Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 23, 2017, 06:47:20 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 553
1  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: How safe is Pete Sessions in 2018? on: June 27, 2017, 01:05:46 pm
I think he will be able to survive 2018. The way he loses is not with massive swings against him in the rich "parks" cities (which is how Clinton won this district). It's going to be in places like Garland and Richardson with massive minority voter turnout to elect Democrats. I don't see that happening in 2018. And unfortunately for the Democrats, there are many other districts similar to this. I do believe it will be close but the Democrats will fall short, and with it taking back control of the house. 2020 is another issue though.
2  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: Fremont Voting Booth : June 2017 elections on: June 24, 2017, 02:25:16 pm
Senate:

1) Wulfric
3  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: June 2017 Federal Election on: June 24, 2017, 02:23:03 pm
President:

1) DFWlibertylover/Goldwater

House of Represantatives:

1) North Carolina Yankee
2) Leinad
3) Pessimistic Antineutrino
4) fhtagn
4  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Atlantic: How Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration on: June 22, 2017, 02:02:11 pm
Democrats could easily support less immigration using an economic argument and still win Hispanic voters. It is a misconception that Hispanics vote based on immigration policy. Especially if Democrats focus on shutting down future immigration while at the same time being lenient towards immigrants already here, that could be a winning strategy with both marginal downscale Whites and keeping their current share of the Hispanic vote. Especially if the GOP continues to denigrate immigrants in personal terms.
5  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: What would be your strategy to get to 218 if you're the dccc? on: June 22, 2017, 01:00:08 pm
Write in option: Appeal to both rustbelters AND sunbelters by focusing on Healthcare and economic issues.

Fair enough, but what makes you believe that sunbelters would be receptive?

Depends on the district. The same healthcare message that appeals to populist Midwestern voters will also appeal to populist Hispanic voters.
6  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: What would be your strategy to get to 218 if you're the dccc? on: June 22, 2017, 12:44:46 pm
Write in option: Appeal to both rustbelters AND sunbelters by focusing on Healthcare and economic issues.
7  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Did Ossoff even stand a chance? on: June 22, 2017, 12:42:02 pm
Ossoff's strategy of running on ending government waste seemed phony to me. Sure, the attacks on him for being a "San Francisco liberal" were just as bad but calling for an end to government waste isn't promising much. Every politician promises it but there's not much to cut. It doesn't get to the core issues of the country. He ran on nothing and couldn't win over people who might have given him a chance. Of course, in a district like this it would be hard to run on Medicare for all and increasing taxes on the rich. It will be hard for Democrats to win districts like this which are exclusively white, rich suburbanites, especially if they voted for Trump. They will do better to stick with districts that have either more minorities, college students or working class folks who can be won over with a more traditional Democratic argument.

I must say I called this race completely wrong, largely because I over estimated the willingness of said demographic to flip in the era of, and in reaction to, Trump. Even more so because of how much the situation has degraded to the point where I seriously doubt Trump even makes it through the year. Against that backdrop, I expected the results to be far worse.

Right now it is the healthcare bill specifically, and incompetence of the Republican congress and Trump generally, that is hurting the Republicans. The Russian scandal is not moving the dial in the least and running against Trump the personality doesn't seem to work. I suppose one could have surmised that from the 2016 general elections. The Democrats need to run on something, and the Republicans are about to hand them the perfect gift with the AHCA.

Progressives never liked the ACA that much (one of the reasons why it's approval has been anemic) and now they can run on their own alternative. But it's not an argument that is made for districts such as this, which is why Ossoff was running on the cutting government waste nonsense. Democrats can and should run on a more progressive message in Midwestern strongholds they lost as well as places in the sunbelt like CA-10,21,25,39 and TX 7,23 and 32 where there are more minorities and the districts are more middle class than upper middle class. The exception being well off minorities in seats like TX 7 and CA-39. Democrats will have greater luck there than GA-6 in my opinion. Even in GA-6, Johns Creek moved towards Ossoff....

Yea, I tend to agree with that assessment of the situation.

The problem is that there aren't many districts where they are competitive in the Midwest anymore, certainly not to the level of 2006/2008. Most of the potential is is suburban districts as well. Democrats have shifted too much on social issues/immigration/trade to compete effectively for many of the rural seats, especially when redistricting is factored in.

Yes, which is why I could see the Democrats come up short in 2018, despite making impressive gains in a lot of districts. These special elections show that same pattern.

The results in SC-05 do show some potential for such seats, but you would have to have the situation get absolutely terrible for Republicans and run candidates like Heath Shuler in them. I could see that scenario playing out in 10 or so seats, and that could provide the marginal districts.

I find it somewhat concerning that all the Dems this time (in the specials at least) seem cut from the same cloth. Despite all the talk about "finding blue dogs", the candidates are either Ossoff types or Bernie types. Those are good for certain districts, but not the whole diverse mix that last put Pelosi in the gavel, which included 50 blue dogs.

I think they need to have an unified message on economics, especially regarding healthcare and taxes on the rich to save Medicare. There should be leeway on social issues, especially regarding gun control. No one really talks about it, but I think the difference in close states like Wisconsin and Michigan in 2016 could have been the Democratic push for gun control. Democrats running in districts with a lot of students would also be smart to run on Marijuana legalization. That could get them some marginal 18-29 White male voters they so desperately need to win elections.
8  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: CA-21: What makes Valadao so strong? on: June 22, 2017, 12:31:39 pm
He was able to create a niche for himself separate from the national party. There are certain issues, especially regarding the environment, where Democrats in that area have a disagreement with the state and national party. As stated above, I think the AHCA vote will take him down. Same with Denham, who was already walking on thin ice.
9  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Did Ossoff even stand a chance? on: June 22, 2017, 12:20:37 pm
Ossoff's strategy of running on ending government waste seemed phony to me. Sure, the attacks on him for being a "San Francisco liberal" were just as bad but calling for an end to government waste isn't promising much. Every politician promises it but there's not much to cut. It doesn't get to the core issues of the country. He ran on nothing and couldn't win over people who might have given him a chance. Of course, in a district like this it would be hard to run on Medicare for all and increasing taxes on the rich. It will be hard for Democrats to win districts like this which are exclusively white, rich suburbanites, especially if they voted for Trump. They will do better to stick with districts that have either more minorities, college students or working class folks who can be won over with a more traditional Democratic argument.

I must say I called this race completely wrong, largely because I over estimated the willingness of said demographic to flip in the era of, and in reaction to, Trump. Even more so because of how much the situation has degraded to the point where I seriously doubt Trump even makes it through the year. Against that backdrop, I expected the results to be far worse.

Right now it is the healthcare bill specifically, and incompetence of the Republican congress and Trump generally, that is hurting the Republicans. The Russian scandal is not moving the dial in the least and running against Trump the personality doesn't seem to work. I suppose one could have surmised that from the 2016 general elections. The Democrats need to run on something, and the Republicans are about to hand them the perfect gift with the AHCA.

Progressives never liked the ACA that much (one of the reasons why it's approval has been anemic) and now they can run on their own alternative. But it's not an argument that is made for districts such as this, which is why Ossoff was running on the cutting government waste nonsense. Democrats can and should run on a more progressive message in Midwestern strongholds they lost as well as places in the sunbelt like CA-10,21,25,39 and TX 7,23 and 32 where there are more minorities and the districts are more middle class than upper middle class. The exception being well off minorities in seats like TX 7 and CA-39. Democrats will have greater luck there than GA-6 in my opinion. Even in GA-6, Johns Creek moved towards Ossoff....

Yea, I tend to agree with that assessment of the situation.

The problem is that there aren't many districts where they are competitive in the Midwest anymore, certainly not to the level of 2006/2008. Most of the potential is is suburban districts as well. Democrats have shifted too much on social issues/immigration/trade to compete effectively for many of the rural seats, especially when redistricting is factored in.

Yes, which is why I could see the Democrats come up short in 2018, despite making impressive gains in a lot of districts. These special elections show that same pattern.
10  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 22, 2017, 12:15:13 pm
All these special elections show a pattern that in areas where Trump cratered, Democrats are not able to do much better than Clinton did. In areas where Trump did well, or rather Clinton didn't do well, the Democrats are ascendant. It basically shows that a traditionally Democratic leaning district that voted by 10 points for Trump should be just as much of a target as districts like GA-6 where Trump barely won.

Democrats need to have a 435-district strategy.

I don't disagree with that, but there will always need to be priorities. And which districts are your priorities shape your general message for the electorate, which is extremely important. If the Democrats don't have a general message for the country, they will lose in 2018.
11  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Did Ossoff even stand a chance? on: June 22, 2017, 12:13:47 pm
Ossoff's strategy of running on ending government waste seemed phony to me. Sure, the attacks on him for being a "San Francisco liberal" were just as bad but calling for an end to government waste isn't promising much. Every politician promises it but there's not much to cut. It doesn't get to the core issues of the country. He ran on nothing and couldn't win over people who might have given him a chance. Of course, in a district like this it would be hard to run on Medicare for all and increasing taxes on the rich. It will be hard for Democrats to win districts like this which are exclusively white, rich suburbanites, especially if they voted for Trump. They will do better to stick with districts that have either more minorities, college students or working class folks who can be won over with a more traditional Democratic argument.

I must say I called this race completely wrong, largely because I over estimated the willingness of said demographic to flip in the era of, and in reaction to, Trump. Even more so because of how much the situation has degraded to the point where I seriously doubt Trump even makes it through the year. Against that backdrop, I expected the results to be far worse.

Right now it is the healthcare bill specifically, and incompetence of the Republican congress and Trump generally, that is hurting the Republicans. The Russian scandal is not moving the dial in the least and running against Trump the personality doesn't seem to work. I suppose one could have surmised that from the 2016 general elections. The Democrats need to run on something, and the Republicans are about to hand them the perfect gift with the AHCA.

Progressives never liked the ACA that much (one of the reasons why it's approval has been anemic) and now they can run on their own alternative. But it's not an argument that is made for districts such as this, which is why Ossoff was running on the cutting government waste nonsense. Democrats can and should run on a more progressive message in Midwestern strongholds they lost as well as places in the sunbelt like CA-10,21,25,39 and TX 7,23 and 32 where there are more minorities and the districts are more middle class than upper middle class. The exception being well off minorities in seats like TX 7 and CA-39. Democrats will have greater luck there than GA-6 in my opinion. Even in GA-6, Johns Creek moved towards Ossoff....
12  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 22, 2017, 11:55:22 am
All these special elections show a pattern that in areas where Trump cratered, Democrats are not able to do much better than Clinton did. In areas where Trump did well, or rather Clinton didn't do well, the Democrats are ascendant. It basically shows that a traditionally Democratic leaning district that voted by 10 points for Trump should be just as much of a target as districts like GA-6 where Trump barely won.
13  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 22, 2017, 11:45:00 am
Xingkerui,

If I'm reading what you wrote correctly I think you're saying that Dems should first get a lockdown on Obama-Trump voters before they target Romney-Clinton voters correct? If so, then I fully agree as somebody who knows the latter cohort quite well. I asked a DCCC consultant at my local campaign volunteer event about GOP rep-Clinton voters in and around Orange County and she told me clearly that those kind of voters were primarily republicans who didn't like Trump but were satisfied with their incumbent GOP reps based on the internal polling that had been done on them. Dissapointing albeit totally non-surprising answer.

I think Royce is the only vulnerable Republican in Orange County. Walters is probably fine and I think Rohrabacher is pretty safe. Issa is done but that's mostly due to San Diego County. And the reason why Royce is vulnerable and the others are not is because it has a lot of middle class areas with lots of minorities like Buena Park, La Habra and Fullerton in it. It also has places like Diamond Bar and Walnut, which are pretty wealthy, but have lots of minorities. They are more likely to swing at the congressional level than say Mission Viejo or Huntington Beach. The only city Walters needs to worry about is Irvine and Tustin, but other than that the district is full of wealthy white suburbanites. Villa Park is even in that district.....Rohrabacher has Newport Beach....Royce only has Yorba Linda and Brea to fall back on.
14  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Did Ossoff even stand a chance? on: June 22, 2017, 11:04:54 am
Ossoff's strategy of running on ending government waste seemed phony to me. Sure, the attacks on him for being a "San Francisco liberal" were just as bad but calling for an end to government waste isn't promising much. Every politician promises it but there's not much to cut. It doesn't get to the core issues of the country. He ran on nothing and couldn't win over people who might have given him a chance. Of course, in a district like this it would be hard to run on Medicare for all and increasing taxes on the rich. It will be hard for Democrats to win districts like this which are exclusively white, rich suburbanites, especially if they voted for Trump. They will do better to stick with districts that have either more minorities, college students or working class folks who can be won over with a more traditional Democratic argument.
15  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Why Georgia went R on: June 22, 2017, 10:52:45 am
Georgia's 6th went R because it was a Republican district to begin with. Clinton's performance in 2016 was probably the best the Democrats could hope for considering current demographics, and even that was helped by GOP moderates voting third party. The district is trending Democrat but it will take another 4-8 years for it be a true swing district. Another factor hurting Ossoff was the high turnout. Democrats are obviously more enthusiastic about voting right now, but they lost that advantage here with the oversaturation of ads, media interest etc.
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Job growth bounces back in April, up 211k. Unemployment falls to ten year low on: May 05, 2017, 10:00:19 pm
Thanks, Donald!

Dude you do realize jobs growth was about 200k for a good chunk of Obama's presidency, especially the last couple years? This is a continuation of the situation under Obama. If you want to call that an Obama boom, or a failure, is up to you. The situation on the ground hasn't changed.
17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: GOP will fund Planned Parenthood in budget deal on: May 01, 2017, 06:27:26 pm
Paul Ryan should have straight up told the democrats this :


You want planned parenthood funded well then fine agree to 70 billion dollars in cuts to other domestic spending or  dont filibuster tax reform and welfare reform. Also give that deal on live television .

You're like the Republican version of the liberal who thinks everything works like The West Wing.

the whole point is to prove to the American people the Dems wont compromise one bit on spending and tell them if they want to filibuster fine but the American people will know it is their filibuster what shut the government down.

Nobody cares.

The Republicans control the government. Everything the GOP does is on the GOP, not the Democrats. The average voter cannot hold in their brains for longer than 5 seconds that the Democrats can filibuster things in the Senate or that the radicals in the House force the leadership to negotiate with the Democrats. Go on, write an ad saying "Senate Democrats filibustered ..." and see how the traction on that is.

Ergo the Democratic minority have no, zip, zero, nay, nada reason to cooperate or help the GOP. They have all the political reasons in the world to obstruct and force the GOP to work with them (that's their leverage).

As for the unborn, the GOP has been conning their base on abortion for a generation now. And I say that as someone who wants abortion banned except to save the mother's life and would support defunding PP.

If that were true, wouldn't Democrats have been blamed for the 2013 shutdown?

Who won the 2014 Congressional elections?
18  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: President dfwlibertylover/ Vice President Goldwater for Re-election! on: April 25, 2017, 10:36:48 am
Endorsed!
19  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: April 2017 House Election on: April 22, 2017, 08:40:57 pm
1) Dereich
2) NCYankee
3) Leinad
4) Pessimistic Antineutrino
20  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: Fremont Voting Booth: April 2017 Elections on: April 22, 2017, 07:13:19 pm
1. TedBessell
2. LongLiveRock
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Tulsi Gabbard will win the nomination in 2020 on: April 18, 2017, 01:01:50 am
I'm seriously doubtful a woman who uses the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" will be able to get much support from the Democrats, no matter how progressive she is.

It actually is radical Islamic terrorism and Democrats would do better if they called a spade a spade while pursuing an isolationist foreign policy.

Gabbard isn't an isolationist, but she doesn't support removing Assad , which would only benefit ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the other jihadists running around Syria. The establishment is mad that she's criticized Obama, Hillary, and now Trump there. It's sad that her Stop Arming Terrorists Act is controversial.

By isolationist I mean being against intervention in complex situations like Syria. Americans are ok with covert actions taking out terrorists but they are not interested in getting involved in another conflict.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Tulsi Gabbard will win the nomination in 2020 on: April 18, 2017, 12:55:30 am
I'm seriously doubtful a woman who uses the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" will be able to get much support from the Democrats, no matter how progressive she is.

It actually is radical Islamic terrorism and Democrats would do better if they called a spade a spade while pursuing an isolationist foreign policy.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Tulsi Gabbard will win the nomination in 2020 on: April 17, 2017, 12:57:15 pm

If a Democrat is going to defeat Trump in 2020, it's not going to be by denouncing Bannon. I don't think Gabbard will be the nominee for a multitude of reasons, but at least she is talking about policy and what she wants to do for her constituency. If the Democrats choose a Clintonesque strategy of solely running against Trump, and not running for something, they will continue to lose.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Tulsi Gabbard will win the nomination in 2020 on: April 13, 2017, 12:00:28 pm
If Syria escalates there is a chance she will be the nominee. Otherwise I don't see it.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Gabbard refuses to pin chemical weapons attack on Assad on: April 13, 2017, 11:59:50 am
I don't see why so many here think it's a bad thing to be against military action in Syria. The country is in a very isolationist and populist mood right now. Even with a chemical attack there is widespread opposition to missile strikes. Imagine if this situation escalates where there are American troops on the ground getting killed. It will be politically beneficial for anyone to be against engagement in Syria right now.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 553


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines