US Midterm Election 2018

[coded321]

Here's some more optimism. While a giant blue tsunami did not occur, that the Democrats had managed to win the house along with numerous governor and stat legislature seats, despite all the advantages the Republicans had, is a massive win in itself.
While in the senate, the Democrats were at a massive disadvantage, with 26 seats to defend, 10 of which were in red states. Meanwhile the Republicans only had to defend 9 seats. Based on the house result, if this disadvantage did not exist, the Democrats probably could have won a small majority in the senate as well.

[Key Board]

as mentioned on social media,

Dems will take about 30+ House seats with a popular vote win of +9%.
In 2010, Republicans took 60+ House seats with a popular vote win of +7%

Why this difference? probably gerrymandering

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Key Board

as mentioned on social media,

Dems will take about 30+ House seats with a popular vote win of +9%.
In 2010, Republicans took 60+ House seats with a popular vote win of +7%

Why this difference? probably gerrymandering

Urban vs Rural. Dem voters tend to be concentrated in high-population density areas, while GOP voters tend to be more spread out in rather rural areas. That's why maps of population for the US color coded by party affiliation tend to be 95% light red with several dark blue areas indicating the concentrated Dem population. That's why the popular vote is higher for dems. Dem areas have higher population concentration, but that's useless because an overwhelming win for the representative of a dem area doesn't translate to any "extra votes" for the rural area next to the city.

[serenade_beta]

Wait, there is a Republican party? Huh, that's strange.

[Ithekro]

The percentage one way or the other seems to be very similar between the two house...like 51-49%, with each party holding one on them. But so many measures require more that just a simple majority. The really important stuff requires two-thirds majority or in even 75% for something.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The percentage one way or the other seems to be very similar between the two house...like 51-49%, with each party holding one on them. But so many measures require more that just a simple majority. The really important stuff requires two-thirds majority or in even 75% for something.

Yes, if you want any meaningful legislation passed, you need 50%+1 votes in the house and 60 out of 100 votes in the Senate. That's why Trump didn't get much passed despite the GOP holding house + senate up until now. You also appearently need 66 out of 100 votes in the Senate to confirm an impeachment from the House, so that is usually just wishful thinking.

When was the last time a party held the house and 60+ senate seats? I remember a lot of people saying that Obama supposedly had that in his first term, but according to wikipedia that is not true.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by coded321

it would take nothing less than a great depression or nuclear war before hardcore trump supporters would even consider turning away from trump. the past two years has essentially been trump pandering to his base and blaming whatever problems they had during previous administrations on the democrats.
as long as they feel that he is responding to their needs, and that his decisions dont negatively affect them directly, they won't give a damn what he says or does.
ironically in ohio, opposite to florida, the republican candidate for governor won by distancing himself away from trump, unlike desantis who made himself a trump clone.

Not talking about redcaps; those are gone.

More talking about how Democracy doesn't work when so many people don't vote. :S

[Solace]

You're....kinda not supposed to. It's not a coincidence that the system doesn't really encourage people to vote. Even some of the Founding Fathers had a disdain for the "less educated" being capable of self governing. Voting used to be restricted to white males who owned property. Women couldn't vote until 1920, blacks couldn't vote until 1870. And even with those rights you had shit like Jim Crow to make it impossible to actually use the right. Heck, the Electoral College was literally born from Jim Crow.

The nation has paid a heavy price for not finishing Reconstruction, and it is placed on top of a system that was never friendly to people who weren't rich white men in the first place (and honestly if you look at the "elite" of the country, rich white men is still the status quo). It's a goddam mess that we're still fighting with, such as the bullshit "voter" laws and purges that are solutions looking for problems. Just look at Georgia last night. Or the recent high profile gerrymandering lawsuits. Or the stupid amount of money in these races. Or the fact that we're still electing, at the very least, racists, if not outright white supremacists.

That's why you need passion. Passion gets people to the polls. Those votes matter, because individually they're so worthless, but when these battles are won by mere percents....it's huge. Every bit helps. You need candidates people are excited about. It's a big reason why Bernie is so popular. It's a big reason why Hillary lost. It's a big reason why Trump is so popular with his base. It's a big reason why Beto nearly won, and he probably flipped a few seats in Texas even though he lost his own bid.

It is possible to make change in the system. Historically though, it has always been really really damn hard. Often intentionally so, for the sake of preserving power. And often, because people don't mind voting for bad politicians over and over again because humans are idiots.

[bakato]

The creators of the current political system never wanted the masses to hold any kind of power. Hell, there's a reason you won't find the word "democracy" in the Constitution.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by bakato

The creators of the current political system never wanted the masses to hold any kind of power.

They were afraid that a nation of immigrants (which the USA has been since they were known as the 13 colonies) could receive an influx of people and vote for an autocratic goverment (which is the reason they fled from britain in the first place). I do not think that even in their worst nightmares the founding fathers would think people that have lived all their lives in the USA would vote an autocratic president and wanna be dictator.

BTW, Sessions has been fired and rodsenstein can't be far behind (give if a few hours). If the repubs in congress give the votes for whoever trump nominates in their place, then I say the final nail for the republican party, from now on it would be the neocon party!

[coded321]

For now trump has placed Whitaker as the head of the justice department, who, unlike sessions, has openly criticized the Russian investigation, denouncing it as a witch hunt.

[Ithekro]

The people wanted George Washington to be crowded king. He declined that offer.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by coded321

For now trump has placed Whitaker as the head of the justice department, who, unlike sessions, has openly criticized the Russian investigation, denouncing it as a witch hunt.

I am VERY interested if this appointment passes the legal smell test on account that

-Whitaker was not presently holding a Senate approved position when he got this appointment
-Sessions was for all practical purposes fired (despite semantics about resigning on request)

[MCAL]

https://twitter.com/aabramson/status...26374976962560

"Pelosi says that WHEN democrats win they will strive for bipartisanship. “We have to try,” she says, citing the founding fathers"

Glad to see Dems havent't learned a single f*cking thing!

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by MCAL

https://twitter.com/aabramson/status...26374976962560

"Pelosi says that WHEN democrats win they will strive for bipartisanship. “We have to try,” she says, citing the founding fathers"

Glad to see Dems havent't learned a single f*cking thing!

She was always for the statu quo, the only way to change her would be to affect her on the money side.

[coded321]

Originally Posted by MCAL

https://twitter.com/aabramson/status...26374976962560

"Pelosi says that WHEN democrats win they will strive for bipartisanship. “We have to try,” she says, citing the founding fathers"

Glad to see Dems havent't learned a single f*cking thing!

One way to look at it, the dems are trying to stop the polarization, stop the divide. It won't be good for this nation in the long run if either political party continues to move further and further into their respective extremes.
Furthermore, trump benefits from the polarization and the division that helped him get elected. That's why he's been instigating culture wars, depicting the left as the bogeyman who's going to steal your jobs and guns, to widen the polarization. basically the dems are going to at least try to stop this polarization that benefits trump.
Even though a Democrat controlled house will now provide a check on trump, the house now gives trump a clear, solid enemy through which he can confront and place all the blame on. Blunting trump on every action he and the Republican party takes in the next two years, can actually hurt the dems in the 2020 election. Before, trump falsely blamed the Democrats from stopping the Republicans from passing immigration reform, even though the republican had complete control of Congress. Trump can now legitimately blame the dems for whenever some legislation isnt passed, regardless of the context, and his base will just eat it up.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by MCAL

https://twitter.com/aabramson/status...26374976962560

"Pelosi says that WHEN democrats win they will strive for bipartisanship. “We have to try,” she says, citing the founding fathers"

Glad to see Dems havent't learned a single f*cking thing!

She is not going to say "no, fuck those guys" in public. Don't take that to mean I agree with her. She's just not the right person to be making those kind of rebukes.

[Key Board]

I guess Democrats still care about "they go low we go high" optics.
Where as Trump does the opposite and has to project strength and aggression all the time

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The people wanted George Washington to be crowded king. He declined that offer.

No doubt he realized that all those people around him telling him and promoting the idea of him having a king were really looking for their self interest, looking forward to all the perks of becoming the new nobility. But trumpo would love to hear people asking him to become king.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by coded321

One way to look at it, the dems are trying to stop the polarization, stop the divide. It won't be good for this nation in the long run if either political party continues to move further and further into their respective extremes.
Furthermore, trump benefits from the polarization and the division that helped him get elected. That's why he's been instigating culture wars, depicting the left as the bogeyman who's going to steal your jobs and guns, to widen the polarization. basically the dems are going to at least try to stop this polarization that benefits trump.
Even though a Democrat controlled house will now provide a check on trump, the house now gives trump a clear, solid enemy through which he can confront and place all the blame on. Blunting trump on every action he and the Republican party takes in the next two years, can actually hurt the dems in the 2020 election. Before, trump falsely blamed the Democrats from stopping the Republicans from passing immigration reform, even though the republican had complete control of Congress. Trump can now legitimately blame the dems for whenever some legislation isnt passed, regardless of the context, and his base will just eat it up.

I agree with this prediction. Ordinarily in a deadlock government, the president would have the most power. They'd just be moderate and court both sides when needed. In 2016 I thought that's where Trump was headed, but at this point getting a single democrat to side with him is a pipe dream. Far more likely is everyone doubling down and the centre continuing to collapse.

Maybe Steve Bannon was right, and the next elections will be all about Trump-style right-wing, conservative populism vs. left-wing, socialist populism a'la Bernie. But I'm gonna stick with my prediction that the left wins the next one.