Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr. Benton Quest

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,377
The system's rigged against Kirblar
He was wrong, bud. I love Kirb, but he was out of line there.

At the old place that would have likely been an instant perm. I doubt this one is.

He argued the live action Aladdin doesn't have some middle eastern actors because they can't both sing and act.

I'm assuming he thinks this because of Islam, idk.

Either way, he doubled down when called out.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
At least high single digits, potentially double digits. We're at the point where she needs to run up the score to get us the state legislature.
I'm hoping we get a Michigan poll from Marist soon. Last time they released MN and WI polls they came in a cluster with MI, I believe.

I'm thinking their MN/WI polls were a bit too optimistic (guessing it's closer to Evers by ~5 and Walz by ~10 myself) but it'd be great if they were on the money.
 

VectorPrime

Banned
Apr 4, 2018
11,781
Harry Enten put out a House model. I think it's new but it might have just been updated.



Anyway he's predicting a 23 seat Dem majority which would obviously be fantastic.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Harry Enten put out a House model. I think it's new but it might have just been updated.



Anyway he's predicting a 23 seat Dem majority which would obviously be fantastic.

He has MN as 7-1 DFL.

I WANT TO BELIEVE HARRY

giphy-downsized-large.gif


Maryland had to gerrymander for that kind of result.
 

EvilChameleon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,793
Ohio
Sherrod Brown seems to be swimming cash! Hopefully he can drag Cordray across the finish line. Him and our SOS candidate as well.

As an aside, man were those Kirblar posts super dumb. What the fuck was he thinking? >_<

This state is such a confusing political mess.

Sherrod Brown is likely going to run away with this election, but Cordray is struggling.

Hell, wouldn't surprise me if Rob Portman runs away with his election too when he's up in a few years. Both he and Sherrod are incredibly competent campaign-runners.

Plus I think Rob is "popular" here because you never hear from him. Sure, he votes with Trump all of the time, but you never see him doing TV tours or on FOX News, so he's easy to ignore.
 

Deleted member 25712

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
1,803
For all the brilliance of the founding fathers, the senate is going to keep fucking this country up for a long time. But good news on the house.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
I get a little irritated when they say things like "a twenty-three seat majority" when they're really saying that we'll gain 34 seats to get to 229-206. It just feels like a more awkward way to express it, especially since most outlets talk about the number of seats gained, not the seat advantage.
 

Teggy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,892
Dude just called into on point from Georgia about voter suppression.

Says people obviously have photo ID because you have to enter it to get your tax refund. Just the height of fucking white privilege idiocy.
 

Punished Goku

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
9,960
I think this thread is worth keeping in mind:



Yes, the Senate may be a long shot. (So was Doug Jones last year!) The points I want to hammer home are:

(1) Dems will likely win the House (likely, I'm hedging here of course) and in many other less ballyhooed but still very important places (especially critical Governorships, state offices and legislatures, DA and sheriff roles etc.)

(2) If there was a time to overperform expectations, this is it - and it won't happen without mad hustle (see Jones and Alabamian Democrats stepping it the fuck up last year).

(3) I think it's healthy to acknowledge that Democrats are behind in the race for Senate, while at the same time anticipate that massive swings this late in the game can still happen (possibly towards the GOP, more likely towards the Democrats but this is absolutely no guarantee).

As an example I raised elsewhere: it's worth remembering Dem chances at taking the Senate in 2016 did not completely tank until the last 2 weeks (you know what happened) - races like PA, WI and MO swung by 5+ points, IN by 10+ (inevitably). At this point in time during 2016, the GOP were prepared for President Hillary and a 50-50 chance at losing the Senate.

This is not about hopium, but rather acknowledging that the bigger picture is out of your hands as an ordinary citizen. Look at broad trends, acknowledge singular polls but don't obsess over them. And remember that there is a lot more to be won than just the top of ticket extravaganzas.

I'm gonna go overboard with my predictions. 50+ House seats. We're going to be keeping all of the seats were defending in the senate and get NV, AZ, TX, MS, and I forget the other seat.
Nothing about that was "trying to be funny". His look, his mannerisms, the tone. Shit was super creepy.

Yikes.
Yeah, and he even has the audacity to use the Nassar victims in his ads.
 

Y2Kev

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,964
Rosen losing would be awful. We couldn't punish heller in a state where Hillary won and he went full trump?
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
Rosen losing would be awful. We couldn't punish heller in a state where Hillary won and he went full trump?
Catherine Cortez-Masto trailed Joe Heck by 7 this time in 2016. Everyone thought Harry Reid was toast in 2010.

Rosen has to beat an incumbent, so the race being statistically tied is still a fairly good position.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,877
The numbers indicate some sort of weird vote-splitting deal where the Rs comfortably keep the Senate but the D+ fairly comfortably take the House, and I cannot wrap my head around the practical conditions for this scenario to happen. Probably, it's my own ignorance of the key differences between House and Senate races, but I feel like I generally understand those differences well enough.
 

VectorPrime

Banned
Apr 4, 2018
11,781
Not to UNSKEW THE POLLS but hasn't polling of Nevada on the state level historically underestimated the Dems every single time? Like there's some weird quirks with Nevada polling that always happens.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
The numbers indicate some sort of weird vote-splitting deal where the Rs comfortably keep the Senate but the D+ fairly comfortably take the House, and I cannot wrap my head around the practical conditions for this scenario to happen. Probably, it's my own ignorance of the key differences between House and Senate races, but I feel like I generally understand those differences well enough.
Most of the House districts we need are in blue or purple states. A lot of the important Senate races are in red states.
Not to UNSKEW THE POLLS but hasn't polling of Nevada on the state level historically underestimated the Dems every single time? Like there's some weird quirks with Nevada polling that always happens.
Yes. I wouldn't call it unskewing because it's a documented phenomenon that's happened over many years and with many pollsters. A lot of the population in NV is transient, making voter information less reliable, and works nights.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,969
The numbers indicate some sort of weird vote-splitting deal where the Rs comfortably keep the Senate but the D+ fairly comfortably take the House, and I cannot wrap my head around the practical conditions for this scenario to happen. Probably, it's my own ignorance of the key differences between House and Senate races, but I feel like I generally understand those differences well enough.

It's easy. If all seats in the senate were open, dems would stand a chance to win it back due to high voter turnout. As it is, most of the senators up for election are in already dem controlled states so there's not much to be gained and higher chance to lose a seat. The best shot at taking the senate is 2020 when more Republican seats are on the chopping block.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,877
Most of the House districts we need are in blue or purple states. A lot of the important Senate races are in red states.

Sure, but aren't a number of districts in red states also at risk of flipping even though we don't need them?

Nah, fuck it, I'm not even questioning this, you're almost surely right. Sometimes, I look at the data and the reports and the predictions and lose sight of the simple explanations.
 

Vixdean

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,855
Seems implausible that at least one of the longshot Senate Dems doesn't win if the election manages to swing the House the way people are predicting. We may not take the Senate, but we won't lose further ground. You don't sweep all the tight races in an election where you were otherwise blown off the map (unless they cheat).
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,877
Most of the House districts we need are in blue or purple states. A lot of the important Senate races are in red states.

Sure, but aren't a number of districts in red states also at risk of flipping even though we don't need them?

Nah, fuck it, I'm not even questioning this, you're almost surely right. Sometimes, I look at the data and the reports and the predictions and lose sight of the simple explanations.

It's easy. If all seats in the senate were open, dems would stand a chance to win it back due to high voter turnout. As it is, most of the senators up for election are in already dem controlled states so there's not much to be gained and higher chance to lose a seat. The best shot at taking the senate is 2020 when more Republican seats are on the chopping block.

Seems implausible that at least one of the longshot Senate Dems doesn't win if the election manages to swing the House the way people are predicting. We may not take the Senate, but we won't lose further ground. You don't sweep all the tight races in an election where you were otherwise blown off the map (unless they cheat).

So yeah, the GCB is more predictive of House races than Senate races for obvious reasons, but at some point, if our turnout gets us to +9 or +11 or +13, that means we got the turnout to win some of those Senate races in states where we should be losing. Maybe that's not true in white-ass ND, but in Missouri or FL, it should mean something.


DCCC placing last-minute ad buy in UT-04. Race recently got moved to Tossup.


Should I be happy because, hey, potential seat pickup, or should I be crushed by the obvious racism/sexism mashup going on here?
 

Culex

Member
Oct 29, 2017
6,938
People asking about what Beto is going to spend that money on: TV ads.

Local stations are around 2k+ for 30 seconds.

National is around 150k for 30 seconds.

Those millions can be drained quickly!
 

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,630
Rosen has either been leading or in the MoE in every NV polling. Considering the history of NV polling, she should be the slight favorite for sure imo.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
So yeah, the GCB is more predictive of House races than Senate races for obvious reasons, but at some point, if our turnout gets us to +9 or +11 or +13, that means we got the turnout to win some of those Senate races in states where we should be losing. Maybe that's not true in white-ass ND, but in Missouri or FL, it should mean something.
I've said before that MO and IN, while Republican, are nowhere near as red as ND and WV and have large minority bases upon which to draw.
People asking about what Beto is going to spend that money on: TV ads.

Local stations are around 2k+ for 30 seconds.

National is around 150k for 30 seconds.

Those millions can be drained quickly!
Beto seems to be dedicating a great deal of his money to turnout operations, which I think is the wiser move and how an upset could potentially happen.
 

corasaur

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,989
The numbers indicate some sort of weird vote-splitting deal where the Rs comfortably keep the Senate but the D+ fairly comfortably take the House, and I cannot wrap my head around the practical conditions for this scenario to happen. Probably, it's my own ignorance of the key differences between House and Senate races, but I feel like I generally understand those differences well enough.
Think of it this way: we're poised to win an overwhelming majority of senate seats up for election this year. the voters likely giving us the house just mostly don't have the opportunity to vote on flipping senate seats.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,101
Arkansas, USA
Beto being the win that gives the Democratic party the majority would be a storybook ending for the 2018 election. I can't imagine a victory that would be more gratifying short of a woman destroying Trump in the 2020 election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.