Midterm Elections

Captain Obvious

i think Dems should forget about Trump for the first few months and focus on trying to pass legislation that will be good for as many people as possible. Make the GOP or Trump the bad guys for blocking them. Make it clear they want to improve the country and not just attack Trump.

RobertKK

hill16bhoy wrote: »

There are definitely certain things to read into 2020 from last night.

Democrats had a good night in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

That certainly bodes well for 2020 and all will have Democratic governors going forward.

Ohio will be harder to get back and losing the Governor's race there was a blow but Sherrod Brown showed the Democrats can still win there.

Nevada is turning into a reasonably steady blue state and Rosen's comfortable win there was the brightest spot on the senate map for them.

Florida was a massive disappointment, there's no getting away from it, especially Gillum's loss to the scumbag De Santis. However the silver lining was the passing of the proposition to enfranchise up to over a million felons. And in a state where the margins are always tiny, that's a huge deal. It does of course set up the mother of all battles over voter suppression in 2020, but the Republicans will have a huge uphill battle on that front now.

North Carolina passed a voter ID law so the odds of Democrats winning there in 2020 are slim.

The defeats of Putin's congresssman Dana Rohrabacher in California and Scott Walker in Wisconsin were probably the two biggest individual feel good stories to emerge from individual races.

That kind of implies, the Democrats are the party for the criminals, I know that isn't what you mean, but that is how it looks.
People with criminal convictions more likely to be Democrat supporters.

RobertKK

Captain Obvious wrote: »

i think Dems should forget about Trump for the first few months and focus on trying to pass legislation that will be good for as many people as possible. Make the GOP or Trump the bad guys for blocking them. Make it clear they want to improve the country and not just attack Trump.

I hope they do concentrate on legislation... as a former Democrat governor of Pennsylvania said "legislate, legislate, legislate", he said to do that instead of investigate as voters want legislation and the Democrats will pay in 2020 if they go down the investigate route.
For me the more the US is occupied with things at home, the less time they look abroad to cause more trouble to take away from nothing being done at home.

8-10

RobertKK wrote: »

That kind of implies, the Democrats are the party for the criminals, I know that isn't what you mean, but that is how it looks.
People with criminal convictions more likely to be Democrat supporters.

I don't think you can make that assumption. Democrats and Republicans both supported this move and it was a vote on fairness to amend the constitution not because they think felons will vote a certain way, but because they have the right to vote.

So I think the sentiment was that it's a silver lining in that "at least Florida is embracing some progressive change" rather than "at least Florida is helping some Democrats"

Fair play to both sides with that result, 64% in favour.

RobertKK

8-10 wrote: »

I don't think you can make that assumption. Democrats and Republicans both supported this move and it was a vote on fairness to amend the constitution not because they think felons will vote a certain way, but because they have the right to vote.

So I think the sentiment was that it's a silver lining in that "at least Florida is embracing some progressive change" rather than "at least Florida is helping some Democrats"

Fair play to both sides with that result, 64% in favour.

I am not making that assumption, it is what the post I quoted implied.

8-10

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not making that assumption, it is what the post I quoted implied.

Got it. I'm saying I didn't get that from the post I thought it was a more generic silver lining.

Would be interesting to see in future elections if there's a correlation among felons on how they vote. I don't think it's going to be significant but I'd be interested to see in relation to college education. In general the more educated the person the more likely to vote Democrat, it even trumps race and gender as an indicator. And felons are in general much less likely to be college educated. So on the surface they should be more inclined to vote Republican but I'm not so sure, we'll see in future

RobertKK

Beto O'Rourke did really badly. I came across this:
2012 Paul Sadler
Raised: $705,027
Votes: 3,194,927
$/Vote: $0.22 each

Then on to 2018
Beto O'Rourke
Raised: $69,240,350+
Votes (11:33pm ET): 3,413,259+
$/Vote: $20.29 each

Just an extra 218k votes despite all the hype and spending 98 times as much as the Democrat in 2012 did.

Captain Obvious

RobertKK wrote: »

Beto O'Rourke did really badly. I came across this:
2012 Paul Sadler
Raised: $705,027
Votes: 3,194,927
$/Vote: $0.22 each

Then on to 2018
Beto O'Rourke
Raised: $69,240,350+
Votes (11:33pm ET): 3,413,259+
$/Vote: $20.29 each

Just an extra 218k votes despite all the hype and spending 98 times as much as the Democrat in 2012 did.

He narrowed the gap from 16 points to 3 points.

Brian?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

This phrase “america isn’t a democracy, it’s a republic” is like saying chickens aren’t animals they are birds.

A genuine republic is a democracy.

I think people mean that it’s a federal republic not a direct democracy.

Not really. I pointed out why I felt the system was undemocratic. The Senate is not democratically elected as it's decidedly against the concept of one person one vote.

hill16bhoy

8-10 wrote: »

Got it. I'm saying I didn't get that from the post I thought it was a more generic silver lining.

Would be interesting to see in future elections if there's a correlation among felons on how they vote. I don't think it's going to be significant but I'd be interested to see in relation to college education. In general the more educated the person the more likely to vote Democrat, it even trumps race and gender as an indicator. And felons are in general much less likely to be college educated. So on the surface they should be more inclined to vote Republican but I'm not so sure, we'll see in future

If you take income as a function of formal education, Democrats do better with the poorest and most marginalised in society.

Republicans do better the higher up the income scale you go.

Which is hardly a surprise given that the Republican agenda is overwhelmingly geared towards increasing the advantages the rich already have and tramping the poorest and most marginalised into the dirt.

40% of all felons in Florida are black men, but again that's not a surprise given that they tend to be one of the most marginalised groups in society.

Voting is not a privilege, it's a right, and the passing of this proposition is to be warmly welcomed. It should be taken up by other states.

Brian?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

All depends on who the Democrats pick to run.

Someone like Warren is popular in liberal Massachusetts but that may not translate well elsewhere.

As a poster posted earlier Democratic gains were in places were they ran, for the use of a better word, less 'progressive' candidates.

I have no idea who thed Democrats should pick by the way.

Based on last night's results it would be a huge mistake for Warren to be the nominee in 2020. They need to pick a moderate southern democrat and not a North eastern progressive liberal.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Beto O'Rourke did really badly. I came across this:
2012 Paul Sadler
Raised: $705,027
Votes: 3,194,927
$/Vote: $0.22 each

Then on to 2018
Beto O'Rourke
Raised: $69,240,350+
Votes (11:33pm ET): 3,413,259+
$/Vote: $20.29 each

Just an extra 218k votes despite all the hype and spending 98 times as much as the Democrat in 2012 did.

Beto O'Rourke came with in 3 points of a high profile incumbent republican. In TEXAS. That's a great result.

2 Scoops

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Florida was a massive disappointment, there's no getting away from it, especially Gillum's loss to the scumbag De Santis.

Classy. It's not DeSantis under investigation for corruption.

Brian?

hill16bhoy wrote: »

There are definitely certain things to read into 2020 from last night.

Democrats had a good night in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

That certainly bodes well for 2020 and all will have Democratic governors going forward.

Ohio will be harder to get back and losing the Governor's race there was a blow but Sherrod Brown showed the Democrats can still win there.

Nevada is turning into a reasonably steady blue state and Rosen's comfortable win there was the brightest spot on the senate map for them.

Florida was a massive disappointment, there's no getting away from it, especially Gillum's loss to the scumbag De Santis. However the silver lining was the passing of the proposition to enfranchise up to over a million felons. And in a state where the margins are always tiny, that's a huge deal. It does of course set up the mother of all battles over voter suppression in 2020, but the Republicans will have a huge uphill battle on that front now.

North Carolina passed a voter ID law so the odds of Democrats winning there in 2020 are slim.

The defeats of Putin's congresssman Dana Rohrabacher in California and Scott Walker in Wisconsin were probably the two biggest individual feel good stories to emerge from individual races.

Re: Florida. Bamh on. There will be 1.5 million more voters next time around after the proposition to restore voting rights to convicted felons passed. The state is a whole new ball game next time out. Given that it's usually won by 200k or less votes in the presidential elections. Do criminals lean left or what?

8-10

RobertKK wrote: »

Beto O'Rourke did really badly.

He still got significantly more votes than the last Democrat to run there and Ted Cruz got less votes than the last time he ran despite a much larger turnout. Wasn't a slam dunk for Cruz which is the point.

I think you had too high of an opinion on his realistic hopes like others on this thread. $'s raised isn't a complete indicator.

This is all about a Primary run in 2020 and he'll have been encouraged by this election. The only worry is that the swing to blue in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan - key Presidential States, was primarily due to moderate Democratic candidates for the Senate and Governor. Would a more liberal candidate in O'Rourke do as well in those States? I don't think so. But he's shown he can raise money and energise voters in a red state so I can't agree that he did "really badly"

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

Beto O'Rourke came with in 3 points of a high profile incumbent republican. In TEXAS. That's a great result.

But had to spend 98 times what they did in 2012 to still lose.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

But had to spend 98 times what they did in 2012 to still lose.

They have created a new organisation in Texas. You think that money was wasted? The fight in Texas was really about 2020 and 2024. The Dems believe changing demographics could flip Texas at least purple, if not blue. It's a long term strategy.

John Corryn is worried. He's doesn't have the profile of Cruz.

Fr Tod Umptious

Brian? wrote: »

Re: Florida. Bamh on. There will be 1.5 million more voters next time around after the proposition to restore voting rights to convicted felons passed. The state is a whole new ball game next time out. Given that it's usually won by 200k or less votes in the presidential elections. Do criminals lean left or what?

That's if they even bother to vote.

Remember the poorer less well educated are less likely to go out and vote than richer better educated.

And it's no huge leap to suggest that the majority of former felons are less well educated than non felons.

2 Scoops

hill16bhoy wrote: »

40% of all felons in Florida are black men, but again that's not a surprise given that they tend to be one of the most marginalised groups in society.

You might want to check up on your crime statistics there.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

Peregrinus

RobertKK wrote: »

But had to spend 98 times what they did in 2012 to still lose.

Well, you could look at it the other way. Ted Cruz increased his spending from $14 million in 2012 to $40 million in 2018 and suffered a 13% swing against him. The Democratic campaign may have been expensive, but at least they got something for the money. Ted appears to have pissed his away.

Plus, I'm not sure that the comparison with 2012 is all that meaningful. The Democrats made only a token effort is 2012 - Cruz outspent Sadler by something like 20 to 1. This time O'Rourke outspent Cruz by something like 1.5 to 1. Clearly, that's not enough for the Democrats to win Texas, but they did secure a 13% swing, and to describe that as doing "really badly" talks a really strong commitment to ignoring reality.

hill16bhoy

Brian? wrote: »

Not really. I pointed out why I felt the system was undemocratic. The Senate is not democratically elected as it's decidedly against the concept of one person one vote.

The Republicans currently have an inbuilt advantage in the Senate for the obvious reason that more of the 50 states trend red than they do blue - I make it 25 naturally red-leaning states (including Iowa) v 23 naturally blue-leaning states (including New Hampshire and Wisconsin).

Florida and Ohio are the only two true swing states in my book although you could argue that Florida also leans ever so slightly Republican.

I think in the senate you're seeing an increasing alignment with how each state votes in presidential elections.

For instance, this time the Democrats lost Indiana and Missouri, which are naturally red states. Louisiana was another red state senate seat they lost in recent years. Whereas they won Nevada, a naturally blue-leaning state.

They did hold West Virginia and could yet hold Montana, and they won Alabama last year in pretty unique circumstances, but these are the exceptions to the rule.

Therefore, all things being equal, Republicans will always tend to have in the region of 51-54 senators if races go "with serve" based on the natural lean of the state.

2020 doesn't hold much prospect of the Democrats flipping the senate, because they'll lose Alabama, and will have to pick up a minimum of six seats, and I don't see where those six come from.

The way the US government is structured makes bipartisan co-operation essential, particularly in the senate.

Sadly, the Republicans long ago figured out they had an inbuilt advantage in the senate and that by non-co-operation, they could basically destroy any progressive legislation at a national level, even if on the general population nationwide, the country is trending blue.

The way to hold on to that inbuilt advantage was to make politics about race and culture and fear and division.

It's pretty much political terrorism and exposes a massive flaw in the US system.

Quin_Dub

RobertKK wrote: »

Beto O'Rourke did really badly. I came across this:
2012 Paul Sadler
Raised: $705,027
Votes: 3,194,927
$/Vote: $0.22 each

Then on to 2018
Beto O'Rourke
Raised: $69,240,350+
Votes (11:33pm ET): 3,413,259+
$/Vote: $20.29 each

Just an extra 218k votes despite all the hype and spending 98 times as much as the Democrat in 2012 did.

Although he raised that number he didn't spend anything like the full amount..

ancapailldorcha

hill16bhoy wrote: »

There are definitely certain things to read into 2020 from last night.

Democrats had a good night in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

That certainly bodes well for 2020 and all will have Democratic governors going forward.

Ohio will be harder to get back and losing the Governor's race there was a blow but Sherrod Brown showed the Democrats can still win there.

Nevada is turning into a reasonably steady blue state and Rosen's comfortable win there was the brightest spot on the senate map for them.

Florida was a massive disappointment, there's no getting away from it, especially Gillum's loss to the scumbag De Santis. However the silver lining was the passing of the proposition to enfranchise up to over a million felons. And in a state where the margins are always tiny, that's a huge deal. It does of course set up the mother of all battles over voter suppression in 2020, but the Republicans will have a huge uphill battle on that front now.

North Carolina passed a voter ID law so the odds of Democrats winning there in 2020 are slim.

The defeats of Putin's congresssman Dana Rohrabacher in California and Scott Walker in Wisconsin were probably the two biggest individual feel good stories to emerge from individual races.

No more petty name calling please.

Rjd2

All the focus for 2020 will be O Rourke, but the Dems could do worse than looking at Amy Klobuchar for 2020, impressive performance yet again last night.

Itssoeasy

I eventually went to bed about two am which in hindsight wasn't a good call, as I'm very tired today. I see the Florida governors race went to the GOP candidate which surprised me. The Georgia governors race is too close to call it seems.

We have the youngest woman ever elected, the first two Native American women elected and the first two Muslim women elected all as democratic candidates which is good obviously. The test for them for the next two years is to a good member of congress who happen to be women and not vice Versa.

It'll be interesting to see how Donald trump deals with having to compromise after January with a democratic house and not a republican clean sweep of congress. It seems Nancy pelosi will be the next speaker of the house not because she's a universally liked leader but because when you ask yourself the question of who besides her could do it, there aren't many who could.

Water John

Klobuchar is a very good shout. Quietly impressive.

Pelosi possibly on a temp basis as House Leader. Full search over the next year for the new DNC Congress leaders. Change of the guard needed.

Faugheen

Rjd2 wrote: »

All the focus for 2020 will be O Rourke, but the Dems could do worse than looking at Amy Klobuchar for 2020, impressive performance yet again last night.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Can O'Rourke get on the senate ticket for 2020? If he can that should be the aim. Democrats need to at least get that state to purple because finding a candidate like him to run instead of him so he can have a run at the White House might not essentially allow more of a Democrat presence.

I've always been impressed by Klobucher. She's from the rust belt as well which would be a bigger gain than if Beto can flip Texas.

Actually, could a Klobucher/Beto ticket be the answer?

Quin_Dub

Water John wrote: »

Klobuchar is a very good shout. Quietly impressive.

Pelosi possibly on a temp basis as House Leader. Full search over the next year for the new DNC Congress leaders. Change of the guard needed.

Pelosi has already indicated as much.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

Klobuchar is a very good shout. Quietly impressive.

Pelosi possibly on a temp basis as House Leader. Full search over the next year for the new DNC Congress leaders. Change of the guard needed.

Pelosi's approval rating is dire, even much worse that The Donald's.

Water John

That might just prove it's easier to demonise a woman than a man.