Patterico's Pontifications

11/7/2018

Aftermath of a Consequential Night

Filed under: General — JVW @ 1:14 pm

[guest post by JVW]

My extended and self-indulgent thoughts to go along with Patterico’s earlier post.

So that’s that. The GOP largely gets drubbed in the House and loses a couple of key Senate races, though at the same time appears to have increased its Senate majority by at least one and as many as four seats, subject to recounts in Arizona and Montana and a run-off in Mississippi next month. Here are some issues for us to mull over:

House of Representatives
1. The Democrats aren’t really going to return Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker are they? Surely they realize they need fresh blood.

2. Surprisingly, California Republicans appear to be holding on more strongly in the House than expected. Young Kim is slightly leading in the race to succeed Ed Royce; Jeff Denham may have squeaked out a win; Mimi Walters is 6,000 votes ahead out of the 180k counted; and Duncan Hunter appears to have won despite being indicted on campaign violations. Three GOP seats went to Dems: Dana Rohrabacher and Steve Knight both lost reelection, and the retiring Darrell Issa’s seat flipped to Dems. I think I expected the Dems to win six seats, so limiting them to three is something of an accomplishment.

3. Iowa started the night with three Republicans and one Democrat in the House, and ended the night with three Dems and one Rep, the execrable Steve King. That’s disheartening, considering that the party hoped to consolidate the gains it made in the Midwest in 2016.

4. Dems picked up two House seats in Illinois and may end up taking away four in New York, so blue states get bluer.

5. Ugh. Hate seeing Mia Love lose. She needs to move to a better district in Utah, away from all of the transplants from other states.

Senate
6. If you were a swing state Democrat and voted against Brett Kavanaugh, you were toast [except for shortly after I drafted this post earlier this morning, it became apparent that Jon Tester will eke out a narrow win in Montana]. The annoying Jane Mayer, who worked with Ronan Farrow to push the questionable allegations from Deborah Ramirez, got a little bit ahead of herself last night based upon one exit poll in Indiana that a Hillary shill was touting:

The reality is that she and Farrow contributed greatly to the GOP’s gains last night.

7. New phenomenally stupid lefty talking point: Senate Democrats received eight million more votes than Senate Republicans last night yet somehow lost between one and four seats. Gerrymandering! (Never mind that it’s the Constitution that defines states.) Yeah, that kind of margin will happen when you win at least 21 out of 34 contested seats (not to mention have two candidates from your party opposing each other in the largest state in the union). Yet Democrats went into last night defending 25 of the 34 seats. I think we can thank years of piss-poor civics education for the sheer ignorance that pervades regarding how elections work.

8. Beto O’Rourke came way closer in Texas than we thought possible, and Kyrsten Sienma made Arizona a nail-biter, and could conceivably pull it out if the Democrat post-election vote manufacturing industry operates effectively in the Grand Canyon State. Is this an ugly harbinger of the future, or was this really just a strong Democrat year and two Republican candidates who were fairly divisive characters (I read that McSally, the ex-fighter pilot, unsurprisingly has a pretty formidable ego and can be as prickly as an Arizona cactus)?

9. It turns out that Dean Heller had virtually no chance against the Clark County (i.e. Las Vegas) machine which has come to dominate Nevada politics. Outgoing governor Brian Sandoval might be the last major Republican elected statewide for the foreseeable future. The unionization of the Las Vegas casinos which came about as a result of Teamsters pension funds being invested in the 1960s has significantly narrowed the path to victory for Republicans there.

Governors
10. Generally a bad night for Republicans. I’m sad to see Scott Walker go, but it sounds like the GOP held on to the Wisconsin legislature so hopefully the Dems can’t undo the reforms that Walker implemented. Frankly, Walker should have pronounced himself pleased with this two terms and closed up shop. Democrats now fully own the Illinois mess, and voters in the Land of Lincoln will have no one to blame when their taxes and dysfunction continue to skyrocket. Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Nevada (see above), New Mexico, and Oregon are lamentable, though I am not sure any of those states are candidates for rampant gerrymandering in favor of Dems when states are redistricted after the 2020 census.

11. The Georgia race sounds like a mess. A part of me thinks that Georgia and Florida ought to have elected far-left Democratic Socialist governors, just to give the South an up-close look at how dumb that ideology really is. But I am glad they did not.

12. Gavin, Gavin, Gavin. The mess is all yours now pal as Moonbeam slunks out of town. I know I have been promising to write about him and I will, but I didn’t make it a priority because I knew it wouldn’t have any effect on his election.

California
13. Looks like rent control failed and failed pretty substantially, by a three-to-two margin. A welcome moment of sanity here.

14. As usual, the majority of bond measures passed. The only one that went down to defeat was the really awful water bond, but as proven time and time again, if you attach the words “children” or “veterans” to your bond proposal it is destined to succeed.

15. The gas tax repeal failed by a 55% – 45% margin, so Gavin and the Dems will still have that $5 billion annually to play with, and they now probably have no compunction about raising additional taxes to fund their wishlist.

16. We voted down the California Nurses Association attempt to kneecap the dialysis industry, but we’re forcing farmers to provide more space for their livestock and fowl.

17. Dianne Feinstein earned the hallowed honor of being allowed to die in office, even if it means reelecting her again in 2024.

18. Steve Poizner took the prudent step of ditching his GOP party affiliation and running as an independent for Insurance Commissioner, but he is going to lose by a narrow margin to Ricardo Lara, a termed-out legislative hack who is too useless to gain employment in the private sector and thus needed to find a new office.

19. It’s clear that no matter how awful the candidate (*cough cough* Gavin Newsom *cough cough*), a Democrat will win a minimum of 60% of the vote for a statewide office in California when running against a Republican.

Final Thoughts
20. If you are the people who handle President Trump’s political stuff, you have to be a bit concerned about your guy’s chance of winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin again in 2020, and even Iowa is now in play. And the potential bluing of states like Arizona, Texas and Georgia (long discussed, but until now just a campfire story told by high-strung Dems) does not bode well for the GOP in the long term.

21. Some wags are pointing out the possibility that Trump wins Wisconsin, but loses the other states and loses all four electoral votes in Maine, leading to a 269-269 electoral college tie and throwing the election into the Democrat-controlled House. That’s just about what we deserve.

22. The GOP has been dead in California for some time now, and it now appears to be dead in Virginia too. Again, an ominous sign for future elections.

23. I am staying with my prediction made on election night two years ago: Kamala Harris is the Democrat nominee in 2020, and she will be a very formidable opponent for President Trump.

– JVW

51 Responses to “Aftermath of a Consequential Night”

  1. Oh, and all of you will be glad to know that the California voting public is totally cool with ditching daylight savings time if we can get Congress to agree.

    JVW (42615e)

  2. There is truly a dichotomy between the Nuyo- and New England state Ricans versus their Florida brethren, whilst it appeared that hispanics (for the most part Mexican-sourced) in Texas may be converging toward their Cali and SW brethren.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  3. Harris would lose to Trump by Kerry-Bush margin. I think the Dems avoid the SEC states like plague until Trump and his legacy subside and double down on TX and AZ and try the Big 10 sweep again.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  4. “The GOP largely gets drubbed in the House”

    Wouldn’t call it that. The party in the White House generally loses seats at the mid-term elections. The GOP had a narrow majority before, and the Dems now have a narrow majority. A swing of about 30 seats, which is about 7 %.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  5. Oh my word, Alyssa Milano wrote an op-ed on health care for CNN, with overwrought anecdotes about all of these people who had to “battle” Republican governments to get the health subsidies they felt they were entitled to.

    Thank Heavens CNN is providing a much-needed forum for 80s child actors to educate us on the important issues of the day. I can’t wait to read Ricky Schroeder writing about the deficit, Corey Feldman writing about environmental regulations, and the gal who played Punky Brewster writing about global politics.

    JVW (42615e)

  6. Cannabis stocks, already bolstered by wins in the midterm elections, got an added boost when anti-pot Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced his resignation Wednesday afternoon.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  7. And my county once again proves it can’t get its act together.
    https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-election-broward-turnout-difference-20181107-story.html

    kishnevi (fe869b)

  8. 21. Some wags are pointing out the possibility that Trump wins Wisconsin, but loses the other states and loses all four electoral votes in Maine, leading to a 269-269 electoral college tie and throwing the election into the Democrat-controlled House. That’s just about what we deserve.

    Each state’s delegation in the House gets one vote (and it’s the new House elected in 2020, not the one just elected), so the overall party makeup of the House doesn’t matter in the event of a tie.

    Jon (e38104)

  9. @6. An ‘all-time high,’ eh, Mr. Feet?!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  10. Harris would lose to Trump by Kerry-Bush margin.

    She’ll do as well as Hillary among single women. She’ll do way better than Hillary did among minorities (forget this pipe dream about Trump taking 20% of the black vote). And she’ll do much better among young people, specifically young leftists. That alone might be enough to push her past Trump in Pennsylvania (think of a huge turn-out in Philly), Wisconsin (Walker lost yesterday because of the Milwaukee turn-out), Ohio (Cleveland and Cincy), and Michigan (Detroit). You underestimate her at your own peril.

    JVW (42615e)

  11. JVW (42615e) — 11/7/2018 @ 2:05 pm

    They probably would do no worse than most other pundits.

    kishnevi (fe869b)

  12. The GOP did miserably in the Senate. Its minimum should have been a net gain of five seats. It had a chance to get twelve, and seven or eight would have been an “okay” but not “excellent” showing. It wasn’t Kavanaugh, or #Meat!Ooh!, or socialism, it was because Trump is such a stench.

    The loss of the House is even more on Trump. Or moron Trump, your choice. The safe old-timers didn’t want to put up with his (and Bannon’s) sh!t and told him to suck it.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. Various rumor-mill sites state that there’s a bunch of prurient pictures of Kamala Harris out there from her swinger days with Willie Brown. We could take the presidential race to a new low if she runs.

    Ingot9455 (f12c00)

  14. The popular-vote-for-Senate meme is particularly silly given that *all* votes for Senate in California were for a Democrat, because of our odd primary rules. The skew is much smaller if you discount for that.

    Beto is an amazing politician; he came as close as he did because of the strength of his campaign and his skills. I don’t think it transfers to another candidate.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  15. Unlike Alyssa Milano, Soleil Moon Frye’s are REAL!

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  16. I didnt know Joe the Plumber got his JD and got a Cabinet post as of today.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  17. Schroeder on urban law enforcement,

    narciso (d1f714)

  18. It’s not the folk singer, urbanleftbehind?

    nk (dbc370)

  19. JVW, I think CA votes on initiatives used to make sense in the way they were all, for instance, against higher taxes. But now…it’s just bizarre. The votes are all over the place. More space for animals (and more money for ranchers)? No breaks for seniors’ property tax but bond issues for almost everything?

    Patricia (3363ec)

  20. you expect many more seats, with this failure theatre from our puppet congress, be thankful you got that many,

    narciso (d1f714)

  21. Each state’s delegation in the House gets one vote (and it’s the new House elected in 2020, not the one just elected), so the overall party makeup of the House doesn’t matter in the event of a tie.

    Good point. Here’s where it gets interesting. In the next Congress, there will be 20 states that have a majority-Democrat delegation (AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, IA, MD, MN, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, VA, and WA). Note that three of those states (AZ, CO, and IA) went from majority-Republican to majority-Democrat delegations. But in addition to that, there are three states with equal number of reps from each party: Maine (one each), Michigan (seven each), and Pennsylvania (nine each). Then you have the states where the numbers are very close and could be changed by a resignation and special election: Florida (R’s have a 14-13 edge), and a bunch of states that only have one Representative (AK, MT, ND, SD, WY for the GOP; DE and VT for the Dems). So it’s not totally out of the question that we reach the point in this coming Congress where the Dems have a majority in 24 states, the Republicans in 23 states, and three states have equal numbers. Wouldn’t that be fun?

    And I don’t believe the Twelfth Amendment specifies that it’s the newly-elected House of Representatives which elects the President in case of a tie. The language instead says that the House shall act “immediately.” So imagine a scenario where there is a tie in the electoral college and the Dems are facing a newly elected House where Republicans will control 26 of the delegations, and so Speaker Pelosi immediately moves to elect Kamala Harris as President by a 24-23 margin. Sure, it depends upon on a lot of things happening that probably won’t, but it’s worth considering.

    JVW (42615e)

  22. Wouldn’t call it that. The party in the White House generally loses seats at the mid-term elections. The GOP had a narrow majority before, and the Dems now have a narrow majority.

    Way too many Trump fans were predicting a hidden but gathering red wave for this House election to be considered anything other than a disaster.

    JVW (42615e)

  23. But it’s the new Congress which certifies the Presidential election (whether electoral college or House) in January, JVW. It’s the first thing they do after being sworn in. Just to add another worm to the can. (Or is it to let one out?)

    nk (dbc370)

  24. JVW, I think CA votes on initiatives used to make sense in the way they were all, for instance, against higher taxes. But now…it’s just bizarre. The votes are all over the place. More space for animals (and more money for ranchers)? No breaks for seniors’ property tax but bond issues for almost everything?

    I too have a tough time understanding how people vote out here, but I think it boils down to this:

    * Californians really do sort of think that bond money is free, or at least they don’t understand the idea of paying off something little by little over thirty years (I guess we don’t have as many homeowners with mortgages these days). So if you attach a sympathetic face (animals, children, veterans) to the bond, it stands to pass. But if it’s just for various ill-defined projects, it’s treated more skeptically.

    * Californians are incredibly willing to tax others but would largely prefer not to tax themselves, and they have no idea how business costs are passed along to the consumer. But you can overcome their reluctance to tax themselves if you convince them that the infrastructure will crumble or that people will die in the streets if they don’t cough up more money.

    * By the same token, Californians are very happy to regulate businesses they don’t participate in if it is allegedly to serve some higher and noble purpose. And they lack an understanding of what “hidden costs” are and how they work.

    * Californians don’t like the idea of one group getting a tax break that doesn’t go to all groups, unless that one group can make a solid grievance-based argument. Senior citizens downsizing their homes didn’t quite qualify in that regard.

    But yeah, it’s a messed-up state consisting of a huge swath of mush-minds, from all racial, religious, and income groups. When the next reckoning comes ’round (probably sooner rather than later) it’s going to be pretty bad.

    JVW (42615e)

  25. So you think Californians are deliberately ignorant or blissfully ignorant? It’s hard to tell from your comment, JVW. I used to think Americans were not foolish people but the past 10 years have made me rethink that.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  26. Ugh. Hate seeing Mia Love lose. She needs to move to a better district in Utah, away from all of the transplants from other states.

    Nope. That’s not it. It’s The Mormon Matriarchy. They understand that a young lady might have to work until she finds a husband and he gets his feet under him. But after that, she is supposed to send him out to work while she fulfills her role as a proper Mormon matron searching for that perfect tuna casserole. At 42, Mia is way past her due date. I was surprised that the Matriarchy even let her have this last term at age 40.

    nk (dbc370)

  27. * Californians really do sort of think that bond money is free, or at least they don’t understand the idea of paying off something little by little over thirty years (I guess we don’t have as many homeowners with mortgages these days). So if you attach a sympathetic face (animals, children, veterans) to the bond, it stands to pass. But if it’s just for various ill-defined projects, it’s treated more skeptically.

    When I lived in California, someone (whom I considered reasonably well-educated) told me that a properly managed bond would earn enough to pay for the projecat AND pay back principal and interest on the bonds. I told him nothing short of a bond manager with a magic wishing ring could do that. It seems that believe has infected a solid majority of Californians.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  28. So you think Californians are deliberately ignorant or blissfully ignorant?

    Sorry to be weasely in answering, DRJ, but I think it’s a mixture of both. I know people who are actually so wealthy that they don’t have to care at all if their taxes are raised by a couple of percent per year, either because it’s the difference between netting $11.2 million versus netting $11.5 million in income in a given year, or because they have so much money socked away that they are completely indifferent to what their annual income is. I also know some people like the infamous letter to the editor writer in Austin a few years back who wrote that she proudly votes for every school bond, parcel tax for parks, mil levy for the library, and special assessment to build a homeless shelter, but wonder why her tax bill keeps growing every year. I think that it’s probably mostly blissful ignorance and a lack of understanding how governments raise money and what happens when taxes are raised, but there is enough deliberate ignorance there to aggravate me as well.

    JVW (42615e)

  29. Sight edit to my comment above: I guess the Austin woman was quoted by a reporter regarding her tax situation, and it didn’t in fact come from a letter to the editor.

    JVW (42615e)

  30. It seems that believe has infected a solid majority of Californians.

    Whereas on the east coast, people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez don’t even need a gimmick like bonds to conjure trillions of dollars out of thin air…

    Dave (9664fc)

  31. When I lived in California, someone (whom I considered reasonably well-educated) told me that a properly managed bond would earn enough to pay for the project AND pay back principal and interest on the bonds.

    Californians might remember some ten or twelve years ago — during the Schwarzenegger years — when we approved all of this bond money that would make California the undisputed king of stem cell research. This too was supposed to pay for itself as the money that would flow to our economy from new jobs in the biomedical field and federal research dollars that would flow into California’s universities and laboratories would more than make up for the budget money that we would be committing to this dubious endeavor.

    Well how did that turn-out? Can anyone name any breakthrough stem cell discoveries have made a significant contribution to the Golden State’s economy? Yeah, me either. It was a stupid idea. I was against it from the start; Schwarzenegger was in favor; the Dog Trainer editorial page said it would be a good poke in the eye to the Bush Administration for restricting embryonic stem cell research; and Democrats loved that money would flow to universities. It’s the sort of wishful thinking combined with ignorance that is becoming a hallmark of our state.

    JVW (42615e)

  32. But it’s the new Congress which certifies the Presidential election (whether electoral college or House) in January, JVW. It’s the first thing they do after being sworn in. Just to add another worm to the can. (Or is it to let one out?)

    Ah yes, but imagine the scenario where in the new Congress the GOP controls 26 of the state delegations, but the Dems still have a slight overall majority in terms of the number of sitting members. How much fun would this be? Imagine too that Trump wins the popular vote and what do you want to bet that several Republicans would now be totally in favor of ditching the electoral college?

    JVW (42615e)

  33. Well, Texas may end up in the same place, JVW, but I hope not or that it is long after I’m gone. It doesn’t really matter, though. The federal tax burden will kill us all.

    DRJ (15874d)

  34. And I don’t believe the Twelfth Amendment specifies that it’s the newly-elected House of Representatives which elects the President in case of a tie. The language instead says that the House shall act “immediately.”

    The “contingent election” arises as a consequence of formally counting the electoral votes in a joint session of Congress.

    When and how that is done is spelled out in excruciating detail by 3 USC 15-18, and (since passage of the 20th Amendment) there has never been any doubt that the newly-elected Congress does it.

    Eliminating the need for the lame-duck Congress to conduct contingent elections was one of the motivations for the 20th Amendment.

    If anyone is interested, here is an excellent whitepaper on the subject by the superb Congressional Research Service.

    Dave (9664fc)

  35. i see how she raises a lot of money but i don’t see how a nasty constipated california cougar like kamala gets to be the nominee

    she’s basically what you get if obama and hillary had a baby and didn’t abort it

    i have no prediction who’s gonna get it

    but kamala peaked already i think and the more she opens her nasty mouth the more people are gonna decide they can do better than her

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  36. It seems theoretically possible that the current Congress could override 3 USC 15-18 by a new statute, adopted in a lame duck session. Doing so would cause a political crisis, but so what?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  37. It seems theoretically possible that the current Congress could override 3 USC 15-18 by a new statute, adopted in a lame duck session. Doing so would cause a political crisis, but so what?

    Theoretically, they could conspire to miscount the electoral votes, or to accept fraudulent alternative slates of votes as well…

    Dave (9664fc)

  38. I know JVW used the qualifier “potential,” but many others have been unqualified in claiming that there’s been a “bluing” of Texas.

    When every statewide race was again won by a Republican, I just don’t know how you can claim that.

    My take is quite contrary. O’Rourke was quite arguably the greatest rock star of the Democratic Party since Barack Obama, and he and the super-PACs supporting him (despite his claim that he “didn’t take PAC money,” snort) very, very substantially outspent Cruz in the most expensive Senate race in American history. His supporters were orgasmically enthused. He was running against a sharp-elbowed candidate who’s easy to mock (except in comparison to Trump, who’s sui generis). O’Rourke still lost by a quarter million votes. O’Rourke’s only tangible effect was to drive turnout that flipped a couple of congressional seats which were already at very substantial risk based on demographics alone.

    Friends and neighbors, while it’s a very big deal to be one of two U.S. Senators from the second largest and most populous state in the nation, that’s only one elected position, and I do not expect Cruz to suddenly get chummy with Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff.

    In other statewide races — without GOP candidates with the high negatives Cruz has (mostly for pissing off a lot of the right people, as far as I’m concerned) — it was a very strong night for the Texas GOP. Abbott got a solid 55.8%. Dan Patrick, another candidate with high negatives (although for being too Trumpy), still got 51.1%. The further down-ballot statewide races resulted in GOP margins somewhere between 51-54%. So I see no “bluing” of Texas, but rather, a fairly strong firewall that resisted the biggest conflagration the national Democratic Party could light in Texas behind a candidate they’re still swooning over as a 2020 presidential contestant. (I think he’s much more likely to be Kamala Harris’ running mate, though, than the nominee proper.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  39. Thanks for the perspective, Beldar. One thing to wonder, though, is whether a Democrat candidate that didn’t veer so far to the left as O’Rourke did would have fared somewhat better. Imagine someone with his charisma who didn’t call for abolishing ICE and expanding Medicaid to everyone. Could that have been enough to push him just ahead of Ted Cruz? I guess we’ll never know.

    I wonder if Kamala Harris can afford to take on a neophyte like Robert Francis (by the way, is his name in honor of RFK?) O’Rourke as her running mate. I think she’ll follow the Obama playbook (in just about everything, as a matter of fact) and choose a “seasoned Washington hand.” I’m further thinking she’ll go for an all-woman ticket by selecting Kristen Gillibrand. Someone has already purchased the harrisgillibrand2020.com domain name, by the way. (Though, to be sure, I’m sure a lot of permutations for a lot of ticket options have already been purchased on spec.)

    JVW (42615e)

  40. O’Rourke gets a low-impact cabinet job in the Harris Administration like Secretary of Housing or Health & Human Services.

    JVW (42615e)

  41. It’s certainly true (and good) that Cruz won.

    But I think 2016 provides plenty of evidence that cash doesn’t translate directly into electoral success; if it did, Jeb Bush would have been the nominee and Hillary Clinton would have won the general election.

    The tsunami of cash was probably necessary for Beto to get so close in a historically hostile environment, but it wasn’t sufficient. At the end of the day, he convinced over 4M Texans to vote for his socialist sales pitch.

    Dave (9664fc)

  42. I’m further thinking she’ll go for an all-woman ticket by selecting Kristen Gillibrand.

    I don’t share your bullish outlook on Harris; granted, I’ve seen next to nothing of her, but she strikes me as just a (perhaps) slightly more intelligent version of her predecessor, Barbara Boxer. And that is faint praise indeed…

    The first time I saw Obama (in a Democratic presidential debate), I said: “this guy is a formidable politician”. Harris has done nothing to suggest she belongs in the same category.

    And a California/New York ticket?

    Granted, if the economy tanks in the next two years, which is far from a remote possibility, it probably doesn’t matter much who the Dems run.

    Otherwise, a southern or midwestern governor with a (Bill) Clinton-like economic message would be the smart play for the Dems, IMO.

    Dave (9664fc)

  43. And remember the mental health tax on the rich of 2004? All that money is still sitting in banks, and the people have voted for even more taxes and bonds? I do think they are just so rich or so poor they don’t care. The middle class is mostly gone.

    Classic Curley Effect.

    Patricia (3363ec)

  44. A little perspective, please:

    Obama lost 63 seats in 2010

    Clinton lost 52 in 1994

    Ike lost 48 in 1958

    Nixon/Ford lost 48 in 1974

    LBJ lost 47 in 1966

    Truman lost 45 in 1946

    The Great Ape of Madagascar (7654f5)

  45. Otherwise, a southern or midwestern governor with a (Bill) Clinton-like economic message would be the smart play for the Dems, IMO.

    You’re probably right, but my guess is that it no longer matters. I’m thinking that 2016 will go down in history as the last year that Democrat party poo-bahs were able to dictate who the candidate would be, and in two years we will see left-wing activists completely dominate the Presidential primary season. Candidates will be forced to pledge fealty to single payer health care, taxpayer-paid child care, student debt forgiveness, free (or at the very least very cheap) college tuition, and every single racial, sexual, and lifestyle shibboleth that is currently en vogue. Hey, maybe I’ll turn out to be absolutely wrong, but I’m thinking there’s close to zero chance that a straight white male — even Bernard Sanders — gets the Democrat nomination in 2020.

    JVW (42615e)

  46. 1. The Democrats aren’t really going to return Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker are they? Surely they realize they need fresh blood.

    It seems like they are, making her the first person to return to the Speakershop after losing it since Sam Rayburn. (it helps that Republican Speakers tend to quit Congress.)

    On;y 3 newly elected Democrats pledged to not to vote for her. Another 9 said they’d rather not have Pelosi, and ao did 9 re-elected incumbents, making a total of 21. But there are ways around it (used by John Boehner and Newt Gingrich)

    And besides:

    “….Nancy Pelosi isn’t stupid. She made sure that everyone else in leadership was older or just as old as she is and she made sure she was the only woman at the table.”

    – article by Nikki Schwab, on page 12 of the November 8, 2018 New York Post.

    New York Post article quoted in its entirety here:

    http://en.brinkwire.com/news/why-democrats-may-be-stuck-with-pelosi-as-house-speaker-again.

    Here’s teh actual New York Post link (not quite so easy to read)

    https://nypost.com/2018/11/07/why-democrats-may-be-stuck-with-pelosi-as-house-speaker-again/

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  47. 20. If you are the people who handle President Trump’s political stuff, you have to be a bit concerned about your guy’s chance of winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin again in 2020, and even Iowa is now in play. And the potential bluing of states like Arizona, Texas and Georgia (long discussed, but until now just a campfire story told by high-strung Dems) does not bode well for the GOP in the long term.

    Ohio races were won by Republicans, but that is because the party is controlled by Never-Trump Republicans.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  48. Oklahoma 5th was won by a Democrat because Michael Bloomberg spent alot od money there on what must have been good commercials.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  49. io races were won by Republicans, but that is because the party is controlled by Never-Trump Republicans.

    In today;s Wall Street Journal Kimberley Strassel has an explanation: It was a loss for Ellizabeth Warren.

    She had a sort of war room connected to 150 campaigns and had several proteges in different races in dofferent places., In Ohio, Richard Cordray (her replacement as director of the Consumer Financial protection Bureau.

    She writes:

    “A week ago she was dominating Ohio headlines at rallies for Mr. Cordray. If Mr. trump was on the ballot nationally, Ms. Warren was on it in the Buckeye State.”

    She was also behind Katie Porter (a former law student of hers) in an Orange County California House district. she lost to Mimi Walters.

    In Massachusetts she lost badly except for her own Senate race. The ballot initiative that would have mandated nurse to patient ratios in hospitals lost 70% to 30% (it might have closed or bankrupted hospitals and wasn’t always needed) The MAss Dem Gubernatoorial candiadte lost to Gov Charlie baker by 34 points.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3002 secs.