- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:12 am to Machine
I suspect you get their point. several liberal posters were saying the vote would swing the Democrats way.
The Democratic Party is supposed to be an invigorated party since the election, and yet the Democratic nominee got 30,000 fewer votes than last time.
ETA
I will say that I don't know or care....just saying what others have posted in this thread. Just seems rather funny, that now the Democrats are not surprised that they lost?
The Democratic Party is supposed to be an invigorated party since the election, and yet the Democratic nominee got 30,000 fewer votes than last time.
ETA
I will say that I don't know or care....just saying what others have posted in this thread. Just seems rather funny, that now the Democrats are not surprised that they lost?
This post was edited on 4/12/17 at 10:13 am
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:14 am to DawgsLife
I mean it's a special election, raw vote totals on either side done really matter.
Special elections are always weird and unpredictable because of the low turnout.
Special elections are always weird and unpredictable because of the low turnout.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:14 am to League Champs
quote:
You are comparing the Cong race to the Pres. race for maximum effect
The last Cong race the Repub got 60%. This time he got 54%. 6% difference in an off cycle isn't something to give you hope about
and you are using only the repub share for maximum effect. the democratic candidate got 29% in the last congressional race and 45% last night, so you are excluding a 15 pt increase for the (D)s. 2016 diff was 31%, last night it was less than 7%. still a 20 pt swing
2017:
Republican Ron Estes 52.5%
Democratic James Thompson 45.7%
2016:
Republican Mike Pompeo Incumbent 60.7%
Democratic Daniel Giroux 29.6%
2014:
Republican Mike Pompeo Incumbent 67%
Democratic Perry Schuckman 33%
This post was edited on 4/12/17 at 10:16 am
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:18 am to DawgsLife
quote:
I suspect you get their point. several liberal posters were saying the vote would swing the Democrats way.
and it did, by 20 pts
quote:
The Democratic Party is supposed to be an invigorated party since the election
as proved by the much higher turnout of registered D's v registered R's last night!
the district has something like a +30 R registration advantage. that the race was close at all and forced Rs to throw everything they could in the final days is pretty remarkable
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:19 am to DawgsLife
quote:
The Democratic Party is supposed to be an invigorated party since the election, and yet the Democratic nominee got 30,000 fewer votes than last time.
it truly blows my mind to see the democrats still embracing the SJW crowds after hillary's defeat. anybody that thinks that party is "invigorated" is drinking more koolaid than the trump fans.
This post was edited on 4/12/17 at 10:20 am
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:21 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
Special elections are always weird and unpredictable because of the low turnout.
Yet some dimwit, likely an arkie, will crow anyway.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:21 am to WaveHog
this is what the democrats have been reduced to? Happy to lose because it was closer than last time? Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:22 am to Machine
quote:
it truly blows my mind to see the democrats still embracing the SJW crowds after hillary's defeat. how anybody could think that party is "invigorated" is drinking more koolaid than the trump fans.
hillary was a flawed candidate but everyone thought she would win anyways. trump lost the popular vote by 3 million and pulled out an unexpected win.
as a result, there were a historic number of protests across the nation during trump's inauguration, R's are scared to hold town halls because of the pushback they are receiving, and D's are pumping literally millions of dollars into even small races like GA06 where they should have no shot but are doing well.
anybody who thinks the party is not "invigorated" is fooling themselves
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:23 am to WaveHog
Identity politics leads to socialism.
Keep pushing left leftist.
Keep pushing left leftist.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:23 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Happy to lose because it was closer than last time?
progress is good
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:24 am to WaveHog
You a genders studies grad?
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:24 am to WaveHog
quote:
anybody who thinks the party is not "invigorated" is fooling themselves
well, as a moderate that didn't vote for either party, looking in, the democrats don't look invigorated. at all.
This post was edited on 4/12/17 at 10:25 am
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:27 am to Machine
quote:
the democrats don't look invigorated. at all.
millions of people in the streets protesting.
recordbreaking donations to liberal groups (and perceived groups, like ACLU).
Republicans shouted down at town halls.
deep, deep red republican districts with 20 pt swings.
what does invigorated look like to you?
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:28 am to roadGator
quote:
Identity politics leads to socialism.
all politics is identity politics. 'white working class' is an identity. rural is an identity. upper-class is an identity.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:28 am to Lsupimp
quote:
Races are often closer than expected in "safe" districts because so many voters who support the safe candidate don't bother to vote because they assume the win is a foregone conclusion.
Kinda like what happened in November.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:29 am to rds dc
quote:
Ended up winning by more than Brownback in '14
Brownback is off the rails.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:33 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
I mean it's a special election, raw vote totals on either side done really matter.
Special elections are always weird and unpredictable because of the low turnout.
This. The biggest take away was Dems dominated early voting but failed to deliver on election day. That might be the only useful indicator moving forward. In Georgia, Dems have poured in big money and were doing well in early voting but have now fallen behind. That probably doesn't point to a positive Dem outcome.
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:34 am to WaveHog
Wavehog, this race was very localized. The Dem avoided trump at all costs and made the race solely about brownback and the state's issues. In 2014 during a GOP wave, Kansas was embarrassingly close for the GOP because of the same issues.
The bigger race is ga-6.
Was vitter vs jbe a sign of a national Dem wave?
The bigger race is ga-6.
Was vitter vs jbe a sign of a national Dem wave?
Posted on 4/12/17 at 10:40 am to WaveHog
In 2014 Pompeo had 135,00 votes to his Democratic challengers 67,000.
Mike Pompeo in 2012 got 159,000 votes to his Democratic challengers 79,000.
115,000 for Pompeo in 2010, 74,000 for his challenger.
Tonight, Estes only grabbed 63,000 votes while his opponent got 55,000. The Dem numbers barely moved all things considered, the Republican numbers cratered.
quote:
and you are using only the repub share for maximum effect. the democratic candidate got 29% in the last congressional race and 45% last night, so you are excluding a 15 pt increase for the (D)s. 2016 diff was 31%, last night it was less than 7%. still a 20 pt swing
2017:
Republican Ron Estes 52.5%
Democratic James Thompson 45.7%
2016:
Republican Mike Pompeo Incumbent 60.7%
Democratic Daniel Giroux 29.6%
2014:
Republican Mike Pompeo Incumbent 67%
Democratic Perry Schuckman 33%
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News