House Seat Loss By President’s Party Has Been Inflated by Democrat Presidents
Posted on 09/18/2018 7:00:59 AM PDT by centurion316
Republicans know what the midterm election polls say. They hear the talk about a blue wave. They're aware of historical party-in-power midterm losses in the House. But they still see something else, seven weeks out from election day.
"It's like the hurricane cone," said one GOP strategist. "It's out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, and the range of where it can land is huge, because there are a lot of things that are yet to happen that you have to understand."
Notice the strategist did not predict Republicans will keep control of the House. Rather, he and others are keeping hope alive in a political environment that, like the hurricane's path and intensity, can change quickly.
"If the election were today, the Democrats would take back the House," said another Republican strategist. "But we're not far off. Things aren't great, but I don't think we're that far away."
Of most concern right now, the second strategist said, are those districts with the highest percentages of college graduates. "There are two worlds in polling right now," he explained. "The great divide is education -- more than gender. A college degree seems to be the big dividing line."
That has always been a divide, but never as much as since the rise of President Trump. The education split that developed during the election endures. In a Quinnipiac poll last month, the president's job approval among college-educated white voters was 41 percent approval, with 55 percent disapproval. Among whites without a college degree, it was precisely the opposite: 55 percent approval, with 41 percent disapproval.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
"The Trump coalition faces a crisis because it is losing educated suburban women," former Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote recently. "This group is the difference between a majority and minority for Republicans. This is an especially difficult challenge because much of their unhappiness is based on a repudiation of the president's style -- not his policies. Policy and issue-oriented appeals may be inadequate because they currently stipulate they are so uncomfortable with the style that they can't even think about the issues."
This problem points directly to the most threatened districts, the affluent suburban districts. Women in these districts are preparing to abandon the Republican Party and vote for Democrats, mostly because they don't like Trump's style and they can't be dissuaded by his policies, his achievements, and his advancement of a conservative agenda. They will vote their emotions and not the rational interests of themselves, their families and the neighborhoods.
Small problem.
I daily track the House races. I cannot find 10, let alone 30, seats the Ds can/will flip.
Every one of the races, save Mike Coffman in CO, has moved in the direction of the Rs.
In the last two weeks, Andy Barr, John Culberson, Curbelo, Jason Lewis, John Fase, Andy Kim, and at least a dozen more have come off the list. Either polling, or insiders, tell me these people are no longer vulnerable.
AZ GOP tells me McSally’s seat is a “tossup,” . . . but they view Enema’s seat the same way. Most of the CA seats in recent Siena polling have GOP leads. Handel, Lesko, and Balderson all look solid-—indeed, anyone who won a special election last year is considered now safe.
ALL of these are heavy R districts.
In the senate, I still have us at net 4-6 gains, but POSSIBLY as many as 8.
“The Trump coalition faces a crisis because it is losing educated suburban women,” former Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote recently. “This group is the difference between a majority and minority for Republicans
~~~
Losing?
Did he ever have ‘educated’ suburban women, as a block?
I seem to recall hearing quite the opposite after the election. Trump did less well with women in general, less well with suburbanites than with rural voters, and less well with those who have higher education. That seems like a full nexus against this having been a block in his camp
Did he win them in 2016?
Their education was wasted. Emotional voting. Proving yet again that the 19th amendment was the catalyst for the downfall of this country.
I’m confused, because aren’t these some of the women who helped elect Trump,even after the “pussy” tape and all that?
Surveys show that Trump got a majority of the vote, of white women, and married women.
I don’t recall his vote among suburban women in these swing districts, but there’s got to be an overlap among white women, married women, and suburban women.
Are we saying that the same women who voted for him in spite of his behavior and demeanor and the “pussy” tape, are no longer supporting him, and will vote Democrat as a result?
But then again, polling shows Trump’s popularity has increased, though still under 50%.
We may get a better idea after Hurricane Christine hits town, because that circus could have an impact on all this.
Trump’s secret weapon is the undercounted “Risk Takers.” Risk Takers are more likely to not have landlines—just cell phones. Most polls are conducted via landlines.
Die Hard Trump Supporters: do you have a landline? Only cellphone? BOth?
Me: Broken Glass straight R Florida voter. No landline. No chance of being polled.
[They (women) will vote their emotions and not the rational interests of themselves, their families and the neighborhoods. ]
I know a few like this. Sheer emotionalism. This is exactly why the media is playing it like shrill screaming 24/7. Keep up the hysteria.
If you can’t find them, you aren’t looking... There will 10 or more that will flip in the upper midwest alone... Hell in PA there will be 4-6 alone most likely.
Give them to me please. In PA there are 3.
No, there are no 10 in the midwest.
Seriously, when you actually go race by race, they ain’t there. We’ll flip 2 and maybe three to our side in MN.
I remember when CO GOP had a brief period of wisdom back in 2012 and started shuffling people around to get Coffman in.
As soon as he got in, the CO GOP went back to following the CA model and started loosing again.
They seem to have two plans and that is it.
Follow the Religious Right in Colorado Springs.
Follow the CA GOP.
Neither plan can win CO as even Christians in Colorado are suspicious of James Dobson.
The CA model only succeeds in electing RATS.
In 2015, Rs had a +5 voter reg edge. Today, -1.
The good news is that for a year and a half they have staunched the bleeding and the margin hasn’t grown past a 1000 deficit (I.e., 1000 more Ds than Rs registered since 2016).
GOP hurt itself with the weed issue there.
That doesn’t have the 2006 Election.
Hillary was ahead by 30 points.
Hmmm, I wonder why? Didn't Republicans get killed that year?
Yeah
Not all women vote their emotions, and those that do, there is a wide variation as to how the emotion that is evoked is expressed in the ballot box.
Christine Blasey Ford has DESTROYED years of women trying to get respect as individuals and reasoning logical people, kicking things back to the bad old days of “Stepford Wives”. Picturing herself as a wronged woman, and grasping only at a name, and not the real individual behind that name, she has reintroduced guilt by association into the vetting process.
Brett Kavanaugh was a prep school student in Maryland, he was in relatively close proximity to the accuser, and the accuser already had a distinct animus against Kavanaugh. Circumstance alone is simply not enough to make the allegations stick, as there is no intervening links to either the events described by the accuser, or any known past behavior on the part of the nominee that lend the least credence to the assertions.
Put up or shut up.
The only reason we’ll lose ANY in PA is that our activist State Supreme Court got away with an unconstitutional rewrite of the district map.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.