2026 Mid-Term Elections

31,189 Views | 520 Replies | Last: 10 hrs ago by whiterock
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 12:37p, 9/1/26
whiterock said:
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
J.R. said:
R's lose the House . Trump impeached again. all his shadiness and grift will come to light via investigation. Throw that crazy mfer in jail where he belongs.

If this unpopular war with Iran drags into 2028, the Dems may very well take back the Presidency if they can find a candidate anywhere remotely close the the middle.


Trump is the middle, buddy…..





Trump can't run again in 2028. The question is will the Dems find a candidate that is not Looney Tunes?
Call it a tax, the people are outraged! Call it a tariff, the people get out their checkbooks and wave their American flags!!!
Reply Quote
1
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 • 4:29p, 9/1/26
Easy answer: no. There are no prominent Dems anywhere that is not a complete nut job dead set on imposing their radical agenda, one overwhelmingly opposed by the people.
Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:42p, 9/1/26
Reply Quote
1
Frank Galvin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 5:53p, 9/1/26
whiterock said:

Why are 18 and 22 not on there? Trump was on the ballot in 3 of the 4 elections referenced. It could just as easily be that Trump was underestimated, not the GOP.
Reply Quote
Frank Galvin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to historian • 6:01p, 9/1/26
historian said:
Easy answer: no. There are no prominent Dems anywhere that is not a complete nut job dead set on imposing their radical agenda, one overwhelmingly opposed by the people.

Mark Kelly
Josh Shapiro
Jon Ossoff
Andy Beshear
Wes Moore
Gavin Newsom
Gretchen Whitmire
Amy Klobuchar
Katie Hobs
JB Prtizker
Abigail Spanberger
Elissa Slotkin
Josh Stein
Jared Polis
Tony Evers



Reply Quote
J.R.
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:36p, 9/1/26
Don't sleep on Osoff.
Reply Quote
TWD 1974
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.R. • 7:04p, 9/1/26
J.R. said:
Don't sleep on Osoff.

A lot of that list will likely make a run, but Ossoff looks like one to watch. What is really interesting to me is the early South Carolina primary, which will be a very big deal. If Kamala doesn't run, and even if she does, a big showing for Ossoff in SC and the pack will be chasing him the rest of the year.
“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9
Reply Quote
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frank Galvin • 11:36p, 9/1/26
Frank Galvin said:
historian said:
Easy answer: no. There are no prominent Dems anywhere that is not a complete nut job dead set on imposing their radical agenda, one overwhelmingly opposed by the people.

Mark Kelly
Josh Shapiro
Jon Ossoff
Andy Beshear
Wes Moore
Gavin Newsom
Gretchen Whitmire
Amy Klobuchar
Katie Hobs
JB Prtizker
Abigail Spanberger
Elissa Slotkin
Josh Stein
Jared Polis
Tony Evers

All excellent examples of my point. Most are also incredibly corrupt.
Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frank Galvin • 5:30a, 9/2/26
Frank Galvin said:
whiterock said:

Why are 18 and 22 not on there? Trump was on the ballot in 3 of the 4 elections referenced. It could just as easily be that Trump was underestimated, not the GOP.

Because they were midterms where Trump was not on the ballot. More to the point, look at the specific wording - "statewide races." (not national polling....)

GOP arguably overperformed in 2018, losing the House (where national popular vote for all races was in line with national polling), but gaining 2 seats in the Senate (again, showing statewide races can diverge from national trends).

In 2022, GOP national outcome (+4) did exceed national polling and the GOP gained several seats, but fell short of gaining control due to Dems running an inside straight using the Dobbs decision to motivate the single career female demo to wildly overperform in both turnout and margin in enough tossup urban/suburban seats to narrowly save control.

Bottom line is - GOP turnout tends to suffer when Trump is NOT on the ballot, because a lot of Trump voters are low propensity voters.

That is another sign of the metamorphosis of the electorate. The low-propensity voter was once the domain of Democrats.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Frank Galvin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to historian • 9:25a, 9/2/26
historian said:
Frank Galvin said:
historian said:
Easy answer: no. There are no prominent Dems anywhere that is not a complete nut job dead set on imposing their radical agenda, one overwhelmingly opposed by the people.

Mark Kelly
Josh Shapiro
Jon Ossoff
Andy Beshear
Wes Moore
Gavin Newsom
Gretchen Whitmire
Amy Klobuchar
Katie Hobs
JB Prtizker
Abigail Spanberger
Elissa Slotkin
Josh Stein
Jared Polis
Tony Evers

All excellent examples of my point. Most are also incredibly corrupt.

Says the Trump supporter. LOL.

You are also a hopeless partisan. Your view is that being a Democrat automatically means "radical leftist." No amount of evidence could ever convince you otherwise because you are brainwashed.
Reply Quote
2
Frank Galvin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 9:27a, 9/2/26
whiterock said:
Frank Galvin said:
whiterock said:

Why are 18 and 22 not on there? Trump was on the ballot in 3 of the 4 elections referenced. It could just as easily be that Trump was underestimated, not the GOP.

Because they were midterms where Trump was not on the ballot. More to the point, look at the specific wording - "statewide races." (not national polling....)

GOP arguably overperformed in 2018, losing the House (where national popular vote for all races was in line with national polling), but gaining 2 seats in the Senate (again, showing statewide races can diverge from national trends).

In 2022, GOP national outcome (+4) did exceed national polling and the GOP gained several seats, but fell short of gaining control due to Dems running an inside straight using the Dobbs decision to motivate the single career female demo to wildly overperform in both turnout and margin in enough tossup urban/suburban seats to narrowly save control.

Bottom line is - GOP turnout tends to suffer when Trump is NOT on the ballot, because a lot of Trump voters are low propensity voters.

That is another sign of the metamorphosis of the electorate. The low-propensity voter was once the domain of Democrats.

I don't understand the relevance of your post to the midterm elections then.
Reply Quote
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frank Galvin • 9:35a, 9/2/26
My conclusion is based upon what I've seen. When a "moderate" Dem supports murdering babies in the womb (even moments before birth), mutilating children, open borders, abolishing ICE, abolishing prisons, amnesty for all illegals, taxing everyone much more, socialized medicine, etc ad nauseum, there isn't much point in making distinctions.

Mind you, virtually every Dem politician has advocated these things for quite fond time. That some of them are now moderating their positions because they are afraid of the more radical commies does not impress those of us who are patriots who respect God and the constitution. The Dems, from top to bottom, have opposed both for years.
Reply Quote
1
Frank Galvin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to historian • 10:15a, 9/2/26
historian said:
My conclusion is based upon what I've seen. When a "moderate" Dem supports murdering babies in the womb (even moments before birth), mutilating children, open borders, abolishing ICE, abolishing prisons, amnesty for all illegals, taxing everyone much more, socialized medicine, etc ad nauseum, there isn't much point in making distinctions.

Mind you, virtually every Dem politician has advocated these things for quite fond time. That some of them are now moderating their positions because they are afraid of the more radical commies does not impress those of us who are patriots who respect God and the constitution. The Dems, from top to bottom, have opposed both for years.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
Reply Quote
2
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frank Galvin • 11:41a, 9/2/26
I see what the politicians show me. Talarico, Abdul, and the rest don't require much interpretation. They are radical, evil, and dangerous. That's true of all of them. It's their own words, their own agenda. I provided multiple examples.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Frank Galvin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to historian • 12:00p, 9/2/26
historian said:
I see what the politicians show me. Talarico, Abdul, and the rest don't require much interpretation. They are radical, evil, and dangerous. That's true of all of them. It's their own words, their own agenda. I provided multiple examples.

While the people you refer to above are neither evil, radical, nor dangerous, they are not the people we are discussing. Do you really say the same about Mark Kelly and Josh Shapiro?
Reply Quote
1 edit
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frank Galvin • 12:13p, 9/2/26
They want to kill babies in the womb, mutilate children, open the borders, abolish ICE, abolish the police, impose socialized medicine, etc. Their agenda is evil. Their support for criminals is evil (including rapists, murderers, pedos, etc). Their support for fraud is evil (& participation). Their obsession with taxing Americans to finance all these evil ideas is doubly evil. Their rejection of the Constitution and American history is evil. Their opposition to the Save Act, deportations, protecting women's sports, and so on is evil. Their support for terrorists & terrorism is evil. Their misogyny & racism is evil. Their TDS is evil. Their lies about everything is evil. The list goes on and on.

Yes, they are evil and dangerous.
Reply Quote
1
J.R.
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to historian • 12:16p, 9/2/26
historian said:
My conclusion is based upon what I've seen. When a "moderate" Dem supports murdering babies in the womb (even moments before birth), mutilating children, open borders, abolishing ICE, abolishing prisons, amnesty for all illegals, taxing everyone much more, socialized medicine, etc ad nauseum, there isn't much point in making distinctions.

Mind you, virtually every Dem politician has advocated these things for quite fond time. That some of them are now moderating their positions because they are afraid of the more radical commies does not impress those of us who are patriots who respect God and the constitution. The Dems, from top to bottom, have opposed both for years.

Every , Every Democrat and Independents. There is NO Republican Party anymore. You be weird yo, with your fixation on culture wars.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:07p, 9/2/26
Cook typically over estimates Team Blue. The only question is by how much.

Reply Quote
1
Frank Galvin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 1:23p, 9/2/26
whiterock said:
Cook typically over estimates Team Blue. The only question is by how much.


The Nov. 1, 2024, Cook Political forecast had the GOP with 220-223 house seats. In other words, right on.

https://www.270towin.com/2024-house-election/cook-political-report-2024-house-ratings
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.R. • 1:36p, 9/2/26
J.R. said:
historian said:
My conclusion is based upon what I've seen. When a "moderate" Dem supports murdering babies in the womb (even moments before birth), mutilating children, open borders, abolishing ICE, abolishing prisons, amnesty for all illegals, taxing everyone much more, socialized medicine, etc ad nauseum, there isn't much point in making distinctions.

Mind you, virtually every Dem politician has advocated these things for quite fond time. That some of them are now moderating their positions because they are afraid of the more radical commies does not impress those of us who are patriots who respect God and the constitution. The Dems, from top to bottom, have opposed both for years.

Every , Every Democrat and Independents. There is NO Republican Party anymore. You be weird yo, with your fixation on culture wars.

Pay attention, JR. People firmly rooted in reality on such things are not the culture warriors. The culture warriors are the ones demanding to change the definition of marriage, the definition of what is a boy and what is a girl, the definition of what is a pronoun, the definition of Title IX regarding how to promote and protect "women" in sports, etc…..

Reply Quote
2
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:37p, 9/2/26
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:59p, 9/2/26
Further to that Harvard Harris poll, forget the actual numbers. look at the trend…

Reply Quote
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 3:17p, 9/2/26
If this trend continues, Republicans could be at or near +10 by November. That's the expectation for places like Texas. It might be closer, but I expect the GOP will win in Michigan, Maine, and other prominent races to retain control of both houses. They might even increase their lead.

It definitely will be good for the country when the voters fire the RINOs who are as destructive as the fascists.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:41p, 9/2/26
Most important stat of all in the Harvard-Harris poll = turnout. If it ends up looking like this, GOP gains seats in both houses.

Reply Quote
2
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:45p, 9/2/26
For perspective: Harris is an outlier among this cycle's polls. But. Its lead pollster, Mark Lenn, is a Democrat….literally was Bill Clinton's pollster. And his track record ain't shabby.

Reply Quote
J.R.
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 11:10p, 9/2/26
whiterock said:
J.R. said:
historian said:
My conclusion is based upon what I've seen. When a "moderate" Dem supports murdering babies in the womb (even moments before birth), mutilating children, open borders, abolishing ICE, abolishing prisons, amnesty for all illegals, taxing everyone much more, socialized medicine, etc ad nauseum, there isn't much point in making distinctions.

Mind you, virtually every Dem politician has advocated these things for quite fond time. That some of them are now moderating their positions because they are afraid of the more radical commies does not impress those of us who are patriots who respect God and the constitution. The Dems, from top to bottom, have opposed both for years.

Every , Every Democrat and Independents. There is NO Republican Party anymore. You be weird yo, with your fixation on culture wars.

Pay attention, JR. People firmly rooted in reality on such things are not the culture warriors. The culture warriors are the ones demanding to change the definition of marriage, the definition of what is a boy and what is a girl, the definition of what is a pronoun, the definition of Title IX regarding how to promote and protect "women" in sports, etc…..


yall culture warriors might need a hobby or a job.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:58p, 9/3/26
A view from Team Blue
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 4:01p, 9/3/26
whiterock said:
J.R. said:
historian said:
My conclusion is based upon what I've seen. When a "moderate" Dem supports murdering babies in the womb (even moments before birth), mutilating children, open borders, abolishing ICE, abolishing prisons, amnesty for all illegals, taxing everyone much more, socialized medicine, etc ad nauseum, there isn't much point in making distinctions.

Mind you, virtually every Dem politician has advocated these things for quite fond time. That some of them are now moderating their positions because they are afraid of the more radical commies does not impress those of us who are patriots who respect God and the constitution. The Dems, from top to bottom, have opposed both for years.

Every , Every Democrat and Independents. There is NO Republican Party anymore. You be weird yo, with your fixation on culture wars.

Pay attention, JR. People firmly rooted in reality on such things are not the culture warriors. The culture warriors are the ones demanding to change the definition of marriage, the definition of what is a boy and what is a girl, the definition of what is a pronoun, the definition of Title IX regarding how to promote and protect "women" in sports, etc…..


Democrats will never give up on the culture wars. First task of revolutionaries is to destroy normal.
Reply Quote
1
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 6:15p, 9/3/26
It's in the Communist Manifesto, their Bible.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:03p, 9/4/26
A +6 generic ballot would most likely result in a narrow Dem majority in the House and GOP retaining control of the Senate.

Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:34p, 9/4/26
To the extent this is accurate, House would be a pure tossup.

Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.