|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Not really. The Wisconsin Democratic Party is insanely uncoordinated and Mike Tate came up inside the Madison bubble. Their campaign strategy for the last two cycles has been to assume that people would just vote "anything but Walker", not understanding that not only is the state very rural, but that we have this little blot on the electoral map... Thanks. This is about what I was trying to explain to him, but he didn't seem to buy it. I think we're in for a lot of hard times here in Wisconsin with party leadership like this. I just hope Russ can pull off 2016.
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:But why do you assume that the people who failed to turn out were leftists? It's just as likely they were Dem-leaners that mainly vote in presidentials. In that sense, there's no advantage to going left. They won't vote anyway. The only way you get to 50+1 is to go for persuadable voters. Keep in mind, though, that given the electoral environment in the Wisconsin midterm there was pretty much no candidate in existence, including ol' Russ Feingold, that could have won that election. Lest we forget, Our Lord and Savior Russ lost in 2010 along with Tom Barrett. But did Russ run it closer? Sure. Russ lost by 5 points, and Tom Barrett lost by 5.8. Not really significant. Because go look at the election maps? Turnout was at the average or higher in the rural areas and in Waukesha. Turnout was below average or lower in Dane and Milwaukee. It has been this way for each of the non-presidential cycles since Walker took office. quote:
I didn't say they were accelerationists. I said they were unmotivated to turn out. The left wing in Wisconsin doesn't feel like they can win an election, and the Dems don't do anything to dissuade them by putting up bad candidates and doing nothing to recruit and groom good ones. quote:I also completely disagree that there is "no middle" in Wisconsin. I won't define "middle" ideologically because most voters aren't necessarily coherent ideologically and many just have a grab bag of positions from both the left and right. Instead, I'll look at voters who are "UFGs" (up for grabs). Now, this is a state where Obama won Paul Ryan's Congressional district in 2012, and then on the same ballot his constituency voted to re-elect him. If we compare 2012 presidential to 2010's senate election, we can see a fairly clear picture: turnout increased in raw votes by 29.2%, yet the % of dem votes increased by 37.1%. The likelihood, then, is that you have a pile of voters who voted in both elections and switched parties between 2010 and 2012. And some of those may have switched, again, between 2012 and 2014. This isn't a super robust analysis, though, and you couldn't really do one without a poll. There are fairly good ways to figure out the size of the pool of UFG voters through message test polls and modeling, and I would think Burke would have run to the left if her polling showed that as a more robust winning strategy than trying to win over UFG voters. This is the fallacy that the Dems keep running on. That Obama winning red areas of the state means anything for state-level elections. It doesn't. People in Ryan's district like him. I used to live in it. They think he's a genius who would solve our problems if the Dems would just get out of his way. People in those parts of the state like Walker, and those who don't don't show up to vote. Some of this is apathy, some of this is bad Dem candidates. When you see Paul Ryan or Glen Grothman winning your district year after year, it's hard to feel like your vote matters. And the Democrats make it worse by running candidates who try to meet these assholes in the middle. In Waukesha, they nearly always run a candidate who is pro-life, pro tort reform, pro tax cuts, etc. Even though that doesn't win them poo poo in Waukesha. Even in a race they're guaranteed to lose, they're not willing to have their candidates say anything remotely left-sounding. In "UFG" districts, as you term them, it's much the same. They run congressional and statehouse candidates who run on a "Democrat, but totally pro-business" style platform. After a year of string pro-union sentiment led to a recall, they treated all the primary candidates who talked about unions like a joke. None of the mainstream Dem candidates were actually willing to stand up for unions at the end of the day, even though that's the group that got them their do-over. When you slap your base in the face like that, can you really expect them to show up at the polls? Recent polling has found Wisconsin to be one of the most polarized states in the nation. Look at Marquette University's recent polls: https://law.marquette.edu/poll/results-data/ https://law.marquette.edu/poll/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/MLSP28Toplines.pdf I want to call your attention in particular to some of the state-level issues they asked questions on, as well as some Presidential questions: quote:5. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is As you can see, on nearly every issue that isn't favorables/unfavorables on potential 2016 presidential candidates, people have very firmly selected their opinions already. There are very few people in Wisconsin saying "I don't know" or refusing to answer on political questions. There are two sides and they are very firmly entrenched. Notice how on many of these polls, the more liberal answer seems to be more popular. Now, let's look at the party alignment questions: quote:F1. Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Somehow, people have very strong positions staked out right up until you hit the party identification question. Now suddenly there's more Democrats than there are republicans and a huge number of people called themselves independent or refused to answer. This can mislead you into thinking that these people are "UFG", but all of their answers to that point make it very clear that their positions line up along one "side". Reported party affiliation is not useful for analyzing Wisconsin politically. When you look at the polls on the actual issues and candidates, it's clear that a large number of people line up on the side of leftist issues. And yet they didn't show up to vote? Why is that? Well, go see how many Democratic candidates on the state level you can find who are actually talking about any of these things. There's very few, and none of them are running in winnable places against dudes like Paul Ryan, because the Wisconsin Democratic party continues to operate under the belief that there is a middle ground to be staked out here. There's just not. They need to turn out the voters who are saying that they are on the left of these issues, and that's not going to happen if they never actually start talking about them. It should be very telling to you that Mary Burke eventually settled for a seat on the Madison school board. What a great candidate, I'm sure she'll get so much great work done for Democratic issues in this state by piddling around on the school board of the most "liberal" city in Wisconsin. (I put liberal in quotes because holy poo poo are we lovely when it comes to racial issues, gender equality, or basically anything else that upper middle class white people don't care about).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Because go look at the election maps? Turnout was at the average or higher in the rural areas and in Waukesha. Turnout was below average or lower in Dane and Milwaukee. It has been this way for each of the non-presidential cycles since Walker took office. That's not my point. The point of dispute here is not that Democrats are not turning out. That is obvious. The question is which Democrats are not turning out. You are suggesting that it's leftists, who are disappointed with the candidate, feeling unmotivated to turn out. But there is an alternate thesis, which I posit is actually more likely - that they are apathetic Dem-leaners who may not be in any particular direction, ideologically speaking. They probably don't really care who the Democrat is, they just don't feel motivated to vote due to the overall political climate. In that sense, the candidate doesn't matter in terms of those people getting out. They're not going to vote a whole lot no matter what you do. In fact, you'll note that so-called "bad candidate" Mary Burke performed only 0.7% worse in her election than "good candidate" Russ Feingold, despite 2014 being a much worse year for Democrats than 2010. Moreover, I mention that clearly UFG voters exist and can make a winning margin in Wisconsin because it's true. Let's say every 2010 voter ended up voting in 2012 as well - not true, obviously, but close enough for our purposes. In order for turnout alone to have made up the difference, Obama would have had to win something like 70% of new 2012 voters if no one vote switched. Now, I'm sure he did win presidential only voters by a decent margin, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it wasn't by 40 points. quote:This is the fallacy that the Dems keep running on. That Obama winning red areas of the state means anything for state-level elections. It doesn't. People in Ryan's district like him. I used to live in it. They think he's a genius who would solve our problems if the Dems would just get out of his way. People in those parts of the state like Walker, and those who don't don't show up to vote. Some of this is apathy, some of this is bad Dem candidates. When you see Paul Ryan or Glen Grothman winning your district year after year, it's hard to feel like your vote matters. And the Democrats make it worse by running candidates who try to meet these assholes in the middle. In Waukesha, they nearly always run a candidate who is pro-life, pro tort reform, pro tax cuts, etc. Even though that doesn't win them poo poo in Waukesha. Even in a race they're guaranteed to lose, they're not willing to have their candidates say anything remotely left-sounding. When I say "UFG" I only mean voters, not districts. There are UFG voters everywhere - Madison, Green Bay, Muskego, Milwaukee, wherever. I'm not being pedantic, because it's an important distinction when we're talking about statewide candidates. This analysis completely ignores party affiliation, which is actually not so helpful everywhere - not just Wisconsin. To explain more fully what I mean, let me talk about how campaigns determine the electoral landscape. A caveat to keep in mind - everyone who works in politics knows this approach is not at all perfect, but it's the best we currently have and it works fairly consistently. First, a candidate declares. A quality candidate is usually considered one who isn't ideologically fringe, can raise oodles of money, and is extremely disciplined on message. Pretty much every establishment candidate is going to fit those three traits. The actual issues aren't really that important (Jon Stewart forgive me), because you're going to use polling to craft your actual message regardless of actual ideological beliefs. So, I'm a statewide candidate. I got a ton of money. My next step is to hire a few national consultants to help me craft my message. They spend a bunch of time in a room throwing pencils at ceilings and brainstorming potential campaign ideas or issues, using a bit of creativity and drawing on a robust understanding of the electorate. (These consultants are generally multi-decade veterans of campaigns) Once they come up with a dozen or so ideas, they throw them into message testing polls. These polls essentially call people up and ask them "If you heard that Mary Burke favored increasing education spending, would you be more or less likely to vote for her?" They also ask about potential vulnerabilities: i.e. "If you heard Mary Burke was in favor of late term abortions..." Once that is done, they narrow down to the top few issues and try to craft a campaign/message around it. This portion trips up a lot of campaigns, which is why we had something like Udall in CO running dozens of ads on women's issues without really crafting an overall narrative about why he should be elected. Once they narrow it down, they poll again - but this time, they don't do a traditional poll. They contract a data consultant (like Clarity or BlueLabs, on the Dem side) to contact thousands of people and ask them that smaller set of narrow questions, along with things like enthusiasm/intent to vote. This allows them to combine the survey data with consumer and voter file data to create a few important electoral models - first, who is going to turn out (these models are usually very accurate. I had one election where the model pinned the number of people who would vote in a statewide primary within a few hundred votes!*), who is going to support you (every person is given a % likelihood, so if I contact 100 people with a score of 70, 70 of them will be supporters and the rest are undecided or opponents), and persuadable voters. These are done using look-a-like models that have been used in marketing for decades. If you were a voter who said that a particular issue would change your mind, or if you changed your candidate preference by the end of a message testing poll, the model might look for people who are similar to you to try and find more persuadable voters. (A persuadable voter is anyone who might change their vote over the course of an election) This is provably effective (models are validated after construction), but it's not 100% - measuring what people think is much harder than measuring what people will do. (i.e. "will you vote" is easy - I already know your voting history. "Will you vote for me" is harder, because I only have your self-reported opinion to go on) Now, if you know how many people are going to vote and how many people support you already, you can roughly work out the size of your base which is basically how many people will vote for you even if your campaign consisted of a single yard sign on your own lawn. I also have a decent idea of how many persuadable voters there are. Now my goal is to figure out how to bridge the gap between my base and the 50% + 1 vote needed to win the election. This is the point, I hope, where I can make my disagreement clear. Through polling and modeling, I can tell what my best path to victory is - if I'm 100 votes away from winning, I can either find a strategy to bring 100 more people to the polls via GOTV, or I can take 50 of those likely persuadable voters and try to shift them into my column. If I want to win persuadables, I need to run my campaign on issues that they care about. If they like Walker's union busting, I'm not going to win them over by talking about restoring the unions. Now, I don't know what Burke and Barrett's polls said, but I can probably tell you how they interpreted it - they likely only saw a path to victory by trying to win over those persuadable voters. Ultimately, it's about pragmatism. The most inspiring candidate in the world doesn't mean a drat if they aren't talking to the right voters about the right issues. quote:When you look at the polls on the actual issues and candidates, it's clear that a large number of people line up on the side of leftist issues. And yet they didn't show up to vote? Why is that? Well, go see how many Democratic candidates on the state level you can find who are actually talking about any of these things. There's very few, and none of them are running in winnable places against dudes like Paul Ryan, because the Wisconsin Democratic party continues to operate under the belief that there is a middle ground to be staked out here. There's just not. They need to turn out the voters who are saying that they are on the left of these issues, and that's not going to happen if they never actually start talking about them. Here's the problem with issue polls: there is a very well known phenomenon where they shift wildly based on partisanship. If I ask you about raising the minimum wage, you might say you're in favor. If I tell you that Mitt Romney is against raising the minimum wage because it will destroy jobs, and you like Mitt Romney, there is a very high chance you will suddenly become anti-minimum wage. Voters, in general, have stronger partisan beliefs than they have ideological beliefs. They might not feel well-versed on the issues, but they trust their party or particular candidates. This effect is greater the more polarized a state is. quote:It should be very telling to you that Mary Burke eventually settled for a seat on the Madison school board. What a great candidate, I'm sure she'll get so much great work done for Democratic issues in this state by piddling around on the school board of the most "liberal" city in Wisconsin. (I put liberal in quotes because holy poo poo are we lovely when it comes to racial issues, gender equality, or basically anything else that upper middle class white people don't care about). I don't really think it's that telling of anything. She lost. Maybe she's largely out of politics altogether, I don't really know. It's not like there's much public service for her to be doing between now and 2018. *Incidentally, I heard that Burke's data vendor had nationwide issues with their voter turnout model. It overestimated the number of voters that were going to turn out, which would make it seem more likely that she would win. That might have influenced the campaign strategy. I only heard about this, though. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 22:58 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
How does your thesis account for the unwillingness of those polled to declare a party affiliation? That would seem to run counter to partisan positions being stronger than issue positions in Wisconsin.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:How does your thesis account for the unwillingness of those polled to declare a party affiliation? That would seem to run counter to partisan positions being stronger than issue positions in Wisconsin. Party affiliation is irrelevant. Most independents are "secret partisans." For example, right-wing tea partiers that don't want to call themselves Republicans but actually vote Republican more often than registered Republicans. Modern modeling techniques can tease out these people's true affiliations. Just because a person isn't willing to openly identify with a party doesn't mean they don't have strong partisan leanings.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Party affiliation is irrelevant. Most independents are "secret partisans." For example, right-wing tea partiers that don't want to call themselves Republicans but actually vote Republican more often than registered Republicans. Modern modeling techniques can tease out these people's true affiliations. Just because a person isn't willing to openly identify with a party doesn't mean they don't have strong partisan leanings. The lean Republican/Democrat partisan bump, ah how cynical you make me when someone says they are independent and vote "on the issues"
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:The lean Republican/Democrat partisan bump, ah how cynical you make me when someone says they are independent and vote "on the issues" Yeah, trying to persuade those voters is great. "That's great that you spend so much time studying the issues! What issues are most important to you?" "Oh.. umm, you know. Stuff."
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
quote:The bizarre marriage annulment proceedings between Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) and his wife Lolita Grayson took yet another turn toward the outrageous during a court hearing on Monday.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
"Lolita Grayson" 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:"Lolita Grayson" Maybe her parents were big Nabokov fans and hated their baby daughter?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Maybe her parents were big Nabokov fans and hated their baby daughter? Big Nabokov fans name their daughters Ada.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Maybe her parents were big Nabokov fans and hated their baby daughter? You realize Nabokov didn't invent the name right? Alan Grayson was born the same year the book was first widely available in America and his former wife is probably the same age. Hell, it took until Hitler invaded Poland for people in the US to finally stop naming their kids Adolf: 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Is she old enough that she could just be named Dolores and picked up the nickname when young before the book was famous enough to poison it? e: beaten like crazy, that's what happens when you don't refresh - although my example was going to be the thirteen or so Adolf Hitlers living in NYC in 1935, I even had the same idea there!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You realize Nabokov didn't invent the name right? Alan Grayson was born the same year the book was first widely available in America and his former wife is probably the same age. Hell, it took until Hitler invaded Poland for people in the US to finally stop naming their kids Adolf: I wasn't aware that it was an actual name that people actually used. Mostly because other than Grayson's wife the only other person I've ever come across with that as a name was the character in the book.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Her previous opponent, who was not a veteran. She crushed him, of course. She needed a gerrymandered district in a presidential election year to win. Kirk can use Rauner's playbook and hit her on her ties to Blagojevich and Madigan.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:She needed a gerrymandered district in a presidential election year to win. Kirk can use Rauner's playbook and hit her on her ties to Blagojevich and Madigan. The district is only D+8, and anyway she won by 10+ points in both 2012 and 2014. The argument that she is too close to Blagojevich is extremely weak - if they want to hit her for serving on Veterans' Affairs, good luck! As far as Rauner goes - he needed a GOP landslide against an incompetent and unpopular incumbent in a mid-term to win. That won't apply as well as Duckworth.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Remember, Kirk held down his moderate/Democratic leaning district in the Chicago burbs (now held by his former chief of staff, Bob Dold) for almost a decade- including 2006 and 2008. I don't think he'll win this race but it would be foolish to count him out or paint him as someone who can't get crossover votes.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Anyone have any insight on the PA race? I moved out so my ear's not to the ground anymore. I liked Sestak a lot last time around, but I think The Establishment is still angry that he went after Specter.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Anyone have any insight on the PA race? I moved out so my ear's not to the ground anymore. I liked Sestak a lot last time around, but I think The Establishment is still angry that he went after Specter. Sestek has been prepping pretty much since he lost. The state party is mad at him for both primarying Specter after they promised to protect him if he switched parties and then losing to Toomey. He'll probably win the primary, but Ed Pawlowski is the state party's choice. He ran for governor in 2014 and lost the primary. Toomey is vulnerable, but I haven't seen any recent polls on the race.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
He not only lost that gubernatorial primary, he lost big in it. So much so that he, along with five or six other candidates, didn't even make it til voting day- dropping out once it became clear that he wasn't even in the running. I'd say the race (Toomey versus whoever wins the Democratic nomination) is even at the moment, Toomey has done a lot to moderate himself while in office but PA is a state that is more Democratic than not in presidential years and Pat has a history.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
This is Sestak:quote:Rather than aggressively raising money this quarter, for instance, Sestak has spent his time walking the 422 miles across the width of the state in what he called an effort to “earn trust” of voters and “walk in their shoes.” He has the political instincts of a dead horse.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
I think it was a pretty good idea, honestly. Its like Rick Santorum visiting every county, yeah some of them have almost no population but its an idea that plays well later in the campaign when people start to read up on candidates. Note, also, that he got an early start on the race- his whole walk will be done before some of the late-breaking candidates even announce. In that sense its essentially an extra.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I think it was a pretty good idea, honestly. Its like Rick Santorum visiting every county, yeah some of them have almost no population but its an idea that plays well later in the campaign when people start to read up on candidates. Note, also, that he got an early start on the race- his whole walk will be done before some of the late-breaking candidates even announce. In that sense its essentially an extra. Santorum *had* to visit all 99 counties. His voters lived there. And random rear end rural caucus-goers are disproportionately powerful in Iowa's formula. The IA caucus has hilariously low turnout - the people who attend these events are the same people who caucus. A walk across the state is a dumb because 1. why are you walking and 2. no one gives a gently caress. The number of fucks given were so low that the press didn't even bother following him during his walk. Meanwhile, Toomey is awash in infinite cash and Sestak raised all of $300k while sitting 13 points behind in polling. He's just a terrible, terrible candidate and his top advisors are idiots. I saw them trying to hire senior staff for $24,000 a year - including technical positions that normally pay thrice that, even on lovely political campaign salaries. He's like a parody of a candidate.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Toomey only raised 300k for a Senate race?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I think it was a pretty good idea, honestly. Its like Rick Santorum visiting every county, yeah some of them have almost no population but its an idea that plays well later in the campaign when people start to read up on candidates. Note, also, that he got an early start on the race- his whole walk will be done before some of the late-breaking candidates even announce. In that sense its essentially an extra. Reminder that "walking the state" is a campaign tactic so dumb that Al Franken farcically included it in his 1999 book "Why Not Me?"
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Hey walking the state could work out great! You just need to do it in like, Rhode Island or Delaware! Maybe Connecticut on the high end.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Hey walking the state could work out great! You just need to do it in like, Rhode Island or Delaware! Maybe Connecticut on the high end. Nobody wants to walk around Bridgeport.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Nobody wants to walk around Bridgeport. Well if you're into urban decay it's probably a good walk
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Toomey only raised 300k for a Senate race? Sestak only raised 300k, so far. As a former president of the Club for Growth, Toomey will be moneybaging it the whole way through.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
okay, that makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ1) will challenge John McCain for Senate. PPP had him up 42-36 in head-to-head tests against Kirkpatrick earlier this month.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ1) will challenge John McCain for Senate. Is this a vanity exercise, or does Kirkpatrick actually have any kind of legitimate shot at beating that old bag of poo poo?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Is this a vanity exercise, or does Kirkpatrick actually have any kind of legitimate shot at beating that old bag of poo poo? Well, she won re-election in 2014 in her district, which is R+3 and includes Pheonix and Tuscon. I'm guessing with that kind of support and Hillary's coattails, she has a chance, though I'd still put the state as likely Republican hold. There's also always the possibility that McCain gets primaried.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Well, she won re-election in 2014 in her district, which is R+3 and includes Pheonix and Tuscon. I'm guessing with that kind of support and Hillary's coattails, she has a chance, though I'd still put the state as likely Republican hold. Or dies.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Or dies. I was gonna say or retires but...
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:I was gonna say or retires but... McCain's already said he's running again in 2016.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ1) will challenge John McCain for Senate.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Joementum posted:McCain's already said he's running again in 2016. Do you think the perception of an upcoming tougher race could change his mind? Like I could imagine someone wanting 6 more years, but changing their mind at the prospect of a re-elect more challenging than "cakewalk".
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Do you think the perception of an upcoming tougher race could change his mind? Like I could imagine someone wanting 6 more years, but changing their mind at the prospect of a re-elect more challenging than "cakewalk". Kirkpatrick is probably the strongest challenger the Dems could get, but she is still likely to lose. The Dems will probably lose her house seat as well. McCain will have a more difficult race than he would against a sacrificial lamb, but as long as he doesn't do anything disastrous and Hillary doesn't have huge coattails in Arizona he should be able to coast on the state's demographics. He's not going to drop out because he got a reasonable challenger.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Is this a vanity exercise, or does Kirkpatrick actually have any kind of legitimate shot at beating that old bag of poo poo? She's had a string of very tough races, which she has managed to win, so far and probably views this as the time to fight for a promotion before what might be a pretty ugly 2018. She'd need a lot to go right for her and a lot to go wrong for John McCain (who has pretty much brow beaten all but the most hilarious potential primary challengers out of the field.)
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 00:28
|
|