Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Presidentinsertname

Special election exit poll.

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

Jeb!

is projected to win 100%

DYM6yilXkAA80wj.jpg

*rolls eyes at the hackneyed reference*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Presidentinsertname said:

you knew this was coming.

Wasn't disappointed this was coming. Having said that, still shocked a democrat won the seat though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Wasn't disappointed this was coming. Having said that, still shocked a democrat won the seat though.

Personally, I think partisan expectations and stereotypes, and then eventually the whole solid, entrenched, complacent, unchallengeable two-party system in the U.S. need to crumble for the sake of the nation's political advancement and health. One of the only good things at all about Trump's Presidency is that his unorthodox style and the internal division he's caused in the U.S. Republican Party is a move in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Wasn't disappointed this was coming. Having said that, still shocked a democrat won the seat though.

i wasnt shock that it was close lambs ran a campagin base on policy that the district like so did saccore but again no one won this seat yet a recount could still happen again like i said blue dog democrat are what the democrat need but the primarys are the problem the democrat want anti trump resistance 

35 minutes ago, Patine said:

Personally, I think partisan expectations and stereotypes, and then eventually the whole solid, entrenched, complacent, unchallengeable two-party system in the U.S. need to crumble for the sake of the nation's political advancement and health. One of the only good things at all about Trump's Presidency is that his unorthodox style and the internal division he's caused in the U.S. Republican Party is a move in that direction.

Partisanship is what been a key factor in the results considering both candidates of the major party ran on very similar platforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

Partisanship is what been a key factor in the results considering both candidates of the major party ran on very similar platforms.

And partisanship in it's current form, attitude, mood, and the two-parties around which it's currently built is one the aspects in the U.S. that's killing the nation and tearing it apart from within. Trump, nor any American President, will EVER be even capable of "Making America Great Again" so long as this vicious internal division - this festering, bleeding wound within the nation's bosom - continues to exist, worsen, and divide the country against itself. The "Greatness" promised by Trump is literally IMPOSSIBLE under the current socio-political situation.

"A House Divided Upon itself Cannot Stand," Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Presidentinsertname said:

i wasnt shock that it was close lambs ran a campagin base on policy that the district like so did saccore but again no one won this seat yet a recount could still happen again like i said blue dog democrat are what the democrat need but the primarys are the problem the democrat want anti trump resistance 

Partisanship is what been a key factor in the results considering both candidates of the major party ran on very similar platforms.

Partisanship shouldn't be the factor. The biggest factor has to be the stance regarding unions. Saccone was portrayed as an Anti-Union candidate, enough so to energize union members to vote for Democrat for the first time in a generation.  But outside of social issues such as guns and abortion(I think both are Catholic, so no surprise), they are miles apart. Lamb ran a populist campaign attacking the tax bill saying it will hurt social security and medicare. While Saccone ran as, "Trump before Trump". 

But I do agree that some districts will only elect blue dogs.I live in one that is just as red-if not, slightly bluer- as PA-18, and can see a certain type of blue dog getting elected under the right circumstances. But I think the problem is that in these rural- mainly blue collar- communities, the Democratic party has been hallowed out. And the remaining members are unabashed liberals/progressives and will vote for candiates with similar ideology in their primaries(creating a self defeating cycle). My district is a perfect example, as my 2016 Democratic candidate essentially copy and pasted Bernie's platform and lost by a bigger margin than Hillary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Partisanship shouldn't be the factor. The biggest factor has to be the stance regarding unions. Saccone was portrayed as an Anti-Union candidate, enough so to energize union members to vote for Democrat for the first time in a generation.  But outside of social issues such as guns and abortion(I think both are Catholic, so no surprise), they are miles apart. Lamb ran a populist campaign attacking the tax bill saying it will hurt social security and medicare. While Saccone ran as, "Trump before Trump". 

But I do agree that some districts will only elect blue dogs.I live in one that is just as red-if not, slightly bluer- as PA-18, and can see a certain type of blue dog getting elected under the right circumstances. But I think the problem is that in these rural- mainly blue collar- communities, the Democratic party has been hallowed out. And the remaining members are unabashed liberals/progressives and will vote for candiates with similar ideology in their primaries(creating a self defeating cycle). My district is a perfect example, as my 2016 Democratic candidate essentially copy and pasted Bernie's platform and lost by a bigger margin than Hillary. 

Since you live in South Carolina, I'd like to ask your opinion on something. Do you, personally, believe 2010 Democratic Senatorial candidate Alvin Greene was plant (a GOP one or otherwise), or just a symptom of how weak the state Democratic Party (which, ironically, had practically one-party dominance over the State's politics straight from the end of Reconstruction until Strom Thurmond crossed the aisle) has actually become?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2018 at 3:37 PM, Patine said:

Since you live in South Carolina, I'd like to ask your opinion on something. Do you, personally, believe 2010 Democratic Senatorial candidate Alvin Greene was plant (a GOP one or otherwise), or just a symptom of how weak the state Democratic Party (which, ironically, had practically one-party dominance over the State's politics straight from the end of Reconstruction until Strom Thurmond crossed the aisle) has actually become?

Since roughly the 1830's, SC has been fairly conservative with a few brief flashes of populism. But even then those forms of populism came with a strong serving of conservative social views. Ben Tillman's agrarian populism comes to mind. He opened up college dedicated towards farming, while governor. And as Senator would go on and lobby the state to rewrite its constitution to disenfranchise the recently freed black Americans. 

But he's an extreme example, I know. But Democratic party dominated the state since they rarely had to address the issues of race unless forced to do so from outside pressure. Though after the 1964, the party began to slowly grow weak. That by 2010 a no name candidate won the nomination for the party. It was roughly in the late 1980's when the GoP retook the Governor's mansion. It was during this time period we see the GoP make massive gains in the state senate and Assembly(The lower chamber of the legislative branch). By 1994, the GoP will have the Assembly, and have elected a Republican for Governor for the third time in the row. Only 1998 served as a combo breaker for this trend of GoP gains and elect a Democratic governor for the last time, along with Fritz Hollings(the long time Democratic Senator). After the 2002 defeat to Mark Sanford, and Holling's death, the party was dead(for lack of better words). 

The Democratic party nationally became more liberal on social issues, and began to down play religion, while the GoP embraced the social conservative views. So it shouldn't be a surprise that in 2010, in the midst of a TEA party wave, there would be a reluctance from the few remaining Democrats from Charleston, or Columbia wanting to run for this seat that once belonged to Fritz Hollings.

I'm not too sure if all of his votes came from the GoP, due to the state's primary system of being semi-open. But I feel it did help. If I remember correctly, that the candidate that was originally the 'party one'(essentially endorsed by the state) won the absentee vote, yet a huge swing towards Greene occured. Not sure what to make of that. However, I haven't seen any real data from the 2008(or 2002) senate race, and compare it to the 2010 race to see if there was true evidence of foul play.  But the lack of clear party organization only made such an event(if it did happen) possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×