posted by fish82That's pretty close to the odds he gave Hillary of winning.
FWIW
I think the GOP will hold the house if the Russians give them the Democrats' turnout models again.
I actually wouldn't mind if the dems took over the house with a republican president. It does give a nice balance between awful and bad. But that's with the caveat of not having progressives fully take over the dem party, which they are teetering on doing right now IMO.
posted by fish82That's pretty close to the odds he gave Hillary of winning.
FWIW
But then the Dems can impeach Trump and guarantee his election in 2020....history repeating itself.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Five Thirty Eight released their House Forecasting Model. They give Ds a 74.3% of taking the House. They give a nice breakdown of each house race and projections. They assume that the historical trends of the President's party in office
Good .........bodes well. They obviously still don't understand what happened in 2016.
Submit current thoughts now.
Dems just blew their chips on Kavenaugh. They have no chance of getting power back
Kavanaugh clusterfuck clearly throwing a wrench in the "blue wave." Dems were already fired up but now GOP is.
All I know is that I'm not giving any credence to polls. Still. Let the chips fall where they may.
I still stick to the Ds take the House and the Rs either grow or keep the same seats in the Senate.
The latest numbers out of Tenn. and North Dakota are not good for the Ds. Also, it is possible that NJ flips from blue to red.
posted by ptown_trojans_1I still stick to the Ds take the House and the Rs either grow or keep the same seats in the Senate.
The latest numbers out of Tenn. and North Dakota are not good for the Ds. Also, it is possible that NJ flips from blue to red.
My thoughts as well.
Just looking at local Ohio congressional races (on fivethirtyeight). Steve Chabot (R) was a pretty big underdog to Aftab Pureval (D) last week, now he's the favorite. I'm not in his district, and likely wouldn't vote for him if I was, but it's interesting to see the odds flip. My district is heavily in favor of the R incumbent (Brad Wenstrup) who I actually will be voting for.
Sticking with the GOP holding the HOR by 4-6 seats, and gaining a seat in the Senate.
posted by fish82Sticking with the GOP holding the HOR by 4-6 seats, and gaining a seat in the Senate.
Need to be a bigger change than the current trend. The Kavanaugh hearings "helped" the GOP, but still all indications are that they will lose the HOR but keep the Senate. It's something like 75% chance they lose the HOR according to 538.
posted by jmogNeed to be a bigger change than the current trend. The Kavanaugh hearings "helped" the GOP, but still all indications are that they will lose the HOR but keep the Senate. It's something like 75% chance they lose the HOR according to 538.
Again, I'll say people are so polarized - and angry - that turnout is a complete guess. These models always come down to their predictions on turnout (or at least its distribution), and I don't think any past results (they usually rely heavily on what the last midterm or two looked like) will be indicative.
posted by gutAgain, I'll say people are so polarized - and angry - that turnout is a complete guess. These models always come down to their predictions on turnout (or at least its distribution), and I don't think any past results (they usually rely heavily on what the last midterm or two looked like) will be indicative.
Yeah, with all the Kavanaugh kerfluffle, the Rs are the current leader in the "WE'RE OUTRAGED AND GOING TO THE POLLS!!!!" crowd, but there's a full month before elections. But all it takes is one incident painted a certain way (Kav gets voted through, Trump makes public ass of self again, etc.) to reverse things. So, at the least, October won't be dull, since both sides will be working to make sure they fire the last bullet before polls open.
posted by gutAgain, I'll say people are so polarized - and angry - that turnout is a complete guess. These models always come down to their predictions on turnout (or at least its distribution), and I don't think any past results (they usually rely heavily on what the last midterm or two looked like) will be indicative.
If Kac gets confirmed, will the anger be sustainable on the right? The left will be more angered, but likely the people who are angry were already going to vote. Something to watch for.
posted by iclfan2If Kac gets confirmed, will the anger be sustainable on the right? The left will be more angered, but likely the people who are angry were already going to vote. Something to watch for.
Trump is pretty good at stoking that anger when he's out campaigning for people in close battles. And because of his rhetoric, all the dumbass news channels play the soundbites which gives him 100% reach (as opposed to just the people at the rally, who are voting anyway).
I think Trump may actually be adding to his "base". And the key is, President's lose in midterms because their base is less motivated to turnout, but Trump is different AND he does more campaigning. I think it will be a real uphill battle for Dems to flip districts that Trump won by more than 4-5%.
I really feel that the crap that Trump spews is actually what most people think of stuff. He just says it.
Pretty much true; Trump does not need to be re-elected, find another elected office, or otherwise live off the public teat. Refreshing, and badly needed.
Trump is as east coast elite establishment as you can possibly get - trust fund baby, Manhattan born-and-bred, elite boarding schools, etc, etc. He just happens to have a loud mouth and thus has poorer manners than most WASPs. He has about as much a connection with flyover country as Barbara Streisand. His talent is knowing how to say BS to the right audience in order to get reactions. But that crap doesn't reflect some sort of philosophy. It is whatever is needed in that particular situation, with that particular audience. His life has proven in spades that he will do what he needs to do in order to advance himself. I realize there are many who measure his success by such one-dimensional metrics as the DJA. Presidents have minimal affect on the economy. Whatever affect they do have is not something that can be created in a small window of time. There is a long lag before any policy decisions have any good or bad result. Presidents are either lucky or unlucky in their timing for being in office - whether it coincides with growth or not.
My problem with Trump is that we have a person representing the leading position of our country who does not practice common decency in how he treats others, what he says or his actions. That too me outweighs any perceived good from a trade deal decision here or a immigration rule there. Our country has a person at the helm who I would not invite into my home, would not trust alone with my daughter, would not ever do a business deal with, and would never stop to listen to were he not president. He is a masterful self-promoter, but he is not crazy like a fox in my opinion. I look forward to the day he leaves. I believe history will judge his term harshly and reflect poorly on us for putting him where he is.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieTrump is as east coast elite establishment as you can possibly get - trust fund baby, Manhattan born-and-bred, elite boarding schools, etc, etc. He just happens to have a loud mouth and thus has poorer manners than most WASPs. He has about as much a connection with flyover country as Barbara Streisand. His talent is knowing how to say BS to the right audience in order to get reactions. But that crap doesn't reflect some sort of philosophy. It is whatever is needed in that particular situation, with that particular audience. His life has proven in spades that he will do what he needs to do in order to advance himself. I realize there are many who measure his success by such one-dimensional metrics as the DJA. Presidents have minimal affect on the economy. Whatever affect they do have is not something that can be created in a small window of time. There is a long lag before any policy decisions have any good or bad result. Presidents are either lucky or unlucky in their timing for being in office - whether it coincides with growth or not.
My problem with Trump is that we have a person representing the leading position of our country who does not practice common decency in how he treats others, what he says or his actions. That too me outweighs any perceived good from a trade deal decision here or a immigration rule there. Our country has a person at the helm who I would not invite into my home, would not trust alone with my daughter, would not ever do a business deal with, and would never stop to listen to were he not president. He is a masterful self-promoter, but he is not crazy like a fox in my opinion. I look forward to the day he leaves. I believe history will judge his term harshly and reflect poorly on us for putting him where he is.
What a load of crap. Even if he is all of this.....its better than a career politician
I actually agree with Boogie on 99% of his summarization. The only place I would branch off from him is that he is essentially describing every other President except for the fact that Trump is uncouth, crass and therefore unlikeable on a personable level. At least, that is how I see him.
The question comes down to: Who is ok with an unlikable President and who thinks that that should even be a factor?
Myself, I'm kinda in the latter category. There really should be a "decent" personality in the WH, IMO. It's hard to support a President who sets you back on your heels at every turn.
posted by CenterBHSFan... really should be a "decent" personality in the WH, IMO. It's hard to support a President who sets you back on your heels at every turn.
Truthfully, the POTUS doesn't actually do much. He appoints people, from recommendations from his advisors and others, who make 99% of the decisions. Those people normally are on board with the agenda, but you can be a moron and do well as long as you hire a few key people.
I think even the Sec State is mainly a puppet - foreign policy is driven by career staffers. And if you really try to deviate from past practices, if it's unagreeable foreign leaders will just wait out a new Administration.
I think the stuff that matters that the POTUS is ultimately responsible for, and does affect the economy, is on the regulatory front and trade deals. Most everything else he is just a "yes/no" to whatever actually manages to get thru Congress.
posted by CenterBHSFanI actually agree with Boogie on 99% of his summarization. The only place I would branch off from him is that he is essentially describing every other President except for the fact that Trump is uncouth, crass and therefore unlikeable on a personable level. At least, that is how I see him.
The question comes down to: Who is ok with an unlikable President and who thinks that that should even be a factor?
Myself, I'm kinda in the latter category. There really should be a "decent" personality in the WH, IMO. It's hard to support a President who sets you back on your heels at every turn.
I've said it before and it bears repeating...the ONLY difference between Trump and LBJ is that Trump has a twitter account.
He's no higher than #4 on the list of worst humans to be POTUS.
What you see is what you get. What a difference between him and 90% of the politicians who are as phony as they can be. And the other Yuge difference is his policies are actually helping the economy and hundreds of millions ----- capitalism trumping Marxism.