dagblog - Comments for "They left no doubt what they think of women"

FWIW, Nate Silver just now on

artappraiser — Fri, 12 Oct 2018 01:24:55 +0000

In reply to They left no doubt what they think of women

FWIW, Nate Silver just now on Heitkamp:

e.g. in ND-SEN, only two firms have polled the race since Labor Day. They both have really bad numbers for Heitkamp. But it's not a lot of polling, and earlier polls had shown a more competitive race. That's why our model classifies it as "lean R" rather than likely or safe R.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 12, 2018

Response to AD above

rmrd0000 — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 22:06:10 +0000

In reply to They left no doubt what they think of women

Response to AD above

Brown compromise s. The other candidates compromise. I am unaware of Republican candidates who are running on a platform of bipartisanship. The Republicans will be pro-Trump, or risk being labeled RINO. In race where Democrats are willing to compromise, but their opponents are not willing to compromise, voters are willingly choosing hardliners.

See below.

rmrd0000 — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 22:02:14 +0000

In reply to As aa said, how do you think

See below.

As aa said, how do you think

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 21:53:26 +0000

In reply to Brown has a significant lead

As aa said, how do you think he won those races?

If you buy that Ohio voters are notably non-partisan--and I don't have evidence I would need to have a thought on that either way at this point--then how do you explain the fact that he has been able to survive with one of the Senate's most liberal voting records despite being a major target of the GOP?

On the theory that says "moderates" and "centrists" always have the edge over those closer to their party's wings in swing or less partisan states, you'd think all Ohio Republicans have to do--if they can--is nominate someone they can dress up as a "moderate" and they'll blow him away, right?

His stance on trade is part of it, I believe. But not the whole of it, by any means. He gets support from a Barber-like coalition. His is an existence proof that you can do that and win in a swing state, one that has been trending Republican in recent years.

Brown has a significant lead

rmrd0000 — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 21:11:08 +0000

In reply to Brown was never in danger?

Brown has a significant lead in polling now.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/12/ohio-senate-race-poll-2018-governor-815787

Brown won 51 to 45%in 2012

Brown won 56 to 44% in 2006

Brown was never in danger?

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 20:50:57 +0000

In reply to Brown was never in danger.

Brown was never in danger? Oh baloney. He's been near the top of the list of senators the GOP has been trying to get rid of for years. They have poured big money into his races to try to knock him off.

If you're acknowledging that they all compromise, then why did you bring up relative willingness to compromise among the four as some sort of distinguishing and relevant factor?

That particular tally counts

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 20:47:36 +0000

In reply to Check for how many registered

That particular tally counts as non-partisan individuals who registered with a party but did not vote in their party's primary.

I don't know how to make sense out of this one piece of information, and certainly not without looking at apples-to-apples tallies in the 3 other states using the same methodology.

I haven’t seen a trend of

rmrd0000 — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:51:19 +0000

In reply to I don't know what that means.

I haven’t seen a trend of Republican candidates who feel bipartisanship is not a dirty word. Voting Republican has come to mean not voting for someone who will reach across the aisle.

Brown was never in danger.

rmrd0000 — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:35:15 +0000

In reply to Check for how many registered

Brown was never in danger. Brown is willing to compromise. Brown is winnng in Ohio.

Testor is willing to compromise. Heitkamp is willing to compromise. McCaskill is willing to compromise. Their stances be it abortion or other issues hasn’t changed. In those states pure Republican partisans have the advantage. Voters are favoring those not willing to compromise.

I don't know what that means.

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:30:17 +0000

In reply to Testor, McCaskill, et al are

I don't know what that means.

Every legislator who wants to get anything done compromises. There are better and worse compromises, compromises that move things closer to what the legislator is working towards and those that do so to a lesser extent or perhaps not at all. There are legislators who drive a harder bargain and are more effective at mobilizing maximum support for better versions of legislation closer to what they want to accomplish. Ted Kennedy was highly effective in that respect, regardless of whether one approved or disapproved of his views.

There's a word for legislators who do not compromise: ineffective. At least insofar as changing public policy in any particular direction.

As to the statement that their voters seem to want partisans, I'm also not sure what you mean by that and what leads you to believe this. I'd venture to say that many of their voters would welcome any sort of help in addressing matters of concern to them. Someone who seeks their vote can offer ideology. Or partisanship for its own sake. Or else they can try to understand the practical concerns of their constituents, connect with them, and communicate what they will seek to do about those concerns if elected.