Weekend Open Thread for August 11-13

As the US and North Korea glare at each other and hurl threats for 1,000th time, here’s some questions to ponder over the weekend:

  1. Of the current swing states, which one are you most sure will be solidly Republican in 20 years? Which one will be solidly Democratic? Which state that’s currently not a swing state will be one in 20 years?
  2. Which House recruit for each side has impressed you the most so far this cycle? Which race has each side whiffed on the most in terms of recruiting so far?

And because it’s the weekend, here’s some musical accompaniment.

Previous Post Next Post

304 Comments

  • fzw August 11, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    1. R: WI
    D: GA

    2. R: Mike Miller
    D: Brendan Kelly


    Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
    R-leaning Indy.

    • Son_of_the_South August 11, 2017 at 4:54 pm

      GA isn’t a bad answer, but I wonder how in the world Democrats will ever take the legislature. Sure, in 20 years there might be map that would work, but how are they ever going to get that map?


      23, R, TN-08
      Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

      • fzw August 11, 2017 at 5:26 pm

        The legislature will take longer, but I suspect there will come a time in the next two decades where Republicans simply can’t win statewide anymore. It’s too racially polarized and the age gap is ridiculous there.


        Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
        R-leaning Indy.

        • TexasR August 11, 2017 at 5:47 pm

          I think we will see that happen in North Carolina first, as the age gap is ridiculous there as well.


          Whatever we're talking about, it's all Frank Meyer's fault
          Be careful what you wish for

          • roguemapper August 11, 2017 at 5:58 pm

            Also, Atlanta is projected to gain 2.5 million people during the next twenty years. Raleigh and Charlotte are projected to gain 3 million people combined. And the revived NC whole counties provision makes it a lot tougher to gerrymander than GA.


            Dem NC-11

          • fzw August 11, 2017 at 6:47 pm

            Good point, but the difference in Georgia is still about 20 points more than NC’s age gap. But error on exit polls should be taken into account.

            http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/north-carolina/president

            If these exit polls are relatively accurate, one would guess GA would flip D first, right? GA and NC voted about the same in 2016 with NC only being a point and a half bluer.


            Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
            R-leaning Indy.

      • Boehnerwasright August 11, 2017 at 5:42 pm

        A map can only get you so far when regardless of how good the gerrymander is , just look at what happened in the south, arkansa or west virgina. Many democratic legislative majoraties only got broken in 2010 decades after republicans startet winning the states in presidental election.
        You can hold on quite long with a good map and incumbency, especially if you can take away the gov. veto over redistricting so you need only a simple majority to pass a gerrymander.
        But at one point or another either a court will throw out your map or a wave like 2010 will cost you the ability to pass a gerrymander.

      • krazen1211 August 11, 2017 at 10:35 pm

        In NC, Trump gained 90k votes while Hillary gained 10k over 2012. In GA, Trump gained 10k while Hillary gained 100k over 2012.

        It’s well worth noting that NC has a larger retiree inflow than some might think, plus rural blacks are dying out. That should make redistricting easier….I wonder if the legislature will completely contract NC-01 into urban areas and just crack the Roanoke Rapids area 2-3 ways.

  • GerGOP August 11, 2017 at 5:30 pm

    The Senate Conservative Fund is once again at it to drive McConnell out: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senate-conservative-fund-wants-mcconnell-out/article/2631304

    Youd think that they would direct their Ire at the moderate gopers.

    • Izengabe August 11, 2017 at 8:29 pm

      Because things will be so much better when Roy Blunt is Senate Majority Leader (insert eyeroll emoji here)


      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

    • Midnight901 August 12, 2017 at 2:34 am

      I would think the Gorsuch coup would have bought McConnell some capital with conservatives. He also deserves the credit for creating all those judicial vacancies Trump keeps nominating judges for.

      • zbigreddogz August 12, 2017 at 11:52 am

        The issue is simple: Name a popular Senate leader in the past 20+ years. MAYBE you could make the case for Harry Reid, but that’s mostly because he was essentially a bodyguard for Obama, but he still wasn’t loved by the base. Before him, Frist, Lott, Dole, Dashle, etc. Were all unpopular.

        It’s easy to blame the failures of Congress on the Congressional leaders, whose job by definition is herding cats. And people often do. But it’s still not terribly useful or productive.

        • shamlet August 12, 2017 at 12:08 pm

          Yeah, Mitchell was probably the last Senate Majority Leader that was truly popular.


          R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

          • rdelbov August 12, 2017 at 2:55 pm

            I guess it is all perspective as many of us-republican types-did not like how George Mitchell was trying to push Hillarycare through the senate in 1994. Frankly his efforts and the blatant disagree regard for what people wanted and want the US senate wanted did not endear him to me or his fellow senators.

            Mitchell did bail on the US senate at a age and that is always endearing. As a good bye gift to his fellow senators Mitchell cost 7 or 8 them their seats in 1994. So maybe I need to hug thanks out with George and get over my negative thoughts towards him as ultimately he proved to be great for the GOP.

          • californianintexas August 12, 2017 at 3:48 pm

            He was at least popular enough to win over 80% of the vote in light blue Maine in 1988. That was before he became Majority Leader though.

            He was DSCC chair earlier and was credited with helping Dems retake the chamber in 1986. He was also Deputy President Pro Tempore in the 100th Congress, so he was at least popular while holding some leadership positions.


            34, Female, Libertarian, UT-02 (hometown CA-31), theelectionsgeek.com

            • rdelbov August 12, 2017 at 3:57 pm

              Mitchell was IMO the most liberal/activisit D senate leader since LBJ. Mansfield was pretty liberal but he did not try to dominant the legislative process like the modern leaders does now. During the Mansfield era legislators dominated legislation as opposed to the current process where the Leaders dominant the floor action. Byrd liked to win and also spent 6 years in the minority but he always about West Virginia 1st and foremost.

              Let me be clear I would take Mitchell over Daschle-Schumer-Reid on any day and yes he was certainly popular in Maine. I suspect Snowe would not have run against him in 1994 but he would have had a greatly reduced margin against GOP candidate.

  • Red Oaks August 11, 2017 at 5:35 pm

    1. Iowa will eventually become solidly Republican while Virginia will become solidly Democratic. Minnesota will become a swing state within 20 years. Now a lot of people will quibble over the definition of swing state and claim Minnesota isn’t that far off from being competitive now. If you want me to go out on more of a limb, I’ll say Alaska becomes highly competitive in 20 years time.
    2. Hard to say since it is so early but I’ll say Gianforte in Montana is the most disappointing since the MT-At large seat should be a stepping stone to later statewide office and his presence in that seat is depriving a better potential statewide candidate from emerging.


    MI-03 Castle voter who now says Give Trump a chance

    • davybaby August 11, 2017 at 6:12 pm

      Whether Alaska becomes competitive is a function of whether Anchorage changes from Billings North to Seattle North. I have a hard time seeing it. Alaska’s economy is too dependant of oil and mining for that to change.

      • jncca August 11, 2017 at 7:46 pm

        Anchorage only needs to be Phoenix North. Unlike most states, outstate Alaska is blue, so Anchorage being light red makes the state competitive.

        I still understand your skepticism but it’s easier than you make it sound.


        24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

        • davybaby August 11, 2017 at 9:04 pm

          The Alaska native areas and the panhandle are blue, but the rest of Alaska–the parts it’s possible to drive to–are red.

          • shamlet August 11, 2017 at 9:21 pm

            Yeah, rural Alaska can be divided into 5 portions of roughly equal size; 2 of them (the panhandle and the native-heavy rural bush of the north and west) are blue but the other 3 (Kenai, Mat-Su, and the rural central part of the state) are even more red. Democrats won’t be winning outstate AK with the current coalition, so any statewide win will require a significant margin out of Anchorage.


            R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

            • jncca August 12, 2017 at 12:07 pm

              Forgot about Fairbanks, my mistake.


              24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

              • shamlet August 12, 2017 at 12:14 pm

                I actually wasn’t even including Fairbanks either! Fairbanks is only light-to-medium red. The real problem for AK Democrats in winning consistently is overcoming the huge margins Rs will get in what you might call (not entirely accurately but there’s not a better way to describe it) the “Anchorage exurbs” – the Mat-Su valley north of Anchorage and the culturally similar Kenai area. That’s literally Palin country and a solid 20% of the state’s population.


                R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

    • Wahoowa August 11, 2017 at 7:58 pm

      I think this is the best answer to #1 so far. Better than I would’ve done TBH.


      CO-7

  • Mike1965 August 11, 2017 at 5:41 pm

    1) R- Iowa
    D- Nevada
    SS- Texas


    "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln

  • californianintexas August 11, 2017 at 6:16 pm

    I too think that Virginia becomes solid Dem in 20 years, while Iowa becomes solid GOP, just like they were at the beginning of the 20th century, only the parties had obviously different ideologies.

    If (and that’s a big if) the D trends in the metro areas are not solely a Trump phenomenon and continue without him, then I could see Texas becoming swingy by 2036/40. (Predicting Texas becoming swingy by 2020 is foolhardy, but if the trends are not limited to Trump, then 2040 may not be far-fetched.)

    It is too early to tell who among House recruits is really impressive or a flop.


    34, Female, Libertarian, UT-02 (hometown CA-31), theelectionsgeek.com

  • davybaby August 11, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    1. R: IA
    D: AZ
    New swing: SC

    • Vosmyorka August 11, 2017 at 9:49 pm

      South Carolina is one of the few southern states which African-Americans are leaving, rather than entering, and is attracting quite a few retiree whites. Unlike NC/GA, which are trending D, SC is at worst treading water, and quite possibly actively trending in our direction. If this shift is going to happen, I don’t think it’s started yet.


      Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

    • Red Oaks August 11, 2017 at 6:31 pm

      That sounds even less plausible now that the WV is officially a Republican and presumably would appoint a GOPer as a replacement.


      MI-03 Castle voter who now says Give Trump a chance

    • JJC August 11, 2017 at 6:41 pm

      That would be awesome, but unfortunately probably just wishful thinking. If the GOP could have enticed Manchin or Heitkamp out of office they would have done it in January.

      Although, that might change if they thought their re-election chances were dwindling. I’d love to see a poll of Manchin vs Jenkins poll soon.

      You know, if this is true, that could explain why the GOP made such an effort to flip Jim Justice. Hmmm…

      • GradyDem August 12, 2017 at 6:14 pm

        The GOP didn’t make an effort to flip Jim Justice. Nobody seemed to know that was happening except Trump’s inner circle.

    • HS August 11, 2017 at 7:01 pm

      I find it hard to believe that Perry will move anyway. Why have yet another opening that requires a hearing?

  • JJC August 11, 2017 at 6:30 pm

    -Pennsylvania will be a solid Republican state within 20 years. Bank on it.
    -Wisconsin and Michigan will lean GOP.
    -Texas will lean towards the GOP but not Dems to will be competative.
    -Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado will be solid dem.
    -Arizona and Minnesota will become swing states.

    • Wahoowa August 11, 2017 at 8:04 pm

      Sometimes I think this prediction is true about Colorado and Nevada but other times I’m not so sure. I’ve lived in all three states you’re predicting will go solid Dem, and the West has a libertarian streak that doesn’t exist back east and makes me skeptical about Colorado or Nevada going all the way blue. Also (and this is nothing more than anecdotal) it seems like there were just as many Texans moving to those states as Californians. Of course it’s Who is moving that counts, not Where they’re moving from.


      CO-7

    • Vosmyorka August 11, 2017 at 9:52 pm

      I can understand saying WI/MI (especially the former) will lean GOP in the future, since in both states the main cities (Milwaukee/Detroit) are not very healthy and Democrats have historically relied a great deal on the outstate vote (and Madison/Ann Arbor are not big enough to weigh down the states), but Pennsylvania’s cities are actually growing, while the parts of the state that are trending towards Republicans, like NEPA, are losing population and weight in the state. I can see it staying as a swing-state, and maybe light blue or red depending on the direction the parties take, but I’m curious to know your logic for why it will be “solid red”.


      Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

  • Jon August 11, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    1.
    Swing -> Republican: WI
    Swing -> Democrat: VA & CO
    R -> Swing: GA & AZ
    D -> Swing: MN


    45, M, MO-02

  • RockyRed August 11, 2017 at 7:44 pm

    In 20 years-

    Solid R: Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan
    Lean R: Pennsylvania, Maine, Texas, Mississippi

    Solid D: Virginia, Colorado, Nevada
    Lean D: Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, New Mexico

    Swing States: New Hampshire (still), Rhode Island, Connecticut, South Carolina, Alaska


    28 - Moderate R - Washington, DC
    Formerly MA-2 and CO-1

    • RockyRed August 11, 2017 at 7:51 pm

      I forgot Florida – not really sure what happens there – I’d expect it to trend D but it really hasn’t over the last 20 years so perhaps it will still be the classic swing state that it is now.


      28 - Moderate R - Washington, DC
      Formerly MA-2 and CO-1

      • Indy1975a August 11, 2017 at 8:08 pm

        Florida will remain swing as long as retirees who lean R keep moving there. If they stop moving there (either because they stay where they are or they move somewhere else), then Florida will tilt slightly into the D column.


        Independent, R until November 2016

      • StatenIslandTest August 11, 2017 at 8:11 pm

        I think Florida stays swing to lean R because of the unusual situation of Miami-Dade not being 100 pct D, the increase in high-end retiree areas, and second-generation non-Cuban Latinos and Jews drifting R long term. Its also not a good fit for #resistance types. Still I dont ever see it becoming safe R either.


        31, Jersey City

        • Vosmyorka August 11, 2017 at 9:56 pm

          Florida also attracts a lot of foreign immigrants, especially from the Caribbean, and has several quite rapidly growing metro areas. I think on balance I’d expect it to trend D, though Trump was such a perfect candidate for the sort of people who move to Florida that he juiced their turnout so much that it barely trended R in 2016 (amusingly, on election night it trended D, but as California kept counting and counting votes and it became apparent by how much Hillary had won there, weeks later Florida flipped to an R trend, along with New Mexico which did the same).

          I wouldn’t expect Florida to get unwinnable, though.


          Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

    • Mike1965 August 11, 2017 at 9:09 pm

      Curious as to why you think MN will be solid R in 20 years. Tossup I would understand but solid R? One close election (that the Rep lost) does not make a trend.

      Will repeat what I have posted here many times.

      – No Republican has won statewide in Minnesota since 2006.
      – No Republican has gotten 50% of the vote since 1996.
      – Rural MN did swing hard to Trump but those areas are losing population compared to the rest of the state.
      – Fastest growing area of the state is the heavily liberal Twin Cities.


      "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln

      • davybaby August 11, 2017 at 9:13 pm

        The fastest growing part of Minnesota is the exurbs of the Twin Cities, 25 to 50 miles from the city centers. That is Bachmann country.

        • Mike1965 August 11, 2017 at 9:42 pm

          I guess it depends on how you measure it. It’s true on a percentage basis Scott and Carver counties have grown slightly faster than Hennepin and Ramsey counties but Hennepin and Ramsey have added far more people (112K vs 23K).

          Another way to look at is MN-05 (Ellison) and MN-04 (McCollum) are the fastest growing CD’s in the state while the rural heavily Trump CD’s (1,7,8) are the slowest growing.

          https://www.census.gov/mycd/?st=27&cd=05


          "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln

      • RockyRed August 11, 2017 at 9:47 pm

        I have a variety of reasons for thinking MN will become a red state:

        – While its true that the GOP hasn’t carried the state since 1972 and no R has won statewide since 2006, many races have been extremely narrow (2010-Gov for instance) and it has already been a swing state for a long time. Dems have happened to come up on the winning end of several very close contests, but that doesn’t make it a blue state anymore than Trump’s narrow win in WI makes it a red state (yet). Also, Dayton was the first D governor in 20 years and he will be gone soon – next years gubernatorial election could go either way.

        – The PVI of MN has shown a clear R trend over the past 30 years and is now basically EVEN. It is already a tossup.

        -The legislature has now gone to Republicans and several US House seats are on the verge of flipping.

        – The demographic trends that are pushing the rest of the Midwest towards the GOP are also present in MN. For all the talk about WI becoming a red state, MN votes almost exactly the same way, and is only one or two points to the left of WI on average. It was actually more R than WI in 2008, and virtually the same in 2012 and 2016. I feel pretty confident that both states are moving in the same direction at a similar pace and that both will be solidly R before long.

        That whole region of the country is trending towards the GOP and I don’t see why MN would be any exception. It will probably always be a little bit more liberal than the surrounding states (minus Illinois) because of the Twin Cities, but that won’t be enough to keep it blue. I expect Trump will win MN in 2020 and that the GOP will regularly win there in the years following.


        28 - Moderate R - Washington, DC
        Formerly MA-2 and CO-1

        • roguemapper August 11, 2017 at 9:55 pm

          The Donald’s approval rating is 39% in MN – tied with VA and point more than CO and OR. By contrast it’s 47% in OH, 45% in IA, 43% in WI, and 42% in MI. I wouldn’t hold my breath on the Donald winning MN in 2020.


          Dem NC-11

          • RockyRed August 11, 2017 at 10:08 pm

            His approval rating in 2017 doesn’t really say anything about his chances in 2020. His numbers in MN may be similar to those in VA and CO, but the difference is that the former is trending rightward while the latter two are clearly moving left. Since I expect Trump to get re-elected by a larger margin than what he won by in 2016, MN would be likely to flip in that scenario. Time will tell!


            28 - Moderate R - Washington, DC
            Formerly MA-2 and CO-1

            • roguemapper August 11, 2017 at 10:52 pm

              The Donald got 45.9% of the vote in 2016. John McCain got 45.6% of the vote in 2008. I have little use for talk of “trends” that fail to acknowledge how profoundly awful HRC was as a candidate, especially in the Midwest.


              Dem NC-11

              • RockyRed August 12, 2017 at 12:59 pm

                It has been a slow but consistent trend over 30 years:

                PVI of Minnesota:
                1976: D+8
                1984: D+8
                1992: D+6
                2000: D+4
                2008: D+2
                2016: D+1
                2016 alone: R+0.3

                Hillary was an awful candidate but Trump wasn’t great either, particularly for what people have noted is a “wealthy” and “educated” state. Both were deeply underwater in favorability. These factors didn’t stop the state from nearly flipping, and they won’t prevent it from happening in the future.


                28 - Moderate R - Washington, DC
                Formerly MA-2 and CO-1

                • roguemapper August 12, 2017 at 2:27 pm

                  Look at the actual GOP percentage of the presidential vote in Minnesota.

                  2000: 45.50%
                  2004: 47.61%
                  2008: 43.82%
                  2012: 44.96%
                  2016: 44.93%

                  Do you see a GOP trend in those numbers? No, I’m sure you don’t. Clearly the issue is on the D side. Now, there’s a great argument to be made that the Ds took the Upper Midwest too much for granted. Hell, I was one of them last year! Well, lesson learned for me and I assume the rest of the party got the same wake up call loud and clear. Let’s see how things look in 2020 after the D nominee actually, you know, steps foot in Minnesota and Wisconsin…


                  Dem NC-11

                  • californianintexas August 13, 2017 at 2:24 am

                    I think both PVI and actual D or R percentages can be useful. Even if Minnesota flips to R+1 in 2020, if the D nominee has a 3% lead in the popular vote, then he/she probably wins the state.


                    34, Female, Libertarian, UT-02 (hometown CA-31), theelectionsgeek.com

            • fzw August 11, 2017 at 11:07 pm

              I’m still not sure if the Midwest was a fluke rather than it really portending a red realignment in the region. Hillary was a terrible fit for the region whereas Trump had attributes most Republicans will never have that made him uniquely appealing to the Midwest: he came off as non-religious, non-focused on social issues, anti-trade, and isolationist. And it’s one of the most elastic regions in the country, prone to wild swings. Look at Indiana 2004–>2008–>2012/16. Look at Ohio. Wisconsin. Iowa.

              Trump (the candidate) was the antithesis of traditional Republicanism: hawkish, religious, and Randian-tinted economic philosophy. The way his Presidency has gone in so far have kind of tainted his image as a President who acted like he was going to be an isolationist who would avoid social issues. That may very well cost him in 2020, but as you said, we’ll see.


              Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
              R-leaning Indy.

              • Indy1975a August 11, 2017 at 11:34 pm

                This is absolutely spot on. I’d further stress something that I’ve been a broken record on; Trump did unusually well among the secular white working class (again whether that is an anomaly or a trend is yet to be seen) for the reasons you mentioned, he came off as non-religious, non-focused on social issues, anti-trade, and isolationist.

                The Indiana (and the broader Midwestern) result in 2008 makes me hesitant to call the Midwest anything but swing going forward. Frankly I doubt anyone thought that was even a remote possibility without Bayh on the ticket (and it was done by a cosmopolitan black liberal, the antithesis of the Indiana voter). It looked in the early 2000s that the Midwest was trending to the Rs, and the Iraq War started to break that (I think if not for the Iraq War, GWB wins Wisconsin, Michigan, and perhaps Minnesota in 2004).


                Independent, R until November 2016

                • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 2:26 pm

                  “Trump did unusually well among the secular white working class (again whether that is an anomaly or a trend is yet to be seen) for the reasons you mentioned, he came off as non-religious, non-focused on social issues, anti-trade, and isolationist.”

                  So in short, he did a lot better because he was much more centrist/moderate on social issues, economic issues, and foreign policy. That sounds about right.


                  I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

        • Mike1965 August 11, 2017 at 10:15 pm

          – Never said the state was not close, just that Safe Republican seems like a big stretch to me.

          – You mentioned Dayton was the first Democratic governor in 20 years. Minnesota also had at least 1 Republican senator from 1978 to 2008 except for one 2 year span. Wouldn’t those facts indicate Minnesota has if anything moved left over the past decade?

          – Minnesota differs from it’s Midwest neighbors in a couple of ways. Overall the state has higher household income and is better educated than it’s neighboring states.

          – The Dems in the legislature in MN suffer from same problem Dems do nationwide, their voters are packed into relatively small areas. lots of 80%+ districts in Minneapolis and St Paul. Winning the legislature is a tougher nut to crack than winning statewide.

          – Like I said above, 1 election does not make a trend. Minnesota has been tossup/slight lean D for decades, I have seen nothing to indicate it will be anything close to safe Rep in 20 years.


          "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln

          • RockyRed August 11, 2017 at 10:37 pm

            Well, “solid” isn’t “safe,” so maybe I should have been more clear with my terms. I don’t think MN will be a safe red state like Alabama, but I could see it settling out at R+5 or so, with WI being R+6 or 7.

            Klobuchar is very popular and Franken has been a surprisingly effective and inoffensive senator. I think once one of them leaves the GOP could easily take their seat. Your point about the legislature is well put – Ds do have a self-packing problem. But this is also a symptom of shifting coalitions. Dems used to do very well in rural MN and that is quickly evaporating.

            I agree with you that MN is wealthier and better educated than its neighbors, which is why I think it stays slightly more D. Having been there, it reminds me somewhat of New England. Still, I don’t think that’s enough to keep it blue. The demographics aren’t that much different than WI and we’ve seen similar movement in both.

            Regarding trends, I guess it really depends on what you think each party is going to become in 20 years. If the same trends continue that almost flipped MN this time around, then I do think it will be red well before then. The country always has a way of balancing itself out, and just like I see the South and Southwest moving D, the entire Midwest is trending R. MN may withstand it a little better for reasons we’ve discussed, but since its already a tossup, that’s’ the way I see it going. Of course I could be wrong…and the results in 2020 will tell us a lot about where its headed long term.


            28 - Moderate R - Washington, DC
            Formerly MA-2 and CO-1

            • Indy1975a August 11, 2017 at 11:16 pm

              “Regarding trends, I guess it really depends on what you think each party is going to become in 20 years. If the same trends continue that almost flipped MN this time around, then I do think it will be red well before then. The country always has a way of balancing itself out, and just like I see the South and Southwest moving D, the entire Midwest is trending R. MN may withstand it a little better for reasons we’ve discussed, but since its already a tossup, that’s’ the way I see it going. Of course I could be wrong…and the results in 2020 will tell us a lot about where its headed long term.”

              I think it depends what the core principles of both parties are in 20 years. That’s hard to tell. If the Rs become a Trumpist party (populist, nationalist) and move a bit to the left on economics while the Ds become a cosmopolitan and upscale party, then the Midwest will move to a R lean. If the Ds become hard left socialist-lite, while the Rs return to their economic conservative roots, then it may not. If it is some where in between, then elections in the Midwest will remain close. For that matter, the speed of the movement in the South also depends on whether Ds continue to retain a stranglehold on the black vote; if the Ds move too far to the left on religious/cultural issues, they risk that at some point.


              Independent, R until November 2016

              • fzw August 11, 2017 at 11:35 pm

                Well blacks have stayed about 90% D for the past fifty years, and it’s not hard to imagine why when you have people on the other side of the aisle constantly accusing you of being welfare queens, thugs, vote stealers, and referring to Obama as a raghead or terrorist. It kind of reminds me of that Malcolm in the Middle episode where Reese and Malcolm wonder why no one else in school likes them and then they proceed to blame it on the other people in school instead of some self-reflection.


                Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
                R-leaning Indy.

                • Indy1975a August 12, 2017 at 12:53 am

                  Blacks were 90-95%+ R in nearly every election from 1864 until 1928 for obvious reasons. In 1932, FDR got about 20% of the black vote, basically unheard of at the time. In 1936, he got about 75% of the black vote, and except for 1956, that no D did worse than FDR in 1936.

                  Blacks will be 90% D for a long time… until they aren’t. Trumpism and the alt-right isn’t going to make any inroads among the black vote, but if and when the Rs move away from that, that could change quickly.


                  Independent, R until November 2016

                  • FiveAngels August 12, 2017 at 2:17 am

                    When you analyze the cities precinct by precinct it’s clear that Trump did improve somewhat with the black voters compared to Romney (I don’t think he improved with the Hispanics). People underestimate the role that fiscal conservatism plays in turning off the minorities, in particular the Blacks from the GOP. Of course, this is a part of the larger pattern where all of the party’s problems are the fault of social conservatives, “nativists” and nationalists, and nothing is ever the fault of Chamber of Commerce or nation-builders. It’s not like the alternative to Trumpism is GOP going Christian Democracy. It’s Romney/Ryan 2012 in perpetuity.

                    • Indy1975a August 12, 2017 at 9:18 am

                      From what I can recall, Trump improved over Romney among blacks because turnout was lower. I don’t think that he actually improved appreciably on the raw vote. As a whole, when blacks don’t like the D, they just don’t vote than vote R.
                      Also , Trump did improve among both blacks and Hispanics among working class males. The Ds didn’t just have a white working class problem, they had a working class problem.


                      Independent, R until November 2016

                • Greyhound August 12, 2017 at 2:16 am

                  Yeah, Goldwater gave them a very, VERY good reason to not trust the GOP, and Reagan did not exactly inspire confidence with them while promising to take the country back to the good ol’ days of the early 1950s.

                  Honestly, if the GOP is going to breakthrough with Black voters (as it get to like a reliable 25% of the vote from our current 10%), it will probably be because the Democratic New New Left alienates them so much that the Republicans stop looking horrible by comparison. I mean, if the GOP could reliable get the ~20% of the Black vote that disapproves of BLM, we’d be essentially doubling our support with them. And far more than that think that Black-on-Black Crime is the bigger issue than police brutality.

                  http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344985-poll-57-percent-have-negative-view-of-black-lives-matter-movement

                  Again, there’s clearly an opening for the GOP to stop getting a single-digit share of the black vote, but its not clear how the GOP could really capture it. If I was in charge of some long-range GOP strategic planning, I’d try to poll self-described Conservative Blacks and ask them why they don’t support Republicans more than they currently do. Getting to like ~25% of the Black vote does absolute wonders in keeping states like North Carolina and Georgia in the GOP fold, and dropping the Democrat’s margins out of Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia would make the Midwest vastly more winnable moving forward.


                  R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

                  • californianintexas August 12, 2017 at 9:20 am

                    Bush IIRC got 16% of the black vote in Ohio in 2004, which probably helped him win.


                    34, Female, Libertarian, UT-02 (hometown CA-31), theelectionsgeek.com

                    • Indy1975a August 12, 2017 at 12:08 pm

                      GWB got 16% of the black vote in Ohio because he made a concerted effort to woo black voters. He did not insinuate that blacks were bad people using coded language to get white voters. Also supporting traditional marriage also helped in that regard. 2004 is an example that the Rs can win minority voters. But you can’t start out by insulting them.


                      Independent, R until November 2016

                  • Indy1975a August 12, 2017 at 12:15 pm

                    Jim Webb a couple days after the 2016 election talked about why the Ds doing poorly among the white working class. He mentioned that many were taking polls and the sort; and then responded, “well it’s not really that complicated. White working class voters *don’t think the Ds like them very much.*”.

                    Same thing with a lot of blacks and other minority voters, including those who may lean conservative. They don’t believe that the Rs like them. And if you think that Reagan alienated blacks, Trump did so in spades.

                    As far as the D New Left, the one thing that could push blacks out is attacks on their faith. But as I wrote above, I think they just won’t vote rather than vote R. My guess is that when blacks shift to the Rs, it will be a shock to system (like the Great Depression and New Deal was) rather than anything that the Rs do.


                    Independent, R until November 2016

                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 1:44 pm

                      Black religiosity is in severe decline. They hold more left-wing views on “religiously-tinged” issues than white Americans, such as gay marriage and abortion. That being said, the GOP would do better among minorities if they voted solely on their stances on religious issues and criminal justice issues. If anything, the heavy emphasis of both the Trump/Clinton campaigns on issues of crime probably helped them take a larger share of the minority voters who disapprove of BLM.


                      I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

                    • Indy1975a August 12, 2017 at 5:02 pm

                      VBKC, any evidence that black religiosity is in severe decline? My impression was that blacks were the only group whose religious intensity did not drop in the past 15-20 years.

                      This I do know, blacks are far less likely to support SSM than the general population. And that is despite the pressure among many in the black community that they had to agree with Obama on this issue.

                      http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/


                      Independent, R until November 2016

                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 5:09 pm

                      Hm, it seems the polling is mixed. But some groups at least have found a marked shift. And some very interesting polling phenomenon (aka blacks much more likely to say they support gst marriage is asked by a black pollster).

                      https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/signs-of-shift-among-african-americans-on-same-sex-marriage/

                      Black voters also seem to hold fairly left-wing views on abortion, which is a way stronger culture war lightning rod than gay marriage.

                      https://www.prri.org/research/african-american-and-hispanic-reproductive-issues-survey/


                      I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

                    • Indy1975a August 12, 2017 at 5:28 pm

                      Frankly, the time that 538 article was written was two weeks after Obama endorsed SSM, which gave it a big bounce among blacks. That bounce didn’t really hold. You are probably right about blacks being less pro-life.

                      But for blacks, religiosity isn’t about abortion and SSM; and they usually don’t vote on those issues. The Ds aren’t going to lose black votes by being leftist on those issues either. The bigger problem for the Ds is if they deemphasize faith and move more toward agnosticism/atheism. That would be a complete nonstarter for many blacks, and same if there is a push to remove the tax exemption for religious institutions. Part of the reason why Bernie Sanders did terribly among blacks was that there was a sense that he was not really a person of faith.


                      Independent, R until November 2016

                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 5:58 pm

                      It’s actually surprisingly hard to find good information on this. But you can sorta work backwards on Pew. Over 7 years, Blacks went from 12% of Christians to 13% of Christians and 8% of the non-religious to 9%. This suggests very strongly to me that black religiosity is unsurprisingly tracking closely with the general overall population. The takeaway is that religion (Islam excluded) is declining pretty much evenly around all groups.

                      http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/christians/christian/
                      http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/unaffiliated-religious-nones/


                      I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

        • Indy1975a August 11, 2017 at 11:05 pm

          The Midwest is historically very swingy. It looked like the Midwest was shifting to the Rs in the early 2000s, and it seemed on the verge on a red takeover as it does now. Then came the Iraq war and the Upper Midwest shifted hard to the Ds. It stayed there in 2012, and then shifted hard to the Rs in 2016. I don’t think the Rs can count on much more than a lean in that region. Even Iowa and Ohio aren’t going to be safe in a bad year.

          Trump overperformed in the Midwest for many reasons, but two are trade and isolationism. My suspicion (and fear) is that we aren’t going to have another pro-free trade candidate from either party for a generation.


          Independent, R until November 2016

          • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 6:22 pm

            Really? On the latter, trade/globalization issues in Anglophone countries are pretty much entirely a generation gap, with young left- and right-wingers looking favorably on trade deals and older left- and right-wingers looking generally unfavorably on them. I think an anti-trade outlook would be poisonous in the 2020 Democratic primary, and the strength of both the institutional pro-trade outlook in the GOP and the generational trend make it hard for me to see an anti-trade candidate having a very good shot 15 years from now.

            This has some good age breakdowns: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/09/views-of-nafta-less-positive-and-more-partisan-in-u-s-than-in-canada-and-mexico/

            And here’s the trend over time; as you can see during the 2010s as more Millennials have entered the electorate support for free trade has skyrocketed (even as anti-trade sentiment has become more salient for those voters who do hold it). Most of the shift is in the center and left, though even the right is more pro-trade now than it was in 2000: http://www.gallup.com/poll/204044/record-high-foreign-trade-opportunity.aspx


            Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

            • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 6:55 pm

              People don’t change their partisanship that much as they age, but that doesn’t mean they don’t change their policy positions, especially regarding economic issues. I’ve definitely grown a lot more hostile to neoliberalism as I’ve gotten older and richer.

              That being said, the young voted almost unanimously for the anti-TPP crusader over the woman who negotiated the TPP.

              Trade is probably a less important issues than everyone thinks, but it’s a fantastic mood signaller. Chances are, I’ll probably hate a pro-TPP candidate for all kinds of issues that aren’t trade-related. It’s a strong way to advertise elitist, corporate warmongering politics even if the underlying policies are defensible.


              I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

              • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 7:22 pm

                Sure, but large-scale people changing their minds tends to happen only in reaction to large-scale events (like isolationism becoming more widespread after the Iraq War) or large-scale societal shifts (acceptance of gay marriage is a fantastic example of a recent one). My suspicion because of age breakdowns is that there’s a generational shift going on rather than a societal one towards a more free-trade outlook.

                Chances are, I too will have many other reasons to distrust an anti-TPP candidate (and someone of your views would have other reasons not to like someone for it); no argument there.

                This poll is not exactly from an unbiased source (it’s from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs) and the number of undecideds is suspiciously low, but here’s an actual poll of the “are you for or against” TPP question; you can scroll down to see the generational gap, which is quite large: https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/actually-americans-free-trade?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Council&_zs=PH3Td1&_zl=jFdI3


                Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

                • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 7:35 pm

                  I hesitate to use polls about this from either side for that reason. Admittedly, trade deals are hard to poll since most people on BOTH sides have no idea how they work. There are AFL-CIO polls (or some labour group) putting the TPP at like 12-70 or something ludicrous. I don’t really trust either poll.

                  That being said, I think we have our huge event. The traumatic Great Recession that more or less destroyed the futures of most millenials, denying them any access to homes, jobs, or families for the rest of their lives. Something like 45% identify as Socialists. Over 20% identify as Communists. Even many of the right-wingers view capitalism negatively. This is the demographic that will finally make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister in five years. I do think Democrats could run an open Communist in 2024 and win (incumbency would probably save Trump).

                  No way this is the generation that loves the WTO and the Council on Foreign Relations and large multinational corporations.


                  I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

                  • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 8:04 pm

                    I don’t trust the poll’s overall results (much as I would like to), but I think the differences between demographics are generally going to be correct, if only because there’s no reason I can tell to falsify that. For this issue, at least (for others, there’s a lot).

                    You’re right about Millennials being likelier to identify as various far-left ideologies, but (and I can’t find the link I posted here a few weeks ago to a comprehensive generational analysis of Pew polls 2013-16) they tend to be somewhat more pro-business than older generations, though the effect here is smaller. Support for redistributive policies has changed very little, and depending on the poll in different directions — the use of socialist/communist has simply caught up to its use in, for instance, Western Europe. Macron, recall, was a self-identified socialist up until 2016, even holding the same views he does now.

                    You’re right that very soon Democratic presidential candidates will be identifying as various cool ideologies (probably too many pre-Generation X voters in 2024, but by 2032 or so it’ll be happening); but I doubt their policies will actually be much different from Obama’s, or even that they’ll pretend they are. The socialists who love the WTO are coming.


                    Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 8:10 pm

                      I’m going to be skeptical just because the young didn’t vote for Macron. They voted for Melenchon (and Le Pen to a lesser extent). And Bernie Sanders. And Podemos. And Jeremy Corbyn.

                      Even if they’re suddenly rather friendly to global capitalism on policy grounds, they’ll still vote for Corbynites and Melenchonites. It could be similar to socially conservative blacks, like you mentioned. Maybe they don’t personally hate “free trade”, but it’s a mood signaller for everything in the political economy that they hate. Hell, if you polled me, I’d say I love free trade…and hate 2000-page millitaristic corporate-authored managed trade agreements.

                      As an aside, the Front National is proof that going far-far-left on economics and far right socially is probably more appealing to the youth than mainstream conservatism. And even minorities. The FN does very poorly among Muslims, but probably better than the mainstream right (Sarko got what? 3%?). Of course, the appeal of Cosmopolitan Globalist “conservatism” should be a punch line when Donald Trump triples Romney’s share of the Muslim vote.


                      I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

                    • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 8:35 pm

                      I don’t think mainland Europe has quite the same political trends as the Anglophonie does (and there’s an obvious tension between being hard against Brexit and hard for Corbyn; it occurs to me that Theresa May, much like Trump, was pretty much the worst possible fit for that generation’s sensibilities, but I doubt they’ll much like Corbyn after a term of him either).

                      For France (discussing the probably-more-relevant first round), pretty much everyone did better with the youth than the elderly because of how overwhelmingly elderly support for Fillon was. LePen did very well with 35-49s (who Macron, conversely, did VERY poorly among) and the very young were her second worst category after the very old. (This was also the case in the second round; LePen was at 24 among the 65+, 33 among 18-24, and 42 among 35-49). Melenchon did best with the very young but still barely edged out Macron. Hamon, the reverse of expected, was way stronger with the young (10%) than the old (3%); my suspicion given issue polling is that his older supporters tended to be of the type who had Melenchon as their second choice, while the younger preferred Macron. Though this is a suspicion and could be wrong.

                      The point being, the biggest difference in France is in elderly voting patterns, not young ones, which makes the young ones look different relatively (because they are), but they’re not really that different from other countries in absolute terms.


                      Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

                    • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 8:39 pm

                      As for the appeal of Romneyite conservatism, Trump may have tripled Romney’s share of Muslim voters (good for him?) but he went backwards both overall (from 47 to 46) and among younger voters (from 37 to 36 among under-30s, from 36 to 34 among under-25s).

                      Doesn’t look to me like the picture of health.


                      Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 8:46 pm

                      The focus on raw totals is not convincing since it’s not like Gary Johnson voters would have all opted for Clinton. Trump improved in the two-party vote among both those groups.

                      In fact, the massive American Community Survey (known for polling like 20k and thus having actual crosstabs) had Trump improving with almost every group. Modestly improving in the two-party vote with college-educated LGBT voters, college-educated Hispanics/Asians, college-educated atheist voters (and bigly among LGBT, Asian/Hispanic, and atheist voters overall). He bombed among college-educated voters because of a massive slide among “college-educated white Christians”.

                      Quite frankly, it’d been very foolish for the GOP to spend its limited time and money pursuing those voters when you can rely on Democrats scaring them away.


                      I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

                    • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 9:06 pm

                      Trump declined from Romney’s total and not looking at the third-party vote is very silly, since those tend to be very motivated voters and a majority of them (who were eligible, since they were very disproportionately young) cast major-party ballots in 2008/2012. Trump’s approvals with them are shitty and I suspect he’ll find it difficult to appeal to them in 2020, though of course they’re not guaranteed for the Democrat either. The correlation between presidential approval and presidential reelection total is quite strong (the only exception to date being the massive under-performance by Bill Clinton in 1996), much stronger than a connection between candidate favorability and result in an open race (which doesn’t really exist).

                      Exit polling in 2016 didn’t ask what the second choice of third-party voters was, so all we can really do is speculate. An analysis from summer 2016 by 538 suggested that third-party voters took about 1.0% from Hillary Clinton in total, in hindsight enough to cost her the election: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-gary-johnson-taking-more-support-from-clinton-or-trump/

                      My anecdotal data from working on pro-Johnson events in Columbus is that about 1/3 of our voters would’ve gone to Clinton, another 1/3 to Stein, and another 1/3 wouldn’t have voted. I never met (outside the internet) a single 1-Johnson, 2-Trump voter in real life; but on the other hand I was active in a very liberal area (urban Columbus) and I suspect the picture would’ve been quite different in other strong Johnson areas, like rural North Dakota/Maine/New Mexico.


                      Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 9:22 pm

                      When forced to pick between the two candidates, most third-party voters choose not to vote.

                      That being said, the polls with third party voters were slightly worse for Clinton because Stein and Johnson did really well in those polls and Stein voters leaned Clinton reasonably strongly. However, they did worse on election day than the polls predicted, like almost all 3rd party candidates. That being said, it’s clear they didn’t cost Clinton the election. Stein voters leaned somewhat Clinton (but less than you’d think). And Johnson voters split down the middle.

                      At best, a two-party election notches Clinton .2 or .3 of the PV, which is not enough.

                      https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/


                      I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

                    • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 9:32 pm

                      I mean, that conversation is just about removing Stein. A lot of polls from 2012 had Johnson hurting Obama more than Romney (I distinctly recall Johnson was supposed to cost Obama CO), and here’re Breitbart and Politico agreeing that Johnson took more from Clinton rather than splitting down the middle:

                      http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/01/libertarian-johnson-will-likely-hurt-clinton-trump/

                      http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/gary-johnson-hillary-clinton-polls-228240

                      My personal suspicion is that it would vary a very great deal from state-to-state, with Johnson’s rural support (in New England and the Mountain West) breaking Trump and his urban support (which was a lot of his Midwestern support) breaking Clinton. My suspicion is that removing just Stein flips MI but nothing else, removing just Johnson switches MI and NH, removing both flips NH but also MI/PA/WI (switching the election to Hillary), removing both and Nevada’s NOTA option switches NV to Trump (switching the election back). People often note that Trump+McMullin > Clinton in MN, but considering pre-McMullin UT polling (which had Clinton barely behind Trump, and Sanders typically winning the state) I suspect McMullin also took more from Clinton than Trump. Highly doubt his voters break so decisively that Clinton takes UT or anywhere else, but he definitely didn’t cost Trump anything, though at his peak in mid-October he might’ve threatened to.

                      Saying third parties cost Clinton the election is an iffy proposition, I think, but saying they took more from Clinton than Trump, especially in the Midwest, seems true however you slice it.


                      Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

                    • krazen1211 August 12, 2017 at 10:46 pm

                      National % total comparisons are rather weak. Clinton in 1992 got less % than Dukakis in 1988 but had much better outcomes for the Democratic party.

                      In terms of raw vote totals, Trump crushed Romney in MI, PA, OH, IA, NC, and FL. In % terms, Trump got more in MI, PA, OH, IA, and WI. You can chalk up the FL voter count, and maybe the NC voter count, to population growth, but even then Trump sets a much better baseline in FL since he got so many more voters.

                    • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 11:26 pm

                      I would not be so blase about national-percent-total comparisons, or the suggestion that Clinton ’92 was a weaker effort in some ways than Dukakis ’88. The immediate aftermath of Clinton ’92 was the 1994 defeat, arguably the key realignment of our time and a defeat that Democrats have in many ways, two decades on, not recovered from.

                      There are other, pretty easy ways to demonstrate that Romney was a meaningfully stronger candidate than Trump, though; one method is by comparing them to the rest of the Republican ticket, since one problem with between-candidate comparisons is that they fail to take into account the lean of the year; Generic R was definitely weaker in 2012 than 2016, for a variety of reasons. Mitt Romney ran ahead of 23 Republican Senate candidates, finishing behind just 9 (CA-Emken, HI-Lingle, NV-Heller, WY-Barrasso, NM-Wilson, MS-Wicker, TN-Corker, CT-McMahon, MA-Brown). Donald Trump ran BEHIND 23 Senate candidates, finishing ahead of just 10 (AK-Murkowski, HI-Carroll, OR-Callahan, NV-Heck, MO-Blunt, AR-Boozman, KY-Paul, IN-Young, NY-Long, CT-Carter). That’s pretty damning.

                      It would be interesting to repeat this comparison between Dukakis ’88 and Clinton ’92; I don’t have those numbers on me now, but I’ll post them here tomorrow.


                      Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

                    • krazen1211 August 12, 2017 at 11:37 pm

                      @vos

                      Fair enough, I would love to see your numbers regarding those elections. I would disagree with your analysis of 1992….the balance of power in our government lies in the executive branch and Clinton in 1992 established this blue wall nonsense that existed until Trump broke it down.

                      I will say that ‘lean of the year’ analysis is completely circular and backwards looking. 2012 was a Dem leaning year mostly because Romney badly lost, and 2016 was a Rep leaning year at least partially because Trump won the election. 2016 was considered a Dem leaning year by some (remember those ridiculous Nevertrumpers saying that we would lose the House?) until election day. I don’t consider running ahead or behind metrics as meaningful as the raw numbers….we won 8 seats in 2012 and 22 in 2016 with Trump. Seats and electoral votes are what count.

                    • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 11:38 pm

                      …yeah. For the record, Dukakis ran behind 23 Democratic Senate candidates, but ahead of 10 (same as Trump’s record). Clinton ran behind 32 candidates and ahead of just 4 (3 random sacrificial lambs against John McCain, Chuck Grassley, and Bob Dole…and then also Robert Abrams, their hilarious unsuccessful NY Senate candidate). No wonder the whole Democratic congressional edifice crumbled down in 1994.


                      Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

                    • krazen1211 August 13, 2017 at 11:00 am

                      1994 also saw the Dems gerrymanders of the 1980s substantially weakened due to rising population shifts in the (then) heavily Republican suburbs, plus you had initial creation of majority black districts in the South in that census. Between 1990 and 1994 the South flipped from 83D-46R to 73R-64D. That doesn’t tell the whole story because we only gained about 20 seats in the South in 1994, but it was disproportionate relative to population.

                      Interesting piece I found on this….we mostly cleaned up on weak Clinton (1992) districts.

                      http://archive.fairvote.org/reports/monopoly/incumb94.html

  • StatenIslandTest August 11, 2017 at 7:45 pm

    Somewhat newsworthy: Bill Walker, some NeverTrump ex-Rs and a few rogue ex-D staffers meet for the 2020 version of No Labels:

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/08/off-message-walker-alaska-215469

    I am going to be a little more bold in some of my choices for future statesand probably a little bit more pro-Republican

    I think Ohio and Iowa become medium-red.

    PA WI MI swing. Philadelphia will keep PA from being safe R. Minnesota will join them.

    I think CT, ME, RI and DE become only lean-D almost swing. NJ will join them but only if the Wall Street wing loses more ground in the party and one-party rule becomes too much on a state level.

    GA prob keeps trending D but stops at swing. Colorado becomes solid D Arizona and Mississippi move one shade left each.


    31, Jersey City

    • Indy1975a August 11, 2017 at 8:25 pm

      For CT/ME/RI/DE/NJ to become almost swing, religious/cultural issues will have to be less emphasized (or at least be totally relegated to the states). Those places are insanely left-wing on these issues (Polls suggest that no more than 25% are pro-life) and are very secular (traditionally the west was least religious, but that changed to the Northeast in the last 20 years). Trump improved drastically among secular white working class voters, which was most obvious in the Northeast.

      Also if the Northeast becomes less D, then I think the Philly metro area will also do that, which would make PA lean R.


      Independent, R until November 2016

      • davybaby August 11, 2017 at 9:09 pm

        Rhode Island is the only majority-Catholic state, but for many that allegiance is perfunctory.

        • roguemapper August 11, 2017 at 9:15 pm

          Yeah, RI is the most religious state in New England but that’s not saying much. It’s around #35 in the US. When controlling for race, the major political outlier when it comes to measures of religiosity/secularism is Montana.


          Dem NC-11

      • RockyRed August 11, 2017 at 10:03 pm

        Maine is already swingy and demographically speaking, I don’t see any way it remains a blue state for much longer. It is 95% white and very rural, and although residents are socially liberal, I don’t think these cultural issues will still hold much sway over the GOP in 20 years.

        CT/RI I’m not so sure about. I think they become more R but stay slightly D-leaning. I have them down as swing states but I could easily be wrong about these two.

        DE/NJ I don’t think will trend R at all. Both are becoming heavily minority and the latter is extremely urban. These stay quite blue.

        I do think PA will be lean R but Philly keeps it from ever being a truly “red” state.


        28 - Moderate R - Washington, DC
        Formerly MA-2 and CO-1

        • roguemapper August 11, 2017 at 10:07 pm

          If cultural issues won’t hold much sway over the GOP in 20 years then why does it matter how white or rural Maine is?


          Dem NC-11

          • RockyRed August 11, 2017 at 10:11 pm

            By cultural issues I mean the ones that currently sink the GOP’s chances in places like New England. The religious right is clearly losing influence and by that point I don’t think it will be much of a factor. Maine swung sharply to the right in 2016 and I expect that trend to continue.


            28 - Moderate R - Washington, DC
            Formerly MA-2 and CO-1

    • Republican Michigander August 11, 2017 at 11:14 pm

      “”””Bill Walker, some NeverTrump ex-Rs and a few rogue ex-D staffers meet for the 2020 version of No Labels:”””

      I read that article. What a crock. I can smell the Bushism and McCainiac influences here from miles away. To quote Bob Knight, “You f’ed it up to begin with, now just sit there, or leave.”


      MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

      • StatenIslandTest August 12, 2017 at 12:29 am

        Couldnt agree more! I dont think anyone outside the Acela train and Davos is clamoring for this.


        31, Jersey City

      • Midnight901 August 12, 2017 at 2:22 am

        Sounds a lot like the newly formed “Alliance for Securing Democracy” — a bunch of hawkish Democrats and NeverTrump Republicans whose chief point of agreement is that bombing half the planet is how you Protect Our Freedoms.

        • roguemapper August 12, 2017 at 3:10 am

          As opposed to raining down fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen?


          Dem NC-11

          • Midnight901 August 12, 2017 at 5:20 am

            Yeah, I actually think a military response to a nuclear-armed dictatorship that has spent decades fantasizing about smashing the American imperialists is more reasonable than invading a country like Somalia that barely has a government, importing thousands of refugees, and declaring that the whole process has saved the Bill of Rights for future generations.

          • MikeFL August 12, 2017 at 9:31 am

            Or alternatively threatening military action in Venezuela.


            26 | FL-16/27 | FisCon

  • Tekzilla August 11, 2017 at 8:06 pm

    Swing State To Lean/Likely R -> Iowa, Ohio

    Swing State To Lean/Likely D -> Georgia, North Carolina

    New Pure swing state – Arizona

    Impressive House recruits – (D) Colin Allred has really impressed me, I haven’t really seen much on Republican House candidates that are stand outs, any I should look for?

    As usual PA Philly D’s are the biggest offense for most likely blowing multiple winnable races.


    36/M/NY-01 (D)

  • Izengabe August 11, 2017 at 8:33 pm

    If for nothing else the Kid Rock for senate trial balloon will be worth it for that Sheryl Crow song.


    Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

  • JJC August 11, 2017 at 8:52 pm

    McConnel backed Senate Leadership Fund expressed support for Kid Rock’s potential bid.
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/11/kid-rock-senate-race-michigan-241539

    • Izengabe August 11, 2017 at 8:58 pm

      This is everything you need to know about the Republican Party in 2017. It’s leadership spends millions to keep Mo Brooks out of the Senate while begging Kid Rock to run for it.


      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • Greyhound August 11, 2017 at 10:32 pm

        And yet people are wondering why Donald Trump looked like the safer bet than letting these jackos keep control of the party.


        R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

        • Republican Michigander August 11, 2017 at 11:08 pm

          “””And yet people are wondering why Donald Trump looked like the safer bet than letting these jackos keep control of the party.””””

          That was the one thing I always did like about Trump. If nothing else, he showed how much of a disaster the deep state is.


          MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

        • Izengabe August 12, 2017 at 8:47 pm

          I would argue Donald Trump is why the leadership can pick Kid Rock over Mo Brooks. They put their finger in the air and follow which way the wind blows.


          Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • zbigreddogz August 12, 2017 at 11:55 am

        Well, yeah. They have no danger of losing the Alabama seat regardless, and they protect incumbents, and Kid Rock can win a seat held by a Democrat.

        Criticize leadership all you want, but this isn’t a good comparison. Complete apples and oranges.

    • Republican Michigander August 11, 2017 at 11:05 pm

      (smh). I think McConnell’s people want Ritchie to run assuming that he’ll spend his own money and will get a lot of small donations.

      I don’t like it because this is an attempt to run 2016’s race in 2018. Don’t run the same race twice in a row. Besides, Trump was known for his business mind. (Good or bad). Ritchie ACTUALLY DOES have a very good business mind, but he’s not known for that. He’s known for music and shifting styles of it every few years trying to morph into Bob Seger lite. Expect to see the opening of this 99 Woodstock into a political ad calling Clinton a “pimp” and Lewinsky a “ho”. –
      Warning – NSFW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCwXVOifomo

      Hey Mitch – Stay the hell out of my primary.


      MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

      • segmentation_fault August 11, 2017 at 11:28 pm

        I respect that you are not selling out your principles to Kid Rock


        En Marche!

  • Republican Michigander August 11, 2017 at 10:53 pm

    1. Of the current swing states, which one are you most sure will be solidly Republican in 20 years? Which one will be solidly Democratic? Which state that’s currently not a swing state will be one in 20 years?

    20 years is a lifetime in politics to predict. Tennessee and Kentucky were considered swing seats 20 years ago. So was Georgia. Colorado leaned slightly right. Virginia was solidly right in 1997. That’s why I’m not sure of anything in 2037.

    If I had to guess Swing to R’s – Ohio. If you consider Ohio not a swing state, Iowa and Wisconsin. I pick Wisconsin over Michigan because Michigan was a considered a “Trump” state, while Wisconsin wasn’t thought of as good of fit for him. I think Michigan will be a swing state as long as unions values have pull, and as long as there is a sizable black population.

    I’d add MAYBE Florida IF the current rate of Midwestern retirees stays. While Puerto Ricans in Orlando will be trouble for us, as is Miami-Dade/Broward, that’s counteracted by the Gulf Coast. Everyone talks about the panhandle, but it’s that stretch from North of Tampa (formerly D area believe it or not – it’s a reverse Orlanda) south to Naples (with the exception of Tampa and St Pete itself). Florida’s been swing for 20 years, and I’m not confident of that changing.

    Swing to D’s – Nevada. Trump had strength, but if R’s can’t take Washoe county anymore, it’s going to be nearly impossible.

    R to swing Arizona. It flipped to Clinton in 1996, and some weaknesses were shown there in the 2000’s although it leaned right. Retirees balanced out Mexicans. That said, between the Mexicans, new Californians, Tuscon, and Tempe movement, I can see this as trouble.

    Georgia I see as the other big trouble. Georgia stampeded right between 1998-2004. Since then the rural south and mountains moved right, as did white Atlanta outer suburbs and rural commuting areas. However, the minority population is skyrocketing in Atlanta’s suburbs, especially southern suburbs.

    Some may argue North Carolina, but that’s really been swingish for the most part for years looking at downticket. The coalitions have changed some.

    D to Swing – Minnesota. That’s more by default, but I can see it happening with the shift in rural areas. I’d have that even if Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia are D and not swing.

    “””””Which House recruit for each side has impressed you the most so far this cycle? Which race has each side whiffed on the most in terms of recruiting so far?”””””
    Too early for me to judge. Sometimes the best candidate on paper early on ends up not being a good candidate. (Thompson, Hoekstra). Sometimes the “longshot” ends up being Ron Johnson. I don’t consider anything a whiff until we at least get close to the primary.


    MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

    • segmentation_fault August 11, 2017 at 11:44 pm

      Helping Puerto Rico resolve its economic problems (with statehood?) should be a top priority for the GOP because if they don’t, Puerto Ricans will continue pouring into Florida and shifting the state to the left. If PR were strong economically some PRs who are in FL now might even move back.


      En Marche!

      • Izengabe August 12, 2017 at 8:51 pm

        Statehood is not what is needed to solve Puerto Rico’s problems. A waiver from harmful US regulations (like the minimum wage) would do more to help Puerto Rico than statehood would.


        Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

  • aggou August 11, 2017 at 11:53 pm

    I predict that in 20 years coalitions which make up the parties will be very different.

    Do I know how? No. I mean last year we were talking about the dissolving of the republican party with trump leading it to destruction. For all we know both or one may be gone, or a split could arise among both parties in some way we can’t foresee.

    Twill be interesting

    • Indy1975a August 12, 2017 at 1:01 am

      I think this is very possible.
      I mean 20 years ago, West Virginia was a solid D state, having even voted for Carter in 1980 and Dukakis in 1988. Who would have thunk that the wife of the President who won that state by double digits would get 26% there and lose it by 42%, while winning the national popular vote!


      Independent, R until November 2016

  • segmentation_fault August 11, 2017 at 11:57 pm

    My predictions of the 2016 election happened in 2036 (20 years of demographic change)

    GA – Clinton+14
    VA – Clinton+10
    AZ – Clinton+8
    CO – Clinton+8
    TX – Clinton+7
    NV – Clinton+6
    NC – Clinton+5
    FL – Clinton+3
    NH – Trump+1
    PA – Trump+2
    MN – Trump+3
    ME – Trump+5
    MI – Trump+8
    WI – Trump+10
    OH – Trump+17
    IA – Trump+21


    En Marche!

    • Indy1975a August 12, 2017 at 1:01 am

      No way that Georgia and Texas go that extreme.


      Independent, R until November 2016

      • Son_of_the_South August 12, 2017 at 1:05 am

        Agreed. Also, I think that FL stays perpetually swingy. No way IA gets that Republican, though (not with Des Moines growing like it is).


        23, R, TN-08
        Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

    • Son_of_the_South August 12, 2017 at 1:13 am

      MI won’t be that R. It will likely be swingy, as Hipsters and yuppies will start to really revitalize the urban core of Detoit as the outstate gets more R. Detroit will actually gain population again as it fills up old housing stock and keeps the D numbers respectable.


      23, R, TN-08
      Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

    • buckeyes95 August 12, 2017 at 8:33 am

      There’s no way Ohio will ever be that Republican. I think it’s definitely on its way to being lean R over tossup but with Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus (and the smaller cities as well) it won’t vote that strongly for a Republican, especially as a lot of the Trumpiest areas in the south and east are losing population just as quick as places like Youngstown and Cleveland proper. Most of the growth is in the Columbus and Cincinnati suburbs which are still largely Republican-leaning but trending away.


      OH-12. Centrist R feeling pushed out.

      • Mayor Perk August 12, 2017 at 11:51 am

        Greetings, fellow Tiberi-ite! Agreed, the tri-C’s will keep Dems at respectable levels statewide. Even as rural and Appalachia Ohio turn blood red, Columbus and Cincinnati are turning blue. Bush barely lost Franklin County to Gore. He lost it 54-45 to Kerry in 2004. Obama 08/12 & Hillary all hovered around 60%. Bush won Hamilton County by decent margins both times. Hillary won it 52-42. It remain to be seen if Trump’s gains in places like Youngstown/Warren and Lorain are long-term or not.


        30. OH-12. Establishment Republican.

        • buckeyes95 August 12, 2017 at 7:07 pm

          Yeah I don’t see Ohio being Safe Republican in the foreseeable future because of how current trends are going. The areas that trended towards Trump are mostly losing population while the areas that trended towards Hillary are mostly gaining. Of course it does all depend on how both parties continue to act in the future, if Republicans continue down the path of Trumpism the future will be very different than if they return to a more Romneyesque style.


          OH-12. Centrist R feeling pushed out.

      • GorrestFump August 12, 2017 at 3:46 pm

        Ds seems to have lucked out in OH since 2012 by nominating terrible candidates for the state FitzGerald, Strickland, Clinton. The population trends in the state mean it could easily be 50/50 instead of blowouts for Rs.

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 3:28 pm

    *Typical PPP disclaimer*

    Susan Collins may have taken a big hit among Republican primary voters over the Obamacare debacle. GOP voters hold a 33-62 approval rating for Susan Collins. It will probably recover over time, but possibly not enough for her to actually win a gubernatorial primary.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_W8V6ab5O57allNVmdIYXc0MDhLNUU5eFJoMEphZE5HNkFz/view


    I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

  • GorrestFump August 12, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    GRAVIS Poll

    Trump JA 44/54
    2018 GCB 46/40 D/R
    2020 GENERIC D vs. Trump 48/39
    2020 primary Joe Biden: 21%, Mark Cuban: 7%, Kamala Harris: 6%, Cory Booker: 4%, Don’t Know: 43%

    http://orlando-politics.com/2017/08/11/new-poll-donald-trump-twice-as-popular-as-mitch-mcconnell/

  • Tekzilla August 12, 2017 at 3:42 pm

    No comments on Charlottesville?


    36/M/NY-01 (D)

    • Mike1965 August 12, 2017 at 3:51 pm

      My comment on the statement President Trump made would probably get me banned.


      "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln

    • fzw August 12, 2017 at 4:00 pm

      Well it is an elections site, not a current events site. But perhaps this event should be bookmarked for reference the next time someone inevitably goes on a rant about “the unhinged left.”


      Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
      R-leaning Indy.

    • TheWizardOf144 August 12, 2017 at 4:00 pm

      I didn’t attend as I had intended to do weeks ago. This would be why.

    • Boehnerwasright August 12, 2017 at 4:05 pm

      Before we jump to conclusions about what happened there I urge people to wait as we get more facts. But regardless of what information will come out, I doubt that Trump’s statement will help him.

      From a purely political standpoint not condeming the white supremisist/neo-nazis seems quite ill-advised. Attacking David Duke is about the safest play possible and would have helped him with voters who disliked trump but still voted for him in 2016 (many of them well educated suburban republican).
      Even if some of his alt-right base would dislike this they will still vote for him in 2020. I fail to see the downside of a strong statement attacking David Duke and neo-nazis.

      • TexasR August 12, 2017 at 4:09 pm

        We saw this same act during the campaign. He is literally incapable of saying anything negative about people whom he considers to be his “friends” (which might also explain his continual praise of Putin).
        To at least tangentially get this back to elections, expect this same behavior in 2020.


        Whatever we're talking about, it's all Frank Meyer's fault
        Be careful what you wish for

        • Boehnerwasright August 12, 2017 at 4:26 pm

          If the dems nominate someone normal in 2020 I could see Trump’s inability to condemn people/movements which he thinks of favourable cost him some republican voters. I could see some republicans especially socially liberal/moderates suburban women not vote for Trump as they don’t want want to support someone they see as supporting extremist.

      • FiveAngels August 12, 2017 at 4:32 pm

        Oh God, are we back to “denouncing David Duke” crap again? Denounciation game is nothing but a left-wing bully tactic. Obama never denounced anyone, even close friends like Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers. And Trump has to go and crawl over something David Duke, to whom he has no meaningful political or personal connection, and his sympathizers are doing? For what it’s worth, I think Duke and Richard Spencer are complete idiots who are only doing the favor to the media, Democrats and especially the NeverTrumpers by claming Trumpism as an extension of their own ideology.

        • Boehnerwasright August 12, 2017 at 4:38 pm

          http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24371827/ns/politics-decision_08/t/obama-strongly-denounces-former-pastor/

          Here a link where Obama is denouncing Wright. And there are more examples of Obama denouncing people/causes who are supportive of him and his agenda.
          Hard to find a case where Trump is seriously doing the same.

          • HS August 12, 2017 at 4:57 pm

            Hard to find an example of Obama denouncing these people based on principle either. He turned on Wright to nip the negative attention he was getting in the bud.

            Btw, another difference between these two situations was that Obama was really close to Wright, while Trump has no actual ties to people like Richard Spencer.

            Nice try though.

          • FiveAngels August 12, 2017 at 4:58 pm

            If this is the standard, then Trump denounced KKK and Duke many times.

          • anonuser118 August 12, 2017 at 5:35 pm

            It’s only hard to find if you’re not looking. I literally googled ‘trump denounces the kkk’ and found dozens of dozens of links from left of center new sources from different dates about Trump denouncing the kkk:
            http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-donald-trump-denounces-support-from-kkk-1478057956-htmlstory.html
            http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-disavows-david-duke-kkk/index.html

            This ignorant hysteria Trump has driven people to is reminiscent of the hardcore anti-obama fringes (and this is coming from somebody who did not vote for Trump and will likely not in 2020). And to the ‘unhinged left’ comment above, the difference is that the institutional power of the media immediately, overwhelmingly and correctly condemns fringe right groups when they engage in public displays or violence. On the other hand there is an undeniable strain of sympathy amongst them for groups like pardoned Puerto Rican terrorists, antifa (see the Wash Post coverage, Huffpost, the Guardian) and BLS (which has literally had numerous members execute police officers, prominent members excuse such murders and entire marches chant in favor of violence against police.

        • HS August 12, 2017 at 4:52 pm

          Yup. Dems like this game. And it works is a distraction. You can see it on our website – How many times does a Dem poster put out the link and demand that all Republicans here denounce it?

          On a more serious, and ironic, note, the Dems have long past gone into boy who cried wolf territory with anyone who is not already a lefty. The danger here is more about the crazed lefties on the margin who get ginned up by the media and then start shooting Republicans.

      • Indy1975a August 12, 2017 at 4:51 pm

        Frankly this was a major reason why I refused to support Trump in 2016 and left the party. If you can’t reject support from Vladimir Putin and white supremacists/neo-Nazis, I just can’t support you. It’s a clear red line for me.
        And if his supporters are defensive about it, well that’s why I became an independent.


        Independent, R until November 2016

        • JJC August 12, 2017 at 5:23 pm

          Oh give me a break.

          These are typical lefty bullying tactics. Guilt by NON-association. Trump has nothing to do with these people, and the aggressors to this incident will be liberals. It just will. It always is.

          You never go around crying about Obama or other democrats not denouncing ANTIFA – you know – that organization of brownshirts who literally go around with masks and baseball bats beating up people they don’t like.

          Where is the liberal condemnation of them? Not only do they not condemn it, they (media) actively sweeps their violence under the rug.

          • Indy1975a August 12, 2017 at 5:29 pm

            Rage as loudly and as angrily as you want, but I’m at peace with my position.


            Independent, R until November 2016

            • HS August 12, 2017 at 5:44 pm

              But you and the Dem posters and the other Never Trumpers actually seem to be just the opposite. Denounce this! This is disgusting! What a sick man Trump is! And it is every day, over and over again.

    • californianintexas August 12, 2017 at 4:07 pm

      Yeah, it’s not really relevant to elections except in discussing the ramifications in the governor’s race and VA-05. Gillespie and Northam have both condemned the incident.

      Nothing on VA-05 yet, but this probably won’t do Garrett any favors. He has more than plenty of time, though. I wonder what we will hear from Perriello.


      34, Female, Libertarian, UT-02 (hometown CA-31), theelectionsgeek.com

      • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 6:36 pm

        Dems actually already have a strong candidate in VA-5, Roger Huffstetler, a Moulton recruit and veteran who outraised Tom Garrett last quarter. If Perriello enters there would be a contested primary that he would be far from guaranteed to win.


        Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

        • rdelbov August 12, 2017 at 7:45 pm

          I am frankly surprised at the effort the Ds are putting into VA5–58% for Garrett in 2016 and this is a district that a local congressman does not have to travel far to get home and tend. I don’t see any major errors from Garrett and with the only turnout in 2018 one would suspect he would get close to matching his 2016 numbers.

          • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 8:06 pm

            There are high-fundraising Moulton recruits in a bunch of fairly unhospitable seats — there’s one in OH-6 who outraised Bill Johnson, for instance. This is behavior that makes more sense if you’re trying to build a support network within the party around the country (for what, I wonder…) than if you’re trying to necessarily elect a bunch of people.


            Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

        • StatenIslandTest August 12, 2017 at 10:03 pm

          Garrett and a Fifth District! Brings back bad memories!


          31, Jersey City

    • segmentation_fault August 12, 2017 at 4:21 pm

      Charlottesville protesters = Breitbart comments section. Breitbart founder in WH. Very disturbing.


      En Marche!

      • anonuser118 August 12, 2017 at 5:38 pm

        Are we really going to let this unnecessary comment stand? What if I said Scalise shooter = dailykos commentators?

        • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 5:44 pm

          Yeah, that lets the modern corporate left off the hook too fast. At least the Scalise shooter only targeted politicians in power. The M.O of the modern corporate left ala Google is to go after everyone engaged in wrongthink, whether in power or not. While both are reprehensible, in the words of Jeanne Kirkpatrick, they represent the difference between a generic authoritarian dictatorship (someone like Pinochet or the Chinese or Cuban governments today) and a totalitarian state (a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Kim Jong-un).


          I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

        • Son_of_the_South August 12, 2017 at 5:46 pm

          This whole subthread is unnecessary. Cool it off, both of you.


          23, R, TN-08
          Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

    • district1 August 12, 2017 at 4:25 pm

      Just the latest evidence that we have a president who is lacks the willingness or capability to perform the basic elements of his job. This latest series of statements was so embarrassing that you have to think some lower/mid-level people in the comms shop will be heading for the doors.


      ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

      • TheWizardOf144 August 12, 2017 at 5:04 pm

        Turns out the driver thought “Trump should have been aborted”. Hmm.

        • fzw August 12, 2017 at 5:23 pm

          Huh. Are you the arresting officer with insider knowledge of the suspect? /s


          Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
          R-leaning Indy.

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 5:31 pm

            Presumably, just someone with a twitter account. Who saw this tweet from a newspaper writer.

            https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/896473716527378434

            Obviously not confirmed 100% (someone else could be driving the guy’s car), but pretty believable.


            I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

        • JJC August 12, 2017 at 5:24 pm

          They don’t care.

          Their narrative is already pre-defined in their heads. Facts mean nothing.

        • Republican Michigander August 12, 2017 at 5:26 pm

          Not confirmed. The infamous car with Ohio plates may be registered to a 51 year old from Macomb County Michigan. Car might be for his son. I won’t name the person because it’s unconfirmed, but the driver that plowed into the protestors may not be “Alt-right” but is at a minimum, anti-Trump. We’ll probably know soon if it’s the same guy. Apparently he’s been arrested.


          MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

          • Republican Michigander August 12, 2017 at 5:33 pm

            After seeing the latest – Probably NOT that guy.


            MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

            • fzw August 12, 2017 at 9:27 pm

              So I take it that the alt-Righters were spreading fake news again? Nothing about the killer suggests he wished Trump was aborted.


              Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
              R-leaning Indy.

      • JJC August 12, 2017 at 7:06 pm

        Yes, denouncing all political violence is horrible and wrong. Only violence on the “right” should be condemned!!!

        Or is it that you decided this is all Trump and his supporters’ fault, and you’re angry that the heathen man did not confess and own it?

        The cognitive dissidence here is astounding.

    • Republican Michigander August 12, 2017 at 4:37 pm

      I have one comment on Charlottesville. Don’t use the symbol of my favorite hockey team.


      MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

    • Greyhound August 12, 2017 at 5:13 pm

      I’m sorry, am I missing something here? Trump basically says “Stop killing people” and yet the major media story is how he . . . refused to denounce white nationalism? His speech was the most generic “let’s all get along” thing that I think he’s ever said, but since reporting that would make Trump look good, the media had to find another angle with which to bludgeon him.


      R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

      • Manhatlibertarian August 12, 2017 at 5:25 pm

        So at least one person has been killed and 19 injured when a car plowed into a crowd at the rally site. The driver has been taken into custody – no info so far on the identity of the person.

        • fzw August 12, 2017 at 5:25 pm

          TheWizard apparently knows!


          Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
          R-leaning Indy.

        • Greyhound August 12, 2017 at 5:51 pm

          No, I get that, I’m just confused as to why people are acting like Trump’s response was to give a fist bump and said “Aim better next time you guys, you missed a lot of the bastards”.

          Trump did exactly what the President should do in this situation, but since so many people have already internalized the idea that Trump is somehow a KKK stalking horse, they immediately started acting like he’s done something wrong or is at fault here. What, was he supposed to say that he condemns specifically the right-wing Thugs and NOT the Left-wing ones?


          R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 6:04 pm

            “What, was he supposed to say that he condemns specifically the right-wing Thugs and NOT the Left-wing ones?”

            I mean, basically. Liberal journalists spent a great deal of time celebrating the “punching of Nazis”, Nazis of course being defined the same way the East Germans did (a very wide category featuring various disfavored groups that somehow managed to exclude many actual Nazis). This has deeply concerned a minority of liberal journalists, as shown here.

            https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/


            I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

            • Greyhound August 12, 2017 at 8:09 pm

              Amazingly, that seems to be the angle they are going for:
              http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/politics/trump-charlottesville-statement/index.html

              But, the emphasis of “on many sides” — Trump repeated that phrase twice — is, I think, the low ebb. Both sides . . . don’t get into fistfights with people who don’t see things their way. They don’t create chaos and leave a trail of injured behind them.

              Are you fucking kidding me? This is absolutely ridiculous. The level of double-think required to insinuate that political violence does not exist on the American left is mind-boggling to the absurd. Hell, it was vividly present AT THIS VERY EVENT!


              R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

              • w920us August 12, 2017 at 8:40 pm

                Democrats refuse to acknowledge the violence of the alt-left, Muslim terrorists, BLM, Antifa, etc.

                The public is well aware of this double standard from liberals, Democrats and the MSM.

                We should not follow their reprehensible example by not acknowledging the violence from the alt-right and white supremacists.


                R, South Philly, 47, Gay, WFU Alum
                #TrumpVoter #NeverHillary

                • JJC August 12, 2017 at 8:49 pm

                  Trump did just that.
                  @realDonaldTrump: We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!

                  And for the record, I no longer abide by the strategy of turning the other cheek. I’m sick of the double standards. I’m sick of liberal violence being swept under the rug.

                  “The public is well aware of this double standard from liberals, Democrats and the MSM.”

                  No, far, far too many people are not aware of this. That’s the problem.

      • segmentation_fault August 12, 2017 at 5:25 pm

        If it were a BLM activist or illegal immigrant who drove a car through a group of tea party or anti-abortion protesters Trump’s statement would have been fire and fury like the world has never seen before.


        En Marche!

        • JJC August 12, 2017 at 5:34 pm

          Non Sequitur.

          And if that were the case, you wouldn’t hear half as much about it in the news. The media would still blame Trump anyway. They would still blame the right first, until it turns out to actually be liberal violence, which is almost always the case. Then they’d claim we must be ‘bi-partisan’ and not mass blame others for the actions of an individual (like when you mass blamed all commenters of the 29th most active website in the world).

          But ignore all that. Look at where your argument stands;

          “Trump didn’t denounce this incident/group/action enough! See how terrible he is!”

          It’s been hours. We don’t even know the facts or what the guys motive is, or f there was one at all.

          And yet here you are, claiming to know exactly what happened and who is responsible without any facts, demanding that Trump ‘denounce’ these people, as if it’s his fault this happened.

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 5:40 pm

            Honestly, reflexive anti-Trump sentiment isn’t even about Trump at this point. It’s probably psychologically impossible for a human to hate someone as much as the activist left and Republican establishment hate Donald Trump, since a person you don’t personally know really just can’t arouse those kinds of emotions. It’s about total hatred of everyone who backed him or much more accurately, every discrete group of people perceived (accurately or inaccurately) as having backed Donald Trump, who our elites have deemed as life unworthy of life. Such as DailyKos cheering the death of lower-class whites (even though they probably actually did much vote for Clinton more heavily than higher-income whites).


            I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

      • JJC August 12, 2017 at 5:26 pm

        They can’t do it. They can’t fathom a reality where anything Trump says is good.

        Their brains won’t allow it.

    • Indy1975a August 12, 2017 at 5:16 pm

      I think we’ve reached the Bleeding Kansas stage with the car going through the crowd.


      Independent, R until November 2016

      • Greyhound August 12, 2017 at 5:39 pm

        No, but we’re heading for the late 60s. Do people not remember just how pervasive domestic terrorism was between 1965 and 1975?


        R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

        • Indy1975a August 12, 2017 at 6:09 pm

          The domestic terrorism and violent protests in the 1960s came almost exclusively from the left. (I suppose one could argue that J. Edgar Hoover, the National Guard troops who shot the protesters at Kent State, etc were the other side, but that’s a stretch.) This time it is coming from political extremes. That’s a pretty substantial difference than in the late 1960s, and makes it more comparable to the pre Civil War era. I mean, you largely didn’t have Birchers or other far right groups engaging in violence or terrorism back then. The KKK did do considerable violence in the South but most of that was in the early to mid 1960s.


          Independent, R until November 2016

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 6:12 pm

            The KKK was infinitely more violent than anyone in the “far-right” today. Outside of self-defense incidents, how many “far-right” attacks have there actually been since the election? The Oregon stabbings by that Bernie Sanders supporter? In contrast, the KKK regularly firebombed black churches, murdered civil rights workers, etc. Hell, even today’s KKK is infinitely tamer than the KKK back then.

            Not to mention you could argue that the “far-right” regularly committed violence – they were just embedded into the United States government and corporate America. Look at J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI. Today, the FBI is on the other side, as is corporate America.


            I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

          • SlippingJimmy August 12, 2017 at 10:20 pm

            Weren’t the Ohio ANG troops at Kent State acting in self-defense?

            AFAIK they were being pelted with rocks and various other projectiles.


            Republican, TX-22.

      • anonuser118 August 12, 2017 at 5:40 pm

        So the former dem campaign worker shooting and nearly killing multiple republican congressman was not that first step?

        (edited for an unnecessary comment)

        • FiveAngels August 12, 2017 at 5:50 pm

          Hey, that was Trump’s fault too. Ask Jeff Flake.

          • Izengabe August 12, 2017 at 9:04 pm

            Come on! Jeff Flake never said that. Give me a break. Flake is rightly upset about the vitriol on both sides and I agree with that. There is no reason political discussion in the real world can’t be done with the same courtesy and respect we show to each other here on RRH.


            Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

        • Indy1975a August 12, 2017 at 5:51 pm

          From a historical standpoint, it was a precursor IMO (one could argue had he actually killed one or more people, it would have been the start), as with the previous skirmishes at Berkeley and Portland. But unfortunately I expect a lot more of this from the extremists on both sides; and they feed off each other.

          And it will probably escalate; and will result in one of two possibilities, (a) some sort of massive event which backfires bigly and causes everyone to start pulling back, or (b) some sort of a civil war.
          Again I say a prayer for our country today. I suspect things are going to get worse in the short term. I hope I’m wrong.


          Independent, R until November 2016

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 6:01 pm

            Really, as Greyhound said, this wasn’t that different from the 1960’s. Not just in the United States, but a lot of other democracies. A civil war seems like a ludicrous outcome (especially when one side is uh, rather poorly equipped to fight). I mean, how many civil wars do you actually see in modern history?

            But something like the Italian Years of Lead seems entirely plausible to me. Remember, in Italy, Communist terrorists actually kidnapped and murdered the Prime Minister. While the period was violent, it did not escalate to civil war.

            Civil war sits at the apex of a sliding scale of violence and we’re nowhere near that yet.


            I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 13, 2017 at 12:30 pm

            Really, I don’t think I can name a single example of an developed democracy falling into civil war. Sure, we can look at the war in Syria or the Vietnam War, but those hardly took place in paragons of democracy. These wars also seem to be much more common in rural and industrial societies (think La Violencia in Colombia), probably because you have multiple power centers with “destructive” power (the peasantry, the army, trade unions). That’s just not true in the USA though. Antifa would probably like to fight a civil war, but they really don’t have the means. They are not say, militant industrial Spanish trade unions circa 1936.

            The worst case scenario for a developed democracy I can think of is the Troubles in Northern Ireland. And although that was pretty bad, it didn’t leave Northern Ireland a smoldering wreck. Civil war is absolutely implausible, though I could see America being the type of society where bombs explode in public all the time, most major office buildings are guarded by private security, politicians are regularly assassinated, and martial law gets declared in a few cities every once in a while. But that falls very very short of civil war.


            I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

    • LtNOWIS August 12, 2017 at 6:22 pm

      Just imagine if Corey Stewart was the nominee. It would be a downballot disaster.


      28, VA-11

    • segmentation_fault August 12, 2017 at 7:00 pm

      David Jolly
      https://twitter.com/davidjollyfl/status/896502610110238720


      En Marche!

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 7:12 pm

        More like never forgive the political class whose evil and failure gave us Donald Trump and is now trying to gaslight the entire nation on why this happened. The political class is basically trying to adapt the tactics of domestic abuse to an entire nation. People like Jolly are worse than David Duke or Louis Farrakhan or James Hodgkinson.


        I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

        • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 7:25 pm

          And here I thought it was the anti-Trump side freaking out about tweets and insisting that politically incorrect tweeters are worse than literal murderers and racists!


          Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 7:45 pm

            If there was a trolley headed towards a random Senator, while a random public racist (on either side) with a loud mouth was sitting on an adjacent track, I would walk away from the switch and go get ice cream or something.


            I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

            • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 8:07 pm

              Eh, don’t think I disagree with you on that one. If probably for very different reasons.


              Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

      • JJC August 12, 2017 at 7:24 pm

        Ah yes, the ‘climate Trump created’!

        Was that before or after the media spent 8 month pushing a fake story about the election being stolen?
        Was that before or after liberals refused to accept the election results, rioted for months, and have spent every moment since trying to overturn them?
        Was that before or after BLM executed a bunch of cops in cold blood, with the media absolving them blame.
        Was that before or after the media lied about ‘hands up don’t shoot’ to push their lefty narratives, which subsequently caused mass riots.
        Was that before or after masked thugs went around the country beating up people they don’t like, smashing heads with pad locks, and preventing people from speaking in public venues?
        Was that before or after many dem congresspeople went on television making impeachment demands and claiming Republican legislation was going to murder million?

        I know how people like David Jolly are. They are actually giddy at this tragedy. It makes them genuinely happy when people die, because they think they can use it to justify their hatreds towards their enemies.

        Cognitive Dissonance occurs when your hatred blinds your ability to reason.

        • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 7:29 pm

          When did Trump create the environment? It was after the movement defending cop-killers emerged (I doubt Trump would’ve been possible without it), but before the collusion (which was Trump’s reward from the Russians for his undermining of American politics and civil society) and victory with 46%. It was a gradual process that took place in late 2015 and early 2016.


          Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

          • JJC August 12, 2017 at 7:38 pm

            “(which was Trump’s reward from the Russians for his undermining of American politics and civil society)”

            Trump colluded with Russia! The votes were hacked! The election was stolen! Fake news caused Hillary to lose! Dem congressmen claim Trump is illegitimate!

            All things plastered in establishment media.

            Anyway, the point being that we know which side employs ‘Alinksy’ style tactics of ends justifying the means. We know which side gaslights this kind of violence and intimidation. Sure, every once in a blue moon some righty loon does it, and that is rightly condemned by the media at-large. But the scale and severity of it isn’t even close as compared to the left. It’s like a mountain vs an anthill.

            When’s the last time you saw a dem politician asked to denounce ANTIFA?

            You see, when there’s double standards in our society, when one sided is able to get away with displays of violence and intimidation, the natural result is more chaos.

            • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 8:13 pm

              The last time I opened any social media page or comments feed? Pretty much all the time, for the record. But that isn’t really the point of what I’m trying to say. Trump (whether deliberately or not) set of a chain of self-reinforcing events that have greatly increased the incidence of political violence in this country, left and right. This does not mean Trump is at fault for Antifa (I’m convinced you’ll read it this way anyway, but whatever), but rather that he frequently acts in ways that are counterproductive to his stated goals but tended to help him electorally. Happened more often during the election since there is more to actual governance than public opinion, of course.

              As for the Russian connection, yes, the Russian government frequently funds far-left and far-right politics in a variety of democratic nations in the hopes of destabilizing them. They have both horses in this fight, and that they at least tried to aid Trump is pretty much known to be true. Plenty of precedent suggests that if someone on the Trump campaign, or Trump himself, deliberately solicited that aid that it would be a campaign finance violation; and we have him on tape in campaign rallies saying that.

              Obviously he and his supporters are going to call it a joke, but I suggest you go to an airport terminal, tell a funny joke, and see what happens. Even if it really WAS a funny joke.


              Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

              • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 8:17 pm

                Repeating a classic Russian joke about waiting 8 years for a socialist car would be a tremendously bad idea in North Korea, which says very little about the joke. It’s become striking how much anti-Trump criticism is now couched with an appeal to authority, an authority that we know now is evil, corrupt, and incompetent.

                As for me, my opinion of someone goes up if they get arrested by the TSA.


                I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

                • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 8:46 pm

                  Criticism of Trump is pretty much only relevant if it either hurts him with the electorate or demonstrates that he broke some law. Both are easy to read as an appeal to the authority of the electorate and the legal system, I suppose. Some sort of pure criticism on purely moral terms could be made, and could perhaps be very interesting to make, but it would not be terribly relevant.

                  My opinion of someone acting in a manner deliberately harmful to themselves and spiteful to the public tends to go down.


                  Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

      • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 7:24 pm

        There were rumors Jolly might run for some office (Florida Attorney General, perhaps) as a Democrat in 2018? In his 2016 reelection, he tried really hard to attack Crist from the left, and railed against him for connections to Trump.


        Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

        • segmentation_fault August 12, 2017 at 7:42 pm

          At this point he could probably win a Dem primary against Crist if he wanted to run for his old seat.


          En Marche!

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 7:47 pm

            Though if progressives still have self-respect, they would probably be able to beat both in a field where the power over principles lane is split.


            I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

            • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 8:14 pm

              “If” is doing a lot of work in that sentence about the Florida Democratic Party.


              Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

              • StatenIslandTest August 12, 2017 at 10:09 pm

                What the hell is wrong with that CD lol?


                31, Jersey City

      • Republican Michigander August 13, 2017 at 9:53 am

        David Jolly is an f’ing idiot. Trump didn’t cause any of this.

        I saw a good quote from Roger L Simon on this. “It’s just a small group of real bad people. Indict them, convict them, and lock them up for a long as possible. The rest of us should move on. We have a lot better things to do.””


        MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

    • district1 August 12, 2017 at 8:04 pm

      Part of the job of the presidency is to provide moral leadership and say the right thing. In fact responding to a situation like this is one of the easiest things for a president to do. Any 16-year-old congressional press intern could write a caring, thoughtful and appropriate statement calling for people to come together to reject white supremacy as un-American.

      The Trump team decided to go in a different direction, and the massive pushback from Republican officeholders is because his comments were weak and mealy-mouthed and did not provide moral leadership. It’s not like Cory Gardner or Marco Rubio enjoy calling out their president.

      Trump will end up saying the right thing but he’s sure looked bad in the meantime.


      ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

      • JJC August 12, 2017 at 8:18 pm

        “Part of the job of the presidency is to provide moral leadership and say the right thing. In fact responding to a situation like this is one of the easiest things for a president to do. Any 16-year-old congressional press intern could write a caring, thoughtful and appropriate statement calling for people to come together”
        ———————————-

        That’s exactly what Trump did. He condemned people on both sides, both of which were engaging in violence

        You just want to hate Trump. That’s what it all really comes down to. You want to him to ‘own’ something that has nothing to do with him or his supporters.

        It’s pathetic and so obvious what the left is doing. Any angle to attack Trump is how they’ll present it.

        It does not matter what Trump said. It would have been spun to generate phony ‘outrage’ anyway.

        By your logic, imagine if Trump came out and blamed Bernie Sanders and the left for the Scalise shooting.

        You’d be here attacking Trump for exploitation

        • district1 August 12, 2017 at 8:46 pm

          You’re turning this into something much more complicated than it actually is.

          Look at the Twitter feed of every single Republican officeholder besides the president and see what they’re saying. His team should copy and paste.


          ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

          • JJC August 12, 2017 at 9:01 pm

            No, nevertrumpers are trying to twist this into something it isn’t.

            Trump makes a vague condemnation of all violence to an event where we don’t even know what happened yet.

            Nevertrump conclusion – He’s gas-lighting white supremacists! He refuses to condemn nazis! Outrage! Outrage!

            Talk about olympic-scale mental gymnastics. It’s so blatantly obvious and pathetic on what’s going on here. But I guess the people who are in that isolated bubble will never see it.

            I will gladly criticize Trump whenever it is warranted. This is not one of them. If Obama made the same exact statement about one of the police executions by BLM (did he even bother?), no one would make a peep. That’s how you know this ‘controversy’ is all media created drivel.

            BTW, should Trump have come out – while Scalise was in the emergency room – and condemn all leftist violence and blame the media/Bernie for it? Basically do what you said he should do?

            How do you think the media would respond?

            • district1 August 12, 2017 at 9:12 pm

              The point is that he should and could have said something specific about white supremacy and racism long before the man rammed his car into the crowd. This is the kind of political message akin to denouncing radical Islamism or supporting baseball and apple pie that most politicians rush to be associated with because it is so broadly agreed-upon and benign.

              Apparently Trump agrees with your opinion, though. We’ll get a chance to see how it plays out.


              ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

              • JJC August 12, 2017 at 9:23 pm

                As pointed out by Greyhound above, Trump has done so many, many times.

                Again, I will gladly criticize Trump when he does something to hurt his political/election chances (you should have seen how many times I bashed him for his ‘foot-in-mouth’ tendencies during the campaign).

                This is not one of them.

            • krazen1211 August 12, 2017 at 10:31 pm

              Bannon and company poll tested this after Hillary began screeching about whatever she deemed to be the ‘alt-right’ ‘deplorables’, which apparently turned out to be a sizable portion of the electorate. It never moved voters.

              • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 11:26 pm

                Part of that is because nobody on Earth actually knows how to define what alt-right means.


                I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

    • Izengabe August 12, 2017 at 9:17 pm

      I really wish we and everybody else had no comments on Charlottesville. If a bunch of asshats with citronella tiki torches want to march around making asses of themselves spouting racist crap the proper response is to ignore them. They are a fringe minority who crave attention like this to make it seem their insane wackjob views are some kind of mass movement instead of a few thousand losers tweeting from their parents basement. The attention they are getting is what they want. The proper response would be mass silence and simply ignoring these morons. The fact the office of President of the United States has to be lowered to respond to these lowlifes is a disgrace. But in America 2017 cable news needs ratings and nothing is apparently better for ratings than Nazis. Sad!


      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • TheWizardOf144 August 12, 2017 at 9:38 pm

        Excellent point.

        • HS August 12, 2017 at 11:54 pm

          So then next time a Dem on this site throws down a link and demands that we all denounce Trump for whatever it is, perhaps we should just ignore it?

          • Son_of_the_South August 13, 2017 at 1:04 am

            Perhaps you should, and just wait for me or another mod to delete it, instead of taking the bait.


            23, R, TN-08
            Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

    • Tekzilla August 13, 2017 at 9:11 am

      FWIW I didn’t post this asking for anyone to condemn anything (I’ll leave my obvious personal opinion to the side), I was just surprised there was no commentary at all up until that point.

      As another poster pointed out this is not exactly electorally related (Although there could repercussions) and I am normally one of the first to point out when someone else does that, This just seems like it could become a cultural touchstone and thus worth talking about. Tis all.


      36/M/NY-01 (D)

  • Manhatlibertarian August 12, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    It’s hard to say which way swing states Arizona and Nevada will go in the future. In the past Nevada has been more the swing state, going for Bush twice, then Obama twice and narrowly for Clinton. I think Arizona has only gone Dem once since 1948, going for Clinton in 1996. But Trump only narrowly carried Arizona by a little more than 3 points. Both states have growing Hispanic populations, at about 27% in Nevada and 30% in Arizona according to the 2010 census. While Arizona only has a 4% Black population, Nevada has a 8% Black population according to the 2010 census. So we are talking about a 35% Black/Hispanic population in both states, which is a base for the Dems and which has likely grown since 2010 (of course many of the Hispanics are not citizens and can’t vote ).

    Now if California continues with its leftward drift (which I think is likely), with higher taxes on upper middle class people to support ever expanding social programs, a number of these people (and in particular retirees)may very well start looking for warm nearby states with lower tax rates, like Nevada and Arizona (Nevada doesn’t even have an income tax). These people are likely to vote GOP after relocating and there will be some from states other than California. So you have these two trends in these states and it is not yet clear at this point if they will counterbalance each other or if one trend will be more dominant.

    • californianintexas August 12, 2017 at 4:36 pm

      I can’t speak for Nevada, but in Arizona (at least from what I heard on DKE) many of the California ex-pats have been from white flight from the Inland Empire and Orange County, and the parts of Arizona with high percentages of ex-pats tended to be more Republican, like Franks’ district. AZ’s PVI has bounced between R+3.5 and R+7.3 since 1996, so it’s hard to tell if there’s a trend.

      My guess on Nevada is the California transplants there, especially in Vegas, are probably left-leaning, moving to a more affordable place close enough to SoCal for them to visit. Nevada’s PVI trended D from 2000 to 2012. I don’t know if 2016 was an aberration or the trend reversing.

      1996: R+2.9
      2000: R+3.1
      2004: R+1.1
      2008: D+1.3
      2012: D+2.1
      2016: D+0.8


      34, Female, Libertarian, UT-02 (hometown CA-31), theelectionsgeek.com

      • Manhatlibertarian August 12, 2017 at 4:49 pm

        Yeah I am only guessing also on the Nevada transplants from Cal and elsewhere. I assumed many would be “tax refugees” attracted by the lack of a state income tax as well as the lower cost of living. But it could be there are also a number of working class migrants from Cal and other states looking for work in the casino/tourist/entertainment industries and the lower cost of living. Just who the migrants are from other states could well determine the partisan lean of the state.

        • californianintexas August 12, 2017 at 9:15 pm

          Some of the ex-pats could be tax refugees too. There’s probably a mix of working class liberals and tax refugees and some others moving from CA to NV.


          34, Female, Libertarian, UT-02 (hometown CA-31), theelectionsgeek.com

  • Manhatlibertarian August 12, 2017 at 5:16 pm

    I took a look at state ballot measures in 2017 and found there are 27 of them, mostly legislature approved constitutional amendments or bond issues. There are only 4 initiatives and 3 Non Binding Advisory Questions (all 3 in Washington). Texas has the most statewide ballot measures with seven. Most will be voted on in Oct or Nov, and from what I can see most are not that important. The few that I find of interest:

    In June Puerto Rico voted for statehood. But voter turnout was low as opponents boycotted the vote, so IMO Congress will not grant PR statehood.

    Liberals have put an initiative on the Maine ballot expanding Medicaid in the state to 138% of the poverty level with an eventual 10% state match requirement as per the Obama ACA. Gov LePage has resisted attempts to expand Medicaid. He and the Maine GOP oppose this initiative.

    Every 20 years New Yorkers vote on whether to have delegates elected to a State Constitutional Convention that will draw up amendments to the State Constitution to submit to voters. Last time this was voted on 20 years ago, voters voted no. Most political actors in the state have come out against a yes vote, arguing the delegate election process may be dominated by special interests.

    In Ohio the constitution would be amended to greatly expand the rights of crime victims. This will be favored by law and order interests.

    Always possible something else important could be certified for the ballot in the next few weeks, but I think this is pretty much it.

    https://ballotpedia.org/2017_ballot_measures

    • Izengabe August 12, 2017 at 9:24 pm

      New York Proposal 2, Pension Forfeiture for Convicted Officials Amendment is the one that will hopefully pass by a wide margin and stop crooked pols and public officials from collecting state pensions while in jail.


      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

  • cer August 12, 2017 at 6:25 pm

    I condemn HATE on both sides. To bad that can’t always be said for those on a certain side of the political spectrum.


    Conservative first, Republican second!

    • andyroo312 August 13, 2017 at 9:18 am

      Sigh


      MA-7

      • Tekzilla August 13, 2017 at 10:26 am

        Yup, my sentiments exactly.


        36/M/NY-01 (D)

      • cer August 13, 2017 at 10:28 am

        Don’t quite know why you are sighing, but my point is rather spot on.


        Conservative first, Republican second!

        • cer August 13, 2017 at 10:42 am

          I always thought condemning hate from wherever it was coming from was a good thing…. left or right, but if you two feel the need to team tag me… have at it.

          Pointing out hypocrisy is also rather legitimate.


          Conservative first, Republican second!

    • Ryan_in_SEPA August 13, 2017 at 11:25 am

      Everyone needs to just knock off the baiting behavior on this site. None of this has to do with elections. If you want to go whine, go whine on Facebook or wherever.


      31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian

  • roguemapper August 12, 2017 at 6:55 pm

    Quick anticlimactic FYI: I’ve written a script that will block the undesirable spiders and crawlers that have been ravishing the RRH server. However, I need to identify about a dozen user-agents in order for the script to work. In order to do that I need to enable a real-time activity monitor. I have already tested the plugin and I know that it pushes the limit on the already taxed memory resources for the site (which is why I’ve written the script to begin with). I expect that once I activate it I’ll need it to run at least several days. TLDR: There will be an elevated risk of brief site outages for the next week or so.


    Dem NC-11

    • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 7:29 pm

      Thank you for your work on the site!


      Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

      • roguemapper August 12, 2017 at 8:19 pm

        I’ve already nailed the two worst offenders and my script works splendidly. Yay! 🙂


        Dem NC-11

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 12, 2017 at 8:23 pm

    A fascinating article on the dramatic rightward shift in Latin American politics. The authors are of course horrified and ignore one explanation for this phenomenon (the disaster in Venezuela and social democratic mediocrity in Brazil), but if you can read past their bias, there is a lot of interesting stuff in here.

    https://theintercept.com/2017/08/09/atlas-network-alejandro-chafuen-libertarian-think-tank-latin-america-brazil/

    It’s interesting that free market economic views are soaring in Latin America even as they are collapsing miserably in Europe and North America.


    I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

    • Greyhound August 12, 2017 at 10:00 pm

      Well, free market economic views were soaring in America and Europe back in the early 1980s when the main political consensus was that FDR and Atlee had unlocked unapproachable economic truth. Its a pendulum that swings back and forth, as “Consensus” leads people to make stupid policy decisions.


      R, 26, CA-18. Nothing smooths over divisions like victory.

    • Red Oaks August 13, 2017 at 10:01 am

      Are free market views really collapsing in North America?

      1. Unions are less popular than ever before and they are losing battle after battle: right to work, public sector pension and retiree health care reform, the recalls in WI.
      2. The school choice movement has been winning victory after victory: more charter schools, tuition tax credits, interdistrict choice, and homeschooling.
      3. At the state level the general trend this decade has been towards flatter income taxes with fewer carveouts and deductions.
      4. Unemployment Insurance in many states is now only available for less than the standard 26 weeks. This would have been unthinkable not that long ago.
      5. Citizens United has greatly expanded the market in free political speech.
      6. Canada under Chretien, Martin, and Harper has cut taxes significantly. There has been some bounceback under Trudeau but taxes are still notably below the levels of the 1990s.
      7. Estate and gift taxes have become increasingly unpopular in the 21st century and are rapidly being abolished or at least greatly reduced in the US and in Europe as well.
      8. Acceptance of legal marijuana businesses has grown dramatically in recent years.


      MI-03 Castle voter who now says Give Trump a chance

      • Republican Michigander August 13, 2017 at 10:21 am

        I don’t think free market views are collapsing. I think a lot of people dislike “Capitalism” however because it’s confused with “cronyism.” Too big to fail was a large part of that.


        MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

        • kewgardens August 13, 2017 at 10:55 am

          Some rebranding is in order. Just as the Left now uses the poll-tested phrase “climate change” instead of “global warming” or “undocumented immigrant” instead of “illegal immigrant,” it is important for those who support the basic tenets of our economic system to use the term “free enterprise” over “capitalism.”

          It is harder to be against “free enterprise” than “capitalism” — which evokes nefarious 19th century looking men in black top hats.

      • Manhatlibertarian August 13, 2017 at 2:09 pm

        In general I agree with you about movement toward the free market but the picture has become more mixed recently in certain areas. Take state taxation. On the plus side Maine abolished an income tax surcharge on upper income taxpayers and an income tax cut for middle income taxpayers (up to $300,000) will start next year in NY. But on the negative side Illinois and Kansas raised income taxes this year, Cal and SC raised gas taxes, and Cal and NY extended “temporary” income tax surcharges on upper income taxpayers that were supposed to expire.

        With Right To Work there have been some victories in recent years in Ind, Mich, Wis, W.Va., Mo and Ky. But I think the RTW movement probably has hit its peak. RTW legislation failed in the NH House, despite it being GOP controlled, and liberals in Mo are pushing an initiative vote to do away with RTW in 2018. I don’t see any other states as likely to pass RTW in the next few years.

        There has been a relentless push toward high minimum wages in a number of states. Four states passed initiatives in 2016 that raised the minimum wage from anywhere to $12 to $13.50. Cal and NY have passed legislation moving the minimum wage gradually to $15 and Oregon to $14.50 in parts of the state. A number of large cities have also adopted high minimum wages in the $13 to $15 range. The only victories for opponents of high minimum wages have been in a few states that prevented large cities in the state from passing high minimum wages.

        Obamacare Medicaid expansion also seems relentless with 31 states adopting it and Maine possibly becoming the 32nd state this Nov if a Medicaid expansion initiative passes. Once a Medicaid expansion happens it is not reversed. The Obamacare replacement legislation floundered in part because of opposition to reducing funding for Medicaid expansion.

        Let’s see if the GOP can pass some kind of personal and corporate income tax reduction and get it through the Senate. One would think a GOP Congress could manage to do this but in view of recent developments I would put the odds at 50-50.

  • JJC August 12, 2017 at 8:42 pm

    So pathetic to see Rubio, Gardner, Grassley, and Hatch (always the same people) carrying the liberal line and are now lecturing PDT as if they already have a full and verified accounting of everything that actually happened, and why.

    What are the chances they have such information? Serious question.

    It is breath-taking, the stupid, baseless, arrogant lengths to which the sub-mediocrities of the Beltway GOP will go to pander to …. it’s not clear to whom they think they are pandering.

    Must be my memory problem, I don’t recall a peep out of these people, certainly no admonishing a president to scream “terrorism!”, when Dallas police were ambushed in a planned terror attack of the sort BLM was clearly inspiring ….. a group that was – astonishingly and repgunantly, received at the WH over and over.

    • Vosmyorka August 12, 2017 at 8:50 pm

      I suggest you check out their Twitter accounts on July 7-8, 2016, to see what their reactions were if your memory is faulty.


      Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

    • andyroo312 August 13, 2017 at 9:21 am

      I know, I know…shame on legislators for denouncing white supremacist Nazis!


      MA-7

      • Ryan_in_SEPA August 13, 2017 at 11:08 am

        Some people cannot see beyond the left is bad so if you say the same thing as them you must be bad mindset.


        31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian

  • segmentation_fault August 12, 2017 at 10:02 pm

    Ted Cruz is calling on the DOJ to investigate and prosecute car incident as an act of terrorism.

    And I just liked a Ted Cruz tweet for the first time.


    En Marche!

  • MosheM August 12, 2017 at 10:14 pm

    So glad to have been off the internet today and going to Switzerland for a week tomorrow.


    28, M, R, NY-10

    • californianintexas August 12, 2017 at 10:28 pm

      I have the eclipse to distract me through next weekend.


      34, Female, Libertarian, UT-02 (hometown CA-31), theelectionsgeek.com

      • Ryan_in_SEPA August 12, 2017 at 11:14 pm

        I have several large projects. I might also start herding supplies for the impending civil unrest.


        31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian

  • JJC August 13, 2017 at 2:00 am

    Apparently ANTIFA, the violent Brownshirt wannabes who go around wearing masks and beating up people they don’t like, is now labeled as “anti-racist” protesters by CNN.

    Funny how CNN did not air any of the videos floating online showing antifa throwing punches and spraying mace. Or wacking guys over the head with bike locks.

    BTW, one thing that hasn’t been mentioned was the cops refusing to break up these protesters before conflict could arise. Regardless of what the statue protesters believed, they had a permit to show up and demonstrate. The moment antifa showed up the police should have kept them at bay and drove them away – They were obviously there to stir up trouble.

    Of course that didn’t happen and lo and behold, violence broke out.

    • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 13, 2017 at 2:46 am

      News media has become so polarized at this point, I suspect most people who watch CNN just flat-out support ANTIFA.


      I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

      • Ryan_in_SEPA August 13, 2017 at 11:14 am

        You guys give them too much credit. I see the press at all levels barely able to grasp basic legal concepts often let alone anything sophisticated. I am not sure they know who ANTIFA is nor have spent the time researching.


        31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian

        • segmentation_fault August 13, 2017 at 12:02 pm

          I will admit, I don’t know what outrageous things Antifa has done… so what are they?


          En Marche!

          • GerGOP August 13, 2017 at 12:19 pm

            Attempted to burn down Hamburg would be a recent example

          • JJC August 13, 2017 at 8:34 pm

            They are an group of ultra-radical communists/thugs who openly support, call for, and engage in violence against anyone they label as a ‘fascist’ (which is every Republican). They wear all black, cover their faces with masks, and show up at pro-conservative events (especially on campuses) brandishing bats, chains, ‘urine-bombs’, pepper-spray, and even molotovs in order to attack or intimidate people they don’t like. More specifically, they show up at many right-leaning events with the expressed purpose of inciting violence and creating riots. They are obviously very organized.

            They have been responsible for preventing many, many conservatives from speaking in college forums and debates, have numerous times stolen and compiled lists of on-campus Republican organizations to doxx, harass, and threaten its members, and have directly attacked and severely injured many people at these gatherings. Basically, they show wherever there are pro Trump/Republican supporters with the purpose of assaulting them.

            New Jersey’s office of Homeland Security has officially labeled them as a domestic terrorist group. And there is pressure for other states (and the federal government) to do the same.

          • JJC August 13, 2017 at 8:35 pm

            As one of many examples; one professor, who happened to be a liberal btw, nearly had her neck broken because an antifa thug yanked her to the ground violently. Apparently a conservative women was slated to speak and antifa didn’t like that, so they arrived on location and tried to stop it. The poor professor was mistaken for the women they were trying to attack.

            Here’s a lovely little taste of what they do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg
            And more: http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/14/antifa-member-uses-flagpole-with-nail-to-attack-police-horse-cops-youll-love-the-groups-reply/

            They have been the prime instigators for most of the political violence since the election. In fact, they were the ones who instigated violence yesterday at charlotsville (the media fails to mention that, despite dozens of videos online showing it). The statue protesters had a permit to be there; antifa groups showed up on schedule with weapons to disrupt it.

            The fact that you don’t even know about them demonstrates just how bias the media has become. Let’s flip this around; imagined if antifa was a bunch of maga-hat wearing trump supporters who when around intimidating and beating up liberals. Do you think you would have heard about them?

          • Son_of_the_South August 13, 2017 at 8:43 pm

            This guy is left, or rather ‘alt-left,’ so you probably won’t be annoyed by him. He has a great breakdown of Antifa (and others on an affiliated group called By All Means Necessary):

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPvN5o2aRNs


            23, R, TN-08
            Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

          • Izengabe August 13, 2017 at 9:42 pm

            What outrageous things Antifa has done? Well for starters the Hillary Clinton campaign organized the genesis of them to riot in March of 2016 in order to help Trump win the GOP primary. For that the protesters can never be forgiven!


            Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

  • pstchrisp August 13, 2017 at 8:14 am

    Trump tries to push suburban moderates to the Democrats, and the Netroots shoves them right back to the Republicans with their actions.
    http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/08/12/stacey-evans-gets-rocky-reception-at-netroots-conference/

    • Tekzilla August 13, 2017 at 9:08 am

      Ah yes, the world famous Netroots Nation. Bob Johnson in St. Petersburg is now firmly back in Trumps camp!


      36/M/NY-01 (D)

      • Tekzilla August 13, 2017 at 10:27 am

        Although I should add it is disgraceful what happened to Stacey Evans who would be a good nominee for Governor.


        36/M/NY-01 (D)

        • Ryan_in_SEPA August 13, 2017 at 11:16 am

          I think the take away is that the shelf life of Republican control of Georgia increases every day the Democrats cannot embrace people like Evans. She might not be the one that breaks the stranglehold, but you cannot ever break it if people like her are not put forward as statewide candidates. The lack of a candidate like her in GA-6 probably cost the Democrats a congressional seat.


          31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian

        • GerGOP August 13, 2017 at 12:19 pm

          Evans only fault was not to be Black. That’s it. Now that ought to give you pause of you think about it…

    • krazen1211 August 13, 2017 at 10:37 am

      GA-Gov is a race that would be interesting if there was no 50% runoff provision.

    • kewgardens August 13, 2017 at 10:59 am

      It is always heart-warming to see the modern Left’s tolerance for diverse views and their willingness to listen to said views in a civil and respectful manner!

  • shamlet August 13, 2017 at 12:25 pm

    I’ve been playing around with TX Redistricting and I’ve come to the conclusion that one Republican Rep. from the southwest half of the state needs to retire (i.e. Hurd, Smith, Farenthold, McCaul, Carter, Conaway, Arrington, or Thornberry). Their residences are all highly inconvenient when trying to clean up the lines in the San Antonio/Austin area.

    The general gist of my map is that it keeps the same basic partisan split while making Hurd safe and giving Farenthold a Hispanic-majority swing seat that he probably won’t hold, so D+1.


    R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

    • rdelbov August 13, 2017 at 12:37 pm

      I have thought about Texas CD map–Clearly the CD based in Travis county will will provide some challenges for the GOP to do a stand pat map. I think it can be done but the trick is how one does Bexar county. Here is a good map of 2016 returns

      http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/politics/article/Interactive-How-Bexar-County-voted-in-the-2016-10606312.php

      You draw one map centered on downtown San Antonio. The other seat is all the rest except what you need to feed out to Atascosa county. The outer Bexar county seat should be tailor made for Hurd. I see other ways to do it as well because there is enough from 15, 34 and 27 to draw a GOP seat if you attach Nueces county to Cameron county

    • krazen1211 August 13, 2017 at 12:45 pm

      Would love to see it, although it might be best to just wait to see what the court says about the current TX-23 to see if we can keep it or not.

      My random thoughts.

      1. The Travis County excess (outside 1 vote sink) should probably be cracked 2 ways, most likely between TX-25 and TX-17, as I am not sure where else those districts can find Democrats. They can also put Round Rock here in 2021.
      2. TX-10 moves to metro Houston and cracks downtown Houston.
      3. TX-21 adds areas of San Antonio, and probably moves right compared to the current district after dropping Travis County areas.
      4. El Paso County isn’t growing fast but the TX-23 portion is 90+% Hispanic and Dem and eventually we should move these areas to TX-11.

      But I like your ideas. Any district with Nueces County going north should be tough but maybe winnable for Farenthold. Nueces going south to Cameron might not be, but Nueces + Cameron combined are too big for a district.

      • shamlet August 13, 2017 at 12:59 pm

        My general plan was to crack Austin between 11 and 19. 25 gets its Dems from Killeen to help out 31, while 17 just gets a bit safer. Hurd pulls out of Bexar and gets a big slice of the panhandle for a 60% HVAP, 55% SSVR, R+15ish seat, with his white areas going to 21 and Hispanic areas to 27. The white liberals in northwestern SA go to 28. 34 and 15 get the white parts of Corpus Christi while 27 connects the Barrios of CC with south SA, but enough white conservatives in between them to make it an R+3ish, 55% HVAP seat. Probably a pure Tossup in 2018.

        The big problem with this is what to do with McCaul. The natural place for the last district in that area winds up being around San Marcos and New Braunfels, which means McCaul gets an almost entirely new district that goes nowhere near his home. He’d probably be fine given his cash but he’d still probably be pissed.

        This would all get much easier if any one of them would retire, either to collapse to two panhandle seats, merge McCaul and Carter, or give Hurd Smith’s seat and Conaway the Hispanic Panhandle district. Then you wind up with a very natural open New Braunfels/San Marcos to Houston exurbs seat, which can furthermore be used to take some Dems out of Houston.


        R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

        • TexasR August 13, 2017 at 1:14 pm

          That would certainly be quite a change from the current map, which is why the legislature would never go for it. I also highly doubt they are going to do another mid-decade redraw if they can avoid it. Even if they were to do it, the map would only be in effect for one cycle anyway. The focus at this point is 2021,


          Whatever we're talking about, it's all Frank Meyer's fault
          Be careful what you wish for

          • rdelbov August 13, 2017 at 2:14 pm

            I tend to think the GOP will do a minimum redraw. If they have to and IMO any ruling this month will be appealed and fast to circuit or US Supreme court.

            I basically see two options for the GOP
            1st Tweak the lines in agreement with the ruling and stiff Hurd while putting Corpus Christi with Cameron county
            2nd create a second Bexar county seat for Hurd plus a seat for Farenthold with the leftovers from TX27-TX15-T34.

            I don’t see the Rs trying to create two new seats in South Texas. You would have to split Cameron and Hidalgo county by moving seats even further north

            • krazen1211 August 13, 2017 at 4:36 pm

              I suspect the GOP can run the clock out on the 2018 elections…which could mean some repeat LULAC v Perry situation.

              My view is that 2 potentially winnable Hispanic seats are possible with aggressive lines, and if we fill all these vacant seats in 5th circuit we can be aggressive with the lines.

              TX-35 has to drop nearly 500k population outside Travis and add 500k population within Travis. 329k of that is within Bexar. TX-21 can trade 189k from Travis and grab 189k in Bexar, so that leaves 140k in Bexar to deal with in rejuggling the lines.

              • rdelbov August 13, 2017 at 6:04 pm

                K1211 -The court in Texas has to rule on the motion and IMO it will be a divided decision that will be appealed to other courts. IMO they will be able to run the clock out on 2018 redraw.

                The court wants them to fix Doggett, Farenthold and Hurd’s seats. Of course let’s be clear. The GOP could have easily made TX23 a safe R seat and created another R among the R areas in TX15-TX34-TX28. The GOP was wanting to avoid a court fight by creating another D Hispanic seat.

                Seats 23-15-28-34 and for that matter parts of 27 really get low turnouts in off years. You can do a dummymander in an midterm in a heartbeat in South Texas.

  • kev-inVA10 August 13, 2017 at 12:56 pm

    Going back to the 1st question prob the state I’m most worried about becoming reliably blue in the futur le is Virginia.

    Democrats since 2008 have won every major statewide race 2008. It’s the only Southern state where the Dems control both Senate seats and all statewide elected officials(GOV, LG, AG) which is something that would have pretty much been unheard of 20-30 years ago.

    Democrats have also been successful using legal action recently to screw over Republicans as well. Ex. vA-04.

    Trump is also PROFOUNDLY unpopular in NOVA which continues to gain population(albeit at a slower pace then before 2008).

    Many spots downstate like the Charlottesville area and Richmond aren’t so hot for the GOP ether. Not to mention that VA has a very large black population as well(along with growing Hispanic and Asian communities too)

    While Senate and HoD is in GOP hands for now I wonder if that will be true 8 or 10 years from now. It looks likely that this Nov the Dems will gain at least two seats in the HoD-although many more are certainly possible. Some sources have talked of the DPVA gaining 11 seats max.

    Nevada is another concerning state as well imo.

    Bright spots for us I think are Maine which is inching back towards swing state status. Both Maine natives and others who know the state well have basically described it to me as a “French speaking and more Catholic version of West Virginia.”

    Ohio is another one too-Many Democratic observers are worried that it’s turning into another Missouri. They are concerned that the statewide gains the GOP has made there over the past 8 years combined with the Democratic collapse in the eastern areas of the state are permanent.

    Places like CO, MN, and NH just seem to be treading water imo.


    R-VA Ex-R-MI

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 13, 2017 at 1:11 pm

    1/8 Americans are alcoholics now, double the rate twenty years ago. Most striking, around 1/4 of millennials are alcoholics.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/11/study-one-in-eight-american-adults-are-alcoholics/?utm_term=.7565ed46e96a


    I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

    • Izengabe August 13, 2017 at 9:45 pm

      That’s because pussy avocado toast eating millennials can’t hold their liquor like real men! 😉


      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 13, 2017 at 1:36 pm

    1) I don’t really know what we mean by swing state. Arguably, most of the country is moving to the left on most major policy issues. That being said, I guess we mean the relative lean of our swing states compared to the rest of the country. And honestly, they aren’t moving left at all.

    The closest example is Virginia. The D margin was 3 pts higher than the nation overall. It was around 1 pt in 2012. Considering that there was a Dem VP from VA, VA really barely budged. Colorado didn’t really budge either, and Nevada actually moved right! Despite Trump bleeding badly among Mormons!

    Thanks to the whole tech boom, San Francisco, Portland, Boston, and Seattle are just becoming vote sinks for the Democrats. I have a friend from Wisconsin who notes that every single last liberal he knew in high school is now living in San Francisco (and also single).

    And that’s honestly going to tilt most of the swing states to the right. In an even 50/50 PV year, honestly only Virginia and maybe Colorado/Georgia move away from the GOP. Arizona and Nevada is gonna look good again after Mormons get on board again. The relatively low number of college-educated types in Florida just makes it the Nevada of the East (a swing state moving towards the GOP despite massive immigration).

    Doubling on white professionals without expanding minority or “WCW” appeal just supercharges the vote in Connecticut, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, and New Jersey.

    Honestly, I could see a country where a “Red Firewall” will bolster the GOP until Dems change up their strategy in the way Mark Lilla wants. Of course, Dems could also just break this anyways by winning the PV by 4-6 pts, which is quite possible since their actual policy agenda is so much more popular than the GOP.


    I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

    • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 13, 2017 at 1:45 pm

      Uh, to actually answer the question, I think Ohio and Iowa go from swing states to red. Virginia and Colorado goes from swing state to blue. And North Carolina, Minnesota, Georgia, New Mexico, and Maine become the closest to swing states.

      With Texas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Florida, New Hampshire, and Arizona forming a “Red Firewall, until the firewall naturally breaks.


      I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

    • fzw August 13, 2017 at 1:56 pm

      There’s a lot of truth in that. I’m of the belief that we’ll still have a roughly equal playing field 20 years down the line though, with only a few states either going the way of Missouri (Wisconsin; I don’t really consider Iowa a swing state anymore) or Virginia (GA and NC seem on borrowed time). I don’t think Democrats are going to be stupid enough to nominate another candidate who appears to favor the cosmopolitans over the working class; they tend to learn from their mistakes of nominating terrible candidates better than Republicans do (case in point: look at how many completely winnable Senate races the GOP has thrown away in the past four cycles compared to Dems). And you are right that liberals do have kids at a lesser rate, but the counterpoint to that is that I know of a lot of college-aged liberals who have said they want to wait about ten years before they start a family (my ex was one of them). And there’s the whole policy agenda where the public takes Dems’ side on things like the environment, taxes of wealthier people (ie-how Obama beat Romney in 2012) and things like family leave (which Trump could’ve masterfully co-opted as a GOP position, but that window may have closed). I think the public will still side with the GOP on things like immigration (as long as the rhetoric is scaled back lol) and government waste, etc. and being seen as the more “patriotic” party helps. But I do think the overton window is shifting left on economics.

      Oh, also the number of Mormons in Arizona is much smaller than you’re implying


      Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
      R-leaning Indy.

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 13, 2017 at 2:34 pm

        When people say they want to wait 10 years to have kids, they often 1) have fewer kids because they just have fewer fertile years once they start or 2) often just never ever get kids because they stay single because your attractiveness to others probably starts declining at 21. Putting off marriage and children to say, get a second degree, is a risky game that high-fertility groups rarely play (Mormons, Catholic-Latino immigrants, Orthodox Jews, etc.) My age at this point probably puts me in the dicey/unlikely category (coincidentallly, I’m probably genetically predisposed to liberalism – my liberal mom has a PHD!)

        And yeah, that’s what I meant when I said Dem policies are more popular. I don’t think the window is closed though, especially if the GOP takes a thrashing in 2018. Also, I think the Democratic establishment actually wants to win and wants to move back to their New Deal roots. Their Better Deal stuff doesn’t look that bad to me. But it’s not clear if their base will let them. Their new platform has amusingly been savaged by the left-wing media, commentators, and activists who want identity politics. Like that NetRoots story.


        I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

      • Manhatlibertarian August 13, 2017 at 2:46 pm

        I don’t know if the Dems are going to nominate a candidate in 2020 who appeals to the white working class. A lot of SJW Dem types think the key to victory isn’t appealing to the white working class (which they think has become too Trumpy) but turning up vote turnout by minorities and young voters. Look at what recently happened in Ga to a mainline liberal Dem that was mentioned in a post above on this thread, where more left leaning Dems booed and disrupted her presentation. Look at Cal where more left leaning Dems have attacked the mainline liberal Dem party chair and the Dem Assembly Speaker. Look at NY where Gov Cuomo got attacked for pointing out recently that Dems need to do more to appeal in suburban areas; the liberal Dem minority leader in the State Senate took issue with him on this and was backed by the left wing in the state. The SJW wing of the Dem party has no time for mainstream liberal Dems who don’t fully back their agenda and will be very disruptive if they don’t get their way.

        • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 13, 2017 at 2:50 pm

          The 2020 Democratic Primary is definitely going to be fascinating. Probably more fascinating than the GOP 2016 primary. I’m definitely not going to make any predictions about it, because there are just so many unpredictable variables (chief among them being who actually runs and how many people go for it).


          I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

        • fzw August 13, 2017 at 3:48 pm

          There’s a big difference in public perception between a likable SJW like Bernie Sanders and an intolerable one like Lena Dunham. Both are probably equally as liberal on everything, but Bernie is obviously a lot more relatable. Someone who has no heresies on social issues but comes across as an authentic and cares about the working class would be a formidable candidate. Someone like Sherrod Brown or Bernie Sanders. Or any people in the current field who could still transform themselves into that person in the next three years. That’s the kind of person I’m expecting Democrats to nominate.


          Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
          R-leaning Indy.

          • Manhatlibertarian August 13, 2017 at 4:28 pm

            Bernie might seem more relatable than other SJW Dems, but I think it pays to remember that to a certain extent he did well in the Dem primary because he was not Clinton. A number of Dems voted for him more as protest against Clinton than a vote for his policies. Bernie is a leftist ideologue and in the end he is going to have to defend how we are going to pay for all his planned social spending on things like the single payer system, and taxing the millionaires more is not going to be enough to pay for what he wants. I just don’t see him running very well in many parts of the US once you get out of the “blue heartland”; he also has limited appeal to minority communities. And he is getting on in years. Plus there is the investigation of his wife for filing fraudulent bank loan request documents and the extent to which he may have been involved with it.

            • fzw August 13, 2017 at 7:13 pm

              My point wasn’t about Bernie so much as it was his candidate qualities that I think Dems will find in another candidate: likability and authenticity. Obama had that. Hillary Clinton, Kerry and Gore lacked it. Likability and authenticity would go a long way towards regaining some of that WWC vote back.

              Likable/authentic people often seem to do well in Senate races in states hostile to their party: Collins, Kander, Manchin, Heitkamp, Gardner, Donnelly.


              Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
              R-leaning Indy.

              • Manhatlibertarian August 13, 2017 at 8:58 pm

                Well yeah it doesn’t hurt to come across as a nice guy if you are a politician and most try to project that image (even if some are SOBs in private); and despite the saying nice guys don’t always finish last. But skills as a campaigner, being a dynamic speaker, fund raising ability, and your stance on policy issues count a lot. A number of the people you mention get elected in states that are generally not favorable to their party because they project a centrist image: Collins in Maine, Manchin in WVa, Donnelly in Indiana, Heitkamp in ND etc. Manchin could be the nicest guy in the world but if he had a Chuck Schumer voting record I don’t think he would win in WVa. So yeah projecting a nice guy image helped Obama to an extent but he won mainly because his GOP opponents had various handicaps and he was able to pull out a huge Black and youth vote. And Trump certainly didn’t get elected Pres because he was “Mr. Nice Guy”.

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 13, 2017 at 3:00 pm

    LMAO. The Venezuelan government probably put out an order to have Marco Rubio assassinated. I dislike Marco Rubio and all, but its mind-boggling how insane the government there is and how liberal commentators were cheering this government on as a role model. This is like some Idi Amin ****.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/13/rubio-venezuela-plot-241591


    I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

    • Manhatlibertarian August 13, 2017 at 4:09 pm

      Diosdado Cabello is probably the 2nd most powerful leftist politician in Venezuela after Maduro (and some see him as a rival for power), so if the report is true that he wanted Rubio killed it is hard to see what Venezuela would gain from it. It is not like he is the only American politician who is against the Maduro regime, although he certainly has been very vocal in his opposition to it. In fact if an American official was assassinated on the orders of a top Venezuelan government official that might very well justify an American military intervention; I oppose use of American military force to topple even dictatorial regimes but I think this goes would over the line.

      Yes it is true that at one time the leftist Venezuelan Gov’t under Chavez and then Maduro was a favorite of certain segments of the American left, and you had some left leaning Hollywood celebrities going down to Caracas to fawn over “progressive” Chavez, although it should have been obvious fairly quickly that Chavez really didn’t believe in democracy and would never give up power voluntarily. Now his soulmate Maduro rules as a virtual dictator as the Chavez/Maduro policies have ruined the economy, despite the oil wealth. If we really wanted to put the screws on Maduro we would stop importing Venezuelan oil but that could cause a small hike in the price of gasoline in the US, so we are reluctant to do that. But for the Maduro regime it would be catastrophic, as they scrambled to make up for the loss of the American market, particularly considering the bad shape the economy is in already.

  • Manhatlibertarian August 13, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    Arizona Dem Rep Kyrsten Sinema has now said she is “seriously considering” running for Senator Flake’s seat. She is a centrist 3 term member of the House who joined the “Blue Dog” Dem caucus. She also has $3 million COH. According to station KPNX in Phoenix if she runs (as now seems likely) term limited Dem Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton would likely run for her House seat rather than challenge her in the Dem primary for the Senate seat. This is not good news for Flake, who likes to take his ideological stand with flags flying, which in one sense is admirable, but he also burned so many bridges behind him that he is now the most vulnerable of GOP incumbents. I’m starting to think he may be lucky to even make it past Chem Trails Kelly in the GOP primary.

    http://www.newsmax.com/us/arizona-senate-sinema-flake/2017/08/11/id/807182

    • GerGOP August 13, 2017 at 6:26 pm

      AZ will flip on Election day unless the Dem eats a baby on live television. Mark my words.

    • JJC August 13, 2017 at 8:41 pm

      At this point, Kelly has a better chance of retaining this seat than Flake.

      I really hope Trent jumps in.

      • shamlet August 13, 2017 at 8:48 pm

        I read this and wondered where I missed Trent Kelly thinking about carpetbagging to Arizona…


        R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

        • GerGOP August 13, 2017 at 8:59 pm

          Palin to the rescue!!! 11¡!

      • LtNOWIS August 13, 2017 at 9:02 pm

        I have to imagine that every potential primary challenger, is weighing the chances that there will be a concurrent special election in McCain’s seat, and which seat they want to try for.


        28, VA-11

        • Manhatlibertarian August 13, 2017 at 9:30 pm

          Yeah, but although the average life span with a diagnosis of the type of cancer McCain has is 1 to 1 1/2 years, I’ve read the latest data is that 25-30% live at least 2 years after diagnosis. There are also some new experimental therapies for this type of cancer that have shown promise in addition to the standard chemo and radiation. So I think he have to wait until next summer before we know for sure what McCain will do.

      • Manhatlibertarian August 13, 2017 at 9:19 pm

        The problem then is if Flake has Kelly and another GOP opponent he might squeak through in a three way primary vote. But even if he does I think he is toast in the general election against Sinema. Remember in 2012 he squeaked to victory over a not that great opponent by just about 3 points while Romney carried the state by about 9 points. So he has never been that strong in the state and the Mormon vote can’t save him – not that many Mormons in Arizona compared to say Utah or Idaho or even Nevada. He has alienated a lot of people and Sinema will be running as a Blue Dog Dem. She being non-religious and a bisexual isn’t going to be that big of a deal in Arizona with most voters. So I think GERGOP is right; unless she eats a baby on live TV it will be hard for Flake to beat her.

  • JJC August 13, 2017 at 11:01 pm

    This might explain why Session’s opened a civil rights case for Charlottesville: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-protests-white-nationalists.html?smid=pl-share

    The police there were grossly negligent. Of course, they were just doing they were ordered to do, but had they acted in accordance to standard SOP and prevented the counter-protesters from entering the site of the statue-protesters (who had a permit), then this brawl almost certainly wouldn’t have happened.

    The two groups never should have clashed; the police should have gotten between them. Instead, they were ordered (by the mayor?) to stand down as one fringe group came to disrupt another fringe group. The results were expected.

    • jncca August 14, 2017 at 1:08 am

      This happened here in Sacramento too last summer. A smaller battle but some serious injuries. Police did little to nothing.

      Of course one difference is that there was no murder by the right in Sacramento.


      24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

      • Son_of_the_South August 14, 2017 at 3:27 am

        It happened in Berkeley as well. Police just stood down for most of the fights there as well. In fact, that was largely the case in Baltimore (though that was a different type of riot) as well. I guess that the mayors just don’t want to be seen putting down riots on national television.


        23, R, TN-08
        Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

        • Ryan_in_SEPA August 14, 2017 at 6:14 am

          But why won’t they rather put them down than let them happen? Are many assuming they would go away on their own?


          31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian

          • GerGOP August 14, 2017 at 6:40 am

            Deeskalation maybe? Thinking that the Situation would gravely deteriorate if the police moves in.

    • w920us August 14, 2017 at 9:35 am

      I actually think SOP for liberal office holders such as this mayor is to allow violence, property destruction from any clash from Antifa, BLM, alt left versus alt right, white supremacists. They think it makes them look good from this new vile procedure. And they get to get on their soapbox and rant against Trump and white nationalists. Oh and look… the mayor of Charlottesville is doing just that. This is becoming routine sadly.


      R, South Philly, 47, Gay, WFU Alum
      #TrumpVoter #NeverHillary

      • district1 August 14, 2017 at 11:13 am

        I’m surprised it took this long for the narrative to coalesce that this was all McAuliffe’s fault.


        ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

        • w920us August 14, 2017 at 4:58 pm

          Hey when liberals prove me wrong that they don’t enjoy or encourage violence when it benefits them in a particular instance then I’ll be very happy. But we have seen way too many instances of liberal mayors and governors ordering law enforcement to stand down when these types of protests occur. It is becoming the SOP.


          R, South Philly, 47, Gay, WFU Alum
          #TrumpVoter #NeverHillary

    Leave a Reply