2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races

☑

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Hall of Shame
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
310,140
Reputation
-34,205
Daps
620,160
Reppin
The Deep State
Hood Critic said:
Because she is intelligent, nuanced, has an established platform in regards to voter rights/voter suppression, is an effective communicator, has a good story, has no corporate or big money ties, is building her brand and name recognition through grass roots means and most importantly, has a track record of not only listening to but appealing to the other side in a southern state of all places. The fact that there are multiple female candidates, one of whom is in the top 3, means her potential nomination wouldn't be marred by "is the country ready for a female president" rhetoric, hell we don't even ask that question now.

So my question to you, is why not?
Click to expand...
Bruh listen. I’ve watched Stacey for the last decade about. I know all about her.

but you gotta swing from branch to branch. You can’t aim for a grand slam when you’re on the bench!

I know she’s brilliant. But so what.

power matters.

I’m glad Gillum is at least on TV but him losing that race was a huge set back. He was on track to be a fukking senator.
 
Pressure

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
46,171
Reputation
6,981
Daps
146,863
Reppin
CookoutGang
storyteller said:
Damn breh :mjtf: THAT was your take away from the failures of the past decade from the Dems!? I took it to mean they employed bad strategy and needed bolder policy :manny:

The successful rise of Bernie, Warren and the Squad into prominent roles in the party is supporting evidence on my part. There's also this

She predicted the "blue wave" perfectly. So what about 2020?
Click to expand...
Moderates had the biggest wins during the blue wave. :gucci:

I gave you a terrible response to a dishonest post.:ehh:


Most two term presidents see losses.
The historical record is clear: A party surges when it elects a president, but goes into a roller-coaster decline shortly thereafter. Even if a party makes up significant ground in the president’s reelection campaign, by the end of the eight-year cycle, it is in worse shape, sometimes (as with Obama) much worse.
Click to expand...
141201_sabato_grid_sabato2.jpg
Looking at that Data we see Dem Control pretty much went back to Pre Obama levels under Obama. I'm not sure that can be blamed on a lack of progressive agenda considering Obama lost the majority of those seats during the Most progressive portion of his Presidency. :francis:
 
storyteller

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,611
Reputation
5,232
Daps
63,431
Reppin
NYC
Pressure said:
Moderates had the biggest wins during the blue wave. :gucci:

I gave you a terrible response to a dishonest post.:ehh:


Most two term presidents see losses.
141201_sabato_grid_sabato2.jpg
Looking at that Data we see Dem Control pretty much went back to Pre Obama levels under Obama. I'm not sure that can be blamed on a lack of progressive agenda considering Obama lost the majority of those seats during the Most progressive portion of his Presidency. :francis:
Click to expand...


:mindblown: it's like you don't even remember that I was reapplying your busted logic to show you why your original point didn't track.


Pressure said:
If democrats don't win the Senate Sanders and to an extent Warren aren't pushing through their most ambitious parts of their platform. Furthermore it suggests the country isn't as far left as some of you like to believe.

:francis:
Click to expand...

If Progressive Dems not winning Senate = The country's not progressive and the message failed...
Then Centrist Dems losing the House, Senate, State Congresses and Governorships = What exactly?

But it's dishonest when I apply the same logic you did to the candidates you like? :wtb:

And even the data you posted shows that the losses under Obama were more drastic every place except for Governors. Ironically it looks like FDR is the closest thing to an outlier on the list. :whoo:
 
Pressure

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
46,171
Reputation
6,981
Daps
146,863
Reppin
CookoutGang
storyteller said:
If Dems not winning Senate = The progressives have failed
Then Dems losing the House, Senate, State Congresses and Governorships = What exactly?
Click to expand...
The loses can be tracked with voters disdain for saving the American Auto Industry and the desire to repeal the ACA through 2010 elections. That's the same period that tracks with the major losses.

storyteller said:
And even the data you posted shows that the losses under Obama were more drastic every place except for Governors. Ironically it looks like FDR is the closest thing to an outlier on the list. :whoo:
Click to expand...
Actually Reagan is the only outlier on the list.:scust:
The list also shows the following gains from 2008 bush to 2008 Obama :sas1::

  • +24 State leg. chambers
  • +869 Ste Leg. Seats
  • +79 House Seats
  • +16 Senate Seats
Basically all the numbers you're criticizing Obama for losing were also his gains. :bryan:


So to wrap this up for you:

Obama's handling of the ACA and the Auto Bailout cost him in his first midterms. But we can also see that voters overwhelmingly gave him control of government to implement it. We've seen a similar situation under Trump. Therefore, if Bernie or Warren don't capture the Senate and Maintain the house (especially with this Senate Election map) it's not a stretch to believe it's an indictment on their major policy propositions. :sas1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top