Gallup officially declares : Texas Competitive

All this talk of a "blue wave" is the same talk people had before 2016.

Texas is staying Texas. I love me some blue, but this blue wave will be more of a blue trickle. Don't kid yourselves.

Well done OP

I think there will be a blue wave and Texas might be in play considering the rising Hispanic population and the dying off of old Republicans, but I have to question any map that list Indiana and West Virginia as competitive.

30 some dems elected so far in special elections. makin' the elephants shake in their collective boots.

HOT DAMN!!!!

But, DON'T BECOME COMPLACENT!!! It's a LONG ways off until the 2018 election! I personally want the House AND the Senate so that we can clean this shit up for good!

TX going blue two cycles in a row!! Go Dems!

[quote]All this talk of a "blue wave" is the same talk people had before 2016.

Oh, bullshit. This is based on real data, idiot. Quoting what I wrote in another thread:

1. A record number of Congressional Republicans retiring.

2. A record number of viable, funded Democratic candidates, something like three times the number of such candidates the last time we had a wave election (a Republican one at that time).

3. Democratic candidates far outpacing their Republican counterparts in fundraising.

4. Democrats outpacing their voting percentages by double digits in the off-cycle elections in the past year, including winning all four state legislature elections this year, all of them in red districts.

5. Trump with record disapproval numbers.

6. Congressional Republicans with record disapproval numbers, including from their own base.

7. Their only real accomplishment is the tax cut bill and it's proving to be the least popular tax cut bill ever, even less popular than some of the former tax hike bills.

8. The Democrats still have a +8 percentage point advantage in the generic ballot.

So yes, you can expect a Democratic wave. Yes, Republicans can still turn this around but, at the moment, nobody is seeing any signs of that happening and nobody is betting on it.

Now add in the new info that Gallup has shown us, along with the numbers from Texas primary voters:

Dallas County, Democratic numbers up by 56%, Republicans down by 19%

Among the 15 largest counties, Democratic numbers up by 51%, Republicans down by 16%

Any single one of these data points can easily be questioned. Put them all together and the evidence is overwhelming.

I'm writing checks to the liberal dems runnin

specially those ANTI NRA

I think Beto O'Rourke is good enough to take out Ted Cruz's smarmy ass. I would LOVE to see Texas go blue, but you are fighting the East side of the state. Dallas and Houston will stay red.

Remember, the other big game is 2020. They draw the new maps after census. Blue wave in 2018 could set Trump up for big victories in 20. Same thing happened to Obama.

Trump wouldn't be alive in 2020. I should post this in the predicative thread. Something will take him out - my guess is an aneurysm.

It wasn't the same thing, R11. The 2010 wave election was the mid-term election; the 2020 election will be a Presidential election. Nothing can set Trump up for "big victories" in 2020 because Trump remains Trump.

But what does Rasmussen say? That is my preferred polling organization, including for my YHUGE approval ratings.

Well, Donnie, Rasmussen still loves you, as they are currently the only pollster who has your approval numbers in positive territory, 50 to 49. However, Rasmussen doesn't love your Congressional friends, as Rasmussen thinks that the generic Congressional ballot is +8 to Democrats.

[quote]I think Beto O'Rourke is good enough to take out Ted Cruz's smarmy ass.

How DELICIOUS would that be!

"Ted Cruz trails Senate challenger Beto O'Rourke in six-week fundraising haul. By a lot."

R10, I thought Dallas and Houston were democrat.

Yeah, I don't know what R10 is talking about. Dallas and Houston are definitely blue. Now the suburbs are a different thing. Definitely Republican there. And West Texas (minus El Paso) along with deep East Texas is Deplorable Central. Fortunately, there's not a lot of population out west.

Few people expect O'Rourke to win but, as they're doing all over the country, Democrats are making Republicans fight even in races that would normally be a walk.

The South of Texas and Western Texas is where Democrats stand to gains the most because of Hispanics. You see all those pink counties? That means they are turning into battlegrounds (they were turning purple even in 2016). Despite all the insane gerrymandering in Texas, Hispanics are making grounds with each election, pretty soon Texas is going to be divided by North (red) and South/West (Blue).

Yeehaw! Go get him, Beto. I am so sick of lying Ted Cruz.

Dallas and Houston are solid blue, as are the other large cities San Antonio, Austin, El Paso -- plus the Rio Grande Valley. It's possible if the educated suburban voters start voting Democratic.

LOL...Texas will never flip in our lifetime

Keep telling yourself that, R23. Demographics currently show it in reach in 2024. Why do you think Texas Republicans are trying so hard to gerrymander and to block voters from voting?

hell yes lets fuk the repugs up the ass!!!!

re take the power of the people!

R24 Puhleez...if you actually believe Texas is competitive you probably also believed in Hillary's blue wall. There are more deplorables in Texas than anywhere else. It will be the last state to ever flip.

Daily Kos, OP? Really?

R27, read the link. It's a blog post that is referencing info from Gallup, not a DK blog post based on nothing but wishful thinking.

[quote]Daily Kos, OP? Really?

Is the source in the link more palpable?

I'm shocked (and puzzled, tbh) to see Louisiana in the "Competitive" column. Tom DeLay and his goons gerrymandered us all to hell in the 90s.

Gallup in 2016: Hillary will win.

The courts just re-drew Pennsylvania's district maps and Republicans had a fit over it. So It seems democrats might get a seat or two there.

[quote]Gallup in 2016: Hillary will win.

She did win.

tom delay

what a criminal asshole.

Man, these morons are going to keep bringing up the 2016 polls for decades, aren't they? The national polls predicted a modest victory which is, in fact, what occurred. I doubt any of these morons saying this shit even understand what happened in 2016 and why saying stupid shit like that just shows them to be a complete moron.

[quote] I thought Dallas and Houston were democrat.

R17 and R18,

Dallas (Dallas) and Harris (Houston) Counties, in Texas, flipped and carried Democratic—for Barack Obama’s—first time since 1964 in 2008. Their percentage-points margins, compared to statewide margins, are trending more Democratic. Hillary Clinton, who failed to hold the presidency in the Democratic column, held both counties.

Donald Trump, the 2016 Republican presidential pickup winner, underperformed 2012 losing nominee Mitt Romney in Texas. Romney’s margin: +15.78. Trump’s margin: +8.98. Trump underperformed Romney by about –600k raw votes. Most telling was Bexar County (San Antonio). It was a bellwether county, backing presidential winners, from 1972–2012. In 2016, it trended Democratic and carried for Hillary Clinton by more than +5 points. (I forgot the exact margin.)

The leading bellwether county in Texas, to tell who wins the state, is Tarrant. County seat is Fort Worth. It tends to give margins very close to statewide outcomes. Tarrant County is key to winning in Texas.

R36 here.

What I am saying is this: I think Trump will get re-elected in 2020. But, the trend in Texas may be a setup for a Democratic presidential pickup year more likely not in 2020 but 2024. That Democratic pickup winner may get a map which include having flipped and carried Texas. If that happens, so, too, would there be Democratic pickups from North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Nebraska #02.

R35 writes,

[Quote]Man, these morons are going to keep bringing up the 2016 polls for decades, aren't they? The national polls predicted a modest victory which is, in fact, what occurred.

In the U.S. Popular Vote. When it came to the Electorally College, there were wrong calls with predicting Democratic holds—for Hillary Clinton—of the Rust Belt trio Wisconsin (the tipping-point state), Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

Hillary underperformed Obama by –1.77 percentage points and –2.1 million raw votes. 1.7 million of that national shift of the raw vote were with Trump’s Republican pickups of Rust Belts Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Their +64 electoral votes—added to the Romney/Trump states’ 206—delivered the winning 270. Also: Factor additional Republican/Trump pickups Florida, Iowa, and Maine #02.

[quote]I think Trump will get re-elected in 2020.

Well, never say never but...whew! That's a call! I believe that the Dems will indeed retake both the House and the Senate. It will be such a stinging SLAP to Trump's face that he'll probably be like Andrew Johnson and change for the better. I believe you are discounting the absolute outrage that is throughout the country at this point and it ain't just Democrats either. Just the recent response by corporate America towards the NRA is only just one example of the sheer outrage that the country has at this point.

Tom DeLay is a mean little shit. In the early 90s Houston received federal funding that would have gotten a rail system started. But Texas Democratic congressmen forgot to kiss DeLay's ring and get his blessing on the project. So he killed it. We got rail but it was over 10 years more. Later he pushed Republicans in the Texas state legislature to break tradition and redistrict early, which led to gerrymandering that fucked the Democrats over.

R39,

Probable map for Election 2020 with re-election for Trump. (Color-code problems with Nebraska, which would be a Republican hold of all five electoral votes, and Maine, which would be a Republican hold of the 2nd Congressional District and a pickup of the statewide vote. Light shades are pickups.)

Probable map for Election 2024 for a Democratic presidential pickup winner. (Color-coding adjustments need to be considered. 270toWin.com has its flaws. Also: Allocation of electoral votes will be different in numerous states because of the 2020 report from the U.S. Census Bureau on population changes.)

Daily Kos?

FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP

[quote]When it came to the Electorally College, there were wrong calls with predicting Democratic holds

Of course. But that says nothing about the accuracy of current polls or polling in general. What really happened was not that the polling was inaccurate but that the "likely voter" model they were using in some states underestimated Trump's supporters.

That also says nothing about the current state of affairs. Those idiots who insist on this genuinely stupid meme that "polls predicted Hills would win" every time you point out that Democrats are killing it at the ballot box and in the current polling are simply demonstrating their stupidity.

[quote]What I am saying is this: I think Trump will get re-elected in 2020.

What grounds do you have for making this claim?

"A blue wave? How Trump is helping Democrats win in unlikely places."

Some key takeaways:

- Over half of the 37 legislative seats that Democrats have taken were in districts won by Trump.

- One factor is a "big explosion in volunteer activity."

[quote]That volunteer activity is “a common factor in all of our special election wins,” Post told me. “Some of these people marched in the women’s march. They never volunteered before. Now they’re showing up at campaign offices.” Post adds that in one Minnesota special election, even though the temperature dropped to negative 15 degrees, “there were 25 people out door-knocking.”

- Trump/Russia is not what these Democratic candidates are running on (which should make our concern trolls really happy).

[quote]The Beltway and Twittersphere are consumed with debates over whether Democrats should or should not be speaking directly to anti-Trump anger, or whether their failure to more directly attack Trump’s tax plan is helping it (and Trump himself) edge up in popularity. But Post tells me that these candidates are mostly “campaigning on hyper-local issues.”

[quote]For instance, Post says, in Virginia, one Democrat campaigned on fixing local traffic problems. In Oklahoma, one stressed shortened school hours. And in southern Minnesota, one campaigned on expanding rural economic opportunities and improved access to hospitals. In rural and exurban districts, the quality of roads and schools is a big issue.

Things look good for the Democrats in the midterm elections later this year. One other benefit:

[quote]Beyond this, however, if Democrats can win a lot more of these state legislative races, that could matter immensely in coming years. Post tells me that Democrats are focused on flipping legislative chambers and are aiming at the state senates in Florida, Maine, New Hampshire and Wisconsin, and state houses in Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.

[quote]This could increase Democrats’ influence over the next round of redistricting maps drawn for the House of Representatives, which will be crucial in determining control of the lower chamber in the next decade whether or not Democrats do take back the House this year. So every one of these little races matters.

BUT...

Ed Krassenstein 💎‏ @EdKrassen @EdKrassen

BREAKING: @FoxNews reports that President Trump has a 93% approval rating among Trump supporters!

HOWEVER...

Ryan Struyk‏ @ryanstruyk @ryanstruyk

NEW: @CNN poll out this morning puts Trump's approval rating matching his all-time low of 35%, down from 40% in January.

And, who do you believe?

I really thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide. All the passion on Trump's side was real. His followers are devoted to him and his policies. And they seem to be working to make us safer and more prosperous. I love people from all over the world, but I'm not sure the Dems' open borders approach works for my family.

Desperation?

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

BIG CPAC STRAW POLL RESULTS: 93% APPROVE OF THE JOB PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DOING (Thank you!). 50% say President Trump should Tweet MORE or SAME (funny!). 79% say Republicans in Congress should do a better job of working with President Trump (starting to happen).

Both can be true, R47. 93% approval among Trump supporters works out to about 35% nationally.

LOL! Nice try, R48

But, in your defense... you might be a Trump supporter and truly believe that he is doing a good job. Let me help you... He isn't.

Personally, I think that Democrats will retake the House but that it would take an even larger wave for them to retake the Senate. There are a lot of Democrats running for reelection in states that Trump won. I sincerely hope that they do take both, if only to put a halt to the reshaping of the judiciary.

[quote]I love people from all over the world, but I'm not sure the Dems' open borders approach works for my family.

Good thing that the "Dems" don't have an "open borders approach," then, isn't it? Either you're a troll or you're really not well informed.

I am very optimistic, R52. And, my optimism isn't partisan at all. THE COUNTRY IS OUTRAGED!

I think that both sides are right when they say there is a "silent majority" They made themselves known when Trump was elected and they are making themselves known now by electing all of these Democrats in areas of where it was unthinkable. The country is truly outraged.

November could go either way. I'd love to see Dems take the House. Senate seems unlikely. It's gonna be a death match. I'm hearing the blue wave may not materialize. Like the Latinx wave that never happened in 2016. I've heard it could be another Trump wave. (Not sure, but I think it's possible that an America First agenda is popular.)

R55, can't you troll any better than that? The "blue wave" has already materialized, which is why we keep celebrating Democratic victories in the off-cycle elections and why all of the available data continue to point to a Democratic wave later this year. See r7 for details.

I just meant in November. Dems are doing very well so far. Reminds me of GOP wave in 2010. Then Obama won in 2012. Things go back and forth like a seesaw. (That said, map does not look good for Chuck Schumer to take over US Senate.)

Ah, just looked at R55's posting history. Yup, he's a troll, and on more than one topic and more than one thread. And most of them with the same tactic, how he's "hearing" something that disturbs him. Re: the Florida shooting:

[quote]Why are people ignoring the ISIS connection to Cruz? I'm worried that they could be planning something else!

[quote]If Cruz was radicalized by ISIS, we should investigate before we draw connection. Any links to MS-13? That would make more sense (Cruz).

[quote]This isn't the only site reporting a Cruz-ISIS connection. I say, let's let the authorities finish their investigation. We never know what we don't know!

Of course there is no such link. He's making shit up. On the kids from Florida:

[quote]Brainwashed by mom. G-d moved into kid's blindspot. That's no bueno. Explains that dead soul angry look in his eye.

[quote]Hogg is very suspicious for me. Right out of Central Casting. But I mean maybe it's all legit. I just don't know. Mom's FB page really raises questions for me.

In this thread:

[quote]All the passion on Trump's side was real. His followers are devoted to him and his policies. And they seem to be working to make us safer and more prosperous.

Note how "they seem to be working to make us safer and more prosperous," even though he can't actually think of any of Trump's policies that are doing that. And note how he praises "all the passion on Trump's side."

[quote]Blue wave in 2018 could set Trump up for big victories in 20. Same thing happened to Obama.

Except that it wasn't even close to being the same. 2020 will be a Presidential election year. 2010 was not.

On Russia:

[quote]All Putin did is buy some FB ads and post some bullshit. No different. Just cause a little trouble with words. Same with HRC.

[quote]She fucked with him. He fucked with her. Period. You really think he was just gonna bend over and be her bitch? Karma.

[quote]Hillary absolutely illegally meddled in Russian election 2011. You think Russia doesn't have laws? She thinks she's above all laws. Here and abroad. So yes, turnabout is fair play.

[quote]Will USA revert to rational normalcy? I don't know. Trump/Putin/GOP very good at narrative warfare. Dems/media still weak with breathless outrage.

[quote]You understand Trump can end Mueller investigation and pardon everyone in five minutes, right? You think Congress has power or the will to stop him? I suggest you guys prepare for the sinking feeling when he does just that.

So, a troll and not a particularly good one.

[quote]I just meant in November. Dems are doing very well so far.

And no reason to believe that they will not continue to do so. All of the available data point one way. You have zero data that points any other direction. You're simply concern-trolling, and not even doing that very well.

R42 s map pretty much sums what we have been saying, Texas will probably be blue in 2022 and 2024, Arizona will be blue by 2020 or 2022. Certain Senate races and many House races from Texas, Georgia, Florida, and Arizona might be going blue as soon as 2018. Florida can go Blue

It boils down to this: [bold]we are practically waiting for Gen Z Hispanics and Whites from Texas and Arizona to age out[/bold] and be able to vote.

It's a waiting game, however that doesn't mean we cannot win the WH in 2020, we are just going to need Millennials and Gen Xers to vote in record numbers in [bold]certain[/bold] states: Georgia, Florida, Arizona, Ohio, and Pennsylvania .

It's more than that, R60. It's not just about getting them old enough to vote; it's about energizing that whole population to vote. Too many of them continue to sit on the sidelines. The information at the link is a bit out of date but it gets at the problem. They could change Texas materially today if enough of them voted.

It's the reason that we're seeing so many Republican states throwing roadblocks in front of voters. They know damn well that if Democrats get the turnout, they're history.

R60, I agree, and as I've been saying for a while now, once Texas flips the GOP is done as a national party. Texas changing from red to blue is inevitable, and not just from the Latino vote, but from the increasing urbanization as well. 2024 might be right on schedule.

I agree with R62. But how do I explain Trump's big support among Latinos to my stupid GOP cousins? (They are so dumb!)

[quote]It's the reason that we're seeing so many Republican states throwing roadblocks in front of voters. They know damn well that if Democrats get the turnout, they're history.

Gen Z has appeared to be more politically interested than the previous generation (Millennials), they resemble Gen X during the 90s when they help put the Clintons in the WH. However, you really need to take into account that Millennials were surprisingly more conservative and at their peak, which was 2016, they still were a low voting demographic. A complete rarity in voting trends.

Because Gen Z are a much larger generation, Democrats could take Texas with Gen Z generation voting around 39%-45% of their capacity. It's a game of percentages also because Boomers, Millennials, and Xers are only shrinking as a generation with each passing election. Of course, the Dems need to keep hammering and drilling into their little heads that they must remain interested in politics and elections.

You have to know what you're reading, R63. And, I HATE this because it falls into the Trump narrative of; "He's Mexican. How can he be fair and objective about this issue?" Normally I believe that to be bullshit! But. you linked to a commentary piece that is written by;

"Steve Cortes, a contributor to RealClearPolitics and Fox News, is the national spokesman for the Hispanic 100, an organization that promotes Latino leadership by advancing free enterprise principles. His Twitter handle is @CortesSteve."

And, I'm sorry but anything associated with FOX in anyway comes with an agenda. Your comment and link holds no value for me.

Fair enough, R65, although I think Steve Cortes is reasonable by Trump standards. Is the Guardian a more useful point if view. I def want to get Dems back into power! (I don't want to get blindsided again this fall.)

Someone please post the latest poll from the NYT.

You know, the paper that predicted Hilldebeast had a 96% chance on winning, on the morning of Election Day, 2016.

FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP

And, that makes sense, R66--especially since the piece is from Sept/2016. Trump attracted a great many. It's not what he said or promised to do. People are attracted to money, period. What sold Trump was the line that he is a businessman, rich, and his lifestyle.

I've said/written this more than once: "Dynasty" wasn't popular because of its writing....

I cannot even take this thread seriously because OP mistakenly says "we need only 12 seats" when in fact we need 24. Not 12, 24.

24.

[quote]But how do I explain Trump's big support among Latinos to my stupid GOP cousins? (They are so dumb!)

Gee, troll, you could point out that 28% is just not "big support."

Speaking of dumb....

Net shift of 24 requires 12 flips.

[quote]Fair enough, R65, although I think Steve Cortes is reasonable by Trump standards. Is the Guardian a more useful point if view.

That was just anecdotes, not data. Latino support for Trump was 28% in 2016, one percentage point higher than it was for Romney four years earlier. Seriously, just stop. You're making a fool of yourself. There is no groundswell of support for Trump or for Congressional Republicans in the Latino community.

[quote]I def want to get Dems back into power!

No, you don't. Please stop insulting our intelligence. Your agenda is clear from your posting history, some of which was documented in r58.

Here's my take (and it is sort of off topic but on topic); We have literally gone through years where we have been brainwashed with propaganda from both sides and thus the deep partisanship. We lost touch with common sense, However, common sense is beginning to come back to America!

-People are remembering and realizing that when they attended school that it never crossed their mind about any type of gun shooting or mass shooting. Why should their children and grand children be burdened with such thoughts.

-Universal healthcare works everywhere else in the world. Why can't it work here?

-Yes, our borders need to be strengthened but I had no idea that ICE would take the very nice man and business owner Mr. Cortez, from across the street! Aren't these the people we want?

On and on... People are once again beginning to ask common sense questions and to think for themselves. AND, these are not necessarily Democrat ideals

No, R71. Current Republican majority is 45 seats, so we need to flip 24.

Cutie Jon Ossoff has passed on a rematch with Karen Handel in GA-06. Damn.

R75, Ouch. That's bad news. What does he know that we don't? I'm getting nervous.

LOL.... No, troll, you're not. You're just continuing to play the same silly games you've been playing on this and other threads.

I stand corrected R74. Thank you. 45 is a big number. And Trump's lucky number 45. Seems like a heavy lift for Nancy Pelosi. She's not very well-liked in red/purple America. (Maybe she is, I don't know. I'm rooting for her!)

[quote]Seems like a heavy lift for Nancy Pelosi.

Not at all, troll. We can get the 24 seats we need in the districts that Clinton won that are currently held by Republicans.

Next lame talking point?

I think you are a gaslight troll, R79. You want everyone to think Dems are def gonna win. That they have it in the bag. Nothing to worry about.

I think 45 seats is a heavy lift. You think it's easy. I'd rather Dems feel motivated to work. Not stay home arrogant and weak like 2016. Go Dems! We need Congress to act as check and balance on this erratic prez.

No, dear; I'm just calling out a troll and a liar. This was your most recent post in the Trump thread:

[quote]Keep focusing on "hypocrisy." Ooooo, hypocrisy is baaaaaaaad. I get happy drunk on your whine.

So you're a concern troll, and not a particularly good one. Your every post has been to try to discourage people and to try to downplay the trends that are converging in favor of Democrats. Your own posting history shows exactly what you are.

Seriously, just stop. We know what you are, you're not fooling anyone, and your shtick isn't working. You remind me of another concern troll from a few months ago who was wringing his hands about how terrible the whole Weinstein affair was and how much it was going to hurt Democrats in 2018. How did that work out for you?

I only hope Dems stay motivated. That they don't get cocky and blow it. It's not in the bag. Why are you trying to lull everyone into staying home. You are very suspicious. Go back to Russia! Blocked!

ROFL.... That's what you did last time you got called out for your concern trolling, R82. Take another look at some of your posts in R58 and that post I quoted in R81. We know exactly what you are.

[quote] we have been brainwashed with propaganda from both sides and thus the deep partisanship

Bullshit R73. You can lay the partisanship solely at the feet of the Republicans. How the hell ANYONE can say that the partisanship is the fault of the Dems is totally beyond me. Do you not remember how the Dems bent over backwards to accommodate the GOP during the ACA debate? That shit dragged on forever before they finally got the 2 votes they needed for passage, all the while bits and parts of the bill were dropped and adjusted to please the GOP who still voted in a nearly solid block against it.

That "both sides" rhetoric is nonsense.

Further, the only way we're going to get any common sense in government is to get the Republicans out of power and repair all the damage they've caused. Unfortunately, thanks to the Russians, and their GOP collaborators, we lost the Supreme Court seat that should have gone to a moderate/liberal, instead of some whack-ass conservative. That's going to reverberate through the nation for decades.

I'd say right now the Generic Congressional Ballot is +7 or so, which analysts say is just on the cusp of getting us the 24 we need.

Problem is twofold; (1) there are a few Dem seats we're likely to lose, like MN-01 and MN-08 (recent retirement) and (2) the seats are very gerrymandered! So even that GA-06 Karen Handel seat in the Atlanta suburbs will be tough!

The good news is that suburban women are moving towards us in a major way. If you're really interested in this topic, I encourage you all to read Ron Brownstein, who writes for the Atlantic and other places; he is just great at analyzing demographic shifts. And he's been spot-on (he's not the only one) to really focus on education as a key trait for predicting political behavior. Again, that points to a shift in the suburbs, where you find white folks with a college degree.

I'll say one more thing; I think that you could argue that the governorships are more important than the House; we really, really need to take some state houses back so we can control the drawing of new Congressional maps after the 2020 census. It's sick that we have so few governorships--and so many R governors in blue states!

For another look at an identical concern troll, possibly the same one, see this Harvey Weinstein thread from last year. The same tactics.

[quote]Will the Weinstein mess hurt us in 2018? It's only a year away.

[quote]The elephant in the room needs to be dealt with, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us.

[quote]A lot of naive people on here.

[quote]Hopefully it wont be talked about by next year, but you never know.

[quote]We still need to be careful of over confidence. He was our biggest donor and many will try to make the link.

[quote]We need to take this more seriously. It really is a concern.

[quote]R1 are R50 are obviously Freepers trying to give us a false sense of security going into 2018. ,... "oh it will be OK, don't worry"... We're not falling for it, Freepers. Quit invading our site!

[quote]You can bury you head in the sand and hope it all just goes away, R91, but it's not. "MeToo" is trending.

Why are you guys engaging the troll? Fucking put him on ignored. He's getting paid to gaslight the topic, just hit ignored and Shut the fuck up.

That 26-28% support for Donal Trump among Latinos&Spanish speakers is nothing. The demographic that matters to the Dem party are Mexicans/South Americans/Basque (mostly live in the West Coast/South West) , young Cubans (Florida),New Ricans (Northwest), and the latin mixture in Illinois and Minnesota.

The old Cubans are hopefully about to kick the bucket.

R85 must be MAGA troll. He's acting like we/Dems might have to work for Dem victories. Doesn't he know we're supposed to pretend like we already won?! (For me, I hope we wake up out of our 2016 laziness. If Trump keeps winning, we'll have a generation of Trumpists in office.)

Cue the denial. But but but but VA gov!

I'm even more convinced that R88 was that earlier Weinstein troll. Note the attempt to "gaslight" anyone who dares to point out that Democrats are in pretty good shape right now. Note the repetition of talking points and the refusal to engage. Note the pretense that he wants Democrats to win (a pretense that is belied by his posts on other threads).

Can we please get some smarter trolls?

Beto 2018!!!!!!

He continues his exhaustive tour of all the counties in Texas.

To everyone saying Orange Shitius is going to win 2020? He's not even going to make it through this term, let alone get re-elected. He and his entire scum family will get run out of Washington in leg irons.

Wrong R91. No way he will be removed from office. Not gonna happen.

R45 writes,

[quote]What grounds do you have for making this claim [that Donald Trump will win re-election in 2020]?

Historical voting pattern.

During the 20th century, there was just one occurrence of the White House party experiencing switches with two consecutive presidential elections. Those were in 1976 (a Democratic pickup year for Jimmy Carter) and 1980 (a Republican pickup year for Ronald Reagan). All others, and this extends into this 21st century so far, saw party pickup winners win re-election four years later—or, in the case of those who died while in office, their party held the presidency with the next election cycle. Here is a list (the first year is a pickup; the second is a hold):

1912/1916 — Democratic (Woodrow Wilson)

1920/1924 — Republican (Warren Harding/Calvin Coolidge)

1932/1936 — Democratic (Franklin Roosevelt)

1952/1956 — Republican (Dwight Eisenhower)

1960/1964 — Democratic (John Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson)

1968/1972 — Republican (Richard Nixon)

1980/1984 — Republican (Ronald Reagan)

1992/1996 — Democratic (Bill Clinton)

2000/2004 — Republican (George W. Bush)

2008/2012 — Democratic (Barack Obama)

Election 2016 was a Republican pickup of the presidency for Donald Trump. A Republican hold of the presidency is what I think will happen in 2020—and it will be re-election for Trump. Add to this that the Democrats are a party divided—and that helps Trump and the GOP.

[italic]Note about midterms:[/italic] You compare the numbers who vote in U.S. House elections in presidential and midterms. There is about a 30-percent decline in participation. Since 1914, and through 2014, there have been 26 midterm election cycles. The White House party won overall gains in only three of them. Since the presidency is in the Republican column, the Democrats have the 2018 advantage. But, in 2020, you get a presidential cycle where participation is back. Midterm and presidential election cycles are two different beasts.

Houston, Dallas and Austin went to Hillary in '16.

[quote]Historical voting pattern.

Thank you for the detailed reply and for actually bringing real data into the conversation. I see a couple of problems with this, though. The first is that there just aren't enough elections to be confident of any kind of pattern. The dataset is simply too small. That's why we see example after example of some new algorithm that someone has come up with that "is guaranteed to predict the outcome of the next election since it predicted the outcome of the last eight elections!" And then it falls apart as some new factor that they didn't take into consideration invalidates their algorithm.

The second is that Trump breaks all of the rules, with historic levels of unpopularity and chaos. The country elected him for "change" but didn't get anything like what they wanted. They don't have cheaper health care, coal isn't coming back, the stock market is great but that isn't helping the lower and middle classes, the manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, trade deals aren't getting renegotiated, and an ineffective Congress has only managed to pass one significant bill and that was aimed almost exclusively at the 1%.

[quote]Add to this that the Democrats are a party divided—and that helps Trump and the GOP.

The Democrats aren't really divided, though; certainly not more so than the Republican Party.

[quote]But, in 2020, you get a presidential cycle where participation is back. Midterm and presidential election cycles are two different beasts.

I get this and at least you're bringing something to the table (unlike that amusing troll above) but I still stand by the prediction that Trump is in deep shit for 2020. The problem is Trump himself. Your analysis sounds fine for any normal candidate but Trump isn't a normal candidate. His base loves him but nobody else does.

Even worse, he just can't stop himself from creating chaos everywhere he goes, creating one of the most ineffective administrations ever, one that has been characterized by back-biting, game-playing, one-upmanship, leaking, tearing each other down, fiefdoms, and all of them trying desperately to restrain Trump. Now add in that he's not even trying to steer to the middle but is firmly aiming at his rabid base in all of his speeches, campaigns, tweets, etc., and it's difficult for me to see how Trump holds on.

That said, we do not know what will happen to the economy or to foreign policy and we do not know who the Democrats will nominate. So, personally, I'm not placing any bets on 2020.

R85 writes,

[quote]I'd say right now the Generic Congressional Ballot is +7 or so, which analysts say is just on the cusp of getting us the 24 we need.

It is not easy to nail down.

I look to eight years ago. In 2008, Barack Obama won a Democratic pickup of the presidency. In 2010, a midterm wave for the Republicans saw them flip majority control of the U.S. House and with the governorships.

In 2008, the U.S. House results were: Republican 42.6% vs. Democratic 53.2%. The margin was D+10.6 nationwide. And the Democrats won a net gain of +21 seats.

In 2010, the U.S. House results were: Republican 51.7% vs. Democratic 44.9%. The margin was R+6.8 nationwide. It was a 2008-to-2010 shift of R+17.4. And the majority-control pickup winning Republicans won a net gain of +63 seats.

In 2012, with the re-election of Democratic incumbent U.S. president Barack Obama, the U.S. House results were: Republican 47.6% vs. Democratic 48.8%. The margin was D+1.2 nationwide. It was a 2010-to-2012 shift of D+8.2. And the Democrats won a net gain of +8 seats.

In 2014, the U.S. House results were: Republican 51.2% vs. Democratic 45.5%. The margin was R+5.7 nationwide. It was a 2012-to-2014 shift of R+6.9. And the Republicans won a net gain of +13 seats.

In 2016, the Republican presidential pickup year of Donald Trump, the U.S. House results were: Republican 49.1% vs. Democratic 48.0. The margin was R+1.1 nationwide. It was a 2014-to-2016 shift of D+4.6. And the Democrats, despite losing the White House, won a net gain of +6 seats.

What 2018 will determine is the margin nationwide. For Democrats to flip the U.S. House, they will first win a Democratic pickup of the national margin. So, D+1.2 will get them there. But, the more they get with the outcome of their national margin, the more seats flip. So, stating that they are leading by, say, +7, indicates a 2016-to-2018 national shift of D+8 in order to get there. What cannot be easily determined is how many pickups that translates into. You’d have to go at it state-by-state with the congressional districts within.

The starting point are the 20 states carried in 2016 by losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Pickups of Republican-held seats—especially in California, followed by New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Virginia, Washington, and Colorado—are the starting point. Then you go to the 2012-to-2016 Republican pickups for Donald Trump—Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (plus, although I am not tracking its polls, Maine #02)—and you continue working from there. And then you go into 2012 Mitt Romney/2016 Donald Trump carried states and see which ones can give up at least one Republican-held U.S. House seat. (I would say Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Nebraska #02, North Carolina, Texas, and Utah are good examples.) The numbers can up more rapidly than some people anticipate. (I would say, depending on the number of states involved in flipping from Republican to Democratic, take that states count and multiply by 2.) And if 2018 results in a midterm Democratic wave, that national margin of +7 could very end up higher—especially if so many of the Republican-to-Democratic pickups manifest in Top 20-ranked populous states (where a good, combined 70 percent of the nation live).

R60 writes,

[quote]R42’s [also R36] map pretty much sums what we have been saying, Texas will probably be blue in 2022 and 2024, Arizona will be blue by 2020 or 2022. Certain Senate races and many House races from Texas, Georgia, Florida, and Arizona might be going blue as soon as 2018. Florida can go Blue.

What I am saying about Texas, Georgia, and Arizona—and North Carolina and Nebraska #02—is that they are headed toward bellwether status. A winning Republican. A winning Democrat. This happened in 2016 with Wisconsin (the tipping point state), Pennsylvania, and Michigan. And I think they will, again, carry for the winner in 2020.

Trump’s 2016 pickup states—Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—averaged +3.39 percentage points. He won Republican holds of Arizona by +3.50; North Carolina by +3.66; Georgia by +5.10. Texas was +8.98, which is roughly +5 points within the margins of those pickup states. He underperformed what his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, received in those states from double down to single digits. That means they are trending away from the GOP.

There are states trending away from the Democrats. (And some, like Virginia and Colorado—which were Obama’s 24th and 23rd best-performed states but Hillary Clinton’s 15th and 16 best—which are trending toward the Democrats.) So, there are the red and blue states. And this gets to purple. A bellwether state.

A bellwether state is one that votes for presidential winners, from both major parties, for a string of election cycles. Some do it longer than others. Ohio has been at it for 14 consecutive elections, 1964–2016. Prior to that, Illinois carried in the 14 consecutive elections, 1920–1972. New Mexico and Nevada voted for the winners in 16 consecutive election cycles, from 1912 to 1972.

Some bellwethers lose their status because they trend toward, and eventually flip, to one party over the other. This happened in a lot of states. California (which voted for all winners but three from 1900 to 1996); Texas (all winners, except in 1968, from 1928 to 1988); Missouri (all winners, except in 1956, from 1904 to 2004); New Mexico (all winners, but with exceptions of 1976 and for popular-vote winners in 2000 and 2016, since statehood in 1912); Nevada (the same record, except for 2000, as a 1912-going-forward New Mexico); Delaware (all winners from the 1950s to 1990s); and Tennessee (all winners, except 1924 and 1960, from 1912 to 2004. There are even more.

The map is going though gradual changes.

Those in yellow are ones poised to carry for presidential winners. Those in the lightest shades lean to their party but are flippable. Those in medium shades will require a really strong national margin (like +8 but more like +10). Those in solid shades may manifest more likely with, say, a 40-state landslide (a popular-vote margin of at least +15).

In the case of purple-colored Nebraska, a flaw from 270toWin.com, it is the 2nd Congressional District that should be in yellow. (Democrat Barack Obama won it in 2008. Donald Trump, with his Republican pickup of the presidency in 2016, carried it by +2.23.) Maine statewide should be in yellow. Trump flipped Maine #02 by just over +10 points. Hillary won Maine #01 by +14. She held the state by slightly under +3. So, statewide it is an emerging bellwether state like Minnesota (which Hillary won by only +1.51 after Barack Obama carried it in 2012 by +7.69), which routinely performs within 5 points of Trump’s Rust Belt trio pickups Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

In 2016, Wisconsin was Trump’s 28th (of 30 carried) state. It gave him his 270th electoral vote. Pennsylvania, at No. 29, gave him his 290th electoral vote. Michigan, his No. 30 state, gave him his 306th electoral vote. (Two faithless electors made it officially 304.) They will back the winner in 2020. And that means, with them siding with the winners in 2008, 2012, 2016—and my feeling with 2020 being re-election for Trump—they are willing to carry for both parties at the presidential level.

Here is the map.…

R85 writes,

[quote]Problem is twofold; (1) there are a few Dem seats we're likely to lose, like MN-01 and MN-08 (recent retirement) and (2) the seats are very gerrymandered! So even that GA-06 Karen Handel seat in the Atlanta suburbs will be tough!

Those two Minnesota districts would be more likely to flip in a midterm with a Democratic president and a national, majority-control pickup wave toward the Republicans. Just as was the case in 2010. On my map at R97, what I have to say about Minnesota indicates it is becoming a possible bellwether. So, it depends on the type of year it is for a midterm.

In 2006, the Democrats lost no U.S. House seats before winning a majority pickup. But, in 2008, when they increased by +21 (in the Democratic presidential pickup year for Barack Obama), the Republicans flipped Louisiana #02. That was the seat of Willam Jefferson. Louisiana #02 absolutely wanted Jefferson gone. In 2010, the Republican wave with a majority pickup of the U.S. House, Louisiana #02 flipped Democratic. So, it was specifically what went on that district. Delaware (at-large) also flipped Democratic. Republican incumbent Mike Castle opted to run for U.S. Senate. He lost in the primary to Christine O‘Donnell. Castle was in position to flip that U.S. Senate seat Republican. Nomination for O’Donnell saw that seat, which had been held by Joe Biden (and required a special election in 2010 for the four remaining years last won in 2008 by Biden), was retained in the Democratic column by the state’s junior U.S. senator Chris Coons.

[quote]I encourage you all to read Ron Brownstein

Yes.

[quote]I'll say one more thing; I think that you could argue that the governorships are more important than the House; we really, really need to take some state houses back so we can control the drawing of new Congressional maps after the 2020 census. It's sick that we have so few governorships--and so many R governors in blue states!

1992 was the Democratic presidential pickup year of Bill Clinton. In his Year #02 in office, 1994, the Republicans won their majority-control pickups of the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and the majority of governorships off Clinton. From 1994 to the end of this year being 2018, a period of 24 years’ worth of elections, the Republicans had majority numbers with the U.S. House and the governorships in 20. The specific four years in which the Democrats had majorities in the U.S. House were also the same in which they held a majority number of governorships: 2007–2010.

Keeping in mind 2018: If the Democrats win a majority pickup of the U.S. House, and let’s say the U.S. Senate also flips, then I would look to them also winning over a newly established majority number of governorships. With the 2017 Democratic pickup of New Jersey, they entered this year with 16. The Republicans have 33. There is one independent from Alaska. A pickup of +10 Republican-held governorships will get the Democrats to a new majority of at least 26. This would start with the states Hillary Clinton carried in 2016. Eight of them have Republican governors: Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont. Then look to five (of six) that were Donald Trump’s 2016 Republican pickup states which do have GOP governors: Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. (The governorship of Pennsylvania is in the Democratic column.) And then look at Romney/Trump carried states which are trending at the presidential level away from the GOP: Arizona, Georgia, and Texas. (North Carolina has its gubernatorial elections in leap year. It has a Democratic governor.) The look at the Romney/Trump states which historically elect governors from the party opposite a U.S. president: Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wyoming. This does not mean all would flip. It means there is plenty of room if, given a national wave against the White House party (the Republican Party and U.S. president Donald Trump), this is very doable for the Democrats here in 2018.

One thing to clarify: If the Democrats win a majority pickup of the U.S. House, they can lose Democratic-held U.S. House seats. But, if it such a wave, as I pointed out at R96, the Democratic-to-Republican flips would likely be +5 or less. But, the Republican-to-Democratic flips would reach a sufficient number to flip the U.S. House. So, in theory, you could have 2018 Republican pickups at +3 while the 2018 Democratic pickups end up, say, +40—which would be enough to flip the U.S. House.

Data. Yawn.

I see uncanny day-to-day public forgetfulness. They cannot hold anything in their head for long. The mood swings are intense. Plus Trump's stampeding herd will break any law to win. Add our vulnerability to disinformation attacks.

Your posts are wonderful. Remind me of good old days of Chuck Todd doing guest spots on morning C-Span. I think we are living in a transformative time. Historical patterns are fascinating but don't entirely persuade me.

If Joe and Mika represent the liberal outlook, liberals are in bad shape.

R36 thanks for bringing analysis rather than righteousness. “We will win because we are right” is naïveté.

Yes R101. Many posters here prefer whining to winning.

Good thing nobody, anywhere, is saying anything like that, R101, isn't it?

[quote]If Joe and Mika represent the liberal outlook, liberals are in bad shape.

LOL... Joe and Mika aren't liberal. And liberals are doing just fine where it counts, at the ballot box.

[quote]Data. Yawn.

Translation: Darn that data for showing me up as a fool!

Since you've been wrong in everything you've posted on this thread, it's not exactly a surprise that you would find data to be offensive. See you in November.

r103 - This is probably too subtle for you to understand, but most people don't say it outright. But here's an example of this attitude:

"To everyone saying Orange Shitius is going to win 2020? He's not even going to make it through this term, let alone get re-elected. He and his entire scum family will get run out of Washington in leg irons."

He should be run out of office, but he won't because guess what. almost half the country doesn't give a shit.

Another: "Not at all, troll. We can get the 24 seats we need in the districts that Clinton won that are currently held by Republicans.

Next lame talking point?"

Sure, and Hillary was going to win for sure. We cannot be complacent, and just because all of our friends in SF, LA, NY hate Trump doesn't mean that the people that will actually make the difference in swing states do.

Don't confuse them with reality, R106. They've already decided that Dems have won back House. Their imaginations have already removed Trump from office. It's life here at the idiot nursing home.

Thank you ever so much for your concern about my ability to understand subtlety. I'll just have to try harder to keep up with you.

Your first example was just the normal hyperbole that we see on occasion here. It has nothing to do with anything under discussion. The second statement was accurate and it was in response to a rather silly troll on this thread. In a wave election, those seats, in particular, are vulnerable, and that is where Democrats are currently focusing their attention.

Neither of these examples supports the dishonest claim that Democrats are saying that "We will win because we are right." It was a ridiculous claim to make and no Democrat is saying anything like that.

[quote]just because all of our friends in SF, LA, NY hate Trump doesn't mean that the people that will actually make the difference in swing states do.

See R7. Democrats are winning in red districts. They've won 37 out of 41 state legislature seats since the November election, with over half of these in red districts. We're not being "complacent," nor are we depending on California or New York. That Democrats are winning is a simple statement of fact. That all of the signs point to a wave election in November is another statement of fact.

I have long thought that Beto will prove to be the sleeper candidate in this race on Election night.

The pundits will all be left with dropped jaws muttering "Wuuuut happened!"

[quote]Don't confuse them with reality, R106.

That wasn't "reality," but then I wouldn't expect a troll like you to know the difference.

I agree the signs are pointing toward Dem success.

The generic Congressional ballot is back to Democrat +8.5 at RCP and +10 at 538.

R108, I hope you are right and we flip those 24 seats.

Those are just the low-hanging fruit, R113, and the example cited was to point out to a rather silly troll that flipping the House isn't nearly as much of an uphill battle as he was pretending it was in r78.

We likely won't flip all of them but with a wave election a lot more seats would be vulnerable. Yes, there are also some vulnerable Democratic incumbents but not as many and a wave election helps out there, as well. Democrats are pretty aggressively going after over 59 seats, at last count, with talk of widening the list.

There are two reasons that Democrats are feeling better about 2018. The first is all of the data cited above, particularly the off-cycle election results. The second is that nobody is seeing a good track for Republicans to bounce back. The legislation that they want to pass would hit Medicaid and Medicare, at least, and possibly even Social Security, all universally popular programs. And Trump remains Trump, his SOTU bounce already disappearing. Where is the path to a Republican turnaround?

Nobody is pretending that this is a certainty but all of the signs are pointing to a wave election with a better than even chance of flipping the House.

R114, I love how you insult me then reach same conclusion.

I think signs are good for us/Dems. It's February. Things don't have to swing far to make 45 seats a real contest. By November, all today's data could be a fantasy. Remember on 9/10/01, data showed a 100% chance of towers bring there on 9/12.

Plus Trumpkins will ignore laws and do anything to win. Again, your certainty is not your friend. What are you doing to get people to vote? I hope not sitting on your ass and holding forth.

I WANT THE SENATE TOO!!!!

Dems will have to run and reflect the values/politics of the local community and NOT make the mistake of trying to reflect the nation-wide "agenda".

I wonder about that R117. I just don't know. We seem so nationally focused at the moment.

[quote]I love how you insult me then reach same conclusion.

If I ever do decide to insult you, you'll know it. Telling the truth about someone is not an insult. That you're a silly troll is evident from your posting history, on this thread and on others. That you suddenly decide to play this faux-reasonable game really doesn't fool anyone.

[quote]Dems will have to run and reflect the values/politics of the local community and NOT make the mistake of trying to reflect the nation-wide "agenda".

Which is precisely what they have been doing. The national media has been doing a lousy job of covering this, which is why a lot of people think otherwise, but the simple truth is that Democratic candidates are running on local issues.

[quote]The same phenomenon is responsible for one of 2017's most persistent political ideas, which is unlikely to stop this year — the idea that the Democratic Party is running on nothing but opposition to an unpopular President Trump. As a beat reporter who covers Democrats and the left, the gulf between what's happening there, and what is perceived to be happening, is wide and remarkably getting wider.

[quote]I wonder about that R117. I just don't know. We seem so nationally focused at the moment.

We are but that's because the people on threads like these are keeping an eye on the national issues. The local Democratic candidates are not.

[quote]Second, Trump is not figuring heavily into the campaigns these candidates have run. The Beltway and Twittersphere are consumed with debates over whether Democrats should or should not be speaking directly to anti-Trump anger, or whether their failure to more directly attack Trump’s tax plan is helping it (and Trump himself) edge up in popularity. But Post tells me that these candidates are mostly “campaigning on hyper-local issues.”

[quote]For instance, Post says, in Virginia, one Democrat campaigned on fixing local traffic problems. In Oklahoma, one stressed shortened school hours. And in southern Minnesota, one campaigned on expanding rural economic opportunities and improved access to hospitals. In rural and exurban districts, the quality of roads and schools is a big issue.

A Twitter thread from Dana Houle, in reference to the previous article:

[quote]This is important, for what it says about Dem chances for 2018, but also because it shows that the calls for Dems to “stop talking so much about Russia, nobody cares about Russia” are at best dumb, but in some cases purely bad faith.

[quote]This is important: despite all the complaints that Dems need to stop talking too much about Russia, the candidates who’ve been running in specials _haven’t_ been invoking Trump much. They. Don’t. Have. To. At this point Dems are probably already assured of turnout… 2/

[quote]…somewhere between midterm level & presidential level. The only thing Dems need to do to get to midterm turnout level is not screw up. To maximize turnout they may need some targeted communications focused on Trump, but they don't need to rile up the base much. So what...

[quote]…makes sense is do nothing to diminish the fervor, then aggressively go after marginal voters who might not otherwise vote in a midterm (esp voters under 35), & talk more to those who in 2016 hesitated & finally didn’t vote for POTUS, or voted for Hillary but a Repub Congress…/4

[quote]…or reluctantly voted for Trump but soon regretted it, or—these people are especially important—voted third party. In 2006 we won big not bc of huge turnout, but bc we crushed the Repubs (by 20 pts) among independents. We should be able to match or exceed that this year 5/

[quote]Finally, Dems SHOULD keep talking about Russia & even the possibility impeachment, but as they’ve been doing it: led by the members on the committees engaged in the various investigations. Trump & Russia is not just something you push ore or less l depending on the polling. /6

[quote]Pushing on Trump & Russia is what Members of Congress should be doing. We need them & Mueller’s team to expose the truth then act on what we learn. To complain they’re talking too much about Russia may demonstrate those critics don’t know what’s happening, don’t understand…/7

[quote]…voters, don’t grasp what’s on Twitter or MSNBC is different from what else is on one’s screens/in their mailboxes/being discussed at their door, & is pressures Dems to squelch the truth Kinda makes you wonder about the motivations of some ppl saying be quiet about Russia, no?

I hope Dems drum up turnout in solid blue districts. Running up numbers VERY good for narrative warfare. And find three people who did not vote last time in swing states.

Collect favorable facts for narrative.

Meanwhile, out here in the real world, running up numbers in solid blue districts doesn't do jack shit for Democrats, neither in terms of electoral victories nor in terms of "narrative warfare." Seriously, can't you figure out how to troll better than this? This is just getting pathetic.

[quote]For instance, Post says, in Virginia, one Democrat campaigned on fixing local traffic problems.

This is the trans candidate who won against a homophobe, and yes, she campaigned on a specific traffic issue.

CNN poll: Dems lead by 18 points on generic ballot

Sorry, wrong link.

Correct link:

Interesting, R126. That's something of an outlier, although Quinnipiac had similar results a week ago (Democrats +15). Most of the rest are showing Democrats in the +7 to +8 range. It's also a gain of 11 points since CNN last did this poll in mid-January.

Here's the correct link.

It looks like this bounce came at least in part from the Parkland school shooting.

[quote]Health care and gun policy are deemed deeply important by about half of voters (53% and 49%, respectively, call them extremely important), while about four in 10 say they are as motivated by the economy (43%) and immigration (38%). Sexual harassment is a sharp motivator for 36% of voters. Taxes, an issue Republicans have said will move voters as they realize the benefits of the tax changes passed last year, is extremely important for 35%. The investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election rounds out the list, with just about a quarter (26%) calling that extremely important to their vote.

And the appropriate caveat on that bounce:

[quote]It is early in the cycle, however, and much can change between now and November. Past polling suggests increases in concern about gun policy seen in surveys conducted shortly after mass shootings often fades over time.

R124

There are such things as statewide races, you know, that are affected by jacking up blue turn out.

I hate when people say polls predicted a landslide for Hillary. The national,polls were always very close. People, got confused because the Times would say she had a 60 percent chance of winning a state. But that never meant she would get 60 recent of the vote.

Anyway, the Senate looks very iffy but you never know. If 18 year olds had the voter turnout of 60 year olds the US would be a different country.

[quote]What I am saying about Texas, Georgia, and Arizona—and North Carolina and Nebraska #02—is that they are headed toward bellwether status.

There is a flaw in your assessment R97, you can only use recent history with Texas and Arizona because those two states are trending towards a Hispanic majority, a non-white majority. None of your examples can be used to described what is taking place in recent history, except for California, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. Hispanics (specifically Mexican) are a demographic that has been targeted and persecuted by the Republican party. They are in the cusp of becoming the ethnic majority in Texas with Gen Z. The Hispanic vote and the black vote are modern Democrat strongholds and Gen Z, has an even bigger number of them.

The white majorities in both Arizona and Texas are shrinking, and losing ground to Hispanics in particular. The Hispanic element in Texas and Arizona tips the scales towards the Democrats. Look at what took place in California, after Prop 187 the Latino vote used its numbers and has carefully picked apart the Republican party with each passing election. California never looked back. You see those same trends in New Mexico,Colorado, Nevada. The same is taking place in Arizona and Texas. It is only a waiting game in the next decade.

Florida is a little different because the Cubans are historically loyal to the Republican party. They are a different brand of politics.

Good sign!

Beto O'Rourke draws crowds in some conservative enclaves in bid against Ted Cruz

In Tarrant County, the largest county in Texas that voted for Donald Trump, Democratic U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke drew large crowds over the weekend in his bid against U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.

Good, the fact that Cruz has to split time between DC and Texas gives Beto an advantage to cover as much ground as possible. He'll have more time to meet people face to face in those Northern red counties or those trending purple.

Supposedly that turd Cruz was here in EP this weekend.

Of course the fucking coward probably only met with big-money donors and hid from the actual people he's supposed to fucking represent. I had no idea he was here.

Fucking asshole.

Beto 2018!!!!

Even the Governor of Texas is nervous.

[quote]Texas governor warns of Dems' strong early voting

I'm sure he is already plotting of ways to illegally steal the mid-term elections....

Democrats have been so successful that Republicans have had to employ a new tactic to stop the bleeding:

[quote]Republicans Have an Ingenious Plan to Stop Losing Special Elections: Don’t hold them.

[quote]Two other Republican-held legislative seats were open in Wisconsin; losing either of them would confirm that the Republicans were vulnerable and strengthen the hand of Democrats in the Legislature and on the fall campaign trail.

[quote]Luckily for Walker, he had that problem covered. The governor had already announced that he would not call special elections to fill those vacancies. That was a good thing for Walker and his party—but it was bad for representative democracy, as the 229,904 people living in those districts will go unrepresented for almost a full year.

More at the link.

Thanks for that piece, R139. I just don't understand how we, the people, can just sit and not be outraged by these tactics by the Republicans. It's as if we are helpless to do anything about it. Where is the outrage? Where is the "fairness" that we are all taught about in civics class?

I mean... if Republicans win fairly then so be it. But, this stacking the deck should outrage every citizen.

Simply amazing:

Trump set to announce re-election campaign and campaign manager

President Donald Trump is set to announce that he's running for re-election in 2020, CBS News' Major Garrett confirms, citing a source familiar with the campaign. Brad Parscale, who served as the Trump campaign's 2016 digital guru, will be named campaign manager.

The news was first reported by Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report.

The president had already filed for re-election -- he filed his Form 2 paperwork with the Federal Election Commission hours after he was inaugurated over a year ago. He has also held a number of re-election campaign rallies already.

R140, they are being sued for that, hopefully that'll raise some noise if not remedy the problem.

I love the Walker team's legal reasoning in that article posted by R142:

[quote]The case will hinge in part on a state law that says Walker must promptly call a special election to fill any legislative seat that becomes vacant "before the 2nd Tuesday in May in the year in which a regular election is held."

[quote]Walker aide Tom Evenson has said that means Walker doesn't need to hold a special election since the vacancies occurred not in 2018 — the election year — but in 2017.

Seriously? That's what you're going with?

Two more state legislature seats flipped from red to blue today, in New Hampshire and Connecticut. We're up to 39 since the 2016 election and we're 6 out of 6 in 2018, all in red districts.

r129, there are always outliers. Polling is obviously inexact. I've tended to trust the RCP Average (it came within a point of predicting the '16 Presidential results). I'm not sure exactly what is served by looking at aggregate polling numbers right now. Too many months to go. Maybe the national party might look at specific races like the predicted O'Rourke/Cruz matchup to help determine where to direct campaign funds assistance. But hell, we're not even through state primaries. As a casual observer outside of Texas, I'd rather wait 'til late summer to start getting excited about Beto's chances vs. Cruz. But hey, if you live in Texas, by all means - attend his rallies, volunteer for his campaign, donate some $, start knocking on doors, etc.

For what it's worth (very little at this point), the RCP Average has Democrats up 9.3 points in the "Generic Congressional Vote." Below is a very informative article about generic polling from Nate Cohn at the Times. I'm filing this one under, "What does yours truly at r145 know?!"

How freaked out are Texas Republicans? Our attorney general has threatened schools that take students to the polls.