Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2018 Election Watch

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Jared View Post
    Why do both of those names sound like they were invented by a "multi-ethnic name generator"?
    Because politicians lie in all things they do. Nobody would vote for Rafael Edward or Robert Francis, so they reimagine themselves as Ted and Beto.

    Pete (isn't sure how well "Beto" works though, or even how it's pronounced)

    Comment


    • #77
      The senate race down here is going to be really close. I think Scott is going to beat Nelson.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
        If polling is to be believed, Ted Cruz is in real trouble in Texas:

        https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ruz-really-in/

        Pete (wonders if we'll actually see a Democratic senator from Texas)
        My wife and I have each received multiple texts from the Beto O'Rourke campaign asking who we're voting for. Here in Austin, I see lots of "Beto" signs in front yards.
        One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
          Because politicians lie in all things they do. Nobody would vote for Rafael Edward or Robert Francis, so they reimagine themselves as Ted and Beto.

          Pete (isn't sure how well "Beto" works though, or even how it's pronounced)
          I was listening to Bill Press this morning. He was talking to some expert on Texas and Beto O'Rourke came up. Press asked, "Isn't he half latino?"

          "No. No way" replied the guest. "Super Irish. His mom is Melissa and his dad is Patrick O'Rourke. They're as Irish as you can get."

          Press pressed. "Well you would think with a name like Beto..."

          The guest interrupted, "Your right, and he claims it's a childhood nickname. It plays well in Latino circles though, and the Republicans are accusing him of making up the name trying to trick Latinos into thinking he is one. But he's not. Republicans won't call him Beto...they always refer to him as "Robert Francis O'Rourke" in their media."

          Pete (paraphrased those snippets from memory)

          Comment


          • #80
            Looks like the Pubs found some dirt on Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona:

            https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/polit...-ad/index.html

            Attack ad hits Arizona Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema for past comments on underage prostitution

            In a February 2007 state House hearing when she was an Arizona legislator, Sinema raised concerns about a bill that toughened penalties against individuals soliciting prostitutes, saying, "I don't think that's fair."

            As a former social worker at an elementary school, she said there were "children at my school who were 12, 13 years old and some of these children looked older than me."

            Sinema added that she had "real concern" for individuals who solicited child prostitution and could face a class 2 felony for "unknowingly soliciting sex from a 12-year-old who appeared to be a 20-year-old."
            Ouch.

            OK, clearly Sinema is not in favor of underage prostitution. That's the message Republicans want you to take away from this story, but it isn't so. Her comments, though, do seem to indicate some measure of support for prostitution in general, and some measure of sympathy for the men who buy sex. I'm a libertarian. I'm with her. But I'm not going to win any elections.

            For conservatives, by and large, prostitution is unacceptable no matter what ages are involved, so Sinema's comments that some people should get off easy for prostitution with minors is going to infuriate them and convince those voters they didn't want her anyway. It's not so dear an issue to them that they're likely to turn out to vote for it, though. Net effect minimal.

            But for liberals, this is going to be a major pain point. Liberals tend to view prostitution as exploitation of poor young women by comparatively richer and older men, and see the average rich man as the enemy here. That's exactly who Sinema is defending with these comments: rich men. And not just any rich men. Rich men who are having sex with underaged girls. Like Jared, the subway guy.

            That's not going to play well. Sinema is very likely to lose some liberal voters (who can't stomach their defense of the enemy) and some centerist voters (who won't quite accept that she thinks "she looks old enough" is a defense for having sex with a minor). In a midterm election where she's the top name on the ticket, that could be an issue for Arizona Democrats statewide.

            Pete (thinks that overall it's a minor issue, but if the race is close...and it looks like it will be...this could make a difference)
            Last edited by Plezercruz; 09-12-2018, 11:24 AM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Beto O'Rourke takes Texas like Hillary took Arizona.

              Pipe dream. It's fucking Texas.
              "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by skooly View Post
                Beto O'Rourke takes Texas like Hillary took Arizona.

                Pipe dream. It's fucking Texas.
                I tend to agree.

                Pete (has no good gauge for how party motivation will go this cycle, though)

                Comment


                • #83
                  https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...turnout-778398

                  Polls: Democrats eroding GOP's turnout edge in midterms

                  A trio of new polls show that Democrats are cutting into the GOP's longstanding turnout advantage in midterm elections, another encouraging sign for the minority party's hopes of winning the House in November.

                  According to a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll released Wednesday, roughly two-thirds of voters, 66 percent, said they were “very motivated” to vote in this year’s elections — up significantly from 55 percent in May.


                  Three-fourths of GOP voters, 75 percent, said they are “very motivated” to vote, as did 72 percent of Democrats; the difference between the two is within the poll’s margin of error. Fewer independents, 53 percent, said they were very motivated to vote.

                  In past midterms, other surveys have showed Republican voters were far more motivated than Democrats were to show up at the polls.
                  This is somewhat unsurprising. We know Democrats are motivated by Donald Trump, and we know that Republicans were motivated by President Obama.

                  So what does this mean for the election?

                  1. It lends credibility to recent polling.

                  Some of the polls we're seeing appear unrealistic. Are the Democrats really competitive in Texas and Mississippi? In Tennessee and South Dakota? Is that even possible? Can they win Arizona? Well, if these turnout numbers are correct, they can.

                  2. Polling is unlikely to be wrong in favor of the Democrats

                  This is 2016 all over again. Everyone expects Democrats to win big, including pollsters. They are polling people and Democratic voters swear up and down that this time they will vote. Honest. Just like they did in 2016.

                  The silver lining for Republicans is that current polling probably represents a worst-case scenario for them. Baked into the polling results is the evaluation of who's a likely voter and who isn't, and the only way pollsters can come up with that evaluation is to ask people and apply their theoretical models to the answer. Accordingly, the "blue wave" most people expect is reflected in everyone's polling (except for a few Republican shills).

                  In particular, much higher than expected turnout is forecasted for young voters. I myself am inclined to believe they will turn out in greater than normal numbers. But those damned kids have seriously let people down before, and there's a strong possibility they will again.

                  3. The Senate probably isn't flipping.

                  There's an eternity of time between now and election day (six whole weeks) but even by current polling, which is already colored by an expectation of Democratic gains, the odds that the Democrats take the senate are slim. This is electoral-vote.com's map:



                  Electoral-vote.com's commentary skews to the left, but for the most part they do not tamper with their map, letting the poll numbers speak for themselves. The current map shows Republicans ending up with 53 senate seats (gaining two!).

                  Let's not get ahead of ourselves...five of the Republican seats are way too close to call, but so are 3 of the Democratic seats. And the states where these battles will be fought do not favor the democrats: Montana, Tennessee, Texas, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, Florida, and Arizona. That's 6 red states and two swing states. That's why the polling shows the Democrats losing. They're going to have to overperform against polling, which already is expecting them to overperform. It could happen, but it's a tall order.

                  4. The Democrats stand a very good chance of winning the House

                  Realclearpolitics has the best map for this contest:

                  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...house_map.html



                  In this case, the map itself doesn't tell you much. You see a smattering of red (Republican gains), a little bit of blue (Democratic gains), and a whole lot of grey (tossup). But look at the top of the graphic at the breakdown. Virtually ALL of the tossups are Republican incumbent seats. This is the polar opposite of what's going on in the senate.

                  The Democrats need to pick up 25 seats for a majority. Assuming the non-tossup states go as RCP predicts, they have 13 already in the bag. That means they need to win only 12 of the 38 Republican held tossup states just to have a majority. The only way the Democrats fail to take the house is if the polling data is very very wrong. But...it was in 2016...

                  Pete (has to admit he's a bit gun-shy about polling data after the last election)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
                    I tend to agree.

                    Pete (has no good gauge for how party motivation will go this cycle, though)
                    If Beto actually won Texas, he will be the next Democratic Presidential candidate... and probably President.

                    skooly (thinks Dems win when they nominate young charismatic candidates with positive ideas)
                    "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      CRS. Nice post, Pete.

                      Stephen (always enjoys your election analyses)

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by cart213 View Post
                        CRS. Nice post, Pete.

                        Stephen (always enjoys your election analyses)
                        I got him for you
                        "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." –Mark Twain

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X