Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 270

Warbler said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/anderson-cooper-trump-took-dump-023804031.html

Yeah, Jeffrey Lord is a wise ass. He also looks like an aged Joker who finally got his skin and hair back to normal. 😉

https://twitter.com/drskyskull/status/866000821590294528

This looks like the worst rip-off of Star Wars ever, tbh.

Must…not…make joke about Melania’s huge 1970’s gold belt!

NeverarGreat said:

CatBus said:

Here’s my odds on various things happening (no timeline) after the events of last week.

“Smoking gun”-type indisputable evidence of criminal wrongdoing by senior administration official available to public: 100%
Successful RICO prosecution of senior administration official: 85%
Presidential pardon of senior administration official: 80%
Impeachment of senior administration official: <1%
All mainstream media access to White House revoked: 10%
All mainstream media (including Fox) access to White House revoked: 1%
Dems take the Senate (meaning 51+ seats) in 2018: 0%
Dems take the House in 2018: 0%
Trump average approval rating (Gallup): 36%
Trump re-elected in 2020: 60%
Trump appoints one or more additional Supreme Court justice: 40%

I like the direction the news has been heading too, but there is still quite a hill to climb. I wouldn’t treat this like a done deal at all.

Well this is depressing as shit.

My work here is done.

NeverarGreat said:

CatBus said:

Here’s my odds on various things happening (no timeline) after the events of last week.

“Smoking gun”-type indisputable evidence of criminal wrongdoing by senior administration official available to public: 100%
Successful RICO prosecution of senior administration official: 85%
Presidential pardon of senior administration official: 80%
Impeachment of senior administration official: <1%
All mainstream media access to White House revoked: 10%
All mainstream media (including Fox) access to White House revoked: 1%
Dems take the Senate (meaning 51+ seats) in 2018: 0%
Dems take the House in 2018: 0%
Trump average approval rating (Gallup): 36%
Trump re-elected in 2020: 60%
Trump appoints one or more additional Supreme Court justice: 40%

I like the direction the news has been heading too, but there is still quite a hill to climb. I wouldn’t treat this like a done deal at all.

Well this is depressing as shit.

I can’t say he’s wrong though.

I didn’t say he’s wrong, which is sort of why it’s depressing.

CatBus said:

Dems take the Senate (meaning 51+ seats) in 2018: 0%
Dems take the House in 2018: 0%

Nope!

Also…

Trump re-elected in 2020: 60%

At most the odds are 50-50. I think you overestimate their chances.

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

Dems take the Senate (meaning 51+ seats) in 2018: 0%
Dems take the House in 2018: 0%

Nope!

From the article:

I’ve framed these losses in terms of votes lost rather than seats lost because converting from one to the other is tricky. That there are fewer and fewer swing districts is an undoubtedly big help to Republicans. On average since 1922, the 7.5-point popular vote swing against the president’s party has translated into a loss of 29 seats in the House, but Democrats probably wouldn’t get quite so favorable an exchange rate. And there are other factors that go into the calculation, such as how strong the incumbency advantage is and how broadly the opposition party contests the map. It’s the sort of thing that you’d probably want a model to help figure out, and we don’t have a model yet.

The Republicans will lose a ton of votes, and that will be most visible in the House. More people will vote for Democrats than Republicans by a huge and maybe even unprecedented margin. That much we all agree with. It’s the votes-to-seats modeling where the difference lies. I think right now the Dems are slated to win the popular vote in the House by something like 11 points. That’s huge. But I think the gerrymandering of the House is enough to maintain a Republican majority against even a Democratic tsunami like that. Call me back when 538 has a model.

The Senate? Look at the map. I see exactly two Democratic pickup opportunities (NV and AZ), and AZ will be hard-fought. On the other hand, will Democrats hold on to ND? WV? IN? Holding onto MO will be a huge stretch. In the Senate, the Dems will lose seats. Losing only one seat would be a sign of an unprecedented Democratic wave.

Also…

Don’t really disagree with much there either. They’re saying there’s a huge Democratic wave coming. I agree.

Trump re-elected in 2020: 60%

At most the odds are 50-50. I think you overestimate their chances.

That’s so far off I’ll admit my numbers will certainly change by the time it happens. Nevertheless, remember that pretty much everyone knew Trump was Putin’s man in 2016 and he still won. Russia could afford to be a lot less subtle in 2020. And Trump will definitely lose the popular vote again, and by a larger margin.

CatBus said:

That’s huge. But I think the gerrymandering of the House is enough to maintain a Republican majority against even a Democratic tsunami like that.

Source?

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

That’s huge. But I think the gerrymandering of the House is enough to maintain a Republican majority against even a Democratic tsunami like that.

Source?

The only useful hard data point is this one, which says a 1.2% Democratic victory margin in terms of votes translates into a devastating Democratic defeat in terms of seats. Everything else is modeling and extrapolation (mine included). In general, prognosticators say that things break even at about an 8-9% Democratic advantage. If the Democrats win by 8-9% in the House, control of the House is a toss-up–could go either way. I think both RCP and 538 used this 8-9% value last time around. The problem is that this tends to be a “generic ballot” metric, rather than a per-seat metric. So if the swing seats don’t shift as much as safe seats, the whole model falls apart. Considering the Republicans effectively control the nation’s election process, and have a huge foreign intelligence apparatus willing to selectively take down individual House candidates in key races, I’d say the 8-9% margin simply isn’t big enough to get a win. I’d say we need to win by 12% to win at all. That’s my model, the source is me 😉

EDIT: This is not to say it’s hopeless. But nothing less than the complete collapse of the national Republican party (which, thankfully, still seems to be in the cards, albeit remotely) is going to give the Dems control of anything at the national level in 2018. So… focus on the states. Governorships, state legislatures (Huge pickup opportunites! Gaining 12 more governorships is quite plausible!). We do well enough there in 2018, and we’ll be much better positioned to do something interesting in the House and/or Senate in 2022 after redistricting, when the landscape isn’t tilted quite so strongly against us.

Sure, but other things have changed too. The US Attorney General wasn’t doggedly pursuing voter suppression in 2016–that’s assured in 2020. Russia didn’t know tipping their hand would have so little effect on the outcome–they may be less subtle in 2020 (maybe not Polonium unsubtle, but bad news nevertheless). 2020 will be different in ways other than approval ratings.

TV’s Frink said:

STOP HARSHING MY BUZZ!

Sorry! 12 Governorships! 12! Totally reasonable chance!

There cannot be any way that any Clinton would run in 2020. It would be Democratic suicide.

CatBus said:

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

That’s huge. But I think the gerrymandering of the House is enough to maintain a Republican majority against even a Democratic tsunami like that.

Source?

The only useful hard data point is this one, which says a 1.2% Democratic victory margin in terms of votes translates into a devastating Democratic defeat in terms of seats. Everything else is modeling and extrapolation (mine included). In general, prognosticators say that things break even at about an 8-9% Democratic advantage. If the Democrats win by 8-9% in the House, control of the House is a toss-up–could go either way. I think both RCP and 538 used this 8-9% value last time around. The problem is that this tends to be a “generic ballot” metric, rather than a per-seat metric. So if the swing seats don’t shift as much as safe seats, the whole model falls apart. Considering the Republicans effectively control the nation’s election process, and have a huge foreign intelligence apparatus willing to selectively take down individual House candidates in key races, I’d say the 8-9% margin simply isn’t big enough to get a win. I’d say we need to win by 12% to win at all. That’s my model, the source is me 😉

EDIT: This is not to say it’s hopeless. But nothing less than the complete collapse of the national Republican party (which, thankfully, still seems to be in the cards, albeit remotely) is going to give the Dems control of anything at the national level in 2018. So… focus on the states. Governorships, state legislatures (Huge pickup opportunites! Gaining 12 more governorships is quite plausible!). We do well enough there in 2018, and we’ll be much better positioned to do something interesting in the House and/or Senate in 2022 after redistricting, when the landscape isn’t tilted quite so strongly against us.

You should change your numbers then. The chance of Democrats winning either the Senate or the House is definitely not 0%, unless that was tongue-in-cheek.

Also, what Drink Drink Frink (stop correcting me autocorrect!) said.

This post wanted a sequel.

If you shake your keyboard upside-down and whack the keys a few times, the shift key won’t stick anymore.

Also, welcome to the present! The left has been politically wiped out and hasn’t been relevant in US politics since 1974! Enjoy your stay!

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

That’s huge. But I think the gerrymandering of the House is enough to maintain a Republican majority against even a Democratic tsunami like that.

Source?

The only useful hard data point is this one, which says a 1.2% Democratic victory margin in terms of votes translates into a devastating Democratic defeat in terms of seats. Everything else is modeling and extrapolation (mine included). In general, prognosticators say that things break even at about an 8-9% Democratic advantage. If the Democrats win by 8-9% in the House, control of the House is a toss-up–could go either way. I think both RCP and 538 used this 8-9% value last time around. The problem is that this tends to be a “generic ballot” metric, rather than a per-seat metric. So if the swing seats don’t shift as much as safe seats, the whole model falls apart. Considering the Republicans effectively control the nation’s election process, and have a huge foreign intelligence apparatus willing to selectively take down individual House candidates in key races, I’d say the 8-9% margin simply isn’t big enough to get a win. I’d say we need to win by 12% to win at all. That’s my model, the source is me 😉

EDIT: This is not to say it’s hopeless. But nothing less than the complete collapse of the national Republican party (which, thankfully, still seems to be in the cards, albeit remotely) is going to give the Dems control of anything at the national level in 2018. So… focus on the states. Governorships, state legislatures (Huge pickup opportunites! Gaining 12 more governorships is quite plausible!). We do well enough there in 2018, and we’ll be much better positioned to do something interesting in the House and/or Senate in 2022 after redistricting, when the landscape isn’t tilted quite so strongly against us.

You should change your numbers then. The chance of Democrats winning either the Senate or the House is definitely not 0%, unless that was tongue-in-cheek.

No, I took the probability of total collapse of the national Republican party into consideration. I could have said <1% for this too, but at enough decimal places, it just makes more sense to round down.