Beat reporter award goes to the Daily Guardian

Unity Tour: DNC Gets Blamed for Montana Loss

Quote:The Democratic Party squandered a winnable election in Montana, progressives are screaming Friday after their guy Rob Quist lost to Republican Greg Gianforte. Gianforte’s last-minute scandal, when he reportedly body slammed an eager Guardian reporter Wednesday, gave Democrats a prime opportunity to take the House seat. Yet, the Democratic National Committee’s lackluster efforts helped assure a Republican win.

Liberal activist Shaun King was blunt in his disappointed response on Twitter and Young Turks correspondent Michael Tracy observed a frustrated Quist campaign headquarters. They all clearly had one target in mind.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobr...s-n2332090

It wont matter what he did or does, party politics wins

(05-26-2017 10:55 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  It wont matter what he did or does, party politics wins

Quist should have never gotten anywhere near 44%. But some people were voting against Trump.

(05-25-2017 01:46 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  So it was fake news? Not surprised...

Nah...the pencil-necked geek just didn't know the proper terminology. Can we really fault him for that?

I've noticed a trend with pencil-necked geeks...

BUTT PLUGS for tight S holes? LOL

Will the left rethink early voting?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

The head of the DNC doesnt understand that chanting "f*&^ Trump" isnt really a campaign strategy that will get their own turdnugget elected.

(05-26-2017 11:36 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:46 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  So it was fake news? Not surprised...

Nah...the pencil-necked geek just didn't know the proper terminology. Can we really fault him for that?

I've noticed a trend with pencil-necked geeks...

BUTT PLUGS for tight S holes? LOL

Had a bunch of small tadpoles in the shallow in my pond, pretty sure they were actually toadpoles, then the rains came, the water moved up, then the sunfish wrecked their nest, ate em all. You remind me of them, wrecked by small harmless sunfish.

(05-24-2017 07:49 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics...er-n764421

This is just strange crap. Check out the video (it's all audio - no video). The GOP candidate (who I assume will win his race although it's a ton closer than anyone would expect) body slammed a reporter to the ground. He may win the election but he might face jail time regardless.

The GOP candidate won. Glad he slammed the Guardian loon. They should get it everywhere they go.

(05-26-2017 10:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 10:16 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 07:32 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 02:28 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  That guy only won by 7%. That should be a wake up call to the Republicans for having close races in very strong red states.

He bodyslammed a reporter. His opponent was so weak and represented so much of what Montana's constituents hate that he won after being charged with assault! Montana just completely rejected the democrat party in what should have been an easy win after this week's events.

Two thirds of Montanans had already voted by the time the news of that assault by Gianforte happened.

I think the best way to look at the election is to look at in the context of voter groups and then extrapolate those groups to other districts

1) Gianforte won by 6%. But he only got 50.1 of the votes. In a state where Trump won by 20 percent. In a district that hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1995.

2) Extrapolate the voter dynamics by race in this election to other districts and see how those swing districts look like. Montana is 90.6 white (non-Hispanic). That's one of the highest percentages in the country and far higher than the percentage in virtually all of the swing districts. And Gianforte's election showed a lower amount of white support from the Presidential election. Then, lets take a look at education. 26% of Montana's adults have a college degree. That's lower than the US average, and far lower than that average in swing districts. Now lets look at husband and wife marital status. Again far higher than the swing district profile. How about income...lower again. How about rural versus urban....Montana is highly rural.

3) The Trump voters didn't care that Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, insulted a dead veteran's family because that veteran was not-white, bragged about barging into a little girls changing room to perv out on the little girls changing, and offered to pay the bills of those who assaulted peaceful protesters at his rallies. If they're in Trumpland, they don't care.

4) In short, a majority of Montana's electorate looks like a cross between a Mega Church congregation and the crowd at a Kid Rock concert. And a deeply flawed, highly underfunded, and seriously oddball candidate came within 6% of beating the biliionaire candidate (who only got 50.05% of the total vote).

----

Since October, the Dems have lost a Congressional race in deep Red Kansas (again with a very underfunded candidate and by a small margin), didn't unseat an incumbent in Omaha (with a candidate that p*ssed off the Dem base), and lost by small margin in a deep red district where all of the demographics were terrible for them.

A better example of where we are now will be in the Georgia race. Its also bad for the Democrats (but much closer to the demographics of the targeted districts - more red than those we need to take - but closer). It has its own specific issues - its more Southern, but it much better educated, is wealthier, and has a higher minority population)

---

I don't think the NRCC or the NSCC is cheering this result in the part of their operation that looks at demographics.

Only Aggies think moral victories are anything other than losses.

Georgia will probably be close. It will be a major victory for the people if the Democrat loses. 80% of his major contributions are out of state and they've spent more than anyone has ever spent on a house race. They are advertising on facebook for people to house their out of state volunteers. Most of the rest of the volunteers are out of district. The candidate doesn't even live in the district. They will do a good job turning people out. But the Republicans also turned out well in the original election. Just depends on election day turnout.

But if Texas A&M is playing Georgia State in College Station, its not much of a victory if Texas A&M wins by a touchdown.

I'm looking at Ga-06 a lot harder. We'll know more about where we are now after that election. For me, if the Democrat wins, it will be a sign that GOP voters are so mad at Trump that they're willing to stop splitting their tickets (the district voted for Hillary - but many voted for Price for Congress). The Republican is a cookie cutter Republican in that race. She's very well funded too. If voters in a suburban district in friggin' GEORGIA (!) are going to bail to a quirky Democrat against a well known Republican that isn't terribly controversial (for Georgia) who has a long history of election success.....then I think that's a sign that you can just schedule the retirement party for Pete Sessions, John Culbertson, and a bunch of California Republicans too.

Georgia 6, is a bad district for the Democrats. Or at least it should be. There are 60 Congressional Districts more favorable to the Dems for a pickup than that district. If the GOP loses that seat, expect to see some extra retirements out of the 48 incumbents I listed previously.

---

And Texas CDs will be redistricted by the courts. The state legislature yesterday refused to do anything about it and Abbott isn't calling a special session on it. In just about any map imaginable, Hurd (already in trouble) gets hurt. I think Farenthold, Flores, and McCaul are going to have problems with that new map. And that's if they don't go ahead and touch the borders in DFW and Houston. Right now, I expect the Dems to pick up 3 CDs in 2018. That number could increase to 6 under the court map. My guess is they'll just confirm Hurd's departure from the Congress and make Farenthold and McCaul's seats much more problematic. Sessions and Culbertson will have similar districts to now, which they will both lose. Courts will meet to write up the new districts in July. Mmmm. Popcorn.

And NC has to redistrict too. That's going to create potentially more issues for the GOP. I expect at least 1 and perhaps as high as 3 districts to move into play as a result.

(05-26-2017 12:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 10:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 10:16 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 07:32 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 02:28 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  That guy only won by 7%. That should be a wake up call to the Republicans for having close races in very strong red states.

He bodyslammed a reporter. His opponent was so weak and represented so much of what Montana's constituents hate that he won after being charged with assault! Montana just completely rejected the democrat party in what should have been an easy win after this week's events.

Two thirds of Montanans had already voted by the time the news of that assault by Gianforte happened.

I think the best way to look at the election is to look at in the context of voter groups and then extrapolate those groups to other districts

1) Gianforte won by 6%. But he only got 50.1 of the votes. In a state where Trump won by 20 percent. In a district that hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1995.

2) Extrapolate the voter dynamics by race in this election to other districts and see how those swing districts look like. Montana is 90.6 white (non-Hispanic). That's one of the highest percentages in the country and far higher than the percentage in virtually all of the swing districts. And Gianforte's election showed a lower amount of white support from the Presidential election. Then, lets take a look at education. 26% of Montana's adults have a college degree. That's lower than the US average, and far lower than that average in swing districts. Now lets look at husband and wife marital status. Again far higher than the swing district profile. How about income...lower again. How about rural versus urban....Montana is highly rural.

3) The Trump voters didn't care that Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, insulted a dead veteran's family because that veteran was not-white, bragged about barging into a little girls changing room to perv out on the little girls changing, and offered to pay the bills of those who assaulted peaceful protesters at his rallies. If they're in Trumpland, they don't care.

4) In short, a majority of Montana's electorate looks like a cross between a Mega Church congregation and the crowd at a Kid Rock concert. And a deeply flawed, highly underfunded, and seriously oddball candidate came within 6% of beating the biliionaire candidate (who only got 50.05% of the total vote).

----

Since October, the Dems have lost a Congressional race in deep Red Kansas (again with a very underfunded candidate and by a small margin), didn't unseat an incumbent in Omaha (with a candidate that p*ssed off the Dem base), and lost by small margin in a deep red district where all of the demographics were terrible for them.

A better example of where we are now will be in the Georgia race. Its also bad for the Democrats (but much closer to the demographics of the targeted districts - more red than those we need to take - but closer). It has its own specific issues - its more Southern, but it much better educated, is wealthier, and has a higher minority population)

---

I don't think the NRCC or the NSCC is cheering this result in the part of their operation that looks at demographics.

Only Aggies think moral victories are anything other than losses.

Georgia will probably be close. It will be a major victory for the people if the Democrat loses. 80% of his major contributions are out of state and they've spent more than anyone has ever spent on a house race. They are advertising on facebook for people to house their out of state volunteers. Most of the rest of the volunteers are out of district. The candidate doesn't even live in the district. They will do a good job turning people out. But the Republicans also turned out well in the original election. Just depends on election day turnout.

But if Texas A&M is playing Georgia State in College Station, its not much of a victory if Texas A&M wins by a touchdown.

I'm looking at Ga-06 a lot harder. We'll know more about where we are now after that election. For me, if the Democrat wins, it will be a sign that GOP voters are so mad at Trump that they're willing to stop splitting their tickets. The Republican is a cookie cutter Republican in that race. She's very well funded too.

Georgia 6, is a bad district for the Democrats. Or at least it should be. There are 60 Congressional Districts more favorable to the Dems for a pickup than that district. If the GOP loses that seat, expect to see some extra retirements out of the 48 incumbents I listed previously.

---

And Texas CDs will be redistricted by the courts. The state legislature yesterday refused to do anything about it and Abbott isn't calling a special session on it. In just about any map imaginable, Hurd (already in trouble) gets hurt. I think Farenthold, Flores, and McCaul are going to have problems with that new map. And that's if they don't go ahead and touch the borders in DFW and Houston. Right now, I expect the Dems to pick up 3 CDs in 2018. That number could increase to 6 under the court map.

And NC has to redistrict too. That's going to create potentially more issues for the GOP. I expect at least 1 and perhaps as high as 3 districts to move into play as a result.

A win is a win. The next one is always the bellwether though, right. Haha

Dems have bad candidates and a flawed message.

(05-26-2017 12:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 10:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 10:16 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 07:32 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 02:28 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  That guy only won by 7%. That should be a wake up call to the Republicans for having close races in very strong red states.

He bodyslammed a reporter. His opponent was so weak and represented so much of what Montana's constituents hate that he won after being charged with assault! Montana just completely rejected the democrat party in what should have been an easy win after this week's events.

Two thirds of Montanans had already voted by the time the news of that assault by Gianforte happened.

I think the best way to look at the election is to look at in the context of voter groups and then extrapolate those groups to other districts

1) Gianforte won by 6%. But he only got 50.1 of the votes. In a state where Trump won by 20 percent. In a district that hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1995.

2) Extrapolate the voter dynamics by race in this election to other districts and see how those swing districts look like. Montana is 90.6 white (non-Hispanic). That's one of the highest percentages in the country and far higher than the percentage in virtually all of the swing districts. And Gianforte's election showed a lower amount of white support from the Presidential election. Then, lets take a look at education. 26% of Montana's adults have a college degree. That's lower than the US average, and far lower than that average in swing districts. Now lets look at husband and wife marital status. Again far higher than the swing district profile. How about income...lower again. How about rural versus urban....Montana is highly rural.

3) The Trump voters didn't care that Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, insulted a dead veteran's family because that veteran was not-white, bragged about barging into a little girls changing room to perv out on the little girls changing, and offered to pay the bills of those who assaulted peaceful protesters at his rallies. If they're in Trumpland, they don't care.

4) In short, a majority of Montana's electorate looks like a cross between a Mega Church congregation and the crowd at a Kid Rock concert. And a deeply flawed, highly underfunded, and seriously oddball candidate came within 6% of beating the biliionaire candidate (who only got 50.05% of the total vote).

----

Since October, the Dems have lost a Congressional race in deep Red Kansas (again with a very underfunded candidate and by a small margin), didn't unseat an incumbent in Omaha (with a candidate that p*ssed off the Dem base), and lost by small margin in a deep red district where all of the demographics were terrible for them.

A better example of where we are now will be in the Georgia race. Its also bad for the Democrats (but much closer to the demographics of the targeted districts - more red than those we need to take - but closer). It has its own specific issues - its more Southern, but it much better educated, is wealthier, and has a higher minority population)

---

I don't think the NRCC or the NSCC is cheering this result in the part of their operation that looks at demographics.

Only Aggies think moral victories are anything other than losses.

Georgia will probably be close. It will be a major victory for the people if the Democrat loses. 80% of his major contributions are out of state and they've spent more than anyone has ever spent on a house race. They are advertising on facebook for people to house their out of state volunteers. Most of the rest of the volunteers are out of district. The candidate doesn't even live in the district. They will do a good job turning people out. But the Republicans also turned out well in the original election. Just depends on election day turnout.

But if Texas A&M is playing Georgia State in College Station, its not much of a victory if Texas A&M wins by a touchdown.

I'm looking at Ga-06 a lot harder. We'll know more about where we are now after that election. For me, if the Democrat wins, it will be a sign that GOP voters are so mad at Trump that they're willing to stop splitting their tickets. The Republican is a cookie cutter Republican in that race. She's very well funded too.

Georgia 6, is a bad district for the Democrats. Or at least it should be. There are 60 Congressional Districts more favorable to the Dems for a pickup than that district. If the GOP loses that seat, expect to see some extra retirements out of the 48 incumbents I listed previously.

---

And Texas CDs will be redistricted by the courts. The state legislature yesterday refused to do anything about it and Abbott isn't calling a special session on it. In just about any map imaginable, Hurd (already in trouble) gets hurt. I think Farenthold, Flores, and McCaul are going to have problems with that new map. And that's if they don't go ahead and touch the borders in DFW and Houston. Right now, I expect the Dems to pick up 3 CDs in 2018. That number could increase to 6 under the court map.

And NC has to redistrict too. That's going to create potentially more issues for the GOP. I expect at least 1 and perhaps as high as 3 districts to move into play as a result.

Move into play? You guys are 0 for 3 so far after Trumps election, despite spending more on GA6 than any other house race in history. This is a district that barely went to Trump, and after spending a gazillion dollars, the dude still couldnt win it outright. If I were you, I wouldnt get your hopes up on MUH POLLS again.

(05-26-2017 12:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 10:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 10:16 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 07:32 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 02:28 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  That guy only won by 7%. That should be a wake up call to the Republicans for having close races in very strong red states.

He bodyslammed a reporter. His opponent was so weak and represented so much of what Montana's constituents hate that he won after being charged with assault! Montana just completely rejected the democrat party in what should have been an easy win after this week's events.

Two thirds of Montanans had already voted by the time the news of that assault by Gianforte happened.

I think the best way to look at the election is to look at in the context of voter groups and then extrapolate those groups to other districts

1) Gianforte won by 6%. But he only got 50.1 of the votes. In a state where Trump won by 20 percent. In a district that hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1995.

2) Extrapolate the voter dynamics by race in this election to other districts and see how those swing districts look like. Montana is 90.6 white (non-Hispanic). That's one of the highest percentages in the country and far higher than the percentage in virtually all of the swing districts. And Gianforte's election showed a lower amount of white support from the Presidential election. Then, lets take a look at education. 26% of Montana's adults have a college degree. That's lower than the US average, and far lower than that average in swing districts. Now lets look at husband and wife marital status. Again far higher than the swing district profile. How about income...lower again. How about rural versus urban....Montana is highly rural.

3) The Trump voters didn't care that Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, insulted a dead veteran's family because that veteran was not-white, bragged about barging into a little girls changing room to perv out on the little girls changing, and offered to pay the bills of those who assaulted peaceful protesters at his rallies. If they're in Trumpland, they don't care.

4) In short, a majority of Montana's electorate looks like a cross between a Mega Church congregation and the crowd at a Kid Rock concert. And a deeply flawed, highly underfunded, and seriously oddball candidate came within 6% of beating the biliionaire candidate (who only got 50.05% of the total vote).

----

Since October, the Dems have lost a Congressional race in deep Red Kansas (again with a very underfunded candidate and by a small margin), didn't unseat an incumbent in Omaha (with a candidate that p*ssed off the Dem base), and lost by small margin in a deep red district where all of the demographics were terrible for them.

A better example of where we are now will be in the Georgia race. Its also bad for the Democrats (but much closer to the demographics of the targeted districts - more red than those we need to take - but closer). It has its own specific issues - its more Southern, but it much better educated, is wealthier, and has a higher minority population)

---

I don't think the NRCC or the NSCC is cheering this result in the part of their operation that looks at demographics.

Only Aggies think moral victories are anything other than losses.

Georgia will probably be close. It will be a major victory for the people if the Democrat loses. 80% of his major contributions are out of state and they've spent more than anyone has ever spent on a house race. They are advertising on facebook for people to house their out of state volunteers. Most of the rest of the volunteers are out of district. The candidate doesn't even live in the district. They will do a good job turning people out. But the Republicans also turned out well in the original election. Just depends on election day turnout.

But if Texas A&M is playing Georgia State in College Station, its not much of a victory if Texas A&M wins by a touchdown.

I'm looking at Ga-06 a lot harder. We'll know more about where we are now after that election. For me, if the Democrat wins, it will be a sign that GOP voters are so mad at Trump that they're willing to stop splitting their tickets. The Republican is a cookie cutter Republican in that race. She's very well funded too. If voters in a suburban district in friggin' GEORGIA (!) are going to bail to a quirky Democrat against a well known Republican that isn't terribly controversial (for Georgia) who has a long history of election success.....then I think that's a sign that you can just schedule the retirement party for Pete Sessions, John Culbertson, and a bunch of California Republicans too.

Georgia 6, is a bad district for the Democrats. Or at least it should be. There are 60 Congressional Districts more favorable to the Dems for a pickup than that district. If the GOP loses that seat, expect to see some extra retirements out of the 48 incumbents I listed previously.

---

And Texas CDs will be redistricted by the courts. The state legislature yesterday refused to do anything about it and Abbott isn't calling a special session on it. In just about any map imaginable, Hurd (already in trouble) gets hurt. I think Farenthold, Flores, and McCaul are going to have problems with that new map. And that's if they don't go ahead and touch the borders in DFW and Houston. Right now, I expect the Dems to pick up 3 CDs in 2018. That number could increase to 6 under the court map. My guess is they'll just confirm Hurd's departure from the Congress and make Farenthold and McCaul's seats much more problematic. Sessions and Culbertson will have similar districts to now, which they will both lose. Courts will meet to write up the new districts in July. Mmmm. Popcorn.

And NC has to redistrict too. That's going to create potentially more issues for the GOP. I expect at least 1 and perhaps as high as 3 districts to move into play as a result.

Trump only won by a couple of points. Price won by a bigger margin. If Ossoff wins, it will simply be an indication that all that outside money and effort got Democrats to turn out in very big numbers, not that Republicans are voting for a 30 year old Hank Johnson (will Guam tip over) protégé.

(05-26-2017 12:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 10:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 10:16 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 07:32 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 02:28 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  That guy only won by 7%. That should be a wake up call to the Republicans for having close races in very strong red states.

He bodyslammed a reporter. His opponent was so weak and represented so much of what Montana's constituents hate that he won after being charged with assault! Montana just completely rejected the democrat party in what should have been an easy win after this week's events.

Two thirds of Montanans had already voted by the time the news of that assault by Gianforte happened.

I think the best way to look at the election is to look at in the context of voter groups and then extrapolate those groups to other districts

1) Gianforte won by 6%. But he only got 50.1 of the votes. In a state where Trump won by 20 percent. In a district that hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1995.

2) Extrapolate the voter dynamics by race in this election to other districts and see how those swing districts look like. Montana is 90.6 white (non-Hispanic). That's one of the highest percentages in the country and far higher than the percentage in virtually all of the swing districts. And Gianforte's election showed a lower amount of white support from the Presidential election. Then, lets take a look at education. 26% of Montana's adults have a college degree. That's lower than the US average, and far lower than that average in swing districts. Now lets look at husband and wife marital status. Again far higher than the swing district profile. How about income...lower again. How about rural versus urban....Montana is highly rural.

3) The Trump voters didn't care that Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, insulted a dead veteran's family because that veteran was not-white, bragged about barging into a little girls changing room to perv out on the little girls changing, and offered to pay the bills of those who assaulted peaceful protesters at his rallies. If they're in Trumpland, they don't care.

4) In short, a majority of Montana's electorate looks like a cross between a Mega Church congregation and the crowd at a Kid Rock concert. And a deeply flawed, highly underfunded, and seriously oddball candidate came within 6% of beating the biliionaire candidate (who only got 50.05% of the total vote).

----

Since October, the Dems have lost a Congressional race in deep Red Kansas (again with a very underfunded candidate and by a small margin), didn't unseat an incumbent in Omaha (with a candidate that p*ssed off the Dem base), and lost by small margin in a deep red district where all of the demographics were terrible for them.

A better example of where we are now will be in the Georgia race. Its also bad for the Democrats (but much closer to the demographics of the targeted districts - more red than those we need to take - but closer). It has its own specific issues - its more Southern, but it much better educated, is wealthier, and has a higher minority population)

---

I don't think the NRCC or the NSCC is cheering this result in the part of their operation that looks at demographics.

Only Aggies think moral victories are anything other than losses.

Georgia will probably be close. It will be a major victory for the people if the Democrat loses. 80% of his major contributions are out of state and they've spent more than anyone has ever spent on a house race. They are advertising on facebook for people to house their out of state volunteers. Most of the rest of the volunteers are out of district. The candidate doesn't even live in the district. They will do a good job turning people out. But the Republicans also turned out well in the original election. Just depends on election day turnout.

But if Texas A&M is playing Georgia State in College Station, its not much of a victory if Texas A&M wins by a touchdown.

I'm looking at Ga-06 a lot harder. We'll know more about where we are now after that election. For me, if the Democrat wins, it will be a sign that GOP voters are so mad at Trump that they're willing to stop splitting their tickets (the district voted for Hillary - but many voted for Price for Congress). The Republican is a cookie cutter Republican in that race. She's very well funded too. If voters in a suburban district in friggin' GEORGIA (!) are going to bail to a quirky Democrat against a well known Republican that isn't terribly controversial (for Georgia) who has a long history of election success.....then I think that's a sign that you can just schedule the retirement party for Pete Sessions, John Culbertson, and a bunch of California Republicans too.

Georgia 6, is a bad district for the Democrats. Or at least it should be. There are 60 Congressional Districts more favorable to the Dems for a pickup than that district. If the GOP loses that seat, expect to see some extra retirements out of the 48 incumbents I listed previously.

---

And Texas CDs will be redistricted by the courts. The state legislature yesterday refused to do anything about it and Abbott isn't calling a special session on it. In just about any map imaginable, Hurd (already in trouble) gets hurt. I think Farenthold, Flores, and McCaul are going to have problems with that new map. And that's if they don't go ahead and touch the borders in DFW and Houston. Right now, I expect the Dems to pick up 3 CDs in 2018. That number could increase to 6 under the court map. My guess is they'll just confirm Hurd's departure from the Congress and make Farenthold and McCaul's seats much more problematic. Sessions and Culbertson will have similar districts to now, which they will both lose. Courts will meet to write up the new districts in July. Mmmm. Popcorn.

And NC has to redistrict too. That's going to create potentially more issues for the GOP. I expect at least 1 and perhaps as high as 3 districts to move into play as a result.

Quote:It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning's winning.

LazyTom is the fan who blames refs when his team loses.

(05-26-2017 12:34 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  LazyTom is the fan who blames republicans for throwing gays off of tall buildings when his team loses.

just a slight fix for clarity.

It should be obvious your party's platform and message are flawed when you get this excited over a moral victory.

Montana votes for individuals, not parties. Anyone stating that Trump or even Obama were going to somehow influence this election doesn't know the mind of Montana voters, who may be the most eclectic group in the country (Alaska excepted). Montanan's don't mind weirdness. In most states, Quist would have been forced out of the race because he was a singing entertainer at an Idaho panhandle nudist resort.

A nudist resort entertainer vs a politician who body slam leftist foreign reporters

Both have issues among mainstream voters, but less so among Montanans.

(05-26-2017 12:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It should be obvious your party's platform and message are flawed when you get this excited over a moral victory.

democrats lose an election to one of the most unelectable republicans on record, and Obama be like:

(05-26-2017 12:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 12:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 10:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 10:16 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 07:32 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  He bodyslammed a reporter. His opponent was so weak and represented so much of what Montana's constituents hate that he won after being charged with assault! Montana just completely rejected the democrat party in what should have been an easy win after this week's events.

Two thirds of Montanans had already voted by the time the news of that assault by Gianforte happened.

I think the best way to look at the election is to look at in the context of voter groups and then extrapolate those groups to other districts

1) Gianforte won by 6%. But he only got 50.1 of the votes. In a state where Trump won by 20 percent. In a district that hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1995.

2) Extrapolate the voter dynamics by race in this election to other districts and see how those swing districts look like. Montana is 90.6 white (non-Hispanic). That's one of the highest percentages in the country and far higher than the percentage in virtually all of the swing districts. And Gianforte's election showed a lower amount of white support from the Presidential election. Then, lets take a look at education. 26% of Montana's adults have a college degree. That's lower than the US average, and far lower than that average in swing districts. Now lets look at husband and wife marital status. Again far higher than the swing district profile. How about income...lower again. How about rural versus urban....Montana is highly rural.

3) The Trump voters didn't care that Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, insulted a dead veteran's family because that veteran was not-white, bragged about barging into a little girls changing room to perv out on the little girls changing, and offered to pay the bills of those who assaulted peaceful protesters at his rallies. If they're in Trumpland, they don't care.

4) In short, a majority of Montana's electorate looks like a cross between a Mega Church congregation and the crowd at a Kid Rock concert. And a deeply flawed, highly underfunded, and seriously oddball candidate came within 6% of beating the biliionaire candidate (who only got 50.05% of the total vote).

----

Since October, the Dems have lost a Congressional race in deep Red Kansas (again with a very underfunded candidate and by a small margin), didn't unseat an incumbent in Omaha (with a candidate that p*ssed off the Dem base), and lost by small margin in a deep red district where all of the demographics were terrible for them.

A better example of where we are now will be in the Georgia race. Its also bad for the Democrats (but much closer to the demographics of the targeted districts - more red than those we need to take - but closer). It has its own specific issues - its more Southern, but it much better educated, is wealthier, and has a higher minority population)

---

I don't think the NRCC or the NSCC is cheering this result in the part of their operation that looks at demographics.

Only Aggies think moral victories are anything other than losses.

Georgia will probably be close. It will be a major victory for the people if the Democrat loses. 80% of his major contributions are out of state and they've spent more than anyone has ever spent on a house race. They are advertising on facebook for people to house their out of state volunteers. Most of the rest of the volunteers are out of district. The candidate doesn't even live in the district. They will do a good job turning people out. But the Republicans also turned out well in the original election. Just depends on election day turnout.

But if Texas A&M is playing Georgia State in College Station, its not much of a victory if Texas A&M wins by a touchdown.

I'm looking at Ga-06 a lot harder. We'll know more about where we are now after that election. For me, if the Democrat wins, it will be a sign that GOP voters are so mad at Trump that they're willing to stop splitting their tickets. The Republican is a cookie cutter Republican in that race. She's very well funded too.

Georgia 6, is a bad district for the Democrats. Or at least it should be. There are 60 Congressional Districts more favorable to the Dems for a pickup than that district. If the GOP loses that seat, expect to see some extra retirements out of the 48 incumbents I listed previously.

---

And Texas CDs will be redistricted by the courts. The state legislature yesterday refused to do anything about it and Abbott isn't calling a special session on it. In just about any map imaginable, Hurd (already in trouble) gets hurt. I think Farenthold, Flores, and McCaul are going to have problems with that new map. And that's if they don't go ahead and touch the borders in DFW and Houston. Right now, I expect the Dems to pick up 3 CDs in 2018. That number could increase to 6 under the court map.

And NC has to redistrict too. That's going to create potentially more issues for the GOP. I expect at least 1 and perhaps as high as 3 districts to move into play as a result.

Move into play? You guys are 0 for 3 so far after Trumps election, despite spending more on GA6 than any other house race in history. This is a district that barely went to Trump, and after spending a gazillion dollars, the dude still couldnt win it outright. If I were you, I wouldnt get your hopes up on MUH POLLS again.

LOL.

Here's some sports analogies

These three holds for the GOP are equivalent to Alabama winning three home games against Western Kentucky, Kentucky, and Louisiana Tech.

And it would be the equivalent to Alabama getting crushed in the point spread and having the games decided in the mid to late 4th quarter.

Sure, Alabama is 3-0, but do you congratulate them and feel great about their prospects going forward? I don't think they would.

And now, they've got a game against Ole Miss coming up. Its still at home, and they're still favored, but still....How much you going to bet on Alabama in that one. (this is the Ga -06 analogy)

And even past that game, they've got road game at LSU, Florida, Auburn, etc. (These would be akin to the 60 or so competitive districts).