Ten oz

I disagree this. The highest voter turnout for a Presidential year over the last 100 years was 62% and the lowest was 49%. If 45% "occasionally" voted there be a much larger swing in turnout election to election. Over the last 4 elections (every election in your life) turn out was 55%, 55%, 58%, 56%. You really think there could be that much consistency election after election with 45% eligible voters choosing to vote some of the time but not other times? I believe 40% of eligible voters simply never vote. The 60% who do vote basically account for 99% of all voting within any specific election. Among those who vote 1 in 6 or a little over 16% "occasionally" will or will not participate. It is that small difference which accounts for fluctuations in turn out levels which influence races. Among those who vote 99% vote the exact same way within any given couple of election cycles regardless of world events, issues, candidates, and etc. The consistency of the voter turnout and how specific groups vote simply doesn't make any sense if 90% of the populations were either delusional or occasional voters. You are ignoring the data. There would be appreciable differences election to election if 90% of the population was as you describe. Mitt Romney and Donald Trump are two very different politicians. They have different styles, promoted different policies, and ran for president vs different candidates. If you look at 2012 and 2016 Romney and Trump did the same. Men voted - 52% Romney and 52% Trump Women voted - 44% Romney and 41% Trump Whites voted - 59% Romney and 57% Trump Blacks voted - 6% Romney and 8% Trump Hispanics voted - 27% Romney and 28% Trump Asians Voted - 26% Romney and 27% Trump Exit polling is how voting Demographics are studied. Exit polling has a error margin. Romney and Trump's numbers are all with the margin of error of each other. MOE They are more or less identical. You honestly don't think that between the 10% you claim "genuinely" care and the 45% who "occasionally" vote there would be some slight difference between Mitt Romney and Donald Trump? I think it is fairly obvious that people vote the same way election to election no matter what and the only thing that changes outside the margin of error is turn out among a small group of occasional voters. Here is 2016 and Here is 2012

Trump already won with millions of less votes. There is not a direct correlation between what the majority voters want and what they end up with. If more votes equaled more positions in govt Democrats would control every branch. The amount of people a politician represents also doesn't have a direct correlation. In the Senate Democratic Senators represent 40 million more people (more people than live in all of Canada) yet continue to be the minority party. I do not think the volume of votes from the 2018 mid-term can be used to say anything about the potential outcome for 2020. Ultimately how every group (male, female, white, Black, Hispanic, etc, etc) was identical to 2016. I'd think an argument can be made it bodes well for Trump. His base has remained intact through his first 2yrs in office. The votes Republicans lost during the mid-terms are ones they never had in the first place.

You analogy implies the same both sides nonsense you consistently imply. Claiming you may or may not mean it is worthless. The sentiment is also poorly informed. When I make claims I nearly also provide a citation for the data I am citing. You just post "tungue-in-cheek" stuff you lack the intellectual integrity to even stand behind.

Democratic candidates for the House got over 8.5 million more votes than Republican candidates for the house. Democratic candidates for the House collectively won nearly as many votes in the mid-term as the President did which has never happened before Here. The GOP is truly a minority party. People often say the country is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans but that is simply not true. Since polling for party affiliation has existed Democrats have always had the larger base. Republicans have never age out Democrats in party affiliation exit polling (linked above). Republicans complain about voter fraud as a means of legitimizing themselves. Republicans do not have the majority support of the nation or any intention to humbly adopt policies that reflect the interests of the major. So they claim voter fraud as a way to claim parity. It also serves are a justification for changing local election regulations and resist many people as possible from voting.

This isn't a Trump specific lie. Politicians, Republican ones specifically, have been crying wolf about this issue for decades. Trump simply gets more attention than politicians from past election cycles. Making it about Trump just provides Republicans cover. This is an old long running argument which gets used election after election to manipulate local voting processes. Below is an example from over 20yrs ago in your home state involving the same groups Trump targets today:

Difference being I am citing what is actually going on and you are quibing loose analogies. Not for the Governor's race. Broward County wasn't able to submit their results. Broward county is Florida second most populated and strongly Democratic.

Sadly this is nothing for Florida. In 2000 the initial machine recount had Bush ahead by 327 individual votes. The law allow Gore to challenge for a manual recount and State officials successful blocked it long enough for deadlines to elapses and eventually SCOTUS gave the win to Bush. Consider the President, Senate, and House are elected positions which impact national policy and not merely state policy I think it is ridiculous every state has their own standard for elections. There need to be a single national standard for elected officials who will be dealing directly with national policy. You sure love your equivalencies. One side is asking for an accurate count of votes and requesting the time needed for officials to perform such a count. The other side is attempting to prevent an accurate count. Your analogy implies both team are being less than honest to the process. What specifically is Nelson or Gillum doing that you feel is less than honest to the process. By the way Republicans are favored to win a recount assuming one happens.

@String Junky, Thank you. Not what I was hoping for though. My understanding is that the initial tallies were never completed or accurate is some counties.

In Florida the deadline for a machine recount wasn't extended and several counties failed to produce results. Does anyone here have any idea what that means happens now? A manual recount would have been automatic had the machine recount been completed and the results were within 0.25% but in the absence of a machine recount it is unclear what happens far as I can tell.

Business is no better at predicting the future than is anything else. If it were AOL would be the worlds leading internet provider, Blockbuster the #1 streaming service, Nokia the top smart phone builder, and etc. Too incestuous of a relationship between business and education would stifle invention in my opinion. Business would simply demand more of what was already most profitable. People would become conditioned to think it the terms industries were promoting. It would be bad for business innovation in the long term. Over time it would also lower wages due to an excess of specialized individuals, supply and demand. You assume an "educated public is a common good". I don't disagree but have a variety of associated caveats with that. Primary one being the type of education. I'd also attach "common good" to the economy and security of a country. After all it was during a time of economic depression that Nazis rose to power in Germany. It is also in the more rural and economically depressed, least educated, parts of the U.S. that Trumpism is strongest. Because of those reasons I think education should be provide by the govt. It is something the country needs and everyone benefits from.

The whole process is frustrating Ensuring votes get counted correctly is such a basic thing. There needs to be better processes in place and recounts should me more routine. Far as I am concerned we should recount every race within 4%. I see no reason to risk important elections. Once all votes are in go back through and accurate certify the result. This should not be a partisan thing.

I would say "should be recounted". To my knowledge GA officials have not agreed to a recount and in FL numerous lawsuits are being filed over which votes to count but no definitive recount is underway.

You were provided an opportunity to clarify your position. Instead you repeated the same false information. As Gov. Scott didn't play a role in Amendment 4. An advocacy group collected the needed signatures under state law to get it placed on the ballot, Here. As CharonY already pointed out. The link I provided showed Rick Scott Pushing back in court to continue to block restoration of voting rights after a federal judge ruled Florida's process unconstitutional. That ruling and Scott's response happened after Amendment 4 had won approval to be on the ballot. So Scott clearly opposed Amendment 4.

I have no idea where you got your information from. https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/04/18/rick-scott-has-made-enemies-over-voting-rights-during-the-last-eight-years/ Scott's use of the law was determined to be unconstitutional in federal court. He was instructed to return rights to people and he refused. Scott has been fighting for the practice.

More disheartening to me is the fact that as Governor Scott spent years directly influencing who could and couldn't viote which directly favored him yet is now crying foul. It disgusts me. Trump talking sh*# is just him trying to whip up support for himself. Control the spin. Trump does it in a irresponsible way but general terms such rhetoric is common Scott gamed the system and may very well be rewarded for it. Scott and Kemp's situations are unique in that both were able to administratively manipulate the voter pools they used in their own elections. Very bad stuff.

While I believe the OP is wrong in its suggestion I do feel Elite Engineer is responding to a legitimate problem. I do campus outreach for my employer and have met a lot of students who selected their degrees rather arbitrarily based convenience, aren't sure how they will apply them, yet do expect them to result in better paying career options. In the cases were people are taking on lots debt it can be very troublesome. I also don't think many University don't enough to direct those who are merely pursuing the prestige of having a degree towards cost effective options. If one is able to secure loans and come up with tuition fees Universities will take the money. For some, at least to get started, City Colleges are superior options but students are pressured into Universities. A lot of young people are very impressionable and the peer pressure to attend the most well regarded University within their social circle to impress others can supersede all else. As more and more people are saddled with debt later into life it will transform other areas of society. Buying a home use to be peoples initial big life purchase but now for many a degree is. While I do not reject iNow's point about the salaries for Philosophers vs Welders I do feel salaries, at least here in the U.S, are relative to location. A person making 80k a year in San Francisco barely gets by while a person making half as much in Albuquerque is comfortable. General averages do not speak to individual lifestyles or needs. The OP overlooks a few things though. For starters it is new products and processes that move economies forward. Which degrees are best suited to an individual to succeed in the future isn't predictable as the OP implies. Any number of sought after vocational or technology skills from just a couple decades ago no longer useful. As AI comes online, automation continues grow, and peoples interest change so to will professional career fields. Even within existing career fields which aren't seemingly going anywhere there is room for change. I for one wish more people in Law Enforcement had education in Philosophy. As for Outdoors Recreation I definitely think that is useful. As I type this part of my home State is on fire do to a camp site incident. The issue isn't that certain degrees are useless. This also should be a debate of whether education is a vehicle for personal growth or financial gain. Any degree type can be either useful or useless depending on the individual and everyone pursues whatever for their own reasons. The issue here in my opinion is the cost of tuition. We need to find a way to make College affordable for everyone. Public grade schools were established in the 1700's. In the hundreds of years since we have failed to figure out how to extend the system for Universities. I think it is time we do that.

Polling shows that the majority of people here in the U.S. feel Trump has done a good job handling North Korea. The optics battle has already been won. At this point I think most people here in the U.S. would blame Kim Jong-un exclusively for anything bad which happens next. Trump has a blank check regarding the issue. Trump can do as he will and no one want to challenge him to loudly on it. While I believe the use of both sides (GOP & Dem) arguments is normally a lazy (often dishonest) attempt at appearing pragmatic this is a case where it may apply. In criticizing the Iraq War Progressives went too far in questioning all foreign military intervention and implying a cause and effect where by the U.S. was arguably responsible for the problems we wished to solve. The sentiment was true regarding Iraq and Afghanistan but not across the board globally. Simply butting out of all matters isn't the answer and Progressives haven't seemed to balance their non-intervention idealism with real world realities. As a result Democratic politicians often lack meaningful foreign policy positions. Beloved politicians on the left like Sanders, Warren, Harris, and etc seemingly have no stated views on foreign policy of any depth. Those Democrats who do like Clinton, Feinstein, Schumer, and etc are considered too hawkish and part of an old guard establishment which needs to be pushed out. It leaves Democrats absent as opposition to Trump's Nationalistic foreign policies. Meanwhile the GOP isn't no better. They have identified many global enemies but fear another Iraq. So the GOP priorities strength and security to react if forced but are otherwise mute on what should be done. Both sides have a laundry list of what they don't want to do but neither has even a hint about what they would like to do. No one here in the U.S. wants to be responsible. We have a fingers crossed approached hoping South Korea and China can figure it out without U.S. leadership. On the surface it seems to be working a little. North and South Korea do appear to be mending their relationship. However Kim Jong-un is a murderer and a revolt against his regime is inevitable in my opinion. Kim Jong-un will execute many people as he feels necessary to maintain power. The potential for a Civil War which spills over into a refugee crisis or North vs South Korean war is high. Terrorism against Japan or South Korea by rogue conservative North Korea military groups is also a huge concern I have. Surely some officials in North Korea have spent their lives drinking the cool aid and view the outside world as the enemy. There is a lot of risks to consider and I don't think any politicians in the U.S. are currently speaking clearly regarding North Korea.

FL consistently has problems every election. Since the results for national offices (house, Senate, POTUS) impact everyone and not only Floridians I think it is time the federal government steps in. There should be intensive criminal investigations into the way FL manages their elections and demands placed on them to ensure fair elections ahead of 2020.

The basic principles still stand though. If one fails to respond when being taken advantage of they are sure to continue losing.

Millennials are 22-38yrs of age not 18-29yrs of age. I agree. It is taking people longer in life to get started and accomplish things than it use to. Even the average age of individuals in the Military is increasing. No experience of higher education is needed to join the military so those factors do not account for the increase in age. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/10/05/chapter-6-a-profile-of-the-modern-military/ I do not agree with this. Today 18-25yr old's are less experienced in be responsible for others. Less 18-25yr old today are parents, married, full time employees, serving in the military, and etc than 3 generations ago. When my Mother was 25yrs old she had already been married 5yrs, had 2 child, owned a house, and was 6yrs into the career she'd eventually retire from. That was not uncommon for her generation but is very rare for people in their early 20's today. Youth is no guarantee of innovation and old age is no guarantee of efficiency or experience. Atthe end of the day individual people must be evaluated individually.

There are a myriad of reasons for the under representation. The top 3 reasons are that younger voters do not participate at the same rates, there are various age requirements for positions, and it takes time to develop experience. Also youth can be a relative thing. Starting with the founding of the U.S. and extending till after the Civil War the average age in Congress was 44yrs of age. In the House specifically it was 42yrs of age. By today's standards that is relatively young. The average age in congress currently is nearly 60yrs of age and the House has averaged over 60yrs of age since 2003. Life expectancy use to be shorter though. In a sense 60 is the new 40, average age of Congress by year. Not just that but your link lists 18-25yrs as youths. What it is to be 25yrs old in 2018 is significantly different than it was in 1900. For starters the median age of Marriage today is 28yrs of age up from 22yrs of age in 1900. People in the 18-25yr old demo are less independent and moving towards adulthood slower than they use to, Here. That isn't a bad thing it just highlights the fact that how one defines being young as a political demographic can be relative. A 25yr old a hundred years ago would have been view more like a 35yr old is today.

Interesting visualization. Copycat beats Cheat in the long run but to do so Copycat needs to be willing to cheat when cheated.

I actually blame Obama and the Democratic leadership (Schumer, Pelosi, and etc). They could have gotten Scalia's replacement on the bench if they were willing to fight for it. Instead they feared backlash and allowed Republicans to block it. Obama could have refused to sign the budget for 2017 and shut the govt down till Garland got a vote. Not just that but I think the fact Obama selected someone moderate as Garland in the first place speaks to how soft Democrats are in general. Democrats too often compromise among themselves in advance which isn't how compromise is supposed to work. Compromise is between separate competing sides. Attempting to placating in advance only diminishes ones position ahead of negotiations. Republicans are doing right by theirs far as SCOTUS goes. I can't blame them for that. It is an interesting situation. Just as Republicans pressured Kennedy into retiring so Trump could appoint a younger replacement to protect the seat further into the future so too did Democrats do the same with RBG. Difference being RBG refused and Kennedy did not. In isolation one could argue the situation implies RBG has more integrity than did Kennedy. However if that is true it possibly demonstrates that sometimes when tough decisions must be made overly principled people can be dangerous.

As the dust begins to settle and it looks like Democrats will have won nearly 40 house seats, millions of more votes in every type of race (House, Senate, Governor), and there is a chance depending of the outcome in AZ and FL that there is no change in the Senate are you feeling anymore encouraged? All in all I think it went well as it could've all things considered. I have serious misgivings about what went on in TX, GA, and FL but ultimately that isn't the fault of voters themselves. Clearly the majority of voters were with Democrats as it was Democratic candidates who received several million more votes across the board in every type of race. I think Democrats win the Senate seat in AZ but sadly I think Republicans with block a full recount in FL. I suspect Republican officials in FL will call the race for Scott after some brief court posturing. Hopefully I am wrong. We have seen this before in FL though. Nelson was an idiot for conceding the race initially. I doubt we every get a full count out of FL. It sucks but considering FL's history and the fact the Scott is the current Governor with a well established history of voter suppression it comes as no surprise. If anything I am surprised it got so close.

13 murdered in another mass shooting. After the mass shootings in Last Vegas there was a lot of optimism regarding the possibility of moderate changes to the law regarding firearm modifications. Joke was on those of us you would like to see gun control. No proposals went anywhere. At this point I no longer blame the NRA. At this point the majority of the nation is responsible. As a nation we accept it.