NH Residents: Support Joe Biden by writing in his name in the primary

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday October 30, 2023 · 11:22 AM PDT

2023/10/30 · 11:22

This is a call to action for NH Residents. As many of you are aware Joe Biden will not be on the NH Primary Ballot. We can debate whether or not that is a good thing, but the President has made his decision.

But that does not mean there won’t be an election. This past week a former Democratic Congressman announced his attention to run against Biden and will be on the ballot in NH.

So why does this matter? The press loves to create drama and if they see Biden performing “badly” in NH it will create some negative news.

As a result, a write-in Biden effort has been launched in New Hampshire to support the President. A website has been created and is here.

It may not seem like it, but there is not a lot of time. Most NH residents do not understand why Biden will not be on the ballot and when they learn this they may not vote. The group behind the Biden write-in effort (of which I am a part) will be working on getting the word out to NH Democrats and explaining why they need to support the President.

Please go to the website and add your name to the list. If you can volunteer please sign up on the website.

Biden was not in my top 5 in 2020. I have my disagreements with him. But he is the best option the Democrats have and we need to support him.

Florida Projection: Biden +1.79%

fladem

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday November 02, 2020 · 4:31 PM PST

2020/11/02 · 16:31

In 2016 the Sunday before the election I posted a diary here that looked at the Florida Early vote

I am more optimistic today than I was in 2016. Let me explain why.

Let’s start with some basic numbers:

	2016 Net — exit poll	2020 net — polling
Democratic	D+ 82	D+83
Republican	R+ 80	R+78
Independent	R+3	D+8

In 2016 there was virtually no difference between their parties in their support among the own

partisans. In addition Trump actually won independents in Florida. This is NOT the case in 2020. The polling is consistent (these numbers are based on over 15 Florida polls. Democrats are more unified that Republicans AND independents are supporting Democrats. Both of these trends mean that simply adding up the ballots by party IS not predictive of tomorrow’s results.

This table describes the EV in Florida as of this morning. In 2016 the Democrats led by roughly 37K, and this year we we lead by about 108K. But that number does NOT reflect the lead the Democrats have banked. In the far right is my estimate of the Democratic lead which uses the 2020 net form polling. I estimate that we currently have a lead of about 414K, of 4.7%. This is substantially higher than my estimate in 2016 (which was about 2%) and is higher than the Obama early vote lead in 2012 (3.9%).

Projected Lead — data reflects returns through 11/2

The question though is IS THIS A BIG ENOUGH MARGIN. In 2016 the republicans voted in substantially greater numbers on election day then Democrats. Moever, the Democratic lead in voter registration is lower than it was in 2016.

This attempts to address that question. I predicted the GOP and Democratic by using the turnout figures from 2016 ( 81% for Republicans and 74% for Democrats). I must confess I think this is too large — I do NOT believe that the Republican turnout will be 7% higher than Democratic Turnout. But even if it IS it will not be enough to overcome Democratic advantages among Independents and the fact that Democrats will win more Republicans than vice versa. In this sense 2020 is completely different from 2016.

This is the projection. I estimate that there are 1.68 million votes left in Florida, and Republicans will win election day decisively (by about 350,000 votes). But even with that advantage (and based on a 7% turnout advantage that is not likely) the Democrats STILL win by nearly 200,000 votes.

This is 1.79%, which is about the same as the polling average. T

The keys to this estimate is are the same as the keys to the election:

1. Better performance among Republicans (in part because Biden is doing better among old people)

2. Significantly better performance among the young. I wrote more extensively about that here.

The case for Elizabeth Warren

fladem

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday February 19, 2020 · 9:23 AM PST

2020/02/19 · 09:23

On the eve of what is really the most important debate of the Democratic Primary, I thought it may be of interest to present my own case for Warren. It has been 30 years since I worked for any candidate this hard. I knocked on my first door in New Hampshire in June, and went to my first meeting for her in March. I worked in Iowa for her, then came back to train canvassers before the primary in New Hampshire.

Well as my icon shows I was with Bernie in 2016: I was an Iowa Precinct Captain for him. I don’t have a negative word to say about him. Most Warren people I work with don’t. This is entirely a positive case for her.

Why Warren: because she has a personal commitment to understanding the causes of inequality that predate any involvement in electoral politics, and because her force of intellect is the equal of anyone to run for office in the last 50 years.

Warren’s interest in bankruptcy and the way that the rules are bent to disadvantage the poor is unique. I am a lawyer: most will tell you bankruptcy law is the last place they would work. The statutes are dry and the practice is within the profession not really considered particularly important. Warren was drawn to it because of her personal experience with financial stress. It wasn’t part of some think tank led exercise. IT WAS PERSONAL.

Which brings me to the second part: her BRILLIANCE.

Warren was tenured faculty has Harvard Law School. She went to Rutgers Law School. Maybe you have to be in the legal profession, but no one goes from Rutgers to Harvard Law School faculty. She got there because her work on bankruptcy was that brilliant. It was her work that led to the creation of the CFPB.

Warren’s signature issue, the Wealth-tax, is another sign of this brilliance. The proposal is wildly popular. But as is the case with her, what she proposes to do with that money is born of her PERSONAL experience. She struggled to find child care for her children so she could go to law school. So she dedicates a portion of the proceeds of the tax to fund child care.

Many of the fights that Warren was involved in were not particularly popular within the Party at the time. Events have proven her (and others to be clear) right.

So this is why I am for her. I could go on — and she has made some mistakes in this campaign.

But I have gotten to know her some: she would be a great candidate and she can unify the party like no one else.

Iowa Expectations: Yes, they REALLY matter

fladem

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday January 30, 2020 · 9:05 AM PST

2020/01/30 · 09:05

The full article is at Bleeding Heartland

Expectations: Yes, they REALLY matter

Of all the Alice-through-the-looking-glass parts of the American political system, the one I have been completely unable to explain to foreigners is expectations and the Iowa caucuses. It usually goes something like this:

Sane person from another country: “Candidate X won”

Pundit: “Well, not really”

Sane person from another country: “But they got more votes”

Pundit: “But they were expected to win by 10 and they only won by 3, so they lost”

Sane person from another country: “That makes no sense. So who won? The person who came in second?”

Pundit person: “No, they got about what they expected. No, the clear winner is the candidate who finished third. There is no doubt they won.”

This Catch-22 aspect of primaries is absurd. But make no mistake: it matters, a lot.

About a month ago I posted a piece here containing a model that predicted the state of the New Hampshire race 48 hours after Iowa. Since that time, I have had a number of exchanges with Harry Enten of CNN. He was curious about the expectations part of that model and ran his own, which predicted New Hampshire solely on expectations ten days out as reflected in Iowa polling. He found for every point you exceed expectations you pick up about .75 points in New Hampshire.

Since then, I revised my own model. I should note his and mine are very predictive (the R squared in his and mine is over .9).

The detail is below, but the key point is that expectations have an enormous effect on who benefits and who does not from Iowa.

Having said this, I want to look at the recent trajectory in Iowa. Bernie Sanders has clearly improved his standing, and I have seen more than a few stories about his “surge.” But Sanders’ lead is not large, and indeed is nonexistent in some polling. The danger for Sanders is he may be losing the expectations game. If he fails to win, the lead story may very well be his loss. As I have noted earlier, there is some evidence that candidates who have run twice do not close well in Iowa.

Something else worth noting: expectations affect other campaigns. Often the leader at this point comes under fire. The best example of this is 2004. At the race nears its climax, the focus that comes from the expectation of winning may benefit Sanders. Or it may hurt him. In any event, the coverage seems increasingly focused on Sanders and to a lesser extent Joe Biden. But neither has much of a lead over Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren.

Take a look at this list and then consider the following table. In eleven of the last thirteen Iowa caucuses, someone has gained at least 8.5 points in the last ten days. In short, we can expect a significant move by one candidate, and because this will come late, the expectations game will likely give then an enormous boost both nationally and in New Hampshire.

One feature I think most people do not understand is how the 15 percent threshold tends by itself to create candidate surges. I will explore the numbers in another post, but candidates under 20 percent often do not match their pre-caucus polling numbers, because they are not viable in many precincts. As a result, a candidate who had 15 percent of the popular vote might get only 11 percent of the county delegates. Conversely, any candidate over 20 percent will be viable in most precincts and will gain as supporters from other campaigns move to support them.

Description of the data model is at the Bleeding Heartland link above.

JFK speech arguing for Single Payer

fladem

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday October 07, 2019 · 8:52 AM PDT

2019/10/07 · 08:52

We forget sometimes how far right the Party has moved on some things. JFK was no socialist. Yet it would have been inconceivable to him that a Democrat would argue against single-payer.

I truly wonder what Medicare would look like if the Democratic Party of the last 20 years had been in charge when it was passed. It would have almost certainly been some sort of voucher system.

I am 57 years old this month. This is how many years ago JFK tried to do what @BernieSanders is now trying to do. Corporate profit interests likely stopped JFK from making this country a country that works for the people. https://t.co/kkFo11V9pV
Ã¢ÂÂ We can have a society that honors lifeÃ°ÂÂÂ²Ã°ÂÂÂÃ°ÂÂÂ» (@TimOnTheTractor) October 6, 2019

NH Journal: The question every candidate is being asked

fladem

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday March 17, 2019 · 12:31 PM PDT

2019/03/17 · 12:31

I am lucky enough to live in New Hampshire. Which means Inot only have the opportunity to see every candidate but often to ask them questions.

Some pictures (all my own are at the bottom). There are designed to give people who do not live here a sense of the campaign. Harris took questions for at least 45 minutes. The only one who did not was Sanders: his was not just a stump speech but rather a NH announcement so this was understandable.

The first picture below is Warren from her event in Salem on Friday. This is very much how of the NH campaign happens. There were maybe 75 people in the House. I have been to similar events for Bennet, Klobuchar, Gillibrand and Hickenlooper. At this point the only major announced candidates I have not seen are Booker and Beto. I have heard VERY good things about those who have seen Booker by the way.

I have now seen enough events to get a sense of the questions that are coming from NH voters.

At every event I have been to one question has been asked: “how can you bring us together.” I guess I should not be surprised at this: but I was. It didn’t matter if the candidate was on the left or candidates from the right. They all were asked it, and often in very similar words.

There are three basic answers:

1. “I know how to work with Republicans”

Klobuchar talks about the bills she has worked with Republicans on. Hickenlooper talks about working with Republicans as governor in Colorado (Hickenlooper was more effective I thought). Maybe it isn’t surprising that these candidates are from the centrist wing of the Party.

Personally, I find these answers incredibly naive. Working with Republicans on a project to increase the number of schools that specialize in STEM training (A bill Klobuchar sponsored) is NOT going to possible if you want to get anything done on health care for example.

2. “Most people support progressive ideas”

Warren’s answer on this good: she walked through polls that show majorities support for breaking up big tech companies (a significant part of her agenda) and on Healthcare.

Warren’s core message is that she is a fighter. This is also Harris’ and Bernie’s and Gillibrand’s. The larger message is hard to reconcile with the question though and I wonder how it will play out in the next 11 months.

3. “We do things that address the problems we all have”

This was Harris’ answer and it was the best I have heard. She talked about how when people have trouble going to sleep because a medical problem or a money problem, they don’t think about which party they belong to. If you help people address the problems they have will respond positively.

It was the best answer I have heard to date. Harris in person is INCREDIBLE, particularly at answering questions. She reminds a bit of Bill Clinton in her ability to relate to the person asking the questions.

The Sanders event in Concord (my phone died before he took the stage). It was a big crowd on the morning of a snowstorm. And the youngest of the events I have been too.

The Harris event in Portsmouth. Nearly 400 did not get into a church that sat 900.

Clinton-era centrist says it is time to give the Democratic Socialists a chance

fladem

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday March 04, 2019 · 7:24 AM PST

2019/03/04 · 07:24

Since the financial crisis I have read Brad Delong, an economist and former Deputy Assistant Secretary official under Bill Clinton. He has always said he was a proud “Robert Rubin neo-liberal”.

Last week he wrote this

On the center and to the left, those like me in what used to proudly call itself the Rubin Wing of the Democratic Party—so-called after former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, and consisting of those of us hoping to use market means to social democratic ends in bipartisan coalition with Republicans seeking technocratic win-wins—have passed the baton to our left. Over the past 25 years, we failed to attract Republican coalition partners, we failed to energize our own base, and we failed to produce enough large-scale obvious policy wins to cement the center into a durable governing coalition.

Neo-liberalism has become something of an epitaph for many on the left. It was, in fact, based on a serious set of ideas, ideas that certainly guided the Clinton Administration.

Still what Delong wrote is significant. In the Vox interview he notes:

It means argue with them, to the extent that their policies are going to be wrong and destructive, but also accept that there is no political path to a coalition built from the Rubin-center out. Instead, we accommodate ourselves to those on our left. To the extent that they will not respond to our concerns, what they’re proposing is a helluva better than the poke-in-the-eye with a sharp stick.

Further:

Until something non-rubble-ish is built in the Republican center, what might be good incremental policies just cannot be successfully implemented in an America as we know it today. We need Medicare-for-all, funded by a carbon tax, with a whole bunch of UBI rebates for the poor and public investment in green technologies.

So Delong says there really isn’t a moderate position that can win. What is interesting in this is that a central argument from the moderate wing of the Democratic Party is that a more left-wing Democratic Party cannot win. Their ideological argument has been crafted in tactical political terms.

But a former senior member of Clinton’s economic team is saying the exact opposite.

He notes:

I could be confident in 2005 that [recession] stabilization should be the responsibility of the Federal Reserve. That you look at something like laser-eye surgery or rapid technological progress in hearing aids, you can kind of think that keeping a market in the most innovative parts of health care would be a good thing. So something like an insurance-plus-exchange system would be a good thing to have in America as a whole.

It’s much harder to believe in those things now. That’s one part of it. The world appears to be more like what lefties thought it was than what I thought it was for the last 10 or 15 years.

I would have said the same thing. I was once a neo-liberal in some ways. I believed in making the market work for social democratic means.

But looking back over the last 15 years, I would agree with him, the left has been more right than I have been.

The Case for a Bigger Blue House Wave

fladem

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday November 03, 2018 · 5:26 AM PDT

2018/11/03 · 05:26

Right now most of the estimates are for the Democrats to win about 30 seats. Some estimates are higher (FiveThirtyEight has a median estimate of 38). My own estimate is for a Democratic gain of 30 seats, but with more close GOP-held seats in danger.

But two signs suggest that something bigger is in the offing. The first is shown in the table below. There has been a consistent gap between what the generic ballot polling is telling us and what district-level polling is telling us. Note something else: these leads are stable. There is no evidence in the House polling that Kavanaugh has much effect one way or another.

		Democratic Estimated Lead
	Number of Polls (last 30 days)	Since 9/1	Last 31 days	Last 10 Days
Generic Ballot	58	7.37	7.24	7.50
Non-Partisan House Polls	140	12.18	11.50	11.67
Siena	48	11.69	11.27	12.23

If you compare state polling with national polling in presidential elections, you find that the swing in the state polling is actually a better predictor of the final result than the national polling is. I discussed this phenomenon here shortly before the 2016 election. In 2012 I suggested the day before the election that state polling was pointing to a larger popular Obama margin that was indicated in National polling.

The other data point–more compelling for considering a larger wave than people are expecting–is to look at the individual seats in play. In the UK, parties plan their strategy based on target lists. They take the other party’s seats and list them from the most likely to be vulnerable to the least likely.

I have performed that exercise for the U.S. House using a common measure of partisan performance (the PVI). The table below is a list of some of those seats and the current polling margin.

For example, let’s consider two seats on this list: the second Congressional districts of Kansas and Maine. KS-02 ranks 121st on the list of Democratic seats to target. Put another way, there are 121 other GOP seats that you would expect to find that are more vulnerable. Similarly, ME-02 ranks 67th on that list. And yet BOTH seats are close. In KS-02 the GOP leads by only 0.7 percent in polling. In ME-02 the Republican is 0.8 percent ahead.

What is important to understand here is that 54 seats between KS-02 and ME-02 were we have no polling. Some oddsmakers are using things like fundraising or the generic ballot to try and predict the results in these seats.

But look at the table — the polling in these seats is very inconsistent. Any method that tries to predict the results in these seats is going to miss badly in some of them.

And that is the entire point here: the House polling is saying something very different that than the national polls are.

One of the best signs of a wave is races that should not be close, but are close. This list suggests that most predictions about the size of the Democratic victory may be far too small.

None of this analysis is certain. A 3-point shift in polling in the House is the difference between the Democrats taking 50 seats and falling short of the number they need to win. Nevertheless, the two signs I identified suggest that a wave is far more likely than a GOP surprise.

A wave most people, even the odds makers, are not going to see coming.

The 36 seats that will determine control of the House

fladem

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday October 25, 2018 · 1:51 PM PDT

2018/10/25 · 13:51

There are 36 Seats that will decide control of the the House.

The Math: if there is no polling a projection is made based on the 2016 results using the 2016 incumbent’s margin or the Clinton margin if the seat is open.

	DEMS	GOP
Polling Leads: 5 points or more	22	28
Seats Projected as Safe based on 2016 results	185	142
Subtotal-Total	207	170
Seats Leaning based on 2016, no polling	2	20
Total Safe and Leaning	209	190
Needed for majority	9	28
Seats with leads less than 5 (1 Tie)	15	20

Right now the Democrats lead in enough seats to take the House. They need to win 9 of the 15 seats where they lead, or win some of the 20 seats where the GOP lead is less than 5.

The numbers here are of ONLY non-partisan polls since September 1st. My list of House polls is here. The 2016 margin is the Incumbent’s margin, of the Clinton margin if the seat is open.

DISTRICT	2016 MARGIN	TRUMP APPROVAL	OPEN OR INCUMBENT	COOK RATING	POLLING MARGIN
CA-10	-3.4		Incumbent	Tossup	5
NJ-03	-20.4	-11	incumbent	Tossup	4
MI-11	-4.4	-10	open	Leans D	3.5
NJ-07	-11	-12.5	incumbent	Tossup	3.5
FL-27	19.7	-9	open	Lean D	2.5
MN-01	-14.9	-3	open	Tossup	2
PA-01	-6.1	-10	incumbent	Tossup	1.5
CA-25	-6.3	-9	incumbent	Tossup	1
IA-03	-13.7	-12	incumbent	Tossup	1
KS-02	-18.4	3	open	Tossup	1
NC-02	-13.4	-14	incumbent	Lean R	1
NY-22	-5.4	10	incumbent	Toss up	1
TX-32	-71.1	-8	incumbent	Tossup	1
VA-05	-11.1	4	open	Lean R	1
NY-19	-8.6	-1	incumbent	Tossup	0.5
FL-15	-10	3.5	open	Tossup	0
NC-09	-11.6	1	open	Tossup	-0.5
CA-39	8.6	-3	open	Tossup	-0.67
CA-48	-16.6	-3.5	incumbent	Tossup	-0.67
FL-26	-11.8	-7.5	incumbent	Tossup	-0.67
IL-06	-18.4	-21	incumbent	Leans D	-1
KY-06	-22.2	-6	incumbent	Tossup	-1
PA-10	-15.2		open	Lean R	-1
ME-02	-9.6	0	incumbent	Tossup	-1.25
MI-08	-16.9	0.5	incumbent	Tossup	-1.33
UT-04	-12.5	0	incumbent	Tossup	-1.5
AK-AL	-14.3	8	incumbent	Lean R	-1.67
VA-07	-15.3	1	incumbent	Tossup	-2
NM-02	-10.2	2	open	Tossup	-2.33
FL-18	-10.5	-3	incumbent	Likely R	-3
NY-27	-34.4	18	incumbent	Lean R	-3
TX-07	-12.3	-8	incumbent	Tossup	-3
GA-06	-3.7	-6	incumbent	Lean R	-4
NC-13	-12.2	3	incumbent	Tossup	-4.5
CA-50	-26.9	10	incumbent	Lean R	-5
IL-12	-14.6	4.5	incumbent	Lean R	-5

The following is worth noting with respect to this list:

The Democrats hold leads in 6 more seats than they need to take the House as of this moment.
A minor swing could have enormous consequences. A 3 point swing to the Republicans, and the Democrats win only 214 seats. A 3 point swing to the Democrats and they win 238 seat

In the past I have compared state polling to national polling. In 2012, for example on the day before the election I noted that the State polling was pointing to a larger Obama margin than the National Polling was suggesting.

Right now the House Polling suggests a larger Democratic victory than generic ballot polls are finding.

The generic ballot average had hovered between 7 and 8 points over the last month (or indeed even since the Spring). But the story the polling form individual House districts is very different. It is suggesting a bigger, perhaps even a significantly bigger win..

I have not studied the extent to which House polling swings can predict the National House vote.

But it is hard to reconcile the polling over the last 31 days, and particularly over the last 10 days (where the Democratic margin is growing) with the leads found in national polling.

The swing is calculated by comparing the predicted result in each House District (based on the incumbent’s margin in 2016 or Clinton’s margin if the seat is open). There are 2 seats which are such outliers that they by themselves effect the averages (W VA-3 and TX-31)

CNN: Dems +16 in the Generic Ballot

fladem

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday February 26, 2018 · 10:20 AM PST

2018/02/26 · 10:20

CNN’s latest poll has the Dems up 16 (this on heels of a Quinippiac poll a week ago that had the Dems up 15)

CNN notes that Democratic issues are dominating:

Health care and gun policy are deemed deeply important by about half of voters (53% and 49%, respectively, call them extremely important), while about four in 10 say they are as motivated by the economy (43%) and immigration (38%). Sexual harassment is a sharp motivator for 36% of voters. Taxes, an issue Republicans have said will move voters as they realize the benefits of the tax changes passed last year, is extremely important for 35%. The investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election rounds out the list, with just about a quarter (26%) calling that extremely important to their vote.

There are wide partisan gaps on how important several issues are to voters, with Democratic voters more likely to say they are particularly moved by health care (65%, vs 40% among Republicans), gun policy (62%, vs. 40% among Republicans), sexual harassment (50%, vs. 21% of Republicans) and immigration (48%, vs. 32% among Republicans).

So we all learned about the dangers of Cherry picking polls. CNN and Quinippiac are both at the high end of their ranges. Last week so were both Reuters and YouGov. Only Marist was below the top of their range. Pretty clear evidence that whatever bounce there was out of the tax cut has eroded.

So what does all of this mean. One way of looking at polls is to look at the election results if each one was accurate to understand the true range and the projected share of seats.

These numbers are altered to account for the recent redistricting change in Pennsylvania. The chart should make even aware of how wide the range of results are at this stage.

There is a long way to go — anything could happen.

One thing to think about though — If, IF CNN and Quinipiac are right, the Democrats would win a landslide of the scale seen only once since the end of World War 2.

Wow - In Deep Red House District, the Dem is Down Only 3

fladem

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday February 15, 2018 · 10:41 AM PST

2018/02/15 · 10:41

The background: There is a special election in Pennsylvania for the vacant House seat in District 18. Clinton lost the district by 20, Obama by 17. This is not a seat we really should have a prayer in. SO these results are shocking:

Likely voters with leaners	“Surge” Model	High Turnout	Low Turnout
Rick Saccone	49%	48%	50%
Conor Lamb	46%	44%	45%
Other	1%	2%	1%
(VOL) Undecided	4%	5%	4%
(n)	*(320)*	*(379)*	*(320)*

Monmouth has noted the recent results in special elections and as a result tried to predict the turnout in this district based on those results. But the different turnout models don’t seem to matter much: under all of them this is a pretty close race.

Trump’s approval rating in 51-47, a bad number in a district he won by 20.

The Cook report has noted a divergence between recent generic ballot polling and polling coming from individual House races. In general, the generic ballot suggests a closer race than district polls are finding. In this regard it is worth remembering that the Generic Ballot is in some ways a crude tool.

As Cook noted:

Private polling from both parties shows some pretty grisly numbers in individual states and districts. Democratic candidate recruiting in House races is going spectacularly well—in fact, some worry it’s gone too well, with too many contested primaries. Fundraising for Democratic challengers is going very well (and you should ignore Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee fundraising numbers, which are some of the most irrelevant midterm indicators in all of American politics). All of these signs support the very clear historic pattern of midterm-election losses for the party in power.

The Monmouth polls suggests a possible wave of significant proportions.

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

fladem

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday February 14, 2018 · 5:56 PM PST

2018/02/14 · 17:56

The only thing to say about what happened in Florida is from the Onion.

Ã¢ÂÂNo Way To Prevent This,Ã¢ÂÂ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens https://t.co/AiYGBQLaGW pic.twitter.com/Zr0X8qcDqJ
Ã¢ÂÂ The Onion (@TheOnion) February 14, 2018

I am a former prosecutor who tried a case where a father killed his 2-year-old daughter and his es-wife. The amount of destruction this will cause in people’s lives will last generations. The brothers and sisters will be profoundly hurt, and that hurt will find its way into every significant relationship that they have.

The destruction wrought will find its way into generations far removed from the event.

And there is no goddam reason for it.

Newer
Older

RSS