Right. We don't need to win independents; we just need to keep it close with them and turn out our base. And as you say, 2004 shows that winning that group doesn't always lead to victory.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT8| WHITE HOUSE ADMITS TO QUID PRO QUO WITH UKRAINE
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
Better to have him there giving those viewers some insight into reality, even though they don't accept it, rather then to not get any correct information at all.
By the way, the media for the most part has been doing a great job of deflecting the misinformation campaign and really keeping focus where it needs to be. Can't believe I'm actually kind of impressed.
SAY IT AGAIN.
If you're on FOX News at this point you either the active sycophant or the cover.
Florida is one of the only states where Independents are truly Independent. I think it was the only swing state Obama won Independents over Romney.
I hope you were referring to Ivanka's choice to pick a stormtrooper outfit and promote it on her social media with a caption of "The Force is strong in my family", while her father is locking up kids in cages. They put it out there.
Democrats have been winning self-described moderates for decades now - even in the 2010 midterms.
Republicans more often win "independents" (i.e., embarrassed Republicans).
Republicans more often win "independents" (i.e., embarrassed Republicans).
Florida's a weird state in that it's extremely inelastic, there are hardly any swing voters. It's basically 48-48 D/R with 4% or so up for grabs.
The panhandle activating is frustrating because it firmly pushes FL into a tilt-R category, but there's a reason the 2010 and 2014 results tracked closely with 2018, despite the national environments being completely different.
The FL Democratic Party is also hopelessly incompetent and only bothers registering folks in the lead-up to presidential elections, so that's a problem.
I see the cable news is still having to bring in guests that constantly talk about Biden and "deep states", then having to defend against them.
Slow news on weekend (relatively speaking) means the right gets to push their talking points harder.
Slow news on weekend (relatively speaking) means the right gets to push their talking points harder.
"I understand you're a brother of mine"
"Yeah, yeah. Nice to meet ya"
"I heard you paint houses"
"Yes, I do"
It's really annoying how Nelson's loss can almost entirely be attributed to a fuck-up in Broward County, but then it's one of those things where you're like, why was it even allowed to get this close?
It's like with Clinton and the Comey Letter, you can absolutely point to that one thing flipping the result, but also there's no reason why a competent Dem campaign should have lost Wisconsin and Michigan, for example. Those two states on their own wouldn't have made the difference, but it is embarrassing.
Don't feel too much for Wallace given for every interview he has actively questioned the wrongdoings of this admin, there are exponentially more of him outright defending it or letting many issues slide.
These stand out because much of the time he doesn't.
When Robby Mook, about September of 2016, was going on political podcasts and talking about chasing Georgia, I assumed that was because they had WI and MI locked up!
Like what the fuck happened? Hillary wrote a book called What Happened and I still don't get what happened!
Man, you could imagine my disappointment when I came home and found out that Nelson and Gillum lost. Florida just had to disappoint me once again.
narrator: there isn't.
not having principles is the defining factor in defending Trump.
I posted this a long time ago. The Clinton Campaign strategy was horrendous in Pennsylvania-
If this is the strategy they were using for WI and MI, it's no wonder they lost it. It should not have been that close, but the campaign made a strategic decision to simply abandon vast areas that were not explicitly friendly to Clinton to the Trump/Pence campaign.
Kyle Kondik on a recent Podcast alluded to that too. He said himself Democrats themselves should not have the lost the Governorship in that such environment. It's mind boggling frustrating. He thinks the talk of a blue leaning FL may have been premature looking at the last several cycles aside from the Obama wins in 08 and 12
Obviously hindsight is 50/50 but Clinton should have picked Booker (not a fan but at least he's energetic and could have helped with black outreach) and left Texas and Georgia for another cycle. Probably shouldn't have worried about Ohio too, it was never key to her path.
Should have focused on locking down WI/MI/PA and honed the campaign to their rural areas, similar to Obama's strategy in 2012 - losing by 20 is just as good as winning when the alternative is losing by 50 and hoping the cities save your ass. FL/AZ/NC were also worthy of investment but that's probably about it.
Losing the Ohio and Iowa governorships were also a disappointment but were comparatively underplayed, and there was still some good news there (Brown winning in OH and flipping two SC seats, flipping two House seats in IA). Beto and Abrams losing were also a bummer but few people genuinely expected wins there.
We'd also have a really obvious path to a Senate tie or majority next year (ME/CO/AZ) that's significantly more compromised by needing to win one more seat. NC and IA have potential but ugh, I'd rather have the knowledge we could lose them both and still come out ok.
Should have focused on locking down WI/MI/PA and honed the campaign to their rural areas, similar to Obama's strategy in 2012 - losing by 20 is just as good as winning when the alternative is losing by 50 and hoping the cities save your ass. FL/AZ/NC were also worthy of investment but that's probably about it.
If you took the 2018 results exactly as they were but flipped the FL Senate/Gov results, it would have lifted the mood on the entire night.
Losing the Ohio and Iowa governorships were also a disappointment but were comparatively underplayed, and there was still some good news there (Brown winning in OH and flipping two SC seats, flipping two House seats in IA). Beto and Abrams losing were also a bummer but few people genuinely expected wins there.
We'd also have a really obvious path to a Senate tie or majority next year (ME/CO/AZ) that's significantly more compromised by needing to win one more seat. NC and IA have potential but ugh, I'd rather have the knowledge we could lose them both and still come out ok.
How many of those former felons have got their right to vote back because I know they whole process has been slow walked as much as possible.
It's mostly been fine. The first thing I'd take issue with is conceding to the also-rans to let people into October who weren't eligible for September, and *maybe* all of the goals should have been raised by 1% above where they were at that given point in time.
Maybe presidential turnout will get them over the hump.
Seems like the problem is the panhandle turned out close to presidential, where the Dem-leaning areas did not.
For how good the turnout was in general last year, still enough people who don't understand the importance of Congress, but will show up if they see there's a chance to get Trump out of office.
Another problem Kyle and Steve Schale has also mentioned is that the Old retirees/panhandle vote are canceling out whatever gains the Democrats are getting with the more diverse votes such as Latinos in the southern region.
For anyone paying attention the last year should be an object lesson in why Congressional elections matter. Would we even be hearing about his whistleblower complaint without holding the House? Would we be talking about Trump's blunted policy initiatives?
If someone can't see how vital it was to vote in 2018 in order to make all of this possible then there is no reaching some people.
Specifically I think his faceplant of a 2016 "run" made it very clear to him who his constituents love more, and it ain't him. Very few Senators any longer have a brand that supercedes the top of the ticket; Rubio, Collins, Murkowski, Tester, and Manchin, but few others who could deviate from the party line and profit by it, and even Murkowski had to earn that credential the very hard way. The winds are against all of them, except Rubio for demographic reasons.
The Cuban factor in South Florida combined with a growing amount of Venezuelans is also a problem. Those two groups cause Florida's Latinx demographics to differ dramatically from those nationwide. It's why Bernie is winning Latinx voters in CA and NV while the mere mention of socialism in South Florida is toxic.
Gillum, and Nelson by extension, were tagged as socialists by DeSantis/Scott and that led to them not only underperforming Hillary with Cubans, but even underperforming Crist's 2014 performance.
Hasn't it been debunked that Clinton simply not visiting cities isn't the reason she lost? Like what was an extra 4 rallies supposed to do for voters? There needed to be more investment in the states.
Caleb Ecarma @calebecarma
the wordage in this pro-Trump op-ed in Friday's New York Times is almost verbatim a statement Sarah Sanders gave to Politico on Thursday re: impeachment
1:07 PM - Sep 29, 2019
the wordage in this pro-Trump op-ed in Friday's New York Times is almost verbatim a statement Sarah Sanders gave to Politico on Thursday re: impeachment
1:07 PM - Sep 29, 2019
Climate change making Wyoming winters pleasantly balmy
What a conundrum
Those old Cubans will be dead in decade, but you're right about all the Venezuelans that have emigrated here.
Immigration bad if mexican, is basically their mantra
Shows how closely I followed her over the past twelve or thirteen years.
This needs to go into an OT title.
Those impeachment numbers are looking good.
- Status