Too Late To Start Thinking About 2018?

[Kraken]

I'll be filling in Wu's oval tomorrow.

Are we not doing "phrasing" anymore?

She begged me for it. Two texts!

[pr0ner]

I'll be filling in Wu's oval tomorrow.

Are we not doing "phrasing" anymore?

She begged me for it. Two texts!

[msteelers]

A new Quinnipiac poll has Florida's governor's race too close to call. 50% for Gillum, 47% for DeSantis, and a margin of error of 4%.

Here's the crazy part. 94% said they already have made up their mind.

[Kraken]

Wife actually voted just before the polls closed, not this morning as I had thought. The poll worker told her that she put our precinct at 25% turnout, which is amazing for a primary -- they were expecting 12%, vs. 8% statewide. This is mixed news since we live in a conservative, Republican-majority town. I was voter #147 at lunchtime and Wife was 500-something.

[NickAragua]

Here's the crazy part. 94% said they already have made up their mind.

I was always puzzled by this myth of the "undecided voter". Especially nowadays, when it's basically a choice between crazed religious fascists and naive hippies. I wonder if there actually was a point in history at which someone could look at the two opposed parties and have trouble deciding between the two because their approaches to problem-solving were different but equally valid.

Unrelated, I'm not convinced that "getting more people to vote" will necessarily lead to the democratic party suddenly winning. Assuming that actual votes are a good poll, wouldn't the distribution of new votes be roughly even? Or is there some set of statistics that shows that non-voters would lean democratic?

Anyway, I voted in the primary, for what it's worth. The only real contested race was for the Middlesex County representative. I voted for the Obama-era ambassador guy (Rufus Gifford?). Not sure who won yet, but I don't much care, just as long as whoever won can take on whichever sycophant the Republicans put up.

[Defiant]

I was always puzzled by this myth of the "undecided voter". Especially nowadays, when it's basically a choice between crazed religious fascists and naive hippies. I wonder if there actually was a point in history at which someone could look at the two opposed parties and have trouble deciding between the two because their approaches to problem-solving were different but equally valid.

Well, several things. First off, it's true that there don't tend to be a lot of swing voters that tend to swing both ways, with most "independents" fairly reliably voting with one party or another. Still, I'll often see exit polls showing that something like 15-20% of people decided in the final weeks of an election (making that 94% kinda shocking if accurate). It could be those people are just less engaged and only tuned in in the last few weeks or something. Or maybe people haven't consciously decided, even if we know they're very very likely to pick one party over the other. Or have decided which to support but haven't decided whether to vote or to bother voting.

Unrelated, I'm not convinced that "getting more people to vote" will necessarily lead to the democratic party suddenly winning. Assuming that actual votes are a good poll, wouldn't the distribution of new votes be roughly even? Or is there some set of statistics that shows that non-voters would lean democratic?

It obviously depends on which people. But yes, likely voter models often tend to work under the assumption that Republicans are more likely to turn out (based on, for example, people's history of turning out in previous elections) except when Democrats are unusually energized, and is why Republicans tend to have more of an advantage in midterms when turnout is lower.

Additionally, young voters and minority groups (especially Hispanics) tend to have lower turnout, even though African Americans and young voters and to a lesser extent Hispanics tend to be more likely to vote Democratic than Republican, while older voters have a higher turnout and tend to be more likely to vote Republican (at least in recent elections). College educated voters are also more likely to turnout and until the last election, were more likely to vote Republican. Etc, etc.

[Holman]

Everyone on this forum is a political junkie, but most Americans simply don't follow the news beyond sports and weather.

When you remember that half of Americans don't vote at all, it's not hard to see where the "undecideds" are coming from. It's not that they're thoughtfully weighing the choice between far-right and center-left; it's that they had no idea it was an election year until the pollster called them.

[El Guapo]

Voted on the way in. As is my tendency I voted mainly center-left non-revolutionary.

The headline race in my district is that Michael Capuano, the long-time incumbent democratic House rep (been in office I want to say 14 years?) is facing a progressive challenger in the form of Ayanna Pressley, a Boston city council member. I voted for Capuano, as he's been pretty good and I haven't heard many substantive complaints about him beyond "he's been in office for awhile". Also if the Democrats take the House this fall, Capuano may be in line for a committee chairmanship or other position of influence, while Pressley (being new) probably wouldn't be very influential at least at first.

Beyond that, lots of other state and local races that are getting way more attention than in the past. This is the first time that I've seen ads aired in a Secretary of State race, for example. I voted for the incumbent (Bill Galvin) - I know a couple people who have worked for him, and speak well of him. He seems to have run the office reasonably well (and scandal-free).

The last big name race is for Suffolk County DA, which is an open seat (since the old DA is retiring). Five people are running - I wound up voting for Greg Henning, mainly on the basis of a long testimonial on Facebook about him from an Assistant DA friend.

FWIW, the big news here is that Pressley beat Capuano. Technically there's some Republican opponent in the fall, I'm sure, but somehow I think she'll pull that out. She seems pretty smart and capable, so I'm fine with swapping out her for Capuano (even if a progressive challenger to one of the most liberal members of Congress seems a bit silly, but what are you gonna do I suppose).

[El Guapo]

538 - Democrats position re: the House improves.

Up to an 80% chance of taking the House in the main ('classic') 538 model. The generic balloting is better (close to getting back to a double digit advantage), Trump's approval rating is down (now south of 40% on average. The lagging indicator (source for caution) is that the individual race-by-race polling is good but not great at this point. Basically all the other indicators point to a Democratic wave in the House, while the race-by-race polling is more consistent with a tossup. There's ample reason to think that that's likely to improve (part of it may be lower name recognition among challengers to incumbents, which may well improve as we get to the heart of campaign season and Democrats spend their ample cash on hand. But at this point that's still a significant caveat.

[Defiant]

Keep in mind that even if the Republicans only have a 20% chance of winning the House, that's still higher odds than having a bullet in the chamber when you shoot once in Russian Roulette.

[El Guapo]

Keep in mind that even if the Republicans only have a 20% chance of winning the House, that's still higher odds than having a bullet in the chamber when you shoot once in Russian Roulette.

Oh yeah, it's still dangerously high given the consequences if the GOP retains the House, just like in 2016 (and just like in Russian Roulette). But it's still good that things are trending in the right direction at the moment.

[Kraken]

Technically there's some Republican opponent in the fall, I'm sure, but somehow I think she'll pull that out.

Actually, no. Republicans don't waste resources contesting that district. She is a shoo-in.

I'm tickled that Diehl -- the Trumpiest of the pack -- will run against Warren. Only 10.8% of Massholes are registered Republicans and we have the lowest opinion of Trump of any state. The one reasonable Republican in the primary, who might have posed a challenge, came in third. Warren could phone this one in (not that I recommend that she try...everyone remembers the Scott Brown fiasco).

As usual, all of my choices (except Galvin) lost. I have an uncanny knack for unintentionally picking underdogs and lost causes.

[NickAragua]

As usual, all of my choices (except Galvin) lost. I have an uncanny knack for unintentionally picking underdogs and lost causes.

Quick, vote republican!

We'll appreciate your sacrifice.

[Defiant]

Former President Barack Obama is poised to plunge into the fray of the midterm campaign, returning to electoral politics with a frontal attack on Republican power in two states that are prime Democratic targets this fall: California and Ohio.

link

[msteelers]

Keep in mind that even if the Republicans only have a 20% chance of winning the House, that's still higher odds than having a bullet in the chamber when you shoot once in Russian Roulette.

Equal parts hilarious and sad.

I’m stealing that.

[Moliere]

Federal appeals panel revives Michigan's ban on straight ticket voting

In a decision that could have ramifications up and down the Nov. 6 ballot, a federal appeals panel on Wednesday reinstated Michigan's legislative ban on straight ticket voting.

In a 2-1 decision, the panel of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Detroit U.S. District Court Judge Gershwin Drain erred in concluding the state’s GOP-led Legislature “intentionally discriminated against African Americans” by banning straight-ticket voting.
...
“Michigan now joins more than 40 other states in which voters choose the person instead of the party,” Johnson said in a statement. “For too long, important ballot questions and nonpartisan offices, including judges of all types, were skipped over by people who marked a straight ticket thinking they had voted their full ballot.”

Straight-ticket voting has been considered usually beneficial to Democrats, although President Donald Trump's narrow 2016 victory in Michigan aided Republicans. Reviving the ban might help Republicans in the fall.

[Z-Corn]

Federal appeals panel revives Michigan's ban on straight ticket voting

In a decision that could have ramifications up and down the Nov. 6 ballot, a federal appeals panel on Wednesday reinstated Michigan's legislative ban on straight ticket voting.

In a 2-1 decision, the panel of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Detroit U.S. District Court Judge Gershwin Drain erred in concluding the state’s GOP-led Legislature “intentionally discriminated against African Americans” by banning straight-ticket voting.
...
“Michigan now joins more than 40 other states in which voters choose the person instead of the party,” Johnson said in a statement. “For too long, important ballot questions and nonpartisan offices, including judges of all types, were skipped over by people who marked a straight ticket thinking they had voted their full ballot.”

Straight-ticket voting has been considered usually beneficial to Democrats, although President Donald Trump's narrow 2016 victory in Michigan aided Republicans. Reviving the ban might help Republicans in the fall.

A group is fighting that ruling:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 220941002/

[Max Peck]

Republicans Balk at Democrats' Pledge to Snub Hackers

Just over a year ago, hackers targeted Dr. Hans Keirstead, a Democrat running against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “favorite congressman,” Republican Dana Rohrabacher, with spear-phishing emails and over 100,000 “brute-force attempts” to access the server that hosted Keirstead’s campaign’s website. Microsoft has since detected and blocked hacking attempts against three different congressional candidates, including Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who was targeted this year by the same Russian intelligence agency that hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016.

The midterm elections, less than 60 days away, are as vulnerable to hackers who steal information and then dump it onto the web to influence voters as the presidential election was two years ago. Both parties face high stakes—Democrats hope to take back the House and the Senate, whereas Republicans are clinging to their majorities as a wave of GOP lawmakers choose not to run for reelection. So far, however, only House Democrats have chosen to hold themselves publicly accountable for how they plan to handle any stolen documents—and any suspicious “foreign actors”—that come their way.

On Friday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pledged, among other things, not to use stolen or hacked materials in their campaigns this fall. Their Republican counterparts declined to match that commitment, pulling out of the pledge negotiations just days before the oath was finalized and shifting the blame to the Democrats—and to the press. “I will say we were close” to reaching an agreement, said a National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) official familiar with the talks, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters about internal discussions. But “one of the major sticking points” was how to address the press coverage of hacked materials, the official added.

In the pledge’s final version, signed by DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Luján, the Democrats said they would “never use known stolen hacked information, or promote or disseminate stolen hacked materials to the press, regardless of the source.” In other words, Democratic House candidates won’t use stolen documents even if reporters choose to cover them in the run-up to the midterms. The NRCC wasn’t happy with that, the NRCC official said, and wanted instead to make a “broader point about the press covering hacked materials responsibly.” The press has had to grapple with whether it was an unwitting agent of Russian propaganda in 2016 in its decision to publish stories based on documents stolen by Russian hackers and published by WikiLeaks. But it is not clear how making that point in the pledge, at the expense of a broader commitment not to engage with the press reports, would impact the campaign committees’ own handling of stolen material.

I guess that weaseling out of promising not to take advantage of foreign intelligence operations is, as Trump would say, just being smart.

[Max Peck]

Republicans offer what Americans need -- bigger budget deficits.

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives plan to unveil another round of tax cuts this week, hoping to draw a sharp contrast between themselves and Democrats ahead of the Nov. 6 congressional elections.

Republican lawmakers and strategists say a new tax debate should amplify the party’s upbeat economic message, touting a report by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation that forecast the creation of 1.5 million jobs and wage increases if individual tax cuts in last year’s tax reform bill were made permanent.

“Anytime we’re talking about tax cuts and the growing economy, we’re winning,” said Matt Gorman, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, the party’s main campaign support for House Republican candidates.

But experts say House Republican leaders could have trouble mustering the 216 votes needed to pass the measure, given the prospect of widening the federal budget deficit already swollen by a round of tax cuts in December.

And some Republicans from Democratic-leaning states worry that constituents already dislike December’s cap on the federal deduction for state and local tax payments, known as SALT.

“Adding another several hundred billion dollars to the deficit is something that I think some Republicans are going to really think hard about,” said John Gimigliano, who heads federal tax legislative and regulatory services at the audit, tax and advisory firm KPMG LLP.

[GreenGoo]

All this economic prosperity must result in record tax revenue. The tax cuts must be paying for themselves at this point.

[El Guapo]

[Defiant]

It's surprisingly bullish on the Democratic chances in the various races. Only three of the Democratic seats are lean-D or worse in any of the forecasts (FL, ND and MO), while they have between decent chance in each of the four competitive R races (AZ, NV, TN and TX) and perhaps most surprising is

Spoiler:

the forecasts for Mississippi, where the Democrats have a 16.8-25.5% chance of picking up the seat.

[El Guapo]

It's surprisingly bullish on the Democratic chances in the various races. Only three of the Democratic seats are lean-D or worse in any of the forecasts (FL, ND and MO), while they have between decent chance in each of the four competitive R races (AZ, NV, TN and TX) and perhaps most surprising is

Spoiler:

the forecasts for Mississippi, where the Democrats have a 16.8-25.5% chance of picking up the seat.

Why the spoilers? Is anyone waiting until November before checking the results?

Anywho, I wonder how much of the MS chances are based on scenarios where the Roy Moore-esque lunatic candidate faces the Democratic candidate in the run-off. If he's the Republican in the runoff the Democrats chances go way up (a la Roy Moore).

[GreenGoo]

Why the spoilers?

Dramatic effect.

Legend-
....wait for it....

Spoiler:

FU. Stupid catchphrase

[Defiant]

Anywho, I wonder how much of the MS chances are based on scenarios where the Roy Moore-esque lunatic candidate faces the Democratic candidate in the run-off. If he's the Republican in the runoff the Democrats chances go way up (a la Roy Moore).

It might be because the most recent poll between the top two candidates actually had the Democrat leading by a very small margin (probably an outlier). It still strikes me as being a lot more optimistic with the Democrat's chances then it should be, though.

[Unagi]

Wasn't it once the case, months and months ago, where people spoke about their being a chance of them taking the Senate, but the House was pretty much unwinnable. When and why did that reverse?
Or am I not remembering it correctly.

[Holman]

Wasn't it once the case, months and months ago, where people spoke about their being a chance of them taking the Senate, but the House was pretty much unwinnable. When and why did that reverse?
Or am I not remembering it correctly.

I don't recall ever being this optimistic about this cycle's senate races.

The Senate in 2018 was always going to be tough for the Democrats. The races in play feature traditionally safe GOP incumbents and vulnerable red-state Dems. If HRC had won the White House in 2016, and even if her party had taken a slim majority in the senate, 2018 was always expected to be a very tough year for Dems.

Trump has now wrecked all of that. That we are even talking about Dems having a shot at the senate is entirely due to Trumpian/GOP unpopularity as it has ballooned in the past 18 months.

Incidentally, I believe races in play favor Dems in 2020 the same way they were supposed to favor Republicans this time...

[Defiant]

Wasn't it once the case, months and months ago, where people spoke about their being a chance of them taking the Senate, but the House was pretty much unwinnable. When and why did that reverse?
Or am I not remembering it correctly.

You're not remembering correctly. The landscape of the Senate this year (lots and lots of D senators up for reelection, with R senators up for reelection in mostly conservative states) made the Senate virtually unreachable. A Democratic win in Alabama made it at least feasible if very unlikely for Democrats to win, and recent polling suggests that the likelihood has increased some, although they're still very much the underdogs.

The House was always on the table, even if it may have seemed more of an uphill battle a year ago, before we had an idea of what the current environment would be like.

[Kraken]

I wonder what October surprise Trump has up his sleeve. I'm thinking his buddy Kim might make some superficially dramatic move toward de-nuclearization after seeing how Trump pounced on the absence of ICBMs in NK's parade. If Trump himself is that easily played, imagine how gullible his voters are.

Or maybe the Russians will whack Mueller.

[LordMortis]

Or maybe the Russians will whack Mueller.

That won't happen until after the election, especially if the Dems somehow take the house.

Assassinations are a big fear of mine. It' seems to me faith in the continuation of the tensile strength of the fabric of out republic is straining as thread after thread is snapped or cut. Assassinations more than any other thing, seem like they would be the tear.

[Holman]

Or maybe the Russians will whack Mueller.

That won't happen until after the election, especially if the Dems somehow take the house.

Assassinations are a big fear of mine. It' seems to me faith in the continuation of the tensile strength of the fabric of out republic is straining as thread after thread is snapped or cut. Assassinations more than any other thing, seem like they would be the tear.

I'm not worried about this. Mueller (who has known from day one that he might be fired at any time) has surely taken steps to make sure the investigation doesn't depend on his personal presence alone.

I'm much more worried about a Reichstag fire.

[Defiant]

Proving that lying about their background isn't limited to candidates on the right, we have a leftwing candidate who claimed to be an immigrant and that her father was Jewish. But it looks like neither is true:

Despite these lies, and the campaign implying that she completed her degree (she didn't), and accusations that she committed identity theft, and that she had been right wing and pro-life a few years ago but is now a Democratic Socialist, she's won her race. She's like a mini-Trump for the left.

[El Guapo]

Salazar is actually one of a group of progressive candidates who ousted six of the eight members of the "Independent Democratic Caucus".. That's the group of rogue democrats who aligned with the Republicans in the NY State Senate, allowing Republicans to keep control. It's almost as if Democratic voters don't like it when their representatives support Republicans.

Democrats don't yet have control of the State Senate though, at least not until the November elections.

[Defiant]

Salazar is actually one of a group of progressive candidates who ousted six of the eight members of the "Independent Democratic Caucus"..

No, Salazar is NOT one of those six, who are Liu, Ramos, Myrie, Jackson, Biaggi and May.

Democrats don't yet have control of the State Senate though, at least not until the November elections.

They'll need to flip a seat to take control, although I would imagine this would be an easier election to do so given the environment.

[El Guapo]

Whoops - guess I conflated those two stories.

Good news, though, about the devastation of the IDC.

[El Guapo]

Rick Scott is planning to pack the Florida SCOTUS on his way out the door.

As a fun twist, it could easily lead to a constitutional crisis, with two people claiming to be governor (at least for half a day) and dueling Supreme Court appointments.

[Daehawk]

Im voting and Im voting straight Democrat...no exceptions. The Dem could eat babies and have sex with a skull and Id vote for them.

[Freyland]

Im voting and Im voting straight Democrat...no exceptions. The Dem could eat babies and have sex with a skull and Id vote for them.

That is a remarkably specific necrophilia fetish you've got there. Plus I think it really neglects the female Democrat demographic.

[El Guapo]

Im voting and Im voting straight Democrat...no exceptions. The Dem could eat babies and have sex with a skull and Id vote for them.

I think Khorne might be the candidate for you. #BloodForTheBloodGod2018

[hepcat]

Im voting and Im voting straight Democrat...no exceptions. The Dem could eat babies and have sex with a skull and Id vote for them.

That is a remarkably specific necrophilia fetish you've got there. Plus I think it really neglects the female Democrat demographic.

Could you recognize his freydom to vote the way he chooses?!