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

PopePalpatine

Good luck with that when you're stuck with a two-party system thanks to FPTP.

s7ryf3925pivug

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's the point though. As long as Democrats wear Republican clothes, there's no danger of them getting any real power. The history of Dem presidents with hostile houses of congress is long and distinguished. Can't have them muddying up the waters coming out with policies that contrast them with the GOP and people might actually like.

Clinton was centrist. Biden was centrist, and was key to Obama getting stuff done. Carter was relatively leftwing, and was unpopular for it.

Don't know how a leftwing candidate would fare compared to a centrist, but there's no example of one getting into power and doing well, unless you count Obama, who benefitted from Bieen's ability to work across the aisle.

Harika

Arlo Bitter Wrongdoing wrote: »

More diverse candidates elected for the dems. Traditional conservatives replaced with far right candidates for the republicans. If both perties continue to move away from the centre, perhaps ground will open up there for a third party.

It's the "who will be next dem president" question. Will a moderate like Joe Biden have more chances, or will it be someone more rubbing like Warren or Sanders.
A third party in the US, could have only happened if like a Republican think tank recommended that Bernie went head to head with Clinton and Trump into the elections. That would have killed the Dems and Clintons chances anyway but would have opened the way in 2020.

Brian?

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.

Actually it’s far more nuanced than the GOP are making Texas successful. It’s about demographic shifts as well as tax incentives. Texas is thriving because of it’s young highly educated work force and it’s pro business environment. Any democratic governor of Texas wouldn’t change that. There’s barely a lick of difference between most dems and republicans on economic policy, it’s social policy that really separates them at a state level.

s7ryf3925pivug

Harika wrote: »

It's the "who will be next dem president" question. Will a moderate like Joe Biden have more chances, or will it be someone more rubbing like Warren or Sanders.
A third party in the US, could have only happened if like a Republican think tank recommended that Bernie went head to head with Clinton and Trump into the elections. That would have killed the Dems and Clintons chances anyway but would have opened the way in 2020.

Well it will be the more extreme one, because of reflexive effects from rom Trump getting in. Just like Trump benefitted from following a black guy. Nothing to foster latent racism than a black president.

Hopefully it will be someone whose focus will be on profound global issues like climate change, and hopefully that will be tempered by more moderate ideas about other spcial and economic issues. Otherwise it will just swing bqck further to the right. For someone to succeed based on a climate change platform, the effects of it will need to be getting felt pretty acutely though, so maybe too late anyway.

s7ryf3925pivug

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Good luck with that when you're stuck with a two-party system thanks to FPTP.

Yeah the only way it would happen would be from mass defections from both parties, following a strong figure from each.

Quin_Dub

RobertKK wrote: »

That is what you are saying.
There are a lot moving from San Francisco.

A council survey of the San Francisco Bay area found 46% of residents planned on leaving the area soon.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-housing-high-cost-residents-leaving-2018-6?r=US&IR=T

So Nevada will go more blue too.

https://www.ktsa.com/californians-are-moving-to-texas-texans-are-moving-to-san-antonio/

All blue states...

Oh look all blue areas again...

Oh wow that RobertKK doesn't know what he is talking about...all from blue Democratic areas again...

Shock/horror, all coming from Democrat strongholds again...

As was saying Iit is people from overpriced Democrat states moving to Texas and into the suburbs of the big Texan cities and turning the state towards being blue.

Them being Democrat is not the reason they are over-priced (or at least not for the reason you think) , it's because they are successful and as such property prices have sky-rocketed.

Those people are moving to Texas to get cheaper housing and Companies are moving to Texas to get cheaper staff as they don't need to pay them as much in Texas because housing is cheaper!!.

Having said that , despite being a RED state , house prices in places like Austin have increased significantly in recent years..

Eric Cartman

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Jaysus - a representative of US corporate financial capital is now regarded as 'on the left'

:rolleyes:

The world according to Eric

"on the left to centre scale" and shes very much a centerist in us politics, I have not called hillary a leftist, you just misread what I wrote.

prawnsambo

Arlo Bitter Wrongdoing wrote: »

Well it will be the more extreme one, because of reflexive effects from rom Trump getting in. Just like Trump benefitted from following a black guy. Nothing to foster latent racism than a black president.

Hopefully it will be someone whose focus will be on profound global issues like climate change, and hopefully that will be tempered by more moderate ideas about other spcial and economic issues. Otherwise it will just swing bqck further to the right. For someone to succeed based on a climate change platform, the effects of it will need to be getting felt pretty acutely though, so maybe too late anyway.

A few more hurricane seasons like the last couple may concentrate minds. And not just that. California has been going through a flood/wildfire cycle that seems to be getting exponentially worse with each passing year. The possibility of these events hitting levels where the financial and human costs become extreme are getting more and more likely.

Harika

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Them being Democrat is not the reason they are over-priced (or at least not for the reason you think) , it's because they are successful and as such property prices have sky-rocketed.

Those people are moving to Texas to get cheaper housing and Companies are moving to Texas to get cheaper staff as they don't need to pay them as much in Texas because housing is cheaper!!.

Having said that , despite being a RED state , house prices in places like Austin have increased significantly in recent years..

Our company has an office there, and it is getting madness there. Really hard to get and keep staff as when you leave the door you are already approached if you want to work with them with better pay and conditions. Hell yeah!

SimonTemplar

If I remember correctly, for the Presidential election, the results were known once the state's polls closed. Why does it take longer for the results of the congressional elections in the mid terms? Do they use a different system for a Presidential election?

RobertKK

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Them being Democrat is not the reason they are over-priced (or at least not for the reason you think) , it's because they are successful and as such property prices have sky-rocketed.

Those people are moving to Texas to get cheaper housing and Companies are moving to Texas to get cheaper staff as they don't need to pay them as much in Texas because housing is cheaper!!.

Having said that , despite being a RED state , house prices in places like Austin have increased significantly in recent years..

One can argue is it good we have Dublin which is overpriced and with a homeless crisis due to being overpriced/lack of adequately priced housing/rent.
Being overpriced is also a failure, irrespective of what other success a city has.

That said when I was in Austin, the one thing that really surprised me was the amount of homeless people on the street.
I looked it up and since I have been there the figure has risen to a 8 year high of over 1,000 people who sleep with no shelter in the city.

Podge_irl

SimonTemplar wrote: »

If I remember correctly, for the Presidential election, the results were known once the state's polls closed. Why does it take longer for the results of the congressional elections in the mid terms? Do they use a different system for a Presidential election?

That's just exit polls. Sometimes the race is called based on them if they are overwhelmingly favouring one candidate.

hill16bhoy

8-10 wrote: »

I don't think that is a realistic expectation. Republicans will gerrymander the crap out of everywhere they need to.

What needs to be done away with is the ridiculous electoral college altogether

The electoral college is a joke alright.

But in my time following US politics, which goes back to the early to mid-90s, several states have changed significantly in the way they vote.

Virginia used to be solid Republican but is now pretty solidly Democratic.

Colorado has changed from Republican leaning to being a solid enough Democratic state.

Same with Nevada.

New Mexico used to be a toss up but is now solidly Democratic.

Up to 2000 Missouri was coonsidered the ultimate toss-up state. Now it's deep red.

West Virginia has switched from deep blue to deep red.

And that's just in the last 20 years.

Most of those are small states, and Texas is huge, but the Democratic vote increased by a million between 2004 and 2016. Last night it increased by a further 200,000 on 2016.

Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina could flip in the next 20 years. Demographics are changing these states slowly, but relentlessly.

Across the US, Democrats need to become energised right from the bottom up. That means taking state houses and senates, governorships and concentrating on getting as many liberal judges installed as possible.

This year is a start, but this needs to be a 20 year project and it needs to be relentless.

The only way to deal with Republicans is to go to war with them - face them down at every level and ultimately grind them into the dust, which is exactly what deserves to happen to their quasi-fascist ideology.

spacecoyote

Whilst Klobucher & Harris may be popular & doing well, sadly I believe that the only way the Dems can win in 2020 Is to put forward a male candidate.

Watched a fair few bits around feedback from rust belt voters around 2016, and there was a large amount of people saying "I don't like Trump but I couldn't vote for a woman"

I think realistically they'll have to put forward a man with a female VP & work that way to try lay further groundwork for a future female presidency run

Dyr

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The only way to deal with Republicans is to go to war with them - face them down at every level and ultimately grind them into the dust, which is exactly what deserves to happen to their quasi-fascist ideology.

Full on fascist rhetoric aimed at quasi fascists. Funny old world American politics.

RobertKK

Whether one like or dislikes a party when it comes to the Democrats and Republicans, at present they need each other, the US is one party away from a one party country given how weak the rest are.
Anyone who wants one party to win everything is living in delusion if they think it will make things better.

Captain Obvious

RobertKK wrote: »

Whether one like or dislikes a party when it comes to the Democrats and Republicans, at present they need each other, the US is one party away from a one party country given how weak the rest are.
Anyone who wants one party to win everything is living in delusion if they think it will make things better.

The Republicans have shown that can't make sharing power or total power work.

RobertKK

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The Republicans have shown that can't make sharing power or total power work.

They got in two supreme courts judges.
Their tax cuts.

Obama got in his healthcare program when he had both houses, you could level the same at accusation at him, and we await to see how the Democrats do with the House.

Larbre34

Biden Harris for America 2020 with Joe on a one- term agreement.

Captain Obvious

Warren O'Rourke could be another.

Harry Palmr

Just heard about that winning candidate for the republicans being dead.

hill16bhoy

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Just heard about that winning candidate for the republicans being dead.

To be fair, he was by far their best candidate in any race nationwide last night.

Eric Cartman

hill16bhoy wrote: »

To be fair, he was by far their best candidate in any race nationwide last night.

Found dead at 72 , by Ron Jeremy and a prossie no less, after a weekend on the sesh, in his brothel, and still wins an election.

That man is a real American hero.

RobertKK

Trump did really well in the House elections, going by past presidents.
At the midterms at this stage in previous presidencies, the losses were:

Clinton: lost 52 Democrat seats
GW Bush: lost 30 Republican seats
Obama: lost 63 Democrat seats
Trump: lost 27 Republican seats.

Only the third time in 100 years, the party of the President gained seats in the Senate at this stage of the presidency.

Manic Moran

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.

Depends on how you look at it. If the House is the Body of the People, the Senate is the Body of the States. Fifty States, each of which has two votes. That makes it very democratic.

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?

The single biggest influx are folks like me: Californians who are fed up with California and moving to Texas. (Other popular states are Ny, AZ, NV and, for some reason, ID). This is not necessarily a popular move from the locals, who worry "Those damned Californians broke their state, they come here, and they vote to make their new home just like the place they left". (One of my NV FB friends posted this morning that CA is an STD and has infected NV). If nothing else, they are having a disproprtionate effect on the housing market. It's not that we're buying the houses and depleting inventory, but that we can afford to pay a lot more for them. My house in Dublin, CA, is 1,280sqft, and valued at about $900k. I signed today for my house in San Antonio, a steal (for me) at $585k, 4,100sqft. Though I consider it very cheap and willingly pay it, Texas natives are not happy that they are being outbid by out-of-staters. (I say 'texas', but it applies every target state.)

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article164420672.html
Many Idahoans believe Californians come here with a sense of entitlement and big money that drives up home prices. Many conservative Idahoans think too many California ex-pats are too liberal. Many liberals think they’re conservative.

In fact, dislike for Californians has been around longer than some might think. In 1979, The Washington Post took a look at Idaho’s anti-California sentiment in a story, “To Most Idahoans, A Plague of Locusts is Californians.”

“Old-timers call them goats,” the story said. “The new generation calls them C.B.s (literal translation, ‘California Bastards’).”

Yet Californians keep coming. A 2015 U.S. Census report on state-to-state migration found that one in four people who moved to Idaho came from California.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/2018/06/25/see-many-californians-moved-dallas-just-3-months-last-year

Dallas-Fort Worth was one of the top destinations for domestic migrants from California in 2017, according to a recent study

Cost of living is not the only reason.
https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Californians-leaving-Texas-Arizona-Nevada-migrate-12640684.php

Beyond the expense of living in California, there may be other factors for the move to Texas. When SFGATE interviewed some Bay Area natives for its "Grass Is Greener" series, Suzanne Kovach, who left for Texas after 61 years living here, gave three big reasons for moving away: "Crime, traffic, economy."

Many from California and elsewhere in the U.S. are drawn to Texas' lower home prices, but the state also has a strong job market -- both in terms of local employers and relocations from other states -- that is attracting migrants.

Texas is a big destination for job-to-job flows, a U.S. Census Bureau-designed statistic that measures flows of employees from one company to another when they've been at each company longer than three quarters. The biggest source of these flows is California, which contributed 6,884 in the first quarter of 2016.

Texas has also been the destination for several high-profile corporate moves from the California coast, perhaps most notably Toyota, which began moving its North American headquarters from Torrance, Calif., to Plano last year. It brought with it the bulk of its 4,200-strong national staff. (This includes my employer, who shut down the CA office and moved to Austin)

By way of example, some Democrats, especially the leadership, are suggesting the 2020 national convention be in San Francisco. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/diaz/article/San-Francisco-should-go-for-2020-Democratic-12811214.php

Republicans are going "Please! We have no better advertisement for a good reason not to vote Democrat and make your town like San Francisco!"
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/07/02/big-convention-pulls-out-san-francisco-citing-unsafe-streets/

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) — Tourists are turning away from the City by the Bay, while a huge medical convention has cancelled plans to meet in San Francisco, saying its members don’t feel safe on the streets.

Locals may feel comfortable, but visitors are often shocked when the reality of San Francisco’s streets is a far cry from its postcard image.

prawnsambo

Manic Moran wrote: »

The single biggest influx are folks like me: Californians who are fed up with California and moving to Texas. (Other popular states are Ny, AZ, NV and, for some reason, ID). This is not necessarily a popular move from the locals, who worry "Those damned Californians broke their state, they come here, and they vote to make their new home just like the place they left". (One of my NV FB friends posted this morning that CA is an STD and has infected NV). If nothing else, they are having a disproprtionate effect on the housing market. It's not that we're buying the houses and depleting inventory, but that we can afford to pay a lot more for them. My house in Dublin, CA, is 1,280sqft, and valued at about $900k. I signed today for my house in San Antonio, a steal (for me) at $585k, 4,100sqft. Though I consider it very cheap and willingly pay it, Texas natives are not happy that they are being outbid by out-of-staters. (I say 'texas', but it applies every target state.)
Texas has also been the destination for several high-profile corporate moves from the California coast, perhaps most notably Toyota, which began moving its North American headquarters from Torrance, Calif., to Plano last year. It brought with it the bulk of its 4,200-strong national staff. (This includes my employer, who shut down the CA office and moved to Austin)

So not really moving because you're fed up

. Though I wouldn't particularly blame you. The congestion and sprawl in CA is obnoxious. Some wonderful scenery, brethtaking even. But not a fan of the rest of it.

Essentially what you're saying is that there are many different reasons, but it seems to me that CA is still a kind of gold rush state. Peopple rush in to make the gold and then get out when the endless commutes and urban sprawl becomes too much and there's enough gold to move somewhere else. And they've been doing it for decades.

hill16bhoy

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump did really well in the House elections, going by past presidents.
At the midterms at this stage in previous presidencies, the losses were:

Clinton: lost 52 Democrat seats
GW Bush: lost 30 Republican seats
Obama: lost 63 Democrat seats
Trump: lost 27 Republican seats.

Only the third time in 100 years, the party of the President gained seats in the Senate at this stage of the presidency.

Clinton and Obama didn't have the benefit of gerrymandering.

Democrats actually gained vote share from the corresponding 2012 Senate elections when they did exceedingly well.

They look set to win the popular vote in the House by around 9% with the biggest vote share and margin since 2008.

By all means feel free to ignore that.

RobertKK

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Clinton and Obama didn't have the benefit of gerrymandering.

Democrats actually gained vote share from the corresponding 2012 Senate elections when they did exceedingly well.

They look set to win the popular vote in the House by around 9% with the biggest vote share and margin since 2008.

By all means feel free to ignore that.

The comparisons are from the first terms of the presidents and their first midterms.

[Deleted User]

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Clinton and Obama didn't have the benefit of gerrymandering.

Democrats actually gained vote share from the corresponding 2012 Senate elections when they did exceedingly well.

They look set to win the popular vote in the House by around 9% with the biggest vote share and margin since 2008.

By all means feel free to ignore that.

Why do people think that the Democrats are innocent when it comes to gerrymandering or other dark arts when it comes to electioneering?

It's a fine example of the 'Democrat good, Republican bad' stereotype that you get in this country.

Did it ever dawn on people why Democrats are so interested in getting more and more immigrants in the US.

It's simple really, it increases their voter base.

They don't care that much for their welfare, just get them.in, get them citizenship and you have a vote for life.

The HRC election campaign in 2016 just showed how corrupt a party they are.