Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: polychronopolous on May 29, 2017, 02:34:41 PM
-
The Republican triumph in Montana punctuates how difficult the climb back will be for the out-of-power party in the hyperpartisan Trump era.
(https://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/dc4156c/2147483647/thumbnail/970x647/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F90%2F19%2F5c05cc8d47c990a2cb538164669a%2F170526-gianforte-editorial.jpg)
Democrats still aren't winning.
Four months into his administration, President Donald Trump registers the approval of barely 40 percent of the country. He is mired in an investigation that appears to expand by the day, and is continually damaged by government leakers seemingly determined to embarrass him.
Conservatives openly fret about the future of their ideological movement, given the president's rampant inconsistencies. Even with majorities on Capitol Hill, Republicans are struggling with delivering the legislative agenda they campaigned on, often burdened by papering over the latest Trump tweet or distracted by the daily Russia-related developments.
This week, they found themselves attempting to shrug off the astonishing meltdown of their Montana congressional candidate, who snapped at a reporter on the eve of Thursday's special election, allegedly slamming him to the ground and punching him.
The media narrative for the Republican Party in 2017 has teetered between dark and darker. A White House on the brink. A GOP Congress at war with itself. A slate of underperforming or uninspiring contenders.
And yet, the Democrats still aren't winning.
In the three opportunities they've had to deliver a brushback to Trump through special U.S. House elections, they've failed. These districts are undoubtedly conservative-leaning, having not been held by a Democrat for decades, and in one case, Democrats still have a shot to flip a seat in Georgia next month.
But for all the raised expectations on the left and the hand-wringing on the right, the results have been the same, underscoring just how difficult it will be for the minority party to claw its way back into power. Trump is weakened, but far from vanquished. Republican candidates may be flawed, but their loyal constituencies are showing up to bail them out – if only to rebut the narrative they're constantly hearing permeate out of Washington.
Take Montana.
Even before Republican Greg Gianforte faced a misdemeanor assault charge, he was seen as a subpar candidate due to unpopularity tied to his failed run for governor last year. He was yet another white male multimillionaire running for high office.
Clad in a cowboy hat, folk-singing and guitar-strumming Democrat Rob Quist was easily the more colorful candidate. He attracted significant funding, drew large crowds – with the help of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – and tracked within single digits of Gianforte in polling.
After the incident involving Gianforte and Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs, there was a brief moment when the chattering class wondered if it would amount to a breaking point. But as reporters on the ground scoured for signs of the favored candidate facing a crisis, the evidence they turned up was scant.
A store clerk in the state told MSNBC that Gianforte sounded like "my kind of politician." A 75-year-old Bozeman architect who had already voted for Gianforte told The New York Times the incident "doesn't change my mind at all." CNN found a voter who, after hearing the audio of the scuffle, actually said he had compassion for Gianforte.
As Gianforte apologized for his actions during his victory speech, admitting, "I made a mistake," a supporter could be heard saying, "Not in our minds!"
Gianforte defeated Quist by 6 points in the statewide district – far from the 20-point margin Trump racked up or even the 16-point margin former Rep. Ryan Zinke collected in 2016.
But as cliche as it sounds, a win is still a win. And the overarching takeaway is that in this hyperpartisan environment – in which sides are unwilling to grant even the smallest concession to their opponents – it takes a mountain to move voters, especially those in red districts.
Even a body-slam won't do it.
"Close only counts in horseshoes," Democratic strategist David Axelrod tweeted Friday. "Outside @GOP groups outspent Ds 6-to-1, unleashing a ceaseless barrage on Quist with no counter. Will this be the norm?"
"Another question is whether in cycle [Democratic candidates] should expect the same infusion of cash online as those running in specials," Axelrod said. "Probably not."
The Democrats have nothing but margins to take solace in. Noting that Gianforte performed 14 points worse than Trump, one operative attempted to highlight the bright side by imagining that "if every GOPer in '18 does 14 pts worse than Trump, Dems win 138 House seats."
Of 30 House GOP seats desired by Democrats, 23 of the incumbents won by more than 6 points in 2016, and 17 of them won by more than 10 .
The seesaw of politics says Democrats should have the wind at their backs during next year's midterms, especially if Trump doesn't improve his own standing. Over the last 20 such elections, the president's party has lost House seats in 18. Yet even with a wave, those are towering margins to climb and topple to reclaim control.
Of course, it's foolish to read too much into just a few special elections, let alone a single one.
But observers can be assured that if Democrats had emerged victorious in any thus far, it would've sparked a fusillade of headlines and coverage portraying a coming doomsday for the GOP.
What's true is that these early elections are showing the limits of the Democratic resistance that has bubbled up across the country and into the streets. It's proved powerful, but not transformative.
And while Montana was probably never a ripe place to fire up an anti-Trump protest vote, in less than a month, yet another weather vane will appear in Georgia's special election run-off for a House seat.
Jon Ossoff and the Georgia race appear to offer the best chance yet for a Democratic victory. Gubernatorial races this fall in Virginia and New Jersey offer additional shots.
But so far, Democrats aren't winning.
-
Every time trump acts a fool - the democrats are there to remind us just how even more unfit and disastrous they would be back in office
-
So much for "the resistance."
-
So much for "the resistance."
The mainstream media is absolutely clueless. They are in complete denial in how much this country truly despises them.
Body slam a journalist, win an election: Readers see ominous signs in Gianforte's victory
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-59274c97/turbine/la-na-g-20170525/750/750x422)
On Wednesday, the eve of a Montana special election, Republican House candidate Greg Gianforte was seen body-slamming and punching a reporter who dared to ask him about the GOP healthcare bill. An audio recording seemed to back up witness accounts, and Gianforte was charged with misdemeanor assault.
The next day, Montana voters sent Gianforte to Congress.
Perhaps there’s a disconnect between how people react in public to such a stunning development and how they vote in private, but if it had been up to The Times’ letter writers, the only thing Gianforte would have been delivering on Thursday was an apology, not a victory speech.
Encino resident Branden Frankel doesn’t like where this is headed:
One can draw a direct line from President Trump’s grotesque declaration that journalists are the enemies of the American people to the actions of now Congressman-elect Greg Gianforte. And one can draw a direct line from the hateful, paranoid garbage peddled by Fox News and other right-wing news outlets to the election of Donald Trump. Trump himself is without equal when it comes to peddling conspiracy theories.
One need only look at recent history — for example when a man showed up with a gun at a Washington pizza parlor in response to an outlandish conspiracy theory about a child sex ring run by Hillary Clinton — to see where we are headed. If politicians, who were once upon a time supposed to be role models, start assaulting journalists, it’s only a matter of time before an armed, brainwashed lunatic kills one.
Gianforte body-slams a journalist to the ground and breaks his glasses, and this is fine to the citizens in Montana, who go on to elect him to Congress. Bully culture reins supreme in the era of Trump. No one is going to tell the people of Montana how to vote, and they are going to elect a despicable Neanderthal if they want.
But should I be surprised? When the president of the United States shoves aside a prime minister from another country apparently because he wants to be in the front of the pack, then straightens his suit to look good for the photographers, this is just the new standard of political behavior.
How low can we sink? Truly, how low?
As I listened to the recording of the attack on the reporter, the image of a 1950s movie hero flashed across my mind. Gianforte (played by Gary Cooper) is in the role of the iconic western figure standing up for his rights, versus the city slicker reporter:
“Sheriff, I reckon I got a little riled when he said them things. I’m sorry.”
“No need, Greg. Let’s just say he slipped and fell, and leave it at that, shall we?”
Less amusingly, I thought of the assault on Sen. Charles Sumner by Rep. Preston Brooks in 1856. Sometimes it feels to me as if I’m living in a “Looney Tunes” version of American democracy.
-
Have you also noticed how alot of these websites have shut down their comment sections?
They live in a complete bubble from the rest of the country.
-
The mainstream media is absolutely clueless. They are in complete denial in how much this country truly despises them.
Body slam a journalist, win an election: Readers see ominous signs in Gianforte's victory
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-59274c97/turbine/la-na-g-20170525/750/750x422)
On Wednesday, the eve of a Montana special election, Republican House candidate Greg Gianforte was seen body-slamming and punching a reporter who dared to ask him about the GOP healthcare bill. An audio recording seemed to back up witness accounts, and Gianforte was charged with misdemeanor assault.
The next day, Montana voters sent Gianforte to Congress.
Perhaps there’s a disconnect between how people react in public to such a stunning development and how they vote in private, but if it had been up to The Times’ letter writers, the only thing Gianforte would have been delivering on Thursday was an apology, not a victory speech.
Encino resident Branden Frankel doesn’t like where this is headed:
One can draw a direct line from President Trump’s grotesque declaration that journalists are the enemies of the American people to the actions of now Congressman-elect Greg Gianforte. And one can draw a direct line from the hateful, paranoid garbage peddled by Fox News and other right-wing news outlets to the election of Donald Trump. Trump himself is without equal when it comes to peddling conspiracy theories.
One need only look at recent history — for example when a man showed up with a gun at a Washington pizza parlor in response to an outlandish conspiracy theory about a child sex ring run by Hillary Clinton — to see where we are headed. If politicians, who were once upon a time supposed to be role models, start assaulting journalists, it’s only a matter of time before an armed, brainwashed lunatic kills one.
Gianforte body-slams a journalist to the ground and breaks his glasses, and this is fine to the citizens in Montana, who go on to elect him to Congress. Bully culture reins supreme in the era of Trump. No one is going to tell the people of Montana how to vote, and they are going to elect a despicable Neanderthal if they want.
But should I be surprised? When the president of the United States shoves aside a prime minister from another country apparently because he wants to be in the front of the pack, then straightens his suit to look good for the photographers, this is just the new standard of political behavior.
How low can we sink? Truly, how low?
As I listened to the recording of the attack on the reporter, the image of a 1950s movie hero flashed across my mind. Gianforte (played by Gary Cooper) is in the role of the iconic western figure standing up for his rights, versus the city slicker reporter:
“Sheriff, I reckon I got a little riled when he said them things. I’m sorry.”
“No need, Greg. Let’s just say he slipped and fell, and leave it at that, shall we?”
Less amusingly, I thought of the assault on Sen. Charles Sumner by Rep. Preston Brooks in 1856. Sometimes it feels to me as if I’m living in a “Looney Tunes” version of American democracy.
Yep. If they keep this up there just be a historic result in 2018, where the minority party actually loses seats in a midterm election.
-
Yep. If they keep this up there just be a historic result in 2018, where the minority party actually loses seats in a midterm election.
If 2018 goes well, the republicans would have enough power to call for a convention of states.
It would never happen, but I basque in the thought of the MSM meltdown if it did happen.
-
An oldie but goodie:
National Reveiw: The less racist the South gets, the more Republican it becomes.
http://archive.is/pRa8J#selection-711.1-711.64 (http://archive.is/pRa8J#selection-711.1-711.64)
-
If 2018 goes well, the republicans would have enough power to call for a convention of states.
It would never happen, but I basque in the thought of the MSM meltdown if it did happen.
Constitutional convention requires two thirds of the states to agree too, no?
-
Constitutional convention requires two thirds of the states to agree too, no?
Yes.
It would never happen though; even if the Repubs were able to get 2/3's.
But could you imagine the Liberal/Media reaction?! It would be like Trump winning x10.
-
Trump won Montana by 20 points in a state that has traditionally gone for Republicans
Gianforte’s won by 7 points with about 2/3rd of the people voting early
-
Trump won Montana by 20 points in a state that has traditionally gone for Republicans
Gianforte’s won by 7 points with about 2/3rd of the people voting early
So is that considered a "win" for Democrats? lol
-
So is that considered a "win" for Democrats? lol
Did I say that?
just pointing out that this guy won by a much smaller margin since Trump got in office
Next special election is next month in Georgia
We'll see how that goes
Also SCOTUS recently dealt a couple of blows to Repubs in North Carolina
Things change slowly
Enjoy the Snowflake in Chief while you can
-
Yes.
It would never happen though; even if the Repubs were able to get 2/3's.
But could you imagine the Liberal/Media reaction?! It would be like Trump winning x10.
Yeah I doubt it happens. And cannot imagine the media's reaction could get any worse than it is now. lol
-
If 2018 goes well, the republicans would have enough power to call for a convention of states.
It would never happen, but I basque in the thought of the MSM meltdown if it did happen.
That is pretty amazing. I need to read more into it.
Should not surprise me though.
The Democrats are being absolutely gutted on the state level outside of the deep blue coastal regions.
Complete meltdown mode.
-
So is that considered a "win" for Democrats? lol
LOL, what the liberal left fails to grasp is voters like my wife and I are NOT for liberal principles.
We are anti- Trump, NOT anti-conservatism.
ANY decent, competent republican is BETTER then Hillary.
BUT, Hillary is better then Trump, which shows how bad I think Trump is.
We think Hillary was a flawed candidate and Bernie is a self proclaimed socialist.
The DNC has drifted even farther left now and won't get our votes.
Remember ,we've voted 100% republican since 2012 , except for Hillary in 2016.
We are the new breed of " Never Trump" voters.
Hillary was bad but still better then Trump .
However, we think Pence, Rubio Cruz, etc is a lot better then Hillary.
If the Presidential candidates were all in a WYHI line up , Trump is the ugly tranny with 5 O'clock shadow. ;D
To me he's an absolute train wreck of a President.
My wife and I would be VERY happy to see Trump resign and have Pence become President.
I always thought Trump lacked the temperament and experience to be an effective President.
Having good policies is VERY different from implementing them thru our government.
Trump has failed to work effectively with congress and his MAGA was a con job.
-
LOL, what the liberal left fails to grasp is voters like my wife and I are NOT for liberal principles.
We are anti- Trump, NOT anti-conservatism.
ANY decent, competent republican is BETTER then Hillary.
BUT, Hillary is better then Trump, which shows how bad I think Trump is.
We think Hillary was a flawed candidate and Bernie is a self proclaimed socialist.
The DNC has drifted even farther left now and won't get our votes.
Remember ,we've voted 100% republican since 2012 , except for Hillary in 2016.
We are the new breed of " Never Trump" voters.
Hillary was bad but still better then Trump .
However, we think Pence, Rubio Cruz, etc is a lot better then Hillary.
If the Presidential candidates were all in a WYHI line up , Trump is the ugly tranny with 5 O'clock shadow. ;D
To me he's an absolute train wreck of a President.
My wife and I would be VERY happy to see Trump resign and have Pence become President.
I always thought Trump lacked the temperament and experience to be an effective President.
Having good policies is VERY different from implementing them thru our government.
Trump has failed to work effectively with congress and his MAGA was a con job.
Coming from a guy who signed his divorce papers, slid it to the left then reached over to the right side of the desk and signed into a marriage certificate with the same pen.
The guy is less than 15% into his first term and you are ready to send him to the gallows.
You need to calm down, sir.
-
Coming from a guy who signed his divorce papers, slid it to the left then reached over to the right side of the desk and signed into a marriage certificate with the same pen.
The guy is less than 15% into his first term and you are ready to send him to the gallows.
You need to calm down, sir.
You got me with that one :D
I think Trump's a buffoon and unless he makes a drastic change of course, that opinion won't change.
However, in fairness I'll judge him on what he does in office and what actually comes out on this Russia deal.
So far, he's been pretty ineffective working with congress and the Russia mess looks bad.
We'll see... ???
I'm a huge Mike Pence fan and would love to see him as POTUS.
BUT, I respect the system and refuse to back throwing Trump out of office without solid proof of major crimes.
-
Did I say that?
just pointing out that this guy won by a much smaller margin since Trump got in office
Next special election is next month in Georgia
We'll see how that goes
::) ::) ::) ::)
The democrats are bound to win a hotly contested seat eventually, and when they do I bet I know what the narrative will be... "something, something... This is Trump's Fault... Republicans are in trouble."
-
::) ::) ::) ::)
The democrats are bound to win a hotly contested seat eventually, and when they do I bet I know what the narrative will be... "something, something... This is Trump's Fault... Republicans are in trouble."
Trump's not helping the GOP, but, we "never Trump" voters aren't voting for liberal dems any time soon. :D
-
You got me with that one :D
I think Trump's a buffoon and unless he makes a drastic change of course, that opinion won't change.
However, in fairness I'll judge him on what he does in office and what actually comes out on this Russia deal.
So far, he's been pretty ineffective working with congress and the Russia mess looks bad.
We'll see... ???
I'm a huge Mike Pence fan and would love to see him as POTUS.
BUT, I respect the system and refuse to back throwing Trump out of office without solid proof of major crimes.
It's all going to come down the economy.
If he can pass tax reform and we see solid growth and job creation going into 2020 he can 3 am tweet about Arnold's shit ratings or some reporter questioning him the wrong way and it simply isn't going to matter.
As I've said earlier, if you take into account his campaign/debate skills + the Democrats lack of a viable presidential candidate...
If he is sitting north of 40% on a legit presidential poll of LIKELY voters he WILL be delivered a second term.
He will literally just stand up on stage and clown his adversary, have the crowd in stitches, have the internet cranking out memes and he will win in a landslide.
The Rust Belt is becoming REDDER and the Coastal Areas BLUER and that is tailor made for another Trump Electoral College victory.
-
It's all going to come down the economy.
If he can pass tax reform and we see solid growth and job creation going into 2020 he can 3 am tweet about Arnold's shit ratings or some reporter questioning him the wrong way and it simply isn't going to matter.
As I've said earlier, if you take into account his campaign/debate skills + the Democrats lack of a viable presidential candidate...
If he is sitting north of 40% on a legit presidential poll of LIKELY voters he WILL be delivered a second term.
He will literally just stand up on stage and clown his adversary, have the crowd in stitches, have the internet cranking out memes and he will win in a landslide.
The Rust Belt is becoming REDDER and the Coastal Areas BLUER and that is tailor made for another Trump Electoral College victory.
I don't think that will happen, BUT you're giving a thoughtful, intelligent analysis of the political future.
The Russia scandal could be the wild card that does him in.
If and when he's found guilty of some crime related to Russia , EVERYTHING changes.
Sadly, for those like me, the liberal dems would benefit if Trump resigns .
The "never Trump" folks like me want intelligent, reasonable conservatives in office.
-
Trump's not helping the GOP, but, we "never Trump" voters aren't voting for liberal dems any time soon. :D
Please, enlighten me on which of the GOP candidates would have beaten Hillary in 2016?
-
Please, enlighten me on which of the GOP candidates would have beaten Hillary in 2016?
I think Rubio would have won beaten her worse then Trump did.
He'd have won the same states Trump took and gotten more votes in NYC and Cal.
No way to know for sure, but that's my analysis.
I'm looking at the here and now, NOT the election.
Trump's shown a complete lack of ability to work effectively with congress.
Fair or not, the Russia scandal sucks up all the air in the political room right now.
I honestly don't think things will end good for team Trump.
-
I think Rubio would have won beaten her worse then Trump did.
He'd have won the same states Trump took and gotten more votes in NYC and Cal.
No way to know for sure, but that's my analysis.
I'm looking at the here and now, NOT the election.
Trump's shown a complete lack of ability to work effectively with congress.
Fair or not, the Russia scandal sucks up all the air in the political room right now.
I honestly don't think things will end good for team Trump.
Pro-TPP Rubio would have won MI, PA, and WI?
(https://m.popkey.co/1c786e/kvKXd.gif)
-
You got me with that one :D
I think Trump's a buffoon and unless he makes a drastic change of course, that opinion won't change.
However, in fairness I'll judge him on what he does in office and what actually comes out on this Russia deal.
So far, he's been pretty ineffective working with congress and the Russia mess looks bad.
We'll see... ???
I'm a huge Mike Pence fan and would love to see him as POTUS.
BUT, I respect the system and refuse to back throwing Trump out of office without solid proof of major crimes.
Howard calling someone else a buffoon?
How blissfully unaware of one's own repugnant personality can one man be?
-
::) ::) ::) ::)
The democrats are bound to win a hotly contested seat eventually, and when they do I bet I know what the narrative will be... "something, something... This is Trump's Fault... Republicans are in trouble."
very funny to watch people on this board with such short memories
so no response the the recent SCOTUS decisions in North Carolina
-
Howard calling someone else a buffoon?
How blissfully unaware of one's own repugnant personality can one man be?
The most ironic and tone deaf post on this board in years
-
The Dems are playing out their own demise and they're too stupid to even realize it.
-
very funny to watch people on this board with such short memories
so no response the the recent SCOTUS decisions in North Carolina
Stick to the topic which I have outlined with my title.
A random Supreme Court decision has very little to do with the Democrats dramatic losses on the National Congressional level and the Democrat dramatic losses in both the executive and legislative branches.
It really is a blood bath, quite frankly.
-
The most ironic and tone deaf post on this board in years
Hi Skeeter
-
Democrats Face Long Odds of Taking the House Back in 2018
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/05/Pelosi-Schumer-Alex-BrandonAP-640x480.jpg)
The establishment media and the leadership of the Democratic Party are building up expectations among the far left base that the Democrats have a strong chance of gaining the 24 seats they need to take back control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections.
But a look at the numbers suggests that dream may be a long shot.
Ed Kilgore succinctly articulated that dream in New York Magazine recently.
“A new poll shows the kind of numbers that if they become common could definitely portend not just a ‘wave’ but a veritable tsunami. Quinnipiac’s latest national poll mainly drew attention for showing some really terrible assessments of Donald Trump. But its congressional generic ballot was a shocker,” Kilgore wrote last week.
“By a 54 – 38 percent margin, American voters want the Democratic Party to win control of the U.S. House of Representatives. This is the widest margin ever measured for this question in a Quinnipiac University poll, exceeding a 5 percentage point margin for Republicans in 2013,” the pollsters wrote of their national poll conducted earlier this month.
Michael Barone, writing in a Washington Examiner article back in February, expressed the more objective view that the 24 seats the Democrats need to gain in the House to obtain a majority in 2018 is “not an impossible number.” He noted it is ” less than the net gains made by Democrats in 2006 and 2008 and by Republicans in 2010, but still a formidable number in an era that remains, though to a slightly lesser extent, a time of straight-ticket voting.”
Though a net gain of 24 seats by the Democrats is not impossible, the odds against it are significant. It is still a long 18 months until the November 2018 midterm elections, and the final outcome is likely to be determined by events that have yet to occur.
Democrats hope the 2018 midterm election will have some of the same “wave election” characteristics that swept Republicans into power in the House in 2010. The outcome of that Tea Party wave election was stunning. Republicans gained 63 seats and obtained a 242 to 193 majority in the House of Representatives, giving the Republicans control of the House after they lost it in 2006.
Democrats Republicans Vacant Total
End of 111th Congress 255 179 1 (Dem) 435
Start of 112th Congress 193 242 0 435
Differential +62 +1 +63
Democrats note that 18 months ahead of the 2018 midterms they have virtually the same six percent generic Congressional ballot advantage the Republicans had in 2010 one month before the election.
The most recent Real Clear Politics average of polls on the generic Congressional ballot question, which does not include that Quinnipiac University poll, gives the Democrats a 6.1 percent advantage for April 2017, which is actually slightly less than the six percent advantage they held in a January 23-24, 2017 poll conducted by PPP.
In October 2010, one month before the 2010 midterm elections, the Real Clear Politics average of polls gave Republicans a 6.8 percent advantage in the generic Congressional ballot question.
But Democrats face a significant 2018 midterm Congressional election disadvantage that Republicans did not face in 2010.
Due to clever redistricting by Republican-controlled state legislatures after 2010, Democrats will need to win a greater percentage of votes cast for Congressional candidates in 2018 than the Republicans needed in 2010 to obtain a majority.
The heavy concentration of Democratic votes in specific geographic areas (densely populated urban regions in the east and west coasts), combined with more modest but steady Republican margins in a broader swath of the country, is a phenomenon that most pundits missed in the 2016 Presidential elections. That is why Hillary Clinton’s twp percent popular vote advantage translated into a 306 to 232 electoral college vote loss to now-President Donald Trump.
That Republican advantage is even more significant in the 2018 House races.
“The way district lines are currently drawn benefits Republicans by distributing GOP voters more efficiently than Democratic voters. So, all else being equal, we would probably expect Republicans to win more seats than Trump’s approval rating alone indicates,” Harrey Enten notes at FiveThirtyEight.com .
Under the districts as drawn after the 2000 census for the 2002 to 2010 elections, Democrats simply needed to win the national popular vote in order to secure the 218 Congressional seats for a House majority.
But after the districts were redrawn based on the 2010 census for the 2012 to 2020 elections, Democrats will need more than a narrow popular vote victory to win a 218 Congressional seat majority. Though no specific district-by-district analysis has yet been done, comparing the 2006 and 2010 midterm results to the post-2010 census 2014 midterm results, Democrats could need as much as a five percent to nine percent popular vote advantage to win the 218 Congressional seats they need for a House majority.
In 2006, in districts drawn based on the 2000 census, Democratic Congressional candidates received 42.3 million votes out of 80.9 million votes cast, or 52.3 percent. That was 7.9 percent better than the Republican Congressional candidates, who received 35.8 million votes, or 44.3 percent of the vote. This 7.9 percent popular vote margin translated into a 7.2 percent margin in the number of seats won — 233 to 202 (53.6 percent to 46.4 percent).
In 2010, also in districts drawn based on the 2000 census, the 435 Republican Congressional candidates received 44.6 million (51.4 percent) of the 86.8 million total votes cast in 2010. The 435 Democrat Congressional candidates received 38.8 million (44.7 percent) of the 86.8 million total votes cast. This 6.7 percent popular vote advantage translated into an 11 percent advantage in the number of representatives elected.
Due to the redistricting after the 2010 census, the same vote margin in the same precincts in 2018 might not be sufficient for the Democrats to obtain the desired 218 vote majority.
In 2016, in districts drawn based on the 2010 census, “Republican candidates received 49.13% of total votes cast . . . and won 55.4% of U.S. House seats. Comparatively, Democratic candidates received 48.03% of votes and won 44.6% of races. Third-party and write-in candidates received 2.56% of votes,” Ballotpedia reported.
Should that advantage reflect the final outcome in November 2018, however, the redistricting of Congressional districts engineered by largely Republican-controlled state legislatures after the 2010 census for the elections between 2012 and 2020, especially in those swing districts that matter, means that a six percent total Democrat advantage would not result in an 11 percent advantage in the number of seats won.
In 2016, for instance, after the redistricting, the 435 Republican Congressional candidates received 63.1 million votes (49.1 percent) out of the total of 128.5 million cast. The 435 Democrat Congressional candidates received 61.7 million votes (48 percent) out of the 128.5 million cast.
That 1.1 percent raw vote margin for Republicans translated into virtually the same 11 percent margin in the number of seats won in the House that year by the Republicans (241 to 194, as opposed to the 242 to 193 margin in 2010.)
The enthusiastic “resistance” of rank and file true believers who have been shouting down GOP representatives at town halls across the country, the non-stop mainstream media attacks on President Trump, and the recent appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of Russian influence on the 2016 election outcome, combined with these current polling results, give Democrats hope that the 2018 midterms will be a “wave” election that will sweep them into control of the House.
The idea that voters across the country are pining for a then-78-year-old Nancy Pelosi to once again take the Speaker’s gavel when the 117th session of Congress convenes in January 2019 may play well among hard core Democratic and progressive activists and in the elite coastal counties where Democratic representatives are routinely re-elected with virtually no serious GOP opposition.
But the reality of the electoral math in the country’s 435 Congressional districts means that enthusiasm by itself is unlikely to overcome systemic disadvantages the Democrats face in this quest.
In Congressional elections held during the last decade, about ten percent of those 435 Congressional seats are actually in play and could see a change in the party of the member representing the district.
In 2016, for instance, “380 of the 393 House incumbents seeking re-election won, resulting in an incumbency rate of 96.7%. The average margin of victory in U.S. House races was 37.1 percent,” Ballotpedia reported. In 2014, the last midterm election, “[t]he average margin of victory was 35.8 percent in 2014, slightly higher than the average margin in 2012 of 31.8 percent,” Ballotpedia reported.
In 2014, only 49 out of 435 races were decided by margins of ten percent or less. Sixty-eight were decided by margins between 10 percent and 20 percent, and a whopping 318 were decided by margins greater than 20 percent.
“Of the 435 House districts, only 35 voted for the nominee of one party for president and a House member of the other party in 2016. That’s higher than the 26 that did so in 2012, the lowest number since 1920, but not much higher,” Michael Barone wrote in a Washington Examiner February article.
In 2016, 400 of the 435 members of Congress elected were in districts where the presidential candidate of the same party won; 218 Republicans won in districts where Donald Trump won the presidential vote, and 182 Democrats won in districts where Hillary Clinton won the presidential vote.
Of the 35 districts with split voting, 23 Republicans won in districts where Hillary Clinton won the presidential vote, and 12 Democrats won in districts where Donald Trump won the presidential vote, as the left wing web site Daily Kos reported.
The 23 districts where Republicans were elected to the House of Representatives and Hillary Clinton took the Presidential vote are:
FL-27 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
FL-26 Carlos Curbelo
CA-21 David Valadao
VA-10 Barbara Comstock
MN-3 Erik Paulsen
CO-6 Mike Coffman
CA-39 Ed Royce
CA-49 Darrell Issa
IL-6 Peter Roskam
CA-25 Steve Knight
CA-45 Mimi Walters
AZ-2 Martha McSally
NY-24 John Katko
TX-23 Will Hurd
WA-8 Dave Reichert
CA-10 Jeff Denham
PA-7 Pat Meehan
TX-32 Pete Sessions
CA-48 Dana Rohrabacher
TX-7 John Kulberson
KS-3 Kevin Yoder
NJ-7 Leonard Lance
PA-6 Ryan Costello
The 12 districts where Democrats were elected to the House of Representatives and Donald Trump took the Presidential vote are:
MN-7 Collin Peterson
MN-8 Rick Nolan
MN-1 Tim Walz
PA-17 Matt Cartwright
WI-3 Ron Kind
IA-2 Dave Loebsack
NY-18 Sean Patrick Maloney
NH-1 Carol Shea-Porter
NJ-5 Josh Gottheimer
Arizona’s 1st – Tom O’Halleran
Nevada’s 3rd – Jacky Rosen
IL- 17 – Cheri Bustos
To win the majority back, Democrats would have to win all 23 Congressional districts currently represented by Republicans where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, hold on to all 12 districts currently represented by Democrats where President Trump won the popular vote, and pick up at least one Republican seat elsewhere.
The Democrats will also need money to win these key swing districts, and in that regard, they may be falling short.
“The Republican National Committee raised $9.6 million and had $41.4 million on hand in April, according to newly filed FEC reports, while the Democratic National Committee raised $4.7 million and had $8.8 million in the bank, while spending more than it raised,” Politico reported last week.
President Trump’s double digit disapproval ratings, however, gives Democrats hope that, despite the redistricting disadvantages they face, a Democratic House majority after the 2018 mid-term elections may be in the cards.
The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows the President’s job approval rating for the most recent two week period, May 11 to May 25, is only 39.9 percent, 14.3 percent below his disapproval rating of 54.2 percent.
This represents a significant decline in the four months since he was inaugurated, when his job approval and disapproval ratings were tied at 44 percent.
They also note that 18 months ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, President Trump has a much greater approval/disapproval differential (-14 percent) than President Obama had one week before the 2010 midterms (-4 percent). On November 2, 2010, the day before the 2010 mid-term elections, President Obama had slipped to a 45 percent approval, 49 percent disapproval rating.
But the two presidents started out with starkly different approval/disapproval ratings during their first four months in office.
President Obama started out with a +43 approval/disapproval rating (63 percent approval, 20 percent disapproval) on January 27, 2009. Four months later, On May 25, 2009, the Real Clear Politics average of polls gave Obama 60-32 approval/disapproval rating, down to a +28 approval/disapproval rating, a number almost certainly influenced by the launch of the Tea Party movement in February 2009, punctuated by the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party rallies that attracted more than one million participants in 900 cities around the country.
Over the next ten months, President Obama’s approval/disapproval rating steadily declined to a break even-point in March, 2010 47-47, and dipped an additional four points by November 2.
In contrast to the ten months it took President Obama to slide from a +43 approval/disapproval rating to break even, President Trump began at a break even 44-44 approval disapproval rating and has steadily dropped over the past four months to a -14 approval disapproval rating (39 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove).
In the 18 months between May 2009 and November 2010, President Obama’s approval/disapproval rating dropped by 32 points, from +28 to -4.
Claims that President Trump’s declining approval ratings are resonating with voters in Congressional elections have largely landed with a thud in the three special Congressional elections held so far in 2017. Republicans have won special Congressional elections in Kansas, Nebraska, and now in Montana, where Republican Greg Gianforte won in spite of his election eve dustup with a reporter from The Guardian.
Pundits had previously pointed to Georgia’s 6th Congressional District special election as a potential bellwether for the 2018 midterms, but the intense national focus has turned that election more into a repeat of the 2016 general election than a true bellwether.
“Once thought to be a sleepy special election, it is now poised to be the most expensive U.S. House contest in the nation’s history,” the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported earlier this month of that election:
An Atlanta Journal-Constitution analysis shows that about $15 million was spent by candidates and outside groups in the run-up to the April 18 vote, which winnowed an 18-candidate field to a pair of finalists: Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Karen Handel.
Since then, the flood of money has only intensified. An additional $4 million has surged into the race in the past three weeks. And records show about $11 million in ad buys have already been booked through the June 20 runoff. That’s not counting expected big expenditures from Handel’s campaign or other groups that could kick up their spending.
The $30 million sum is an unprecedented expenditure. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a transparency advocacy group, the most expensive House race was a 2012 Florida contest between Republican U.S. Rep. Allen West and Democrat Patrick Murphy that cost nearly $29.6 million.
The most recent poll gives Democrat Ossoff a seven point lead over Republican Handel (51-44) in the special election that will be held on June 20, but the huge amount of money poured into the district makes the outcome unique rather than the bellwether Democrats have hoped for.
Should Ossoff win, the Democratic Party will still be faced with the enormous task of funding about 35 swing district Congressional races at record-setting levels in 2018, while also getting events to break their way over the next 18 months, to win back a majority in the House of Representatives.
“Not an impossible” task, as Michael Barone wrote back in February.
But if you are a betting person, it would not be a wise move in May 2017 to bet the ranch that the Democrats will take back the House in November 2018.
-
Good post about the long shot reality of the dems taking the house in 2018.
For me, it's pretty simple.
I prefer a republican , conservative agenda, but I think Trump's a legislative disaster.
Declaring the media as a public enemy is/was goofy.
Of course his loyal nuthuggers believe him over the media, because he said so. :D
LOL, pathetic lack of objective , independent thought
-
Good post about the long shot reality of the dems taking the house in 2018.
For me, it's pretty simple.
I prefer a republican , conservative agenda, but I think Trump's a legislative disaster.
Declaring the media as a public enemy is/was goofy.
Of course his loyal nuthuggers believe him over the media, because he said so. :D
LOL, pathetic lack of objective , independent thought
Your thoughts on the Kathy Griffin stunt today?
-
Good post about the long shot reality of the dems taking the house in 2018.
For me, it's pretty simple.
I prefer a republican , conservative agenda, but I think Trump's a legislative disaster.
Declaring the media as a public enemy is/was goofy.
Of course his loyal nuthuggers believe him over the media, because he said so. :D
LOL, pathetic lack of objective , independent thought
Obviously you think that. Your entire life has been about sitting idle and letting people shit all over you (not the Booty chili-dog kind) and doing nothing about it.
The MSM have become an embarrassment with their petty hissyfits against Trump.
It is hilarious how he slaps them down and then goes about his business. If the media would have treated obama this way he would have cried and pissed his mom jeans.
-
Stick to the topic which I have outlined with my title.
A random Supreme Court decision has very little to do with the Democrats dramatic losses on the National Congressional level and the Democrat dramatic losses in both the executive and legislative branches.
It really is a blood bath, quite frankly.
are you joking?
Do you even know what I'm referring to?
The SCOTUS rejected 2 gerrymandered districts in NC and in a separate case refused to revive a restrictive North Carolina voting law that a federal appeals court had struck down as an unconstitutional effort to “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/us/politics/supreme-court-north-carolina-congressional-districts.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/voter-id-laws-supreme-court-north-carolina.html
More may be coming
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/29/politics/supreme-court-partisan-gerrymandering/
As I'm sure you know the Repubs starting redrawing districts all over the country starting in 2010
That's how we wound up with states where Democratic candidates (in statewide totals) had more votes yet didn't win more seats
So, DIRECTLY related to the subject of your thread.... which is an odd thing on this board which usually usually devolves into a few posters deciding to personally attack someone complete out of context of anything
-
Hi Skeeter
Hi Dos Equis
Off your meds again today?
-
Your thoughts on the Kathy Griffin stunt today?
She's a dip shit. ;)
Next question?
-
What did Salon mean by this?!
(http://i.magaimg.net/img/nu6.png)
-
What did Salon mean by this?!
(http://i.magaimg.net/img/nu6.png)
Democrats represent only welfare thugs, gang bangers, lgbt, trannies, govt workers, and guilt ridden white libs like StrawQueen.
-
Democrats represent only welfare thugs, gang bangers, lgbt, trannies, govt workers, and guilt ridden white libs like StrawQueen.
While it's true that liberals support some of the above, not all democrats are bad people.
-
Skip to comments.
Still Sore: Hillary Blames DNC, SCOTUS, ‘1,000 Russian Agents’ for Loss
PoliZette ^ | May 31, 2017 | Jim Stinson
Posted on 5/31/2017, 7:58:00 PM by McGruff
Clinton public appearances dominated by increasingly bizarre election defeat claims
Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs for the very simple reason that she got paid, the former Democratic presidential candidate told an audience at Recode’s annual coding conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, California.
Clinton took the opportunity to blame numerous players for her election defeat on Nov. 8, and also to justify her use of the term “vast right-wing conspiracy” all the way back in 1998. The “conspiracy” against her, she suggested, is still alive.
Clinton, speaking to Recode founders Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher, said she didn’t lose because of her own choices or flaws — such as taking money to speak to big banks, or her odd failure to substantially campaign in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
“I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that’s not why I lost,” said Clinton, blaming Russia, “weaponized information,” the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, and many more players.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifezette.com ...
-
Bloomberg: Trump Will Likely Win Re-Election
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg thinks there's a "55 percent chance" President Trump will be reelected in 2020.
Bloomberg, who politically identifies as independent, told New York Times columnist Frank Bruni that he thought Democrats didn't have an effective message to win the 2016 election and could repeat that mistake in 2020.
“Hillary said, ‘Vote for me because I’m a woman and the other guy’s bad,’” Bloomberg said about 2016.
He said Democrats are still looking for issues and messages. And he worries that too many Democrats are eager to jump into the 2020 race.
“They’ll step on each other and re-elect Donald Trump,” Bloomberg said.
Bloomberg endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and spoke at the Democratic National Convention, calling Trump a "dangerous demagogue."