2022 Midterm Election thread

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think the net effect may well be to increase his chances in the future. I haven't counted, but this is about the 17th time "the walls are closing in" on Trump. Each failure to convict (used very broadly here as most of this is political, not criminal) may be seen as another case of the boy crying wolf. Also note that I haven't read the complaint itself yet. I am assuming that there is specific and verifiable details of fraud.
Off to go read now. CNN has the pleading if any one else wants to delve deeper.

It does bring to mind the Stephen Colbert "WE GOT EM!" trope.

[bundabergdevil]

It does bring to mind the Stephen Colbert "WE GOT EM!" trope.

Speaking of Colbert (and I know he may not be the most popular figure w/ some posters but we can still be human with our political foes at times) here's an interview he did w/ Anderson Cooper on loss and grief. He lost his father and two brothers when he was 10.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/21/enter...ess/index.html

[ClemmonsDevil]

Key words being "I would posit" which introduces the element of doubt. Clem is merely stating an a priori belief. I fully expect Clem to change his mind if the data do not support this belief. Collecting the data might prove too difficult leaving this speculation to forever remain exactly that - a speculation.

You know me too well.

[tommy]

I must admit, unlike most political scandals which often seem to confuse the general public, some basic aspects of this one appear to be a bit easier to understand. I mean, if Trump said on bank loans and tax forms that his Trump Tower apartment was 33,000 sq feet and was worth over $300 million, but it is actually 11,000 sq feet and is worth a couple hundred million less, that feels like something normal people can grasp and be at least a little bit angry about. It is also something harder for Trump to explain away. I know we have trouble, as a nation, agreeing on facts these days but the apartment is either 30k sq feet or it is not, right? Is there really going to be a debate about that?

Does this also maybe bite into the narrative that he is a brilliant businessman too? I dunno... I guess it is possible.

Trump and MAGA-World responses (beyond the obvious witch hunt/hoax language ):

1. What do I know about what’s put on those forms? Rich guys like me have accountants and other paper pushers who do all that and I had no idea they were doing anything wrong.

2. C’mon. This is normal business. Everybody does it. Go look at the taxes and loan docs for all these other rich guys and see what you find.

[Matches]

The GOP would much rather be talking about inflation, crime, the border etc than whether 45 can declassify nuclear secrets by thinking about it. Whenever he says something absurd it dominates at least one news cycle; at best that is a distraction from the message they’d like to be sending, and at worst it runs the risk of making the midterms a referendum on the former President which is pretty much unheard of.

Formula for GOP is simple - unpopular incumbent President + economic problems = midterm victory. Anything that complicates that is a burden to them.

[Lord Ash]

Trump and MAGA-World responses (beyond the obvious witch hunt/hoax language ):

1. What do I know about what’s put on those forms? Rich guys like me have accountants and other paper pushers who do all that and I had no idea they were doing anything wrong.

2. C’mon. This is normal business. Everybody does it. Go look at the taxes and loan docs for all these other rich guys and see what you find.

Will definitely get some traction (not the least of reasons being that both points have some legitimacy) but the information revealed, and the possible legal consequences, will most certainly have a negative impact on those middle-of-the-road voters that are so important to both sides.

[OldPhiKap]

I would respectfully posit that at this point, all things Trump are already baked in from both sides of the divide.

His needle is pegged.

[Bostondevil]

I think the net effect may well be to increase his chances in the future. I haven't counted, but this is about the 17th time "the walls are closing in" on Trump. Each failure to convict (used very broadly here as most of this is political, not criminal) may be seen as another case of the boy crying wolf. Also note that I haven't read the complaint itself yet. I am assuming that there is specific and verifiable details of fraud.
Off to go read now. CNN has the pleading if any one else wants to delve deeper.

It's a civil case.

Also, I'm not talking about the case changing the minds of Trump supporters, I'm talking about the case changing his finances enough to affect his ability to run for President again - but that's 2024 stuff.

[Ultrarunner]

It's a civil case.

Also, I'm not talking about the case changing the minds of Trump supporters, I'm talking about the case changing his finances enough to affect his ability to run for President again - but that's 2024 stuff.

Yep, and as I stated in my post, I was using the term "convict" loosely but in accordance with generally recognized usages. Per Merriam-Webster, Convict: to find or prove to be guilty. The word 'convict' is not solely and exclusively a legal term. If you need more examples, I can get them. They are readily available.

Are we having a discussion with wide-ranging viewpoints or are we attempting to score points on word usage in a debate?

Your original post on the lawsuit was to question whether the announcement of Trump's finances (undefined) would hurt his political future (presumed to be the 2024 campaign). I was not aware that you had already applied the damages and fine to a case not yet heard.

Heck, I haven't even had time to read it all - it's 222 pages long - much less decide it is a slam-dunk win for AG James.

I'm not sure what the reaction of the undecided middle will be. I could make a case either way, helping and hurting each party. However, that would be pure speculation, nearing fiction, were I to try.

[PackMan97]

Friendly reminder that 2024 is out of scope for the thread.

[Bostondevil]

Yep, and as I stated in my post, I was using the term "convict" loosely but in accordance with generally recognized usages. Per Merriam-Webster, Convict: to find or prove to be guilty. The word 'convict' is not solely and exclusively a legal term. If you need more examples, I can get them. They are readily available.

Are we having a discussion with wide-ranging viewpoints or are we attempting to score points on word usage in a debate?

Your original post on the lawsuit was to question whether the announcement of Trump's finances (undefined) would hurt his political future (presumed to be the 2024 campaign). I was not aware that you had already applied the damages and fine to a case not yet heard.

Heck, I haven't even had time to read it all - it's 222 pages long - much less decide it is a slam-dunk win for AG James.

I'm not sure what the reaction of the undecided middle will be. I could make a case either way, helping and hurting each party. However, that would be pure speculation, nearing fiction, were I to try.

I will agree that my quick post did not delve deeply into the issues you bring up - because most of what you bring up isn't related to what I was thinking.

The actual point of my post was to question if current midterm candidates might decide it wasn't worth having Trump come and speak for them since I believe most of his stump speeches will be about his current legal troubles and not the issues the candidates themselves are running on. You assumed I meant the 2024 Presidential campaign. I did not. I meant his usefulness and influence within the Republican Party. If he loses influence, I don't think it will happen immediately. Certainly some candidates will welcome visits by him on the campaign trail, but it might affect some enough to think it's not worth it to have him come.

I don't use the term convict when speaking about civil cases. IANAL so perhaps it is common but I was not aware of it.

Fact - Trump is facing legal troubles on multiple fronts. That will affect his finances. I wasn't even thinking about him paying a potential fine in New York State, I was thinking about cash on hand and how that will affect his ability to campaign right now in 2022 since he has a lot of lawyers to pay at present.

I made this comment in the Midterm Elections thread. The next time you want to assume that I am talking about issues not related to the midterms, you need to ask for clarifications first, or don't comment. A previous response to you did look forward but then I commented that I was getting back to the midterms.

[Matches]

.

I don't use the term convict when speaking about civil cases. IANAL so perhaps it is common but I was not aware of it.

It is not; nor do we discuss guilt or innocence. Those concepts are for criminal trials. That’s not to say the terms might be used differently colloquially, but legally you are correct.

[jjredickrules]

Hi everyone! I love having this thread, because it at least attempts to be horse race related. I've seen a lot of posts about how nationally covered events will affect the big picture, but very little about the specific idiosyncrasies of the closest projected races. Below I'll write a brief summary of each major Senate race. Please, please correct me if I err and add more details to each. I might make another post about NC (with District 13), because I find it fascinating and that's my current state. I know much less about some other states *coughNevadacough*

North Carolina (R): Former NC Supreme Court Justice Cheri Beasley (D) v US House Rep Ted Budd (R)

After losing a razor thin Chief Justice election in 2020, Beasley had no trouble in her Primary after State Senator Jeff Jackson dropped out early. Budd, who is a very conservative member of the House per every source I've seen, went through an incredibly hostile primary against former governor McCrory and another US House Rep Mark Walker. McCrory, I believe, has declined to endorse Budd. While Budd won by a convincing margin, there's likely some lingering bad feelings.

Pennsylvania (R): TV Host Dr. Mehmet Oz (R) v Lt Gov & Former Mayor John Fetterman (D)

Standing 6 foot 7 and wearing shorts and a hoodie, the bald Fetterman oozes 'blue collar'. He won convincingly in the Primary, but his substantial momentum was stymied after a health scare. Meanwhile, Dr. Oz went through an incredibly hostile primary and won on the thinnest of margins, thanks largely to Trump's endorsement. Accusations over his lack of PA roots and his history of controversial (or worse, 'liberal'!) statements were well publicized by his competitors.

Georgia (D): Incumbent Raphael Warnock (D) v Former football player Herschel Walker (R)

Regulars on this thread are very familiar with Warnock from his Runoff victory in 2020, which was accomplished in no small part through the lack of enthusiasm Trump showed for campaigning in GA after (*muffled sounds*). Walker was an early supporter of Trump (from August 2015!) and has reaped the benefits of Trump's rise by winning an easy victory in the Primaries. His less polished speaking style has lead to some controversies, along with the typical polarization of a hardcore Trump supporter.

Ohio (R): Longtime US Rep Tim Ryan (D) v Venture Capitalist & 'Hillbilly Elegy' Author J. D. Vance (R)

After 20 years in the House, Ryan won a cakewalk in the primaries. Stop me if you've heard this before, but Vance won a hostile primary where seemingly every candidate was vying for Trump's support. Vance successfully walked back his prior criticisms of Trump to win the former President's last minute approval.

Nevada (D): Incumbent & Former AG Catherine Cortez Masto (D) v former AG Adam Laxalt (R)

Per 538, this is the closest race in the bunch (tied with GA). The further west we go, the less I know. I think Laxalt is another Trump endorsee.

Wisconsin (R): Incumbent Ron Johnson (R) v Lt Gov Mandela Barnes (D)

Honestly, I don't know much about this one either. The primaries seemed pretty well in hand, and Wisconsin is a bit far west for me. Sorry, cheeseheads.

Arizona (D): Incumbent & former astronaut Mark Kelly (D) v Venture Capitalist & Author Blake Masters (R)

Kelly won the 2020 special election after unseating the 2018 appointed McSally. Masters won Trump's endorsement and, like the GOP's Arizona Governor candidate Kari Lake, has been unabashedly pro-Trump from the start of his campaign. Like, even pro-Trump GOP thinks he's a bit much.

BONUS Florida (R): Incumbent Marco Rubio (R) v US House Rep & Former Orlando Police Chief Val Demings (D)

Most of Florida's eyes are on DeSantis and 2024, but Demings was a popular VP pick for prognosticators in 2020, and she could make this interesting.

Surprisingly Unlikely to be competitive: New Hampster: Since Governor Sununu (R) declined to run, Incumbent Hassan (D) should have no issues.

[PackMan97]

The actual point of my post was to question if current midterm candidates might decide it wasn't worth having Trump come and speak for them since I believe most of his stump speeches will be about his current legal troubles and not the issues the candidates themselves are running on.

This is a great point. Trump will want to talk about Trump. We saw on his two presidential elections and one mid term, how much trouble he had on sticking to the issues of the day. Trump may do a good job firing up HIS base, but he's going to move the needle in reverse on those who aren't fans, but might not want to support democrats in the mid term. Trump is speaking in NC today and will have Senate candidate, Ted Budd as well as other candidates in attendance... So we get a good chance to see how his support will look over the final month and a half of the campaign.

[Kdogg]

I will agree that my quick post did not delve deeply into the issues you bring up - because most of what you bring up isn't related to what I was thinking.

The actual point of my post was to question if current midterm candidates might decide it wasn't worth having Trump come and speak for them since I believe most of his stump speeches will be about his current legal troubles and not the issues the candidates themselves are running on. You assumed I meant the 2024 Presidential campaign. I did not. I meant his usefulness and influence within the Republican Party. If he loses influence, I don't think it will happen immediately. Certainly some candidates will welcome visits by him on the campaign trail, but it might affect some enough to think it's not worth it to have him come.

The thing is candidates can’t really tell him no for fear of retribution from him and HIS base. Even if his influence is diminished in aggregate, 30% of the electorate are ride or die. Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton and Obama could be asked to stay back if their active participation was detrimental to a candidate. I don’t see that happening ever with Trump.

This is a great point. Trump will want to talk about Trump. We saw on his two presidential elections and one mid term, how much trouble he had on sticking to the issues of the day. Trump may do a good job firing up HIS base, but he's going to move the needle in reverse on those who aren't fans, but might not want to support democrats in the mid term. Trump is speaking in NC today and will have Senate candidate, Ted Budd as well as other candidates in attendance... So we get a good chance to see how his support will look over the final month and a half of the campaign.

These multi-candidate events take the focus off the local/state elections. I’m not sure how helpful they are. I mean the SC District 7 candidate will be there. That seems unnecessary.

[Phredd3]

The thing is candidates can’t really tell him no for fear of retribution from him and HIS base. Even if his influence is diminished in aggregate, 30% of the electorate are ride or die. Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton and Obama could be asked to stay back if their active participation was detrimental to a candidate. I don’t see that happening ever with Trump.

Oh, I don't know. How hard is it to find multiple "scheduling conflicts"?

[bundabergdevil]

Oh, I don't know. How hard is it to find multiple "scheduling conflicts"?

Every date night my wife seems to have them so they must not be uncommon!

[ClemmonsDevil]

Every date night my wife seems to have them so they must not be uncommon!

Y'all got 2 young kids. It ain't EVERY date night.

[OldPhiKap]

Every date night my wife seems to have them so they must not be uncommon!

Mine just gets a headache.

[bundabergdevil]

Y'all got 2 young kids. It ain't EVERY date night.

Blind squirrel nuts and such.