The Swamp

brian wrote:The other major takeaway is not that GOP voters switched to Jones, although some obviously did, but this was all about turnout, especially black and young voters.

There's a template here that can be copied in the midterms. Ted Cruz should be shitting his pants because if Alabama can flip 30 points from 2016 (even with a seriously flawed candidate), then Texas can easily flip 10 or so.

degenerasian wrote:

brian wrote:The GOP didn't want Moore to run to begin with. I'm sure the Alabama GOP and national GOP would have been perfectly happy for Strange to run unopposed in the GOP primary. And if he had, the GOP would have held the seat.

Wouldn't have been unopposed. There was a runoff to get to the runoff.

brian wrote:Texas has never been able to mobilize Latino voters on any kind of huge scale compared to California, Nevada and New Mexico. I'm hoping there's a lot of boots on the ground doing that because I truly believe Texas can be got with these kind of tailwinds for the Dems. Beating Cruz would send a pretty huge message to the rest of the country.

ETA: And the irony of mobilizing Latinos to vote for a non-Latino over a Latino candidate is not lost on me and kind of proof of how fucked things are in general.

govmentchedda wrote:For some reason, I had it in my head that Beto's heritage was at least part Mexican. Probably because of the ATDI and El Paso background.

A_B wrote:

govmentchedda wrote:For some reason, I had it in my head that Beto's heritage was at least part Mexican. Probably because of the ATDI and El Paso background.

It could be because he's appropriated the spanish nickname (Which is probably a solid play in El Paso). Or maybe he has a latino lawyer.

Nonlinear FC wrote:I could almost have given him a pass if he'd just endorsed him once in a tweet, with the justification that "we can't have a liberal replace Sessions in the Senate." Just from a strategy and realpolitik angle. Still gross and reprehensible, but in 2017, it would've been a small dose of kerosene on the dumpster fire.

But, yeah, he went all in. Campaign rally in Pensacola was pushing all of his chips in the middle.

Fucking moron.

tennbengal wrote:Saw a note flutter across one of the twitters today that the Repubs have massively fucked up in Cali by not having viable candidates for a few state-wide races in 2018. Which means fewer of their voters to the polls to pull the level for the house races, putting even more seats there in play than are already in play. Which is a lot.

brian wrote:Don't bury the lede on who the biggest loser from last night is. It isn't Moore and it isn't the national GOP.

It's Trump. He could have distanced himself from Moore and let him sink or swim on his own. Presidents aren't required to campaign or endorse candidates in these elections. Trump is so convinced of his own popularity he thought he could swing the election to Moore by embracing him* and ultimately it could have been what did Moore in.

* - He should have learned this lesson at least a dozen times before already, most notably by seeing how the Alabama GOP voters reacted to his endorsement of Strange in the primary, but Trump is gonna Trump. He's not a genius or a wizard and his vanity and stupidity can be weaponized against him if the Dems are smart.

degenerasian wrote:

brian wrote:The GOP didn't want Moore to run to begin with. I'm sure the Alabama GOP and national GOP would have been perfectly happy for Strange to run unopposed in the GOP primary. And if he had, the GOP would have held the seat.

Wouldn't have been unopposed. There was a runoff to get to the runoff.

Nonlinear FC wrote:

tennbengal wrote:

mister d wrote:This feels like the rare "everyone wins" situation. I mean, Moore obviously doesn't and Trump doesn't, but the Dems do, Alabama does, "the people" do and I really think the Republicans do. They can now localize this saying "AL ran him, we had a party responsibility, we wouldn't have sat him" and give some distance except for the individuals who actively campaigned.

They can sure try. Except, for yaknow, all of them that went on the record being for it AND the RNC going back live in the last few weeks with money and other support. I think they can be made to eat this.

They're gonna eat it. People are paying attention.

mister d wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:

tennbengal wrote:

mister d wrote:This feels like the rare "everyone wins" situation. I mean, Moore obviously doesn't and Trump doesn't, but the Dems do, Alabama does, "the people" do and I really think the Republicans do. They can now localize this saying "AL ran him, we had a party responsibility, we wouldn't have sat him" and give some distance except for the individuals who actively campaigned.

They can sure try. Except, for yaknow, all of them that went on the record being for it AND the RNC going back live in the last few weeks with money and other support. I think they can be made to eat this.

They're gonna eat it. People are paying attention.

What I'm saying is they have a clear spin. "Yes, we funded him, but we were funding an R seat. We never would have sat Moore." I guarantee that's an accepted as fact, by almost everyone, six months from now.

mister d wrote:I think this is where their combination of better messaging and a more gullible audience pays off. They don't have to deny they funded Moore, because they obviously can't, but they can say it was always about the seat and the Dems would have done the same and reference various Rs speaking out about him as proof the party didn't support the man. Write this shit in pen and then write over it in pen.

brian wrote:I don't really think the Senate is in play, but even holding 51/49 there would be a pretty amazing result considering the Dems are trying to maintain Dem seats in MO, ND and MT. If that happens and the House flips then that's a complete victory in 2018.

brian wrote:

tennbengal wrote:Saw a note flutter across one of the twitters today that the Repubs have massively fucked up in Cali by not having viable candidates for a few state-wide races in 2018. Which means fewer of their voters to the polls to pull the level for the house races, putting even more seats there in play than are already in play. Which is a lot.

At least one for sure (Rohrabacher's) and maybe as many as three of those Orange County seats are going to be blue for the first time in decades (if ever).

Nonlinear FC wrote:You guys know where I'm at. Saying we held VA is a pretty massive understatement on what happened there.

A self-professed homophobe who'd been in office for close to 30 years was sent packing by a transgender woman. Not to mention the fact that they almost flipped control of the state house, something not even the most optimistic, hopeful prognosticators predicted. That election day had dozens of stories of Red seats being flipped all over the place, but specifically in places like Oklahoma and Kansas.

Yes, Moore was deeply flawed. He still should've won. Rural and wealthy voters stayed home, just like they did in VA. Just like they'll do in 2018.

Meanwhile, Dems will now be able to add "they passed this shitty wealth transfer to the rich tax bill on you" to the list of tangible bullshit being peddled by the GOP.

At least with the ACA, there was somewhat of a populist message. They still got killed in the mid-term, but the messaging wasn't anywhere near as bad as it's going to be the GOP next year.

Shit. Show.

HaulCitgo wrote:Seems like it's going to pass. Tax lawyers rejoice at the Christmas miracle!

Brontoburglar wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:You guys know where I'm at. Saying we held VA is a pretty massive understatement on what happened there.

A self-professed homophobe who'd been in office for close to 30 years was sent packing by a transgender woman. Not to mention the fact that they almost flipped control of the state house, something not even the most optimistic, hopeful prognosticators predicted. That election day had dozens of stories of Red seats being flipped all over the place, but specifically in places like Oklahoma and Kansas.

Yes, Moore was deeply flawed. He still should've won. Rural and wealthy voters stayed home, just like they did in VA. Just like they'll do in 2018.

Meanwhile, Dems will now be able to add "they passed this shitty wealth transfer to the rich tax bill on you" to the list of tangible bullshit being peddled by the GOP.

At least with the ACA, there was somewhat of a populist message. They still got killed in the mid-term, but the messaging wasn't anywhere near as bad as it's going to be the GOP next year.

Shit. Show.

I honestly think failing to pass the tax bill is a win/lose proposition for the GOP. The "loss" is they failed to pass it. The win is that they won't get destroyed as much in 2018. Though it's pretty clear they view the loss of 2018 as lesser than the loss of not passing the bill in 2018.

The Sybian wrote:

Brontoburglar wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:You guys know where I'm at. Saying we held VA is a pretty massive understatement on what happened there.

A self-professed homophobe who'd been in office for close to 30 years was sent packing by a transgender woman. Not to mention the fact that they almost flipped control of the state house, something not even the most optimistic, hopeful prognosticators predicted. That election day had dozens of stories of Red seats being flipped all over the place, but specifically in places like Oklahoma and Kansas.

Yes, Moore was deeply flawed. He still should've won. Rural and wealthy voters stayed home, just like they did in VA. Just like they'll do in 2018.

Meanwhile, Dems will now be able to add "they passed this shitty wealth transfer to the rich tax bill on you" to the list of tangible bullshit being peddled by the GOP.

At least with the ACA, there was somewhat of a populist message. They still got killed in the mid-term, but the messaging wasn't anywhere near as bad as it's going to be the GOP next year.

Shit. Show.

I honestly think failing to pass the tax bill is a win/lose proposition for the GOP. The "loss" is they failed to pass it. The win is that they won't get destroyed as much in 2018. Though it's pretty clear they view the loss of 2018 as lesser than the loss of not passing the bill in 2018.

Tax bill passing will be a win for the Republicans no matter what, except for maybe Republicans in NY, NJ and CA. Most people will have less tax taken out of their paychecks, and not realize they will take a big hit when their deductions are much lower. By the time they prepare their taxes and realize they owe money, the 2018 elections will be over. Not to mention, Republicans will still blame the higher taxes on Dems and "entitlements," or say that it will take time for the tax cuts to trickle down from the wealthy. They will parlay the deficit increase into a call for massive cuts in social programs, which is what they ultimately want anyways. If they get that, they will argue that the defunded government programs don't work, because government is bad, then privatize everything. You fill the cabinet with incompetent people or people who deeply hate the agencies they run, then hold up the failures as an example of government being a bad solution.

The Sybian wrote:

Brontoburglar wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:You guys know where I'm at. Saying we held VA is a pretty massive understatement on what happened there.

A self-professed homophobe who'd been in office for close to 30 years was sent packing by a transgender woman. Not to mention the fact that they almost flipped control of the state house, something not even the most optimistic, hopeful prognosticators predicted. That election day had dozens of stories of Red seats being flipped all over the place, but specifically in places like Oklahoma and Kansas.

Yes, Moore was deeply flawed. He still should've won. Rural and wealthy voters stayed home, just like they did in VA. Just like they'll do in 2018.

Meanwhile, Dems will now be able to add "they passed this shitty wealth transfer to the rich tax bill on you" to the list of tangible bullshit being peddled by the GOP.

At least with the ACA, there was somewhat of a populist message. They still got killed in the mid-term, but the messaging wasn't anywhere near as bad as it's going to be the GOP next year.

Shit. Show.

I honestly think failing to pass the tax bill is a win/lose proposition for the GOP. The "loss" is they failed to pass it. The win is that they won't get destroyed as much in 2018. Though it's pretty clear they view the loss of 2018 as lesser than the loss of not passing the bill in 2018.

Tax bill passing will be a win for the Republicans no matter what, except for maybe Republicans in NY, NJ and CA. Most people will have less tax taken out of their paychecks, and not realize they will take a big hit when their deductions are much lower. By the time they prepare their taxes and realize they owe money, the 2018 elections will be over. Not to mention, Republicans will still blame the higher taxes on Dems and "entitlements," or say that it will take time for the tax cuts to trickle down from the wealthy. They will parlay the deficit increase into a call for massive cuts in social programs, which is what they ultimately want anyways. If they get that, they will argue that the defunded government programs don't work, because government is bad, then privatize everything. You fill the cabinet with incompetent people or people who deeply hate the agencies they run, then hold up the failures as an example of government being a bad solution.

Nonlinear FC wrote:ETA. This is not what polling is showing. This is being perceived as a wealth transfer to the rich. There's no way to come back from that. Democrats know this all too well. Once it's been branded, you're fucked.

You don't have to trust me, but... Trust me. They are fucked.