Current Events > I thought liberals had a ton of momentum and Sen majority shift was inevitable?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.axios.com/brutal-poll-democrats-2018-midterms-senate-5eb4075f-4325-46aa-bda5-699b814d9dd7.html


---

Wtf we love polls now
---

who cares either way. We could fill the entire senate with actual sjw cuckolds and none of their shit would come to pass lmao

Last time Dems had majority, they didn't do shit

Since when?

The usual idea was that Dems could likely win the House and the Senate is probably unlikely or even next to impossible.
---

Lol dems started losing momentum weeks ago as far as the generic ballot. Though there was a recent bit of an uptick.

Still, they've been winning some good races especially in Trump country. Democrats are very good at running moderates and blue dogs in red states. However, they need to embrace the more leftist candidates for really blue districts.

I think the house will turn blue.

Senate? Hard to tell.
---

The Senate was almost never in the running for 18. Doug Jones was the only thing that gave even the slightest hope to the Dems. The layout of seats up for election is strongly in the Republicans favor. Not much to do with the shift in public opinion for the most part. You'll see the effect of that in the House.

a few months ago youd get laughed at for suggesting the liberals wouldn't get senate majority
---

https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html

From that same website. So which is it?
---

bloodydeath0 posted...

a few months ago youd get laughed at for suggesting the liberals wouldn't get senate majority

From whom? Most people don't believe that senate control was likely and agreed the best the Dems can do is try to stem the bleeding
---

bloodydeath0 posted...

a few months ago youd get laughed at for suggesting the liberals wouldn't get senate majority

There's an archive site. Please screenshot these claims. Because aside from politically ignorant people, the Senate has not been expected.

Milkman5 posted...

who cares either way. We could fill the entire senate with actual sjw cuckolds and none of their shit would come to pass lmao

Last time Dems had majority, they didn't do shit

Not true. Last time the democrats had a majority we got a new healthcare law, gay marriage, and net neutrality.

Things went to shit when liberals decided to be lazy and stop showing up to vote, then the old white conservatives took over and started blocking Obama at every single turn.

Conception616 posted...

https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html

From that same website. So which is it?

i agree with that. almost all news sources have a bias and are willing to tell half truths to support their narrative.
---

1 poll. RVs. use RCP, or 538 to aggregate them.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/2018_elections_senate_map.html
---

BWLurker posted...

bloodydeath0 posted...

a few months ago youd get laughed at for suggesting the liberals wouldn't get senate majority

There's an archive site. Please screenshot these claims. Because aside from politically ignorant people, the Senate has not been expected.

where
---

It's not November yet.

That said the democrats will blow it and choose people liberals don't like so they won't vote at all.
---

bloodydeath0 posted...

a few months ago youd get laughed at for suggesting the liberals wouldn't get senate majority

No you would get laughed at for saying the democrats would get Senate majority.
---

that's actually better than I anticipated for the senate democrats
---

Balrog0 posted...

that's actually better than I anticipated for the senate democrats

Actually yeah, me too. I could have sworn analysis done last year gave a small, but decent chance of R getting a supermajority.

This gives barely any. 6 toss ups to deadlock (assuming McCain doesn't retire) 7 to gain majority. I still don't see it happening, but who knows?

BWLurker posted...

I could have sworn analysis done last year gave a small, but decent chance of R getting a supermajority.

none that i am aware of
---

Darkman124 posted...

BWLurker posted...

I could have sworn analysis done last year gave a small, but decent chance of R getting a supermajority.

none that i am aware of

So, I don't follow this as closely as I have in the past, but my general sense of how things have progressed:

Lots of emphasis on the House post-2016 election, especially because of special elections in that chamber (member Ossoff raising record numbers in fundraising?). But no talk of the Senate that I can recall. Remember, the Dems were supposed to win the Senate fairly safely in 2016, so there was little enthusiasm.

But then after Democrats lose a bunch of special elections (the aforementioned, that dude who body slammed a reporter but won anyway, a close race in South Carolina), and the fact that Roy Moore was a bad candidate that keeps getting worse, makes Doug Jones the great white hope for Dems to actually get a special election win in 2017, which they do.

Because of this, many journalists start talking about the Dem chances of taking the Senate, with some writing about it as a toss-up, even though the fundamentals haven't changed

Now I guess we're coming back around to the realization that the fundamentals haven't changed
---

yeah, but i dont think any analysts ever thought a R supermajority was happening
---

Darkman124 posted...

yeah, but i dont think any analysts ever thought a R supermajority was happening

It was a popular thing to postulate prior to 2016 when it was assumed Clinton would win and be the incumbent in 2018
---

definitely not a supermajority, as that implies 2/3 control

I can imagine there being someone who thought the senate might tip heavily towards Rs right after the election given the number of Senators that are in states trump won but yeah
---

Doom_Art posted...

It was a popular thing to postulate prior to 2016 when it was assumed Clinton would win and be the incumbent in 2018

was it? i dont remember this.

Balrog0 posted...

definitely not a supermajority, as that implies 2/3 control

true. i think we were all thinking filibuster-proof majority, which i also dont remember
---

Clearly the solution . . . is more leftist identity politics. *quintuples down*
---

Darkman124 posted...

yeah, but i dont think any analysts ever thought a R supermajority was happening

No, I didn't mean thought. Just number wise there was a rather decent chance. Like I think I saw this same map last year with 39-47 and a whole bunch more tossups

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Clearly the solution . . . is more leftist identity politics. *quintuples down*

it may well be, in the face of right-wing identity politics. base turnout is always more important than appealing to moderates. flaky, flaky moderates.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Clearly the solution . . . is more leftist identity politics. *quintuples down*

Trump won with identity politics. He continually uses them in every rally/speech

as a note i'd much prefer a focus on economic equality

that seemed to resonate well for sanders with a portion of the dem base that is generally overlooked, as the dem focus is frequently identity politics to their black and female voters

but i am aware that the goal is to not have objectives set back 20 years right now and if the party is going to prioritize #metoo over #medicareforall, fuck it i'm voting against the GOP regardless.
---

BWLurker posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Clearly the solution . . . is more leftist identity politics. *quintuples down*

Trump won with identity politics. He continually uses them in every rally/speech

it doesnt count when white people do it.

those uppity minorities should know their place.

Milkman5 posted...

who cares either way. We could fill the entire senate with actual sjw cuckolds and none of their shit would come to pass lmao

Last time Dems had majority, they didn't do shit

I bet you dont even wonder why, do you.
---

BWLurker posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Clearly the solution . . . is more leftist identity politics. *quintuples down*

Trump won with identity politics. He continually uses them in every rally/speech

Republicans have always won on shallow premises like that. Trump's turnout numbers were nothing special.
Democrats will not win if they only appeal to radicals/minorities. Liberals tend to be more independent thinkers and not goosestep with the party, the leftists are alienating everyone not exactly like them. And doing so gleefully.
---

bloodydeath0 posted...

a few months ago youd get laughed at for suggesting the liberals wouldn't get senate majority

Nobody had any illusions the senate was in play. It was always the case that it would have taken a few consecutive miracles to take the senate. It's the house which is in play.
---

Thats what they say. They control 70% of the media, so they try to make people think theyve totally got the country under control.

The Democratic Party is so fractured that it doesnt stand a chance of accomplishing anything until they have a massive purge of establishment politicians. Basically, theres no chance they will be ready for 2020.
---

Alphamon posted...

it doesnt count when white people do it.

those uppity minorities should know their place.

Coded, dog whistle identity politics isn't the same as the overt messages coming from the left.
National identity is more palatable than racial. I think of myself first as an American, my whiteness isn't something I think about.
Is National identity as divisive as racial? No. Everyone voting is a fucking American so when he (Trump) attacks Mexicans (nationality), he's not attacking our citizens. That's one of the differences in what type of identity politics his side is playing.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Coded, dog whistle identity politics isn't the same as the overt messages coming from the left.
National identity is more palatable than racial. I think of myself first as an American, my whiteness isn't something I think about.
Is National identity as divisive as racial? No. Everyone voting is a f***ing American so when he (Trump) attacks Mexicans (nationality), he's not attacking our citizens. That's one of the differences in what type of identity politics his side is playing.

so disingenuous it hurts

I mean, just to emphasize this again, that is actually a really good result for Democrats considering this is probably the worst Senate map either party has ever faced

So, if you're using this data point to show how the left is pursuing a bad electoral strategy, you need to sort of deal with the fact that losses in states like Indiana and North Dakota are balanced by wins in red-to-purple states like Nevada and Arizona
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

he's not attacking our citizens.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/04/625980910/white-house-launches-effort-to-take-citizenship-from-those-who-lied-to-get-it
---

Darkman124 posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

he's not attacking our citizens.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/04/625980910/white-house-launches-effort-to-take-citizenship-from-those-who-lied-to-get-it

That's less than a week old, clearly it applies to pre/post election mentality and the current cultural zeitgeist. Also, if they lied, they criminally perjured themselves and shouldn't be rightful citizens. He goes after other criminals too. Wouldn't those examples be equally valid of him "attacking our citizens'?

"so disingenuous it hurts"
---

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
The Dems have consistently lead in generic balloting since forever. How much of this they can translate into House seats is another matter, particularly since they're facing an excellent Republican gerrymander in most states.

The thing with the Senate is that the map is ridiculously bad for the Democrats. They have incumbents up for re-election in West Virginia, Indiana, Florida, North Dakota, Ohio, and Missouri. Their best pick-up opportunities are Nevada and Arizona. After those, it's Texas. A good result for them is losing just a seat or two.

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

That's less than a week old, clearly it applies to pre/post election mentality and the current cultural zeitgeist. Also, if they lied, they criminally perjured themselves and shouldn't be rightful citizens. He goes after other criminals too. Wouldn't those examples be equally valid of him "attacking our citizens'?

"so disingenuous it hurts"

yes, criminals...

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article214173489.html

Borgono, a Miami resident for 28 years, is being targeted based on her minor role in a $24 million fraud scheme in the previous decade. As the secretary of an export company called Texon Inc., she prepared paperwork for her boss, who pocketed money from doctored loan applications filed with the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

When the feds caught wind of the scheme, Borgono cooperated. The secretary never made any money beyond her regular salary and helped the FBI make a case that put her former boss behind bars for four years. On May 17, 2012, Borgono took a plea deal and was sentenced to one year of house arrest, four years of probation and $5,000 of restitution.

The stated reason was that Borgono became a U.S. citizen after the fraud scheme started. Although she had not yet been charged when she applied for citizenship, the Department of Justice is now arguing that she lied by not divulging her criminal activity on her application.

ask yourself: if this is who they're going after on week 1, what is their purpose?
---

Darkman124 posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

That's less than a week old, clearly it applies to pre/post election mentality and the current cultural zeitgeist. Also, if they lied, they criminally perjured themselves and shouldn't be rightful citizens. He goes after other criminals too. Wouldn't those examples be equally valid of him "attacking our citizens'?

"so disingenuous it hurts"

yes, criminals...

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article214173489.html

Borgono, a Miami resident for 28 years, is being targeted based on her minor role in a $24 million fraud scheme in the previous decade. As the secretary of an export company called Texon Inc., she prepared paperwork for her boss, who pocketed money from doctored loan applications filed with the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

When the feds caught wind of the scheme, Borgono cooperated. The secretary never made any money beyond her regular salary and helped the FBI make a case that put her former boss behind bars for four years. On May 17, 2012, Borgono took a plea deal and was sentenced to one year of house arrest, four years of probation and $5,000 of restitution.

ask yourself: if this is who they're going after on week 1, what is their purpose?

MAGA = Minority Americans:Go Away

So because she is a racial minority, you're defending a white collar criminal now? There isn't a single thing you guys want heel turn on when it comes to a sob story from a minority, is there?

LOL god damn. Sorry, fraudulent citizen applications are invalid. Deal with it.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

you're defending a white collar criminal now?

Yes, I am defending a white collar criminal. The real question is, why aren't you?
---

Darkman124 posted...

Yes, I am defending a white collar criminal. The real question is, why aren't you?

Because every contract and govt.doc I have signed has parts about perjury and I give 2 shits enough to not lie and recognize the cost of doing so.
---

honestly the way anarchy juiblex insists on framing the conversation is a big tell

he says he voted for Clinton, but I don't believe it and I imagine he will vote for Trump in 2020 because he is the poster boy for the kind of cultural grievance that drives support for Trump
---

Milkman5 posted...

who cares either way. We could fill the entire senate with actual sjw cuckolds and none of their shit would come to pass lmao

Last time Dems had majority, they didn't do shit

This so fucking hard. 8 years and all they did was tax the poor even further by dining them for not having health insurance.

Puzzling how they lost control and won't regain it. Real head scratcher there.

https://www.uscis.gov/n-400

22. Have you EVER committed, assisted in committing, or attempted to commit, a crime or offense for which you were NOT arrested?

I certify, under penalty of perjury, that I provided or authorized all of the information in my application, I understand that all of the information contained in, and submitted with, my application, and that all of this information is complete, true, and correct.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Darkman124 posted...

Yes, I am defending a white collar criminal. The real question is, why aren't you?

Because every contract and govt.doc I have signed has parts about perjury and I give 2 shits enough to not lie and recognize the cost of doing so.

she hadn't been charged when she applied. have you considered she wasn't even fully aware of what her boss was doing until after the fact?

if you deal with govt docs, you might have a security clearance. i do. one of the aspects of clearance application is 'mitigating factors' that apply to otherwise disqualifying material. assisting with an FBI investigation into your employer's illegal actions is very clearly a 'mitigating factor'.

the fact that you discard this to restate that she technically used inaccurate information in her application and therfore the effort to remove her citizenship is not an attack on american citizens is more than a little disturbing. it toes the line of the administration: "what we are doing is technically legal!"

kind of like citing the first amendment to defend your position on a given subject.
---

hey guys remember when trump wanted to get rid of birth right citizen ship and argued about it on bill o reilly

yeah he really doesnt like hispanics.