wat? most of them still do obviously...look at the embarrassing candidates who are still in close races or even winners
Sure it's not zero but if more true everyone would have won in thos environment. I mean the GOP is going to have lesser majority in the house than the Dems did. And only because of upstate NY They should have 50 more seats in the house. It's a historic underperformance.
And they lost the big one in PA because Oz is a horrible candidate. And they are going to lose the Georgia runoff too. Walker without Kemp on the ticket is doomed.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The Following User Says Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
wat? most of them still do obviously...look at the embarrassing candidates who are still in close races or even winners
I think it's pretty easy for gop to look at the quality of candidates and these results and see that with better candidates they'd have done better. I think we see a different type of candidate winning primaries in 2024
I think it's pretty easy for gop to look at the quality of candidates and these results and see that with better candidates they'd have done better. I think we see a different type of candidate winning primaries in 2024
The parties only have but so much say in who wins primaries and seem to have at lot less ability to put their thumb on their scale than they used to. As long as Trump is going to meddle, they're going to have kooky candidates.
The parties only have but so much say in who wins primaries and seem to have at lot less ability to put their thumb on their scale than they used to. As long as Trump is going to meddle, they're going to have kooky candidates.
That's true to some degree, but after this election Trump will have less say. Many of These candidates were also propped up by some institutional money during primaries. I don't see the donors lining up again to throw money away
The Dems holding the Senate and minimizing losses in the House are good things, but to me the results of most significance are the governers races. The Dems winning WI, MI, PA, and AZ are huge because of the implications on the 2024 election.
__________________
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
The Dems holding the Senate and minimizing losses in the House are good things, but to me the results of most significance are the governers races. The Dems winning WI, MI, PA, and AZ are huge because of the implications on the 2024 election.
Dems also won both State chambers in Michigan, which will help them prevent gerrymandering.
It looks like the party with the most votes won the most seats though? As for the map... It turns out that people vote, no land. Having a huge area only inhabited by grass makes it look like the entire country is Republican but on a map with population density it is obviously significantly different.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Mean Mr. Mustard For This Useful Post:
It's not that simple for house races. You have to factor in un-contested (and barely contested) seats, and also it will probably narrow as votes are counted.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
As everyone knows, mid-count vote numbers are always the most accurate. I'm sure that fact that most California precincts have only reported 30-50% of the votes so far has nothing to do with those figures.
I've seen maps that account for population rather than land area and they tend to look more like this:
The fact that elections come out very close and that anything approaching even double digit difference is considered landslide territory makes it obvious to anyone except the most rabidly partisan that the map Yoho posted isn't representative of anything other than a mindset.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
