2018 US midterm elections

The good economy doesn’t seem to have helped much so far. What happens if there’s a recession? The steady downward trend of Trump’s popularity might stop at some point, but then again it might not. I’m not seeing much reason for the Republicans to be optimistic here.

Offhand I’d guess primarying Manchin would be a bad idea. Anyone on Twitter have polling data?

Looking just now, I averaged Buy Yes and Sell Yes prices, summed the averages, and expected the result to be close to 100¢. Instead I got 118.5¢. What am I missing?

Means more people are betting on the yes sides than no sides of Democrats vs. Republicans. Which also means fans of the parties are pushing their odds up a little more than justified.

Nothing much will happen, as Trump voters in red states will stick to their guns. But when you get a presidential candidate, things get heated. More people turn up to vote. Trump failures will show up by 2020. a lot of stuff will happen by then.

Before the election? Not run Hillary Clinton. After the election? Stop pretending that it was anyone’s fault other than Hillary that Trump became president.

Centrist democrats humiliated themselves in 2016. Y’all need to develop a little humility, and stop sneering at the people who pointed out you were fucking this thing up over a year ago.

I think a purity pony is like a promiscuity girl, but without the promiscuity.

It’s not centrists who lost, it’s Hillary and the clueless who voted for her in the primary who humiliated themselves. Any other centrist who have wiped the floor with Trump. Hillary was uniquely the worst possible candidate to put on the ballot.

I don’t think the centrist of leftist label had much to do with it. Voters of both parties now want an outsider to go to DC and “fix things” in DC. The belief is that once you are there a few years, you have been bought and paid for by industry lobbyists.

Yep. Clinton isn’t the worst candidate in a vacuum, but against Trump it was the worst matchup imaginable.

A National Review writer makes a point that I find hard to refute. While the Republicans in control has been a shitshow, they can in fact run on the fact that conditions in the country have continued to get better:

We’ve never seen a shitshow this bad, so it’s hard to predict if that’s enough to cause a wave election. But normally, wave elections don’t happen when things are going this well.

Your link doesn’t work, but anyway, that seems to be making a lot of assumptions. I don’t believe the politics around illegal immigration has ever been correlated to the actual current rate of illegal immigration, for one thing. Also, I don’t believe many would give credit to either Trump or Republicans generally for ISIS’s decline.

The economy wasn’t bad yet in 2006 and had improved a lot by 2014. 1994, too, the economy had seen a couple years of healthy recovery and was in pretty good shape. There’d need to be some kind of argument to distinguish 2018 from those.

If, come election day 2018, the voters are angry about Obamacare repeal, net neutrality, and a tax cut for the rich / tax hike for some of the middle class (even if the Republicans fail to actually enact any of those), it won’t do them much good to say “hey, the stock markets are doing well!”

Worst overall and in every case. The only way she had any chance at all was against a disgusting piece of shit like Trump. Any other republican and she wouldn’t have been close to the utterly pointless overall vote total win she is so proud of. People seriously underestimate how much of Trump’s vote, and continuing support he gets is people saying “Now don’t you wish you had voted for Hillary” to remind them why they supported him.

Here’s CNN on four scary numbers for Republicans in this year’s midterms: http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/08/politics/2018-midterm-elections/index.html

This is a complete fantasy. I hear it all the time from Bernie supporters, but they always seem to forget the fact that he was never exposed to the Republican shit-flinging machine. He’d’ve been marked as a Communist from the get-go.

It also took a concatenation of really rotten things happening to Hillary’s campaign. One of them was that those ‘purity ponies’ were so butthurt that Bernie wasn’t nominated that they pulled their votes to some degree. And Comey capped it all off. I’m convinced that, had he just kept his big mouth shut for a couple of weeks, we’d have President Hillary instead of the shitstain we’re stuck with now.

The thing is, Bernie WASN’T nominated, and Bernie supporters couldn’t get over it. So spare me how I, who actually did get off my ass and vote for the best and most viable candidate in the election, am to blame.

Couldn’t find a gerrymandering or North Carolina thread…

A panel of federal judges struck down North Carolina’s congressional map on Tuesday, condemning it as unconstitutional because Republicans had drawn the map seeking a political advantage.

ETA: and a Maryland ruling to come - this time a Republican challenge to boundary drawing. Wisconsin is also a recent gerrymandering battleground.

As a Marylander and a staunch Democrat I say Hear! Hear! Maryland’s districts are a disgrace. Gerrymandering is bad no matter which side does it.

I heard one analysis that the Supremes took on the Maryland one while the Wisconsin one was still pending in order to release a ruling on both one against each side at the same time and that the Maryland case brought by Republicans may present a stronger case to come up with restrictions on gerrymandering (that of course have great potential to undo GOP gerrymandered advantages across the country).

It’s not going to help much because they actually have to gerrymander by race to comply with the Civil Rights Act, which will add to the Republicans’ natural geographical advantages. There is simply no way to draw districts “fairly” for partisan purposes without really weird shapes.

Bonk me if this has been posted elsewhere…(probably in Mueller pit thread). Can’t believe I’m actually using the “b” word, but there’s a bipartisan probe into election cyber-security, and a couple nights ago Judy Woodruff talked to the Madame Tussaud-like automaton James Lankford (Oklahoma - R) (manoMAN what a stuffed shirt that dude is) and the super-swell Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota - D) about their recent efforts on a bill proposing better sharing of information between state election officials, to designate a state representative to get any classified information, to provide for resources to scan for vulnerabilities, and to get the right election equipment.

Klobuchar went on to say that 42 states still have yet to upgrade their election equipment in over a decade, and that Russia knows it.

Lankford proferred that after an election, there should be an option to audit if there’s sufficient reason to believe that some outside entity might have tampered in any way with the election, to find a means to verify if there was any cyber attack.

The crummy news is that not much cyber-security can get fully realised by November, but Lankford seems quite confident that by 2020 the DHS will have fully engaged with the states enough to ramp up electoral security. (whether I can take that at face value I guess is another question)

Kobluchar mentioned the need for money (and pronto) for screening for vulnerabilities in the states’ existing equipment.

One of the challenges Lankford feels they’re facing is that 12 states cannot audit elections, so if they got hacked, there’s no mechanism in place to find that out.

Things keep looking good for Dems to take the House, but as for the Senate, still not so much: https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/30/politics/2018-state-of-play-analysis/index.html