2022 House and Senate election

mchammer said:
Click to expand...


Masters humiliated Space Kelly in the AZ debate last night - the best line was him calling Kelly CA's third senator. I'm starting to think Masters wins that one - the overall national crashing of the Democrat party, this debate, and the fact that Lake will destroy the putrid Hobbs in the governors race, probably pulls him across the line.
 
Watched the first few minutes of the debate, and it's clear that Kelly is trying to run away from Biden. The problem is that he has never really thwarted or toned down Biden's agenda in a meaningful or high-profile way. I think it is easier to tie him to Biden than it will be to tie Sinema to him when she's up for reelection. If we had a better candidate, he'd be in real trouble. He might lose anyway, but he'd be toast if we had a better candidate.
 
You go into election with the candidates you have. It'd be nice to have someone with the views of Cruz but doesn't look like you're ex-spouse's divorce lawyer, who can self-finance the election, has won multiple elections at a statewide level, has an engineering degree, and who as the joke from the 1800's went: "was born in a log cabin they built with their own bare hands".

Till then, you rally around who's running and save criticism for when and if they lose the election.
 
So would I. I donated some money in his primary, and I think his more populist message is the future of the Republican party, as the richy rich types and big business move to the Democrat party.
 
Duck Dodgers said:
So would I. I donated some money in his primary, and I think his more populist message is the future of the Republican party, as the richy rich types and big business move to the Democrat party.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't have donated to him in the primary. I'd rather not needlessly make it harder to win in November.
 
Monahorns said:
Let's hope.
Click to expand...

Lake wasn't my choice in the primary, and I didn't think she could win. I've had to change my mind on that. Unless things change a lot, I think she will win. She is leading in most polls now, even ones that aren't GOP-oriented. I looked at the polling history, and Hobbs was ahead early on, and Lake overtook her in mid-September.

Three big things happened then. First, inflation and gas prices started going back up. They never really came down, but there was a brief period of numbers that looked less discouraging. Second, the border ****-show reemerged as a major story. Third, people would have started to expect their candidates to debate.

So why not debate? It obviously isn't the principled stance Hobbs claims, and she sounds dishonest saying it is. For all her liabilities, Lake is excellent on TV, and she knows how to kick the living hell out of people who attack her or at least very solidly defend herself. Hobbs isn't terrible, but she's mediocre and would look bad next to Lake. Lake isn't necessarily hot, but she is definitely on the attractive side. Hobbs? Not ugly but an average looking nerdy woman in her early 50s, which means she'd look bad next to Lake. I understand all this, so I can see the case for not debating. Hobbs would almost surely lose any debate.

However, what are the ratings of independent or undecided voters for a gubernatorial debate in a midterm election? I doubt they're very high. If Hobbs lost the debate, it would make little difference. Lake supporters would high-five each other, but the story would die down quickly. (I think Abbott lost the debate with Beta, but who actually thinks it's going to cost him the election or even make a meaningful dent? Nobody.) However, refusing to debate attracts a ton of attention. It becomes the issue and a national story. Furthermore, it festers, because there's no resolution to it. Hobbs will be asked about it nonstop, and people will be talking about it on Election Day. It's a much bigger liability than if she simply lost the debate.
 
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-New Hampshire) is about to make the same mistake. Link. I don't know who's advising these people, but they're crazy.
 
They aren't necessarily crazy. I think they know their policy positions are a major liability, and are doing all they can to keep the elections as much like a Junior High student council popularity contest as possible. They know it is their best shot.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Lake wasn't my choice in the primary, and I didn't think she could win. I've had to change my mind on that. Unless things change a lot, I think she will win. She is leading in most polls now, even ones that aren't GOP-oriented. I looked at the polling history, and Hobbs was ahead early on, and Lake overtook her in mid-September.

Three big things happened then. First, inflation and gas prices started going back up. They never really came down, but there was a brief period of numbers that looked less discouraging. Second, the border ****-show reemerged as a major story. Third, people would have started to expect their candidates to debate.

So why not debate? It obviously isn't the principled stance Hobbs claims, and she sounds dishonest saying it is. For all her liabilities, Lake is excellent on TV, and she knows how to kick the living hell out of people who attack her or at least very solidly defend herself. Hobbs isn't terrible, but she's mediocre and would look bad next to Lake. Lake isn't necessarily hot, but she is definitely on the attractive side. Hobbs? Not ugly but an average looking nerdy woman in her early 50s, which means she'd look bad next to Lake. I understand all this, so I can see the case for not debating. Hobbs would almost surely lose any debate.

However, what are the ratings of independent or undecided voters for a gubernatorial debate in a midterm election? I doubt they're very high. If Hobbs lost the debate, it would make little difference. Lake supporters would high-five each other, but the story would die down quickly. (I think Abbott lost the debate with Beta, but who actually thinks it's going to cost him the election or even make a meaningful dent? Nobody.) However, refusing to debate attracts a ton of attention. It becomes the issue and a national story. Furthermore, it festers, because there's no resolution to it. Hobbs will be asked about it nonstop, and people will be talking about it on Election Day. It's a much bigger liability than if she simply lost the debate.
Click to expand...
More stupidity please:
 
mchammer said:
More stupidity please:
Click to expand...


It could be such an easy issue for them. Bill Clinton wrote the book on it. Support some abortion restriction that you know the other side would never accept but that would make you look like less than an abortion-loving radical. And they can't do that.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
They aren't necessarily crazy. I think they know their policy positions are a major liability, and are doing all they can to keep the elections as much like a Junior High student council popularity contest as possible. They know it is their best shot.
Click to expand...

If these debates had huge ratings, then I'd agree 100 percent, but they don't. And they can usually ******** their way out of their radicalism most of the time with help from compliant "moderators." However, you can't be ******** your way out of, "I won't even show up." That pretty much always looks bad.
 
Mr. Deez said:
If these debates had huge ratings, then I'd agree 100 percent, but they don't. And they can usually ******** their way out of their radicalism most of the time with help from compliant "moderators." However, you can't be ******** your way out of, "I won't even show up." That pretty much always looks bad.
Click to expand...
I’m not ruling out 56-44 GOP senate given the recent trends turning negative again for dems.
 
mchammer said:
Click to expand...


Wisconsin Democrats are idiots. They think they live in Massachusetts or Vermont and that it's impossible to go to far. Their state is more liberal than Ohio, but it's much closer to Ohio than to hardcore liberal northeastern states. They should have gotten a Tim Ryan type like Ron Kind - somebody who was pro-labor but socially moderate and not a lunatic on crime. A candidate like that would make this a much tougher race for Johnson.
 
mchammer said:
Click to expand...


I saw that **** on fox yesterday, live. She SOUNDS convincing, problem is she's lying thru her teeth once you hear all the audio clips of her saying she didn't lose the election. Now she's twisting it to the tune of "I won because I got people out to vote"

Yeah. They voted against you. Beto Peach
 
I’m no fan of Oz, but how Fetterman is leading in PA is baffling. Even when healthy, he is an idiot. After the stroke, he cannot even pronounce Biden. I think the polls are way off.
 
theiioftx said:
I’m no fan of Oz, but how Fetterman is leading in PA is baffling. Even when healthy, he is an idiot. After the stroke, he cannot even pronounce Biden. I think the polls are way off.
Click to expand...

It's a race to the bottom. Nobody particularly likes Oz. Being a wealthy celebrity and a flagrant carpetbagger is pretty unrelatable and difficult to overcome. It also doesn't help that though PA is purple, it is bluish-purple (unlike Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, and Georgia). That's why Democrats almost always carry Pennsylvania. The GOP tends to win at the congressional level, but they have a pretty rough gerrymander going in their favor. They've also had quite a few moderate Republicans, which suggests significant numbers of ticket-splitters.

Having said that, is Fetterman really leading? Real Clear Politics suggests that in recent elections, polls have overstated Democratic support in PA by about 6 points. Link. If that holds up, Fetterman will lose, because the polling average puts him up by only 3.4. FWIW, RCP projects that Oz will win. He's clobbering Fetterman on crime (where he's atrocious). If he keeps that up, he might eek out a victory.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It's a race to the bottom. Nobody particularly likes Oz. Being a wealthy celebrity and a flagrant carpetbagger is pretty unrelatable and difficult to overcome. It also doesn't help that though PA is purple, it is bluish-purple (unlike Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, and Georgia). That's why Democrats almost always carry Pennsylvania. The GOP tends to win at the congressional level, but they have a pretty rough gerrymander going in their favor. They've also had quite a few moderate Republicans, which suggests significant numbers of ticket-splitters.

Having said that, is Fetterman really leading? Real Clear Politics suggests that in recent elections, polls have overstated Democratic support in PA by about 6 points. Link. If that holds up, Fetterman will lose, because the polling average puts him up by only 3.4. FWIW, RCP projects that Oz will win. He's clobbering Fetterman on crime (where he's atrocious). If he keeps that up, he might eek out a victory.
Click to expand...
Also if Fetterman cancels the debate, he is toast. If he does the debate, it may not be pretty. Not looking good in any circumstance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

Back
Top