If MS flips GOP might as well kiss 2020 goodbye.
Then again, they lost Alabama too lmao
Then again, they lost Alabama too lmao
US PoliERA 2018 |OT6| An Unmitigated Disaster
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- OT
- Status
Well, let's see.
Assume we start with 52.
Very good chance for a pickup
CO, Gardner's seat.
If Collins retires, we have an excellent opportunity in ME, especially with ranked-choice voting preventing the left from shooting itself.
We have a good chance in NC because Tillis only won narrowly in 2014.
Decent chance for pickup:
Iowa, if it snaps back hard this year and in 2020.
The second Arizona seat because McCain will in all likelihood be gone by then.
Kentucky, especially if Mitch retires. (He only won 53-47 in 2008.)
Iffy chance for pickup:
Montana if Bullock runs against Daines.
Hail Mary:
West Virginia if Ojeda runs against Capito.
Winning all of the above would give us 8 seats, BUT we'll probably lose Doug Jones's seat in Alabama, resulting in a net gain of 7.
So we'd end with 59 in the best-case scenario.
-- weed will be for Dems in 2018 and 2020 what gay marriage was for Reps in 2004.
-- i gotta think the most unifying message Dems should build around is wage growth. (no bernie)
-- i gotta think the most unifying message Dems should build around is wage growth. (no bernie)
Man how the hell did we ever get to 60 in 2008? How many were blue dogs?
And remember that we only ever got to 60 because Arlen Specter defected. Otherwise, even with Al Franken and Paul Rhodes (Kennedy's replacement before Brown won the special election), we would've been at 59.
We're looking at two waves in a row right now and it won't be enough to get 60 without a miracle. I guess the outlier post 9/11 02 midterms skewed everything with a lot of GOP pickups that allowed for a lot of Dem pickups in 08.
So even for the 30% who are still in custody, both parents and children, they have no way of linking and reuniting them. Sadly, we'll get terrifying stories of missing and abused girls and boys for years out of this mess.
Do you think that it's possible for Trump to win again in 2020, but for Democrats to have complete control of the House & Senate after that election?
I'd also add Alaska and Georgia to the list of possibilities.
Alaska in particular basically has a Dem state government right now.
Also, I'm not convinced Jones is a goner. The GOP could always be fucking stupid enough to put up Roy Moore again.
Last edited:
I wouldn't dismiss Beto so easily. Dude is a hustler like I've never seen, and I can count on one hand the number of people I've met who genuinely like Cruz.
The fact that most people see Abbott as a lock, and don't necessarily care to show up for Cruz, could lead to an upset.
Beto's not the problem, he's a very good candidate. The problem is Texas- you need a historymaking level of Dem overperformance to flip that and even the most generous interpretations of election/polling data aren't making up those numbers for him right now.
You still run and fight, but you should not expect to win, the most likely value is with downballot races.
I don't think it's particularly likely but you could put together a scenario where Trump is narrowly re-elected with a Democratic Senate. It's a lot harder for me to come up with a Democratic House in that scenario because the House vote and Presidential vote are highly correlated and the Democratic advantage needed to win the House should be a fair bit larger than the one needed to win the Electoral College, even considering incumbency advantage if Dems win the House in 2018.
Guys, guys, it's impossible for us to win the house.
Why don't we just give up? It's impossible. We should all just give up and have strokes. History is against us. -_-
Why don't we just give up? It's impossible. We should all just give up and have strokes. History is against us. -_-
I imagine she is going after Avenatti because he went on Morning Joe and alluded it might be someone else that got her pregnant.
"You all are a bunch of meanies" is not an argument I expected to see sans dressing over on OT, but ignorance demands coddling I guess.
The implications are so juicy that I can forgive his overcorrecting and using whomever when it should've been whoever.
#prescriptivistatthepolls
#prescriptivistatthepolls
Is this a joke? A political candidate with a history of arrests is news no matter if the person has a D or R after their name.
***OVER TWENTY FUCKING YEARS AGO***
Oh, he's been arrested this decade too... for protesting.
His only recent arrests (in the past 15+ years) were for protesting. If you remember, Pramila just got arrested last week. So now she has a history of arrest, as do thousands of other protesters protesting the bullshit policies of this administration. This is barely news.
the arrest was in 1998. you must be a real stickler if this is news worthy
His only recent arrests are from protesting Paul Ryan. He obviously fucked up a ways back with the DUI, but the article is very sensationalist.
Ah he got an ole George W. on his record. Bet he wasn't with a tennis pro though.
Well recently a GOP congressional candidate assaulted a journalist, got elected and still holds his seat, so really there's only a few things left in the world of crime that disqualify you.
I would certainly be concerned if he were a repeat DUI offender, but he was only caught once doing it and never again, and it was 20 years ago. He clearly learned his lesson there.
I think Bechard's argument will be that Davidson leaked her deal to Avenetti, who then broke her NDA when he attacked Cohen, causing her to stop getting paid.
Only, Avenatti is not party to the NDA, and under no legal obligation to keep secret publicly relevant information he knows to be true. Avenatti will likely be a witness against Davidson, but will be in no legal jeopardy himself. However, the seal raises suspicion. It may be that they don't want Avenatti spilling the beans on the actual contents of the NDA, which may validate his current public allegations that Broidy isn't really the undersigned party.
Only, Avenatti is not party to the NDA, and under no legal obligation to keep secret publicly relevant information he knows to be true. Avenatti will likely be a witness against Davidson, but will be in no legal jeopardy himself. However, the seal raises suspicion. It may be that they don't want Avenatti spilling the beans on the actual contents of the NDA, which may validate his current public allegations that Broidy isn't really the undersigned party.
tbf it's practically a miracle if you live in Wisconsin and don't have a DUI at some point in your life.
I mean, Wisconsin has whiskey plates too. It's just that the W is followed by the word "isconsin."
Oh, I'm certainly not encouraging it.
But seriously, somewhere like WI-1 is particularly notorious for DUIs. It's a bunch of rural to small cities, nothing to do but go drink, nothing in walkable range for anyone, zero public transportation and zero taxi or rideshare coverage.
"I have no idea why ...."
I should imagine it is for conspiracy to induce a breach of contract. It's not hard to work it out.
Except he's not a party to it. So wouldn't that mean it doesn't apply to him ?
He may not be a party to the contract. That doesn't prevent him being party to a conspiracy to induce breach of it by a party to it. It's an odd concept but is apparently a thing in California.
no attempt at trying to say you're encouraging it. was a pretty blanket statement to the thread because i do agree with you on how common they are. my city is 30k with a rural/urban blend and i know a handful of people (early to late 20's) with DUIs. it's a real problem still today, even though beer sales (and maybe consumption(?)) are down.
i looked up the county in MI where he got his other arrest. not only does it have a steady population of ~8,000, it's also in the UP here. very rural, a wet state and a handful of cops looking for a ticket. just as you said about WI-1, the MI arrest was bound to happen.
- Status