The 2022 Midterm Elections

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

Especially the sales staffs. Holiday sales aren't that profitable and you can't rely on car dealers

It's worth reiterating here that TV and radio stations are bound by FCC rule to offer political advertisers, including candidates, the lowest rate for a given daypart that any advertiser pays that station during the defined campaign season.

That might make it sound like political advertisers get dramatic bargains when they buy time, but in reality, it's more of a boondoggle for the stations not because they offer candidates super-deep discounts on rates, but because they get to charge all the other advertisers elevated rates under the guise of not being able to offer their customary rates because it's running during "politicals". It's why we see almost 100% of prime-time local spots being political during the season: few other advertisers can afford to run at those elevated rates. So they either rush into other, cheaper dayparts; shake up their media or station mix for the time being; or just go on hiatus until it's all over. Steady advertisers like QSRs and dealer groups, who run promotional pillars basically 52 weeks a year and can't afford to go dark for even a week, simply budget double-digit CPP increases in the short-term and just deal with it.

Edited November 30, 2022 by chasfh

[CMRivdogs]

As a jock I used to hate political season and it's endless spots, especially the week before Election Day. Especially since the stations I worked had policies of no competitors in the same stop set. It was small market in the 70s and 80s, we tried to limit lengths of breaks more or less. 3 spots, weather report, more spots, live psa or promo, etc. You were lucky you could get 4 songs in a half hour...

[oblong]

 

[1984Echoes]

1 minute ago, oblong said:

 

Well I guess I played my part then...

[chasfh]

10 hours ago, oblong said:

 

I think in general it’s because independents are less politically-engaged than those who identify as R or D, and people who are less engaged won’t act if they want things to continue as they are, but they will act if they want things to change.

I think that got upended this year as independents were uniquely motivated to keep things as they are.

[Motor City Sonics]

13 hours ago, chasfh said:

I think in general it’s because independents are less politically-engaged than those who identify as R or D, and people who are less engaged won’t act if they want things to continue as they are, but they will act if they want things to change.

I think that got upended this year as independents were uniquely motivated to keep things as they are.

A - The abortion issue

B - Nut jobs for candidates for the GOP

[chasfh]

10 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

A - The abortion issue

B - Nut jobs for candidates for the GOP

Which is kind of worrisome because Americans want desperately to elect conservatives, because we are at our core a religious country.

If the RNC can figure out how to clean up their fascist candidates and keep them from acting out during campaigns, convincing them to wait to do so until they actually get elected in majority numbers, we’d be goners.

[ewsieg]

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/12/01/ted-cruz-john-cornyn-bernie-sanders-railroad-union/

Even Ted Cruz voted in support with Unions.  This is a big reason why Democrats have been losing blue collar support.  

[mtutiger]

22 hours ago, ewsieg said:

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/12/01/ted-cruz-john-cornyn-bernie-sanders-railroad-union/

Even Ted Cruz voted in support with Unions.  This is a big reason why Democrats have been losing blue collar support.  

49/50 Democrats voted for the measure. 6/50 Rs voted for the measure.

Not sure the math adds up, Chief.

Edited December 3, 2022 by mtutiger

[romad1]

per the pros...this one is over. 

 

[chasfh]

12 hours ago, romad1 said:

per the pros...this one is over. 

 

Oooooh, that’s still close … what’s the plus/minus on that one?

[mtutiger]

13 hours ago, romad1 said:

per the pros...this one is over. 

 

If I were Walker, I'd be concerned the fact that AA% is almost 32% in early voting. It was closer 29% in the first round during early voting, where Warnock got more votes than Walker... granted I know people get chided for talking about EV, but due to racial polarization in the south, AA turnout in Georgia is fairly predictive.

Walker still has a path, but his people will need to show up in big numbers on EDay.

[romad1]

5 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

If I were Walker, I'd be concerned the fact that AA% is almost 32% in early voting. It was closer 29% in the first round during early voting, where Warnock got more votes than Walker... granted I know people get chided for talking about EV, but due to racial polarization in the south, AA turnout in Georgia is fairly predictive.

Walker still has a path, but his people will need to show up in big numbers on EDay.

The pros can be wrong but the GOP is also treating this one like its yesterday's news. 

[mtutiger]

10 minutes ago, romad1 said:

The pros can be wrong but the GOP is also treating this one like its yesterday's news. 

No doubt, the lack of energy and enthusiasm for Walker is noticeable, and the pros don't seem to be exhibiting a lot of confidence in a W on Tuesday for his campaign.

Not making any predictions, but it wouldn't be a surprise if Warnock won by as much as 4 points, which would be a blowout for a D candidate in a state like Georgia.

Edited December 4, 2022 by mtutiger

[smr-nj]

17 hours ago, romad1 said:

per the pros...this one is over. 

 

Do you know how depressing it is that this is even close?

Very. The answer is “very depressing”. 
 

[romad1]

1 hour ago, smr-nj said:

Do you know how depressing it is that this is even close?

Very. The answer is “very depressing”. 
 

So, the polling industry is a mixed bag of the scientific poll and the poll designed to get scared people to open up their pockets and wallets.   I'm thinking this one is not close.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

So, the polling industry is a mixed bag of the scientific poll and the poll designed to get scared people to open up their pockets and wallets.   I'm thinking this one is not close.

If it's not close than either people that voted for him in Nov have changed their minds or they stay home, I'm not picky about which.

[chasfh]

I won't breathe a sigh of relief until Warnock is declared the winner.

[Motor City Sonics]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I won't breathe a sigh of relief until Warnock is declared the winner.

Me too.      It's so depressing. 

[ewsieg]

On 12/3/2022 at 8:11 AM, mtutiger said:

49/50 Democrats voted for the measure. 6/50 Rs voted for the measure.

Not sure the math adds up, Chief.

Editing as I realize you posted the sick leave numbers.  But, they didn't need to have separated votes.  They did so precisely so the left could claim a win, without actually delivering for unions.  

The actions from a democratic controlled congress and president means that the Unions are f'd while they get to tell their supporters that once again that you need to vote for them in order to support unions.  

Edited December 5, 2022 by ewsieg

[mtutiger]

48 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

49 people that claim to support unions didn't vote to support them.  I'm not saying the Republicans are off the hook when only 6 of the 50 supported workers, but then again they are more or less expected to side with the corporations.

So the 47/50 (not 49, due to absenses) Democrats who voted for 7 days of sick leave weren't voting to support unions, but the 6/50 Rs who voted the same are?

That makes zero sense.

Edited December 5, 2022 by mtutiger

[ewsieg]

5 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

So the 47/50 (not 49, due to absenses) Democrats who voted for 7 days of sick leave weren't voting to support unions, but the 6/50 Rs who voted the same are?

That makes zero sense.

Yeah, my bad.  I hadn't seen the exact numbers and didn't catch which ones you were talking about.

So congress could have voted to extend the deadline.  Or they could have allowed the unions to strike.  There was one sticking point, the employees wanted paid sick days.  I know, absolutely unheard of if you're a union employee.  That type of benefit has only existed in the white collar world traditionally (/sarcasm).

So what did the dems do, they split up the 'ask'.   1) vote on if the union has to agree to terms without sick days (overwhelmingly passed by both sides) 2) vote to see if we should add paid sick days (didn't get the 60 votes needed).

So the Dems get to claim they tried, while knowingly giving the railroads a win.  There are many different scenarios a union friendly congress/executive branch could have handled this which would have given the employees a better chance to get some paid sick days.

[mtutiger]

14 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Yeah, my bad.  I hadn't seen the exact numbers and didn't catch which ones you were talking about.

So congress could have voted to extend the deadline.  Or they could have allowed the unions to strike.  There was one sticking point, the employees wanted paid sick days.  I know, absolutely unheard of if you're a union employee.  That type of benefit has only existed in the white collar world traditionally (/sarcasm).

So what did the dems do, they split up the 'ask'.   1) vote on if the union has to agree to terms without sick days (overwhelmingly passed by both sides) 2) vote to see if we should add paid sick days (didn't get the 60 votes needed).

So the Dems get to claim they tried, while knowingly giving the railroads a win.  There are many different scenarios a union friendly congress/executive branch could have handled this which would have given the employees a better chance to get some paid sick days.

I dont know how realistic it was to get the necessary votes to extend the deadline, especially with the requirement of 60 in the Senate. But clearly, a strike really wasn't something that anyone would countenance.

In a time where we already have supply chain issues and inflation, the railroads grinding to a halt would have been like a nuclear bomb to the economy - trains carry a lot of consumer goods, but they also carry a lot of necessities as well, such as  food to medical supplies. It's not an exaggeration to suggest that a strike would do a tremendous amount of harm to the country. And would have downstream harm to all Americans. 

The railroads, for their part, knew this and had a tremendous amount of leverage in negotiations. So, maybe it's theoretically possible that a better deal could be reached, but I kinda doubt it - I have a little insight on the industry for professional reasons, and their business model (longer trains, on time and more efficiently) is complicated a lot by sick leave. I'm not saying it's right, but it's absolutely a hill they were gonna die on, even if the optics weren't good.

So knowing all of this, as sympathetic as I am to the workers and that they should have more sick leave, this is one of those cases where there really wasn't a good decision to be had - you either tank the economy in the hopes (no guarantee) of seven days of sick leave, or you enforce the deal and try to fight it another day. On balance, they probably did the right thing - both politically and for the country.

[ewsieg]

A strike would have definitely hurt the economy.  No doubt about it.  But again, in the end, Union railway workers have zero paid sick time and all the money they sent in to elect democrats resulted in nothing to show for it.  But hey, maybe next time right?  

I'm not going to play the 'If Trump/GOP were in power' game, but I do wonder if this would have gotten more coverage in the press and if that coverage would point out the fact that railroads are generating record profit right now.  Things that make you go hmmm.

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

A strike would have definitely hurt the economy.  No doubt about it.  But again, in the end, Union railway workers have zero paid sick time and all the money they sent in to elect democrats resulted in nothing to show for it.  But hey, maybe next time right?  

It's not ideal, but part of being in power is having to make the least bad decision out of some pretty terrible decisions sometimes.

3 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I'm not going to play the 'If Trump/GOP were in power' game, but I do wonder if this would have gotten more coverage in the press and if that coverage would point out the fact that railroads are generating record profit right now.  Things that make you go hmmm.

Maybe I'm reading different sources, but my view is that the potential strike did get a lot of press and was the lead story on NPR during the couple of days leading up to the vote. And record profits were mentioned in the accounts as well - the companies got a lot of bad PR out of this.

And I suspect that would have been similar if Trump were in office.