of childhood ideals propaganda again thinking there is hope. There is no hope! Everything is shit and will always be shit because that's what we are.

[SuperSpreader]

Even if the Democrats win it doesn't fucking matter, they'll keep us distracted with women's bodies and the rich will keep getting bailouts, handouts, and taxcuts. No one can change the system, it's working exactly as designed. 

[SaysWho?]

27 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

Even if the Democrats win it doesn't fucking matter, they'll keep us distracted with women's bodies and the rich will keep getting bailouts, handouts, and taxcuts. No one can change the system, it's working exactly as designed. 

 

The system is working this way because your opponents worked to make it run this way. There was a time when boom-and-bust was the norm and hard work was put in to change the system to prevent depressions from occurring. All economic stabilizers kicked in in 2008, and we went through hell, but we kept the economy from crashing on the level that you had seen from 1929 and prior. We didn't achieve weekends, Medicare, the ACA, Dodd-Frank, gay marriage, gays in the military, marijuana legalization on the state level, women and black people voting, and interracial marriage due to a system that can't be changed; we did it through a system that can be. Many of the victories conservatives have scored were decades-long efforts, like confirming Alitos and Gorsuchs and Kavanaughs and avoiding Souters. It took decades.

 

You have all this intellect and yet you take the most pessimistic view when you should be using it to create the change you want. Fuck, I'd vote for you if you ran in my district.

[Jason]

 

 

Seems like it'll backfire on them to have SCOTUS squared away. 

[mclumber1]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

Seems like it'll backfire on them to have SCOTUS squared away. 

 

Yeah, that's my take on this.  With less than a month until the election, if the Democrats can keep up their rage, they should be able turn that into big wins In November.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Yeah, that's my take on this.  With less than a month until the election, if the Democrats can keep up their rage, they should be able turn that into big wins In November.

 

It's why I'm not too into the new media narrative. Republicans haven't shown the ability to sustain enthusiasm since Trump was elected. Democrats, despite all the naysaying even on this board, have been organizing, voting, and donating since Hillary lost. I don't think it behooves Republicans to insult protesters as mobs, as if they weren't already energized to the max.