Midterm Elections 2018

[JasonEvans]

Just wanted to say that I thought we were going to get into a heated discussion about the way a representative democracy would work, a conversation which seemed fated to go PPB and out of bounds, but things seem to have simmered down and I am glad for that. Please be very careful if you choose to continue to broach this subject. In fact, my advice would be to move on to something new.

-Jason "moderator... out!" Evans

[sagegrouse]

Just wanted to say that I thought we were going to get into a heated discussion about the way a representative democracy would work, a conversation which seemed fated to go PPB and out of bounds, but things seem to have simmered down and I am glad for that. Please be very careful if you choose to continue to broach this subject. In fact, my advice would be to move on to something new.

-Jason "moderator... out!" Evans

Edmund Burke (1729-1797) is PPB territory? Next thing is that we'll ban talk of Woodrow Wilson. ;-)

[OldPhiKap]

Edmund Burke (1729-1797) is PPB territory? Next thing is that we'll ban talk of Woodrow Wilson. ;-)

Ah, if only Oly would choose to rejoin us . . . .

As an aside: at House_P's suggestion, I just finished Hardcore History's "Countdown to Armageddon" -- a lengthy but wonderful podcast about WWI. Dan Carlin, the man behind Hardcore History, talks a great deal about the two distinct views of Wilson (either a high-minded pursuer of peace, or a schemer behind a mask of civility).


I highly highly highly recommend the series, and thanks again to House P for putting me on to it. Be warned, though -- it's something like 25 hours in total. Really good.

[sagegrouse]

Ah, if only Oly would choose to rejoin us . . . .

As an aside: at House_P's suggestion, I just finished Hardcore History's "Countdown to Armageddon" -- a lengthy but wonderful podcast about WWI. Dan Carlin, the man behind Hardcore History, talks a great deal about the two distinct views of Wilson (either a high-minded pursuer of peace, or a schemer behind a mask of civility).


I highly highly highly recommend the series, and thanks again to House P for putting me on to it. Be warned, though -- it's something like 25 hours in total. Really good.

I look forward to watching it.

[Do not read the following. It is pure blather.]

World War I is a watershed. It was a war that no one wanted to happen, and it resulted in the toppling of the monarchies in Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary, among others. It led to the rise of the Bolsheviks and the Communist rule in the Soviet Union. The "Economic Consequences of the Peace" (as Keynes put it) -- the harsh terms levied on Germany after the war -- made it impossible for the Weimar Republic to succeed and probably led to the rise of an extreme nationalistic party and Adolph Hitler, bent both on evening the score from the Great War and expanding Germany into Eastern European lands. The carnage on the Western Front toppled governments and made Britain and France unwilling to match or stop the German military buildup. The working classes in Britain never forgave the ruling classes for the deaths; the "Lost Generation" in France was both figurative and literal -- whole villages were hollowed out in the loss of their young men.

[OldPhiKap]

I look forward to watching it.

[Do not read the following. It is pure blather.]

World War I is a watershed. It was a war that no one wanted to happen, and it resulted in the toppling of the monarchies in Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary, among others. It led to the rise of the Bolsheviks and the Communist rule in the Soviet Union. The "Economic Consequences of the Peace" (as Keynes put it) -- the harsh terms levied on Germany after the war -- made it impossible for the Weimar Republic to succeed and probably led to the rise of an extreme nationalistic party and Adolph Hitler, bent both on evening the score from the Great War and expanding Germany into Eastern European lands. The carnage on the Western Front toppled governments and made Britain and France unwilling to match or stop the German military buildup. The working classes in Britain never forgave the ruling classes for the deaths; the "Lost Generation" in France was both figurative and literal -- whole villages were hollowed out in the loss of their young men.

Sage, this is right up your alley then. He discusses all of these themes.

It is all audio. You can stream Episode I for free here:

https://www.dancarlin.com/product/ha...-armageddon-i/

Or get the same thing through YouTube:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YFMT_BVBBsA

[Nick]

Bad news for the Dems in Missouri. A brand new poll finds Claire McKaskill down 2 points, 48-46 to Josh Hawley.

It is clear from the splits where McKaskill's problem lies... she is only winning women by 1 point 47-46. Nationally, Dems tend to win women by close to 10 points.

A new poll yesterday had McCaskill up by 3. The RCP average on that one has it as a dead heat, though Nate Silver has her odds of winning at 60%.

Another new poll has incumbent Senator Heidi Heitkamp down by 10 in North Dakota. She's down by 6 in RCP, while Silver has her at slightly less than even odds to win.

Yet another new poll has Manchin up by 8 in WV. He's been consistently leading and it's hard to see him losing.

Finally, Senator Bob Menendez has only a 2-point lead in NJ in a new poll, which is surprising for a solid blue state. But 538 gives him a 93% chance of winning, so maybe that's just a blip. Apparently he had a corruption trial last year. Any new Jersey residents care to comment?

[OldPhiKap]

Georgia governor's race still too close to call:

http://www.augustachronicle.com/news...orgia-governor

If you believe polls, that is.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

A new poll yesterday had McCaskill up by 3. The RCP average on that one has it as a dead heat, though Nate Silver has her odds of winning at 60%.

Another new poll has incumbent Senator Heidi Heitkamp down by 10 in North Dakota. She's down by 6 in RCP, while Silver has her at slightly less than even odds to win.

Yet another new poll has Manchin up by 8 in WV. He's been consistently leading and it's hard to see him losing.

Finally, Senator Bob Menendez has only a 2-point lead in NJ in a new poll, which is surprising for a solid blue state. But 538 gives him a 93% chance of winning, so maybe that's just a blip. Apparently he had a corruption trial last year. Any new Jersey residents care to comment?

I have a cursory knowledge of the situation in NJ and will try to describe it as neutrally as possible. NJ is traditionally a very blue state, but has a significant red population - it has had a number of Republican governors (most recently Chris Christie). And it has a fair number of Republican house seats, some of which the Dems are actively trying to flip this year. But the two Senate seats have been Democrats since the late 70s (other than one Republican who was appointed to briefly fill out a term).

Menendez is running for his third term. He was charged with ethics violations, mainly revolving around taking money and gifts from a doctor in exchange for political favors. As a result, he stepped down as ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The trial against him ended in a hung jury about a year ago, and shortly there after the justice department dropped its case. However, he was admonished by the Senate Ethics panel. Democratic heavyweights stayed out of the primary but a political unknown who spent virtually nothing on her campaign got about 40% of the vote in the primary, which was a bad sign for Menendez.

He is now running against Bob Hugin, a wealthy pharma executive (pharma is a huge industry in NJ - many of the big companies are based there). Menendez is going after allegations that Hugin's company (Celgene) price gauged cancer patients. From what I understand, he is socially liberal - pro-choice, pro-gay marriage. I think he has tried to stay pretty far away from Trump, while Menendez is trying to tie him closely to Trump.

There are also several close house races in NJ, most of which involve Democrats flipping some of the previously Republican seats. The Democrats are expected to flip a few seats, with the Republicans forecasted to be unlikely to flip any of the Democrat seats.

[gus]

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-ins...oll_nj_041618/

My thinking hasn't changed. Menendez is not popular, but Trump and the current GOP are very unpopular. I think Menendez wins on that basis. Any other year, (i.e. if a less unpopular GOP president were in the whitehouse), Menendez would be toast.

When you asked the same question a few months ago, I said there was a chance zero republicans are elected to a federal office this year. That is still looking very possible.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...se/new-jersey/

[Mike Corey]

The Democrats' failure to oust Menendez is inexplicable, IMO.

[cato]

The Democrats' failure to oust Menendez is inexplicable, IMO.

Aren’t we talking about New Jersey here?

[PackMan97]

The Democrats' failure to oust Menendez is inexplicable, IMO.

In Menendez's defense, the feds failed to convict on bribery and fraud charges.

[JasonEvans]

The Democrats' failure to oust Menendez is inexplicable, IMO.

He is a very powerful, longtime member of the establishment and no one of real power ran against him as a result. If he loses, maybe it will teach the Dems that sticking with a badly flawed candidate, even one who is part of leadership, is a bad idea. If he loses and the Dems come one seat short in the senate it will really be their own fault.

[gus]

He is a very powerful, longtime member of the establishment and no one of real power ran against him as a result. If he loses, maybe it will teach the Dems that sticking with a badly flawed candidate, even one who is part of leadership, is a bad idea. If he loses and the Dems come one seat short in the senate it will really be their own fault.

There were rumors that the two people waiting in the wings were Steve Fulop (mayor of Jersey City) and Bob Torricelli (former senator who got dropped from the ticket in September 2002 in favor of Frank Lautenberg, because of... corruption charges. NJ politics are a mess.) But as you allude -- once the machine endorsed him (almost immediately after the mistrial) that wasn't happening.

Torricelli would also have been a disaster worse than Menendez, but I think Fulop would have won out.

[dudog84]

He is a very powerful, longtime member of the establishment and no one of real power ran against him as a result. If he loses, maybe it will teach the Dems that sticking with a badly flawed candidate, even one who is part of leadership, is a bad idea. If he loses and the Dems come one seat short in the senate it will really be their own fault.

Wow, that's a tempter.

[Mike Corey]

...sticking with a badly flawed candidate...is a bad idea.

I wish everyone, from party decision-makers to voters, subscribed to this across party lines.

[Mike Corey]

As an aside, I remain hopeful that my college classmate, Anthony Vitarelli (Yale Law Journal EIC; SCOTUS clerk; etc.) will someday return to his home state of New Jersey and run for the U.S. Senate.

(Insert joke about the preponderance of Duke alums from New Jersey here.)

Unlike some, he would represent our alma mater well.

[OldPhiKap]

The question on my mind is: Does Jeff Flake bother to primary Trump, or is he just angling for a third party centrist bid? "Flake-Coons 2020?"

Whatever his plans are, they have taken him to New Hampster. While I did not major in Geography like Michael Jordan did, my Google Machine tells me that NH is not in fact close to Arizona.

[pfrduke]

The Democrats' failure to oust Menendez is inexplicable, IMO.

Particularly when anti-corruption is one of the unifying national messages the party is trying to send in this campaign.

[RPS]

Bob Torricelli (former senator who got dropped from the ticket in September 2002 in favor of Frank Lautenberg, because of... corruption charges...).

Torricelli used to date Laura Ingraham, I believe.

NJ politics are a mess.

This comment allows me to quote, once again, my favorite newspaper headline ever (from the Jersey City Journal, October 15, 1982): "No Hudson [County, New Jersey] official indicted yesterday."