Midterm Elections

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

They have created a new organisation in Texas. You think that money was wasted? The fight in Texas was really about 2020 and 2024. The Dems believe changing demographics could flip Texas at least purple, if not blue. It's a long term strategy.

John Corryn is worried. He's doesn't have the profile of Cruz.

Of course Texas will eventually become a blue state, the irony being the red state is very successful and its making Texan cities among the fastest growing cities in the US, so Republicans have made Texas a success and the people moving to Texas - a lot from blue states with problems and they vote Democrat and could end up making a mess of what has worked for Texas.

prawnsambo

RobertKK wrote: »

Of course Texas will eventually become a blue state, the irony being the red state is very successful and its making Texan cities among the fastest growing cities in the US, so Republicans have made Texas a success and the people moving to Texas - a lot from blue states with problems and they vote Democrat and could end up making a mess of what has worked for Texas.

Isn't it the case though, that most of the blue in Texas is centred around those cities?

Rjd2

Water John wrote: »

That might just prove it's easier to demonise a woman than a man.

Its not just the right who come for her though, she gets plenty of abuse from the "far left" of the party and the red state Dems love to snipe at her.

So tough crowd:p

I dunno who the Dems will pick, betting fav is Harris at the moment , but Amy along with a progressive as VP would be a formidable opponent for Trump.

RobertKK

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Although he raised that number he didn't spend anything like the full amount..

If a candidate irrespective of party raises too much money to spend, where does the excess money go?

RobertKK

prawnsambo wrote: »

Isn't it the case though, that most of the blue in Texas is centred around those cities?

Yes where people are emigrating to from outside of Texas.

hill16bhoy

Looks like Lucy McBath (D) has beaten Karen Handel (R) in Georgia 6. That's the seat Jon Ossoff couldn't take last year.

McBath is black and her son was shot dead by a crazed white racist in 2012.

I'm delighted to see that result.

Water John

SNIP. No more quips please.

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

Isn't it the case though, that most of the blue in Texas is centred around those cities?

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes where people are emigrating to from outside of Texas.

The cities concerned are Dallas, which has a Democratic mayor, and San Antonio, which has a non-party mayor, who succeeded another non-party mayor.

RobertKK

Water John wrote: »

Even Trump would hardly spout that nonsense theory KK.

There is no need for that.
Backed up your statement with zero evidence

Look at the population growth in Texas.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22649624

that trend as reported in 2013 is still happening

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/03/22/census-estimates-show-another-year-rapid-growth-texas-suburbs/

In the counties surrounding Dallas and Tarrant, almost two out of every three new residents since 2010 have come from other areas of the state or the country.

Podge_irl

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Pelosi's approval rating is dire, even much worse that The Donald's.

Congress's approval rating in general is dire.

Not that that seems to stop 80-90% of them being re-elected like clockwork.

Professor Moriarty

Podge_irl wrote: »

Congress's approval rating in general is dire.

Not that that seems to stop 80-90% of them being re-elected like clockwork.

Indeed. I'm thinking of how Pelosi is seen by many as the de facto Dem equivalent of Trump and how that might have played out in the midterms. Her approval rating is truly awful so if they had someone popular leading the charge things might have gone even better.

Peregrinus

RobertKK wrote: »

In the counties surrounding Dallas and Tarrant, almost two out of every three new residents since 2010 have come from other areas of the state or the country.

So, what you're saying is, the parts of Texas with Democratic administrations are thriving, and people are fleeing the Republican-run areas and flocking to them?

prawnsambo

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes where people are emigrating to from outside of Texas.

That must be some amount of people. Because the Dem vote for congress in those districts were routinely in the 80% region and even higher in some cases.

Rhineshark

RobertKK wrote: »

Beto O'Rourke did really badly. I came across this:
2012 Paul Sadler
Raised: $705,027
Votes: 3,194,927
$/Vote: $0.22 each

Then on to 2018
Beto O'Rourke
Raised: $69,240,350+
Votes (11:33pm ET): 3,413,259+
$/Vote: $20.29 each

Just an extra 218k votes despite all the hype and spending 98 times as much as the Democrat in 2012 did.

In the state he was running, against the incumbent, he actually did very well.

You can break it down however you like, expectation and history were against him. Closing that gap in the way he did will have left Cruz a relieved man that he pipped him. The hype was because he was doing so well with the Senate races stacked as they were. (Plus Ted Cruz is impressively unlikable). You were listening to McConnell if you really thought he'd win.

Podge_irl

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. I'm thinking of how Pelosi is seen by many as the de facto Dem equivalent of Trump and how that might have played out in the midterms. Her approval rating is truly awful so if they had someone popular leading the charge things might have gone even better.

Perhaps, it was a massive mistake for the dems to stick with her this long to be honest. I'm not sure it would have made a huge difference in these elections but I think it will have an impact as to how the democrats are perceived in the next two years. Whether she is Speaker for that whole time or passes it on, the Speaker absolutely can not afford to be seen as just an anti-Trump roadblock hellbent on (pointlessly) impeaching him. They need to spend their time on putting forth bills that get killed by the Republicans so that the latter are seen as the problem.

Harika

Rhineshark wrote: »

In the state he was running, against the incumbent, he actually did very well.

You can break it down however you like, expectation and history were against him. Closing that gap in the way he did will have left Cruz a relieved man that he pipped him. The hype was because he was doing so well with the Senate races stacked as they were. (Plus Ted Cruz is impressively unlikable). You were listening to McConnell if you really thought he'd win.

The race got closer and closer in the end so this was exciting.

I still cannot get over when I woke up in the morning and read the twitter feed Donalds Tweets came up first and it was like “Tremendous success” and “How will the Dems recover” and I thought it was a shock not win for the Dems of the house. Senate no one actually believed.
It’s hilarious how this is now spun. Like Paul Ryan who sold it as “Same same” what I actually agree most of. Next to that with all those jobs, low inflation and so on it is a great win for the Dems.

Professor Moriarty

Podge_irl wrote: »

Perhaps, it was a massive mistake for the dems to stick with her this long to be honest. I'm not sure it would have made a huge difference in these elections but I think it will have an impact as to how the democrats are perceived in the next two years. Whether she is Speaker for that whole time or passes it on, the Speaker absolutely can not afford to be seen as just an anti-Trump roadblock hellbent on (pointlessly) impeaching him. They need to spend their time on putting forth bills that get killed by the Republicans so that the latter are seen as the problem.

Conversely, or perversely, there is a serious dilemma for the Dems in the House now. Apart from going after Trump personally (Mueller, WH ethics, tax returns etc.) which will allow him to go into victim mode and incite his base, if they reject every piece of legislation that he sends then he will simply say that the Dems are impeding good governance. However, if they are seen to be passive, then their voters will wonder what is the point of voting Dems into the House.

vetinari

The Dems were elected to the House as a check on Trump first and foremost.
Trump has been one of the most openly corrupt presidents in living memory.
The level of conflict of interests he has is staggering.

Democratic voters will be seriously pissed if there aren't multiple investigations into Trump's dealings.

MTBD

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, what you're saying is, the parts of Texas with Democratic administrations are thriving, and people are fleeing the Republican-run areas and flocking to them?

Hmmmm....so they are fleeing democrat dominated California and settling in Republican dominated Texas? Texas has received a net gain of 410,000 Californians since 2001.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/ktvu-local-news/california-exodus-study-says-more-people-leaving-state-than-moving-here

And unsurprisingly they are doing what these sort of people always do, saying they want one thing (High taxes, public services and liberal policies) but then prove that they really don't want any of that by moving away from there to somewhere that tradionally promotes the opposite. Of course they will most likely continue to vote in their Democrat idols and then wonder why Texas has become as expensive as California.

It's liberal self delusion at its finest.

vetinari

That's a bizarre interpretation for why Californians are moving to Texas.
It's for one reason: housing.

Cost of housing is sky high in California.
That causes people to move to cheaper locations.
It's sky high because a lot of people want to live there and locals who block denser housing.
NIMBYism regarding denser housing is not a left or right issue. It's pretty universal.

prawnsambo

vetinari wrote: »

That's a bizarre interpretation for why Californians are moving to Texas.
It's for one reason: housing.

Cost of housing is sky high in California.
That causes people to move to cheaper locations.
It's sky high because a lot of people want to live there and locals who block denser housing.
NIMBYism regarding denser housing is not a left or right issue. It's pretty universal.

And as a corollorary to that, there's net migration inwards in the upper income levels (> 100k) and from states like NY, IL and NJ.

Eric Cartman

rossie1977 wrote: »

Doesn't translate much. Dems got destroyed in the house in 2010 and took big losses in Senate yet Obama comfortably won the 2012 presidential election.

Problem for the Dems right now is the rift between the progressive and corporate mainstream wings of the parties.

The problem for the dems is the moderates are being overshadowed by the left who are getting more extreme as time goes on. When people are getting excited about candidates like sanders and ocasio-cortez you have a problem on your hands. The dems would do well to distance themselves from the more fringe elements and only nominate centerist candidates who are palatable to more than college students.

8-10

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The problem for the dems is the moderates are being overshadowed by the left who are getting more extreme as time goes on. When people are getting excited about candidates like sanders and ocasio-cortez you have a problem on your hands. The dems would do well to distance themselves from the more fringe elements and only nominate centerist candidates who are palatable to more than college students.

Didn't work with Hillary though

Eric Cartman

8-10 wrote: »

Didn't work with Hillary though

she was always just a terrible candidate. It wasnt her leanings on the left to middle scale, shes just an unlikeable person with a lot of skeletons in the closet.

RobertKK

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, what you're saying is, the parts of Texas with Democratic administrations are thriving, and people are fleeing the Republican-run areas and flocking to them?

That is what you are saying.
There are a lot moving from San Francisco.

A council survey of the San Francisco Bay area found 46% of residents planned on leaving the area soon.

According to a new report from the real-estate company Redfin, Seattle is the top out-of-state destination for Bay Area residents. Other areas include Sacramento, California; Austin, Texas; Portland, Oregon; and Las Vegas.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-housing-high-cost-residents-leaving-2018-6?r=US&IR=T

So Nevada will go more blue too.


https://www.ktsa.com/californians-are-moving-to-texas-texans-are-moving-to-san-antonio/

Austin had a lot of interest from Silicon Valley with Houston and Los Angeles a distant second and third. People in Seattle, Dallas, Washington, Chicago, San Diego and New York also took some interest in the capital city.

All blue states...

The top source for newcomers in Dallas is Los Angeles — San Francisco was a distant second. People from Chicago, Seattle, Washington, New York, Austin and Houston were also gawking at Dallas-area photos of front lawns and living rooms

Oh look all blue areas again...

Houston has been another big draw for west coasters.

Los Angeles had the most out-of-towners looking around the Bayou City with San Francisco also a distant second. It also had interest from people in Dallas, Washington, Austin, Chicago, New York and Seattle

Oh wow that RobertKK doesn't know what he is talking about...all from blue Democratic areas again...

Austin and Houston were the top sources of people interested in San Antonio with Los Angeles a close third. The Alamo City was also of interest to people in Washington, the Bay Area, Seattle, Dallas, Chicago and San Diego.

Shock/horror, all coming from Democrat strongholds again...

As I was saying it is people from overpriced Democrat states moving to Texas and into the suburbs of the big Texan cities and turning the state towards being blue.

prawnsambo

8-10 wrote: »

Didn't work with Hillary though

That's the point though. As long as Democrats wear Republican clothes, there's no danger of them getting any real power. The history of Dem presidents with hostile houses of congress is long and distinguished. Can't have them muddying up the waters coming out with policies that contrast them with the GOP and people might actually like.

Dyr

Worth remembering voters in states with high population density are inevitably going to wind up migrating into states with lower populations.

And with that the electoral college goes up the Swanee for Republicans

8-10

Bambi wrote: »

Worth remembering voters in states with high population density are inevitably going to wind up migrating into states with lower populations.

And with that the electoral college goes up the Swanee for Republicans

I don't think that is a realistic expectation. Republicans will gerrymander the crap out of everywhere they need to.

What needs to be done away with is the ridiculous electoral college altogether

Jolly Red Giant

Eric Cartman wrote: »

she was always just a terrible candidate. It wasnt her leanings on the left to middle scale, shes just an unlikeable person with a lot of skeletons in the closet.

Jaysus - a representative of US corporate financial capital is now regarded as 'on the left'

:rolleyes:

The world according to Eric

s7ryf3925pivug

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The problem for the dems is the moderates are being overshadowed by the left who are getting more extreme as time goes on. When people are getting excited about candidates like sanders and ocasio-cortez you have a problem on your hands. The dems would do well to distance themselves from the more fringe elements and only nominate centerist candidates who are palatable to more than college students.

More diverse candidates elected for the dems. Traditional conservatives replaced with far right candidates for the republicans. If both perties continue to move away from the centre, perhaps ground will open up there for a third party.