NC-SEN 2020: Tar Heel Tillis

[GALeftist]

Plus, even small D states like Vermont, Hawaii, or Rhode Island are major, major uphill battles for the GOP.

[Lognog]

I actually think the GOP's senate advantage isn't as big as people think, considering that small states tend to be more willing to split ballot in senate races, hence why you have more red state Ds than blue state Rs. Because of this, it's possible for Ds to win seats in KS, MT, SC, AK, ect, while a Republican would have a really though time winning NJ or IL at this point.

Is that why the GOP gained net two seats while getting less than 40% of the vote in the 2018 senate elections?

[lfromnj]

I actually think the GOP's senate advantage isn't as big as people think, considering that small states tend to be more willing to split ballot in senate races, hence why you have more red state Ds than blue state Rs. Because of this, it's possible for Ds to win seats in KS, MT, SC, AK, ect, while a Republican would have a really though time winning NJ or IL at this point.

Is that why the GOP gained net two seats while getting less than 40% of the vote in the 2018 senate elections?

California had 100% D instead of like 63 to 37 or whatever. If you take the  2018 CA gov race and add 250k to Feinstein and subtract 250k from  the Generic R facing Feinstein the actual PV was like 9 points. Also Democrats did win the vast majority of seats still. Pretty similar to the 2012 PV victory overall. Also lets not forget post 2012 Democrats were benefitting from the 10 smallest states.. They controlled 13/20 seats in the 10 smallest states(including Maine and Vermont). Infact pre 2012 they also did too but switch Maine for Nebraska. This would have meant a tied senate from 2010 to 2012!

[ProgressiveModerate]

I actually think the GOP's senate advantage isn't as big as people think, considering that small states tend to be more willing to split ballot in senate races, hence why you have more red state Ds than blue state Rs. Because of this, it's possible for Ds to win seats in KS, MT, SC, AK, ect, while a Republican would have a really though time winning NJ or IL at this point.

Is that why the GOP gained net two seats while getting less than 40% of the vote in the 2018 senate elections?

You have to consider in the 2018 map, there were far more blue states up than red states, especially in the Northeast and Rust belt. There's a good chance this cycle Democrats gain an outsized number of seats relative to their share of the vote because more of the states that are up lean R overall.

[Lognog]

I actually think the GOP's senate advantage isn't as big as people think, considering that small states tend to be more willing to split ballot in senate races, hence why you have more red state Ds than blue state Rs. Because of this, it's possible for Ds to win seats in KS, MT, SC, AK, ect, while a Republican would have a really though time winning NJ or IL at this point.

Is that why the GOP gained net two seats while getting less than 40% of the vote in the 2018 senate elections?

You have to consider in the 2018 map, there were far more blue states up than red states, especially in the Northeast and Rust belt. There's a good chance this cycle Democrats gain an outsized number of seats relative to their share of the vote because more of the states that are up lean R overall.

[/quote]

California had 100% D instead of like 63 to 37 or whatever. If you take the  2018 CA gov race and add 250k to Feinstein and subtract 250k from  the Generic R facing Feinstein the actual PV was like 9 points. Also Democrats did win the vast majority of seats still. Pretty similar to the 2012 PV victory overall. Also lets not forget post 2012 Democrats were benefitting from the 10 smallest states.. They controlled 13/20 seats in the 10 smallest states(including Maine and Vermont). Infact pre 2012 they also did too but switch Maine for Nebraska. This would have meant a tied senate from 2010 to 2012!
[/quote]

Point taken about 2018, however that's partially because of people like Manchin which will not be an option in short term future. The ten smallest states have a PVI R+4.2 and if you look at the smallest 20 states its a whopping 13.2+R AVERAGE.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/josh_posts/status/1315773909309030400

Celebrating adultery and home-wrecking to own the cons.  Guess it just goes to show that there are plenty of shameless partisan hacks in the Democratic Party too.  

Actually, it's even worse than that.  You can want Cunningham to win despite his scandal because this could be the tipping point seat for control of the Senate.  Fair enough, but that doesn't change the fact that Cunningham is a lying, pathetic excuse for a human being.  What he did was unjustifiable and utterly reprehensible.  A Democratic Senate majority is worth tolerating him for six years, but that doesn't make Cunningham any less of a deplorable scumbag.

Moreover, celebrating him for being a home-wrecking adulterer just because he happens to be a Democrat is precisely the sort of morally bankrupt partisan hackery that folks here are always complaining about whenever Trump supporters say they don't care about Trump's scandals.

Don't hurt yourself coming down from your high horse.

don't act like it's the 50's. Marriages fail. Private life is different public life. lets just focus on policy

Defending adultery and home-wrecking to own the cons.

I don't know what delusion you're under but a simple meme abt a candidate winning despite people knowing he's having affairs is not at all equivalent to the owning the libs

what people do to "own the libs":
not using mail in ballots
not wearing masks
pretending anyone cares about "happy holidays"
saying all lives matter
attacking Joe Biden's sons
defending Qanoners
defending Roy Moore
taking away people's healthcare


The mental gymnastics for you to equate that one meme with all the toxic stuff Republicans do takes the most brain dead "both sides"-ism ive ever seen in my life

I’m not comparing the meme to any of those things.  What I am doing is pointing out that you - and you specifically - are using the same type of rationalization of horrible behavior Republicans use.  It’s the same kind of tribalistic, ends-justify-the-means hackery.  Incidentally, what Cunningham did was far worse than the “happy holidays” whining, choosing to vote in person rather than by mail, or Trump’s smears against Hunter Biden.  

If you wanna say Cunningham is a scumbag, but we gotta tolerate him for six years to flip the Senate, then I agree.  But that’s not what you said.  You basically argued that it was merely 1950s-style prudish moralizing to say that Cunningham is a bad person for cheating on his wife and also wrecking another marriage in the process.  If you really believe that such conduct is perfectly fine, then it says a lot about your moral values, none of it good.

I don’t get what’s so hard about acknowledging Cunningham is a scumbag, but also a necessary evil.  Many other posters in this thread have done this, but it seems like you’ve made a point of not doing so.

It's a really really REALLY big stretch to describe what Cunningham did as "cheating".

[KaiserDave]

https://twitter.com/josh_posts/status/1315773909309030400

Celebrating adultery and home-wrecking to own the cons.  Guess it just goes to show that there are plenty of shameless partisan hacks in the Democratic Party too.  

Actually, it's even worse than that.  You can want Cunningham to win despite his scandal because this could be the tipping point seat for control of the Senate.  Fair enough, but that doesn't change the fact that Cunningham is a lying, pathetic excuse for a human being.  What he did was unjustifiable and utterly reprehensible.  A Democratic Senate majority is worth tolerating him for six years, but that doesn't make Cunningham any less of a deplorable scumbag.

Moreover, celebrating him for being a home-wrecking adulterer just because he happens to be a Democrat is precisely the sort of morally bankrupt partisan hackery that folks here are always complaining about whenever Trump supporters say they don't care about Trump's scandals.

Don't hurt yourself coming down from your high horse.

don't act like it's the 50's. Marriages fail. Private life is different public life. lets just focus on policy

Defending adultery and home-wrecking to own the cons.

I don't know what delusion you're under but a simple meme abt a candidate winning despite people knowing he's having affairs is not at all equivalent to the owning the libs

what people do to "own the libs":
not using mail in ballots
not wearing masks
pretending anyone cares about "happy holidays"
saying all lives matter
attacking Joe Biden's sons
defending Qanoners
defending Roy Moore
taking away people's healthcare


The mental gymnastics for you to equate that one meme with all the toxic stuff Republicans do takes the most brain dead "both sides"-ism ive ever seen in my life

I’m not comparing the meme to any of those things.  What I am doing is pointing out that you - and you specifically - are using the same type of rationalization of horrible behavior Republicans use.  It’s the same kind of tribalistic, ends-justify-the-means hackery.  Incidentally, what Cunningham did was far worse than the “happy holidays” whining, choosing to vote in person rather than by mail, or Trump’s smears against Hunter Biden.  

If you wanna say Cunningham is a scumbag, but we gotta tolerate him for six years to flip the Senate, then I agree.  But that’s not what you said.  You basically argued that it was merely 1950s-style prudish moralizing to say that Cunningham is a bad person for cheating on his wife and also wrecking another marriage in the process.  If you really believe that such conduct is perfectly fine, then it says a lot about your moral values, none of it good.

I don’t get what’s so hard about acknowledging Cunningham is a scumbag, but also a necessary evil.  Many other posters in this thread have done this, but it seems like you’ve made a point of not doing so.

It's a really really REALLY big stretch to describe what Cunningham did as "cheating".

He...uhh. Had sex with a woman who wasn't his wife....

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/josh_posts/status/1315773909309030400

Celebrating adultery and home-wrecking to own the cons.  Guess it just goes to show that there are plenty of shameless partisan hacks in the Democratic Party too.  

Actually, it's even worse than that.  You can want Cunningham to win despite his scandal because this could be the tipping point seat for control of the Senate.  Fair enough, but that doesn't change the fact that Cunningham is a lying, pathetic excuse for a human being.  What he did was unjustifiable and utterly reprehensible.  A Democratic Senate majority is worth tolerating him for six years, but that doesn't make Cunningham any less of a deplorable scumbag.

Moreover, celebrating him for being a home-wrecking adulterer just because he happens to be a Democrat is precisely the sort of morally bankrupt partisan hackery that folks here are always complaining about whenever Trump supporters say they don't care about Trump's scandals.

Don't hurt yourself coming down from your high horse.

don't act like it's the 50's. Marriages fail. Private life is different public life. lets just focus on policy

Defending adultery and home-wrecking to own the cons.

I don't know what delusion you're under but a simple meme abt a candidate winning despite people knowing he's having affairs is not at all equivalent to the owning the libs

what people do to "own the libs":
not using mail in ballots
not wearing masks
pretending anyone cares about "happy holidays"
saying all lives matter
attacking Joe Biden's sons
defending Qanoners
defending Roy Moore
taking away people's healthcare


The mental gymnastics for you to equate that one meme with all the toxic stuff Republicans do takes the most brain dead "both sides"-ism ive ever seen in my life

I’m not comparing the meme to any of those things.  What I am doing is pointing out that you - and you specifically - are using the same type of rationalization of horrible behavior Republicans use.  It’s the same kind of tribalistic, ends-justify-the-means hackery.  Incidentally, what Cunningham did was far worse than the “happy holidays” whining, choosing to vote in person rather than by mail, or Trump’s smears against Hunter Biden.  

If you wanna say Cunningham is a scumbag, but we gotta tolerate him for six years to flip the Senate, then I agree.  But that’s not what you said.  You basically argued that it was merely 1950s-style prudish moralizing to say that Cunningham is a bad person for cheating on his wife and also wrecking another marriage in the process.  If you really believe that such conduct is perfectly fine, then it says a lot about your moral values, none of it good.

I don’t get what’s so hard about acknowledging Cunningham is a scumbag, but also a necessary evil.  Many other posters in this thread have done this, but it seems like you’ve made a point of not doing so.

It's a really really REALLY big stretch to describe what Cunningham did as "cheating".

He...uhh. Had sex with a woman who wasn't his wife....

Is that a confirmed new development? All I heard is he sent her some pretty tame texts about kissing, like middle school sexting.

[KaiserDave]

https://twitter.com/josh_posts/status/1315773909309030400

Celebrating adultery and home-wrecking to own the cons.  Guess it just goes to show that there are plenty of shameless partisan hacks in the Democratic Party too.  

Actually, it's even worse than that.  You can want Cunningham to win despite his scandal because this could be the tipping point seat for control of the Senate.  Fair enough, but that doesn't change the fact that Cunningham is a lying, pathetic excuse for a human being.  What he did was unjustifiable and utterly reprehensible.  A Democratic Senate majority is worth tolerating him for six years, but that doesn't make Cunningham any less of a deplorable scumbag.

Moreover, celebrating him for being a home-wrecking adulterer just because he happens to be a Democrat is precisely the sort of morally bankrupt partisan hackery that folks here are always complaining about whenever Trump supporters say they don't care about Trump's scandals.

Don't hurt yourself coming down from your high horse.

don't act like it's the 50's. Marriages fail. Private life is different public life. lets just focus on policy

Defending adultery and home-wrecking to own the cons.

I don't know what delusion you're under but a simple meme abt a candidate winning despite people knowing he's having affairs is not at all equivalent to the owning the libs

what people do to "own the libs":
not using mail in ballots
not wearing masks
pretending anyone cares about "happy holidays"
saying all lives matter
attacking Joe Biden's sons
defending Qanoners
defending Roy Moore
taking away people's healthcare


The mental gymnastics for you to equate that one meme with all the toxic stuff Republicans do takes the most brain dead "both sides"-ism ive ever seen in my life

I’m not comparing the meme to any of those things.  What I am doing is pointing out that you - and you specifically - are using the same type of rationalization of horrible behavior Republicans use.  It’s the same kind of tribalistic, ends-justify-the-means hackery.  Incidentally, what Cunningham did was far worse than the “happy holidays” whining, choosing to vote in person rather than by mail, or Trump’s smears against Hunter Biden.  

If you wanna say Cunningham is a scumbag, but we gotta tolerate him for six years to flip the Senate, then I agree.  But that’s not what you said.  You basically argued that it was merely 1950s-style prudish moralizing to say that Cunningham is a bad person for cheating on his wife and also wrecking another marriage in the process.  If you really believe that such conduct is perfectly fine, then it says a lot about your moral values, none of it good.

I don’t get what’s so hard about acknowledging Cunningham is a scumbag, but also a necessary evil.  Many other posters in this thread have done this, but it seems like you’ve made a point of not doing so.

It's a really really REALLY big stretch to describe what Cunningham did as "cheating".

He...uhh. Had sex with a woman who wasn't his wife....

Is that a confirmed new development? All I heard is he sent her some pretty tame texts about kissing, like middle school sexting.

Yeah he basically admitted he had sex with her.

[Not Me, Us]

I really don't see why this is anyone's business but Cunningham's and his wifes's. His personal life is irrelevant when it comes to being an effective senator.

[GALeftist]

Lest we forget, some of our best Presidents have been unfaithful. FDR and JFK sure were, and I would be surprised if LBJ never cheated. We don't have to like our politicians personally for them to be good leaders.

[Not Me, Us]

Lest we forget, some of our best Presidents have been unfaithful. FDR and JFK sure were, and I would be surprised if LBJ never cheated. We don't have to like our politicians personally for them to be good leaders.

FDR cheated on his wife?

[KaiserDave]

Lest we forget, some of our best Presidents have been unfaithful. FDR and JFK sure were, and I would be surprised if LBJ never cheated. We don't have to like our politicians personally for them to be good leaders.

He did....a lot

[GALeftist]

Lest we forget, some of our best Presidents have been unfaithful. FDR and JFK sure were, and I would be surprised if LBJ never cheated. We don't have to like our politicians personally for them to be good leaders.

FDR cheated on his wife?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Mercer_Rutherfurd

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I really don't see why this is anyone's business but Cunningham's and his wifes's. His personal life is irrelevant when it comes to being an effective senator.

Cunningham's horrible judgement, immorality, flagrant disregard for the impact his actions would have on the lives of others (including the lives of his own wife and children), and short-sighted stupidity are all extremely relevant when it comes to his ability or lack thereof to be an effective Senator.  

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Lest we forget, some of our best Presidents have been unfaithful. FDR and JFK sure were, and I would be surprised if LBJ never cheated. We don't have to like our politicians personally for them to be good leaders.

FDR cheated on his wife?

Watch Hyde Park on Hudson.

[MaxQue]

I really don't see why this is anyone's business but Cunningham's and his wifes's. His personal life is irrelevant when it comes to being an effective senator.

Cunningham's horrible judgement, immorality, flagrant disregard for the impact his actions would have on the lives of others (including the lives of his own wife and children), and short-sighted stupidity are all extremely relevant when it comes to his ability or lack thereof to be an effective Senator.  

All those things, Tillis did worse by following the McConnell agenda.

[President Johnson]

Lest we forget, some of our best Presidents have been unfaithful. FDR and JFK sure were, and I would be surprised if LBJ never cheated. We don't have to like our politicians personally for them to be good leaders.

He did....a lot

Yeah, he did. I can confirm from all my sources. One was Helen Douglas, a congresswoman from California who became famous in losing the senate race to Richard Nixon in 1950. It's interesting that she was eight years older than him (and she looks a bit like Lady Bird, so seems to have been his type). There were others as well.

As pointed out already, FDR had a number of misstresses, most famously Lucy. After Eleanor learned of the affair in 1918, their marriage became more of a friendship and political partnership rather than a loving relationship. According to most sources, they never had an intimate relationship after that. FDR also had to promise her never to cheat again after she found out; otherwise, she would have filled for divorce what would have ended his political career. Of course, he went on to see Lucy many times thereafter, up to the end in 1945. Even their daughter arranged the meetings while he was president and Eleanor learned of this after the president had died. I think they frequently saw each other in the final years and months of his life; FDR probably knew that he was running out of time.

Ike also had an affair in the post-war era with a German woman. I read that he even considered staying in Germany and leaving his wife, but ultimately he didn't and returned to the US.

I'm curious whether Nixon had any affairs. Actually doubt it, but he physically abused Pat for some time in the early 1960s when he was suffering from depression after losing his bid for governor.

[WD]

I really don't see why this is anyone's business but Cunningham's and his wifes's. His personal life is irrelevant when it comes to being an effective senator.

Cunningham's horrible judgement, immorality, flagrant disregard for the impact his actions would have on the lives of others (including the lives of his own wife and children), and short-sighted stupidity are all extremely relevant when it comes to his ability or lack thereof to be an effective Senator.  

Still better than Tillis

[JerryArkansas]

Again, how about you guys not moralise. 

[Ogre Mage]

Lest we forget, some of our best Presidents have been unfaithful. FDR and JFK sure were, and I would be surprised if LBJ never cheated. We don't have to like our politicians personally for them to be good leaders.

Cummingham is no Jack Kennedy, lol.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Here's a nuclear take on affairs:  They can actually help male politicians by making them seem sexy and desirable, especially if the male is good-looking and the affair is with a young, attractive woman.



Cal is a pretty good-looking guy, and Arlene Guzman Todd is smoking hot and 12 years younger than him (she's also a dead ringer for Nomiki Konst).  When voters see these texts of a young, attractive woman practically throwing herself at Cal and calling him incredibly sexy, that leaves a positive impression.  It says, this Cal guy isn't some boring, balding, late-40s generic D.  He's so desirable that pretty young married women find him irresistible.

The same was true for Bill Clinton.  The many affairs with younger women locked in the image of him as a lying, amoral cheater.  But they also created this work-hard play-hard image of Bill as a charismatic, sexy playboy.  And if we're being honest, people like that.  Especially guys, who would love to imagine themselves as a James Bond politician who brokers a peace treaty at 6 PM and has drinks with the ambassador's daughter at 9.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Replace "Trump" with "Cunningham".

https://twitter.com/Annakhait/status/1304142369634365443?s=19

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Replace "Trump" with "Cunningham".

https://twitter.com/Annakhait/status/1304142369634365443?s=19

This sort of rationalization is the problem.

I really don't see why this is anyone's business but Cunningham's and his wifes's. His personal life is irrelevant when it comes to being an effective senator.

Cunningham's horrible judgement, immorality, flagrant disregard for the impact his actions would have on the lives of others (including the lives of his own wife and children), and short-sighted stupidity are all extremely relevant when it comes to his ability or lack thereof to be an effective Senator.  

Still better than Tillis

Cunningham can be both a piece of crap and better than another two years of a Republican Senate majority.  One doesn't preclude the other.

I really don't see why this is anyone's business but Cunningham's and his wifes's. His personal life is irrelevant when it comes to being an effective senator.

Cunningham's horrible judgement, immorality, flagrant disregard for the impact his actions would have on the lives of others (including the lives of his own wife and children), and short-sighted stupidity are all extremely relevant when it comes to his ability or lack thereof to be an effective Senator.  

All those things, Tillis did worse by following the McConnell agenda.

And how does any of that excuse Cunningham's conduct?  Why can't you just acknowledge, as some others have, that Cunningham is an amoral piece of crap even if he might be the lesser of two evils given that this race may decide control of the Senate?  That's really all I'm asking.  

Again, how about you guys not moralise.  

Because we're only supposed to care about scandals when they involve a Republican, right?  Like, does anyone honestly believe that most red avatars here wouldn't be foaming at the mouth over this if Tillis were the one who had an affair?

Here's a nuclear take on affairs:  They can actually help male politicians by making them seem sexy and desirable, especially if the male is good-looking and the affair is with a young, attractive woman.



Cal is a pretty good-looking guy, and Arlene Guzman Todd is smoking hot and 12 years younger than him (she's also a dead ringer for Nomiki Konst).  When voters see these texts of a young, attractive woman practically throwing herself at Cal and calling him incredibly sexy, that leaves a positive impression.  It says, this Cal guy isn't some boring, balding, late-40s generic D.  He's so desirable that pretty young married women find him irresistible.

The same was true for Bill Clinton.  The many affairs with younger women locked in the image of him as a lying, amoral cheater.  But they also created this work-hard play-hard image of Bill as a charismatic, sexy playboy.  And if we're being honest, people like that.  Especially guys, who would love to imagine themselves as a James Bond politician who brokers a peace treaty at 6 PM and has drinks with the ambassador's daughter at 9.

I'm not saying your analysis is necessarily wrong (sadly, I think you may be right and if so, then that's a pretty d***ing indictment of the average male voter), but there is a lot of amorality and misogyny to unpack regarding that phenomenon if you're correct.

[Landslide Lyndon]

https://twitter.com/DHBerman/status/1316463959533330433