Message from @reagent
Discord ID: 493231692060819467
Even the GOP internal polls have Sherrod Brown ahead around +4 and they pick and choose the statistics which favour them.
Just as the Democrats do.
Rasmussen isn’t pro-republican at all
That’s bullshit
can you name me a pollster you like?
None, because they’re all unlikable pricks#
Polls are unnecessary and bring false hope.
mm, i suggest studying the theory of polling, how it's conducted and what factors can contribute to its inaccuracy.
rather than always resorting to baseless conspiracy you and I both know you cannot prove
People actually waste their time Studying Polling?
What losers
I tend to prefer the RCP average to any particular pollster, but you can go see the generic ballot and it's all over the place. Polls are pretty much whatever you want them to be, if your goal is just trying to prove your side is going to win. It makes more sense to look at polls and use them to gauge voter groups. We need to be looking at minority turnout, party hard-liner turnout, and the white working class.
And partisan turnout is very high. Look at Arizona turnout. It's NEVER been that close between Democrats and Republicans in a very long time.
Look at New Hampshire. Democratic turnout HIGHER than GOP turnout. First time in history.
Florida turnout, the Democratic-Republican ratio has never been this close to 1:1 in history.
A silver lining is that Republican turnout is really not much lower than 2016 and in many cases quite a bit higher.
So it's not like 2010 for the Democrats where their turnout was low and GOP turnout was meteoric.
GOP turnout is good and Democratic turnout is shockingly high.
This is why, while there is a "wave" of sorts, it likely won't be sufficient for them to flip the House.
Also - many of those vulnerable congressmen are scum moderates who probably would vote against most key GOP proposals anyway, meaning no real net loss.
you allow Democrats to get control of the House Judiciary and House finance committee
The loss of any one republican is a loss because it gives the Dems one more vote. The worst republican is still much better than the best Democrat most of the time
allow that to happen, and you have 100s of spurious investigations into Trump designed to produce never-ending streams of dirt and "scandals" designed to take him down in 2020
It means nothing if a particular Democrat won't vote for Pelosi, or might be better on a few issues than a moderate Republican. They are still going to vote to put Elijah Cummings as head of the House Oversight Committee
That's very true but I also won't be tearing up if Carlos Curbelo loses his congressional seat. We have limited resources and not all Republican incumbents can be saved.
Curbelo has a chance to win
Blum and Rothfus, while better on the issues are gonners
You will be if he loses by a couple votes and his race decides control of the house. Every single incumbent matters.
Insofar as committee control is concerned, yes.
But from a legislative point of view, no.
At least most pieces of legislation I care about.
Is it possible that the increased democrat primary turnout is due to the neoliberal vs progressive fight, whereas republicans have been consistently electing the most Trumpian candidate? I could see a lot of the hard-liners who vote in a general not voting in the primary until now.
Curbelo is a fine congressman most of the time, when you take it to mind what the sheer partisanship of his district will allow for
+ certain Republicans poison the Republican well and serve to preserve Republican establishmentarianism.
A Trojan horse.
tbh, I'm not hopeful for legislation this term
we can barely pass anything as is
and we are going to lose some seats
I would rather have Republican establishmentarian than socialism, wouldn’t you?
It all depends on the margin.