2018 Senate (& House)

[Seattle Husker]

What is always confusing to me on the Anti-Trump reference is exactly from whence it comes, anti-Trump policy, Trump himself, or Trump as anti-Washington. I seriously believe there are three factions and THAT is why I think the GOP faces serious problems, they have many who still don't see the general public basic guttural anger at Washington in general.

They may previously have been multiple factions but I'm not sure you can separate them anymore. Trump the man has become intertwined with an anti-immigration, anti-environmentalist and big business agenda. Was he ever really anti-Washington or was that simply a "schtick" to rouse his base and bludgeon the Washington R's into line? The whole "drain the swamp" was an applause line if you look the background of those filling his administration.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think gerrymandering happens on both sides. I think some things have happened over the last 40 years to make it more significant. We've gotten better with political and social science. They've been able to break down the demographics at a much more scientific level to take advantage of technology. And, as we've grown more partisan, it just keeps getting worse.

You are correct that we've gotten a lot more technical with redistricting. When I worked for the Texas Legislature, I remember messing around a little with the redistricting software, and it was an amazing thing. That was in 1999, and I'm sure it's a lot more sophisticated now.

Nevertheless, I decided to run some numbers. There's no way to objectively measure gerrymandering, because it's in the eye of the beholder. We know it when we see it. However, a pretty helpful indicator of how fair the districts are is the disparity between the percentage of the popular vote that a party wins and the percentage of the seats it wins. I went back to 1990 to see who the bigger gerrymanderers are. Even though they've taken a lot more flack for it, the GOP is not the bigger gerrymanderer over the last 25 years.

Just for kicks, I decided to go back to the 1958 and 1960 elections to see if the disparities were smaller. They weren't. The bottom line is that gerrymandering isn't new. It's a 200-year-old phenomenon just in the United States. What's new is the media caring about it and Democratic political pundits bellyaching about it.

 

[Joe Fan]

Roy Moore going for the Bill Clinton vote in Alabama.
Bold strategy
Will it work?

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Mr. Deez]

The Democrats hold four Senate seats that were basically thrown at them. Moore might give them a fifth one.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The Democrats hold four Senate seats that were basically thrown at them. Moore might give them a fifth one.

Moore may have been a "jumping the shark" moment for the Bannon infiltrators of the R party.

 

[Joe Fan]

John McCain is throwing stones
I guess he just can help himself

 

[Joe Fan]

The whole Moore thing is disturbing, no matter which story is correct
If its true Moore did this, then he is disgusting.
But if this is fake, then the media and their partners at the DNC are destroying someone's life for their own political gain.
Either outcome is bad. No winners.

 

[Mr. Deez]

No winners.

If Democrats pick up that Senate seat (which would be like a Republican picking up a seat in New York), I think they'll see themselves as winners.

 

[Joe Fan]

If Democrats pick up that Senate seat (which would be like a Republican picking up a seat in New York), I think they'll see themselves as winners.

I was talking morally, or in the battle for souls.
But, yes, pragmatically it would be a gutshot.
The Rs better not let it happen.
The Dems did not let is happen in New Jersey (subbing Lautenberg for Torricelli). They did not give a crap what the state law said either. They flaunted the rules, changed candidates on the fly and still won the race. Dems do whatever they want.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Finally the members of Congress will live like the rest of us corporate grunts: Mandatory sexual harassment training. I recommend enduring the training with a glass of wine in your hand and the volume turned down low. Act like you're watching Mystery Science 3000.

 

[Garmel]

The Rs better not let it happen.
The Dems did not let is happen in New Jersey (subbing Lautenberg for Torricelli). They did not give a crap what the state law said either. They flaunted the rules, changed candidates on the fly and still won the race. Dems do whatever they want.

If the republicans had done the same thing the media in every newspaper and on every channel would be saying that democracy was stolen or some other nonsense.

 

[mchammer]

Finally the members of Congress will live like the rest of us corporate grunts: Mandatory sexual harassment training. I recommend enduring the training with a glass of wine in your hand and the volume turned down low. Act like you're watching Mystery Science 3000.

MST3K fan - your only redeeming quality

 

[NJlonghorn]

The Dems did not let is happen in New Jersey (subbing Lautenberg for Torricelli). They did not give a crap what the state law said either. They flaunted the rules, changed candidates on the fly and still won the race. Dems do whatever they want.

Oh god, this again???

While I’m no election-law scholar, I’ll concede that I’m skeptical about the decision. But that doesn’t make it partisan. To the contrary, it was very much bipartisan. A majority of the justices (6 of 7, iirc) had been appointed by a Republican governor, Christine Whitman. Several justices were registered Republicans, while a couple of others were Democrats who had been appointed by Governor Whitman (I.e. they weren’t partisan hacks). The decision was written by Cheif Justice Deborah Poritz, a lifelong and fairly conservative Republican, and was unanimous.

For what it’s worth, here’s what I recall about he decision (from memory / may not be 100% accurate). The statutory switch deadline dated back to a time when it took longer to print ballots. All 21 NJ county clerks (including more than a few Republicans) said they could redo the ballots in time if the court ruled quickly. Based on this, the NJ Supreme Court ruled that the statute interfered with voters’ constitutional right to choose a candidate.

 

[Mr. Deez]

All 21 NJ county clerks (including more than a few Republicans) said they could redo the ballots in time if the court ruled quickly. Based on this, the NJ Supreme Court ruled that the statute interfered with voters’ constitutional right to choose a candidate.

Come on, man. Surely you can see how absurd this is. Under that rationale, the real deadline for a party choosing a nominee isn't going to be what a statute says it is. It's going to be a disorganized free-for-all based on when the county clerks say they can fix ballots, and with technology that's going to be later and later. Eventually deadlines aren't going to matter. Let's put it this way. If Alabama goes down this road, surely they can find a way to dump Roy Moore.

And where does this "constitutional right to choose your candidate" (which is clever verbiage for "right to choose your candidate without regard to statutory deadlines") end? If someone is too sick on Election Day, do we have to let them vote later? There's no reason why someone couldn't cast a ballot a day, a week, or probably even a month after Election Day. Most county clerks could handle this if forced to. They couldn't set booths all over the county like they do on Election Day, but they could keep one up at the courthouse for an extra month to accommodate everybody who said they couldn't vote earlier.

And can we take this rationale further? The constitutional right to a civil jury trial has a lot more legitimacy than a right to choose one's candidates. Can I use this rationale to defeat a limitations defense? If I can find witnesses with strong memories and can find legally sufficient evidence, why should my rights be encumbered by some arbitrary statutory or common law deadline?

And I have to agree with the others. If a Republican pulled this, Democrats and the political media would crap in their pants. We'd be hearing about the collapse of democracy and the rule of law.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Finally the members of Congress will live like the rest of us corporate grunts: Mandatory sexual harassment training. I recommend enduring the training with a glass of wine in your hand and the volume turned down low. Act like you're watching Mystery Science 3000.

Yep, this is ridiculous. Does anybody really not know that what Roy Moore (at least allegedly) did isn't ok? I suspect that these trainings have more to do with making the company look good if they ever get sued than actually educating people. And of course these "trainers" probably make a killing wasting everybody's time.

Reminds me of this.

 

[Clean]

Interesting timing on the 14 year old Moore accuser coming forward. The incident was almost 40 years ago and she comes forward now, a month before the election? Smells fishy (no pun intended).

 

[Joe Fan]

Oh god, this again???
While I’m no election-law scholar, I’ll concede that I’m skeptical about the decision. But that doesn’t make it partisan.
...

(1) Calling someone a "NJ Republican" is false advertising. It is somewhat like calling a law guaranteed to raise insurance premiums through the roof the "Affordable Care Act";

(2) Moreover, there is no need to get caught up in irrelevant minutia. Is your position really that these people cared how the law was written or what the rules were? This is incredibly naive. It's just not how the world of politics works. Torricelli was getting replaced, and nothing was going to stop it. The thing you seem to be forgetting is that the fate of the Senate was at stake. A Torricelli loss meant loss of control of the Senate. National Dems were not going to let that happen. Period. The Swamp did not invent itself in these last couple years.

In any event, maybe in deciding what to do, Alabama should use the Massachusetts model? They re-elected a guy who murdered a woman. And kept re-electing him. Some people there are still voting for Teddy. And while there is no doubt what happened at Chappaquiddick, with Moore, there is at least some reasonable doubt about what happened. This could be Moore's new campaign slogan -- "At least I did not leave her to drown alone at the bottom of a river!"

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

That will be up to the voters of Prince William County to decide whether Danica is representing them or himself.

FIFY

 

[Joe Fan]

Interesting timing on the 14 year old Moore accuser coming forward. The incident was almost 40 years ago and she comes forward now, a month before the election? Smells fishy (no pun intended).

Supposedly the McConnell people were pushing a narrative like this during the primaries.

 

[Joe Fan]

Here is some slightly better news for Rs
Updates to Voter Registration by Party in key battleground states.
Not all states provide this info (so, no #s for VA, MN, WI, OH, TX or MI). But, of the ones which do --

Penn -- Both parties lost.
Ds -182,112 (that's a lot for this state). Rs -79,656. Rs net+105,456
Net increase for Rs/decrease for Ds of 4,000 since last stats

Florida -- Both parties lost
Ds -185,112. Rs -79,656. Rs net +71,150
This is a net increase for Rs/decrease for Ds of 16,000 since last stats
If the trend holds (it is a 12 month trend for now), Florida is on pace for an R majority by 2020 (it is maj Dem now)

North Carolina -- Both parties lost
Ds -81,878. Rs -20,041. Rs net +61,837
This is up for Rs by about 1,000 from last month

Zona -- Both parties gained
Ds +15,352. Rs +29,134. Rs net +13,372
Up about 1,000 since October

New Mexico-- Both parties lost
Ds -41,853. Rs 29,035. Rs net +12,818
No change from October

Nevada-- Both parties lost
Ds -22,786. Rs -12,772. Rs net +9514
Plus 1000 for Rs since Oct

Iowa-- no change

New Hampshire-- Both parties lost
Ds -16,697. Rs -14,535. Rs net +2162
Rs have 22k maj in this state

In the "battleground" states that provide this info, Rs have net gains in all but Colorado (Ds are +1200 there since last reading). In NO state Trump won have Ds made up any ground. They've lost in all, with the biggest moves seen in AZ, NC, FL, and PA. In two states Trump lost, NM and NV, Rs have made up ground.

 

[Brad Austin]

Dems using smear tactics way beyond moral bounds is common practice and expected these days.

Where have we seen this before? Last year I seem to recall supposed sexual assault victims coming out in droves decades later in an effort to bury DT.

Whatever happened to those claims? Wouldn't the Prez still be a serial sexual assaulter under investigation for it? Haven't heard the MSM mention it since he won, which clearly says they were orchestrated smear tactics.

Now Dems win a few blue state gov they consider proof positive they're taking back Congress. Yes some believe they can flip the Senate too.

They realize stealing a hardcore red state would ignite the blue firestorm. A few days after the victories, multiple accusers come out on Moore. Hmmmm.

And of course the establishment Reps are jumping on, they detest Moore for dropping a log in their Strange punchbowl.

I'm calling bs on this until actual verifiable proof arises.

 

[Joe Fan]

...Where have we seen this before? Last year I seem to recall supposed sexual assault victims coming out in droves decades later in an effort to bury DT......

And it was not just Dems pimping this story. The NeverTrumpers were as well.

 

[Brad Austin]

Adding greatly to the suspicion...WAPO and Bezo endorsed the Dem and the story broke just after the deadline to replace a candidate. I'm calling massive BS.

Good to hear Moore isn't a coward Estab Rep and won't back down an inch...

"The Obama-Clinton Machine’s liberal media lapdogs just launched the most vicious and nasty round of attacks against me I’ve EVER faced!

We are are in the midst of a spiritual battle with those who want to silence our message.

The forces of evil will lie, cheat, steal –– even inflict physical harm –– if they believe it will silence and shut up Christian conservatives like you and me.

I believe you and I have a duty to stand up and fight back against the forces of evil waging an all-out war on our conservative values!

Our nation is at a crossroads right now — both spiritually and politically.

Our children and grandchildren’s futures are on the line.

So rest assured — I will NEVER GIVE UP the fight!"

 

[Joe Fan]

Breaking: Roy Moore resigns
Announces new campaign for Mayor of Seattle


(this is a joke. i think)

 

[HANNAHORN]

If this is indeed a "plot", I think it is much more likely the Republicans are behind it. Why would Dems want to get rid of Moore? He is the ONLY Rep. in Alabama that the Dems have a prayer of beating. On the other side, he is the only Rep in Alabama who could lose this race. What better way for the Republicans to energize support than to cast Moore as the "victim" of a Dem conspiracy?

 

[HANNAHORN]

If this is indeed a "plot", I think it is much more likely the Republicans are behind it. Why would Dems want to get rid of Moore? He is the ONLY Rep. in Alabama that the Dems have a prayer of beating. On the other side, he is the only Rep in Alabama who could lose this race. What better way for the Republicans to energize support than to cast Moore as the "victim" of a Dem conspiracy?

And where is all the righteous indignation from Trump, McConnel, ad nauseam? There isn't any. There will be a huge push by the Rep to get behind a write in campaign for Strange-Trump's man from the beginning. Yes, I smell something fishy, but I don't think it is the Dems behind it.

 

[Joe Fan]

If this is indeed a "plot", I think it is much more likely the Republicans are behind it. Why would Dems want to get rid of Moore? He is the ONLY Rep. in Alabama that the Dems have a prayer of beating. On the other side, he is the only Rep in Alabama who could lose this race. What better way for the Republicans to energize support than to cast Moore as the "victim" of a Dem conspiracy?

If so, it would be a big risk to take. But it is at least possible. Really smart people, in general, do not enter Congressional politics.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Come on, man. Surely you can see how absurd this is. Under that rationale, the real deadline for a party choosing a nominee isn't going to be what a statute says it is. It's going to be a disorganized free-for-all based on when the county clerks say they can fix ballots, and with technology that's going to be later and later. Eventually deadlines aren't going to matter. Let's put it this way. If Alabama goes down this road, surely they can find a way to dump Roy Moore.

And where does this "constitutional right to choose your candidate" (which is clever verbiage for "right to choose your candidate without regard to statutory deadlines") end? If someone is too sick on Election Day, do we have to let them vote later? There's no reason why someone couldn't cast a ballot a day, a week, or probably even a month after Election Day. Most county clerks could handle this if forced to. They couldn't set booths all over the county like they do on Election Day, but they could keep one up at the courthouse for an extra month to accommodate everybody who said they couldn't vote earlier.

And can we take this rationale further? The constitutional right to a civil jury trial has a lot more legitimacy than a right to choose one's candidates. Can I use this rationale to defeat a limitations defense? If I can find witnesses with strong memories and can find legally sufficient evidence, why should my rights be encumbered by some arbitrary statutory or common law deadline?

And I have to agree with the others. If a Republican pulled this, Democrats and the political media would crap in their pants. We'd be hearing about the collapse of democracy and the rule of law.

As I said, I am skeptical about the decision. I find your criticism more persuasive.

My point, though, is that the decision was not partisan in the slightest. It was written by a Republican justice, and had the unanimous support of all 7 justices on a split court.

 

[NJlonghorn]

And I have to agree with the others. If a Republican pulled this, Democrats and the political media would crap in their pants. We'd be hearing about the collapse of democracy and the rule of law.

I have to agree with you on this. But I don't think the NJ Supreme Court's ruling would have been different.