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.

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 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.

[rthomas]

Is that common?

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.