Republicans are losing in states Trump flipped in 2016

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rogifan, Nov 4, 2018.

  1. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    Looking at States Trump flipped in 2016 The Democrats are leading or are tied in senate/governor races.

    States Trump flipped:

    US Senate:

    Pennsylvania: Democrat Casey +14
    Michigan: Democrat Debbie Stabenow +10
    Ohio: Democrat Sherrod Brown +8
    Wisconsin: Democrat Tammy Baldwin +11
    Florida: tossup

    Governor:
    Michigan: Democrat Gretchen Whitmer +8
    Ohio: Democrat Richard Cordray +5
    Wisconsin: toss up
    Florida: toss up

    States Trump won:

    US Senate:

    Missouri: Trump won by +18; the Senate race is a toss up
    Arizona: Trump won by +3.5; the Senate race is a toss up

    Governor:
    Georgia: Trump won by +5; the Governors race is a toss up

    States Trump narrowly lost:

    Minnesota (Trump lost by 1.5%):
    US Senate:

    Democrat Tina Smith +10
    Democrat Amy Klobuchar +22

    Governor:
    Democrat Tim Waltz +7

    Nevada (Trump lost by 2.4%):

    US Senate:
    Senate race is a toss up

    I’m surprised the media isn’t talking about this more. Even if Republicans hold the senate or pickup a seat this suggests these voters were voting for a cult of personality not that they’re going to be reliable Republican voters in the future.
     
  2. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
  3. JayMysterio macrumors 6502a

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge, California
    #3
  4. Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #4
    What? Maybe I’m misunderstanding but pretty much everyone assumed the Republicans will lose the House. It’s the Senate that is more likely to stay Republican.
    --- Post Merged, Nov 4, 2018 ---
    The RPC average for the generic ballot is currently D +7.
     
  5. JayMysterio macrumors 6502a

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge, California
    #5
    My bad, I flipped it in my rush. Apologies. I was reading a lot of articles from conservative pundits trying to tamp down any concern. They are still saying the House might flip, but not as great as before, so that is somehow a better thing.
     
  6. Strider64 macrumors 6502a

    Strider64

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2015
    Location:
    Suburb of Detroit
    #6
    I am from Michigan and hoping that John James beats Debbie Dolittle. It wouldn't surprise me if the Democrats take back the house, but also wouldn't surprise me if they don't. These polls in my opinion have a higher error percentage than they state. It also depends on voter turnout, for there are a lot of people who say they are going to vote that don't and silly as it might seem weather plays a factor in the turnout. There are a lot of people who wouldn't stand out in the rain to vote.
     
  7. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #7
    Fingers crossed. Maybe we can find a meaningful acknowledgement of just how bad Trump is.
     
  8. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #8
    Well don't you worry. Georgia is holding the line.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/04/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

    An ethical candidate would not oversee his own election. But ethics are for schmucks.
     
  9. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #9
    Here's the most recent example of the first mid-terms after a new president:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2010

    In 2010, Democrats held the Presidency, the majority of Governorships, both the House and Senate, and majority of state legislators. Same scenario as now, but reverse. After the 2010 elections, Republicans took everything (aside from Presidency) but the Senate.

    So that is your high water mark on how successful Democrats will be this year.
     
  10. Rogifan, Nov 5, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2018

    Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #10
    Final poll of Florida Senate & Governor. Wow.

    [​IMG] Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics)
    11/5/18, 5:05 AM
    NBC/Marist poll of Florida (likely voters)

    FL-GOV
    Gillum (D) 50%
    DeSantis (R) 46%
    (Was Gillum 48%-43% in Sept)

    FL-SEN
    Nelson (D) 50%
    Scott (R) 46%
    (Was Nelson 48%-45% in Sept)

    Trump approval: 44%

    Oct 30-Nov 2

    [​IMG] Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics)
    11/5/18, 5:12 AM
    NBC/Marist poll of Missouri (likely voters)

    MO-SEN
    McCaskill (D) 50%
    Hawley (R) 47%
    (Was McCaskill 47%, Hawley 47% in Sept)

    Four-way ballot
    McCaskill (D) 47%
    Hawley (R) 44%
    Campbell (L) 3%
    Crain (G) 2%
    (Was McCaskill 44%-40% in Sept)

    Trump approval: 51%

    Oct 30-Nov 1

    If Claire McCaskill wins in Missouri that would be a disaster for Republicans. I’ve heard that the GOP has been unhappy with Hawley and the way he’s run his campaign.

    CNN just released their final poll. It has Democrats +13 on the generic ballot (55% to 42%) and Trump’s approval at 39%.

    EDIT: final poll from Tennessee has the race tied at 44%. Now either these polls are just bad or the notion that Republicans might pick up seats in the Senate is just way off. I still think the Republicans will keep the Senate but some of these wins are going to be razor thin margins.
     
  11. s2mikey macrumors 68020

    s2mikey

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Location:
    Upstate, NY
    #11
    Hey - whatever. Nothing is going to change anyways. We've vbeen doing this political "thing" for years and years now and both parties have had their chance. Is anything REALLY going to happen that will be positive for productive, working people? Nah - we just get the bill for all the BS.

    Either way,. hide your wallet.... the democrats are coming for it. LOTS of goodies to pay for. :D
     
  12. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #12
    Not too concerned about a generic ballot, but I was reading that page wrong, the races in red/blue just shows who holds the seat now, not who is ahead in the polling for each race.
     
  13. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #13
    Because after 2016, nobody puts any stock in election polls.

    I'm not even going to watch/listen to any news until Wednesday. Surprise me with the results.
     
  14. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #14
    Democrats shouldn't have much of a chance to take the House or gain seats in the Senate in these midterms.

    Since the round of redistricting that followed the 2010 Census, Republicans have enjoyed a huge net districting advantage. They did very well in state elections in 2010 and that put them in position to redistrict a lot of states in their favor. After that, I thought it would be 2022 before Democrats had a good chance to retake the House - and that would depend on whether they did well in state elections in 2020. As for the Senate, the seats in play this year set up extremely well for Republicans. All other things being equal, Republicans should have been expected to gain a number of seats in the Senate this year.

    Further, the lower voter turnout we'd expect to see in midterms as compared to presidential elections should - again, all other things being equal - tend to favor Republicans. Voter enthusiasm is higher in presidential election years and that generally helps Democrats as the groups which tend to vote Democrat tend to be less reliable voters (i.e., they don't vote as regularly).

    Additionally, we have a fairly strong economy and job market - one on the verge of overheating. That should tend to favor the party in power. And the fiscal stimulus that we got, in the form of tax cuts, should have goosed the economy some. In the short term, that should help the party responsible for that economic stimulus.

    That said, it seems Democrats have a fairly good chance of taking the House in these elections. That just shouldn't happen. If Democrats gain more than, say, 10 seats in the House and hold steady or only lose one seat in the Senate, that would have to be considered a major electoral victory. If they actually take the House, and maybe gain a seat in the Senate, then... wow! That could, I think, only be interpreted as a huge repudiation of President Trump and/or the Republican brand.

    This is why the election of President Trump was a double whammy for people like myself - Republicans (and true fiscal conservatives, and true proponents of constitutionally-constrained small government) who opposed him. It meant generally bad governance for 4 years - or, at least, governance that might be good or might be bad, where such was essentially happenstance; where it was subject to the whims of a President who wasn't motivated to pursue what might be right or good policy-wise, but who was motivated to do whatever best satiated his deep-seated and all-controlling insecurities in the moment.

    But not only did it mean bad governance in the short term, it likely meant political harm to the prospects for our ideological preferences in the long term. His election, and national Republicans generally lacking the courage to come out vocally and adamantly against him, likely means a tarnishing of the Republican brand - and conservative ideology - that will have meaningful effects for the next couple of decades. It may (or may not) also result in a lasting elevation of the electoral passion of groups which have different ideological preferences (particularly when it comes to fiscal issues) than we do.

    If you're a Democrat, or a fiscal liberal, you can look to the (possible) bright side of President Trump's election... your ideological interests may well do better over the next decade or two because of it. Young people in particular may be more committed to voting and may tend to support Democrats and liberal ideology even more heavily. For me, and other fiscal conservatives who opposed President Trump's election, there is no such bright side to look to.

    I'd go a little further to say that this is what I see from my Republican and conservative friends and associates in the wake of President Trump's rise to political prominence. I see an emboldening of a victim mentality which, I suppose, had laid mostly silent - mostly ashamed - within them before. And I don't think that as a good thing, I think it represents a weakening - of character, of ideological conviction, of political prospects.

    I'd say 70-80% of the people I know would consider themselves Republicans or conservatives. These are people that, in the past, I've mostly agreed with politically. They're generally less fiscally conservative than I am, and I'm generally more socially liberal than they are; but we've, e.g., for the most part supported the same political candidates. Of those people I'd say that 80% or so have supported President Trump - some from the beginning, some somewhat reluctantly after it became clear he'd be the Republican nominee. Of that group, what I now consistently see - which I didn't see much before - is an asserted sense of victimhood. They express it in different ways, but what it generally involves is a belief that they - e.g., in their white-ness, or in their male-ness, or in their American-ness, or in their heterosexuality, or in their Christianity - have become society's targets. They are now disfavored (as opposed to, as I see it, just not being favored to as great a degree as they - and I - previously were). They are now the oppressed. President Trump seems to have validated that sense within them, and they see him as fighting back against their supposed oppression.

    Embracing that sense of victimhood, to me, represents weakness. I don't see us as victims. I'm okay with society seeing - e.g., my white-ness, my male-ness, my straight-ness, my native-born American-ness - on equal terms with the different demographic characteristics of others. I'm happy to relate, and in many contexts compete, on such (demographically, though not necessarily individually) equal terms. I don't yearn for the days when we, based on such characteristics, enjoyed greatly favored societal status. And I don't fear the day when we, based on such characteristics, no longer enjoy any degree of favored societal status. I don't see the latter as our oppression. I see it for what it is, and welcome it. I don't see myself as a victim of recent trends in societal acceptance. I try not to ever see myself as a victim.

    Anyway, I strayed a bit off-point there. But I'd tie back in by saying that, I suppose, President Trump's election represents a triple whammy for me. Not only does it mean bad governance in the short term, and a diminishment of the political prospects of some of my ideological preferences in the longer term, but I also see it as having weakened the general mentality - the life outlook - of a number of people with whom I've generally shared a mentality.

    Part of me fears the expected so-called Blue Wave tomorrow. Part of me hopes for it, to mitigate the damage (done on a number of levels) by President Trump's election. I'm not really sure what I want to have happen tomorrow, and that's not a position I'm used to being in. Then there's another wrinkle, I think a Blue Wave tomorrow significantly increases President Trump's chances of being re-elected (from, not much chance at all to something worth being concerned about). It would strengthen his most useful political ploy - the assertion of victimhood, nominally for himself but by proxy on behalf of a lot of his supporters.

    So I'm leaning toward hoping the Blue Wave is somewhat subdued tomorrow. I think that might leave the best chance of mitigating the damage that will be done by President Trump's election. Then again, even if he isn't reelected in 2020, the damage (from my perspective, to the political prospects for some of my ideological preferences) is probably already done.
     
  15. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #15
    Fiscal Conservative?

    Is that even a thing anymore, I mean Trump not only cut taxes, but he added $100's of billions to the debt and deficit. Took a page right out of uncle Ronnie's playbook.

    We don't know what that means, long term, but fiscal conservatives should be ready to overthrow this brand of governance. Trouble is, who do you vote for, it's an economic policy that both sides seem to agree on.
     
  16. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #16
    Perhaps fiscal "conservatives" misunderstand conservatism.
     
  17. s2mikey macrumors 68020

    s2mikey

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Location:
    Upstate, NY
    #17
    Nah - we get it but the Govt cant possibly fathom seeing its budgets reduced since there are way too many "milkers" that dont want their sacred-cow programs cut. Tax cuts ought to be matched by spending cuts but what programs you think are going to successfuly be cut? Try it - see how far you get. If you even try to slow the GROWTH of stuff like medicaid, the military or any of the big hitters..... the old ladies and their walkers will be parading across the White House Lawn flipping out. lol.
     
  18. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #18
    Perhaps, a lot of things, there just is no way to paint anyone into a tighty little box.

    I think Eisenhower was the last real fiscal conservative, but the top marginal tax rate under his administration was above 90%. Not that I think you need a 90% top marginal tax rate to be a fiscal conservative, but you need some way of paying for the things you want government to do.

    Tax 'em where they aint doesn't work.

    Reaganomics turned everything on it's ear, GWB called it voodoo economics, but you can hardly argue with the results. Basically all Reagan did was slash top marginal rates, then spend like a drunken sailer on defense.

    The economy grew, about like anyone would expect it would with all the additional money people had to invest, as well as government spending almost two times the national debt in his 8 years.

    Surely, a 90% top marginal tax rate can be punitive, but just looking at the statutory rate, and not considering the income threshold can be misleading. Some of those rates where on incomes over $1 million, back when that was more like a billion adjusted for inflation.

    I think, to be a fiscal conservative, you have to be willing to adjust taxes, and even raise them to fund the government. If 90% of all income is made by the top 10% of income earners, it only stands to reason that they should be paying 90% of all income tax.

    Long term capital gains taxes also figure into it, I mean you want people to invest, but as things stand now, top income earners are able to pay an effective rate of 10%-15%. These are the people that I would call the Capitalists, because they are the ones putting up the capital, and reaping the rewards, while not really paying what they, by right, ought to be paying in tax.

    It's a massive sum of money, they are not being taxed at 36.9% federal income tax, as I say, their effective tax rate is around 10%-15%. I think I can still call myself a fiscal conservative and call for an effective federal tax rate of 20% on capital gains?

    I also think I can call myself a fiscal conservative if I say we need to slash military spending, and "Homeland Security", by about 2/3rds.

    It's not making us safer, or more free, standing armies are a threat to liberty, our' and everyone elses'.

    Eisenhower warned us of the undue influence of the military industrial complex, and the security State.

    Eisenhower spent money on infrastructure, slashed military spending, and did not over enlarge the debt or deficit.
     
  19. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #19
    Which is right at the line for which way things will go.

    Don't ask me why, but D+7 is equivalent to the baseline or zero when it comes to holding seats.
     
  20. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #20
    Eisenhower does not come off well in Ellsbergs' The Doomsday Machine.

    --- Post Merged, Nov 5, 2018 ---
    Gerrymandering.
     
  21. dannyyankou macrumors G3

    dannyyankou

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Location:
    Scarsdale, NY
    #21
  22. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #22
    Thanks, I figured that out.
    --- Post Merged, Nov 5, 2018 ---
    Ellsberg knows about as much as I would expect a book salesmen to know.

    The Kings of the world don't write books, those that come after them do.
     
  23. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #23
    And?
    Since WWII, the Presidential winning party has on average lost 28 seats during the first mid term election.
    Pretty much business as usual.
     
  24. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #24
    I see. In your world, did most book salesmen have access to SIOP?
     
  25. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #25
    You have to measure a man like Eisenhower in his totality, and by the morals of his day.

    In my estimation he left the world a better place than he found it, even tho there was some failure there, he tended to learn from his failures, and not repeat his mistakes.

    He wasn't Jesus, free from sin, but Jesus's kingdom was not of this world, and Eisenhower's specifically was.

    While not technically a King, a king by any other name is still a king.
     

Share This Page

108 November 4, 2018