Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Has a cross-candidate sweep ever even happened? The Dems don't just need a couple seats, they need quite a few.

[mainiac]

Going by the new Senate numbers on 538, Dems have about a 50% chance of having 51 seats in the Senate which is the only part of congress that matters for nominations.  But the democrats are almost certain to lose a lot of Senate seats in 2018.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Step 1: Trump Wins

Step 2: DEHUMANIZE YOURSELF AND FACE TO BLOODSHEAD

Step 3: Dems win 80 Senate seats in 2018, all according to kekaku.

Step 4: Being a Fucking White Male is made illegal.

Step 5: .......Profit....?

Step 6: We all die in the climate crisis.

[smjjames]

I wonder if Trump gets elected but the democrats sweep the congress, I wonder if they'll turn the SC filibuster around and start blocking everyone trump proposes.

They probably won't sweep the house due to gerrymandering, but there's a chance that they'll get a slim minority in the senate. At least until 2018 when there are about the same number of democrat seats up for election as there are republican seats up for election this year.

And the democrats turning the SC filibuster around isn't an if, it's a definite certianity. However, Trump isn't exactly popular among the republican establishment and so, the democrats may find some allies among the republicans, but who knows. Although stuff I've read have said that the republicans will just return to their old partisan ways when Trump gets elected, but again, this year is so unusual that maybe they won't, maybe they'll fracture due to infighting.

Has a cross-candidate sweep ever even happened? The Dems don't just need a couple seats, they need quite a few.

What do you mean by cross-candidate sweep?

Going by the new Senate numbers on 538, Dems have about a 50% chance of having 51 seats in the Senate which is the only part of congress that matters for nominations.  But the democrats are almost certain to lose a lot of Senate seats in 2018.

Not neccesarily, two years is plenty of time for Trump to royally screw up. Doesn't change the fact that there are as many dem seats up for election/re-election as there are rep seats up this year.

Still, even if they don't get a majority, they'll definetly try to make things as difficult as possible for Trump. Though they'll have to try not to stoop to the levels the republicans have gone.

[ChairmanPoo]

Step 1: Trump Wins

Step 2: DEHUMANIZE YOURSELF AND FACE TO BLOODSHEAD

Step 3: Dems win 80 Senate seats in 2018, all according to kekaku.

Step 4: Being a Fucking White Male is made illegal.

Step 5: .......Profit....?

Step 6: We all die in the climate crisis.

What about Chaste White Males?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Has a cross-candidate sweep ever even happened? The Dems don't just need a couple seats, they need quite a few.

What do you mean by cross-candidate sweep?

A major Congressional sweep contrary to the winner of the Presidential election.

[smjjames]

Has a cross-candidate sweep ever even happened? The Dems don't just need a couple seats, they need quite a few.

What do you mean by cross-candidate sweep?

A major Congressional sweep contrary to the winner of the Presidential election.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png

The sweeps generally seem to happen at midterm elections though, not during presidential term elections.

[mainiac]

Not neccesarily, two years is plenty of time for Trump to royally screw up. Doesn't change the fact that there are as many dem seats up for election/re-election as there are rep seats up this year.

Why do people act like a backlash is likely?  If they elected the nitwit in the first place, they wont turn on him easily.  It took 8 years for people to start disliking Bush.  Two years later they didn't say "Well gee, he just gutted environmentalism and gave huge tax cuts to the rich, maybe Gore was right?"  They voted more republicans in.

Democrats are going to be defending 23 seats including Indiana (where they wont have Evan Bayh giving them a massive bump), Montana, North Dakota, Missouri and freakin' West Virginia.  Trump could invite the GOP Senate candidates over to a cannibal diner party followed by gay orgy and the democrats would still be likely to lose seats in 2018.

[Sheb]

Well, Trump is much more of an asshole than Bush. He has been talking so much shit and promising so much impossible stuff that he is bound to disappoints his voter, and disgust the rest. If it wasn't for SCOTUS, I'd almost wish for a Trump presidency hoping it leads to a blue sweep in 2020, followed by The Great Ungerrymendering and the Golden Decade of Liberalism.

[mainiac]

Well, Trump is much more of an asshole than Bush. He has been talking so much shit and promising so much impossible stuff that he is bound to disappoints his voter, and disgust the rest. If it wasn't for SCOTUS, I'd almost wish for a Trump presidency hoping it leads to a blue sweep in 2020, followed by The Great Ungerrymendering and the Golden Decade of Liberalism.

Which is why he is currenly polling at 20%?  Because most people are able to see past the partisan label?

[Lord Shonus]

Bush II got a lot of his votes from a very convincing public image of being both extremely personable and morally upright. That's the main factor that allowed him to not simply edge out Gore (who, for all his virtues, has the charisma of a dead fish) but maintain enough public respect to keep enough of the people with him to continue to make gains. The fact that his administration began with a brutal sneak attack and an outright war (one that only the most idiotically gullible conspiracy theorists were able to blame him for given how short a time he'd been in office when it happened) helped a great deal, with the appeal of a united government in the face of adversity and an aversion to changing horses in mid-stream.

Trump, if he somehow manages to slip into the Oval Office, won't have those advantages. He substitutes a tide of dissatisfaction, anger, and outright hatred in place of the personal charisma Bush II had, and any significant attacks that happen will have a very strong "guess we should have seen that coming" element not only for his opponents but a fair portion of his supporters.

[mainiac]

Guys, your priors dont make sense with the evidence.  If the shit you are saying mattered, this election couldn't possibly be close.  But Trump is getting around ~90% of the republicans and closet republicans.

People put things into a partisan lense.  We always want the other side no to.  It's probably related to the just world fallacy.

[Rolepgeek]

Not neccesarily, two years is plenty of time for Trump to royally screw up. Doesn't change the fact that there are as many dem seats up for election/re-election as there are rep seats up this year.

Why do people act like a backlash is likely?  If they elected the nitwit in the first place, they wont turn on him easily.  It took 8 years for people to start disliking Bush.  Two years later they didn't say "Well gee, he just gutted environmentalism and gave huge tax cuts to the rich, maybe Gore was right?"  They voted more republicans in.

Democrats are going to be defending 23 seats including Indiana (where they wont have Evan Bayh giving them a massive bump), Montana, North Dakota, Missouri and freakin' West Virginia.  Trump could invite the GOP Senate candidates over to a cannibal diner party followed by gay orgy and the democrats would still be likely to lose seats in 2018.

Cuz' a lot of people are voting against Hillary, not for Trump, and vice versa. But the backlash probably won't be against the Republican party per se, given they're likely as not going to be going 'See! This is why you need to vote for a good, honest, hardworking Republican, not that guy who disrupts everything!'

[smjjames]

Guys, your priors dont make sense with the evidence.  If the shit you are saying mattered, this election couldn't possibly be close.  But Trump is getting around ~90% of the republicans and closet republicans.

People put things into a partisan lense.  We always want the other side no to.  It's probably related to the just world fallacy.

Much of that is due to the 'Never Hillary' effect or perhaps the 'lesser of two evils' effect. A lot of people don't like either one, but one is worse than the other.

Even so, there are a lot of republicans who still don't like Trump and would choose some other republican if they had the available choice. Part of the whole thing is the FPTP and two party system due to the spoiler effect where voting for a third party just splits the votes from either party, which is likely where a good deal of the 'never hillaries' are coming from.

[mainiac]

Cuz' a lot of people are voting against Hillary, not for Trump, and vice versa.

Not that many.  The map looks a lot like last time because the demographics look a lot like last time.