US Mid Terms

Grasshopper said:
True, but he outran his rating on a track that didn’t suit.
Click to expand...

I find it hilarious that he's getting carried out on his shield by the media and his supporters after spending $59 million against an unpopular politician.
 
SP Only said:
You might be surprised both Trump and the Dems certainly aligned on the desire to get started on a massive infrastructure rebuild and they also have similar beliefs on the drug companies and getting prices down. If nothing else Trump knows how to come to the table for the long play and playing nice might be the way forward with an eye on 2020.
Click to expand...

I tend to disagree

Trump doesn't do long plays. Trump's very much a day-trader, and takes his profit on the closing bell. He's someone who lurches from one crisis to the next without seeing the consequence (firing Comey is a classic example). His attitude is that he'll cross that bridge when he comes to it

He doesn't manage simultaneous complexity. He doesn't have a coherent policy platform; never has done. All he's got is a few jumbled ideas and opinions, which is why he's enacted so little to date despite having had a stacked congress. If Gary Cohn can remove documents from his desk to prevent him signing them, and Trump isn't even aware they've gone missing (because he's forgotten what he was working on) you've got a lot of your answers as regards how much in control of his alleged programme he is

I also suspect you're going to be wrong about seeing more bi-partisan progress on some of the issues you've outlined. Trump governs in the interests of Donald Trump, his family, and a certain nefarious economic class. I'm far from convinced it suits Trump to introduce any of the measures you've outlined. If he wanted to, he could easily have begun doing so by now. Trump would prefer to create a fog of conflict instead and blame the Democrats for not being able to get things done. I don't think he possesses an incentive in his world view to do anything differently. His world is defined by getting re-elected and he wants to claim that he could make America a whole lot better if he were allowed to.

The probability is that the American economy won't be as healthy in November 2020 as it is today. This will allow him to claim that the House Democrats are stymieing him. You're dealing with the American voter here. This is not a very well informed electorate. All they tend to have is a sense of if what they're being told has a hint of reality to it, and can they recognise and relate to elements of it. Trump will say something to effect of when he had the complete of congress (2016 - 18) things were good weren't they? But look at what's happened since. It's slowed down because of the Democrats. The Democrats can of course counter that argument very easily, but here in lies the problem. Once you find yourself having to explain something in politics, that's when you begin losing. If people recognise a grain of truth in the slogan and base messaging, then that's all they need. It sinks in. The explanation never runs as well as the slogan. It's actually quite interesting watching the postings of Trump supporters for example and how they simply parrot the attack lines they're fed by both Donald and Fox News. It's as if they can't think of their own.

I don't think therefore that Trump is interested in a programme. It would allow the Democrats to emerge with credit too. I think he'll prefer to divide and sow confusion and tribalism, and lets' be honest, there's going to be no shortage of opportunity when Adam Schiff takes the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, or Elijah Cummins the chair of Oversight and Standards.

I've got some bad news for America looking at the medium term however. In order to lance Trumpism they need to categorically reject it. Merely defeating it won't be enough. It will return. It's why I've been saying for some time that those who keep comparing him with Hitler or Mussolini, are wrong. Trump's best historical fit is Juan Peron. The similarities are actually quite eerie. Even today Argentina's politicians will self-describe as Peronists in an attempt to plug into a support base. Trumpism will outlive Trump, and if the journey that America is on continues, it will eventually find itself in the hands of a much more capable politician than someone who divides his time between Fox News in the morning, a glorification ceremony in the afternoon, a vanity rally in the evening, and the golf course at weekends
 
SlimChance said:
The big problem I see for Democrats is that they drove up the turnout in the midterms by making it about stopping Trump. It appears from today that Trump has been very strategic and some Democrats could become disillusioned when nothing happens for the next two years.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't be my take out

They did win the House after all, so they've put something of a road block in place. They've also flipped about 6 governorships too so can begin redistricting

I think they'd be more disillusioned if they hadn't turned out and if the GOP just trampled over them. That hasn't happened, but then neither has the blue wave (although a big part of that is down to gerrymandering in the House races). When someone does the number work we'll get some indication of how PA, WI and MI would have voted in a Presidential election, although you'd have expect that with a 7% generic gap all three states would go back blue (OH might be interesting too)

I think what you're seeing is a country that's becoming more and more polarised along cultural, lifestyle, and value systems lines. Long term, it's setting up for partition
 
SlimChance said:
You can dutch Harris, Warren, Biden and Sanders at 3.8795. That seems a very fair price. The O'Rourke price is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Difficult to know

There's possibly five camps from which candidates will come from

Progressive
Establishment
Blue Dog
Wildcard
Young gun

Now if you could pick the leading light from each group you'd be well on your way. But that would be like trying to pick a Yankee (I say that because some of the candidates would have a foot in two camps). If you could pick the camp that you think the winner will emerge from, then you could probably dutch a trio at a good price

My own guess is that Bernie won't run. He'll be 79 in 2020. He could only run as a one term President. Could he really turn round and convince people to make an eight year investment in him? I think Biden will likely cede the establishment ticket to John Kerry too

The wildcards like Bloomberg would be the group that becomes difficult to get a handle on. They could catch a wave. Bloomberg also disarms Trump of the billionaire aura too given that he's significantly more wealthy than Trump and an infinitely more successful businessman.

I think Warren will run, but I doubt she could win. I'd back Trump against her. She'd be an arb

Harris is the most plausible on your list I'd say, and I think the market has that right. I'd still have concerns about whether she could win as well though. She might be OK answering softball questions from Mika, but I do wonder how she'll stand up when her track record of achievements is scrutinised? (not what positions she's held) but rather what did she actually do in those jobs? Given America's apparent penchant for females with a military background in this recent round of results, I do wonder if Tulsi Gabbard might emerge as an outsider yet? If she represented a big metro area she'd have more chance admittedly, and in truth, the House rarely produces a President on a direct line of ascent. Who was the last one? Grover Cleveland? or was it William McKinlay? I can't imagine its been done more than two or three times. A wildcard outsider is probably an equally likely source
 
SlimChance said:
I find it hilarious that he's getting carried out on his shield by the media and his supporters after spending $59 million against an unpopular politician.
Click to expand...

You have to factor location into your argument, before dismissing the performance out of hand, I reckon.

Getting a Democrat into a Texan Senate seat is nigh-on impossible, due to the demographic make-up of the State. Certainly, the hype was a load of baloney, but there was never really any genuine expectation of a win, when you scratched the surface, given Cruz was generally polling a half-dozen points clear beforehand.
 
Grasshopper said:
You have to factor location into your argument, before dismissing the performance out of hand, I reckon.

Getting a Democrat into a Texan Senate seat is nigh-on impossible, due to the demographic make-up of the State. Certainly, the hype was a load of baloney, but there was never really any genuine expectation of a win, when you scratched the surface, given Cruz was generally polling a half-dozen points clear beforehand.
Click to expand...

The media bought into this guy like they did Obama. They pitched him as a David versus Goliath hero and are now calling for a 2020 run. The reality is he spent a **** load more money than Cruz and made no inroads into the rural areas that was always Cruz's path to victory. All that media coverage and all that money spent and he lost. People like that should just go away not be touted as the saviour of the Democratic party.
 
Last edited:
SlimChance said:
The media bought into this guy like they did Obama. They pitched him as a David versus Goliath hero and are now calling for a 2020 run. The reality is he spent a **** load more money than Cruz and made no inroads into the rural areas that was always Cruz's path to victory. All that media coverage and all that money spent and he lost. People like that should just go away not be touted as the saviour of the Democratic party.
Click to expand...

Could Beto have won Texas? If you read the article below the conclusion could be such. How refreshing though that even given the recipe to beat Cruz he stayed true to his positions. Surely he must have known that medicare for all, impeaching Trump and abolishing ICE would turn off tons of Texas voters even if they dislike Cruz. On top of that he rejected big money corporate donations from all the usual suspects. And finally I don't know the guy but he strikes me as a decent human being not like the moral turpitude that is Ted Cruz.

Next up who gives a flying **** about rural. Rural is dying, Trump is the direct result of these convulsions. One last hurrah before the inevitable complete decline of all things rural where politics in America are concerned. Still did not stop Beto from visiting all those counties anyway.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...eto-orourke-texas-senate-2018-election-222188

Here is where Beto did the real damage though. The link below describes how Democrats took the last bastion of republican urban power in Texas, namely Tarrant county. The most populous republican held county in Texas that has not voted Democrat since Moses parted the Red Sea.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/texas-midterm-election-democratic-voters-cruz-orourke/575020/

In a nutshell Beto is a trailblazer where Texas is concerned. The guy is only 46 years old and a leading light of the resistance movement. He can play the longer game. He is not going away. The money spent could just be a down payment for the future. Money well spent in my opinion. Texas will go blue eventually, just hard to pin down when exactly eventually is.

If you want a case study in wanton short term money spend no need to look further than Florida. Rick Scott a Republican ex governor popular in a Republican controlled state. The guy spent the largest amount of all candidates over $66 million. In the end it came down to about 22 thousand more votes than his opponent from a total of 8.15 million votes. That's about $3000 per voter. Yeah he did win, but sold his soul in the process and looking at the felon angle for the next election in Florida. Good luck.
 
brendanr said:
lly is.

If you want a case study in wanton short term money spend no need to look further than Florida. Rick Scott a Republican ex governor popular in a Republican controlled state. The guy spent the largest amount of all candidates over $66 million. In the end it came down to about 22 thousand more votes than his opponent from a total of 8.15 million votes. That's about $3000 per voter. Yeah he did win, but sold his soul in the process and looking at the felon angle for the next election in Florida. Good luck.
Click to expand...

I suggest you don't use Rick Scott spending $66 million in a perennial swing state as evidence of anything.
 
brendanr said:
The guy is only 46 years old and a leading light of the resistance movement.
Click to expand...

I must admit, I wince every time I hear American's self-describing as the resistance

OK, I get that American's like guns, and invoking the generic name applied to genuine partisans from 1940's occupied Europe might fill them with a warm glow of association and imaginary romanticised valour, but until such time as you start blowing up bridges, derailing troop trains, or assassinating Republican operatives please don't call yourselves a resistant movement. It's a bloody insult to the memory of the real thing, and this is why.

There is no such thing as a #Resistance in America. The real resistance fighters actually took huge risks, many paying the ultimate price. All this self-styled anti-Trump resistance movement does is share on-line content, aggressively promote hashtags, upvotes/ downvotes, follows/ unfollows, and manufacture meaningless memes. It's got to be the most pathetic resistance movement in history. Hell, they aren't even be prepared to go on strike for a single day to register their protest for fear that they lose some pay, and I've seen other self-identifying resistance supporters expressing the view that they're even to scared to go on a protest march in case their employer finds out.

Oh for the land of the brave and the home of the free
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
I must admit, I wince every time I hear American's self-describing as the resistance

OK, I get that American's like guns, and invoking the generic name applied to genuine partisans from 1940's occupied Europe might fill them with a warm glow of association and imaginary romanticised valour, but until such time as you start blowing up bridges, derailing troop trains, or assassinating Republican operatives please don't call yourselves a resistant movement. It's a bloody insult to the memory of the real thing, and this is why.

There is no such thing as a #Resistance in America. The real resistance fighters actually took huge risks, many paying the ultimate price. All this self-styled anti-Trump resistance movement does is share on-line content, aggressively promote hashtags, upvotes/ downvotes, follows/ unfollows, and manufacture meaningless memes. It's got to be the most pathetic resistance movement in history. Hell, they aren't even be prepared to go on strike for a single day to register their protest for fear that they lose some pay, and I've seen other self-identifying resistance supporters expressing the view that they're even to scared to go on a protest in march in case their employer finds out.

Oh for the land of the brave and the home of the free
Click to expand...

Damn Warbler, the history lesson notwithstanding, what a load of crap. So unlike you.

All I will say is that Democratic values are under siege in like it or not the one country that matters a bit more than others at least in the current historical context.
Trump is not a democrat as in a man of democratic values (flawed as they may be). He is a nationalist, the words have come from his mouth.
While nobody is risking their life at the moment let us hope it stays that way.

I did 6 years in the US military in the 70's. Did a tour of Vietnam (right at the end) and additional time in the far east after that war ended.
I was young, definitely naive, but my beliefs in democratic values have not wavered much since then, even looking back at that abomination that was the Vietnam War with all the lies, deceit, death and misery.
I've seen more of man's inhumanity to man than most. It was not democracy's finest moment.

Even though I am no longer a citizen I'm still rooting for all that is good about America.

To watch from afar what this ghoul Trump and all his henchmen/women are doing, just pains me to no end.
Rest assured that if armed resistance was needed it would appear.
Let us hope it does not come to that and this peaceful resistance comes to a successful conclusion.

Go Bob Mueller!!

ROLL ON THE RESISTANCE!!!
 
SlimChance said:
It's not debatable. Feel free to set your fair on hair over nothing, it fits right in with your politics.
Click to expand...

You are a Trumpist so I would not waste my time. I sleep comfortably with my so called politics.
If I ever set anybody's hair on fire, your's will be top of the list, that is if you have any. :)
 
Last edited:
If you can't even concede that Florida is a perennial swing state than I'm not sure why you engage on these threads. This is a forum, not an Ed Krassen tweet where everyone already agrees with the partisan view spouted.
 
Snooze, where is the log sawing emoji.

When`s the last time a governor was a democrat in Florida?
 
I'm in two minds about Florida

I don't think it's a swingy as it was (20 years ago), though would still be vulnerable to a strong candidate on a popular wave in a good cycle. To some extent it's bit like Pennsylvania. Mathematically it's always close, but still tends to give you the same type of result 80% of the time regardless of the efforts made there. I think there's a lot of hardcoded votes there with very little flux. I think it also has one of the best voter suppression regimes in America as well (although Georgia might have usurped their crown on that one!). Florida was the only senate race I think I got wrong, as I felt you needed to be leading by 2% in order to win as a Democrat. Nelson just about had that edge, but ultimately I might have been a percentage point wrong. Also the Governors race clearly showed up the 'Bradley effect' as Gillum was anywhere between 5% and 8% ahead (except for one poll by Trafalgar) but ended up losing to a candidate who appeared to have had a nervous breakdown only 2 or 3 months ago. I think I'll need to extend my allowance to about 3% in future calls on Florida

Longer term it'll trend Republican with migratory trends and become less swingy, perhaps beginning to behave a little bit like Ohio (unless there's more hurricanes in PR)

At the moment the closest state in EC is Michigan, yet few people would really regard that as a swing state. On the previous election it was North Carolina. In the Bush era of course it was Ohio. These things are fluid. I tend to think Arizona's day will come before long. Hillary Clinton might have been chasing rainbows there about 10 years to early
 
SlimChance said:
If you don't believe me how about Nate Silver?
Click to expand...

I meant to check how he got on. Last time I did (about 3 days before the vote) he had Missouri, Indiana, Arizona and Florida going Democrat, so unless he made some late revisions, he's made some bad predictions. In fact, I've got half a feeling he might have had Nevada going Republican too

Incidentally, since the shadow of voter fraud has found its way into the post-mortem, in a little reported development on Monday, the Chinese granted Ivanka Trump a patent for the manufacturer of voting machines (obviously in China, she would make them in America) but that did amuse me. A voting machine manufactured by the Trumps - I mean, what could go wrong with that? I kind of expect Kelly Anne to announce that she's going out to buy one, although it does beg the question who she intends selling them to? OK, I can see one very obvious candidate who uses electronic voting machines who might them in return for escaping sanctions for buying Russian made S-400 anti aircraft missiles instead of Patriot, but it would be funny if she started selling them to America

Just checked his final forecast (Nate Silver) and he got four wrong. Ha! Eat my pants Silver
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't use 4chan, so I'm not too concerned, but if he's tweaking his models in running as results come in, then that's cheating. I'm not having it. I made my forecasts an hour before any poll closed, and unlike Nate Silver, I didn't have access to anything like the volume of early voting data or voter turnout during the day reporting. It was based instead on polling and my own observations about American national behaviour

I took you down Silver. Call yourself a guru ha! Well in fairness, I don't think he does call himself a guru (others do) - in fact I might have done so myself once when he got Obama's re-election spot on
 
4chan was the first link I found to the tweet.

If you are tweaking your model in the middle of an event to get your desired result then put your model in the bin and start again. That applies to any field not just politics and Nate Silver.
 
Warbler said:
I'm in two minds about Florida
Mathematically it's always close, but still tends to give you the same type of result 80% of the time regardless of the efforts made there. I think there's a lot of hardcoded votes there with very little flux. I think it also has one of the best voter suppression regimes in America as well (although Georgia might have usurped their crown on that one!).
Click to expand...

Think this might hit the nail on the head. Good old Nate and his crew had nice forecasting templates for each State, where among other info they have a partisan lean. In Florida's case it is 5,4% Republican. Yet their own forecasting model came out for about a 70% chance of a Democrat winning the senate race. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/florida/.

That thing about hard coded votes could be spot on which might go a way to explain the 80% result regardless of the effort.

Fact is no Democrat has been gov. in Florida since 1998 when Jeb Bush won the race. At that time for the first time you had a Republican led state legislature and a Republican gov. They enacted all kinds of legislation to make Florida as attractive as possible for wealthy older/retired voters. It accelerated in country migration in big chunks.

This link from 2015 gives good insight into how the Republicans strategy has worked. https://www.floridatrend.com/article/18870/floridas-population-is-20-million-strong

Lots of other interesting stuff in there. Today one in five people is a senior and net migration is skewed toward old. According to this paper one in four will be a senior by 2040.
Seniors are traditionally more conservative and in Florida they seem to have some of the more rabid Trump voters especially among women. The Trumpettes et.al.

In the short/medium term It's going to take a lot of felons (assuming they will vote and vote Democrat) to move the needle in the other direction.
Who knows, if that sick in the brain maniac Trump has any kind of success with his "immigration policies" external migration (out of country) might slow down as well.

He already has 5500 military personnel stationed at the Mexican border to squash the invasion from south of the border. To paraphrase the wannabe great emperor "If they throw rocks it's like holding a gun".
 
Great. So we are all agreed that it is factually correct to call Florida a swing state. Let's move on.
 
Back
Top