• 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 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.
After the election, half or more of the "hot takes" (from both the right and the left) were basically "Democrats lost because of identity politics". You still see it pop up (but less often) on this board but its usually in coded language.

I think that is saying something different.

And I think people were saying that they focused too much on that issue and not enough on other issues that voters cared about.
 

mo60

Member
So, I decided to do some math. I looked at every special election since the presidential election with both the presidential results AND the results of the last contested race in that seat.

Iowa SD 45

Hillary/Trump: 55/38 (17%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 73/25 (48%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP (i): 51/44 (7%) (*was in 2010, GOP didn't contest in 2014)

Virginia SD 22

Hillary/Trump: 41/55 (-14%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 40/53 (-13%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP: 42/58 (-16%) (*was in 2011, Dems didn't contest in 2015)

Virginia HD 85

Hillary/Trump: 47/47 (0%, but Trump won)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 47/53 (-6%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP: 44/56 (-12%) (*was in 2013, Dems didn't contest in 2015)

Iowa HD 89

Hillary/Trump: 52/41 (11%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 72/27 (45%)
Last Election Dem (i)/Last Election GOP: 67/33 (34%)

--inauguration--

Minnesota HD 32B

Hillary/Trump: 32/61 (-29%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 47/53 (-6%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP (i): 44/56 (-12%)

Delaware SD 10

Hillary/Trump: 54/41 (13%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 58/41 (17%)
Last Election Dem (i)/Last Election GOP: 51/49 (2%)

Connecticut SD 32 (UNOFFICIAL)

Hillary/Trump: 37/59 (-22%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 45/55 (-10%) (UNOFFICIAL)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP (i): 32/68 (-36%)

Haven't seen any numbers on CT SD 02 or CT HD 115 that both Dems won.

It looks like the people that support the republican party in these state senate or house district are demoralized right now because in all of the special election races even in iowa the republicans either lose by more then the did in the last election or win by a lot less.Not sure if trump's speech will help energize the republican party at this point because it looks like this pattern will continue until 2020 at this point.
 
I do understand your point, but I just think it is important to remember more than just the winners. It's not as simple as "be progressive, win election." I actually think it mostly has to do with the general direction the actual election takes in terms of favorable/unfavorable for Democrats. That's at least the lesson I've taken away from even just the past decade. That's why Feingold loses in 2010 and 2016, but assuredly would have won in 2012.

But, yes, the upper midwest is historically more liberal than the south or the plains. If you want a 50 state strategy, though, moving to the left isn't going to play. I think there's also a question about whether or not the upper Midwest is going to stay liberal as the states bleed population.
Sure, and I didn't say "be populist left enough = win", I was just countering the idea that the WWC only responds to pivoting to the center, which is like, well no, the people who want to make organized labor part of the base again aren't trying to run Tammy Baldwin in Montana.

Though I had no idea this Rockefeller guy from WV existed until tonight and he's surprisingly to the left. I assumed any Democrat from WV now would look like Manchin or Justice but he's outflanked people like Gillibrand. Personal brand I guess.
 

mo60

Member
I do understand your point, but I just think it is important to remember more than just the winners. It's not as simple as "be progressive, win election." I actually think it mostly has to do with the general direction the actual election takes in terms of favorable/unfavorable for Democrats. That's at least the lesson I've taken away from even just the past decade. That's why Feingold loses in 2010 and 2016, but assuredly would have won in 2012.

But, yes, the upper midwest is historically more liberal than the south or the plains. If you want a 50 state strategy, though, moving to the left isn't going to play. I think there's also a question about whether or not the upper Midwest is going to stay liberal as the states bleed population. I think they're still in play for 2020 (& probably 2024 even), but their future is questionable.

I think Minnesota will stay blue in future elections but I'm not sure about Michigan and Wisconsin at this point.
 
I'm assuming we're excluding Illinois from the Midwest. Which is somewhat fair I guess since it's so different. But also excluding Indiana, the Dakotas and so on.

Also neoliberal drone strike insurance scum Cory Booker has a more liberal DW nominate score than Brown, Franken, Carl Levin.
 
Sure, and I didn't say "be populist left enough = win", I was just countering the idea that the WWC only responds to pivoting to the center, which is like, well no, the people who want to make organized labor part of the base again aren't trying to run Tammy Baldwin in Montana.

Though I had no idea this Rockefeller guy from WV existed until tonight and he's surprisingly to the left. I assumed any Democrat from WV now would look like Manchin or Justice but he's outflanked people like Gillibrand. Personal brand I guess.

A lot of WWC do want pivoting to the center, though, especially on social issues (& things like police), which is where a lot of us take issue (and yes Baldwin is a lesbian & they all support gay marriage). I think the police issue isn't talked about enough. A lot of white people got spooked over the past few years and I'm not sure what Democrats can do to counter it.

Jay Rockefeller is even weirder because he's a Democrat with a dynastic Republican name. He probably would have lost if he didn't retire, though. It took them a decade or two, but West Virginians finally caught on to his liberal agenda.
 

Pixieking

Banned
so CNN says 7 out of 10 viewers say this speech made them more optimistic.

is this really all it fucking takes for people!?

Well... Yeah. What do you expect from an electorate/voting sample that doesn't care about policies? Or is so sexist, they'll leap at any possibility to "give the guy a chance"?
 
so CNN says 7 out of 10 viewers say this speech made them more optimistic.

is this really all it fucking takes for people!?

The sample skews in favor of Trump supporters, I would imagine, since they're more likely to watch it

Still sad, but if it's 95% of Trump supporters and 20% of non-Trump supporters who say this speech made them more optimistic it's not particularly alarming
 
I don't think that's accurate. Neoliberal drone strike thanks Obama delayed it to wait for a new moon. Although we can't know if he would have gone through with it or not.

The galling thing is really the flippancy with how the mission was approved. The lack of giving enough of a shit to observe the operation in the Sit Room. And that Trump likely gives bo shits that he sent someone on a mission that died and continues to pass the buck.


Say what you will about corporate book deal pig Barack Obama. But he had actual human emotions like empathy.
 

royalan

Member
Months ago I posted that more than any one Trump surrogate, it was Van Jones and his simping bullshit that made me stop watching CNN. Tonight he proved me right.

One speech. That's all it took, Van? Fucking embarrassing.
 
so CNN says 7 out of 10 viewers say this speech made them more optimistic.

is this really all it fucking takes for people!?

How many times does the insta-poll thing have to be explained to people? 7 out of 10 people who watched the nomination speeches of both Clinton and Trump loved the speeches too. It's inherently skewed to be preaching to the choir because most people who hate you won't even bother watching.
 
I just searched "gabbard" and every post on the first page of results is someone making fun of her (or saying no one gives a shit about her).

No one cares about her.
 
So, I decided to do some math. I looked at every special election since the presidential election with both the presidential results AND the results of the last contested race in that seat.

Iowa SD 45

Hillary/Trump: 55/38 (17%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 73/25 (48%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP (i): 51/44 (7%) (*was in 2010, GOP didn't contest in 2014)

Virginia SD 22

Hillary/Trump: 41/55 (-14%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 40/53 (-13%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP: 42/58 (-16%) (*was in 2011, Dems didn't contest in 2015)

Virginia HD 85

Hillary/Trump: 47/47 (0%, but Trump won)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 47/53 (-6%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP: 44/56 (-12%) (*was in 2013, Dems didn't contest in 2015)

Iowa HD 89

Hillary/Trump: 52/41 (11%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 72/27 (45%)
Last Election Dem (i)/Last Election GOP: 67/33 (34%)

--inauguration--

Minnesota HD 32B

Hillary/Trump: 32/61 (-29%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 47/53 (-6%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP (i): 44/56 (-12%)

Delaware SD 10

Hillary/Trump: 54/41 (13%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 58/41 (17%)
Last Election Dem (i)/Last Election GOP: 51/49 (2%)

Connecticut SD 32 (UNOFFICIAL)

Hillary/Trump: 37/59 (-22%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 45/55 (-10%) (UNOFFICIAL)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP (i): 32/68 (-36%)

Haven't seen any numbers on CT SD 02 or CT HD 115 that both Dems won.
So what you're saying is

Patty Judge 2020

635984816795031863-pattyjudgeeditboard-0056.jpg


The true queen of the Midwest will rise again

Too bad we didn't pick up that Connecticut seat as it would have given us an outright majority instead of a tie, but that's much better than we had any business doing there.
 
I believe the progressive icon thing is a sarcastic meme that originated from someone who naively included her on a list of progressive icons in a post somewhere on this forum. That person then basically admitted they had no idea who she was and just assumed.
 
I believe the progressive icon thing is a sarcastic meme that originated from someone who naively included her on a list of progressive icons in a post somewhere on this forum. That person then basically admitted they had no idea who she was and just assumed.
also stems from some bernie fans suggesting she run in 2020 because she's a true progressive who endorsed the right man.
 
On one side we have conservative commentators who will defend Trump no matter what and on another side we have liberal ones who will always find some fault with what their people did or said.
 

Pixieking

Banned
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/836785073395535876

Not just the quote I posted early, but then said "he'll be President for 8 years if he keeps doing that"

I've never been more fucking pissed off with Van Jones, what a fucking joke this guy is. Absolute fraud.

I saw that too... But tbh, I view it as political naivety. 1) Trump won't keep being Presidential. He literally doesn't have the temperament for it. And he's not even being Presidential now, he just isn't being a complete dick. 2) Hillary and Bernie supporters, plus the non-voters, plus the Dems who Third-Party'd, will ensure Trump isn't President in 2020. There is no way that he will both maintain not being a dick, and gain enough support for re-election, especially when you consider the infighting growing over ACA.
 

Raab

Neo Member
I don't think that's accurate. Neoliberal drone strike thanks Obama delayed it to wait for a new moon. Although we can't know if he would have gone through with it or not.

The galling thing is really the flippancy with how the mission was approved. The lack of giving enough of a shit to observe the operation in the Sit Room. And that Trump likely gives bo shits that he sent someone on a mission that died and continues to pass the buck.


Say what you will about corporate book deal pig Barack Obama. But he had actual human emotions like empathy.

I'm being serious, was there some account of the operation that was played out and detailed to everyone? How did the mission fail? I'm aware a soldier died.
 
So I was dubious when someone claimed that CT SD 32 was the most conservative district in the state, but uh yeah, it is.

So.

It's the only SD in Connecticut where Hillary got less than 40% of the vote.
 

Chumley

Banned
I saw that too... But tbh, I view it as political naivety. 1) Trump won't keep being Presidential. He literally doesn't have the temperament for it. And he's not even being Presidential now, he just isn't being a complete dick. 2) Hillary and Bernie supporters, plus the non-voters, plus the Dems who Third-Party'd, will ensure Trump isn't President in 2020. There is no way that he will both maintain not being a dick, and gain enough support for re-election, especially when you consider the infighting growing over ACA.

You're right on that, but Jones isn't just being naive, he's giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and not picking apart the real story behind that stunt. He's coming off as a total idiot swooning over a moment every single fucking President has ever had, and the moment itself just served to prop up lies. He should be outraged, not amazed by how "Presidential" Trump is being. He sucks.
 

Pixieking

Banned
You're right on that, but Jones isn't just being naive, he's giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and not picking apart the real story behind that stunt. He's coming off as a total idiot swooning over a moment every single fucking President has ever had, and the moment itself just served to prop up lies. He should be outraged, not amazed by how "Presidential" Trump is being. He sucks.

Well, yeah, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. I doubt there's many TV news broadcasts (or anchors) who actually dive into the details, and give a cynical (realistic) view of events, especially with something like this. I mean, it'd be awesome if TV news had the same depth and "Let's just take a second to break this down" style of the WaPo or New Yorker, but even in the UK (which is less "news as entertainment" than the US) it doesn't happen all that often.
 
huh, the Alaska State House has that same weird thing as New York but in reverse: 3 Republicans caucus with the Democrats to flip control of the chamber.

I don't understand these things.
 
I will keep saying this : people want to believe in bullshit.

Sometimes one wants to believe in something that is BS because that BS is desirable.

It could be possible that people like Van Jones wants to believe that Trump cares about unity or whatever, so they are willing to gobble up BS as long as it validates their belief; depending how exactly what it is of course. I guess the speech was enough for some people, however, they will be more conflicted once Trump does something divisive again.
 

Maengun1

Member
I just got home from work and I have no interest in actually watching whatever Trump did today, but :gagging: at the CNN frontpage rn

they were useless in 2016, they useless now
 
Trump will be giving his concession speech and some pundit will be claiming that it's the presidential pivot we've all been waiting for.
 
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-obamacare-republicans-235550?lo=ap_b3

House Republican leaders were ebullient after President Donald Trump's first address to Congress Tuesday night, convinced that their proposal to repeal and replace Obamacare had just gotten the presidential seal of approval.

Conservatives who abhor the GOP leadership plan saw just the opposite.

Congressional Republicans were yearning for some direction from Trump after spending weeks splintered on their Obamacare strategy. Trump did lay out details — using tax credits to help Americans purchase insurance, implementing tort reform, allowing for purchase of coverage across state lines — but he may have done little more than give a tiny nudge toward consensus on a health care plan, where Republicans still appear far apart on a deal.

Lol, those aren't plans, but ideas. Which, of course is not going to cover many people and will drop a lot of people from coverage. Some of these ideas are already ones that are covered by the Republicans anyway, however, they already acknowledged that their ideas won't cover everyone and some of the GOP worried about the backlash! So did they all suddenly forget or something, or are they just happy that Trump proposed ideas( which aren't new) that they already know isn't going to be effective?
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
So, I decided to do some math. I looked at every special election since the presidential election with both the presidential results AND the results of the last contested race in that seat.

Iowa SD 45

Hillary/Trump: 55/38 (17%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 73/25 (48%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP (i): 51/44 (7%) (*was in 2010, GOP didn't contest in 2014)

Virginia SD 22

Hillary/Trump: 41/55 (-14%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 40/53 (-13%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP: 42/58 (-16%) (*was in 2011, Dems didn't contest in 2015)

Virginia HD 85

Hillary/Trump: 47/47 (0%, but Trump won)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 47/53 (-6%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP: 44/56 (-12%) (*was in 2013, Dems didn't contest in 2015)

Iowa HD 89

Hillary/Trump: 52/41 (11%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 72/27 (45%)
Last Election Dem (i)/Last Election GOP: 67/33 (34%)

--inauguration--

Minnesota HD 32B

Hillary/Trump: 32/61 (-29%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 47/53 (-6%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP (i): 44/56 (-12%)

Delaware SD 10

Hillary/Trump: 54/41 (13%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 58/41 (17%)
Last Election Dem (i)/Last Election GOP: 51/49 (2%)

Connecticut SD 32 (UNOFFICIAL)

Hillary/Trump: 37/59 (-22%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 45/55 (-10%) (UNOFFICIAL)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP (i): 32/68 (-36%)

Haven't seen any numbers on CT SD 02 or CT HD 115 that both Dems won.

In other words, the end results were essentially unchanged.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom