patrick.net

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

Still waiting on Arizona and Montana, but Republican candidates are both slightly in the lead.

If I understand it correctly then (and I don't) it will be a net pick up of 2 ?

They had 51 and when the dust settles they will have 53 ?

The Democrats in the house may now set the agenda. Perhaps they’ll be better at that than the GOP was. Perhaps they’ll spend all their energy on “investigation” of everyone they don’t like.
The first will reward them, and Trump will work with them. The second will lead to punishment in 2020.

I would actually really like to see the two parties work together to get good stuff done for the country. All this bickering and resistance is bad for everyone. Perhaps this will be a better result than if the GOP swept both houses. But only if the Democrats regain their sanity. More open border communist crap will just doom us.

Also Trump will ironically have more sway over the next budget. Pelosi can’t pretend it wasn’t her who wrote the budget he vetoes. He swore to work on the budget in the next year, and I bet he does stand firm this time. Except this time he won’t have to stand firm against his own party. He will have a great foil in Pelosi to stand firm against.

Quigley says

The Democrats in the house may now set the agenda. Perhaps they’ll be better at that than the GOP was. Perhaps they’ll spend all their energy on “investigation” of everyone they don’t like.
The first will reward them, and Trump will work with them. The second will lead to punishment in 2020.

I would actually really like to see the two parties work together to get good stuff done for the country. All this bickering and resistance is bad for everyone. Perhaps this will be a better result than if the GOP swept both houses. But only if the Democrats regain their sanity. More open border communist crap will just doom us.

Also Trump will ironically have more sway over the next budget. Pelosi can’t pretend it wasn’t her who wrote the budget he vetoes. He swore to work on the budget in the next year, and I bet he does stand firm this time. Except this time he won’t have to stand firm against his own party. He will have a great foil in Pelosi to stand firm against.

Yep. That's why the market is up as well. In anticipation that nobody can point fingers anymore and that there actually may be some bi-partisan work getting done while volatility is out with the checks and balances. Dems have a chance to make up for their disastrous results in 2016 if they go back to more heartland type Democrats towards the middle such as Collins from ME. And kick out the shrieking batshit nutter cat-lady pound-me-too harpies. Let's see if they can do it, even Perez yesterday sounded halfway decent.

marcus says

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

Still waiting on Arizona and Montana, but Republican candidates are both slightly in the lead.

If I understand it correctly then (and I don't) it will be a net pick up of 2 ?

They had 51 and when the dust settles they will have 53 ?

It's already a net pickup of 3, with a potential of 5

I would actually really like to see the two parties work together to get good stuff done for the country.

The two parties working together on immigration means the Dems and Repubs will come together against the Trump supporters to push open borders. Remember, Trump is not really a Republican. He only ran as a Republican because as as an Independent, he would have got nowhere, and he could not run as a Democrat because he knew the Hillary nomination was baked in. In reality, he annexed the Republican party after usurping the Bushies and is trying to transform the Republican party from the right of center wing of the Demopublican Party to a more nationalist party that emphasizes pride in America, curtails illegal immigration, brings home manufacturing, and makes allies pay their fare share of defense.

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

marcus says

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

Still waiting on Arizona and Montana, but Republican candidates are both slightly in the lead.

If I understand it correctly then (and I don't) it will be a net pick up of 2 ?

They had 51 and when the dust settles they will have 53 ?

It's already a net pickup of 3, with a potential of 5

Looks like Montana went blue, so potential pickup of 4 depending on Arizona.

HeadSet says

I would actually really like to see the two parties work together to get good stuff done for the country.

The two parties working together on immigration means the Dems and Repubs will come together against the Trump supporters to push open borders. Remember, Trump is not really a Republican. He only ran as a Republican because as as an Independent, he would have got nowhere, and he could not run as a Democrat because he knew the Hillary nomination was baked in. In reality, he annexed the Republican party after usurping the Bushies and is trying to transform the Republican party from the right of center wing of the Demopublican Party to a more nationalist party that emphasizes pride in America, curtails illegal immigration, brings home manufacturing, and makes allies pay their fare share of defense.

There are even politicians on the Dem side that don't want open borders. It's definitely a risk that policies go mainstream by going bipartisan, but Trump also energized Repub cucks to be more self-confident. Ultimately you have to work with what your constituents want, and I don't see that years of gridlock would be seen in Trump's favor. If it ever becomes unlivable should there be - which I don't project - a leftoid wave destroying the MAGA, you have options now since parts of Europe have gone more MAGA than Trump. Italy, Hungary, Poland, Austria, all beautiful countries, rich of economical and natural (if you're not married) beauty and MAGA leaders. Or wait til Ballsonaro has cleaned up Brazil. Gotta think global these days, these countries would all love more straight white pillars of society.

There are even politicians on the Dem side that don't want open borders.

They will not vote against the caucus on immigration policy, just like no Democrat went against the Kavanaugh lynching (save WV).

Quigley says

I would actually really like to see the two parties work together to get good stuff done for the country. All this bickering and resistance is bad for everyone. Perhaps this will be a better result than if the GOP swept both houses. But only if the Democrats regain their sanity. More open border communist crap will just doom us.

Also Trump will ironically have more sway over the next budget. Pelosi can’t pretend it wasn’t her who wrote the budget he vetoes. He swore to work on the budget in the next year, and I bet he does stand firm this time. Except this time he won’t have to stand firm against his own party. He will have a great foil in Pelosi to stand firm against.

Damn Quigley, you have been on fire with some good observations. Noticing the punishment for Kavanaugh, anywhere the Senate Contest was anything like a fight, was spot on. Manchin was the only Dem to vote FOR Kavanaugh and even though he was in Red WV, he got re-elected.

Trump pre-positioned a bit of a talking point before the election: A promise of a 10% middle class tax cut on top of the big tax cut that was just implemented.

For the next two years "We wanted to pass a 10% tax cut, but the Democratic Congress won't allow it" if the Democrats act feisty, and as further motivation for Republicans and Fiscal-minded Independents in 2020.

And yes, now the Dems own the budget.

I wonder if the Democrat Deficit Hawks will still be screeching going forward

HeadSet says

There are even politicians on the Dem side that don't want open borders.

They will not vote against the caucus on immigration policy, just like no Democrat went against the Kavanaugh lynching.

Collins did. It's a start but they need to show more.

Trump can just enforce the laws on the books. That will clamp down on immigration just dandy.

Sanctuary Cities, and maybe Sanctuary states.

Motel 6 just got sued for turning over guest names to ICE. Motel 6 will even have to pay actual illegal aliens damages from "violation of privacy."

Trump will have an uphill battle enforcing immigration laws. He will get extreme push back by Dems and Repubs that want low wage labor, Dems who see votes in illegals, and virtue signaling Dem citizens who are in positions not to be hurt by an influx of illegals.

mell says

HeadSet says

There are even politicians on the Dem side that don't want open borders.

They will not vote against the caucus on immigration policy, just like no Democrat went against the Kavanaugh lynching.

Collins did. It's a start but they need to show more.

Collins is a Republican. I knew you meant Manchin from WV, so I corrected my post.

HeadSet says

mell says

HeadSet says

There are even politicians on the Dem side that don't want open borders.

They will not vote against the caucus on immigration policy, just like no Democrat went against the Kavanaugh lynching.

Collins did. It's a start but they need to show more.

Collins is a Republican. I knew you meant Manchin from WV, so I corrected my post.

You're right. We shall see if the Dems will dial the leftoid nutter setting back a bit now that they have some fiscal and economic responsibility.

We're going to see how divided government is, and it's not going to be like Dem House and Reagan in 1980s, or even the Rep House and Clinton in the 90s, which was far less hostile and combative than people think - Clinton was really a conservative Southern Democrat and the distance on many issues was small.

But now we have a Neoliberal-Socialist SJW House against somebody who in any time from 1940 to 2010 would be basically a Centrist.

FPBT says

Sure sounds like Marcus meant plus

Not only did I say that I meant plus three, it was understood. But a couple of right wingers in this thread didn't even know, that it took republicans flipping three just to keep it at 51 republicans.

Note this back and forth:

Goran_K says

marcus says

Goran_K says

That is pretty accurate. But I think the fifth senate seat is coming.

Why is 538 still saying +3.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2018-election-results-coverage/?ex_cid=extra_banner

I have to assume they are more on top of this than you or I.

Perhaps west coast ?

Uh because they’re wrong?

I made it very clear that I was talking about net change. IT is was clear that both Goran and two scoops thought that republican flips meant net increases, when there were other factors at play.

But also he was joking about me owing him $1000. I think.

Actually if we had made that bet, I might still be winning it. But we didn't. The bet that I did offer, I almost surely wouldn't lose (they would have to be net up 5 for me to lose the bet I offered, which he did not accept).

APHAman says

marcus says

But also he was joking about me owing him $1000. I think.

Actually if we had made that bet, I might still be winning it. But we didn't. The bet that I did offer, I almost surely wouldn't lose (they would have to be net up 5 for me to lose the bet I offered, which he did not accept).

It’s odd that people will talk shit for months when it doesn’t mean anything, then when it’s time to get some skin in the game, the cower in the corner hoping mommee will save them. Maybe that’s why they always support Republicans and chide ‘liberals’. They’re happy to lose their freedoms to avoid having any skin in the game.

You two need to stop being so mean

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

For posterity:

So, let's recap. As I tried to tell all of you, Nate was almost perfect. Dems are expected to win 38 seats when all is said and done and votes are done counting in CA.

The RCP polling average is going to be pretty damn close as well with Dems +7 or +7.5

My favorite--GA6 went to Dems this go around. Just needed a better candidate than Ossoff.

And as I tried to tell McGee--Republicans have lost suburban soccer Moms for a long time. Dems consistently won all types of suburban districts.

Typically, the party out of power wins in the midterms because the other party doesn't show up to vote. in 2018, Trump got his base out and they voted. But he has alienated so many former Republicans that they still lost. So there's no reason to think he'll do any better in 2020.

OK-had to come back to gloat. Happy out.

HappyGilmore says

And as I tried to tell McGee--Republicans have lost suburban soccer Moms for a long time. Dems consistently won all types of suburban districts.

Typically, the party out of power wins in the midterms because the other party doesn't show up to vote. in 2018, Trump got his base out and they voted. But he has alienated so many former Republicans that they still lost. So there's no reason to think he'll do any better in 2020.

OK-had to come back to gloat. Happy out.

Hate to say this but you're mostly right here. It was white women who have increased their support for the Dems, otherwise this election would have been another disaster for the blue team. I doubt though that many are soccer moms as even suburbia hasn't been immune to the growing epidemic of lone childless post-wall cat-lady harpies who have ridden the cock carousel just one too many times and now need to express their bitterness by denying happily married women and white men their pursuit of happiness.

The big news is that the wealthy voted Democrat. They want their open borders and the jobs they outsources to reimport back to Middle America they destroyed tariff-free
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/midterm-election-precinct-results/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0b366a109cac

The party realignment continues. And of course the Cat Ladies came out in force.

Congrats on FINALLY being right about something, though.

TSenate, which will gain even if Broward and PBC manufactures enough ballots and keeps breaking Florida Laws, went far to the Red. That wasn't no Dem+7 result, especially since many were close races and one happened in a Swing State. A reminder that NO POLLSTER consensus predicted a 2-4 Republican Gain. I can't think of a major pollster who did so.

It sure looks like the deciding factor in the Senate was the Kavanaugh vote, which mitigates the Suburban White Woman theory.

But, it's really no biggie, the House was on par with a typical midterm election. The Senate was a bit of a shock.

The fun is the long delayed Democrat Civil War between Trad Libs, SJWs, and Neoliberals. I'm sure 70-something Pelosi will be bringing fresh, undisputed, vibrant leadership.

Also, the strategy was to pump the Senate Races, but not so much the House races. Looks like this was misguided.

And, the Democrats outspent the Republicans again. They were able to do so, despite being almost bust after 2016, because the Wealthy lavished them with donations.

No blue wave occurred. Now dems are trying to stuff ballot box in Florida and Arizona in hopes of cheat winning it.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

The big news is that the wealthy voted Democrat.

False. Educated voted Democrat. There wasn't much correlation between income and voting Dem or Rep.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

It sure looks like the deciding factor in the Senate was the Kavanaugh vote, which mitigates the Suburban White Woman theory.

False again. The issue was the Dem senators were running in extremely Republican states. They overperformed, but Trump was successful in getting out the base in Indiana, Missouri, N. Dakota, etc.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

But, it's really no biggie, the House was on par with a typical midterm election

False yet again. Typically midterms help the party out of power because they are the only voters that turn out. In this case, Trump got his base out. Like I said, the problem was unique to this year in that he alienated so many former Republicans that he lost anyway. And if Dems +7.5 isn't a wave, then what is a wave?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Also, the strategy was to pump the Senate Races, but not so much the House races. Looks like this was misguided.

And false again. Dems had a very strong strategy for the House. They recruited good candidates everywhere. They supported them everywhere. They ran on healthcare. It worked.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

And, the Democrats outspent the Republicans again. They were able to do so, despite being almost bust after 2016, because the Wealthy lavished them with donations.

lol--they have a HUGE network of small donors that they depended on. They won because of soccer Moms throughout suburbia--donating and voting for Democrats.

HappyGilmore says

They won because of soccer Moms throughout suburbia--donating and voting for Democrats.

Not according to Vogue

https://www.vogue.com/article/white-women-voters-conservative-trump-gop-problem

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

HappyGilmore says

They won because of soccer Moms throughout suburbia--donating and voting for Democrats.

Not according to Vogue

https://www.vogue.com/article/white-women-voters-conservative-trump-gop-problem

Hush he likes his narrative.

For some perpective-in the senate this si the third time in 100 years the ruling party gained senate seats. See the tally in this article.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/disaster-avoided-trump-is-just-the-third-president-in-104-years-to-gain-senate-seats-in-a-midterm-election-2018-11-07

Repubs are good at soul searching-dems are not-crazytown. now crazy will be on full display and Trump will fight the dems in the house with everything he has. OH now when he gets a real atty general-haha-I think that is why he was waiting to bring it all out these two years.

Liberals can't help themselves-theya re the party of crazy sjws, crazy public sector thugs.

In my state of IL they won a supermajority and so tax increases on top of super high property taxes are what is staring. I think FL-here I come. IL fools will lose my taxes and a flood of other upper middle class folks. Rich people won't matter-they have trusts-us upper middle class folks si who the dmes target-we have nobody to represent us.

It's simple the crazy cat ladies increased but they will naturally eliminate themselves from the gene pool eventually.

mell says

suburbia hasn't been immune to the growing epidemic of lone childless post-wall cat-lady harpies who have ridden the cock carousel just one too many times and now need to express their bitterness by denying happily married women and white men their pursuit of happiness

Feminism has gifted the USA with millions of overaged harpies without marriage prospects who are alone and bitter or with another harpy and still bitter. Most of these aren’t well off, but living paycheck to paycheck with low to middle paying jobs, and their last hope is that the government will swoop in to make their situation better somehow. So they vote Democrat.

Suburban soccer moms might not love them some Trump, but they aren’t willing to share the resources they have scraped together to raise their kids and set up a respectable household with illegal moochers and irresponsible cat ladies. They’re busy trying to live the American Dream, and Democrats keep getting in the way of that.
This divide will only worsen as time goes on.

Tim Aurora says

Yes we earn more than those village folks because we worked hard and smart and are more educated.

I said Wealthy, not well off. Hollywood, Big Tech, etc. have been lavishing money on the Democrats. Tom Steyer, Bloomberg, Soros, and many others.

HappyGilmore says

False. Educated voted Democrat. There wasn't much correlation between income and voting Dem or Rep.

That's funny, Pew just released a report whether you went to an SJW indoctrination Camp did matter, especially if your Gulag major was a non-STEM, SJW-bullshit infused Social Science/Lib Arts program that Women have in greater proportion to males:




http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-midterm-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/


HappyGilmore says

False again. The issue was the Dem senators were running in extremely Republican states. They overperformed, but Trump was successful in getting out the base in Indiana, Missouri, N. Dakota, etc.

Scott is in an excessively Red State?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

That's funny, Pew just released a report whether you went to an SJW indoctrination Camp did matter, especially if your Gulag major was a non-STEM, SJW-bullshit infused Social Science/Lib Arts program that Women have in greater proportion to males:

So you're agreeing that I'm correct again. Level of education matters. Income doesn't.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Scott is in an excessively Red State?

Are you assuming Scott won? Even if he does eke out a win, it's only because the Broward ballot design was so idiotic.

HappyGilmore says

False yet again. Typically midterms help the party out of power because they are the only voters that turn out. In this case, Trump got his base out. Like I said, the problem was unique to this year in that he alienated so many former Republicans that he lost anyway. And if Dems +7.5 isn't a wave, then what is a wave?

It was a typical midterm election -- In the House. The opposition picked up 30ish seats.

The Senate tells a different tale.

I think the Dems got the Illegals out in force.

HappyGilmore says

And false again. Dems had a very strong strategy for the House. They recruited good candidates everywhere. They supported them everywhere. They ran on healthcare. It worked.

They spent a fortune. Your GA-06 flip probably is nearing $100M in costs over the past two years.

And they had the entire Media and Big Tech behind them. Billions in Free Negative Ads against Republicans.

HappyGilmore says

So you're agreeing that I'm correct again. Level of education matters. Income doesn't.

Yes, brainwashing matters.

HappyGilmore says

Are you assuming Scott won? Even if he does eke out a win, it's only because the Broward ballot design was so idiotic.

I'm sure Scott won. You know this isn't the first time Brenda Snipes hasn't played games - and not just with Republicans, she was caught destroying primary ballots of a Progressive Challenger even though there was a pending suit over them.

I actually call on Scott to arrest her before she can hide the corpses.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

It was a typical midterm election -- In the House. The opposition picked up 30ish seats.

Number of seats won is actually a pretty poor measure. It depends so highly on how many seats the party had before the election. Better measure is vote %. And by that measure, it's right in line with the "wave" elections of the past.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

They spent a fortune. Your GA-06 flip probably is nearing $100M in costs.

Make up your mind. I thought they were focused on the Senate??

HappyGilmore says

Number of seats won is actually a pretty poor measure. It depends so highly on how many seats the party had before the election. Better measure is vote %. And by that measure, it's right in line with the "wave" elections of the past.

Nope. It's not a wave. It's simply an off year election. 30ish votes being typical. 60 is a wave election, like the Republicans in 2010.

And the pickups in the Senate confirm that.

HappyGilmore says

Make up your mind. I thought they were focused on the Senate??

Yes, Trump was focused on the Senate, that was apparent from where he had his rallies. .Figured the House would be dragged along. Didn't work - and nobody really knows why we had two opposite results with the Republicans doing about as good in the Senate as the Dems did in the House.

Dems weren't, they were looking for the House. So I stand by the approaching $100M for GA-06, and the win was paper thin and will be easily overturned in 2020.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Nope. It's not a wave. It's simply an off year election. 30ish votes being typical. 60 is a wave election, like the Republicans in 2010.

And the pickups in the Senate confirm that.

Like I said--only if one purposely looks at the wrong measure. And it's really 40ish votes, not 30ish.

The only reason Reps got 60 was because they had so few to begin with.


TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Yes, Trump was focused on the Senate. .Figured the House would be dragged along. Didn't work - and nobody really knows why we had two opposite results.

Dems weren't, they were looking for the House. So I stand by the approaching $100M for GA-06, and the win was paper thin and will be easily overturned in 2020.

Trump was focused on the Senate because none of the House members wanted him to come. He was toxic. The Senate seats were all in deep red states that Republicans should be winning all day every day. The fact that they lost Nevada, are going to lose AZ, almost lost TX, lost WV, Montana, is more of an indictment than a success.

HappyGilmore says

The only reason Reps got 60 was because they had so few to begin with.

It's because people thought they were getting a Golden Child who would put the banks in their place, instead they got a divisive SJW who focused on helping insurance companies make health mandatory and expensive.

HappyGilmore says

Trump was focused on the Senate because none of the House members wanted him to come. He was toxic. The Senate seats were all in deep red states that Republicans should be winning all day every day. The fact that they lost Nevada, are going to lose AZ, almost lost TX, lost WV, Montana, is more of an indictment than a success.

Maybe those House Members made a mistake.

Again, Florida isn't a Deep Red State

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Maybe those House Members made a mistake.

Again, Florida isn't a Deep Red State

And Scott should have lost.

HappyGilmore says

And Scott should have lost.

He should have win, and will win. Just because it isn't deep Red doesn't mean it can't flip a Dem Senator.

Get ready for 2020. Please run Kamala Harris if possible.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

He should have win, and will win. Just because it isn't deep Red doesn't mean it can't flip a Dem Senator.

Get ready for 2020. Please run Kamala Harris if possible.

Scott may win, but only because of 20,000+ undervotes in Broward county. With a properly designed ballot, he loses.

Get ready for Betomania--that's going to be Trump's opponent in 2020.

Get ready for Betomania--that's going to be Trump's opponent in 2020.

I believe the Dems will run a female in 2020. Any male that shows promise will get the Al Franken treatment.