Page 1 of 1

The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:29 am
by jetero
One of my recent futile conversations with a resident forum Trumpist made me wonder what a hypothetical electoral map would look like based on the 2018 midterm results.

Image

In short, it would have been a 314 to 224 shellacking of the Republicans--and this is in a Midterm election for which Democratic voter turnout are historically low.

I'm not sure why so many people still have their heads stuck in 2016. Trumpy Bear is in for a seriously rough haul in 2020, especially after the multitude of criminal activities he and his family have been involved in come to full light (they're already plainly visible for anyone with average intelligence--TB is not legally allowed to run a foundation but somehow he can run the country) and it becomes clear what the Republican Party enabled for short-term gains. The media and the party at large will dump him in short order with 2 more years of bumbling nonsense (case in point, today's National Prayer Breakfast) and sustained abysmal approval ratings. (I, for one, think he won't run.)

By that time, the working class voters in the Midwest will have had four years of TB and will have seen through all of the lies and broken promises. That is, if they're still employed following the senseless trade wars. The radical Republican primary voter will make the choice easier for moderates and will preserve suburban votes.

In any case, I think that this concern with Democratic candidates to be more moderate during the early days of the campaign is not well founded. Sounds like the type of advice people were giving to TB in 2015, and we all know how that worked out.

The writing's on the wall for the Republicans, I'm afraid (oh who am I kidding? I'm not). But that's what happens when you make a deal with the devil.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:44 am
by NIKV69
Even though this post is ridiculous on so many fronts the funniest thing is you didn't include a candidate. I am so sure PA is going to vote for Kamala Harris. :sarcastic:

Also you keep forgetting what I told you last time you had this dream. If midterms were an indicator of presidential elections Mitt Romney would be in office right now. For the Red wave of 2010 was much bigger than your so called blue wave (you didn't win the senate) and Obama still won reelection.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:52 am
by jetero
NIKV69 wrote:
Even though this post is ridiculous on so many fronts the funniest thing is you didn't include a candidate. I am so sure PA is going to vote for Kamala Harris. :sarcastic:

Also you keep forgetting what I told you last time you had this dream. If midterms were an indicator of presidential elections Mitt Romney would be in office right now. For the Red wave of 2010 was much bigger than your so called blue wave (you didn't win the senate) and Obama still won reelection.


Oh Nikky.

You really haven’t come to grips with the occupant of the White House.

You’ve said many times the Democrats ran a crappy candidate in Clinton. I’ll grant you that. Only reason this Boob eked out a win in the first place.

Now you’re going all-in running who will likely be a disgraced criminal with a 35% approval rating at best.

Not the same at all.

Hilarious. On so many fronts.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:15 pm
by GalaxyFlyer
If polls or elections at mid-terms meant anything, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Obama would have been one-term presidents, Carter a two-term president. With the GND, VA mess, the list of declared candidates and several states considering or passing late-term abortion laws, the Dems seem to want to out-crazy the crazy Trump. I’m not sure that is possible, but it’s entertaining.

Is there anyone remotely interested in actually governing from a middle ground position. I’m pretty far out libertarian-conservative, but I can live with center-right. Craziness isn’t a winning strategy.

GF

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:25 pm
by Magog
As much as I want to see the Orange Cheeto Drumpf gone, this is about as silly an exercise as I have ever seen. We need to be smarter than this.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:26 pm
by jetero
OK GF, Trumpy Bear will magically build an electoral coalition for 2020 when the only direction his approval ratings have gone is down and he has shown a repeated ability to viscerally p*ss off more than half the country.

And that’s before the photos come out of his hands in all kinds of cookie jars.

And, yeah, “this VA mess,” of course ... I hope you can reach the straws.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:07 pm
by trpmb6
Why is Florida Blue? Both state wide offices were taken by a republican.

Also, who runs, is actually important. IE, in Pennsylvania where Conor Lamb ran as a centrist in a right of center district and won.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:20 pm
by casinterest
trpmb6 wrote:
Why is Florida Blue? Both state wide offices were taken by a republican.

Also, who runs, is actually important. IE, in Pennsylvania where Conor Lamb ran as a centrist in a right of center district and won.


Florida should be purple. Florida was only won by trump by 1.2% of the vote. It will be a battleground.

Remember Trump is one of the most unpopular presidents in history outside of the GOP. He will need to battle hard to win in many states where Hillary was seen as a greater evil.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:24 pm
by jetero
trpmb6 wrote:
Why is Florida Blue? Both state wide offices were taken by a republican.

Also, who runs, is actually important. IE, in Pennsylvania where Conor Lamb ran as a centrist in a right of center district and won.


That is a good catch, and you are right . . . it should be red.

The map was done as results were still coming in.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... bout-2020/

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:25 pm
by jetero
Magog wrote:
As much as I want to see the Orange Cheeto Drumpf gone, this is about as silly an exercise as I have ever seen. We need to be smarter than this.


Only a special class of person could imply that the results of the most recent nationwide election are irrelevant and "silly."

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:28 pm
by casinterest
jetero wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Why is Florida Blue? Both state wide offices were taken by a republican.

Also, who runs, is actually important. IE, in Pennsylvania where Conor Lamb ran as a centrist in a right of center district and won.


That is a good catch, and you are right . . . it should be red.

The map was done as results were still coming in.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... bout-2020/



Here is the other map with Florida Red.

Image

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:29 pm
by jetero
casinterest wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Why is Florida Blue? Both state wide offices were taken by a republican.

Also, who runs, is actually important. IE, in Pennsylvania where Conor Lamb ran as a centrist in a right of center district and won.


Florida should be purple. Florida was only won by trump by 1.2% of the vote. It will be a battleground.

Remember Trump is one of the most unpopular presidents in history outside of the GOP. He will need to battle hard to win in many states where Hillary was seen as a greater evil.


There is no purple on electoral maps.

It's adding up the congressional votes (i.e., the popular vote) in every state as a proxy for the presidential vote.

There's a whole crew on here implying that somehow Trumpy Bear could've won in 2018 when the whole damned wave was defined by being anti-Trump.

And that somehow he's going to be better positioned in 2020 after more light is inevitably shone on his criminal behavior because what now? That "Virginia mess" and AOC.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:30 pm
by jetero
casinterest wrote:
jetero wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Why is Florida Blue? Both state wide offices were taken by a republican.

Also, who runs, is actually important. IE, in Pennsylvania where Conor Lamb ran as a centrist in a right of center district and won.


That is a good catch, and you are right . . . it should be red.

The map was done as results were still coming in.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... bout-2020/



Here is the other map with Florida Red.

Image


Thanks CI.

The usual higher turnout for presidential elections combined with 2 more years of the Boob is certain to make it a landslide.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:33 pm
by trpmb6
I'm unsure of who this Trumpy Bear you speak of is. The nicknames get tiring.

But of course Trump would not have faired well in 2018. The exercise is futile though as it really does depend on who he goes up against. What (if any) independents run. How much money russia spends to confuse our elderly. Whose year book photos get released last minute. How well James Comey's book is selling at the time. If Mueller picked his nose and it was caught by the paparazzi.

It going to be a long two years folks.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:35 pm
by casinterest
jetero wrote:
casinterest wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Why is Florida Blue? Both state wide offices were taken by a republican.

Also, who runs, is actually important. IE, in Pennsylvania where Conor Lamb ran as a centrist in a right of center district and won.


Florida should be purple. Florida was only won by trump by 1.2% of the vote. It will be a battleground.

Remember Trump is one of the most unpopular presidents in history outside of the GOP. He will need to battle hard to win in many states where Hillary was seen as a greater evil.


There is no purple on electoral maps.

It's adding up the congressional votes (i.e., the popular vote) in every state as a proxy for the presidential vote.

There's a whole crew on here implying that somehow Trumpy Bear could've won in 2018 when the whole damned wave was defined by being anti-Trump.

And that somehow he's going to be better positioned in 2020 after more light is inevitably shone on his criminal behavior because what now? That "Virginia mess" and AOC.


Trump runs very good "attack" campaigns. He has a thick skin and doesn't care what is hurled his way. However his inefficiency in leading the people and the economy will have to become more clear by 2020. People were not happy in 2018 in many districts with the president personally and how he treats anything and everything outside of his core base, but the economy has been rather sound. If the economy tanks in 2020, a dog could win against Trump. If the economy remains strong, then the Democrats need to have a strong candidate.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:42 pm
by jetero
casinterest wrote:
jetero wrote:
casinterest wrote:

Florida should be purple. Florida was only won by trump by 1.2% of the vote. It will be a battleground.

Remember Trump is one of the most unpopular presidents in history outside of the GOP. He will need to battle hard to win in many states where Hillary was seen as a greater evil.


There is no purple on electoral maps.

It's adding up the congressional votes (i.e., the popular vote) in every state as a proxy for the presidential vote.

There's a whole crew on here implying that somehow Trumpy Bear could've won in 2018 when the whole damned wave was defined by being anti-Trump.

And that somehow he's going to be better positioned in 2020 after more light is inevitably shone on his criminal behavior because what now? That "Virginia mess" and AOC.


Trump runs very good "attack" campaigns. He has a thick skin and doesn't care what is hurled his way. However his inefficiency in leading the people and the economy will have to become more clear by 2020. People were not happy in 2018 in many districts with the president personally and how he treats anything and everything outside of his core base, but the economy has been rather sound. If the economy tanks in 2020, a dog could win against Trump. If the economy remains strong, then the Democrats need to have a strong candidate.


I question the efficacy of his tactics after 2 more years of nonsense and investigation after investigation turns up repeated examples of what we all know to be the case, considering the crowd of sleazeballs he's associated himself with his entire life.

But, of course, the Democrats need a strong candidate. It looks like it's an open field so I have no reason to suspect they won't find the best one.

Of course all of this is out the window if Trumpy Bear calls his friends in Moscow.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:45 pm
by jetero
trpmb6 wrote:
I'm unsure of who this Trumpy Bear you speak of is.


Hmmmmm, I thought your deductive reasoning skills were superior to others.

Image

trpmb6 wrote:
The nicknames get tiring.


Nicknames make you tired?! There's always coffee, I guess . . .

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:55 pm
by Magog
jetero wrote:
Magog wrote:
As much as I want to see the Orange Cheeto Drumpf gone, this is about as silly an exercise as I have ever seen. We need to be smarter than this.


Only a special class of person could imply that the results of the most recent nationwide election are irrelevant and "silly."

You have been given numerous examples of why this is an exercise in futility. I’m not sure why you’re choosing to ignore them. This is the kind of thinking that got us Drumpf in the first place. We need to be way smarter than this.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:57 pm
by jetero
Magog wrote:
jetero wrote:
Magog wrote:
As much as I want to see the Orange Cheeto Drumpf gone, this is about as silly an exercise as I have ever seen. We need to be smarter than this.


Only a special class of person could imply that the results of the most recent nationwide election are irrelevant and "silly."

You have been given numerous examples of why this is an exercise in futility. I’m not sure why you’re choosing to ignore them.


Because they’re not applicable, Maggy.

Not sure why you think I care about yours, Nikky’s, or GF’s opinion.

TRP’s, on the other hand, is different as he’s not a demagogue.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:58 pm
by trpmb6
jetero wrote:

Hmmmmm, I thought your deductive reasoning skills were superior to others.

.


rofl, that bear isn't orange enough. I guess now that you mention it I have seen something similar to that. But I assume it's some campaign funding scheme of sort - and I generally don't contribute to campaigns out of principle. (though I have volunteered for certain local officials)

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:00 pm
by Magog
jetero wrote:
Magog wrote:
jetero wrote:

Only a special class of person could imply that the results of the most recent nationwide election are irrelevant and "silly."

You have been given numerous examples of why this is an exercise in futility. I’m not sure why you’re choosing to ignore them.


Because they’re not applicable, Maggy.

Not sure why you think I care about yours, Nikky’s, or GF’s opinion.

TRP’s, on the other hand, is different as he’s not a demagogue.

Take a look at history and you will see that midterms don’t have any predictive value. But you’ve already been told this.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:01 pm
by jetero
Magog wrote:
jetero wrote:
Magog wrote:
You have been given numerous examples of why this is an exercise in futility. I’m not sure why you’re choosing to ignore them.


Because they’re not applicable, Maggy.

Not sure why you think I care about yours, Nikky’s, or GF’s opinion.

TRP’s, on the other hand, is different as he’s not a demagogue.

Take a look at history and you will see that midterms don’t have any predictive value. But you’ve already been told this.


And I’ve told you it ain’t applicable Maggy. What’s your point?

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:05 pm
by Magog
jetero wrote:
Magog wrote:
jetero wrote:

Because they’re not applicable, Maggy.

Not sure why you think I care about yours, Nikky’s, or GF’s opinion.

TRP’s, on the other hand, is different as he’s not a demagogue.

Take a look at history and you will see that midterms don’t have any predictive value. But you’ve already been told this.


And I’ve told you it ain’t applicable Maggy. What’s your point?

What do they say about those who fail to learn from history? Probably the same thing that they ought to have said to those who don’t campaign in the Midwest.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:05 pm
by jetero
Magog wrote:
jetero wrote:
Magog wrote:
Take a look at history and you will see that midterms don’t have any predictive value. But you’ve already been told this.


And I’ve told you it ain’t applicable Maggy. What’s your point?

What do they say about those who fail to learn from history? Probably the same thing that they ought to have said to those who don’t campaign in the Midwest.


OK Maggy.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:29 pm
by jetero
trpmb6 wrote:
jetero wrote:

Hmmmmm, I thought your deductive reasoning skills were superior to others.

.


rofl, that bear isn't orange enough. I guess now that you mention it I have seen something similar to that. But I assume it's some campaign funding scheme of sort - and I generally don't contribute to campaigns out of principle. (though I have volunteered for certain local officials)


Not sure where the money goes but I must admit I almost bought one myself.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:39 pm
by Magog
You know it’s bad when you have to buy a $40 bear on a payment plan.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:43 pm
by jetero
Magog wrote:
You know it’s bad when you have to buy a $40 bear on a payment plan.


Hey, gotta make sure the base can afford it.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:02 pm
by trpmb6
jetero wrote:

TRP’s, on the other hand, is different as he’s not a demagogue.


Jetero, my friend, I dare say that be a compliment!

:hyper:

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:05 pm
by jetero
trpmb6 wrote:
jetero wrote:

TRP’s, on the other hand, is different as he’s not a demagogue.


Jetero, my friend, I dare say that be a compliment!

:hyper:


Now buy me my TRUMPY BEAR!!!

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:31 pm
by bgm
jetero wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
I'm unsure of who this Trumpy Bear you speak of is.


Hmmmmm, I thought your deductive reasoning skills were superior to others.

Image

trpmb6 wrote:
The nicknames get tiring.


Nicknames make you tired?! There's always coffee, I guess . . .


The video is even more absurd than the photo you attached! :rotfl:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qv8RSreIM

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:20 pm
by LittleSprocket
jetero wrote:
One of my recent futile conversations with a resident forum Trumpist made me wonder what a hypothetical electoral map would look like based on the 2018 midterm results.

Image

In short, it would have been a 314 to 224 shellacking of the Republicans--and this is in a Midterm election for which Democratic voter turnout are historically low.

I'm not sure why so many people still have their heads stuck in 2016. Trumpy Bear is in for a seriously rough haul in 2020, especially after the multitude of criminal activities he and his family have been involved in come to full light (they're already plainly visible for anyone with average intelligence--TB is not legally allowed to run a foundation but somehow he can run the country) and it becomes clear what the Republican Party enabled for short-term gains. The media and the party at large will dump him in short order with 2 more years of bumbling nonsense (case in point, today's National Prayer Breakfast) and sustained abysmal approval ratings. (I, for one, think he won't run.)

By that time, the working class voters in the Midwest will have had four years of TB and will have seen through all of the lies and broken promises. That is, if they're still employed following the senseless trade wars. The radical Republican primary voter will make the choice easier for moderates and will preserve suburban votes.

In any case, I think that this concern with Democratic candidates to be more moderate during the early days of the campaign is not well founded. Sounds like the type of advice people were giving to TB in 2015, and we all know how that worked out.

The writing's on the wall for the Republicans, I'm afraid (oh who am I kidding? I'm not). But that's what happens when you make a deal with the devil.


This looks awfully like the map that was predicted for Hillary's win in 2016...we ALL know how accurate that one was. The painful truth of the matter is that you are blinded by your hatred of Trump and those that supported him that you have lost any and all ability to think neither rationally nor logically.

What does the Democratic party stand for right now? Later term abortions? Open borders where anyone that chooses to can move on in without being better for criminal backgrounds or diseases? Restricting Constitutional rights? Convicting someone in a court of public opinion without a shred of evidence???

I don't think you understand just how far from mainstream those ideas have taken the left.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:24 pm
by jetero
“Blinded by hatred of Trump.”

The more I hear what are obviously trite talking points force fed to the lifetime C students as if it means anything, the more I’m convinced.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:27 pm
by LittleSprocket
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
If polls or elections at mid-terms meant anything, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Obama would have been one-term presidents, Carter a two-term president. With the GND, VA mess, the list of declared candidates and several states considering or passing late-term abortion laws, the Dems seem to want to out-crazy the crazy Trump. I’m not sure that is possible, but it’s entertaining.

Is there anyone remotely interested in actually governing from a middle ground position. I’m pretty far out libertarian-conservative, but I can live with center-right. Craziness isn’t a winning strategy.

GF


There is and he is running as an independent because he knows that he won't get the nomination in the Democratic Party. Howard Shultz is as moderate as they get. I don't believe in a lot of what he has to offer but I guarantee you he will steal a lot of votes from the moderate Democrats and independents. This is one of the reasons that the far left is attacking him now after praising him when he stood up for illegal immigration.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:34 pm
by jetero
More! More! More!

My theory is gaining credence with every post!

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:23 pm
by jetero
Elizabeth Warren just had a great speech.

We’ve got a great field to choose from.

Republicans don’t have sh*t. Correction. They only have sh*t.

No one is going to vote for Venti McBillionaire.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:28 pm
by NIKV69
jetero wrote:
Elizabeth Warren just had a great speech.

We’ve got a great field to choose from.

Republicans don’t have sh*t. Correction. They only have sh*t.

No one is going to vote for Venti McBillionaire.


Wow watched it, scary stuff. So glad she won't get anywhere near the nomination.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:29 pm
by jetero
NIKV69 wrote:
jetero wrote:
Elizabeth Warren just had a great speech.

We’ve got a great field to choose from.

Republicans don’t have sh*t. Correction. They only have sh*t.

No one is going to vote for Venti McBillionaire.


Wow watched it, scary stuff. So glad she won't get anywhere near the nomination.


I heard Cuomo likes her.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:14 pm
by LittleSprocket
jetero wrote:
“Blinded by hatred of Trump.”

The more I hear what are obviously trite talking points force fed to the lifetime C students as if it means anything, the more I’m convinced.


My point exactly. Instead of offering anything of substance you try and use failed attempts at insults. A C-student? That's cute and not even close... still doesn't negate anything that I called you on.

Want to try again?

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:16 pm
by LittleSprocket
jetero wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
jetero wrote:
Elizabeth Warren just had a great speech.

We’ve got a great field to choose from.

Republicans don’t have sh*t. Correction. They only have sh*t.

No one is going to vote for Venti McBillionaire.


Wow watched it, scary stuff. So glad she won't get anywhere near the nomination.


I heard Cuomo likes her.


Do you mean Cuomo, we must adjust our budget due to the rich leaving New York? Why are places like Georgia and Texas doing well financially yet California and New York are having budget issues?

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:19 pm
by jetero
LittleSprocket wrote:
jetero wrote:
“Blinded by hatred of Trump.”

The more I hear what are obviously trite talking points force fed to the lifetime C students as if it means anything, the more I’m convinced.


My point exactly. Instead of offering anything of substance you try and use failed attempts at insults. A C-student? That's cute and not even close... still doesn't negate anything that I called you on.

Want to try again?


Nah I’m good LS.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:20 pm
by jetero
LittleSprocket wrote:
jetero wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:

Wow watched it, scary stuff. So glad she won't get anywhere near the nomination.


I heard Cuomo likes her.


Do you mean Cuomo, we must adjust our budget due to the rich leaving New York? Why are places like Georgia and Texas doing well financially yet California and New York are having budget issues?


I heard Stacey Abrams balanced the budget.

Re: The Blue Wave, Revisited

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:12 pm
by casinterest
New article for discussion going forward towards 2020.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/an ... lectorate/

Genz and the millenials shall rise, while the share of white voters will decline

Image

Image