patrick.net

zzyzzx says

Pepe won an election in NJ:

Eta zhaba vsem nadoyela uzhe! Nikto ne hochet smotret na etu leguzhku. Mozhet na pive budet polagatelno, a v politike ona bred sivoi kobile.

lostand confused says

trigglypuff

Trigllypuff should be a defensive lineman for cleveland browns!

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

She is SO! IMMENSE!

How does one get to be so immense? Is it secret death wish or something?

joeyjojojunior says

Actually history has proven they do. You can believe it or not, but data has shown they do.

I'm not being a smart ass, seriously. I've never seen any correlation between a governors race in New Jersey and Virginia being extrapolated to a national level for house members and senators a year in advance. It doesn't make sense. I'd love to see the stats from 4 years ago for these same governors races and how it foreshadowed anything in the 2014 midterms. I'm not certain that history does prove any correlation.

If there's some massive shift to either side in the coming midterms, I can come back to this story and use it as foreshadowing. Dems didn't win by as much as they should have, so the Repubs took more seats. Dems won these elections and that's why they won more seats in the midterm. That's why I say this (yesterdays) election means nothing. You can spin it anyway you like based on past events and still be right.

They're two completely different entities, with completely (or should be) different messages as gubernatorial candidates vs. the candidates in the midterms. This goes for others here on the other side saying the dems were supposed to win. Who gives a shit. You can say Dems were supposed to win by X margin and they didn't so that's telling you something. It isn't. Stop fooling yourself.

As with most things in modern political history, it's more about looks and the ability to convey a message. 80% of voters don't understand anything about government. So they go with the guy/gal that can smooth talk and looks decent or who's on their social agenda side. I don't know what CA house or senate seats are open, but you can bet your ass if George Clooney jumped in the race he'd win. I don't think anyone could argue that.

So what happens a year from now, not knowing all the candidates for those elections, and making any predictions based on yesterdays results, seems rather stupid to me. And I'm not directing that at anyone one user, just anyone thinking that yesterday mattered for the 2018 midterms. Hell any future election for that matter. In closing, I'll just say this, 2016.

WookieMan says

I'm not being a smart ass, seriously. I've never seen any correlation between a governors race in New Jersey and Virginia being extrapolated to a national level for house members and senators a year in advance. It doesn't make sense. I'd love to see the stats from 4 years ago for these same governors races and how it foreshadowed anything in the 2014 midterms. I'm not certain that history does prove any correlation.

No obviously one governor's race didn't predict a wave in the next year's elections. (although I'd argue that Scott Brown's election as senator from Mass. ~a year after Obama was elected was a pretty good foreshadow for what was to come in the mid-terms) But we've seen a mountain of data showing the country's sentiment has changed. To ignore it all and say it's meaningless is tantamount to sticking one's head in the sand.

Here's another good article with a deeper dive:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-fundamentals-favor-democrats-in-2018/
"But we didn’t need Tuesday night to prove that the national environment was good for Democrats; there was plenty of evidence for it already. In no particular order of importance:
President Trump’s approval rating is only 37.6 percent.
Democrats lead by approximately 10 points on the generic Congressional ballot.
Republican incumbents are retiring at a rapid pace; there were two retirements (from New Jersey Rep. Frank LoBiondo and Texas Rep. Ted Poe) on Tuesday alone.
Democrats are recruiting astonishing numbers of candidates for Congress.
Democrats have performed well overall in special elections to the U.S. Congress, relative to the partisanship of those districts; they’ve also performed well in special elections to state legislatures.
The opposition party almost always gains ground at midterm elections. This is one of the most durable empirical rules of American politics."

joeyjojojunior says

To ignore it all and say it's meaningless is tantamount to sticking one's head in the sand.

I'm not saying it's completely meaningless. You can always find meaning in any election or hell any event. It's just how much meaning do you put behind it? Me, not very much on this topic.

I vaguely recall you may be from or have lived in IL (could be thinking of someone else). Rauner won in IL two years prior as a Republican governor (2014). 2 years later Trump lost by 15 points in the Presidential election in IL. I'll concede that Trump knew IL wasn't a likely win for him, so he obviously didn't spend much time here. IL is generally a democratic party controlled state. But Tammy Duckworth defeated the incumbent, Republican Mark Kirk, the same year as Trump won the presidential election.

So IL thought a Republican governor was good in 2014 and then, at least regarding the senate seat, thought the democrats were better on a statewide level or had better turnout, etc. Rauner may have been an influence on that. Who knows maybe Trump was during the election. The fact is an entire state voted one way for a governor and on the federal level went the other way over an incumbent Republican (who obviously had some flaws having a stroke and all).

I guess what I'm getting at is state politics are vastly different then federal politics. IL has bounced all over the last 3-1/2 years or so and I don't think you honestly would base anything off results in IL and then say that could happen nationally. You'd likely wait and see as it gets closer. I have no problem throwing out theories on what could happen. But too much here seems to be anchored in these results that really have little bearing on the midterms.

Unless you're really into Virginia and New Jersey state level politics, and understand the nuances and can extrapolate those to a national level, I really don't think the results yesterday mean much.

lostand confused says

You guys have been claiming that from the day he was worn in. That is your problem. Why I still think trump will win 2nd term-you guys have a fixed narrative and try and spin everything to your narrative.

If you think getting voter turn out levels to that of a Presidential election is explained away by a desire for me/others to fit a narritive ... (shrug)

What do you explain the voter turn out by? This was an epic ground game win, and the Dems are refining off this now for 2018.

WookieMan says

Unless you're really into Virginia and New Jersey state level politics, and understand the nuances and can extrapolate those to a national level, I really don't think the results yesterday mean much.

Yep, I understand your point--I'm just saying that people have looked at it and found that there is a pretty good correlation.

Rew says

If you think getting voter turn out levels to that of a Presidential election is explained away by a desire for me/others to fit a narritive ... (shrug)

A broken clock can be right twice.
WE shall see, if this is a flash in the pan-but in your case, nothing changes-day 1 from Trump's election-same, same same-the boy who creid wolf too many times.
Every little incident is proof of your narrative being true. me-meh-I will wait and see.

Tenpoundbass says

"They won on a Anti Trump message. Should the Democrats reinforce that message in the 2018 elections?"

I guess let them have their "victory", which was a continuation of the status quo. Democrats won Governorships in two Blue States, that both went for Hillary in 2016. Shocking Transformation!

Not the first time we've witnessed Blue arrogance just before doom, aka Hubris. Remember "The Week" cover cartoon that predicted the opposite of what happened.