Midterm Elections

prawnsambo wrote: »

There are multiple issues in Broward. But the main one I'm seeing is that there's a massive discrepancy between the votes for Governer and Senator. Totalling around 25k votes. That's extraordinary.

But surely there has to be an automatic recount in Florida anyway? So what are the GOP getting their knickers in a twist about?

Yeah a hand recount in Florida with a few qualified reps of both sides monitoring has to be way to go as right now whoever loses are going to be fuming. Not as if the political atmosphere is not toxic enough anyhow.

Rhineshark wrote: »

Sinema is now 2000 votes ahead of McSally in Arizona, with both Florida races within the recount margin.

I have money on Sinema and from what I see online, she is solid fav now.

The Republicans desperately need Scott to hold on in Florida as with Sinema winning and some of the close house races going the way of the Dems, it could be a genuine blue wave if Arizona and Florida goes Dem.

spacecoyote

2 Scoops wrote: »

About time, they're being hit by multiple lawsuits

https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/scottvsnipes.pdf

Arizona too

https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/08/court-hears-republican-lawsuit-over-ballots-senate-seat-line/1931668002/

https://twitter.com/GOPChairwoman/status/1060654446370344960

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1060596874577657856

This is not in any way a familiar story (ahem, Al Gore, cough, cough) What is it with the GOP & efforts to block counting & exclude votes

Rhineshark

Rjd2 wrote: »

I have money on Sinema and from what I see online, she is solid fav now.

The Republicans desperately need Scott to hold on in Florida as with Sinema winning and some of the close house races going the way of the Dems, it could be a genuine blue wave if Arizona and Florida goes Dem.

It was a blue wave. This whole narrative of it not being one is ridiculous. 5 points was a red wave. 7 points was a red wave. 7-9 points is apparently a very disappointing outcome. Say what?

Nobody expected the Dems to win the Senate. The layout was too bad for them to overcome, and that's before the cheating (particularly bad gerrymandering and voter suppression). Losing two Senate seats (which might go to three or drop to one) is a good result, especially with 30 (so far) House seats ahead and currently 7 governerships.

What they have done is set up a much nicer Senate map for next time, put a halt on how much mischief can be done in those precincts and taken the House.

I don't know why the "it wasn't a wave" narrative has any steam at all, bar the lack of set definition of a wave and placing too much importance on the two Senate seats.

spacecoyote wrote: »

This is not in any way a familiar story (ahem, Al Gore, cough, cough) What is it with the GOP & efforts to block counting & exclude votes

The annoyance is the process and where all the votes are coming from in Florida.

GOP moaning about Arizona are absolute ****ing idiots though and showing a lack of understanding how it happens there.

I assume Mitch is getting the band back together as I type.:P

Drh7A7bUUAAmNVl.jpg:large

2 Scoops wrote: »

History or corruption, read Marco Rubio's twitter link there. Click the twitter thing and scroll down. Same thing happened in 2016 general, last place to be called iirc

I read the 'threat'. And the follow ups. Including the fact that Broward is massively bigger than many of the other districts. Which is weird in itself. Is this a gerrymandering backfire?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/federal-judges-throw-out-marylands-congressional-voting-map/2018/11/07/91a06834-e2be-11e8-b759-3d88a5ce9e19_story.html?utm_term=.cec4fe22d685

Rhineshark wrote: »

It was a blue wave. This whole narrative of it not being one is ridiculous. 5 points was a red wave. 7 points was a red wave. 7-9 points is apparently a very disappointing outcome. Say what?

Nobody expected the Dems to win the Senate. The layout was too bad for them to overcome, and that's before the cheating (particularly bad gerrymandering and voter suppression). Losing two Senate seats (which might go to three or drop to one) is a good result, especially with 30 (so far) House seats ahead and currently 7 governerships.

What they have done is set up a much nicer Senate map for next time, put a halt on how much mischief can be done in those precincts and taken the House.

I don't know why the "it wasn't a wave" narrative has any steam at all, bar the lack of set definition of a wave and placing too much importance on the two Senate seats.

You see this can be spun anyway anyone wants it to be.

It was a blue wave
It was not a blue wave
The Republicans are happy
The Democrats are happy.

I would consider myself fairly knowledgeable about American politics and is follow it to a certain extent.
But since Trump has become president I am lost.
I cannot follow all the scandals, the investigations, tje accusations, the staff reshuffels, the players involved etc.
There is just one thing after another after another with this administration.

But when it comes to an election like this week after all the scandals, all the controversies, the results are still 'spinnable' by both sides.

If people were as pissed off with Trump as we are told they are, if he was really doing the terrible job we are told his is, don't you think that the results would be more clear cut ?

Catriona Perry on RTE radio made a very good point.
She pointed out that a pair of women senate candidates (Tennessee and Indiana I think) who had strong and very visible endorsements from Trump, won well.
That's something to consider.

RobertKK

Federal judges in Maryland on Wednesday blocked the state from using its congressional voting map in future elections, ordering political leaders to draw new electoral lines for contests in 2020.

The three-judge panel unanimously threw out the congressional map in a long-running partisan gerrymandering case. The decision gives Maryland officials until March to submit a new redistricting plan.

The judges acknowledged the inherently political redistricting process but declared the boundaries unconstitutional and intentionally designed to target Republican voters in the 6th Congressional District because of their political affiliation.

Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, who won reelection Tuesday, called the decision “a victory for the vast majority of Marylanders who want free and fair elections.”

It was claimed earlier in this thread by one poster that the Republicans were only guilty of this behaviour.
They are all the same.

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/federal-judges-throw-out-marylands-congressional-voting-map/2018/11/07/91a06834-e2be-11e8-b759-3d88a5ce9e19_story.html?utm_term=.cec4fe22d685

It was claimed earlier in this thread by one poster that the Republicans were only guilty of this behaviour.
They are all the same.

Of course everybody does it. It would be stupid not to if you can. Which is why this should be done at federal level and independently and transparently.

Gbear

spacecoyote wrote: »

This is not in any way a familiar story (ahem, Al Gore, cough, cough) What is it with the GOP & efforts to block counting & exclude votes

Think about how this behaviour would be seen in any other Western democracy.

They've made the notion of democracy in the US a fiction.

You'll attract this sort of behaviour if the system isn't robust enough to prevent it, just like you'll end up with two-party polarisation with FPTP. The system rewards bias, corruption, and you see elements of it with the Democrats as well - according the Fivethirtyeight, they're just as likely to gerrymander when given the opportunity - they just don't get it as much.

But the willful attack on democracy at a systemic level by the Republican party is on another level. They are a fascist party.

Corporate partnerships at the expense of the electorate, blatant racism and othering of minorities and opponents to activate a base of economically and socially displaced conservatives, attacking the lugenpresse and inciting violence against them, the tea party wing and that ethos are a familiar call for revolutionary traditionalism ("MAGA"), and, of course, maintaining a facade about being a the law and order party, while having total contempt for rule of law and norms of democracy.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Catriona Perry on RTE radio made a very good point.
She pointed out that a pair of women senate candidates (Tennessee and Indiana I think) who had strong and very visible endorsements from Trump, won well.
That's something to consider.

Couldn't be Indiana. The senate candidates there were both men. Tennessee is a red state. Unlikely that a Dem would win there, fivethirtyeight gave the rep canididate an 80% chance of winning it.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Couldn't be Indiana. The senate candidates there were both men. Tennessee is a red state. Unlikely that a Dem would win there, fivethirtyeight gave the rep canididate an 80% chance of winning it.

Apologies, it was Indiana but not a female candidate.
The winner Mike Braun she was talking about was endorsed by Trump.

And yes Tennessee is a red state but it should not be overlooked that it elected its first ever female senator that was again endorsed byTrump.

The overall point being that if Trump is as toxic as we are lead to think he is then the democrats would have had a real blue wave and done much much better and none of the above would have happened.

Water John

Trump is toxic in what should be acceptable. Sadly a large portion of the electorate are with him no matter what.
The appointment of Whitaker and all the issues with that are clear evidence of him doing what should not be acceptable. When Nixon tried something like that, he was gone. Told so by his GOP Senators and Congress Members. Sadly, not happening this time.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Apologies, it was Indiana but not a female candidate.
The winner Mike Braun she was talking about was endorsed by Trump.

And yes Tennessee is a red state but it should not be overlooked that it elected its first ever female senator that was again endorsed byTrump.

The overall point being that if Trump is as toxic as we are lead to think he is then the democrats would have had a real blue wave and done much much better and none of the above would have happened.

There was a twitter thread on Trump endorsed candidates and how they fared in the election. It hasn't been fully totted up yet as there are still seats to be settled, but with 4 seats still to be decided here are the totals: 83 candidates endorsed through tweets, 41 won and 38 lost. So not exactly a big success rate.

Thread here

Water John

One suspects Trump didn't just help candidates in toss up elections but also fairly sure bets. So 50+% is not a success. He also has responsibility, for those who told him to stay away, as he was toxic and who still lost. Well we can see how he spun that one, his name and shame list.

Gbear

prawnsambo wrote: »

There was a twitter thread on Trump endorsed candidates and how they fared in the election. It hasn't been fully totted up yet as there are still seats to be settled, but with 4 seats still to be decided here are the totals: 83 candidates endorsed through tweets, 41 won and 38 lost. So not exactly a big success rate.

Thread here

I think you'd need to dig into the numbers a bit to come to any sort of useful conclusion. How would that compares to what you would expect from similar situations - not just endorsement from a president, but also controlling for whether the candidate was an incumbent, which direction the seat was leaning, and so on.

Gbear wrote: »

I think you'd need to dig into the numbers a bit to come to any sort of useful conclusion. How would that compares to what you would expect from similar situations - not just endorsement from a president, but also controlling for whether the candidate was an incumbent, which direction the seat was leaning, and so on.

Yes. But the poster was drawing a conclusion from just two contests without any of the above caveats. I was responding with the overall numbers. I'm sure somebody will be along with that sort of data soon enough.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yes. But the poster was drawing a conclusion from just two contests without any of the above caveats. I was responding with the overall numbers. I'm sure somebody will be along with that sort of data soon enough.

And my drawing conclusions was an example of the spin that you can put on this.

The bigger question is why do we have to put that spin on it.

If Trump is as bad as the majority of Europan, and elements of the US, media make him out to be then why was this not a slam junk for the Democrats?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And my drawing conclusions was an example of the spin that you can put on this.

The bigger question is why do we have to put that spin on it.

If Trump is as bad as the majority of Europan, and elements of the US, media make him out to be then why was this not a slam junk for the Democrats?

I'm not sure who you're arguing with here. Anybody who pays any kind of attention to the US political landscape knows that there are party affiliations that don't much care who the candidate is, so long as they are blue or red. The 'yeller dog democrat' or republican is still a thing. And we're not immune to that sort of situation on this side of the Atlantic either. The fact that almost 200 of the 660 or thereabouts House of Commons seats are considered 'safe' is testament to the fact that the FPTP system has plenty of failings.

However the loss of Republican seats in Congress in a midterm is the highest there has been in the history of Republican presidencies since 1974.

ClanofLams

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And my drawing conclusions was an example of the spin that you can put on this.

The bigger question is why do we have to put that spin on it.

If Trump is as bad as the majority of Europan, and elements of the US, media make him out to be then why was this not a slam junk for the Democrats?

The Democrats are estimated to win the popular vote nationwide by over seven points and are going to gain more seats
in the House than in any midterm election since Watergate. Not to mention making hundreds of gains at local level and governorships including the likes of Kansas. At a time when the economy is booming, gerrymandering has been going on for years and greater partisanship than ever, that is a clear repudiation of Trump.

Worth noting that Dems won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, if that happens in 2020 it’s game over for Trump.

The Senate is a strange creature. Inherently anti democratic, it’s going to be an uphill task for Dems for years to come. 60% of the seats are controlled by 24% of the population. There’s obviously Dem candidates that can win in these red states. Tester in Montana (who Trump seemingly despises and went after hard) and Manchin in West Virginia being the two current examples but Democrats will need really strong candidates for those red states.

Bearing in mind demographics, long term it seems like the Presidency will usually be controlled by Dems, the Senate by republicans and the House is open though more favorable to Dems. Of course external factors like the economy or terrorism etc could change all that.

hill16bhoy

ClanofLams wrote: »

The Senate is a strange creature. Inherently anti democratic, it’s going to be an uphill task for Dems for years to come. 60% of the seats are controlled by 24% of the population. There’s obviously Dem candidates that can win in these red states. Tester in Montana (who Trump seemingly despises and went after hard) and Manchin in West Virginia being the two current examples but Democrats will need really strong candidates for those red states.

Bearing in mind demographics, long term it seems like the Presidency will usually be controlled by Dems, the Senate by republicans and the House is open though more favorable to Dems. Of course external factors like the economy or terrorism etc could change all that.

The Senate is getting harder all the time for Democrats given that a higher number of states lean Republican and the electoral polarisation of states that you see in presidential elections has now well and truly spread to the senate.

In 1992 there were 20 states which had one Democrat and one Republican senator. That declined to 13 by the 2016 elections, and it has declined further now - even if Sinema wins in Arizona, just nine states would have one senator from each party and that could easily drop to six in 2020, given the Republicans will almost certainly take back Doug Jones's seat in Alabama, while Democrats could take Colorado and Maine.

To take three senate seats in this election in the naturally Republican states of Montana, West Virginia and Arizona, as well as taking the rust belt seats of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin would actually be a significant achievement for Democrats.

Manic Moran

To take three senate seats in this election in the naturally Republican states of Montana

Montana is a rather odd one. That State is probably closer to the old “Blue Dog Democrat” than any other. They fairly consistently vote in a Democrat governor or senators. However, the Democrats who run there are decidedly on the moderate or even conservative side of the spectrum.

The problem becomes at the Presidential level, where the Denocrat candidates of late have not been of the Blue Dog Type. When faced with that choice, Montana votes red.

Water John

That is why the pick of VP running mate is so important. You could see a progressive Pres candidate pick a VP similar to Joe Biden, or a mod Pres candidate having a progressive VP.
That balance is important to satisfy a broad appeal.

Manic Moran

Water John wrote: »

That is why the pick of VP running mate is so important. You could see a progressive Pres candidate pick a VP similar to Joe Biden, or a mod Pres candidate having a progressive VP.
That balance is important to satisfy a broad appeal.

Not good enough, IMO.

Just how much influence did Biden have on Obama’s policies, or does Pence have on Trump’s? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Kamela Harris is the nominee, and selects former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer (D) (who I generally like, as it happens) to be the VP running mate. On the various issues, do you think Kamela’s opinion will rule, or Brian’s? By way of example, Kamela is definitely pro gun control. Schweitzer has, in his own words, more guns than he needs but not as many as he wants, and in 2008,his Secretary of State all but threatened secession if individuals were not found to have a right to arms.

That’s just one example. Certainly there are positions in which the two match closely enough, such as on green energy/climate change, Schweitzer is a D after all. But any D on the ticket in any position would be that way. The lead name on the ticket is what people are going to consider most. Of course, Montana is not a huge state to fight over EC votes, it would it be much different in a fight over, say, the suburbs of Ohio or Colorado?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not good enough, IMO.

Just how much influence did Biden have on Obama’s policies, or does Pence have on Trump’s? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Kamela Harris is the nominee, and selects former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer (D) (who I generally like, as it happens) to be the VP running mate. On the various issues, do you think Kamela’s opinion will rule, or Brian’s? By way of example, Kamela is definitely pro gun control. Schweitzer has, in his own words, more guns than he needs but not as many as he wants, and in 2008,his Secretary of State all but threatened secession if individuals were not found to have a right to arms.

That’s just one example. Certainly there are positions in which the two match closely enough, such as on green energy/climate change, Schweitzer is a D after all. But any D on the ticket in any position would be that way. The lead name on the ticket is what people are going to consider most. Of course, Montana is not a huge state to fight over EC votes, it would it be much different in a fight over, say, the suburbs of Ohio or Colorado?

Is it policy influence or voter appeal that matters most in a VP? Because (perhaps shallowly) I was given to believe that Biden appealed to the southerners and Pence to the bible bashers, and to cancel out Trump's obvious... ahem... shortcomings in the eyes of that constituency.

ClanofLams

Manic Moran wrote: »

Montana is a rather odd one. That State is probably closer to the old “Blue Dog Democrat” than any other. They fairly consistently vote in a Democrat governor or senators. However, the Democrats who run there are decidedly on the moderate or even conservative side of the spectrum.

The problem becomes at the Presidential level, where the Denocrat candidates of late have not been of the Blue Dog Type. When faced with that choice, Montana votes red.

It’s not a problem though. The Democrats don’t need Montana to win presidential elections.

As you point out, their nominee will never be conservative enough to carry it, just as the Republicans will never nominate anyone capable of making Massachusetts competitive despite Charlie Baker coasting to a second term as governor and Scott Brown being elected Senator just over a decade ago, only losing 53-47 to Elizabeth Warren in 2012.