Dems looks like they're about to pick up that Utah seat.

And CA-21 just got REALLY close.

We could be looking at a 40-seat gain here.

Yeah UT-4 and CA-21 (Fresno and Bakersfield/Kern County) going down to the wire for a Dem +38 to +40 pickup and 233 to 235 total seats. Less than a 1k margin for both races right now.

That's assuming Dems hold on to NY-22 (Brindisi 3k lead) and Reps hold on to NY-27 (Collins 3.5k lead) and GA-7: Reps have a less than 500 vote lead there from the Cook House vote tracker google sheet.

So I wonder if GA-7 might still be in play for yet another Dem pickup. It may go to recount, possibly along with the aforementioned CA-21 and maybe UT-4. If Dems somehow won all 3 races that are within 1k, that would be Dem +41 gain and 236 total, though it's probably not going to happen.

Feeling good about at least +39 and 234 total right now.

"Mr. Rohrabacher, tear down that curtain!"

NPR: Democrats Demolish The 'Orange Curtain' In Orange County

Quote:

---

Richard Nixon was born and raised in Orange County, Calif. Ronald Reagan got his political fuel from there. In a state increasingly dominated by coastal liberals, Orange County was a conservative bastion with an ocean view.

Even as Democrats came to dominate California politics, Orange County clung on as a Republican stronghold.

"Orange County was different," said Rob Stutzman, a Republican political consultant based in Sacramento. "It was, as we called it, 'the orange curtain' and it has now fallen."

---

Notch another Dem win.. AP calls McAdams winner in UT-4

More good news from Utah: a ballot initiative to set up an independent redistricting commission has also passed.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/11/20/proposition-independent/

This commission wouldn't have the same teeth that the California one does -- the Utah state legislature could still decide to ignore its recommendations. Given that voters approved this commission, though, doing so would now carry political risk. It seems pretty clear now that if Salt Lake County had its own Congressional district it would almost always elect a Democrat. The Republicans have kept it carved up into four pieces to prevent that from happening, but McAdams managed to break through the gerrymander, just barely.

When the next maps are drawn, they might have to conclude that it's better to just give Democrats their seat in Salt Lake and save the other ones, given the way cities and suburbs everywhere have trended heavily blue.

Four such measures were on the ballot in 2018 (the others in MI, MO, and CO). All passed. The GOP has overplayed their hand on gerrymandering and the voters are fighting back.

Europe inoculates itself in advance of the arrival of Bannonitis:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/21/steve-bannons-rightwing-europe-operation-undermined-by-election-laws?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

bearister said:

---

Europe inoculates itself in advance of the arrival of Bannonitis:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/21/steve-bannons-rightwing-europe-operation-undermined-by-election-laws?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

LOL. The thing that has largely saved us from a descent into authoritarianism is that the wanna-be authoritarians are incompetent.

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Europe inoculates itself in advance of the arrival of Bannonitis:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/21/steve-bannons-rightwing-europe-operation-undermined-by-election-laws?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

LOL. The thing that has largely saved us from a descent into authoritarianism is that the wanna-be authoritarians are incompetent.

---

Haha...if Trump was competent, we'd be in way more trouble. Not very reassuring but hey I'll take it.

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Europe inoculates itself in advance of the arrival of Bannonitis:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/21/steve-bannons-rightwing-europe-operation-undermined-by-election-laws?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

LOL. The thing that has largely saved us from a descent into authoritarianism is that the wanna-be authoritarians are incompetent.

---

Haha...if Trump was competent, we'd be in way more trouble. Not very reassuring but hey I'll take it.

---

As I've said before, if he had actually worked on infrastructure or something then he might have been able to consolidate power and improve his popularity. Instead his first big effort was trying to take health care away. That ain't gonna do it.

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Europe inoculates itself in advance of the arrival of Bannonitis:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/21/steve-bannons-rightwing-europe-operation-undermined-by-election-laws?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

LOL. The thing that has largely saved us from a descent into authoritarianism is that the wanna-be authoritarians are incompetent.

---

Haha...if Trump was competent, we'd be in way more trouble. Not very reassuring but hey I'll take it.

---

As I've said before, if he had actually worked on infrastructure or something then he might have been able to consolidate power and improve his popularity. Instead his first big effort was trying to take health care away. That ain't gonna do it.

---

Eh, he also tried to implement his xenophobia and racist platform. And during the whole healthcare debate, I think he was more interested in using his position to enrich himself while congress did the actual legislation.

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Europe inoculates itself in advance of the arrival of Bannonitis:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/21/steve-bannons-rightwing-europe-operation-undermined-by-election-laws?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

LOL. The thing that has largely saved us from a descent into authoritarianism is that the wanna-be authoritarians are incompetent.

---

Haha...if Trump was competent, we'd be in way more trouble. Not very reassuring but hey I'll take it.

---

As I've said before, if he had actually worked on infrastructure or something then he might have been able to consolidate power and improve his popularity. Instead his first big effort was trying to take health care away. That ain't gonna do it.

---

It seems he totally misplayed healthcare because that was one of two issues that KILLED the GOP this cycle (taxes the other). Trying to destroy the ACA was a YUUUGE mistake. GOP got hammered on it so bad they've finally decided to drop it as a wedge issue. I believe healthcare has joined Social Security as part of the "third electrified rail". Even deplorables at some point realize both benefit them.

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Europe inoculates itself in advance of the arrival of Bannonitis:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/21/steve-bannons-rightwing-europe-operation-undermined-by-election-laws?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

LOL. The thing that has largely saved us from a descent into authoritarianism is that the wanna-be authoritarians are incompetent.

---

Haha...if Trump was competent, we'd be in way more trouble. Not very reassuring but hey I'll take it.

---

As I've said before, if he had actually worked on infrastructure or something then he might have been able to consolidate power and improve his popularity. Instead his first big effort was trying to take health care away. That ain't gonna do it.

---

Eh, he also tried to implement his xenophobia and racist platform. And during the whole healthcare debate, I think he was more interested in using his position to enrich himself while congress did the actual legislation.

---

See, if he'd combined the racism and xenophobia with actual infrastructure improvements then we'd be in a dangerous spot. It's basically the Hitler playbook -- people liked that he made the trains run on time and looked past the other stuff until it was too late.

But instead it's angry xenophobia without any direct benefits to the rest of the population, and in one case (healthcare) actually trying to remove benefits. Not winning anyone new to his side.

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Europe inoculates itself in advance of the arrival of Bannonitis:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/21/steve-bannons-rightwing-europe-operation-undermined-by-election-laws?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

LOL. The thing that has largely saved us from a descent into authoritarianism is that the wanna-be authoritarians are incompetent.

---

Haha...if Trump was competent, we'd be in way more trouble. Not very reassuring but hey I'll take it.

---

As I've said before, if he had actually worked on infrastructure or something then he might have been able to consolidate power and improve his popularity. Instead his first big effort was trying to take health care away. That ain't gonna do it.

---

It seems he totally misplayed healthcare because that was one of two issues that KILLED the GOP this cycle (taxes the other). Trying to destroy the ACA was a YUUUGE mistake. GOP got hammered on it so bad they've finally decided to drop it as a wedge issue. I believe healthcare has joined Social Security as part of the "third electrified rail". Even deplorables at some point realize both benefit them.

---

Well, someone has to pay for this "free" Healthcare? Who is it? It's not insurance companies and it's not taxes.

oski003 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Europe inoculates itself in advance of the arrival of Bannonitis:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/21/steve-bannons-rightwing-europe-operation-undermined-by-election-laws?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

LOL. The thing that has largely saved us from a descent into authoritarianism is that the wanna-be authoritarians are incompetent.

---

Haha...if Trump was competent, we'd be in way more trouble. Not very reassuring but hey I'll take it.

---

As I've said before, if he had actually worked on infrastructure or something then he might have been able to consolidate power and improve his popularity. Instead his first big effort was trying to take health care away. That ain't gonna do it.

---

It seems he totally misplayed healthcare because that was one of two issues that KILLED the GOP this cycle (taxes the other). Trying to destroy the ACA was a YUUUGE mistake. GOP got hammered on it so bad they've finally decided to drop it as a wedge issue. I believe healthcare has joined Social Security as part of the "third electrified rail". Even deplorables at some point realize both benefit them.

---

Well, someone has to pay for this "free" Healthcare? Who is it? It's not insurance companies and it's not taxes.

---

We can do whatever every other first-world nation does.

GA-7 after recount stays Republican by a super slim margin (under 500) after recount. And I assume at this stage that NY-22 and NY-27 will split as expected.

So depending on CA-21, it will be D+39 / 234 total OR D+40 / 235 total.

We got another one on the hook.

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Europe inoculates itself in advance of the arrival of Bannonitis:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/21/steve-bannons-rightwing-europe-operation-undermined-by-election-laws?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

LOL. The thing that has largely saved us from a descent into authoritarianism is that the wanna-be authoritarians are incompetent.

---

This is so true. Trump is just a demagogue but completely incompetent. If he was a competent President this country would be far worse off. Perhaps unrecoverable. It makes me think that someday that will happen to America.

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Europe inoculates itself in advance of the arrival of Bannonitis:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/21/steve-bannons-rightwing-europe-operation-undermined-by-election-laws?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

LOL. The thing that has largely saved us from a descent into authoritarianism is that the wanna-be authoritarians are incompetent.

---

This is so true. Trump is just a demagogue but completely incompetent. If he was a competent President this country would be far worse off. Perhaps unrecoverable. It makes me think that someday that will happen to America.

---

Well, I draw hope from the fact that Trump's demagoguery doesn't seem to have ever won over more than 50% of the population. He lost the popular vote and his job approval has never approached a majority (including very early in his term when he hadn't done anything yet).

But yeah, if he'd been competent then he might have managed to improve that rating and get away with a lot more.

Speaking of competence and getting stuff done. Even under the pressure of Watergate, Nixon got a lot done and most would be considered liberal-commie stuff: establishes EPA, signs Title IX, opens relations with China...all while under investigation. Of course the politics were different then. The Dems owned the House, people wanted government involved and the Libertarian BS hadn't been hatched yet. Any way, Trump is killing the GOP in every area with reasonable education and decent regional economies.

Now imagine if Trump has that kind of mojo to get stuff done...we'd be in some heavy sh*t right now given the Nazis in the WH and as aides. Bannon and Miller have implemented the Nazi Playbook. Their problem as mentioned in incompetence and stupidity.

Total wipeout for House Republicans in CA. Every competitive seat fell to the Democrats.

Blue TSUNAMI... Now let the chase and take down begin.

Definite blue wipe-out for CA House seats, and +40 in the House nationally is good. LOL @ Rohrabacher losing by 20k+ votes and 7+% in CA-48.

But practically everything else is still controlled by the Republicans, and really by extension, by DJT. Trump losing to just about anyone different than him, even if he were somehow primaried by a Romney-style, moderately conservative Republican, would be so critical to avoid a really dark path for this country. Not just losing but losing decisively so that his Republican sycophants become less afraid of his base and those who follow him for his ostensible "winning" start to flee the ship/cult.

But I'm still not sure it will happen. (Being primaried by a old-school Republican, few of which remain, definitely won't happen, though a 3rd party run by someone like that might be interesting).

If I had to guess right now, as much as it disgusts me, Trump will be re-elected for a 2nd term. If there is a major economic downturn (which of course Trump will still lead his base to blame on the Dem-controlled House), then all bets could be off. But barring that, when was the last time an incumbent President lost with a good economy?

Mueller? With a sane US electorate, the smallest of these and many other things would have sunk a Presidency. But Trump will lash out, fire people, pardon Manafort, pardon other associates, pardon family members, rile his base up with his narcissistic alternate reality fantasies which they lap up. He will continue to behave as per blungld's post above, operating like a crime boss and rendering our checks and balances less effective. Some associates will face state charges (which are immune to presidential pardons I think) and will endure them I think, afraid of retribution. And until Trump actually loses, many in the Republican party will continue to stay loyal - due to the fear of the base during primary season and due to their loyalty to "winning." And the US national well-being, global geopolitics, and the environment will accelerate in a bad direction, as they are now.

I could be wrong. I hope I am wrong. 2020 is critical.

OneKeg said:

---

If I had to guess right now, as much as it disgusts me, Trump will be re-elected for a 2nd term. If there is a major economic downturn (which of course Trump will still lead his base to blame on the Dem-controlled House), then all bets could be off. But barring that, when was the last time an incumbent President lost with a good economy?

---

Here's the argument against that: when Presidents have a good economy, they usually also see a good job approval rating. Trump has never had one. He's never gotten above 50% approval, which is pretty much unprecedented.

I would not bet on a President with a consistently bad approval rating to be reelected.

Trump has a major potential hurdle- he won't be running against a patsy like Clinton. That means states like Pa, Wisconsin and Michigan which have been reliably blue since the 90's can be easily turned. The midterms validates this. You don't even need Republicans. You just need the Obama/Trump voter, young people and minorities to turn out and their way. If however somebody like Biden or a faux corporate liberal is nominated I suspect we will see a stronger third party than Jill Stein- somebody with Sanders chops.That will be progress.

It's good to know that Google and Facebook both donated to Hyde Smith in Mississippi. California values.

sycasey said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

If I had to guess right now, as much as it disgusts me, Trump will be re-elected for a 2nd term. If there is a major economic downturn (which of course Trump will still lead his base to blame on the Dem-controlled House), then all bets could be off. But barring that, when was the last time an incumbent President lost with a good economy?

---

Here's the argument against that: when Presidents have a good economy, they usually also see a good job approval rating. Trump has never had one. He's never gotten above 50% approval, which is pretty much unprecedented.

I would not bet on a President with a consistently bad approval rating to be reelected.

---

I agree that Trump's base won't leave him, even in bad economic times. If a depression were to hit his base would drop from 40% to 35%. His base have their delusions and will not accept Trump has failed, instead they will choose to blame everyone else.

However, in looking at the map in 2020 I can see the country going Democrat. Yes, it is a ways away and will depend on the democratic candidate, but...

The battlegrounds will be:
Minnesota - 10
Wisconsin - 10
Michigan - 16
Pennsylvania - 20
New Hampshire - 4
---------------------
North Carolina - 15
Georgia - 16
Florida - 29
Texas - 39
Arizona - 11

Ohio (18) and Iowa (6) are leans for the Republicans with Colorado (9) and Nevada (6) leans for the Dem's. If you attribute the leans to each of their parties, the Democrats start at 218 and the Republicans at 149. Based on the midterms, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania went democrat, and are states where Trump's approval rating averages to be -12 (with Pennsylvania being the least negative at -6). If the Dem's keep Colorado and pick up Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire (which has a net approval of -10) they will have 272 and the presidency. That seems entirely plausible to me.

As an aside, the states listed above the dotted line I believe will go blue with the states below the line as red.

https://www.270towin.com/
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/

Anarchistbear said:

---

Trump has a major potential hurdle- he won't be running against a patsy like Clinton. That means states like Pa, Wisconsin and Michigan which have been reliably blue since the 90's can be easily turned. The midterms validates this. You don't even need Republicans. You just need the Obama/Trump voter, young people and minorities to turn out and their way. If however somebody like Biden or a faux corporate liberal is nominated I suspect we will see a stronger third party than Jill Stein- somebody with Sanders chops.That will be progress.

---

I would be surprised to see a third party risk having a second term of Trump. I know that hasn't stopped third parties in the past, but I think Trump is so toxic to the left wing that they would rather rally behind a centrist than make a protest vote.

It would also make sense for the third party to focus on house races and grow from there. They are the easiest to turn, which means they could actually vote on legislation for a change rather than cry from the loser seats.

golden sloth said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Trump has a major potential hurdle- he won't be running against a patsy like Clinton. That means states like Pa, Wisconsin and Michigan which have been reliably blue since the 90's can be easily turned. The midterms validates this. You don't even need Republicans. You just need the Obama/Trump voter, young people and minorities to turn out and their way. If however somebody like Biden or a faux corporate liberal is nominated I suspect we will see a stronger third party than Jill Stein- somebody with Sanders chops.That will be progress.

---

I would be surprised to see a third party risk having a second term of Trump. I know that hasn't stopped third parties in the past, but I think Trump is so toxic to the left wing that they would rather rally behind a centrist than make a protest vote.

It would also make sense for the third party to focus on house races and grow from there. They are the easiest to turn, which means they could actually vote on legislation for a change rather than cry from the loser seats.

---

Who rallied behind Clinton?

You vote for someone or not. You try and seize power and upend the system or not. You'd have to be totally oblivious or crazed to not see that the country has been in steep decline for decades. Why would you vote for someone complicit in this because they aren't Trump?

I think a lot of people didn't think Trump could actually win, that is not an issue in 2020. Also, the vast majority of House seats that were flipped were flipped by moderate democrats, not by progressives. I do think a progressive running in these areas could give back these districts. The places that were solidly democratic went more progressive and the places that were battleground went moderate democrat, you don't want to lose that battleground. I can't think of one instance where a conservative seat was flipped by a progressive (and please correct me if I'm wrong). I believe the democratic base will be energized and youth and minority voting turn out will be strong regardless of who the candidate is (basically, as a function of being anti-Trump).

If you look at the map, democrats need a candidate with appeal in the upper midwest / rust belt (I believe voter suppression will thwart attempts in the south, and Texas and Arizona are a cycle away from truly being purple). I do think pairing a candidate from the middle to slight moderate part of the party and pairing them with a progressive vice president would be a strong combo.

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

If I had to guess right now, as much as it disgusts me, Trump will be re-elected for a 2nd term. If there is a major economic downturn (which of course Trump will still lead his base to blame on the Dem-controlled House), then all bets could be off. But barring that, when was the last time an incumbent President lost with a good economy?

---

Here's the argument against that: when Presidents have a good economy, they usually also see a good job approval rating. Trump has never had one. He's never gotten above 50% approval, which is pretty much unprecedented.

I would not bet on a President with a consistently bad approval rating to be reelected.

---

I agree that Trump's base won't leave him, even in bad economic times. If a depression were to hit his base would drop from 40% to 35%. His base have their delusions and will not accept Trump has failed, instead they will choose to blame everyone else.

However, in looking at the map in 2020 I can see the country going Democrat. Yes, it is a ways away and will depend on the democratic candidate, but...

The battlegrounds will be:
Minnesota - 10
Wisconsin - 10
Michigan - 16
Pennsylvania - 20
New Hampshire - 4
---------------------
North Carolina - 15
Georgia - 16
Florida - 29
Texas - 39
Arizona - 11

Ohio (18) and Iowa (6) are leans for the Republicans with Colorado (9) and Nevada (6) leans for the Dem's. If you attribute the leans to each of their parties, the Democrats start at 218 and the Republicans at 149. Based on the midterms, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania went democrat, and are states where Trump's approval rating averages to be -12 (with Pennsylvania being the least negative at -6). If the Dem's keep Colorado and pick up Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire (which has a net approval of -10) they will have 272 and the presidency. That seems entirely plausible to me.

As an aside, the states listed above the dotted line I believe will go blue with the states below the line as red.

https://www.270towin.com/
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/

---

Yes, if you give Democrats the states Clinton won in 2016 and then add PA, MI, and WI (in which Dems did well in the midterms) it's a loss for Trump.

IA remains an open question, given that they elected a GOP governor but tilted Dem in the House elections. FL is near 50/50 and will have more ex-felons eligible to vote. AZ elected a Dem Senator and SOS and may also be in play. Lots of opportunity.

Whiter, Poorer, Trumpier: the New Republican California

Quote:

---

This year, 26 percent of Californians are represented in Congress by a Republican. Next year, that number will fall to 13 percent.

---

It's no secret that the Democrats made advances in white affluent suburbs. The party is now a shaky alliance between the professional affluent coastals and poor minorities. But the politics of this isn't very progressive other than not being Trump. The affluent are a fickle, provincial and self-serving group, not interested in the radical changes needed to rectify decades of inequality. The result will be the same glorification of do nothing Obama world.

Sanders- not even a Democrat- was able to tap into and inspire a different electorate and coalition of the young, and working class people, both white and not. This constituency is not interested in a return to the status quo or the mythical center. It will- better sooner than later- break off from the moribund corpse that is the Democratic Party and give a new constituency a different and more radical choice. After brutal primaries, lesser evil" nonsense will not prevail. It will be time for the country to have another choice than the most enthusiastic and second most enthusiastic supporters of capitalism in the world.

Last word on Janz vs. Nunes. As of tonight, Nunes' edge over Janz is 5.9%. Compare that to a 12% differential on Nov. 6. A comfortable win, no doubt, but far from a clownstomp.

Anarchistbear said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Trump has a major potential hurdle- he won't be running against a patsy like Clinton. That means states like Pa, Wisconsin and Michigan which have been reliably blue since the 90's can be easily turned. The midterms validates this. You don't even need Republicans. You just need the Obama/Trump voter, young people and minorities to turn out and their way. If however somebody like Biden or a faux corporate liberal is nominated I suspect we will see a stronger third party than Jill Stein- somebody with Sanders chops.That will be progress.

---

I would be surprised to see a third party risk having a second term of Trump. I know that hasn't stopped third parties in the past, but I think Trump is so toxic to the left wing that they would rather rally behind a centrist than make a protest vote.

It would also make sense for the third party to focus on house races and grow from there. They are the easiest to turn, which means they could actually vote on legislation for a change rather than cry from the loser seats.

---

Who rallied behind Clinton?

You vote for someone or not. You try and seize power and upend the system or not. You'd have to be totally oblivious or crazed to not see that the country has been in steep decline for decades. Why would you vote for someone complicit in this because they aren't Trump?

---

Clinton got more votes for President than anybody ever in this country not named Obama