:rolleyes: Your “analysis” is not credible. It’s not like they’re proposing to collectivize all farmland in the USA this term.
This is literally not true. The high-profile races you heard about all the way over in Canada were underdogs in states with massive disenfranchisement. The vast majority of Democrat Senators up for re-election won.
Hey thanks! 
I didn’t know that. I had to look it up. It’s always nice to learn something new here.
I guess she’ll have to wait until 2024. By then, people’s ire might be eased, and it won’t have the same impact. 
“The Kavanaugh Effect” is a bullshit Fox “News” talking point. They were running congratulatory, “hey we didn’t lose as bad as we thought we would,” segments all based on the same ridiculous theory Sam Stone is floating. I suspect that’s where he gleaned his analysis.
Yes, if the presidential election had been rerun Tuesday with exactly the same demographic results, HRC would have won the EC majority.
Now that’s a hypothetical but it’s not one without meaning. The demographical numbers continue to ooze in the opposite direction from the Don. Republicans are increasingly close to losing white males with college degrees (Dems got an estimated 47% of that contingent Tuesday). Which leaves him with one, count 'em, one, demo – whites without college degrees, whose share of the electorate will be even smaller in 2020. To win, he has to have converts from other sectors of the electorate and I’d be interested in hearing from those predicting a Forrest Trump win where they think those converts are coming from.
My caveat to all this is that he is an amazingly cunning and lucky bastage who will also use every tool at his disposal to make it an unfair election. The voter suppression efforts have only just begun.
And in case anyone doubts that Sam Wang’s site ran the numbers.
Those who support Trump, or who have held their noses because he does the one thing they care about too will vote for him. They did indirectly on Tuesday. But *if *Tuesday is predictive in any way then the EV will be a solid Democratic win.
Of course this is the equivalent of the generic opposition party candidate poll, so we will see. Still, it’s the evidence we have so far.
What evidence do you have that Kavanaugh didn’t make a difference? Kavanaugh certainly energized republicans. I have seen no reputable source whatsoever disputing that. Additionally every red state democratic Senator that voted against Kavanaugh lost, as well as several purple states. The ONLY red state democrat that didn’t lose was Manchin, who voted for Kavanaugh. Correlation does not equal causation, sure, but I fail to see how you can definitively say the “Kavanaugh effect” was “bullshit”. I am going to need to see convincing sources at least.
At some micro level of individual races I suspect it did … in both direction that offset each other.
Simplest evidence is that the final result of vote margin of about D+ 7 to 8 (which is what I am reading) is pretty much what the generic tracker ran at, up/down/around always returning to, for a year and a half. Bumps happened each way but the overall vote was boringly stable and where it would be expected to be with an overall unpopular president.
From the game of it perspective a very notable part of this presidency is how stable the numbers are and have been from really March 2016 on. Trump rapidly moved from +4 approval to disapproval to -11 underwater or more and has travelled in an ahistorically narrow range ever since. It’s entrenched. No other president has had as stable approval/disapproval numbers going back to at least Truman. (And before that who know?)
In case anyone doesn’t trust Wang 538 did a similar calculus with similar results.
Of note, there are enough states solid blue, meaning won by 5 or more, to win the electoral college. Lose FL and IA, don’t pink up a single pink one, and the Ds still win.
Interesting extension of the experiment - 538 took away 6 points from the Democrat’s 2018 margin in every state to figure a “neutral year” … it still comes up with a D win if all light colors go their respectively colored ways (217 solid D with 61 EVs leaning D = 278 = win) … still a map that favors them.
Of course the candidate, the strategy, and the execution, matter. Two years is forever. But as of now the count is not a bad one.
That’s the best part for Dems in the future view. There is a historic level of entrenched positions, people who are utterly entrenched. Trump has created a place where typical fence-siters have now fully committed, if not to one side, then at least against the other. He has made a bunch of lifelong Repubs and Dems, the difference is the committed Rs are 60 and over, the new committed Ds are 40 and younger. It’s looking dark as Hell for the Repubs in 2020 and beyond.
I won’t dispute that they energized both parties, but do you think both parties had the same level of energy before Kavanaugh?
The country is aging and most of today’s 70 year olds were not Republicans in 1968. They voted for Humphrey
ISTM that Kavanaugh energized Republicans to the point where the elections resulted in a normal result for a mid-term. Without the disgraceful way that Kavanaugh was treated, it might have been a blow-out for the Dems. Instead, the GOP picked up some seats in the Senate.
Regards,
Shodan
Disgraceful treatment you say? While some may believe that, this objective observer didn’t find it one bit disgraceful.
Did you miss the part where they asked him questions, and expected him to answer? Utterly shameful.
That tight “Minnesota nice” smile on Amy Klobuchar’s face when he asked her how often she got shitfaced drunk? Priceless.
With only a brief exception during the Reagan era, most young people voted Democrat. Then they pay taxes.
Dean Heller (R) voted for Kavanaugh and lost.
Phil Bredesen (D) indicated he would’ve voted for Kavanaugh and lost.
Sherrod Brown, Tammy Baldwin, Bob Casey, and Debbie Stabenow, all (D)'s, all voted against Kavanaugh and won in states that Trump had won.
This long held belief (that voters become more conservative as they age) is an old wives’ tale. They only appear more conservative than the generations younger; they are more liberal than the seniors who preceded them.
But we have indeed dug up, energized, if you will, the last dying embers of society’s racist coals. I don’t really know what to make of that.