Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[onejayhawk]

I've been hearing rumors that Ted Cruz is going to change his party affiliation, run as a Democrat, and win the presidency. They're also going to let Ted serve as a Senator simultaneously as a Republican just because.

You must have had a good laugh.

In the weekly newsletter, Sabato moved North Dakota into the Leans Republican column. Texas and Tennessee were already there. That leaves five toss-ups, AZ, FL, IN, MO, NV. Also their house model is very competitive for control. This is their map site: https://www.political-atlas.com/

J

[nots]

IMO, either Klobuchar or Bullock would represent the best opportunity for Democrats to win the WH.

[onejayhawk]

IMO, either Klobuchar or Bullock would represent the best opportunity for Democrats to win the WH.

This for a party that nominated Hillary. It's not who you know, it's how deep are their pockets.

J

[baldgriff]

This for a party that nominated Hillary. It's not who you know, it's how deep are their pockets.

J

Did they really nominate her??? Or did she buy the nomination?? Oh yeah, back to the deep pockets.

[onejayhawk]

Did they really nominate her??? Or did she buy the nomination?? Oh yeah, back to the deep pockets.

It was her name on the ballot in November. If she cheated, they didn't call her on it like Trump has.

J

[chancellor]

It was her name on the ballot in November. If she cheated, they didn't call her on it like Trump has.

Oh, I'd say the Sanders supporters were pretty diligent about calling out what they perceived as cheating. My perception is Democrats will be very focused on DNC behavior this time around, and rightfully so.

[frae]

You must have had a good laugh.

In the weekly newsletter, Sabato moved North Dakota into the Leans Republican column. Texas and Tennessee were already there. That leaves five toss-ups, AZ, FL, IN, MO, NV. Also their house model is very competitive for control. This is their map site: https://www.political-atlas.com/

J

Nate Silver tweeted something like this, basically if you want to say the senate is going republican you need to recognize the odds are pretty similar the house is going democratic and vice versa if I want to say the house is going Democratic I need to recogize the odds are even slighly better that the senate is going Republican.

As of this morning house control is 78.1 likely for Dems and Senate control is 81.2 for Reps. So if you want to say the race for the house is competetive you would need to acknowlege the same for the Senate. I have come to accept winning control of the Senate isn't going to happen if the polls look like this in 3 weeks, you still playing for the inside straight on the house?

[B-Fly]

you still playing for the inside straight on the house?

I think he's banking on the kind of pollster-underestimated "deplorable" turnout/enthusiasm advantage like the one that Trump got in 2016. The question for me is whether Trump's cult of personality advantage translates into midterm turnout better than, say, Barack Obama's did. Obama got incredible turnout and support, particularly from Black voters, but also young voters, in 2008 and 2012, who didn't turn out for him or his party when his name wasn't on the ballot. Midterm election trends and several of the special elections since Trump took office suggest that Democrats should have a turnout advantage next month, but I recognize many optimistic GOP/Trump partisans believe that the Kavanaugh firestorm really rallied the GOP troops while also potentially dimming Democratic enthusiasm to vote against Trump's party in what Democrats/liberals (and many Republicans too) largely view as a referendum election on Trump. Ultimately, I accept that Trump is sufficiently unique as a master polarizer and motivator of both extreme emotional support and opposition, and that therefore history may be less accurate of a guide than usual and that polling models may therefore again be off.

[frae]

I think he's banking on the kind of pollster-underestimated "deplorable" turnout/enthusiasm advantage like the one that Trump got in 2016. The question for me is whether Trump's cult of personality advantage translates into midterm turnout better than, say, Barack Obama's did. Obama got incredible turnout and support, particularly from Black voters, but also young voters, in 2008 and 2012, who didn't turn out for him or his party when his name wasn't on the ballot. Midterm election trends and several of the special elections since Trump took office suggest that Democrats should have a turnout advantage next month, but I recognize many optimistic GOP/Trump partisans believe that the Kavanaugh firestorm really rallied the GOP troops while also potentially dimming Democratic enthusiasm to vote against Trump's party in what Democrats/liberals (and many Republicans too) largely view as a referendum election on Trump. Ultimately, I accept that Trump is sufficiently unique as a master polarizer and motivator of both extreme emotional support and opposition, and that therefore history may be less accurate of a guide than usual and that polling models may therefore again be off.

So you might call it hope?

obama-hope-shelter-copy.jpg

[onejayhawk]

Nate Silver tweeted something like this, basically if you want to say the senate is going republican you need to recognize the odds are pretty similar the house is going democratic and vice versa if I want to say the house is going Democratic I need to recogize the odds are even slighly better that the senate is going Republican.

As of this morning house control is 78.1 likely for Dems and Senate control is 81.2 for Reps. So if you want to say the race for the house is competetive you would need to acknowlege the same for the Senate. I have come to accept winning control of the Senate isn't going to happen if the polls look like this in 3 weeks, you still playing for the inside straight on the house?

Didn't I just said most of this? I checked. I did say most of this.

The race to watch is the House. At least there the Democrats have a lead to squander.

J

[frae]

Didn't I just said most of this? I checked. I did say most of this.

The race to watch is the House. At least there the Democrats have a lead to squander.

J

You said the house race for control is very compettitive, if we are calling the house compettive when the Dems are favored by 78.8% are you calling the senate race for control compettetive at Republicans favored at 81% ?

[madducks]

Senator Elizabeth Warren has released the results of a DNA analysis showing she has distant Native American ancestry, in an apparent attempt to pre-empt further questions and attacks should she run for president in 2020.

[DMT]

Senator Elizabeth Warren has released the results of a DNA analysis showing she has distant Native American ancestry, in an apparent attempt to pre-empt further questions and attacks should she run for president in 2020.

And shockingly Trump denies making the offer to donate $1M to her charity of choice if she did.

[Sour Masher]

Anyone see this story? Not a major story, but my initial reaction is that excommunication may not be the best way to deal with internal disagreement in the party. I don't know anything about this except for the article linked to, but is "standing for the flag" necessarily seen as standing against African Americans rights to be heard on the important issues they are protesting? What does everyone think? I get why this move was made, but I worry that this is the wrong way to grow the party and encourage dialogue. Do we go too far when we immediately ask anyone who offends our sensitivities to leave the tent?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...pXw?li=BBnbfcL

[DMT]

that's not a terribly accurate description.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/politics/donald-trump-elizabeth-warren-dna-1-million/index.html

President Donald Trump claims he "didn't say" that he would pay $1 million to Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren for taking DNA test to review her Native American heritage, after she released the results of one on Monday morning.

"Who cares?" Trump said when asked about the DNA test. When pressed on the once-promised $1 million payment, Trump responded: "I didn't say that. You better read it again."

Can't wait to hear the independent spin.