Support NeoGAF

[Azuran]

I never see this but have you ever noticed that Republicans have (probably since Reagan) had a monopoly on patriotism and American pride?

This doesn't seem to be part of the strategy of the Democrats. I call myself a liberal (on issues such as abortion and gay marriage for example) but I am a proud American even for all the faults we as a country have of which there is a laundry list.

How can you be patriotic if you don't support nuking North Korea and teachers wielding guns?!

USA USA USA

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Speaking of abhorrent Republicans not paying a price for their evil deeds

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/909573570073735168

 

[Shauni]

Democrats, particularly young democrats, will actually turn out in 2020. That's the difference. If we could get people to vote in 2018, perhaps it could be different and the Republicans actually sitting in districts that Hillary Clinton won might have a chance of losing. But I don't hold much hope in that actually happening. Too many of my generation and younger can't be bothered.

Get the 18-29 and 30-44 groups to turn out in 2018 and surprise me.

When those lines are falling 20% or more in midterms and the top lines are dropping closer to 10%, and with older voters skewing Republican, Democrats are at a decided disadvantage in midterms. Can they overcome that? Sometimes. But if you add that disadvantage to a gerrymandered map, it's not happening in the House. And Democrats will have their hands full defending their own seats in the Senate.

2018 is toast. When young voters vote again, it will be 2020, and vulnerable Republicans can go down.

Older voters skew GOP, but not all votes older than 30 or 40 are GOP voters either. Do you think all of the previous midterm elections Dems made gains in were only decided by younger people in that age group?

But if the House is impossible to flip with a majority this slim, it's impossible to flip, period. Even with more people voting, if you can flip a 24 seat slim majority in the House, it can never flip again. Because any losses in 2020 from the GOP will be negated by gains in 2018 unless you somehow think there will be no gains one way or the other.

 

[dabig2]

I never see this but have you ever noticed that Republicans have (probably since Reagan) had a monopoly on patriotism and American pride?

This doesn't seem to be part of the strategy of the Democrats. I call myself a liberal (on issues such as abortion and gay marriage for example) but I am a proud American even for all the faults we as a country have of which there is a laundry list.

What Republicans have a monopoly on is jingoism and nationalism. There's a fine difference between patriotism/pride in your country and the self-inflated superiority of a bunch of scumfucks who restrict the American dream to everyone but their own.

Like, seriously, the Dems tried the whole American pride and rah rah military thing at their DNC last year. Even the deplorables were caught off-guard at the pomp and circumstance and compared it favorably to the more dour RNC.

Didn't matter for shit.

 

[JettDash]

Gerrymandering can actually work against the Republicans because it created plenty of districts that are winnable in certain circumstance. Like midterms when there is an unpopular Republican President.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Older voters skew GOP, but not all votes older than 30 or 40 are GOP voters either. Do you think all of the previous midterm elections Dems made gains in were only decided by younger people in that age group?

But if the House is impossible to flip with a majority this slim, it's impossible to flip, period. Even with more people voting, if you can flip a 24 seat slim majority in the House, it can never flip again. Because any losses in 2020 from the GOP will be negated by gains in 2018 unless you somehow think there will be no gains one way or the other.

I don't get what you don't understand. Voters will be on average younger and less white in 2020 than they are in 2018. Which is also to say that 2018 voters will be older and more white. This makes it hard for Democrats in 2018, but easier in 2020. Since the House gets refreshed every 2 years, the 2018 results are reversible. The Senate also gets more favorable, since 22 of the 33 seats in 2020 are currently held by Republicans. If Democrats can hold most of their ground in 2018, which will be difficult, they can maybe take the Senate back in 2020.

The main key is that 2020 is the best chance for Democrats to win and if they can also do it at the state level, it sets them up nicely for 10 years (they'll be the ones to redraw districts, at least where they are drawn by partisans). If they can't make inroads in states, they'll likely be stuck in the wilderness with unfavorable district lines for possibly 20 more years.

 

[Shauni]

I don't get what you don't understand. Voters will be on average younger and less white in 2020 than they are in 2018. Which is also to say that 2018 voters will be older and more white. This makes it hard for Democrats in 2018, but easier in 2020. Since the House gets refreshed every 2 years, the 2018 results are reversible. The Senate also gets more favorable, since 22 of the 33 seats in 2020 are currently held by Republicans. If Democrats can hold most of their ground in 2018, which will be difficult, they can maybe take the Senate back in 2020.

The main key is that 2020 is the best chance for Democrats to win and if they can also do it at the state level, it sets them up nicely for 10 years (they'll be the ones to redraw districts, at least where they are drawn by partisans). If they can't make inroads in states, they'll likely be stuck in the wilderness with unfavorable district lines for possibly 20 more years.

I understand fine, but I'm not sure if you really follow your own logic. You're basically predicting it's impossible to flip the House bin 2018. Unless you're advocating that lack of Democrat voters will not result in House GOP gains (meaning no change to the current slim majority), then the GOP will make gains next year. It's almost impossible for them not to unless you think the amount of Democrat voters will only be enough to even out the field. Therefore, in 2020, it again makes it impossible to make real gains unless there is just a massive influx of voters well beyond expectations. So you outline a situation that is impossible for a majority to ever be won, at least in the House, for Democrats barring a massive turnout well beyond what we expect from Presidential elections, and basically outline impossiblity for midterms to ever be won by Democrats ever again because only young voters vote Democrat and will never vote in midterms in any length with the assumption, I guess, that no one older than those age groups posted will vote Democrat again

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Read this as the rapper "Cassidy" is close to 50 votes on Obamacare repeal

Lol damn, same.

I was like, "when did Cassidy get a congressional seat???"

 

[Randolph Freelander]

I understand fine, but I'm not sure if you really follow your own logic. You're basically predicting it's impossible to flip the House bin 2018. Unless you're advocating that lack of Democrat voters will not result in House GOP gains (meaning no change to the current slim majority), then the GOP will make gains next year. It's almost impossible for them not to unless you think the amount of Democrat voters will only be enough to even out the field. Therefore, in 2020, it again makes it impossible to make real gains unless there is just a massive influx of voters well beyond expectations. So you outline a situation that is impossible for a majority to ever be won, at least in the House, for Democrats barring a massive turnout well beyond what we expect from Presidential elections, and basically outline impossiblity for midterms to ever be won by Democrats ever again

2018 does not make 2020 impossible. (I didn't even say 2018 was impossible, just unlikely.)

You move the electorate just a couple of points, you can have an entirely different outcome. The 2018 electorate will simply be more favorable to Republicans than 2020, which necessarily means 2018 will be less favorable to Democrats. 2020's younger and less white voter base can absolutely negate 2018 if it goes as badly for Democrats as I expect it to (badly == they do not retake either chamber of Congress). And it's very important that 2020 goes well, since that determines the maps until 2030, which is a midterm year, which means 2020 might very well determine the maps through 2040 if the Ds lose.

2018 would be nice to win, but I do not expect it. Nothing these Republicans have done since 2010 has cost them anything -- not the debt ceiling fights, not the drop in the US credit rating, not shutting down the government, not supporting Donald Trump -- and I just don't expect whatever they do with ACA to hurt them, either. As unpopular as the ACA repeal plans have been with Republican voters, I can point to one other thing as even less popular, and that's a Democrat. R voters have been voting against their own self interests for decades, a repeal of ACA is just one to add to the list of things they'll ignore.

To change the outcome, you have to change the composition of the electorate. That's 2020.

 

[thepotatoman]

2018 does not make 2020 impossible. (I didn't even say 2018 was impossible, just unlikely.)

You move the electorate just a couple of points, you can have an entirely different outcome. The 2018 electorate will simply be more favorable to Republicans than 2020, which necessarily means 2018 will be less favorable to Democrats. 2020's younger and less white voter base can absolutely negate 2018 if it goes as badly for Democrats as I expect it to (badly == they do not retake either chamber of Congress). And it's very important that 2020 goes well, since that determines the maps until 2030, which is a midterm year, which means 2020 might very well determine the maps through 2040 if the Ds lose.

2018 would be nice to win, but I do not expect it. Nothing these Republicans have done since 2010 has cost them anything -- not the debt ceiling fights, not the drop in the US credit rating, not shutting down the government, not supporting Donald Trump -- and I just don't expect whatever they do with ACA to hurt them, either. As unpopular as the ACA repeal plans have been with Republican voters, I can point to one other thing as even less popular, and that's a Democrat. R voters have been voting against their own self interests for decades, a repeal of ACA is just one to add to the list of things they'll ignore.

To change the outcome, you have to change the composition of the electorate. That's 2020.

You're leaving out the traditional seesaw effect of american politics, that is probably even stronger than those demographic changes. 2018 should still be stronger for democrats than 2020 despite young people's voting patterns, at least in the number of votes.

Gerrymandering and the senate class up for election is another complication that makes it hard to say that doing badly is not winning either chamber of congress.

 

[Arkage]

Speaking of abhorrent Republicans not paying a price for their evil deeds

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/909573570073735168

"paying a price for their evil deeds"

What in the world does this even mean.

On topic: why can't this bill just die already. Fix the problems of Obamacare and move on. Republicans are trying to damage control in ways that are literally causing them more damage.

 

[Shauni]

2018 does not make 2020 impossible. (I didn't even say 2018 was impossible, just unlikely.)

You move the electorate just a couple of points, you can have an entirely different outcome. The 2018 electorate will simply be more favorable to Republicans than 2020, which necessarily means 2018 will be less favorable to Democrats. 2020's younger and less white voter base can absolutely negate 2018 if it goes as badly for Democrats as I expect it to (badly == they do not retake either chamber of Congress). And it's very important that 2020 goes well, since that determines the maps until 2030, which is a midterm year, which means 2020 might very well determine the maps through 2040 if the Ds lose.

2018 would be nice to win, but I do not expect it. Nothing these Republicans have done since 2010 has cost them anything -- not the debt ceiling fights, not the drop in the US credit rating, not shutting down the government, not supporting Donald Trump -- and I just don't expect whatever they do with ACA to hurt them, either. As unpopular as the ACA repeal plans have been with Republican voters, I can point to one other thing as even less popular, and that's a Democrat. R voters have been voting against their own self interests for decades, a repeal of ACA is just one to add to the list of things they'll ignore.

To change the outcome, you have to change the composition of the electorate. That's 2020.

Is that what you were just saying? This seems like quite a far cry from your initial post of basically hopelessness about next year midterms, but okay.

 

[hodayathink]

I think the idea that Republicans en masse can't be convinced to vote Dem is BS in the first place (yes, there's a base, but that base does not consist of everyone that voted Republican in 2016 or 2014 or 2010, swing voters do still exist). But even given that, by doing enough shitty things while in office, they can suppress voter enthusiasm to the point where people decide to just not vote at all. Passing shitty legislation will have an effect in 2018.

And that's not to mention that one of the knock on effects of gerrymandering can mean that you're susceptible to losing a lot of seats in a wave election (basically, if you gerrymander and turn a R+6 district and a D+2 into an R+3 and an R+1, then you lose both in an 8 point swing, whereas before you wouldn't have lost your original seat).

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Is that what you were just saying? This seems like quite a far cry from your initial post of basically hopelessness about next year midterms, but okay.

Oh, it's almost completely hopeless. Just not impossible. Nothing's impossible in politics.

Republicans hold a 47 seat majority. Democrats need 24 seats to regain majority (by 1). The 24th closest Republican victory in 2016 was a +12.8% advantage over the Democratic challenger. Hillary Clinton happened to get more votes than Donald Trump in 11 of those 24 districts, so hope is not completely lost, and yet, the Republican congressional candidates essentially mopped the floor regardless. Only 15 of those races were within 10 percentage points, and only 7 were within 6.

It's going to be hard enough overcoming that when turnout is in your favor, which is not likely to be the case in 2018 since young people just don't care and are fine with whatever policies get enacted as a result of their total apathy.

I would love to be proven wrong, because I'm not exactly looking forward to the crap the Republicans will pass if they can ever successfully govern.

"paying a price for their evil deeds"

What in the world does this even mean.

Paying a price would mean that he would not be quickly ushered back into polite society after selling his soul for Donald Trump and lying through his teeth repeatedly. But no, he still gets welcomed on media tours, at Harvard, and now at the Emmy's. Just another example of Republicans not paying a price. Granted, this is a small example, but it's one nonetheless.

Edit: Even more. https://twitter.com/chrissgardner/status/909598875928772608

 

[RustyNails]

Turd is back on the menu, boys.

Looks like McCain and Rand are the only true swing votes this time.

McCain punted over to AZ governor, who endorsed the bill. McCain will probably live up to his "hypocrite" label, doing away any goodwill he had for shooting Skinny Repeal down.

Rand seemed to hate Skinny Repeal as well, but ended up voting for it.

No good options this time. Maybe Capito?

Edit: Also call your GOP senators and flood their fax machines. It works.

 

[The Albatross]

Well ... they were close to 50 votes last time as well, but it turns out that 49 votes won't really cut it.

 

[Chezzymann]

Well ... they were close to 50 votes last time as well, but it turns out that 49 votes won't really cut it.

We gotta stop acting like this and getting complacent. Every time there's a vote on this there's gotta be huge public pressure as that increases the odds someone will filp

 

[SliceSabre]

I just want them to pass it and ruin our medical system so we can fucking get it over with. If they don't pass it now they'll simply pass it in a year in a half because for sure they're going to pick up a couple Democrat senator seats and have plenty of votes to do so then.


Not that I think any of this is a good idea I just want this shit over with.

 

[RustyNails]

I just want them to pass it and ruin our medical system so we can fucking get it over with. If they don't pass it now they'll simply pass it in a year in a half because for sure they're going to pick up a couple Democrat senator seats and have plenty of votes to do so then.


Not that I think any of this is a good idea I just want this shit over with.

Well, Republicans have thought of people like you, so legislations like these probably wont take full effect until 2021, so they can continue to blame Obamacare for the next 3 years.

 

[Blader]

Democrats, particularly young democrats, will actually turn out in 2020. That's the difference.

If Democrats can not turn out to vote next year -- in a public referendum on the most unpopular president in decades, whom nearly an entirety of Democrats despise, in an election that was always going to be painful for the party that controls the White House regardless of who the president is -- then they will never turn out. The conditions could not be more favorable.

If we could get people to vote in 2018, perhaps it could be different and the Republicans actually sitting in districts that Hillary Clinton won might have a chance of losing.

I think too many people put too much stock into those districts. Those are Republicans who were elected by voters that held their nose to vote for Hillary or Johnson or nobody, because they hate Trump, but still reliably voted down the ticket for their usual Republican choices. It's not like these are hotbeds of liberal voters who, for seemingly no reason at all, decided to split their tickets between Hillary Clinton and the generic Republican on the ballot.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Edit: Also call your GOP senators and flood their fax machines. It works.

Does it though? Does it really?

 

[RustyNails]

Does it though? Does it really?

Read from various people that yes, it does.

 

[BertramCooper]

I never see this but have you ever noticed that Republicans have (probably since Reagan) had a monopoly on patriotism and American pride?

This doesn't seem to be part of the strategy of the Democrats. I call myself a liberal (on issues such as abortion and gay marriage for example) but I am a proud American even for all the faults we as a country have of which there is a laundry list.

As a Democrat, I have enough pride in America to believe that our nation can collectively come together to solve societal problems, like helping guarantee access to affordable health care to the millions who currently lack it.

Republican "pride" in our nation is entirely centered on military dick-waving. They're so proud of our country that they believe that we as a people are incapable of fixing anything through our government - the collective, democratic representation of American society.

Republicans aren't proud of our nation. If they were, they'd believe that government can be a force for good. They're just selfish, cynical assholes who jerk off to the military.

 

[The Albatross]

We gotta stop acting like this and getting complacent. Every time there's a vote on this there's gotta be huge public pressure as that increases the odds someone will filp

I'm not acting like anything. Republicans were close to 50 votes in July. They had 49 votes for repeal, and 51 votes against.

No acting required, this factually happened.

 

[Blader]

Does it though? Does it really?

Yes.