PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher

Status
Not open for further replies.
This year, 1.

Next year, New Mexico, Nevada, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Illinois, Colorado (I believe)

The breaking a bunch of R trifectas. There are some reach state houses like FL Senate, AZ Senate, MN Houss (I believe?), and then something in Michigan I believe they may go for. Not sure though.
Minnesota House would require flipping 11 (out of 134) seats, which seems doable if the numbers from specials this year are holding up.
 
This year, 1.

Next year, New Mexico, Nevada, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Illinois, Colorado (I believe)

The breaking a bunch of R trifectas. There are some reach state houses like FL Senate, AZ Senate, MN Houss (I believe?), and then something in Michigan I believe they may go for. Not sure though.
There's actually two this year - winning New Jersey governor would flip that state to a trifecta, but there's also a heavily D, R-held State Senate special election in Washington state which would flip the chamber. Democrats have a nominal majority, but one turncoat Democrat (Tim Sheldon) is caucusing with the Republicans.

MN House is always in play, MI House is being targeted but it's gerrymandered as fuck. Not as far out of reach as the State Senate though, I believe.

Colorado and Maine are both one seat away from their State Senates flipping, and Maine needs the governorship. New Hampshire would require a total flip but is also an extremely volatile state, so that's not off the table. The other states you mentioned all just need the governor's race to flip our way, in addition to Maryland.

Minnesota House would require flipping 11 (out of 134) seats, which seems doable if the numbers from specials this year are holding up.
Totally in play. We won the House majority in 2012.

The State Senate is aggravatingly 34-33 R/D. Had Terri Bonoff not left her seat open to run for Congress we probably would have held it and thus the majority, but that's hindsight for you. It's not up again until 2020.
 
Winnable (I'm not saying Dems have over a 50% chance of winning, I'm just saying these are theoretically winnable):

VA Gov (2017)
NJ Gov (2017)
WA Senate (2017)

ME Gov (2018)
NH Gov (2018)
MI Gov (2018)
OH Gov (2018)
FL Gov (2018)
GA Gov (2018)
KS Gov (2018)
NM Gov (2018)
NV Gov (2018)
VT Gov (2018)
IL Gov (2018)
IA Gov (2018)
MA Gov (2018)
WI Gov (2018)
MD Gov (2018)

CO Senate (2018)
ME Senate (2018)
FL Senate (2018)
AZ Senate (2018)
NH Senate (2018)
IA Senate (2018)
WI Senate (2018)

MN House (2018)
AZ House (2018)
MI House (2018)
NH House (2018)

VA Senate (2019)

Again, these are just vague targets, not that Democrats have over a 50% chance of winning any of these seats/houses. Don't reply with "lol Dems will never will KS Gov you idiot"

Minnesota House would require flipping 11 (out of 134) seats, which seems doable if the numbers from specials this year are holding up.
Yeah unfortunately the MN Senate isn't up until 2020.
 
Yeah, a lot of these require waves.
8-point generic ballot win in Michigan in 2012 put them five seats away from a majority - maybe a double-digit win could do the job.

Candidate recruitment is going to be a huge factor, Democrats have whiffed on several winnable races because they can't find anyone to run. Hopefully what we saw with the Virginia House of Delegates this year (at least one Dem candidate in 88 out of 100 districts, versus just 56/100 in 2015) translates to other states next year.

To put those Virginia numbers in context: 54 of the 66 Republicans are facing challengers in the general election. Just 6 of the 34 Democrats are facing a Republican.
 
I'll also bring up for the millionth time that Dems are at risk of losing one of the only trifectas we have in 2018

Think all the others will be a hold but I'm not confident in that being maintained
 
This would be worthy of a thread, except it's almost-bait, and would descend into hell within the first 6 replies.

In one corner of the Internet, the 2016 Democratic primary never ended

On Friday afternoon, a judge in South Florida dismissed a lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee, brought by people who accused it of committing fraud during the 2016 primary to the detriment of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt). Neither the DNC nor ousted chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) responded to the dismissal when asked to comment.

Within hours, the attorneys who bought the suit, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, were providing updates on the case to the blogger and fantasy author H.A. Goodman. Calling out the people and outlets who they believe had covered them unfairly, the Becks described a legal system so corrupt that there could be no fair accounting for what the DNC did. It would be up to alternative media to get the truth out.
That's eerily close to the whole Fox News/Breitbart "pushing a narrative because the MSM" are so corrupt" thing.

In the months between the April hearing and the August dismissal, the #DNCFraudsuit Web speculated about the deaths of the process server who had handed papers to the DNC, of attorney Beranton Whisenant, of a Haitian official who was set to testify in a corruption case, and of the former DNC IT staffer Seth Rich.

”The DNC fraud lawsuit continues to be ignored by the mainstream media; meanwhile, the Clinton body count continues to grow," said Infowars' Owen Shroyer last month, before asking Elizabeth Beck whether the deaths were related to the fraud case.

The Infowars interview was one of several intersections between the DNC case obsessives and right-wing media.
It's interesting, especially as it's the WaPo covering something from the "dark corners of the internet", so to speak, and is therefore akin to when the mainstream media starting paying attention to GG - shining a light on the irrational, and all that.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
How many states allow the legislature to redraw maps without the governor's approval?

We don't have to flip every branch of state government. We absolutely have to get governorship and at least peel off enough Republican seats in the legislatures, even if Republicans still ultimately control them, as long as we deprive their ability to have veto-proof majorities.
 
How many states allow the legislature to redraw maps without the governor's approval?

We don't have to flip every branch of state government. We absolutely have to get governorship and at least peel off enough Republican seats in the legislatures, even if Republicans still ultimately control them, as long as we deprive their ability to have veto-proof majorities.
This page is somewhat useful but then you get into nuances like in Indiana where, yeah, the governor can technically veto the maps, but what's the point when the legislature can override with a simple majority?
 
How many states allow the legislature to redraw maps without the governor's approval?

We don't have to flip every branch of state government. We absolutely have to get governorship and at least peel off enough Republican seats in the legislatures, even if Republicans still ultimately control them, as long as we deprive their ability to have veto-proof majorities.
https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedures

This is some good information on that process. I would assume it depends on if the veto by the Governor can be overturned with a simple or 2/3rd majority. According to Box Kittens in Indiana it's just a simple majority. Approval is really just the matter of signing it or vetoing it.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
This page is somewhat useful but then you get into nuances like in Indiana where, yeah, the governor can technically veto the maps, but what's the point when the legislature can override with a simple majority?
https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedures

This is some good information on that process. I would assume it depends on if the veto by the Governor can be overturned with a simple or 2/3rd majority. According to Box Kittens in Indiana it's just a simple majority. Approval is really just the matter of signing it or vetoing it.
Thanks, that's helpful.
 
How many states allow the legislature to redraw maps without the governor's approval?

We don't have to flip every branch of state government. We absolutely have to get governorship and at least peel off enough Republican seats in the legislatures, even if Republicans still ultimately control them, as long as we deprive their ability to have veto-proof majorities.
No veto power over maps in Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi or North Carolina.

Arizona, Indiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia allow legislators to override a veto with simple majority votes. Alabama and Kentucky also allow this, but only in a special session called on by the governor, making their veto power absolute. In regards to redistricting though, Arizona has a nonpartisan commission that draws the maps (hence you have a Congressional map that tends to split 5-4 either way rather than being heavily gerrymandered for the GOP).

Also, Connecticut and Maine require a 2/3rds majority on maps passed out of the legislature, making it pretty difficult to gerrymander either state.
 
Unfortunately I don't know of a good page with a summary of gubernatorial veto powers, perhaps in part because it can get really complicated with line item vetoes and such. Wisconsin, for example, gives the governor ridiculous veto powers, though they have been somewhat curtailed over time to eliminate tricks known by names like the Vanna White Veto and the Frankenstein Veto.

This page does briefly summarize veto powers in the Midwest at least, but if anyone has a link to a source which gives a decent summary for every state, I would love to see it.
 
If we win all the trifectas that whyamihere listed off, the only Clinton states that wouldn't have D trifectas would be Virginia and Minnesota, both one seat shy in the State Senate.

A problem which could be easily remedied come 2019 and 2020, respectively!
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I didn't mind my older tag: "Runs better on PC than 360" (R.I.P. Hitokage)

Of course, this gave the impression that I liked that game, when I never played it. The word "Oblivion" existed before Bethesda used it, people!
 
Just looking at the Gallup Daily Tracker...

Trump's approval rating has almost literally been unchanged for the last 7 days. That's pretty unusual for the daily tracker. Definitely feels like we've hit a new threshold. I think the new variance will be between 32-37% where had been 35-39%.

It wasn't obvious immediately, but Charlottesville has definitely taken its toll on Trump, particularly among moderate-leaning Republicans.
 
Just looking at the Gallup Daily Tracker...

Trump's approval rating has almost literally been unchanged for the last 7 days. That's pretty unusual for the daily tracker. Definitely feels like we've hit a new threshold. I think the new variance will be between 32-37% where had been 35-39%.

It wasn't obvious immediately, but Charlottesville has definitely taken its toll on Trump, particularly among moderate-leaning Republicans.
They enjoyed being able to play the denial card that he was a white supremacist.
Now they can't. Boo-urns.
 
How bad is the actual property damage likely to be from Harvey? It doesn't look...structural? I don't know a ton about how flood recovery looks
This progressively seems likely to be worse than Katrina in terms of property damage, and perhaps just as many (or more) displaced persons. One ballpark estimate I saw was 300,000 homes in the broader Houston area impacted in some way from the water, but that's a number difficult to believe. That'd be about a million displaced persons. In terms of "people who have had to deal with the impacts in some way," six million people live in areas that have received at least 30" of rain in the pat 5 days.

Total death toll could be.... bad. Basically, anything under Katrina totals (1200 in NOLA) can be credited to the massive crowdsourcing water rescue effort that social media helped organize and execute, which is not a thing we had 12 years ago.
 
This would be worthy of a thread, except it's almost-bait, and would descend into hell within the first 6 replies.

In one corner of the Internet, the 2016 Democratic primary never ended



That's eerily close to the whole Fox News/Breitbart "pushing a narrative because the MSM" are so corrupt" thing.



It's interesting, especially as it's the WaPo covering something from the "dark corners of the internet", so to speak, and is therefore akin to when the mainstream media starting paying attention to GG - shining a light on the irrational, and all that.
I got a friend who seems to be all about this on facebook. She really went off the deep end after the primaries. RT got her fucked up.
 
I got a friend who seems to be all about this on facebook. She really went off the deep end after the primaries. RT got her fucked up.
It's much easier, and probably more interesting, to chase fantasies and believe you're the only one who can get to the truth than do anything real or constructive.
 
Paging pigeon

Thinking Of Running For Office? A Website Lets You Test The Waters
Bateson was sitting in the bleachers, her blood boiling. In 2008, McClintock won office by a tiny margin. But he's been winning with landslides ever since. She has a theory about why: The Democrats who've tried to unseat him didn't raise enough money. She looked into the records and saw that candidates raised only about $9,700 to $105,000. That's chump change.

While issues and party affiliation matter, money also matters. A campaign is like a startup. You need to pump it with cash.

And that is where the Internet begins to factor into this story.

Bateson wanted to find ways to raise money for Democrats in her district. So she Googled terms like "Kickstarter politics." And she got back a site called Crowdpac.com.

Like other sites, Crowdpac (which is nonpartisan), ranks candidates on issues and lets you donate. Unlike others, Crowdpac also lets you explore the idea of running for office, without having to commit.
Around the country, a handful of political newbies are doing what Bateson did — including Republicans, third-party hopefuls and even two other Democrats in her district. The San Francisco-based startup makes money by taking a cut from the donations.

There's a 10-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans seeking support on Crowdpac. CEO Steve Hilton says, "It seems to me the energy in politics is there," on the progressive side. It could also be a network effect — friends telling friends.

In other respects, the platform is seeing substantial diversity — with disproportionately high use among women candidates, people under 35, and non-lawyers (scientists, doctors and professors).

How long does it usually take for disaster relief to go up for a vote?
Congress is still in recess, they get back after the first week of September. I'm not optimistic about disaster relief if they're going to try and tie it to something dumb.
 

Crab

Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
The answer is probably 'do nothing', in which case Trump might actually be okay since 'do nothing' has described his Presidency to date.
 
As he heads into an autumn fight on tax reform with a Congress he feels does not respect or fear him, the source close to the president described his mindset, in recent weeks, as “the worst it’s ever been.”

“He feels like this is not what he signed up for, and his accomplishments are being underplayed,” the person added. “He just looks around and says, ‘when is this going to get better.’”
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/30/trump-shrinking-white-house-242159
 
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/30/trump-shrinking-white-house-242159
As he heads into an autumn fight on tax reform with a Congress he feels does not respect or fear him, the source close to the president described his mindset, in recent weeks, as ”the worst it's ever been."

”He feels like this is not what he signed up for, and his accomplishments are being underplayed," the person added. ”He just looks around and says, ‘when is this going to get better.
What a dumb fuck. The first 6 months of a presidency are always the "best", and it only gets tougher and worse from there. Always. Not to mention, he hasn't even had to face any real crisis that needed his direct attention. Even if he doesn't get impeached, he's in for some shit that's gonna rock his world. Unfortunately, it's probably gonna rock our world since he's our goddamned president.
 
What a dumb fuck. The first 6 months of a presidency are always the "best", and it only gets tougher and worse from there. Always. Not to mention, he hasn't even had to face any real crisis that needed his direct attention. Even if he doesn't get impeached, he's in for some shit that's gonna rock his world. Unfortunately, it's probably gonna rock our world since he's our goddamned president.
Yeah even Hurricane Harvey has been handled moreso by the local government thus far.

If he had any self-awareness he might think about the ways in which he's made this harder for himself - his divisive rhetoric, his attempts to make people fear him coming from a place of desperation and insincerity, his complete refusal to educate himself on the legislative process and desire to ram through significant legislation without any bipartisan input or understanding its far-reaching effects. Why did he want to repeal and replace Obamacare again? Oh yeah, to rack up a win.

But no. Everyone just failed him, or worse, deliberately sabotaged him. Entitled brat.

I think guys like him can't process that anyone in the world might have different intentions. Like McCain didn't vote No on skinny repeal because he genuinely didn't like the bill and thought it would hurt people (either people losing their insurance, or the GOP in the long term), I bet Trump thinks he did it so he could steal headlines for a few days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.