2018 Senate (& House)

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Joe Fan, Mar 22, 2017.

  1. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Did you notice the weirdest part about this Alabama run off?
    The polling was correct
    What?
    Yes, it's true. The pre-vote polling was mostly accurate and came very close to actual results
    Which makes the polling for this race something of an outlier in current American politics.
    How to we account for this?
    Need a hint?


    There were no Dems in the polling to overweight
     
    ShAArk92, Brad Austin and I35 like this.
  2. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts


    Some names floated on the R-side for the Corker seat in Tennessee --

    Rep. Marsha Blackburn (the likely choice of conservatives)
    Gov. Bill Haslam (anti-Trump billionaire of Pilot Flying J Truck Stop fame)
    former Rep. Stephen Fincher (started out as Tea Party but became part of the
    Swamp, loves subsidies and the Export-Import Bank)​
     
  3. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 500+ Posts

    But this isn't an example of 2-3 players helping kids at an exercise program while wearing their NFL-provided jersey, or the marginally legitimate United Way. The players/staff are at work and disrespecting the very nation which gave them the opportunity to be paid GOBS of money for ... playing a game.

    I was disappointed in Jerrah's answer ... I didn't see it live, only the news reports as I, too, have been wholly OUT on the NFL with all this nonsense. Disappointed because to the extent there's a legitimate grievance regarding the treatment of blacks by LEOs ... it's not without just cause, either.

    @Monahorns had a good reply above (couple pages back) regarding the balance between feeling put-upon ... and the basis for being "put upon." IOW ... "you brought it on yourself." But our victim society ... and failure to accept personal responsibility prevents us from REALLY having this conversation. The idiotic daytime shows like "the view" or "voice" or whatever ... bunch of ninnies spouting more the same: you're a victim of (probably a Republican/Conservative Baptist Caucasian male) and deserve to be compensated.

    There's a comment on the thread about oU game time this year ... and some seeking a 1900 kickoff ... then the ensuing commentary about being in Fair Park at that time of day.

    Wait a second? The profile actually fits? So, perhaps the stereotype isn't invalid if spectators are concerned for their safety regarding the potential of being in a particular place at a particular time.

    Past performance IS an indicator of future results.
     
  4. ShAArk92

    ShAArk92 500+ Posts

    BWAHAHAHAHA!

    ACTUALLY, I think he'd be peddling apple pies.




    Yeah I know ... before Halloween! :p
     
    Joe Fan likes this.
  5. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    And so it begins
    Is this the start of something big?



    "It seems like McConnell's star is fading and Bannon's is rising. I wanted to break bread with the guy and figure out his thinking," said Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor from Phoenix who was scheduled to meet with Bannon on Wednesday.

    Republican donors are furious with Senate Republicans — many with McConnell specifically. They're disappointed with the outcome in Alabama and angry that the Senate hasn't passed legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare.

    That has some donors, who usually circulate in establishment circles, taking the measure of Bannon to prepare for upheaval that many inside the party believe is on tap for next year's primaries — especially if Republicans fumble tax reform.

    * * *

    "I have had a lot of donors not wanting to give to national party," a Republican fundraising consultant said, on condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly. "They are very upset that nothing is getting done in D.C. It goes both ways with that though. Some are mad at the far right Senators/Freedom caucus. Others are mad at McConnell. Overall, no donors are happy. If they are giving, they are giving to help the specific person calling, not the party."
     
  6. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    (1) If the Dems were the side befitting the most from this, we wouldnt be hearing about this, and
    (2) If they are going to get rid of gerrymandering, they must also give some finality on the pre-clearance requirements (Section 5 of the VRA) which are still somewhat up in the air even post Shelby. Gerrymandered districts are what give us people like Sheila Jackson Lee. I wouldnt mind seeing that die.

     
  7. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    Democrats were the primary winners in the gerrymandering game until 2001 (and really 2010), and for the most part we didn't hear about it. The issue existed, but redistricting in general was something that was really only discussed by political insiders. It was over the heads of lay political observers, not because it was complicated but because the media virtually never discussed it.

    I'm not a fan of gerrymandering and think it's terrible for politics and for the country in general. However, so long as nobody's vote counts more than anyone else's, I don't see any constitutional reason to strike down a district just because it favors a political party. If the Court decides to go down this road, it's going to have to pull some legal "doctrine" out of thin air (which it certainly has done before) to do it. Furthermore, it's going to invite litigation like crazy. There is no measurable, objective standard for what constitutes a gerrymandered district. We "know it when we see it." That means pretty much every congressional district in the country will be a possible litigation target.

    One little known fact is that though the judiciary has no authority to stop gerrymandering, Congress can. But if course, other than the 10 or 11 percent of Congress that comes from competitive districts, they're the last people who would try to stop it. And even those 10 or 11 percent would only want to get rid of gerrymandering because they know it would likely make their own districts less competitive.
     
    Seattle Husker likes this.
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    And that's the rule, I think, although I concede I cant remember voting cases very well. Gerrymandering "for political reasons" meets Constitutional standards. Gerrymandering for racial reasons does not.

    OK, so now guess what Dems see now in every R-majority state?
    But not in any Dem-maj state?

    And , btw, Dem gerrymandering looks just as retarded as any other ....

    here is the 4th district of Obama's purported home state
    [​IMG]

    Maryland
    [​IMG]

    Calif
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 1,000+ Posts

    The MSM only brings up gerrymandering when the Reps are in power. The party in power gets to make up the districts, so they don't mind it so much when the Dems are doing it. It's as simple as that.
     
  10. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    Unless we're trying to create an affirmative action policy for the US House. See Sheila Jackson-Lee's district.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  11. mchammer

    mchammer 2,500+ Posts

    New rules could be easy: district lines have to follow county lines with an exception of one county. In other words no more than one county can be split up.
     
  12. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Sort of. The make-up of the Jackson-Lee district is an intentional act by the state legis to meet VRA Section 4 and federal court review. This district is a pawn, or sacrifice. They would not do it if they did not feel like they had to. I have personally confronted two of my state senators about this, to no avail (other than a wry, wincing nod of sympathy)
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
  13. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    or zip code. Doesnt matter to me.

    The biggest single issue is the way the Const leaves it to the states.
     
  14. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    The practical issue, as we have already seen in SW Texas, is that if you make it even and simply leave it up to the people, they will often vote for Rs in what are supposed to be Dem-safe areas. Nothing gets Dems into Court faster than this.
     
  15. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    I am good with this
    Two-faced politicians are a scourge upon the land
    So sick of them
    This guy did it to himself


     
  16. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  17. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    R House member from Michigan discussing the importance of the 4th Amendment


     
  18. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Foster Friess, a "wealthy GOP donor from Wyoming", says he may make a primary run against John Barrasso who is the fourth-ranking Senate Republican
     
  19. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Sen Bob Casey (D - PA) is in trouble in Penn
    Only 27% think he should be re-elected
    46% want a new Senator
    He is known a slacker in the Senate. Some call him "Lazy Bob."
    This was the old Santorum seat. Would be a big pickup if Rs can grab this seat back


    http://abc27.com/spr-fall-2017-pa-statewide-omnibus-poll/
     
  20. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    A bit of bad news here

     
  21. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Media doesnt really cover this case
    How come?
    This means all 18 counts will go to the jury

    NEWARK — After raising Sen. Robert Menendez’s hopes last week, a federal judge crushed them on Monday morning.

    U.S. District Court Judge William Walls refused to toss any of the 18 charges in the corruption case against Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, despite last week casting doubt on a legal theory that’s at the heart of the prosecution’s case.

    http://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2017/10/16/judge-deals-blow-to-menendez-115068
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2017
  22. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    You have to wonder how long Dems will hang in there with having an impaired person as their leader

    Maybe she wields Bob-Weinstein-like power where the younger people are afraid of what she might mean to their careers?


     
  23. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Anyone surprised?
    Dems unwilling to say Menendez should resign even if convicted

    "An overwhelming majority of Sen. Bob Menendez’s constituents (84 percent) want the Democratic senator to resign from office if he’s convicted of the federal bribery and corruption charges he’s currently facing in court alongside his deep-pocketed benefactor. Democratic senators, however, aren’t willing to say whether their colleague should go if convicted...."

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/20...ndez-should-resign-not-a-single-one-said-yes/
     
  24. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 5,000+ Posts

    Honestly, I'm not a fan of this sort of thing - ripping a politician for not judging a situation he can't be adequately informed about. There's nothing wrong with not commenting about a pending case. Suppose Menendez gets convicted but has the conviction overturned on appeal? It's not always a simple yes or no.
     

Share This Page