Special Election megathread (6/11: OH-6, 6/25: CO-4)

[GALeftist]

I really don't understand why Nina Turner has turned into this Tulsi like figure in the minds of so many of y'all (and evidently in the mind of Mr. Clyburn as well). Yeah, she's used hyperbolic language in the past, but honestly I would bet she voted for Hillary in 2016 and just never admitted to it. In this primary, she has primarily tied herself to Berniecrats/the Squad nationally and the Ohio Democratic establishment locally. Neither group suggests to me that she will be anything other that a normal progressive Democrat in terms of voting record a la AOC.

She compared voting for Biden to "eating a bowl of sh**t". At least even TULSI had sense enough to endorse Biden in April. Turner said this mere weeks before the 2020 DNC convention.

She's also cozy with Jill Stein and the Greens, which is another characteristic she shares with Gabbard. Stein offered her the VP slot in 2016 after she made her loyalty to MAGA and Putin clear in the public eye. She's going to win this seat and stab Democrats in the back.

1. No, she compared it to eating half a bowl, with Trump being the entire thing. It should be OK for Democrats to say that the candidate is imperfect but better than the alternative.
2. Yeah, crazy how she didn't take the slot. Almost like she's a closet Hillary voter like I've been saying all along.
3. 100% of "backstabs" in this Congress have been from centrists.

[GALeftist]

1. No, she compared it to eating half a bowl, with Trump being the entire thing. It should be OK for Democrats to say that the candidate is imperfect but better than the alternative.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Are you seriously implying that

a) there is a material difference between eating "half a bowl of sh**t" and "a bowl of sh**t" - either way, you are eating sh**t

b) comparing a candidate to "eating sh**t" is the same thing as saying they're "imperfect"

I understand the nuance you're going for, but all Turner was saying is that "Biden is terrible but a little less bad than Trump." That's not the same thing as "imperfect but worth supporting" or whatever (which I would, of course, be fine with). Someone who thinks Biden is terrible should not be a Democratic member of Congress, especially considering how narrow the majority is.

I'm not really interested in debating the rather subjective debate of whether the distastefulness of ingesting feces is absolute or varies depending on the volume of said feces. With the context, I think it's pretty clear that she was used (perhaps hyperbolic) language to explain how she can both be critical of Biden and in favor of voting for him. I mean, why even make the distinction to begin with if that's not the point she was making?

With respect to your point about how "someone who thinks Biden is terrible should not be a Democratic member of Congress," I disagree vehemently for a couple reasons. Firstly, people who didn't like Biden were a substantial part of Biden's coalition in 2020; I should know, I was one of them. Voters like me deserve to be represented in government. More importantly, though, you seem to be suggesting that anyone who wants to serve as a Democrat in Congress must approve of any given Democratic president with only relatively minor criticisms, if any. This would lead to one of two things happening. Either A. anyone left of Biden goes unrepresented in the federal government, depriving them of representation and the nation of any good ideas they may come up with, or B. they are represented, just by a third party instead of the Democrats, which would be even worse, as the split would likely result in a spoiler effect kneecapping both parties.

[GALeftist]

Ehhhh, you're missing the point. I think Biden skeptics / Biden critics like AOC clearly have a place in Congress and are a good representation of the people in Biden's "coalition" who don't like Biden. That is not the same thing as saying the thought of Biden as President is as appetizing as the thought of eating human feces. Nina clearly feels differently than AOC and the vast majority of Biden skeptics in his "coalition" (many of whom, like the Sunrise children, probably didn't actually turn out to vote). I don't know you or your politics so I can't really say whether you're more in the AOC camp or the Nina camp.

This obviously isn't provable, but I'm almost certain that Nina Turner and AOC are very close to one another in terms of their feelings towards Biden, even if the language they use differs significantly. I'm probably more in the AOC camp in terms of language and the Turner camp in terms of feelings, but I have less to lose from a Biden administration, so that's probably to be expected.

It is almost entirely dependent on how many people they can show this to, but Brown might be inching back into this thing. It is worth noting this ad is paid for by Brown, so she can't rely on SuperPACs boosting it. Turner has had such a massive cash advantage that TV and radio are liable to be saturated. Social media exists, of course, but we'll see. This ad is also liable to open up a can of worms with the Hatch Act (Fudge's mother says, "we're voting for Shoten Brown), which might generate some bad headlines not just for Brown, but also Fudge.

Yeah, I think it would be silly to say that Turner isn't still the favorite by a wide margin, but Brown is no longer a nonfactor; I'm guessing she probably has around 15-20% chance of winning, so if she won it'd be surprising but not shocking to me.

[GALeftist]

LMAO one Brown internal showing Brown losing by 7 points and suddenly everyone's ready to make this a tossup. I mean, come on, guys, Turner and Brown aren't even the only candidates in the race, Turner doesn't necessarily need to reach 50% to win. If a Brown internal not only can't get her ahead but can't even get her within 5 points I think it's pretty clear who the frontrunner is. Frankly, this makes me more confident Turner will win, if anything.

[GALeftist]

Re: closing the gap, I'm not saying that Brown has not done that, but the fact of the matter is that if her internals have her down by 7 she's probably down significantly, and there are only a few weeks left. Could she close the remainder? Of course she could, but it's worth noting a few things. First, it seems like a lot of Brown's growth so far has been from consolidating the non-Turner vote rather than getting Turner voters to switch; Turner's numbers in this latest Brown internal are virtually unchanged from her numbers back in Brown's April internal. However, that growth obviously has an upper limit. This latest poll has undecided at 14%, so in a two person race Brown would need to win those undecided voters by like a 3 to 1 margin to net the 7 points to close the remaining gap – more if we assume that this internal understated Turner's margin at this point. That's certainly not impossible, of course, but I definitely wouldn't bet on it happening. The other thing is that it's not a two person race – there are a couple dudes who no one cares about running but who will almost certainly take at least a point or two each, but Brown's campaign polled this as a head to head. I would imagine that this resulted in a little inflation of Brown's numbers than if they'd included those candidates.

My prediction is unchanged: probably about a 10-20% chance Brown wins, Likely Turner.

[GALeftist]

🟤🟤🟤 Brown is gonna win this race

I changed my mind on this one guys.

[GALeftist]

Also, no one is trying to "cancel" Turner. Stop being ridiculous.

From the getgo, Turner was the one acting as if she *deserved* the nomination. Maybe it's good someone knocked her down a few pegs and made her realize she's not inevitable here.

Repeating the same argument I already refuted doesn't make it any more true. Given the DNC's continued platforming of others who conditionalized their vote from the right, it's clear that Turner is being cancelled because they don't want another progressive in the House.

See this is where the far left loses people. Shontel Brown is not a republican. It's always the 'far left' vs everyone else in the Democratic Party. You know you can be a progressive and be a Democrat without being like Nina Turner, right?

Correct; Shontel Brown is not a progressive however and her transphobia should disqualify her from even approaching a victory in a democratic primary in and of itself; that it hasn't done so is disappointing.

And where is the proof that Brown is transphobic?

I mean, read the thread? It’s on page 13.

One of the many, many, many extremely annoying and juvenile things the Nina Turner left likes to do is:

1) Take one single incident or statement from a politician, that's either obviously out of step with their actual beliefs/personality, or possible to misrepresent as such by taking it out of context and/or lying about it

2) Try to convince everyone that incident/statement is completely representative of their actual beliefs/personality, and everything else they've done to the contrary can be dismissed as "just an act"

3) Hyperbolize about it to absurd, comical extremes

4) Use the hyperbole as a weapon to try and cancel the politician and ruthlessly attack anyone who dares to support her

I realize this is an obvious dunk and I really shouldn't bother but at this point there are 21 pages of you whining about the "bowl of sh*t" comment to characterize a longtime Democrat as some sort of fifth column determined to turn the Democratic party into the Communist Party or destroy it trying

[GALeftist]

My take on the whole Shontel Brown transphobia thing is she's probably not any more transphobic than the median Democrat (which to be honest doesn't say a whole lot, unfortunately). However, the fact that she was so careless with her pronoun usage when talking about a black trans woman who died isn't nothing, and demonstrates at the very least a level of disengagement with the issue which some voters would be totally justified in not being comfortable with for a Democratic nominee.

[GALeftist]

People calling Nina Turner a radical socialist really have no more idea what a socialist is than the people who call Biden a socialist lol.

Anyway, to return to the topic of the actual election, I promise I understand that Nina Turner can inspire some passion in some of y'all, but lord, there is some serious spin going on in this thread on behalf of Shontel Brown; if you think one internal showing a 7 point gap and a pretty obviously shoddy Republican poll showing a tied race show anything of note other than that A. the anti-Turner vote is consolidating (which everyone should have expected) and B. that some people out there really want to see polls in which Nina Turner has a chance of losing, I have some beachfront property in Omaha to sell you.

I guess the TargetPoint poll makes me increase Brown's chances of winning, but not by much; I would want to see a credible poll in which she is actually up before giving her anything other than an outside chance. Probably about 15-20% chance Brown wins, likely Turner.

Yikes, looks like that Free Beacon poll may be true if they’re bringing in the big guns like this!
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1415731970672365579?s=21

Great news for the Shontel Brown campaign- Having someone as toxic as AOC go and campaign for Turner will only increase Shontel's chances of winning.

I don't know how "toxic" AOC is in American politics writ large, but in Ohio's 11th district I would venture to guess that opinions of her are pretty overwhelmingly positive.

[GALeftist]

Address the situation. Why is it okay for Shontel Brown to promote a conservative organization that's trying to boost her campaign?

She's not "promoting a conservative organization trying to boost her campaign".  It's an unbiased poll from a pollster with no vested interest in the race (if anything, anyone who supports the GOP would want Turner to win because her serving in congress while posing as a Democrat would be a huge asset for Republican candidates across the country, not to mention it would be one less Democrat in congress)

Be honest, you're just salty that Turner's campaign is in trouble because  the voters are becoming more informed and finding out the truth about how awful Turner truly is.

Yeah, these are the questions I would ask if I was pro-Nina Turner



I mean, come on, man. You can support Shontel Brown if you want, but this level of blatant spin and bias is just pathetic. You are extremely blatantly choosing the facts to fit your narrative instead of the reverse. Just be honest here and say that you prefer Brown's policies instead of trying to push these demonstrably false allegations that Brown is favored, or that Turner is backed by Republicans, or that she's not a real Democrat, or whatever else.

[GALeftist]

IDK why this piece is being dismissed out of hand. I mean, we know Brown voted to award millions in contracts to Perk while dating Mark Perkins and that Perk then turned around and financed a bunch of her campaigns, right? Is it really that unbelievable that she'd face an ethics investigation over that? I don't know, maybe MacArthur is privy to some information that I am not, but it just seems a bit like ideologically motivated reasoning to me.

[GALeftist]

Missed this post but to answer, in short:

1) Shontel didn't "steer the contracts towards the company" because the company had been getting those contracts since 1999, fifteen years of contracts worth $75M before Brown was elected to the council in 2014.

2) The contracts were unanimously approved by the entire Cleveland city council, so Shontel's vote didn't make any difference.  Brown didn't even sponsor them.

Genuine question, then – why not recuse herself like she promised she would? You say later on that technically she didn't break this promise because it isn't technically a Perkins company anymore, but be that as it may, it's hard to imagine that Mark Perkins didn't have substantial connections with people at Perk today despite that. It seems like an obvious optics issue, and if you're right that her vote didn't matter, why not simply recuse herself and avoid the issue?

1+2 are why Brown's fellow council members have spoken out strongly against Nina's allegations.  Cause she's basically implying they were all corrupt, for voting with Shontel for these contracts (also for decades before Shontel ever came along).

Well, no, because (one would hope) they don't all have similar personal connections to Perk, so it doesn't necessarily follow that they were all voting for Brown's corrupt reasons if indeed Brown's reasons were corrupt. (Also, supposing that they were all corrupt, isn't their pulling together to defend Brown exactly what one would expect?)

[GALeftist]

PredictIt's OH-11 margin of victory has Brown's margin of victory being over 6% at 33 cents, and all margins of victory with Brown winning cumulatively at 67 cents. Now, I do favor Nina Turner, so bear that in mind as I write this, but even if Brown does win she will not win by 6 points or more. It's just not going to happen.

[GALeftist]

You'd think people on this board would have learned about wild extrapolations from early unofficial turnout reports by now. We're not learning anything new until 7:30, y'all, go read a book or watch a movie or something until then

[GALeftist]

PI has Brown at 59 cents, Turner at 42.

Something must've happened and it ain't good for Turner.

Look at the comments and you'll see what happened. Hint: it has nothing to do with anything in the real world and everything to do with weird Twitter cliques. The market seems to also think Brown is going to win by at least upwards of 3 points and very possibly more than 6 lol

[GALeftist]

PI has Brown at 59 cents, Turner at 42.

Something must've happened and it ain't good for Turner.

Look at the comments and you'll see what happened. Hint: it has nothing to do with anything in the real world and everything to do with weird Twitter cliques. The market seems to also think Brown is going to win by at least upwards of 3 points and very possibly more than 6 lol

I wouldn't say it's based on nothing. I think a lot is based on the NPR report about Brown's internal having her up 3.

Brown's spike happened before that, I think. That being said, if that polling is legit (big if), it's not nothing, though it certainly wouldn't justify the current 60/40 odds in favor of Brown.

[GALeftist]

If indeed Brown does win by a large margin like this, it will have been an incredibly large miss for polling (for the umpteenth time in a row)

[GALeftist]

NYT showing an extra 7,500 votes all of a sudden out of Cuyahoga I'm not seeing on the election board websites, with Turner winning those 53-47.

Now 53-40 Brown overall (if accurate).

EDIT: WaPo showing them too.

I see it on the Ohio SoS page now, as well.

[GALeftist]

Yeah, Turner's gonna need to do better in ED votes than those Summit dumps

[GALeftist]

Welp, I was very wrong about this race, lol. Lesson is probably that progressives ought to simply bite the bullet and endorse moderate national politicians

[GALeftist]

RGV is just shifting right, no other explanations make sense. Not the end of the world. Better there than somewhere more vote rich.

[GALeftist]

RGV is just shifting right, no other explanations make sense. Not the end of the world. Better there than somewhere more vote rich.

What this post is actually saying: due to innumeracy, I have found a way to cope with the fact that my party is a loathed piece of excrement in every rural area where neither Blacks nor American Indians live.

Obviously it's not ideal, but parties can't really be popular everywhere in this day and age. Sometimes populations shift against you, it's just inevitable.

[GALeftist]

In case anyone thought Democratic politicians are interested in learning any lessons from this. We’re losing 80% Hispanic districts and they’re blaming white supremacy…
[-tweet-]

I mean, we all know the endgame here is for the Democratic Party to start obsessing about racial differences within the broader "Hispanic" identity. White Hispanics are destined for the same relative treatment as Italians or Poles, which will be worse in absolute terms given how the hatred of whites has risen generally.

Spit out my drink lmfao

[GALeftist]

What an insane result, lol. Couple thoughts:

1. I think there are probably a number of factors (Dobbs, Fortenberry's scandal continuing to haunt Rs in the district, trends accelerating just like we saw in TX-34), some of which are probably generalizable and some of which are probably district specific.
2. Whatever the case, though, this was insanely decoupled from Biden's approval. I don't think this proves that that will be the case in November, but it does prove that it could be the case in November, at least in some races. I'd advise Republicans not to take races for granted just because Biden is unpopular.
3. On that note, Bacon should be somewhat concerned, and I'd say that people in other seats that are sprinting left (Sharice Davids, Spanberger, Angie Craig, maybe David Trone too) might have cause for optimism.

[GALeftist]

Democrats who dismissed TX-34 as meaningless creaming themselves over losing by less than expected, how utterly pathetic

Literally who dismissed TX-34 as meaningless? The overwhelming consensus was that it confirmed a dramatic R trend in the RGV at the very least and perhaps low-education Hispanics if not Hispanics in general.