Odds that Minnesota Democrats have a trifecta in Jan 2021
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:13:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Odds that Minnesota Democrats have a trifecta in Jan 2021
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
100%
 
#2
90%
 
#3
80%
 
#4
70%
 
#5
60%
 
#6
50%
 
#7
40%
 
#8
30%
 
#9
20%
 
#10
10%
 
#11
0%
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 42

Author Topic: Odds that Minnesota Democrats have a trifecta in Jan 2021  (Read 1098 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 14, 2018, 11:25:47 PM »

need answers plz thx
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 #1 on: August 14, 2018, 11:41:26 PM »

We have a few hurdles, there's a south metro State Senate seat that will be VERY hard to retain for example. But I'm quite optimistic. I'll say 70%
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 14, 2018, 11:45:35 PM »

We have a few hurdles, there's a south metro State Senate seat that will be VERY hard to retain for example. But I'm quite optimistic. I'll say 70%

I figured 70% was fairly adequate myself. I don't have a district-by-district analysis, but Democrats seem to have had solid footing in the state Senate for a longggg time now, with 2010 and 2016 being rough spots (2016's result isn't that great for the GOP, all things considered, imo). The state House shouldn't be hard to flip and retain this+next cycle.

This could also be the first time in generations that either party had full control of the redistricting process!
Logged
Wisconsin SC Race 2019
hofoid
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,030


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2018, 11:47:14 PM »

Hmm, any Blue Wave (if it exists) should dissipate by 2020 in the same manner 2012 didn't follow along on what happened in 2010. I can see the Dems winning the Governor seat, but losing the State House and missing out on the Senate in 2020.
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 #4 on: August 14, 2018, 11:53:09 PM »

Hmm, any Blue Wave (if it exists) should dissipate by 2020 in the same manner 2012 didn't follow along on what happened in 2010. I can see the Dems winning the Governor seat, but losing the State House and missing out on the Senate in 2020.

Why would that happen?

Seriously. You know elections don't just replay the same way forever for no reason, right? I mean, Trump could win again in 2020, but you ought to make an argument for it other than "but 2012," which is a reallllllllly lazy way of thinking about this.

If you want to go the 2012 route though, think about it this way: Obama lost a little less than half his first election's winning margin, meaning a Trump 2012-esque reelection campaign scenario would see him losing millions more votes nationally. What happens if the 2020 Democrat wins by almost double Clinton's margin, replicating 2012-like parameters? Trump loses, and it won't be that close either. You can't just take "2020 = 2012" and only take the parts that fit what you want to happen. That's not how any of this works.
Logged
Wisconsin SC Race 2019
hofoid
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,030


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2018, 11:56:21 PM »

Hmm, any Blue Wave (if it exists) should dissipate by 2020 in the same manner 2012 didn't follow along on what happened in 2010. I can see the Dems winning the Governor seat, but losing the State House and missing out on the Senate in 2020.

Why would that happen?

Seriously. You know elections don't just replay the same way forever for no reason, right? I mean, Trump could win again in 2020, but you ought to make an argument for it other than "but 2012," which is a reallllllllly lazy way of thinking about this.

If you want to go the 2012 route though, think about it this way: Obama lost a little less than half his first election's winning margin. What happens if the 2020 Democrat wins by almost double Clinton's margin, replicating 2012-like parameters? Trump loses, and it won't be that close either. You can't just take "2020 = 2012" and only take the parts that fit what you want to happen. That's not how any of this works.

What's wrong with taking historical parallels? '94 was a Dem bloodbath, but Hillary's husband hung on just 2 years later. Same with '82 and '84 reversed. Sure, DJT may be a one-termer, but it's common for the outparty to let out their frustrations in the midterms and then tire out by the time the Presidential campaign rolls around. It took a freakin' hostage crisis and dizzying gas prices/inflation to sink Carter.
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 #6 on: August 15, 2018, 12:01:56 AM »

What's wrong with taking historical parallels? '94 was a Dem bloodbath, but Hillary's husband hung on just 2 years later. Same with '82 and '84 reversed. Sure, DJT may be a one-termer, but it's common for the outparty to let out their frustrations in the midterms and then tire out by the time the Presidential campaign rolls around.

But you're not even trying to justify why your parallel will happen. You're just saying it will because it's the closest example for you to latch onto, even though the circumstances are not the same.

Also, you didn't answer my question. If Trump is going to have his own 2012 reelex moment like you said, then by the 2012 scenario, he must lose considerably more support, just like Obama did. The thing is, Trump can't lose more support and still win. His original win was so razor thin that even a 2.5% popular vote win for the Democrat would knock him out. Except a 2012-scenario would suggest the Democrat winning the popular vote by >= 3.5%. Trump won't survive that.

So your hypothetical 2012 scenario doesn't really add up. This is why you should actually present a well-reasoned argument instead of just pulling things out of your butt and throwing them on the wall. Maybe it makes sense in your head, but what you're actually saying doesn't.
Logged
pops
katman46
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 770


Political Matrix
E: -7.00, S: 4.00

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2018, 09:30:09 AM »

70%

It will honestly all depend on if Republicans can win back the State House in 2020. I think it's a real possibility, but not probable. Also 2020 Senate Races could have some weird results that has Republicans keep the Senate, or some special election in 2019 could flip the House back to the GOP. I think 30% is a fair number for something going that well for Republicans here. In normal situations I probably would've voted 80% but the DFL is kind of a mess and is having a streak of bad luck.
Logged
Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner
Jalawest2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,481


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2018, 09:52:26 AM »

Hmm, any Blue Wave (if it exists) should dissipate by 2020 in the same manner 2012 didn't follow along on what happened in 2010. I can see the Dems winning the Governor seat, but losing the State House and missing out on the Senate in 2020.

Why would that happen?

Seriously. You know elections don't just replay the same way forever for no reason, right? I mean, Trump could win again in 2020, but you ought to make an argument for it other than "but 2012," which is a reallllllllly lazy way of thinking about this.

If you want to go the 2012 route though, think about it this way: Obama lost a little less than half his first election's winning margin. What happens if the 2020 Democrat wins by almost double Clinton's margin, replicating 2012-like parameters? Trump loses, and it won't be that close either. You can't just take "2020 = 2012" and only take the parts that fit what you want to happen. That's not how any of this works.

What's wrong with taking historical parallels? '94 was a Dem bloodbath, but Hillary's husband hung on just 2 years later. Same with '82 and '84 reversed. Sure, DJT may be a one-termer, but it's common for the outparty to let out their frustrations in the midterms and then tire out by the time the Presidential campaign rolls around. It took a freakin' hostage crisis and dizzying gas prices/inflation to sink Carter.
Because there's an important difference between previous midterm waves and this one. In 1982 and 2010, the president had room to improve. The wave against them wasn't 100% caused by the economy being terrible, but that was a major factor, and when it recovered, the president rose in popularity. That just doesn't apply to this election. Trump's not loathed because the economy is sh**tty. He's loathed because he's corrupt, stupid, and broadly incompetent, and he can't really fix those.

In other words, if the economy stays good, Democrats will likely do about as well in 2020 as they did in 2018. If it gets worse (which it almost certainly will), they will do even better.
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2018, 01:53:24 PM »

Hmm, any Blue Wave (if it exists) should dissipate by 2020 in the same manner 2012 didn't follow along on what happened in 2010. I can see the Dems winning the Governor seat, but losing the State House and missing out on the Senate in 2020.

Why would that happen?

Seriously. You know elections don't just replay the same way forever for no reason, right? I mean, Trump could win again in 2020, but you ought to make an argument for it other than "but 2012," which is a reallllllllly lazy way of thinking about this.

If you want to go the 2012 route though, think about it this way: Obama lost a little less than half his first election's winning margin. What happens if the 2020 Democrat wins by almost double Clinton's margin, replicating 2012-like parameters? Trump loses, and it won't be that close either. You can't just take "2020 = 2012" and only take the parts that fit what you want to happen. That's not how any of this works.

What's wrong with taking historical parallels? '94 was a Dem bloodbath, but Hillary's husband hung on just 2 years later. Same with '82 and '84 reversed. Sure, DJT may be a one-termer, but it's common for the outparty to let out their frustrations in the midterms and then tire out by the time the Presidential campaign rolls around. It took a freakin' hostage crisis and dizzying gas prices/inflation to sink Carter.

The difference was that Reagan, Clinton, and Obama all had some accomplishment or event that turned their fortunes around for them. For Reagan, it was getting out of a recession. For Clinton it was his handling of the Oklahoma City bombing plus welfare reform and the crime bill, and for Obama it was the killing of Osama Bin Laden. If presented with any of those scenarios, we all know the moron-in-chief would completely screw it up and the proverbial sh**t would hit the fan.

Reagan and Clinton both worked with a Congress at least partially controlled by the other party to get at least some things done. We already see how little of Trump’s agenda Congress has passed even with a Republican majority.

Trump will have precisely nothing to run on except pandering to his base. With the results we’re seeing in the Midwest in the primaries over the last few weeks, it is becoming more and more apparent that even among his 2016 supporters, there is a lot of buyer’s remorse.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2018, 02:00:52 PM »

Hmm, any Blue Wave (if it exists) should dissipate by 2020 in the same manner 2012 didn't follow along on what happened in 2010. I can see the Dems winning the Governor seat, but losing the State House and missing out on the Senate in 2020.

Why would that happen?

Seriously. You know elections don't just replay the same way forever for no reason, right? I mean, Trump could win again in 2020, but you ought to make an argument for it other than "but 2012," which is a reallllllllly lazy way of thinking about this.

If you want to go the 2012 route though, think about it this way: Obama lost a little less than half his first election's winning margin. What happens if the 2020 Democrat wins by almost double Clinton's margin, replicating 2012-like parameters? Trump loses, and it won't be that close either. You can't just take "2020 = 2012" and only take the parts that fit what you want to happen. That's not how any of this works.

What's wrong with taking historical parallels? '94 was a Dem bloodbath, but Hillary's husband hung on just 2 years later. Same with '82 and '84 reversed. Sure, DJT may be a one-termer, but it's common for the outparty to let out their frustrations in the midterms and then tire out by the time the Presidential campaign rolls around. It took a freakin' hostage crisis and dizzying gas prices/inflation to sink Carter.

The difference was that Reagan, Clinton, and Obama all had some accomplishment or event that turned their fortunes around for them. For Reagan, it was getting out of a recession. For Clinton it was his handling of the Oklahoma City bombing plus welfare reform and the crime bill, and for Obama it was the killing of Osama Bin Laden. If presented with any of those scenarios, we all know the moron-in-chief would completely screw it up and the proverbial sh**t would hit the fan.

Reagan and Clinton both worked with a Congress at least partially controlled by the other party to get at least some things done. We already see how little of Trump’s agenda Congress has passed even with a Republican majority.

Trump will have precisely nothing to run on except pandering to his base. With the results we’re seeing in the Midwest in the primaries over the last few weeks, it is becoming more and more apparent that even among his 2016 supporters, there is a lot of buyer’s remorse.

Trump got 46% of the vote. If there was a lot of buyer's remorse, he wouldn't have a 43% approval rating. The difference is that Democrats and left leaners are turning out at a much higher rate than Republicans, and also consolidating the anti-Trump vote.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2018, 01:26:25 PM »

Probably 60/40, with winning Gov and State Senate being ~80/20.  If they do win it all, I would expect the State House will flip back in 2020 if Trump is reelected. 
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 14 queries.