Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Propaganda value? The article seems pretty straight forward to me.
Straight forward in that it offered literally nothing in the way of evidence of a threat to the House GOP majority. No quantifiable data in which to base the assertion on. History is the only basis. While not irrelevant, it's also worth noting that Donald Trump and his supporters have defied history at every turn since his candidacy was announced. It would be a grave mistake to assume that those same supporters are not still energized to support their candidate with Congressional majorities.
Straight forward in that it offered literally nothing in the way of evidence of a threat to the House GOP majority. No quantifiable data in which to base the assertion on. History is the only basis. While not irrelevant, it's also worth noting that Donald Trump and his supporters have defied history at every turn since his candidacy was announced. It would be a grave mistake to assume that those same supporters are not still energized to support their candidate with Congressional majorities.
The evidence that it outlines is as follows:
- Abysmal approval ratings for Trump at this point in his presidency
- Ongoing investigation into Russia collusion
- Failure to deliver on the basic repeal and replace promise
- High levels of enthusiasm in the Kansas and Georgia races
On the other hand, it states that it will be difficult for the Democrats to take the House because of heavily gerrymandered districts. It doesn't even mention the Senate (which would presumably be impossible given the senators who up for reelection this year). There's not much substance to the article, but I didn't see much propaganda either.
Straight forward in that it offered literally nothing in the way of evidence of a threat to the House GOP majority. No quantifiable data in which to base the assertion on. History is the only basis. While not irrelevant, it's also worth noting that Donald Trump and his supporters have defied history at every turn since his candidacy was announced. It would be a grave mistake to assume that those same supporters are not still energized to support their candidate with Congressional majorities.
while the article did not claim a Def was going to win, it did point out that Kansas has a deeply trouble economy, a deeply unpopular governor, and a bad candidate on the R side of the ballot, handpicked by "party elites" not in a primary. He's a higher up in the troublee gov's admin who his own people say is running a bad campaign, hasn't raised much $$ and is having trouble connecting with voters. Added to the fact that the KS GOP is in a state of divide over moderates and the hard liners it surprising that a stat that was GOP >30% in the election is even competitive at all. The fact that Trump, Pence, Cruz et all are getting involved at all is reason to be concerned at least for GOP. Nobody is saying Dems will win, just that this doesn't seem to be the slam dunk that it should be. Given the low enthusiasm on the right and the historical low turnout expected something odd can happen, kind of how Daddy got elected ya know?
Unless of course many of you right wing on here don't get nuance or understand the larger picture.
This article is actually pretty balanced and doesn't project a Democratic win. It does report, however, that the Democrats are doing far better in this district than would normally be expected.
- Abysmal approval ratings for Trump at this point in his presidency
- Ongoing investigation into Russia collusion
- Failure to deliver on the basic repeal and replace promise
- High levels of enthusiasm in the Kansas and Georgia races
On the other hand, it states that it will be difficult for the Democrats to take the House because of heavily gerrymandered districts. It doesn't even mention the Senate (which would presumably be impossible given the senators who up for reelection this year). There's not much substance to the article, but I didn't see much propaganda either.
That "evidence" is fallacious at best. First of all, his approval rating is based on a national poll. Aside from polls being miserably inaccurate (obviously), his supporters are very happy with him. These supporters are those that could be a firewall against Democratic angst. Republicans vote in midterms....Democrats do not.
Second, there is zero evidence of "Russia collusion" with Donald Trump. None. If there were, it would have already leaked out. Democrats have already exhausted their ammunition by leaking what they do know, and none of it implicates Donald Trump colluding with Vladimir Putin.
Third, the blame for Obamacare repeal and replace falls squarely on the shoulders of Paul Ryan. Trump has not suffered from that Ryan-induced debacle. In fact, most Republicans I know are happy that we dodged a bullet with that sh*t show. In any case, Republicans know that not turning out the vote will result in Obamacare never being repealed and replaced. That's their incentive to vote. Republicans vote in midterms...Democrats do not.
Fourth, Kansas speaks for itself. Close? Who knows. If polls are accurate, then maybe. The GA race, however, requires a runoff unless a candidate tops 50 percent. Just because Ossoff is popular with Democrats does not mean he will pick off the Republican candidate in Newt Gingrich's district.
The Hill piece is puff piece to get Democrats energized. There is no evidence that any such change in majority is on the horizon.
while the article did not claim a Def was going to win, it did point out that Kansas has a deeply trouble economy, a deeply unpopular governor, and a bad candidate on the R side of the ballot, handpicked by "party elites" not in a primary. He's a higher up in the troublee gov's admin who his own people say is running a bad campaign, hasn't raised much $$ and is having trouble connecting with voters. Added to the fact that the KS GOP is in a state of divide over moderates and the hard liners it surprising that a stat that was GOP >30% in the election is even competitive at all. The fact that Trump, Pence, Cruz et all are getting involved at all is reason to be concerned at least for GOP. Nobody is saying Dems will win, just that this doesn't seem to be the slam dunk that it should be. Given the low enthusiasm on the right and the historical low turnout expected something odd can happen, kind of how Daddy got elected ya know?
Unless of course many of you right wing on here don't get nuance or understand the larger picture.
Valid points. All politics are local. Can't discount that. But losing a red House seat in a special election does not make a blue wave. Only time will tell.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
