2018 U.S election

[Timsup2nothin]

I would caution against divining any sort of trend out of it. It was still a midterm, millions fewer voted than in 2016, and discouraged suburban Republicans who sat this one out can just as easily drag themselves dejectedly to the polls in 2020 because the presidency is at stake.

The trend on suburban splits in presidential elections matches the trend on suburban splits in mid term elections. Reagan owned the suburbs, GWBush dominated the suburbs, Trump won the suburbs. In contemporary midterm elections the splits followed suit. The inescapable reality is that the GOP is losing appeal among suburban voters. In my opinion, suburban voters are identifying more and more with urban voters, and the rural appeal strategy is losing them.

The issue is simple changes in demographics. When Reagan was my president, and my boss, the suburbs were filled with people who approached the cities looking for work, and at Christmas they went 'home' to the boondocks to visit their family. I live in the suburbs. Next month there will be a flood of my neighbors driving into LA to be with theirs. People here with roots that go back to the rural are two or three generations removed, and those roots are dead.

 

[Bootstoots]

I think they believed they could sink his nomination, and I don't think there was a broader strategy behind it than that. We often look at things done by powerful people in politics and try to divine some long-game strategy from it, but I think a lot of times this gives people too much credit.

I mean, look at how poorly prepared they were for the hearing. That did not have the air of being a heavily strategized thing at all. It looked more like a group of people who suddenly got involved in something and maybe had bit off more than they could chew, or at least, more than they were willing to chew.

I think they overestimated how much of the public would be on the side of Kavanaugh withdrawing his nomination, and how much pressure would be put on the Senate and Trump to find someone else. They thought they could win, which I guess itself necessarily has electoral implications given how close this was to the midterms, but I think defeating the nomination was itself the only real goal.

Right, I think they just played a card that fell into their lap and had not really thought anything out ahead of time at all. I'm just saying that midterm consequences likely were a major part of their thinking as they reacted to the opportunity that presented itself, although it was probably secondary to sinking the nomination.

 

[MaryKB]

That may not have been the single primary goal, but it's hard to imagine that winning support for Democratic Senate candidates wasn't one of their top two or three motivations for bringing up Ford's allegation in a dramatic way. It certainly seemed they were hopeful that this would play out well for them at the time.

To whatever extent they thought it would help, it backfired - they suffered a net loss. It also failed to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation. Maybe they could theoretically impeach him for perjury now, but he'd never be removed. I don't blame them at all for playing a card they were dealt - in fact I'd blame them more if they had decided not to gamble. But it's worth noting that this was a failure and using that to inform future strategy.

I'm finding it a little demeaning honestly to suggest coming forward with allegations of sexual assault and attempted rape is some sort of political strategy, and you should be careful about doing so for strategic reasons. I feel this whole line of thinking is suggesting women's safety is some sort of political tool, and you decide when and where to bring up allegations not based solely on what is best for protecting women but rather what might be most politically expedient and strategic, you know what I mean? I can understand why you might be inclined to think that way a little, but I feel it's not at all a good path to go down, and I'm feeling you're suggesting women should reconsider coming forward if she thinks it might upset Republicans and mobilize them to vote.

 

[metalhead]

The trend on suburban splits in presidential elections matches the trend on suburban splits in mid term elections. Reagan owned the suburbs, GWBush dominated the suburbs, Trump won the suburbs. In contemporary midterm elections the splits followed suit. The inescapable reality is that the GOP is losing appeal among suburban voters. In my opinion, suburban voters are identifying more and more with urban voters, and the rural appeal strategy is losing them.

This was an unusual midterm. Republicans were a little more energized than usual to vote in it, Democrats were a LOT more energized to vote in it than usual. Turnout is projected to be the highest for a midterm election since 1966.

You might come back and say, "well maybe 2020 turnout will be YUUUUGE!" And, yeah, maybe it will be. If it is, you will be more likely to be right about what the electorate is gonna look like. So, that's a good point I just made for you

I just wouldn't take anything as a given. Now that there is divided government again, perhaps the electorate ends up back in its typical voting behavior. Plus, if the GOP is turning those voters off - step aside and let them. There is no harm in trying to broaden the electoral base and reach out to rural voters. There are still legacy ties between rural and small town white working class voters and the Democratic party through union affiliation, and I think that is a battleground Democrats need to compete on if there is any hope of winning back the Senate in 2020.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I feel this whole line of thinking is suggesting women's safety is some sort of political tool, and you decide when and where to bring up allegations not based solely on what is best for protecting women but rather what might be most politically expedient and strategic, you know what I mean?

Consider that what is "politically expedient and strategic" may very well be a big factor in "what is best for protecting women." I'm not saying that is universally true, but under conditions where a significant amount of political power has been gathered into the hands of a clearly apparent misogynist every action has to be weighed in terms of how it affects the amount of additional power to do harm that accumulates into his hands.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I just heard on the radio that 1-in-5 African-American adult men in Florida have criminal records that, until today, prevented them from voting. Yeesh. Of course it's hard to say, but that could be big in future elections.

Also: So long, Jeff Sessions.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This was an unusual midterm. Republicans were a little more energized than usual to vote in it, Democrats were a LOT more energized to vote in it than usual. Turnout is projected to be the highest for a midterm election since 1966.

You might come back and say, "well maybe 2020 turnout will be YUUUUGE!" And, yeah, maybe it will be. If it is, you will be more likely to be right about what the electorate is gonna look like. So, that's a good point I just made for you

I just wouldn't take anything as a given. Plus, if the GOP is turning those voters off - step aside and let them. There is no harm in trying to broaden the electoral base and reach out to rural voters. There are still legacy ties between rural and small town white working class voters and the Democratic party, and I think that is a battleground worth fighting on if there is any hope of winning back the Senate in 2020.

Cool. So what's your strategy for reaching out to rural and racist segments, which are totally in the hands of the GOP, that won't have the same effect of alienating urban and suburban voters that the GOP is suffering from? I submit that you can't. The things you have to do to appeal to rural voters and racist voters have costs, and those costs are proving prohibitively high for the GOP because they are mounting over time. You just can't get away with trying to be all things to all people.

Nixon's southern strategy is a great example. If ten percent of the electorate are minorities, twenty-five percent are racists, and sixty-five percent aren't racists or minorities and don't give a damn what you say to either of those groups then the southern strategy is totally obvious; piss on the minorities, hard, and appeal to the racists. But when that sixty-five percent gives a damn, and they mostly are openly hostile to racists, that southern strategy becomes a massive cross to bear, even if the ten and twenty-five numbers haven't changed.

 

[Farm Boy]

You heard the hot take first here. Union interests, if they're "rural' is raaaaaaysist.

Hi California, how you been?

 

[innonimatu]

Now picture if Democrats nominate Michael Avenatti in 2020.

The new Hillary? No need, she'll run again.

I think the assumption that the Democrats were using this as an 'electoral strategy' is pretty much false.

Please, you're not that naive. Who kept repeating "it is not a legal case", "it is not a trial", those standards do not apply? If it wasn't that, it was politics.

It is as if they wish to lose!

I think they overestimated how much of the public would be on the side of Kavanaugh withdrawing his nomination, and how much pressure would be put on the Senate and Trump to find someone else. They thought they could win, which I guess itself necessarily has electoral implications given how close this was to the midterms, but I think defeating the nomination was itself the only real goal.

That was the only way they could win, intimidating him into quitting. And it was Trump who prevented that, kept supporting him. Without that card in play, faced with the old republican party, my guess is that this strategy would have worked.
They just keep underestimating Trump.

 

[Lexicus]

Who kept repeating "it is not a legal case", "it is not a trial", those standards do not apply? If it wasn't that, it was politics.

I don't agree with your categories of interpretation at all.

You heard the hot take first here. Union interests, if they're "rural' is raaaaaaysist.

Name one thing Trump is doing that helps unions.

 

[Takhisis]

This doesn't explain how badly you were wrong. Were you posting stormfront projections or what?

In psychology it's called introjection, actually, but yeah.

Apparently the total Senate votes were about 44 million for the Democrats and 33 million for the Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ve-over-million-more-senate-votes-still-lose/

Clearly this is a fair and rational system

It's how it's supposed to work, roughly.The problem is that you get one side who play Calvinball and only accept the rules as long as they win, as they've been doing with judiciary appointments and the detruction of ballots that had been possibly tampered with.

Kiss the ring

Trump is dissing the Republicans that lost "because they kept distance to him in their election campaign".

President Donald Trump’s party lost control of the House of Representatives last night, and Trump is blaming the losing Republican candidates for not loving him more. Literally.
“Mia Love gave me no love and she lost — too bad, sorry about that, Mia,” Trump said about Republican Utah Rep. Mia Love, who looks like she is going to lose her Republican-leaning but competitive district to a Democrat this year.
He didn’t stop with Love. He went down the list of Republicans who couldn’t muster enough support to overcome the blue wave this year, chastising them for not “embracing” the Donald.
“Carlos Curbelo, Mike Coffman. Too bad, Mike,” Trump said. “And Barbara Comstock was another. I think that she could’ve won that race, but she did not want to have an embrace ...
“Peter Roskam did not want the embrace ...
“Erik Paulsen did not want the embrace ...
“John Faso; those are some of the people that decided for their own reason not to embrace, whether it is me or what we stand for, but what we stand for meant a lot to a lot of people,” Trump said at a press conference Wednesday.
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18072282/midterm-election-results-donald-trump-republican-losers

Trump is doing the same as before the 2016 election: warning Republicans that do not follow him.

preparing for 2020 he wants an obedient Republican elite.

Am I the only one who finds Señor Donald, Senior starting by accusing a woman of not giving him any love particularly creepy?

You heard the hot take first here. Union interests, if they're "rural' is raaaaaaysist.

Tim said ‘rural and racist’, which isn't the same as saying that all rural voters are racist.

 

[innonimatu]

I don't agree with your categories of interpretation at all.

Believe what you will. I warned.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I'm not saying it's perfect, and you certainly don't abandon the current coalition to chase some magical 'white rural voter' narrative, but literally blaming all of our problems on wealthy elitists is a good and solid playbook that any Dem could make in almost any district and find alliances. A lot of them are tepid I think because of wanting to sound more technically astute/wonky, whatever. This is one thing Bernie definitely gets; his Amazon legislation idea thing was trash in terms of actual scope and policy, and I am sure he knew it, but it started a conversation that, combined with groups on the ground, helped put pressure on Amazon to actually raise wages. Class war has its limits in a country defined by racial segregation perhaps more than anything but Dems don't have to win every white vote, and shouldn't try. But if you pick up a few while ranting about dropping anvils on wealthy wall street/silicon valley/whatever types then hey, cool. One added bonus is that perhaps then we can get real live anvil drops on them, too. It's a win-win.

Republicans are much better at using impractical messaging to drive legislation than Dems, who I think get hung up on details too much. Voters don't care.

 

[MaryKB]

I don't believe not supporting Donald Trump is what's hurting Republicans. My Republican governor candidate (Tim Schuette) sent me a flyer saying he would be Trump's badly needed ally in Michigan (and his flyer had a big horrible picture of Donald), and he was thoroughly crushed by Gretchin Whitmer yesterday

 

[rah]

Well I guess now that the election is over, Jeff is expendable. Amazing the changes that can happen the day after.

 

[metalhead]

Cool. So what's your strategy for reaching out to rural and racist segments, which are totally in the hands of the GOP, that won't have the same effect of alienating urban and suburban voters that the GOP is suffering from?

Well, how about going to their union halls and talking to them, in a way that shows you understand and want to address their concerns? Make pro-union policies a big part of your platform. Know who tried that in 2016? Bernie Sanders. He got a lot of those people to show up to the polls for him, and in primaries no less.

It's practically a lay-up, and it's not going to alienate urban and suburban voters to be explicitly pro-union. It only upsets corporate donors, which explains why so many Democrats totally whiff on this easy lay-up. Know who doesn't want corporate PAC money and won't care if he pisses off potential corporate donors? Rhymes with Keto (if you pronounce it like a white).

 

[Farm Boy]

When you're a devil, you need a "bigger demon" to villainize. Explains about everything you need to know Metal. Skew off the point if confronted, you know you got nuttin'. Like president Assclown! Seems to work with a certain type of mental disposition. Much to my dismay.

Tim said ‘rural and racist’, which isn't the same as saying that all rural voters are racist.

Lived less than two hours from Chicago almost my whole life. Americans have more than one breed of dog whistle, if you're even going to be that generous. Which is probably unwarranted.

Hey, it's a step up from "implied child molester" which the real winners like to cast shadows of.

 

[Takhisis]

Lived less than two hours from Chicago almost my whole life. Americans have more than one breed of dog whistle, if you're even going to be that generous. Which is probably unwarranted.

This might be due to multitasking and not using English except for CFC right now, but I think I'm missing something here?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You heard the hot take first here. Union interests, if they're "rural' is raaaaaaysist.

Hi California, how you been?

Rural and racist are two groups. There is some overlap. The GOP appeals double to the overlap, because they appeal to the rural and they appeal to the racists. By and large the rural are the only people left who aren't racists but generally don't mind the GOP openly courting them, but that doesn't make the rural themselves automatically racists.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There is huge overlap between rural and racist.