Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
It was all but official for the past two days, but I'm glad it was finally confirmed. The ones still to watch out for in California are Josh Harder in CA-10 and Katie Porter in CA-45. Harder was behind on election night, but the mail-ins have put him on top. Porter is just a few thousand votes behind her the Republican incumbent, a number that keeps shrinking with each passing day.
Harder's lead is by now quite comfortable. I doubt that he will lose. Katie Porter is one full percent point behind the other candidate, unless there are a lot of ballots left to count, I doubt that it will be enough. Carolyne Bourdeaux is actually closer to a last minute win in Georgia's 7th. Based on the last reported numbers the difference was:
139,837 to 138,936 which is a margin especially annoying in Georgia, considering what was going on there during the election.
Edited by Swanpride on Nov 10th 2018 at 6:24:16 AM
I really hope Beto takes another swing at the Senate in 2020. He did a fully 4 points better than the RCP average, youth turn out tends to proportionately higher in Presidential years, two more years of Gen-Z will be of voting age, Coryn is less popular than Cruz in Texas, and frankly nearly 30 years of republican dominance in state means they don't really have anyone better so they might as well give him another shot as he's the only democratic senatorial candidate to come within 10 points of republican candidate in 28 years.
Failing that he's also likely to be shortlisted for the VP slot.
Also keep in mind Maine District 2 is going to ranked choice, with Poliquin leading by less then 2 points: he won in 2016 by nearly 10 points after minimal campaigning and low supporter satisfaction. The fact that the gerrymandered to hell and back District 2 is up for grabs at all is just shy of a miracle. Results are probably not going to be final before Tuesday, though.
Maine 2nd is also likely to go to a court battle, as the Republican has said that if he loses due to the voting system not being first past the post he will challenge the result in the courts.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranFunny thing is, all of these narrow seat-counts for the GOP are happening when they're in power. When they'd be able to fudge and twist everything to suit them.
AKA They're having a hard fight with everything in their hands to make them win.
What the heck's gonna happen to them in the General Election?
I hold the secrets of the machine.@Techpriest: Part of what happens to them depends on whether or not all this opposition energy can be harnessed in the same way in two years. Now, it's the presidential election year, which tends to get more people's attention in general, and there are a lot more Republican Senate seats up for election than there were this year, so I think cautious optimism is justified in this case. But as always, we'll have to wait and see, because we can't fast forward the timeline.
Being roughly a percentage point ahead is not where Republicans want to be at this stage. Or at all, for that matter, which speaks to how much the region has shifted, as seen with Rohrabacher getting the boot.
And while it's no guarantee, Young Kim's (R) lead over Gil Cisneros (D) has been shrinking in CA-39.
Edited by Eschaton on Nov 10th 2018 at 7:41:58 AM
I'd also point out that this is a consequence of gerrymandering. The aim in gerrymandering isn't to get more votes, it's to make sure that votes for your party are used efficiently. So most maps have one or two Democratic districts where the Dems win by 20+ points, and the remaining districts are Republican leaning where the expected margin is say 5 points.
The net result being is that in a wave election, that planned 5 point margin ain't going to cut it and you have a lot more seats on that threshold than you would have had the maps been drawn "fairer".
I'll be the first to admit I'm a complete rube when it comes to economics, so I can't offer any analysis to support/debunk his assertion. That being said, if he's right...well, it's awful, recessions are always bad. However it does mean that Donald will become even more unpopular than he is now, right in time for the elections.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Nov 10th 2018 at 12:08:19 PM
Seems like he's basically saying it's going to be a supply side recession - too much buying power, not enough goods. In an odd way, this is good - it means overall purchasing power would increase across the States.
Which might lead to higher prices for a lot of goods. Which will no doubt enrage the lower middle class and lower class, who are not particularly happy with Don The Con.
Still, I hope it doesn't come to pass.
I hold the secrets of the machine.Eh. They've been saying there's gonna be a recession since at least 2013. I can't tell you how many economists have predicted recessions and doomsday scenarios only for none of them to actually happen, especially not within the timeframe they said they would. (Generally a year.) That said, I wouldn't want one to happen either, and I still hope it doesn't. Though it would put a damper on Cheeto Benito's chances for 2020 if it does.
Unless the GOP can somehow shift the blame to Democrats because they have the House now. The fact that Viewers Are Goldfish when it comes to politics makes me worry about that sort of thing.
That has kind of been my worry as well, and there isn't much the Democrats can do on this one other than to continue to campaign so as to ensure that when a recession hits they will be ready to counter the Republican attack lines.
Firstly, I would say they need to cancel the Trump tax cuts. Replace them with a genuine middle class tax cut (like Trump promised) to force the Republicans to choose between their base and their donors. But importantly it must be revenue positive - i.e. the deficit must be reduced.
We've talked before about how "the deficit" is a political sham. You don't run a country like a business or a household. Nevertheless, it's how most people see economic policy so we are unfortunately constrained by it.
Because when the recession hits, government will need to act. Reflexively this will mean Keynesian stimulus from the Democrats and austerity from the Republicans. If the Dems want to win that argument then they need to have a narrative that says "we prepared for the rainy day by reducing the deficit during the good times, so therefore we can afford this stimulus." Otherwise the Republicans will just say "okay spend the money, but it has to come from somewhere and three guesses as to where we think the cuts should fall." Friedman economics says never waste a crisis: you can bet that there are several Republicans who want a recession so as to provide cover for their assault on social security.
I think that Democrats should put forward as many of their popular politics as possible. Yes, the Republicans will vote it down, but that means that in two years the Democrats can say "see, we tried, but the Republicans stopped us".
Naturally that would mean that the Democrats would agree among themselves what those policies are….
The Democrats need to be tactical. Which means that actually they should put the popular stuff on the back burner.
Don't get me wrong, universal healthcare is definitely a thing that the Democrats should pursue. But right now I wouldn't propose it. Such an overhaul of healthcare is going to need a lot of work, and despite the Republicans' damascene conversion to protecting pre-existing conditions you know they'll reflexively vote against it. The best thing right now is to use the resources of the House to get a solid proposal all set out so it can hit the floor of day one of the next Democratic administration in 2021, rather than the ACA which took over a year to develop IIRC.
Because primarily the Democratic base wants two things. Progressive politics yes, but investigations into Trump as well. You can't accomplish the former without compromising with a Republican party that refuses to compromise, which will do nothing but infuriate the Democrat base as once again the party seems to capitulate to the right. But you can do the latter, and given that investigating Trump and his administration is like throwing blue tofu at the Democratic base (trying to find an equivalent phrase to "red meat" for Republicans) it can be an adequate substitute for True Progressive policies.
No, the best policies that the Democrats can put forward are those that pin Trump in a corner whilst driving a wedge between him and the Republicans in the Senate. Hence why I want the Democrats to propose a middle class tax cut funded by reversing the Trump tax cuts. Firstly, it puts Trump in a corner as this was something that he alone came up with. It wasn't Republican policy, it was him freewheeling under pressure. So if it fails because he won't support it then that is a direct attack on his political credibility. He can't hide behind Mitch McConnell on this one (though he will try). Secondly, if he does support it that will be in direct opposition to the Republican senate and more importantly Republican donors. So if it fails there it will be Republican obstructionism, not Democratic. And definitely because Republicans only care about elites and not their base. And thirdly if it does all actually pass then the defense the Democrats have for when the economy goes south is that actually we were supportive of and indeed worked to pass your economic agenda. Not our fault your idea of cutting taxes in an overheated economy was stupid.
That's just my two cents worth. We could propose a progressive agenda. But I'd rather get it right, so spending the next two years honing and refining the necessary legislation would be my preference. The basic difference between 2021 and 2009 is that we are going to be under no illusions about how the Republicans are going to behave. Obama wasted so much time and political capital trying to get Republicans on board so as to make the ACA as bi-partisan as possible, when the party of No was never going to compromise. This time we know how the process works. Win the White House, win 60 seats in the senate, or failing that kill the filibuster. Don't even try for a fig-leaf of Republican approval. Get it passed, get it working and make sure the benefits are there for everyone to see so that the 2022 midterms don't bite us in the ass.
Edited by singularityshot on Nov 11th 2018 at 1:02:09 PM

I don't think the Florida senate race will pan out in our favor, but it's nice to see Arizona is likely going to pull through.