What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

infection said:
He’s a guy who’s won elections since those issues.

Serious question, do you think going from 12.2% victory to 2.6% is explained by Vitter? If so, how much?
Click to expand...
I think Vitter was an incredibly flawed candidate, the sex scandal came from a time (preTrump) when those sort of things mattered to GOP voters.

That said, Trump has his rabid base of supporters, and as a Republican you're probably better off in the short term electorally if you attach yourself to him.

The lesson here, as it was in Kentucky, is that the Trump boost is not big enough to overcome good Democratic candidates, even in red states. Trump isn't some wildly popular president whose endorsement brings in a bunch of voters who weren't going to vote GOP anyway. He'll bring out the base, and that's about it.
 
The Thriller said:
yes.

what's the alt narrative? Louisiana was bluer in 2015 than in 2019 and that Trump helped to close the gap for what should have been a double digit victory for the Democrat?

btw Rispone the Republican was up in the polls +5 pts prior to Trump’s last two visits. :)
Click to expand...
I’m not providing any narrative. I’m questioning the narrative you and colton indicated was a big deal for “red Louisiana” to go blue. It “went blue” by 12.2 percentage points a year before it “went red” by 20% for Trump. My question is more your narrative how dropping 12.2% to 2.6% signals disaster for Trump.
 
infection said:
I’m not providing any narrative. I’m questioning the narrative you and colton indicated was a big deal for “red Louisiana” to go blue. It “went blue” by 12.2 percentage points a year before it “went red” by 20% for Trump. My question is more your narrative how dropping 12.2% to 2.6% signals disaster for Trump.
Click to expand...
If nothing else it's a disaster for his ego, as he's now pulled out all the stops for two red state governor races in a row and been rebuked both times.
 
infection said:
I’m not providing any narrative. I’m questioning the narrative you and colton indicated was a big deal for “red Louisiana” to go blue. It “went blue” by 12.2 percentage points a year before it “went red” by 20% for Trump. My question is more your narrative how dropping 12.2% to 2.6% signals disaster for Trump.
Click to expand...

Well, seeing how 4/5 past gubernatorial elections in Louisiana were won by republicans by an average of 33.5 percentage points and no Democrat had won a state wide election by double digits since David Duke ran as the republican gubernatorial candidate in 1991, I’d say Republicans probably blew it by nominating Vitter.

Which is more likely?

Louisiana swinging 50 percentage points between 2011 and 2015 due to changing views and demographics and then changing back 47 percentage in 2019?

OR

David Vitter in just being an awful candidate making 2015 (an outlier year) a decent 12 point blowout for the Democrats in what is normally a conservative state?
 
The Thriller said:
Well, seeing how 4/5 past gubernatorial elections in Louisiana were won by republicans by an average of 33.5 percentage points and no Democrat had won a state wide election by double digits since David Duke ran as the republican gubernatorial candidate in 1991, I’d say Republicans probably blew it by nominating Vitter.

Where do you think Edwards finishes in 2015 assuming an average candidate? And why was Vitter re-elected with 57% of the vote as a senator after all his flaws were known?

Which is more likely?

Louisiana swinging 50 percentage points between 2011 and 2015 due to changing views and demographics and then changing back 47 percentage in 2019?

OR

David Vitter in just being an awful candidate making 2015 (an outlier year) a decent 12 point blowout for the Democrats in what is normally a conservative state?
Click to expand...
So you think Vitter explains all 12.6%? Nevertheless, I’d loved to have had this discussion of an outlier victory with you in 2015. I’m sure you’d have ceded that, and wouldn’t have been chest pounding on how this indicated the republicans were ****ed in 2016.
 
infection said:
So you think Vitter explains all 12.6%? Nevertheless, I’d loved to have had this discussion of an outlier victory with you in 2015. I’m sure you’d have ceded that, and wouldn’t have been chest pounding on how this indicated the republicans were ****ed in 2016.
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear from his OP that he credits popular D policies as well.

The Thriller said:
So this time the election truly was a mandate on Democratic governing. Did the people want to continue with this same tax raisin, public education spendin liberal?
Click to expand...
 
And where do you presume Edward finishes in 2015 with an average republican opponent? And why did Vitter get 57% vote for re-election for the Senate after his controversies? If they’re enough to make his gubernatorial candidacy an outlier, why didn’t it create an outlier, or at least a loss, for his Senate seat?
 
Zombie said:
If nothing else it's a disaster for his ego, as he's now pulled out all the stops for two red state governor races in a row and been rebuked both times.
Click to expand...
Well that’s good. If they can’t get him in 2020, everyone can at least breath a couple sighs of relief known they’ve gotten in a few blows to his ego.
 
Zombie said:
It's pretty clear from his OP that he credits popular D policies as well.
Click to expand...

Yes.

I also forgot to add, medicaid expansion is popular. While republicans were trying to destroy Obamacare, Edwards expanded Medicaid. Even in red states, medicaid expansion is popular.

Repubs have done nothing but alienate and antagonize key constitutents with their sexism, racism, and attacks on Obamacare.
 
infection said:
And where do you presume Edward finishes in 2015 with an average republican opponent? And why did Vitter get 57% vote for re-election for the Senate after his controversies? If they’re enough to make his gubernatorial candidacy an outlier, why didn’t it create an outlier, or at least a loss, for his Senate seat?
Click to expand...

Because people’s feelings and views of stuff change over time? His “issue” happened in 2007, right? He ran for senate and got 57 percent of the vote in 2010. He then ran for governor in 2015.

maybe voters recognized how awful he was, both morally and politically? Just like voters recognize how awful Trump is and don’t want 4 more years of his crimes?
 
The Thriller said:
Because people’s feelings and views of stuff change over time? His “issue” happened in 2007, right? He ran for senate and got 57 percent of the vote in 2010. He then ran for governor in 2015.

maybe voters recognized how awful he was, both morally and politically? Just like voters recognize how awful Trump is and don’t want 4 more years of his crimes?
Click to expand...
So you’re attempting to make an argument that he was a significant outlier, and that explains the 10 percentage point drop, and when confronted with evidence contrary to your “flawed candidate” theory, your response is “well, hey, maybe people changed their minds!” I’m not big into clichés, but that’s mental gymnastics.
 
infection said:
So you’re attempting to make an argument that he was a significant outlier, and that explains the 10 percentage point drop, and when confronted with evidence contrary to your “flawed candidate” theory, your response is “well, hey, maybe people changed their minds!” I’m not big into clichés, but that’s mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...
Makes a whole lot more sense than that 12pt D wins are the natural state of politics in LA, and Trump helped bridge that gap to deliver a moral victory to Republicans.
 
Zombie said:
Makes a whole lot more sense than that 12pt D wins are the natural state of politics in LA, and Trump helped bridge that gap to deliver a moral victory to Republicans.
Click to expand...
1. It’s not an either/or. It’s about how much of that variance is explained by “poor candidate” theory and other local issues.

2. I’m not suggesting any kind of moral Trump victory. I haven’t said anything about Trump, which is odd because this again isn’t black and white. I’m questioning the assertion that this election has much to do with Trump because getting more context doesn’t look that way. It actually looks worse for that argument the more you dig in. Gameface got this one right. There’s not much you can take from this, but if you wanted to take something from it, it spelling some kind of disaster for Trump isn’t it.
 
infection said:
1. It’s not an either/or. It’s about how much of that variance is explained by “poor candidate” theory and other local issues.

2. I’m not suggesting any kind of moral Trump victory. I haven’t said anything about Trump, which is odd because this again isn’t black and white. I’m questioning the assertion that this election has much to do with Trump because getting more context doesn’t look that way. It actually looks worse for that argument the more you dig in. Gameface got this one right. There’s not much you can take from this, but if you wanted to take something from it, it spelling some kind of disaster for Trump isn’t it.
Click to expand...
I agree this doesn't necessarily spell disaster for Trump, at least not on its own. But when taken along with the rest of D victories in Kentucky, Virginia, the retaking of the US house, the losses are piling up. Obviously Trump thinks these races mean something to him, or else he wouldn't be making multiple campaign stops at each one in the weeks before the election.

At a certain point saying these races don't matter, starts to look a little desperate.
 
porcupinetree said:
They held a trial and Zimmerman was found not guilty and set free....
Oh gee, So I guess all the screaming by the media was just a bunch of lies.
Click to expand...

So, since Hillary Clinton has never been convicted of a crime, by this standard you think she's innocent of all wrongdoing, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top