Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Winning

Thank you Ponderer and Greger, it doesn't bother me one bit if the Democrats, progressive primary out more moderate candidates in several districts where the progressive isn't suited to win or the district just isn't that far left. I'll never understand how or why parties nominate candidates that can't win in the districts or states not suited for that district or state. .

But that's me, not you. I always thought elections were all about winning. I suppose I'm wrong on that. Ideology tops winning. It used to be the Republicans were the only party dumb enough to nominate candidates like Moore, Mourdock, Aiken, right wing wacko's in sure win Red states, Alabama, Indiana, Missouri that ended up losing in the general election.

In 2020 the Democrats primaried out two pro life incumbent democrats only to lose those districts. Maybe come 2022 they'll wish they hadn't done that and let the incumbent who seem sure to win be their nominee instead of a pro choice Democrat who lost.

But all in all, it's the Democrats choice, not mine. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the progressives are successful in primaring those incumbents out, how they'll do in the General Election. Mighty interesting, indeed. You may be right, they may win or they may not. Stay tuned.

I think the Republicans are going to primary the hell out their congressional races in 2022. The majority of the Party are Trump loyalists, and few Independents are going to vote for crazy Death Cult Big Lie supporters.

The latest scoop on the Republicans is that they plan on primaring out 10 house incumbents. Which could be counteracted by the Democrats doing the same. The difference is half of the GOP primaring out are in what is now safe districts. But that is the old district lines, not the new ones. So who knows?

There are twice as many incumbent democrats retiring at this point than Republicans. Winning an open seat whether through retirement or primaring out is much easier to switch than beating an incumbent.

This is where the Democrats have an advantage in the senate, 5 republicans are retiring, no democrats so far. The big two are Toomey PA and Burr NC which gives the Democrats an excellent chance at both of them. The other three, Portman, OH, Shelby AL and Blunt MO, should remain in GOP hands.

Now Greger got me thinking, no need to get up in the air over all these threats of primaring incumbents out. At least not until redistricting occurs. The threats of progressives against moderates and Trumpers again those who voted to impeach means nothing until the new district lines are drawn.

I got caught up in this knowing better. Nothing means anything until the new lines are drawn. Silly me on that.

This explains it better than I could. This is what I keep on eye on.

What All Those House Retirements Mean For Democrats So Far
Republican members are retiring too, but most hail from safe districts at this point.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-all-those-house-retirements-mean-for-democrats-so-far/

Are there really any moderate Republicans left to primary? A few voted for Impeachment and a few voted for the infrastructure package but the majority remain Trump loyalists. A handful of firebrands will primary those weak links and maybe win or not.

The will is strong among republicans to turn the party into an authoritarian party. They like strong rulers who brook no nonsense from minority groups. Men who rule by decree and take the rule of law with a grain of salt.

The will to turn the Democratic Party into a leftist organization mostly doesn't exist(yet). It is a party made up of republican moderates. Neo-liberals. They like mealy-mouthed ineffectual representatives who don't make waves.

Somehow one is always getting trampled by the other...

But like Yin and Yang they seem to spin as one.

If the Dems continue with their ongoing very public personal battles they will lose. By the time of the elections nobody will have a clue as to where the Dems stand.

Intra-party battles this far out is meaningless as far as the 2022 midterms are concerned. Americans have very short memories. So too are approval and favorable ratings this far out. Too much time between now and Nov 2022 for any of this to have a meaning come the midterms. Although it's very interesting to talk about it. Remember, only twice has the party who held the presidency won seats in the house during a president's first midterm. 1934 and 2002. Influencing those midterms were the great depression and 9-11. Both events united this country behind FDR and Bush along with their party. In the 1934 midterm election the Democrats gained 93 seats. Presidential approval only goes back to Truman, so I have no idea what FDR's approval numbers were in 1934.

November presidential approval first midterm vs. gain and loses.
2022 Biden ???? Gain or loss ????
2018 Trump 39% lost 44 seats
2010 Obama 43% lost 63 seats
2002 G.W. Bush 63% gained 8 seats
1994 Bill Clinton 43% lost 54 seats
1990 G.H.W. Bush 54% lost 7 seats
1982 Reagan 43% lost 26 seats
1978 Carter 48% lost 15 seats
1970 Nixon 51% lost 12 seats

and so on. Even presidents with a positive approval rating, Nixon and G.H.W. Bush still lost seats in the house.

It's okay if they lose!

As Pero has pointed out...even if they lose it can be considered a win!

If they don't lose too badly.

Losses are to be expected. We're hoping here that Democrats pull off a historic win by not losing too badly.

Voters might have short memories Pero, but you're asking them to forget a LOT. A disastrous end to a disastrous war. An attack on our capital by insurrectionists. The baseless claims of election fraud. An ongoing pandemic and economic crisis.

It's only a year until the election. Not really that much time for them to forget all this crap. Most have already taken sides. It's up to a handful of swing voters to decide which team they like best. And that's who will win.

Everything between now and then is political theatre.

You would be right except for one thing - they are just warming up!

They will lose the house and the senate and have a president which, by then, will be at a low. This is exactly what happened with Obama. The onlyh difference was that Obama actually owned the house and senate for the first half of his first term. Then it all want south. One can only wonder what the Republicans can do for two years to fix the nation, or maybe not. Oh, whilst the Dems spend a lot of time blaming each other for their failure. They just don't seem to be able to actually function in any real sway. They are, however, really great at wishful thinking!

Right now, I disagree about losing the senate. The Democrats should gain 1-3 seats there. The house, no one knows yet until redistricting is completed. Obama and the Democrats rushed and passed the ACA all by themselves with the majority of Americans against it. The ACA wasn't ready to be passed, it still needed a lot of work. But time was of the essence, Brown won a special election in Mass to replace Kennedy and once seated, that would end the filibuster proof senate majority. So the Democrats went ahead and passed it thinking they could change, correct any flaws in the legislation as all legislation have. No law or legislation is perfect from the start.

But 2010 happened. The Democrats made independents angry at them, independents voted against Democratic congressional candidates by a 57-39 margin. One of the bigger margins against one party in history by independents. Just 2 years earlier, independents voted for Obama 52-44 over McCain and for Democratic congressional candidates 52-45 over the Republican congressional candidates. What a difference 2 years make when one party makes independents angry at them.

Congressional wise the Democrats went from a plus 7 in 2008 among independents to a minus 18 in 2010, a swing of 25 points. Basically unheard of. Moral of the story, don't make independents angry at you if you want to win elections. Obama basically was a lame duck president for his last six years. Only getting anything accomplished through executive orders which the next president can revoke, cancel, change, rescind.

The house, the Democrats will probably lose control of it. The question is how many seats will they lose? That's unknown until redistricting occurs. With little to go on except the generic congressional vote, I don't see a red wave coming. I don't like going by the generic congressional ballot as it's nationally and not district by district. A loss of 10-15 seats most likely based on the Generic. That is basically a win for the democrats in the first midterm as losses of 44, 54, 63 seats have occurred for the party in control of the house and the presidency since 1994.

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the Senate passed it in November of 2009
CNN/Opinion Research 12/2-12/3 36% for 61% Against/Oppose +25
Rasmussen Reports 11/29 - 11/29 41% for 53% Against/Oppose +12
Gallup 11/20-11/22 44% for 49% Against/Oppose +5
Ipsos/McClatchy 11/19 - 11/22 34% for 46% Against/Oppose +12
Rasmussen Reports 11/21 - 11/22 38% for 56% Against/Oppose +18
FOX News 11/17 - 11/18 35% for 51% Against/Oppose +16
PPP (D) 11/13 - 11/15 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12

Below are the polls thanks to RCP of public opinion on the ACA when the House passed it in March of 2010
Bloomberg 3/19 - 3/22 38% for 50% Against/Oppose +12
CNN/Opinion Research 3/19 - 3/21 39% for 59% Against/Oppose +20
CBS News 3/18 - 3/21 37% for 48% Against/Oppose +11
Rasmussen Reports 3/19 - 3/20 41% for 54% Against/Oppose +13
Quinnipiac 3/16 - 3/21 36% for 54% Against/Oppose +18
Democracy Corps (D) 3/15 - 3/18 40% for 52% Against/Oppose +12
FOX News 3/16 - 3/17 35% 55% Against/Oppose +20