Midterms: Blue wave, or Red wave?

[Flash]

I'd say best-case scenario for the GOP is the Democrats take about 30 seats in the House, maybe gain a seat in the Senate, and gain 500 combined state legislature seats and governorships.

I think the realistic scenario is a GOP loss of about 75-85 seats in the House, 3-4 seats in the Senate, most all the governor's races, and probably 750-800 state legislative seats.

Best-case Democratic scenario would be the GOP losing 100+ House seats, most all the senate races, and 1000 combined state legislative seats and governorships. And it's not inconceivable that it could happen that way given how the GOP has backed Trump and stirred up the Democratic base.

Based on primary turnout I haven't seen much enthusiasm by either party.

 

[Nordberg]

I figured you for a Mother Jones guy.

For some reason i am supposed to care what you figure?

 

[Nordberg]

This election also has the "year of the woman" component. That favors Dems because few women are permitted to run in the Repug party.

 

[Nordberg]

I figured you for a Mother Jones guy.

You do not figure well. I get emails every day from Repubs sites. I also read a couple righty sites. I don't read Brietbart or Fox because they are insane in their hate. Infowars is even worse. But there are more intellectual right wing sites that are able to carry on conversations .

 

[Flash]

For some reason i am supposed to care what you figure?

You don't have to "care" about observations or comments people make. But our opinions about the world usually mirror the sources of our information.

 

[Flash]

You do not figure well. I get emails every day from Repubs sites. I also read a couple righty sites. I don't read Brietbart or Fox because they are insane in their hate. Infowars is even worse. But there are more intellectual right wing sites that are able to carry on conversations .

No, I don't read any of those sources, either. They are not news. Nor do I read liberal sites posters quote like Progress, MSNBC, alternet, Drudge, Raw Story.

A person doesn't learn anything from news sources if you already know their conclusions; unless, you are just trying to amass facts and talking points to argue your side and attack the other.

I mentioned Mother Jones because it seems to represent your view of the world: all the problems are caused by capitalism, big nasty corporations, and the wealthy ("plutocrats"). The "big guy" vs. the "little guy" (often characteristic of people from union households).

 

[Phantasmal]

like the rest of the people, I know a blue wave is predicted. But also like you, I have no idea if it will happen. The party in power generally loses in mid terms. There is no reason not to think that will happen again. Now, Trump is building the mid terms on the anguish and tears of poor immigrant children. He revels in their suffering as it shows him to be a tough guy. He loves for people to think he is like Putin and Kim. Rightys do not care.

I’m like you, I think Dems will take back the Senate, but if Trump keeps doing things like seperating children from their mither’s, they might take the house as well.

I still see women being a big factor in the midterms, especially black women.

 

[Phantasmal]

Based on primary turnout I haven't seen much enthusiasm by either party.

I don’t know about other states but Texas has the highest turnout in 16 years.

 

[Flash]

I don’t know about other states but Texas has the highest turnout in 16 years.

You are right. It seems to be varying by state. Iowa was just 13% and early CA reports projected low turnout but I think it was around 35%.

Many times primary turnout depends on the primary rules of a state. Texas voters tend to vote in the primary with the most competition and there were no state-wide competitive elections in the Republican primary.

Due to resignations there are several open congressional seats and those attracted a lot of urban voters. Some of the increased Democratic primary turnout was due to cross-over Republicans. This will be the last year Texans will have the straight party option on the ballot.

 

[Bourbon]

I'm just sitting back and watching Republicans do all the hard work.

 

[Nordberg]

No, I don't read any of those sources, either. They are not news. Nor do I read liberal sites posters quote like Progress, MSNBC, alternet, Drudge, Raw Story.

A person doesn't learn anything from news sources if you already know their conclusions; unless, you are just trying to amass facts and talking points to argue your side and attack the other.

I mentioned Mother Jones because it seems to represent your view of the world: all the problems are caused by capitalism, big nasty corporations, and the wealthy ("plutocrats"). The "big guy" vs. the "little guy" (often characteristic of people from union households).

They are and have been throughout history. Our wealth gap is worse than the Gilded Age. The trickle up system has rewarded those on top with more and more. You don't have to read politics for that, economics books and stats back that well.

 

[Flash]

They are and have been throughout history. Our wealth gap is worse than the Gilded Age. The trickle up system has rewarded those on top with more and more. You don't have to read politics for that, economics books and stats back that well.

See, Mother Jones. Politics, power, and economics is not that simplistic. You can make an equal argument for how much power the people and voters have (not necessarily an opposite argument but a concurrent model). "Trickle down" is not a policy, it is just a derogatory term used to refer the policy of giving tax cuts.

 

[Nordberg]

See, Mother Jones. Politics, power, and economics is not that simplistic. You can make an equal argument for how much power the people and voters have (not necessarily an opposite argument but a concurrent model). "Trickle down" is not a policy, it is just a derogatory term used to refer the policy of giving tax cuts.

Trickle down is the idea that giving tons of money and breaks to the top will result in some of that wealth trickling down to the masses. That is descriptive, not derogatory. Much more efficient and fair is giving help to the masses. if that is the intent. However creating a plutocracy is the real aim of those on top.. Trickle down is the meme created to justify that by Laffler.

 

[Flash]

Trickle down is the idea that giving tons of money and breaks to the top will result in some of that wealth trickling down to the masses. That is descriptive, not derogatory. Much more efficient an fair is giving help to the masses. if that is the intent. However creating a plutocracy is the real aim of those on top.. Trickle down is the meme created to justify that by Laffler.

But that description came from opponents. Proponents of tax breaks don't suggest the wealth will trickle down. The Laffer curve primarily dealt with productivity and government revenues. Giving help to the masses is why we spend almost $1 trillion annually on means tested programs.

 

[Nordberg]

But that description came from opponents. Proponents of tax breaks don't suggest the wealth will trickle down. The Laffer curve primarily dealt with productivity and government revenues. Giving help to the masses is why we spend almost $1 trillion annually on means tested programs.

Laffler curve was written on a napkin in a bar. it was a spontaneous idea to justify what they were going to do anyway to give more power and money to the top. Every single Repub in front of congress and the senate, used it as a fact of economics. It wasn't .https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572

 

[Flash]

Laffler curve was written on a napkin in a bar. it was a spontaneous idea to justify what they were going to do anyway to give more power and money to the top. Every single Repub in front of congress and the senate, used it as a fact of economics. It wasn't .https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572[/QUORTE]

As your article explains, Laffer's supply side theory said all tax cuts help economic growth. It differentiates supply side from "trickle down" which targets those cuts. The Reagan, Bush, and Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts were across the board. If you cut everybody by 10% those at the top get more but everybody got the same tax cut. Under Bush federal income taxes for the bottom 40% were virtually eliminated. They got a larger percentage cut although those at the top got a larger dollar amount. The Reagan and Bush cuts were supply side, not trickle down. That is a description from the opponents.

 

[Nordberg]

Laffler curve was written on a napkin in a bar. it was a spontaneous idea to justify what they were going to do anyway to give more power and money to the top. Every single Repub in front of congress and the senate, used it as a fact of economics. It wasn't .https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572[/QUORTE]

As your article explains, Laffer's supply side theory said all tax cuts help economic growth. It differentiates supply side from "trickle down" which targets those cuts. The Reagan, Bush, and Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts were across the board. If you cut everybody by 10% those at the top get more but everybody got the same tax cut. Under Bush federal income taxes for the bottom 40% were virtually eliminated. They got a larger percentage cut although those at the top got a larger dollar amount. The Reagan and Bush cuts were supply side, not trickle down. That is a description from the opponents.

An accurate description of what it was supposed to do. but it did not than and will not now. laffler lied and the supply siders lied. The wealth gap being worse that the Gilded Age is proof.. The money is moving up and staying there.. http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/03/news/economy/wealth-gap-america/index.html

 

[Nordberg]

Laffler curve was written on a napkin in a bar. it was a spontaneous idea to justify what they were going to do anyway to give more power and money to the top. Every single Repub in front of congress and the senate, used it as a fact of economics. It wasn't .https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572[/QUORTE]

As your article explains, Laffer's supply side theory said all tax cuts help economic growth. It differentiates supply side from "trickle down" which targets those cuts. The Reagan, Bush, and Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts were across the board. If you cut everybody by 10% those at the top get more but everybody got the same tax cut. Under Bush federal income taxes for the bottom 40% were virtually eliminated. They got a larger percentage cut although those at the top got a larger dollar amount. The Reagan and Bush cuts were supply side, not trickle down. That is a description from the opponents.

84 percent of trumps cut went to the top 1 percent. that was by design. the design is to create a debt that we have to cut programs to save the economy. The cut programs are the ones for the poor and the masses. That is the plan, not an accident.

 

[Flash]

84 percent of trumps cut went to the top 1 percent. that was by design. the design is to create a debt that we have to cut programs to save the economy. The cut programs are the ones for the poor and the masses. That is the plan, not an accident.

It had to go to the top since the bottom 50% virtually pay no income tax. Also, it was aimed at businesses and corporations. I didn't suggest the supply side cuts of JFK-Reagan-Bush-Obama were the same as Trump's cuts.

 

[Legion]

I don’t know about other states but Texas has the highest turnout in 16 years.

DEMOCRAT turnout was up.

Republican turnout was substantially higher.

1.5 million Republicans voted in the primary and 1 million DEMOCRATS did.

Despite the blue Texas hype and anti-Trump national environment, Republicans held a 500,000-vote advantage once all the ballots were counted.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/7/17092410/texas-primary-2018-turnout-evan-smith