• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT14| Attention NV shoppers, democracy is on sale in aisle 4!

Status
Not open for further replies.
CwDzhRUWIAA7FBr.jpg
I chuckled.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'm just trying to reconcile how public polling always has Hillaremail leading among those who early vote while the party data looks sort of mediocre. I guess it could be NPA/unaffiliated.

Partly NPA, partly registered Republicans not voting for Trump.
 

Blader

Member
Would I be correct in assuming that taking the Senate is necessary for Hillary to get more than one term?

My gut feeling hot take of the moment is that if Dems don't win the Senate, Hillary won't win re-election. 2018 is all but guaranteed to give both houses of Congress to the GOP. These next two years are Hillary's only chance to get a bare minimum of stuff done through the Senate. If she doesn't have that, she'll be viewed as a do-nothing or ineffectual president, rather than the victim of GOP obstruction and gridlock (which would be true, but, if 2014 and potentially this year are any indication, doesn't actually resonate with enough voters).
 
My gut feeling hot take of the moment is that if Dems don't win the Senate, Hillary won't win re-election. 2018 is all but guaranteed to give both houses of Congress to the GOP. These next two years are Hillary's only chance to get a bare minimum of stuff done through the Senate. If she doesn't have that, she'll be viewed as a do-nothing or ineffectual president, rather than the victim of GOP obstruction and gridlock (which would be true, but, if 2014 and potentially this year are any indication, doesn't actually resonate with enough voters).

It's also necessary because we will need a liberal SCOTUS to strike down voter suppression.
 
Eh... If I saw them from afar I'd assume they were for Hillary tbh.

They're not?

Kind of a bad costume if that's the case. I thought they were making fun of the scandal.

My gut feeling hot take of the moment is that if Dems don't win the Senate, Hillary won't win re-election. 2018 is all but guaranteed to give both houses of Congress to the GOP. These next two years are Hillary's only chance to get a bare minimum of stuff done through the Senate. If she doesn't have that, she'll be viewed as a do-nothing or ineffectual president, rather than the victim of GOP obstruction and gridlock (which would be true, but, if 2014 and potentially this year are any indication, doesn't actually resonate with enough voters).

Which blue states does the GOP turn red to hit 270?
 
They have said they would and considering they've already blocked Obama for a record amount of time, I see no reason to not take those threats seriously.

If doing that didn't backfire on them then it's basically a sign of approval from voters. So why not continue doing it? Only four years of blockage and they might get a conservative court for another 40.

God. Just send in the Visigoths. This empire is done.
 

Blader

Member
Which blue states does the GOP turn red to hit 270?

I have no idea. And it largely depends on the kind of nominee the GOP ends up with in 2020. But my instinct is that a fourth consecutive White House term for one party would be such a long shot all its own that I'm more compelled to think about variables that will break against Hillary rather than which demographic blocs will be firmly in Hillary's camp to mathematically deny the GOP again.

how what why?

did obama ever have a democratic senate?

he certainly didn't have one for the last four years and he we are with a democratic president

Obama had a Dem senate after each of his elections.

edit: wait! How did I forget the Dems actually kept the Senate in 2010? Sure didn't feel like it :lol
 

Grief.exe

Member
Would I be correct in assuming that taking the Senate is necessary for Hillary to get more than one term?

The Senate is necessary for a functioning Supreme Court, but barring how ridiculous the House investigations get the 2020 electorate should be more favorably Democratic than today.

Republicans are going to have to start defending Georgia, Texas, and Arizona more vigorously. Toss North Carolina into a similar pile to CO, VA, and PA.
Ohio might be gone though.
 

Maledict

Member
I have no idea. And it largely depends on the kind of nominee the GOP ends up with in 2020. But my instinct is that a fourth consecutive White House term for one party would be such a long shot all its own that I'm more compelled to think about variables that will break against Hillary rather than which demographic blocs will be firmly in Hillary's camp to mathematically deny the GOP again.



Obama had a Dem senate after each of his elections.

Six years. Obama had a democratic senate for his first six years.
 
The only reason I am not TOO worried about the Senate is because Hillary's campaign has so much cash on hand that if they need to they absolutely can put last minute resources into extra groundgame staff for key senate races.

Like they practically have enough money that they could just hire hundreds of staff people for one week, send them to key senate states, and just cram a shitload of last minute GOTV.
 

Debirudog

Member
the midterms, Comey's fuckery and the senate race drives me to be irrational.

Like, I'm pretty confident Hillary is gonna win but I just want her presidency to be good.
 
I have no idea. And it largely depends on the kind of nominee the GOP ends up with in 2020. But my instinct is that a fourth consecutive White House term for one party would be such a long shot all its own that I'm more compelled to think about variables that will break against Hillary rather than which demographic blocs will be firmly in Hillary's camp to mathematically deny the GOP again.

There are too many safe blue states. They'd have to turn Wisconsin or something, but even then, that's assuming the Democrats don't keep Nevada and other current toss up or slightly lean Republican states don't move more blue.

The country being so polarized is going to end up hurting the GOP in the presidency, because there are enough semi-safe blue states to equal 270. To the point where they'd need to convince Democrats to be on board with them, and that's not likely to happen anymore.

Bush's maps don't cut it anymore. Bush 2004, minus Virginia and New Mexico is a Democrat win.
 

thefro

Member
There are too many safe blue states. They'd have to turn Wisconsin or something, but even then, that's assuming the Democrats don't keep Nevada and other current toss up or slightly lean Republican states don't move more blue.

The country being so polarized is going to end up hurting the GOP in the presidency, because there are enough semi-safe blue states to equal 270. To the point where they'd need to convince Democrats to be on board with them, and that's not likely to happen anymore.

If the GOP has a good nominee and Hillary's Presidency is bad/mediocre, that can happen. I think there's a fair chance of a recession at some point before 2020 too.

All those independent voters have gnat-brains and will forget this election by then.
 
If the GOP has a good nominee and Hillary's Presidency sucks/is mediocre, that can easily happen. I think there's a fair chance of a recession at some point before 2020 too.

All those independent voters have gnat-brains and will forget this election by then.

Show me the map where the GOP hits 270.
 

Joeytj

Banned
NBC News is confirming that, so far, FBI agents have determined that only a "small number" of the 600,000 + emails from Weiner's computer could be relevant, and that they have a special program to determine which emails (in any) were from and to Clinton's private server, so as to not have to comb over those thousands of emails. They will likely just look for relevant keywords and senders.

It should be done by this week, although the investigation itself will take a while.

Most likely, information about how relevant the emails are will leak to the press in the coming days, confirming there's nothing much there and putting this story to rest. The narrative and consensus in the media is also now solidifying towards the idea that "Comey screwed up" by announcing there could be something, but not much.

Dave Wasserman at FiveThirtyEight is out with an article, confirming that so far, African American turnout is indeed lagging behind 2012 in states like Florida, Virginia and North Carolina. Not by a ton historically, but relative to how Latinos and white liberals are surging. IN some counties in those states, heavy Latino counties have already surpassed their 2012 total vote participation. HIllary is basically compensating for lower turnout from AA with record turnout from Latinos and college educated whites. Arizona, he says, could still be in play.

He ends by saying that Hillary's coalition looks like it will be "broader" that Bill's in 1992, but "narrower" than Obama's in 2008.
 
"Dem" Senate. Joe Lieberman and the Blue Dogs weren't exactly reliable.
Unreliable as they were, they also passed healthcare reform and Dodd-Frank among other things.

The only reason Obama had to count on Lieberman and others is because of a silly, arcane procedural mechanism that's been exploited and abused in recent years.
 

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
I have no idea. And it largely depends on the kind of nominee the GOP ends up with in 2020. But my instinct is that a fourth consecutive White House term for one party would be such a long shot all its own that I'm more compelled to think about variables that will break against Hillary rather than which demographic blocs will be firmly in Hillary's camp to mathematically deny the GOP again.



Obama had a Dem senate after each of his elections.

edit: wait! How did I forget the Dems actually kept the Senate in 2010? Sure didn't feel like it :lol

They had 60 before 2010, then Scott Brown happened,,,
 
We just can't seem to get the same % of African-American vote in NC that we got in 2012 in early voting. We're not even close right now.

6EpLcp7.png


Part of this is due to the early voting changes but if that was the case then the two African-American lines would be converging, and not parallel.

Need to blanket the state in volunteers and mobilize these voters.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
We just can't seem to get the same % of African-American vote in NC that we got in 2012 in early voting. We're not even close right now.

6EpLcp7.png


Part of this is due to the early voting changes but if that was the case then the two African-American lines would be converging, and not parallel.

Need to blanket the state in volunteers and mobilize these voters.

African American turnout looks down across the board. This could be an EV phenomenon but I doubt it and it's very upsetting.
 
It all goes back to the 2010 midterm. It's one thing to have a loss that colossal, it's another thing to have it happen in sync with the census and redistricting. Democrats got screwed for decades because of that.
 

Iolo

Member
We just can't seem to get the same % of African-American vote in NC that we got in 2012 in early voting. We're not even close right now.

6EpLcp7.png


Part of this is due to the early voting changes but if that was the case then the two African-American lines would be converging, and not parallel.

Need to blanket the state in volunteers and mobilize these voters.

Seems to be true everywhere. Obama's legacy is just not important enough to some, it seems.
 
We just can't seem to get the same % of African-American vote in NC that we got in 2012 in early voting. We're not even close right now.

6EpLcp7.png


Part of this is due to the early voting changes but if that was the case then the two African-American lines would be converging, and not parallel.

Need to blanket the state in volunteers and mobilize these voters.

Voter suppression laws working as intended?
 

XenodudeX

Junior Member
African American turnout looks down across the board. This could be an EV phenomenon but I doubt it and it's very upsetting.

Wouldn't be surprised if its because of younger black voters. We just aren't motivated to vote as the older generations are.
 
African American turnout looks down across the board. This could be an EV phenomenon but I doubt it and it's very upsetting.
I had a strong feeling this would end up happening but i wasn't quite sure since it wasn't being reflected in the polls. It sucks but the crime bill and superpredator stuff was effective at making young black voters apathetic about this election.
 

Joeytj

Banned
African American turnout looks down across the board. This could be an EV phenomenon but I doubt it and it's very upsetting.

There's still time to catch up, and there was good news this weekend from Ohio, where black voting turnout is finally catching up to 2012.

North Carolina and other states is tricky to compare to 2012 because of early voting changes, but let's see how it goes for the rest of the week.
 

Boke1879

Member
I had a strong feeling this would end up happening but i wasn't quite sure since it wasn't being reflected in the polls. It sucks but the crime bill and superpredator stuff was effective at making young black voters apathetic about this election.

IF that's the case. That pisses me off. If they'd rather stay home or brush this election off with a candidate like Trump running then they makes me very upset.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom