patrick.net

I didn't misread shit:

... and the other 29 weren't party changes.

This article is trying to infer that 2 flipped seats in two lousy state elections, and 6 flipped state legislature seats for all 2017, all of them special elections - vs. 1000s of seats in the various State Legislatures, not Congressional - is a sea change... gimme a break Charlie Brown.

There haven't been any non-special elections so there is obviously no data to compare with.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

There haven't been any non-special elections so there is obviously no data to compare with.

Yep, therefore no conclusions to be drawn.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

I didn't misread shit:

Of course you did. You implied that Dems only won 6 out of the 35 races. That is false.

Dems flipped 6 and Reps flipped 0

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Yep, therefore no conclusions to be drawn.

lol- feel free to stick your head in the sand. It won't change the outcome in 2018. But, history has shown a pretty good relationship between special election results and general election results in the following year.

Other indicators are saying the same thing, btw. Number of Dem candidates, number of Republicans declaring that they won't run in 2018, etc.

joeyjojojunior says

lol- feel free to stick your head in the sand. It won't change the outcome in 2018. But, history has shown a pretty good relationship between special election results and general election results in the following year.

Feel free to extrapolate 6 special elections onto 1000s of seats in 50 states... LOL.

You also predicted Georgia would swing Democrat in the most expensive House campaign in history, with Dems from Techarch Valley and Hollywood dumping cash on what's his face.

I CAN HOLD MY BREATH FOR A LOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGG TIME!!!!

TwoScoopsMcGee says

You also predicted Georgia would swing Democrat in the most expensive House campaign in history, with Dems from Techarch Valley and Hollywood dumping cash on what's his face.

Actually I didn't. YOU, on the other hand, predicted that the Dem candidate would lose by 10 points.

Nice try though. I said it would be a close race. You said it would be a blowout R win. I was right, you were wrong.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Feel free to extrapolate 6 special elections onto 1000s of seats in 50 states... LOL.

Yep, I do feel free to use statistics and past history to make extrapolations about how the electorate has swung since the last election. Smart people are able to do this easily. And the electorate has swung about 10 points more blue since Trump was elected.

You are free not to believe it, but like I said, the elections will happen whether you believe or not.

And btw--are you implying I'm a neoliberal??

bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I voted for the guy who actually would have accomplished the stuff you used to believe in.

joeyjojojunior says

Yep, I do feel free to use statistics and past history to make extrapolations about how the electorate has swung since the last election. Smart people are able to do this easily. And the electorate has swung about 10 points more blue since Trump was elected.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hoooohohooohohohohohohohohohohohoho LOL.

Wanna make that bet official? That the Dems take the House back in 2018? Because if the electorate has swung 10 pts to blue, that's what would happen.

Come on, dude, call it officially.


joeyjojojunior says

I voted for the guy who actually would have accomplished the stuff you used to believe in.

So you didn't vote for Clinton or Stein. Well, maybe Clinton is a man. Did you write in Bernie?

My Prediction held up perfectly:
TwoScoopsMcGee says

If Ossoff wins: "Nevermind the other 4 lost special elections, this one COUNTS!!! DEMS coming back in 2018!!!"

If Ossoff loses: "Well, this was a very tough race in a tough district, however, the fact that Ossoff came so close is a good sign that DEMS coming back in 2018!!!"

http://patrick.net/post/1307406/the-georgia-race

Booger says

Cucks at CNN on seeing election results:

TwoScoopsMcGee says

My Prediction held up perfectly:

Except the one where you said he'd win by 10 points, you mean?

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Wanna make that bet official? That the Dems take the House back in 2018? Because if the electorate has swung 10 pts to blue, that's what would happen

Actually, that's not what would happen. That's how gerrymandered the Congressional Districts are at this point.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

So you didn't vote for Clinton or Stein. Well, maybe Clinton is a man. Did you write in Bernie?

I voted for Bernie in the primary.

joeyjojojunior says

Except the one where you said he'd win by 10 points, you mean?

You sure that it was me who said it? I'd love to see the link.

But whatever, he lost by about 3 points. I was right about losing and off by a few points. Pretty weak showing for spending $30M..

joeyjojojunior says

Yep, I do feel free to use statistics and past history to make extrapolations about how the electorate has swung since the last election. Smart people are able to do this easily. And the electorate has swung about 10 points more blue since Trump was elected.

Completely anecdotal, but I'm just not seeing this where I'm from (IL). I'm generally surrounded by mid and far left people. IL has an upcoming governors election in 2018. It is literally about 1 year away from vote day. The dems don't have a consensus candidate at this point in my opinion. I think there's a lot of animosity towards the money politician (Hilary) and the peoples politician (Bernie) on the dems side. It appears, in my opinion, they can't really come together.

Rauner has literally not governed and the dems can't come together and get someone (with a consensus), at this point, to run against him. He's probably one of the most beatable republican governors in the country and I actually think he may stand a chance in Nov '18. It's really unfathomable that the dems can't get together and have a solid candidate run. I'm not predicting Rauner will win, but the odds aren't good for the dems less than 13 months in advance, without an actual candidate they can call their own.

I honestly think the dems are in for trouble in 2018. Again, this is based off my experience in IL. I'm just not seeing any unity on that side.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

You sure that it was me who said it? I'd love to see the link.

Sure.

/post/1305242/?0#comment-1402068

"Only because there were several Republican contenders with similar levels of support, but only one Democratic Candidate with any substantial support for all democrats to rally around.
The Democrats are largely still Clintonista sheep, refusing to address the causes of their historic loss in a rigged election; the Republicans are having internal struggles.
Leading to a runoff where Ossoff will be destroyed."

WookieMan says

I honestly think the dems are in for trouble in 2018. Again, this is based off my experience in IL. I'm just not seeing any unity on that side.

I'm in IL too and the Gov. election hasn't even hardly started yet. Nobody is paying attention right now. It's too early to draw any conclusions.

Republicans weren't exactly united around a candidate in 2016 and it worked out OK for them.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Pretty weak showing for spending $30M..

lol--it's not like Handel was hurting for money either. There was huge diminishing returns on the money--after a certain point, it really makes no difference. Especially in a local election. All that spending probably helped the Republican because it riled up voters that may have stayed home.

Republicans weren't exactly united around a candidate in 2016 and it worked out OK for them.

----------

Republicans don't need to unify around one candidate. There's plenty of brain dead Christians who will always vote for any Republican. That's how Trump came to be president. Good fer nothing no goodnick Christians.

They have done more harm to the country then ISIS could ever dream of.

They'll get their comeuppance soon enough. And they'll blame the liberals

joeyjojojunior says

"Only because there were several Republican contenders with similar levels of support, but only one Democratic Candidate with any substantial support for all democrats to rally around.
The Democrats are largely still Clintonista sheep, refusing to address the causes of their historic loss in a rigged election; the Republicans are having internal struggles.
Leading to a runoff where Ossoff will be destroyed."

Don't see 10 pts there. I followed the link and hit CNTL-F for find, looked for "10", didn't see any reference to 10 that I made.

But yeah, Ossoff was destroyed: Record Spending on a House Seat and he still lost. Elections are like Pass/Fail courses, you Win or you Lose.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Don't see 10 pts there. I followed the link and hit CNTL-F for find, looked for "10", didn't see any reference to 10 that I made.

But yeah, Ossoff was destroyed: Record Spending on a House Seat and he still lost. Elections are like Pass/Fail courses, you Win or you Lose.

lol--so losing by 0.1% is getting destroyed? You are hilarious. Just own it when you're wrong.

But you're right, I think I tried to quantify "destroyed" and came up with 10 pts.

joeyjojojunior says

I'm in IL too and the Gov. election hasn't even hardly started yet. Nobody is paying attention right now. It's too early to draw any conclusions.

Usually I'd agree with you, but the leading dems are already starting tv ads. Rauner has too. For a governors race the money is going to be insane. Rauner has his own money and Ken Griffin's billions are an added bonus. Griffin has given a ton already and will continue to do so. All the dems candidates have money themselves and the ability to raise a ton of it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/13/illinois-governor-race-rauner-240480
Whether people want to be interested or not, it's going to be in their face 24/7. And most people I know are fed up with IL, so I have a feeling there's going to be some pretty good interest for this election, which I believe there already is compared to previous elections. Or they'll just beat the hell out of us with ads and everyone will become disenfranchised. So who knows. I don't have a horse in this race yet, but I'm not liking the choices so far.

joeyjojojunior says

lol--so losing by 0.1% is getting destroyed? You are hilarious. Just own it when you're wrong.

Didn't he lose by 3-4 pts against a non-incumbent? Since we have winner take all elections, I'm not wrong.

joeyjojojunior says

But you're right, I think I tried to quantify "destroyed" and came up with 10 pts.

There you go.

No--you were obviously wrong about him getting destroyed.

anonymous says

joeyjojojunior says

I'm in IL too and the Gov. election hasn't even hardly started yet. Nobody is paying attention right now. It's too early to draw any conclusions.

Usually I'd agree with you, but the leading dems are already starting tv ads. Rauner has too. For a governors race the money is going to be insane. Rauner has his own money and Ken Griffin's billions are an added bonus. Griffin has given a ton already and will continue to do so. All the dems candidates have money themselves and the ability to raise a ton of it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/13/illinois-governor-race-rauner-240480
Whether people want to be interested or not, it's going to be in their face 24/7. And most people I know are fed up with IL, so I have a feeling there's going to be some pretty good interest f...

FYI this was me. Not logged in while in a different browser. @Patrick This anonymous this is getting confusing, but I suppose I really have no idea if some of the "anonymous" users are new or regular here. So maybe that was the goal.

I know I'm fed up with IL.

WookieMan says

Patrick This anonymous this is getting confusing

The goal was just to make it easier to bring in new users by eliminating the requirement to register with an email first.

But good point, it's confusing. I will create distinct usernames for anonymous users so you can at least see if it's the same user from one comment to the next.

anonymous says

No--you were obviously wrong about him getting destroyed.

Sorry, destroyed != 10 points. I looked it up in the dictionary. That's you reading into something what you want to read.

I'd also remind you that polls had Ossoff beating Handel going into Election Day. Hence the Long Faces on CNN that a Congressional Aide and Corporate Crony backed by Hollywood and Silly Con Valley millions couldn't win an incumbent-free election.

Seriously--is it a requirement to lie if you're a fan of Trump?