• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2018 mid-term election

Kestrel said:
The idea that a Democratic House can get progressive legislation passed into law while Republicans control the Senate and Executive branches requires ignoring how our government works.
Click to expand...
Even if they can't get legislation passed, by passing laws through the house, they can at least show that they are more than just "anti-Trumpers", that they have policies and ideas that go beyond just being in opposition.

And heck, maybe some of the things they propose might be politically popular, and will cause some embarrassment to the republicans if/when they oppose it.
 
Delvo said:
I'll believe that when I see that the Democrats aren't going to just spend two years wasting this opportunity just like before.

Some of the Democrats who just won the latest elections have been talking about progressive legislation they plan to start writing & voting on, which is a good sign. But somehow, although most Democrats don't want Pelosi as Speaker, no others have self-nominated yet, so there's nobody else yet to vote for instead of her. Her influence over other Democrats has faded in unofficial ways, but Speaker is still an influencial seat, and two more years of Pelosi is one of the surest ways to make much of the base give up and pave the way for the Republicans next time.
Click to expand...

Poll: Democratic voters back Pelosi as speaker by wide margin
 
Kestrel said:
The idea that a Democratic House can get progressive legislation passed into law while Republicans control the Senate and Executive branches requires ignoring how our government works.
Click to expand...

But it is not ignoring the power balance between Trump and Mitch McConnell: if the Dems get Trump on their side, and it looks like Republicans are preventing Trump from getting a victory. (and praise from the MSM), then Satan help McTurtle.
 
Segnosaur said:
Even if they can't get legislation passed, by passing laws through the house, they can at least show that they are more than just "anti-Trumpers", that they have policies and ideas that go beyond just being in opposition.

And heck, maybe some of the things they propose might be politically popular, and will cause some embarrassment to the republicans if/when they oppose it.
Click to expand...

I don't expect the Dems to get much donw in the way of programs, but they will act a a yuge check on the Man Who Would Be Dictator.
 
Segnosaur said:
Even if they can't get legislation passed, by passing laws through the house, they can at least show that they are more than just "anti-Trumpers", that they have policies and ideas that go beyond just being in opposition.

And heck, maybe some of the things they propose might be politically popular, and will cause some embarrassment to the republicans if/when they oppose it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If the House passes popular legislation and the Senate kills it, a lot of Republicans will have to run on that in 2020. It's even possible, I think, that some legislation could actually pass the Senate with a few party defectors, and then Trump would have to decide to either sign it or have his veto become a campaign issue. Anyway, two important objectives are in the bag: kill the MAGA legislative agenda, and resuscitate the oversight committees.
 
Segnosaur said:
Even if they can't get legislation passed, by passing laws through the house, they can at least show that they are more than just "anti-Trumpers", that they have policies and ideas that go beyond just being in opposition.

And heck, maybe some of the things they propose might be politically popular, and will cause some embarrassment to the republicans if/when they oppose it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. One thing I noticed in the late ads by GOP was how they suddenly were all about healthcare. Trying to salvage some effort they made in the past to show the exact opposite image of what the had been doing (Rep. MacArthur for example tried to shine light on some money he got for a local hospital in one of his few non-attack ads on Kim - this was in strong contrast for his efforts to undermine the ACA).

A Medicaid for all bill probably wouldn’t pass the Senate, let alone Trumps veto, but it would give the right signs to voters.
 
The Shrike said:
Not a Democrat, but totally cool with a Speaker Pelosi. To see her return to that position after the Reps tried to make the 2018 election a referendum on her? Ah, sweet revenge. Our Toddler in Chief would be raging day and night.
Click to expand...

It's mainly a cat-herding job (which Ryan wasn't good at), not ideological leadership, and the important thing is to hit the ground running -- no time for on-the-job training. We certainly don't want to risk ending up with someone who really can't handle it, and we know Palosi can. I think not making her Speaker would be pretty dumb.
 
Minoosh said:
I don't think Utah (Utahns? Utahners? Utes?) are all that solid behind Trump. Mormons aren't evangelicals.
Click to expand...
In the 2016 election, Trump beat Clinton by around 17% in Utah. He also got a majority of the Mormon vote.

So while Mormons aren't evangelicals, they seem to be voting like them. And the whole state has usually been a republican stronghold.
 
Segnosaur said:
In the 2016 election, Trump beat Clinton by around 17% in Utah. He also got a majority of the Mormon vote.

So while Mormons aren't evangelicals, they seem to be voting like them. And the whole state has usually been a republican stronghold.
Click to expand...
Well they weren't going to vote for Hillary. Maybe they'll be taking their cue from Mitt. And IMO it remains to be seen how well Mitt and Donald will get along.

But of course I could have said the same about Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, etc.
 
Minoosh said:
I don't think Utah (Utahns? Utahners? Utes?) are all that solid behind Trump. Mormons aren't evangelicals.
Click to expand...

And in leading up to the 2016 election there was more skepticism expressed among members of the C of LDS as to Trump's morality than in many evangelical churches.
 
All this prattle about a majority of Democratic voters not wanting Pelosi as Speaker smells just like Russki disinfo success...

And why any newly elected cherubs in the House would entertain the notion of breaking what ain't broken by replacing a battle-hardened wrangler who can go to toe with Trump and his minions is the height of naivete.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Mia Love has lost to McAdams in Utah, so that's 39 flipped seats now, with a possibility of one more yet to be resolved. The total votes counted so far is over 110M, compared to 87M cast in the Tea Party wave of 2010. Republican prospects for 2020 are looking very dim. :)
Click to expand...
Except that after that Tea Party wave of 2010, Obama was reelected.
 
Segnosaur said:
In the 2016 election, Trump beat Clinton by around 17% in Utah. He also got a majority of the Mormon vote.

So while Mormons aren't evangelicals, they seem to be voting like them. And the whole state has usually been a republican stronghold.
Click to expand...

There's been a bit of a shift as Salt Lake City and environs have been trending Dem in some elections. It is hard to see how much of Love's loss is attributed to that trend and how much to arch conservatives who just cannot get behind a woman,... a black woman at that... as a candidate. She had tough elections every time she ran.

I'll have to look up responses to exit poll questions. No one's going to say (unless the polling is done very cleverly)"well, I just won't vote for a black woman, no matter what..." But even if that's their attitude, would they go from GOP to Dem just on race/gender? You'd also think she had a good portion of the Anti-Trump vote as a proverbial thorn in his side.

I'm not sure what we can make of Utah based on a rather outlying contest.
 
Lurch said:
All this prattle about a majority of Democratic voters not wanting Pelosi as Speaker smells just like Russki disinfo success...

And why any newly elected cherubs in the House would entertain the notion of breaking what ain't broken by replacing a battle-hardened wrangler who can go to toe with Trump and his minions is the height of naivete.
Click to expand...

I'd expect useful idiot Tulsi Gabbard to be involved if Russia was involved. This seems more like a vocal minority pushing for an unreasonable purity test.
 
Stacko said:
I'd expect useful idiot Tulsi Gabbard to be involved if Russia was involved. This seems more like a vocal minority pushing for an unreasonable purity test.
Click to expand...

This is NOT a civil war. There's always wrangling for the leadership positions, both majority and minority. I don't expect to see a lot of dead bodies in the roadside. It's a traditional young Turks vs Old Guard battle. It's a "prelim" story before the main bouts. It's also a shot across the bow that things could get more serious if the old guard doesn't do more to recognize the 30/50 year old up-and-coming Dems and let them get their snouts into the trough.

Without looking...... Quick! Name one of the sixteen signatories to the Pelosi Letter. They are not exactly prominent names..... yet. McAdams is the best known because he just got the Utah win over Mia Love. The others are not exactly household names. And that's partially why this is going on. These aren't millennials - they're the end of the baby boomers and a large chunk of Gen X. They think they're being held back by the early boomers. There's no evidence that this is a Progressive Wing uprising. (Actually, that might gain more traction.)
 
PhantomWolf said:
Okay, so here's a debunking for you.

Their table and their conclusion give different levels if accuracy and based on the 19.4 million non-citizens in the US, at the levels of accuracy they quote in their charts (+/-5% at 95% confidence), their sample size in 13% too small to be statistically useful, and it is actually over 50% too small to be accurate to the levels that they give in their discussion (+/-3.5% at 95% confidence), and that isn't even bothering to go into their actual method and assumptions.

Or if you want the short version, they invalidly extrapolated the numbers based on an invalid sample size.

Happy?
Click to expand...
Here's a debunking for you.

There are at least 46 million non-citizens in the US.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/18/5-facts-about-the-u-s-rank-in-worldwide-migration/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom