• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

'17 Specials & '18 Midterms Thread

If the Dems win the House, they shouldn't even look at impeachment until, at least, late-summer 2020. They should have investigations and indictments of Trump Cabinet Secretaries and others around him.

2020 could be all about the continued corruption of Trump and healthcare (after millions lose insurance and millions more are gouged due to Trump's rules).
 
Dems should be getting very close to the Parkland kids and their national network of new, young voters. It could turn a few close races in their favor.
 
No RJ, all those kids should be expected to show up and blindly vote for the Democrats
 
Sums up the Green Party "debate" well:

 
ConnorEl said:
Yea, I don’t know why we should assume Green Party voters might otherwise lean Democrat.
Click to expand...

At the same time, there is a reason why they don't. I don't buy that if Jill Stein or another Green candidate never ran, that all-or even a majority-of those votes would have gone to Hillary. Those people are consciously rejecting the Democratic party, and likely would have stayed home, IMO-in Steins case, maybe a few would go for a Democrat who was all in on student loan forgiveness, but that's about it. I agree that there is a lot more to be gained by targeting voters who didn't show up.
 
Thread from Dave Wasserman of Cook Political:

 
wsc8521s said:
No RJ, all those kids should be expected to show up and blindly vote for the Democrats
Click to expand...

As opposed to voting for Republicans who refuse to even pass universal background checks that over 85% of supports because the GOP fears the NRA?

Yep, they should vote for the GOP who wants to do away with the Department of Education, cut Pell Grants, cut student loans. Yep, that makes sense.

You're right they should be like their parents and vote against their own self-interest.
 
Isn’t the downside of gerrymandering that a wave election takes more seats than it traditionally would?

Fewer solid districts, but more likely districts means a lower overall + takes more districts.
 
Gerrymandering most often makes districts more closed for the party who did the gerrymandering. They also water down the districts of opponents. Gerrymandering creates more solid districts.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Click to expand...

Yep. But it’s easier to take their keys and renovate than to build a new house and convince people to move.
 
So, a question about the Green Party (and Libertarians, by contrast) is whether the percentage of the vote for those fringe parties is the same in competitive states as states that are clearly voting for one party. In other words, did Stein get a ton of votes in CA, VT, HI, DC, AL, MS, etc.? I wonder how much of a true "draining effect" actually exists. I mean, in VT it was easy for me to vote 3rd party as a rejection of getting stuck with a Democratic and Republican candidate I refused to vote for. My vote doesn't matter one way or the other under the electoral college. It would only matter if I lived in the Great Lakes states in this last election.
 
PhDeac said:
Yep. But it’s easier to take their keys and renovate than to build a new house and convince people to move.
Click to expand...

This is begging the question. Taking the keys (away from extremely disciplined organized money) vs moving away is precisely what's at issue.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Tom Perez just spearheaded a resolution to allow the DNC to take fossil fuel PAC money. The Dems are bad.
Click to expand...

At a DSA training yesterday, we had a local dem who had won his city council race come talk to us about his campaign strategy. It was all relatively fine until he talked about doubling the amount of police officers. Dems are bad.
 
So, you agree with the candidate about many things, but because he isn't pure enough for you, he won't get your vote. In essence, you'll be voting for the Republican with whom you disagree massively. That makes sense.
 
RJKarl said:
So, you agree with the candidate about many things, but because he isn't pure enough for you, he won't get your vote. In essence, you'll be voting for the Republican with whom you disagree massively. That makes sense.
Click to expand...

Galaxy brain. I didn’t say any of this and I’m not a constituent of this person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top