Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 11:13:07 GMT
The Democrats are as unpopular as Trump, maybe even slightly less. The party comes across as a single issue party concerned with just opposing Trump rather then talking about how they would improve the economy etc, which has coincided with the rise of Bernie and the ultra progressive left within the Democrats. Do you mean slightly more? Otherwise it doesn't fit your argument. If so that isn't supported by the polls. Both major parties are unpopular (Americans distrust their politicians), but that isn't normally a problem for the opposition party when the president has low approval ratings (in this case very low). They need to communicate a more comprehensive reform message, but I wouldn't say they are perceived as solely an anti-Trump party (anymore than the GOP was viewed as an anti-Obama party). There is no evidence their left wing turn has made them unpopular. American politics doesn't work along a single left-right axis with centrist swing voters. Many voters have "left wing" (populist in US jargon) positions on economics combined with various forms of socially conservative and/or nationalist values. And turnout is the key for them to win. The Democrats running moderate milquetoast candidates that do not motivate their base or engage non-political voters haven't been successful. Generally the GOP has been successful running combative candidates and try to convince people of their message and the Democrats should do likewise.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jun 22, 2017 12:25:52 GMT
I think the real test for the Democrats will be how they perform in the "swing seats"; put simply if they can't win in those places then perhaps Trump isn't the crippling liability to the Republicans as he's been made out to be. So far, the next Congressional special-elections is in UT-3 district, and Alabama's Class 2 Senate seat, both which will occur alongside gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, both of which are Clinton states. I do not expect the Democrats to pick up either UT-3 or the Alabama Senate seat, but it is vital for them to hold Virginia and pick up New Jersey in the gubernatorial contests; defeat in those places would almost certainly be crippling for them. For now, I personally am quite content with letting Trump's ego grow with each successful Republican defence- it'll make watching his reaction to any defeats in the 2018 mid-terms all the more amusing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 12:26:20 GMT
"Wide gender and racial gaps mark the first post-primary survey of the Virginia governor's race, as Democratic Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam leads Republican Ed Gillespie 47 - 39 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
The Democrat leads 54 - 33 percent among women, while the Republican leads 47 - 39 percent among men, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds. White voters back Gillespie 48 - 40 percent, while non-white voters back Northam 65 - 20 percent.
Gillespie leads 91 - 4 percent among Republicans while Northam takes Democrats 94 - 1 percent. Independent voters are divided with 40 percent for Gillespie and 38 percent for Northam." poll.qu.edu/virginia/release-detail?ReleaseID=2467
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,894
|
Post by jamie on Jun 22, 2017 16:07:27 GMT
Gillespie leads 91 - 4 percent among Republicans while Northam takes Democrats 94 - 1 percent. Independent voters are divided with 40 percent for Gillespie and 38 percent for Northam." Those are VERY good numbers for Northam with Democrats considering this includes DINOs and he's come out of a competitive primary. Obviously it's months out but Democrats have to be favourite at this point. Lord Twaddleford If Democrats don't gain New Jersey then they should disband the party. Chris Christie has one of the worst (if not the worst) approval ratings EVER, and it's his lieutenant who is running this time so it's incredibly difficult to imagine a scenario where this is not a safe Democratic race.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,894
|
Post by jamie on Jul 3, 2017 21:36:24 GMT
Representative Ann Wagner has very surprisingly announced she will not run for the Missouri Senate in 2018 against Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill. Wagner was the presumed candidate and had been fundraising like she was certain to run. Republicans will now turn to Attorney General Josh Hawley, who has held the office for less than a year. It's says a lot that Wagner is not running for Senate in a state that backed Trump by almost 20% and against an incumbent who has never been particularly popular and only won in 2012 because her opponent decided to talk about 'legitimate rape' (coincidentally, said opponent was succeeded by Wagner in MO2).
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,894
|
Post by jamie on Jul 12, 2017 11:34:52 GMT
2 special elections in Oklahoma yesterday, 1 state senate and 1 state house. Both are dark red and historically Republican. Democrats gained both with candidates who had previously lost by double digit margins. Wins likely due to scandalised resignation of predecessors, unpopular Oklahoma Republican government, and obviously Democratic enthusiasm which is most noticeable in low-turnout elections.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jul 12, 2017 22:31:12 GMT
There's another Oklahoma one coming up but unfortunately it's not for a juicy reason like soliciting a 17 year old boy.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,894
|
Post by jamie on Jul 15, 2017 12:00:43 GMT
Wouldn't get too excited. Stabenow won by 21% in 2012, as Obama was winning by less than 10%, and he only won by 16% in 2008 at the height of the financial crash + auto problems. Can't see her getting 21% now due to polarisation, but Hillary Clinton almost won in 2016 despite being an awful fit for the state, so Stabenow will be safe.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jul 15, 2017 13:53:55 GMT
Wouldn't get too excited. Stabenow won by 21% in 2012, as Obama was winning by less than 10%, and he only won by 16% in 2008 at the height of the financial crash + auto problems. Can't see her getting 21% now due to polarisation, but Hillary Clinton almost won in 2016 despite being an awful fit for the state, so Stabenow will be safe. Perhaps if it was a Clinton presidency we were looking at today as opposed to a Trump one, then maybe the Republicans might have been in with a chance of picking this seat up. Otherwise, I'm more or less in agreement with this statement. In fact, I suspect that the Democrats will continue to maintain their dominance in the Class 1 senate seats after 2018, thanks to the Trump administration, otherwise we'd be looking at a fair few seats with unquestionably doomed Democratic incumbents. As a rule, mid-terms tend to go against the governing party, 2002 & 1934 were arguably aberrations in this regard.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jul 15, 2017 18:41:15 GMT
Wouldn't get too excited. Stabenow won by 21% in 2012, as Obama was winning by less than 10%, and he only won by 16% in 2008 at the height of the financial crash + auto problems. Can't see her getting 21% now due to polarisation, but Hillary Clinton almost won in 2016 despite being an awful fit for the state, so Stabenow will be safe. Stabenow would never get obliterated in rural areas the way the Clinton was. Leaving aside everything else her position as the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee will always deliver a certain level of support.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jul 20, 2017 23:29:05 GMT
Has he missed the decades of partisan witch huntery from the ADL?
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jul 20, 2017 23:46:33 GMT
Mandel is a poor candidate but will get the nomination because none of the GOP top tier are willing to be the sacrificial lamb that loses to Sherrod Brown.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 7:16:03 GMT
Mandel is a poor candidate but will get the nomination because none of the GOP top tier are willing to be the sacrificial lamb that loses to Sherrod Brown. Mandel is bound to win this race if Richard Allen has said otherwise. Where is Pjones with an expert analysis of American politics.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,819
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 21, 2017 9:49:24 GMT
Mandel is a poor candidate but will get the nomination because none of the GOP top tier are willing to be the sacrificial lamb that loses to Sherrod Brown. Mandel is bound to win this race if Richard Allen has said otherwise. Where is Pjones with an expert analysis of American politics.Is this satire? As for RA, he might be the first to admit that his dislike of Trump occasionally gets the better of him. But his judgements are reliable more often than not.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jul 21, 2017 14:07:42 GMT
I figured I'd have a quick look at the Wikipedia page on the Ohio 2018 Senate contest, to see if anyone had put any polling data up. The most recent polling figures of Brown vs. Mandel show Mandel leading; said polls were published by an organisation called "People's Pundit Daily", and upon investigation of this source it is evident to me that this publication has a not insignificant Republican/conservative lean (the biggest tell being that it lists Pat Buchanan as one of its contributors). I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to draw their own conclusions, but personally I'd be taking those figures with shovel's worth of salt.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jul 21, 2017 23:13:23 GMT
Mandel is a poor candidate but will get the nomination because none of the GOP top tier are willing to be the sacrificial lamb that loses to Sherrod Brown. Mandel is bound to win this race if Richard Allen has said otherwise. Where is Pjones with an expert analysis of American politics. Actually I do think that my Senate predictions over the last two cycles have been pretty good and I did confidently predict that Rob Portman would comfortably win re-election back when most pundits expected a very close election. For many similar reasons I think that Brown is pretty safe, and will get a solid if not spectacular win, even if polling numbers don't suggest that at present. He combines solid appeal among the Democrats liberal base with deep roots in blue collar/industrial Ohio. EDIT: Brown is also trouncing Mandel at fund raising so far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 18:40:51 GMT
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jul 24, 2017 19:14:51 GMT
That poll only had Northam ahead by 13 points (50-37) in Northern Virginia which doesn't strike me as remotely likely. That said if this is even a close race it is not a good sign for the Democrats.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,894
|
Post by jamie on Jul 24, 2017 20:43:23 GMT
To add, the 12% of voters who don't back Northam or Gillespie give Trump a -38% approval rating (-20% overall) and McAuliffe a +8% approval rating (+15% overall). Among all voters, right/wrong track for country in -31% while for Virginia is +13%. Not exactly an endorsement of the Republican Party while the latter pretty good for a state with a Democratic governor.
On top of that, they seem to have wacky party ID ideas. Independents are 43% (+16% on 2016), Democrats 33% (-10% on 2016) and Republicans 27% (-6%), which doesn't look like a midterm electorate. Also, and I may have got this wrong, but they appear to have 47% of respondents as Republican primary voters and 36% as Democrat primary voters. Anything like that is ludicrous.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 1, 2017 19:13:09 GMT
Pretty impressive opening ad from Amy McGrath who is running in KY-06 next year.
KY-06 (anchored on Lexington) is a pretty solid GOP district but retains some decent Democratic strength and could potentially flip to the right candidate in the right circumstances.
|
|