(04-25-2018 08:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This is sort of like celebrating a trump 50% approval rating.

Guys, trump won this area by like 21. The Dem was never expected to win here. Yet, she did not lose by much. If you think this one win means the GOP is not in danger of losing the house in November you're delusional.

Dang! You're right.

Somebody needs to make sure Rep Lesko votes with the Dems so they can keep their moral victory in tact.

Trump won this district by 20. Joe Arpaio won this district every time he ran. This district has very few voters of color, has no history of voting for Democrats, has few young voters, has a 20 point registration advantage for Democrats, And....in early voting there was an average age of 67 (75% of votes cast were early votes). It also isn't a 'highly educated suburban district either'. In early voting, which had the same voting percentage for the GOP as the total vote, the partisan breakdown was GOP 47, Dem 28 and Independent 25. To only win a district like this one by 5 points, that's pretty bad.

----

There were a stunning number of special election races in NY State last night. Here's how they went

State Senate - District 37 - (Westchester) D hold by 15 percent. R swing +7.
State Senate - District 32 - (Bronx) D hold by a 89-2 margin. R swing +2, but GOP total percentage lower
State Assembly - District 5 (Suffolk County) - R hold by 26 percent. R swing +2
State Assembly - District 10 (Suffolk County) - D pickup by 18 percent. D swing +14 percent
State Assembly - District 17 (Nassau) - R hold by 27 percent. R swing +18 percent
State Assembly - District 39 (Queens) - D hold by 85 percent. D swing +17 percent
State Assembly - District 74 (Manhattan) - D hold by 85 percent. D swing +11 percent
State Assembly - District 80 (Bronx) - D hold by 63 percent. R swing by +2 percent but GOP total percentage lower
State Assembly - District 102 (Capital Region) - R hold by 0.5 with an Independent spoiler taking 10 percent. D swing +22
State Assembly - District 107 (Capital Region) - R hold by 1.5. D swing +7
State Assembly - District 142 (Erie County) - Ok, this one is strange. It is 'officially' a R pickup (for about a hot second). Basically a Democrat ran on the GOP line and will caucus as a Democrat in the Assembly. Apparently that happens a lot in Western NY. Even assuming that this was a 'real'' GOP win, it still represented a D swing of +5.


A few thoughts on NY. First, it looks like the GOP is looking better in the economically depressed sections of Long Island (basically Southern Suffolk and Nassau). That's good news for the GOP in CD 1 and for Peter King. It looks like the Dems are doing better in the Hudson Valley, which could mean trouble for John Faso, Claudia Tenney, and John Katko. I actually think the GOP is starting to 'do better - slightly' in New York State, but that will be an unlikely source of future Congress Seats or Electoral College Votes.

(04-25-2018 12:06 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  By near ANY historical measure the dims should pick up seats this Fall. Perhaps many of them.
Only time I recall it NOT happening in recent years was Dubbyas first term just after 9/11.

Question is, will they actually flip enough seats to elect Ellison as the next Speaker? Rs only got to hold it by one and its still a long way off.

First, Ellison will NEVER be elected speaker.

Second, the majority party in the house almost always flips in the first mid-term of a new president, and usually gains dozens of seats.

Quote:"The president's party always gets shellacked in midterms. It's only twice, 1934 and 2002, that the president's party actually gained in both the House and the Senate." ~ Mary Jordan

She's correct that the president's party generally loses ground in midterm elections. In midterms since 1862, the president's party has averaged losses of about 32 seats in the House and more than two seats in the Senate.

She's also right that the president's party beat the odds and gained in 1934 and 2002. In 1934 -- two years into Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, in the midst of the Great Depression -- Roosevelt's Democratic Party gained nine House seats and 10 Senate seats. And in 2002, roughly a year after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush's Republican Party gained eight House seats and two Senate seats.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...rm-electi/

(04-25-2018 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 12:06 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  By near ANY historical measure the dims should pick up seats this Fall. Perhaps many of them.
Only time I recall it NOT happening in recent years was Dubbyas first term just after 9/11.

Question is, will they actually flip enough seats to elect Ellison as the next Speaker? Rs only got to hold it by one and its still a long way off.

First, Ellison will NEVER be elected speaker.

Second, the majority party in the house almost always flips in the first mid-term of a new president, and usually gains dozens of seats.

Quote:"The president's party always gets shellacked in midterms. It's only twice, 1934 and 2002, that the president's party actually gained in both the House and the Senate." ~ Mary Jordan

She's correct that the president's party generally loses ground in midterm elections. In midterms since 1862, the president's party has averaged losses of about 32 seats in the House and more than two seats in the Senate.

She's also right that the president's party beat the odds and gained in 1934 and 2002. In 1934 -- two years into Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, in the midst of the Great Depression -- Roosevelt's Democratic Party gained nine House seats and 10 Senate seats. And in 2002, roughly a year after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush's Republican Party gained eight House seats and two Senate seats.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...rm-electi/

Just speculating but what does it say if there is not a blue wave?

The right always needs their bogeyman......

Can’t run on ideas.

(04-25-2018 02:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The right always needs their bogeyman......

Can’t run on ideas.

OK. Now I believe you are a troll. A dang good one though.

A lot of times I just ju jitsu you guys. Use your arguments against ya. Dats da truth

(04-25-2018 02:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Can’t run on ideas.

Except lower taxes baby! And immigration reform! And draining the swamp! And most importantly, no Clinton!

Draining the swamp He said draining the swamp...... seriously

(04-25-2018 02:50 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 02:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Can’t run on ideas.

Except lower taxes baby! And immigration reform! And draining the swamp! And most importantly, no Clinton!

Funny you say that...I saw last night that some R's are actually using Hillary Clinton in their ads.

(04-25-2018 02:39 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 12:06 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  By near ANY historical measure the dims should pick up seats this Fall. Perhaps many of them.
Only time I recall it NOT happening in recent years was Dubbyas first term just after 9/11.

Question is, will they actually flip enough seats to elect Ellison as the next Speaker? Rs only got to hold it by one and its still a long way off.

First, Ellison will NEVER be elected speaker.

Second, the majority party in the house almost always flips in the first mid-term of a new president, and usually gains dozens of seats.

Quote:"The president's party always gets shellacked in midterms. It's only twice, 1934 and 2002, that the president's party actually gained in both the House and the Senate." ~ Mary Jordan

She's correct that the president's party generally loses ground in midterm elections. In midterms since 1862, the president's party has averaged losses of about 32 seats in the House and more than two seats in the Senate.

She's also right that the president's party beat the odds and gained in 1934 and 2002. In 1934 -- two years into Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, in the midst of the Great Depression -- Roosevelt's Democratic Party gained nine House seats and 10 Senate seats. And in 2002, roughly a year after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush's Republican Party gained eight House seats and two Senate seats.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...rm-electi/

Just speculating but what does it say if there is not a blue wave?

You're ignorant?

Dude, the point is it happens nearly every time, REGARDLESS of party.

(04-25-2018 03:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Funny you say that...I saw last night that some R's are actually using Hillary Clinton in their ads.

She's a good boogeyman fer sure.

(04-25-2018 03:03 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 03:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Funny you say that...I saw last night that some R's are actually using Hillary Clinton in their ads.

She's a good boogeyman fer sure.

One of the all-time greatest.

(04-25-2018 05:01 AM)shere khan Wrote:  ^ sad. Dems can't meme either

It's why they lost the Great Meme war

(04-25-2018 08:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ok when you click on that link and then click on Az 8 it says R +13. So the D's are running 8 points ahead of Cook. We need Tom to tell us what the models say with D's over performing by 8. I would think that's a wave bordering tsunami. Maybe I am wrong. Be the first time on here but I guess it's possible??????

You must have forgot about yesterday and this big bag of wrong you produced.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-848729.html

(04-25-2018 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 12:06 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  By near ANY historical measure the dims should pick up seats this Fall. Perhaps many of them.
Only time I recall it NOT happening in recent years was Dubbyas first term just after 9/11.

Question is, will they actually flip enough seats to elect Ellison as the next Speaker? Rs only got to hold it by one and its still a long way off.

First, Ellison will NEVER be elected speaker.

Second, the majority party in the house almost always flips in the first mid-term of a new president, and usually gains dozens of seats.

Quote:"The president's party always gets shellacked in midterms. It's only twice, 1934 and 2002, that the president's party actually gained in both the House and the Senate." ~ Mary Jordan

She's correct that the president's party generally loses ground in midterm elections. In midterms since 1862, the president's party has averaged losses of about 32 seats in the House and more than two seats in the Senate.

She's also right that the president's party beat the odds and gained in 1934 and 2002. In 1934 -- two years into Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, in the midst of the Great Depression -- Roosevelt's Democratic Party gained nine House seats and 10 Senate seats. And in 2002, roughly a year after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush's Republican Party gained eight House seats and two Senate seats.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...rm-electi/

Uhhhh, thanks?

didn't I say exactly that? Only in my own words, not having to rely on a cut and paste?

(04-25-2018 03:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 08:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ok when you click on that link and then click on Az 8 it says R +13. So the D's are running 8 points ahead of Cook. We need Tom to tell us what the models say with D's over performing by 8. I would think that's a wave bordering tsunami. Maybe I am wrong. Be the first time on here but I guess it's possible??????

You must have forgot about yesterday and this big bag of wrong you produced.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-848729.html

BAG OF WRONG !!!! First time I have heard that one. Hahahahahahahahaha

(04-25-2018 08:10 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 08:01 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I see the R won by 5.

Five points is a landslide. Not even close. And you only need to win by one vote.

But, but, that's still called winning, right? So...


WINNNNNIIINNNNGGG!

(04-25-2018 02:47 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A lot of times I just ju jitsu you guys. Use your arguments against ya. Dats da truth

But in this particular case you were trying to pin on the right what the left is actually guilty of.

Haven't read the entire thread, and won't bother to do so.

The party in power usually takes a massive hit on the first mid-term election, and I'm sure this one will be no different.

But beyond that, what I want to know is what kind of dim candidates are running this year? Are they rabid leftists like usual, or have they been pushed much more to the center by Trump?

For me personally, a so-called conservative pub who won't support the president can be just as bad a dim who will. I don't care what they call themselves when the votes come down.

Now, having said that, I still understand the stakes with majority party chairmanships etc, but I suspect you get my drift.