Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 168: Chemical Attacks are Syria's Business

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean, there's literally the comparison graph there. Assuming trends hold and you're looking at a generic ballot of D+7-9... that should be enough to overcome the gerrymandered districts and retake the House in all likelihood. I wouldn't call it a lock but...
---

xp1337 posted...

I mean, there's literally the comparison graph there. Assuming trends hold and you're looking at a generic ballot of D+7-9... that should be enough to overcome the gerrymandered districts and retake the House in all likelihood. I wouldn't call it a lock but...

You can show whatever you want to. I am telling you again. If you want to be all disappointed and upset when the results came out, it is your own fault.

Trying very hard to read into what you want to see here to feel good.
---

Corrik posted...

Trying very hard to read into what you want to see here to feel good.

I mean, all that graph is is showing how things have gone historically with the current situation shown for comparison.

Yes, it could all be different this time, but it hasn't been so far so unless you have a compelling reason to believe it is this time as compared to all the others...
---

NRA: "Y'all black people look alike."

https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2018/04/16/HoltonObama.png
---

Corrik posted...

They simply do not know about or care about these piddling special elections.

can you please stop being a liar
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik, we've said it in the past and we'll say it again: special elections specifically favor Republicans because they show up and Democrats do not (as you point out in the midterms). Yet the recent wave of special elections have gone distinctly in the opposite direction. If Republicans can't be bothered to show up to win what SHOULD be easy elections that favor their party's typical level of apathy (compared to the Democrats), why are you so unwilling to extrapolate that to a more mainstream election where they have to spend even MORE money over a larger swath of the nation?

This again is completely false. You keep saying it, but this is not true. Special elections favor those not in power. If you want to keep up your hope of a "blue wave" then by all means, do so. I am just saying when you are all beat up and disappointed you took neither branch, it is your own fault you did not see it coming.

Midterms historically tend to favor the party not holding the presidency, which is especially bad for the Republicans given how wildly unpopular both Trump himself and the do-nothing Republican congress have been in the past year and a half. Furthermore, a LARGE number of Republican congressmen/senators are retiring before the midterms, removing their incumbency advantage from the equation.

You're basically claiming "Republican turnout is always higher in midterms than Democrats", which has historically been true, because Democrats are lazy and unmotivated. But then you're denying that special elections, which have wildly gone in the Democrats' favor, thus showing their enthusiasm/Republicans' lack thereof, have no impact.

Now, MAYBE you're right and despite everything, Democrats still won't take back the house (we all know the Senate is a lost cause in 2018 given the map). But at this point, it seems like you're pulling shit out of your ass just to be contrarian and troll liberals. What am I saying? Seems like? You ARE doing that.

I did not say Republican turnout is higher than democrats in midterms.

I said you cannot gather from special elections that some supposed Blue Wave is going to actually materialize. The opposition does gain in midterms. I have stated you will gain seats in the House. I said you will not retake the House in this midterm.

It is not trolling. It is a bit of common Sense looking at the contested seats vs how many you need to flip.

There is 48 competitive seats. 41 held by Republicans. 7 held by democrats.

Of the 48, 10 lean Democratic. 16 lean republican.

22 are toss ups.

You basically need to win all 22 Toss ups and the 10 lean Democratic seats to flip the house (25 seats are needed).

That is an extremely tall order. It is not going to happen.
---

Chuck Holton's a butthole just because you knew he took that picture with that joke in mind.
---

4/16/2018
TWITTER - Washington Post

The Washington Post wins 2 Pulitzer Prizes for reporting on Russian interference and the Senate race in Alabama

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/985981375902834688?s=20

I know somebody who's not going to be happy to hear about this.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

Corrik posted...

They simply do not know about or care about these piddling special elections.

can you please stop being a liar

careful you don't get modded for asking him to kill himself like this
---

Corrik posted...

There is 48 competitive seats. 41 held by Republicans. 7 held by democrats.

Of the 48, 10 lean Democratic. 16 lean republican.

22 are toss ups.

You basically need to win all 22 Toss ups and the 10 lean Democratic seats to flip the house (25 seats are needed).

That is an extremely tall order. It is not going to happen.

You know those kinds of lists aren't static, right? Races are added and moved as data comes in to better reflect the current situation. Historically, right about now is the best that the polling for the party in power is, consequently, the races should look the best for Republicans right now.

If the trend holds and the Democrats widen the gap as opposition parties traditionally do, races that didn't seem competitive before will become so, and races that seemed Lean R/Toss-Up will shift to Toss-Up/Lean D, etc.

If it's D+4 today or whatever and the Democrats beat the Republicans nationwide by 4 points, that probably isn't enough to take back the House, yes, but history tells us it's unlikely to stay there.
---

oh shit
---

TheRock1525 posted...

NRA: "Y'all black people look alike."

https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2018/04/16/HoltonObama.png

This is racist on so many different levels...
---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

There is 48 competitive seats. 41 held by Republicans. 7 held by democrats.

Of the 48, 10 lean Democratic. 16 lean republican.

22 are toss ups.

You basically need to win all 22 Toss ups and the 10 lean Democratic seats to flip the house (25 seats are needed).

That is an extremely tall order. It is not going to happen.

You know those kinds of lists aren't static, right? Races are added and moved as data comes in to better reflect the current situation. Historically, right about now is the best that the polling for the party in power is, consequently, the races should look the best for Republicans right now.

If the trend holds and the Democrats widen the gap as opposition parties traditionally do, races that didn't seem competitive before will become so, and races that seemed Lean R/Toss-Up will shift to Toss-Up/Lean D, etc.

If it's D+4 today or whatever and the Democrats beat the Republicans nationwide by 4 points, that probably isn't enough to take back the House, yes, but history tells us it's unlikely to stay there.

I am aware it is not static. I am aware that the GOP has a lot more money to spend than the Democrats. They have less races they need to focus on, if they choose to just focus on holding the house. The Dems have to focus on enough races to flip it and beyond comfortably.

You would have to basically clean sweep, with less money to do so.

It just quite simply is not going to happen. You can tell me I am a liar until you are blue in the face, but you also couldn't fathom Toomey winning the Senate race over McGinty when I told you she would lose. And, you obviously did not see Trump over Clinton (which I didn't see either).

You can continue to build yourselves up for these supposed great results, but you are aiming too high. Enjoy your maybe 15 new seats. You won't retake the House.
---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

There is 48 competitive seats. 41 held by Republicans. 7 held by democrats.

Of the 48, 10 lean Democratic. 16 lean republican.

22 are toss ups.

You basically need to win all 22 Toss ups and the 10 lean Democratic seats to flip the house (25 seats are needed).

That is an extremely tall order. It is not going to happen.

You know those kinds of lists aren't static, right? Races are added and moved as data comes in to better reflect the current situation. Historically, right about now is the best that the polling for the party in power is, consequently, the races should look the best for Republicans right now.

If the trend holds and the Democrats widen the gap as opposition parties traditionally do, races that didn't seem competitive before will become so, and races that seemed Lean R/Toss-Up will shift to Toss-Up/Lean D, etc.

If it's D+4 today or whatever and the Democrats beat the Republicans nationwide by 4 points, that probably isn't enough to take back the House, yes, but history tells us it's unlikely to stay there.

Yep, keep in mind that there is essentially no polling for the vast majority of these races too. They just use the generic ballot/incumbent advantage/fundraising to come up with most of their data. Once we get closer to the elections and see some real polls, it will be interesting. Also, the republicans have conceded that they still might have up to another 10 retirements or so, which would take away part of their edge too.
---

Corrik posted...

You can tell me I am a liar until you are blue in the face

When have I done this?

I think you're wrong. I have not accused you of lying. Why are you saying that?
---

15 seats is a pretty ballsy pick.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/6/1629509/-These-23-Republicans-hold-congressional-districts-that-voted-for-Hillary-Clinton

23 districts voted for Hillary, that also have a republican. It would be nuts not to think the vast majority of those are toast for republicans. And there will be plenty of spots Trump won where Dems will still have a chance. The new PA districts alone could lead to another 4-5 seats for dems.
---

Icehawk posted...

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

There is 48 competitive seats. 41 held by Republicans. 7 held by democrats.

Of the 48, 10 lean Democratic. 16 lean republican.

22 are toss ups.

You basically need to win all 22 Toss ups and the 10 lean Democratic seats to flip the house (25 seats are needed).

That is an extremely tall order. It is not going to happen.

You know those kinds of lists aren't static, right? Races are added and moved as data comes in to better reflect the current situation. Historically, right about now is the best that the polling for the party in power is, consequently, the races should look the best for Republicans right now.

If the trend holds and the Democrats widen the gap as opposition parties traditionally do, races that didn't seem competitive before will become so, and races that seemed Lean R/Toss-Up will shift to Toss-Up/Lean D, etc.

If it's D+4 today or whatever and the Democrats beat the Republicans nationwide by 4 points, that probably isn't enough to take back the House, yes, but history tells us it's unlikely to stay there.

Yep, keep in mind that there is essentially no polling for the vast majority of these races too. They just use the generic ballot/incumbent advantage/fundraising to come up with most of their data. Once we get closer to the elections and see some real polls, it will be interesting. Also, the republicans have conceded that they still might have up to another 10 retirements or so, which would take away part of their edge too.

All the retirements are in deep deep Republican strongholds. None are considered to be a threat.

"More than 30 Republicans have announced that they will not be running for re-election in their district, a far greater number than in previous years. But most of those races are still rated solidly or likely Republican, so they are unlikely to flip to a Democrat"
---

Icehawk posted...

15 seats is a pretty ballsy pick.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/6/1629509/-These-23-Republicans-hold-congressional-districts-that-voted-for-Hillary-Clinton

23 districts voted for Hillary, that also have a republican. It would be nuts not to think the vast majority of those are toast for republicans. And there will be plenty of spots Trump won where Dems will still have a chance. The new PA districts alone could lead to another 4-5 seats for dems.

Local house seats don't generally follow presidential picks in midterms. They tend to moreso do so in presidential years.

Saying they voted for Hillary doesn't mean they will vote Democratic now. That is a fallacy to make.
---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

You can tell me I am a liar until you are blue in the face

When have I done this?

I think you're wrong. I have not accused you of lying. Why are you saying that?

Somebody else just did.
---

Icehawk posted...

15 seats is a pretty ballsy pick.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/6/1629509/-These-23-Republicans-hold-congressional-districts-that-voted-for-Hillary-Clinton

23 districts voted for Hillary, that also have a republican. It would be nuts not to think the vast majority of those are toast for republicans. And there will be plenty of spots Trump won where Dems will still have a chance. The new PA districts alone could lead to another 4-5 seats for dems.

PA redistricting is considered in these totals I am giving you.
---

Corrik posted...

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

You can tell me I am a liar until you are blue in the face

When have I done this?

I think you're wrong. I have not accused you of lying. Why are you saying that?

Somebody else just did.

Given how you're currently using multiple posts in a row to respond specifically to different posts, how else am I supposed to take the fact that you said that in the one where you quoted me as anything other than directed at me?
---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

You can tell me I am a liar until you are blue in the face

When have I done this?

I think you're wrong. I have not accused you of lying. Why are you saying that?

Somebody else just did.

Given how you're currently using multiple posts in a row to respond specifically to different posts, how else am I supposed to take the fact that you said that in the one where you quoted me as anything other than directed at me?

I am attributing the post to the side arguing the other end of the argument. And, I am responding to you all in general.
---

Assuming Corrik is using the same list I'm thinking of (I want to say... Cook, but maybe I'm confusing different polling/analysis places) then yeah, the PA redistrict is considered and I have no reason to question the numbers Corrik is using. I'm simply arguing that I think it's wrong to use those numbers as if they're a fixed constant to argue against Democratic chances when data suggests those numbers will shift in favor of the Democrats over time.
---

Corrik is occasionally worth engaging with but you guys are fucking idiots if you think this is one of those times.
---

Corrik posted...

Icehawk posted...

15 seats is a pretty ballsy pick.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/6/1629509/-These-23-Republicans-hold-congressional-districts-that-voted-for-Hillary-Clinton

23 districts voted for Hillary, that also have a republican. It would be nuts not to think the vast majority of those are toast for republicans. And there will be plenty of spots Trump won where Dems will still have a chance. The new PA districts alone could lead to another 4-5 seats for dems.

Local house seats don't generally follow presidential picks in midterms. They tend to moreso do so in presidential years.

Saying they voted for Hillary doesn't mean they will vote Democratic now. That is a fallacy to make.

A lot of those districts didn't have the candidate quality they do now. And a lot of those districts are classic republican districts, that swung from romney to clinton. Now that the house has done nothing to distinguish themselves from trump, you really think they will just essentially vote for trump? This election will be about trump more than anything.

Also, the generic ballot has pretty much consistently favored dems, but the enthusiasm gap is even more in favor of dems. They are consistently more excited to vote in November, which is especially a big deal on a mid term year.
---

xp1337 posted...

Assuming Corrik is using the same list I'm thinking of (I want to say... Cook, but maybe I'm confusing different polling/analysis places) then yeah, the PA redistrict is considered and I have no reason to question the numbers Corrik is using. I'm simply arguing that I think it's wrong to use those numbers as if they're a fixed constant to argue against Democratic chances when data suggests those numbers will shift in favor of the Democrats over time.

I guess time will tell who is right or wrong.

Barring an absolute catastrophic next 6 months by the GOP, it should retain the house.

Trump trying to bring troops in Syria home just in time for midterms seems to be a possible ace up the sleeve.
---

I'm seeing that Sam Shepard said Hannity's producers are trying to contact Hannity...which I didn't think would be hard since he was doing a radio show earlier, but okay. Maybe that's old info now, whatever.

My question now is if Fox knew Hannity was a client for Cohen.
---

Its been a catastrophic 2 years for the GOP but it never seems to matter
---

I'm leaving this at Corrik is a liar because there isn't a single chance in the world that he honestly believes the bullshit excuses he's spewing.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Its been a catastrophic 2 years for the GOP but it never seems to matter

Catastrophic how?
---

Corrik posted...

I guess time will tell who is right or wrong.

That's fine. I admitted on election night that your prediction/view of the electorate was more accurate than mine during 2016.
---

Funny note. My girl said she wants to change her party affiliation to Republican. I said why what were you before? Independent?

She said, no I am registered Libertarian.

I was like what? Why the fuck would you be registered as that?

She said I dunno all my family is registered as democrats and told me to also but they always vote Republican. I never understood it so figured both parties were bad and picked out of the other ones because I wanted to be a part of a party.

Lmfaoaoaoaoaoaoao
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Its been a catastrophic 2 years for the GOP but it never seems to matter

Catastrophic how?

Morally
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Its been a catastrophic 2 years for the GOP but it never seems to matter

Catastrophic how?

Morally

I am asking for specific examples.

Not repealing Obamacare would be a good example, but it turns out that like good Republicans who hate change that it seems to have been a popular thing in the end, despite my utter contempt of it.
---

Corrik posted...

Funny note. My girl said she wants to change her party affiliation to Republican. I said why what were you before? Independent?

She said, no I am registered Libertarian.

I was like what? Why the fuck would you be registered as that?

She said I dunno all my family is registered as democrats and told me to also but they always vote Republican. I never understood it so figured both parties were bad and picked out of the other ones because I wanted to be a part of a party.

Lmfaoaoaoaoaoaoao

As a resident of a state that doesnt do party affiliation registration, why does it even matter? For primaries?
---

Corrik posted...

Funny note. My girl said she wants to change her party affiliation to Republican. I said why what were you before? Independent?

She said, no I am registered Libertarian.

I was like what? Why the fuck would you be registered as that?

She said I dunno all my family is registered as democrats and told me to also but they always vote Republican. I never understood it so figured both parties were bad and picked out of the other ones because I wanted to be a part of a party.

Lmfaoaoaoaoaoaoao

she sounds extremely bright >_>
---

Corrik posted...

I am asking for specific examples

Syrian refugee crisis
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

Funny note. My girl said she wants to change her party affiliation to Republican. I said why what were you before? Independent?

She said, no I am registered Libertarian.

I was like what? Why the fuck would you be registered as that?

She said I dunno all my family is registered as democrats and told me to also but they always vote Republican. I never understood it so figured both parties were bad and picked out of the other ones because I wanted to be a part of a party.

Lmfaoaoaoaoaoaoao

she sounds extremely bright >_>

My girl is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. However she is staunchly anti-abortion and thus staunchly a Republican when it comes time to vote anyways.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

I am asking for specific examples

Syrian refugee crisis

That is a "GOP catastrophe"?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Funny note. My girl said she wants to change her party affiliation to Republican. I said why what were you before? Independent?

She said, no I am registered Libertarian.

I was like what? Why the fuck would you be registered as that?

She said I dunno all my family is registered as democrats and told me to also but they always vote Republican. I never understood it so figured both parties were bad and picked out of the other ones because I wanted to be a part of a party.

Lmfaoaoaoaoaoaoao

As a resident of a state that doesnt do party affiliation registration, why does it even matter? For primaries?

Yes, she wants to be able vote in primaries. You have to be registered as a party to vote in that parties primary here.
---

Corrik posted...

That is a "GOP catastrophe"?

Jakyl25 posted...

Morally

---

Jakyl25 posted...

As a resident of a state that doesnt do party affiliation registration, why does it even matter? For primaries?

Depends on the state. In states where they have closed primaries, then yeah, it matters if you want to be able to vote in that primary.
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Funny note. My girl said she wants to change her party affiliation to Republican. I said why what were you before? Independent?

She said, no I am registered Libertarian.

I was like what? Why the fuck would you be registered as that?

She said I dunno all my family is registered as democrats and told me to also but they always vote Republican. I never understood it so figured both parties were bad and picked out of the other ones because I wanted to be a part of a party.

Lmfaoaoaoaoaoaoao

As a resident of a state that doesnt do party affiliation registration, why does it even matter? For primaries?

Yes, she wants to be able vote in primaries. You have to be registered as a party to vote in that parties primary here.

Here its just you can vote in whatever primary you want, but only one.
---

Kenri posted...

Corrik posted...

That is a "GOP catastrophe"?

Jakyl25 posted...

Morally

Heres another one: Puerto Rico
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Kenri posted...

Corrik posted...

That is a "GOP catastrophe"?

Jakyl25 posted...

Morally

Heres another one: Puerto Rico

Do you have some poll evidence of this being a GOP catastrophe? Responses to Florida and Texas were widely praised.

Puerto Rico was a major rallying cry from liberals despite the obvious logitistical issues present.

Did the GOP have a large outcry over this?

I am specifically talking about things that will turn off GOP voters. Democrats are going to hate Trump no matter what. It is things that would turn off GOP voters from the polls I am referring to.
---

How about their support for sexual assault and pedophilia? Sure seemed to lose them that special election in Alabama.
---

I don't know if it meets your standard, but wasn't the omnibus spending bill not well received by the base?
---

Inviso posted...

How about their support for sexual assault and pedophilia? Sure seemed to lose them that special election in Alabama.

That was a hell of a local catastrophe there. For sure.
---

xp1337 posted...

I don't know if it meets your standard, but wasn't the omnibus spending bill not well received by the base?

That could be an effect. Probably too far out, but that was more catastrophic than some things being named here. Not sure how much this actually hurt with the base exactly though.
---

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

How about their support for sexual assault and pedophilia? Sure seemed to lose them that special election in Alabama.

That was a hell of a local catastrophe there. For sure.

We're talking about the party as a whole. Thus far, the only positives Republicans can point to are Neil Gorsuch, and the tax plan (which polls show more and more people are realizing is just a scam to give more money to the rich.) When your party has complete control of government and that's all you have to show for it, it's gonna depress turnout.
---