HorrorMovieFans.com

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mysana ... 239398.php

A district flipped from Dem to Republican for the first time in 100 years,,,

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.local1 ... eport-says

A district Clinton's won by 20 points now a toss up as Dems nominate an old ass stroke victim against a conservative who speaks Spanish in a predominantly Spanish speaking area.

So basically, it’s chaos and turmoil and there’s no predicting outcomes.

Who knew.

Amd yet. in Indiana's third and ninth congressional districts, there's a legitimate Democrat nominated in both (Tritch for the third, Watson for the ninth), for the first time in some time.

Now, I doubt either would win (Watson has a better chance than Tritch), but the point is, I think either side could pick out races and districts selectively, since, you know, with the House alone, there are theoretically 435 elections alone.

And to be more clear, I live in Indiana's third, and Tritch isn't getting my vote, nor would Watson if I lived in the ninth, but still, to mainstream Democrats, I'm sure both candidates strike them as realistic.

I think most rational observers realize the House is very much in play while the Senate would be an upset win for Democrats. I'd give Republicans better odds to hold both than I'd give Democrats to steal both, but no outcome is a long shot. It will be awesome to follow.

Being from Indiana, what I'm interested most in is whether or not incumbent Joe Donnelly (Democrat, though he votes like a Republican) will be able to hold his seat against Republican Braun. Libertarian Lucy Brenton got 5.5% in 2016, and the Republican (Todd Young) still won with 10% over Evan Bayh, so I doubt she'll do much to effect the out for the 2018 race.

Some have been criticizing Braun's campaign, but realistically, I don't know how much an impact it'll make - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 38117.html

It will be a weird one. But there is also a lot of talk of higher than usual turnout. Guess Trump finally did something positive if that’s the case, in a way.

Headhunter wrote:I think most rational observers realize the House is very much in play while the Senate would be an upset win for Democrats. I'd give Republicans better odds to hold both than I'd give Democrats to steal both, but no outcome is a long shot. It will be awesome to follow.

We heard about this "Blue Wave" for months, though. Then some of the establishment Dems got primaried by unelectable idiot socialists and others literally bring nothing to the table.

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I think most rational observers realize the House is very much in play while the Senate would be an upset win for Democrats. I'd give Republicans better odds to hold both than I'd give Democrats to steal both, but no outcome is a long shot. It will be awesome to follow.

We heard about this "Blue Wave" for months, though. Then some of the establishment Dems got primaried by unelectable idiot socialists and others literally bring nothing to the table.

Those "unelectable socialist idiots" are entirely electable in the districts they won. You don't think Ocasio-Cortez is going to win? She's not even a democratic socialist, by the way, to say nothing of socialist, but she's still going to easily reach congress.

Jigsaw wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I think most rational observers realize the House is very much in play while the Senate would be an upset win for Democrats. I'd give Republicans better odds to hold both than I'd give Democrats to steal both, but no outcome is a long shot. It will be awesome to follow.

We heard about this "Blue Wave" for months, though. Then some of the establishment Dems got primaried by unelectable idiot socialists and others literally bring nothing to the table.

Those "unelectable socialist idiots" are entirely electable in the districts they won. You don't think Ocasio-Cortez is going to win? She's not even a democratic socialist, by the way, to say nothing of socialist, but she's still going to easily reach congress.

Sure, she will win the seat, but at the expense of the party at large. When she gets off her coached points for a moment, it is pretty sad to listen to her. The people in those districts have a responsibility to not look like loons because it has a broader impact.

Blue wave, achieved.

showa58taro wrote:Blue wave, achieved.

Is that why Sotomayor and Ginsberg will be bubble wrapped and kept in a cage for the foreseeable future?

It was pretty definitively a "wave" considering what they had to work with.

With the map Republicans had, there should be more "Trump blew the House" takes out there.

Headhunter wrote:It was pretty definitively a "wave" considering what they had to work with.

With the map Republicans had, there should be more "Trump blew the House" takes out there.

The ones that were expected to have upset wins (Beto, etc) didn't. That's very telling that this was in fact, a "blue wave". Imagine if the others had won.

Jmac Attack wrote:

Headhunter wrote:It was pretty definitively a "wave" considering what they had to work with.

With the map Republicans had, there should be more "Trump blew the House" takes out there.

The ones that were expected to have upset wins (Beto, etc) didn't. That's very telling that this was in fact, a "blue wave". Imagine if the others had won.

Huge net win in the House, huge net win in governorships and there's a chance the Senate gains for the GOP is only 1 seat. It was an ass kicking.

It’s a blue wave by every metric.

And if there was ever going to be a year where the counterbalance to the presidential election didn't happen, this would have been it with the impact of 2010 redistricting. Trump being Trump made this all possible.

Headhunter wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Headhunter wrote:It was pretty definitively a "wave" considering what they had to work with.

With the map Republicans had, there should be more "Trump blew the House" takes out there.

The ones that were expected to have upset wins (Beto, etc) didn't. That's very telling that this was in fact, a "blue wave". Imagine if the others had won.

Huge net win in the House, huge net win in governorships and there's a chance the Senate gains for the GOP is only 1 seat. It was an ass kicking.

Is it true that there were like 7 million more votes for Dems in the Senate? I heard someone at work saying that but never looked into it. It's hard to trust anyone these days haha

Jmac Attack wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Headhunter wrote:It was pretty definitively a "wave" considering what they had to work with.

With the map Republicans had, there should be more "Trump blew the House" takes out there.

The ones that were expected to have upset wins (Beto, etc) didn't. That's very telling that this was in fact, a "blue wave". Imagine if the others had won.

Huge net win in the House, huge net win in governorships and there's a chance the Senate gains for the GOP is only 1 seat. It was an ass kicking.

Is it true that there were like 7 million more votes for Dems in the Senate? I heard someone at work saying that but never looked into it. It's hard to trust anyone these days haha

NY Times says 13 million more, but it's not really anything to put stock into. California's race was between two Democrats, for example.

The total turnout is what catches my eye.

Headhunter wrote:And if there was ever going to be a year where the counterbalance to the presidential election didn't happen, this would have been it with the impact of 2010 redistricting. Trump being Trump made this all possible.

You mean there are people like me who don't like Trump because he shits on POWs (likes guys who don't get caught), tweets like a 13 year old girl, is snowflake as all fuck when you criticize him, and has been known to be a crook all his life?

Headhunter wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:

Headhunter wrote:It was pretty definitively a "wave" considering what they had to work with.

With the map Republicans had, there should be more "Trump blew the House" takes out there.

The ones that were expected to have upset wins (Beto, etc) didn't. That's very telling that this was in fact, a "blue wave". Imagine if the others had won.

Huge net win in the House, huge net win in governorships and there's a chance the Senate gains for the GOP is only 1 seat. It was an ass kicking.

Is it true that there were like 7 million more votes for Dems in the Senate? I heard someone at work saying that but never looked into it. It's hard to trust anyone these days haha

NY Times says 13 million more, but it's not really anything to put stock into. California's race was between two Democrats, for example.

The total turnout is what catches my eye.

Gotcha. I knew there was more to it.