Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ericgtr12, Mar 9, 2018.
The tides are shifting, folks.
From The Hill
The DNC brews IPA?
Edit: Never mind. Read too fast.
I’m not going to rule out the Dems figuring out a way to screw up and lose in the fall, but things are looking bad for the GOP.
That's what Democrats do best at. They usually win the major elections. The Democrats number one problem is they're terrible at getting out to vote. Especially the youth. All the kids want to do is vote from their smartphone or take a selfie with their ballot and submit that.
Neither will I but I'm hopeful they'll get their act together, unite as a party and focus on a platform (other than bashing Trump) that will motivate the base. When Obama won it was on a message of change and instead of knocking everyone else down he was lifting them up, that's why 2008 was such a success IMO.
From what I can see, the Republicans have a weak candidate.
Busting out the polls again, you'd think to learn a lesson from 2016 about polls, but...........
Most of the polls were pretty accurate. But I think you know this. Also amused that some Trump supporters seem to "use out" polling data when it suits them.
Personally, the way to look at most polls is as a "pulse" - not any sort of finite prediction.
Yeah, the polls were off but they weren't off by that much. If the Dems do have a landslide victory in the midterms Trump supporters will get silenced on this one.
How they were largely accurate, but there were a few midwestern states that didn’t have much polling done?
--- Post Merged, Mar 9, 2018 ---
They will just scream fake news and pretend it never happened.
--- Post Merged, Mar 9, 2018 ---
Yes, precisely. older population group that tends to GO OUT and vote usually vote republicans. Progressive youth is likely to vote democrat BUT as you said, can't be bothered to go out and vote. It's what cost Hillary presidency, UK got brexit....
$#*t happens when people don't vote.
If you actually read them, you would note that even poorly sampled ones mention a margin of error. They are also not exactly static.
Of course the interesting thing here is that in 2016, Trump had a lot of closeted supporters who did were less publicly vocal prior to his win. I suspect people are more likely to answer honestly now, given that the social stigma isn't really there at this point.
It's also worth noting that it's fairly common for things to swing against the current president's party in midterm elections. In this case I haven't watched it too closely, so I won't make any predictions.
I know the D' want this seat for it's symbolism bit the district goes away in November
Of course this isn’t a major election.
I predict that the democrats retake the House but not the senate.
Midterm elections almost always shift opposite of the party in power.
I don't think we'll have to wait long to see how this race plays out, then we'll see if this pole is within the margin of error, and more important is it an accurate projection of who is going to win.
Polling is difficult, but I feel a lot of left leaning media and polling data is used to try and sway the outcomes of races, rather than try and be accurate.
It's really about the questions you ask, how you ask them, and who you ask them to.
That said, I know nothing about this race, who is running, and what they are running on or away from. If the (R) is running away from Trump or embracing Trump's policies, and I think that matters if this is going to be made into some referendum on Trump.
A Trump supporter is not necessarily a (R) supporter, Trump embraces a lot of policies that (R) don't. So just because this guy is running as (R) vs. (D) doesn't mean Trump supporters are going to show up on election day for him.
Historically speaking this is almost always the case. In some ways it's too bad, we make these really dramatic swings in both power and policy instead of working to find middle ground.
I'm not sure the data backs that up, just from what I recall of the last 100 years worth of mid-terms, but my memory is sometimes less than factual.
Tho, I do think it is easier to motivate your base when you are not the party in power, and easy to be complacent when you are the party in power. However, that can be overcome if you just play the game of politics better than the party, or person you're running against.
As a party, if (R) are content to rest on their laurels, or chose to ran away from Trump's policies when they should ran with them, or vice versa, then things could go really bad for them in the mid-term.
Trump won on policy and personality, tho his personality doesn't really appeal to the masses, he is what we would call a card, and people relate to that.
His policies struck a cord, especially with a lot of blue dog (D) in Pennsylvania. Penn. is a heavelly left leaning state, where registered (D) far out number registered (R).
http://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElectio...orOffice/Documents/2017 Election VR Stats.pdf
So, I think running away from Trump, as he won the state when almost no poll said he was going to, is a losing move by any (R). Make it about Trump policies, but try and not make it about Trump's personality. Maybe a tough row to hoe.
Sometimes tho, people just don't fall for it, they correctly make it about the two people running in the race, and if one of them is just bad, it's really hard to hide that, or even if one is ok, but the other is clearly better.
I'm not in PA, so I don't get a vote, and I don't really care who wins this race, because it isn't up to me. So I haven't done my homework on it. However, I still have my bias, and I'd like to see the (R) win if his policies I can agree with, and he can help Trump with policies I agree with, but if he is just a party (R) and he has no interest in the rule of law, or helping to build the middle class, then I just don't care who wins this race.
Let's see if it's all for naught in November though. Dems are going all out for Lamb. Especially unions and that may be the deciding factor in a special election that usually garners very low turnout.
The GOP must be disappointed. They've spent $10 million on a State Rep. supported by the GOP establishment (state and national) and the current occupant of the White House (and in a district he won by 20%) and likely to lose this seat. When the President, Vice-President and cabinet members make personal appearances and the candidate is behind recent polling history?
But, The Russians.
Might be a good idea. Blue collar workers love craft beer. This might help the Dems re-capture their lost blue-collar working class strongholds that they lost to Putin in 2016…. err I mean Trump.
The key to not ignoring blue collar Dems is to not nominate someone like Clinton who forgot her modest upbringing. Honestly, Bill should have stepped in. He grew up dirt poor. One of the rare times I'll ever put a tin foil hat on is to say I'm betting the Bill and Loretta jet meeting was intentional to hurt Hillary's chances because I bet he didn't want to live in a fishbowl again for another 4-8 years.
No doubt that Hillary was a poor DNC candidate, I didn't vote for her (and I didn't vote for Trump either). But I doubt that Bill hates his wife that much to sabotage her, and vice versa. Sure, it's easy to guess that they don't 100% love each other (not after his affairs). But remember that even if they are not lovebirds any longer, they are still convenient political allies, they are business partners. Their ongoing marriage is really a political alliance, a business partnership. And I truly believe that they do love their daughter and would dream of Chelsea having a successful political future.
No where did I say he hates his wife nor did I imply it. I implied Bill simply didn't want to live in the White House again. At that point, she already had enough bagged on her to get people to sway their vote. That incident and it being brought up ad nauseum sealed it for the most part.
I've always believed Chelsea would end up being POTUS one day. She has her dad's charm and her mother's wit, without the baggage.