2016 U.S. Downballot: THEY ARE THE LAW

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > 2016 U.S. Downballot: THEY ARE THE LAW

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Joementum posted:

Villarigosa's not running, so say hello to Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA).

She'll be great, but I really wanted Governor Kamala Harris

# ¿ Feb 25, 2015 01:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 15:15

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Mitt Romney posted:

This should be an easy pick up for the Democrats right?

Could be complicated by Walker getting the GOP presidential nomination.

# ¿ May 14, 2015 14:59

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Joementum posted:

Interesting tactic from Mark Kirk: he cut an ad talking about having to learn to walk again after suffering a stroke.

As a reminder: this is his opponent:

That's straight out of the Big Book Of Karl Rove. Cover your greatest weakness by going right after your opponent's greatest strength, scrambling the narrative. Remember John Kerry, the chickenshit fake soldier?

# ¿ May 15, 2015 05:13

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

For no particular reason, here's the Cook political report from earlier this month, showing his best guess as to the state of the 2016 races:

Seems a little pessimistic given the likely 2016 electorate.

# ¿ Jul 26, 2015 18:39

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Zas posted:

Is there any better sense these days what the Senate will look like? Seems pressing now that Scalia is dead.

Here's something I wrote last year that could probably stand to be updated

Currently 54R 46D
Dems need +4 seats to take control of chamber (assuming they win the presidency in 2016, +5 if they lose)
34 seats are up for election (24R, 10D - the Tea Party class of 2010 is up for re-election)

Dem Seats (10)
7 are safe (CT, HI, MD, NY, OR, VT, WA)
1 is likely (CA-Boxer)
1 is lean (CO-Bennet)
1 is toss-up (NV-Reid)

Rep Seats (24)
4 are toss-up (FL-Rubio, IL-Kirk, NH-Ayotte, WI-Johnson)
3 are lean (NC-Burr, OH-Portman, PA-Toomey)
5 are likely (AK-Murkowski, AZ-McCain, GA-Isakson, IN-Coats, MO-Blunt)
12 are safe (AL, AR, ID, IA, KS, KY, LA, ND, OK, SC, SD, UT)

So the Dems need 4 of the 7 close Rep seats (FL-Rubio, IL-Kirk, NH-Ayotte, WI-Johnson, NC-Burr, OH-Portman, PA-Toomey) and to hold both of the in-play Dem seats (CO-Bennet, NV-Reid)

They should manage that, assuming a strong Dem presidential turnout

# ¿ Feb 15, 2016 17:42

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

On the other hand, IIRC the Dems had a very strong showing at the state level in 2014, a midterm year that saw Democrats get their asses kicked pretty much everywhere else (there were three state supreme court positions up for election, and Team D nabbed all three of them). That makes me think PA is moving towards the Dems at the state level.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2016 06:06

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Sir Kodiak posted:

I can't deny the numbers, but isn't the argument there that PA is unusually inelastic? That it has a slim majority of Democratic voters with relatively few persuadable voters, largely because of the significant cultural differences between Pittsburgh/Philadelphia and the rest of the state? That turns PA into a turnout game, which should be helped by 2016 being a presidential election year.

That persistently narrow margin always tempts Republican presidential campaigns into thinking PA is a prime pickup opportunity, so they pump a lot of resources into the state and still end up losing by 5 points.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2016 06:29

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

FAUXTON posted:

I don't think it has sunk in how steep the uphill battle for the GOP is at the presidential level. Hillary could lose like Ohio and Florida and still hit 270. The GOP has to win all the Romney States, all the traditional swing states, plus something like Pennsylvania or Colorado. If Hillary loses FL because for whatever reason everyone other than swamp-dwellers and shuffleboard cubanos still pissed about Castro appropriating their plantations then she's still got a buffer of something like 30 EV if not more.

The Dems don't have a lock on the electoral college (like the Republicans had in the mid-1980s), but things are trending that way. You forgot the fact that the electorate is getting less white, at a rate of about 1.5%-2% every four years. So Republicans need to take Ohio, they don't just have to beat Romney's 2012 total by 3.0 points, they need to beat it by 4.8 points - and it's that way all across the country and the swing states.

Republicans have a very narrow window to win the Presidency. As you said, they have to hold ALL of the Romney states AND pick up EVERY swing state AND pick up one or two blue states in order to just barely squeak across the 270 EV line. If they miss even one little component of that equation, they lose. I think it's effectively impossible barring some outside assistance: either 1) a supremely talented and appealing Rep candidate and/or 2) some kind of collapse on the part of the Dem candidate (late breaking major scandal, late breaking health issue, party schism, etc.) and/or 3) some sort of Really Bad News (recession, foreign policy disaster, massive scandal, etc.)

# ¿ Feb 24, 2016 04:15

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

FAUXTON posted:

I imagine polling for other states regarding the SCOTUS issue probably looks similarly favorable for Obama, outside of the typical shitholes.

The key thing is states that are likely to vote Hillary/Bernie in November that also have Republican senators up for re-election. Republican senators in blue states are setting themselves up to hammered over this issue in the fall, as that poll shows.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2016 23:16

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

evilweasel posted:

The value isn't so much the electoral votes as (a) The Senate map for 2018 is unimaginably bad for Democrats (25 D or D-caucusing I seats vs 8 R seats, some nearly indefensible D seats and only one R seat you could even dream of flipping in your wildest dreams about the election) and every seat they can flip now helps and (b) we're getting close to 2020 and it's necessary to start focusing on state level elections to undo the Republican gerrymander after 2020.

Ugh, 2018. Terrible map, Republicans will be fired up to stick it to that crazy radical Hitlery Kkklinton after two years of her femino-communist tyranny, Democrats will be sad and disappointed that she hasn't solved all the problems, all combined with the usual Democratic haplessness at midterm turnout.

Enjoy reading all those "Is the GOP dead!?!?" articles now, because in two and a half years the GOP will look like world-beating titans.

# ¿ May 9, 2016 17:03

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Reid in full IDGAF mode is truly something to behold.

# ¿ May 17, 2016 00:46

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

oystertoadfish posted:

and generally it seems like one party wins most of the close races. that might be confirmation bias, but maybe it's a function of turnout dynamics - a wave election is made when one party's voters are energized and the other one's are demoralized

From what I've seen, close races all tend to break in the same direction. If there are six senate seats too close to call, they'll probably fall out 6-0 or 5-1 in favor of one party, rather than split the difference 3-3.

Team D really does have a strong (and growing!) advantage in Presidential years (matched by an equally strong disadvantage in midterm elections) so my expectation that most close senate races will break Democratic, giving them control of the chamber for two years (and then giving it right back in 2018).

evilweasel posted:

I think that's true, all the big wave elections I remember (since 2006) had the winning party win every close race.

I remember Republicans sweeping every in-play Senate seat in 2002, as well.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2016 18:37

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

pangstrom posted:

Yeah, I mean who knows in 4 years but I think Paul Ryan is the only semi-credible guy at the moment, and emphasis on the semi... and even that's assuming the Old Man Witherspoon voters aren't going to get hot for some other con artist. Maybe Rubio, I guess, if he can keep his seat and his head down.

Rubio did not impress anyone with his 2016 campaign, which confirmed every whisper about him being a good-looking but dim lightweight who speaks and thinks entirely in slogans and has a slacker's work ethic.

Ryan is probably the best of a bad lot, but he also did not impress as a VP candidate in 2012 (remember goofy grampa Joe Biden effortlessly kicking his rear end in their one debate?). There's also the problem that anyone involved in Congressional leadership has a hard time moving to the White House - you're too involved in the ugly part of the sausage-making process, and you are forced to take incoherent ideological stances.

The Republican cupboard is bare. Their whole deep bench/bumper crop of capable-seeming Governors and Senators jumped in the race this year, and every one of them was exposed as a joke. One of the reasons the #NeverTrump movement fell apart was there was no plausible alternative candidate.

2016 won't see many new Republican Governors and Senators elected, and while 2018 will, that's not really enough time to set someone up for a 2020 White House run. And there's no guarantee that any of them will be any better than the current batch of tea party halfwits.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2016 14:30

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

comes along bort posted:

that and incumbency advantage

Yeah. It's really hard to beat a sitting President. Although it's also really hard for a single party to hold the White House for a fourth consecutive term (ask Hoover or GHW Bush about that).

# ¿ Jul 6, 2016 17:57

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

oystertoadfish posted:

this is the greatest injustice in my life since that time in high school quiz bowl when i answered a question about lech walesa et al by saying 'solidarnosc' and they said i was wrong bc the answer was 'solidarity'

What about the time the judge threw out your false advertising lawsuit against The Never-Ending Story?

# ¿ Jul 13, 2016 06:46

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Badger of Basra posted:

Lol Jesus

E: is the problem with coal mining in these areas that the coal is running out, or that it is not economical to mine, or both?

Also automation: machines and techniques have gotten good enough that a dozen people can now extract the same amount of coal that used to take hundreds of workers to do.

Even before coal use started to fall, coal jobs were disappearing.

# ¿ Jul 13, 2016 16:52

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

NYT Upshot has started doing Senate predictions

(I guess Wisconsin is considered a lost cause for Republicans at this point)

They give the Dems a 60% shot at controlling the chamber (including 50-50 tie with VP tiebreaker)

# ¿ Aug 27, 2016 16:31

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Pinterest Mom posted:

You might think that 538 isn't on the list of Senate forecasts because they don't have a Senate forecast, but no, I'm sure it's salt.

Upshot so salty about 538 they put them in their Presidential forecasting roundup, that's how salty they are.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2016 20:42

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

oystertoadfish posted:

CA-49: Democrat Doug Applegate vs. GOP Rep. Darrell Issa

Issa going down in flames would be so loving sweet, the perfect capstone to a great election night.

oystertoadfish posted:

but my guess for the house is to cut ryan's majority down so far that the freedom caucus completely owns him and the party keeps tearing itself apart while the rest of the nation asks them to govern. but idk

Ryan having to come crawling, hat in hand, to Pelosi in order to get anything done would be an interesting dynamic. Pelosi's caucus plus the handful of non-crank Republicans being the actual governing majority in the House would be a hell of a thing.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2016 11:57

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

For no particular reason, here's the state of the Senate race:

Currently 54R 46D
Dems need +4 seats to take control of chamber (assuming they win the presidency in 2016, +5 if they lose)
34 seats are up for election (24R, 10D - the Tea Party class of 2010 is up for re-election)

Dem Seats (10)
9 are safe (CT, HI, MD, NY, OR, VT, WA), (CA-Boxer), (CO-Bennet)
1 is soft Dem (NV-Reid)

Rep Seats (24)
2 is likely Dem (WI-Johnson, IL-Kirk)
2 is soft Dem (IN-Coats, NH-Ayotte)
2 are toss-up (PA-Toomey, NC-Burr)
2 are lean Rep (MO-Blunt, FL-Rubio)
16 are safe Rep (AL, AR, IA, ID, KS, KY, LA, ND, OK, SC, SD, UT) (AK-Murkowski, GA-Isakson, AZ-McCain, OH-Portman,)

So the Dems need to hold NV, grab WI and IL, and then get 2 of the 6 in-play Republican seats to control the chamber (assuming a Clinton win).

Ratings taken from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/senate-election-forecast.html?_r=0

# ¿ Oct 23, 2016 06:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 15:15

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

oystertoadfish posted:

does anybody have interest in writing a good OP for a california proposition thread? ive been sinking my sa time into reading a single loving thread for some reason (this time quixote is gonna knock down that windmill) so i kinda dont have time i guess

mostly im curious about that proposition to make drug companies sell to medi-cal, or whatever the medicaid here's called, at the same price they sell to the VA (or whatever the law would be). seems like the kind of thing that could lead to a lot of people losing their medications, because there's no way to tell the drug companies not to gently caress people over and they'll want a backlash so they can maintain their regulatory capture of the institutions that are supposed to fight for voters? anybody have a good write-up on that one?

i remember reading articles in australia about the government negotiating drug prices for their people, using the number of their customers as leverage in exactly the way private insurance companies do ya kno, and it saddened me that such a conversation is basically out of bounds here. but im also ignorant of health policy! so

the other ones are somewhat interesting too and might be worth discussing, i kind of dont like the cigarette tax increase bc its a lot of money out of the pockets of poor people who are already addicted

and my individual vote doesnt matter anyway but the fiction that it does is fun to maintain

The Cali politics thread has what you need. Last ten pages are election/proposition chat.

Good discussions of the props' pros and cons can be found at:
Pete rates the props
League of Women Voters of CA
Ballotpedia
LA Times

# ¿ Nov 1, 2016 00:08

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > 2016 U.S. Downballot: THEY ARE THE LAW