What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Scarlet said:
Trump seems to be tweeting up a storm that the polls are actually all in his favor!
Click to expand...

Trouble is his supporters will never see a real poll and can't spell "538." So if and when he loses by 10+ points it will literally be the first they've heard of him being behind.

In two weeks we're going to have the intellectual equivalent of 40 million 9/11 Truthers, each of who is convinced the election was stolen. That's gonna go great for democracy.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Kepler said:
Trouble is his supporters will never see a real poll and can't spell 538. So if and when he loses by 10+ points it will literally be the first they've heard of him being behind.

In two weeks we're going to have the intellectual equivalent of 40 million 9/11 Truthers, each of who is convinced the election was stolen. That's gonna go great for democracy.
Click to expand...

It's going to be just lovely.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

GOP can't hold House with a near double digit Trump loss. If he goes down by that much, a lot of current GOP reps will be sitting in Hillary won districts despite gerrymandering (think AZ which was done by an independent commission, or FL which the courts redrew). Not only is lack of enthusiasm a problem, but so is Trump voters not voting in down ballot races in order to screw Paul Ryan and the rest of the Establishment. It only takes 10-20% of them to feel this way in order to have a big impact on Congressional races.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Rover said:
GOP can't hold House with a near double digit Trump loss.
Click to expand...

At the beginning of the campaign the number being quoted was the Dems had to win by 8% to take the House, simply because of the dynamics of the current districting. However, that was similar to a "generic Congress poll" -- it doesn't really mean anything. When you start to actually try to put together a map where the GOP loses 25+ seats, it's really hard. Even if the Dems are winning overall by 8%, they're not gaining 8% across the board in all districts. Plus, even if they did the centrifugal forces of the primaries have pushed most seats out onto the edges. Moving the mean doesn't pick up many seats until you get way the heck out there.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Kepler said:
The sooner (after the election) the better, so the 2020 "outsiders" don't grouse.

It's a recommendation from Autopsy 2.0 they can knock out. I suspect it will be done under the guise of "strengthening the states' voice" (translation: give the state party officials the ability to override their own voters). The DNC uses the same disingenuous language.

The other thing is this should finally kill the caucuses. I would also expect the parties to take a run at IA/NH. In IA they may get away with by saying the tradition was the caucus and they are transitioning to a primary so clean slate. Iowans will say "hey, we didn't nominate Trump" which, yeah, but they gave it to Cruz which isn't any better. NH was a dumpster fire this time around but good god they are self important with their "first primary" nonsense. Maybe pair it with somewhere reasonably responsible? I wouldn't mind seeking a handful of states that have a reasonably sized city but are not dominated by it. WA, OR, CO, GA, that sort of thing. I dunno, NV maybe?
Click to expand...

Hey, quit badmouthing NH. In no other state do the candidates get so up close and personal with the voters, and we like that. Makes us all special and stuff.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Kepler said:
This is correct to a point. The Clintons play for keeps exactly like the GOP. Dubya's margin insofar as it was even real was a joke but he governed like he'd won a 49-state majority. The Clintons are that way, too -- if you're useful, fine, get on the bus, regardless of party. Otherwise you can sleep with the fishes. Ask Tulsi Gabbard how her political future looks. :p
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that. Bill tied one hand behind his back by kowtowing to the DLC and their Third Way path to governing, which kept him from initiating truly progressive policies. See; welfare reform, three strikes, etc. Getting legislation passed by bending over and letting the conservatives get what they want.

Now, you can say he had to do it this way given the makeup of congress at the time, but that's admitting that Clintons don't run roughshod doing what they want to do however the odds are stacked against them.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

rufus said:
Hey, quit badmouthing NH. In no other state do the candidates get so up close and personal with the voters, and we like that. Makes us all special and stuff.
Click to expand...

Had a girlfriend from Ames who said the same thing. Why a modern urbanized nation should be run by people who can best pal around with 19th century ethanol hicks and 17th century Bert & I clones is anybody's guess.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

rufus said:
Not so sure about that. Bill tied one hand behind his back by kowtowing to the DLC and their Third Way path to governing, which kept him from initiating truly progressive policies. See; welfare reform, three strikes, etc. Getting legislation passed by bending over and letting the conservatives get what they want.

Now, you can say he had to do it this way given the makeup of congress at the time, but that's admitting that Clintons don't run roughshod doing what they want to do however the odds are stacked against them.
Click to expand...

Bill and Gore took over the DLC and rode it to the White House. They didn't "kow-tow," they were ideal type DLC Democrats -- centrist, post-racial Dixiecrats. Their goal was to blunt the damage of Reaganomics. Compared to liberals they were, to subvert Rocky Horror, "a jump to the right, and a step to the left."

Hillary is more of a liberal than Bill on women's issues and perhaps on social issues generally, but she still bleeds Third Way when it comes to fiscal policy and regulation.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Kepler said:
At the beginning of the campaign the number being quoted was the Dems had to win by 8% to take the House, simply because of the dynamics of the current districting. However, that was similar to a "generic Congress poll" -- it doesn't really mean anything. When you start to actually try to put together a map where the GOP loses 25+ seats, it's really hard. Even if the Dems are winning overall by 8%, they're not gaining 8% across the board in all districts, but even if it did the centrifugal forces of the primaries have pushed most seats out onto the edges. Moving the mean doesn't pick up many seats until you get way the heck out there.
Click to expand...

Not hard at all. +1 ME, +1 NH, +3 NY, +1 PA, +1 NJ, +1 VA, +2 FL, +1 TX (south TX Hispanic seat before anybody squawks), +1 WI, +1 MI, +3 IL, +1 CO, +1 MN, +2 NV, +1 AZ, +4 CA. That's 25 seats right there, all of which in states Trump is going to lose and in many cases lose badly except for the one TX anomaly. Also only 3 of those seats (WI, MI, and PA) are in states where the GOP drew the maps (VA, FL and I believe TX seats in question were drawn up via court order).

Now you're going to need some help finding the other 5 which is why I'm not predicting a takeover yet. But, if Trump gets killed in places like IL, WI, MI, PA, etc - all of those Republicans aren't going to hold their seats.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

God Bless Elizabeth Warren.

Warren, riffing off Trump's insult to Clinton in the final debate, warned the businessman that "nasty women are tough, nasty women are smart and nasty women vote."
Click to expand...
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Rover said:
Not hard at all. +1 ME, +1 NH, +3 NY, +1 PA, +1 NJ, +1 VA, +2 FL, +1 TX (south TX Hispanic seat before anybody squawks), +1 WI, +1 MI, +3 IL, +1 CO, +1 MN, +2 NV, +1 AZ, +4 CA. That's 25 seats right there, all of which in states Trump is going to lose and in many cases lose badly except for the one TX anomaly. Also only 3 of those seats (WI, MI, and PA) are in states where the GOP drew the maps (VA, FL and I believe TX seats in question were drawn up via court order).

Now you're going to need some help finding the other 5 which is why I'm not predicting a takeover yet. But, if Trump gets killed in places like IL, WI, MI, PA, etc - all of those Republicans aren't going to hold their seats.
Click to expand...

Any idea how many of those seats were within 10 points in 2014? I would guess barring {dead girl / live boy} a seat would have to start out at most 55/45 R to be within any chance at all of a flip.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

Trump's, Ryan's, and Mitch's Republican Party.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...sanders-and-elizabeth-warren?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Mr. Ryan tried to work out a corporate-tax-reform-for-infrastructure trade with Sen. Chuck Schumer, which he says failed because the Democratic Party is now “run by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. This is not a party run by Alice Rivlin and Erskine Bowles. There aren’t 1990s Democrats in this party anymore.” He isn’t optimistic about an emergence of a pragmatic Hillary that some like to imagine.

It’s a nice little theory, which simply isn’t true.

Before we get into some of the details, let’s note the most obvious problem with the Speaker’s thesis: when given a chance to work with the likes of Erskine Bowles and Alice Rivlin, Ryan rejected their centrist proposals as too liberal.

Indeed, it’s a detail that often goes overlooked, but Paul Ryan actually served on the debt-reduction panel Erskine Bowles helped lead, which is generally known as the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Ryan saw firsthand what Bowles came up with and rejected the bipartisan compromise.

Later, Alice Rivlin co-chaired the Domenici-Rivlin commission and Republicans rejected that compromise as too liberal, too.

In other words, Ryan longs for the day when Dems like Bowles and Rivlin were guiding the party, failing to note that their centrist policies couldn’t earn his support, either. The Speaker is effectively complaining, “Why can’t Democrats be more like they were 20 years ago, when their policies still weren’t good enough for me?”
Click to expand...

FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver published an analysis last year that explained, “The most conservative Republicans in the House 25 or 30 years ago would be among the most liberal members now.” Again, this is a quantifiable matter: today’s Republican Party is the most radical of any American major party since the end of the Civil War.
Click to expand...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/republicans-were-more-united-than-ever-under-john-boehner/

Friendly reminder on why nothing ever gets done and why we're in the mess we're in.
 
Rover said:
Not hard at all. +1 ME, +1 NH, +3 NY, +1 PA, +1 NJ, +1 VA, +2 FL, +1 TX (south TX Hispanic seat before anybody squawks), +1 WI, +1 MI, +3 IL, +1 CO, +1 MN, +2 NV, +1 AZ, +4 CA. That's 25 seats right there, all of which in states Trump is going to lose and in many cases lose badly except for the one TX anomaly. Also only 3 of those seats (WI, MI, and PA) are in states where the GOP drew the maps (VA, FL and I believe TX seats in question were drawn up via court order).

Now you're going to need some help finding the other 5 which is why I'm not predicting a takeover yet. But, if Trump gets killed in places like IL, WI, MI, PA, etc - all of those Republicans aren't going to hold their seats.
Click to expand...

That ME seat is in district 2, which is roughly 50/50 split for Clinton and Trump right now (earlier today the popular vote was exactly 50/50 on 538, now Clinton is up 1%, compare that to the first district where Clinton is up about 18% in 538 popular vote projections). I'd say it is a long shot for a D pick up in the house. The congressional race is a rematch from last time and the republican incumbent has been leading in polls. I wish Michaud hadn't given up his seat to lose a 3 way race for governor...
 
Kepler said:
Any idea how many of those seats were within 10 points in 2014? I would guess barring {dead girl / live boy} a seat would have to start out at most 55/45 R to be within any chance at all of a flip.
Click to expand...

The Maine district two congressional seat was within 5% in 2014, but I think Clinton is barely going to win in that district (she will not do as well as Obama did in the second district, the tea party rot has really set in in the second district). That seat had been held by a Democrat for a long time until Mike Michaud gave it up.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXII: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Politicians!

ScoobyDoo said:
Trump's, Ryan's, and Mitch's Republican Party.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...sanders-and-elizabeth-warren?cid=sm_fb_maddow





http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/republicans-were-more-united-than-ever-under-john-boehner/

Friendly reminder on why nothing ever gets done and why we're in the mess we're in.
Click to expand...


While it's true that the mean Republican is further right, Ryan's not all wrong either. The mean Dems are also further left than they've been since 1896. I get that from Rachael Maddow's POV it's all on the R's for moving right, but for anyone on the right, they have a very similarly correct argument with the D's.
Both Parties in the House have moved further away from each other ideologically and they have been digging in on both sides. That is not an environment for compromise and with the loss of the moderate southern Dems, there's really no one left to bridge the gap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top