Message from @Amsel
Discord ID: 493473298563334167
and Trump had a far better distribution
gained votes in states that mattered, lost them in states that didn't
ehh, I don't know about that
that relies on exit poll estimates of the composition of the electorate, which are faulty
one second, I think there was an article about this
I’m tired guys
forever
You want me to die?
Republican establishmentarians are worse than socialists in my opinion.
Socialists do not fill a vacuum in the right wing for something better, while the establishment does.
As a matter of fact, I find it preferable if the democrats completely turn to socialism and make themselves less palatable in most of the country.
The establishment of the Republicans must be torn down if we wish to see any real change made other than in the tax rate. If we were to clear out the scum in the party holding it back, then we can consolidate a GOP advantage that doesn't maintain the amnesty coalition.
A socialist house takeover with Trump in office could lead to major backlash in two years' time, and perhaps better people will be challengers in 2020 for the house. I am not saying that it would be good to lose the house. Simply that this poison in the party is taking up valuable space for people that could be actually getting things done instead of posturing about "principles".
Well said.
I think a lot of those establishmentarians are in office for a reason. You need those types of candidates in order to win in that distritct/state. Someone like Marsha Blackburn wouldn't be doing half as good as Bob Hugin is doing in New Jersey. Kicking them out of safe republican seats and installing an /our guy/ makes sense, but the "moderates" still have their use. The two party system created a spectrum of left vs right, ranging from Maxine Waters to the Uni Party to someone like Bill Posey. Those safe seats are always going to be there, but you need those swing seats in order to actually get anything done. I'd much rather work with the Orrin Hatches of the world to try and get something done than sit in a permanent minority while the left is constantly passing center-left laws. If the United States had a parliamentary system then I'd agree on the necessity of ideological homogeneity among the populist-right, however, we need to think of the current situation like there are 5 parties: The far-left, the center left, the center, the center right, and the far-right. We need a coalition in order to get anything done, and the center-right are the only people who will even speak to us.
In areas where it makes sense, maybe
But we can have better people in a lot of areas
@Amsel I would argue that a candidate with a RIght Wing Populist platform (ie. RIght on cultural and social issues, but more moderate on economic issues like George Wallace) would do very well in the MidWest and the Appalachian states but the GOP donors and the establishment wouldn't support those kinds of candidates because the main thing they care about is Economic issues
As a natsoc I'm definitely biased towards an economically left socially right platform.
The nazis were pretty pro-entrepreneur IIRC, weren't they?
Also anti-unemployment benefits
^
There was nothing philosophically leftist about any of the 3R's economic policies.
http://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/29gKLl this is the most plausible senate prediction i'd say
@Rhodesiaboo do you agree?
without tossups, a serious prediction would be:
This is a reasonable prediction.
54 Senate Seats isn't bad
if we had 54 Senate seats right now I think we would be having 0 problems pushing Kavanaugh through
probably 0 problems pushing someone even further to the right of Kavanaugh through
yep
I do not see a net loss in the senate race.
But this map WILL change if different senators vote for Kavanaugh or don't vote for Kavanaugh.
If DOnnelly votes Kavanaugh, it'll shrink.
If Manchin doesn't vote Kavanaugh I'd reconsider it being blue but not enough to consider it red.