Jump to content


Democrats Have to Do What They Haven't - Fight for What They Want


103 replies to this topic

#101 HockeyDon

    Mind blown...

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3776 posts
  • LocationNew Britain, CT

Posted 09 February 2020 - 09:23 AM

View PostJackD, on 08 February 2020 - 10:39 AM, said:

One thing Bitecover's analysis doesn't explain is why, in 2018 House races, moderates flipped red seats and progressives didn't. That was a really marked contrast. AOC and like minded winners prevailed in reliably blue districts, not red ones. They didn't win a singe red district and there were enough efforts to be noticeable. It suggests to me that positions may have significant impact and practicality is important.

Without knowing exactly how red those districts were, judging it only upon outcome doesn't seem a fine enough tool to determine of the model was correct or not. Does the data say that the progressive failed to get more people to the poll? Or does it say they progressive did get more people to the poll but the incumbent Republicon still had enough of an advantage to overcome those extra voters. If the district is red enough, even a surge in votes for the Dem candidate, whether progressive or moderate, may not be enough to overcome the inherent conservative nature of the district.
Well, fuck.

How can I be expected to distinguish BS from reality when so much of my reality is utter BS?!

"There seems to be a lot of people dying of ignorance while living in the information age." my sister-in-law.

#102 JackD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2012 posts
  • LocationChicago area

Posted 09 February 2020 - 10:24 AM

Don't have the answer to your question and agree the analysis is pretty crude but the number of districts involved does get one's attention. The "centrists" (I hate all these labels) won 40 red districts. I'm not certain but I believe the progressives lost 12.

Another number that got my attention was the recent polling that resulted in 70% of respondents opposed to Medicare for All with private insurance prohibited. Enough of an issue to cause a vote for Trump? Probably not many but it might be enough to cause non votes and certainly to put a damper on enthusiasm.

#103 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10511 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 09 February 2020 - 12:47 PM

View PostJackD, on 09 February 2020 - 10:24 AM, said:

Another number that got my attention was the recent polling that resulted in 70% of respondents opposed to Medicare for All with private insurance prohibited.

One reason I sincerely hope we don't end up with Sanders. His way or GTFO? I remember McGovern -- I even voted for him. I don't want a replay.
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

#104 JackD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2012 posts
  • LocationChicago area

Posted 09 February 2020 - 01:42 PM

I voted for McGovern too. I didn't want to but my Dad talked me into it to "cut the other bastard's margin".





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users