whyamihere
Banned
Final:
Walsh (R): 52.076%
Skelton (D): 47.924%
Huge improvement on both Hillary and Obama's numbers.
Walsh (R): 52.076%
Skelton (D): 47.924%
Huge improvement on both Hillary and Obama's numbers.
-
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 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
- Thread starter aspiegamer
- Start date
- Status
balladofwindfishes
Member
Yea, but we lost and that's all that matters and everything is terrible and we'll never win anything ever again /s
True. But it would be nice if they'd start swinging them.
Autodidact
Banned
Permanent minority, really. Sad!
Aaron Strife
Banned
We've swung four seats so far this year.
whyamihere
Banned
We have...
Autodidact
Banned
Democrats never win except when they win.
Which is never.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Autodidact
Banned
I wonder if Republicans engaged in this sort of hand-wringing angst from 1933-1953. Those radio stations might've carried some lit-as-fuck think pieces about their failure to capture the white working class
whyamihere
Banned
GOP margins vs Trump down big in the Trumpiest county in this Iowa senate district.
Out of...?
whyamihere
Banned
I feel like you think this is cute
No not really
Fenderputty
Banned
A goal post move to reestablish a new point of skepticism
Aaron Strife
Banned
In 2006 there were 232 GOP-held House seats up for election and we only won 30 of them.
Have some perspective.
jack_package_200
Banned
This Tweet has not aged well
I get it.
I honestly did want to know how many elections there have been, no being cute or goal post moving...
whyamihere
Banned
DEM
HOLD
IN
IOWA
HUGE
TRUMP
DISTRICT
HOLD
IN
IOWA
HUGE
TRUMP
DISTRICT
Crazy is crazy...
whyamihere
Banned
Iowa HD-82:
2016: Trump (57.76%), Clinton (36.54%)
2012: Obama (49.74%), Romney (47.90%)
Tonight:
Miller, D (54.74%)
Harris, R (45.26%)
2016: Trump (57.76%), Clinton (36.54%)
2012: Obama (49.74%), Romney (47.90%)
Tonight:
Miller, D (54.74%)
Harris, R (45.26%)
Maybe voters are finally realizing Trump will not do shit for them. They're probably the social conservative economic liberals that make up a sizeable chunk of midwestern WWC. BRCA for example was a bit of betrayal.
Wowza.
whyamihere
Banned
"The president is as strong as hes ever been in Iowa" - White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters, 8/5/17
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Some graphs from Thomas Piketty et al.
Fix this before it's too late.
Fix this before it's too late.
I saw earlier on a Jacobin article pulling from that study that the average individual wealth of the bottom 50% of the country in 2014 was $386 or something like that.
whyamihere
Banned
Full special election table:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C2MVeM2K7WgqmJw5RCQbWyTo2u73CX1pI8zw_G-7BJo/edit#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C2MVeM2K7WgqmJw5RCQbWyTo2u73CX1pI8zw_G-7BJo/edit#gid=0
Both Indiana congressmen, i take it?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
It's already too late....25% of the population voted for a "billionaire" they believed represented the average man...
whyamihere
Banned
hot damn
Spoiled Milk
Banned
It was Reagan, and then it was Bush, and then it was Clinton, and then it was Bush, and then it was Obama. But this mostly happened under Obama.
But it's nobody's "fault" anyway. It just happened. Our society is prosperous. Our wealth is innumerous. People made money. Nobody thought to try and share some of it.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Nuts. Income inequality is the defining issue of our time.
Campaign harder.
I mean there is this whole anthropogenic climate change thing going on... wealth inequality is just going to determine who suffers most and soonest.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Counter-point: I'm taking my PhD comprehensive exams next week, which won't happen if I get nuked. So nuke away!
It's just rural Mississippi. Probably a drag on federal funds anyway
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Yeah, climate change is the biggest for sure. Political will to fix income inequality gets harder every year (or rather, the political entrenchment of the wealthy gets stronger), but there will be a point of no return on the environment where it will be physically impossible to stop the change.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
You know, I actually saw the sequel today, and it was pretty good. It's a tie for me regarding which is more of a defining issue.
Climate Change 2: Electric Boogaloo?You know, I actually saw the sequel today, and it was pretty good. It's a tie for me regarding which is more of a defining issue.
Aaron Strife
Banned
It's early, but tonight might be the first sign that Iowa (and the rural Midwest) isn't gone for good.
These states swung hard for Trump because they were willing to give him a chance, but that doesn't mean they won't snap back now that it's clear what a loser he is.
Also I realized there actually was a special election in a state legislative seat that swung from Dem to GOP, but we didn't contest it. Some southern state, I want to say Mississippi or Louisiana.
In any case, 13-point margin would surely be enough to overcome the gerrymandered maps. Then again that one guy said we'd only pick up two seats.
These states swung hard for Trump because they were willing to give him a chance, but that doesn't mean they won't snap back now that it's clear what a loser he is.
Also I realized there actually was a special election in a state legislative seat that swung from Dem to GOP, but we didn't contest it. Some southern state, I want to say Mississippi or Louisiana.
In any case, 13-point margin would surely be enough to overcome the gerrymandered maps. Then again that one guy said we'd only pick up two seats.
whyamihere
Banned
A 6% swing from 2012 Iowa results (what IA HD28 was tonight) would give Dems a gain of 7 in the Iowa Senate (of the 25 seats that are up in 2018) and would swing the chamber back to Dems on a 27-23 margin. A 30% swing from 2016 Iowa results (what IA HD28 was tonight) would give Dems a gain of 11 seats of the 25 up in 2018 for a 31-19 majority in the state senate.
If we're to extrapolate these Missouri numbers, we get some interesting data from both. I'll first use MO HD50's -4.15 margin. I'm also just going to add up all the numbers here as Democrat and Non-Dem, so lumping in the Green+Lib+Other vote with Republicans to get a two party vote.
MO HD 50
2016 was Clinton, 37%, Non-Clinton, 63% (-26%)
2012 was Obama, 37.65%, Non-Obama, 62.35% (-24.7%)
2012 was McCaskill, 48.66%, Non-McCaskill, 51.34% (-2.68%)
A uniform swing statewide would've given Clinton a 21.85% swing, resulting in:
Clinton, 48.26%, Non-Clinton, 51.74
A uniform swing statewide would've given Obama a 20.55% swing, resulting in:
Obama, 54.68%, Non-Obama, 45.32%
And more important, a uniform swing statewide would've given McCaskill a -1.47% swing, resulting in:
McCaskill: 54.06%, Non-McCaskill: 45.94%
Now, if we're using MO SD28 with a D-19% margin...
2012 was McCaskill, 43.90%, Non-McCaskill, 56.16% (-12.26%)
And more important, a uniform swing statewide would've given McCaskill a -6.74% swing, resulting in:
McCaskill: 51.43%, Non-McCaskill: 48.57%
If we're to extrapolate these Missouri numbers, we get some interesting data from both. I'll first use MO HD50's -4.15 margin. I'm also just going to add up all the numbers here as Democrat and Non-Dem, so lumping in the Green+Lib+Other vote with Republicans to get a two party vote.
MO HD 50
2016 was Clinton, 37%, Non-Clinton, 63% (-26%)
2012 was Obama, 37.65%, Non-Obama, 62.35% (-24.7%)
2012 was McCaskill, 48.66%, Non-McCaskill, 51.34% (-2.68%)
A uniform swing statewide would've given Clinton a 21.85% swing, resulting in:
Clinton, 48.26%, Non-Clinton, 51.74
A uniform swing statewide would've given Obama a 20.55% swing, resulting in:
Obama, 54.68%, Non-Obama, 45.32%
And more important, a uniform swing statewide would've given McCaskill a -1.47% swing, resulting in:
McCaskill: 54.06%, Non-McCaskill: 45.94%
Now, if we're using MO SD28 with a D-19% margin...
2012 was McCaskill, 43.90%, Non-McCaskill, 56.16% (-12.26%)
And more important, a uniform swing statewide would've given McCaskill a -6.74% swing, resulting in:
McCaskill: 51.43%, Non-McCaskill: 48.57%
Spoiled Milk
Banned
An Inconvenient Sequel
Aaron Strife
Banned
With that kind of swing we might have a shot at the Iowa House too.
Can't be assed to figure out how many seats though, Ballotpedia doesn't list the margins, just the vote totals.
Can't be assed to figure out how many seats though, Ballotpedia doesn't list the margins, just the vote totals.
whyamihere
Banned
Bookmark this
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...ts-by-congressional-and-legislative-districts
A 6% swing from 2012 would give us 40 seats (lol), not taking into account incumbency advantages. That's not happening. So, probably the best thing to do is some marriage between 2012 and 2016 numbers.
hey_monkey
Banned
We've got "Fire Rokita" signs all over town, so I guess he decided he'd quit instead.
(god, I hope he goes down in flames, but it's Indiana, so....)
whyamihere
Banned
It's a tough district. There isn't really a Dem base. Even in 2008, when Obama won the state:
There's almost no Dem bases of support. I think the only county that Obama won that year in the district was Tippecanoe, which he lost in 2012 and Hillary lost in 2016. It's actually a fairly impressive gerrymander.
(This was 2016. Yeesh.)
- Status