Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Dems win the House while defeated O’Rourke becomes 3rd fav

13

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 52,087
    EU could agree to a joint arbitration mechanism to decide when to end the Irish backstop and Cox has given it an initial go ahead after a 3 hour Cabinet meeting

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7676164/brexit-deal-by-christmas-cabinet/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 52,087

    Morning all.

    The Senate results can only be described as very poor for the Dems, certainly compared with expectations. At the start of the campaigns they thought they had a reasonable chance of a majority. Mislaying FL in particular is not good, and in most of the other battlegrounds they've gone backwards. What will worry them most is that the hill they have to climb to win back control in 2020 now looks really daunting: they needed to gain seats, not lose them, this time round.

    They'll obviously take some comfort from the House results, but this far from being a 'blue wave'.

    In terms of the popular vote in the House it is a blue wave, a bigger lead than the Dems had in the 2006 midterms or the GOP had in the 1994 or 2010 or 2014 midterms, the Democrats won control of the House just gerrymandered districts meant they did not match the GOP gains of 1994 or 2010.

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,771
    brendan16 said:

    notme said:

    British politics and policing summed up.

    Stagger school leaving times to combat a series of murders.

    I mean, its not like they could target the gangs themselves, is it?

    If operational changes like that can make something better it doesn’t stop other work been done.
    How about following the EU's new plan to keep us on BST all year round from next year (i.e. ending clock changes) - so we no longer change the clocks twice a year. Kids could go home in the daylight through the winter months - which would on the evidence reduce accident deaths and perhaps crime.

    Los of things you could do without addressing the real causes.
    Follow the Glasgow strategy?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45572691
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,838
    edited November 2018
    DavidL said:

    Has there been any update on projected vote shares from this?

    Surely this is completely distorted by the California Senate position?
    There were house races across California - but potentially having no Senate candidates on the ballot may as you say have affected the Republican vote share.

    Of course in 2016 while Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million she actually won California by nearly 4.3 million. Excluding California Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million - a point only relevant in the fact that it illustrates how Clinton had a lot of 'wasted' vote as whether you win a state by 5,000 votes or 5 million you get the same number of electoral college votes.

    There have also been some interesting other ballot measures - West Virginia and Alabama have passed measures making it state policy to oppose abortion rights whereas Missouri (subject to a 4% sales tax - the 15% tax option was rejected) and Michigan have voted to legalise marijuana but North Dakota. Seems the people of Missouri have no problem with pot - as long as they don't have to pay too much tax on it!
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,710
    I don’t think the Dems ever seriously expected to gain the Senate, but they were likely hoping to limit their losses to 1 or 2 seats rather than the 3 or 4 that look likely.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 42,229
    So a bit underwhelming after Democrat triumphalism then? Oh well.
  • Some thoughts on last night.

    1. There are three big areas of reform where Trump is interested in - prison reform, drug pricing and infrastructure - where he could work with a Dem house. Would expect him to pivot to these. He may also amend the SALT tax laws, which seem to have lost the Rep seats in suburban areas.

    2. The 2020 Dem pick for President just got harder - there are arguments for going more moderate (victories in suburban seats) or to be more radical (Beto in Texas);

    3. Hard to tell whether the results make it harder for Trump in 2020 or not. The results from the rust belt states he won in 2016 don't look great for him but a left-leaning Dem candidate is likely to be too far for those voters.

    4. Kavanaugh was a disaster for the Dems in the Senate. Trump will also be happy - he will claim that where he campaign hard for candidates, they (generally) won.

    5. I wonder whether Manchin now goes over to the GOP.

    6. The GOP is probably happy with the Governors results, even with Wisconsin - they kept Ohio and Florida, and (probably) Georgia

    7. A minor point but I am surprised the GOP looks to have done relatively ok in California. Looks like Cox beating Newsom in Orange County and CA39 and 45 look to be holding up for the GOP.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,771

    I don’t think the Dems ever seriously expected to gain the Senate, but they were likely hoping to limit their losses to 1 or 2 seats rather than the 3 or 4 that look likely.

    Winning those midwest governors is likely to be critical, and possibly the renfranchisement in Florida.

    It looks to me a 2:1 win for the Dems.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,359
    HYUFD said:

    Morning all.

    The Senate results can only be described as very poor for the Dems, certainly compared with expectations. At the start of the campaigns they thought they had a reasonable chance of a majority. Mislaying FL in particular is not good, and in most of the other battlegrounds they've gone backwards. What will worry them most is that the hill they have to climb to win back control in 2020 now looks really daunting: they needed to gain seats, not lose them, this time round.

    They'll obviously take some comfort from the House results, but this far from being a 'blue wave'.

    In terms of the popular vote in the House it is a blue wave, a bigger lead than the Dems had in the 2006 midterms or the GOP had in the 1994 or 2010 or 2014 midterms, the Democrats won control of the House just gerrymandered districts meant they did not match the GOP gains of 1994 or 2010.

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020
    BiB - is the suggestion that gerrymandering has taken place specifically in the last two years? I get that the Dems get hurt by it (and other things), but surely the change from two years ago would only be suppressed by gerrymandering between 2016 and 2018.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,761

    Morning all.

    The Senate results can only be described as very poor for the Dems, certainly compared with expectations. At the start of the campaigns they thought they had a reasonable chance of a majority.'.

    Citation required. The Dem map was horrific for the Senate. Barely anyone was predicting net gains.
  • HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,761
    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Morning all.

    The Senate results can only be described as very poor for the Dems, certainly compared with expectations. At the start of the campaigns they thought they had a reasonable chance of a majority. Mislaying FL in particular is not good, and in most of the other battlegrounds they've gone backwards. What will worry them most is that the hill they have to climb to win back control in 2020 now looks really daunting: they needed to gain seats, not lose them, this time round.

    They'll obviously take some comfort from the House results, but this far from being a 'blue wave'.

    In terms of the popular vote in the House it is a blue wave, a bigger lead than the Dems had in the 2006 midterms or the GOP had in the 1994 or 2010 or 2014 midterms, the Democrats won control of the House just gerrymandered districts meant they did not match the GOP gains of 1994 or 2010.

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020
    BiB - is the suggestion that gerrymandering has taken place specifically in the last two years? I get that the Dems get hurt by it (and other things), but surely the change from two years ago would only be suppressed by gerrymandering between 2016 and 2018.
    The gerrymandering and voter suppression happened post 2010. The combination of newly GOP controlled Districting commissions, the redrawing of districts post 2010 census and one of the top 5 worst Supreme Court decision in Selby County vs Holder gave the GOP carte blanche to run hog wild.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 420
    rkrkrk said:

    Fishing said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think if Trump embraces the ACA and turn it into Trumpcare he'll walk 2020. The rest 9f his platform is not as unpopular as the media likes to pretend.

    I think that's true. If he can rebrand Obamacare as Trumpcare... That being said, he's applying a lot of fiscal stimulus late in the economic cycle. That rarely ends well - albeit my money would be on the consequences being felt after the 2020 election
    In the words of Dick Cheney: Reagan showed that deficits don't matter.
    Perhaps the only thing that Paul Krugman and Dick Cheney agree on?
    Nope - Krugman thinks deficits do matter when the economy is near full employment:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/deficits-matter-again.html
    Good spot, thanks.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 3,230
    I am no medical expert but the latest photos of May give the impression she could drop dead at any moment.
  • Alistair said:

    Morning all.

    The Senate results can only be described as very poor for the Dems, certainly compared with expectations. At the start of the campaigns they thought they had a reasonable chance of a majority.'.

    Citation required. The Dem map was horrific for the Senate. Barely anyone was predicting net gains.
    I was actually referring to a private communication from someone I know who is involved at a senior level in the party, but if you want a public source look for example at Nate Silver's model, which was showing a 28% to 32% chance of a Dem majority in August/September.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,359
    Alistair said:

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Morning all.

    The Senate results can only be described as very poor for the Dems, certainly compared with expectations. At the start of the campaigns they thought they had a reasonable chance of a majority. Mislaying FL in particular is not good, and in most of the other battlegrounds they've gone backwards. What will worry them most is that the hill they have to climb to win back control in 2020 now looks really daunting: they needed to gain seats, not lose them, this time round.

    They'll obviously take some comfort from the House results, but this far from being a 'blue wave'.

    In terms of the popular vote in the House it is a blue wave, a bigger lead than the Dems had in the 2006 midterms or the GOP had in the 1994 or 2010 or 2014 midterms, the Democrats won control of the House just gerrymandered districts meant they did not match the GOP gains of 1994 or 2010.

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020
    BiB - is the suggestion that gerrymandering has taken place specifically in the last two years? I get that the Dems get hurt by it (and other things), but surely the change from two years ago would only be suppressed by gerrymandering between 2016 and 2018.
    The gerrymandering and voter suppression happened post 2010. The combination of newly GOP controlled Districting commissions, the redrawing of districts post 2010 census and one of the top 5 worst Supreme Court decision in Selby County vs Holder gave the GOP carte blanche to run hog wild.
    Right, so the gerrymandering was hurting the Dems in 2016. So does this suggest the Dems weren't especially efficient in terms of where they added voters this time?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,761
    I see the worst PM ever is more net popular than the greatest PM of the last 50 years.
  • HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 420
    I'd say that Sir John Major actually comes best out of that - -15 vs -16, and given that he was ejected almost 20 years ago, and presumably many of those surveyed barely remember him at all, that 32% like him is pretty good. On that (small) sample, the public clearly prefers Tories to Socialists, or Tories in Name Only like Cameron.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,761

    Alistair said:

    Morning all.

    The Senate results can only be described as very poor for the Dems, certainly compared with expectations. At the start of the campaigns they thought they had a reasonable chance of a majority.'.

    Citation required. The Dem map was horrific for the Senate. Barely anyone was predicting net gains.
    I was actually referring to a private communication from someone I know who is involved at a senior level in the party, but if you want a public source look for example at Nate Silver's model, which was showing a 28% to 32% chance of a Dem majority in August/September.
    Well, then that person was crazy in the coconut.

    And a chance is just a chance. Maybe they did have a 28‰ chance but the dice didn't roll right this time.
  • F1: in a brave and exciting new move, in 2020 we'll have another identikit street circuit on the calendar:
  • Fishing said:

    I'd say that Sir John Major actually comes best out of that - -15 vs -16, and given that he was ejected almost 20 years ago, and presumably many of those surveyed barely remember him at all, that 32% like him is pretty good. On that (small) sample, the public clearly prefers Tories to Socialists, or Tories in Name Only like Cameron.
    This sort of thing ideally needs to be done regularly to be put into context - how does that appraisal change with the years.
  • Brexit was unlikely to have a significant direct impact on the UK’s national security or its international standing, because neither depended on Britain’s membership of the EU. Much more important, he said, was Britain’s participation within non-EU agencies such as NATO, the UN Security Council, and the Five Eyes intelligence community.
  • Morning all,

    Slightly disappointed in Texas, but just about broke even on the night via House majority.

    Certainly is not the big win by Dems I was predicting a week or so ago.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,971
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/italy-ready-to-offer-asia-bibi-refuge-says-salvini-mqvg0zn3l

    Italy offering to do the decent thing.

    Our government silent. So much for those shared Commonwealth values.
  • Foxy said:

    brendan16 said:

    notme said:

    British politics and policing summed up.

    Stagger school leaving times to combat a series of murders.

    I mean, its not like they could target the gangs themselves, is it?

    If operational changes like that can make something better it doesn’t stop other work been done.
    How about following the EU's new plan to keep us on BST all year round from next year (i.e. ending clock changes) - so we no longer change the clocks twice a year. Kids could go home in the daylight through the winter months - which would on the evidence reduce accident deaths and perhaps crime.

    Los of things you could do without addressing the real causes.
    Follow the Glasgow strategy?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45572691
    don't see changing school hours in there, maybe notme can help me out?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,953

    Brexit was unlikely to have a significant direct impact on the UK’s national security or its international standing, because neither depended on Britain’s membership of the EU. Much more important, he said, was Britain’s participation within non-EU agencies such as NATO, the UN Security Council, and the Five Eyes intelligence community.
    To say that Britain’s “international standing” is unrelated to EU membership is patently absurd.
  • So far looks like Dems only picking up 2 of the 6 CA seats they targeted
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 52,087

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    Arizona, North Carolina, West Virginia, Iowa are all GOP held and Senate seats up in 2020 and potential Democratic gains.

    In reality though in terms of power the Senate does not make a vast difference once you have taken the House bar blocking Treaties and SC nominees if any more come up.

    The fact the Democrats took the House means Trump's domestic agenda going forward died last night much as it did for Obama when the GOP gained the House in 2010 even if the Democrats held the Senate for another 4 years
  • Cyclefree said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/italy-ready-to-offer-asia-bibi-refuge-says-salvini-mqvg0zn3l

    Italy offering to do the decent thing.

    Our government silent. So much for those shared Commonwealth values.

    Guess which country is the largest recipient of UK overseas aid.

    https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-spending-foreign-aid/
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 44,548
    HYUFD said:

    The fact the Democrats took the House means Trump's domestic agenda going forward died last night much as it did for Obama when the GOP gained the House in 2010 even if the Democrats held the Senate for another 4 years

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,761
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    Arizona, North Carolina, West Virginia, Iowa are all GOP held and Senate seats up in 2020 and potential Democratic gains.

    In reality though in terms of power the Senate does not make a vast difference once you have taken the House bar blocking Treaties and SC nominees if any more come up.

    The fact the Democrats took the House means Trump's domestic agenda going forward died last night much as it did for Obama when the GOP gained the House in 2010 even if the Democrats held the Senate for another 4 years
    Senate is all about the judicial nominations. The courts are going to be shaped for a generation.
  • Brexit was unlikely to have a significant direct impact on the UK’s national security or its international standing, because neither depended on Britain’s membership of the EU. Much more important, he said, was Britain’s participation within non-EU agencies such as NATO, the UN Security Council, and the Five Eyes intelligence community.
    To say that Britain’s “international standing” is unrelated to EU membership is patently absurd.
    First you cite him as an expert, then you denigrate his opinion. Make your mind up!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 52,087
    edited November 2018
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    Arizona, North Carolina, West Virginia, Iowa are all GOP held and Senate seats up in 2020 and potential Democratic gains.

    In reality though in terms of power the Senate does not make a vast difference once you have taken the House bar blocking Treaties and SC nominees if any more come up.

    The fact the Democrats took the House means Trump's domestic agenda going forward died last night much as it did for Obama when the GOP gained the House in 2010 even if the Democrats held the Senate for another 4 years
    Senate is all about the judicial nominations. The courts are going to be shaped for a generation.
    The Court already has been shaped anyway by the previous Trump appointments, the Senate can only block Trump justices it cannot appoint liberal justices, you need a Democratic President for that
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,380
    edited November 2018
    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,971

    Cyclefree said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/italy-ready-to-offer-asia-bibi-refuge-says-salvini-mqvg0zn3l

    Italy offering to do the decent thing.

    Our government silent. So much for those shared Commonwealth values.

    Guess which country is the largest recipient of UK overseas aid.

    https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-spending-foreign-aid/
    And for that we get to exercise our influence, or something.

    Meanwhile this government allowed a hate preacher, banned in Pakistan, to come here and preach his hatred on British mosques. This preacher is one who inspired a man to murder of a poor Ahmadi shopkeeper in Glasgow and celebrated the murder of the brave Pakistani governor who stood up for Mrs Bibi. It is utterly shameful.

    Pakistan is not behaving like a civilized country over this matter. They should be shunned not showered in money.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,761
    FF43 said:

    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
    Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,838
    edited November 2018
    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:

    The fact the Democrats took the House means Trump's domestic agenda going forward died last night much as it did for Obama when the GOP gained the House in 2010 even if the Democrats held the Senate for another 4 years

    In 2010 the Republicans gained 63 seats in the House and 6 net in the Senate. The Democrats are projected to gain only just over half that in the House and potentially see a net loss of 2 in the senate.

    So it might suggest that the more measured approach for 2018 is appropriate from the WSJ - in terms of seats changing hands.

    What is also illustrative is that the US is becoming more polarised - red areas are redder and blue areas bluer.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    edited November 2018
    Foxy said:

    I don’t think the Dems ever seriously expected to gain the Senate, but they were likely hoping to limit their losses to 1 or 2 seats rather than the 3 or 4 that look likely.

    Winning those midwest governors is likely to be critical, and possibly the renfranchisement in Florida.

    It looks to me a 2:1 win for the Dems.
    Agreed. PB is back to ramping Trump again, its favoured position. Look at the posts from Southam, AndyJS, Gin, Danny, Gallowgate and Mortimer etc etc in the last 24 hours. Drumbeat that Trumpton’s bunch would hold the House.

    They didn’t, they got their arse handed to them. That 538 predicted they’d lose is immaterial. They lost. That is lost, not won.

    And, as you say, the rust belt results look bad for them.
  • Any stats on white women and how they voted? And on overall turnout?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Alistair said:

    FF43 said:

    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
    Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
    Indeed. A voice of sanity in a dangerously deluded world!

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,971
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    Arizona, North Carolina, West Virginia, Iowa are all GOP held and Senate seats up in 2020 and potential Democratic gains.

    In reality though in terms of power the Senate does not make a vast difference once you have taken the House bar blocking Treaties and SC nominees if any more come up.

    The fact the Democrats took the House means Trump's domestic agenda going forward died last night much as it did for Obama when the GOP gained the House in 2010 even if the Democrats held the Senate for another 4 years
    Senate is all about the judicial nominations. The courts are going to be shaped for a generation.
    The Court already has been shaped anyway by the previous Trump appointments, the Senate can only block Trump justices it cannot appoint liberal justices, you need a Democratic President for that
    True. But if Trump is able to nominate more judges he could make it near impossible for even a future Democratic President to shape the court, for a very long time anyway.

    There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 earlier this week about the Democrats and a US Professor said that the move to imposing liberal values via court action rather than through popular consent had been a bit of a trap long term for them because it meant they were vulnerable to the same counter-reaction and risked not having popular support for those policies. Plus it meant that a lot of energy had been focused on the courts rather than on bottom up politics. Interesting analysis - not necessarily because it is a complete analysis - but because it does raise the question of the imposition of values vs persuasion and electoral support for them and the right balance between the two.

    In the end, you can’t force or reason people to be good. You have to persuade them in their heart. Sometimes those who claim that some policy is self-evident and that anyone not agreeing is evil need to remember that. Haranguing will not get people on your side.
  • Oh well, at least the Dems gained control of the House.

  • I was actually referring to a private communication from someone I know who is involved at a senior level in the party

    Peak PB.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,359
    brendan16 said:

    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:

    The fact the Democrats took the House means Trump's domestic agenda going forward died last night much as it did for Obama when the GOP gained the House in 2010 even if the Democrats held the Senate for another 4 years

    In 2010 the Republicans gained 63 seats in the House and 6 net in the Senate. The Democrats are projected to gain only just over half that in the House and potentially see a net loss of 2 in the senate.

    So it might suggest that the more measured approach for 2018 is appropriate from the WSJ - in terms of seats changing hands.

    What is also illustrative is that the US is becoming more polarised - red areas are redder and blue areas bluer.
    They also gave more prominence to the governorships in the Midwest.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,380
    Alistair said:

    FF43 said:

    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
    Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
    I guess Florida is the bugbear for the Dems .They really want to win there. But behind the scenes they doing OK. They are building up votes, somewhat in the wrong places, but adding votes is better than not adding them. Beto O'Rourk has done a good job in Texas converting a 16% point advantage to Cruz to a 2% one. It would be wrong to say Trump has 2020 in the bag. Based on these results I would say he's a bit more likely than not to lose. But it's marginal and it could certainly change.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,926
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    Arizona, North Carolina, West Virginia, Iowa are all GOP held and Senate seats up in 2020 and potential Democratic gains.

    In reality though in terms of power the Senate does not make a vast difference once you have taken the House bar blocking Treaties and SC nominees if any more come up.

    The fact the Democrats took the House means Trump's domestic agenda going forward died last night much as it did for Obama when the GOP gained the House in 2010 even if the Democrats held the Senate for another 4 years
    Senate is all about the judicial nominations. The courts are going to be shaped for a generation.
    The Court already has been shaped anyway by the previous Trump appointments, the Senate can only block Trump justices it cannot appoint liberal justices, you need a Democratic President for that
    True. But if Trump is able to nominate more judges he could make it near impossible for even a future Democratic President to shape the court, for a very long time anyway.

    There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 earlier this week about the Democrats and a US Professor said that the move to imposing liberal values via court action rather than through popular consent had been a bit of a trap long term for them because it meant they were vulnerable to the same counter-reaction and risked not having popular support for those policies. Plus it meant that a lot of energy had been focused on the courts rather than on bottom up politics. Interesting analysis - not necessarily because it is a complete analysis - but because it does raise the question of the imposition of values vs persuasion and electoral support for them and the right balance between the two.

    In the end, you can’t force or reason people to be good. You have to persuade them in their heart. Sometimes those who claim that some policy is self-evident and that anyone not agreeing is evil need to remember that. Haranguing will not get people on your side.
    Your last sentence neatly sums Brexit up.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,851
    MT is being counted in the weirdest way ! I'm checking it with a spreadsheet and Tester is slowly improving his position.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,029
    edited November 2018
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020


    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    Arizona, North Carolina, West Virginia, Iowa are all GOP held and Senate seats up in 2020 and potential Democratic gains.

    In reality though in terms of power the Senate does not make a vast difference once you have taken the House bar blocking Treaties and SC nominees if any more come up.

    The fact the Democrats took the House means Trump's domestic agenda going forward died last night much as it did for Obama when the GOP gained the House in 2010 even if the Democrats held the Senate for another 4 years
    Senate is all about the judicial nominations. The courts are going to be shaped for a generation.
    The Court already has been shaped anyway by the previous Trump appointments, the Senate can only block Trump justices it cannot appoint liberal justices, you need a Democratic President for that
    True. But if Trump is able to nominate more judges he could make it near impossible for even a future Democratic President to shape the court, for a very long time anyway.

    There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 earlier this week about the Democrats and a US Professor said that the move to imposing liberal values via court action rather than through popular consent had been a bit of a trap long term for them because it meant they were vulnerable to the same counter-reaction and risked not having popular support for those policies. Plus it meant that a lot of energy had been focused on the courts rather than on bottom up politics. Interesting analysis - not necessarily because it is a complete analysis - but because it does raise the question of the imposition of values vs persuasion and electoral support for them and the right balance between the two.

    In the end, you can’t force or reason people to be good. You have to persuade them in their heart. Sometimes those who claim that some policy is self-evident and that anyone not agreeing is evil need to remember that. Haranguing will not get people on your side.
    That argument cuts both ways and, to mix metaphors, now the boot is on the other foot.

    Couple that to demographics working against the Republicans, and the future does not look very bright for them, absent a sharp change in direction.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,851
    How is the turnout sale looking?
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,316
    here's the real story of the day:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-46109281

    Eye roll girl doesn't like pineapple on pizza! Maybe we should Brexit after all....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,029
    FF43 said:

    Alistair said:

    FF43 said:

    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
    Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
    I guess Florida is the bugbear for the Dems .They really want to win there. But behind the scenes they doing OK. They are building up votes, somewhat in the wrong places, but adding votes is better than not adding them. Beto O'Rourk has done a good job in Texas converting a 16% point advantage to Cruz to a 2% one. It would be wrong to say Trump has 2020 in the bag. Based on these results I would say he's a bit more likely than not to lose. But it's marginal and it could certainly change.
    Texas is interesting. O'Rourke running to the left might not have been a winning strategy this time around (though I don't buy the argument that a centrist candidate might have beaten Cruz), but what it certainly did do was bring out a large number of first time Democratic voters.
    That will benefit whoever might run in the future. Probably not enough to make Texas Democratic in 2020, but it has accelerated the process.

    More generally, they are doing what they failed to do under Obama, and rebuilding at the state level across the US.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 1,979
    Pulpstar said:

    MT is being counted in the weirdest way ! I'm checking it with a spreadsheet and Tester is slowly improving his position.

    Any sense on what he'll end up at?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,926
    FF43 said:

    Alistair said:

    FF43 said:

    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
    Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
    I guess Florida is the bugbear for the Dems .They really want to win there. But behind the scenes they doing OK. They are building up votes, somewhat in the wrong places, but adding votes is better than not adding them. Beto O'Rourk has done a good job in Texas converting a 16% point advantage to Cruz to a 2% one. It would be wrong to say Trump has 2020 in the bag. Based on these results I would say he's a bit more likely than not to lose. But it's marginal and it could certainly change.
    Plus presumably the change in Florida to re-enfranchise most felons will help the Dems in 2020?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,851
    Quincel said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MT is being counted in the weirdest way ! I'm checking it with a spreadsheet and Tester is slowly improving his position.

    Any sense on what he'll end up at?
    16000 votes ahead (Tester)
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    FF43 said:

    Alistair said:

    FF43 said:

    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
    Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
    I guess Florida is the bugbear for the Dems .They really want to win there. But behind the scenes they doing OK. They are building up votes, somewhat in the wrong places, but adding votes is better than not adding them. Beto O'Rourk has done a good job in Texas converting a 16% point advantage to Cruz to a 2% one. It would be wrong to say Trump has 2020 in the bag. Based on these results I would say he's a bit more likely than not to lose. But it's marginal and it could certainly change.
    Plus presumably the change in Florida to re-enfranchise most felons will help the Dems in 2020?
    That sounds right but is there any evidence for it? My sense is that many criminals are if anything instinctively right wing.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,761
    edited November 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    MT is being counted in the weirdest way ! I'm checking it with a spreadsheet and Tester is slowly improving his position.

    Montana has the weirdest voters. It has a single Congressional district, won by the GOP 53% to 43%. So of course the single Senate seat is going right to the wire.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 1,979
    Pulpstar said:

    Quincel said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MT is being counted in the weirdest way ! I'm checking it with a spreadsheet and Tester is slowly improving his position.

    Any sense on what he'll end up at?
    16000 votes ahead (Tester)
    Cheers. He does do it the hard way doesn't he, every 6 years scraping home.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 44,548
    Anazina said:

    That sounds right but is there any evidence for it? My sense is that many criminals are if anything instinctively right wing.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2018/11/forget-congress-most-important-result-midterms-was-florida-ballot
  • Cyclefree said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/italy-ready-to-offer-asia-bibi-refuge-says-salvini-mqvg0zn3l

    Italy offering to do the decent thing.

    Our government silent. So much for those shared Commonwealth values.

    Guess which country is the largest recipient of UK overseas aid.

    https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-spending-foreign-aid/
    Guess which country created Pakistan in the first place.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,971

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    Arizona, North Carolina, West Virginia, Iowa are all GOP held and Senate seats up in 2020 and potential Democratic gains.

    In reality though in terms of power the Senate does not make a vast difference once you have taken the House bar blocking Treaties and SC nominees if any more come up.

    The fact the Democrats took the House means Trump's domestic agenda going forward died last night much as it did for Obama when the GOP gained the House in 2010 even if the Democrats held the Senate for another 4 years
    Senate is all about the judicial nominations. The courts are going to be shaped for a generation.
    The Court already has been shaped anyway by the previous Trump appointments, the Senate can only block Trump justices it cannot appoint liberal justices, you need a Democratic President for that
    True. But if Trump is able to nominate more judges he could make it near impossible for even a future Democratic President to shape the court, for a very long time anyway.

    There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 earlier this week about the Democrats and a US Professor said that the move to imposing liberal values via court action rather than through popular consent had been a bit of a trap long term for them because it meant they were vulnerable to the same counter-reaction and risked not having popular support for those policies. Plus it meant that a lot of energy had been focused on the courts rather than on bottom up politics. Interesting analysis - not necessarily because it is a complete analysis - but because it does raise the question of the imposition of values vs persuasion and electoral support for them and the right balance between the two.

    In the end, you can’t force or reason people to be good. You have to persuade them in their heart. Sometimes those who claim that some policy is self-evident and that anyone not agreeing is evil need to remember that. Haranguing will not get people on your side.
    Your last sentence neatly sums Brexit up.
    I wasn’t thinking of Brexit. But yes it does neatly sum up both sides of that debate.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,014

    FF43 said:

    Alistair said:

    FF43 said:

    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
    Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
    I guess Florida is the bugbear for the Dems .They really want to win there. But behind the scenes they doing OK. They are building up votes, somewhat in the wrong places, but adding votes is better than not adding them. Beto O'Rourk has done a good job in Texas converting a 16% point advantage to Cruz to a 2% one. It would be wrong to say Trump has 2020 in the bag. Based on these results I would say he's a bit more likely than not to lose. But it's marginal and it could certainly change.
    Plus presumably the change in Florida to re-enfranchise most felons will help the Dems in 2020?
    I don't think that will make a big difference.
    On the other hand - Michigan has passed a swathe of changes making it easier to vote.
    That could be a big help to the Dems in 2020.
  • Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    Arizona, North Carolina, West Virginia, Iowa are all GOP held and Senate seats up in 2020 and potential Democratic gains.

    In reality though in terms of power the Senate does not make a vast difference once you have taken the House bar blocking Treaties and SC nominees if any more come up.

    The factfor another 4 years
    Senate is all about the judicial nominations. The courts are going to be shaped for a generation.
    The Court already has been shaped anyway by the previous Trump appointments, the Senate can only block Trump justices it cannot appoint liberal justices, you need a Democratic President for that
    True. But if Trump is able to nominate more judges he could make it near impossible for even a future Democratic President to shape the court, for a very long time anyway.

    There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 earlier this week about the Democrats and a US Professor said that the move to imposing liberal values via court action rather than through popular consent had been a bit of a trap long term for them because it meant they were vulnerable to the same counter-reaction and risked not having popular support for those policies. Plus it meant that a lot of energy had been focused on the courts rather than on bottom up politics. Interesting analysis - not necessarily because it is a complete analysis - but because it does raise the question of the imposition of values vs persuasion and electoral support for them and the right balance between the two.

    In the end, you can’t force or reason people to be good. You have to persuade them in their heart. Sometimes those who claim that some policy is self-evident and that anyone not agreeing is evil need to remember that. Haranguing will not get people on your side.

    With regards to SCOTUS, a quick fix would be to increase the number of justices that sit on it.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,771
    rkrkrk said:

    FF43 said:

    Alistair said:

    FF43 said:

    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
    Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
    I guess Florida is the bugbear for the Dems .They really want to win there. But behind the scenes they doing OK. They are building up votes, somewhat in the wrong places, but adding votes is better than not adding them. Beto O'Rourk has done a good job in Texas converting a 16% point advantage to Cruz to a 2% one. It would be wrong to say Trump has 2020 in the bag. Based on these results I would say he's a bit more likely than not to lose. But it's marginal and it could certainly change.
    Plus presumably the change in Florida to re-enfranchise most felons will help the Dems in 2020?
    I don't think that will make a big difference.
    On the other hand - Michigan has passed a swathe of changes making it easier to vote.
    That could be a big help to the Dems in 2020.
    In Florida it will increase the number of voters by a million, and substantially African American.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/florida-felons-voting-rights/index.html
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,926
    rkrkrk said:

    FF43 said:

    Alistair said:

    FF43 said:

    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
    Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
    I guess Florida is the bugbear for the Dems .They really want to win there. But behind the scenes they doing OK. They are building up votes, somewhat in the wrong places, but adding votes is better than not adding them. Beto O'Rourk has done a good job in Texas converting a 16% point advantage to Cruz to a 2% one. It would be wrong to say Trump has 2020 in the bag. Based on these results I would say he's a bit more likely than not to lose. But it's marginal and it could certainly change.
    Plus presumably the change in Florida to re-enfranchise most felons will help the Dems in 2020?
    I don't think that will make a big difference.
    On the other hand - Michigan has passed a swathe of changes making it easier to vote.
    That could be a big help to the Dems in 2020.
    It doesn't really need to make a big difference in voter numbers to make a big difference in the 2020 POTUS election.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,851
    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    FF43 said:

    Alistair said:

    FF43 said:

    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
    Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
    I guess Florida is the bugbear for the Dems .They really want to win there. But behind the scenes they doing OK. They are building up votes, somewhat in the wrong places, but adding votes is better than not adding them. Beto O'Rourk has done a good job in Texas converting a 16% point advantage to Cruz to a 2% one. It would be wrong to say Trump has 2020 in the bag. Based on these results I would say he's a bit more likely than not to lose. But it's marginal and it could certainly change.
    Plus presumably the change in Florida to re-enfranchise most felons will help the Dems in 2020?
    I don't think that will make a big difference.
    On the other hand - Michigan has passed a swathe of changes making it easier to vote.
    That could be a big help to the Dems in 2020.
    In Florida it will increase the number of voters by a million, and substantially African American.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/florida-felons-voting-rights/index.html
    Felons have around a 5% turnout.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,971
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    Senate is all about the judicial nominations. The courts are going to be shaped for a generation.
    The Court already has been shaped anyway by the previous Trump appointments, the Senate can only block Trump justices it cannot appoint liberal justices, you need a Democratic President for that
    True. But if Trump is able to nominate more judges he could make it near impossible for even a future Democratic President to shape the court, for a very long time anyway.

    There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 earlier this week about the Democrats and a US Professor said that the move to imposing liberal values via court action rather than through popular consent had been a bit of a trap long term for them because it meant they were vulnerable to the same counter-reaction and risked not having popular support for those policies. Plus it meant that a lot of energy had been focused on the courts rather than on bottom up politics. Interesting analysis - not necessarily because it is a complete analysis - but because it does raise the question of the imposition of values vs persuasion and electoral support for them and the right balance between the two.

    In the end, you can’t force or reason people to be good. You have to persuade them in their heart. Sometimes those who claim that some policy is self-evident and that anyone not agreeing is evil need to remember that. Haranguing will not get people on your side.
    That argument cuts both ways and, to mix metaphors, now the boot is on the other foot.

    Couple that to demographics working against the Republicans, and the future does not look very bright for them, absent a sharp change in direction.
    It was on a programme about the Democrats and I thought it interesting because it raised a question about the extent to which one can - or should - seek to entrench values or policies which may not be universally shared or particularly popular in laws or constitutions rather than or as well as seeking popular support for them. It’s a question which applies to all sorts of regimes on all sides of the political divide and there are no easy answers.

    I am wary of arguments which say that demographics mean the extinction of a point of view or party. History - even recent history - in many parts of the world shows that to be a self-comforting delusion.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Scott_P said:

    Anazina said:

    That sounds right but is there any evidence for it? My sense is that many criminals are if anything instinctively right wing.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2018/11/forget-congress-most-important-result-midterms-was-florida-ballot
    Interesting piece Scott, thanks.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,971

    Cyclefree said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/italy-ready-to-offer-asia-bibi-refuge-says-salvini-mqvg0zn3l

    Italy offering to do the decent thing.

    Our government silent. So much for those shared Commonwealth values.

    Guess which country is the largest recipient of UK overseas aid.

    https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-spending-foreign-aid/
    Guess which country created Pakistan in the first place.
    And guess why they did so.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,851
    Oh my. If it's ruled not to be unilaterally revocable does the ECJ become Farage's best friend xD ?!
  • Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    FF43 said:

    Alistair said:

    FF43 said:

    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
    Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
    I guess Florida is the bugbear for the Dems .They really want to win there. But behind the scenes they doing OK. They are building up votes, somewhat in the wrong places, but adding votes is better than not adding them. Beto O'Rourk has done a good job in Texas converting a 16% point advantage to Cruz to a 2% one. It would be wrong to say Trump has 2020 in the bag. Based on these results I would say he's a bit more likely than not to lose. But it's marginal and it could certainly change.
    Plus presumably the change in Florida to re-enfranchise most felons will help the Dems in 2020?
    I don't think that will make a big difference.
    On the other hand - Michigan has passed a swathe of changes making it easier to vote.
    That could be a big help to the Dems in 2020.
    In Florida it will increase the number of voters by a million, and substantially African American.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/florida-felons-voting-rights/index.html
    That 7.5% of Floridians are apparently convicted felons is more amazing to me than anything else.
  • FF43 said:

    Alistair said:

    FF43 said:

    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.

    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
    Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
    I guess Florida is the bugbear for the Dems .They really want to win there. But behind the scenes they doing OK. They are building up votes, somewhat in the wrong places, but adding votes is better than not adding them. Beto O'Rourk has done a good job in Texas converting a 16% point advantage to Cruz to a 2% one. It would be wrong to say Trump has 2020 in the bag. Based on these results I would say he's a bit more likely than not to lose. But it's marginal and it could certainly change.
    Plus presumably the change in Florida to re-enfranchise most felons will help the Dems in 2020?
    It might end up helping Trump. I wrote about it on Sunday.

    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/11/2/18049510/felon-voting-rights-amendment-4-florida
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,029
    rkrkrk said:

    FF43 said:

    Alistair said:

    FF43 said:

    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020


    However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
    Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
    I guess Florida is the bugbear for the Dems .They really want to win there. But behind the scenes they doing OK. They are building up votes, somewhat in the wrong places, but adding votes is better than not adding them. Beto O'Rourk has done a good job in Texas converting a 16% point advantage to Cruz to a 2% one. It would be wrong to say Trump has 2020 in the bag. Based on these results I would say he's a bit more likely than not to lose. But it's marginal and it could certainly change.
    Plus presumably the change in Florida to re-enfranchise most felons will help the Dems in 2020?
    I don't think that will make a big difference.
    On the other hand - Michigan has passed a swathe of changes making it easier to vote.
    That could be a big help to the Dems in 2020.
    I think it might make quite a large difference, especially as Florida is so often on a knife edge. We're talking about something like 10% of the entire voting population (and 20% of African Americans).

    Some history on Florida felon disenfranchisement:
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/jeb-bush-florida-felon-voting-rights-clemency/
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 12,971
    Scott_P said:
    Is she really the first refugee elected to Congress? In the whole history of the US there has never been another person who was a refugee elected to Congress? Surprising for a country built by refugees, if true........
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,926
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    Arizona, North Carolina, West Virginia, Iowa are all GOP held and Senate seats up in 2020 and potential Democratic gains.

    In reality though in terms of power the Senate does not make a vast difference once you have taken the House bar blocking Treaties and SC nominees if any more come up.

    The fact the Democrats took the House means Trump's domestic agenda going forward died last night much as it did for Obama when the GOP gained the House in 2010 even if the Democrats held the Senate for another 4 years
    Senate is all about the judicial nominations. The courts are going to be shaped for a generation.
    The Court already has been shaped anyway by the previous Trump appointments, the Senate can only block Trump justices it cannot appoint liberal justices, you need a Democratic President for that
    True. But if Trump is able to nominate more judges he could make it near impossible for even a future Democratic President to shape the court, for a very long time anyway.

    There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 earlier this week about the Democrats and a US Professor said that the move to imposing liberal values via court action rather than through popular consent had been a bit of a trap long term for them because it meant they were vulnerable to the same counter-reaction and risked not having popular support for those policies. Plus it meant that a lot of energy had been focused on the courts rather than on bottom up politics. Interesting analysis - not necessarily because it is a complete analysis - but because it does raise the question of the imposition of values vs persuasion and electoral support for them and the right balance between the two.

    In the end, you can’t force or reason people to be good. You have to persuade them in their heart. Sometimes those who claim that some policy is self-evident and that anyone not agreeing is evil need to remember that. Haranguing will not get people on your side.
    Your last sentence neatly sums Brexit up.
    I wasn’t thinking of Brexit. But yes it does neatly sum up both sides of that debate.
    Absolutely. Just thought I'd mention Brexit as I doubt we'll discuss it much on PB over the coming weeks. :wink:
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,359
    Scott_P said:

    Anazina said:

    That sounds right but is there any evidence for it? My sense is that many criminals are if anything instinctively right wing.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2018/11/forget-congress-most-important-result-midterms-was-florida-ballot
    Amendment 4, therefore, is not just a much-needed moral victory for anti-racists but a huge political victory for the Democrats.

    Yeah, because, if this lot weren't going to improve our chances of winning we wouldn't have made such a fuss...
  • Pulpstar said:

    Oh my. If it's ruled not to be unilaterally revocable does the ECJ become Farage's best friend xD ?!
    If I read this right, it's the EU's opinion, not the CJEU's. (I've already gone on the record as saying it's my view too.)

  • That 7.5% of Floridians are apparently convicted felons is more amazing to me than anything else.

    A while back there was a stat that as many Americans have a felony record as have college degrees.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,009
    Hasn't it always been understood that IF both the EU and the UK needed to extend A50 a few days or weeks to conclude a final agreement, they could and would do so.

    I imagine that could be challenged in a court by someone who would claim the two year period is fixed and has to be adhered to.

    Maybe but even if A50 officially ended without an agreement, IF there was a strong likelihood of an agreement and it was simply awaiting full ratification I imagine everyone would simply wait until that process was completed if it were a matter of days.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,029

    FF43 said:

    Alistair said:

    FF43 said:

    macisback said:

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020

    Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
    It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
    I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
    Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
    I guess Florida is the bugbear for the Dems .They really want to win there. But behind the scenes they doing OK. They are building up votes, somewhat in the wrong places, but adding votes is better than not adding them. Beto O'Rourk has done a good job in Texas converting a 16% point advantage to Cruz to a 2% one. It would be wrong to say Trump has 2020 in the bag. Based on these results I would say he's a bit more likely than not to lose. But it's marginal and it could certainly change.
    Plus presumably the change in Florida to re-enfranchise most felons will help the Dems in 2020?
    It might end up helping Trump. I wrote about it on Sunday.

    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/11/2/18049510/felon-voting-rights-amendment-4-florida
    It's a policy which is justified on its own merits - but I'm not sure how you calculate it helps Trump ?
    In any event, one thing that last night's results demonstrated is that taking past turnout figures as a guide to future turnout is not a sensible basis on which to bet.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 7,926
    tlg86 said:

    Scott_P said:

    Anazina said:

    That sounds right but is there any evidence for it? My sense is that many criminals are if anything instinctively right wing.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2018/11/forget-congress-most-important-result-midterms-was-florida-ballot
    Amendment 4, therefore, is not just a much-needed moral victory for anti-racists but a huge political victory for the Democrats.

    Yeah, because, if this lot weren't going to improve our chances of winning we wouldn't have made such a fuss...
    Funny how those on the right struggle to conceive that anyone would ever fight for a thing because it is right rather than just self-interest.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,014
    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:



    I don't think that will make a big difference.
    On the other hand - Michigan has passed a swathe of changes making it easier to vote.
    That could be a big help to the Dems in 2020.

    In Florida it will increase the number of voters by a million, and substantially African American.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/florida-felons-voting-rights/index.html
    More African American than average population in Florida yes.
    But the overwhelming majority of the felons are white lower income, less educated. And they'll probably break for the Trump. And voting rates of either group will be very low - so I think it's undecided who this will help.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487


    That 7.5% of Floridians are apparently convicted felons is more amazing to me than anything else.

    A while back there was a stat that as many Americans have a felony record as have college degrees.
    Is that because many states convict people and chuck them in jail for very minor transgressions?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 26,953
    stodge said:

    Hasn't it always been understood that IF both the EU and the UK needed to extend A50 a few days or weeks to conclude a final agreement, they could and would do so.

    I imagine that could be challenged in a court by someone who would claim the two year period is fixed and has to be adhered to.

    Maybe but even if A50 officially ended without an agreement, IF there was a strong likelihood of an agreement and it was simply awaiting full ratification I imagine everyone would simply wait until that process was completed if it were a matter of days.
    A unanimously-agreed extension is explicitly allowed for in the treaty.
  • Nigelb said:

    It's a policy which is justified on its own merits - but I'm not sure how you calculate it helps Trump ?
    In any event, one thing that last night's results demonstrated is that taking past turnout figures as a guide to future turnout is not a sensible basis on which to bet.

    Whilst African-Americans and other minorities have disproportionately high felony records, in pure numbers the demographic with the most, absolute, felony records are white people, and most of them have no formal higher education, and are poor, which is a key Trump demographic.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 14,477
    edited November 2018
    rkrkrk said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:



    I don't think that will make a big difference.
    On the other hand - Michigan has passed a swathe of changes making it easier to vote.
    That could be a big help to the Dems in 2020.

    In Florida it will increase the number of voters by a million, and substantially African American.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/florida-felons-voting-rights/index.html
    More African American than average population in Florida yes.
    But the overwhelming majority of the felons are white lower income, less educated. And they'll probably break for the Trump. And voting rates of either group will be very low - so I think it's undecided who this will help.
    Does the term ‘felons’ include those done for tax offences..... avoidance and so on?

    I would guess most of those identify with Trump.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,359

    tlg86 said:

    Scott_P said:

    Anazina said:

    That sounds right but is there any evidence for it? My sense is that many criminals are if anything instinctively right wing.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2018/11/forget-congress-most-important-result-midterms-was-florida-ballot
    Amendment 4, therefore, is not just a much-needed moral victory for anti-racists but a huge political victory for the Democrats.

    Yeah, because, if this lot weren't going to improve our chances of winning we wouldn't have made such a fuss...
    Funny how those on the right struggle to conceive that anyone would ever fight for a thing because it is right rather than just self-interest.
    Indeed, but it's interesting to note that self interest is very much a part of this. That said, I suspect it might not make too much difference. Those people actually need to bother voting to make any difference.
  • Anazina said:


    That 7.5% of Floridians are apparently convicted felons is more amazing to me than anything else.

    A while back there was a stat that as many Americans have a felony record as have college degrees.
    Is that because many states convict people and chuck them in jail for very minor transgressions?
    There's a thing called felony probation.
  • I have always found some US states rules on ex-felons being banned from voting deeply troubling. Once you have served your time, you have been punished and shouldn’t continued to be so.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,771

    Nigelb said:

    It's a policy which is justified on its own merits - but I'm not sure how you calculate it helps Trump ?
    In any event, one thing that last night's results demonstrated is that taking past turnout figures as a guide to future turnout is not a sensible basis on which to bet.

    Whilst African-Americans and other minorities have disproportionately high felony records, in pure numbers the demographic with the most, absolute, felony records are white people, and most of them have no formal higher education, and are poor, which is a key Trump demographic.
    Is that true in Florida? In most States Felons can already vote.
This discussion has been closed.