2018 Senate (& House)

[Mr. Deez]

Also he got outspent 5 to 1 from his opponent. He didn't raise money and he wasn't considered a great candidate.

He may have been outspent if we look only at his own campaign's fundraising. However, that was more than made up for with NRCCC and outside group money. They dumped over $9M into the race. Democratic groups and unions didn't even spend $1M in the race.

And it's true that Saccone wasn't a great candidate, and the Party really screwed up by choosing him over two much better candidates, either of whom would have almost surely defeated Lamb. In fact, one of his opponents had a similar profile to Lamb's. He was a sharp, young guy (just a year older than Lamb) who served honorably in the military as a JAG officer.

Saccone was no dummy. The guy had a Ph.D., but he just didn't have much appeal. And though he identified with Trump a lot, he wasn't particularly favorable to organized labor in a mostly pro-union district.

Nevertheless, I may have found the real reason voters rejected Saccone - he got his MPA from Oklahoma. Can you really blame them for rejecting him?

 

[Garmel]

Nevertheless, I may have found the real reason voters rejected Saccone - he got his MPA from Oklahoma. Can you really blame them for rejecting him?

I wonder if Trump would have gotten into as much trouble if he had called Oklahoma a ******** instead?

 

[Mr. Deez]

I wonder if Trump would have gotten into as much trouble if he had called Oklahoma a ******** instead?

Considering that Oklahoma makes Haiti and Somalia look like Norway, who could disagree with him if he had?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Take your pick.

Haiti?

Or Oklahoma?

 

[Garmel]

Take your pick.

Haiti?

Or Oklahoma?

I hope that wasn't Barry's house.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So I've thought more about the PA-18 race and the upcoming midterm elections, and a few things seem to stand out. First, the Trump people will disagree, but Trump is making a negative impact. It's not his performance on issues. In a vacuum, I think the GOP would be in good shape going into the election. Just about every economic factor is good. The tax cuts are becoming popular. There have been no terrorist attacks since Trump took office, and the foreign policy front is at least arguably looking good. Under normal circumstances, they may not be looking at picking up seats in a midterm, but Democrats should be looking forward to nominal gains at best in the House and losses in the Senate because of the Senate map.

Unfortunately, the focus isn't on the at least arguably good stuff. It's on the shitstorm. We often criticize the Left (and rightly so) for virtue signaling, but Trump sorta "vice signals" - antagonizes the Left not so much in pushing his agenda but in shooting off his mouth. That makes some of the Right high-five and pump their fists, but it also motivates the Left to turn out in big numbers. We've already seen the evidence of that in the special elections. We're losing Republican seats, and even the ones we're winning are much closer than they should be. That's happening because of large turnout disparities.

Second, Trump's lack of popularity does matter. Some think it doesn't because he got elected as an unpopular candidate. However, the Democrats put up their own horribly unpopular candidate in 2016, which largely nullified Trump's unpopularity. That's not going to be the case in 2018. There is no Hillary Clinton turning people off with her smugness, sanctimony, and phoniness and motivating Republicans to vote against her. People are going to judge Trump on his own and not as a relative comparison to Hillary Clinton.

Third, the chaos makes a difference. This White House has turnover like crazy. People are quitting or getting shitcanned every five minutes. I don't think your average voter necessarily cares about specific people in the Administration leaving. However, I do think they notice when there's an obvious pattern, which there clearly is.

Fourth, I'm not a "dump Trump" advocate as some have become, but GOP candidates need to be running races that are tailored to their respective constituencies. If Trump plays well in a district, then use that advantage. However, if he doesn't, then candidates should distance themselves accordingly. There are a lot of suburban districts in California and Texas that have been in GOP hands for decades that are in real danger of flipping. That's real cause for concern.

What also concerns me is that if (for example) John Culberson (R-Houston) decides to distances himself from Trump a little to keep his wealthy, suburban district in GOP hands, there's a good chance that Trump will take it as a personal affront and shoot off his mouth about it. That's not good. Did Nancy Pelosi rip Connor Lamb for distancing himself from her? No, because she wanted to pick up a House seat. Trump needs to act accordingly.

Nevertheless, what I think would help the GOP the most would be a little stability from Trump, because it's never good for an incumbent to have to distance himself from his own party's president. Let's go the next 8 months without anybody getting fired or quitting. Let's not needlessly say anything stupid on Twitter. Let's not publicly rip people who are of no consequence to the Presidency. In other words, let's act like adults for 8 months.

Of course, could Democrats screw up their opportunity? Absolutely. If Connor Lamb is an aberration and the Party goes with Left-wing freak shows in their races, it'll be a wash, but I'd rather not have to rely on them being that dumb.

 

[Joe Fan]

This is sort of the the Kim.Com state of the union

 

[Mr. Deez]

I really get sick of the gerrymandering bellyaching. This is a good article explaning why it's wildly overblown. Link.

 

[Joe Fan]

Ted Cruz has been succeeding at twitter lately
Which probably means he will b get banned

 

[Joe Fan]

Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke has proposed a solution for illegal immigration
DC needs to treat border towns with greater"dignity and respect."

 

[Joe Fan]

This is West University Place (the Rice Univ area of Houston) Councilwoman Kellye Burke. "Burke allegedly screamed, “Grab ‘em by the p---- girls!” at the group of four teenagers waiting in line to get cookies for younger kids at their church Saturday..."
She was charged with a misdemeanor

 

[Joe Fan]

Harris is correct despite being oblivious to the why.
Hillary laundered campaign cash through Perkins Coie to pay a foreign spy to procure Russian Intel.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Axios is reporting that Paul Ryan will not run for reelection in 2018.

 

[theiioftx]

Axios is reporting that Paul Ryan will not run for reelection in 2018.

Good riddance. Speaker Ryan, please take McConnell with you.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Axios is reporting that Paul Ryan will not run for reelection in 2018.

He probably got burned out. Keep in mind that he didn't want the job. He wasn't a big spotlight-seaker like Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi were. He's more like how Dennis Hastert was (without the man-on-boy child molestation). There's a lot of power and prestige with being Speaker of the House, but in the current political environment, it's a pretty crappy gig.

 

[Seattle Husker]

He probably got burned out. Keep in mind that he didn't want the job. He wasn't a big spotlight-seaker like Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi were. He's more like how Dennis Hastert was (without the man-on-boy child molestation). There's a lot of power and prestige with being Speaker of the House, but in the current political environment, it's a pretty crappy gig.

I'd agree that he essentially needed his arm twisted to take the Speaker position. Ryan entered the post with an idealist principled approach. I'm sure the fact that Trump and the movement of the Republican party towards his less principled stances have been tough for Ryan to just "grin and bare" and ultimately champion.

Tax cuts have not been something I've supported given our debt. It's unfortunate that he failed on his primary agenda item that he's been championing since he entered the House: Entitlement Reform.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It's unfortunate that he failed on his primary agenda item that he's been championing since he entered the House: Entitlement Reform.

I'm sure that played a role in his decision. The 2016 election was a political realignment. The GOP abandoned entitlement reform to solidify the support of the elderly. It worked, but it probably killed entitlement reform not just for now but for the long term. My hope is that one day, a group of senior Republicans and moderate suburban Democrats (meaning people who know how to do math) will tackle the issue before it's we reach fiscal Armageddon. I'm not counting on it though.

 

[Joe Fan]

Stop electing Democrats

"A public university president in Oregon gives new meaning to the idea of a pensioner.

Joseph Robertson, an eye surgeon who retired as head of the Oregon Health & Science University last fall, receives the state’s largest government pension.

It is $76,111.

Per month. ......"​

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/14/business/pension-finance-oregon.html

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Seattle Husker]

6-term incumbent GOP Rep- Lamborn has been ruled ineligible for the state primary ballot by the Colorado Supreme Court. A group of Republicans challenged the residency of his ballot signature gatherers. You have to be a resident of CO to gather signatures for candidates. Lamborn used someone who wasn't a resident. It's a primary...he'll need to win a write in attempt I presume.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It's supposed to be a strong GOP distict, so this shouldn't impact the balance. (Of course, PA-18 and Alabama are supposed to be solidly Republican too.) I don't have a problem with what the court did. Rules are rules. However, I think it's a pretty questionable rule. These aren't out of state signators. The people asking for the signatures were from out of state. I'm not sure I see the harm in doing that.

 

[iatrogenic]

Tax cuts have not been something I've supported given our debt.

So increasing Federal tax revenues is a bad thing when we have debt to retire?

 

[Seattle Husker]

It's supposed to be a strong GOP distict, so this shouldn't impact the balance. (Of course, PA-18 and Alabama are supposed to be solidly Republican too.) I don't have a problem with what the court did. Rules are rules. However, I think it's a pretty questionable rule. These aren't out of state signators. The people asking for the signatures were from out of state. I'm not sure I see the harm in doing that.

I suspect the rule is in place to limit outside influence, probably more for ballot initiatives. Your point stands, the signatories are residents. Who knows how safe the district is. The fact that the challenge came from fellow R's makes me think that they feel it's a safe seat.

 

[Joe Fan]

Republicans hang on to a House seat
Debbie Lesko won a special election in AZ

 

[Mr. Deez]

Republicans hang on to a House seat
Debbie Lesko won a special election in AZ

That's nice, but like PA-18 or a Senate seat in Alabama, this isn't a seat we're supposed to "hang on to." We're supposed to win decisively. It's not supposed to be close. My hope is that these shabby performances are due to being special elections with errtic turnout. In 2016, about 299K voted in this election. In this election, it was about 174K. However, in 2014 (the last mid-term election), it was about 170K. That's not good, because it means that overall turnout wasn't low compared to normal mid-term election numbers.

I'm not worried about this particular seat. Lesko will probably hold it in November when GOP turnout will likely be better than it is in a special election. My worry is what will happen in districts that aren't R+13 districts.

 

[Joe Fan]

That's nice, but like PA-18 or a Senate seat in Alabama, this isn't a seat we're supposed to "hang on to." ...

I still say "hang on" was the appropriate intransitive verb.

In terms of history, the vast majority of presidents lose seats in their first mid term. Obama and Clinton both got hammered, with BHO setting a modern record for number of seats lost. Every president from Truman through Clinton lost at least some House seats this way, including JFK. Even the Great One (Reagan) got hit hard in his first med-term. But, by the time of his second election, voters could feel the effects on the economy of Reagan's many reforms and he won re-election in a landslide.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I still say "hang on" was the appropriate intransitive verb.

In terms of history, the vast majority of presidents lose seats in their first mid term. Obama and Clinton both got hammered, with BHO setting a modern record for number of seats lost. Every president from Truman through Clinton lost at least some House seats this way, including JFK. Even the Great One (Reagan) got hit hard in his first med-term. But, by the time of his second election, voters could feel the effects on the economy of Reagan's many reforms and he won re-election in a landslide.

This is true, and it isn't a great shame to lose seats in the House in an off-year election. The concern is how many they might lose. In addition, in the last 30 years, the GOP has lost seats in all but two presidential election years no matter what was happening at the top of the ticket, because Democratic turnout is usually higher in those elections. That doesn't mean that's guaranteed to happen in 2020. However, if they get routed (a 40+ seat loss), I seriously doubt that they'll take the chamber back in 2020.

My bigger worry is the Senate. They should be picking up seats, because the map is so overwhelmingly favorable to them. However, if Democratic turnout is what it has been, red state Dems could hold on narrowly, while GOP seats could be lost in Arizona and Nevada, which would flip the chamber.

If Democrats take the House, impeachment will happen, and of course on domestic and fiscal policy things won't be radically different. Trump will make budget-busting deals with Democrats like he did with Republicans. However, if the Senate flips, the judicial nominations will shutdown, and that's a serious problem. (Anthony Kennedy needs to quit ASAP.)

 

[Joe Fan]

This is true, and it isn't a great shame to lose seats in the House in an off-year election. The concern is how many they might lose. In addition, in the last 30 years, the GOP has lost seats in all but two presidential election years no matter what was happening at the top of the ticket, because Democratic turnout is usually higher in those elections. That doesn't mean that's guaranteed to happen in 2020. However, if they get routed (a 40+ seat loss), I seriously doubt that they'll take the chamber back in 2020.

My bigger worry is the Senate. They should be picking up seats, because the map is so overwhelmingly favorable to them. However, if Democratic turnout is what it has been, red state Dems could hold on narrowly, while GOP seats could be lost in Arizona and Nevada, which would flip the chamber.

If Democrats take the House, impeachment will happen, and of course on domestic and fiscal policy things won't be radically different. Trump will make budget-busting deals with Democrats like he did with Republicans. However, if the Senate flips, the judicial nominations will shutdown, and that's a serious problem. (Anthony Kennedy needs to quit ASAP.)

Would probably be better if all the Dem Sen seats were due in the next general. Either way, no way they get to 66 votes in Senate to impeach (but they might have enough to impale). What a mess it would be. Some type of armed resurrection in response would not surprise me. Folks gon be mad.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Would probably be better if all the Dem Sen seats were due in the next general. Either way, no way they get to 66 votes in Senate to impeach (but they might have enough to impale). What a mess it would be. Some type of armed resurrection in response would not surprise me. Folks gon be mad.

To be clear, impeachment would happen. Conviction and removal would not.

 

[Joe Fan]

To be clear, impeachment would happen. Conviction and removal would not.

On the surface at least, it appears they could get the simple maj necessary in the House if they take it and then stick together as a giant unthinking monolith, as they usually do. I have no choice but to concede this could happen. But I am not convinced, like you are, that it will.

What I am convinced of is that impeachment is not the appropriate tool to overturn the results of a national election that you are unhappy with. Future elections are the appropriate tool to deal with those feelings. I am also convinced John Roberts does not want any part of dealing with this.