The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on January 11, 2018, 03:14:05 pm
-
GOP angst over midterms grows
By Scott Wong - 01/11/18 06:00 AM EST
For some Republicans, it’s starting to feel like 2006 — a wave election year that swept Democrats back into power in the House and Senate.
The retirement of two longtime California Republicans this week — just the latest in a string of House Republicans heading for the exits — has caused panic among some in the GOP who say it’s yet another sign that an anti-Trump, Democratic wave is forming.
“It’s a tough election cycle for Republicans; we know that going in,†said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who is not running for reelection after representing a heavily Hispanic Miami district for nearly 30 years.
more
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/368436-gop-angst-over-midterms-grows (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/368436-gop-angst-over-midterms-grows)
-
Hey Pubbies?
Want to get rid of that angst?
Then... do what you were elected to do!
(that is all...)
-
I'm afraid the angst in the House is probably justified. Since 1962, the average loss of seats for the President's party is 40 seats when the President's approval rating is less than 50%. The Dems only need to gain 24 seats to take the majority.
-
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150917133655-trump-cnn-debate-facial-expression-large-tease.jpg)
-
I'm afraid the angst in the House is probably justified. Since 1962, the average loss of seats for the President's party is 40 seats when the President's approval rating is less than 50%. The Dems only need to gain 24 seats to take the majority.
And the Trumpers don't care.
-
Well, this situation is entirely self-inflicted.
-
And the Trumpers don't care.
Where did you get your approval numbers?
Polls haven't been right in years, which phony one are you citing?
-
Well, this situation is entirely self-inflicted.
Entirely.
And, they deserve to go the way of the Whigs.
I'll be doing my share to help that happen.
-
And the Trumpers don't care.
Why should anyone? They made years of promises only to be exposed for being total frauds when they got all the power they demanded. It is all rather pointless for any GOP'er to be in office if they are going to hide in their offices doing bong hits instead of getting shit done.
-
Why should anyone? They made years of promises only to be exposed for being total frauds when they got all the power they demanded. It is all rather pointless for any GOP'er to be in office if they are going to hide in their offices doing bong hits instead of getting shit done.
This ^^^^^
They cave to the Dems at every turn. They need to be sent back home.
-
Why should anyone? They made years of promises only to be exposed for being total frauds when they got all the power they demanded. It is all rather pointless for any GOP'er to be in office if they are going to hide in their offices doing bong hits instead of getting shit done.
Are you one of the folks delusional enough to think a strong Democrat ajority wouldn't be ramming through a lot of horror? Even seat-warming GOP provides interdiction.
-
I'm afraid the angst in the House is probably justified. Since 1962, the average loss of seats for the President's party is 40 seats when the President's approval rating is less than 50%. The Dems only need to gain 24 seats to take the majority.
In the Senate; there are 34 seats up in 2018, of which 26 are held by Democrats. They will only need to gain 2 seats to take control.
In the House, all seats are up for grab and so far 30 GOP are retiring.
-
In the Senate; there are 34 seats up in 2018, of which 26 are held by Democrats. They will only need to gain 2 seats to take control.
In the House, all seats are up for grab and so far 30 GOP are retiring.
And in the last 100 years, the President’s party lost an average of 23 seats in the House during the President’s first midterm. Are this President’s approval ratings likely to indicate an above average or below average loss of seats? An above average loss of seats would give the House majority to the Dems.
-
Are you one of the folks delusional enough to think a strong Democrat ajority wouldn't be ramming through a lot of horror? Even seat-warming GOP provides interdiction.
I'm not, but I'd also prefer to be metaphorically shot through the heart by an enemy than slowly suffocated by a supposed ally.
-
And in the last 100 years, the President’s party lost an average of 23 seats in the House during the President’s first midterm. Are this President’s approval ratings likely to indicate an above average or below average loss of seats? An above average loss of seats would give the House majority to the Dems.
Who cares about the last 100 years? 100 years ago a lot of people didn't have bathrooms in their house. If you look at the last 20 years, that number dramatically changes. Country is far too divided now to have these wild swings left.
-
Who cares about the last 100 years? 100 years ago a lot of people didn't have bathrooms in their house. If you look at the last 20 years, that number dramatically changes. Country is far too divided now to have these wild swings left.
Looking at the last 10-12 years, the Dems picked up 31 seats in 2006. In the first mid-term after Obama’s Presidency in 2010, the Reps picked up 63. The Reps picked up an additional 13 seats in 2014 and lost 6 in 2016. It’ll be interesting to see the swing in 2018. I don’t think a swing of 24 is out of the question. Time will tell.
-
Looking at the last 10-12 years, the Dems picked up 31 seats in 2006. In the first mid-term after Obama’s Presidency in 2010, the Reps picked up 63. The Reps picked up an additional 13 seats in 2014. It’ll be interesting to see the swing in 2018. I don’t think a swing of 24 is out of the question. Time will tell.
Not entirely impossible, but they’re not presently getting much in the way of donor support and issues traction. The glow from Jones quickly waned. The best things they have going are shithole and Oprah.
-
Not entirely impossible, but they’re not presently getting much in the way of donor support and issues traction. The glow from Jones quickly waned. The best things they have going are shithole and Oprah.
We'll see. I think the best thing they have going for them is an energized "Resistance". African American turnout in Alabama last fall has been called "massive" and "extraordinary". Turnout in the latest election in Virginia was a 20 year high for a gubernatorial race. I expect Democratic turnout for the midterms to be extremely high, and the more inflammatory, divisive, and base-centric things that come from the President, the more energized I expect the Democrats to be.
-
With the continuing "division of the states" into red and blue orbs, many Congressional districts are similarly polarized (redistricting has a lot to do with this).
I predict the "blue zones" will continue to be blue, while the "red zones" continue to remain red.
That leaves the "purple fringe".
Too early to tell just yet.
Gonna have to wait and see.
-
Tends to happen when you're a party about nothing.
-
Hey Pubbies?
Want to get rid of that angst?
Then... do what you were elected to do!
(that is all...)
Borderwall, NO amnesty, repeal of Bammycare. So far they are 0 for 3. Not exactly a stellar performance going into the mid-terms. Not surprising really. Ryan hasn't changed, nor has the Turtle. In fact, Ryan's grand and glorious speech after Trump's election has turned out to be absolutely pure b.s. just as I thought it was when I sat and watched him ramble. His speech (note especially his comments on Bammycare and a unified Republican party):
http://time.com/4564832/paul-ryan-speech-donald-trump-election/ (http://time.com/4564832/paul-ryan-speech-donald-trump-election/)
-
The volume of desperate screeching fundraising emails seems to indicate concern.
I'm done voting till Trumpism is dead and buried in a shallow woodland grave.
-
The volume of desperate screeching fundraising emails seems to indicate concern.
I'm done voting till Trumpism is dead and buried in a shallow woodland grave.
What exactly is your definition of Trumpism and how do you feel his presidency is less to the right than 'W's or Bush Sr.'s? Secondly, IMHO the mid terms aren't a reflection of Trump, but a reflection of those in Congress. They are or at least should be held responsible for their actions or lack of action during the mid terms. If you don't like the actions are the lack thereof of the GOPe, they are the ones that need to be held responsible, not Trump during the mid terms. His evaluation comes in 2020.
-
What exactly is your definition of Trumpism and how do you feel his presidency is less to the right than 'W's or Bush Sr.'s? Secondly, IMHO the mid terms aren't a reflection of Trump, but a reflection of those in Congress. They are or at least should be held responsible for their actions or lack of action during the mid terms. If you don't like the actions are the lack thereof of the GOPe, they are the ones that need to be held responsible, not Trump during the mid terms. His evaluation comes in 2020.
I completely disagree with your statement “the midterms aren’t a reflection of Trump.†Midterms are a referendum on a sitting President. All you need to do is look back at 2010 & 2016, both were referendums on Obama.
-
If and it is a big IF, but if the GOP can convincingly show that the Rats used the
DOJ, CIA, NSA and FBI to throw the election to Hillary then the Rats will lose massively.
More and more it is looks like that is exactly what happened but high profile Obama
admin folks need to be put on trail to drive home to the voters just how corrupt the
Rats are. Do that GOP and you will be fine in 2018. Don't do that and 2018 will be a very
bad election for you.
-
If and it is a big IF, but if the GOP can convincingly show that the Rats used the
DOJ, CIA, NSA and FBI to throw the election to Hillary then the Rats will lose massively.
More and more it is looks like that is exactly what happened but high profile Obama
admin folks need to be put on trail to drive home to the voters just how corrupt the
Rats are. Do that GOP and you will be fine in 2018. Don't do that and 2018 will be a very
bad election for you.
Don't count on it, unless 'they' destroy Mueller and Rosenstein. They need to budget and start building the wall, create a bill that does not allow amnesty and start creating sustainable jobs; that will retain their majority.
-
Borderwall, NO amnesty, repeal of Bammycare. So far they are 0 for 3. Not exactly a stellar performance going into the mid-terms. Not surprising really. Ryan hasn't changed, nor has the Turtle. In fact, Ryan's grand and glorious speech after Trump's election has turned out to be absolutely pure b.s. just as I thought it was when I sat and watched him ramble. His speech (note especially his comments on Bammycare and a unified Republican party):
http://time.com/4564832/paul-ryan-speech-donald-trump-election/ (http://time.com/4564832/paul-ryan-speech-donald-trump-election/)
It makes no sense to blame the GOP...or even Ryan and McConnell. They don't have magic wands...and they can't produce votes that aren't there. The blame for not passing the legislation you mention rests with 30 or so Republicans in the House and 6-8 in the Senate. Leadership has absolutely no way to force these congressmen in line on these issues...so what the he!! would you have them do?
Put the blame where it actually rests...with that small slice of Republicans who won't vote for the 3 bills you mention.
-
I completely disagree with your statement “the midterms aren’t a reflection of Trump.†Midterms are a referendum on a sitting President. All you need to do is look back at 2010 & 2016, both were referendums on Obama.
You might examine some factual historic statistics. She is largely correct, and appears to have done as I suggested.
Here are facts:
Reagan LOST 26 House seats his first midterm. He lost 5 House and 8 Senate seats his second midterm.
GHW Bush lost House and Senate seats during his only midterm.
Both Clinton and Obama mostly lost seats during midterms.
Here is the complete factual record, since 1910, which proves the point that midterms go to the party opposing the sitting President most of the time.
So in the event legislative seats are lost in 2018 it will follow the historical pattern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election
-
Don't count on it, unless 'they' destroy Mueller and Rosenstein. They need to budget and start building the wall, create a bill that does not allow amnesty and start creating sustainable jobs; that will retain their majority.
I'm waiting on the Inspector Generals report. If it is bad Sessions will have to act and very possibly
with a special counsel to look into how the DOJ and FBI colluded (with Russia) to throw the election
to Hillary. Should that happen, and I think it is likely, the effect on 2018 will be big.
-
I'm waiting on the Inspector Generals report. If it is bad Sessions will have to act and very possibly
with a special counsel to look into how the DOJ and FBI colluded (with Russia) to throw the election
to Hillary. Should that happen, and I think it is likely, the effect on 2018 will be big.
I have heard to be on the watch for a "tsunami" of information, detrimental to democrats.
The IG report, and the Nunes committee for a couple to watch.
For example GPS didn't just concoct an elicit dossier about Trump, but ALSO acted to block investigation of Clinton Foundation corruption.
-
You might examine some factual historic statistics. She is largely correct, and appears to have done as I suggested.
Here are facts:
Reagan LOST 26 House seats his first midterm. He lost 5 House and 8 Senate seats his second midterm.
GHW Bush lost House and Senate seats during his only midterm.
Both Clinton and Obama mostly lost seats during midterms.
Here is the complete factual record, since 1910, which proves the point that midterms go to the party opposing the sitting President most of the time.
So in the event legislative seats are lost in 2018 it will follow the historical pattern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election)
I don’t think that data proves anything about the motives of voters, but I will note your link stated the following:
"Midterm elections are sometimes regarded as a referendum on the sitting president's and/or incumbent party's performance."
I personally think the first midterm after a President’s election is largely a referendum on he and his policies, but that’s just my opinion. Back in 2010, I remember reading stories on Breitbart, Fox, National Review, and other right-leaning sources proclaiming the 2010 mid-terms were a referendum on Obama and his policies (I agreed with those assessments also).
Even in a poll from 2010, a majority (52%) of likely voters said the election was a referendum on Obama. Although I don’t think there’s any way to prove the motivations of voters one way or the other, I do think the ones who proclaim the first mid-term after a Presidential election isn’t a referendum on that President are largely those trying to defend that President's likely loss of Congressional seats (be they Democrat or Republican). JMO.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/november_2010/52_say_election_is_referendum_on_obama_s_agenda (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/november_2010/52_say_election_is_referendum_on_obama_s_agenda)
-
You might examine some factual historic statistics. She is largely correct, and appears to have done as I suggested.
There are a number of game changers sitting out there. Rat corruption I've already dealt with.
But two other biggies are; Will the Rats shut down government over DACA in a week or two?
That could easily blow up in their faces. Will the Rats prevent the House immigration reform bill
from passing in the Senate? Another action that could blow up in their faces. Right now all they
have is their "resistance" movement. Is hate of Trump enough to win? Could be but not if any
of things I mentioned go Trump way.
And of course there is always the possibility that some unknown could happen (N.K, Iran, etc)
that could drive voters to Trump.
Lots can happen between now and Nov 2018.
-
@jpsb
goopo
-
@jpsb
goopo
*girl beer*
-
The only Poll I believe.
RNC IS Destroying The DNC In Fundraising
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=296975.0 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=296975.0)
And Thom Steyer has just decided to cut his DNC Donations by at least $30 Million.
:2popcorn:
-
I don’t think that data proves anything about the motives of voters, but I will note your link stated the following:
"Midterm elections are sometimes regarded as a referendum on the sitting president's and/or incumbent party's performance."
I personally think the first midterm after a President’s election is largely a referendum on he and his policies, but that’s just my opinion. Back in 2010, I remember reading stories on Breitbart, Fox, National Review, and other right-leaning sources proclaiming the 2010 mid-terms were a referendum on Obama and his policies (I agreed with those assessments also).
Even in a poll from 2010, a majority (52%) of likely voters said the election was a referendum on Obama. Although I don’t think there’s any way to prove the motivations of voters one way or the other, I do think the ones who proclaim the first mid-term after a Presidential election isn’t a referendum on that President are largely those trying to defend that President's likely loss of Congressional seats (be they Democrat or Republican). JMO.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/november_2010/52_say_election_is_referendum_on_obama_s_agenda (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/november_2010/52_say_election_is_referendum_on_obama_s_agenda)
Reagan LOST seats in both houses, in both of his midterms, but Bush was elected in 1988.
In 1982 and 1986 my support for Reagan did NOT waiver, with public opinion.
He was still the conservative Republican I desired, and he promoted mainly conservative policies.
A class assignment might be to compare first term policies promoted by Reagan and by Trump. Were said policies conservative, for tax cuts, military strength, regulation red tape cutting, etc.?
-
Good! They should feel angsty. Maybe if they'd got more done instead of standing around pearl clutching and cat fighting with Trump they wouldn't have these worries.
-
Reagan LOST seats in both houses, in both of his midterms, but Bush was elected in 1988.
In 1982 and 1986 my support for Reagan did NOT waiver, with public opinion.
He was still the conservative Republican I desired, and he promoted mainly conservative policies.
A class assignment might be to compare first term policies promoted by Reagan and by Trump. Were said policies conservative, for tax cuts, military strength, regulation red tape cutting, etc.?
I think you're trying to draw a definitive conclusion from incomplete data. I think there are lots and lots of reasons why folks vote (particularly in local elections). Yes, “midterms go to the party opposing the sitting President most of the timeâ€. The question is why? The answer COULD be dissatisfaction with that President’s performance and his policies (and a desire for more opposition in the legislative branch). I’m not saying that’s always the case, but as I said before, I just don’t think there’s any way to prove the motivations of voters one way or the other. Having said that, I definitely have my OPINION that the first mid-terms after an election are sometimes a referendum on the new President and his policies (but for any given election, there are a multitude of motivations for voters so it's tough to generalize one way or the other). That’s JMO though just as you have YOUR OPINION. :seeya:
-
:nometalk:lo
Reagan LOST seats in both houses, in both of his midterms, but Bush was elected in 1988.
Actually, he didn't. There were 42 Republican senators in Carter's last term. When Reagan took office, they had 53, gained 2 seats in the next Congress to 55, then lost 2 in the next session back down to 53 and held steady through the remainder of his presidency.
-
:nometalk:lo
Actually, he didn't. There were 42 Republican senators in Carter's last term. When Reagan took office, they had 53, gained 2 seats in the next Congress to 55, then lost 2 in the next session back down to 53 and held steady through the remainder of his presidency.
Actually it was exactly as I stated it was, taken from these statistics. If I stated something wrongly, these statistics are wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election
-
I have heard to be on the watch for a "tsunami" of information, detrimental to democrats.
The IG report, and the Nunes committee for a couple to watch.
For example GPS didn't just concoct an elicit dossier about Trump, but ALSO acted to block investigation of Clinton Foundation corruption.
Only problem is... Sessions has recused himself from the Russian investigation, which leaves things up to Rosenstein who had his hands in the cookie jar with Clinton collusion and Uranium One as did Mueller. IMHO the only choice Sessions would have is to fire Mueller and Rosenstein and appoint new people; someone like Cruz would be an excellent choice. He definitely has the background and he was Solicitor general of TX for awhile. Cruz would go in and clean house. With that being said however, I highly doubt Sessions is going to to anything and Clinton will continue to remain unscathed from any wrong doing and certainly won't be held responsible.
I just realized that the currently Solicitor General of the US is Noel John Francisco who much to my surprise actually worked with Cruz on the Medellin v. TX case during the Bush administration....Bush was not happy ... but Cruz won for TX. This now puts things in a whole different light.
-
I think you're trying to draw a definitive conclusion from incomplete data. I think there are lots and lots of reasons why folks vote (particularly in local elections). Yes, “midterms go to the party opposing the sitting President most of the timeâ€. The question is why? The answer COULD be dissatisfaction with that President’s performance and his policies (and a desire for more opposition in the legislative branch). I’m not saying that’s always the case, but as I said before, I just don’t think there’s any way to prove the motivations of voters one way or the other. Having said that, I definitely have my OPINION that the first mid-terms after an election are sometimes a referendum on the new President and his policies (but for any given election, there are a multitude of motivations for voters so it's tough to generalize one way or the other). That’s JMO though just as you have YOUR OPINION. :seeya:
Concerned, I see the point you're making but I think you also have to account for the normal ebb and flow of support between the parties. One party wins the White House and holds congress...so motivating partisans of the other party to activate. Since off year elections CONSISTENTLY are won by the party that does NOT hold the White House, clearly they are about much more than being a referendum. This is not to say that the popularity of the incumbent President is a non-factor, just that you must evaluate how MUCH he factors by looking at the "norm"...and then seeing how strongly the election deviates from the norm.
So, I don't think you are wrong per se when you assert that mid-terms can be a referendum on the presidency, but I would argue that there IS a built in set of factors that advantage the out of power party...to the extent that the loss of 15-20 House seats, for example, should be looked at not as a negative reflection on presidential support...but rather as essentially being a wash in terms of the public's review of that president's performance.
In other words, set the bar for evaluating the referendum in a fair context. Its not realistic to think a party that's out of power in both Houses and the The White House will not naturally make gains in an ensuing mid-term...regardless of the performance of the President.
The most analogous electoral cycle with 2018 would be that of 1994. Clinton and the Dems took a beating, in part because the public perceived the pendulum had swung too far in one direction...and in part because the GOP was activated and motivated to turn out given its recent defeats. By 1996, Clinton had regained his balance and comfortably won the 1996 election. So you could SAY 1994 was a referendum...and in part it was...but it was so much more, and its impact was somewhat fleeting. I would expect something of a repeat of that pattern in 2018 and 2020.
-
Concerned, I see the point you're making but I think you also have to account for the normal ebb and flow of support between the parties. One party wins the White House and holds congress...so motivating partisans of the other party to activate. Since off year elections CONSISTENTLY are won by the party that does NOT hold the White House, clearly they are about much more than being a referendum. This is not to say that the popularity of the incumbent President is a non-factor, just that you must evaluate how MUCH he factors by looking at the "norm"...and then seeing how strongly the election deviates from the norm.
So, I don't think you are wrong per se when you assert that mid-terms can be a referendum on the presidency, but I would argue that there IS a built in set of factors that advantage the out of power party...to the extent that the loss of 15-20 House seats, for example, should be looked at not as a negative reflection on presidential support...but rather as essentially being a wash in terms of the public's review of that president's performance.
In other words, set the bar for evaluating the referendum in a fair context. Its not realistic to think a party that's out of power in both Houses and the The White House will not naturally make gains in an ensuing mid-term...regardless of the performance of the President.
If I might add, an unusual factor that'll likely affect the outcome this time is the absolute hysteria of the MSM... as this stupid sh8thole controversy attests. Obviously they are determined to keep their troops motivated to turn out in November, and turnout is everything.
Not that they haven't always fancied themselves rainmakers for the democrats but there's never been anything like whats happening today.
-
Concerned, I see the point you're making but I think you also have to account for the normal ebb and flow of support between the parties. One party wins the White House and holds congress...so motivating partisans of the other party to activate. Since off year elections CONSISTENTLY are won by the party that does NOT hold the White House, clearly they are about much more than being a referendum. This is not to say that the popularity of the incumbent President is a non-factor, just that you must evaluate how MUCH he factors by looking at the "norm"...and then seeing how strongly the election deviates from the norm.
So, I don't think you are wrong per se when you assert that mid-terms can be a referendum on the presidency, but I would argue that there IS a built in set of factors that advantage the out of power party...to the extent that the loss of 15-20 House seats, for example, should be looked at not as a negative reflection on presidential support...but rather as essentially being a wash in terms of the public's review of that president's performance.
In other words, set the bar for evaluating the referendum in a fair context. Its not realistic to think a party that's out of power in both Houses and the The White House will not naturally make gains in an ensuing mid-term...regardless of the performance of the President.
I think we're saying the same thing. That extra motivation you speak of represents the referendum on the President in power IMO: the other side is against him and come out in disproportionate numbers to vote against him. Turnout for mid-terms are typically somewhat anemic so a surge in motivation (aka turnout) from one side or the other can be significant to the results. This is precisely the concern I have for the the upcoming mid-terms: Trump has absolutely motivated "the Resistence". We saw this in turnout numbers in both Alabama and Virginia.
-
I think we're saying the same thing. That extra motivation you speak of represents the referendum on the President in power IMO: the other side is against him and come out in disproportionate numbers to vote against him. Turnout for mid-terms are typically somewhat anemic so a surge in motivation (aka turnout) from one side or the other can be significant to the results. This is precisely the concern I have for the the upcoming mid-terms: Trump has absolutely motivated "the Resistence". We saw this in turnout numbers in both Alabama and Virginia.
This is no doubt true. The motivation of the "other" side is directly related to how successfully the incumbent President is advancing his party's agenda...Clinton was frustratingly effective and this motivated and united Republicans to vote against him in 1994. So in that sense that you are saying "referendum" means a president's effectiveness motivates the opposition to come out and vote against him...I agree. If your argument is that stylistic factors and the provocative nature of President Trump are the prime motivating factor, I would say your argument is at best anecdotal.
As someone mentioned above, the media is (unlike in 1994) a factor that DOES effect off year elections with GOP incumbents in the White House...particularly now, as they DO work to create faux "outrages of the week" to motivate the Dem base. This is less a Trump stylistic provocation that motivates the Dem base, than it is a deliberately ginned up motivation created by a press that has ceased to even seek the facade of impartiality.
Yes, Trump's bombast makes the media task easier...but that task would be achieved even had a Ted Cruz or other Republican ascended to the White House. So, if anything, that aspect of this election should be attributed to the medias skill at DELIBERATELY motivating the Dem base...rather than as a referendum on the President's style or behavior.
-
This is no doubt true. The motivation of the "other" side is directly related to how successfully the incumbent President is advancing his party's agenda...Clinton was frustratingly effective and this motivated and united Republicans to vote against him in 1994. So in that sense that you are saying "referendum" means a president's effectiveness motivates the opposition to come out and vote against him...I agree. If your argument is that stylistic factors and the provocative nature of President Trump are the prime motivating factor, I would say your argument is at best anecdotal.
As someone mentioned above, the media is (unlike in 1994) a factor that DOES effect off year elections with GOP incumbents in the White House...particularly now, as they DO work to create faux "outrages of the week" to motivate the Dem base. This is less a Trump stylistic provocation that motivates the Dem base, than it is a deliberately ginned up motivation created by a press that has ceased to even seek the facade of impartiality.
I still think we're largely in agreement. As I said before, there are lots of motivators for voters particularly in local elections, but we just don't have the complete data to draw a definitive conclusion of motivation:
I think you're trying to draw a definitive conclusion from incomplete data. I think there are lots and lots of reasons why folks vote (particularly in local elections)..................I just don’t think there’s any way to prove the motivations of voters one way or the other................. there are a multitude of motivations for voters so it's tough to generalize one way or the other...................
I think we're in agreement that one motivation for some voters in some mid-terms is dislike for the current President (whether based on style or substance). I believe our current President has motivated "the Resistence". I believe this was reflected in turnout in both Alabama and Virginia late last year. We'll see how turnout out is in the 2018 mid-terms. I expect high Democratic turnout.
-
I have heard to be on the watch for a "tsunami" of information, detrimental to democrats.
The IG report, and the Nunes committee for a couple to watch.
For example GPS didn't just concoct an elicit dossier about Trump, but ALSO acted to block investigation of Clinton Foundation corruption.
Yes, there's all kinds of info coming in, that if it involved anyone but Clinton they would be facing prison time. Even listening to Limbaugh today, he also commented on who I've been concerned about for quite sometime. Sessions. He's side stepping the information big time and so far it appears he has no interest in appointing special counsel to investigate Rosenstein and Mueller, or at least admit that they both have conflicts of interest. Enter DJT ... why in the heck hasn't he fired Sessions? So, IMHO, it's beginning to look like Trump has no intention of holding Clinton and the DOJ hacks accountable for their corruption - business as usual in the D.C. swamp!
-
why in the heck hasn't he fired Sessions?
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen Grassley, has informed Trump that if he
fires Sessions the Senate will not confirm any nominee for that post that Trump submits. Trump
can not fire Sessions. Doing so only puts Rosenstein in charge.
-
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen Grassley, has informed Trump that if he
fires Sessions the Senate will not confirm any nominee for that post that Trump submits. Trump
can not fire Sessions. Doing so only puts Rosenstein in charge.
Thank you. As satisfying as it would be to see HRC behind bars I'm more gratified that Sessions is saving uncounted lives of Americans who Won't be killed by MS-13.