Republicans did make gains in the North. But Democrats made massive gains in the South. And in Kansas, which should reassure quite a few of you. https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2016
Well is a good thing we democrats have the Senate, House of reps and all those State controlled governments to fall back and feel better about ourselves. Winning!
If the Democratic Presidential candidate had won 1.3% of the vote JUST in battleground/nearing competitive states (which is 561,071 votes), and those people had been straight-ticket voters, Hillary would have been President winning Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Democrats would have picked up MN-2, NE-2, TX-23. Democrats would have held state legislative majorities in (addition to their current majorities in 29/99 chambers): Minnesota Senate Maine Senate Colorado Senate I'm just saying, perhaps you should chill out.
How does the saying go? if my aunt had a penis.... Maybe I am too much of the sky is falling, maybe you are the band in the Titanic playing music (ok huge exaggeration). But hey I remember @dapip telling @appoo to change his diapers and that there was no way Trump was going to win this shit, so excuse if I don't see the electoral map and think that the Democratic message may just not be working to be able to run this country.
I get it. Losing in 2016 sucks. Losing to Trump sucks. I've got nonwhite family members and am legitimately exploring job opportunities in other countries in case the worst-case scenario does come to pass. But Hillary Clinton is the worst candidate the Democrats could have run in an "angry electorate" year, and she still did better than the personification of white rural rage. One of the few states where Clinton outperformed Obama '12 is in Kansas. I'll repeat that: Hillary Clinton did better than Barack Obama in Kansas. Now that it has sunk in, what should we take from this? We should learn that Republicans are great at getting people out to vote for their vague-ass bullshit, but have absolutely no clue how to govern. You think the Democrats can't find two Republican Senators to vote against Paul Ryan's Medicare plan? I can, and their names are Chuck Grassley and Pat Roberts, both of whom live in states with lots of senior citizens. Think Trump's Treasury Secretary is going to go after the Federal Reserve? Think Rudy Giuliani as SecState will do anything about NAFTA? The next two years are going to be a series of bungling while Trump makes out like a bandit with public money. Unless things are corrected, Trump will spend his first few months appointing people to posts and finding the bathroom. Executive orders he signs, laws he passes, will be so shoddily-written that loopholes will emerge immediately. And all the while, the economy of this country will lurch slower towards the 7-8 year cycle of recession. Trump's approval ratings are unlikely to go up - whose mind on him is going to change, again? It's setting the GOP up for a miserable 2020. Fears of the Republican Party holding the levers of power in state legislatures and Congress for another decade may prove unfounded as a result of Trump's pure incompetence in office.
He'll never win primary. He'll never win general. He'll never win re election. At this point if have to see it to believe it. But I sure hope you're right. If it really is as incompetent as you predict, I don't want to wait for 2020. I don't care about the unfavorable map. Last time Democrats had a midterm wave in 2006 it was driven by contempt for the incompetent fool in the White House. Moderates and centrists will be horrified to see so much power consolidated in GOP and Democrat base will be horrified in general. If you can't motivate your base through aspiration, motivate them through panic.
I no longer believe any predictive metric except Halloween mask sales. I suggest Brummie follow the wisdom of my example.
I'd be willing to compromise on Super delegates. How about if they are only for people that Hold elected office? And also they should be locked into the votes of their constituencies. additionally, Dems need to stop the hemorrhage of legislative seats. >900 since 2008?
May as well get rid of them then. I believe the reason they were implemented is to stop a democratic Donald Trump, but I don't even think that would have worked in the GOP side if they had it, may as well let the people decide, if we put up a crazy fvck like Trump in the DNC, then fvck it, he/she may just actually win like Trump did. Also the Democrats have gone away from the winner takes all delegate process in the primary, if you lock the super delegates to the constituencies, then you are going back to the winner takes all for that particular vote, I guess they could be seen as the extra credit that you get for winning a state. Even with those Rules Changes, Clinton would have still won the election, so I do not see why can't that get done. Again my vote would be just to get rid of them.
I know that we don't agree often on a random message board, but in real life, I have no problem helping someone out if they need it. PM me if you want.
I appreciate it, and anyone here with legal expertise will be consulted if and when the time comes, don't you worry.
California moved up their 2019 primary to Super Tuesday. If you recall last time, the primary was in June when the race was effectively settled. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/california-moved-its-primary-up-what-does-that-mean-for-2020/