Democrats mid-term lead evaporates (Representatives, interviews, Republican, liberal)

[TigerLily24]

Originally Posted by pknopp

No, they can thank the DNC for not coming up with anything to run on. I've been noting this would happen since the election.

That and the DCCC foisting their candidates on and/or otherwise interfering with local races.
They seem unable to believe or understand that voters want to pick their own candidates and that is not necessarily whomever the party decides will best tow the line.

There are several Dems running on a platform that includes rejecting Nancy Pelosi who won the other day.
Does the DNC/DCCC recognize that this appeals?
Of course not.

They have no interest in knowing what people actually want.
But they are very good at snatching defeat from the arms of victory.

And so it goes.

[MinivanDriver]

Originally Posted by Seacove

California has the 5th largest economy in the world. How that must pain Trump supporters.

I'm not a Trump supporter, but put down the crack pipe.

29th in employment. The nation's highest poverty rate, once COL is factored in. Hemorrhaging working- and middle-class population. Skyrocketing homeless population. I'm not so sure I would be crowing yet.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

That and the DCCC foisting their candidates on and/or otherwise interfering with local races.
They seem unable to believe or understand that voters want to pick their own candidates and that is not necessarily whomever the party decides will best tow the line.

There are several Dems running on a platform that includes rejecting Nancy Pelosi who won the other day.
Does the DNC/DCCC recognize that this appeals?
Of course not.

They have no interest in knowing what people actually want.
But they are very good at snatching defeat from the arms of victory.

And so it goes.

1. DCCC and DNC are separate( but technically equal) entities

2. As far as I can tell, there wasn't a single primary upset Tuesday, meaning the candidates who won were backed by the DCCC and or DNC regardless of being pro or anti Pelosi

3. Both entities along with their Republican counterparts have always backed candidates in primaries .

If you don't like that, I get it. I mean I disagree , but I get it. My problem comes with some of you acting like this is cheating , or that the Republicans don't do it , or that the candidates don't have their own opinions . You are wrong on all accounts .

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by jas75

It will be interesting to see if Republican nominees in certain states and districts want Trump around to help galvanize support for their candidacy. In general during the 2014 midterms, Democratic contenders didn't want to be seen around Obama, even in places that had voted for him two years earlier - and they still ended up losing badly. Politicians are very self interested and generally have a pretty good idea whether or not appearing aligned with the president is going to help them with the electorate.

So if Trump is keeping busy traveling between campaign stops in Florida, Wisconsin, Nevada, Montana and Missouri (to name just some of the highly contested states) this fall, Republicans are probably confident they will be on track to expand their Senate majority. If he's staying cloistered in Mar-a-Lago, that would likely suggest a less favorable outcome for the party.

The problem with the Obama distance argument is that Gary Peters is now the senator from Michigan , and he basically ran as Obama's best friend and won by 13 points .

Running away from Obama was a bad idea in 2014. 2012 had long ago proven that when anti Obama Dems lost every primary.

The same is happening now as Justice Democrats/ Our Revolution are like 0- 62 ( with one run off in Texas pending ) vs DNC/DCCC/DGA/DSCC backed candidates

[dsjj251]

Duplicite

[jas75]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

The problem with the Obama distance argument is that Gary Peters is now the senator from Michigan , and he basically ran as Obama's best friend and won by 13 points .

Running away from Obama was a bad idea in 2014. 2012 had long ago proven that when anti Obama Dems lost every primary.

The same is happening now as Justice Democrats/ Our Revolution are like 0- 62 ( with one run off in Texas pending ) vs DNC/DCCC/DGA/DSCC backed candidates

The Michigan race was an anomaly among Senate elections in 2014. The Republican candidate ran a very weak campaign, largely avoiding the media and making few appearances after she demonstrated an inability to articulate her positions. She lost badly at the same time Michigan's Republican governor was re-elected. Peters is one of only two senators in a Trump 2016 state who isn't up for re-election this year, and the other is your state's junior senator Doug Jones.

The dynamics of visibly aligning with, or avoiding, the president of one's own party are different between the primary and general election phases of a campaign. Many of the 2014 Democratic Senate candidates (Michigan was an exception) didn't want to be seen with Obama in the general election, lest it motivate the Republicans even more. That isn't the case for Republicans in Indiana and West Virginia this year as the general election kicks off, as the nominees are vocally supportive of Trump and are welcoming his presence. Certainly in some states, this may be different. Nevada will be interesting to watch, as it has the only Republican incumbent senator in a state where Trump lost.

[Cruzincat]

Originally Posted by Seacove

The system is already being manipulated. Wyoming voters have almost four times the voting power of California voters. And nothing is more motivating to the GOP than gerrymandering districts.

Right now, the GOP has far far far more representation through gerrymandering than actual voter representation. A GOP designed district will draw a line around every urban or minority voter in order to reduce them to a single district and will create a dozen rural districts to overrepresent the GOP. That's what happened with the 2010 elections and we've been living the result ever since.

Gerrymandering only affects the makeup of the state’s representation in the House. The electoral votes are decided, at least in the majority of the states, by statewide popular vote. Therefore, gerrymandering has little to do with picking a president.

[Cruzincat]

Originally Posted by MinivanDriver

I'm not a Trump supporter, but put down the crack pipe.

29th in employment. The nation's highest poverty rate, once COL is factored in. Hemorrhaging working- and middle-class population. Skyrocketing homeless population. I'm not so sure I would be crowing yet.

But, but...the weather is great!

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by jas75

The Michigan race was an anomaly among Senate elections in 2014. The Republican candidate ran a very weak campaign, largely avoiding the media and making few appearances after she demonstrated an inability to articulate her positions. She lost badly at the same time Michigan's Republican governor was re-elected. Peters is one of only two senators in a Trump 2016 state who isn't up for re-election this year, and the other is your state's junior senator Doug Jones.

The dynamics of visibly aligning with, or avoiding, the president of one's own party are different between the primary and general election phases of a campaign. Many of the 2014 Democratic Senate candidates (Michigan was an exception) didn't want to be seen with Obama in the general election, lest it motivate the Republicans even more. That isn't the case for Republicans in Indiana and West Virginia this year as the general election kicks off, as the nominees are vocally supportive of Trump and are welcoming his presence. Certainly in some states, this may be different. Nevada will be interesting to watch, as it has the only Republican incumbent senator in a state where Trump lost.

It was an anomaly because the Dem ran with Obama who campaigned with him in the state . Land being a bad candidate may result in a lose, but not 12-13 points .

Running against or ignoring your party's leader makes no sense . The base gave him the support of the majority ( or at least the majority of voters).

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

North Dakota and highest QOL don't belong in the same sentence

Liberals are always in denial of facts and reality. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it not true. Way to show your true bigoted, intolerant liberal colors though.