2022 Midterm Election thread

[sagegrouse]

And this has been true for at least the last 40 years. This was how Reagan swept into office back in the day. It has become so ingrained that, at least in my experience, even some Democrats believe that Republicans are better for the economy. It's been an amazing enduring political achievement, honestly.

Especially since growth rates under Democratic presidents has been far higher.

[mph]

Dana Carvey's Ross Perot was pretty good too. "Can I finish?"

[dudog84]

Please be nice to Al. He prudently left politics for a much higher level profession.

Al became a prostitute? I would've never guessed. Fred Garvin has competition.

[Jeffrey]

Al became a prostitute? I would've never guessed.

Al quit prostitution. He prudently left politics.

[bundabergdevil]

Dana Carvey's Ross Perot was pretty good too. "Can I finish?"

Oh, good call!!!


Yeah, that list was garbage and needs a complete redo.

[Skydog]

Dana Carvey's Ross Perot was pretty good too. "Can I finish?"

It was brief but the sketch on Perot’s VP was pretty good as well. Eye glasses askew - “Who am I? Why am I here?”

[YmoBeThere]

It was brief but the sketch on Perot’s VP was pretty good as well. Eye glasses askew - “Who am I? Why am I here?”

Vice Admiral Stockdale

[Skydog]

Vice Admiral Stockdale

That’s the fellow! The VP debate was great sketch comedy. The SNL version wasn’t bad either.

[mph]

That’s the fellow! The VP debate was great sketch comedy. The SNL version wasn’t bad either.

Yes! The other skit you mentioned is a “Joyride with Perot” where Perot drives Stockdale out into the countryside to leave him on the side of the road. The whole time Phil Hartman’s Sockdale is blurting out phrases like “Who am I?” Why am I here?” It’s a classic. Hard to beat Carvey and Hartman together.

[bundabergdevil]

Yes! The other skit you mentioned is a “Joyride with Perot” where Perot drives Stockdale out into the countryside to leave him on the side of the road. The whole time Phil Hartman’s Sockdale is blurting out phrases like “Who am I?” Why am I here?” It’s a classic. Hard to beat Carvey and Hartman together.

Hah! Yeah, that was a good one!

[Area_Man]

There are going to be a lot of people looking at an unexpected result on Tuesday night...

expectations.jpg

[ClemmonsDevil]

A great night for Democrats is a close loss in the House where they lose fewer than 20 seats and keep at least a 50/50 split in the Senate. I think that would be just an absolute stunner of a night for Democrats. For Republicans it's winning greater than 25 House seats and going up at least 51/49 in the Senate. I think the latter is more likely. There would have to be a polling miss of around +5 towards the Republicans for that. Reasonable given that polls have tried to account for being D +5 or so in 2016 and 2020. But still not likely. Nate Silver calls this "hopium".

[Bostondevil]

Lawsuit in Wisconsin to stop the counting of military ballets. I will admit, I'm flabbergasted, why would Republicans not want to count military ballots? What's next, nursing homes?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...fraud-lawsuit/

[bundabergdevil]

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobby...erm-elections/


Big money donations have favored Republicans this cycle, defying recent trends to the opposite.

[SouthernDukie]

A great night for Democrats is a close loss in the House where they lose fewer than 20 seats and keep at least a 50/50 split in the Senate. I think that would be just an absolute stunner of a night for Democrats. For Republicans it's winning greater than 25 House seats and going up at least 51/49 in the Senate. I think the latter is more likely. There would have to be a polling miss of around +5 towards the Republicans for that. Reasonable given that polls have tried to account for being D +5 or so in 2016 and 2020. But still not likely. Nate Silver calls this "hopium".

Completely agree. I think the writing is on the wall that the GOP takes the House easily and the Senate with at least 51 seats. All the polling points in that direction. Yes, there are many races that are within the margin of error. But the trends are too strong to ignore or deny. It would require an absolute miracle for the Democrats to retain the Senate at 50-50.

And the economy and inflation will be the defining reason. I know there are other issues that both parties can hang their hats on, but Americans always votes with a view toward their pocketbook first.

[acdevil]

Completely agree. I think the writing is on the wall that the GOP takes the House easily and the Senate with at least 51 seats. All the polling points in that direction. Yes, there are many races that are within the margin of error. But the trends are too strong to ignore or deny. It would require an absolute miracle for the Democrats to retain the Senate at 50-50.

And the economy and inflation will be the defining reason. I know there are other issues that both parties can hang their hats on, but Americans always votes with a view toward their pocketbook first.

I’m not so sure. It does look like there could be a bit of “flooding the zone” going on. averages of “reputable and/or independent” pollsters look much better for Dems than the overall numbers. There has been a much larger than historically normal amount of polls being released by Republican pollsters in the last few weeks.

It could be nothing or it could be everything.

[ClemmonsDevil]

I’m not so sure. It does look like there could be a bit of “flooding the zone” going on. averages of “reputable and/or independent” pollsters look much better for Dems than the overall numbers. There has been a much larger than historically normal amount of polls being released by Republican pollsters in the last few weeks.

It could be nothing or it could be everything.

538 has talked about that. They factor in house effects for all those polls. So they feel like they are accounting for it. 50/50 for Dems in the Senate won't take a miracle. They have a legit shot there even with a trouncing in the House. It's about as likely that Dems get to 50 and Republicans get to 51. But if you were to tell me someone gets to 52 or 53, I would assume Republicans had a very good night.

[acdevil]

538 has talked about that. They factor in house effects for all those polls. So they feel like they are accounting for it. 50/50 for Dems in the Senate won't take a miracle. They have a legit shot there even with a trouncing in the House. It's about as likely that Dems get to 50 and Republicans get to 51. But if you were to tell me someone gets to 52 or 53, I would assume Republicans had a very good night.

Don’t necessarily disagree. Was really just disagreeing that it would take a miracle for dem control of senate. There are plenty of plausible scenarios where it can happen due to candidate quality in some states.

Used to love 538 and Nate Silver. But the bloom is off the rose. He’s in the same bucket as Malcolm Gladwell for me. Stuff I thought was really great at first but a lot of it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny years later with more info.

[ClemmonsDevil]

Don’t necessarily disagree. Was really just disagreeing that it would take a miracle for dem control of senate. There are plenty of plausible scenarios where it can happen due to candidate quality in some states.

Used to love 538 and Nate Silver. But the bloom is off the rose. He’s in the same bucket as Malcolm Gladwell for me. Stuff I thought was really great at first but a lot of it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny years later with more info.

Well I love the website. Polling has been rough in POTUS years the last couple of times. I don't see how that is 538's fault. They're like Real Clear Politics in that they're just an aggregator. Although RCP doesn't account fir house effects. I trust 538 in that their methodology and circumspection is great. That doesn't mean the models will be right. If polling misses one way or the other there is no way to account for that. But them saying Trump had a 35% chance (things that happen 35% happen all the time...Ichiro hit about .350 at his peak) vs EVERYONE else saying Trump had a 1% chance matters. Not defending them. It's a polling average. There is nothing to defend. They aren't polling. Just averaging. But I think there is a lot of info to be gleaned from the site.

[acdevil]

Well I love the website. Polling has been rough in POTUS years the last couple of times. I don't see how that is 538's fault. They're like Real Clear Politics in that they're just an aggregator. Although RCP doesn't account fir house effects. I trust 538 in that their methodology and circumspection is great. That doesn't mean the models will be right. If polling misses one way or the other there is no way to account for that. But them saying Trump had a 35% chance (things that happen 35% happen all the time...Ichiro hit about .350 at his peak) vs EVERYONE else saying Trump had a 1% chance matters. Not defending them. It's a polling average. There is nothing to defend. They aren't polling. Just averaging. But I think there is a lot of info to be gleaned from the site.

The site I was good (haven’t been in a while). It’s Nate’s commentary specifically that has left a bit to be desired in the recent years. I may be skewed because most of what I see from him is on Twitter so might be designed to be more provocative to drive engagement.