Senate Election 2020 Thread (2 Viewers)

< Previous | Next >

superchuck500

magnificently brilliant
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
1,468
Reaction score
3,011
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
So there are 35 Senate seats contested in November. Use this thread to talk about them.

Here's a tracker site:

 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,755
Reaction score
1,363
Location
Nashville
Offline
That's about what happened, Clinton also added DWS to her campaign after she had to step down. That was such a horrible misstep with no conceivable upside. It's kind of funny Biden is running to the right of HRC, but is more embraced by progessives, and Bernie. I think some of that is how bad progressives view the Trump presidency. The other though is Biden's less antagonistic stance towards progressives.

P.S. Clinton still throws shade at progressives, and Bernie over her failed campaign. I don't think she ever got over it. It's hilarious she blames the voters/Bernie, and not herself. It's a good example of bad leadership, and what a dumpster fire for the left her presidency would have been.
I think the way younger progressives view the Clinton Presidency also plays a large hand in their inability to rally behind HRC. They see her as part of the DLC and that is now viewed as a sort of capitulation to the historic economic interests of Republicans.

Personally I think any Democrat other than Hillary beats Trump in 2016. HRC was the only candidate who could come close to matching Trump's negatives - and that is probably the single biggest reason she lost. I also think she ran a lackluster campaign.
Trump is, or would be, in a much stronger place in 2020 simply due to holding the office of the Presidency - but his antagonizing liberals for 4 years energized the hell out of them, and his handling of coronavirus has turned off people who would otherwise be up to vote for him. Biden's campaign is lackluster, but that is probably where it should be for the most part: stand back and just act like an adult.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
395
Reaction score
157
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
That's about what happened, Clinton also added DWS to her campaign after she had to step down. That was such a horrible misstep with no conceivable upside. It's kind of funny Biden is running to the right of HRC, but is more embraced by progessives, and Bernie. I think some of that is how bad progressives view the Trump presidency. The other though is Biden's less antagonistic stance towards progressives.

P.S. Clinton still throws shade at progressives, and Bernie over her failed campaign. I don't think she ever got over it. It's hilarious she blames the voters/Bernie, and not herself. It's a good example of bad leadership, and what a dumpster fire for the left her presidency would have been.
Yeah, DWS making a beeline for the Clinton campaign was a terrible play from an optics standpoint. It sorta proved Bernie's supporters were onto something when they claimed the DNC was doing a lot of heavy lifting for the Clinton campaign.
 

J-DONK

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
69
Reaction score
82
Age
41
Location
Minnesota
Offline
... as opposed to the panacea we live in today? Wouldn't you like to be living in that dumpster fire today?

I'll let Bill Maher make the case.

The only thing Clinton would have gotten done was get Garland on the court. The senate would still be Republican controlled, and gridlock would still be ever present. Democrats would be in a far worse place this year with Clinton as president. At least now Democrats have a very real shot at the hat trick. If Democrats actually played the game way Republicans have been for decades, that could see them in power for decades. I personally think Democrats are implicit in the game of gridlock, and don't want much to change either. Why wouldn't you add DC and PR as states? Why wouldn't you change the house member cap, and make it truly representational using the Wyoming rule?

America has much bigger overall issues this plays into: the tyranny of the minority. The major democratic populated states are unrepresented. The majority of supreme court justices have been appointed by presidents who didn't win the popular vote.
 

SystemShock

Uh yu ka t'ann
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
680
Reaction score
474
Location
Xibalba
Offline
The only thing Clinton would have gotten done was get Garland on the court.
Are you sure about that?

I am going to assume you didn't watch the video, otherwise...

I can't tell you what Clinton would've gotten done, but I can tell you none of this would have happened:

The POTUS wouldn't be emboldening white supremacists and conspiracy theorists.
The POTUS wouldn't be downplaying a pandemic and spreading misinformation about it.
The POTUS wouldn't be actively trying to take away healthcare from people and suppress voting.
The POTUS wouldn't conveniently be making trips to play golf to their resort, or play that much golf for that matter.
The U.S. wouldn't have exited the Paris Accord.
The head of the EPA wouldn't be a climate change denier.
The head of the FCC wouldn't have struck down net neutrality.
The head of the USPS wouldn't be actively sabotaging the USPS to suppress voting.
The head of the DOJ wouldn't be Bill Barr.
The head of Education wouldn't be Betsy DeVos.
The head of HUD wouldn't be Ben Carson.
Brett Kavanaugh wouldn't be a SC justice.
The ACA wouldn't be in jeopardy of being struck down.
Roe vs Wade wouldn't be in jeopardy of being struck down.
The Iran nuclear program wouldn't have been restarted.
There wouldn't be a "spiritual councelor" in the White House continuously shouting Hillary Clinton was sent by god.
Chelsea Clinton and her husband wouldn't be on the payroll doing nothing but enriching themselves.

I can keep going, and I mean keep going, but I think I made my point. But Oh! What a dumpster fire would we all be in, if Clinton was president.

America has much bigger overall issues
Yeah, like a very possible 4 more years of Trump.
 
Last edited:

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
395
Reaction score
157
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
Are you sure about that?

I am going to assume you didn't watch the video, otherwise...

I can't tell you what Clinton would've gotten done, but I can tell you none of this would have happened:

The POTUS wouldn't be emboldening white supremacists and conspiracy theorists.
The POTUS wouldn't be downplaying a pandemic and spreading misinformation about it.
The POTUS wouldn't be actively trying to take away healthcare from people and suppress voting.
The POTUS wouldn't conveniently be making trips to play golf to their resort, or play that much golf for that matter.
The U.S. would still be part of the Paris Accord.
The head of the EPA wouldn't be a climate change denier.
The head of the FCC wouldn't have struck down net neutrality.
The head of the USPS wouldn't be actively sabotaging the USPS to suppress voting.
The head of the DOJ wouldn't be Bill Barr.
The head of Education wouldn't be Betsy DeVos.
The head of HUD wouldn't be Ben Carson.
Brett Kavanaugh wouldn't be a SC justice.
The ACA wouldn't be in jeopardy of being struck down.
Rove vs Wade wouldn't be in jeopardy of being struck down.
The Iran nuclear program is still halted.
There wouldn't be a "spiritual healer" in the White House continuously shouting Hillary Clinton was sent by god.
Chelsea Clinton and her husband wouldn't be on the payroll doing nothing but enriching themselves.

I can keep going, and I mean keep going, but I think I made my point. But Oh! What a dumpster fire would we all be in, if Clinton was president.


Yeah, like a very possible 4 more years of Trump.
I wouldn't call 4 more years of Trump very possible at this point if the polls are close to being correct.

Rove vs Wade? Thats a pretty good typo. :hihi:

I do think it's a fair point that had Hillary won, the sentiment of the country would be much different and the overall arc might be trending differently. Hillary wouldn't have done a lot of things Trump did, sure. But, I have a hunch the country would have been tired of her and wanting a change in the other direction. At least that's how it seems to me. No way would that hat trick Donk was speaking of would happen in that scenario. Might have been worth it if you lean that way.
 
Last edited:

CoolBrees

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
635
Reaction score
1,399
Age
43
Location
Portland, Oregon
Offline
So the margin in the NC Senate hasn’t changed in polls since the news came out -Cunningham +5-6. There is an outlier Poll (ECU Tillis +1 ) but they have consistently polled this way. In fact they have had Tillis in the lead by +1 or two of every poll since January. They are the only ones.

Looks like the voters aren’t going to be swayed by infidelity. Shocking this day and age really.
 

Nebaghead

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
514
Reaction score
680
Age
48
Location
Omaha, NE
Offline
National polls do give a good indicator of how undecideds will break. 538 talks about national polls are a way to determine sentiment and fill gaps for areas without a lot of polling. By themselves they aren’t as valuable but combined with state polls in swing states they give a better picture.
 

SystemShock

Uh yu ka t'ann
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
680
Reaction score
474
Location
Xibalba
Offline
I wouldn't call 4 more years of Trump very possible at this point if the polls are close to being correct.
Like the polls from 2016?

Rove vs Wade? Thats a pretty good typo. :hihi:
Glad you find that amusing.

I do think it's a fair point that had Hillary won, the sentiment of the country would be much different and the overall arc might be trending differently. Hillary wouldn't have done a lot of things Trump did, sure. But, I have a hunch the country would have been tired of her and wanting a change in the other direction. At least that's how it seems to me. No way would that hat trick Donk was speaking of would happen in that scenario. Might have been worth it if you lean that way.
You can have whatever hunch you want about how things would've been, but whoever didn't see at least some of what was coming with Trump as president, was blind.

And that "other direction" would've been very different that the direction we are in today, unless you think all of the sudden most people would have wanted to go the racist and science denial direction.

As for the hat trick, sure, the Democrats would not have had it, however, that would've been a much better situation to the situation we are in now, where the GOP controls the WH and the Senate, and Mitch McConnell blocks whatever he doesn't like.

So no matter how much one tries to downplay it or draw some sort of false equivalency, we would still be better off.
 
Last edited:

CoolBrees

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
635
Reaction score
1,399
Age
43
Location
Portland, Oregon
Offline
@Nebaghead -

The RCP average includes all of the local polls. Cunningham is up 5.2 points and most were conducted after the texts came out.

This is why I use RCP- they are a Republican site that pulls all the local and national. If anything they skew more towards R polls- example including Trafalgar
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
395
Reaction score
157
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
Like the polls from 2016?


Glad you find that amusing.



You can have whatever hunch you want about how things would've been, but whoever didn't see at last some of what was coming with Trump as president, was blind.

As for the hat trick, sure, the Democrats would not have had it, however, that would've been a much better situation to the GOP having it now.
I think most of us recognize that 2016 was a statistical anomaly. The margins are wider now than in 2016 and Trump won by the slimmest of margins. Different story this time around...I think. Of course, could be wrong.

Oh, I saw this coming a mile away. It's why I was baffled that we as a country, and the Republican party specifically went with Trump in the primaries. I'll never understand it. I'm not really all that surprised at anything he's done while in office.

I'm not understanding your last point. There's really no scenario where the Republicans would have the hat trick.
 

CoolBrees

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
635
Reaction score
1,399
Age
43
Location
Portland, Oregon
Offline
As of now the aggregate is larger than it has been......Ever.

Reagan wasn’t up this big on Mondale.

forking Fox News has Biden up 10 points
 

SystemShock

Uh yu ka t'ann
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
680
Reaction score
474
Location
Xibalba
Offline
I'm not understanding your last point. There's really no scenario where the Republicans would have the hat trick.
I wanted to say, the situation we have now, where they control the White House and the Senate, and Mitch McConnell blocks whatever he doesn't like.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
395
Reaction score
157
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
I wanted to say, the situation we have now, where they control the White House and the Senate, and Mitch McConnell blocks whatever he doesn't like.
Makes sense. And yeah, the House seems a bit irrelevant to some degree. But, they, and more specifically, Pelosi are holding up the process for getting the current Covid package passed. So the House does have some leverage, even if it's not all that much.
 

Booker

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
116
Reaction score
246
Location
Colorado
Offline
I wouldn't call 4 more years of Trump very possible at this point if the polls are close to being correct.

Rove vs Wade? Thats a pretty good typo. :hihi:

I do think it's a fair point that had Hillary won, the sentiment of the country would be much different and the overall arc might be trending differently. Hillary wouldn't have done a lot of things Trump did, sure. But, I have a hunch the country would have been tired of her and wanting a change in the other direction. At least that's how it seems to me. No way would that hat trick Donk was speaking of would happen in that scenario. Might have been worth it if you lean that way.
If Hillary had won in 2016 I doubt the House swings in 2018 and she'd probably be losing to Kasich or maybe even Nikki Haley right now. And I say that just because that's how politics swing. We'd probably be sitting at about 1/4 fewer Covid deaths than we've experienced (and I say that by comparing the US death rate to that of Europe), and the R's would be howling about how they were all Killary's fault.
 
Last edited:

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
530
Reaction score
429
Age
58
Location
Alabama
Offline
I think y’all underestimate Hillary. Bill would’ve been advising her and I think the economy and World interests would be in great shape. We would’ve probably had a world class reaction to the virus. I think Hillary’s popularity would’ve grown tremendously as President as it did while she was sec of state. There wouldn’t be clarion calls by Democrats to take the Senate, but I think Hillary would’ve gotten things done even with a Republican senate. I think everything would be more centrist.

P.P. Donald has practically destroyed the Republican party, and I think a more centrist party will emerge.
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,755
Reaction score
1,363
Location
Nashville
Offline
So the margin in the NC Senate hasn’t changed in polls since the news came out -Cunningham +5-6. There is an outlier Poll (ECU Tillis +1 ) but they have consistently polled this way. In fact they have had Tillis in the lead by +1 or two of every poll since January. They are the only ones.

Looks like the voters aren’t going to be swayed by infidelity. Shocking this day and age really.
That might end up being true - and will be true for the vast majority of voters, I think. But a week seems like a short time to gauge the effects of such a story - they usually have a drip-drip quality to them for a few weeks.
If Cunningham is smart he has, or will very soon, come completely clean with the extent fo the relationship - doing so will minimize any potential damage.

But yeah, the polls indicate a fairly consistent lead for Cunningham:
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

General News Feed

Top Bottom