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.
1.My problem with your post is that you are basically saying you are ok with some national organizations but not others .and I say this because there isn't a single contested Dem primary where the non conventional candidate isn't also backed by one of the national organizations
You can't say the DCCC shouldn't be involved, but then because with the "Our Revolution" backing a candidate.
If you are saying both sides should back away, let the primary play out and then back them winner, then cool, but if you just want the DCCC to back out, then you are being a hypocrite
2. The DCCC actually does go in locally, conduct candidate interviews, taps the grassroots network and so on to pick candidates, they don't do it from far away as you claim.
Further more, your claim was that DCCC backed candidates didn't have the ability to voice their opinions on Pelosi, or that they all backed her, that just isn't true
This is all I am saying. Let local voters decide their candidates before playing favorites.
As for the rest, you read a heck of lot into my posts that I never said.
Where did I say that I support interference by ANY committee?
I mentioned that several candidates won last week who ran on not supporting Pelosi as speaker.
Where did I say that DCCC candidates didn't have the ability to voice their opinions...?????
Your selective interpretation of my posts leads me to suspect that you have quite a lot invested in maintaining the status quo.
I hope it pays well.
I would expect Democrats to do well in 2018, but if they do not flip the House, then it will be a major defeat and would spell serious trouble for 2020. Does anyone disagree?
It would be a political disaster but nor necessarily bad for 2020. Clyburn, who is one of the top 5 Dems in the House, has already said failing to win it back should mean the whole leadership (including himself) should be axed. If you change Dem leadership in the House where it would be the most impact I think that would open up a lot of voters who either are voting against status quo or not voting because of a lack of change. That would help Democrats in 2020.
I'll also add that House elections based on Congressional districts and a Presidential election based on state populations do not yield the same results. Rs had huge wins in 2010 and 2014 house elections but did not carry the popular vote in either of the following presidential races.
The generic ballot, based on constant and overwhelming negative media attention of Trump and Republicans in general, should be in the double digits. So, yeah, this should concern Democrats. I was interested in the West Virginia polling, and the media hype that Blankenship was going to be the Republican nominee and he was surging to the lead, when in fact he finished last place. I think the national media would have loved to report all the negatives on a Blankenship nomination and actually seemed to want it so much that they (media) lied to themselves.
I would expect Democrats to do well in 2018, but if they do not flip the House, then it will be a major defeat and would spell serious trouble for 2020. Does anyone disagree?
I do not put much faith in any special elections over the past year, because no way is every race in the House going to get the national attention, media frenzy, or money dumps that the laser focused special elections have had.
The Senate, is just out of play for Democrats to control. No matter your political party, this is a perfect map for Republicans, it just is, and apparently could not come at a better time if 2018 is a bad year for Republicans.
I don't think it would be serious trouble for 2020 if they do not flip the House. Of course flipping the House is what the Democrats would like to do and it would be a disappointment, but if they come within 5-10 seats I do not see it as serious trouble.
As far as Special Elections go, I do not think one race by itself means a ton, but when you have a bunch of races that wind up being considerably closer than expected that can foreshadow a bit. The Special Elections heading into 2010 were a strong indicator for the GOP and the same could be true in reverse this time around.
As far as the Senate, it is certainly possible the Democrats could pick up the Senate. With the win in Alabama the Democrats only need to net two seats to pick up the Senate and there is a chance that can happen. Granted the map for the Democrats is quite poor, but it was poor in 2012 as well and they picked up seats.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,560 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
This is all I am saying. Let local voters decide their candidates before playing favorites.
As for the rest, you read a heck of lot into my posts that I never said.
Where did I say that I support interference by ANY committee?
I mentioned that several candidates won last week who ran on not supporting Pelosi as speaker.
Where did I say that DCCC candidates didn't have the ability to voice their opinions...?????
Your selective interpretation of my posts leads me to suspect that you have quite a lot invested in maintaining the status quo.
I hope it pays well.
My interpretation of your post is not selective in anyway.
In your original post , you said several anti Pelosi Dems had won primaries and that the DCCC/DNC didnt recognize the appeal of being anti Pelosi.
While you say all you meant was that they should stay away from the primary, the very basis of that argument went deeper than that and is in fact false , as the DCCC backs candidates regardless of being pro or anti Pelosi.
Further more, attacking one "outside group" and not the all of them whether to want to see it or not .
I don't think it would be serious trouble for 2020 if they do not flip the House. Of course flipping the House is what the Democrats would like to do and it would be a disappointment, but if they come within 5-10 seats I do not see it as serious trouble.
As far as Special Elections go, I do not think one race by itself means a ton, but when you have a bunch of races that wind up being considerably closer than expected that can foreshadow a bit. The Special Elections heading into 2010 were a strong indicator for the GOP and the same could be true in reverse this time around.
As far as the Senate, it is certainly possible the Democrats could pick up the Senate. With the win in Alabama the Democrats only need to net two seats to pick up the Senate and there is a chance that can happen. Granted the map for the Democrats is quite poor, but it was poor in 2012 as well and they picked up seats.
I closely follow politics and news, and the "blue wave" or "tsunami" talk all this past year would have to equal the House flipping. I just think many Democrat voters and donors (grassroots who give under $100) would wonder "whats the point?" if after two years of hype and near panic failed to deliver the House. Historically, nearly all mid terms in the Presidents first term have a loss for the Presidents party, so the Republicans should expect to lose seats just based on that, but topped out with the hysteria over Trump it should equal many more seats for Democrats.
In 2010, I was hearing about the coming wave election, and it happened, the Republicans gained 63 seats! Not to mention many people don't realize how important it is for major political victories every 10 years for redistricting purposes, ie 2010 and 2020.
This year, we will see the Democrat party unite and come together for their common goal of taking Congress, but right after this election in 2019 the Democrat party will be ripping itself apart for the purpose of being the nominee for 2020. I can't imagine the opposition research being done right now on Democrats (by other Democrats) trying to to get an edge over the over candidate, but I digress.
Anyways, the Senate got out of reach for the Democrats last week when the Republicans largely nominated mainstream candidates, and though polls right now are somewhat meaningless, Joe Manchin is losing by 4 points in a new poll for his re-election.
This is my opinion but it is how I currently see things.
I closely follow politics and news, and the "blue wave" or "tsunami" talk all this past year would have to equal the House flipping. I just think many Democrat voters and donors (grassroots who give under $100) would wonder "whats the point?" if after two years of hype and near panic failed to deliver the House. Historically, nearly all mid terms in the Presidents first term have a loss for the Presidents party, so the Republicans should expect to lose seats just based on that, but topped out with the hysteria over Trump it should equal many more seats for Democrats.
In 2010, I was hearing about the coming wave election, and it happened, the Republicans gained 63 seats! Not to mention many people don't realize how important it is for major political victories every 10 years for redistricting purposes, ie 2010 and 2020.
This year, we will see the Democrat party unite and come together for their common goal of taking Congress, but right after this election in 2019 the Democrat party will be ripping itself apart for the purpose of being the nominee for 2020. I can't imagine the opposition research being done right now on Democrats (by other Democrats) trying to to get an edge over the over candidate, but I digress.
Anyways, the Senate got out of reach for the Democrats last week when the Republicans largely nominated mainstream candidates, and though polls right now are somewhat meaningless, Joe Manchin is losing by 4 points in a new poll for his re-election.
This is my opinion but it is how I currently see things.
FWIW I do think the Democrats will take the House, I just don't think it will be OMG the Democrats are completely screwed in 2020 if for example they pick up 20 seats
As far as the Senate goes, keep in mind you still have Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee which are potential pick ups. The only WVA poll is a GOP internal (unless you saw some other poll)
The story is being sold that if the Democrats don't win the House, they have failed. It is a great story, but it has some caveats that I don't think many people realize.
The obvious reasons why Democrats should capture the House is that the House acts as the "quick feedback loop" of the people. All seats come up every two years. If the people don't like what is going on, the "check" against the President and the Senate is that the people can essentially elect a new body of representatives after two years.
So, if the will of people is that they want to see less of Trump's agenda, they can put a lot of stops to the domestic end of it by electing Democrats to the House to put the brakes on his agenda.
However, that's not the reality of the House anymore. In a politically neutral environment (50/50 votes nationally), Republicans stand to capture 234 House seats. Democrats stand to capture 201 seats. Due to gerrymandering, there is an inherent bias. So, even if nationally, there was a 5% margin by Democrats, Republicans would likely still hold that chamber.
It is estimated that a 6% Democratic margin isn't even enough to flip the house. So much for the House of Representatives being that quick feedback loop that it was designed for.
Last edited by dspguy; 05-15-2018 at 07:45 AM..
Reason: Fixed typo
Blue states have money and can buy globally. And we can grow plenty of food locally. I would put my money on educated blue states over red state Trump worship any day of the week. Blue states do not need to rely on red states to transport anything when they are growing food locally and imports come to the coasts so if anyone is depending on anything, it's red states hoping product makes it to the middle. The reality is, red states depend a great deal on agriculture and farm subsidies. Blue states excel in tech, entertainment, finance, solar, wind, hydro, education, retail, environmental, healthcare and so much more. All they need to do is target business toward other blue states and make this a quiet economic war with silent "sanctions". Break flyover country quietly. And since flyover country considers education "elitist", it would not be difficult to do. It would be interesting to watch flyover country become an economic island where not only are foreign countries not buying their agriculture, neither are blue states.
You act like we have no industry or agriculture in red states. We have ports too, and oil and wind and solar and everything else you’ve got. Oh, and good luck living on your “entertainment.” Lol
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.
