Blue Wave 2018

[CID1990]

I think this went pretty much as predicted, although maybe not as well as the Dems probably were hoping.

The GOP does not have a legislative agenda. Unless any of them want to call signing off on spendy Trumpy fiscal self destruction as a legislative agenda. But I think that's what most Republicans are thinking at this point - there is no legislative agenda, but there is definitely a judicial agenda. Looking through that lens, the GOP has secured a RINO-proof majority in the Senate for the next two years.

All the Dems had to do was not go crazy over the last two years and they might have picked up a seat or two in the Senate. Now all they have to do is... not go crazy with defund ICE and impeachment bills in the House, and they'll stand to own both houses in 2020.

Prediction: they double down on crazy.
Short term prediction: there's going to be a coup attempt for the Speakership in the House

Meanwhile, libertarians can only get 5% in any given election

[93henfan]

Liberals are picking up seats, the House and quite a few governorships will be flipped, a check against Trump has been formed, and there might still be a surprise in Texas and other places. Yes Florida disappointed, but at least they passed the measure to give back the voting rights to felons (minus murder/sexual convictions).

The Senate was never going to be won, but the extra losses do make 2020 tougher. Overall though, tonight is a good start in righting the ship towards the progressive path America has always followed (and yes, progressives are doing much better than moderate Democrats tonight).

And progressives will do well, until they can’t deliver. In Colorado, for example,the progressive won the governors seat on platform of free stuff...medical and college are the two big ones...

Now, how to pay for those...liberal Vermont tried and found it could not afford the single payer...and California has put that on the back burner because of costs...

This progressive move will stall as the costs become clear...

[houndawg]

I think this went pretty much as predicted, although maybe not as well as the Dems probably were hoping.

The GOP does not have a legislative agenda. Unless any of them want to call signing off on spendy Trumpy fiscal self destruction as a legislative agenda. But I think that's what most Republicans are thinking at this point - there is no legislative agenda, but there is definitely a judicial agenda. Looking through that lens, the GOP has secured a RINO-proof majority in the Senate for the next two years.

All the Dems had to do was not go crazy over the last two years and they might have picked up a seat or two in the Senate. Now all they have to do is... not go crazy with defund ICE and impeachment bills in the House, and they'll stand to own both houses in 2020.

Prediction: they double down on crazy.
Short term prediction: there's going to be a coup attempt for the Speakership in the House

Meanwhile, libertarians can only get 5% in any given election

Well worth the entertainment value of the Maxine and Donald Show!



This is going to be great.

[93henfan]

So I wake up to find Beto lost, Gillum lost, Abrams and Nelson on their way to losing, Democrats not doing as well as pundits expected in the House, and Republicans just crushing it in the Senate, validating that the Kavanaugh smear campaign backfired.

Blue wave just didn't materialize, even with Oprah and Obama trying to rustle the negroes and Soros and Hollywood kicking in billions. Maybe they'll be more energized in the future. So sad!

[CID1990]

So I wake up to find Beto lost, Gillum lost, Abrams and Nelson on their way to losing, Democrats not doing as well as pundits expected in the House, and Republicans just crushing it in the Senate, validating that the Kavanaugh smear campaign backfired.

Blue wave just didn't materialize, even with Oprah and Obama trying to rustle the negroes and Soros and Hollywood kicking in billions. Maybe they'll be more energized in the future. So sad!

I was surprised Gollum lost

He pushed all the race buttons patented by the Obama Model... including the "If you disagree with me it means youre racists" button

Looks like it only works if youre half-black, I guess


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Winterborn]

I think this went pretty much as predicted, although maybe not as well as the Dems probably were hoping.

The GOP does not have a legislative agenda. Unless any of them want to call signing off on spendy Trumpy fiscal self destruction as a legislative agenda. But I think that's what most Republicans are thinking at this point - there is no legislative agenda, but there is definitely a judicial agenda. Looking through that lens, the GOP has secured a RINO-proof majority in the Senate for the next two years.

All the Dems had to do was not go crazy over the last two years and they might have picked up a seat or two in the Senate. Now all they have to do is... not go crazy with defund ICE and impeachment bills in the House, and they'll stand to own both houses in 2020.

Prediction: they double down on crazy.
Short term prediction: there's going to be a coup attempt for the Speakership in the House

Meanwhile, libertarians can only get 5% in any given election

The Dems won just enough to "validate" their election strategy in my opinion and at bare minimum we are going to see the same rhetoric in 2020. Going to have to get a second garbage can just for all the political fliers I am going to get in the mail.

Also the cable news channels are going to be better than any reality tv show out there.
I probably should buy some shares in some popcorn stock.

[GannonFan]

Pretty much an even split for the night - Dems win the House, although not by the sweeping margin they probably would've liked, the GOP picked up a lot more seats in the Senate than they probably thought they would, not nearly as many governorships changed hands as was predicted, Trump can say the places he went to campaign did well, so both sides can claim some kind of victory.

As I said before, the Dems would really serve themselves well to find someone other than Pelosi to be Speaker for the next 2 years - beyond the fact that she's fairly unlikeable, she's also crazy old. Time to get some new, younger blood into the leadership rolls. She's been at the helm too many times now - pass it on to someone else.

[93henfan]

As I said before, the Dems would really serve themselves well to find someone other than Pelosi to be Speaker for the next 2 years - beyond the fact that she's fairly unlikeable, she's also crazy old. Time to get some new, younger blood into the leadership rolls. She's been at the helm too many times now - pass it on to someone else.

[Gil Dobie]

Minnesota stayed pretty much blue. A possible couple flips on from blue to red and red to blue for reps. ND Senator went from blue to red.

[Winterborn]

Looks like the wave was pretty small.

[ASUG8]

Bye Bye Beto! ABC calls it for Ted Cruz.

$70 million+ down the drain.

Look at it as an economic stimulus for the printing industry.

[ASUG8]

And progressives will do well, until they can’t deliver. In Colorado, for example,the progressive won the governors seat on platform of free stuff...medical and college are the two big ones...

Now, how to pay for those...liberal Vermont tried and found it could not afford the single payer...and California has put that on the back burner because of costs...

This progressive move will stall as the costs become clear...

What is it about progressives that makes them ignore the simple math of people wanting to keep some of their money and not pay $8/gallon for gas or 50% tax rates to subsidize free education and healthcare? We don't have the semi-socialist economies of some of Europe and aren't likely to tip over to it any time soon (fingers crossed).

[CAA Flagship]

McCaskill loses by 10 points. Was it worth voting against Kavanaugh?

You're welcome.

[CAA Flagship]

McCaskill loses by 10 points. Was it worth voting against Kavanaugh?

If that's what she thought was the right thing to do, then yes. I'm suspect she knew it would hurt her election chances. I've always maintained that a politician should not do whatever they do because that's what they think will benefit them in the next election. They should do what they do because they think it's the best thing to do. Then let the chips fall where they may. I don't think they should be gauging public sentiment and adjusting what they do accordingly. They should be saying, "This is what I believe in. This is the right approach. Vote for me if you want to."

That's leadership. Gauging public sentiment then acting to try to pander to it is not.

Aren't they supposed to vote according to their constituents?
What do you have to say about Manchin?

[Ibanez]

Bye Bye Beto! ABC calls it for Ted Cruz.

$70 million+ down the drain.

I wouldn't say that. Cruz didn't win by a sweeping majority. He won by less than 2%, ~151k people.

[Pwns]

It seems with Republicans doing well in state-wide races and Democrats doing better in house races, the complaints about how rigged districts are for the GOP have disappeared and the new complaint is about how undemocratic the senate is for giving equal representation to each state. Funny how that works.

[Ibanez]

If that's what she thought was the right thing to do, then yes. I'm suspect she knew it would hurt her election chances. I've always maintained that a politician should not do whatever they do because that's what they think will benefit them in the next election. They should do what they do because they think it's the best thing to do. Then let the chips fall where they may. I don't think they should be gauging public sentiment and adjusting what they do accordingly. They should be saying, "This is what I believe in. This is the right approach. Vote for me if you want to."

That's leadership. Gauging public sentiment then acting to try to pander to it is not.

Aren't they supposed to vote according to their constituents?
What do you have to say about Manchin?

Sometimes the constituents are wrong, un-informed or biased.

[93henfan]

Here's the one positive (for me) of the blue ripple:



https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/20 ... es/152614/

[CAA Flagship]

Aren't they supposed to vote according to their constituents?
What do you have to say about Manchin?

Sometimes the constituents are wrong, un-informed or biased.

How did that work for McCaskill? (Voted against tax cuts and Kavanaugh) Was she right?

[JohnStOnge]

If that's what she thought was the right thing to do, then yes. I'm suspect she knew it would hurt her election chances. I've always maintained that a politician should not do whatever they do because that's what they think will benefit them in the next election. They should do what they do because they think it's the best thing to do. Then let the chips fall where they may. I don't think they should be gauging public sentiment and adjusting what they do accordingly. They should be saying, "This is what I believe in. This is the right approach. Vote for me if you want to."

That's leadership. Gauging public sentiment then acting to try to pander to it is not.

Aren't they supposed to vote according to their constituents?
What do you have to say about Manchin?

It depends on what he really thinks. If I had been charged with voting on whether to confirm Kavanaugh or not I would have voted to confirm because he is highly qualified and, though I am inclined to believe he really did grope on Blasey-Ford back in the day, there is not sufficient evidence to "convict" him.

On the first question: I have always believed that people who want to lead should say what they believe and what they will do. Then people can decide whether to vote for them or not. That doesn't mean I think someone in office should refuse to listen to efforts to change his or her mind. But the decisions should be made on what one thinks is best. Then if the constituents don't agree they can vote the person out.

[Ibanez]

Sometimes the constituents are wrong, un-informed or biased.

How did that work for McCaskill? (Voted against tax cuts and Kavanaugh) Was she right?

Her constituents didn't seem to think so.

Then again, maybe they were biased or ill-informed. Maybe she lost b/c she didn't toe the party line and suck up to Trump like everyone seems to be doing these days.

It's just an observation. Mark Sanford did what was right for his district and the country. He was able to disagree with Trump without attacking him. It cost him his seat.

[93henfan]

How did that work for McCaskill? (Voted against tax cuts and Kavanaugh) Was she right?

Her constituents didn't seem to think so.

Then again, maybe they were biased or ill-informed. Maybe she lost b/c she didn't toe the party line and suck up to Trump like everyone seems to be doing these days.

It's just an observation. Mark Sanford did what was right for his district and the country. He was able to disagree with Trump without attacking him. It cost him his seat.

You do realize she was a Democrat?

[Col Hogan]

https://mobile.twitter.com/TomBevanRCP/ ... 3814073344

[93henfan]

https://mobile.twitter.com/TomBevanRCP/ ... 3814073344

Make 'em pay!

[CAA Flagship]

Aren't they supposed to vote according to their constituents?
What do you have to say about Manchin?

It depends on what he really thinks. If I had been charged with voting on whether to confirm Kavanaugh or not I would have voted to confirm because he is highly qualified and, though I am inclined to believe he really did grope on Blasey-Ford back in the day, there is not sufficient evidence to "convict" him.

On the first question: I have always believed that people who want to lead should say what they believe and what they will do. Then people can decide whether to vote for them or not. That doesn't mean I think someone in office should refuse to listen to efforts to change his or her mind. But the decisions should be made on what one thinks is best. Then if the constituents don't agree they can vote the person out.

Fair enough. But when a curveball comes up that you didn't cover in the campaign, you need to listen to your constituents. Some things are difficult to reverse (see ACA). This has caused problems for far more people than it helped and here we are some 8 years later and some of that stink is still lingering.
Now I'm not saying that McCaskill voted on things in a way that wasn't expected (because of her party affiliation), but she paid the price for doing so.