US Midterm Election 2018 Megathread- It's Kavanaugh

[The East Marches II]

I like Arizona better. >:^(

And I align much better with sunbelt suburban Republicans than rust belt anti-trade isolationists.

If Georgia, Texas and Florida keep their current trends the rust belt will be irrelevant

*laughs in midwest* but you've still to endure 20 years of our tyranny

[Corrian]

Ed Royce, the Chairmen of the House Foreign Relations Committee will not run for reelection in 2018.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol- ... story.html

That seat automatically becomes a toss up if not lean D. With the high possibility of a Democrat Vs. Democrat Senate and Governor race there is strong likelihood of a GOP wipeout in California with as many as 8 or more Republican held seats being vulnerable. Not to mention the potential for a high majority in the state legislature

Isn't there already a supermajority in the legislature?

[Steffan]

There's still a lot of time between then and now, so prediction now seems premature. However, history is not on the side of the GOP. The president's party is near guaranteed to lose seats in Congress during midterms. The question is: how many? Popular presidents (50+% average approval) tend to lose few to no seats, whereas unpopular presidents (<50% average approval) lose many seats...and Trump is profoundly unpopular right now...

[Corrian]

I hope he's the nominee. Maricopa county hates him and you cannot win statewide without it.They voted him out in 2016. Its something like 60 percent of the states population

No Republican that under performed Trump in Maricopa, or believes in chemtrails, should ever be nominated.

Ward doesn't actually believe in chemtrails if I recall. That was actually a Republican talking point against their own Republican (Establishment versus not I am guessing)

[Corrian]

Both parties don’t. It’s not a republican only problem

How do democrats not believe in everyone voted or free and fair elections when republicans are the ones who purge voter rolls and suppress the vote via voter id?

Um...plenty of Democratic states had that problem during the primary.

[Corrian]

Let's think of it this way for a moment. As soon as, say, the Democrats allowed independents to vote for candidates in their party, I could automatically see that looking favorable to said people. Looks like the party cares about them if they openly supported such a thing. Therefore more voters come into the party. But we don't want that, do we?

[San Lumen]

Let's think of it this way for a moment. As soon as, say, the Democrats allowed independents to vote for candidates in their party, I could automatically see that looking favorable to said people. Looks like the party cares about them if they openly supported such a thing. Therefore more voters come into the party. But we don't want that, do we?

join the darn party if you want to decide nominee of that party. Why is it such a terrible thing that only members of the party can choose their nominee?

[Guy]

Let's think of it this way for a moment. As soon as, say, the Democrats allowed independents to vote for candidates in their party, I could automatically see that looking favorable to said people. Looks like the party cares about them if they openly supported such a thing. Therefore more voters come into the party. But we don't want that, do we?

I don't think "was the primary open?" is even a serious consideration for 99.9% of voters, let alone that it would end up being determinative. It's a fairly adventurous proposition, and one that you'd have to prove with proper statistical analysis for your argument to hold any weight.

On the other hand, letting non-party members select candidates encroaches on the ability of those who actually put work into the party and use it as their vehicle for political action and organisation to actually exercise their freedom to organise politically.

[Corrian]

Let's think of it this way for a moment. As soon as, say, the Democrats allowed independents to vote for candidates in their party, I could automatically see that looking favorable to said people. Looks like the party cares about them if they openly supported such a thing. Therefore more voters come into the party. But we don't want that, do we?

I don't think "was the primary open?" is even a serious consideration for 99.9% of voters, let alone that it would end up being determinative. It's a fairly adventurous proposition, and one that you'd have to prove with proper statistical analysis for your argument to hold any weight.

On the other hand, letting non-party members select candidates encroaches on the ability of those who actually put work into the party and use it as their vehicle for political action and organisation to actually exercise their freedom to organise politically.

Or you can just do what my state does and eliminate the concept of party affiliation altogether. Seems like the best plan.

Let's think of it this way for a moment. As soon as, say, the Democrats allowed independents to vote for candidates in their party, I could automatically see that looking favorable to said people. Looks like the party cares about them if they openly supported such a thing. Therefore more voters come into the party. But we don't want that, do we?

join the darn party if you want to decide nominee of that party. Why is it such a terrible thing that only members of the party can choose their nominee?

I would think that people would like to have more people for their party, but I guess not.

Also, being here, I have no darn party to join. And thank goodness.

[The Flutterlands]

http://observer.com/2018/01/democrats-n ... tion-wins/

Why do I have a feeling they are going to fuck up? Democrats are good at fucking up, especially when it comes to getting progressives into office. That is because, as it seems with what happened with Bernie, they would rather lose to a Republican than win with a Progressive. Their donors demand it

[Valrifell]

http://observer.com/2018/01/democrats-need-to-prepare-legislation-ahead-of-2018-election-wins/

Why do I have a feeling they are going to fuck up? Democrats are good at fucking up, especially when it comes to getting progressives into office. That is because, as it seems with what happened with Bernie, they would rather lose to a Republican than win with a Progressive. Their donors demand it

Can we make a "Democrats are doomed" copypasta to make this easier on everyone? Thanks.

[Petrasylvania]

http://observer.com/2018/01/democrats-need-to-prepare-legislation-ahead-of-2018-election-wins/

Why do I have a feeling they are going to fuck up? Democrats are good at fucking up, especially when it comes to getting progressives into office. That is because, as it seems with what happened with Bernie, they would rather lose to a Republican than win with a Progressive. Their donors demand it

Can we make a "Democrats are doomed" copypasta to make this easier on everyone? Thanks.

Democrats can run unopposed and still lose. *nod*

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

http://observer.com/2018/01/democrats-need-to-prepare-legislation-ahead-of-2018-election-wins/

Why do I have a feeling they are going to fuck up? Democrats are good at fucking up, especially when it comes to getting progressives into office. That is because, as it seems with what happened with Bernie, they would rather lose to a Republican than win with a Progressive. Their donors demand it

Can we make a "Democrats are doomed" copypasta to make this easier on everyone? Thanks.

Only if we make it alongside a "nintendo is doomed" meme

[Corrian]

As much as we all seemingly want it, Democrats are not doomed. If anything, it is the Republicans who are dooming themselves for the time being.

[Petrasylvania]

As much as we all seemingly want it, Democrats are not doomed. If anything, it is the Republicans who are dooming themselves for the time being.

Springtime For Hitler has yet to fully bloom for Trump. That's when things really get horrible for the GOP.

[The Black Forrest]

http://observer.com/2018/01/democrats-need-to-prepare-legislation-ahead-of-2018-election-wins/

Why do I have a feeling they are going to fuck up? Democrats are good at fucking up, especially when it comes to getting progressives into office. That is because, as it seems with what happened with Bernie, they would rather lose to a Republican than win with a Progressive. Their donors demand it

Didn't you vote Republican?

[Washington Resistance Army]

http://observer.com/2018/01/democrats-need-to-prepare-legislation-ahead-of-2018-election-wins/

Why do I have a feeling they are going to fuck up? Democrats are good at fucking up, especially when it comes to getting progressives into office. That is because, as it seems with what happened with Bernie, they would rather lose to a Republican than win with a Progressive. Their donors demand it

Didn't you vote Republican?

He did it solely to spite the Dems and apparently didn't read about what the GOP wanted to do.

[The Flutterlands]

http://observer.com/2018/01/democrats-need-to-prepare-legislation-ahead-of-2018-election-wins/

Why do I have a feeling they are going to fuck up? Democrats are good at fucking up, especially when it comes to getting progressives into office. That is because, as it seems with what happened with Bernie, they would rather lose to a Republican than win with a Progressive. Their donors demand it

Didn't you vote Republican?

We have been through this. I should have voted third party for the umpteenth fucking time.

[The Black Forrest]

Didn't you vote Republican?

We have been through this. I should have voted third party for the umpteenth fucking time.

Voting for someone who has no hope in hell of wining is still voting for Trump.

[Washington Resistance Army]

We have been through this. I should have voted third party for the umpteenth fucking time.

Voting for someone who has no hope in hell of wining is still voting for Trump.

No it isn't.

[The Flutterlands]

We have been through this. I should have voted third party for the umpteenth fucking time.

Voting for someone who has no hope in hell of wining is still voting for Trump.

No it is not. If that is the case then don't call our elections a form of democracy.

[Corrian]

We have been through this. I should have voted third party for the umpteenth fucking time.

Voting for someone who has no hope in hell of wining is still voting for Trump.

That was always a dumb argument, and it still is.

No, a vote for a third party is a vote for a third party. It's not a vote for like 3 people at once, because the same stupid argument could be used for a Trump supporter "You're just voting for Clinton by voting 3rd party".

[The Flutterlands]

Voting for someone who has no hope in hell of wining is still voting for Trump.

That was always a dumb argument, and it still is.

No, a vote for a third party is a vote for a third party. It's not a vote for like 3 people at once, because the same stupid argument could be used for a Trump supporter "You're just voting for Clinton by voting 3rd party".

Exactly. If I voted for Jill Stein I voted for Jill Stein. If I voted for Gary Johnson, I voted for Gary Fucking Johnson

[Eibenland]

That was always a dumb argument, and it still is.

No, a vote for a third party is a vote for a third party. It's not a vote for like 3 people at once, because the same stupid argument could be used for a Trump supporter "You're just voting for Clinton by voting 3rd party".

Exactly. If I voted for Jill Stein I voted for Jill Stein. If I voted for Gary Johnson, I voted for Gary Fucking Johnson

Tactical voting is as old as voting itself. Sometimes opposition to a candidate is the main motivator.

[Corrian]

Exactly. If I voted for Jill Stein I voted for Jill Stein. If I voted for Gary Johnson, I voted for Gary Fucking Johnson

Tactical voting is as old as voting itself. Sometimes opposition to a candidate is the main motivator.

That does not change the fact voting for Jill Stein is not a vote for Trump or blah blah blah.