Cook: Mixed messages on enthusiasm / midterm dynamics
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:00:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Cook: Mixed messages on enthusiasm / midterm dynamics
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Cook: Mixed messages on enthusiasm / midterm dynamics  (Read 2087 times)
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 05, 2017, 12:56:42 PM »

Midterms Are About the Party in Power, Not Issues

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10433

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


-------------------------------------------------------------------


Mixed Messages on Enthusiasm and Engagement

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10434

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm actually not going to try and summarize this last one. There are too many independent points to be made without running afoul of fair use policy. However I would recommend skimming it at least!
Logged
PragmaticPopulist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,234
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2017, 01:20:48 PM »

Interesting. I mean, some of us have been saying for months about how the midterms won't be about how liberal or obstructionist a Democratic Senator has been, but oh well! I'd rather be the party that is crushing it among intensity and independents, but that's just me.
That's how I feel as well. I still don't think Democrats should just run on being anti-Trump. They should point out unpopular items in his agenda, and run on being a check against these items.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2017, 01:31:24 PM »

Interesting. I mean, some of us have been saying for months about how the midterms won't be about how liberal or obstructionist a Democratic Senator has been, but oh well! I'd rather be the party that is crushing it among intensity and independents, but that's just me.

Ironically, making the 2018 elections about local issues is exactly what Republicans want. They don't want to talk about Trump and his endless scandals, or the failed healthcare bill no one but GOP donors/activists wanted. They know that if the election becomes a referendum on the national party and Trump, they will lose. It was the same for Democrats in 2010 and 2014, and Republicans in 2006.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2017, 03:34:30 PM »

Interesting. I mean, some of us have been saying for months about how the midterms won't be about how liberal or obstructionist a Democratic Senator has been, but oh well! I'd rather be the party that is crushing it among intensity and independents, but that's just me.
That's how I feel as well. I still don't think Democrats should just run on being anti-Trump. They should point out unpopular items in his agenda, and run on being a check against these items.

     It really comes down to how Democrats run against Trump. If they try the same tack of "he says mean things!" that they did in 2016, they will find themselves being frustrated because that does not resonate with the people who voted for him across the Midwest. If they can emphasize the promises he failed to come through on and talk about how they will do better, then that could make the difference.
Logged
PragmaticPopulist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,234
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2017, 04:05:37 PM »

Interesting. I mean, some of us have been saying for months about how the midterms won't be about how liberal or obstructionist a Democratic Senator has been, but oh well! I'd rather be the party that is crushing it among intensity and independents, but that's just me.
That's how I feel as well. I still don't think Democrats should just run on being anti-Trump. They should point out unpopular items in his agenda, and run on being a check against these items.

     It really comes down to how Democrats run against Trump. If they try the same tack of "he says mean things!" that they did in 2016, they will find themselves being frustrated because that does not resonate with the people who voted for him across the Midwest. If they can emphasize the promises he failed to come through on and talk about how they will do better, then that could make the difference.

Agreed. That's not mutually exclusive with thinking that Democrats' chances at maintaining their current 48 seats despite the unfavorable map (or even getting to 49 or 50 seats) are extremely underrated. The heat is not going to be on Democratic senators next year, since they're not in power. That's never really been the case for a party out of power (except 1934), especially not when the party in power is as popular as AIDS. Right now, I'd give Democrats a 40% chance of keeping 48 seats going into 2019. Trading off MO and another seat for NV and AZ
Running on Republican incompetence and corruption would almost undoubtedly prove effective as well. What I meant was that Democrats running in 2018 should run against the unpopular policy items Trump and congressional Republicans are pushing, like the health care debacle (just like cap and trade in 2010), yuge tax breaks for the wealthy, cuts to the ARC etc.
Logged
Tartarus Sauce
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,363
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2017, 04:09:31 PM »
« Edited: August 05, 2017, 04:14:53 PM by Tartarus Sauce »

Interesting. I mean, some of us have been saying for months about how the midterms won't be about how liberal or obstructionist a Democratic Senator has been, but oh well! I'd rather be the party that is crushing it among intensity and independents, but that's just me.
That's how I feel as well. I still don't think Democrats should just run on being anti-Trump. They should point out unpopular items in his agenda, and run on being a check against these items.

     It really comes down to how Democrats run against Trump. If they try the same tack of "he says mean things!" that they did in 2016, they will find themselves being frustrated because that does not resonate with the people who voted for him across the Midwest. If they can emphasize the promises he failed to come through on and talk about how they will do better, then that could make the difference.

Agreed. That's not mutually exclusive with thinking that Democrats' chances at maintaining their current 48 seats despite the unfavorable map (or even getting to 49 or 50 seats) are extremely underrated. The heat is not going to be on Democratic senators next year, since they're not in power. That's never really been the case for a party out of power (except 1934), especially not when the party in power is as popular as AIDS. Right now, I'd give Democrats a 40% chance of keeping 48 seats going into 2019. Trading off MO and another seat for NV and AZ

+1

People don't understand how clear the historical record is on the strength of out of party senators during midterms. They are ridiculously hard to take out even during relatively favorable political environments for the incumbent party (which I seriously doubt will be the case for Republicans in 2018.)



This is why the Republicans won't be able to take advantage of the favorable map. They would be lucky to take out any of the incumbent Democratic senators, even McCaskill, especially since they almost certainly won't be facing a favorable political environment. Taking out McCaskill and one other would be nothing short of a miracle.

The odds are simply not in their favor. Democrats likely have an even higher than 40% chance of keeping all their seats, especially if the Republicans continue to take blows to their political brand by the midterms.
Logged
Coraxion
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 906
Ethiopia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2017, 05:20:05 PM »

Interesting. I mean, some of us have been saying for months about how the midterms won't be about how liberal or obstructionist a Democratic Senator has been, but oh well! I'd rather be the party that is crushing it among intensity and independents, but that's just me.
That's how I feel as well. I still don't think Democrats should just run on being anti-Trump. They should point out unpopular items in his agenda, and run on being a check against these items.

     It really comes down to how Democrats run against Trump. If they try the same tack of "he says mean things!" that they did in 2016, they will find themselves being frustrated because that does not resonate with the people who voted for him across the Midwest. If they can emphasize the promises he failed to come through on and talk about how they will do better, then that could make the difference.

Agreed. That's not mutually exclusive with thinking that Democrats' chances at maintaining their current 48 seats despite the unfavorable map (or even getting to 49 or 50 seats) are extremely underrated. The heat is not going to be on Democratic senators next year, since they're not in power. That's never really been the case for a party out of power (except 1934), especially not when the party in power is as popular as AIDS. Right now, I'd give Democrats a 40% chance of keeping 48 seats going into 2019. Trading off MO and another seat for NV and AZ

+1

People don't understand how clear the historical record is on the strength of out of party senators during midterms. They are ridiculously hard to take out even during relatively favorable political environments for the incumbent party (which I seriously doubt will be the case for Republicans in 2018.)



This is why the Republicans won't be able to take advantage of the favorable map. They would be lucky to take out any of the incumbent Democratic senators, even McCaskill, especially since they almost certainly won't be facing a favorable political environment. Taking out McCaskill and one other would be nothing short of a miracle.

The odds are simply not in their favor. Democrats likely have an even higher than 40% chance of keeping all their seats, especially if the Republicans continue to take blows to their political brand by the midterms.
Say it with me: Majority Leader Charles Schumer.
Logged
_
Not_Madigan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,103
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: -7.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2017, 05:25:41 PM »

Here's my percentages on what could happen.

Rs Lose Majority:  5% Chance
Rs Lose 1 seat:  10% Chance
Senate stays the same:  25% Chance
Rs Gain 1-4 seats:  40% Chance
Rs Gain 4-6 Seats:  10% Chance
Rs Gain 7 seats: 5%  Chance
Rs get Supermajority: 5%  Chance
Logged
Tartarus Sauce
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,363
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2017, 09:34:16 PM »

^ 96% would mean that 24/25 senators get reelected and 1 falls. There's 23 Democratic senators up for reelection so statistically there's a good chance 1 of them falls. Tongue

I think they'll both lose. And I still stand by me saying that Democrats have an excellent chance of retaining 48 seats. But I wouldn't count her out in a D wave.

Neither would I, she's by far the most vulnerable of the Democrats, but she's not as doomed as some would like to think, she'll have strong political tailwinds bolstering her. Meanwhile, some are engaging in fantasies of 4 or more red state Democrats falling, which will simply not happen.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,809
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2017, 01:51:50 AM »

Neutralize Senate and narrow House majority and win key Govs in IL, WI, VA and FL. After 2 specials in House were lost.
2020 will take if self with Mueller releases his investing report.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2017, 01:56:23 AM »

Neutralize Senate and narrow House majority and win key Govs in IL, WI, VA and FL. After 2 specials in House were lost.
2020 will take if self with Mueller releases his investing report.

You're not actually Cory Booker. Quit the impersonation.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,809
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2017, 02:01:28 AM »
« Edited: August 06, 2017, 02:03:11 AM by Cory Booker »

It's a pen name like most writers write under, but I like him, and said the same thing, let FBI investigation defeat Trump.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2017, 07:43:55 AM »

Neutralize Senate and narrow House majority and win key Govs in IL, WI, VA and FL. After 2 specials in House were lost.
2020 will take if self with Mueller releases his investing report.

You're not actually Cory Booker. Quit the impersonation.

The odds of this actually confusing someone are pretty low, especially since Booker isn't from California. We're not going to worry about this.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2017, 10:21:20 AM »

Neutralize Senate and narrow House majority and win key Govs in IL, WI, VA and FL. After 2 specials in House were lost.
2020 will take if self with Mueller releases his investing report.

You're not actually Cory Booker. Quit the impersonation.

Last time I checked, Cory Booker was a Democratic Senator from New Jersey, not a Socialist from California. Also if you read his speeches you can see that he has basic literacy skills. I don't think anyone is going to get fooled.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2017, 02:18:15 PM »

Neutralize Senate and narrow House majority and win key Govs in IL, WI, VA and FL. After 2 specials in House were lost.
2020 will take if self with Mueller releases his investing report.

You're not actually Cory Booker. Quit the impersonation.

all your posts are dedicated to impersonating some low-energy pundit. at least OC's funny sometimes
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 12 queries.