(11-11-2018 03:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't think the tariffs were a political mistake. And I think they are a long overdue correction. We are finally putting the American worker on the same rules. We've turned a blind eye to other nation's protectionism. We've got a better NAFTA as a result. We've got a better deal with South Korea. Anything is better than what we have been doing with China.

As long as we don't have a consumption tax, no, we are not putting American workers on an even footing. And if we have a consumption tax, then we don't really need a lot of tariffs.

And consumption taxes generate a lot of revenue that can then be used to
1) balance the budget, which republicans should favor (and this is the only way it can be done),
2) fund universal private health care based on Bismarck with a Singapore option, taking away a democrat talking point, and
3) lower top income tax rates to world-class levels, making us even more competitive.

We are in competition with the rest of the world. We need to get in there and compete.

(11-11-2018 03:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think it will be 2 seats. Sinema is up by 28k votes. The map was terrible for the Dems in 2018.

Sinema is the one that amazes me. She is bat****, Christine O'Donnell crazy. And McSally seemed a pretty attractive candidate. I guess there was enough backlash against Trump out of the McCain/Flake feuds. Otherwise that one is simply incomprehensible.

(11-11-2018 11:10 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  It bugged me to read about the Florida election controversy because basically I wasn't sure how the race was that close to begin with. So I decided to compare the numbers between the 2016 and 2018 elections in terms of presidential vote and then this year's senate vote of the closest senate races in 2018.

Texas - 2018 (R +3), 2016 (R +7) - net R loss (4)
Florida - 2018 (*even basically), 2016 (R +1) - net R loss (1)
Arizona - 2018 (D +1), 2016 (R + 3.5) - net R loss (4.5)
Nevada - 2018 (D +5), 2016 (D + 2) - net R loss (3)
Michigan - 2018 (D + 7), 2016 (*even) - net R loss (7)
Pennsylvania - 2018 (D +13), 2016 (R +1) - net R loss (14)
Wisconsin - 2018 (D +11), 2016 (R +1) - net R loss (12)
Ohio - 2018 (D + 7), 2016 (R +8) - net R loss (15)
Missouri - 2018 (R +6), 2016 (R +18) - net R loss (12)

other states -- Montana (R loss 24), North Dakota (R loss 23), Tennessee (R loss 15), West Virginia (R loss 45)

I only looked up these states. Someone else can certainly try to find me a race where the Republicans actually gained in votes from 2016 to 2018. Maybe you can find another state race in the states I already listed where the R loss isn't as severe.

But until you can find another race, I'm not sure how Florida is the only state in the country that doesn't have a minimum 3 to 4 point turnaround. I'm not expecting it to turn to the extent of some of those upper midwest swing states but my point is there might be some weird things going on in Florida to begin with that basically are producing a race that is too close to call to begin with.

Because the Republicans ran a popular 2 term governor in the Senate while the Democrats ran a corrupt socialist grifter for governor.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(11-11-2018 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Basically, its not yet Purple Texas, but its now a possibilty. Beto got 4.1 million votes to Cruz' 4.3 million. For the Dems to consider winning Texas in a Presidential year, I think the Dems need to find about 4.6 million votes, or a net increase of 500k. At 4.8 million, that puts them above Trumps 2016 vote total. At 5 miilion, the Dems definitely win.

Democratic Turnout was up from 2016 in Austin and parts of DFW. But it was DOWN in Houston, San Antonio and the Valley. That saved Cruz. Hispanic voting was up dramatically from 2014, but down about 25 percent from 2016. Finding and turning out those voters in 2020....nets around 300,000 more votes to the Dems. The other votes...thats going to be the challenge. The only two places where that kind of margin is doable is with young voters and new transplants to Texas. Its a tall order, but a possible one. We reslly need a strong candidate against Cornyn to help Gotv

Beto ran a great campaign. If he was running against just about anyone else, he would have won. I agree, Texas can be competitive, but it will take an exceptional candidate to outperform Beto.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(11-11-2018 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Basically, its not yet Purple Texas, but its now a possibilty. Beto got 4.1 million votes to Cruz' 4.3 million. For the Dems to consider winning Texas in a Presidential year, I think the Dems need to find about 4.6 million votes, or a net increase of 500k. At 4.8 million, that puts them above Trumps 2016 vote total. At 5 miilion, the Dems definitely win.
Democratic Turnout was up from 2016 in Austin and parts of DFW. But it was DOWN in Houston, San Antonio and the Valley. That saved Cruz. Hispanic voting was up dramatically from 2014, but down about 25 percent from 2016. Finding and turning out those voters in 2020....nets around 300,000 more votes to the Dems. The other votes...thats going to be the challenge. The only two places where that kind of margin is doable is with young voters and new transplants to Texas. Its a tall order, but a possible one. We reslly need a strong candidate against Cornyn to help Gotv

Any state where Dan Patrick can win by 5 is not quite ready to be purple.

(11-11-2018 04:51 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Beto ran a great campaign. If he was running against just about anyone else, he would have won. I agree, Texas can be competitive, but it will take an exceptional candidate to outperform Beto.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

He ran almost a perfect campaign. But he's an O'Rourke, I've known several of the family, and their whole lives revolve around politics. To paraphrase the Fred Thompson character in Red October, they don't take a dump without planning the political impact.

He made it totally about identity politics--the toothy grin, the selfies from all 254 counties, the fake Hispanic nickname (actually more Portuguese than Spanish). As someone said, he told the truth twice--about gun control and about voting to impeach without evidence--and both of then hurt him. If I were running on his voting record in Texas, I'd have run the same way.

Cruz on the other hand ran a horrible campaign. I'd say almost Claytie Williams bad. He let O'Rouke run with the social media fluff, and never really cornered him on policies. "Almost" because he didn't quite snatch defeat from the jaws pf victory like Claytie did. But it's a textbook case of how not to run a campaign in Texas.

(11-11-2018 03:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 03:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't think the tariffs were a political mistake. And I think they are a long overdue correction. We are finally putting the American worker on the same rules. We've turned a blind eye to other nation's protectionism. We've got a better NAFTA as a result. We've got a better deal with South Korea. Anything is better than what we have been doing with China.

As long as we don't have a consumption tax, no, we are not putting American workers on an even footing. And if we have a consumption tax, then we don't really need a lot of tariffs.

And consumption taxes generate a lot of revenue that can then be used to
1) balance the budget, which republicans should favor (and this is the only way it can be done),
2) fund universal private health care based on Bismarck with a Singapore option, taking away a democrat talking point, and
3) lower top income tax rates to world-class levels, making us even more competitive.

We are in competition with the rest of the world. We need to get in there and compete.

If you're so sure of your talking points why don't you run as a Libertarian? It seems the only people that know about this Bismarck Plan is you and us because you keep telling us about it. Who knows, you might be a better candidate than the ones running on the Libertarian Ticket.

I'm not putting you down, I'm serious.

I'd vote for him.

(11-11-2018 06:12 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 03:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 03:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't think the tariffs were a political mistake. And I think they are a long overdue correction. We are finally putting the American worker on the same rules. We've turned a blind eye to other nation's protectionism. We've got a better NAFTA as a result. We've got a better deal with South Korea. Anything is better than what we have been doing with China.

As long as we don't have a consumption tax, no, we are not putting American workers on an even footing. And if we have a consumption tax, then we don't really need a lot of tariffs.
And consumption taxes generate a lot of revenue that can then be used to
1) balance the budget, which republicans should favor (and this is the only way it can be done),
2) fund universal private health care based on Bismarck with a Singapore option, taking away a democrat talking point, and
3) lower top income tax rates to world-class levels, making us even more competitive.
We are in competition with the rest of the world. We need to get in there and compete.

If you're so sure of your talking points why don't you run as a Libertarian? It seems the only people that know about this Bismarck Plan is you and us because you keep telling us about it. Who knows, you might be a better candidate than the ones running on the Libertarian Ticket.
I'm not putting you down, I'm serious.

Nobody in my family, including two ex-wives, has ever done anything to me that was bad enough that I would want to punish them by putting them through what my good friend, Rand Paul's wife Kelley and sons William, Robert, and Duncan have had to put up with. Plus I'm 71 and a cancer survivor so it's somebody else's fight. I have written peer-reviewed articles about it, and thought about writing a book, but the book is still in pieces.

(11-11-2018 04:51 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Basically, its not yet Purple Texas, but its now a possibilty. Beto got 4.1 million votes to Cruz' 4.3 million. For the Dems to consider winning Texas in a Presidential year, I think the Dems need to find about 4.6 million votes, or a net increase of 500k. At 4.8 million, that puts them above Trumps 2016 vote total. At 5 miilion, the Dems definitely win.

Democratic Turnout was up from 2016 in Austin and parts of DFW. But it was DOWN in Houston, San Antonio and the Valley. That saved Cruz. Hispanic voting was up dramatically from 2014, but down about 25 percent from 2016. Finding and turning out those voters in 2020....nets around 300,000 more votes to the Dems. The other votes...thats going to be the challenge. The only two places where that kind of margin is doable is with young voters and new transplants to Texas. Its a tall order, but a possible one. We reslly need a strong candidate against Cornyn to help Gotv

Beto ran a great campaign. If he was running against just about anyone else, he would have won. I agree, Texas can be competitive, but it will take an exceptional candidate to outperform Beto.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Beto won because of two things: He had the millennial vote as the Demons were registering students at colleges and no. two, he was running against someone that many people don't like but cover their noses and voted for him because Robert (he ain't no Beto) was such a worst candidate. What, pray tell, has Robert ever done in office? Not a dang thing...but he had 35 million bucks to spend.

(11-11-2018 06:16 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Beto won because of two things: He had the millennial vote as the Demons were registering students at colleges and no. two, he was running against someone that many people don't like but cover their noses and voted for him because Robert (he ain't no Beto) was such a worst candidate. What, pray tell, has Robert ever done in office? Not a dang thing...but he had 35 million bucks to spend.

I think republicans could make a significant dent in the millennials by coming out in favor of legalizing or at least decriminalizing marijuana. And I think they could make a significant dent with the poor and people of color by reforming welfare to eliminate the welfare trap, adopting Bismarck universal private insurance, and pushing things like enterprise zones to revitalize inner cities.

How big a dent? Who knows? But if they did 10% better with each of those demographics, that would alter the election calculus for a generation. And I think 10% is in the doable range.

(11-11-2018 05:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Basically, its not yet Purple Texas, but its now a possibilty. Beto got 4.1 million votes to Cruz' 4.3 million. For the Dems to consider winning Texas in a Presidential year, I think the Dems need to find about 4.6 million votes, or a net increase of 500k. At 4.8 million, that puts them above Trumps 2016 vote total. At 5 miilion, the Dems definitely win.
Democratic Turnout was up from 2016 in Austin and parts of DFW. But it was DOWN in Houston, San Antonio and the Valley. That saved Cruz. Hispanic voting was up dramatically from 2014, but down about 25 percent from 2016. Finding and turning out those voters in 2020....nets around 300,000 more votes to the Dems. The other votes...thats going to be the challenge. The only two places where that kind of margin is doable is with young voters and new transplants to Texas. Its a tall order, but a possible one. We reslly need a strong candidate against Cornyn to help Gotv

Any state where Dan Patrick can win by 5 is not quite ready to be purple.

Depends upon your definition of purple. Texas came within 5 pts of electing a Dem Lt Givernor, Dem State House of Reps, a Dem Supreme Court Justice, a Dem AG, a Dem US Senator, a Dem Sec of Agriculture, etc. Not purple yet, but you guys ignore the Texas Dems at your peril.

(11-11-2018 03:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 03:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 02:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 01:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 12:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Trumps entire campaign and electoral college win and 2016 was based upon identity politics.

That's why Democrats lose, not understanding the other side.

"It was about the economy, stupid."

Then how do you explain 2018?

But you are slightly correct in one aspect. It WAS fundamentally about the new global economy for many voters, especially those that arent going to be winners in the new setup. Trump was able to pick then up while enough retaining traditional Republicans to eeke out a tiny victory.

Even with a supposedly booming economy and no unpopular war....the Dems absolutely crushed the GOP, winning the national vote by over 7 million votes in a MIDTERM election.

Republicans picked up seats in the Senate, probably 3. JFK picked up 3. Ike picked up 5. Nixon picked up 2. Reagan, W and LBJ each picked up 1. The rest lost, and lost big, all the way back to the Great Depression. So only Ike may have had a better mid-term.

Republicans still won most of the governor's races, including Vermont, Maryland and Massachusetts, which obviously were not about Trump.

And the House loss was lower than average and pretty disappointing to the Democrats.

I think it will be 2 seats. Sinema is up by 28k votes. The map was terrible for the Dems in 2018.

So you think the Democrats will be able to steal Florida too?

(11-11-2018 06:29 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 05:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 12:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Basically, its not yet Purple Texas, but its now a possibilty. Beto got 4.1 million votes to Cruz' 4.3 million. For the Dems to consider winning Texas in a Presidential year, I think the Dems need to find about 4.6 million votes, or a net increase of 500k. At 4.8 million, that puts them above Trumps 2016 vote total. At 5 miilion, the Dems definitely win.
Democratic Turnout was up from 2016 in Austin and parts of DFW. But it was DOWN in Houston, San Antonio and the Valley. That saved Cruz. Hispanic voting was up dramatically from 2014, but down about 25 percent from 2016. Finding and turning out those voters in 2020....nets around 300,000 more votes to the Dems. The other votes...thats going to be the challenge. The only two places where that kind of margin is doable is with young voters and new transplants to Texas. Its a tall order, but a possible one. We reslly need a strong candidate against Cornyn to help Gotv

Any state where Dan Patrick can win by 5 is not quite ready to be purple.

Depends upon your definition of purple. Texas came within 5 pts of electing a Dem Lt Givernor, Dem State House of Reps, a Dem Supreme Court Justice, a Dem AG, a Dem US Senator, a Dem Sec of Agriculture, etc. Not purple yet, but you guys ignore the Texas Dems at your peril.

Not us guys because I'm not a republican. I just see republicans as protecting us from the socialist/communist democrats. And doing a piss-poor job of it.

(11-11-2018 06:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 03:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 03:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 02:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 01:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  That's why Democrats lose, not understanding the other side.

"It was about the economy, stupid."

Then how do you explain 2018?

But you are slightly correct in one aspect. It WAS fundamentally about the new global economy for many voters, especially those that arent going to be winners in the new setup. Trump was able to pick then up while enough retaining traditional Republicans to eeke out a tiny victory.

Even with a supposedly booming economy and no unpopular war....the Dems absolutely crushed the GOP, winning the national vote by over 7 million votes in a MIDTERM election.

Republicans picked up seats in the Senate, probably 3. JFK picked up 3. Ike picked up 5. Nixon picked up 2. Reagan, W and LBJ each picked up 1. The rest lost, and lost big, all the way back to the Great Depression. So only Ike may have had a better mid-term.

Republicans still won most of the governor's races, including Vermont, Maryland and Massachusetts, which obviously were not about Trump.

And the House loss was lower than average and pretty disappointing to the Democrats.

I think it will be 2 seats. Sinema is up by 28k votes. The map was terrible for the Dems in 2018.

So you think the Democrats will be able to steal Florida too?

If the Dems win Arizona, it will a net of +2 Republicans. If all the ballots are counted in Florida and that puts Nelson ahead, it +1.

I would too