New Fox News poll shows Alabama Senate special election is tied!

[Cyberowl]

It's people like him and the crooks in DC who ever only talk about christian values & family and greater opportunities that are destroying the party. All he does is quote the bible, but where's the legislation to support the family and bring an end to single motherhood and the rest of the good for nothing crap that's been infesting American society at all levels? All the Republican party of today is good for is talk. Empty talk and promises. And the occasional tax cut for the wealthy that doesn't work in an economy where taxes are already low. Reagan must be turning in his grave.

The sooner this charade crashes and burns the sooner we'll get real conservatives back and fix our broken country.

You know your country is going down the shitter when taftvalue becomes the voice of reason.

- - - Updated - - -

I almost feel sorry that you wrote this post before even understanding the thread.

You can give a snail all the time in the world to cross the street when it's going in the wrong direction.

[Karfal]

Ain’t going happen. Alabama would vote a Dixiecrat before it picks a democrat. And to be quite honest several states that voted blue in 2016 voted for republican governors. several blue states went red for trump. So idk where your getting the assumption that dems will swipe next election.

Liberals are blind.

[Thepersona]

Liberals are blind.

Did you read this thread? No one assumes for a second that a democrat will win alabama, at any point soon. But the important part is that there's a trend of underperformance by the republicans. And coupling with the abysmal ratings of the president, it's safe to say that there will be a bloodbath in the house next year, barring a extraordinary event.

[DarkTZeratul]

It's almost as if they're trying to use fear tactics on a gullible group of people to drive up gun sales.

There's a reason gun sales skyrocketed under Obama's presidency and plummeted sharply after Trump was sworn in.

[Taso]

Did you read this thread? No one assumes for a second that a democrat will win alabama, at any point soon. But the important part is that there's a trend of underperformance by the republicans. And coupling with the abysmal ratings of the president, it's safe to say that there will be a bloodbath in the house next year, barring a extraordinary event.

What I’m pointing out is not to assume a unpopular president as a excuse for a house change. Obama won in 08 but lost the house in 010 does that mean he was unpopular? He won again with a republican house once more. The president can be despised but congress going either way is separate. For example I may like jfk but I will not vote a democrat in the senate or house.

[DarkTZeratul]

What I’m pointing out is not to assume a unpopular president as a excuse for a house change. Obama won in 08 but lost the house in 010 does that mean he was unpopular?

That very unpopular presidents increase the likelihood of a political shift in Congress should not be taken to imply that the inverse is true. In addition, we're already seeing in the various special elections that Republicans are seriously underperforming. Not enough to lose, so far, but these are areas where they usually win by huge margins and they're instead winning narrow victories. Now think of how many much seats are up for reelection in far less decisively red areas.

[cubby]

What I’m pointing out is not to assume a unpopular president as a excuse for a house change. Obama won in 08 but lost the house in 010 does that mean he was unpopular? He won again with a republican house once more. The president can be despised but congress going either way is separate. For example I may like jfk but I will not vote a democrat in the senate or house.

You're right in the sense that it doesn't take an unpopular president to shift the House towards the other party. However, historically speaking, the mid-term elections typically shift away from whatever party the sitting president is from, regardless of popularity. But, and this is a very salient but, when a sitting president is dramatically unpopular, it historically results in an even more dramatic shift towards the other party.

As we've already seen in deep red states with Dems losing by a hair rather than by 20+ points.

[Ripster42]

That very unpopular presidents increase the likelihood of a political shift in Congress should not be taken to imply that the inverse is true. In addition, we're already seeing in the various special elections that Republicans are seriously underperforming. Not enough to lose, so far, but these are areas where they usually win by huge margins and they're instead winning narrow victories. Now think of how many much seats are up for reelection in far less decisively red areas.

I think it's because there are two different pressures. A president's party, unpopular or not, normally has their party lose seats; because their base, generally being more content, don't vote as much. An unpopular president normally has their party lose more seats than is normally accounted for by the previous phenomenon, because their opponents hate the president and are more likely to go out and vote against them because of it.

[Deleted]

It's people like him and the crooks in DC who ever only talk about christian values & family and greater opportunities that are destroying the party. All he does is quote the bible, but where's the legislation to support the family and bring an end to single motherhood and the rest of the good for nothing crap that's been infesting American society at all levels? All the Republican party of today is good for is talk. Empty talk and promises. And the occasional tax cut for the wealthy that doesn't work in an economy where taxes are already low. Reagan must be turning in his grave.

The sooner this charade crashes and burns the sooner we'll get real conservatives back and fix our broken country.

News for you Jeb. The party doesn't care about you, your "Christian" values, the family or anything other than its own power. It exists for one reason and one reason only: to formalize corporate power over the nation. They can win elections paying lip service to whatever people like you believe, they don't have to do any more. They are the ruling class: you are their bitch-and if you think I'm being rude then you have clearly never met any powerful people, I'm sugar-coating it. You will never vote Democrat, perhaps understandably since they are a different side of the same coin, but you'll also never try and fundamentally change the nature of the political system. You will wander into the voting booth and hand over your dick muttering under your breath, but no one will ever hear you, ever care, because you have no value to them.

When the nation "crashes and burns" you'll find conservatives basically don't exist without billions of dollars in corporate backing. Branwashing pigs to vote for a butcher is expensive.

[Xeones]

Did you read this thread? No one assumes for a second that a democrat will win alabama, at any point soon. But the important part is that there's a trend of underperformance by the republicans. And coupling with the abysmal ratings of the president, it's safe to say that there will be a bloodbath in the house next year, barring a extraordinary event.

You're talking to one of those people that has their own reality.

We are talking about these unprecedented swings in victory margin. They want to run with the narrative that "libruls dum"

Just wait till next year when those house seats that only won by 10, 5 or less points are up. Then they will be genuinely shocked that people are rejecting the party because of the president instead of voting for the candidate (like people watch representative debates) as at least one person was trying to assert they would earlier in the thread.

[Taso]

That very unpopular presidents increase the likelihood of a political shift in Congress should not be taken to imply that the inverse is true. In addition, we're already seeing in the various special elections that Republicans are seriously underperforming. Not enough to lose, so far, but these are areas where they usually win by huge margins and they're instead winning narrow victories. Now think of how many much seats are up for reelection in far less decisively red areas.

True their could be a shift where blue wall states go full red and red states go blue but the democrats would then have to market themselves in a tone that would say we’re better and honestly it’s a hard sell. It would be way better for those states to vote for a libertarian or constitutional party then to vote a blue. I can’t see a democrat saying we’re going cut welfare but up taxes too like bill did in the 90s.

[Ripster42]

True their could be a shift where blue wall states go full red and red states go blue but the democrats would then have to market themselves in a tone that would say we’re better and honestly it’s a hard sell. It would be way better for those states to vote for a libertarian or constitutional party then to vote a blue. I can’t see a democrat saying we’re going cut welfare but up taxes too like bill did in the 90s.

In places that were already close, dems don't have to do anything differently if the trends in poll differential remain the same. If a vote was 46-45 and 2% of the 46 vote libertarian the other party wins.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I am fully confident Moore will win and that seat will remain Republican. But notice how almost every special election that has been in deeply red districts have been almost neck and neck? When for the past 50+ years that seat has always gone to the conservative by 20-40+ points?

And then we had that one special election that's normally neck and neck in a fierce battleground district that was almost no contest for the Democrat.

I repeat, 2018 is gonna be fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun.

[Omega10]

I am fully confident Moore will win and that seat will remain Republican. But notice how almost every special election that has been in deeply red districts have been almost neck and neck? When for the past 50+ years that seat has always gone to the conservative by 20-40+ points?

And then we had that one special election that's normally neck and neck in a fierce battleground district that was almost no contest for the Democrat.

I repeat, 2018 is gonna be fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun.

Don't count your chickens before they roost. The 2018 election is still a year away. Don't ever ever ever underestimate the possibility of things not turning out so well, and don't let your guard down. The next election will be brutal.

On the plus side, if this brutality motivates people to vote in greater numbers, then democrats might indeed have a very good election. If people say fuck it what does it matter then they don't vote, republicans could dodge a bullet. It WILL be interesting... and everyone knows the Chinese curse about interesting times...

[Cthulhu 2020]

Don't count your chickens before they roost. The 2018 election is still a year away. Don't ever ever ever underestimate the possibility of things not turning out so well, and don't let your guard down. The next election will be brutal.

On the plus side, if this brutality motivates people to vote in greater numbers, then democrats might indeed have a very good election. If people say fuck it what does it matter then they don't vote, republicans could dodge a bullet. It WILL be interesting... and everyone knows the Chinese curse about interesting times...

Unless Trump pulls a 180 (or is removed from office) on ruining the Republican brand, it WILL be brutal - for the Republicans.

I certainly don't rule out the possibility of either of those two scenarios happening, but I imagine Republicans will move to impeach Trump on whatever Mueller has if they come to see him as a liability for 2018.

[Wvvtayy]

I am fully confident Moore will win and that seat will remain Republican. But notice how almost every special election that has been in deeply red districts have been almost neck and neck? When for the past 50+ years that seat has always gone to the conservative by 20-40+ points?

And then we had that one special election that's normally neck and neck in a fierce battleground district that was almost no contest for the Democrat.

I repeat, 2018 is gonna be fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun.

Like I said, you can shout that logical from the mountaintops and they still won't get it. What they will get is the results a little over 1 year from now.

[Celista]

It'd be really nice if the Trumpkins kept screaming "nothingburger" at every single faux pas and scandal within the Trump administration. Trump is single handedly destroying the Republican brand for moderates and centrists.

Republicans are saying the same thing about Democrats, just blaming the DNC/Clinton/"libtards" instead.

Even though I doubt Dems will pick up this seat, it will be funny to see a seat that Dems normally lose by 30+ points go down to a 5 point margin - which is what has been happening in EVERY special election since Trump became president. Seats that are normally no contest the Republicans have lost, and Democrats have easily won a couple of seats that are normally neck and neck.

2018 is gonna be a fun year.

It's unsurprising, the pendulum of power between Dems and Republicans has been swinging back and forth every election season for several decades now. The only question is whether Democrats will take back the executive branch in the next election cycle or the one thereafter.

Trump will likely be a lame duck without senate or house support (or both) after the 2018 elections.

[CostinR]

It's unsurprising, the pendulum of power between Dems and Republicans has been swinging back and forth every election season for several decades now. The only question is whether Democrats will take back the executive branch in the next election cycle or the one thereafter.

Trump will likely be a lame duck without senate or house support (or both) after the 2018 elections.

The Democrats are very likely going to lose a number of senate seats in 2018 and their chances of victory in the House with a disorganized DNC that's in deep trouble financially and a great deal of party infighting going on ( obscured by how much Trump just loves to hear himself on the news with his petty scandals ) then I'm quite doubtful they'll manage to win the dozens of seats they need.

[Celista]

The Democrats are very likely going to lose a number of senate seats in 2018 and their chances of victory in the House with a disorganized DNC that's in deep trouble financially and a great deal of party infighting going on ( obscured by how much Trump just loves to hear himself on the news with his petty scandals ) then I'm quite doubtful they'll manage to win the dozens of seats they need.

You might be right, but as history has proven the pendulum will swing left again within the next 1-2 election cycles. Just how it is.

Trump was a very polarizing candidate with little middle ground support and he managed to get elected, on par with the history of the swing of election cycles. Unless the DNC leadership decides to go on a murdering spree, there is little that the DNC can do to adversely influence likely outcomes.

[Fugus]

You might be right, but as history has proven the pendulum will swing left again within the next 1-2 election cycles. Just how it is.

Trump was a very polarizing candidate with little middle ground support and he managed to get elected, on par with the history of the swing of election cycles. Unless the DNC leadership decides to go on a murdering spree, there is little that the DNC can do to adversely influence likely outcomes.

Yeah, and the DNC seems to want to tempt fate anyways. They are doing a shake-up where they are trying to get rid of all the progressives from leadership positions and replace them with Clinton backers. Basically snubbing the voters again and telling them they don't care about what the voters want.

They are banking the entire upcoming elections on "I'm not Trump" again which is what cost them the presidential election.