2018 Congressional Recruitment/Fundraising/Ratings Megathread

[smoltchanov]

It’s surprising that I still haven’t put the Russian troll on my ignore list. Done!

You are insane, madam. I knew that from the beginning, now i got confirmation. You can't think about anything but "russian trolls". One more good laugh for me, and - thank you! As i already said many times - i have no time to talk to idiots. So, i will be only glad if all people like you would do the same.

[smoltchanov]

Finally someone agrees with me, why is their no more “innocent until proven guilty” in this country.

Innocent until proven guilty is a criminal standard, not a political one. One doesn't have to be guilty of a criminal act to be too tainted to deserve membership in Congress. The vast majority of scandal-plagued Congresscritters who leave office never end up behind bars.

So - it's up to them to decide whether they want to run again, it's up to their voters to decide whether they want to get them reelected, it's up to their opponents to decide - whether they want to run against them, and nothing more. Nobody can DICTATE anything here.

[smoltchanov]

Kansas Dem Andrea Ramsey, accused of sexual harassment, will drop out of US House race

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's too bad, if only male candidates/elected officials were more willing to step aside like her. Looking at you, Kihuen..

Why must he if he doesn't feel guilty? Try to primary him - that's your right, but you can't DEMAND his resignation. It all becomes more and more idiotic...

Finally someone agrees with me, why is their no more “innocent until proven guilty” in this country. Whenever people feel they can get a political hit on someone they make up crap and throw it at them and everyone is Spose to believe them. Well I for one refuse to believe anyone’s Outlandish claims unless their backed up by irrefutable evidence because that’s how Democratic society’s are spose to function. Their are not spose to be any god damn Salem which trials or Mccarthyist red scares anymore that crap is spose to be relagated to history books and third world countries today.

Yeah all those inappropriate text messages are totally crap and faked

Present them in COURT. Only court may decide who is guilty and who is not. Not "public opinion". As i said above - primary him if you wish. But you have NO right to DEMAND his resignation and so on. Detailed inquiry must be first, decision - later. After all - why must i belive ALL these accusations as "bona fide truth"? Women not lie? They do, and frequently - better then men. They can't slander? They can, and frequently - better then men. They don't hold grudges, don't seek vengeance? They do, and more frequently then men. And so on. Let court (or, at least, commission of the House)  study accusations, and, if neccessary - establishes his guilt and metes proper punishment. Until THEN - person is not guilty, and everything else may be termed as witchhunt and McCarthy tactics.

You have no right to DEMAND someone not make DEMANDS of resignation.

I demand that you prove that women sometimes lie in a court of law. Until you do, you have no right to make such slanderous statements.

See how silly you are?

I - silly? Idiot, you can't even imagine how silly are you. You are below an idiot level. Until you i thought it was imposiible. I know hundreds of cases in our Russian courts (many of them were later discussed on TV in details) where women killed, lied, slandered, accused of rape men, who refused to marry them after consensual sex, and so on. Sir, you are unique. World never had such pristine idiot before you.

P.S. I laughed reading about your "demand".  F**k yourself in the ass, Sir! Preferrably - with your own dick.

As awful as your [Smoltchov’s] views on this subject are, that’s not what really stands out here.  More than anything, I’m always struck by how thin-skinned and delusionally arrogant you get whenever someone criticizes something you’ve said.  Even if we ignore how ridiculously over-sensitive you are to any criticism, the delusions of intellectual grandeur on display here are really something to behold.  Your go-to response to anyone who seriously challenges or pushes back against your views on pretty much anything is generally some version of “But...but...but...but you can’t say I’m wrong because I’m the smartest person ever and you’re just a big fat stupidhead!  I’m rubber and you’re glue!”  It’s like when Hifly used to respond to any criticism by falsely (and belligerently) claiming he went to Oxford as if he expected that claim to intimidate people or something.  

Frankly, your tendency to respond to criticism by belligerently insisting that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot is extremely childish at best and more than a little pathetic.  Furthermore, the way that you always blow up like a puffer fish and try to insist that you’re some sort of genius or something (LOL) suggests that you are pretty insecurity about your own intelligence or lackthereof (hence your compulsive need to make OTT claims about being some sort of “genius” whenever someone points out the absurdity of one of your more outlandish views, be it your fetishization of Moderate Heroism for its own sake, your Neanderthal attitude toward sexual harassment, the misogynistic excuses you make for sexual predators like Kihuen, your fanatical support for even the most anti-democratic excesses of CA’s top-two system, etc).  I’m just being honest when I say that the cartoonish arrogance of posts like the one you just made really makes it difficult to take you seriously.  It wouldn’t kill you to learn a little humility and consider the possibility that you’re not always right about everything.  

Oh and one more thing: If you’re going to try to present yourself as some sort of intellectual powerhouse of wit and wisdom, you should really try to think of a better insult than “F*** yourself in the a**, sir!  Preferably with your own dick.”  You’re not gonna impress middle schoolers with that one, much less an actual adult.  It only reinforces the childishness of your post and makes you sound even sillier.

I already said that i ignore idiots. Then - why had  you bothered to write such long rant? You had nothing more to do? And i intentionally use "dirty words" when it's impossible to talk with person normally. So - what had you tried to achieve? Humiliate me? You will never be able to do that. Convince me? Ditto. For you what i write is a childish nonsense? Even more so is your "lesson" to me. Then - what for?

P.S. I have you on ignore list since long ago, but this time i decided to look - and was fully rewarded..

P.S. 2. (to all guys trying to prove how silly i am): Guys, i have an Ph. D in pure mathematics. Believe me - it's not an easy thing to achieve, and surely - not for fools. So, i would be grateful to know about your achievements in science or similar areas. Becuse it's my custom to take seriously only  opinions of people, who PROVED to be more clever then i am. I suspect - there are not too many of them among my "critics". Best wishes!

P.S. 3. Here in Russia i am among 2% of the most liberal and most "pro-Western" people. So, you understand what people here think about you, and how they react to such your "great political problems")))). Most frequently - by twisting their fingers at their temples...

[smoltchanov]

Thanks for detailing the thread. Stick to mathematics, smolt.

No, madam. I said that i ignore all advices, except from the most clever people. You are not one of them.

[smoltchanov]

This thread just keeps delivering the lulz

Exactly my feelings when i read an attempts to "bite" me.....

[smoltchanov]

Thanks for detailing the thread. Stick to mathematics, smolt.

No, madam. I said that i ignore all advices, except from the most clever people. You are not one of them.

I’m absolutely crushed.

Well, at least you have a sense of humor. That's more than can be said about other critics..

[smoltchanov]

Sean Trende from RCP is saying dems should pick up 40 seats and that people are seriously downplaying the likely Trump backlash https://mobile.twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/942876809020010498

Sean is wrong....it's going to be 70+ seats

Why not 120? Or - 240?

[smoltchanov]

Everyone will say, that democrats are in very good position now, but i remember them being fairly optimistic in 2014, and even 2010 too (and 2016 on Presidential level). Democrats are very skillfull in snatching defeats from jaws of victory

[smoltchanov]

I applied the CNN poll(the margin) to the 2016 House races. It's a 19% swing(Republicans won the House popular vote by 1% in 2016).
2016 House elections
Nancy Pelosi-Democratic: 252+64 57.5%[1]
Paul Ryan-Republican: 183-64 39.6%
435 seats
218 for majority

Alabama 2: Nathan Mathis(D) defeats incumbent Martha Roby(R)
Alaska at-large: Steve Lindbeck(D) defeats incumbent Don Young(R)
Arizona 2: Matt Heinz(D) defeats incumbent Martha McSally(R)
California 1: Jim Reed(D) defeats incumbent Doug LaMalfa(R)
California 10: Michael Eggman(D) defeats incumbent Jeff Denham(R)
California 21: Emilio Huerta(D) defeats incumbent David Valadao(R)
California 25: Bryan Caforio(D) defeats incumbent Steve Knight(R)
California 39: Brett Mourdock(D) defeats incumbent Ed Royce(R)
California 45: Ron Varasteh(D) defeats incumbent Mimi Walters(R)
California 48: Suzanne Savary(D) defeats incumbent Dana Rohrabacher(R)
California 49: Doug Apllegate(D) defeats incumbent Darrell Issa(R)
Colorado 3: Gail Schwartz(D) defeats incumbent Scott Tipton(R)
Colorado 6: Morgan Carroll(D) defeats incumbent Mike Coffman(R)
Florida 6: Bill McCullough(D) defeats incumbent Ron DeSantis(R)
Florida 15: Jim Lange(D) defeats incumbent Dennis Ross(R)
Florida 18: Randy Perkins(D) defeats incumbent Brian Mast(R)
Florida 26: Joe Garcia(D) defeats incumbent Carlos Curbelo(R)
Florida 27: Scott Fuhrman(D) defeats incumbent Ileana Ros-Lehtinen(R)
Illinois 6: Amanda Howland(D) defeats incumbent Peter Roskam(R)
Illinois 12: C J Baricevic(D) defeats incumbent Mike Bost(R)
Illinois 14: Jim Walz(D) defeats incumbent Randy Hultgren(R)
Indiana 9: Shelli Yoder(D) defeats Trey Hollingsworth(R)
Iowa 1: Monica Vernon(D) defeats incumbent Rod Blum(R)
Iowa 3: Jim Mowrer(D) defeats incumbent David Young(R)
Kansas 3: Jay Sidie(D) defeats incumbent Kevin Yoder(R)
Maine 2: Emily Cain(D) defeats incumbent Bruce Poliquin(R)
Michigan 1: Lon Johnson(D) defeats Jack Bergman(R)
Michigan 8: Suzanna Shrekli(D) defeats incumbent Mike Bishop(R)
Michigan 11: Anil Kumar(D) defeats incumbent Dave Trott(R)
Minnesota 2: Angie Craig(D) defeats Jason Lewis(R)
Minnesota 3: Terri Bonoff(D) defeats incumbent Erik Paulsen(R)
Montana at-large: Denise Juneau(D) defeats incumbent Ryan Zinke(R)
Nebraska 2: Incumbent Brad Ashford(D) defeats Don Bacon(R)
New Jersey 7: Peter Jacob(D) defeats incumbent Leonard Lance(R)
New York 1: Anna Throne-Holst(D) defeats incumbent Lee Zeldin(R)
New York 19: Zephyr Teachout(D) defeats John Faso(R)
New York 22: Kim Myers(D) defeats Claudia Tenney(R)
New York 23: John Plumb(D) defeats incumbent Tom Reed(R)
North Carolina 2: John McNeil(D) defeats George Holding(R)
North Carolina 5: Josh Brannon(D) defeats incumbent Virginia Foxx(R)
North Carolina 6: Pete Glidewell(D) defeats incumbent Mark Walker(R)
North Carolina 8: Thomas Mills(D) defeats incumbent Richard Hudson(R)
North Carolina 13: Bruce Davis(D) defeats Ted Budd(R)
Ohio 1: Michele Young(D) defeats incumbent Steve Chabot(R)
Pennsylvania 6: Mike Parrish(D) defeats incumbent Ryan Costello(R)
Pennsylvania 7: Mary Ellen Balchunis(D) defeats incumbent Pat Meehan(R)
Pennsylvania 8: Steve Santarsiero(D) defeats Brian Fitzpatrick(R)
Pennsylvania 16: Christina Hartman(D) defeats Lloyd Smucker(R)
Texas 7: James Cargas(D) defeats incumbent John Culberson(R)
Texas 22: Mark Gibson(D) defeats incumbent Pete Olson(R)
Texas 23: Pete Gallego(D) defeats incumbent Will Hurd(R)
Texas 24: Jan McDowell(D) defeats incumbent Kenny Marchant(R)
Utah 4: Doug Owens(D) defeats incumbent Mia Love(R)
Virginia 5: Jane Dittmar(D) defeats Thomas Garrett Jr(R)
Virginia 7: Eileen Bedell(D) defeats incumbent Dave Brat(R)
Virginia 10: LuAnn Bennett(D) defeats incumbent Barbara Comstock(R)
West Virginia 2: Mark Hunt(D) defeats incumbent Alex Mooney(R)

[1] Plus and minus 58 seats from the OTL results and current tally

You suppose uniform swing? Most likely it will not be so uniform, and if it will be lower in swing and Republican-leaning seats - gains, obviously, will be smaller.

[smoltchanov]

^ May be. But 2010, and, especially, 2014 made a pessimist out of me. Even in 2010 many Democrats thought that losses would be minimal (10-20 seats), and in 2014 - most expected gains, not losses. I will not even mention 2016 (President). Democrats in the last decade became extremely adept in "snatching defeat out of jaws of victory". May be - something will change next year (and looking at present day Republican party i would rather welcome it), but for now i prefer to be a cautious pessimist, and expect about +20 seats for Democrats next year in House. If present tendencies will continue until next October - another matter.

[smoltchanov]

Democrat won 2012 and by more than they were supposed to. And Virginia and Alabama.

As i said: IF i will see the same tendencies in early October 2018 - i will be convinced. But - no sooner.

[smoltchanov]

McConnell is privately acknowledging that the GOP might lose both chambers in 2018...

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/366140-mcconnell-saying-gop-could-lose-both-house-and-senate-in-2018-report

Paul Ryan might be thinking the same thing too since he seems eager to exit.

Well, not so private if we all know about that....

[smoltchanov]

D+7 could easily be enough to take the House, don't be stupid. It's just not a guarantee like double digits would be.

Not like the poll matters anyway since Reuters is junk, there's far too many undecideds, and it's still 11 months before the election.

10 months, to be precise. And yes - one poll doesn't mean too much, but it's interesting to follow the development of events. Right now i am not convinced yet that the "wave" is real, and will survive until November (though with Trump it's, probably, quite possible). We shall see. Different scenarios are still possible. And, as i said many times, Democrats are extremely "apt" to underperform in polls in last 1-2 month before elections and in elections itself. 2010 (when most expected maximum 20-30 seats loss in the House) and 2014 (where most expected gains), not even mentioning 2016 (90% were convinced in Hillary's victory) are good examples.

[smoltchanov]

D+7 could easily be enough to take the House, don't be stupid. It's just not a guarantee like double digits would be.

Not like the poll matters anyway since Reuters is junk, there's far too many undecideds, and it's still 11 months before the election.

Kind of an indictment of the way we elect public officials when people actually worry whether D+7 is enough to claw back even a bare majority.

It's surely no secret, that Democrats are hyperconcentrated in fewer number of districts, so Republicans inherently have an advantage (even without gerrymandering). The best Republican districts in 2016 were about 81% Trump (those, like TX-13), the best Democratic - about 95% for Clinton. And this is true in non-presidential races too...

[smoltchanov]

D+7 could easily be enough to take the House, don't be stupid. It's just not a guarantee like double digits would be.

Not like the poll matters anyway since Reuters is junk, there's far too many undecideds, and it's still 11 months before the election.

Kind of an indictment of the way we elect public officials when people actually worry whether D+7 is enough to claw back even a bare majority.

It's surely no secret, that Democrats are hyperconcentrated in fewer number of districts, so Republicans inherently have an advantage (even without gerrymandering). The best Republican districts in 2016 were about 81% Trump (those, like TX-13), the best Democratic - about 95% for Clinton. And this is true in non-presidential races too...

The median house district is R+3. The real spike in difficulty comes from the incumbency hump, which occurs for both parties, and varries from candidate to candidate.

Of course. But R+3 is enough for at least modest Republican lean.

[smoltchanov]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do these two years have in common?

Both were very bad for Democrats. Many of whom expected only moderate losses in 2010, and even small gains in 2014. It's enough to read what was written on DKE, for example, immediately before these two election nights. Most of site  "gurus" expectations were precisely as i described above. And then, after bleak results -  usual "f**k this night!", "dumb voters", and so on...

[smoltchanov]

Democrats outperformed polls in 2011. And of course Virginia and Alabama.

In odd years - yes. In midterms - the last time it was  (may be) in 2006, during Iraq war. If Trump begins a war (especially - with weak chances for rapid victory) - then sure. If not - not so sure.

[smoltchanov]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do these two years have in common?

Both were very bad for Democrats. Many of whom expected only moderate losses in 2010, and even small gains in 2014. It's enough to read what was written on DKE, for example, immediately before these two election nights. Most of site  "gurus" expectations were precisely as i described above. And then, after bleak results -  usual "f**k this night!", "dumb voters", and so on...

You missed his point, Obama was in the WH during those two years and the last time the dems did well in a midterm was when Bush was in the WH. The point being midterms are bad for the party in the WH which is rep right now

I know all that. Without Trump Democrats wouldn't have any chances, and could expect monumental losses in Senate. So, Trump is a "Democratic blessing" to some extent. And still, for example, minority turnout usually falls substantially in midterms, and it's this turnout which became so important for Democrats in the last decade, that one can speak about some sort of "addiction". Without it Democrats have no chances at all in most elections.

[smoltchanov]

Trump's base also may be less likely to turn out though(and minorities turned out in Alabama).
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/2018-could-be-the-year-of-the-angry-white-college-graduate/

May be. But i don't think that Alabama is good example. Republicans will NOT have Roy Moore in every state. Most likely - they will not have even one "Roy Moore" among their candidates. He is unique. Only he could lose a Senate seat in Alabama for Republicans. Mad dog with "R" after name could win it.

[smoltchanov]

Trump's base also may be less likely to turn out though(and minorities turned out in Alabama).
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/2018-could-be-the-year-of-the-angry-white-college-graduate/

May be. But i don't think that Alabama is good example. Republicans will NOT have Roy Moore in every state. Most likely - they will not have even one "Roy Moore" among their candidates. He is unique. Only he could lose a Senate seat in Alabama for Republicans. Mad dog with "R" after name could win it.

And Democrats didn't have Martha Coakley in every state in 2010.

Coakley is simply bad politician. That happens. Moore is absolutely unique.

[smoltchanov]

Anyone else kinda annoyed by Russian moderates who love "mavericks" trying to preach to everyone else about American politics

Who forces you to read my posts? Ignore lists exist. BTW,  i would be only glad if you would know as much about Russian politics as i know about American. As long as this is NOT "the site for Americans only", blocking other based on their geographic location - i am free to express my opinions, and agree or disagree with other's arguments. As i mentioned sometimes - my friend, who is University professor in North Carolina, was of very high opinion about my knowledge))))). And my American relatives still ask my opinion before going to vote))))

[smoltchanov]

Coakley is simply bad politician. That happens. Moore is absolutely unique.

Republicans have the biggest Roy Moore of them all at the top of their ticket, even if he's not literally on the ballot.

We will see. IF he will be as bad as Roy Moore was (so far - close, but - not yet), and IF Democrats will be able to nationalize all races - then, may be...

[smoltchanov]

Anyone else kinda annoyed by Russian moderates who love "mavericks" trying to preach to everyone else about American politics

Yes, I have on my ignore list. He says some pretty awful stuff and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he’s being paid to troll online on sites like this.

You judge by yourself. Alas, i am not paid even a cent. And i would only welcome being on ignore list of people like you. For me it's a badge of honor....

[smoltchanov]

Politico/Morning Consult, Jan 4-5, 1988 RV (change from Dec 14-18)

D 44 (nc)
R 36 (+2)

Big advantage, but slightly worrying tendency for Democrats

[smoltchanov]

Politico/Morning Consult, Jan 4-5, 1988 RV (change from Dec 14-18)

D 44 (nc)
R 36 (+2)

Big advantage, but slightly worrying tendency for Democrats

Morning Consult has historically been one of the most R leaning polls for the generic ballot (and Trump approval). They had R+1 in their early november poll, and D+2 a month ago.

Thanks!