U.S. House Win in Arizona for the (R)

 

So Republican Debbie Lesko has won a special election for Arizona’s 8th congressional district over Dem. Hiral Tipirneni.

Lesko, a former state lawmaker, will head to Washington to replace Franks, who resigned his seat in December midway through his eighth term over sexual-misconduct allegations. She will complete his term, which expires in January, and run for a full two-year term of her own in the fall elections.

Meanwhile, Democrats will point to an unbroken string of nine special federal elections now in which they have improved over their 2016 showing. That performance has the party looking ahead to the November elections with an eye toward regaining control of one or both chambers of Congress.

To do that, they still need to win a net 23 seats in the House after falling short in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.

Moments after winning, Lesko gave an emotional talk to supporters at the home of a neighbor who hosted her victory party.

“It’s very surreal,” she said. “Twenty-five years ago, I left an abusive husband. And I sure as heck, never would have dreamt in a million years that I would be running for Congress, be a congresswoman.”

I thought that the Elephants would never win again and we were facing a never-ending onslaught of Blue Wave. The Mainstream Media is talking about the narrow margin of victory for Lesko and why it portends disaster for the party of Donald Trump in the fall. But just maybe, maybe, that won’t be the case.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 167 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    So by this analysis anything that happens good or ill is Trumps responsibility.

    I won’t vote for Ward and I am an Arizona Republican. (I am damn near “NeverWard.”)

    if Ward wins, I will volunteer my services to “Republicans for Sinema.”

    A vote for Ward is a vote for Sinema. This is a binary choice. Do you prefer Sinema or McSally?

    A recent poll that I’ve seen shows Dr. Kelli Ward with a 9-point lead in the GOP Senate primary.

    Why are you giving her the Donald Trump treatment pray tell? This is exactly the problem with the GOP.

    You are saying the exact same thing that you did about Donald Trump throughout 2016. You were wrong.

    Yes, I would vote for Sinema over Ward in a heart beat, and would co-chair Republicans for Sinema.

    Your choice is binary: McSally or Sinema.

    It is most assuredly not yet. If McSally wins the primary, it would be, and I would vote for her (if an Arizonian).

    If Ward wins the primary (she is leading after all), an “Arizona Republican” would vote for her.

    • #121
  2. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    There is evidence that Trumps increasing popularity amongst Republicans is actually reflective of the party getting smaller.

    And your evidence is? Kindly point it out on the web, or, even better, give us a link.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/01/08/evidence-trump-is-shrinking-the-gop/

    I couldn’t read the Washington Post article  as I’m not a paying member. Others have said it was written by Jennifer Rubin, a notorious never Trump columnist. Does she cite evidence in her column?

    • #122
  3. Drew, now with Dragon Energy! Member
    Drew, now with Dragon Energy!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):
    Others have said it was written by Jennifer Rubin, a notorious never Trump columnist.

    Who is no longer credited as a conservative anymore, by the way. So I’m not sure why her column is still called “Right Turn.”

    • #123
  4. Could Be Anyone Inactive
    Could Be Anyone
    @CouldBeAnyone

    Annefy (View Comment):
    The reason I think we’re in good hands is not just because President Trump understands human nature. That’s one reason. I also believe that he wants what’s best for America and will use his understanding of human nature and persuasion skills to that end.

    Now you have added additional qualifiers to being in good hands. Before you gave only one. 

    What is good for America though and how will government accomplish those ends? Has he accomplished those ends yet? How long will it take?
     

    • #124
  5. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Drew, now with Dragon Energy! (View Comment):

    The GOP doesn’t want to win, because that would mean they’d have to act on their promises. They’re happier as the opposition than as leaders. Being the opposition is easy. Taking the lead? That’s work, man!

    I don’t agree that we don’t want to win. The big obstructionist in our party, IMHO, is Mitch McConnell. Maybe there are others that I’m not mentioning who are located in the hallowed halls of Congress, but the rank and file out here in the hinterlands wants to win and govern.

    • #125
  6. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    So by this analysis anything that happens good or ill is Trumps responsibility.

    I would seriously like to discuss this unchartered territory. We arrive from different perspectives, but acknowledge the difficult and challenging 2018 electoral environment.

    Clearly, President Trump enrages and motivates the democrat base to come out in full force to vote against his Party (even though many in the GOP disclaim him). It is almost comical to call the GOP ‘his’ Party. The dems will be much more motivated than the GOP this November because of the President. But how much so? The GOP can influence that, for the better, if it wants to.

    The GOP needs to find and get behind the most electable candidates running. Staying with Arizona as an example, it is beyond silly to have McSally, Ward and Arpaio all running for Flake’s Senate seat. This not only dilutes the effort, it leaves a bad taste for the losers to be motivated to vote in the general, which is already an issue as noted above. In Alabama, we had Luther Strange, Mo Brooks, and the infamous Roy Moore. I suggest that there are parallels to the line up of three in Arizona.

    Much like the story of Goldilocks, there were three options (Hot, Cold and “Just Right”). Hot = Moore, Arpaio; Cold = Strange, McSally; and “Just Right” = Brooks and Ward. Mo Brooks would have been a shoe-in for the Alabama Senate special election. But McConnell butted in for Big Luther and what everyone got was Hot and Stupid. This should not be repeated by logical people.

    Mitch McConnell and Incoming Speaker of the House … let’s “bury the hatchets”, and let the states alone to select their respective candidates where there is really a contested GOP primary. Do not provide any ammunition for the circular firing squad. Mitch, if you had stayed out of Alabama, Mo Brooks would be a fellow Senator rather than Doug Jones. You know this. It’s time to stop fighting good future GOP Senators in order to keep bringing back your fossils like Strange and Thad (is he still alive?).

    My question to Mitch is … ‘Do You Want To Win?’

    And forgive me for inserting words into the honorable Mitch McConnell’s mouth, but as I stated in a previous comment in this discussion…NO! I honestly do not believe he cares one way or the other, to be generous.

    • #126
  7. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):
    The reason I think we’re in good hands is not just because President Trump understands human nature. That’s one reason. I also believe that he wants what’s best for America and will use his understanding of human nature and persuasion skills to that end.

    Now you have added additional qualifiers to being in good hands. Before you gave only one.

    I know  That’s why I elaborated. I could tell by your response I wasn’t clear  

     

    • #127
  8. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    So by this analysis anything that happens good or ill is Trumps responsibility.

    I would seriously like to discuss this unchartered territory. We arrive from different perspectives, but acknowledge the difficult and challenging 2018 electoral environment.

    Clearly, President Trump enrages and motivates the democrat base to come out in full force to vote against his Party (even though many in the GOP disclaim him). It is almost comical to call the GOP ‘his’ Party. The dems will be much more motivated than the GOP this November because of the President. But how much so? The GOP can influence that, for the better, if it wants to.

    The GOP needs to find and get behind the most electable candidates running. Staying with Arizona as an example, it is beyond silly to have McSally, Ward and Arpaio all running for Flake’s Senate seat. This not only dilutes the effort, it leaves a bad taste for the losers to be motivated to vote in the general, which is already an issue as noted above. In Alabama, we had Luther Strange, Mo Brooks, and the infamous Roy Moore. I suggest that there are parallels to the line up of three in Arizona.

    Much like the story of Goldilocks, there were three options (Hot, Cold and “Just Right”). Hot = Moore, Arpaio; Cold = Strange, McSally; and “Just Right” = Brooks and Ward. Mo Brooks would have been a shoe-in for the Alabama Senate special election. But McConnell butted in for Big Luther and what everyone got was Hot and Stupid. This should not be repeated by logical people.

    […]

     

    Easy. The Republican establishment no longer get to play that game without at least equal and opposite response. If this is the game, and these are the rules, than I will play along:

     I won’t vote for McSally and I am an Arizona Republican. (I am [expletive] near “NeverMcSally.”)

    If McSally wins, I will volunteer my services to “Republicans for Sinema.” (I’m already on her email list for some reason, so this will be very easy.)

    A vote for McSally is a vote for Sinema. This is a binary choice. Do you prefer Sinema or Ward?

    (Gee, sounds like a 5th grade playground! Let’s be adults and support our party nominee.)

     

    • #128
  9. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Sounds like January 30, 1933.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    That thousand year future died 12 years, three months later.

    I don’t even pretend to understand a word of the above. (I don’t read science fiction.)

    But I wish you well in your predictions. You’ll hear naught from me; for I understand that history … is history. Much of interest; much to be learned. But the future is oh, so much more interesting. And unknown to me.

    Anyway, the phrase “those who forget the past are bound to repeat it” is best translated as:

    “human nature is ever thus”

    Personally speaking, I think we’ve got a President who understands human nature. Frankly, I think we’re in good hands.

    Getting himself elected is not the same as getting a gaggle of Congress critters over the finish line. He has failed to move Kelly Conway into his reelection organization, where she can help him shape the primaries for the House and Senate in favor of the MAGA agenda. The window is rapidly closing and he is losing leverage against the current boat-anchor Congressional leadership. He was badly burned trying to play nice with McConnell in Alabama.

    See my other comments to suggest that the available data from other elections over time in the OP district paints a better picture than the catastrophizing in the comments here.

    • #129
  10. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    CarolJoy (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I wish to associate myself with the prescient statements of Josh Farnsworth, Fred Cole, Valiuth and James Lockett.

    The scant margin of victory should send off alarm bells all over America. Debbie Lesko was a good candidate, and her opponent was too liberal for that district.SNIP

    Those statements, as well as your own, are, with all respect, sufficiently prescient to be the conventional wisdom. As I noted above with regard to Cruz, there is absolutely no certainty that any Republican other than DJT would have won the White House in ’16. SNIP Making unfounded suppositions about another Republican in the WH is just shooting fish SNIP

    Since 22nd Amendment was adopted, the American Party have alternated between the two parties every 8 years, with the sole exception of Reagan beating Carter and H.W. winning Reagan’s third term. Any Republican would have won in 2016. Cruz was the last candidate standing, so I used him as an example; Kasich also would have beaten Clinton.

    The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951. Between there and 2016 there are eight 8 year periods (1952 election to 2016 election). You throw out two of those as special. Are we to take seriously a law-like claim based on six data points? That there are special reasons for 1/4 of the cases (2/8) to not follow the rule should suggest that the rule is weak, if a rule at all (absent some serious elaboration with testable significant variables). SNIP

    1952-1960 R-Eisenhower

    1960-1968 D-Kennedy/Johnson (lot to unpack there but let’s overlook)

    1968-1976 R-Nixon/Ford (perfectly normal, nothing to see)

    1976-1984 D-Carter/R-Reagan (special case, omit from analysis)

    1984-1992 R-Reagan/GHW Bush (special case, omit from analysis)

    1992-2000 D-Clinton

    2000-2008 R-GW Bush

    2008-2016 D-Obama

    Your math is faulty.  The Rule since the adoption of the 22nd Amendment of alternating between the two parties every two terms has not been accurate only 6 times out of 8, it has been accurate 14 out of 16 times.  

    7 out of 8 times, a Party has been returned for a second four year term, with the only exception being in 1980, when the Democrats were not granted a second term.  Jimmy Carter was that bad.

    7 out of 8 times, a Party has not been given a third four year term, with the only exception being in 1988, when the Republicans won the third term of Ronald Reagan.  Ronald Reagan was that good.

    The odds were 7 out of 8 that the Democrats would not get a third term in 2016.  Any Republican would have won.  We just nominated the worst candidate, who is transforming the Republican Party from a conservative to a populist party.  Trump is as bad as Jimmy Carter and will be defeated.

     

    • #130
  11. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    So by this analysis anything that happens good or ill is Trumps responsibility.

    I won’t vote for Ward and I am an Arizona Republican. (I am damn near “NeverWard.”)

    if Ward wins, I will volunteer my services to “Republicans for Sinema.”

    A vote for Ward is a vote for Sinema. This is a binary choice. Do you prefer Sinema or McSally?

    A recent poll that I’ve seen shows Dr. Kelli Ward with a 9-point lead in the GOP Senate primary.

    Why are you giving her the Donald Trump treatment pray tell? This is exactly the problem with the GOP.

    You are saying the exact same thing that you did about Donald Trump throughout 2016. You were wrong.

    Yes, I would vote for Sinema over Ward in a heart beat, and would co-chair Republicans for Sinema.

    Your choice is binary: McSally or Sinema.

    It is most assuredly not yet. If McSally wins the primary, it would be, and I would vote for her (if an Arizonian).

    If Ward wins the primary (she is leading after all), an “Arizona Republican” would vote for her.

    Ward is a Trump Clone.  To rephrase Mike Pence, I am an American, a Conservative and a Republican in that order.  Trump is Un-American, and he is a Populist, not a Conservative. As an act of political hygiene, I would vote for Sinema, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, to help remove the Trump tattoo from my party.  

    It is essential to send the clear message to Republican Primary voters that a vote for a Trump clone is a vote for the Democrat.

    • #131
  12. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    There is evidence that Trumps increasing popularity amongst Republicans is actually reflective of the party getting smaller.

    And your evidence is? Kindly point it out on the web, or, even better, give us a link.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/01/08/evidence-trump-is-shrinking-the-gop/

    I couldn’t read the Washington Post article as I’m not a paying member. Others have said it was written by Jennifer Rubin, a notorious never Trump columnist. Does she cite evidence in her column?

    I think you can read ten Wapo articles a month at no cost.   Also, the cost of a WaPo subscription is only $99 a year, much less than other papers.

    • #132
  13. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    So by this analysis anything that happens good or ill is Trumps responsibility.

    I would seriously like to discuss this unchartered territory. We arrive from different perspectives, but acknowledge the difficult and challenging 2018 electoral environment.

    Clearly, President Trump enrages and motivates the democrat base to come out in full force to vote against his Party (even though many in the GOP disclaim him). It is almost comical to call the GOP ‘his’ Party. The dems will be much more motivated than the GOP this November because of the President. But how much so? The GOP can influence that, for the better, if it wants to.

    The GOP needs to find and get behind the most electable candidates running. Staying with Arizona as an example, it is beyond silly to have McSally, Ward and Arpaio all running for Flake’s Senate seat. This not only dilutes the effort, it leaves a bad taste for the losers to be motivated to vote in the general, which is already an issue as noted above. In Alabama, we had Luther Strange, Mo Brooks, and the infamous Roy Moore. I suggest that there are parallels to the line up of three in Arizona.

    Much like the story of Goldilocks, there were three options (Hot, Cold and “Just Right”). Hot = Moore, Arpaio; Cold = Strange, McSally; and “Just Right” = Brooks and Ward. Mo Brooks would have been a shoe-in for the Alabama Senate special election. But McConnell butted in for Big Luther and what everyone got was Hot and Stupid. This should not be repeated by logical people.

    […]

    Easy. The Republican establishment no longer get to play that game without at least equal and opposite response. If this is the game, and these are the rules, than I will play along:

    I won’t vote for McSally and I am an Arizona Republican. (I am [expletive] near “NeverMcSally.”)

    If McSally wins, I will volunteer my services to “Republicans for Sinema.” (I’m already on her email list for some reason, so this will be very easy.)

    A vote for McSally is a vote for Sinema. This is a binary choice. Do you prefer Sinema or Ward?

    (Gee, sounds like a 5th grade playground! Let’s be adults and support our party nominee.)

    Hi Clifford,

    I am an Arizona Registered Republican in Coconino County Precinct 24.  Are you an Arizona Registered Republican?

    Gary

    • #133
  14. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    CarolJoy (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    Since 22nd Amendment was adopted, the American Party have alternated between the two parties every 8 years, with the sole exception of Reagan beating Carter and H.W. winning Reagan’s third term. Any Republican would have won in 2016. Cruz was the last candidate standing, so I used him as an example; Kasich also would have beaten Clinton.

    The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951. Between there and 2016 there are eight 8 year periods (1952 election to 2016 election). You throw out two of those as special. Are we to take seriously a law-like claim based on six data points? That there are special reasons for 1/4 of the cases (2/8) to not follow the rule should suggest that the rule is weak, if a rule at all (absent some serious elaboration with testable significant variables). SNIP

    1952-1960 R-Eisenhower

    1960-1968 D-Kennedy/Johnson (lot to unpack there but let’s overlook)

    1968-1976 R-Nixon/Ford (perfectly normal, nothing to see)

    1976-1984 D-Carter/R-Reagan (special case, omit from analysis)

    1984-1992 R-Reagan/GHW Bush (special case, omit from analysis)

    1992-2000 D-Clinton

    2000-2008 R-GW Bush

    2008-2016 D-Obama

    Your math is faulty. The Rule since the adoption of the 22nd Amendment of alternating between the two parties every two terms has not been accurate only 6 times out of 8, it has been accurate 14 out of 16 times.

    7 out of 8 times, a Party has been returned for a second four year term, with the only exception being in 1980, when the Democrats were not granted a second term. Jimmy Carter was that bad.

    7 out of 8 times, a Party has not been given a third four year term, with the only exception being in 1988, when the Republicans won the third term of Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was that good.

    The odds were 7 out of 8 that the Democrats would not get a third term in 2016. Any Republican would have won. We just nominated the worst candidate, who is transforming the Republican Party from a conservative to a populist party. Trump is as bad as Jimmy Carter and will be defeated.

     

    No, your math is wrong. As I showed.

    • #134
  15. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    […]

    Easy. The Republican establishment no longer get to play that game without at least equal and opposite response. If this is the game, and these are the rules, than I will play along:

    I won’t vote for McSally and I am an Arizona Republican. (I am [expletive] near “NeverMcSally.”)

    If McSally wins, I will volunteer my services to “Republicans for Sinema.” (I’m already on her email list for some reason, so this will be very easy.)

    A vote for McSally is a vote for Sinema. This is a binary choice. Do you prefer Sinema or Ward?

    (Gee, sounds like a 5th grade playground! Let’s be adults and support our party nominee.)

    Hi Clifford,

    I am an Arizona Registered Republican in Coconino County Precinct 24. Are you an Arizona Registered Republican?

    Gary

    Thanks for asking. I just checked my voter registration status and it is:

    Reason VALID REGISTRATION
    Party REPUBLICAN
    Permanent Early Voter? Y
    Precinct Name PRECINCT UNKNOWN

    Like to know my voting history?

    Election DateElection NameTypeHow Voted
    2016-11-08 2016 GENERAL ELECTION GENERAL Early
    2016-08-30 2016 PRIMARY ELECTION PRIMARY Early
    2014-11-04 2014 GENERAL ELECTION GENERAL Early
    2014-08-26 2014 PRIMARY PRIMARY Early
    2012-11-06 2012 GENERAL GENERAL Early
    2012-08-28 2012 PRIMARY PRIMARY Early
    2012-02-28 2012 PRES PREF PRESIDENTIAL PREF Early
    2010-11-02 2010 GENERAL GENERAL Early
    2010-08-24 2010 PRIMARY PRIMARY Early
    2008-11-04 2008 GENERAL GENERAL Early
    2008-09-02 2008 PRIMARY PRIMARY Early
    2008-02-05 2008 PRES PREF PRESIDENTIAL PREF Early
    2006-11-07 2006 GENERAL GENERAL Polling Place
    • #135
  16. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Arpaio has no chance of winning the Republican primary. Ward’s chances aren’t much better, and not only that she would have no chance in the general election. She is a local politician, and does not have statewide appeal. Ward’s praise of Steve Bannon is problematic for her. Bannon carries no weight in Arizona. He’s seen as an outsider that can’t afford a haircut, or a razor. In other words acerbic loudmouths who look like a transient  do not impress Arizonans, call it cowboy culture if you like. You are expected to be polite and soft spoken while trying to get your message out.

    The difference between Flake and McCain is that McCain built a political machine that could crush his opponents, Flake spends most of his time outside of Arizona. He rarely is mentioned on the local news in Tucson. He’s like Ron Wyden from Oregon, who actually lives in New York.

    McSally has the best chance of becoming the next Republican Senator from Arizona.

    • #136
  17. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    CarolJoy (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    Since 22nd Amendment was adopted, the American Party have alternated between the two parties every 8 years, with the sole exception of Reagan beating Carter and H.W. winning Reagan’s third term. Any Republican would have won in 2016. Cruz was the last candidate standing, so I used him as an example; Kasich also would have beaten Clinton.

    The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951. Between there and 2016 there are eight 8 year periods (1952 election to 2016 election). You throw out two of those as special. Are we to take seriously a law-like claim based on six data points? That there are special reasons for 1/4 of the cases (2/8) to not follow the rule should suggest that the rule is weak, if a rule at all (absent some serious elaboration with testable significant variables). SNIP

    1952-1960 R-Eisenhower

    1960-1968 D-Kennedy/Johnson (lot to unpack there but let’s overlook)

    1968-1976 R-Nixon/Ford (perfectly normal, nothing to see)

    1976-1984 D-Carter/R-Reagan (special case, omit from analysis)

    1984-1992 R-Reagan/GHW Bush (special case, omit from analysis)

    1992-2000 D-Clinton

    2000-2008 R-GW Bush

    2008-2016 D-Obama

    Your math is faulty. The Rule since the adoption of the 22nd Amendment of alternating between the two parties every two terms has not been accurate only 6 times out of 8, it has been accurate 14 out of 16 times.

    7 out of 8 times, a Party has been returned for a second four year term, with the only exception being in 1980, when the Democrats were not granted a second term. Jimmy Carter was that bad.

    7 out of 8 times, a Party has not been given a third four year term, with the only exception being in 1988, when the Republicans won the third term of Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was that good.

    The odds were 7 out of 8 that the Democrats would not get a third term in 2016. Any Republican would have won. We just nominated the worst candidate, who is transforming the Republican Party from a conservative to a populist party. Trump is as bad as Jimmy Carter and will be defeated.

     

    No, your math is wrong. As I showed.

    There were 16 elections between 1956 and 2016 inclusive.  The rule of a second term but not a third term was followed 14 times, with exceptions only in 1980 and 1988.  That’s 14 out of 16.  

    • #137
  18. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    […]

    Easy. The Republican establishment no longer get to play that game without at least equal and opposite response. If this is the game, and these are the rules, than I will play along:

    I won’t vote for McSally and I am an Arizona Republican. (I am [expletive] near “NeverMcSally.”)

    If McSally wins, I will volunteer my services to “Republicans for Sinema.” (I’m already on her email list for some reason, so this will be very easy.)

    A vote for McSally is a vote for Sinema. This is a binary choice. Do you prefer Sinema or Ward?

    (Gee, sounds like a 5th grade playground! Let’s be adults and support our party nominee.)

    Hi Clifford,

    I am an Arizona Registered Republican in Coconino County Precinct 24. Are you an Arizona Registered Republican?

    Gary

    Thanks for asking. I just checked my voter registration status and it is:

    Reason VALID REGISTRATION
    Party REPUBLICAN
    Permanent Early Voter? Y
    Precinct Name PRECINCT UNKNOWN

    Like to know my voting history?

    Election DateElection NameTypeHow Voted

    2016-11-08 2016 GENERAL ELECTION GENERAL Early
    2016-08-30 2016 PRIMARY ELECTION PRIMARY Early
    2014-11-04 2014 GENERAL ELECTION GENERAL Early
    2014-08-26 2014 PRIMARY PRIMARY Early
    2012-11-06 2012 GENERAL GENERAL Early
    2012-08-28 2012 PRIMARY PRIMARY Early
    2012-02-28 2012 PRES PREF PRESIDENTIAL PREF Early
    2010-11-02 2010 GENERAL GENERAL Early
    2010-08-24 2010 PRIMARY PRIMARY Early
    2008-11-04 2008 GENERAL GENERAL Early
    2008-09-02 2008 PRIMARY PRIMARY Early
    2008-02-05 2008 PRES PREF PRESIDENTIAL PREF Early
    2006-11-07 2006 GENERAL GENERAL Polling Place

    I last missed a primary or general election in the 1970’s.

    • #138
  19. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    […]

    Easy. The Republican establishment no longer get to play that game without at least equal and opposite response. If this is the game, and these are the rules, than I will play along:

    I won’t vote for McSally and I am an Arizona Republican. (I am [expletive] near “NeverMcSally.”)

    If McSally wins, I will volunteer my services to “Republicans for Sinema.” (I’m already on her email list for some reason, so this will be very easy.)

    A vote for McSally is a vote for Sinema. This is a binary choice. Do you prefer Sinema or Ward?

    (Gee, sounds like a 5th grade playground! Let’s be adults and support our party nominee.)

    Hi Clifford,

    I am an Arizona Registered Republican in Coconino County Precinct 24. Are you an Arizona Registered Republican?

    Gary

    Thanks for asking. I just checked my voter registration status and it is:

    Reason VALID REGISTRATION
    Party REPUBLICAN
    Permanent Early Voter? Y
    Precinct Name PRECINCT UNKNOWN

    Like to know my voting history?

    Election DateElection NameTypeHow Voted

    2016-11-08 2016 GENERAL ELECTION GENERAL Early
    2016-08-30 2016 PRIMARY ELECTION PRIMARY Early
    2014-11-04 2014 GENERAL ELECTION GENERAL Early
    2014-08-26 2014 PRIMARY PRIMARY Early
    2012-11-06 2012 GENERAL GENERAL Early
    2012-08-28 2012 PRIMARY PRIMARY Early
    2012-02-28 2012 PRES PREF PRESIDENTIAL PREF Early
    2010-11-02 2010 GENERAL GENERAL Early
    2010-08-24 2010 PRIMARY PRIMARY Early
    2008-11-04 2008 GENERAL GENERAL Early
    2008-09-02 2008 PRIMARY PRIMARY Early
    2008-02-05 2008 PRES PREF PRESIDENTIAL PREF Early
    2006-11-07 2006 GENERAL GENERAL Polling Place

    I last missed a primary or general election in the 1970’s.

    Good for you. Haven’t been in the state that long and the data cut off where you see it.

    • #139
  20. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    CarolJoy (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    […]

    The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951. Between there and 2016 there are eight 8 year periods (1952 election to 2016 election). You throw out two of those as special. Are we to take seriously a law-like claim based on six data points? That there are special reasons for 1/4 of the cases (2/8) to not follow the rule should suggest that the rule is weak, if a rule at all (absent some serious elaboration with testable significant variables). SNIP

    1952-1960 R-Eisenhower

    1960-1968 D-Kennedy/Johnson (lot to unpack there but let’s overlook)

    1968-1976 R-Nixon/Ford (perfectly normal, nothing to see)

    1976-1984 D-Carter/R-Reagan (special case, omit from analysis)

    1984-1992 R-Reagan/GHW Bush (special case, omit from analysis)

    1992-2000 D-Clinton

    2000-2008 R-GW Bush

    2008-2016 D-Obama

    Your math is faulty. The Rule since the adoption of the 22nd Amendment of alternating between the two parties every two terms has not been accurate only 6 times out of 8, it has been accurate 14 out of 16 times.

    7 out of 8 times, a Party has been returned for a second four year term, with the only exception being in 1980, when the Democrats were not granted a second term. Jimmy Carter was that bad.

    7 out of 8 times, a Party has not been given a third four year term, with the only exception being in 1988, when the Republicans won the third term of Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was that good.

    The odds were 7 out of 8 that the Democrats would not get a third term in 2016. Any Republican would have won. We just nominated the worst candidate, who is transforming the Republican Party from a conservative to a populist party. Trump is as bad as Jimmy Carter and will be defeated.

     

    No, your math is wrong. As I showed.

    There were 16 elections between 1956 and 2016 inclusive. The rule of a second term but not a third term was followed 14 times, with exceptions only in 1980 and 1988. That’s 14 out of 16.

    OK, I see your mistake. The claim is “the American Party have alternated between the two parties every 8 years, with the sole exception of Reagan beating Carter and H.W. winning Reagan’s third term.” So the observation is every eight years, 8 cases. If we revise the formula to “if PARTY reelected, then PARTY loses subsequent election,” we still get 8 data points.

    Underlying both the “every 8 years Presidency changes parties” and the “midterm correction” phenomena seems to be a voting public far less passionately partisan than the average Ricocheteer. But we have few cases and many possible variables. No Sabermetrics here!

    • #140
  21. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    Arpaio has no chance of winning the Republican primary. Ward’s chances aren’t much better, and not only that she would have no chance in the general election. She is a local politician, and does not have statewide appeal. Ward’s praise of Steve Bannon is problematic for her. Bannon carries no weight in Arizona. He’s seen as an outsider that can’t afford a haircut, or a razor. In other words acerbic loudmouths who look like a transient do not impress Arizonans, call it cowboy culture if you like. You are expected to be polite and soft spoken while trying to get your message out.

    The difference between Flake and McCain is that McCain built a political machine that could crush his opponents, Flake spends most of his time outside of Arizona. He rarely is mentioned on the local news in Tucson. He’s like Ron Wyden from Oregon, who actually lives in New York.

    McSally has the best chance of becoming the next Republican Senator from Arizona.

    The exact same words were said of Donald Trump in April, 2016.

    • #141
  22. Drew, now with Dragon Energy! Member
    Drew, now with Dragon Energy!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    As an act of political hygiene, I would vote for Sinema, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, to help remove the Trump tattoo from my party.

    It is essential to send the clear message to Republican Primary voters that a vote for a Trump clone is a vote for the Democrat.

    Thank you! Finally an answer to my question of several pages back! You do want us voting for Democrats because of your hatred for Trump.

     

    • #142
  23. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Drew, now with Dragon Energy! (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    As an act of political hygiene, I would vote for Sinema, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, to help remove the Trump tattoo from my party.

    It is essential to send the clear message to Republican Primary voters that a vote for a Trump clone is a vote for the Democrat.

    Thank you! Finally an answer to my question of several pages back! You do want us voting for Democrats because of your hatred for Trump.

     

    That’s not what he said…

    • #143
  24. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Drew, now with Dragon Energy! (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    As an act of political hygiene, I would vote for Sinema, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, to help remove the Trump tattoo from my party.

    It is essential to send the clear message to Republican Primary voters that a vote for a Trump clone is a vote for the Democrat.

    Thank you! Finally an answer to my question of several pages back! You do want us voting for Democrats because of your hatred for Trump.

     

    That’s not what he said…

    If it’s not, it’s a distinction without a difference.

     

    • #144
  25. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    CarolJoy (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    […]

    The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951. Between there and 2016 there are eight 8 year periods (1952 election to 2016 election). You throw out two of those as special. Are we to take seriously a law-like claim based on six data points? That there are special reasons for 1/4 of the cases (2/8) to not follow the rule should suggest that the rule is weak, if a rule at all (absent some serious elaboration with testable significant variables). SNIP

    1952-1960 R-Eisenhower

    1960-1968 D-Kennedy/Johnson (lot to unpack there but let’s overlook)

    1968-1976 R-Nixon/Ford (perfectly normal, nothing to see)

    1976-1984 D-Carter/R-Reagan (special case, omit from analysis)

    1984-1992 R-Reagan/GHW Bush (special case, omit from analysis)

    1992-2000 D-Clinton

    2000-2008 R-GW Bush

    2008-2016 D-Obama

    Your math is faulty. The Rule since the adoption of the 22nd Amendment of alternating between the two parties every two terms has not been accurate only 6 times out of 8, it has been accurate 14 out of 16 times.

    7 out of 8 times, a Party has been returned for a second four year term, with the only exception being in 1980, when the Democrats were not granted a second term. Jimmy Carter was that bad.

    7 out of 8 times, a Party has not been given a third four year term, with the only exception being in 1988, when the Republicans won the third term of Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was that good.

    The odds were 7 out of 8 that the Democrats would not get a third term in 2016. Any Republican would have won. We just nominated the worst candidate, who is transforming the Republican Party from a conservative to a populist party. Trump is as bad as Jimmy Carter and will be defeated.

     

    No, your math is wrong. As I showed.

    There were 16 elections between 1956 and 2016 inclusive. The rule of a second term but not a third term was followed 14 times, with exceptions only in 1980 and 1988. That’s 14 out of 16.

    OK, I see your mistake. The claim is “the American Party have alternated between the two parties every 8 years, with the sole exception of Reagan beating Carter and H.W. winning Reagan’s third term.” So the observation is every eight years, 8 cases. If we revise the formula to “if PARTY reelected, then PARTY loses subsequent election,” we still get 8 data points.

    Underlying both the “every 8 years Presidency changes parties” and the “midterm correction” phenomena seems to be a voting public far less passionately partisan than the average Ricocheteer. But we have few cases and many possible variables. No Sabermetrics here!

    A tool that was correct 14 times out of 16 times is highly statistically significant.  (Or if you go back to 1951, it was correct 15 out of 17 times.)  The point is that the people who insist that only Trump could have won in 2016 have it all backward.   2016 was a Republican year, only Trump could come so close to blowing it.

    • #145
  26. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    There is evidence that Trumps increasing popularity amongst Republicans is actually reflective of the party getting smaller.

    And your evidence is? Kindly point it out on the web, or, even better, give us a link.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/01/08/evidence-trump-is-shrinking-the-gop/

    I couldn’t read the Washington Post article as I’m not a paying member. Others have said it was written by Jennifer Rubin, a notorious never Trump columnist. Does she cite evidence in her column?

    I think you can read ten Wapo articles a month at no cost. Also, the cost of a WaPo subscription is only $99 a year, much less than other papers.

    Free for six months with Amazon prime, then $3.99 a month, in case you don’t want to toss $99 a year to encourage bias in journalism.

    • #146
  27. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Drew, now with Dragon Energy! (View Comment):

    The GOP doesn’t want to win, because that would mean they’d have to act on their promises. They’re happier as the opposition than as leaders. Being the opposition is easy. Taking the lead? That’s work, man!

    Yes. That’s why there are so many congressional retirements this year. They’re worried they’re going to win in November.

    We seem to have different conceptions here of what it means to “win.”

    • #147
  28. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I think you can read ten Wapo articles a month at no cost. Also, the cost of a WaPo subscription is only $99 a year, much less than other papers.

    Is it socially responsible to support the hate media by sending them money?  

    • #148
  29. Gumby Mark Coolidge
    Gumby Mark
    @GumbyMark

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    CarolJoy (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    […]

     

    There were 16 elections between 1956 and 2016 inclusive. The rule of a second term but not a third term was followed 14 times, with exceptions only in 1980 and 1988. That’s 14 out of 16.

    OK, I see your mistake. The claim is “the American Party have alternated between the two parties every 8 years, with the sole exception of Reagan beating Carter and H.W. winning Reagan’s third term.” So the observation is every eight years, 8 cases. If we revise the formula to “if PARTY reelected, then PARTY loses subsequent election,” we still get 8 data points.

    Underlying both the “every 8 years Presidency changes parties” and the “midterm correction” phenomena seems to be a voting public far less passionately partisan than the average Ricocheteer. But we have few cases and many possible variables. No Sabermetrics here!

    A tool that was correct 14 times out of 16 times is highly statistically significant. (Or if you go back to 1951, it was correct 15 out of 17 times.) The point is that the people who insist that only Trump could have won in 2016 have it all backward. 2016 was a Republican year, only Trump could come so close to blowing it.

    I think if you look at the actual 2016 results you could easily come to a different conclusion.  I certainly thought at the time that Trump would be handily defeated.  Yet to come to a different conclusion you would have to see if there are states that Trump did not carry that would have been carried by a Republican candidate.  In addition, it is difficult to see how any other GOP candidate other than Trump would have carried Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, where fewer than 80,000 voters made the difference and won the election for Trump.

    I preferred many of the other GOP candidates, Cruz in particular, to Trump, but looking back on it, I have to acknowledge that Trump may have been the only one who could have won in the specific conditions of 2016.

    • #149
  30. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Gumby Mark (View Comment):
    I preferred many of the other GOP candidates, Cruz in particular, to Trump, but looking back on it, I have to acknowledge that Trump may have been the only one who could have won in the specific conditions of 2016.

    Hillary Clinton was historically unpopular. The Democratic Party was in disarray and divided. And she not only had an ethical baggage train a mile long, but was a terrible candidate in terms of just basic skills. 

    No. The specific conditions favored a Republican.  That’s why so many of them ran. That’s why even George Pataki ran. Because it should have been an easy win. 

    The only reason it was close is because the Republicans ran the only person whose unpopularity could rival Hillary Clinton. 

    • #150
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.