Is the Blue Wave dead?

[Zaybay]

Ive already stated this on multiple threads, but ill try to sum it up
Republican enthusiasm is high. Democratic enthusiasm is higher. Independents are siding with Democrats. Democrats have larger numbers. SC seats dont really get voters out, it just gives them another reason to. The seat will likely be filled before hand. If its not, then they are stupid. It did not save Hillary Clinton in 2016, it will not save the Republicans in 2018. There has never been an example of a SC seat moving an election.

I get it, its big news, but so was the gov. shutdown, and that didnt decrease turnout from democrats. So was the healthcare debacle, and that didnt lower republican turnout. So was the camps, and it already seems like its being forgotten for the new topic of discussion. If the Rs are resorting to the SC seat to drive turnout, that doesnt remedy the problem, but exposes how they have nothing to campaign on. And its just as effective, if not more, for Democrats in the house and senate.

[Zaybay]

In the Senate there likely never was going to be a blue wave

from polling so far, there could as well be. All the senators for the dems, save Joe Donnelly and Heidi Heitkamp, are positive in polling averages, and Joe Donnelly is only losing by 1 point in one poll done by Gravis. The three dem challengers in Arizona, Nevada, and Tennessee are positive. Even Texas is a mid digit race so far. Its not that far fetched.

[Zaybay]

I don't know if that's true or not, but I agree that is one of the dangers of just relying on polls.  However, generally something is better than nothing.

The vast majority of voters dont know why they vote the way they do so they just lie to the pollsters. Truth is that most people vote their identity. If you live in rural Alabama...your going to vote GOP and if you live in downtown San Francisco your going to vote Democrat. But you'll never admit it that the time, place, and circumstance around you influenced your vote. People want to think that they were ''independent'' and figured it out all themselves.

Exactly. Most people who are religious who voted for Trump would have voted for him no matter what. It was just a convenient excuse to say that it was for "A Supreme Court seat". I mean, everyone does it, we don't want to think of ourselves as partisans who vote the same way all the time, so we try to excuse it with anything. Me and Clinton don't agree on much, but I supported her because she "would be the first woman president" or "would continue Obama's legacy". Spoiler, I was a partisan Democrat at the time, now a socialist, that's why I supported her.

[Zaybay]

You guys are acting like the Pundits we continuously mock. This will change nothing. The issues that actually have some effect on the midterms are tarriffs, the economy, and healthcare. These are the issues that motivate the swing voters. Not the supreme court, or gov. shutdowns.

[Zaybay]

Two big factors: Will the trade tariff war kill the economy that has been rallying during Trump's presidency?  That will push moderates and more heavy Dem.

Will the Dems double-down on extremism from the left: Socialist, Cultural Marxist, Oppression Olympics nonsense and pick candidates more like Cortez in NYC? That'll push moderates heavy GOP.

Your first point is valid. Your second is garbage. What even is "Oppression Olympics"? Besides, most of that is center left stuff. Also, its important to point out that policies like free tuition and medicare for all, which are socialist policies, are quite popular, especially in middle America and the Rustbelt, where the Democrats need to regroup. I guess it can hurt them in the sunbelt, but many states are already trending their direction, and the Democrats are a big tent for a reason.