Outgoing Sen. McCaskill bashes Democrats for failing to gain trust with the deplorables, a recipe for disaster for Democ (polls, death)

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

So again, your logic doesnt add up.

Tester shouldnt have survived if Kavenuagh was a big a factor as you claim.

In context, Trump won Montana, Indiana and Missouri all with 56%, Montana got the lowest Democratic share at 35%

Tester was a more reliable Democratic vote on issues than Donnally or McCaskill.

Wrong. Again, the great majority of Dem senators from red states who voted against Kavanaugh lost reelection, while the one who voted for him won, albeit narrowly. That one got away doesn't change the narrative/premise that voting against Kavanaugh was extremely harmful (to the extent of losing the election in most cases, I and others argue) for Dems from red states.

As I mentioned before, though, I recall polling on the issue where voters from these states said they'd be more likely to reelect their Dem senators if they voted for Trump's Supreme Court nominees. Claire McCaskill can see that her vote against Kavanaugh cost her politically. Its not that complicated.

if anyone was done for, but your logic, it was Tester, and he won.

Nope. My premise isn't based on overall voting record, but on this particular issue. Tester is still relatively well-liked in Montana (and went out of his way to not criticize Trump), something that I think worked in his favor, even in spite of his vote. But, again, one person not fitting this narrative doesn't change the overall point. Not when it still applies to the great majority of senators who were in this situation.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

I also recall polling on the Kavanaugh issue in several of these states, where voters said they'd be more likely to vote for the Dem incumbent in these red states if they backed Kavanaugh. And Claire sure thinks that her vote hurt her. The only one disagreeing with this premise seems to be you.

I recall no such polling that supports your claim that this is why any of those Democrats lost. In All those polls

"who would you vote for today" and " Did they vote for Kavanuagh" was 1% or less in difference.

Each of the 3 "red" state Democrats who lost, did so by more than 1 point.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Wrong. Again, the great majority of Dem senators from red states who voted against Kavanaugh lost reelection. That one got away doesn't change the narrative/premise that voting against Kavanaugh was extremely harmful (to the extent of losing the election in most cases, I and others argue) for Dems from red states.

As I mentioned before, though, I recall polling on the issue where voters from these states said they'd be more likely to reelect their Dem senators if they voted for Trump's Supreme Court nominees. Claire McCaskill can see that her vote against Kavanaugh cost her politically. Its not that complicated.

Again, we are talking about 3 to 4 seats here, so saying great majority is intellectually dishonest. Especially when Republicans were demographically favored in all 3 to 4 races.

Again, by your own definition, they are "red states"

No. My premise isn't based on overall voting record, but on this particular issue. Tester is still relatively well-liked in Montana (and went out of his way to not criticize Trump), something that I think worked in his favor, even in spite of his vote. But, again, one person not fitting this narrative doesn't change the overall point. Not when it still applies to the great majority of senators who were in this situation.

On this particular issue that you are scoring Trump on, he didnt win them all, even with statically even numbers in similar states.

If you can claim Tester doesnt matter even though his numbers were similar to everyone else, then your entire argument falls to pieces.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I recall no such polling that supports your claim that this is why any of those Democrats lost. In All those polls

"who would you vote for today" and " Did they vote for Kavanuagh" was 1% or less in difference.

Each of the 3 "red" state Democrats who lost, did so by more than 1 point.

Here's one.

In a Fox news poll released before Kavanaugh was confirmed, 42% of likely voters in the Missouri US Senate election said McCaskill's vote on Kavanaugh wouldn't make a difference in their Senate votes. A quarter said it would make them more likely to vote for McCaskill if she opposed Kavanaugh and slightly more -- 29% -- said it'd make them less likely.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/17/polit...ors/index.html

And another:

In a poll released last week by the Judicial Crisis Network, which has spent millions of dollars in West Virginia in support of Kavanaugh’s nomination, said a vote by Manchin in favor of Kavanaugh by Manchin would cause 33 percent of Democrats to be more likely to vote for Manchin in his race against state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey while 23 percent would be less like. Forty-three percent of Democrats surveyed said it wouldn’t make a difference.

In that same poll, 43 percent of Republicans said they would be more likely to vote for Manchin if he’s a “yes” vote on Kavanaugh. A similar 43 percent of Republicans said it would make no difference.

WV MetroNews – Manchin says he’ll vote to confirm Kavanaugh despite ‘reservations’ about allegations, temperament

I recall reading about other polls, but that's what a quick search found.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Again, we are talking about 3 to 4 seats here, so saying great majority is intellectually dishonest. Especially when Republicans were demographically favored in all 3 to 4 races.

Again, by your own definition, they are "red states"

Not intellectually dishonest at all. And the narrative works well with 4 seats.

As for being demographically favored in all of these races, that clearly didn't stop Democrats from being elected to these seats in the first place.

Originally Posted by dsjj251

On this particular issue that you are scoring Trump on, he didnt win them all, even with statically even numbers in similar states.

If you can claim Tester doesnt matter even though his numbers were similar to everyone else, then your entire argument falls to pieces.

Again, winning them all doesn't change the narrative that a vote against Kavanaugh was general harmful to Dems running for reelection in red states. This is true for the great majority of people in that situation. Tester matters, but he doesn't really alter the fundamentals of the narrative. Again, one person getting away, while the other 4 fit the narrative doesn't change the fundamentals of the narrative. As I mentioned before, even Claire McCaskill understands this.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Here's one.



https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/17/polit...ors/index.html

And another:



WV MetroNews – Manchin says he’ll vote to confirm Kavanaugh despite ‘reservations’ about allegations, temperament

I recall reading about other polls, but that's what a quick search found.

You dont read your links I see

Trump's approval rating is at 42% across Midwestern states, according to a recent CNN poll conducted by SSRS, about the same as nationwide, where it's 41%. While the Midwest as a whole didn't support Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court (40% said to vote in favor, 52% not), many Democratic senators are fighting for re-election in the most deeply red states in the region.

In a Fox news poll released before Kavanaugh was confirmed, 42% of likely voters in the Missouri US Senate election said McCaskill's vote on Kavanaugh wouldn't make a difference in their Senate votes. A quarter said it would make them more likely to vote for McCaskill if she opposed Kavanaugh and slightly more -- 29% -- said it'd make them less likely.
Most people said they had already made up their minds who to vote for -- 75% of likely McCaskill voters said they're certain to support her in November. McCaskill was tied with Republican Josh Hawley at 43% in the poll.

are you wanting to try again, or what ?

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You dont read your links I see






are you wanting to try again, or what ?

This is comical. You're not reading anything is that's your comeback. The articles make clear that a not-insubstantial percentage of voters in two states would be less likely to vote to reelect their Dem senators if they voted against Kavanaugh. Again, this isn't that difficult. You continue to try (and fail) to poke holes in what even Claire McCaskill can see was a factor in her election outcome.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Not intellectually dishonest at all. And the narrative works well with 4 seats.

As for being demographically favored in all of these races, that clearly didn't stop Democrats from being elected to these seats in the first place.




Again, winning them all doesn't change the narrative that a vote against Kavanaugh was general harmful to Dems running for reelection in red states. This is true for the great majority of people in that situation. Tester matters, but he doesn't really alter the fundamentals of the narrative. Again, one person getting away, while the other 4 fit the narrative doesn't change the fundamentals of the narrative. As I mentioned before, even Claire McCaskill understands this.

Actually it does, thats the very premise of your argument. If it was that harmful, he should have lost.

Your very argument is that it was a death sentence, and clearly Tester beat it.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

This is comical. You're not reading anything is that's your comeback. The articles make clear that a not-insubstantial percentage of voters in two states would be less likely to vote to reelect their Dem senators if they voted against Kavanaugh. Again, this isn't that difficult. You continue to try (and fail) to poke holes in what even Claire McCaskill can see was a factor in her election outcome.

You do understand that "less likely" and "more likely" is not the same as " I will vote for" right ?

Lets assume it is for a second, and claim the 4% Difference(which actually calculates to 1% of the overall votes) decides to vote for McCaskill in a world where she supports Kavenaugh.

She still loses 49% to 50 %

So again, Even by your own link, giving using the maximum numbers, she still loses. So , do you want to try again.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Actually it does, thats the very premise of your argument. If it was that harmful, he should have lost.

Your very argument is that it was a death sentence, and clearly Tester beat it.

No, it doesn't. My argument, which I've stated multiple times (you're just choosing to ignore it and substitute your own version, but that's OK) is that the decision to vote against Kavanaugh was generally harmful to Democrats running for reelection to the Senate in red states. Again, that one got away doesn't change this; I never claimed that it was the kiss of death in every situation, as that wouldn't be the case given Tester's victory . . . you assumed that based on my first basic post, but I have stated multiple times what the point of my post was. Of course, pollling also suggests harm to these candidates if they voted against Kavanaugh.