Where did you get that from?
-
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 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
Where did you get that from?
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Sure, it's not a disaster if he loses by 1-2% and that is well within the realm of possibility. But it sure would be disappointing that a really good candidate couldn't beat a bad candidate in a district where Trump is unpopular, especially with all of the money that has been raised.
I wasn't aware that Tom Price or his Democratic opponent with zero institutional support were running in this election
SJurgenson
Banned
Ok, those are dumb arguments.
SJurgenson
Banned
OK. Sorry for attempting to present data based arguments in a discussion where nebulous claims of 'good', 'bad', and 'institutional support' clearly beat facts.
The courts already hold the opinion that you can not gerrymander based off of race. This case is about if your can gerrymander based off of political affiliation.
Looking at it closer, it appears the argument is that partisan gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which I think is a good case, so I'll take back my earlier opinion.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
This data is extraordinarily helpful at clarifying my...skepticism about polls showing that "60% of Americans support healthcare for all" and such. As the data shows Americans are less divided on economic and welfare issues than they are on social issues, but they're voting on social issues. Its all about prioritizations. 60% of Americans support healthcare for all, but how many of them support it more than anti-Muslim and anti-black politics? Enough probably don't that I'm skeptical of any narrative about "overwhelming popularity". Its really just what we've seen with gun control for the last few decades. Americans overwhelmingly support increased regulation and background checks, but it doesn't matter enough for them to change how they vote
VendettaRed07
Member
Just because this seat is a generic R+8 and is "close" doesn't mean that is where the country is. So I don't see any positive take away from a loss. This race is going to be close because of how much money was dumped into it. My concern over the loss is not that because we aren't hitting a generic D+7 or w/e, it's about the party knowing where to send resources. If it was so unwinnable then maybe they would have been better off spreading out the money they sent Ossoff on other races as well. Not every race is going to be able to receive this sort of money and funding in a wave. I'd like to continue to remain doom and gloom until I am given a single reason to believe otherwise. I'd like to see what data you have that is going to be reliable come 2018 that what we are seeing from the parties efforts should give us a reason to be confident.
I mean I think it was an NPR segment done on Gianforte a while back discussing voters potentially flipping on unscrupulous candidates. iirc it was summed up by voters generally not flipping, being slightly more likely to not vote, but definitely not flipping.
Your candidate being a piece of shit and decking someone isn't nearly as important than their policies it seems. I mean it seems pretty reasonable. Candidate might be a garbage person, but if their opponent is all in on stripping gay rights, abortion, etc. What's a few black eyes to longer term systemic damage, eh?
idk, I actually found it article now and it seems way too anecdotal on second glance but all the same, I can at least understand where they're coming form.
Your candidate being a piece of shit and decking someone isn't nearly as important than their policies it seems. I mean it seems pretty reasonable. Candidate might be a garbage person, but if their opponent is all in on stripping gay rights, abortion, etc. What's a few black eyes to longer term systemic damage, eh?
idk, I actually found it article now and it seems way too anecdotal on second glance but all the same, I can at least understand where they're coming form.
It can simultaneously be true that a narrow loss points to good things for 2018, and that the full set benefits to this race flip from zero to one with a victory. There's more riding on this race than either the seat at issue, or an additional data point for 2018.
Politico wasn't already the gossipy half of politico? Christ
That's their podcast tbh
whyamihere
Banned
There are 67 districts that are rated by Cook as R+1 to R+7. Democrats hold 8 of those.
Of the 8 "EVEN" districts, Democrats hold 4.
Of the 8 "EVEN" districts, Democrats hold 4.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
You sure prefer some data over others, though! That's my point. You consistently talk about how Price won by 23 and how it's R+8 while ignoring the lack of support of Trump in the district. All of these data points matter! Some (the PVI and Trump support) more than others (how much Price won by).
And 'institutional support' is anything but a nebulous claim. You do understand that means things like training, staffers, money, etc from the national and state parties, as well as the DCCC? I didn't think it was controversial to suggest whoever Rodney Stooksbury is didn't have a lot of institutional support in 2016.
Get off your high horse.
This. It's not just about 1 single seat in the House. It's about showing the base that Democrats can win and encouraging strong candidates to run across the country in districts that are R+8 or R+5 or R+2. It's about investing in a region and district that is going to be the future of the Democratic Party.
SJurgenson
Banned
You clearly don't know, or choose to ignore, the fact that special elections to replace administration appointees are not supposed to be winnable by the other party.
SJurgenson
Banned
1. You cannot point to Trump winning by only 1.5 as lax support of Trump against the point that Price won by 23. They happened in the same day! To me that says those variables are not directly links like you want to claim.
2. Please provide documentary evidence of institutional spending on both sides for this election and the last if you want to claim a difference being made here by that factor.
3. There have not been winnable elections yet. Democrats have lost these because they are never supposed to be winnable.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Many people think the shooting will help Handel and carry her over the top.
demotivation is the best way to motivate your base to vote
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I don't actually even know what you're trying to say here. That Price winning by 23 means that Trump has more support than we think? That Price's win is equally as important as Trump's, despite Price not running in this election and his opponent not receiving any institutional support?
Friends of Rodney Stookbury FEC Report - $0 Raised
There isn't even an FEC report on him. He literally spent $0 in 2016. No shit he lost by 23 points.
whyamihere
Banned
No one actually thinks that.
Let's talk about partisan lean (using Cook PVI, which is a different dataset discussed in this thread before, it's about the lean of a district in a strictly binary D vs R sense, so discounting third parties and doing some other stuff to smooth the data out to show the mean partisan bias of a district's electorate)
http://cookpolitical.com/file/Cook_Political_Report_Partisan_Voter_Index_.pdf
So scope page 5 of this report. Here you see 18 Republican-held seats that are "even" (somewhere between D+2 and R+2), as well as 25 Republican-held seats that are R+2 to R+5 (along with 2 Democratic seats held in areas that are more than R+5, and 3 Republican-held seats in areas that are more than D+5)
So let's take a wave where, across the board, we see a 5-point swing in the electorate in the Democrats favor (for any number of reasons, Dems get more fired up and turn out when they usually don't, R's stay home, R's flip, whatever).
Assuming everything else is equal (which it won't be because candidate quality matters), Democrats would gain 46 seats and lose 2 seats (those hard-R Democrat seats), for a net gain of 44 which would give them a majority of 20 in the House.
The point is that this takes into account gerrymandering already, so you can trust the numbers (to an extent. Cook PVI is a little tricky, but statistically even).
Other good stuff in here i've been talking about, like the areas that are moving D and R. I'll get back to it later (have a meeting soon).
http://cookpolitical.com/file/Cook_Political_Report_Partisan_Voter_Index_.pdf
So scope page 5 of this report. Here you see 18 Republican-held seats that are "even" (somewhere between D+2 and R+2), as well as 25 Republican-held seats that are R+2 to R+5 (along with 2 Democratic seats held in areas that are more than R+5, and 3 Republican-held seats in areas that are more than D+5)
So let's take a wave where, across the board, we see a 5-point swing in the electorate in the Democrats favor (for any number of reasons, Dems get more fired up and turn out when they usually don't, R's stay home, R's flip, whatever).
Assuming everything else is equal (which it won't be because candidate quality matters), Democrats would gain 46 seats and lose 2 seats (those hard-R Democrat seats), for a net gain of 44 which would give them a majority of 20 in the House.
The point is that this takes into account gerrymandering already, so you can trust the numbers (to an extent. Cook PVI is a little tricky, but statistically even).
Other good stuff in here i've been talking about, like the areas that are moving D and R. I'll get back to it later (have a meeting soon).
TestOfTide
Banned
I think that the whole "we spent 23 million on the Ossof Race" should really hammer home the fact that it's better to spend some money on numerous different races than to try to spend all the money on the most competitive, high profile races.
Like, there are so many places across the country that we should be challenging for the sake of creating a voting base, but we don't even have someone running for the seat. However if we invested wide enough then we would be better able to guarantee that there is someone running for every race.
Not really. If anything. I was proven correct that the shooting story wouldn't last.
Like, there are so many places across the country that we should be challenging for the sake of creating a voting base, but we don't even have someone running for the seat. However if we invested wide enough then we would be better able to guarantee that there is someone running for every race.
Not really. If anything. I was proven correct that the shooting story wouldn't last.
Aaron Strife
Banned
https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/351703448/NevadaResults-06-14-17
PPP has Dean Heller trailing a Generic Democrat by 7 points.
This Generic Democrat sounds like good people, wonder if we can get them to run.
(Or ANYONE)
PPP has Dean Heller trailing a Generic Democrat by 7 points.
This Generic Democrat sounds like good people, wonder if we can get them to run.
(Or ANYONE)
Thing is there's no real downside for splurging right now, GA-6 is about the only high profile race going on at the moment. Same with the gubernatorial races this Fall, I'm sure. The challenge will be in 2018 when we have hundreds of candidates in every state, district and county.
Veritigo_X
Member
Many people = that one GOP guy quoted on the last page?
Carpe Libertatem
Member
GA-06 moved from R+14 in 2012 to R+8 in 2016, a shift of 5.8 points, for anyone that's curious. 8th fastest trending Democratic district. Part of why the district is more important than MT-AL or KS-04!
cartoon_soldier
Member
This is why special elections don't tell us much about midterms.
All the attention has been on GA-6 for past 4 months. This helps Ossoff but also helps Handel. It energizes GOP base too.
No single race in 2018 is going to receive as much attention as GA-6, and that helps Dems.
Have to keep in mind that Dems won special elections in 2010 too, but the midterms were a bloodbath.
There are only four House special elections happening right now (meaning, the first half of 2017) and GA-6 is by far the most winnable, and Ossoff has gotten the most grassroots buzz of the four Dem candidates. So an outsize amount of money going to Ossoff's race makes sense.
whyamihere
Banned
Yes. But don't let that get in the way of a Cartoon Soldier freakout stated as fact!
RustyNails
Member
I believe in the Reid Machine. They always find good democrats to run in Nevada.
Roland_Gunner
Member
The vast majority of that money came from individual donors who wanted to contribute to this race. The alternative wouldn't be to spread the money around the country, it would be for those folks to buy stuff on amazon or whatever.
Veritigo_X
Member
I was bummed this came from a legit news source at first because I knew they weren't going to put on a funny voice modulator or anything, but then I clicked on it and it seems like they actually did?
Officerrob
Banned
No video AND not allowed to air the audio of the press briefing live?
BoogieWoogie
Banned
He sounds like that fucking teenager from the Simpsons.
Yup, a lot of stuff i've been talking about lately came out of this report.
The top-25 Dem trending districts are found in:
Northern Virginia
Major Texas Cities (DFW, Houston, San Antonio)
Atlanta
South Florida
Los Angeles (fat lot of help, but it's getting bluer)
Silicon Valley
Mexican Border in general
Top 25 R-trending districts found in:
Lake Superior (relevant parts of MN and WI)
Lake Huron (in MI)
North Dakota
North Iowa (District that elected Steve King is just getting worse over time)
St. Louis suburbs
South Illinois
South Indiana
East Ohio River Valley (incl. all of West Virginia)
Central Pennsylvania
The Bethlehem-Allentown area of PA
One person. Tis all.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Many people are saying
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING THIS
Who is actually saying this? You know you sound like Trump saying that, right?
Didn't he like, not exist or something?
The Allentown mayoral race is worth paying attention to -- a Democrat under FBI investigation against a corrupt Republican slumlord who supports Trump.
Charlie Dent's district is being pushed rightwards by the suburban districts and old industrial towns that are basically residential shells, but Allentown and Bethlehem are doing okay and very diverse towns. I can't see Northampton country (which was Dent's old district) going for Trump again, and that district is represented by PA-17, which stretches from Northampton County to Carbondale to beyond the Susquehanna!
"The VA has 532 forms on vets.gov, the majority of which are not accessible by modern browsers."
Uh, how's that?
BoogieWoogie
Banned
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Aaron Strife
Banned
They completely whiffed it in 2014 and lost a safe D congressional seat and the entire state legislature as a result because zomg moderate sandoval is unbeatable~~~!!!
Hopefully they learned their lesson. Right now I just want good candidates for Nevada and Arizona Senate and Wisconsin and Nevada gov.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I would say St. Louis exurbs rather than suburbs, since MO-2 (most of STL's suburbs) shifted 5 points away from Trump. Hillary didn't improve on Obama at all, but Trump got 5 points less than Romney. Still pretty solidly red for now, but not exactly trending red. As someone who grew up in the area and still pays attention to what's going on, I'd guess the opposite will happen as more people (especially minorities) move out to the suburbs, but much slower than in place's like GA or AZ. MO as a whole will still be red of course.
Possibly? What the fuck :lol
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked