|
tsa posted:There are certainly demographic problems, but they are far off and things could change in that time which makes them irrelevant. Say the millennials turn out to be a lot more conservative upon hitting 30 then previous generations or 3rd+ generation hispanics swing to the right. There's also the possibility that the generation after the millennials, a generation who knew not Bush, might not be nearly as friendly to the Democrats. Isn't the standard definition of millennial born 1982-1995? There are already members of the post-millennial generation voting and that number is just going to grow.
|
# ¿ Nov 10, 2014 17:33 |
|
|
# ¿ May 14, 2024 10:04 |
|
evilweasel posted:Well then, wouldn't that mean if he ran successfully there's essentially no effect - if he wins, he appoints a replacement conservative Democrat who is up for election when he would have been anyway? There's a minor effect for the officeholder: the winner of the special in 2018/general 2018 would become the most senior member of the Class of 2018 by virtue of being immediately sworn in in November rather than sworn in in January 2019 with the other freshmen. It makes the WV Senate seat marginally more valuable to that candidate because the Senate is still a body that places great import on seniority for things like the quality of your office and such, and being the most senior member of your freshman class (especially if it's a large class like 2014 was) means that you'll advance all the quicker. Ed Markey was elected in a special election in 2013 and has been in office less than two years, but by virtue of how loving huge the class of 2014 is he's already #86 in terms of seniority.
|
# ¿ Apr 11, 2015 05:48 |
|
oystertoadfish posted:this thing where the midterm electorate is so much more republican than the presidential year electorate really makes things funny. like those house seats that just flip back and forth from d to r (one of the nh ones and an il one, the giunta and dold seats, are the ones that come to mind. maybe there're more) TX-23, which is basically most of the US-Mexico border, is a prime example. It has basically an entirely different electorate in midterms than presidential years because of unreliable Mexican-American turnout and goes from a Likely-to-Solid D seat in Presidential years to Lean-to-Likely Republican in non-presidential years. Democrat in 2006 (wave year) and 2008, GOP in 2010, Democrat in 2012, GOP in 2014, almost certainly Democratic again this year...until the GOP takes it back in 2018.
|
# ¿ Jul 6, 2016 18:13 |
|
There are plenty of long streaks. The GOP won 6 straight elections 1860-1880 (though obviously they didn't hold the Presidency that whole time because Lincoln picked a Democrat as VP), and if you expand that a bit, the GOP won 14/18 presidential elections 1860-1928. 14/18! That's absolutely staggering. Then the Democrats won the next 5 elections in a row in response.
|
# ¿ Jul 6, 2016 18:24 |
|
Trump now has a whole set of new feuds with Republican politicians. It's kind of stunning how fast he's able to alienate people. This convention will be hilarious to contrast to the Democratic one the following week.
|
# ¿ Jul 7, 2016 19:36 |
|
Gyges posted:Keeping in mind that 2020 is a census year, and a Presidential Election year, so if she does win reelection with some measure of coattails the redistricting is probably going to really help the upcoming D bench. True, but most of the governors will be elected in 2018 and GOP governors would be able to at least force Democratic legislatures to meet them halfway on the maps.
|
# ¿ Jul 8, 2016 04:39 |
|
Evan Bayh really hosed up by retiring when he did. He very well might've held on even in 2010 (he might have scared Coats out of running) and he'd be very senior now. Bayh would make the race competitive (it is an open seat and he's still personally popular), but starting a Senate bid in July is really last-minute and he could run into some serious trouble getting his campaign apparatus up and running.
|
# ¿ Jul 11, 2016 16:04 |
|
I wouldn't at all be surprised to see the jungle primary in Louisiana yielding Ordinary Republican vs David Duke with no Dems in the runoff.
|
# ¿ Jul 23, 2016 20:55 |
|
I don't think the FL race is unwinnable for Murphy, though it's definitely Lean R. If Grayson is the nominee, Rubio walks. Rubio doesn't even have to campaign in that case (which suits lazy Marco just fine).
|
# ¿ Jul 26, 2016 22:04 |
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:how's weed looking on the downballot folks?? I know a lot of states are looking to legalize and some probably will, but haven't seen any recent polls on the matter. Arizona (probably), California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada have marijuana recreational on the ballot. Arkansas, Florida, Montana, and maybe Oklahoma and North Dakota will have medical marijuana on the ballot. There's not a terrible amount of good polling, but the consensus seems to be for the recreational states that Arizona is probably doomed, Massachusetts will be tough, and the other three are in pretty good shape.
|
# ¿ Aug 7, 2016 20:40 |
|
Shinjobi posted:There's been some rumbling in Texas about making medical marijuana a thing and seeing how it winds up working out. Texas isn't doing anything this year. The only ballot referenda are Constitutional Amendments approved to go on the ballot by the state legislature. TX's state government is pretty close to one party, so the issue in the state leg is between pro pot Republicans and anti pot Republicans, with the rump Dems trying to play kingmaker. If pot does well in 2016 elsewhere, it might encourage the leg to let their greed for a new industry to overcome their fear of pot, but it's unlikely. For those of you who aren't aware, the Texas state legislature is only in session 5 months every two years (Jan-June every odd-numbered year), so the legislature isn't even going to meet again until after the election.
|
# ¿ Aug 7, 2016 21:50 |
|
Gonna just say I think people are giving up on FL-Sen way too quickly. (Assuming Murphy's the candidate)
|
# ¿ Aug 10, 2016 17:56 |
|
Cliff Racer posted:At this point I think that all the ratings agencies are being really bullish on down ballot Republicans. Indiana's senate seat should be Likely D. NH, PA lean D. What a loving catastrophe Trump has been. I mean I knew he was never going to win but I didn't think it would get too much worse than being a McCainesque also ran. I'd agree about IN and NH, but I'd leave PA as a tossup for now.
|
# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 04:59 |
|
Zas posted:what's the smart money saying about the total house composition at this point Current "smart money" is "Dems pick up between 10-20 seats," with Dems needing 30 to take House.
|
# ¿ Aug 20, 2016 18:07 |
|
Gyges posted:There's also the issue of Hispanics tending to be under represented in polling, also the theoretical existence of youngish people who don't have landlines actually turning up to vote, which is on top of the ground game. Especially if Hispanics turn out at higher than the under 50% rate they usually do. This. Obama is standing on principle...the principle that a President in his/her final year can appoint a Supreme Court Justice. If Obama were here he'd say he's doing it for the sake of every subsequent president, including Clinton. No way he backs down even if Clinton asks him to.
|
# ¿ Aug 20, 2016 20:48 |
|
The Dems in vulnerable seats (Donnelly, Manchin, McCatskill, Heitkamp, Tester) are all up two years from now and are likely all doomed no matter how they vote (McCatskill might survive, the others are like 100% doomed). It's totally possible that the Dems just take those losses as a given and just go for it. There's effectively no vulnerable Dems up in 2020, so it might be worth it to just balls to the wall in the next two years and try to recover the Senate in 2020. It's not like there's any way Heitkamp, Manchin, or Donnelly survive no matter how they vote.
|
# ¿ Aug 21, 2016 04:05 |
|
Concerned Citizen posted:well tester and manchin are definitely not doomed. in tough fights, but not doomed. heitkamp and donnelly will have a tougher time. Manchin's personally popular, for sure, but he represents a state that will almost certainly be one of Trump's top three in the country and will be one of the most Republican states in the Union. The D next to his name is going to be absolutely toxic two years from now. I seriously think Manchin's best hope is to either bail out of the Senate race and run for the much less partisan governor's race, or to switch parties. I don't see a situation where he gets reelected as a D, though he might well get reelected as an R.
|
# ¿ Aug 21, 2016 05:08 |
|
He has a point re: IL, that a pure focus on communities of interest would result in a handful of ultra-Democratic (D+70ish) districts around Chicago and a bunch of somewhat-GOP districts covering the rest of the state, yielding a GOP delegation even while Dems win the vote. It's a hard problem to avoid when Dems tend to all want to live in the same area
|
# ¿ Aug 27, 2016 15:35 |
|
Cliff Racer posted:I forget who their candidate was but lets be honest, its not like Kasich was going anywhere. Kasich's opponent was the guy caught in a car in a parking lot with a lady not his wife at 2AM and used "she was driving me because I don't have a license" as his explanation, which was just because what sort of politician doesn't have a driver's license?
|
# ¿ Aug 31, 2016 00:00 |
|
So, anyone want to make a House prediction? I'm thinking it'll be ~12 Dem pickups, give or take 4. (That's an 8-16 range). Dems need net 30 pickups to retake control of the House, but at the very least that result would mostly claw back from the disastrous loss of 13 seats in 2014 when Dems were already way down.
|
# ¿ Sep 18, 2016 19:52 |
|
oystertoadfish posted:if they want to undo the gerrymander, they have to win enough state legislative and gubernatorial races, probably the majority of which are not on the same ballot as the president*, to pass the maps (or get scotus to force fair districting amendments somehow). even if this was a wave election they probably wouldn't be able to keep poo poo going through the other three years of the four-year cycle, because it's never happened with the post-final-death-spasms-of-the-jim-crow-democrat coalition Almost all state legislatures will be up in 2020 (barring weird cases like Virginia), but most governors won't be. The good* news is that Democrats were massacred so badly on the governor front in 2014 that even doing just OK will lead to a number of governor pickups in 2018, especially Maryland, Illinois, and Michigan, the former two because there's no loving reason they should have a GOP governor, the latter because the incumbent governor poisoned tens of thousands of his constituents. That said, Dems won't be in any better position to pick up state legislatures in 2020 than we are this year, because the legislatures are...gerrymandered. It's a bit of a vicious circle. *Not actually good EDIT: If Dems in Maine somehow gently caress up picking up that governor's mansion AGAIN for the third time...
|
# ¿ Sep 19, 2016 00:43 |
|
Imagine if Blunt and Burr lose but Toomey and Rubio hang on. No one would win their election day prediction contest then.
|
# ¿ Sep 19, 2016 20:21 |
|
|
# ¿ May 14, 2024 10:04 |
|
5-20 is a uselessly wide range, Charlie Cook.
|
# ¿ Sep 19, 2016 22:39 |