2018 Midterm Election Thread

3 Highest Ranking Dems vs 3 Highest Ranking GOPers

Pelosi - 76
Hoyer - 77
Clyburn - 76

Ryan - 46
McCarthy - 51
Scalise - 51

This is a problem.

 

We have a bunch of geriatrics too far removed from where thy started running the party.

Same age as my parents so before anyone calls me an ageist.....

 

Yesh, that is not very good for the party of the young.

BUT

Bernie Sanders was not exactly a young person, and the young fell in love with him.

 

He had the virtue of never having been in a leadership position.

 

So, the Schwarzenegger for Senate rumors ...

A few things to remember here.

First, the idea that California is an impenetrably blue state is a more recent development than many recognize. The GOP held the governorship here from 1983 to 1999. Then Gray Davis managed to win. This wasn't some blue wave. And it wasn't Pete Wilson and Prop 187. It was straight up shifting demographics. But the emphasis here is shifting - not shifted. During the transition from one dominant governing coalition to the next, a lot of weird things happened. The weirdest was that Davis was recalled and Schwarzenegger won. What's weird wasn't that a GOPer won the governorship. They had held that office less than 4 years earlier. What's weird is just how chaotic and unsettled things were during those years. Strange things could happen because no dominant governing coalition had been established.

Second, but the political winds were pretty clear. California was becoming a dominantly blue state. Even Schwarzenegger had to accede to that after a nearly disastrous first term. He moderated himself. The Democrats ran an exceedingly weak opponent against him (Phil Angelides), and he won reelection. His second term was somewhat better, but he did not end his term a popular governor, and the GOP in California emerged from those years weaker than ever.

Third, then California elected Jerry Brown (for a second round) and steadily increased the Dem numbers in the state assembly and senate until today when they hold supermajorities. They also hold every single statewide office now. The transition that gave Schwarzenegger his window of opportunity closed. California turned solidly blue.

Fourth, there's a deep bench of charismatic, well-known up and coming Dem politicians in California today. And they're lining up to run for Feinstein's seat should she retire. And those Dems are right in line with the views that win statewide office here today. Schwarzenegger is decidedly not.

Could Schwarzenegger get elected to the senate out of California? Not with a GOP label next to his name. Could he get elected as an independent? Against a weak opponent, possibly, but only if voters in California believed he would caucus with the Dems once in office. But against a strong opponent? I think it's extremely doubtful that he could win. He's not politically popular enough, and - again - the window for his style of politics has closed in California.

So I just don't see this happening.

 

Some people seem to think that Sanders is the central figure here. He's not.

 

I'm still waiting for you to give me a specific tax loophole you would close. You're against quite a bit, and don't like definitions, but the Republicans are showing off how hard it is to actually have workable ideas. You want to be taken seriously? Stop casting aside any means of classification. Identify a leader or guiding philosophy. And hit the books.

 

Oh look, someone got an edjamication and they're the expert. [emoji23]

I don't owe you $hit

 

Yes. I am weeks away from defending my dissertation to receive my PhD in political science. I am an expert here. And I'm telling you that party politics and responsible governance revolves around more than opposition to the status quo. The Republican Party is figuring that out the hard way. They have no plans to govern except for tax cuts. They have no shared ideology aside from hatred toward Barack Obama. And as a result they will not govern. Sure, they have the reins of power, but they do not govern. Nor will you, if this empty shell is what you think politics looks like.

Actually, you do. I'm one of the many millions of individuals who vote for Democrats who you're going to have to convince. I'm broadly indicative of many who need to know what policies we're getting. So yeah, you do owe me an explanation. Your repeated inability to do so really tells me a lot. Like you don't know what you want. Like you don't understand how party primaries work. And so on and so forth.

 

I'm prepared for 8 years of Drumpf if it means the collapse of the Democratic Party or the two party system.

So many are pissed at both parties, until people stop with the "more of the same" they will continue to lose. It's what made Trump "acceptable" for undecideds and independents. I would rather not see Trump for a second term, but If I see Gillebrand or Kaine, I'll watch that dumpster fire [emoji91] for another 4.

 

1.) What does "more of the same" mean?

2.) What would you propose that would look different?


You can't answer these two questions. You don't even understand the questions. That's why your philosophy will never govern.

 

I choose not to engage these questions with you because of your combative approach. Besides you have all the answers. Why ask? Clearly you know what I think.

Funny thing is I probably have more experience writing documents that have impacted national defense policy than you, and I didn't have to get a PHD.

 

I honestly do not. That's why I keep asking. I genuinely want to know what you want. Which tax loopholes will be closed? How will free college tuition work? What types of candidates would the Bernie people run in Texas or South Carolina for governor or Senate?

These are honest questions. Please answer some.

 

Replace all Federal college loan programs with vouchers that send students to In-state schools, set up a cap to something like 10K per semester.

Give it a 5 year trail and see how it works.

 

That might work.

Might.

I can't imagine schools will like the 10k cap.

 

So, those Schwarzenegger rumors went poof ...

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/schwarzenegger-california-senate-rumors-235972

Told you.

- edit -

One irony of the GOP holding up Schwarzenegger as their hope for California: the kind of redistricting reform that he advocates today, which is the kind of redistricting reform that we implemented in California, is one factor in the GOP's decimation in this state. Honest redistricting actually favored the Dems.

 

There would be 3 if not 4

Uber liberals
Libertarians
Trumpsters
Hardcore conservatives

 

But isn't it already with the same entities influencing both parties?

I'm not sure that the Dems can get away from the current course they are on. The fractures are pretty deep. Between BNC, justice Dems and We will replace you....E-Dems could be busy in the coming midterms. BNC is even vetting folks to run on the red side of the isle.

 

If anyone gets primaried, I hope it's this one. She's a blue dog like Bennet, who I WILL vote against, even it means I have to #DEMENTER. Good thing Hick is out of politics in the near term. He undermined his own party's ColoradoCare plan...

 

Well she was right, they were not winnable.

But still the far left should put up a candidate and try to primary her.

 

In North Dakota? What are you all smoking?