Wyoming and Utah are 100 percent safe Republican states and Democrats know they have no chance EVER in a statewide federal race. Nebraska is the 4th best performing Republican state (after Wyoming, Utah, Idaho and this analysis is based on overall performance based on multiple factors ) and is a state where the fundamental voter preference guarantees Democrats simply can't win mathematically. That eliminates 3 of the 8 right there. Good luck trying to win Mississippi since white voters never give Democrats so much as 20 percent of the vote for any federal race and it is often far short of that. The best Democrats have done since 1987 in Governors races was a 49 to 47 loss in November 1999 (the election law enabled the Democratic legislature to decide who got to sit in the Governor's mansion when both candidates failed to get 50 percent plus 1) and Ronnie Musgrove never topped 47 percent since then but he took advantage of record black support in 2008 to get 46 percent in a special election for the same seat that is up in 2018. But Democratic performance has taken a nosedive since 2008. Even once strong conservative Democrats got smashed in 2010 in congressional district races plus Democrats lost the legislature. No Democrat can win there. Tennesseans are more fundamentally GOP than ever. The 2012 election saw a former r Democratic performing district become safe GOP when a 1 term GOP incumbent was discovered to have had multiple extramarital affairs ( that lead to multiple abortions) yet a Pro Life Democratic challenger couldn't take the seat back. Texas is a state where Ted Cruz won 58 percent in a high turnout Presidential year and 2012 wasn't a year with a particularly bad climate for Democrats generally. That would eliminate all but 2 seats. That leaves Arizona which is very Republican in non Presidential years and Jeff Flake is a mild mannered Pro Immigration conservative and it is tough to find many weaknesses on
Consider this about the November 2016 Senate races (in the history books now).
For the first time in American history, every state that the Democrat won also saw the Senate seats being won by Democrats and every state that the Republican won saw the Republicans win.
Now look at the races in 2018, which are based on having an incumbent that won in 2012.
The most popular Democrat ever in Nebraska, Bob Kerry, lost the open seat (with a retiring incumbent) 58% to 42% to Deb Fischer.
Ted Cruz won 58% of the vote (and most Hispanics voted for the right-wing Republican in the open 2014 Governors race. And that disgraceful 2014 Democratic opponent now says her biggest campaign mistake was that she didn't go after gun rights even "harder"! Huh? She was a big mouthpiece for Hillary Clinton (over Sanders) in the 2016 Democratic primary, and bragged that Hillary was a "progressive" champion because, when she was asked by reporters, of (and she would only have this as a response) the gun issue.
Utah and Wyoming 2012
Lets not even go there. This is la la land to even talk about these states.
Lets look at the Presidential race, because the very old Republican incumbent in 2012 (who might not be running now) was a politician that has always had a ton of black support (for historical reasons mainly) and it might confuse the issue to look at the Senate race.
Obama lost 56% to 43% in 2008 (though pro-gun conservative Democrats were still doing o.k. in state races plus the federal congressional races) (white Democrats are extinct in Mississippi)
Obama lost 55% to 44% in 2012.
Trump won 58% to 40% in 2016.
Gore only lost 57% to 41% in 2000.
Democrats haven't won a Senate race since 1982 and have lost badly since. They have only won 2 since the 1970 win.
Democrat have lost the popular vote in every Governors race since 1987.
Democrats have tanked in this and so many other states since gun control became an issue again.
Bon Corker is a popular moderate (who won with like 70%), but he actually almost lost the open seat in 2006 (however he only won 51% to 48% against a pro life pro gun black Democratic congressman). Democrats have lost any chance of winning due to the gun issue coming back in December 2012. Republicans never liked Bob Corker.
Trump won easily with way more than 10%.
5 of the states were won by Trump by more than 15% and Texas by 9%.
That leaves Arizona and Nevada.
Trump won Arizona by 3.5% and Jeff Flake will get to run in a low turnout mid term election which will help him a lot. He will do at least as good with Hispanics as Trump and likely better due to his pro immigration views. He is a Mormon and his church has made it clear they don't agree with Trump.
Hillary won Nevada by 5% so perhaps Dean Heller can be defeated.
Democrats can win no more than 2, but the bigger question is if they take any seats at all.
And that is a question about the gross level.
On a net level they could loose 8 seats nationwide and I would still mean they are winning the majority of races (17 to 16). That would give the Republicans a super majority of 60 seats in the Senate.
I suspect that you would have to go back to an election like 1974 or 1964 to find Democrats , or Republicans (for that matter), doing so well in a single election as they would need tto do to take the Senate in 2018.
The Democrats would need a 28 to 5 win on election night.
Has that ever happened?
And considering that Hillary only got about 25% of the vote in West Virginia, then what chance does Joe Manchin have?
I really don't see where Democrats can take more than 1 seat or 2 from the Republicans, though I sure can see where Republicans can take more than a few from Democrats.
Democrats really got their clocks cleaned in 2014 and 2016. Their fragile Senate majority was depending on holding a lot of seats in tough territory. They nominated a gun control nut in Montana in 2014 (and lost by 17% as one would expect) for the Baucus open seat. Mark Udall, in Colorado, decided to reverse his pro gun policy he ran on in 2008 and he lost. I think that the Alaska seat was lost due to the national Democratic party hurting Mark Begich.
Felder is ignoring reporters questions about his decision on single payer (undecided
There are 31 yes votes Probably all 31 Republicans are opposed.
Democrats need the fundamentalist Jew (who considers it against his religious views to do alot of things ) Felder.
Edit: Simcha Felder is the decider. The 2017-2018 path to single payer passes right through the unpredictable Senator from Brooklyn. I imagine he would demand abortion concessions for starters. He also will demand lots of side gifts for his pet causes which will be ridiculed as legal bribery.
Democratic chances in post Trump era ( also an era of anti-gun Democratic party )
Democrats are in such bad shape that the national party didn't try to win the open Montana seat yesterday. A liberal, Rob Quist, was supported by Bernie Sanders, and came within 6% in a state where Democrats used to win non-presidential national races.
December 2012 was a turning point in many places.
West Virginia has 30% of its population on Medicaid.
In past years, Trump's budget would kill the GOP.
But national Democrats are just too much crazy on divisive social issues.
Simcha Felder is crazy himself, but he has recently said "how dare you tell Democrats how to think " or something.
New York might attract a good many health care refugees to our state if health is a human right.
West Virginia escapees perhaps?
I don't think the Trump budget will be able to pass this Congress though. But the GOP could gain Senate seats in November 2018.
Californian Lt Governor (running in 2020 for Gov) for single payer! Legislature favs.
It seems that the California situation is that the state needs $200 billion per year in additional revenue (assuming a federal wavier allows the existing $200 billion a year in Medicare and Medicaid funds to be put into a giant pot ) to fund a "free stuff " single payer plan.
A 15% tax would do it for California residents ( includes all types of immigrants as residents provided that they meet minimal residency requirements ).
Perhaps a 7.5% tax on workers matched by employers would be palatable?
Workers are slammed harder by every Obama care requirement ( except for those who somehow work plus qualify for Medicaid ), so there shouldn't be too much complaints - except from the more upper income tier.
Business taxes might not be much different than what they spend on employee health plans presently.
There is nothing that more efficiently takes in revenue than straight wage taxes. I suppose there could be other revenue increase changes to keep the income tax from being the full 15% though.
If the cost ends up being a bit too much for taxpayers to stomach, then perhaps a 10% co-pay of health care would cushion the
Re: Californian Lt Governor (running in 2020 for Gov) for single payer! Legislature favs.
You assume that the only type of person who will come is someone who can't contribute to the state?
Why not make an assumption that the state will attract all types of people?
It isn't clear that giving poorer people health care security won't have larger economic benefits anyway.
It must be pointed out that there is a distinction between an entire nation adopting a health care system, based on funding primarily from the taxpayers being directly taxed upfront, and a narrow section alone adopting the specific policy - while the larger body of the nation remains under the older ( better or worse ) system.
There comes a risk of a race-to-the-bottom when the latter is the situation one looks at. The feared race isn't the certain situation. The certain situation is a more productive economic climate as the certain change (before the race to the worst part of the world factors in ).
When California is part of a nation that employs 1.5 million workers in the fundamentally unproductive health insurance industry, then you have an amazingly high (1%) percentage of the workforce choking Californians and Americans at large.
We hear alot about the diminished wage gains of nonmanagerial private sector workers and the lack of keeping up with the growth in the national average per person yearly income. The general economic theory is that the wages in the group will tend to rise a certain amount which will be proportional to the combination of the inflation rate PLUS productivity rate. Low productivity growth will suggest smaller non inflation adjusted wage growth.
Do you want your tax and/or consumer dollars going to medicine or insurance bureaucrats ?
Do you want your dollars going to nurses or insurance company execs?
To Doctors or some pencil pusher in Delaware?
And Doctors can spend at least 60% more of their PAID TIME taking care of patients with a switch to single payer so how could you fear a population increase of ( highly unlikely to rise by anywhere near ) that amount?
I will take investment in health related technology over the anti-technology, anti-research insurance companies any day of the week. Any such day will be alot more productive than today's anti-science moment (a sorry moment with longer momentum which hurts our future badly )
Californian will lower its bill per person in a single payer healthcare system.
Californians will live in a more productive state .
But will the taxes be higher than the current health insurance requirements and standard business expenses?
What will happen when taxes cause an overall higher upfront cost?
Will the more productive overall economic dynamic handle the competing tension of the taxes which are an economic force in their own right?
Healthcare has been rising as a percentage of GDP. But our national per capita income has never been $50,000 higher than the per capita healthcare cost as it is about to be. The simple fact is that there is a larger and larger economic pie brought about by growth. The economic growth comes from higher productivity for one (major ) thing.
We have to be aware of the macroeconomic forces and make sure that the benefits of the policy changes are explained.
Long term benefits being understood are a key part of the health of the economy because CONFIDENCE is a fundamental reality in the economic climate and the actual conditions - both in the here & now AND ( naturally ) the future.
NYTimes"Democrats also want Mr. Heller...may be their only shot at picking up a seat"
Democratic party with perhaps 1 gross pickup opportunity in the Senate.
Democratic party chances are better in the house. I am amazed to say that there are 23 seats that Hillary Clinton won which the Republicans hold.
The Democrats need 24.
These are very confusing situations though because many of them were once safe GOP seats like Virginia -10 (a super high educated district that couldn't vote for Trump ) but swung mightily and gave Hillary a slight win.
There are 7 such districts in California alone.
I expect the Republicans to at least break even in the Senate but Democrats can really make it hard to pass to many things if the Republicans can get their House majority nocked down to say 223-212 from around 243-192 presently.
Trump might just make it possible as he lost alot of typically Republican seats.
(On the other hand, Democrats lost in the once Democratic leaning state of Montana in a congressional district so they might have a bigger brand problem than the GOP. Ohio Democratic party star Tim Ryan feels his party stinks worse than the Trump GOP and he might be right )
A Latino Decisions 2016 poll “was controversial in its assertion about the amount of Latinos that voted for Trump,” Jones said. That post-election survey said that only 19 percent of Hispanics voted for Trump, while exit polls put the number closer to 30 percent.
Barreto said that the controversy arisen from comparing the LD post-election data with exit polls, "which have been thoroughly debunked by numerous academic studies and embarrassing results last year, including in Texas." He said studies have shown that "they have bad Latino samples in their surveys with as little as 5 percent representation." The Associated Press news agency announced earlier this year that they are not using exit pools anymore for their inaccuracies and are instead developing a different system to produce their own surveys.
Also see December 2 2016 Washington Post article saying Trump did NOT win 34% of the Hispanic vote in Texas.
This means that the pro deportation Ted Cruz might bomb out with Hispanics in Texas (as Trump seems to have done despite the exit polls), thus he could loose (I think he will win albeit narrowly).
Democrats nominated a superb candidate in Arizona (a congresswoman who was one of the few Democrats who opposed mental health discrimination - the bill disguised as "good gun policy" - and she is a politician who supported Nader in the past). Republicans are going to have a hard time painted her as a "socialist" because she is the most bipartisan Democrat there is according to the voting record. And the first ever openly bisexual means it is a historic election.
(This election will really help Democrats in Arizona who are still hurting by the Gabby Giffords stain, a congresswoman who claimed to support gun rights when first elected in 2006, but then turned against them rather strongly)
Kirsten Sinema is at heart a progressive (despite here wise bipartisan votes) and supports rights for all. She will help the Democratic brand. I knew who she was years before she ran for congress in 2012, because she was frequently on television defending immigrants in Arizona.
The closest O’Rourke and Cruz poll is in Houston, where the Republican comes within five percentage points of his challenger. O’Rourke has a lead of 45 percent to 40 percent among Houston-area Hispanics who responded. In Dallas-Fort Worth, O’Rourke’s margin bumps up significantly, where he enjoys a 51 percent to 39 percent advantage over Cruz. And along the border, it’s a Democratic blowout in the U.S. Senate race. The Rio Grande Valley polled 61 percent to 22 percent in favor of O’Rourke. And in O’Rourke’s hometown of El Paso, the margin of his lead is 68 percent to Cruz’s 20 percent.
Hispanic voters statewide said that immigration and border security is the most important issue facing Texans, with a 20 percent margin. The economy polled second at 15 percent and health care followed closely behind at 12 percent among the 625 respondents who were polled between August 20 and August 22.
While the numbers may be welcome news for Democrats, who have consistently trailed in political polls this year, it does point to a strategic challenge. Hispanics now make up about one-third of the state’s registered voters, but they remain unreliable voters on Election Day. Eight of the state’s 36 congressional districts are Hispanic majority, according to voting records with the Texas Legislative Council. Voter turnout in those districts for the last gubernatorial race in 2014 averaged 25 percent among Hispanics. The average turnout in the other 28 congressional districts that year was 35 percent. Overall, Hispanic turnout was 14 percent while white turnout was 66 percent.
I haven't followed the race, and don't know much about the Democrat.
But I heard he wants to "decriminalize" illegal immigration border crossings, whatever that means.
The "decriminalize" word is a famous technical term when it comes to drug policy, but I wonder how big of a deal this is for immigration policy. (It sounds big, but Republican talking points make any policy that isn't 100% anti-immigration sound like some radical anti-nationalistic turn WHICH WOULD BE AWSOME IF IT REALLY WAS)
In 2012, Texas saw minority voters make up just over 40% of the electorate, and whites cast 5,087,000. Hispanics cast 1,890,000 and Asians 214,000 (blacks cast 1,352,000 votes).
Now, Hispanics would have been at 4 million had they turned out at the same rate as whites. Asians would have been at 500,000.
That was 2012, when Romney won Texas 58% to 40%
McCain won 55% to 43%.
Texas is consistently in the bottom five states for voter turnout. In the 2010 election, about 41 percent of eligible voters turned out nationwide, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In Texas, 32 percent did. That means Rick Perry was elected to his third full term by just 17 percent of the state’s eligible voters.
In fact, if Texas Latinos participated in politics at the same rates they do in other Latino-rich states—California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona—then Texas would already be a swing state. Texas has about the same percentage of Latinos as California. If they had turned out at the same rates as Anglos in 2008, 1.2 million more Latinos would have voted, according to Census figures. McCain beat Obama in Texas by 951,000 votes.
But look at the healthcare situation (in 2012 which was before the ACA made a decent dent in the uninsured Texans)
Latino voters in Texas are in many ways a natural target for progressives. In Harris County, 55 percent of Latino adults between 18 and 64 years old have no health insurance, compared to 11 percent of Anglos. Nearly half of adult Hispanics in Texas don’t have a high school degree, compared to 8 percent of Anglos. Only 11 percent of Hispanics have a college or graduate degree, compared to 33 percent of Anglos.
From 2012 to 2016, national eligible voter numbers show that Hispanics jumped from 10.8% of total eligible voters in 2012 to 11.9% in 2016. (actual turnout portion of national vote was 9.2% in 2016, up from 8.4% in 2012).
Asians were 4.0% of the eligible vote in 2012, and 4.7% in 2016. (turnout portion of vote was 3.1% in 2012 and 3.7% in 2016)
Blacks went up from 12% of eligible vote in 2012 to 12.3% in 2016. (turnout dropped from 12.9% in 2012 down to 11.9% in 2016)
Whites fell from 73.4% of eligible votes in 2008 to 71.1% in 2012. Then down to 68.9% of eligible voters in 2016. I assume the numbers will be between 66.5% and 67.0% in 2020. (But whites are still 73.3% of the actual vote as of 2016)
Back to Texas.
Another Texas poll (today on 9/12/2018 from CBS) has Cruz only up 46% to 42%.
Pro Deportation Republican verses a fairly Pro Immigration type of Democrat.
But I must add that I saw commentary that stated that minorities were just under 50% of eligible voters as recent as 2017. 49% was the number I saw. So these sources might be off a bit. See my links for the numbers. The Texas numbers have me wondering.
Re: On hopes and dreams (despair among Texans) brought by Democrats.
It seems that the 2012 numbers were correct, but the percentage was screwed up.
First, here are 2016 numbers compared to 2012 race.
2012 White 5,087,000
2016 White 5,905,000
2012 Asian 214,000
2016 Asian 338,000
2012 Hispanic 1,890,000
2016 Hispanic 1,938,000
2012 Black 1,352,000
2016 Black 1,349,000
Looks like 62% (white vote) to 38% (minority vote) in 2016 before mixed race and Native Americans are factored in.
Turnout among Texas Hispanics eligible to vote — citizens 18 and older — in 2016 slightly improved, increasing to 40.5 percent from 38.8 percent during the 2012 presidential election, according to U.S. Census data released Wednesday. The small increase is a discouraging sign for those who expected a spike in Hispanic turnout.
.... Only black and Asian Texans saw significant changes in turnout compared to the last presidential election. Considering those eligible to vote, black turnout dropped from 63.1 percent in 2012 to 57.2 percent last year. Meanwhile, turnout among Asians — a small sliver of both the state's overall population and the electorate — jumped up from 42.4 percent to 47.3 percent.
.... The Census estimates offer the first glimpse at a breakdown of turnout by race and ethnicity in the November election at a time when Hispanic turnout was highly anticipated to swell. But election watchers probably shouldn't take much stock in what the 2016 numbers could mean for the upcoming midterm elections — Texas’ dismal voter turnout is even worse during non-presidential years.
Regardless, Hillary only lost by 9.0%, and Texas might just be trending significantly toward a voting direction which requires the Republicans to be PRO IMMIGRATION if they want to win.
Florida, Arizona, and Texas are seeing lots of super close races.
Arizona Governor Ducey is only ahead of his Democratic challenged Garcia by 4% and the anti immigration GOP Gubernatorial candidate in Florida in trailing a progressive black by 3% in several polls.
Garcia has been described as an "open borders" dreamer due to comments. (something about telling people to imagine no southern border).
The Republicans are going to be forced to put up pro immigration candidates if they want to win nationally. Perhaps in 2020 to 2024 but 2028 seems certain.
And Social Security will be in severe trouble due to way to little immigration, so lets hope the anti immigration side gets the blame it deserves (for that and the much reduced GDP - from way too little immigration - hurting our debt to GDP ratio in a rather dramatic way).
Re: On hopes and dreams (despair among Texans) brought by Democrats.
quote: The populists simply need to make sure their kids are educated rather than being as whiny and entitled as we were!
To me the issue touches on the "free stuff" and "socialism" fear-mongers.
Look at this quote again (see my above few posts just before Phat responded), and do note that Harris County includes the entire city of Houston (though by no means limited to it).
Note (again) that Houston has nearly 2.5 million people and is almost half Hispanic. (the county is about 3 times the population of the city of Houston)
quote: Latino voters in Texas are in many ways a natural target for progressives. In Harris County, 55 percent of Latino adults between 18 and 64 years old have no health insurance, compared to 11 percent of Anglos. Nearly half of adult Hispanics in Texas don’t have a high school degree, compared to 8 percent of Anglos. Only 11 percent of Hispanics have a college or graduate degree, compared to 33 percent of Anglos.
Hispanics probably outnumber (non Hispanic) whites in Texas.
This is not a small group (and they aren't "liberal" or "entitled" based on what I know of them AND I LIVED IN HOUSTON)
Half lack a high school education.
90% lack a college degree.
Now, does an argument against "free stuff" - because it "costs society" - get support from the Texas situation?
I feel that social programs galore (housing guarantees for those going through schooling in elementary, middle, high, and college schools PLUS food allowances) would ensure fully 5 times the college degree rate among this group (and others).
It would pay for itself.
How could it not?
Populists see education as an "us verses them". Only allow richer communities to get proper education funding. Exclude the poor from getting "free stuff", meaning properly funded K-12 schools in their communities.
"Us verses Them" is the status quo.
Look at the results in the low-tax heaven of eastern Texas.
Hispanics outnumber whites by 2 to 1 in the city of Houston, and blacks also outnumber whites.
Look at the results.
Less than 15% of the 70% (70% = Hispanics and Blacks) have a college education, and only about half can even make it through high school due to the inhumane situation.
(and 1 in 2800 pregnancies is fatal to the pregnant female, meaning that a female with 5 pregnancies have a 1 in 500 chance of loosing her life from it)
Ducey (R) leads Garcia (D) in Arizona 51-40. Governor race. FOX poll.
But the same Fox poll has Sinema ahead of McSally 47% to 44%.
Ducey is described as "Open Borders" so it would be awesome if he could win.
Arizona, Florida, and Texas are the big states to watch.
Trump won Arizona by 3.5%
Texas by 9.0%
Florida by 1.1%
Texas has always been a major wild card when looking at "the future". (Minority turnout dropped from 2012 to 2016, with 40% of the vote already being reached in 2012 before dropping to 38% in 2016, despite the higher number of eligible minority voters in 16) It has the potential for a real Democratic conversion.
Florida is down to 54% white, and the minority groups there are eligible to vote in fairly high numbers
(ethnic Cubans and Puerto Ricans are eligible to vote in much higher numbers than other Hispanics)
(Puerto Ricans are now 5% of the population in Florida, though I AM SORRY TO SAY they aren't super-duper liberal like the New York Puerto Ricans that we are all so familiar with)
(Even New York Puerto Ricans are actually somewhat "Pro Life" despite the 95% Democratic party support, and all other Puerto Ricans are HEAVILY - like 80% - Pro Life, as well as conservative on a lot of other issues. So this is actually a complex situation)