Midterm Elections 2018

[Udaman]

Hey mods! Is it possible to start a thread on the November Midterms? I thought the Presidential Thread 2 years ago was really good. And most people stuck to the rules of staying non-partisan (ie no calling one side a bunch of names or speaking derogatory about anyone’s politics views).

Just thought I would see if this could fly. Going to be a pretty incredible 5 months for sure.

[Indoor66]

How about a poll on how many posts it takes to get the thread closed?

[tteettimes]

How about a poll on how many posts it takes to get the thread closed?

Or how many get banned 😫😫

[OldPhiKap]

I think it’s a great idea, because our geographic spread will give me some insight into races about which I know very little.

But I don’t have to moderate the thread, and can appreciate why the mod team might not want to either.

[dudog84]

I don't know, my evaluations/guesses 2 years ago were even worse than my NCAA picks over the last 3 years. Don't know if I can take the humbling. :o

So I may sit it out ("may" because I'm a brute for punishment). But I would certainly enjoy reading other people's takes. I think our crowd and the mods did a great job 2 years ago.

Though I understand things may be rawer now.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I think it’s a great idea, because our geographic spread will give me some insight into races about which I know very little.

But I don’t have to moderate the thread, and can appreciate why the mod team might not want to either.

I echo that! I enjoy following other races, especially learning about ones that I don't know much about. I thought we did pretty well with the presidential race thread, and would like a mid-term one as well.

[rthomas]

So I will start and we can see what happens.

I live in WV and, although highly unusual, it has become a battleground state for the midterms for control of the Senate. Manchin (D) goes against our current Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R). Republicans think Manchin is vulnerable. However, the progressive Democrat favored by Bernie, while losing to Manchin in the primary a couple weeks ago by 60K votes, matched Morrisey in total votes received across WV.

The Republicans had an (shall we say) interesting candidate, Don Blankenship, a coal mine owner who recently spent a year in prison for conspiracy to violate mine safety laws after one of his mines had a fire that killed over 2 dozen miners. Blankenship who got 20% of the Republican vote in the primary clearly resents President Trump and the Republican Party administration after they publicly came out against him and so he will not endorse Morrisey and vows to hurt Morrisey's candidacy - However, WV has a "sore loser" law that prevent Blankenship from running as a 3rd party.

So WV is going to be interesting this fall in regards to which part controls the Senate or at least keeping the R:D ratio close.

How is that for politics in a non PPB manner?

[CameronBornAndBred]

WV has a "sore loser" law that prevent Blankenship from running as a 3rd party.


Is that common?

[OldPhiKap]

I’m guessing that most of Blankenship’s backers won’t vote for Manchin under any circumstances. The question is whether they stay home in the general, or not.

[lotusland]

After exhaustive research and polling, I’m calling SC districts 1-5 & 7 for the Republicans and District 6 for the Democrats

[dudog84]

So I will start and we can see what happens.

I live in WV and, although highly unusual, it has become a battleground state for the midterms for control of the Senate. Manchin (D) goes against our current Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R). Republicans think Manchin is vulnerable. However, the progressive Democrat favored by Bernie, while losing to Manchin in the primary a couple weeks ago by 60K votes, matched Morrisey in total votes received across WV.

The Republicans had an (shall we say) interesting candidate, Don Blankenship, a coal mine owner who recently spent a year in prison for conspiracy to violate mine safety laws after one of his mines had a fire that killed over 2 dozen miners. Blankenship who got 20% of the Republican vote in the primary clearly resents President Trump and the Republican Party administration after they publicly came out against him and so he will not endorse Morrisey and vows to hurt Morrisey's candidacy - However, WV has a "sore loser" law that prevent Blankenship from running as a 3rd party.

So WV is going to be interesting this fall in regards to which part controls the Senate or at least keeping the R:D ratio close.

How is that for politics in a non PPB manner?

From my perspective, excellent.

I'll start Florida. Off the top of my head, we're a well-known purple state. But both our state house and senate are about 2/3 Republican (in my opinion, the Rs have done a brilliant job (or the Ds have been lacking in strategy) of taking over state houses across the country)...but I won't get into the weeds of discussing state races. We've got a 3-term D Senator being challenged by the term-limited R Governor who has extremely deep pockets (he's not afraid of using his own money, unlike most). It's a toss-up.

The Governor primaries have not been held yet, but I think the D front-runner is the daughter of a very popular ex-Governor/U.S. Senator, and the Rs is a toss-up between long-time pol/Secretary of Agriculture (the state house Speaker surprisingly just dropped out of the race and endorsed him last week) and my district's U.S. House rep, who has been heartily endorsed by the President (which gives our Governor's race some national interest). Too early to say which way any of that will go.

So my U.S. House district does not have an incumbent, but 2 years ago I think it went to the R incumbent by about 17 points. I believe it be a toss-up this year, as both sides have crowded primaries with no clear leaders. A good friend of mine is dipping her toe into politics for the first time as the campaign treasurer for one of the candidates, so I have more interest than usual.

Another good friend of mine is running for our City Commission in her first attempt at any kind of office (she's in her early 50s). I only mention this because I think it's going to be interesting across the country in many ways.

Some very intriguing races, I think all are toss-ups by the time we get to November.

[JasonEvans]

After a lengthy discussion, the moderation team has decided that we will allow this thread to exist for now. However, as all of you should know there will be no partisan sniping allowed. And there can be no discussion of the merits of particular public policy issues. Keep it civil and analytical, not passionate, and we should be fine.

As with previous political threads, if you cross the line you will be hit with a very serious infraction. This is done so no one will even consider approaching the line. Play nice and we should be able to keep this thread alive.

Jason “ if you are uncertain about a post, feel free to send me a message and I will let you know if it would be acceptable” Evans

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

After a lengthy discussion, the moderation team has decided that we will allow this thread to exist for now. However, as all of you should know there will be no partisan sniping allowed. And there can be no discussion of the merits of particular public policy issues. Keep it civil and analytical, not passionate, and we should be fine.

As with previous political threads, if you cross the line you will be hit with a very serious infraction. This is done so no one will even consider approaching the line. Play nice and we should be able to keep this thread alive.

Jason “ if you are uncertain about a post, feel free to send me a message and I will let you know if it would be acceptable” Evans

As a long-time poster, generally in good standing who got dinged last year for a joke I made on a politician I like and respect, I would just say "when in doubt, leave it out."

There are fewer and fewer places for civil political discussions, let's try and keep this one.

[OldPhiKap]

After a lengthy discussion, the moderation team has decided that we will allow this thread to exist for now. However, as all of you should know there will be no partisan sniping allowed. And there can be no discussion of the merits of particular public policy issues. Keep it civil and analytical, not passionate, and we should be fine.

As with previous political threads, if you cross the line you will be hit with a very serious infraction. This is done so no one will even consider approaching the line. Play nice and we should be able to keep this thread alive.

Jason “ if you are uncertain about a post, feel free to send me a message and I will let you know if it would be acceptable” Evans

I applaud this choice, thanks.

[Bob Green]

Virginia primary is June 12th with Republicans voting to decide who takes on Tim Kaine (D) in November:

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_Virginia_(June_12 ,_2018_Republican_primary)


In deciding who will take on U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D) in November, Virginia Republicans have a choice between Corey Stewart, a Prince William County supervisor tied to President Donald Trump, and state Del. Nick Freitas, a member of the party’s libertarian wing.

Corey Stewart (https://ballotpedia.org/Corey_Stewart)

Nick Freitas (https://ballotpedia.org/Nick_Freitas)

E.W. Jackson (https://ballotpedia.org/E.W._Jackson) is also running.

Tim Kaine is an overwhelming favorite to win reelection in the general election. Poll data here (https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_Virginia,_2018) and analysis here (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/381890-gop-fears-primary-fight-will-ruin-va-senate-chances).

[OldPhiKap]

I’m not a big believer in generic party polls, but to give us a marker as this thread starts:

“Vote Democrat” leads “Vote Republican” for Congress nationally, 44.6% to 40.0% in Nate Silver’s weighting of polls.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

[Furniture]

After a lengthy discussion, the moderation team has decided that we will allow this thread to exist for now. However, as all of you should know there will be no partisan sniping allowed. And there can be no discussion of the merits of particular public policy issues. Keep it civil and analytical, not passionate, and we should be fine.

As with previous political threads, if you cross the line you will be hit with a very serious infraction. This is done so no one will even consider approaching the line. Play nice and we should be able to keep this thread alive.

Jason “ if you are uncertain about a post, feel free to send me a message and I will let you know if it would be acceptable” Evans

Thanks. It’s going to be a long summer so this should be a welcome distraction.

[rthomas]

Is that common?

The answer to this is yes, very common. Only 3 states don't have a "sore loser" law.

[Bluedog]

I’m not a big believer in generic party polls, but to give us a marker as this thread starts:

“Vote Democrat” leads “Vote Republican” for Congress nationally, 44.6% to 40.0% in Nate Silver’s weighting of polls.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Interesting, but not very meaningful given it's just a nationwide poll -- it's not uncommon for the party that gets more votes to end up with fewer representatives. Obviously, the most recent presidential election reinforced the concept that 50 winner-take-all elections to determine a winner is much different than 1 election. Same with congressional elections. Doesn't matter who gets more votes in total across everything, just matters who wins more individual elections.

[OldPhiKap]

Interesting, but not very meaningful given it's just a nationwide poll -- it's not uncommon for the party that gets more votes to end up with fewer representatives. Obviously, the most recent presidential election reinforced the concept that 50 winner-take-all elections to determine a winner is much different than 1 election. Same with congressional elections. Doesn't matter who gets more votes in total across everything, just matters who wins more individual elections.

Exactly. Just a snapshot of general party voting preference as of mid-May. A measuring stick, Little more.

[pfrduke]

I’m not a big believer in generic party polls, but to give us a marker as this thread starts:

“Vote Democrat” leads “Vote Republican” for Congress nationally, 44.6% to 40.0% in Nate Silver’s weighting of polls.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

I recall hearing something this week that due to the district by district demographics, “vote Democrat” needs to have something like a 9 point nationwide margin for the Democrats to be likely to take the house. I don’t recall the source, so definitely don’t quote me on it.

[JasonEvans]

We have a fascinating race that is likely to attract a ton of national attention here in Georgia... especially when you consider it has zero impact on the national balance of power in congress.

It is the race for Governor. Georgia has increasingly been turning purple from being reliably red in recent years, thanks to increasing population in the cities and more diversity in the population. It is estimated that Georgia has gone from being 56% white, non-Hispanic to just over 51% white, non-Hispanic since 2010. Donald Trump won Georgia with just 51.1% of the vote in 2016, the lowest total for any GOP candidate since Bob Dole in 1996.

So, the upshot of all this is that Democrats think they might have a real shot at winning the governor's race. There will not be any senator seats up in 2018, so the Governor's race is the big one and turnout will likely be sorta low as a result.

But, why should the Georgia governor race attract more attention than any number of other governor or senate races nationwide? It is because there is a decent chance Georgia will do something never done before in Us history. Georgia may elect the first female African-American governor ever.

Her name is Stacey Abrams and she was the minority leader of the Ga House for many years. She has a pretty compelling personal story, coming from a poor family in Mississippi. Her family moved to Atlanta and she became the first ever black valedictorian at her high school. She graduated magna cum laude from Spellman and then went to Yale where she got her JD. She really connects with people when she talks about growing up poor and how hard her family worked to achieve success. Her sister was a US Attorney and is now a Federal Judge. Her brother, who she says was brilliant growing up, has been a drug addict and a criminal for many years. I've heard her speak and when she talks about the struggles of her family and their ups and downs, it really is compelling.

Anyway, Abrams faces off against Stacey Evans in the Democratic primary this week. Abrams is widely expected to win because she has really been embraced by progressives (Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker are all backing her) and the statewide party is largely on her side. By comparison, Evans really has no national Democratic backing and her most prominent local endorsement is former governor Roy Barnes. Abrams has really endorsed progressive policies, talking up universal healthcare. Many say she is trying to win without getting any white male votes. That will work just fine in the Democratic primary, but can it work in the general election? Most of the polls shows Abrams with about a 20 point lead on Evans, though around 25-30% of the electorate remains undecided. Those undecided voters would have to really break HARD for Evans to make it a close race.

Abrams will likely face off against Georgia's Lt. Governor Casey Cagel. He's consistently polling in the mid-30s in a crowded GOP field of 5 candidates, 4 of whom reach double-digits. Still, Cagel is likely to win. The GOP race has really focused on being anti-immigrant and pro-guns. One GOP contender appeared in a TV ad where he was cleaning a gun while sternly talking to a boy who wanted to take his daughter out on a date. Another candidate said he wanted to give away free bump stocks (devices that make semi-automatic rifles fully automatic) to every household in the state. Meanwhile, one of the GOP contenders said he wanted to drive around in his truck and pick up illegals who commit crimes to deport them. One of his rivals upped that by getting a bus and touring the state on his "Deportation bus tour."

Once Tuesday's primary is done, we should know who the candidates will be, probably Cagle and Abrams. The polls seem to indicate that it will be a close race, probably a slight GOP lean. But, if Abrams can pull the upset, Georgia will have made American history. For a state in the deep South to be the one to do that would be kinda cool.

-Jason "there is little else of note here this cycle... though there are a few congressional races that could get interesting if the predicted 'Blue Wave' comes to pass" Evans

[Neals384]

We have a fascinating race that is likely to attract a ton of national attention here in Georgia... especially when you consider it has zero impact on the national balance of power in congress.

It is the race for Governor. Georgia has increasingly been turning purple from being reliably red in recent years, thanks to increasing population in the cities and more diversity in the population. It is estimated that Georgia has gone from being 56% white, non-Hispanic to just over 51% white, non-Hispanic since 2010. Donald Trump won Georgia with just 51.1% of the vote in 2016, the lowest total for any GOP candidate since Bob Dole in 1996.

So, the upshot of all this is that Democrats think they might have a real shot at winning the governor's race. There will not be any senator seats up in 2018, so the Governor's race is the big one and turnout will likely be sorta low as a result.

But, why should the Georgia governor race attract more attention than any number of other governor or senate races nationwide? It is because there is a decent chance Georgia will do something never done before in Us history. Georgia may elect the first female African-American governor ever.

Her name is Stacey Abrams and she was the minority leader of the Ga House for many years. She has a pretty compelling personal story, coming from a poor family in Mississippi. Her family moved to Atlanta and she became the first ever black valedictorian at her high school. She graduated magna cum laude from Spellman and then went to Yale where she got her JD. She really connects with people when she talks about growing up poor and how hard her family worked to achieve success. Her sister was a US Attorney and is now a Federal Judge. Her brother, who she says was brilliant growing up, has been a drug addict and a criminal for many years. I've heard her speak and when she talks about the struggles of her family and their ups and downs, it really is compelling.

Anyway, Abrams faces off against Stacey Evans in the Democratic primary this week. Abrams is widely expected to win because she has really been embraced by progressives (Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker are all backing her) and the statewide party is largely on her side. By comparison, Evans really has no national Democratic backing and her most prominent local endorsement is former governor Roy Barnes. Abrams has really endorsed progressive policies, talking up universal healthcare. Many say she is trying to win without getting any white male votes. That will work just fine in the Democratic primary, but can it work in the general election? Most of the polls shows Abrams with about a 20 point lead on Evans, though around 25-30% of the electorate remains undecided. Those undecided voters would have to really break HARD for Evans to make it a close race.

Abrams will likely face off against Georgia's Lt. Governor Casey Cagel. He's consistently polling in the mid-30s in a crowded GOP field of 5 candidates, 4 of whom reach double-digits. Still, Cagel is likely to win. The GOP race has really focused on being anti-immigrant and pro-guns. One GOP contender appeared in a TV ad where he was cleaning a gun while sternly talking to a boy who wanted to take his daughter out on a date. Another candidate said he wanted to give away free bump stocks (devices that make semi-automatic rifles fully automatic) to every household in the state. Meanwhile, one of the GOP contenders said he wanted to drive around in his truck and pick up illegals who commit crimes to deport them. One of his rivals upped that by getting a bus and touring the state on his "Deportation bus tour."

Once Tuesday's primary is done, we should know who the candidates will be, probably Cagle and Abrams. The polls seem to indicate that it will be a close race, probably a slight GOP lean. But, if Abrams can pull the upset, Georgia will have made American history. For a state in the deep South to be the one to do that would be kinda cool.

-Jason "there is little else of note here this cycle... though there are a few congressional races that could get interesting if the predicted 'Blue Wave' comes to pass" Evans

Hmm. Can mods give themselves a timeout? The above hardly seems balanced and impartial. I can explain in detail if needed, but I think it should be self-evident.

[dudog84]

I recall hearing something this week that due to the district by district demographics, “vote Democrat” needs to have something like a 9 point nationwide margin for the Democrats to be likely to take the house. I don’t recall the source, so definitely don’t quote me on it.

It's all about the turnout. Whose base is energized the most? I don't think we'll know that until late October, there's just so much that can happen between now and then. And even then, early voting changes that dynamic nowadays. Also, will youngsters finally show up? I have my doubts.

As for polls, I don't even pay attention anymore. Even though I took grad-level statistics, it was second only to P-chem in numbing my mind.

[Troublemaker]

Hmm. Can mods give themselves a timeout? The above hardly seems balanced and impartial. I can explain in detail if needed, but I think it should be self-evident.

I'm okay with Jason's post, as I don't see that it violates the ground rules he laid out below from a previous post:


After a lengthy discussion, the moderation team has decided that we will allow this thread to exist for now. However, as all of you should know there will be no partisan sniping allowed. And there can be no discussion of the merits of particular public policy issues. Keep it civil and analytical, not passionate, and we should be fine.

Neals, you mention Jason's post not being "balanced and impartial," and I would say there are built-in limitations to just how "balanced and impartial" we can get with this thread. If, for example, people are going to be writing profiles on the candidates in their respective states as Jason did, I think it should be understood that Ds will be more familiar with D candidates, and Rs will be more familiar with R candidates. So I'm not sure we should expect Jason to profile the Rs in the Georgia Governor's race in as much detail as he lovingly profiled the D. Informing us about the D candidate is enough*, and if we want to find out more about the Rs, we can do that with searches.

* My previous knowledge about the GA Governor's race was 0, and now it's more than 0.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Hmm. Can mods give themselves a timeout? The above hardly seems balanced and impartial. I can explain in detail if needed, but I think it should be self-evident.

The phrase "the first ______ _______" seems pretty straightforward and easy to check for veracity and bias.

Unless I am missing something.

[OldPhiKap]

We have a fascinating race that is likely to attract a ton of national attention here in Georgia... especially when you consider it has zero impact on the national balance of power in congress.

It is the race for Governor. Georgia has increasingly been turning purple from being reliably red in recent years, thanks to increasing population in the cities and more diversity in the population. It is estimated that Georgia has gone from being 56% white, non-Hispanic to just over 51% white, non-Hispanic since 2010. Donald Trump won Georgia with just 51.1% of the vote in 2016, the lowest total for any GOP candidate since Bob Dole in 1996.

So, the upshot of all this is that Democrats think they might have a real shot at winning the governor's race. There will not be any senator seats up in 2018, so the Governor's race is the big one and turnout will likely be sorta low as a result.

But, why should the Georgia governor race attract more attention than any number of other governor or senate races nationwide? It is because there is a decent chance Georgia will do something never done before in Us history. Georgia may elect the first female African-American governor ever.

Her name is Stacey Abrams and she was the minority leader of the Ga House for many years. She has a pretty compelling personal story, coming from a poor family in Mississippi. Her family moved to Atlanta and she became the first ever black valedictorian at her high school. She graduated magna cum laude from Spellman and then went to Yale where she got her JD. She really connects with people when she talks about growing up poor and how hard her family worked to achieve success. Her sister was a US Attorney and is now a Federal Judge. Her brother, who she says was brilliant growing up, has been a drug addict and a criminal for many years. I've heard her speak and when she talks about the struggles of her family and their ups and downs, it really is compelling.

Anyway, Abrams faces off against Stacey Evans in the Democratic primary this week. Abrams is widely expected to win because she has really been embraced by progressives (Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker are all backing her) and the statewide party is largely on her side. By comparison, Evans really has no national Democratic backing and her most prominent local endorsement is former governor Roy Barnes. Abrams has really endorsed progressive policies, talking up universal healthcare. Many say she is trying to win without getting any white male votes. That will work just fine in the Democratic primary, but can it work in the general election? Most of the polls shows Abrams with about a 20 point lead on Evans, though around 25-30% of the electorate remains undecided. Those undecided voters would have to really break HARD for Evans to make it a close race.

Abrams will likely face off against Georgia's Lt. Governor Casey Cagel. He's consistently polling in the mid-30s in a crowded GOP field of 5 candidates, 4 of whom reach double-digits. Still, Cagel is likely to win. The GOP race has really focused on being anti-immigrant and pro-guns. One GOP contender appeared in a TV ad where he was cleaning a gun while sternly talking to a boy who wanted to take his daughter out on a date. Another candidate said he wanted to give away free bump stocks (devices that make semi-automatic rifles fully automatic) to every household in the state. Meanwhile, one of the GOP contenders said he wanted to drive around in his truck and pick up illegals who commit crimes to deport them. One of his rivals upped that by getting a bus and touring the state on his "Deportation bus tour."

Once Tuesday's primary is done, we should know who the candidates will be, probably Cagle and Abrams. The polls seem to indicate that it will be a close race, probably a slight GOP lean. But, if Abrams can pull the upset, Georgia will have made American history. For a state in the deep South to be the one to do that would be kinda cool.

-Jason "there is little else of note here this cycle... though there are a few congressional races that could get interesting if the predicted 'Blue Wave' comes to pass" Evans

Whoever wins between Abrams and Evans will have the advantage of not having to wage and pay for a runoff fight. The Republican candidate (I am guessing either Cagle or Kemp) will not.

Evans has a really interesting story as well. She grew up very poor in or around Pooler (outside Savannah), and was the first of her family to go to college. She ultimately got a JD from UGA.

[dudog84]

Whoever wins between Abrams and Evans will have the advantage of not having to wage and pay for a runoff fight. The Republican candidate (I am guessing either Cagle or Kemp) will not.

Evans has a really interesting story as well. She grew up very poor in or around Pooler (outside Savannah), and was the first of her family to go to college. She ultimately got a JD from UGA.

Now there's the problem...all the candidates are lawyers. Or is that too biased a statement? :rolleyes:

[dudog84]

You know, I've read Jason's post several times now. I just don't get it. I see several factual statements. The only editorializing is by saying the story of one of the candidates is "compelling". By the complainer's own use of bold type, it appears their problem is with the "first female African-American governor ever". SMH. Maybe this thread won't survive, which would be a shame.

[Troublemaker]

The phrase "the first ______ _______" seems pretty straightforward and easy to check for veracity and bias.

Unless I am missing something.


You know, I've read Jason's post several times now. I just don't get it. I see several factual statements. The only editorializing is by saying the story of one of the candidates is "compelling". By the complainer's own use of bold type, it appears their problem is with the "first female African-American governor ever". SMH. Maybe this thread won't survive, which would be a shame.

The bolding of "the first..." came from Jason's post, not Neals'.

[dudog84]

The bolding of "the first..." came from Jason's post, not Neals'.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't scroll up far enough when re-reading. My other point about editorializing still stands.

Thanks for pointing out my error, apologies to neals.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Maybe this thread won't survive, which would be a shame.

Evidence of the further polarization of our country if we can't make it work here. As I say, this was one of my last places of civil discourse.

[OldPhiKap]

FWIW, the 2016 thread showed me that the less picking of other posters' threads for bias, the better.

I don't see anything wrong with Jason's post. If I did, however, I would keep it to myself and just stay on topic to avoid spinning off into sniping.

$.02

[Troublemaker]

My other point about editorializing still stands.

Yes, Neals will hopefully explain, as I'm not certain I'm on the right track either as to what Neals was thinking was unbalanced in my post above. I'm perfectly fine with Jason's post.

IF I wanted to pick nits, I would point out that all the R candidates would probably bristle at Jason describing them as "anti immigrant." They would probably say something like, "Hey, I'm pro legal immigration and anti illegal immigration, buddy." A standard R talking point. (Note: it would surprise me if any of the Georgia Rs unnecessarily campaigned on lowering legal immigration levels in a state race in a purple state.)

But the problem with picking that nit is that all political sides have their own vocabulary/buzzwords and framing of issues. If we were on a D message board or facebook group, I would get shouted down for making the legal/illegal distinction and called disingenuous for making it. (And some would ding me for using "illegal immigrant" instead of "undocumented worker.") On an R message board or facebook group, that distinction is just assumed.

For this thread to work, we all have to both:
(1) Follow the ground rules that Jason laid out in good faith, AND
(2) Have some tolerance when others don't use the exact phrasing that one is used to seeing. If someone wrote a post in good faith and is trying to inform (which is the explicit purpose of the thread), then all should be good.

[Channing]

We have a fascinating race that is likely to attract a ton of national attention here in Georgia... especially when you consider it has zero impact on the national balance of power in congress.

It is the race for Governor. Georgia has increasingly been turning purple from being reliably red in recent years, thanks to increasing population in the cities and more diversity in the population. It is estimated that Georgia has gone from being 56% white, non-Hispanic to just over 51% white, non-Hispanic since 2010. Donald Trump won Georgia with just 51.1% of the vote in 2016, the lowest total for any GOP candidate since Bob Dole in 1996.

So, the upshot of all this is that Democrats think they might have a real shot at winning the governor's race. There will not be any senator seats up in 2018, so the Governor's race is the big one and turnout will likely be sorta low as a result.

But, why should the Georgia governor race attract more attention than any number of other governor or senate races nationwide? It is because there is a decent chance Georgia will do something never done before in Us history. Georgia may elect the first female African-American governor ever.

Her name is Stacey Abrams and she was the minority leader of the Ga House for many years. She has a pretty compelling personal story, coming from a poor family in Mississippi. Her family moved to Atlanta and she became the first ever black valedictorian at her high school. She graduated magna cum laude from Spellman and then went to Yale where she got her JD. She really connects with people when she talks about growing up poor and how hard her family worked to achieve success. Her sister was a US Attorney and is now a Federal Judge. Her brother, who she says was brilliant growing up, has been a drug addict and a criminal for many years. I've heard her speak and when she talks about the struggles of her family and their ups and downs, it really is compelling.

Anyway, Abrams faces off against Stacey Evans in the Democratic primary this week. Abrams is widely expected to win because she has really been embraced by progressives (Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker are all backing her) and the statewide party is largely on her side. By comparison, Evans really has no national Democratic backing and her most prominent local endorsement is former governor Roy Barnes. Abrams has really endorsed progressive policies, talking up universal healthcare. Many say she is trying to win without getting any white male votes. That will work just fine in the Democratic primary, but can it work in the general election? Most of the polls shows Abrams with about a 20 point lead on Evans, though around 25-30% of the electorate remains undecided. Those undecided voters would have to really break HARD for Evans to make it a close race.

Abrams will likely face off against Georgia's Lt. Governor Casey Cagel. He's consistently polling in the mid-30s in a crowded GOP field of 5 candidates, 4 of whom reach double-digits. Still, Cagel is likely to win. The GOP race has really focused on being anti-immigrant and pro-guns. One GOP contender appeared in a TV ad where he was cleaning a gun while sternly talking to a boy who wanted to take his daughter out on a date. Another candidate said he wanted to give away free bump stocks (devices that make semi-automatic rifles fully automatic) to every household in the state. Meanwhile, one of the GOP contenders said he wanted to drive around in his truck and pick up illegals who commit crimes to deport them. One of his rivals upped that by getting a bus and touring the state on his "Deportation bus tour."

Once Tuesday's primary is done, we should know who the candidates will be, probably Cagle and Abrams. The polls seem to indicate that it will be a close race, probably a slight GOP lean. But, if Abrams can pull the upset, Georgia will have made American history. For a state in the deep South to be the one to do that would be kinda cool.

-Jason "there is little else of note here this cycle... though there are a few congressional races that could get interesting if the predicted 'Blue Wave' comes to pass" Evans

As a resident of the state, the primary season has been fascinating. Both R and D appear to be running a populist campaign and don't appear interested in focusing on current governor Nathan Deal's legacy of economic development. Casey Cagle memorably killed a tax subsidy for Delta over their withdrawal of preferred rates for NRA members. As noted, Stacey Abrams is a progressive with backing from Sanders / Harris / Booker.

Georgia has positioned itself incredibly well for ongoing economic development and is poised to be a finalist for Amazon's HQ2. It will be interesting to see whether the winner (from either side) continues such pursuit. It could easily be sunk by the Rs (each candidate has, I believed, pledged to sign a RFRA bill (other than perhaps Clay Tippins) which would presumably rankle the Bezos) or Ds (see e.g. the current situation brewing between Amazon and Seattle over taxes for affordable housing).

Another position in Georgia that will be fascinating to watch is public service commission. This is not a very well known position but is immensely important as the PSC regulates Georgia Power which essentially sets power rates for everyone in the state. The PSC has long been viewed as in GP's pocket. With the publicity around Plant Vogtle from the turn of the year, there are a few Ds running pledging to break that grip. It will be very difficult to make the PSC go blue, even with just one seat (of 5), but if it will ever happen this is the year (given the massive amount of press the PSC has had with Vogtle).

[camion]

Yes, Neals will hopefully explain, as I'm not certain I'm on the right track either as to what Neals was thinking was unbalanced in my post above. I'm perfectly fine with Jason's post.

IF I wanted to pick nits, I would point out that all the R candidates would probably bristle at Jason describing them as "anti immigrant." They would probably say something like, "Hey, I'm pro legal immigration and anti illegal immigration, buddy." A standard R talking point. (Note: it would surprise me if any of the Georgia Rs unnecessarily campaigned on lowering legal immigration levels in a state race in a purple state.)

But the problem with picking that nit is that all political sides have their own vocabulary/buzzwords and framing of issues. If we were on a D message board or facebook group, I would get shouted down for making the legal/illegal distinction and called disingenuous for making it. (And some would ding me for using "illegal immigrant" instead of "undocumented worker.") On an R message board or facebook group, that distinction is just assumed.

For this thread to work, we all have to both:
(1) Follow the ground rules that Jason laid out in good faith, AND
(2) Have some tolerance when others don't use the exact phrasing that one is used to seeing. If someone wrote a post in good faith and is trying to inform (which is the explicit purpose of the thread), then all should be good.


Bandit to Frog (1977): "When you tell somebody somethin', it depends on what part of the country you're standin' in... as to just how dumb you are."

[JasonEvans]

Yes, Neals will hopefully explain, as I'm not certain I'm on the right track either as to what Neals was thinking was unbalanced in my post above. I'm perfectly fine with Jason's post.

IF I wanted to pick nits, I would point out that all the R candidates would probably bristle at Jason describing them as "anti immigrant." They would probably say something like, "Hey, I'm pro legal immigration and anti illegal immigration, buddy." A standard R talking point. (Note: it would surprise me if any of the Georgia Rs unnecessarily campaigned on lowering legal immigration levels in a state race in a purple state.)

But the problem with picking that nit is that all political sides have their own vocabulary/buzzwords and framing of issues. If we were on a D message board or facebook group, I would get shouted down for making the legal/illegal distinction and called disingenuous for making it. (And some would ding me for using "illegal immigrant" instead of "undocumented worker.") On an R message board or facebook group, that distinction is just assumed.

For this thread to work, we all have to both:
(1) Follow the ground rules that Jason laid out in good faith, AND
(2) Have some tolerance when others don't use the exact phrasing that one is used to seeing. If someone wrote a post in good faith and is trying to inform (which is the explicit purpose of the thread), then all should be good.

Yikes... In retrospect I probably should have said "pro gun rights" and "anti-illegal immigration." I chose shorthands that could seem partisan and I am sorry if that offended some. Like many of the rest of you, I am at a loss to understand what would be out of bounds by the rest of the post. For what it is worth, describing a candidate's speaking style and delivery as compelling is perfectly fine. Whether you agreed with their policies or not, you would of course be able to describe Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Barak Obama as compelling speakers. You can say George W has a folksy way of connecting with people no matter what you think about his presidency. You can say that Donald Trump knows how to rile up a crowd and get them cheering in a way that Hillary never really did and you would not be making a political statement, IMO. You'd be posting observations that, to me, would be perfectly fine in this thread.

Also, as others have noted, I bolded the part about the first black, female governor because that is a big deal. It has nothing to do with party or partisanship. As I noted, that is why the Georgia race is getting more attention than many other governor races that could also be close this fall. If there was a black Republican candidate who had a legit shot at winning a governorship this fall, that too would be a big deal and worth noting in a post in this thread.

Anyway, though I am the lead moderator on this thread, other mods will be checking it and they will let me know if I cross the line. As I said, I am sorry for the shorthands I posted about gun and immigration policy. I am going to give myself a short timeout from this thread (I'll read, but won't post for at least 8 hours) as a penalty.

-Jason "sigh... I feel like we are off to a bad start and I blame myself..." Evans

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Hmm. Can mods give themselves a timeout? The above hardly seems balanced and impartial. I can explain in detail if needed, but I think it should be self-evident.

Like others, I found Jason's post to be pretty down the middle, particularly since I think that he was emphasizing the points that the candidates themselves are emphasizing in their campaigns. I should probably just let Neal's speak for him/herself, but my assumption is that his/her issue is with Jason's comment "But, if Abrams can pull the upset, Georgia will have made American history. For a state in the deep South to be the one to do that would be kinda cool." He/she likely sees that as an endorsement of Abrams, which I believe is against the ground rules that were set up.

However, the optimist in me assumes that this is more of a universal statement by Jason, and if the African-American female candidate happened to be on the other side of the aisle, like Diamond and Silk (I recently read an article about them in the NY Times so they are the first ones to come to mind), Jason would have felt the same way. I think/hope we should all agree that a state with a well-known history of racism electing a minority candidate on their merits is a positive step forward for America, regardless of their stances. If we can't agree on that point, then please shut this thread down immediately.

[Neals384]

Well, the long write up on Abrams reads like a campaign mailer. The paragraph on the Rs reads like a script for a negative campaign ad. I think it goes over the top in its one-sidedness.

[OldPhiKap]

each candidate has, I believed, pledged to sign a RFRA bill (other than perhaps Clay Tippins)

Tippins has refused to sign the pledge, I believe.

And good call on the PSC race. And also agree, odds are that it (and most other state offices downballot of governor) remain Republican.


---

I respect Neal's take, but from where I sit FWIW Jason was just setting out the facts. The Georgia Republican candidates for governor are all strong Second Amendment supporters who oppose most if not all so-called "gun control" legislation. Many of them are running very openly against illegal immigration. Those are strong selling points to much of their base here, and I don't think it is editorializing to point that out. While Jason's verbiage might give a hint as to his leanings on the subjects, it seems pretty far from arguing substantive policy which is the verboten third rail.

Again, though, reasonable minds can differ.

[Udaman]

JE - thought your post was fine.

For me, the REAL question for these mid-terms is will there be a change of party leadership in either the House or Senate. If that doesn't happen, then things stay just as they are (for the most part). If it does, then things really change. If the Dems take the House, then they get the control all of the committees. They could choose to investigate Trump more. They could, at least I think they could, demand (for example) that Trump release his taxes. I guess they could subpoena them at the very least.

So, to me, all that matters here is whether or not that happens. Not from a personal stand point (though obviously I have a way that I would like for things to turn out), but just from an overall political structure and environment.

And that then turns to - will it happen?

I think many of you will remember that 2 years ago I was the one consistently saying that Trump had a legitimate shot to win, and then (by September), saying that he was going to win. I based this on the enthusiasm at his rallies and then on some pretty big missteps by Hillary. If you had asked me back in March of 2018, I would have said the Dems win the House in enormous fashion. 70 plus seats switching over. I would have based that on Trump's approval ratings, and on some of the special elections (Alabama Senate race, Virginia primaries last November, New Hampshire results last November, special elections, etc). Now? I'm not nearly so sure. Trump's approval ratings, while still pretty historically low at this point for a first term President, have ticked up. The economy (by most measures) is doing well. A few things that were dinging him months ago (North Korea, China trade war) now don't seem nearly as bleak. And the one thing we learned from his President race is that there is a solid group that supports him.

This will come down to turnout. I still predict the Dems take the House, but it will be close. I predict this for two reasons, really. One - because historically when one party controls the Presidency and both chambers of Congress, in the mid-term elections that party pretty much always loses (see 2010). And two, throughout the last 30 years, the party that has controlled the Presidency has lost the House in the mid-term elections every single time except one (that being in 2002, a year after 9/11 when things were in no way normal, and Bush Jr had insanely high approval ratings). These changes don't really occur because one group is really dissatisfied, but rather because of enthusiasm. The party not in control is fired up. They get people to show up. The party in charge is less enthused and people stay at home. Of course Trump knows this (as does the GOP) and they are already saying how important it is for people to show up and vote for the Republicans in November...but every party says that every time, and it almost never matters. We will see if it does. I think also think the gerrymandering decision in Pennsylvania helps their cause greatly, as they are almost certain to pick up 3 seats just from that change alone. But the special elections (and last November) have shown that - for now - the Democrat voters are fired up about voting. If they come out in large numbers, then the House is all but a slam dunk.

I don't think the Dems take the Senate. In fact, they could lose seats here. This is a brutal year for the Dems if you look at states where Trump won last time. That doesn't mean everything (Alabama for instance), but it makes the road much tougher. And the Florida Senate race is going to be crazy competitive. In fact, I then the Republicans take that seat. The Dems could take Nevada and Arizona...but then Missouri and North Dakota will be tough to maintain. Another wildcard situation is McCain in Arizona. From all accounts it sounds like his prognosis is really grim. If he were to die before the end of May, then his seat would be open as well this November. If it's June 1 or later, then that special election would not happen until 2019.

It's really odd for me personally. I don't remember being all that excited about mid-term races in the past. This may actually prove my point. I supported Obama, and he was in office for 8 years, so for the mid-terms I was kind of "blah, does it really matter?" I was also in Massachusetts during that time and it's pretty blue as well. I'm sure there were plenty of voters in "red" states and that were Republicans, where it really did matter, and they were amped to get to the polls and vote, which is part of the reason why the GOP gained seats in the House pretty much every single election from 2008 on. This time, I'm pretty excited...as I would guess a lot of Democrats are. The question, of course, will be if the enthusiasm is matched. Turnout, as usual, will determine everything.

[Nick]

Right now there are two very different narratives playing in the minds of partisan voters. On the left, you have the narrative about Russian collusion, Trump's corruption, etc. On the right, you have the narrative that the Russian collusion narrative is a smokescreen put out by corrupt elements from the justice department and the intelligence community. I don't see a whole lot of middle ground between the two narratives, and I suspect one side or the other will have been disappointed by election day, which would have a significant impact on the election if it happens.

I don't know which side that will be (heck, maybe it will be both sides), so I'm not sure what to think about the midterms just yet.

[rthomas]

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/21/612984706/don-blankenship-to-mount-third-party-senate-bid-after-losing-w-va-gop-primary

After losing his bid for U.S. Senate in the West Virginia GOP primary, Don Blankenship is planning to mount a third-party challenge. Sour grapes law or not.

[CameronBornAndBred]

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/21/612984706/don-blankenship-to-mount-third-party-senate-bid-after-losing-w-va-gop-primary

After losing his bid for U.S. Senate in the West Virginia GOP primary, Don Blankenship is planning to mount a third-party challenge. Sour grapes law or not.

It looks like that law is pretty well set in stone and he won't be on the ballot, but I'd guess that he could still mount in a write-in campaign. Either way, it only hurts one party, and it isn't the Democrats.
Gotta wonder what drives that kind of thinking. No way to win, and ultimately you hurt those you were looking to initially represent.

[PackMan97]

I'll be straight up honest, between the 2016 elections and the Carolina scandal threads, I'm lucky to still be posting on DBR. This will be my first and last post on the thread.

My only parting comment, is don't vote for any Carolina grads!

[Troublemaker]

-Jason "sigh... I feel like we are off to a bad start and I blame myself..." Evans

Nah, we're fine and you were fine, imo.

Getting back to analysis, though:


So I will start and we can see what happens.

I live in WV and, although highly unusual, it has become a battleground state for the midterms for control of the Senate. Manchin (D) goes against our current Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R). Republicans think Manchin is vulnerable. However, the progressive Democrat favored by Bernie, while losing to Manchin in the primary a couple weeks ago by 60K votes, matched Morrisey in total votes received across WV.

Man, I just don't see Manchin being vulnerable. He will win and probably comfortably. The key was that all the R candidates were horrible, including the primary winner Morrissey, who used to lobby for Big Pharma and whose wife still lobbies for them. After coal, the biggest issue in WV is probably opiate addiction. As AG, he had a hilarious conflict of interest where he had to pursue a lawsuit against companies he and his wife lobbied for (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/questions-raised-about-west-virginia-attorney-generals-past-with-drug-companies/), and the Ds will claim that he settled for a pittance. Negative ads attacking Morrissey for his ties to Big Pharma and for being a carpetbagger compared to homegrown Manchin should probably do the trick.


Right now there are two very different narratives playing in the minds of partisan voters. On the left, you have the narrative about Russian collusion, Trump's corruption, etc. On the right, you have the narrative that the Russian collusion narrative is a smokescreen put out by corrupt elements from the justice department and the intelligence community. I don't see a whole lot of middle ground between the two narratives, and I suspect one side or the other will have been disappointed by election day, which would have a significant impact on the election if it happens.

I don't know which side that will be (heck, maybe it will be both sides), so I'm not sure what to think about the midterms just yet.

I agree that enthusiasm/turnout could potentially be impacted by this. Both D and R parties are aware of this, though, so no matter what unfolds, both parties will claim righteousness/victory and/or try to produce outrage at the other party, whichever is appropriate at the time to create turnout.

[dudog84]

I'll be straight up honest, between the 2016 elections and the Carolina scandal threads, I'm lucky to still be posting on DBR. This will be my first and last post on the thread.

My only parting comment, is don't vote for any Carolina grads!

Now you're just trolling for sporks! :D

[rthomas]

Man, I just don't see Manchin being vulnerable. He will win and probably comfortably. The key was that all the R candidates were horrible, including the primary winner Morrissey, who used to lobby for Big Pharma and whose wife still lobbies for them. After coal, the biggest issue in WV is probably opiate addiction. As AG, he had a hilarious conflict of interest where he had to pursue a lawsuit against companies he and his wife lobbied for (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/questions-raised-about-west-virginia-attorney-generals-past-with-drug-companies/), and the Ds will claim that he settled for a pittance. Negative ads attacking Morrissey for his ties to Big Pharma and for being a carpetbagger compared to homegrown Manchin should probably do the trick.



I think you are likely correct. But Manchin has his own problems with Pharma. Radio ads here are linking him to his daughter (CEO of Mylan) whose company greatly inflated Epipen prices and the ads are saying the Pharma money directly went to Manchin's wife. I'm not sure that will stick.

[Bob Green]

http://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/west-virginia-don-blankenship-third-party-senate-run/index.html

Article on West Virginia and Don Blankenship running as a third party candidate.

[gus]

http://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/west-virginia-don-blankenship-third-party-senate-run/index.html

Article on West Virginia and Don Blankenship running as a third party candidate.

As an aside, here's WVa's description of the law (https://sos.wv.gov/elections/forms/Documents/Running%20for%20Office/2018%20RFO%20FINAL%20DRAFT.pdf), which they refer to as a "sour grapes" law. Wouldn't "sour grapes" be Blankenship saying something like "I had no real interest in serving in the Senate -- nothing gets done there. I was just running to call attention to that."

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I think that one of my big concerns going into this election is questions about the legitimacy of outcomes. I think both sides would agree that this is an issue, though it is viewed very differently by each side. Trying to describe each side's thoughts on this is a third rail that I do not want to touch. I truly fear a scenario that will make Gore vs. Bush look like a friendly disagreement - we live in much, much more polarized times now and unfortunately there is a general lack of trust in both directions.

[dudog84]

http://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/west-virginia-don-blankenship-third-party-senate-run/index.html

Article on West Virginia and Don Blankenship running as a third party candidate.

I love it. Blankenship says "although the establishment will likely begin their efforts against us by mounting a legal challenge to my candidacy, we are confident that -- if challenged -- our legal position will prevail, absent a politically motivated decision by the courts."

It's the new way to run a campaign. Nobody wins or loses on merits anymore. Is this the adult equivalent of participation trophies?

[dudog84]

I think that one of my big concerns going into this election is questions about the legitimacy of outcomes. I think both sides would agree that this is an issue, though it is viewed very differently by each side. Trying to describe each side's thoughts on this is a third rail that I do not want to touch. I truly fear a scenario that will make Gore vs. Bush look like a friendly disagreement - we live in much, much more polarized times now and unfortunately there is a general lack of trust in both directions.

What has happened in 18 short years? I honestly don't know, and would like opinions, but I'm afraid that would quickly go off the rails. Of course, when you read what was written and said about Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, et. al. in their times, maybe we've always been like this. Though I sure don't remember it being like this in my younger years.

[rasputin]

I love it. Blankenship says "although the establishment will likely begin their efforts against us by mounting a legal challenge to my candidacy, we are confident that -- if challenged -- our legal position will prevail, absent a politically motivated decision by the courts."

It's the new way to run a campaign. Nobody wins or loses on merits anymore. Is this the adult equivalent of participation trophies?

There is nothing "adult" about that mindset.

[luvdahops]

What has happened in 18 short years? I honestly don't know, and would like opinions, but I'm afraid that would quickly go off the rails. Of course, when you read what was written and said about Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, et. al. in their times, maybe we've always been like this. Though I sure don't remember it being like this in my younger years.

I think a lot of it has to do with the proliferation of political media, the 24 hours new cycle, the blurring of lines between reporting and entertainment, and the increasing tendency by folks across the political spectrum to only frequent political media sources that align with their views. I consider myself a moderate who at least tries to understand both sides of given issues and stories. But even that has grown more challenging.

[Udaman]

It’s really amazing how the exchange of information has developed over the past 30 years. Back at Duke in the 80s I remember watching CNN Headline News. That was pretty much the only 24 hour news station and it was the same thing every 30 minutes. A few minutes on top stories. A few minutes on sports. A minute on the weather. A minute in entertainment and then a few opinion stories. Rinse and repeat. Other than that it was the 6 pm and 10 pm local news and then 6:30 for the national news and 10:30 for Nightline. There was no internet. No immediate access to information. You had the local paper and USA Today and maybe the New York Times.

Now it’s all news all the time. And it’s changed everything. I remember I did debate in high school and my sophomore year the subject in Lincoln Douglass was “Resolved: That the influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process.” How different would that debate be today???

[Indoor66]

I remember I did debate in high school and my sophomore year the subject in Lincoln Douglass was “Resolved: That the influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process.” How different would that debate be today???

Probably not much different?

[chris13]

It’s really amazing how the exchange of information has developed over the past 30 years. Back at Duke in the 80s I remember watching CNN Headline News. That was pretty much the only 24 hour news station and it was the same thing every 30 minutes. A few minutes on top stories. A few minutes on sports. A minute on the weather. A minute in entertainment and then a few opinion stories. Rinse and repeat. Other than that it was the 6 pm and 10 pm local news and then 6:30 for the national news and 10:30 for Nightline. There was no internet. No immediate access to information. You had the local paper and USA Today and maybe the New York Times.

Now it’s all news all the time. And it’s changed everything. I remember I did debate in high school and my sophomore year the subject in Lincoln Douglass was “Resolved: That the influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process.” How different would that debate be today???

Also an L-D debate alum.

This is from Peter King's farewell MMQB column published today comparing how a story he broke in 1996 would be handled today.

Full link: https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/05/21/peter-king-final-monday-morning-quarterback-column

Thank you, changing business. (I think.) The morphing of the business into a 24/7 operation makes us better, even though it’s a total pain in the rear-end in the offseason. This is how much the business has changed: In 1996, on a Wednesday night, Brett Favre told me, and only me, the story of why he was headed into rehab the next day in Kansas. It was ugly and involved a seizure on an operating table and scarfing down more than a dozen pills at the ESPYs, and so much regret and sadness. Problem was, I had no outlet for the story of the year. No website. No TV. No radio show. So I had to wait. My story would not be out for seven full days, until the next issue of the magazine hit the stands the following Wednesday, and then in mailboxes Thursday and Friday. Amazing thing is, it held. The story hit like a firecracker, particularly in Wisconsin, with the ugly details of Favre’s addiction.

Think what would have happened 20 years later. I’d have written the story live for The MMQB, then taken another angle and written for SI, and been on 10 or 15 talk shows, and maybe the TV highlight shows and news shows … all in the first 12 to 24 hours of the story. In 1996 it held for seven days. I often complain about what’s happened in our business, because we have too much news hole to fill constantly, even in 11 weeks of dead time from the draft to the opening of camps. But we’ve gone from the Stone Age to the iPhone Age in less than 20 years. He/she who adapts wins.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Now you're just trolling for sporks! :D

They were still earned. ;)

[RPS]

What has happened in 18 short years? I honestly don't know, and would like opinions, but I'm afraid that would quickly go off the rails. Of course, when you read what was written and said about Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, et. al. in their times, maybe we've always been like this. Though I sure don't remember it being like this in my younger years.There is some data on this. Per Pew (http://www.people-press.org/2017/12/14/public-trust-in-government-1958-2017/), only 18 percent of Americans trust the government all or most of the time today, down from 65 percent in 1968 (the height of the Vietnam War!) and 44 percent 18 years ago. Meanwhile, also per Pew (http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/), roughly half of Democrats and Republicans alike say the other party makes them "afraid."

[Troublemaker]

I think that one of my big concerns going into this election is questions about the legitimacy of outcomes. I think both sides would agree that this is an issue, though it is viewed very differently by each side. Trying to describe each side's thoughts on this is a third rail that I do not want to touch. I truly fear a scenario that will make Gore vs. Bush look like a friendly disagreement - we live in much, much more polarized times now and unfortunately there is a general lack of trust in both directions.

I agree that from now on, election losers and their backers will tend to think/claim that they were cheated out of a win. It'll become standard, which is sort of sad. I also agree that we will continue to become more polarized.

At the same time, I can't see any large-scale violence breaking out until many, many years from now, and especially not for a Midterm election. Even for a Presidential cycle, unless an assassination takes place, the Republic will just continue to peter on.

[dudog84]

There is some data on this. Per Pew (http://www.people-press.org/2017/12/14/public-trust-in-government-1958-2017/), only 18 percent of Americans trust the government all or most of the time today, down from 65 percent in 1968 (the height of the Vietnam War!) and 44 percent 18 years ago. Meanwhile, also per Pew (http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/), roughly half of Democrats and Republicans alike say the other party makes them "afraid."

Wow, thanks for the great data. An example of one of the things I love about this site. Eye-opening, and a bit scary in and of itself. A bit interesting that over 20% of the population have never trusted the government, even back in the halcyon days of the 1950s.

Mods, and US especially, please keep this thread open.

[Jeffrey]

I consider myself a moderate who at least tries to understand both sides of given issues and stories. But even that has grown more challenging.

I also consider myself a moderate. Where do you go for true facts, not opinions? IMO, most people now desire to hear their opinions stated as facts. Is that a recipe for ignorance?

[RPS]

I also consider myself a moderate. Where do you go for true facts, not opinions? IMO, most people now desire to hear their opinions stated as facts. Is that a recipe for ignorance?Yes.

I've written at length about it (here (https://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2017/10/13/im-joining-a-cult-said-nobody-ever/), for example), if you're interested.

[Jeffrey]

There is some data on this. Per Pew (http://www.people-press.org/2017/12/14/public-trust-in-government-1958-2017/), only 18 percent of Americans trust the government all or most of the time today, down from 65 percent in 1968 (the height of the Vietnam War!) and 44 percent 18 years ago. Meanwhile, also per Pew (http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/), roughly half of Democrats and Republicans alike say the other party makes them "afraid."

For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Do what they do just to be nothing more than something they invest in.

[Jeffrey]

Yes.

I've written at length about it (here (https://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2017/10/13/im-joining-a-cult-said-nobody-ever/), for example), if you're interested.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[RPS]

For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Do what they do just to be nothing more than something they invest in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYajHZ4QUVM

You quoted Dylan in the video perfectly. Dylan's official lyrics (https://bobdylan.com/songs/its-alright-ma-im-only-bleeding/) are a bit different. I saw him again in concert last fall. "Blowin' in the Wind" was almost unrecognizable. So very impressive recall.

"For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be
Nothing more than something they invest in"

[Jeffrey]

Thanks, I learned more on the road than inside a building. In the same tune, did Dylan also address my question below?


IMO, most people now desire to hear their opinions stated as facts. Is that a recipe for ignorance?

From the fool's gold mouthpiece
The hollow horn plays wasted words
Proves to warn that he not busy being born
Is busy dying.

[dudog84]

I found this article interesting, thought it worthwhile due to several posts wondering how we got here. To me the money quote is "we need leaders...who can channel our frustration rather than exploit it". That is entirely non-partisan, both sides do plenty of exploiting.

http://time.com/5280446/baby-boomer-generation-america-steve-brill/

[RPS]

Thanks, I learned more on the road than inside a building. In the same tune, did Dylan also address my question below?

From the fool's gold mouthpiece
The hollow horn plays wasted words
Proves to warn that he not busy being born
Is busy dying.
Yes.

Sheldon Cooper has something to say about it too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK6oGi5g4QE

"Don't you think if I were wrong, I'd know it?"

[Jeffrey]

"Don't you think if I were wrong, I'd know it?"

You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know.

Shelly learned much more inside a building than on the road.

[RPS]

You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know.

Shelly learned much more inside a building than on the road.
To be fair, this sort of learning is a lot harder than we think.

For well more than five decades, the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman has been examining and explaining human attitudes and behavior. His disarmingly simple experiments and profoundly expert analysis have dramatically altered the way we see human reason. Philosophers and social scientists had assumed for centuries that humans are inherently rational. Kahneman’s powerful legacy (largely created with his late colleague Amos Tversky) comes in two parts. The first is that we are not nearly as rational as we tend to assume. Relatedly, we also aren’t as smart and skilled as we readily assume. We are routinely burdened by the “hubris hypothesis (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2011-10-24/bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-1-daniel-kahneman)” (for example, as an important study (https://www.isabelhealthcare.com/pdf/Diagnostic_Error-Is_Overconfidence_the_Problem_0408.pdf) found, physicians “who were ‘completely certain’ of the diagnosis ante-mortem were wrong 40 percent of the time”). Thus, as Martha Deevy, director of the Financial Security Division at Stanford’s Center on Longevity points out (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20160304-column.html), “investment fraud works best on highly educated men, who think they’re too smart to be scammed.”

The second part of Kahneman’s powerful legacy is more insidious and more vexing still. Kahneman’s great memoir of his life’s work, Thinking Fast and Slow (https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555), opens with the following. “The premise of this book is that it is easier to recognize other people’s mistakes than your own.” Or, in the careful prose of scientific research (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jlnietfe/Metacog_Articles_files/West,%20Meserve,%20%26%20Stanovich%20%282012%29.pd f), “people who were aware of their own biases were not better able to overcome them.” Kahneman admits (https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555) as much even for himself. “My intuitive thinking is just as prone to overconfidence, extreme predictions, and the planning fallacy as it was before I made a study of these issues.” We might grudgingly concede that we hold views that are wrong. The problem is in providing current examples. Even worse still is the unfortunate and shocking reality (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167202286008) that the smarter and more self-aware we are the more vulnerable we are to these sorts of errors. Bias blindness impedes us all.

[Jeffrey]

To be fair, this sort of learning is a lot harder than we think.

For well more than five decades, the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman has been examining and explaining human attitudes and behavior. His disarmingly simple experiments and profoundly expert analysis have dramatically altered the way we see human reason. Philosophers and social scientists had assumed for centuries that humans are inherently rational. Kahneman’s powerful legacy (largely created with his late colleague Amos Tversky) comes in two parts. The first is that we are not nearly as rational as we tend to assume. Relatedly, we also aren’t as smart and skilled as we readily assume. We are routinely burdened by the “hubris hypothesis (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2011-10-24/bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-1-daniel-kahneman)” (for example, as an important study (https://www.isabelhealthcare.com/pdf/Diagnostic_Error-Is_Overconfidence_the_Problem_0408.pdf) found, physicians “who were ‘completely certain’ of the diagnosis ante-mortem were wrong 40 percent of the time”). Thus, as Martha Deevy, director of the Financial Security Division at Stanford’s Center on Longevity points out (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20160304-column.html), “investment fraud works best on highly educated men, who think they’re too smart to be scammed.”

The second part of Kahneman’s powerful legacy is more insidious and more vexing still. Kahneman’s great memoir of his life’s work, Thinking Fast and Slow (https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555), opens with the following. “The premise of this book is that it is easier to recognize other people’s mistakes than your own.” Or, in the careful prose of scientific research (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jlnietfe/Metacog_Articles_files/West,%20Meserve,%20%26%20Stanovich%20%282012%29.pd f), “people who were aware of their own biases were not better able to overcome them.” Kahneman admits (https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555) as much even for himself. “My intuitive thinking is just as prone to overconfidence, extreme predictions, and the planning fallacy as it was before I made a study of these issues.” We might grudgingly concede that we hold views that are wrong. The problem is in providing current examples. Even worse still is the unfortunate and shocking reality (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167202286008) that the smarter and more self-aware we are the more vulnerable we are to these sorts of errors. Bias blindness impedes us all.

Excellent post!

Should we start another thread? If so, would you mind starting it with your post above?

[RPS]

Excellent post!Thank you.


Should we start another thread? If so, would you mind starting it with your post above?I have no opinion either way. I'll follow the consensus....

[RPS]

Excellent post!
Robert Wright has an excellent new article at Wired on this very subject.

Sam Harris and the Myth of Perfectly Rational Thought (https://www.wired.com/story/sam-harris-and-the-myth-of-perfectly-rational-thought/)

[Bluedog]

To be fair, this sort of learning is a lot harder than we think.

For well more than five decades, the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman has been examining and explaining human attitudes and behavior. His disarmingly simple experiments and profoundly expert analysis have dramatically altered the way we see human reason. Philosophers and social scientists had assumed for centuries that humans are inherently rational. Kahneman’s powerful legacy (largely created with his late colleague Amos Tversky) comes in two parts. The first is that we are not nearly as rational as we tend to assume. Relatedly, we also aren’t as smart and skilled as we readily assume. We are routinely burdened by the “hubris hypothesis (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2011-10-24/bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-1-daniel-kahneman)” (for example, as an important study (https://www.isabelhealthcare.com/pdf/Diagnostic_Error-Is_Overconfidence_the_Problem_0408.pdf) found, physicians “who were ‘completely certain’ of the diagnosis ante-mortem were wrong 40 percent of the time”). Thus, as Martha Deevy, director of the Financial Security Division at Stanford’s Center on Longevity points out (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20160304-column.html), “investment fraud works best on highly educated men, who think they’re too smart to be scammed.”

The second part of Kahneman’s powerful legacy is more insidious and more vexing still. Kahneman’s great memoir of his life’s work, Thinking Fast and Slow (https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555), opens with the following. “The premise of this book is that it is easier to recognize other people’s mistakes than your own.” Or, in the careful prose of scientific research (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jlnietfe/Metacog_Articles_files/West,%20Meserve,%20%26%20Stanovich%20%282012%29.pd f), “people who were aware of their own biases were not better able to overcome them.” Kahneman admits (https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555) as much even for himself. “My intuitive thinking is just as prone to overconfidence, extreme predictions, and the planning fallacy as it was before I made a study of these issues.” We might grudgingly concede that we hold views that are wrong. The problem is in providing current examples. Even worse still is the unfortunate and shocking reality (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167202286008) that the smarter and more self-aware we are the more vulnerable we are to these sorts of errors. Bias blindness impedes us all.

And Duke professor Dan Ariely has a lot of interesting studies around similar topics (since he worked with/for Kahneman). Everybody should check out the book “Predictably Irrational” if you haven’t already. Really intriguing stuff.

[dudog84]

We have a fascinating race that is likely to attract a ton of national attention here in Georgia... especially when you consider it has zero impact on the national balance of power in congress.

It is the race for Governor. Georgia has increasingly been turning purple from being reliably red in recent years, thanks to increasing population in the cities and more diversity in the population. It is estimated that Georgia has gone from being 56% white, non-Hispanic to just over 51% white, non-Hispanic since 2010. Donald Trump won Georgia with just 51.1% of the vote in 2016, the lowest total for any GOP candidate since Bob Dole in 1996.

So, the upshot of all this is that Democrats think they might have a real shot at winning the governor's race. There will not be any senator seats up in 2018, so the Governor's race is the big one and turnout will likely be sorta low as a result.

But, why should the Georgia governor race attract more attention than any number of other governor or senate races nationwide? It is because there is a decent chance Georgia will do something never done before in Us history. Georgia may elect the first female African-American governor ever.

Her name is Stacey Abrams and she was the minority leader of the Ga House for many years. She has a pretty compelling personal story, coming from a poor family in Mississippi. Her family moved to Atlanta and she became the first ever black valedictorian at her high school. She graduated magna cum laude from Spellman and then went to Yale where she got her JD. She really connects with people when she talks about growing up poor and how hard her family worked to achieve success. Her sister was a US Attorney and is now a Federal Judge. Her brother, who she says was brilliant growing up, has been a drug addict and a criminal for many years. I've heard her speak and when she talks about the struggles of her family and their ups and downs, it really is compelling.

Anyway, Abrams faces off against Stacey Evans in the Democratic primary this week. Abrams is widely expected to win because she has really been embraced by progressives (Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker are all backing her) and the statewide party is largely on her side. By comparison, Evans really has no national Democratic backing and her most prominent local endorsement is former governor Roy Barnes. Abrams has really endorsed progressive policies, talking up universal healthcare. Many say she is trying to win without getting any white male votes. That will work just fine in the Democratic primary, but can it work in the general election? Most of the polls shows Abrams with about a 20 point lead on Evans, though around 25-30% of the electorate remains undecided. Those undecided voters would have to really break HARD for Evans to make it a close race.

Abrams will likely face off against Georgia's Lt. Governor Casey Cagel. He's consistently polling in the mid-30s in a crowded GOP field of 5 candidates, 4 of whom reach double-digits. Still, Cagel is likely to win. The GOP race has really focused on being anti-immigrant and pro-guns. One GOP contender appeared in a TV ad where he was cleaning a gun while sternly talking to a boy who wanted to take his daughter out on a date. Another candidate said he wanted to give away free bump stocks (devices that make semi-automatic rifles fully automatic) to every household in the state. Meanwhile, one of the GOP contenders said he wanted to drive around in his truck and pick up illegals who commit crimes to deport them. One of his rivals upped that by getting a bus and touring the state on his "Deportation bus tour."

Once Tuesday's primary is done, we should know who the candidates will be, probably Cagle and Abrams. The polls seem to indicate that it will be a close race, probably a slight GOP lean. But, if Abrams can pull the upset, Georgia will have made American history. For a state in the deep South to be the one to do that would be kinda cool.

-Jason "there is little else of note here this cycle... though there are a few congressional races that could get interesting if the predicted 'Blue Wave' comes to pass" Evans

Good call. Abrams won the D primary. From what I read, she is actually the first African-American woman to even be a major party nominee for governor. Hard to believe.

Cagle and Kemp will have a run-off in July for the Rs.

Edit: For the curious, Kemp was the one cleaning the gun.

[OldPhiKap]

Good call. Abrams won the D primary. From what I read, she is actually the first African-American woman to even be a major party nominee for governor. Hard to believe.

Cagle and Kemp will have a run-off in July for the Rs.

Edit: For the curious, Kemp was the one cleaning the gun.

There were about 550,000 votes cast in the Democratic primary for governor, and about 600,000 in the Republican. Closer than I would have thought.

John Barrow (D) could win Secretary of State; if any D is gonna win statewide this year my money would be on John.

[JasonEvans]

There were about 550,000 votes cast in the Democratic primary for governor, and about 600,000 in the Republican. Closer than I would have thought.

The GOP race was seen as more competitive (and it now heads to a runoff) but the Democratic race was the one grabbing headlines because of Abrams being a black woman. Abrams has campaigned on the notion of registering tens of thousands of new black voters and turning them out. I think it is not a great sign for Abrams that the Dems came up 50k short of the GOP... thought turnout will be higher for the November race.

[Udaman]

I was reading the Yahoo and AJC comments about Abrams (note to self: STOP READING THE COMMENTS...THEY JUST UPSET YOU), and many on the GOP side were arguing about turnout, saying that there were more Republicans than Democrats who turned out, and that basically that meant Abrams had no chance. But then I read that four years ago the Republicans outnumbered Democtrats by 300,000 in the primary voting and this year it was 50,000. Anyone know if that's true? Of course a lot can determine that. If the Republican (or Dem) ran unopposed, for instance.

In this case, I'm not sure what the numbers really mean. Clearly the Republicans had a lot of choices, and there's a runoff, and you have the Trump people and the more centrist people, so that could push turnout.

Guess none of it really matters until November.

It's stunning to me that this is the first African-American female ever nominated for a governor position in any state. I would have guessed that it would have happened several times, and that there would have been a few governors already. Makes me wish I still lived in Georgia....though maybe not - I can imagine the number of TV ads from now until November is going to be insane.

(JE - private note to you coming with questions not under the guidelines of this thread)

[Jeffrey]

To be fair, this sort of learning is a lot harder than we think.

For well more than five decades, the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman has been examining and explaining human attitudes and behavior. His disarmingly simple experiments and profoundly expert analysis have dramatically altered the way we see human reason. Philosophers and social scientists had assumed for centuries that humans are inherently rational. Kahneman’s powerful legacy (largely created with his late colleague Amos Tversky) comes in two parts. The first is that we are not nearly as rational as we tend to assume. Relatedly, we also aren’t as smart and skilled as we readily assume. We are routinely burdened by the “hubris hypothesis (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2011-10-24/bias-blindness-and-how-we-truly-think-part-1-daniel-kahneman)” (for example, as an important study (https://www.isabelhealthcare.com/pdf/Diagnostic_Error-Is_Overconfidence_the_Problem_0408.pdf) found, physicians “who were ‘completely certain’ of the diagnosis ante-mortem were wrong 40 percent of the time”). Thus, as Martha Deevy, director of the Financial Security Division at Stanford’s Center on Longevity points out (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20160304-column.html), “investment fraud works best on highly educated men, who think they’re too smart to be scammed.”

IMO, humans are not inherently rational. If they were, then why do many buy high and sell low?

IMO, even in aggregate, humans are frequently not rational in the short-term. Mr. Market is sometimes emotional and tends to overreact.

For example, I do not understand why Mr. Market believes CELG is worth approximately half of what it was worth less than 8 months ago. Was it overvalued 8 months ago or is it undervalued now?

[Highlander]

putting in a plug for http://www.electoral-vote.com . This is a daily blog I read on election (and political) coverage. The author tends to lean a bit left of center in his analysis. That being said, it's one of the best sources of polling/insight information into national political races I have found. Here are a few recent ones of interest:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2018/Senate/Maps/May22.html#item-7
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2018/Senate/Maps/May21.html#item-3

In NC, Republicans in the legislature hold a veto-proof supermajority in both houses, so despite a Democrat in the Governor's mansion, not much has changed policy-wise. The recent teacher's march in Raleigh garnered national headlines, but it is doubtful it will move the needle much. However, education is an issue that is uniting people across all political persuasions (teachers are both conservative and liberal). They could represent a deciding block in a state that is trending purple (Cooper won by less than 11K votes out of almost 5M ballots, less than 1%).

Most of the discussions in Democratic circles are trying to break the supermajority in at least one state house to be able to protect Gov. Cooper's veto. Also of interest is that several legislative districts were redrawn due to the recent Supreme Court ruling, but some are still on hold pending an upcoming appeal ruling by SCOTUS.

[JasonEvans]

I was reading the Yahoo and AJC comments about Abrams (note to self: STOP READING THE COMMENTS...THEY JUST UPSET YOU), and many on the GOP side were arguing about turnout, saying that there were more Republicans than Democrats who turned out, and that basically that meant Abrams had no chance. But then I read that four years ago the Republicans outnumbered Democtrats by 300,000 in the primary voting and this year it was 50,000. Anyone know if that's true?

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/51345/132192/en/summary.html

In 2014, 593k folks voted in the GOP primary while just a little over 300k voted for the Democrats... but there is an easy explanation for that huge disparity... the only race that was really contested was on the GOP side.

For governor, the GOP had a 3 person race, but one of those 3 was the incumbent Nathan Deal and the race was not considered very close with Deal taking 72%+ of the vote. There was a hotly contested 6-person Senate primary on the GOP side to replace Saxby Chambliss. 3 candidates got between 20 and 30 percent of the vote and that race really drove attention and turnout.

On the Democratic side in 2014, the governor primary was Jason Carter running unopposed. Not much reason to turn out to vote in that race. The senate race featured 4 candidates, but everyone knew Michelle Nunn was going to win it. She got 75% of the vote.

-Jason "in 2014, the GOp won the Governor and the Senate by nearly identical 53-45 margins... most folks think it will be at least a little bit closer this time around" Evans

[left_hook_lacey]

IMO, humans are not inherently rational. If they were, then why do many buy high and sell low?

IMO, even in aggregate, humans are frequently not rational in the short-term. Mr. Market is sometimes emotional and tends to overreact.

For example, I do not understand why Mr. Market believes CELG is worth approximately half of what it was worth less than 8 months ago. Was it overvalued 8 months ago or is it undervalued now?

Yes.

[OldPhiKap]

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/51345/132192/en/summary.html

In 2014, 593k folks voted in the GOP primary while just a little over 300k voted for the Democrats... but there is an easy explanation for that huge disparity... the only race that was really contested was on the GOP side.

For governor, the GOP had a 3 person race, but one of those 3 was the incumbent Nathan Deal and the race was not considered very close with Deal taking 72%+ of the vote. There was a hotly contested 6-person Senate primary on the GOP side to replace Saxby Chambliss. 3 candidates got between 20 and 30 percent of the vote and that race really drove attention and turnout.

On the Democratic side in 2014, the governor primary was Jason Carter running unopposed. Not much reason to turn out to vote in that race. The senate race featured 4 candidates, but everyone knew Michelle Nunn was going to win it. She got 75% of the vote.

-Jason "in 2014, the GOp won the Governor and the Senate by nearly identical 53-45 margins... most folks think it will be at least a little bit closer this time around" Evans

One other point - Georgia has 159 counties, and many determinative races for county seats are determined in one primary of the other. I live in a suburban county in which all candidates for county commission are registered Republican. So I have to pull a Republican ballot to vote for my local elected officials, even if I may vote Democratic for governor in the fall.

The major city near my home is exactly the opposite. I know many folks who pulled a Democratic ballot for the primary to vote on local races, even though they may vote Republican in the fall.

As Tip O'Neil (IRC) said, "all politics is local."

Jason's analysis is excellent, but I would caution drawing too close a correlation between primary party balloting and November's open election. There is no question, though, that Georgia's demographic trends would historically indicate a purpling of the state.

[dudog84]

The GOP race was seen as more competitive (and it now heads to a runoff) but the Democratic race was the one grabbing headlines because of Abrams being a black woman. Abrams has campaigned on the notion of registering tens of thousands of new black voters and turning them out. I think it is not a great sign for Abrams that the Dems came up 50k short of the GOP... thought turnout will be higher for the November race.

Not so sure about this. Your initial post said she was polling about 20% ahead of her only competitor (and I think she won by 50%). As a primary voter, I'm not sure how motivated I am to make my feelings known in that race.

Whereas the other primary had 5 relatively strong competitors with no one polling near 50%, so as a primary voter I would be much more motivated to get my guy into the run-off.

But really, with the election 5+ months away, there is just so much that can happen to either energize or demoralize either side. Heck, a lot will happen in the next week. And since mid-terms (since forever) are about whoever is in the White House, I'm not sure participation in a primary says anything. You're voting for/against someone in your own party. Not near as much fun as sticking it to the other side.

[jimsumner]

I suspect the Atlanta media market is dancing a jig. They are going to be saturated with campaign ads.

[cato]

I suspect the Atlanta media market is dancing a jig. They are going to be saturated with campaign ads.

Atlanta media consumers, meanwhile . . . .

[jimsumner]

Atlanta media consumers, meanwhile . . . .


That's why God invented the mute button.

Now, if (S)he would just get around to robo calls.

[luvdahops]

I suspect the Atlanta media market is dancing a jig. They are going to be saturated with campaign ads.

Can't imagine it will be as bad as Chicago, with 2 billionaires running for Governor of Illinois.

[jimsumner]

Can't imagine it will be as bad as Chicago, with 2 billionaires running for Governor of Illinois.

I suspect the Georgia race will get beaucoups of outside money. I don't know enough about the Illinois race to venture a guess.

[lotusland]

Can't imagine it will be as bad as Chicago, with 2 billionaires running for Governor of Illinois.

Seems like there ought to be a cheaper way to become a convict:)

[Bostondevil]

Massachusetts - deeply blue - has a Republican governor, Charlie Baker. He is, according to polls, the most popular governor in the country. He is facing a challenger in the primaries - Scott Lively. As a resident of Massachusetts who visits tables set up by both Republicans and Democrats at the local 4th of July (and other town fair) celebrations, I can tell you that the literature handed out at such events by the Massachusetts Republican party is all about one issue, increasing access to guns. I have heard some state Republican operatives interviewed recently and they are not as happy with Governor Baker as his polling numbers would indicate. He is facing a challenger because many in the state Republican party feel his popularity comes from being too much like a Democrat. Baker is pro-choice and increasing access to guns is not a priority with him. Scott Lively is not pro-choice, would like to increase access to guns, and stands with President Trump on many issues, most notably immigration. If Scott Lively wins the GOP primary, he will lose, bigly, in the general. There are a significant number of Massachusetts residents who are not pro-choice and would like to increase access to guns but there are not enough of them to win state office, hence the deeply blue nature of the state's elected officials, governor excepted. Mitt Romney was pro-choice when he was governor here, for example.

Two things nobody else has mentioned:
1) the Puerto Rican migration post Hurricane Maria. I've seen some interviewed who think of their moves (predominantly to Florida and the Northeast Corridor) as permanent. I've heard more than one say that the first thing they did post move was register to vote.
2) the Parkland influence - one of the big points of those marches against gun violence was to get newly minted 18 year-olds registered to vote. Those voters are being encouraged, at least for this next election, to be single issue voters - "Do not vote for anybody who takes money from the NRA". Those voters are also very hard to poll.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Can't imagine it will be as bad as Chicago, with 2 billionaires running for Governor of Illinois.

The spending on the Illinois governor's race is really incredible - it will be hundreds of millions of dollars. Which is somewhat ironic given the state of Illinois' finances - that money could make a small dent in the state's roughly $8 billion bill backlog.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/governors-race-price-tag-150-million-and-its-only-half-over/

Pritzker, the Democrat, is a Duke alum and is from Hyatt money. Rauner, the Republican, is the incumbent and made his fortune in private equity. As noted in the article, both spent a small fortune to win their primaries. The state's finances are in a very challenged position between the bill backlog, huge pension liabilities and financial challenges for the city of Chicago and Chicago Public Schools (also significantly related to pensions, among other things). The legislature is controlled by Democrats. Rauner came into office vowing sweeping changes but after a long standoff without a budget, compromises were reached. His primary opponent accused him of giving in to the Democrats, but was unsuccessful in defeating him.

And just when Chicago comes up for air after this election, the city has a mayoral election in early 2019. Incumbent Rahm Emanuel is the favorite, but a number of contenders will be actively going after him.

[JasonEvans]

one of the big points of those marches against gun violence was to get newly minted 18 year-olds registered to vote. Those voters are being encouraged, at least for this next election, to be single issue voters - "Do not vote for anybody who takes money from the NRA". Those voters are also very hard to poll.

For several years there has been this belief in the liberal world that the cell phone dependent youth were not being polled properly and would tilt things toward progressive candidates in ways the polls did not expect. So far, we have not seen it... not because all the pollsters are doing a great job of reaching millennial but because they just plain refuse to turn out and vote. As this chart from the US Election Project shows, folks under 30 are the least reliable voters.

http://www.electproject.org/_/rsrc/1494447247346/home/voter-turnout/demographics/Turnout_by_age.png

As you can see, the highest rate of turnout we have seen for voters under 30 was Barak Obama's first election in 2008. In 2014, the last mid-term race, we had the lowest young turnout of the past 30 years.

I suppose it is possible and something has changed. Maybe we will see young voters actually come close to voting at the rate of voters in their 30s or 40s in this election... but I'll believe it when I see it. And, it is also worth noting that while young voters do tilt toward the Democratic side, it is not like all youth voters are liberals... as this chart from the Brookings Institute shows:

https://i1.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/gs_20161121_youth-ideology.jpg?fit=400%2C9999px&ssl=1

-Jason "the laws and policies of our nation will affect the youth for a lot longer than they will affect older voters. I wish that would motivate young folks to vote... but it doesn't" Evans

[CameronBornAndBred]

I suspect the Georgia race will get beaucoups of outside money. I don't know enough about the Illinois race to venture a guess.

Just curious...if it were a senate or a house race, I could see the outside influence being extremely high, but why a governor's race?

[Acymetric]

For several years there has been this belief in the liberal world that the cell phone dependent youth were not being polled properly and would tilt things toward progressive candidates in ways the polls did not expect. So far, we have not seen it... not because all the pollsters are doing a great job of reaching millennial but because they just plain refuse to turn out and vote. As this chart from the US Election Project shows, folks under 30 are the least reliable voters.

http://www.electproject.org/_/rsrc/1494447247346/home/voter-turnout/demographics/Turnout_by_age.png

As you can see, the highest rate of turnout we have seen for voters under 30 was Barak Obama's first election in 2008. In 2014, the last mid-term race, we had the lowest young turnout of the past 30 years.

I suppose it is possible and something has changed. Maybe we will see young voters actually come close to voting at the rate of voters in their 30s or 40s in this election... but I'll believe it when I see it. And, it is also worth noting that while young voters do tilt toward the Democratic side, it is not like all youth voters are liberals... as this chart from the Brookings Institute shows:

https://i1.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/gs_20161121_youth-ideology.jpg?fit=400%2C9999px&ssl=1

-Jason "the laws and policies of our nation will affect the youth for a lot longer than they will affect older voters. I wish that would motivate young folks to vote... but it doesn't" Evans

I wonder if people born in certain years are more likely to vote than others? For example, someone born in 1979 might be more likely to vote at any age than someone born in 1985. Which would lead to additional by year variance as certain birth years "age out" of one age range and into another. I'm not sure you could find a good way to accurately measure, much less predict, that behavior but it seems like a confounding factor. I suspect a data set that somehow accounted for that would lead to slightly smoother data (at least across comparable election years, midterms are naturally always going to be lower than presidential years for example).

A not insignificant portion of people in the 18-29 range for the 2008 election would have been in the 30-44 range for 2012. I also think it would be easier to interpret the trends if the graph was broken into 4 separate graphs, one for each year in the 4 year presidential election cycle.

Having said that, it is not surprising that the youngest age group would be the most volatile, since that is when most people go through their most significant life changes.

[Bostondevil]

For several years there has been this belief in the liberal world that the cell phone dependent youth were not being polled properly and would tilt things toward progressive candidates in ways the polls did not expect. So far, we have not seen it... not because all the pollsters are doing a great job of reaching millennial but because they just plain refuse to turn out and vote. As this chart from the US Election Project shows, folks under 30 are the least reliable voters.

http://www.electproject.org/_/rsrc/1494447247346/home/voter-turnout/demographics/Turnout_by_age.png

As you can see, the highest rate of turnout we have seen for voters under 30 was Barak Obama's first election in 2008. In 2014, the last mid-term race, we had the lowest young turnout of the past 30 years.

I suppose it is possible and something has changed. Maybe we will see young voters actually come close to voting at the rate of voters in their 30s or 40s in this election... but I'll believe it when I see it. And, it is also worth noting that while young voters do tilt toward the Democratic side, it is not like all youth voters are liberals... as this chart from the Brookings Institute shows:

https://i1.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/gs_20161121_youth-ideology.jpg?fit=400%2C9999px&ssl=1

-Jason "the laws and policies of our nation will affect the youth for a lot longer than they will affect older voters. I wish that would motivate young folks to vote... but it doesn't" Evans

Well, that's the big question, isn't it? And the polling won't necessarily tell us. I didn't say all youth voters are liberals either. They are, however, being encouraged to register and to be single issue voters in 2018. Now, is every single one of these kids going to register to vote and take their handy guidelines on NRA money into the voting booth with them? Of course not. But some will. And how many is a question worth discussing.

[golfinesquire]

Just curious...if it were a senate or a house race, I could see the outside influence being extremely high, but why a governor's race?

The state races are extremely important to the national elections. The state houses set the electoral districts and the governor can have a big influence on voting requirement. Also the governors are the omes more in touch with local politics and they make themselves heard in setting the national agenda. Obama was very much criticized for his lack of interest in the state races and the Republicans used them to great effect. I believe the Dems strategy now has included a more aggressive focus on the state races.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

For several years there has been this belief in the liberal world that the cell phone dependent youth were not being polled properly and would tilt things toward progressive candidates in ways the polls did not expect. So far, we have not seen it... not because all the pollsters are doing a great job of reaching millennial but because they just plain refuse to turn out and vote. As this chart from the US Election Project shows, folks under 30 are the least reliable voters.

http://www.electproject.org/_/rsrc/1494447247346/home/voter-turnout/demographics/Turnout_by_age.png

As you can see, the highest rate of turnout we have seen for voters under 30 was Barak Obama's first election in 2008. In 2014, the last mid-term race, we had the lowest young turnout of the past 30 years.

I suppose it is possible and something has changed. Maybe we will see young voters actually come close to voting at the rate of voters in their 30s or 40s in this election... but I'll believe it when I see it. And, it is also worth noting that while young voters do tilt toward the Democratic side, it is not like all youth voters are liberals... as this chart from the Brookings Institute shows:

https://i1.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/gs_20161121_youth-ideology.jpg?fit=400%2C9999px&ssl=1

-Jason "the laws and policies of our nation will affect the youth for a lot longer than they will affect older voters. I wish that would motivate young folks to vote... but it doesn't" Evans

This wasn't a coincidence (not that you were implying that it was). The youth vote was a HUGE part of Obama's branding and strategy, and a big part of his grassroots campaign growth was first-time voters. Add to that, the first meaningful use of social media strategy and online fundraising, and it was sort of a perfect storm to get young people to the polls.

Of course, most of those "young voters" are now "not as young voters," so the process will have to start all over again to re-engage the youth vote.

It will require a massive undertaking and some revolutionary thinking for either party to pull something like that off again.

[Acymetric]

Of course, most of those "young voters" are now "not as young voters," so the process will have to start all over again to re-engage the youth vote.

This falls in line with what I was getting at. Fair to say that enticing the youth vote (or new voters generally) has the highest cost of entry?

[Troublemaker]

The state races are extremely important to the national elections. The state houses set the electoral districts and the governor can have a big influence on voting requirement. Also the governors are the omes more in touch with local politics and they make themselves heard in setting the national agenda. Obama was very much criticized for his lack of interest in the state races and the Republicans used them to great effect. I believe the Dems strategy now has included a more aggressive focus on the state races.

Parties should also want to build as deep a pool of talent as possible. If one party controls most of the state legislatures and governorships, then over time, it'll become more difficult for the other party to find great candidates for Senate, House, and President. Candidates that have both experience governing at a lower level* and also experience running winning campaigns.

* Obviously, there's a notable outlier in the White House. But unless you have 40 years of name recognition as a celebrity in addition to natural charisma, you'll probably want to build that resume.

[Mike Corey]

1) Thanks to the mods for opening this thread.
2) I'll mostly stick to posting articles between now and November. But if anyone is interested in a nonpartisan analysis of Ohio, I'll gladly put one together.

[dudog84]

1) Thanks to the mods for opening this thread.
2) I'll mostly stick to posting articles between now and November. But if anyone is interested in a nonpartisan analysis of Ohio, I'll gladly put one together.

Sure, that's what the thread is for. Mostly.

[Mike Corey]

Ohio Overview

Governor
Two longtime electeds square off against one another for the second time in this race.

Current Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine (R) is running against Rich Cordray, whose most recent job was as the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. DeWine won his current job by defeating incumbent Rich Cordray in 2010, in a wave election year for Republicans. DeWine has been an elected official in Ohio for something like 46 of the last 50 years, and one of the only jobs he hasn't held is governor. DeWine is on the Kasich side of the Republican aisle in Ohio, though unlike Kasich, he opposes Medicaid expansion. Cordray's a moderate as well, on the Democratic side of the aisle, and has been criticized by some progressives because of his past support from the NRA.

DeWine's roots run deep in Ohio, with an extraordinary fundraising apparatus and name recognition. Cordray's an intellectual heavyweight, having clerked for a Supreme Court justice, and is playing some catch-up: HE hasn't been on the ground in Ohio over the past six years due to his federal duties.

U.S. Senate
Incumbent Sherrod Brown (D) faces a challenge from U.S. Rep. Jim Renacci (R). Senator Brown is up big in early polls, and Renacci--who is running as a Trump Republican--is relying on his personal wealth to fund an aggressive campaign highlighting the differences between one of the liberal lions of the Senate and himself. Sen. Brown's maintained a great deal of popularity amongst "crossover" voters, in large part due to Senator Brown's populist stance on trade. In other words, big chunks of Ohio that have been trending red in recent years are largely still supportive of Sen. Brown. Rep. Renacci will try to change that.

Congress
I'm running short on time, so I'll just mention two Congressional races that I don't need to research: The first is a special election, and you'll be reading about it as the vote approaches in August. Both are first-time Congressional candidates. For the Dems, the candidate is the current Franklin County Recorder, Danny O'Connor, a young lawyer who has been a public official for just over a year. For the Republicans, the candidate is Troy Balderson, a state senator. This seat has been red since 1982, when some guy named John Kasich won the seat for the first time. His successor, Pat Tiberi, resigned earlier this year to take an $800,000 a year job running a business alliance in Ohio. The polling shows this is a very tight race, though whomever wins in August we'll have to defend the seat again in November.

The other race of note pits longtime incumbent Steve Stivers (R), who chairs the NRCC, and a newcomer to politics, Rick Neal (D), a former international aid worker. Rep. Stivers is a moderate Republican, and he is expected to have a significant financial edge. The district is about +8 Republican, and in a wave election, this race could get interesting.

[dudog84]

Congress
I'm running short on time, so I'll just mention two Congressional races that I don't need to research: The first is a special election, and you'll be reading about it as the vote approaches in August. Both are first-time Congressional candidates. For the Dems, the candidate is the current Franklin County Recorder, Danny O'Connor, a young lawyer who has been a public official for just over a year. For the Republicans, the candidate is Troy Balderson, a state senator. This seat has been red since 1982, when some guy named John Kasich won the seat for the first time. His successor, Pat Tiberi, resigned earlier this year to take an $800,000 a year job running a business alliance in Ohio. The polling shows this is a very tight race, though whomever wins in August we'll have to defend the seat again in November.

That seems odd. What's the deal?

[-jk]

That seems odd. What's the deal?

Special election to fill a vacated seat. As I understand it, governors can appoint a senator to fill a term through the next general election (statewide elected official appointing a statewide official; seems reasonable), but not representatives. Special elections are held if there's more than a minimal bit of time before the next general election for reps.

-jk

[dudog84]

Special election to fill a vacated seat. As I understand it, governors can appoint a senator to fill a term through the next general election (statewide elected official appointing a statewide official; seems reasonable), but not representatives. Special elections are held if there's more than a minimal bit of time before the next general election for reps.

-jk

My thoughts were why 3 months before the November election. Elections are not cheap to put on. Seems like a waste of money (big surprise, government wastes money, stop the presses!).

Also, how much will Congress even be in session from August to November? Seems to me they all want to be campaigning during that time.

[dudog84]

Made myself curious. Congress will have 19 work days in those 3 months. And we know that on the doorstep of the midterm elections they will get absolutely NOTHING done. Nice work if you can get it.

[OldPhiKap]

Made myself curious. Congress will have 19 work days in those 3 months. And we know that on the doorstep of the midterm elections they will get absolutely NOTHING done. Nice work if you can get it.

I think the only potential major legislation in Congress before the midterms would come if the discharge petition in the House opens debate for an immigration bill, or whether Paul Ryan is pressured to put something on the table to address the issue. There are House members that want to go on the record voting for one or more various plans, even though the odds of getting a single plan through the House is nil.

I thought there was some pre-midterm financial deadline too that, Mitch McConnell fears, may be blocked by the President if it does not include significant financing for a southern border wall. Not remembering what bill that was though. (Not taking a position on the wall, obviously, just pointing out that McConnell and the President differ on its relative importance in the funding pecking order).

But agreed, Congress is essentially done for the year.

[-jk]

I think the only potential major legislation in Congress before the midterms would come if the discharge petition in the House opens debate for an immigration bill, or whether Paul Ryan is pressured to put something on the table to address the issue. There are House members that want to go on the record voting for one or more various plans, even though the odds of getting a single plan through the House is nil.

I thought there was some pre-midterm financial deadline too that, Mitch McConnell fears, may be blocked by the President if it does not include significant financing for a southern border wall. Not remembering what bill that was though. (Not taking a position on the wall, obviously, just pointing out that McConnell and the President differ on its relative importance in the funding pecking order).

But agreed, Congress is essentially done for the year.

And McConnell has hinted at staying in over what's usually the August recess...

-jk

[dudog84]

And McConnell has hinted at staying in over what's usually the August recess...

-jk

I would almost bet a pie (that's how certain I am) that will never happen.

[-jk]

I would almost bet a pie (that's how certain I am) that will never happen.

My family certainly hopes you're right! (SWMBO works for the Senate; we have a beach week and a nephew's wedding in August...)

-jk

[OldPhiKap]

My family certainly hopes you're right! (SWMBO works for the Senate; we have a beach week and a nephew's wedding in August...)

-jk

Lol, I had to look up the acronym. I’m old.

McConnell is probably happy to do it, because only a third of the Senate is up for re-election and most of them are Democrats. Happy to keep them out of their home states.

The House Republican leadership, on the other hand, would not follow suit. They know the bacon is on the grill back in many of their districts, and the majority is at risk.

[JasonEvans]

SWMBO works for the Senate

????

Single Woman, My Best Option
Sexy Wild Mate Beyond Ordinary
Someone Who Makes Best Orgasms (sorry if that is too PG-13)
Stop Worrying, My Buddy’s Opinion

????

[OldPhiKap]

????

Single Woman, My Best Option
Sexy Wild Mate Beyond Ordinary
Someone Who Makes Best Orgasms (sorry if that is too PG-13)
Stop Worrying, My Buddy’s Opinion

????

She Who Must Be Obeyed.

Although I do not know Mrs. -jk, so others may or may not apply.

[Reilly]

... SWMBO ...

Shifty White Man-child, Bounce Other-worldly ... in other words, Nick Horvath ...

[Troublemaker]

I thought -jk was being clever and getting around the no-PPB rules.

Slovenian Wife's Missing; Battered, Obviously

Southern Wall Makes Border Outrageous

Surely Was Muslim: Barack Obama

[lotusland]

Looking forward to some purple state travel this week. Palmetto State primary commercials consist of Republican candidates arguing over who is most conservative and best supports the Trump agenda. I’d like to see a candidate crowing about how moderate they are just to break up the monotony.

[Troublemaker]

Looking forward to some purple state travel this week. Palmetto State primary commercials consist of Republican candidates arguing over who is most conservative and best supports the Trump agenda. I’d like to see a candidate crowing about how moderate they are just to break up the monotony.

Succeeder Will Moderate Before October

[Mike Corey]

I think the only potential major legislation in Congress before the midterms would come if the discharge petition in the House opens debate for an immigration bill, or whether Paul Ryan is pressured to put something on the table to address the issue. There are House members that want to go on the record voting for one or more various plans, even though the odds of getting a single plan through the House is nil.

I thought there was some pre-midterm financial deadline too that, Mitch McConnell fears, may be blocked by the President if it does not include significant financing for a southern border wall. Not remembering what bill that was though. (Not taking a position on the wall, obviously, just pointing out that McConnell and the President differ on its relative importance in the funding pecking order).

But agreed, Congress is essentially done for the year.

Aside from the legislative piece, I'd suggest that--because this is the next special election, and (I believe) the last one prior to the midterms, the optics and "momentum" component of the special election will, um, trump the legislative significance since it will indeed be up for grabs just a few months later.

[JasonEvans]

Succeeder Will Moderate Before October

Silly Words Must Be Obfuscated

[Troublemaker]

Silly Words Must Be Obfuscated

"Selectee": Word My Brain Omitted!

[SoCalDukeFan]

One thing California has implemented something that is REALLY STUPID is so called Jungle Primary. The top two for each race get on the November ballot, regardless of party. So you could have 2 D's or 2 R's whatever. I have read that one reason why is was implemented is because CA is so heavily Democratic that a very liberal Dem might capture the Dem primary and be assured of winning in Nov. Idea is that this way you might have a very liberal Dem and a more moderate Dem on the ballot in Nov. Also the parties are pretty weak here when compared to say Chicago.

Anyhow we have 27 people running for Governor and 32 running for the Senate. Two pages on the ballot. Likely that many will vote for one on each page.

In some races which are heavily for one party, that party has 8 to 10 running for the spot, other side just 2. The dominant party could split their votes and the minority party could get both spots. (I told you the parties are weak.)

In races where the top candidate is foregone, that candidate sometimes has ads favoring someone, maybe the opposite party, that he thinks he can beat more easily in November rather than the number 2 from his own party.

It is a mess.

SoCal

[CameronBornAndBred]

And McConnell has hinted at staying in over what's usually the August recess...

-jk


I would almost bet a pie (that's how certain I am) that will never happen.


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Tuesday that he’s canceled the chamber's traditional August recess, citing Democrats' "obstruction" and the need to pass spending bills.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-cancels-senates-traditional-august-recess/ar-AAyg9de?li=BBnb7Kz

[Tappan Zee Devil]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-cancels-senates-traditional-august-recess/ar-AAyg9de?li=BBnb7Kz

At the risk of punishment, I will speculate that his motive may be to keep the 26 Dems running for reelection in DC rather than home campaigning.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

At the risk of punishment, I will speculate that his motive may be to keep the 26 Dems running for reelection in DC rather than home campaigning.

So - mainstream media appear to agree with me - so maybe I am off the hook for expressing an opinion

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/politics/mitch-mcconnell-cancels-august-recess/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-leader-cancels-most-of-august-recess-forcing-campaign-schedule-scramble/2018/06/05/7592a3ce-68d8-11e8-bf8c-f9ed2e672adf_story.html?utm_term=.3644a2e31535

[CameronBornAndBred]

At the risk of punishment, I will speculate that his motive may be to keep the 26 Dems running for reelection in DC rather than home campaigning.


So - mainstream media appear to agree with me - so maybe I am off the hook for expressing an opinion

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/politics/mitch-mcconnell-cancels-august-recess/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-leader-cancels-most-of-august-recess-forcing-campaign-schedule-scramble/2018/06/05/7592a3ce-68d8-11e8-bf8c-f9ed2e672adf_story.html?utm_term=.3644a2e31535

Yep. From the CNN article you linked.


Read between the lines. McConnell is canceling the recess not because of a hard deadline on anything -- lawmakers haven't passed all of their appropriations bills on time in more than 20 years, according to a recent Pew review. Despite Trump's vow never to sign a massive spending bill again, the Capitol Hill system, as it works today, does not require them to start this August. And nobody is calling for the House to cancel recess, although it's much easier for Republicans to pass funding bills there.
But it sure might help McConnell's chances of keeping his majority if Democrats up for re-election are stuck in DC.

[cato]

One thing California has implemented something that is REALLY STUPID is so called Jungle Primary. The top two for each race get on the November ballot, regardless of party. So you could have 2 D's or 2 R's whatever. I have read that one reason why is was implemented is because CA is so heavily Democratic that a very liberal Dem might capture the Dem primary and be assured of winning in Nov. Idea is that this way you might have a very liberal Dem and a more moderate Dem on the ballot in Nov. Also the parties are pretty weak here when compared to say Chicago.

Anyhow we have 27 people running for Governor and 32 running for the Senate. Two pages on the ballot. Likely that many will vote for one on each page.

In some races which are heavily for one party, that party has 8 to 10 running for the spot, other side just 2. The dominant party could split their votes and the minority party could get both spots. (I told you the parties are weak.)

In races where the top candidate is foregone, that candidate sometimes has ads favoring someone, maybe the opposite party, that he thinks he can beat more easily in November rather than the number 2 from his own party.

It is a mess.

SoCal

I am not convinced that this is stupid and am very interested to see how it plays out. As I understand it, the goal is to avoid the primary being the election. If the two top vote getters in the primary are in the same party, why not let them run against each other in the general?

[OldPhiKap]

I am not convinced that this is stupid and am very interested to see how it plays out. As I understand it, the goal is to avoid the primary being the election. If the two top vote getters in the primary are in the same party, why not let them run against each other in the general?

Agreed.

I think the theory, FWIW, was that the extremes of both parties tend to win their primaries. In this model, theoretically, a moderate who can build a bloc can get in.

In theory.

[dudog84]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-cancels-senates-traditional-august-recess/ar-AAyg9de?li=BBnb7Kz

It's not August yet. We'll see. I think it's a bluff.

Also, if one house stays does the other have to? Rs have more to defend in the HofR. McConnell is overplaying his hand.

Of course, he may not care about the HofR. He wants to remain majority leader in the Senate.

[OldPhiKap]

It's not August yet. We'll see. I think it's a bluff.

Also, if one house stays does the other have to? Rs have more to defend in the HofR. McConnell is overplaying his hand.

Of course, he may not care about the HofR. He wants to remain majority leader in the Senate.

My guess is that this does not force the House to stay by rule, although there may be political pressure to do so.

Having said that, IIRC last time this happened the Senate only stayed in session an extra week or so before bolting. So yeah, some skepticism is warranted.

[dudog84]

My guess is that this does not force the House to stay by rule, although there may be political pressure to do so.

Having said that, IIRC last time this happened the Senate only stayed in session an extra week or so before bolting. So yeah, some skepticism is warranted.

After some more thought, has any piece of legislation ever been sent from one chamber to the other and not been changed and sent back? I mean, isn't there ALWAYS back and forth? Seems to me there's always a bill from each chamber on a certain issue, and then they get together to work out the differences.

If not, please correct me. I honestly don't follow the sausage-making that closely. But if so, won't this be seen by everyone as grandstanding, which is something the entire public hates (I know they all do plenty of grandstanding, but this is not a filibuster to an empty room).

[OldPhiKap]

After some more thought, has any piece of legislation ever been sent from one chamber to the other and not been changed and sent back? I mean, isn't there ALWAYS back and forth? Seems to me there's always a bill from each chamber on a certain issue, and then they get together to work out the differences.

If not, please correct me. I honestly don't follow the sausage-making that closely. But if so, won't this be seen by everyone as grandstanding, which is something the entire public hates (I know they all do plenty of grandstanding, but this is not a filibuster to an empty room).

The Senate has a backlog of appointments to vote upon, which do not require House action. So, they have independent work to do.

Beyond that, I agree that most bills of substance have a reconciliation process between the two chambers. Other than a finance bill that must be passed by late September or early October, most substantive bicameral activity is done for the year.

[Troublemaker]

After some more thought, has any piece of legislation ever been sent from one chamber to the other and not been changed and sent back? I mean, isn't there ALWAYS back and forth? Seems to me there's always a bill from each chamber on a certain issue, and then they get together to work out the differences.

If not, please correct me. I honestly don't follow the sausage-making that closely. But if so, won't this be seen by everyone as grandstanding, which is something the entire public hates (I know they all do plenty of grandstanding, but this is not a filibuster to an empty room).

McConnell might just focus on confirmations instead of legislation. You hit on a good point, though. Tappan Zee really had no reason to worry about his/her comment above because really, there's no such thing as an August congressional session that isn't political in mind; I think both Ds and Rs would analyze McConnell's move as politically-based, with an eye on the midterms. McConnell makes this move because he thinks he can win the PR over it. Ds will scream that an August session is pointless and will unfairly affect midterm races, and McConnell will respond with X, Y, Z, TBD. And then we'll see how the public responds.

I suspect the public won't have too much sympathy for Senators not being able to take August off from work.

[dudog84]

The Senate has a backlog of appointments to vote upon, which do not require House action. So, they have independent work to do.

Beyond that, I agree that most bills of substance have a reconciliation process between the two chambers. Other than a finance bill that must be passed by late September or early October, most substantive bicameral activity is done for the year.

From the article:

"In a brief written statement, he said: “Senators should expect to remain in session in August to pass legislation, including appropriations bills, and to make additional progress on the president’s nominees.”"

Ha Ha, if he thinks the Ds are going to just ok a bunch of nominees, well...

Also from the article:

"But another factor could scramble the appropriations process. Republicans recently cobbled together a “rescissions” bill, which cancels spending Congress already allocated."

That's a new one on me. Ah, the comedy of our nation's capital.

[OldPhiKap]

From the article:

"In a brief written statement, he said: “Senators should expect to remain in session in August to pass legislation, including appropriations bills, and to make additional progress on the president’s nominees.”"

Ha Ha, if he thinks the Ds are going to just ok a bunch of nominees, well...

Also from the article:

"But another factor could scramble the appropriations process. Republicans recently cobbled together a “rescissions” bill, which cancels spending Congress already allocated."

That's a new one on me. Ah, the comedy of our nation's capital.

McConnell previously said that the “rescissions” bill was a non-starter. The President proposed it, but no Congressman wants to take back monies already tabbed to go to their constituents.

The Congressional concern about appropriations from the Republican leadership perspective is that Trump will demand funding for a border wall — which Dems will oppose and a significant number of Republicans will not support. Without debating the policy of it, suffice to say that border district Republicans have real practical eminent domain problems with the idea and many fiscal conservatives do not see it as fiscally responsible. So it could cause a huge confrontation about a month before Election Day and the President is, shall we say, somewhat unpredictable.

[Bluedog]

Agreed.

I think the theory, FWIW, was that the extremes of both parties tend to win their primaries. In this model, theoretically, a moderate who can build a bloc can get in.

In theory.

Yep. But a ranked choice voting system would also achieve this without having the pitfall of one party possibly "splitting the vote" which leads to bizarre strategies as stated above. I'd love for some states to implement ranked choice voting in statewide or congressional elections. I know it does exist in some local elections.

For example, if there are 10 Republicans and 2 Democrats running, a voter would rank all 12 candidates. In a "top 2" system in say a 60 % Republican/40% Democratic district, it's possible the two Democrats move onto the general election as the Republicans split the vote even if Republicans get more total votes. In a ranked choice system, every vote gets counted towards the "final two" as the bottom vote gets removed first, and voters who selected that individual #1 then get their #2 choice and so forth (until there are only two left). This system makes it less likely "extreme" candidates get chosen (as cross party votes would probably "prefer" a more moderate choice), but also eliminates the possibility of "spoiler" candidates and other perverse incentives.

[OldPhiKap]

Yep. But a ranked choice voting system would also achieve this without having the pitfall of one party possibly "splitting the vote" which leads to bizarre strategies as stated above. I'd love for some states to implement ranked choice voting in statewide or congressional elections. I know it does exist in some local elections.

For example, if there are 10 Republicans and 2 Democrats running, a voter would rank all 12 candidates. In a "top 2" system in say a 60 % Republican/40% Democratic district, it's possible the two Democrats move onto the general election as the Republicans split the vote even if Republicans get more total votes. In a ranked choice system, every vote gets counted towards the "final two" as the bottom vote gets removed first, and voters who selected that individual #1 then get their #2 choice and so forth (until there are only two left). This system makes it less likely "extreme" candidates get chosen (as cross party votes would probably "prefer" a more moderate choice), but also eliminates the possibility of "spoiler" candidates and other perverse incentives.

Not sure I follow all of that, but doesn’t that assume a level of deep voter education that sadly does not exist? Or a number of runoffs that are impractical?

(Just asking — not criticizing — unsure how this would work)

We had six total candidates for labor secretary — how would that work?

[Bluedog]

Not sure I follow all of that, but doesn’t that assume a level of deep voter education that sadly does not exist? Or a number of runoffs that are impractical?

(Just asking — not criticizing — unsure how this would work)

Yeah, I was actually about to edit my post saying the concern is that people are incapable of doing such voting. It really shouldn't be that hard and if somebody just wanted to vote for their #1 choice, that could still do so and it'd be no different than it is today (i.e. their vote "doesn't count" if they don't choose a top candidate). Or they could do 1-6 if they wanted. The "runoffs" are instant and done by a computer so you don't actually need people to go to a voting booth each time. In fact, this method actually would actually eliminate the need for a general election in theory. But I assume politicians wouldn't want to give up more time to campaign! ;)

Edit: looks like Maine actually just started using this method but they're having separate R and D primaries unlike California:

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/06/03/maine-voters-to-field-test-ranked-choice-voting-in-june-primaries/

This article explains it better than I did and makes the same argument for California:
https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2018/5/29/17405562/california-top-two-primary-ranked-choice-voting

[OldPhiKap]

Yeah, I was actually about to edit my post saying the concern is that people are incapable of doing such voting. It really shouldn't be that hard and if somebody just wanted to vote for their #1 choice, that could still do so and it'd be no different than it is today (i.e. their vote "doesn't count" if they don't choose a top candidate). Or they could do 1-6 if they wanted. The "runoffs" are instant and done by a computer so you don't actually need people to go to a voting booth each time. In fact, this method actually would actually eliminate the need for a general election in theory. But I assume politicians wouldn't want to give up more time to campaign! ;)

“The only form of government worse than democracy is every other form of government.”

— Winston Churchill

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

— also, Winston Churchill



Smart dude.

[PackMan97]

Not sure I follow all of that, but doesn’t that assume a level of deep voter education that sadly does not exist? Or a number of runoffs that are impractical?

(Just asking — not criticizing — unsure how this would work)

We had six total candidates for labor secretary — how would that work?

This voting system is called "Instant Runoff Voting" or "Ranked Choice Voting" and I greatly support it. The Town of Cary used it about a decade ago without much issue. One big advantage it has is avoiding costly runoffs which often have low participation.

This site has additional details on how it works:
http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#where_is_ranked_choice_voting_used
(http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#where_is_ranked_choice_voting_used)

Anything that moves us away from plurality winner takes all, I support.

[Deslok]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

Enough said. Every system has its flaws, its just choosing among them.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I am not convinced that this is stupid and am very interested to see how it plays out. As I understand it, the goal is to avoid the primary being the election. If the two top vote getters in the primary are in the same party, why not let them run against each other in the general?

its stupid for a Democrat to run ads supporting a Republican? This is try to insure that the Republican gets on the ballot.

If one party controls a voting area, then let the primary be the election.

If one party runs two candidates and they get 20% if the vote each and the other party has 10 names on the ballot and the most any one gets in 18% but the totals for the party is 60% and they get no one in the general, is that not stupid.

This STUPID system looks good in theory but it is a disaster in CA this year. Nice that the rest of the country can see our failed experiment.

25 and more candidates in an election for an one person office is also stupid.

Dick

[cato]

its stupid for a Democrat to run ads supporting a Republican? This is try to insure that the Republican gets on the ballot.

If one party controls a voting area, then let the primary be the election.

If one party runs two candidates and they get 20% if the vote each and the other party has 10 names on the ballot and the most any one gets in 18% but the totals for the party is 60% and they get no one in the general, is that not stupid.

This STUPID system looks good in theory but it is a disaster in CA this year. Nice that the rest of the country can see our failed experiment.

25 and more candidates in an election for an one person office is also stupid.

Dick

I guess I don’t see a disaster yet. I am interested to see how it plays out over a couple of cycles.

My law school classmate running in OC currently in third.

[Nick]

Does anybody here know anything about New Jersey politics? This article implies (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/sen-bob-menendezs-poor-primary-showing-creates-a-new-headache-for-democrats-in-new-jersey.html) that the NJ Senate race may be competitive but I don't know if that's realistic.

[JasonEvans]

While all the candidates who made the general election are not known, it appears the fears of the California jungle primary sealing out democrats (because the Dems were running too many candidates) did not come to pass. The Cook Political Report says all 53 CA districts will have at least 1 Dem on the ballot in November. There are 10 districts where there will be no Republican candidate, although in none of those districts did GOP candidates get anywhere close to 50% of the primary vote.

[gus]

Does anybody here know anything about New Jersey politics? This article implies (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/sen-bob-menendezs-poor-primary-showing-creates-a-new-headache-for-democrats-in-new-jersey.html) that the NJ Senate race may be competitive but I don't know if that's realistic.

Menedez will win in November, despite his significant baggage.

Unless things change dramatically, NJ will be a bloodbath for the GOP, mainly dragged down by a VERY unpopular Trump (~60-65% disapproval rating) and the view that the Trump/GOP tax reform bill was designed to hurt many NJ taxpayers.

There is actually a chance that zero republicans will be sent to Washington from NJ.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_nj_041618/

[cato]

While all the candidates who made the general election are not known, it appears the fears of the California jungle primary sealing out democrats (because the Dems were running too many candidates) did not come to pass. The Cook Political Report says all 53 CA districts will have at least 1 Dem on the ballot in November. There are 10 districts where there will be no Republican candidate, although in none of those districts did GOP candidates get anywhere close to 50% of the primary vote.

The Republican Party is breathing a huge sigh of relief for getting a candidate into the run-off for Governor. I would bet many pies that he will not win, but the theory is that his presence on the ballot will help drive turnout.

I’m not sure how much a difference it will make having a sacrificial lamb, but the Republicans are going to go all out to protect the handful of congressional seats they hold in districts that Clinton won in 2016. I suspect the Republicans hold on in each of these red districts, but I would not bet a pie on it.

Which is too bad. Because everyone should have a Julian Pie Company Dutch Apple Pie at some point in their lives.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I guess I don’t see a disaster yet. I am interested to see how it plays out over a couple of cycles.

My law school classmate running in OC currently in third.

The Democrats could function like a party trying to win elections. In one key race the national party supported one candidate and the state party another. One of them will finish second when all the votes are counted but barely. The fourth place Republican candidate is close to second. Republican easily finished first.

I do think its a very stupid system but maybe after a few cycles the parties will learn how to work with it.


SoCal

[SoCalDukeFan]

The Republican Party is breathing a huge sigh of relief for getting a candidate into the run-off for Governor. I would bet many pies that he will not win, but the theory is that his presence on the ballot will help drive turnout.

I’m not sure how much a difference it will make having a sacrificial lamb, but the Republicans are going to go all out to protect the handful of congressional seats they hold in districts that Clinton won in 2016. I suspect the Republicans hold on in each of these red districts, but I would not bet a pie on it.

Which is too bad. Because everyone should have a Julian Pie Company Dutch Apple Pie at some point in their lives.

The Republicans had to expend resources to get on the November ballot. In the conventional world he would have been on the ballot much more easily as the Republican nominee.

I agree with you that Cox has almost no chance in November. Doubt if the Republicans will hold all of the red districts, but they may.

SoCal

[dudog84]

The Democrats could function like a party trying to win elections. In one key race the national party supported one candidate and the state party another. One of them will finish second when all the votes are counted but barely. The fourth place Republican candidate is close to second. Republican easily finished first.

I do think its a very stupid system but maybe after a few cycles the parties will learn how to work with it.


SoCal

You're assuming the parties have intelligence. (yes, I know you said maybe)

[dudog84]

McConnell previously said that the “rescissions” bill was a non-starter. The President proposed it, but no Congressman wants to take back monies already tabbed to go to their constituents.

The Congressional concern about appropriations from the Republican leadership perspective is that Trump will demand funding for a border wall — which Dems will oppose and a significant number of Republicans will not support. Without debating the policy of it, suffice to say that border district Republicans have real practical eminent domain problems with the idea and many fiscal conservatives do not see it as fiscally responsible. So it could cause a huge confrontation about a month before Election Day and the President is, shall we say, somewhat unpredictable.

I know this is the House and not McConnell's Senate, but it appears this is going farther than expected.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/391252-house-passes-trumps-plan-to-claw-back-15-billion-in-spending

[Bostondevil]

Aren't healthcare insurance premium prices for the next calendar year usually announced in October? That news might affect a few races.

[Troublemaker]

Is this thread dead? I've been catching up on recent political news and was surprised Crowley's loss to Ocasio-Cortez didn't merit a mention here.

Vox's story on the shock victory by Ocasio-Cortez: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/26/17506970/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-primary-new-york

(Vox is obviously left-leaning but I figured that would be okay for coverage of a D race).

Excerpt:

For those who closely watch elections, this is the biggest primary upset since David Brat defeated then-majority leader Eric Cantor in 2014. Brat ran on a campaign of depicting Cantor as a creature of Washington rather than a true representative of the district.

Likewise, Crowley, who has been in Congress since 1999, is the No. 4 Democrat in the House and was widely viewed as an eventual successor to minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Though he was a stalwart progressive on nearly every issue, he also had close ties to Wall Street. This made him a formidable fundraiser, something Ocasio-Cortez turned against Crowley in the primary. She eventually fundraised about $600,000 through small-dollar donors.

[dudog84]

We have a fascinating race that is likely to attract a ton of national attention here in Georgia... especially when you consider it has zero impact on the national balance of power in congress.

It is the race for Governor. Georgia has increasingly been turning purple from being reliably red in recent years, thanks to increasing population in the cities and more diversity in the population. It is estimated that Georgia has gone from being 56% white, non-Hispanic to just over 51% white, non-Hispanic since 2010. Donald Trump won Georgia with just 51.1% of the vote in 2016, the lowest total for any GOP candidate since Bob Dole in 1996.

So, the upshot of all this is that Democrats think they might have a real shot at winning the governor's race. There will not be any senator seats up in 2018, so the Governor's race is the big one and turnout will likely be sorta low as a result.

But, why should the Georgia governor race attract more attention than any number of other governor or senate races nationwide? It is because there is a decent chance Georgia will do something never done before in Us history. Georgia may elect the first female African-American governor ever.

Her name is Stacey Abrams and she was the minority leader of the Ga House for many years. She has a pretty compelling personal story, coming from a poor family in Mississippi. Her family moved to Atlanta and she became the first ever black valedictorian at her high school. She graduated magna cum laude from Spellman and then went to Yale where she got her JD. She really connects with people when she talks about growing up poor and how hard her family worked to achieve success. Her sister was a US Attorney and is now a Federal Judge. Her brother, who she says was brilliant growing up, has been a drug addict and a criminal for many years. I've heard her speak and when she talks about the struggles of her family and their ups and downs, it really is compelling.

Anyway, Abrams faces off against Stacey Evans in the Democratic primary this week. Abrams is widely expected to win because she has really been embraced by progressives (Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker are all backing her) and the statewide party is largely on her side. By comparison, Evans really has no national Democratic backing and her most prominent local endorsement is former governor Roy Barnes. Abrams has really endorsed progressive policies, talking up universal healthcare. Many say she is trying to win without getting any white male votes. That will work just fine in the Democratic primary, but can it work in the general election? Most of the polls shows Abrams with about a 20 point lead on Evans, though around 25-30% of the electorate remains undecided. Those undecided voters would have to really break HARD for Evans to make it a close race.

Abrams will likely face off against Georgia's Lt. Governor Casey Cagel. He's consistently polling in the mid-30s in a crowded GOP field of 5 candidates, 4 of whom reach double-digits. Still, Cagel is likely to win. The GOP race has really focused on being anti-immigrant and pro-guns. One GOP contender appeared in a TV ad where he was cleaning a gun while sternly talking to a boy who wanted to take his daughter out on a date. Another candidate said he wanted to give away free bump stocks (devices that make semi-automatic rifles fully automatic) to every household in the state. Meanwhile, one of the GOP contenders said he wanted to drive around in his truck and pick up illegals who commit crimes to deport them. One of his rivals upped that by getting a bus and touring the state on his "Deportation bus tour."

Once Tuesday's primary is done, we should know who the candidates will be, probably Cagle and Abrams. The polls seem to indicate that it will be a close race, probably a slight GOP lean. But, if Abrams can pull the upset, Georgia will have made American history. For a state in the deep South to be the one to do that would be kinda cool.

-Jason "there is little else of note here this cycle... though there are a few congressional races that could get interesting if the predicted 'Blue Wave' comes to pass" Evans

So now you have 2 candidates. Your take? I read an article about the primary win tonight, but I'm sure you (and other Georgians) are more in tune and can give a better recap than I can.

[OldPhiKap]

So now you have 2 candidates. Your take? I read an article about the primary win tonight, but I'm sure you (and other Georgians) are more in tune and can give a better recap than I can.

Georgia resident here. Shocked how crushing Kemp’s victory over Cagle was. This is a big embrace of Trump’s endorsement IMO among the R base here.

Hard to understate how well-positioned Cagle was just a few months ago, he has groomed for the job for years. Endorsed by a very popular governor. Utterly destroyed. While Cagle was a flawed candidate, so was Kemp in likely equal measures.

Will wait for the dust to settle to draw opinions on the November race. But down here, the R fight is over who can out-Trump their R opponent. It’s his party. And I’ll believe Georgia goes D when I see it,

If I had to bet on a statewide D here, it is former Congressman John Barrow for Secretary of State. The last of the Southern Blue Dog Democrats in the House, who survived several redistrictings to defeat him until finally falling to R Rick Allen two years ago.

[Troublemaker]

Cagle had very little chance after the secret recording came out of him admitting to backing what he knew to be bad legislation in order to hurt a political opponent (AJC article) (https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/secret-recording-shows-cagle-backed-bad-bill-hurt-gov-race-rival/pEYWRLXdjoNufNbsAO0emI/).

Even the R establishment, who would ordinarily much prefer Cagle over Kemp, had to concede that Kemp had a better chance than Cagle. I mean, they couldn't allow Ds to campaign on that recording in the general race. And so Trump had the go-ahead to give his endorsement to Kemp. (More of Trump's endorsements actually go to establishment candidates than Trump-esque candidates because he needs to have a working relationship with the entrenched establishment and because often, those candidates have a better chance in the general.)

[PackMan97]

Cagle had very little chance after the secret recording came out of him admitting to backing what he knew to be bad legislation in order to hurt a political opponent (AJC article) (https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/secret-recording-shows-cagle-backed-bad-bill-hurt-gov-race-rival/pEYWRLXdjoNufNbsAO0emI/).

I'm quite shocked that with the advent of smart phones (i.e. a video recorder in every pocket) there haven't been more cases of politicians acting poorly (either in their job or personal lives). I find it sad to think that people feel the best way to get ahead is pushing other people down instead of lifting everyone up.

Well, that's my morning rant for the day. I hope you enjoyed it.

[OldPhiKap]

Cagle had very little chance after the secret recording came out of him admitting to backing what he knew to be bad legislation in order to hurt a political opponent (AJC article) (https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/secret-recording-shows-cagle-backed-bad-bill-hurt-gov-race-rival/pEYWRLXdjoNufNbsAO0emI/).

Even the R establishment, who would ordinarily much prefer Cagle over Kemp, had to concede that Kemp had a better chance than Cagle. I mean, they couldn't allow Ds to campaign on that recording in the general race. And so Trump had the go-ahead to give his endorsement to Kemp. (More of Trump's endorsements actually go to establishment candidates than Trump-esque candidates because he needs to have a working relationship with the entrenched establishment and because often, those candidates have a better chance in the general.)

There was a lot of dirt on Kemp, too. Just a really ugly race.

Still, many R politicos in my part of the state are surprised that Cagle got spanked as badly as he did. The governor endorsed Cagle. Much of the establishment endorsed Cagle.

[JasonEvans]

Let's be clear about something... die hards are the ones who turn out for primary runoffs. And the die hards in the GOP are almost all major Trump backers (his approval ratings inside the party are at like 90%). So, when he came out for Kemp, this race was a done deal. Heck, I'm kinda surprised that 31% of die hard GOP voters in Georgia were willing to go against Trump's desired candidate.

Kemp will be the favorite -- it would be a pretty big upset for an AfAm woman to win in Georgia. It will be interesting to see if he moderates at all as we approach the general. His primary campaign was very much about guns and immigrants.

Here is an actual image from a Brian Kemp campaign ad. Pretty sure I count 7 guns in this image... including one pointed at a kid who wanted to date Kemp's daughter.
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--R9HuYYqL--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/xu1f5uulwjcr4lphs6uo.jpg

The latest poll (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=f6212db4-ce30-4fb3-8dbc-ec1399a602b4), conducted about a week ago, has Kemp leading Abrams 46-44 with 10% undecided.

-Jason "Georgia will be the most watched Gov race in the country in November" Evans

[Troublemaker]

So now you have 2 candidates. Your take?

I look forward to Jason's take, too, but I'll give mine first. [Edit: Jason beat me with his fast fingers.] Even though it's a Governor's race, I think the result will be correlated to the national congressional outcomes. If there really is a blue wave nationally -- which I'll define as the Ds taking the House comfortably and also the Senate narrowly -- then I think Abrams wins. (OPK says he'll see it when he believes it, but Georgia is already a purple state and has been trending blue for many years. If trends hold, Georgia will be a blue state in due time -- it's just a question of whether that time is now or 2020 or 2028, etc.) Likewise, if the blue wave doesn't materialize and is more a blue ripple -- Ds take the House narrowly or not at all, Rs maintain the Senate -- then I think Kemp will win.

[OldPhiKap]

Let's be clear about something... die hards are the ones who turn out for primary runoffs. And the die hards in the GOP are almost all major Trump backers (his approval ratings inside the party are at like 90%). So, when he came out for Kemp, this race was a done deal. Heck, I'm kinda surprised that 31% of die hard GOP voters in Georgia were willing to go against Trump's desired candidate.

Kemp will be the favorite -- it would be a pretty big upset for an AfAm woman to win in Georgia. It will be interesting to see if he moderates at all as we approach the general. His primary campaign was very much about guns and immigrants.

Here is an actual image from a Brian Kemp campaign ad. Pretty sure I count 7 guns in this image... including one pointed at a kid who wanted to date Kemp's daughter.
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--R9HuYYqL--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/xu1f5uulwjcr4lphs6uo.jpg

The latest poll (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=f6212db4-ce30-4fb3-8dbc-ec1399a602b4), conducted about a week ago, has Kemp leading Abrams 46-44 with 10% undecided.

-Jason "Georgia will be the most watched Gov race in the country in November" Evans


I look forward to Jason's take, too, but I'll give mine first. Even though it's a Governor's race, I think the result will be correlated to the national congressional outcomes. If there really is a blue wave nationally -- which I'll define as the Ds taking the House comfortably and also the Senate narrowly -- then I think Abrams wins. (OPK says he'll see it when he believes it, but Georgia is already a purple state and has been trending blue for many years. If trends hold, Georgia will be a blue state in due time -- it's just a question of whether that time is now or 2020 or 2028, etc.) Likewise, if the blue wave doesn't materialize and is more a blue ripple -- Ds take the House narrowly, Rs maintain the Senate -- then I think Kemp will win.

Don't think that I can improve on either of these. Kemp's to lose. But in off-year elections, it's really who shows up at the polls. While Dem enthusiasm is certainly running high, I don't know a lot of Repubs who will stay home in November either.

Agree that Georgia is getting more purple-ish.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Let's be clear about something... die hards are the ones who turn out for primary runoffs. And the die hards in the GOP are almost all major Trump backers (his approval ratings inside the party are at like 90%). So, when he came out for Kemp, this race was a done deal. Heck, I'm kinda surprised that 31% of die hard GOP voters in Georgia were willing to go against Trump's desired candidate.

Kemp will be the favorite -- it would be a pretty big upset for an AfAm woman to win in Georgia. It will be interesting to see if he moderates at all as we approach the general. His primary campaign was very much about guns and immigrants.

Here is an actual image from a Brian Kemp campaign ad. Pretty sure I count 7 guns in this image... including one pointed at a kid who wanted to date Kemp's daughter.
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--R9HuYYqL--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/xu1f5uulwjcr4lphs6uo.jpg

The latest poll (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=f6212db4-ce30-4fb3-8dbc-ec1399a602b4), conducted about a week ago, has Kemp leading Abrams 46-44 with 10% undecided.

-Jason "Georgia will be the most watched Gov race in the country in November" Evans

I will try to keep this as non-political as possible - please delete as necessary... Pardon my ignorance, but what is the appeal of a man pointing a large gun at a clean cut looking young man? I recognize that his appeal to many people is that he is a law and order kind of guy, and there are many who feel that this is lacking in our country, and I know the age old threat of "if you touch my daughter..." but what does this picture have to do with voting for someone? That he will protect your right to have these guns which will allow you to do what he is doing?

[OldPhiKap]

what does this picture have to do with voting for someone? That he will protect your right to have these guns which will allow you to do what he is doing?

As best I can tell, yes.

Kemp's opponent Cagle, of course, threatened to pull some of Delta's tax credits (the largest employer in the state IIRC) in the spring because Delta suspended discounts for flights to the NRA convention in the wake of the Florida school shooting. The Republican primary was a battle over who was the most pro-gun candidate.

Per PPB rules, not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. But in Georgia -- it's definitely a thing.

[Troublemaker]

While Cagle was a flawed candidate, so was Kemp in likely equal measures.


There was a lot of dirt on Kemp, too. Just a really ugly race.

We might have to agree to disagree on this. Kemp's stuff includes massive incompetence (a huge data breach that gave away voter info) and getting sued for owing $500K to someone but in the context of politics these (sadly) aren't too out of the ordinary for things that opponents can run negative ads on, and his negatives don't rise to the level of Cagle's admission that he backed legislation that he knew was bad. I mean, forming and signing (in the Governor's case) good legislation to help the people you represent pretty much is the job, some might say. Cagle purposefully violated the trust between voters and representative.



Still, many R politicos in my part of the state are surprised that Cagle got spanked as badly as he did. The governor endorsed Cagle. Much of the establishment endorsed Cagle.

They should've expected a spanking, though. The latest RCP polls for the primary had Kemp +14 and trending towards a bigger lead when compared to early July (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/governor/ga/georgia_governor_republican_primary_runoff-6597.html). So maybe a +30 spanking is surprising, sure, but a spanking was going to happen.

[PackMan97]

They should've expected a spanking, though. The latest RCP polls for the primary had Kemp +14 and trending towards a bigger lead when compared to early July (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/governor/ga/georgia_governor_republican_primary_runoff-6597.html). So maybe a +30 spanking is surprising, sure, but a spanking was going to happen.

Everybody loves a winner. Plus, if you know your horse is limping to the starting gate...are you going to get out there and bet on him? You either stay home or switch to the horse you think will win even if you don't like him. It's very difficult to get out the votes for a losing cause.

[OldPhiKap]

2016 election results in Georgia, showing the competitive nature of the state:

Republican Donald Trump, 2,089,104 votes (51.05%)

Democrat Hillary Clinton, 1,877,963 votes (45.89%)

Libertarian Gary Johnson, 125,306 votes (3.06%)

(Illustrating what some would call gerrymandering, though, Trump won 10 of the 14 congressional districts despite a very narrow electoral victory)


Stacey Abrams definitely has a shot. And if she wins, she will face the Republican statehouse from which Cagle sprang.

[OldPhiKap]

my last word on Georgia, an interesting write-up overview on CNN.com and a preview of the upcoming general election:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/25/opinions/stage-set-for-battle-in-georgia-opinion-stewart/index.html

Did not realize that Cagle was a 31-point favorite back in April. What a collapse.

[PackMan97]

(Illustrating what some would call gerrymandering, though, Trump won 10 of the 14 congressional districts despite a very narrow electoral victory)


Illustrating what some would call using a limited data set to call something gerrymandering. ;)

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/63991/184321/en/summary.html

Senator:
Isakson (R) 55%
Barksdale (D) 41%
Buckley (L) 4%

You could much better show the packed R and packed D districts in the US house races. I'm leaving out the names, because who cares? The Republicans did win the Senate seat by a 14pt margin and had 60% of the votes in the US house races. Maybe 10-4 is one or two extra seats, but not nearly as bad as the Trump result would indicate. I'm also not calling it gerrymandering, it most certainly is. Just not as bad as it looks based on the Presidential race.

District 1: R 100%
District 2: R 39%, D 61%
District 3: R 68%, D 32%
District 4: R 24%, D 75%
District 5: R 16%, D 84%
District 6: R 62%, D 38%
District 7: R 60%, D 40%
District 8: R 68%, D 32%
District 9: R 100%
District 10: R 100%
District 11: R: 67%, D 33%
District 12: R 62%, D38%
District 13: D 100%
District 14: R 100%

Smallest margin of victory? 20%.

This is one of the reasons flipping the house will be so difficult for Democrats. There are very few competitive districts. The party affinity for many districts is just far far too great for even the biggest wave to breach.

[RPS]

This is one of the reasons flipping the house will be so difficult for Democrats. There are very few competitive districts. The party affinity for many districts is just far far too great for even the biggest wave to breach.
The gerrymandering is significant, of course, but Democrats are grouped much more than Republicans are, making it harder for them to add seats (which is what the quote is saying). In New York City, for example, Clinton received (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York,_2 016) 87% of the vote in Manhattan, 80 percent in Brooklyn, 89% in the Bronx, and 75% in Queens (but only 41% in Staten Island). Precinct level data here (https://decisiondeskhq.com/data-dives/creating-a-national-precinct-map/).

[dudog84]

Georgia resident here. Shocked how crushing Kemp’s victory over Cagle was. This is a big embrace of Trump’s endorsement IMO among the R base here.

Hard to understate how well-positioned Cagle was just a few months ago, he has groomed for the job for years. Endorsed by a very popular governor. Utterly destroyed. While Cagle was a flawed candidate, so was Kemp in likely equal measures.

Will wait for the dust to settle to draw opinions on the November race. But down here, the R fight is over who can out-Trump their R opponent. It’s his party. And I’ll believe Georgia goes D when I see it,

If I had to bet on a statewide D here, it is former Congressman John Barrow for Secretary of State. The last of the Southern Blue Dog Democrats in the House, who survived several redistrictings to defeat him until finally falling to R Rick Allen two years ago.

Thanks. Glad to see the thread kick-started, lots of other responses, and I would really like those from other states to chime in. For newbies, take a look at the 2018 Presidential thread and you'll see how the mods kept it interesting and well-behaved. Please don't make it difficult for them.

Florida appears much the same as Georgia (I posted more a couple of months back...our primaries aren't until the end of August so as things heat up I might have more info). For the Rs, Adam Putnam is the establishment...Florida House, US House, Florida Commissioner of Agriculture for the last 8 years while we've had an R Governor (term-limited out). Ron DeSantis is Trump-endorsed. He won my US House seat in 2012, was going to run for Senator in 2016 until Rubio dropped out of the Presidential race, and is now running for Governor. Obviously quite ambitious (as most of them are). I think it's a toss-up at this point. DeSantis has started to make things interesting, you may have heard his comment "...you look at this girl Ocasio-Cortez or whatever she is...". Interesting strategy in a state which already had a large Latino/Latina population, and after last hurricane season got a huge influx of Puerto Ricans (Ocasio-Cortez's mother was born in Puerto Rico).

Not much excitement on the D side for Governor yet. I think 5 are in the race, somebody should start stirring the pot soon.

I don't like DeSantis. He was a carpetbagger, rented a condo in the very tippy-top northern point of our District to get the seat. And now the D leader for our District is doing the same. She has a huge lead in money because she worked in either the Clinton or Obama administration. Therefore lots of outside money. I won't vote for anyone who games the system this way, although in Florida you don't actually have to live in your District. Please keep your comments about my state civil. :D

[dudog84]

Update to my post above. This was on my facebook feed this morning from one of the R candidates for my US House District:

"**** is the ONLY Republican candidate who actually lives in the District. (**** recently moved to Ponte Vedra and **** lives in Washington but is now on the deed with his mother on her home in St Augustine ... (he) has NEVER voted in Florida!)"

I have not fact-checked this therefore I redacted the names, but I will never understand why anyone would vote for a carpetbagger. I'm sure my District is not an anomaly.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Update to my post above. This was on my facebook feed this morning from one of the R candidates for my US House District:

"**** is the ONLY Republican candidate who actually lives in the District. (**** recently moved to Ponte Vedra and **** lives in Washington but is now on the deed with his mother on her home in St Augustine ... (he) has NEVER voted in Florida!)"

I have not fact-checked this therefore I redacted the names, but I will never understand why anyone would vote for a carpetbagger. I'm sure my District is not an anomaly.

That reminded me of a story I read recently about a candidate running in Alaska.

Carol Hafner is on the Democratic primary ballot for an Alaska U.S. House seat.

She doesn't live in Alaska. In fact, she's never been to the state. Hafner, who listed New Jersey and South Dakota addresses in her candidate filing, says she's serious about running, though she doesn't plan to campaign in person.
Most (if not all) of these folks are unsuccessful.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-alaska-carol-hafner-house-20180718-story.html

[OldPhiKap]

That reminded me of a story I read recently about a candidate running in Alaska.

Most (if not all) of these folks are unsuccessful.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-alaska-carol-hafner-house-20180718-story.html

I seem to remember that Mitt Romney had to change a lot of his social media stuff before announcing for the Utah Senatorial position earlier this year, because it all liksted him as a resident of somewhere back east. Don't remember all of the details.

Hillary, of course, was not a long-time resident of NY when she ran for (and won) a Senate seat. I seem to recall a Kennedy doing something similar too.

Does not work often, but a big enough name can pull it off I guess every once in awhile.

[JasonEvans]

I seem to remember that Mitt Romney had to change a lot of his social media stuff before announcing for the Utah Senatorial position earlier this year, because it all liksted him as a resident of somewhere back east. Don't remember all of the details.

Hillary, of course, was not a long-time resident of NY when she ran for (and won) a Senate seat. I seem to recall a Kennedy doing something similar too.

Does not work often, but a big enough name can pull it off I guess every once in awhile.

I get a lot of the resistance to "carpetbaggers," but I have to say that Romney -- who attended BYU and lived in Utah for several years when he ran the 2002 Winter Olympic Committee and who has had a winter home in Utah for many years, does not strike me as being close to a carpetbagger.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I seem to remember that Mitt Romney had to change a lot of his social media stuff before announcing for the Utah Senatorial position earlier this year, because it all liksted him as a resident of somewhere back east. Don't remember all of the details.

Hillary, of course, was not a long-time resident of NY when she ran for (and won) a Senate seat. I seem to recall a Kennedy doing something similar too.

Does not work often, but a big enough name can pull it off I guess every once in awhile.


I get a lot of the resistance to "carpetbaggers," but I have to say that Romney -- who attended BYU and lived in Utah for several years when he ran the 2002 Winter Olympic Committee and who has had a winter home in Utah for many years, does not strike me as being close to a carpetbagger.

Right. He had legitimate ties there. I don't know Hillary's history with NY, but I'm sure she had been on a bajillion occasions and obviously had political friends. The lady referenced in the article I linked has never even visited Alaska, yet put her name on the ballot.

[PackMan97]

I get a lot of the resistance to "carpetbaggers," but I have to say that Romney -- who attended BYU and lived in Utah for several years when he ran the 2002 Winter Olympic Committee and who has had a winter home in Utah for many years, does not strike me as being close to a carpetbagger.

Did you consider Elizabeth Dole a carpetbagger when she ran for Jessie Helm's Senate Seat? I know she grew up in NC and went to Duke, but after that she basically lived in Washington, DC (and perhaps Kansas during election season). It had been over 40 years since she called NC home.

I would say the key to a successful "non-resident" run for office is having a name that is well known (as Clinton, Dole and Romney have) as well as access to power. Why would NY want Hillary as a Senator? They answer seems simple, there is instant power in having her as your representative. The same with Dole who had been working in various White Houses since 1960, and the same with Romney who as a Governor and then Presidential Candidate has a lot of access your average run in the mill politician isn't going to have.

[dudog84]

Did you consider Elizabeth Dole a carpetbagger when she ran for Jessie Helm's Senate Seat? I know she grew up in NC and went to Duke, but after that she basically lived in Washington, DC (and perhaps Kansas during election season). It had been over 40 years since she called NC home.

I can't answer for Jason, but yes I do. That's not as bad as some examples where the person has no ties at all, but it's all so crass to me.

[rasputin]

I seem to remember that Mitt Romney had to change a lot of his social media stuff before announcing for the Utah Senatorial position earlier this year, because it all liksted him as a resident of somewhere back east. Don't remember all of the details.

Hillary, of course, was not a long-time resident of NY when she ran for (and won) a Senate seat. I seem to recall a Kennedy doing something similar too.

Does not work often, but a big enough name can pull it off I guess every once in awhile.

Bobby Kennedy, U.S. Senate, New York

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Did you consider Elizabeth Dole a carpetbagger when she ran for Jessie Helm's Senate Seat? I know she grew up in NC and went to Duke, but after that she basically lived in Washington, DC (and perhaps Kansas during election season). It had been over 40 years since she called NC home.

I would say the key to a successful "non-resident" run for office is having a name that is well known (as Clinton, Dole and Romney have) as well as access to power. Why would NY want Hillary as a Senator? They answer seems simple, there is instant power in having her as your representative. The same with Dole who had been working in various White Houses since 1960, and the same with Romney who as a Governor and then Presidential Candidate has a lot of access your average run in the mill politician isn't going to have.

Each situation is different, and each jurisdiction has different laws regarding residency. If I recall, Hillary's residency in NY was questionable prior to her senate run. She has kept NY as her primary residence ever since, though.

On a more local level, Rahm Emanuel went through a lot of legal hoops before he ran for mayor of Chicago. He had very close ties to the city but prior to his run, he had been living in DC while working for Obama. I believe he still had a home in Chicago but was renting it out and the law was that Chicago had to have been his primary residence for a year prior to election. The courts went back and forth on this but ultimately he was allowed to run. Personally, I think this was a no-brainer in his favor as his most recent primary residence was Chicago and he had only moved to serve in the federal government. Also, the nature of the position he was running for meant that he was going to end up living there - he wasn't going to be mayor and commute from DC.

[RPS]

That reminded me of a story I read recently about a candidate running in Alaska.
There are no ABA or AALS-approved law schools located within Alaska. Duke recognized the opportunity and created the Alaska Law Review (https://alr.law.duke.edu) with the Alaska bar. I wonder how many ALR staff have been to Alaska?

[Tripping William]

There are no ABA or AALS-approved law schools located within Alaska. Duke recognized the opportunity and created the Alaska Law Review (https://alr.law.duke.edu) with the Alaska bar. I wonder how many ALR staff have been to Alaska?

*raises hand*

The law school sends ALR staff every spring. Or, at least, they used to “back in the day.”

[RPS]

*raises hand*

The law school sends ALR staff every spring. Or, at least, they used to “back in the day.”
Good. ALR was created after my time. Talk about "back in the day"?!

[OldPhiKap]

Good. ALR was created after my time. Talk about "back in the day"?!

When I was in law school, the Russians still owned Alaska.

[dudog84]

Thanks. Glad to see the thread kick-started, lots of other responses, and I would really like those from other states to chime in. For newbies, take a look at the 2018 Presidential thread and you'll see how the mods kept it interesting and well-behaved. Please don't make it difficult for them.

Florida appears much the same as Georgia (I posted more a couple of months back...our primaries aren't until the end of August so as things heat up I might have more info). For the Rs, Adam Putnam is the establishment...Florida House, US House, Florida Commissioner of Agriculture for the last 8 years while we've had an R Governor (term-limited out). Ron DeSantis is Trump-endorsed. He won my US House seat in 2012, was going to run for Senator in 2016 until Rubio dropped out of the Presidential race, and is now running for Governor. Obviously quite ambitious (as most of them are). I think it's a toss-up at this point. DeSantis has started to make things interesting, you may have heard his comment "...you look at this girl Ocasio-Cortez or whatever she is...". Interesting strategy in a state which already had a large Latino/Latina population, and after last hurricane season got a huge influx of Puerto Ricans (Ocasio-Cortez's mother was born in Puerto Rico).

Not much excitement on the D side for Governor yet. I think 5 are in the race, somebody should start stirring the pot soon.

I don't like DeSantis. He was a carpetbagger, rented a condo in the very tippy-top northern point of our District to get the seat. And now the D leader for our District is doing the same. She has a huge lead in money because she worked in either the Clinton or Obama administration. Therefore lots of outside money. I won't vote for anyone who games the system this way, although in Florida you don't actually have to live in your District. Please keep your comments about my state civil. :D

So some polls just came out. I hate polls. For example, this Mason-Dixon poll telephoned 625 people in Florida. I could tell you just as much by walking down my street. So with a grain of salt...

DeSantis leads Putnam by 41-29 with 28% undecided. Word is it's the Trump effect, and he will be stumping for DeSantis in Tampa this week. There's actually 6 other people in the race, which I didn't even know. For good reason, all you math wizards will note collectively they're getting 2%. Interesting side note...17% are not aware of DeSantis and he's the big leader. Stupid poll, I feel a little dirty even sharing it. Or stupid people, the poll was of likely voters and they don't even know their candidates.

For the Ds, the leader in the 5-way race has just 27%, with 25% undecided. I think she (daughter of a very popular Florida politician) will win, but she shouldn't feel very comfortable one month from the primary.

In the Senate race, 3-term incumbent D Bill Nelson leads term-limited governor R Rick Scott 45-44 with 11% undecided. (That's from February, but nobody's moving the needle much)

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Not mid-term news, but an interesting preview into 2020... Eric Holder is interested in potentially running for the top job.

Eric Holder says he's interested in being President

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/28/politics/eric-holder-interested-in-being-president/index.html

[PackMan97]

Not mid-term news, but an interesting preview into 2020... Eric Holder is interested in potentially running for the top job.

Eric Holder says he's interested in being President

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/28/politics/eric-holder-interested-in-being-president/index.html

I'm interested in being President as well...that doesn't mean I actually have a chance. Although, to be honest, I'd make a much better Supreme Dictator or Emperor than I would President :cool:

This strike me as a story for a slow news day...that's good I guess.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I'm interested in being President as well...that doesn't mean I actually have a chance. Although, to be honest, I'd make a much better Supreme Dictator or Emperor than I would President :cool:

This strike me as a story for a slow news day...that's good I guess.

I am most definitely not interested in being President. So you have less competition.

[OldPhiKap]

Okay, this accusation takes the cake for me:

https://twitter.com/lesliecockburn/status/1023701334434959362?s=21

Virginia congressional race

[CameronBornAndBred]

Okay, this accusation takes the cake for me:

https://twitter.com/lesliecockburn/status/1023701334434959362?s=21

Virginia congressional race

Oh wow...LOL!!!

[OldPhiKap]

Oh wow...LOL!!!

The comments are priceless as well.

My favorite so far: "I wouldn't say I'm Yetisexual. But I am Yeti-curious."

[Troublemaker]

Not mid-term news, but an interesting preview into 2020... Eric Holder is interested in potentially running for the top job.

The actual Presidential thread will probably have to be started soon after the mid-terms anyways. It just seems like these Presidential cycles begin earlier and earlier, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few big names announce their candidacies before the year is out.

[CameronBornAndBred]

The actual Presidential thread will probably have to be started soon after the mid-terms anyways. It just seems like these Presidential cycles begin earlier and earlier, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few big names announce their candidacies before the year is out.

Yep. Somewhere around Jan/Feb of 2019, things get heated up once the new congress is in their seats. I suspect how the mid-terms play out will have a big effect. I doubt very much that Trump actually gets any challengers, barring a Mueller shakeup or unforeseen scandal, which is a bit of a surprise to me. I didn't expect the acceptance of President Trump by the GOP to the extent that it is. However, if the republicans get shellacked in the mid-terms, it will be interesting, since that would be viewed as a referendum on his presidency.
For now, that is a HUGE "if".

[OldPhiKap]

Yep. Somewhere around Jan/Feb of 2019, things get heated up once the new congress is in their seats. I suspect how the mid-terms play out will have a big effect. I doubt very much that Trump actually gets any challengers, barring a Mueller shakeup or unforeseen scandal, which is a bit of a surprise to me. I didn't expect the acceptance of President Trump by the GOP to the extent that it is. However, if the republicans get shellacked in the mid-terms, it will be interesting, since that would be viewed as a referendum on his presidency.
For now, that is a HUGE "if".

I think Trump will get at least one challenger -- someone like a John Kasich or Jeff Flake -- for two reasons. First: there are some Republicans that want to "take back their party" even though as you say the base of the party has bought into Trump full throat. Second: there is always the chance that Trump either may withdraw his name from consideration or have it removed by impeachment before the Charlotte GOP Convention in the summer of '20, and someone will want to be there in case of a convenient opening.

(A note that I assume is obvious but will add: I am neither advocating nor denigrating whether removal by impeachment should happen. It certainly is in the realm of possibility, though, until we see (a) how the House and Senate look after the mid-terms; (b) what Mueller does or does not ultimately find; and (c) what happens between now and then in this twitter-quick world of ours).

[Troublemaker]

Yep. Somewhere around Jan/Feb of 2019, things get heated up once the new congress is in their seats. I suspect how the mid-terms play out will have a big effect. I doubt very much that Trump actually gets any challengers, barring a Mueller shakeup or unforeseen scandal, which is a bit of a surprise to me. I didn't expect the acceptance of President Trump by the GOP to the extent that it is. However, if the republicans get shellacked in the mid-terms, it will be interesting, since that would be viewed as a referendum on his presidency.
For now, that is a HUGE "if".

I also think there may be several celebrity (actor, singer, sports person) candidates this time around. Trump obviously was a celebrity who had no prior experience before becoming President. I have to imagine there are tons of celebrities (most of whom are D-leaning) who think they're smarter than Trump and can do the same. It's possible a few may even have a hero complex and think they're just the right person to save the country. (Whether they are correct in these assessments or not, I don't know, but I can easily imagine them thinking that way.)

[OldPhiKap]

I also think there may be several celebrity (actor, singer, sports person) candidates this time around. Trump obviously was a celebrity who had no prior experience before becoming President. I have to imagine there are tons of celebrities (most of whom are D-leaning) who think they're smarter than Trump and can do the same. It's possible a few may even have a hero complex and think they're just the right person to save the country. (Whether they are correct in these assessments or not, I don't know, but I can easily imagine them thinking that way.)

Michael Avenatti has already stated that he may run "if the right candidate" does not do so. He has also been pretty open in tweeting that an outsider should be nominated, because Trump dusted all of the conventional politicians in his wake last time around.

I would not be surprised to see someone from Hollywood run, either. (Schwarzenegger likely would have run as a R in the past if not precluded by the Constitution.)

I'm still weighing my options, FWIW. "Tan, rested and ready -- OPK in twenty twent-ay"

[dudog84]

Michael Avenatti has already stated that he may run "if the right candidate" does not do so. He has also been pretty open in tweeting that an outsider should be nominated, because Trump dusted all of the conventional politicians in his wake last time around.

I would not be surprised to see someone from Hollywood run, either. (Schwarzenegger likely would have run as a R in the past if not precluded by the Constitution.)

I'm still weighing my options, FWIW. "Tan, rested and ready -- OPK in twenty twent-ay"

I'm still a fan of "Vote Early. Vote Often."

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I also think there may be several celebrity (actor, singer, sports person) candidates this time around. Trump obviously was a celebrity who had no prior experience before becoming President. I have to imagine there are tons of celebrities (most of whom are D-leaning) who think they're smarter than Trump and can do the same. It's possible a few may even have a hero complex and think they're just the right person to save the country. (Whether they are correct in these assessments or not, I don't know, but I can easily imagine them thinking that way.)

I suspect you are correct, and I find it very unsettling.

[PackMan97]

I suspect you are correct, and I find it very unsettling.

A lot of people were troubled by Reagan and his celebrity past, but at least he had been Governor of CA before becoming President.

[YmoBeThere]

It just seems like these Presidential cycles begin earlier and earlier...

Some, i.e. me, would contend this is symptomatic of too many people without enough to do.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

A lot of people were troubled by Reagan and his celebrity past, but at least he had been Governor of CA before becoming President.

This is a fair point. I will continue to hope for the best.

[Troublemaker]

I suspect you are correct, and I find it very unsettling.

If the Ds hammer the Rs in the midterms, I might expect several PR-managed rollouts of celebrity candidacies for President over time, maybe starting in late 2018. I'd have to mull that over. You probably don't want to be the 10th celebrity to enter the D primary, but I'm not sure you want to be the 1st celebrity to enter either, even though you'd command all the media attention for awhile while throwing bombs at Trump and galvanizing the D base to retweet your bombs and share your press conference videos.

A strong showing by the Ds in the midterms will lead to the D presidential primary topping the R total of 17 primary candidates for the 2016 cycle, imo. Everyone, politicians and celebrities alike, will want to be the one to KO a staggered, vulnernable Trump and become President.

[JasonEvans]

A strong showing by the Ds in the midterms will lead to the D presidential primary topping the R total of 17 primary candidates for the 2016 cycle, imo. Everyone, politicians and celebrities alike, will want to be the one to KO a staggered, vulnernable Trump and become President.

It will be interesting to see how many folks get into the race. Aside from Biden, no one is really seen as a clear front-runner and Uncle Joe is -- well -- an old, rich, white guy which does not feel like the profile of the Democratic party at this point. Typically, a presumptive candidate keeps a lot of other folks out of the race -- like Hillary did in 2016 or when a sitting VP runs -- but that is clearly not the case for the Dems in 2020. I am sure we will see over a dozen declared candidates on the Democratic side.

I would expect at least two of the Democratic candidates to be people who are famous or notable for something other than politics. That could mean a Hollywood star, but I think the more likely candidates will be prominent corporate figures, like Carly Fiorina. I have already heard talk about Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, Mark Cuban, "Lean In" author and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and billionaire activist Tom Steyer (the guy running all the impeachment commercials).

But, we are getting waaay ahead of ourselves. The midterms are just 97 days away.

-Jason "according to this site (https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?msg=2018%20Midterm%20Elections&p0=263&year=2018&month=11&day=6&hour=07&min=0&sec=0&fromtheme=election), it is 97 days, 20 hours, 7 minutes, 33 seconds until Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 7:00:00 am " Evans

[dudog84]

It will be interesting to see how many folks get into the race. Aside from Biden, no one is really seen as a clear front-runner and Uncle Joe is -- well -- an old, rich, white guy which does not feel like the profile of the Democratic party at this point. Typically, a presumptive candidate keeps a lot of other folks out of the race -- like Hillary did in 2016 or when a sitting VP runs -- but that is clearly not the case for the Dems in 2020. I am sure we will see over a dozen declared candidates on the Democratic side.

I would expect at least two of the Democratic candidates to be people who are famous or notable for something other than politics. That could mean a Hollywood star, but I think the more likely candidates will be prominent corporate figures, like Carly Fiorina. I have already heard talk about Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, Mark Cuban, "Lean In" author and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and billionaire activist Tom Steyer (the guy running all the impeachment commercials).

But, we are getting waaay ahead of ourselves. The midterms are just 97 days away.

-Jason "according to this site (https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?msg=2018%20Midterm%20Elections&p0=263&year=2018&month=11&day=6&hour=07&min=0&sec=0&fromtheme=election), it is 97 days, 20 hours, 7 minutes, 33 seconds until Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 7:00:00 am " Evans

Aged, caucasian, and male yes, but my 2 seconds of research says his net worth is $900,000. While not chump change, it doesn't approach most national politicians. Heck, it was in my local rag last week that several local politicians have put upwards of $100,000 of their own money into their races. So even they have some major coin.

Interesting note (to me): caucasian came up as mis-spelled. Is that a DBR thing or your host? I had to check my spelling, was worried I was going senile.

Re earlier posts that the Republican Party is now the Trump Party, this is the latest ad by the guy leading the establishment pick for the R primary in Florida by 12 points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IbT9j30TtM

Finally, any other Floridians out there? I hate to be the only one posting from our great and wacky state. Plus I'd really like to know what's going on in the rest of the country. Without doing my own research. Georgia has been the only state with multiple input.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Aged, caucasian, and male yes, but my 2 seconds of research says his net worth is $900,000. While not chump change, it doesn't approach most national politicians. Heck, it was in my local rag last week that several local politicians have put upwards of $100,000 of their own money into their races. So even they have some major coin.

Interesting note (to me): caucasian came up as mis-spelled. Is that a DBR thing or your host? I had to check my spelling, was worried I was going senile.

Re earlier posts that the Republican Party is now the Trump Party, this is the latest ad by the guy leading the establishment pick for the R primary by 12 points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IbT9j30TtM

Finally, any other Floridians out there? I hate to be the only one posting from our great and wacky state. Plus I'd really like to know what's going on in the rest of the country. Without doing my own research. Georgia has been the only state with multiple input.

I like language. My spell check has Caucasian come up with a capital first letter. Maybe that's it?

[OldPhiKap]

Unlike Hilary who tried to head off all competition, Uncle Joe reportedly is telling folks to run if they want and don’t wait on him to decide.

[dudog84]

I like language. My spell check has Caucasian come up with a capital first letter. Maybe that's it?

Caucasian.

AHA! Proving once again I'm just not proper enough.

[BigWayne]

A lot of people were troubled by Reagan and his celebrity past, but at least he had been Governor of CA before becoming President.

Except for that birthplace thingy, Arnold would be a similar contender.

[Jackson]

Aged, caucasian, and male yes, but my 2 seconds of research says his net worth is $900,000. While not chump change, it doesn't approach most national politicians. Heck, it was in my local rag last week that several local politicians have put upwards of $100,000 of their own money into their races. So even they have some major coin.

Interesting note (to me): caucasian came up as mis-spelled. Is that a DBR thing or your host? I had to check my spelling, was worried I was going senile.

Re earlier posts that the Republican Party is now the Trump Party, this is the latest ad by the guy leading the establishment pick for the R primary in Florida by 12 points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IbT9j30TtM

Finally, any other Floridians out there? I hate to be the only one posting from our great and wacky state. Plus I'd really like to know what's going on in the rest of the country. Without doing my own research. Georgia has been the only state with multiple input.

I'm from FL too. DeSantis is taking a huge risk in the general with his strategy. Looks like he's gonna run away with the primary, but what a strange commercial. I'm more interested in the Dem side for the governor's race. That one may belong to Graham, but it sure is a crowded field.

[dudog84]

I'm from FL too. DeSantis is taking a huge risk in the general with his strategy. Looks like he's gonna run away with the primary, but what a strange commercial. I'm more interested in the Dem side for the governor's race. That one may belong to Graham, but it sure is a crowded field.

Agreed. Trump beat Clinton 48.6% to 47.4% here, a narrow victory and not a majority. That's about 100,000 votes of almost 10 million cast. I don't believe there will be any other candidates to pull away a few percent in this governor's race.

I don't know what Graham is doing other than relying on name (her popular father) recognition. Although I got rid of cable last year, I am around other TVs and rarely see anything from her while I see stuff from a few other candidates. The others are more active on social media as well (from my very limited experience). She's probably watching the polls closely (risky also) and saving her money for the general.

[Jackson]

Agreed. Trump beat Clinton 48.6% to 47.4% here, a narrow victory and not a majority. That's about 100,000 votes of almost 10 million cast. I don't believe there will be any other candidates to pull away a few percent in this governor's race.

I don't know what Graham is doing other than relying on name (her popular father) recognition. Although I got rid of cable last year, I am around other TVs and rarely see anything from her while I see stuff from a few other candidates. The others are more active on social media as well (from my very limited experience). She's probably watching the polls closely (risky also) and saving her money for the general.

I have just started seeing ads from Graham and received some things in the mail. Greene has a huge personal fortune and seems to be using that with tv ads. Gillum has a big presence on social media. The Senate race is going to end up being the most expensive in history. Control could come down to Nelson or Scott. The attack ads from both are already constant. Can't imagine what it's going to be like in October. Huge election in this state especially. Maybe the most important midterm ever.

[Bostondevil]

I also think there may be several celebrity (actor, singer, sports person) candidates this time around. Trump obviously was a celebrity who had no prior experience before becoming President. I have to imagine there are tons of celebrities (most of whom are D-leaning) who think they're smarter than Trump and can do the same. It's possible a few may even have a hero complex and think they're just the right person to save the country. (Whether they are correct in these assessments or not, I don't know, but I can easily imagine them thinking that way.)

But not all. There's always Kanye West. The "meme"-ers would back him over Trump because of net neutrality.

[elvis14]

I wonder if Joe Biden welcoming challengers has more to do with keeping a target off his back than it does with anything else. One of Hillary's biggest obstacles was that she had been campaigned against for more than a decade by the time the elections came around in 2016. You tell people something enough times, they start to believe it. Being seen as the front runner, especially a front runner with a big lead, opens one up to attack early and often (from organizations at home and abroad).

[OldPhiKap]

I wonder if Joe Biden welcoming challengers has more to do with keeping a target off his back than it does with anything else. One of Hillary's biggest obstacles was that she had been campaigned against for more than a decade by the time the elections came around in 2016. You tell people something enough times, they start to believe it. Being seen as the front runner, especially a front runner with a big lead, opens one up to attack early and often (from organizations at home and abroad).

Dunno, good theory.

Saw that Uncle Joe had something like a 7 point lead over Trump if the election were held today. Kinda useless, but kinda telling too.

[PackMan97]

Dunno, good theory.

Saw that Uncle Joe had something like a 7 point lead over Trump if the election were held today. Kinda useless, but kinda telling too.

I would say Hillary had been under attack for close to three decades, not just one. I feel like all the negatives from Bill transferred over to Hillary. I know that whomever is nominated by one party will be instantly "unacceptable" to the many in the other party...but to already put forward someone who is instantly hated just seems counterproductive to winning elections. It would be like the R's nominating another Bush to run.

Obama I think he great success in "purple" and "pink" states because he didn't have decades of baggage that he was lugging around.

I think polls have become mostly useless. Hillary had an average poll margin of +6 two weeks before the 2016 election and had a +11 lead in the heat of primary season.

[dudog84]

I think polls have become mostly useless.

Hillary had an average poll margin of +6 two weeks before the 2016 election and had a +11 lead in the heat of primary season.

I've shared my distaste for polls, but you're forgetting Comey (11 days before the election) and the fact that national polls mean nothing to the Electoral College.

[PackMan97]

I've shared my distaste for polls, but you're forgetting Comey (11 days before the election) and the fact that national polls mean nothing to the Electoral College.

Yes, I was forgetting Comey.

I did not forget the electoral college, as you are correct, only the state polls matter.

[dudog84]

Yes, I was forgetting Comey.

I did not forget the electoral college, as you are correct, only the state polls matter.

I wasn't really saying you forgot, it's a manner of speaking/writing. Sloppy of me.

As a result of 2016, will national polls stop being discussed? Gore beat Bush in the national total in 2000, but that was about 500,000 votes. In 2016 the difference was about 3,000,000. I think another striking difference between 2000 and 2016 is that in 2000 a close vote was also a close Electoral College vote (271 - 266), vs. 2016 (304 - 227).

I'd bet there is a much bigger emphasis on state polls going forward. It must really stink to live in a very red or very blue state where your Presidential vote doesn't really matter. And that's about 40 of the 50 states.

I suppose a discussion of the Electoral College would be PPB?

[Bob Green]

Virginia Senate candidate Corey Stewart aide in the news today:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics/corey-stewart-aide-twitter/index.html


A top consultant and spokesman for Corey Stewart, the Republican nominee for US Senate in Virginia, has used the term "house negro" to criticize the GOP establishment and disparaged prominent Civil Rights figures John Lewis and Rosa Parks.

Incumbent Tim Kaine is ahead double digits in polls I saw so this article makes Stewart's uphill battle longer and steeper.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/kaine-leads-stewart-by-points-in-virginia-senate-race-s/article_13a65757-f26f-5369-9496-e55bb5ec4b17.html

[dudog84]

Virginia Senate candidate Corey Stewart aide in the news today:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics/corey-stewart-aide-twitter/index.html



Incumbent Tim Kaine is ahead double digits in polls I saw so this article makes Stewart's uphill battle longer and steeper.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/kaine-leads-stewart-by-points-in-virginia-senate-race-s/article_13a65757-f26f-5369-9496-e55bb5ec4b17.html

I doubt he ever had much of a chance against Kaine. I think the danger for Rs is the 'wide brush', that this kind of thing can taint all of their candidates, and not just in Virginia. Maybe not a huge factor, but there are going to be a lot of tight races and every little bit hurts. Or helps.

[OldPhiKap]

Virginia Senate candidate Corey Stewart aide in the news today:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics/corey-stewart-aide-twitter/index.html



"Rick Shaftan made the comments in tweets newly uncovered by CNN's KFile. The previously unreported tweets come on the heels of a report from the Daily Beast that he described majority-black cities as 'sh**holes' and told his followers not to open businesses in black neighborhoods."

Although there is really no "good" place to make such comments obviously, making them in the state where the Charlottesville tragedy occurred a little less than a year ago is especially troublesome.

Really -- does no one vet anymore?

[PackMan97]

I wasn't really saying you forgot, it's a manner of speaking/writing. Sloppy of me.

Well, in your defense, I really did forget.

If a poll was taken 12 days before the election and something big happens 11 days before the election, it makes that poll worthless, not wrong. I was calling the poll wrong, when in fact it was worthless thanks to Comey's actions.


As a result of 2016, will national polls stop being discussed?

No, because everyone loves to know the score and the electoral college is simply too complicated for our TV news personalities :cool:

[CrazyNotCrazie]

"Rick Shaftan made the comments in tweets newly uncovered by CNN's KFile. The previously unreported tweets come on the heels of a report from the Daily Beast that he described majority-black cities as 'sh**holes' and told his followers not to open businesses in black neighborhoods."

Although there is really no "good" place to make such comments obviously, making them in the state where the Charlottesville tragedy occurred a little less than a year ago is especially troublesome.

Really -- does no one vet anymore?

I think/hope we all agree that comments like this are inappropriate, regardless of how one feels about other issues. That being said, unfortunately there still remains a significant portion of the population for whom a comment like that makes a candidate more attractive, not less. But I think that for a state-wide office, that population is a very small minority.

[Bob Green]

Although there is really no "good" place to make such comments obviously, making them in the state where the Charlottesville tragedy occurred a little less than a year ago is especially troublesome.



Stewart is connected to the Charlottesville tragedy from his run for governor:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/us/politics/corey-stewart-virginia.html


Mr. Stewart was also endorsed last year by the white nationalist Jason Kessler, who later organized the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville. In February 2017, Mr. Stewart appeared with Mr. Kessler at an event sponsored by Mr. Kessler’s group Unity and Security for America, whose mission statement called for “defending Western civilization, including its history, culture and peoples, while utterly dismantling cultural Marxism.”

I've voted Republican forever and a day but I swear the GOP is becoming the "Party of the Uneducated." While Tim Kaine is going to be hard to beat, I'm unsure how the GOP primary voters thought Stewart was a viable candidate.

[cato]

Really -- does no one vet anymore?

I don’t know how easy or hard it is to vet people’s comments on Twitter, but with so many recently uncovered tweets, I have to wonder if they did vet, how they could fill out a staff.

[OldPhiKap]

Stewart is connected to the Charlottesville tragedy from his run for governor:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/us/politics/corey-stewart-virginia.html



What are his views on Bigfoot?

Asking, y'know -- for a friend.

[BigWayne]

I've voted Republican forever and a day but I swear the GOP is becoming the "Party of the Uneducated."

The Democrats are certainly putting up some stiff competition in this contest. Sadly, with the current 24 hour news cycle, there is a non stop supply of stupid moves and comments from both sides.

[dudog84]

Since I've been posting on the situation in Florida, here's some short video of the rally in Tampa yesterday. Things are getting ugly. And we've still got about 90 days 'til the election.

https://twitter.com/AshleyRParker/status/1024459201240870912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1024459201240870912&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2018%2F08% 2F01%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia%2Ftrump-press-jim-acosta.html%3Fpartner%3Dmsft_msn

[Troublemaker]

Since I've been posting on the situation in Florida, here's some short video of the rally in Tampa yesterday. Things are getting ugly. And we've still got about 90 days 'til the election.

https://twitter.com/AshleyRParker/status/1024459201240870912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1024459201240870912&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2018%2F08% 2F01%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia%2Ftrump-press-jim-acosta.html%3Fpartner%3Dmsft_msn

This is unrelated to the midterms and to the proximity to November, imo. Trump rally attendees chanting negatively at the media has been going on since 2015. Whether the behavior is grotesque, fair, or awesome (or somewhere in between), it seems outside the scope of the thread and could lead to unnecessary PPB. At least with the posts about the Presidential race in 2020, many were couched in terms of what the effect of November's midterm outcomes would be on the race.

[dudog84]

This is unrelated to the midterms and to the proximity to November, imo. Trump rally attendees chanting negatively at the media has been going on since 2015. Whether the behavior is grotesque, fair, or awesome (or somewhere in between), it seems outside the scope of the thread and could lead to unnecessary PPB. At least with the posts about the Presidential race in 2020, many were couched in terms of what the effect of November's midterm outcomes would be on the race.

Then ask the mods to delete it. I posted it without comment on whether it was grotesque, fair, or awesome. I do think it is worse than it has been, will continue to get worse, and is doing so because of the upcoming election.

It's meant to excite a base and increase turnout. Whether it will do that or have the opposite effect, we'll see.

But if it's gong to cause a problem, by all means delete it. I posted because it's happening in my state and so others could see it.

[JasonEvans]

Ill leave it up for now as it is an interesting way of rallying the GOP base.

That said, I do agree that any prolonged conversation about Trump supporters vs the mainstream media is probably going to get PPB and should be avoided in this thread.

[Troublemaker]

Then ask the mods to delete it. I posted it without comment on whether it was grotesque, fair, or awesome. I do think it is worse than it has been, will continue to get worse, and is doing so because of the upcoming election.

It's meant to excite a base and increase turnout. Whether it will do that or have the opposite effect, we'll see.

But if it's gong to cause a problem, by all means delete it. I posted because it's happening in my state and so others could see it.

I don't want it deleted. I wanted to give a friendly nudge of, "Hey, we all know that discussion of this could lead to animosity, right?"

And I do think it's a stretch to connect it to the midterms. If someone wants to make it worth my while -- a pie bet or something -- I'm fairly certain I can find previous video of Trump's base chanting negatively at the media just as vociferously.

[dudog84]

I don't want it deleted. I wanted to give a friendly nudge of, "Hey, we all know that discussion of this could lead to animosity, right?"

And I do think it's a stretch to connect it to the midterms. If someone wants to make it worth my while -- a pie bet or something -- I'm fairly certain I can find previous video of Trump's base chanting negatively at the media just as vociferously.

I guess I didn't see it as something that would cause disagreement on the board. As strongly as I may disagree with someone, I don't scream at them, I don't curse at them, I don't give them the finger. I thought it was newsy. I had originally seen the clip as part of an article with opinion on it, and deliberately sought out the clip to post it alone.

I'd take you up on your offer but I don't gamble/bet. At least not with stakes as high as a pie. :)

[PackMan97]

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053

Only 7% of Journalists identify as Republican. Is it any surprise the Republicans who participate actively in the party might think the other 93% are really out to get them?

[Wander]

I guess I didn't see it as something that would cause disagreement on the board. As strongly as I may disagree with someone, I don't scream at them, I don't curse at them, I don't give them the finger. I thought it was newsy. I had originally seen the clip as part of an article with opinion on it, and deliberately sought out the clip to post it alone.


Well, there are a lot of people who don't see anything "ugly" about chanting the media is fake. That's where Trump supporters would disagree with your post.

But the real answer is these things are impossible to moderate for the DBR mods. There were many times in the presidential election that you couldn't meaningfully talk about major political stories, no matter how neutral or non-partisan or "I'm only talking about horse race stuff" your intentions, simply because Trump's quotes themselves weren't allowable by DBR's guidelines and sometimes literally couldn't even get past the automatic DBR filter. We'll probably see similar difficulties here as the election gets closer.

[dudog84]

Well, there are a lot of people who don't see anything "ugly" about chanting the media is fake. That's where Trump supporters would disagree with your post.

But the real answer is these things are impossible to moderate for the DBR mods. There were many times in the presidential election that you couldn't meaningfully talk about major political stories, no matter how neutral or non-partisan or "I'm only talking about horse race stuff" your intentions, simply because Trump's quotes themselves weren't allowable by DBR's guidelines and sometimes literally couldn't even get past the automatic DBR filter. We'll probably see similar difficulties here as the election gets closer.

In my defense, there was a lot more in that clip than a "fake news" chant.

[dudog84]

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053

Only 7% of Journalists identify as Republican. Is it any surprise the Republicans who participate actively in the party might think the other 93% are really out to get them?

From the article:

"The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza notes two caveats to those numbers: The first, is that the study is among all reporters, not just political reporters whose party identification may be a lot different. Second, “the movement toward independent status among reporters is in keeping with a similar move in the broader electorate as they find the two parties increasingly rigid and, therefore, less welcoming.”" (emphasis mine)

So those "reporting" on the Kardashian's are lumped in here too. :D

[luvdahops]

Well, there are a lot of people who don't see anything "ugly" about chanting the media is fake. That's where Trump supporters would disagree with your post.

But the real answer is these things are impossible to moderate for the DBR mods. There were many times in the presidential election that you couldn't meaningfully talk about major political stories, no matter how neutral or non-partisan or "I'm only talking about horse race stuff" your intentions, simply because Trump's quotes themselves weren't allowable by DBR's guidelines and sometimes literally couldn't even get past the automatic DBR filter. We'll probably see similar difficulties here as the election gets closer.

True enough, as the alleged bias and demonization of the mainstream media has been a major right-wing rallying cry since the advent of popular conservative talk radio and news shows in the 90s, if not earlier. But that rallying cry has grown far more intense with the Trump campaign and Presidency so far, given Trump's constant attacks on the MSM. To the point where his most ardent supporters are skeptical, or worse, around even the most basic fact reporting by outlets like the WSJ and Wa Post.

[gus]

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053

Only 7% of Journalists identify as Republican. Is it any surprise the Republicans who participate actively in the party might think the other 93% are really out to get them?

Based on that survey (2013), you could just as accurately say "72% of journalists identify as 'not a Democrat'". (https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533234387&sr=8-1&keywords=how+to+lie+with+statistics)

[PackMan97]

Based on that survey (2013), you could just as accurately say "72% of journalists identify as 'not a Democrat'". (https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533234387&sr=8-1&keywords=how+to+lie+with+statistics)

You are forgetting the first rule of politics in today's world, "If you aren't with us, you are against us."

[JasonEvans]

To the point where his most ardent supporters are skeptical, or worse, around even the most basic fact reporting by outlets like the WSJ and Wa Post.

The remarkable thing is how much they disdain outlets like the WSJ and USA Today, who have consistently been seen as conservative or at least "leaning right."

[JasonEvans]

I found this interesting chart (https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444)from Pew about the political leanings of the consumers of various outlets. I don't see any of it as surprising, but it is still interesting.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/libapps/accounts/81796/images/Pew_mediapolarization_ideologicalplacementsourceau dience.png

-Jason "this was done in 2014, and it does feel like the nation has become more polarized since then so perhaps this data is too old as to be useful in Trump's America" Evans

[Wander]

I found this interesting chart (https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444)from Pew about the political leanings of the consumers of various outlets. I don't see any of it as surprising, but it is still interesting.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/libapps/accounts/81796/images/Pew_mediapolarization_ideologicalplacementsourceau dience.png

-Jason "this was done in 2014, and it does feel like the nation has become more polarized since then so perhaps this data is too old as to be useful in Trump's America" Evans

I think the chart here (http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Media-Bias-Chart_Version-3.1_Watermark-min.jpg) (has it been on this thread before? not sure) is a little better because it plots news sources along two axis: the partisanship of the source and the quality (or at least facts vs opinions) of the source. I find it hard to disagree with much of the placement here.

[Mike Corey]

Special election in Ohio's 12th coming up.

The seat has been held by a Republican since Reagan was in the White House.

(The Congressman then was a guy named John Kasich.)

The Republican candidate was the more moderate in the primary, but he has wrapped his arms around Trump ever since. He was up comfortably by double digits when the first public polls came out in June, but it's now within the margin of error. The alarm in the GOP is evidenced by Mike Pence's campaigning in the region earlier this week, and the occupant of the White House's arrival on Saturday.

Early turnout has been surprisingly favorable to the Democratic candidate, a 31-year old lawyer who has been the Franklin County Recorder since January 2017. The Republican candidate, a state legislator, has been criticized by the far right wing of the Republican Party in Ohio as recently as this week.

In a district that went +37 for the Republican incumbent in 2016, this is a staggering shift no matter the ultimate outcome which will require a do-over on November 6th anyway.

[gus]

I found this interesting chart (https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444)from Pew about the political leanings of the consumers of various outlets. I don't see any of it as surprising, but it is still interesting.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/libapps/accounts/81796/images/Pew_mediapolarization_ideologicalplacementsourceau dience.png

-Jason "this was done in 2014, and it does feel like the nation has become more polarized since then so perhaps this data is too old as to be useful in Trump's America" Evans

Why isn't the "average respondent" the midpoint? I think the scale needs to be recalibrated a little.

[gus]

I think the chart here (http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Media-Bias-Chart_Version-3.1_Watermark-min.jpg) (has it been on this thread before? not sure) is a little better because it plots news sources along two axis: the partisanship of the source and the quality (or at least facts vs opinions) of the source. I find it hard to disagree with much of the placement here.

This is definitely an interesting chart - but it's answering a different question: Jason's graph is about the bias of the consumers, not the source.

[JasonEvans]

Why isn't the "average respondent" the midpoint? I think the scale needs to be recalibrated a little.

I think it merely means that the average respondent (aka, the average person who watches any news) is a little more liberal than the average person in America. At least that is how I interpreted the "average respondent" being slightly off from the 0 point on the graph.

[Nick]

True enough, as the alleged bias and demonization of the mainstream media has been a major right-wing rallying cry since the advent of popular conservative talk radio and news shows in the 90s, if not earlier. But that rallying cry has grown far more intense with the Trump campaign and Presidency so far, given Trump's constant attacks on the MSM. To the point where his most ardent supporters are skeptical, or worse, around even the most basic fact reporting by outlets like the WSJ and Wa Post.

We've been skeptical about "fact reporting", as you call it, since well before Trump came along and things like this lovely lady from the NYT editorial board (https://imgur.com/a/sa0a2ph) are just the latest in our list of grievances. Trump just recognizes what's there and channels it.

Look, everybody has a narrative in their head that helps to interpret the world and provide context to new information. Some of us have a left-wing narrative and some of us have a right-wing narrative and other people have other narratives. Some narratives are indeed plain loony, and there are plenty of loony right-wingers out there... and plenty of loony left-wingers. But let's not any of us pretend we are free of cognitive bias, or that "the other guys", whoever they may be, are more prone to it than one's own side. Is it possible that's the case? Sure. But that's not the way to bet. It's trivial to recognize cognitive bias in others but very difficult to do it in oneself. Radiohead has a nice heuristic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOa--Dhu11M) for getting at the truth if anybody's interested.

(Jason, far be it from me to tell you how to moderate, I think you do a fine job herding all of us cats, but as one of the few Trump supporters here I'm seeing a little too much partisan stuff here from the left in the past few pages.)

(And yes, I know those tweets I linked to were doctored, but they were doctored in a specific way which I think is pertinent to the matter at hand.)

[dudog84]

We've been skeptical about "fact reporting", as you call it, since well before Trump came along and things like this lovely lady from the NYT editorial board (https://imgur.com/a/sa0a2ph) are just the latest in our list of grievances. Trump just recognizes what's there and channels it.

Look, everybody has a narrative in their head that helps to interpret the world and provide context to new information. Some of us have a left-wing narrative and some of us have a right-wing narrative and other people have other narratives. Some narratives are indeed plain loony, and there are plenty of loony right-wingers out there... and plenty of loony left-wingers. But let's not any of us pretend we are free of cognitive bias, or that "the other guys", whoever they may be, are more prone to it than one's own side. Is it possible that's the case? Sure. But that's not the way to bet. It's trivial to recognize cognitive bias in others but very difficult to do it in oneself. Radiohead has a nice heuristic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOa--Dhu11M) for getting at the truth if anybody's interested.

(Jason, far be it from me to tell you how to moderate, I think you do a fine job herding all of us cats, but as one of the few Trump supporters here I'm seeing a little too much partisan stuff here from the left in the past few pages.)

(And yes, I know those tweets I linked to were doctored, but they were doctored in a specific way which I think is pertinent to the matter at hand.)

I'm trying to figure out why you posted something you admit is false. I don't have the time to figure out what in your post was doctored, and you didn't bother to explain how it is pertinent. If you don't explain what portion was doctored, how are we supposed to understand your point? I don't even know what imgur.com is. Did they doctor it? Did the New York Times doctor it? Maybe I'm stupid and don't get it. Is it hypocrisy that the New York Times hired her after she tweeted these things? Which, if doctored, she did not tweet. Even so, that's a far cry from not reporting facts. Please explain.