Democrats Get CRUSHED in 2018 Midterms!

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would be more worried if the Republicans get crushed in the midterms.

This current President has enabled all the bat-shit crazies to act like total idiots, as demonstrated by today's events ( the mailings to the Obamas, Clintons, CNN, etc ).
I can just imagine how they'll react if their 'hero' gets a slap-down in the midterms.

Can’t imagine why, but for some reason you’ve reminded me of this image posted by a kebab shop after terrorist attacks last year in Europe:

 

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Me too. 15% chance seems far more likely now than it ever has in the past. 

In the U.S. political blowouts are impossible. Despite the worst economic collapse of our lifetime and Bush's approval rating being in the 20's The Republican ticket still got 45.7% of the popular vote in 2008. That is amazing when you consider Trump won in 2016 with 46.1%. Less than half percentage point of the vote difference. People vote party and nothing that is actually happening changes how they vote. I am sick and tired of reading about the all important independents and how they decide elections. I think it is total bullsh!t. Turnout decides elections. If turnout is up Democrats win and if turnout is down Republicans win. That is it. If I was running a campaign turnout would be my only focus. When asked about taxes, immigration, climate, or etc I would simply respond with a rant about the importance of turnout. It is no secret which is why throughout red states they push voter ID laws, limit early voting, and work to reduce polling location. So it trying to predict who comes out ahead in this election we must also try to predict what impact various laws will have on turnout county by county and that isn't an assessment I am able to make. 

 “The African-American community was great to us. They came through, big league. Big league. And frankly if they had any doubt, they didn’t vote, and that was almost as good because a lot of people didn’t show up, because they felt good about me.” - Trump

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

People vote party and nothing that is actually happening changes how they vote. I am sick and tired of reading about the all important independents and how they decide elections. I think it is total bullsh!t. Turnout decides elections. If turnout is up Democrats win and if turnout is down Republicans win. That is it.

I believe this is exactly right. It’s how Obama won in 2008... generate turnout. Your core point is well supported by fact and seems to hit nails squarely on heads.

One exception, very much at the margins... I do still think some people change their minds, that moderates are sometimes willing to switch tickets when extreme events happen (like those we’re seeing now). For a few citizens, I feel unembarrassed clinging to the hope that values still matter more than party.

Meanwhile, I hope in parallel that I’m not being delusional about this and am not let down when votes are ultimately counted in 2 weeks. 

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

One exception, very much at the margins... I do still think some people change their minds, that moderates are sometimes willing to switch tickets when extreme events happen (like those we’re seeing now). For a few citizens, I feel unembarrassed clinging to the hope that values still matter more than party.

I think this happens but is more of a permanent tipping point than an election cycle to cycle occurrence. One may grow to become more conservative as they age or vice versa. It is possible Trump has cause some moderate women to reach that point. However I suspect Trump has also cause many alt right men who were voting weren't voting at all to do the same. 

Bill Clinton had 8yrs and those years are broadly viewed as among the best in the last century. Obama had 8yrs and both here at home and abroad he is noted as supremely competent. Yet both Clinton and Obama (despite good approval #'s) were followed by idiots. It is nonsensical. I understand you hope about values mattering more than party but I am struggling to identify which values those might. 

Regardless of what happens on election the day after Trump will claim victory and the media narratives will dare us to consider whether or not Trump is right.  

[Raider5678]

On 10/25/2018 at 7:15 AM, Ten oz said:

If turnout is up Democrats win and if turnout is down Republicans win.

Democrats won 4 times when voter turnout is lower than 57.8%(the average of the last 19 elections).

Republicans won 5 times when the voter turnout is lower than 57.8%(the average of the last 19 elections).

Hardly a conclusive statistic IMO.

Just an opinion though....

On 10/23/2018 at 8:47 PM, iNow said:

Visualize this: It’s November 7. You wake up to discover Republicans kept control of the house, senate, along with most state legislatures and governorships. 

 

I suspect this is exactly what will happen.

Good or not.

 

The economy isn't in turmoil, we're not in any major wars, there's no crisis massively affecting Americans(despite both parties attempt at making it seem so, especially Trump), there was no decisive supreme court case, there was no giant terrorist attack 9/11 sized, and there isn't massive public unrest.

Unemployment is at an all-time low, China is losing the trade war before many tariffs have even begun (due to investors pulling out of China and turning to the U.S.), North Korea has backed down on the whole nuclear situation, the Syrian Conflict is coming to an end, ISIS was completely obliterated within months of Trumps inauguration, gotten NATO allies to significantly take up a bigger share of funding costs and literally an entire list of things that have happened under Trump that voters overwhelming support.

In regards to things that he's done Americans don't like, you've got the Paris Climate Change agreement, Kavanaugh, the affordable care act changes, and his overall demeanor(Defending bad people and refusing to denounce bad organizations),

I don't suspect it will hurt him enough(or specifically the Republican party) for the Republican party to suffer the supposedly "blue wave" that is predicted.

 

What it would mean would basically be a lot more of what we're currently seeing. Really controversial things about stuff like Supreme court nominations and immigrants.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Raider5678
Nobody has responded and I'm just adding paragraphs.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

The economy isn't in turmoil,

Tell that to the farmers struggling under tariffs. 

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

we're not in any major wars,

Except, we are. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Niger, not to mention cyber and the cold wars being stoked with China and Iran

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

there's no crisis massively affecting Americans

Except the opioid epidemic, poverty, rampant inequality, and if you want our crumbling infrastructure. 

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

There was no decisive supreme court case

Busted v Philip Randolf Institute. 

Benisek v Lamone. 

Gill v Whitford. 

Jennings v Rodriquez.

Jesner v Arab Bank.

The list goes on. Just because you’re unaware of them doesn’t mean they’re unimportant or indecisive. 

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

there was no giant terrorist attack

Except, you know... the attack on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, the 18 bombs mailed to democratic leaders, and the countless many other acts committed by white nationalists in the US. 

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

there isn't massive public unrest.

How are you unaware of the hundreds of protests and marches which have taken place in 2018 alone?

That’s just the first paragraph. I’d reply to the other four, but at this point it really feels like a Gish gallop

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Unemployment is at an all-time low

Except the very first sentence in the next paragraph. Can’t let that go. 

1944. 1968. 

1952

1951

1945

1943

1929

Shall I keep reading and correcting you?

[Raider5678]

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

Tell that to the farmers struggling under tariffs. 

I really don't see how this means the economy is in turmoil. A sector of the economy is always struggling.

Additionally, I feel little sympathy for those "farmers" because they're not some random family owned farm, they're multi billion dollar corporations which export food to other countries and bully real farmers, like the ones that live in my area, into going out of business so they can aquire more land, more power, and more money while at the same time collecting the overwhelming majority of benfiets meant to help small farmers. Additionally, they don't even provide jobs in my area, they buy multi million dollar pieces of machinery which automatically harvest the land. And, having bullied the local farmers out of business and buying their labd they then completely abandon selling stuff in the local market because the real profit is in exporting it.

No sympathy. Absolutely none.

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

Except, we are. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Niger, not to mention cyber and the cold wars being stoked with China and Iran

If that is your definition of major then our family members didn't fight in the same wars. I.E. Vietnam, Korean War, Desert Storm.

Look at the number of combat troops deployed to all of those countries compared to the Korean war alone.

War is war, yes. People die. However in the majority of people's opinions, those aren't major wars like we've seen in the past which is what I was referencing, and should have clarified. My apologies.

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

Except the opioid epidemic, poverty, rampant inequality, and if you want our crumbling infrastructure. 

Correction on my part, no NEW major crisis.

 

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

Busted v Philip Randolf Institute. 

Benisek v Lamone. 

Gill v Whitford. 

Jennings v Rodriquez.

Jesner v Arab Bank.

The list goes on. Just because you’re unaware of them doesn’t mean they’re unimportant or indecisive. 

Most of those deal with gerrandering IIRC and the Arab bank has to do with foreign corporate  liability. Either way hardly decisive in regards to so many other cases like Roe v Wade, etc, especially in the extent of legal impact, implications, and changes to the current state of American politics.

More decisive that a lot of cases, granted, but not decisive in the sense that the majority of people have come to see it.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

If that is your definition of major then our family members didn't fight in the same wars. I.E. Vietnam, Korean War, Gulf War, Desert Storm.

Oh, hello there No True Scotsman fallacy. Haven’t seen you in a while 

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Correction on my part, no NEW major crisis.

What, since like Tuesday? Stop moving the goalposts. 

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Either way hardly decisive in regards to so many other cases

Hey look! No True Scotsman yet again, and all in the same post!

I wonder if goalpost moving will come out to play again. 

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

More decisive that a lot of cases, granted, but not decisive in the sense that the majority of people have come to see it.

Yep. There it is.

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Oh, hello there No True Scotsman fallacy. Haven’t seen you in a while.

Did you look at the numbers, statistics, data, or any of the other things I mention in regards to modern wars vs major wars in the past?

36,000 U.S. soldiers died in Korean combat alone.

About the same number as all of the u.s. troops deployed in every single one of the countries you mentioned and more.

They are hardly equivelant, and surely even you realize that Americans do not view them anywhere near the same levels.

 

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

What, since like Tuesday? Stop moving the goalposts. 

There is a difference between moving the goalposts(changing my position entirely) and clarifying something.

Now, would you like to dispute any of the things I mentioned?

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

They are hardly equivelant

I never suggested equivalence. Are you intentionally now trying to add the strawman to your string of logical fallacies?

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I never suggested equivalence. Are you intentionally now trying to add the strawman to your string of logical fallacies?

You said I was using a logical fallacy when I said they were not equivelant. Perhaps I took that the wrong way?

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Now, would you like to dispute any of the things I mentioned?

TBH? No. You appear more interested in digging in your heels than correcting your remedial mistakes. Why waste more of my time?

[Raider5678]

59 minutes ago, iNow said:

Except the very first sentence in the next paragraph. Can’t let that go. 

1944. 1968. 

1952

1951

1945

1943

1929

Shall I keep reading and correcting you?

Correct, I mispoke.

Lowest unemployment for half a century.

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

No True Scotsman

No True Scottsman references excluding examples by changing the original assertion without any specified rule.

There is a difference between simply adding "real" or "true", and providing examples and nbers to back up the clarification with solid rules which aren't abritrarily defined.

No "true" Scottsman would be of I said "no real supreme Court case" and didn't provide metrics or examples.

I provided that legal implication, legislative changes, and impact on everyday life would all be examples of metrics, and provided the example of roe v Wade to explain such example.

Therefore, no, this is not the logical fallacy you have asserted I have made, and I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know whether you still believe I made the logical fallacy you have mentioned regardless of what I've said for other reasons, or if you no longer believe I made the logical fallacy. I personally don't believe my argument matched the criteria, so if it still does please let me know.

Either way, I reccomend doing so in a PM because this is getting quite a bit off topic very quickly 

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Democrats won 4 times when voter turnout is lower than 57.8%(the average of the last 19 elections).

Republicans won 5 times when the voter turnout is lower than 57.8%(the average of the last 19 elections).

Hardly a conclusive statistic IMO.

Just an opinion though....

19 elections goes back to 1942 during WW2. Segregation still existed. I think that is too great a slice of time. The Republican and Democratic parties do not exist today as they did back then. For example JFK (Dem) campaigned on tax cuts and Nixon (GOP) extended Medicare and created Medicaid. 

Democrats won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 national elections. that is nearly 30 consistent years. Those years span the voting age of the majority of voters lives and the entirety of the lives of those not old enough to vote yet. For example Republicans have only won the popular vote once in a presidential election season in your whole lifetime. As for mid term elections turn out is far lower fluctuating  37 and 42% since WW2. In 2014 turnout was 37%. It was literally the lowest turnout since WW2. Republicans won the vote in 2014. Similar situation for 2010 where turnout was 41% and Republicans also won the vote. 

Actions speak louder than words. Republicans actively push voter ID Laws, limit early voting, restrict absentee voting, and etc in an attempt to depress turnout. Access to voting is a well understood partisan issue. 

Quote

 

Perhaps the most telling partisan divisions are on how easy voting should be in the United States. Overall, two-thirds of the public (67%) says “everything possible should be done to make it easy for every citizen to vote,” while only about a third (32%) say citizens “should have to prove they want to vote” by registering in advance.

More than eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (84%) say “everything possible should be done to make it easy for every citizen to vote.” By contrast, only about half of Republicans (48%) say this. A similar share of Republicans (51%) think people should have to prove they want to vote by registering ahead of time.

The Republicans’ skepticism about making it easier to vote – and expanding the franchise – is seen across multiple measures in the survey. A majority of Republicans (57%) say that if election rules were changed to make it easier to register and vote, this would result in elections being less secure. Among Democrats, fewer than half as many (22%) express this view; a sizable majority of Democrats (76%) say easing election rules would not make elections less secure.

http://www.people-press.org/2018/10/29/elections-in-america-concerns-over-security-divisions-over-expanding-access-to-voting/

 

 

[iNow]

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know whether you still believe I made the logical fallacy you have mentioned

Yes, I do. 

[Ten oz]

On 11/2/2018 at 12:29 AM, Raider5678 said:

Lowest unemployment for half a century.

Half a century matches the freeze in wage growth adjusted for inflation. 

Quote

 

After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today. Here

 

 

[StringJunky]

So, how's the result looking now from the other side of the pond?

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

So, how's the result looking now from the other side of the pond?

Too early to tell. 

Interesting factoid: Early votes in Texas thus far already outnumber total votes in last election.

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Too early to tell. 

Interesting factoid: Early votes in Texas thus far already outnumber total votes in last election.

Does that suggest Republicans there are fired up or everyone there?

[iNow]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Does that suggest Republicans there are fired up or everyone there?

Everyone is fired up. Voter turnout will almost certainly break records. Too early to tell who’s voting in Texas or elsewhere, though

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Too early to tell. 

Interesting factoid: Early votes in Texas thus far already outnumber total votes in last election.

Surely you mean early votes outnumber previous early votes, not total votes???

[CharonY]

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Surely you mean early votes outnumber previous early votes, not total votes???

Nope, the turnout in 2014 was abysmal and they are within a few rounding errors of each other.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Nope, the turnout in 2014 was abysmal and they are within a few rounding errors of each other.

Wow! Finally something good to say about Trump...encouraging civic duty!

Edited November 5, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Wow! Finally something good to say about Trump...encouraging civic duty!

I guess fear is a strong motivator.

[HB of CJ]

My view only which is usually correct.  Usually.  If the DEMOS self destruct and the REPUBS sweep all the races, then perhaps, (perhaps only) our Constitutional Republic will start to swing back to our absolutely necessary Conservative Origins.  But ... understand we have but one power base in the USA with two divisions.  Until that changes we are just imagining a better future.

My opinion only.