|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Important upcoming elections | |||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Florida is a state that, in combination with Arizona flipping to the Democrats, would have given Democrats the Presidency in 2016.
Texas flipping would have done the trick alone. These 3 states are the most important. And this same polling outfit FINALLY gave Democrats something to cheer in the Senate race. The incumbent Democratic Senator Bill Nelson is actually ahead of his Republican challenger (Rick Scott) 45% to 44%. Democrats can take heart that the incumbent rule (under 50% is bad, and 45% is really bad) doesn't apply here because BOTH candidates are essentially incumbents (Scott is the Governor that won a come-from-behind re-election in 2014, by a 1% margin, largely because he got about 40% of the Florida Puerto Rican vote) So Democrats are potentially going to take all three of the Senate races in Arizona, Florida, and Texas. (and what wins they would be since even close losses would indicate growing strength in these 3 most important states)
|
|||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
This will be a tough race for Democrats to win, but Democrats rarely have the advantage of having nominated a genuine progressive. It will be a good barometer, but the gun issue really hurts Democrats.
(Even before the specific gun issue was presented by the moderators, Beto already was getting his butt kicked on the issue, clearly refusing to answer Cruz' gun question, EVEN AFTER THE MODERATORS GAVE HIM MORE TIME, then when the moderators asked a specific gun related question, it got even worse for Beto. It must have seemed like 10 minutes in hell to Beto, though I suspect it was only 6-7 straight minutes of gun debate) More bad news for Democrats in Texas. A special election for the state Senate was just held in San Antonio. (understand that Texas state Senators actually represent more voters than U.S. Congressmen) A Former Democratic U.S. Congressman (Pete Gallego) lost 53% to 47% to his Republican opponent. This district is 66% Hispanic and 7% Black. Texas is tough. (I feel like Texas might be a more liberal place if it were its own country, like some have suggested it should be. But the national Democratic party seems to have too many "Big D" issues - like gun control - that hurt the candidates in Texas. The national party is seen as too out of touch, on many fronts (and not all of it centers around actual issues), and though Beto is a rare progressive voice for Texas voters, he is too easily painted as some tool of the national party) There might be some good news for Democrats in Texas. John Culberson is only leading his Democratic challenger 48% to 45%. This is the (once) heavily Republican Houston district, which George H. W. Bush held, and it was 47% Hispanic (I assume it still is about that much if not more). I started to like Culberson when he strongly opposed a war against Assad, 5 years ago, so I wonder if his Democratic opponent is a war monger. It must be admitted: (everything below - all the way to the end of my post - is about Nebraska) There are times when a pro war Democrat runs against a more moderate Republican. A Democratic congressman in Omaha, Brad Ashford, supported war against Syria and opposed the Iran deal. He was defeated by Republican Don Bacon, even though Hillary almost beat Trump. Romney won the district 53% to 46% while Hillary only lost 48% to 46%. Now a 1-term Congressman, Don Bacon, is facing a progressive Democratic challenger who upset Ashford in the Democratic primary. Bacon is one of the most vulnerable GOP congressmen, as well as the strongest critic of Trump's trade policies - he has had a hand in creating pro-trade groups to battle Trump on trade, so the general election will have 2 good candidates: win-win for Americans. Whoever wins the Omaha district this fall (the Republican Bacon or the progressive Democrat) will be a much better congressman than Brad Ashford. Ashford opposed the nuclear deal with Iran (the only area of foreign policy where Trump was more hawkish than Hillary), which even an increasingly hawkish Democratic party (Lybia, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Ukraine, Russia, etc.) almost entirely supports. I was really sick on my stomach when Ashford was making his comeback, but he was defeated in the primary, in a major upset. I, previously,had high hopes for Ashford, as he was a fairly decent member of the Nebraska legislature. A former Republican, Ashford was a key moderate in the non-partisan legislature (when he was known as a Republican despite the party-free membership), casting the deciding vote (around) 1990 to have Nebraska split its electoral votes according to the congressional district vote. (Obama got 1 electoral vote from Nebraska in 2008, because he won the Omaha district 50%-49%, which no Democrat did since 1964, and haven't since 2008) Republicans have come extremely close to moving the state back to the standard electoral vote allocation. A few moderate Republicans have refused to become the deciding vote (and only 1 is needed to bring a 2-1 super majority) to bring the electoral vote allocation back to the way it was pre-1992 (One said he would if the legislature would accept the Medicaid expansion, which it hasn't) Medicaid is on the November ballot. The legislature did allow a petition drive. It was a longshot, but 84,000 required signatures (actually about 130,000) were collected. There 84,000 were registered voters, which was a high percentage to reach. The petition survived multiple Republican sponsored court challenges. The GOP governor said the expansion would cost $800 million over 10 years, but a credible study showed that it would only cost the state (just under) $39 million in Fiscal Year 2022, while the federal government send in over $572 million to the state the same year. The first fiscal year cost to the state (FY 2020) will be $19.8 million if the voters support the initiative in November. The federal funding will create 10,000 jobs each and every year. A Colorado legislative study showed that the Medicaid expansion created 31,000 jobs in 2015. It seems that Medicaid expansion can reduce workforce unemployment by a full 1.0% ? Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Real Clear Politics has this race polls today.
realclearpolitics.com Don Bacon is up 51% to 42% in this slightly gerrymandered district (Hillary lost 48% to 46% in 2016, but probably would have won slightly had the district not been changed in 2012 redistricting). Bacon has immigration views that are at odds with Trump.
quote: On trade
quote: |
|||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Democrats will loose 1 seat net in the Senate.
There are 6 highly vulnerable Democrats in 6 states: West VirginiaIndiana Missouri North Dakota Florida Montana I predict Democrats will hold Florida, Montana, and West Virginia. I predict they will loose North Dakota, Indiana, and Missouri. Republicans are vulnerable, to some degree, in these 4 states: NevadaArizona Texas Tennessee I predict the Republicans will loose Nevada and Arizona I predict they hold Texas and Tennessee. Republicans net a 1 seat gain. In the House, I will predict that the outcome will not be known on election night.I will predict a scenario where on party has declaired winners in 214-217 seats, and another party with declared winners in 212-215 seats, with 6 undeclared. There you have it. That is my guess, for now.
|
|||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
realclearpolitics.com
An average lead of 1%, and the latest poll was actually a Republican poll which has her up by 1%. Last night, on Walters World (a Fox News Saturday night program), Scott Rasmussen said that he felt that this was the "tossup race" that he feels Republicans will easily win. Republicans have been claiming that Sinema is the Todd Akin (the GOP disaster candidate from 2012 in Missouri) of 2018. Gingrich, Rove, and others have been saying he past "Open Borders" (literally she was in favor of actual open borders) position would kill her in Arizona. Sinema has weathered millions of dollars of attacks on the airwaves, and she hasn't melted at all. This Arizona Senate race, alone, is a big race, even if Democrats loose seats nationwide. (I really want Sinema to win this one) As for the House, I now feel that the majority party won't be known till perhaps as late as December.
|
|||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
realclearpolitics.com
An average lead of 1%, and the latest poll was actually a Republican poll which has her up by 1%. Last night, on Walters World (a Fox News Saturday night program), Scott Rasmussen said that he felt that this was the "tossup race" that he feels Republicans will easily win. Republicans have been claiming that Sinema is the Todd Akin (the GOP disaster candidate from 2012 in Missouri) of 2018. Gingrich, Rove, and others have been saying he past "Open Borders" (literally she was in favor of actual open borders) position would kill her in Arizona. Sinema has weathered millions of dollars of attacks on the airwaves, and she hasn't melted at all. This Arizona Senate race, alone, is a big race, even if Democrats loose seats nationwide. (I really want Sinema to win this one) As for the House, I now feel that the majority party won't be known till perhaps as late as December.
|
|||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Sinema has won Maricopa county (so far), which elected Joe Arpio multiple times.
479,733 (49.4%) to 471,550 (48.6%) 1 million statewide ballots remain to be counted, or about 25% of the total vote. The exit polls show Sinema winning Maricopa 52% to 47%, so these 62% of the states electorate hopefully will carry her to victory unless the provisional ballots were more Republican than those Exit Polled. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2018-election/midterms/az Sinema really did good in a conservative mid-term electorate (50% of voters supported Trump, while only 37% supported Hillary, and 58% feel Trump's immigration policy is just right or not tough enough verses 35% who feel it was too harsh). She did really good compared to the Democratic Gubernatorial candidate. David Garcia lost to Doug Ducey (so far) 57.8% to 40.2%. Garcia only won the Hispanic vote 55% to 44%, but Sinema got 69%! Sinema got 14% of conservatives, 44% of whites, 50% of those over 65, 97% of Democrats, 94% of liberals, 64% of moderates, 12% of Republicans and 49% of independents. Garcia only won 84% of Democrats and around 3% of Republicans. He only won liberals 82 to 17. This conservative mid-term electorate, in Arizona, prefered Republican control of Congress over Democrats by a 52% to 42% margin. So far, Sinema is down by just 0.9%. 49.3% to 48.4% A great candidate! The best. I found this site from a link here: https://www.nbcnews.com/...-voters-helped-boost-cruz-n933116 from google search term: TEXAS SENATE EXIT POLLS In another search: TEXAS EXIT POLLS
quote: Looks like a conservative electorate helped Republicans (typical mid-term story)
|
|||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2018-election/midterms/az
And the very conservative Maricopa County is now 50.2% to 47.7% for Sinema.
|
|||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Provisional ballots are common out there.
And they can be mailed in (LONG before the elctions) or hand delivered as late as the day of the elction. The Arizona experts say that the mailed provisional ballots will be counted first, and they are expected to be Pro Sinema. The LATE hand delivered provisional ballots, numbering 200,000, will be counted last, and they are expected to favor McSalley. Arizona has provisional ballots across the entire state.
|
|||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Kyrsten Sinema's lead over Martha McSally widens in Senate race
quote: Sinema has 50.6% of the vote (595,444 votes) in right-wing Maricopa County while McSally has 47.2% of the vote (556,076 votes) there. The Green (Angela Green) has 2.2% (25,371 votes). Sinema leads statewide 991,433 to 971,331 and that is still quite short of the 2.4 million votes cast. The NBC site says 84% is the counted vote so far. How ironic it is that the brilliant pro-open borders lawyer/legislator, who combated the right wing Sheriff Arpaio last decade, could win on the strength of the voters in his (once and still?) anti-immigration county. Sinema first ran for national office in the new 2012 Maricopa County district, and it was a Democratic district from the get go (it ended up voting 54% to 38% for Obama over Romney while Romney won Arizona by 9.2%, and Maricopa County by even more), but Sinema was so controversial that she needed a long recount to narrowly win her district. Now she somehow has become popular with the county! McSalley was the toughest opponent, by far, for Sinema. (It is not over, and Sinema could very well loose) What a story. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Sinema expands lead in Arizona Senate race - POLITICO
quote: There is alot more in the article. I suppose Republicans, being older and retired, will be more likely to be off of work on election day. I don't know if that is the reason for the expected pro GOP vote total bump via drop off votes. I do know that the older white voters (who, in large numbers, moved to Arizona later in life) are fairly right wing, while the native (meaning they were born in Arizona, I'm not talking about Native American Indians) Arizonans , who grew up with Hispanics, aren't so anti immigrant. Many feel the OLD Republican inplants are hurting the party in the long run. Arizona is flipping blue, though in slow motion. The constant flow of right wing retirees keeps holding back the Democratic trend. Hispanics don't turn out either, so that helps the Republicans. One can easily see the reaction against right wing immigration policy. Hillary Clinton only lost to Trump by 3.5% and McSally was more moderate on immigration in her Tucson district(plus the district was strethcing all the way to the border).
|
|||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Sinema lead grows again as Arizona Senate vote count continues - POLITICO
quote: And the twlight zone version of Maricopa County in our (alternate?) Universe continues; Sinema is winning by 30,000 votes due to a 44,161 vote lead in the big right wing county.
quote: Sinema is unique. The Maricopa voters seem to admire her for her spirited ("radical") positions as a state legislature, and the admiration is compounded by her very bi-partisan voting record. She is seen as genuine on the one hand, and reasonable on the other. Sinema is for real and realistic.
|
|||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Here are the most recent news stories.
Notice the Washington Post article from hours ago. On the election "fraud" hysteria. A GOP aid is really fuming at those, in his party, spreading misinformation via propaganda which describes the race as sussposedly being shrouded in fraud (Democrats have been accused of fraud).
quote: |
|||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Arizona Senate race: Sinema's lead grows as some GOP officials distance themselves from Trump's claims of misconduct | CNN Politics
Sinema continues to expand lead in Arizona Senate race - POLITICO Sinema widens lead on McSally in Arizona Senate race as vote counting continues | Fox News These links show that it is Republicans who are wanting the time to be taken to count every vote. CNN has a hyper link leading to Arizona's Republican secretary of state, Michele Reagan, explaining why it takes so long to count votes in Arizona. 75% of the state's electorate votes by mail. The Fox story has a link that covers the opposite situation in Florida (the Democrats want more time there). Dem-leaning Palm Beach County says it likely won't make recount deadline in Florida governor, Senate races | Fox News
|
|||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
I have been looking at exit polls, and they are being updated as we speak.
TEXAS In Texas, Republican Gregg Abbott beat Democrat Lupe Valdex 55.8% to 42.5% with "99%" of the vote in. Hispanics were 26% of the Texas vote, according to the exit polls. Abott only lost Hispanics to Valdez 53% to 42% Cruz lost Hispanics 64% to 35%, so if Valdez had gotten 64%, then he would have added 2.9% to his total vote percentage, making it about 45.4% (based on the numbers so far). Abbott would be at around 53.9% had he only gotten 35% of the Hispanic vote, like Cruz did. BUT BUT BUT, in Arizona, Kirsten Sinema got 70% of the Hispanic vote, and McSalley 30%. That level of support would bring Valdez up to 46.9% Abbott only getting 30% of the Hispanic vote, like Sinema's opponent, would bring him down to 50.1%. So 50% to 47% instead of 56% to 42.5%. It would not flip the race, but Cruz would have lost if his 64-35 loss, among Hispanics who turned out, would have been 69 to 30 instead. (Arizona's Senator-elect Sinema has 70-30 among Hispanics in the exit polls) The 50.9% to 48.3% win for Cruz, would have been 49.6% for each. ARIZONA Sinema won 49.9% to 47.7%, and Hispanics were 18% of the Senate race voters, according to the exit polls. Sinema won 70% of Hispanics, according to the exit polls. But in the Governor's race, Republican Doug Ducey won 56.1% to 41.7%. He lost the Hispanic vote, which was 19% in the Governor's race, 56% to 44%. We would be looking at a 53% to 45% race, in favor of the Republican, had the Republican Governor faced the same level of Hispanic opposition as the GOP Senatorial candidate. FLORIDA Rick Scott seems to have won the Senate race 50.1% to 49.9% Republicans won the Governorship 49.6% to 49.2% Hispanics were 15% of the vote. The Republican Governor-elect lost Hispanics 54% to 44% The Republican Senator-elect (outgoing Governor) lost Hispanics 54% to 45%. Look at the Governor races in Texas, Arizona, and Florida.Hispanics, in a very racially explosive year (against Republicans if you look at the minority voter), still limited their support for Democrats to the mid 50s percentage range for these three states.And the Senate races were a mixed bag, with Hispanics supporting the Democratic candidates anywhere from 54% to 64% to 70%. Florida was lost due to weak Hispanic support. GEORGIA The Republican won 50.2% to 48.8%. Hispanics were 5% of the vote. Hispanics voted 62% to 37% for the Democrat. But, take the Republican down to 32.5% to 33.0% Hispanic support, and he is suddenly below 50.0% and there would be a runnoff. Give the Democrat 70% Hispanic support, instead of 62%, and the total electoral support is 49.2% for the Democrat. Give the Republican 30%, instead of 37%, and the total electoral support is about 49.8%. That would still be a narrow win for the Republican, but higher Hispanic turnout (6.5% of the vote verses an even 5%), combined with higher levels of support (70% verses 62%), would flip the race. (the imaginary higher-Hispanic-turnout scenario, above, would not give enough support to the Democrat to avoid a runnoff, but it would give a slightly higher vote total than the Republican) CONCLUSION Governor's races: So, Florida, and perhaps Georgia would have been Democratic wins, with a level of Hispanic support on par with the kind Kirsten Sinema got in the Arizona Senate race. (Florida was so close, that just a SLIGHT sliver more Hispanic support than the 54-55% Democratic candidate got would have flipped races) Texas would have been 50% to 47% Arizona would have been 53% to 45% Senate races: (Georgia had no race) Cruz would have lost, had he only gotten 30%, like McSalley got in Arizona, and his Democratic candidate performed the same as Sinema. Florida would have flipped with an almost undetectably higher level of Hispanic support for Nelson. Sinema actually won in Arizona, but her 70% to 30% win among Hispanics made all the difference. All the other Gubernatorial and Senatorial races saw the Democratic candidate do no better, and often much worse, than 62%. The 62% to 37% Democratic Gubernatorial candidate percentage from Hispanics was by far the next highest level of support, in the races we are looking at. (oops, forgot about Cruz loosing 64% to 35%) Give McSalley 35% of the Hispanic vote,like the Texas GOP situation, as opposed to the 30% she actually got, and she has 48.6%, instead of 47.7% (Take Sinema's actual Hispanic vote of 70%, down to 64%, like the Texas Democrat O Rourke got, and Sinema is at 48.8%) (Sinema still narrowly wins 48.8% to 48.6%, if you give her the same overall support as O Rourke and Cruz got) Give McSalley 37%,like the Georgia GOP situation, and she is at 49.0% Take Sinema's Hispanic support down to 62%,like the Democratic Gubernatorial candidate in Georgia, and she is at 48.4% So the relatively good performance of the Georgia Democratic candidate, would have been too little support for Sinema to win the Arizona Senate race. Arizona, Florida, and Texas were Senate races just looked at. All three Senate races, in these important states, were decided by Hispanic voters. (add to that the Georgia situation, and you have 4 "states of the future" for Democrats to look at, along with North Carolina) (Trump won all 5 by less than 6.0%) Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025