https://usa.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/why-...-november/

"...No, I do not think there will be a blue wave come November. Mid-terms are traditionally tough on the incumbent party. But the Senatorial map favors Republicans and many observers expect the GOP to pick up a few seats. I think that is correct. As I write, the House roster lists 238 Republicans, 192 Democrats, and has five vacancies. In 2010, Barack Obama lost an unprecedented 63 seats in the House. But that was in the aftermath of Obamacare, perhaps the single most unpopular piece of governmental imposition in history (excepting only the 16th and 18th Amendments) and the rise of the tea party. Sure, it is possible that the Republicans will lose a few House seats. But Trump’s increasingly broad-based support and the astonishing success of his agenda make it just as likely that the Republicans will gain a few seats. Absent some currently unanticipated calamity, I am confident that Nate Silver’s “tsunami” will turn out to be but a feeble rivulet, moist but impotent. "

If dems don't take the house their may be a civil war within that party.

That is their expectation so if they don't, yikes

Time for the rise of the Independents and the decline of the (Rep.) and (Dem.).

Just like Trump voters lied to the pollsters, Dems are now doing the same.
Pennsylvania proved that.
Lamb, and his ilk, will never vote for President Trump’s agenda. It would be nice if Lamb’s ilk were able to pass the ”Manchin test”!

Wut the dumb ass Republicans don’t understand Is that the last election was equally a pro Trump vote and an anti-Hillary vote. If you think this is about a change in the country you are gonna get Schlapped in the face.
Bushwhacked.

Here's the problem I see. Republicans haven't really stood for anything since they abandoned Newt's contract (which led to their largest electoral success ever) to go after Monicagate. Sine then it's been all about personalities. GWB, for all his faults, was more likable than Gore or Kerry, so he won twice while republicans in congress were pretty well screwing the pooch. They got their asses haded to them (justifiably) in 2006, and then in 2008 Obama was--or at least was portrayed by the fawning, slobbering media as--the Messiah, and you don't win personality contests against Messiahs. 2012 was Obama, with lots of faults showing, against Romney who never really got down and dirty. 2016 was a contest between two candidates with huge negatives--perhaps the only republican Hillary could beat against perhaps the only democrat that Trump could beat. Whoever won was going to face a PR nightmare in governing.

Republicans need to get back to ideas. They're not going to win beauty pageants, in part because the media will filter things to ensure that they don't. Democrats could probably beat Trump easily, if only they didn't have to run anyone. But the potential candidates they have are all looney tunes collectivists/socialists/communists. Take Bernie. Idea for an anti-Bernie campaign ad--show footage of him telling us Venezuela is better, then show footage of what things are like now in Venezuela. The problem I see for republicans is that their best course would seem to be coming up with better ideas than democrats and selling them, but their congressional leaders--Ryan and McConnell--aren't idea people, and Trump could go wacko at any time. I mean, they've had eight years to come up with something better than Obamacare and they've got nothing. Take a two-week trip to France, Holland, Germany, and Switzerland, and they'd have all the better ideas they need.

I like your assessment of the 2012 election.

They are personality contests and Romney was one of the absolute worst person to run against Obama

(04-06-2018 01:26 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I like your assessment of the 2012 election.

They are personality contests and Romney was one of the absolute worst person to run against Obama

Also Romney was out of touch with reality. His 47% was equally deadly to his candidacy as Hillary's deplorables.