Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 203: We Met at Borders

(+) Yeah! (+)

All of the Fights
---

missed opportunity for the hunt for blue november

even if it's very unoriginal >_>
---

Borders are all closed.
---

Heres a question Ive posed in the past to Vlado:

Corrik, as a nationalist, do you fully support a complete investigation, with the full support of the U.S. government, into Russia interference in our elections?

I don't see why not. I do not think Donald Trump colluded with Russians, but if they want to investigate it because there are serious allegations regarding it, why not?
---

Corrik posted...

These Senate Polls are so all over the place it is crazy.

McSally +7
McSally Even
Sinema +4
Sinema +6
Sinema +3
McSally +2

Donelly +7
Donelly +2
Braun +3
Braun +4

Heller +7
Rosen +3

I have absolutely no idea what to think of Arizona. That races polling has been insane, like you've pointed out. It goes from McSally +7 to Sinema +6 with just as many polls one way as the other. I have no real prediction there, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it go either way. I would think, just by the fundamentals of that state, that McSally should have an advantage. She might actually be the best candidate of all the candidates in competitive states for Republicans and AZ is a red state (leaning purple, but hasn't gone blue yet). So it is weird that Sinema has been as competitive as she is.

The Rosen +3 might just be an outlier. It is CNN and 538 gives them a somewhat significant democratic lean to their polling too. Most everything is showing Heller with a lead there, and 538 has him 5/9 times winning that seat. Pretty sure it is a republican win, which, again is weird since he is in a blue state. I would expect Rosen to be doing much better than Sinema but the polls don't reflect that.

Indiana has been polling close but slightly breaking for Donnelly. That +7 poll I want to think of as an outlier, but it is from Fox News who has had fairly good polling the past couple cycles and who tends to have a republican lean, if anything. Of those three seats you listed, I think this is the most likely to go democrat but I don't even know if that'll happen!

In contrast to all that, look at Florida. It is almost bizarre how stable that race is polling. All of these following polls are from different groups!

Nelson +2
Nelson +2
Nelson +2
Nelson +2
Nelson +4
Nelson +1
Tie
Nelson +4
Nelson +1

A senate race that is CRIMINALLY under polled is Montana. All those Florida polls are from like the last ten days. Montana, in contrast, has two polls in all of October. Tester was up in both, but I'd still like to see more polling there.
---

Corrik posted...

Heres a question Ive posed in the past to Vlado:

Corrik, as a nationalist, do you fully support a complete investigation, with the full support of the U.S. government, into Russia interference in our elections?

I don't see why not. I do not think Donald Trump colluded with Russians, but if they want to investigate it because there are serious allegations regarding it, why not?

Yes, why not? Can you answer me that?
---

Silver was talking about the Senate polls on Twitter yesterday and how there's a noticable divide between "gold standard" polls (nonpartisan, live-caller) and the online/robo-calls/GOP internals that are making up the rest of the data for the Senate races:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1057740703273500672

This is the thread where he discusses it, but the summary is that in the gold-standard polls, the Democrats look better and the chances to win the Senate are slim but still alive and they're about as likely to win seats as lose them. In the others, the Senate is over and it's down to if the Dems can keep it within -2.
---

I guess while I'm on the subject I'm going to do my HOT PREDIX. I am naturally pessimistic, so keep that in mind, but I do not think the Senate is going to go well for the Dems. At all. -4 is a real possibility but for now I am going fairly chalk with a -2.

North Dakota - Cramer by 12
Texas - Cruz by 10
Tennessee - Blackburn by 8
Nevada - Heller by 3
Arizona - McSally by 2
Missouri - Hawley by less than 1
Indiana - Donnelly by less than 1
Florida - Nelson by 2
Montana - Tester by 4
West Virginia - Manchin by 10

Basically, anything in the Nevada through Montana range I wouldn't be too surprised going either way. I am fairly confident in Tester in Montana, but I am being a bit conservative here just because polling has been so sparse. I'm flipping on both Donnelly and Hawley a bit especially because of how the polling has looked.

Losses by Heitkamp (guaranteed) and McCaskill (toss up) would especially hurt. Same with Donnelly. I don't see democrats gaining those seats back within 12 years if lost here. This should be a democratic environment, they're all about as moderate as you're going to get, and they're all incumbents. Losing them in these incredibly red states is something you aren't likely to get back. This isn't like AZ, NV where if they lose here I could see better candidates emerging in 6 years for the win because those states should be competitive to democrats. Even Montana wouldn't hurt that much (well, I mean it would for the next 6 years) because democrats seem to do fairly well in Montana outside of presidential elections. ND/MO would be huge losses with no easy route to recovery.
---

xp1337 posted...

Silver was talking about the Senate polls on Twitter yesterday and how there's a noticable divide between "gold standard" polls (nonpartisan, live-caller) and the online/robo-calls/GOP internals that are making up the rest of the data for the Senate races:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1057740703273500672

This is the thread where he discusses it, but the summary is that in the gold-standard polls, the Democrats look better and the chances to win the Senate are slim but still alive and they're about as likely to win seats as lose them. In the others, the Senate is over and it's down to if the Dems can keep it within -2.

Oh, very cool, I haven't actually seen that.

They had a good post on the senate today:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-need-a-systematic-polling-error-to-win-the-senate/

They point out that, well, yeah it isn't "impossible" for the democrats to win it, but they'd need a systematic polling error even worse than 2016 to overcome where they're at. The biggest issue is ND/TX/TN are all pretty much out of reach if polling is inaccurate, so even if Dems pull off a miracle and win every single close race, they're still at 50-50. And they go through the statistics of that happening and it isn't good, anyway.
---

Oh, are we doing PREDIXs already? I was holding off until election day but I've been internally working it out a bit in my head.

i even have 3 different models since i know you'll all just laugh at me

~The Land of Optimism~ (This is what I'd go with if you held me to one)
House: D+50 (All House numbers are approximate, I didn't analyze district by district to get a specific number. I'm actually tempted to go a little higher on this number but let's just stick at 50 for now.)
Senate: D+2 (Okay, I'll admit that +2 is perhaps a small stretch here, because the difference between the path to 50 and the path to 51 is very different. I think the most likely one though is -ND, +AZ, NV, TX. yes. tx. Somehow I have slowly started to think Beto might actually have a chance somehow. Alternate path is ND holds (Heitkamp defies the polls again!) and TX is a loss. +1 with -ND and a TX loss may be most likely though but we're going full hope here.)
Governor: D+9 (forgot about this did ya? I haven't spent too much time thinking about this. I'm counting Alaska's current Independent Governor with the Dems so I'm working from a 17D-33R base. +MI, +ME, +IL, +NM, +IA, +FL, +WI, +OH, WILDCARD: +1 of GA or KS or NV)

~~~

The More Grounded Version (Because you guys will point and laugh and pile on me for being too hopeful in the above scenario)

House: D+40 (Right about where the 538 Average is.)
Senate: No Change (Couple different paths here. Think the most likely would be trading ND and MO for AZ and NV, but you can get here a few ways)
Governor: D+8 (Same as above, but take off the WILDCARD)

~~~

Cynicism Mode (Certainly not a worst case scenario model [PANIC!] but going much lower than this would really surprise me.)

House: D+30 (Maybe you could talk my cynicism down to +25. Maybe.)
Senate: R+2 (As bad as the Senate map is for Democrats, I have a hard time seeing it go much worse than -2. Like, yes, I know what results you could give to get there, but man I just don't see it. I'd say most likely path here is: -ND, MO. Lose NV and one of AZ/IN/FL)
Governor: D+6 (It's kinda hard for the night to go much worse than this for Dems without polling errors IMO. +MI, ME, IL, NM, IA, FL. -AK, +1 of WI/OH)
---

Espeon posted...

Corrik posted...

Heres a question Ive posed in the past to Vlado:

Corrik, as a nationalist, do you fully support a complete investigation, with the full support of the U.S. government, into Russia interference in our elections?

I don't see why not. I do not think Donald Trump colluded with Russians, but if they want to investigate it because there are serious allegations regarding it, why not?

Yes, why not? Can you answer me that?

What...
---

Beto has a chance, but I'd say anything more than 25-30% is nuts.

The turnout reports are incredibly encouraging though.

Jakyl25 posted...

All of the Fights

This and the topic title are good.
---

Reg posted...

Beto has a chance, but I'd say anything more than 25-30% is nuts.

The turnout reports are incredibly encouraging though.

well yes

it would be an upset

The ~Land of Optimism~ of mine operates off the tendency for wave elections to be underestimated by a few points in the polls, and even then TX is still a bit of a longshot. Like I said, +1 is the more likely case even there probably, but it's just predictions so let's go.
---

We have a Democrat in the Alabama Senate seat literally any upset is possible.
---

Crossfiyah posted...

We have a Democrat in the Alabama Senate seat literally any upset is possible.

That wasn't much of an upset.
---

It kind of was.

even though it shouldn't have been
---

Corrik posted...

Espeon posted...

Corrik posted...

Heres a question Ive posed in the past to Vlado:

Corrik, as a nationalist, do you fully support a complete investigation, with the full support of the U.S. government, into Russia interference in our elections?

I don't see why not. I do not think Donald Trump colluded with Russians, but if they want to investigate it because there are serious allegations regarding it, why not?

Yes, why not? Can you answer me that?

What...

If you are a nationalist and believe in protecting our national sovereignty, then why are you so blas about this issue? If they want to investigate it, sure, whatever. Its easy to SAY while your party has done everything possible to stifle and prevent an investigation (that has already yielded indictments, and has produced evidence that at least an investigation is WARRANTED.)

My point is that your nationalism seems to care far more about preventing non-white immigrants from entering the country than it does actual attacks on our sovereignty.
---

Crossfiyah posted...

We have a Democrat in the Alabama Senate seat literally any upset is possible.

I mean if it turns out republicans run another perophile somewhere then yeah!
---

Also saying it here, the Smash leak is a pretty huge example of how fake news helped Trump win the election. And how "fake news" in its true form actually came to be(in its early forms, before it got really blatant).

Someone wants attention, puts something stupid on the internet that people will want to believe(In the smash leak case,they either wanted to believe in those characters or just wanted peace of mind to stop worrying about the roster). As long as it fits a narrative people want to believe in, they will dig and dig as much information to make the story true, piling up a huge mountain of evidence that they think is irrefutable despite the obvious answer sitting in front of them that the whole thing was a farce.

It doesnt matter that "Hey this thing is totally out of left field and doesnt make sense" on the surface because they spent so much time digging themselves into a hole that they cant see out of it. This is how you get dumb things like pizzagate, 9/11 conspiracy theories, flat earthers, whatever other dumb shit people have come up with.

Smash leak wasn't on that level of worldwide importance, but I think it really is an example of how easy it is to take advantage of society as a whole. People, especially with the internet being so accessible, naturally want to believe in things, and there are people out there that are going to be ready and able to exploit this.
---

Espeon posted...

Corrik posted...

Espeon posted...

Corrik posted...

Heres a question Ive posed in the past to Vlado:

Corrik, as a nationalist, do you fully support a complete investigation, with the full support of the U.S. government, into Russia interference in our elections?

I don't see why not. I do not think Donald Trump colluded with Russians, but if they want to investigate it because there are serious allegations regarding it, why not?

Yes, why not? Can you answer me that?

What...

If you are a nationalist and believe in protecting our national sovereignty, then why are you so blas about this issue? If they want to investigate it, sure, whatever. Its easy to SAY while your party has done everything possible to stifle and prevent an investigation (that has already yielded indictments, and has produced evidence that at least an investigation is WARRANTED.)

My point is that your nationalism seems to care far more about preventing non-white immigrants from entering the country than it does actual attacks on our sovereignty.

I said it should be investigated from the start, and if he is found guilty of significant crimes he should be impeached. I don't know what you are trying to say.

Did you forget I have said this from the start?
---

Im trying to explain that its really fucking easy to claim youre in favor of something like the Russia investigation, even though the party you overwhelmingly support goes completely against the very idea of nationalism you claim to defend. You try to paint yourself and your ideology as reasonable, while complicitly advocating for people only share a very specific idea of what nationalism is really about.
---

Espeon posted...

Im trying to explain that its really fucking easy to claim youre in favor of something like the Russia investigation, even though the party you overwhelmingly support goes completely against the very idea of nationalism you claim to defend. You try to paint yourself and your ideology as reasonable, while complicitly advocating for people only share a very specific idea of what nationalism is really about.

You do realize you do not have to side with your party on every topic right?
---

That's an error with the two party system not Corrik.

You can support that Rebulicans without supporting everything they do and vice versa. Calling foul on Corrik every time he expresses thst he disagrees with the Republican Party because he supports them on other issues is incredibly stupid and unfair.
---

Corrik posted...

Espeon posted...

Im trying to explain that its really fucking easy to claim youre in favor of something like the Russia investigation, even though the party you overwhelmingly support goes completely against the very idea of nationalism you claim to defend. You try to paint yourself and your ideology as reasonable, while complicitly advocating for people only share a very specific idea of what nationalism is really about.

You do realize you do not have to side with your party on every topic right?

And you DO realize that the reason we have President Trump over President Clinton right now is because ONE side is far less capable of that than the other?
---

Oh! Governors are fun too mostly because I am much more optimistic about governorships than I am the senate.

+MI, +ME, +IL, +NM, +IA, +FL, +WI

MI, ME, IL, NM are all 100% pickups. Polling would've had to be intentionally falsified for any of these to be wrong. IA is probably another pickup as well based on polling, but that one is at least close enough that I wouldn't be completely shocked if it went the other way.

I am very bullish on FL and WI too and expect democrats to win both of those (ok they'll both be close, but I am for some reason much more optimistic about these races than the close senate races).

And out of OH, GA, NV, KS, I would be shocked if Dems didn't pick up one of those. I don't know which one, but those are all incredibly close (although slight republican leaning), that I would expect 1 upset there.

Dems will likely "lose" Alasks though.

So from 17 - 33 my HOT PREDIX is a democratic pickup of 7 (final break down of 24-26 but with much more of the population on the democratic side).

Gains of MI, ME, IL, NM, IA, FL, WI and one of OH/GA/NV/KS. Maybe 2 if the night goes really well! But a loss of Alaska so a net gain of 7. I think the democrats will have the "biggest" night here, with a solid gain in the house (maybe 25-30 seats) and a loss in the senate.
---

red13n posted...

Also saying it here, the Smash leak is a pretty huge example of how fake news helped Trump win the election. And how "fake news" in its true form actually came to be(in its early forms, before it got really blatant).

Someone wants attention, puts something stupid on the internet that people will want to believe(In the smash leak case,they either wanted to believe in those characters or just wanted peace of mind to stop worrying about the roster). As long as it fits a narrative people want to believe in, they will dig and dig as much information to make the story true, piling up a huge mountain of evidence that they think is irrefutable despite the obvious answer sitting in front of them that the whole thing was a farce.

It doesnt matter that "Hey this thing is totally out of left field and doesnt make sense" on the surface because they spent so much time digging themselves into a hole that they cant see out of it. This is how you get dumb things like pizzagate, 9/11 conspiracy theories, flat earthers, whatever other dumb shit people have come up with.

Smash leak wasn't on that level of worldwide importance, but I think it really is an example of how easy it is to take advantage of society as a whole. People, especially with the internet being so accessible, naturally want to believe in things, and there are people out there that are going to be ready and able to exploit this.

Trump: You thought I was nominating Waluigi to the Supreme Court but its actually INCINEROAR!
---

Espeon posted...

Corrik posted...

Espeon posted...

Im trying to explain that its really fucking easy to claim youre in favor of something like the Russia investigation, even though the party you overwhelmingly support goes completely against the very idea of nationalism you claim to defend. You try to paint yourself and your ideology as reasonable, while complicitly advocating for people only share a very specific idea of what nationalism is really about.

You do realize you do not have to side with your party on every topic right?

And you DO realize that the reason we have President Trump over President Clinton right now is because ONE side is far less capable of that than the other?

I think both parties are that way for the most part. Republicans have key issues that guarantee a vote. Gun laws, abortion. Just like Dems have key issues that guarantee a vote for their party.

It is just a matter of how you can woo the middle of the spectrum or the fervor you can instill in your voters to show up.

Like, if you think Dems don't just side with their candidates just as much as Republicans then you are just being silly.
---

Corrik posted...

Like, if you think Dems don't just side with their candidates just as much as Republicans then you are just being silly.

I believe that a significant number of liberals in this country would vote Republican in the hypothetical scenario where a sitting Democratic president actively encourages and fuels social divide in our country while working to consolidate power by eroding democratic systems, undermining public trust in the media, and propping up their own propoganda machine in its place.

So no, I don't buy into a "both sides" argument here, although it is admittedly possible I'm wrong.
---

pyresword posted...

Corrik posted...

Like, if you think Dems don't just side with their candidates just as much as Republicans then you are just being silly.

I believe that a significant number of liberals in this country would vote Republican in the hypothetical scenario where a sitting Democratic president actively encourages and fuels social divide in our country while working to consolidate power by eroding democratic systems, undermining public trust in the media, and propping up their own propoganda machine in its place.

So no, I don't buy into a "both sides" argument here, although it is admittedly possible I'm wrong.

Don't be absurd.

Democrats don't need such a big and fabulous reason to not vote for their party's candidate. They do it all the time for far sillier reasons.
---

not voting for your party is like the basic principle of being a democrat
---

I would generally consider voting for a moderate Republican over a far left Democrat, but only on a state/local level due to the fact that even the moderate wing of the Congressional GOP have totally failed to check Trump at all, even on things where they generally strongly disagree with him (e.g. on tariffs).
---

SupremeZero posted...

pyresword posted...

Corrik posted...

Like, if you think Dems don't just side with their candidates just as much as Republicans then you are just being silly.

I believe that a significant number of liberals in this country would vote Republican in the hypothetical scenario where a sitting Democratic president actively encourages and fuels social divide in our country while working to consolidate power by eroding democratic systems, undermining public trust in the media, and propping up their own propoganda machine in its place.

So no, I don't buy into a "both sides" argument here, although it is admittedly possible I'm wrong.

Don't be absurd.

Democrats don't need such a big and fabulous reason to not vote for their party's candidate. They do it all the time for far sillier reasons.

A democratic Missouri state senator is currently campaigning against McCaskill on Twitter because she got her feelings hurt when McCaskill called her "crazy" for posting that she wanted Trump assassinated.
---

Guys

Please quit giving Corrik's bullshit the time of day.

How often does he have to prove he doesn't deserve it before you quit?

I'd argue Corrik is worth way more of my time and that of this topics' than Inviso is, even if my politics line up a million times closer to Inviso's than Corrik's.
---

GildedFool posted...

I'd argue Corrik is worth way more of my time and that of this topics' than Inviso is, even if my politics line up a million times closer to Inviso's than Corrik's.

Savage

But also not entirely wrong. I would argue neither are worth any time though
---

GildedFool posted...

I'd argue Corrik is worth way more of my time and that of this topics' than Inviso is, even if my politics line up a million times closer to Inviso's than Corrik's.

I will admit to tuning out Inviso posts since 95% of them seem to be directed at the trolls in some form, so you may be right about him too.

But this really isn't a matter of politics lining up vs not doing so.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1057741834015965186?s=20

"Cool"
---

Also notable: https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1058098276606590977?s=20

Trump Extremely Bad
---

Trump learning from Israel

yikes
---

Corrick is definitely at least one or two tiers above like every other conservative that posts here guys, come on.
---

Crossfiyah posted...

Corrick is definitely at least one or two tiers above like every other conservative that posts here guys, come on.

That is an extremely low bar to clear.
---

i'll take seph over corrik any day every day
---

The bar has fallen low if Corrik is acceptable.

Shouldn't the bar be Leon?
---

SupremeZero posted...

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1057741834015965186?s=20

"Cool"

Big yikes
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Dems will likely "lose" Alasks though.

Yeah, Alaska holding is arguably the biggest stretch in my governor predictions (outside cynic where I let it go) but the polling has been trending towards Begich (Even in a poll yesterday.) Granted, there's very little polling there so yeah. One pollster too. Early in the race the vote split between Begich and Walker was obviously tanking them both, so I'm hoping Walker's withdrawing can pull Begich across the finish line.

Might be too little, too late or just too high a hurdle though.
---

KanzarisKelshen posted...

Also notable: https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1058098276606590977?s=20

Trump Extremely Bad

America extremely bad
---

A couple of fairly big endorsements today that may or may not have significant effects on close Senate races.

In bad news, Montana's libertarian party dropped out of the race and endorsed the republican. Libertarians got 6% last race in a race Tester won by 4%.

https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2018/10/31/libertarian-withdraws-montana-senate-race/1833577002/

In better news, Arizona's Green Party candidate dropped out and endorsed Sinema. Green isn't as big of a deal in Arizona as libertarians are in Montana, but this was likely a closer race to begin with. The Green Party did get 1.34% of the vote in 2016, so it isn't an insignificant percentage.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/01/green-party-senate-candidate-endorses-democrat-kyrsten-sinema/1851848002/

That switches my percentages some. I'd say Tester by 1 and McSally by 1. I might actually swap both of those by Election Day. In particular, I think the Montana libertarian dropping out of the race is really big.
---

xp1337 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Dems will likely "lose" Alasks though.

Yeah, Alaska holding is arguably the biggest stretch in my governor predictions (outside cynic where I let it go) but the polling has been trending towards Begich (Even in a poll yesterday.) Granted, there's very little polling there so yeah. One pollster too. Early in the race the vote split between Begich and Walker was obviously tanking them both, so I'm hoping Walker's withdrawing can pull Begich across the finish line.

Might be too little, too late or just too high a hurdle though.

I almost kind of wish the democrats had made some sort of deal like with Sanders or King, where basically as long as they do mostly democratic stuff they agree not to run a candidate in those races. Begich is obviously a big name by himself, but Walker already won a race where he teamed up with the democrat so I would've liked to see that again. He's a good fit for Alaska and I think would perform better without Begich than Begich will without him.

Still holding out hope for Begich though! But that one feels like even more of a stretch than my four hopeful ones I listed above.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

That switches my percentages some. I'd say Tester by 1 and McSally by 1. I might actually swap both of those by Election Day. In particular, I think the Montana libertarian dropping out of the race is really big.

I dont think libertarian voters just do what theyre told though. I bet most just stay home
---