An interesting overview by NPR, in light of Democrats this week winning the governorships of both Virginia and New Jersey: https://www.npr.org/2017/11/08/562560085/2018-midterms-what-to-watch-for-one-year-out
At this point, the House looks takeable by the Dems, but the Senate may still be out of reach.
Right now PredictIt has the house at pretty close to a coin flip and the senate at around 1 in 4.
Neither market seems to have reacted to the 2017 elections which seems weird to me. The senate market appears to be reacting today to news about Roy Moore.
If this last Tuesday was a sign of increasing momentum and voter engagement, it could be a very interesting midterm. If it’s a flash in the pan, it could be a very interesting midterm.
I think the midterms are still so far out that everything happening right now is just background noise for the PredictIt markets. Given that the AL special election is next month, I would expect the Moore bombshell to have a far greater effect.
Even with the Moore news today, it’s still pretty unlikely that that senate seat is going to end up in the D column. However if Doug Jones does manage to prevail team D still has to have a lot of things go right to take the senate. This includes defending nine seats in states that Trump won. Among these are West Virginia and North Dakota which Trump won in landslides.
After that the D’s need to pick up two more seats (again this is assuming Doug Jones wins). The easiest two are the Nevada seat occupied by Dean Heller and the Arizona seat that is open due to Jeff Flake’s retirement.
If Doug Jones doesn’t win, the D’s need to pick up one more seat. Somehow the easiest targets there are Texas (Cruz) and Mississippi (Wicker).
This shows how big a deal this Alabama special election is, but the Roy Moore bombshell unfortunately does not make this race a slam dunk for Doug Jones.
For those who hadn’t heard the latest about Roy Moore, the GOP Senate nominee in Alabama: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/woman-says-roy-moore-initiated-sexual-encounter-when-she-was-14-he-was-32/2017/11/09/1f495878-c293-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html?utm_term=.87162260ac49
If Jones were to prevail over Moore in Alabama the chaos and panic in GOP ranks would be a delight to watch. Sadly, I don’t see that happening. Too many in the GOP seem to subscribe to the idea that the only thing that matters is abortion abortion abortion. No way are the people who think this is the MOST IMPORTANT issue facing our country will ever vote for a pro-choice Democrat.
You forgot guns guns guns and immigration immigration immigration.
That’s because Virginia and New Jersey and a handful of local races don’t really tell us all that much about the midterms, just as the midterms don’t tell us much about the general election.
There’s still another year for a good economy to boost the incumbent party’s popularity and for people to get used to Trump’s insanity provided it doesn’t actually result in anything important happening. There’s also time for Democrats to Tea Party their own candidates and lose some winnable seats as the Republicans did in 2010 and 2012.
I’ve been spending some time on Twitter debating with people who want to primary Sen. Manchin and replace him with a progressive. That’s not going to go well.
My understanding is that the 2017 elections were right in line with polling; the only surprise was to people who don’t trust polls. They shouldn’t have moved sites like Predict It much at all.
I know I’ve mentioned this is in other threads, but the greatest thing about the 2017 results is that is has completely pushed Donna Brazile and "Bernie was robbed!’ out of the news completely. It’s been a long, frustrating year with all the special election losses (although fought in deep red territory) Hopefully, the fury among the ‘progressive’ purity ponies will subside and the Democrats can focus on running winnable candidates in all races. Manchin would be an awful candidate for California, but he’s the best you’re going to get in West Virginia and having a senator that votes with you 90% of the time and can help decide the majority leader is far better than nominating a Sanders clone and losing in a landslide which elects a Republican who votes against your policies all the time and will keep Mitch McConnell as majority leader.
The polls predicted the winner in VA but he won by a greater margin than the polls indicated, by several points.
Just so you know, your constant stream of contempt and insults toward the left wing of the party is a great way to undermine that hope of yours.
Just so you know, the constant stream of contempt and insults from the progressive purity ponies toward the functioning mainstream of the party is a great way to repeat the election of Trump and undermine the hope of all of civilized America.
Or you can keep massaging your resentments and blaming everyone but yourself for not having every wish catered to. It’s your choice, yes, but with consequences far beyond yourselves.
Capisce?
My bias is to agree with you but to be fair, the comment is not aimed at “the left wing” but at those of the left wing who stay home rather than vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils. The same criticism should apply to any who are more moderate who stay home rather than vote for a progressive. Is it your impression that there are as many of the latter as the former?
ElvisL1ves I am if anything militantly moderate but describing the mainstream as “functioning” often seems like a stretch. There are valid criticisms to be made and arguments those who oppose Trumpism can have amongst ourselves so long as end of day circle our wagons. IMHO.
Not when you compare it to the alternatives, the anti-everything Republicans and the faction that fancies itself and its candidate du jour pure because it’s never gotten its hands dirty actually trying to accomplish anything.
The party mainstream easily won the popular vote after establishing ACA and recovering from the Republicans’ economic disaster, remember. I think that’s functioning.
Yes, and to do that we need the purity ponies to quit pouting and got on board with the doers.
The party mainstream lost the election to Trump. To Trump. And they cannot blame that all on “purity ponies.”
Making the point that sitting on your ass because the lesser evil (to your POV) is not perfect is a recipe for greater evil is fair. We have been seeing what happens as a result and it would be worse were not they so dysfunctional. Insulting those who support and prefer candidates you think have not gotten their hands dirty actually doing anything as they try to get into a position to actually get their hands dirty and do something. That’s doing the GOP’s work for them and is the recipe for more of a Bannonworld. You know what they call a “purity pony” when they win and control a party? The mainstream. Oh it takes a cycle, but we are seeing it on the GOP side. Trumpism, whatever that actually is, is the mainstream now. Again, IMHO.
Dismissing factual criticism as “insulting” is an avoidance tactic, and on a pretty juvenile level at that. It’s just true, and there’s no way to get it through in a sufficiently groveling way. *That avoidance *is “doing the GOP’s work for them”, as a wise man just said.
To repeat, it’s time for the purity ponies to quit sulking and take on some actual responsibility. If you disagree, you’re not explaining why, you’re simply complaining about tone of voice.
ETA: I do note that you’re complaining that the Democratic mainstream lost to Trump, which is fair, but you’re stopping well short of saying what they should have done instead.
As in basketball, it’s a matchup issue. The purity ponies have a point when they say Sanders would have been better against Trump than Clinton was. But Sanders wouldn’t have been better against a more normal Republican. I realize that primary voters can’t strategize, they just support who they like or who they think has the best chance to win.
Which is why both sides should have compromised and nominated Martin O’Malley.
Who are these “purity ponies” you speak of? I am not aware of any group by that name. Can you provide examples of public figures who might identify themselves as “purity ponies”? Furthermore, can you explain how, empirically, you would know if these purity ponies were to quit sulking and take on some actual responsibility? What evidence would you require? Thanks in advance.