nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Midterm Elections

Captain Obvious

Americans go to the polls today to vote on a number of issues but primarily the US Senate and Congress. The Democrats are expected to take control of Congress and the Republicans are expected to retain their slim minority in the Senate but there could be a few surprises. Record numbers of early voters and massive voter suppression mean that polls may not be too reliable and Democrats only need to flip two seats to take control.

Here's a quick rundown from CNN

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/27/politics/us-midterm-election-explainer-intl-trnd/index.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peregrinus

RobertKK wrote: »

In the counties surrounding Dallas and Tarrant, almost two out of every three new residents since 2010 have come from other areas of the state or the country.

So, what you're saying is, the parts of Texas with Democratic administrations are thriving, and people are fleeing the Republican-run areas and flocking to them?

Professor Moriarty

Podge_irl wrote: »

Congress's approval rating in general is dire.

Not that that seems to stop 80-90% of them being re-elected like clockwork.

Indeed. I'm thinking of how Pelosi is seen by many as the de facto Dem equivalent of Trump and how that might have played out in the midterms. Her approval rating is truly awful so if they had someone popular leading the charge things might have gone even better.

Podge_irl

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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

Congress's approval rating in general is dire.

Not that that seems to stop 80-90% of them being re-elected like clockwork.

RobertKK

Water John wrote: »

Even Trump would hardly spout that nonsense theory KK.

There is no need for that.
Backed up your statement with zero evidence

Look at the population growth in Texas.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22649624

that trend as reported in 2013 is still happening

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/03/22/census-estimates-show-another-year-rapid-growth-texas-suburbs/

In the counties surrounding Dallas and Tarrant, almost two out of every three new residents since 2010 have come from other areas of the state or the country.

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

Isn't it the case though, that most of the blue in Texas is centred around those cities?

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes where people are emigrating to from outside of Texas.

The cities concerned are Dallas, which has a Democratic mayor, and San Antonio, which has a non-party mayor, who succeeded another non-party mayor.

Water John

SNIP. No more quips please.

hill16bhoy

Looks like Lucy McBath (D) has beaten Karen Handel (R) in Georgia 6. That's the seat Jon Ossoff couldn't take last year.

McBath is black and her son was shot dead by a crazed white racist in 2012.

I'm delighted to see that result.

RobertKK

prawnsambo wrote: »

Isn't it the case though, that most of the blue in Texas is centred around those cities?

Yes where people are emigrating to from outside of Texas.

RobertKK

Quin_Dub wrote: »

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

If a candidate irrespective of party raises too much money to spend, where does the excess money go?

Rjd2

Water John wrote: »

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

Its not just the right who come for her though, she gets plenty of abuse from the "far left" of the party and the red state Dems love to snipe at her.

So tough crowd:p

I dunno who the Dems will pick, betting fav is Harris at the moment , but Amy along with a progressive as VP would be a formidable opponent for Trump.

prawnsambo

RobertKK wrote: »

Of course Texas will eventually become a blue state, the irony being the red state is very successful and its making Texan cities among the fastest growing cities in the US, so Republicans have made Texas a success and the people moving to Texas - a lot from blue states with problems and they vote Democrat and could end up making a mess of what has worked for Texas.

Isn't it the case though, that most of the blue in Texas is centred around those cities?

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

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.

Of course Texas will eventually become a blue state, the irony being the red state is very successful and its making Texan cities among the fastest growing cities in the US, so Republicans have made Texas a success and the people moving to Texas - a lot from blue states with problems and they vote Democrat and could end up making a mess of what has worked for Texas.

Water John

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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

[Deleted User]

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.

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.

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.

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"

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?

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.