SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

[Drew S.]

It's time for the Dems to move on from this and focus on the midterms. A lot of knuckle-draggers are going to be energized by this process (for all the wrong reasons of course) and the surge to the polls that at one point was probable to favor the Dems might shrink by November.

Start talking about things that matter to a lot of people - tax cuts that aren't working, trade wars that aren't working, stagnant wages for most of the middle class, failing infrastructure, rising debt at the federal level, rising debt in the populace and a looming recession, etc., etc. Leave RvW, immigration and the environment alone until they take control of Congress and can then hopefully begin fixing all the sh*t that Trump has broken.

Love your second paragraph and agree wholeheartedly.

[mookie1995]

She went from +8 to 0.

The 45 for are much more likely yo vote there bronc

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Susan Collins is the person who spends 20 minutes keeping everyone waiting in the restaurant while she decides what to order and then finally orders the same thing she always gets. pic.twitter.com/Glo9Cjjq0w

— Cornelia (@PaladinCornelia) October 5, 2018

That is the perfect analogy

[5mn_Major]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

The 45 for are much more likely yo vote there bronc

At least they won't get the tailwind of a senate weighting where a voter in Wyoming get 3.6x the representation of someone in California...or conservative gerrymandering at most other levels of government. They will actually have to survive on their own vote to win.

[unofan]

A ‘generic democrat’ would be a huge upgrade from some of the people the Democrats have run in Maine in recent times. If someone from away like Susan Rice runs they will get crushed.

You don't vote or live in Maine anymore, so no one cares what obvious troll says while obviously trolling.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Start talking about things that matter to a lot of people - tax cuts that aren't working, trade wars that aren't working, stagnant wages for most of the middle class, failing infrastructure, rising debt at the federal level, rising debt in the populace and a looming recession, etc., etc. Leave RvW, immigration and the environment alone until they take control of Congress and can then hopefully begin fixing all the sh*t that Trump has broken.

Sure, as voters what we would like is for each candidate to stand up, say what they are for, and then let us choose which one we think is for the most things we agree with. Simple.
But that is very, very rarely what ever happens. And that it's rare is not new, scheming as to how make the other guy look bad predates by millenia the Romans and Greeks and the spawning of the very first ideas about some viable way of ruling other than simply "might makes right".

The odd and rare thing is, that in the wake of the 2016 Dem disaster, just standing up and saying what you're for suddenly IS actually a really viable strategy for once. As evidence I'd cite the rise of Klobuchar's star on the national stage. Someone who is measured, doesn't engage in a lot of wildly partisan rhetoric and generally states what she thinks and what she is for. It seems to be working pretty well.

But there's no way that is going to be the plan from here to the mid-terms for anybody. Rover often appears to me to be in complete sync with the DNC brain trust as far as how they think. And what does Rover say a page or two back? Max outrage. Generating max outrage is the thing that will win in November. And I think that's 100% in sync with the DNC. Despite the fact that it was a loser in 2016, and despite the existence of some on the left lamenting even the halcyon days of GWB, a man considered by them to be at his very best a satanic mashup of Genghis Khan, Hitler, and Lloyd Christmas -- Still the belief clearly remains, if they just stick with it, if they can just turn it up to 11, or even 14, they will win in 2018. Maybe that is right and maybe they will.

Personally (and granted, I'm not all that smart) I think it's kind of dumb. As swing voters rebel from Trump's craziness and go in search of refuge, what do they find? Rather than the calm, soothing voice of sanity the swingers are longing for, it's going to be candidates who are pushed to engage in even more wildly partisan and inflammatory rhetoric designed to whip the base into whirling dervishes of max outrage. It's a bold strategy...

[dxmnkd316]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Why not both? 50-state strategy. This isn’t a one size fits all nation. In some areas, maximum outrage. In others, fundamentals. Tailor the effort to each bloc within a state or even part of a state.

Let each state party be in charge of strategy. The national party should carefully fine tune the decisions and validate them. Stand on a basic plastform for the party; preferred qualifications. No purity tests and think big tent. 30% is always better than 0%.

[mookie1995]

At least they won't get the tailwind of a senate weighting where a voter in Wyoming get 3.6x the representation of someone in California...or conservative gerrymandering at most other levels of government. They will actually have to survive on their own vote to win.

What does this have to do with Maine where her support went from 42 to 45?

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

What does this have to do with Maine where her support went from 42 to 45?

You living under a rock? Hilly got more votes then tD!!

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Why not both? 50-state strategy. This isn’t a one size fits all nation.

Great question, IMO.

[trixR4kids]

Because you spend money to get the best bang for your buck. It's basically the money spent times the difference in the Dem vs Rep for voting in Congress. You also have to weigh the likelihood that dollar will be effective.

$ * (D-R) * Effectiveness = value of that dollar

Effectiveness might be the 100 minus the abs value of the delta in the polls.

You focus your money where you can get the most Congressional vote per dollar. I'm betting it tracks pretty closely with the Trump +/- on 538.

1. Jon Tester - D/2012 - MT - 47.3% delta from expected alignment w/ trump - DSCC spent $4.14 million in that race or 6.7% of their total expenses.
2. Sherrod Brown - D/2012 - OH - 40.2% - $7.0M - 11.3%
3. Claire McCaskill - D/2012 - MO - 37.4% - $3.9M - 6.2%
4. Heidi Heitkamp - D/2012 - ND - 36.3% - $4.5M - 7.2%
5. Doug Jones - D/2018 - AL - 32.2% - ??? - ???
6. Joe Manchin - D/2012 - WV - 32.0% - $0.0M - 0.0% * $0 in 2012 likely because he was polling +30. So that's where the effectiveness factor comes in.
7. Tammy Baldwin - D/2012 - WI - 32.0% - $7.9M - 12.7%
8. Joe Donnelly - D/2012 - IN - 28.5% - $4.2M - 6.8%
9. Al Franken - D/2012 - MN - 25.9% - $0.0M - 0.0% - Likely because he was polling well but public polls had him at +10-15%
10. Jeff Merkley - D/2014 - OR - 24.4% - $0.0M - 0.0% - Won by 20%
11. Robert Casey - D/2012 - PA - 24.2% - $0.2M - 0.3% - Won by 9%
12. Debbie Stabenow - $0 - Won by 20%
13. Gary Peters - D/2014 - MI - 21.4% - $5.0M - 6.8% - won by 13%
14. Tina Smith - D/2018 TBD
15. Amy Klobuchar - $0 - Won by 35%!!
16. Maggie Hassan - D/2016 - NH - 19.4% - $22.2M - 18.7%
17. Cory Booker - $0 - Won by 13%
18. Ron Wyden - $0 - Won by 33%!
...
21. Catherine Masto - D/2016- NV - 15.3% - $15.3M - 12.9%
...
23. Michael Bennett - D/2010 - 14.5% - $8.5M - 16.3%
24. Bill Nelson - D/2012 - FL - 14.1% - $5.0M - 8.0%
...
31. Tim Kaine - D/2012 - VA - 8.6% - $9.0M - 14.5% - ????????? Probably just a raw numbers game here. Protect the seat.
..
33. Chris Murphy - D/2012 - CT - 5.2% - $4.3M - 6.9%


Losses:
78. Mary Landrieu - D/2014 - LA - (-9.2%) - $5.1M - 7.0% - Lost by 11.8% :-\ w t f were they spending money here for?
79. Baron Hill - D/2016 - IN - (-9.6%) - $12.7M - 10.7% - Lost by 9.7% - more wt f? Both of these top ones are so bizarre since the people who were elected there aren't voting out of line with their state.
81. Mark Begich - D/2014 - AK - (-14.2%) - $6.4M - 8.8% - Lost by 2.2%
82. Jason Kander - D/2016 - MO - (-12.7%) - $13.0M - 11.0%
87. Richard Carmona - D/2012 - AZ - (-23.6%) - $4.0M - 6.3% Fixed
88. Bruce Braley - D/2014 - IA - (-19.3%) - $12.4M - 17.1% - Lost by 8.3%, again w t f?
94. Deborah Ross - D/2016 - NC - (-33.1%) - $24.3M - 20.6% - Lost by 5.7%
94. Kay Hagan - D/2014 - NC - (-33.6%) - $15.0M - 20.7% - Lost by 1.5%
97. Katie McGinty - D/2016 - PA - (-35.8%) - $24.8M - 21.0% - Lost by 1.5% - $10.2M in 2010 (Spector) as well. Lost there too.
99. Shelley Berkley - D/2012 - NV - (-43.1%) - $5.4M - 8.7% *Lost by 1.2% - Dean Heller is second most out of favor with the Dems relative to his state. Votes with Trump 92% of the time.
100. Mark Udall - D/2014 - CO - (-46.5%) - $10.1M - 14.0% - Lost by 1.9%. MOST out of favor with dems relative to the state. Gardner votes w/ trump 90.9%.

*There's always math, so shut up.

Yeah this is total expenditures including the general election and neglects to show who their primary opponent is and how much money they (don’t) get from the party. Nobody is arguing that if the party decides to give vastly more money to Manchin than Swearingen, that he probably won’t win, obviously he will because money is probably the biggest predictor of who wins these races. My argument is that in a lot of these primaries (and I believe it was the intercept that showed some of the embarrassing losses they had where they threw money at the centrist who lost and told the more left candidate to exit the race) they don’t necessarily fund the best option and it’s more ideologically driven as that Cornell study showed.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

To quote Q, post 3337502:

Are you ready to see arrests?
Are you ready to see PAIN?
Are you ready to be part of history?
Q

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/3337418.html#3337560

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

You don't vote or live in Maine anymore, so no one cares what obvious troll says while obviously trolling.

Drew hates the outside money for Collins opposition but I think he’s just fine with Russian money going to republicans.
Has anyone reminded him to breathe today?

[trixR4kids]

He's a Democrat in a solid red state. The alternative is Republican who votes for those things.

I'd rather have him than Grassley or Ernst representing me.

That has nothing to do with a primary.

[Drew S.]

You don't vote or live in Maine anymore, so no one cares what obvious troll says while obviously trolling.

Au contraire. Even if I hadn’t moved back it’s where I’m from, where my family is, where I own land, etc. Susan Collins represents Maine, not CA or NY.