View Poll Results: What will be the result of the Midterms (vote twice!!)

Voters
48. You may not vote on this poll
  • GOP holds the House

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the House by less than 12 seats

    20 41.67%
  • Dems win the House by 12-25 seats

    12 25.00%
  • Dems win the House by 25-38 seats

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the House by 38+ seats

    1 2.08%
  • GOP gains 1 or more seats in the Senate (52-48 or more)

    29 60.42%
  • GOP holds the same number of seats in the Senate (51-49)

    7 14.58%
  • GOP loses seats but still holds the Senate (50-50 with Pence breaking tie)

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the Senate (49-51 or more)

    2 4.17%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 94 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 1870
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    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.

  2. #42
    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.

  3. #43
    https://www.npr.org/2018/05/21/61298...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.
    ~rthomas

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by rthomas View Post
    https://www.npr.org/2018/05/21/61298...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.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  5. #45
    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!

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    -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:

    Quote Originally Posted by rthomas View Post
    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, 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    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.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    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!

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post


    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, 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.
    ~rthomas

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    http://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politi...run/index.html

    Article on West Virginia and Don Blankenship running as a third party candidate.
    Bob Green
    DBR Survivor Football Champion
    2010 & 2016

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Green View Post
    http://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politi...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, 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."

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    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.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Green View Post
    http://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politi...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?

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    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.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    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.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    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.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    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???

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Udaman View Post
    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?

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Udaman View Post
    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/pe...terback-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.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    Now you're just trolling for sporks!
    They were still earned.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    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, 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, roughly half of Democrats and Republicans alike say the other party makes them "afraid."

Similar Threads

  1. Oscars 2018
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-10-2018, 12:23 AM
  2. 2017-2018 team vs 2018-2019 team
    By proelitedota in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-25-2018, 06:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •