Democrats Get CRUSHED in 2018 Midterms!

[Phi for All]

31 minutes ago, HB of CJ said:

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.

Your opinion sucks, quite frankly. Conservatism is absolutely necessary just the way every other tool in our box of democracy is absolutely necessary. What are you, a hammer-only carpenter? I really hate it when People self-inflict limitations, since they vote to do it to us all.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I guess fear is a strong motivator.

In fairness 2014 wasn't a good year to compare 2018 to. It is usual for turnout to increase during the first mid-term under a new President. The better comparison would be 2010. Also early voting laws change so it is difficult to use early voting as a gauge for what total turn out will be. Turnout was 41% in 2010 and just 36% in 2014. Hopefully turnout will be greater than 2010's. We want know the exact numbers for at least a couple weeks.  

[CharonY]

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In fairness 2014 wasn't a good year to compare 2018 to. It is usual for turnout to increase during the first mid-term under a new President. The better comparison would be 2010. Also early voting laws change so it is difficult to use early voting as a gauge for what total turn out will be. Turnout was 41% in 2010 and just 36% in 2014. Hopefully turnout will be greater than 2010's. We want know the exact numbers for at least a couple weeks.  

That is a fair point. I recall vaguely that there were other factors potentially depressing turnout such as weather, sports event or something like that. One would need to see how much the pool of eligible voters as well as final turnout to be certain. But at least it seems that the early voter turnout is the highest so far. Question is only how many of the rest are going to vote.

[Ten oz]

28 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That is a fair point. I recall vaguely that there were other factors potentially depressing turnout such as weather, sports event or something like that. One would need to see how much the pool of eligible voters as well as final turnout to be certain. But at least it seems that the early voter turnout is the highest so far. Question is only how many of the rest are going to vote.

I hope turnout is good. I am honestly nervous about the integrity of the whole system though. It wasn't for several months after the 2016 election we learned of various cyber breaches to state voting machines and the Mueller investigation is still shedding like things. Nothing has been done to shore things up. What is happening in GA is worrisome but is at least getting national attention. Imagine what could be doing in small races with less attention. It pains me to say it and I am a little embarrassed to admit it but I do not believe we (USA) have fair elections. My trust in the system has be lost. Not because of Trump alone but because of the nurmous elections across the country which have involved questionable practices over the last decade. Some of the practices are outright criminal and courts have had to step in, some are supressive by design but technically legal, and other haven't been discovered yet. Just as drugs in sports are always one step ahead of testing so too does election rigging seem to be ahead of enforcement. 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

My trust in the system has be lost.

Ergo, Russia has achieved its core objective. Not judging you. I share your uncertainty. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Your opinion sucks, quite frankly. Conservatism is absolutely necessary just the way every other tool in our box of democracy is absolutely necessary. What are you, a hammer-only carpenter? I really hate it when People self-inflict limitations, since they vote to do it to us all.

Ironically the Constitution was wildly progressive for it's time. It only seems conservatives when removed from the context of it's era. 

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Ergo, Russia has achieved its core objective. Not judging you. I share your uncertainty. 

Russia achieved their objective when Trump was sworn in. 

I still voted. 

[Phi for All]

33 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Ironically the Constitution was wildly progressive for it's time. It only seems conservatives when removed from the context of it's era. 

Exactly. Why are so many misinformed? Revolution isn't something you choose conservative measures for. If early American colonists had acted like today's conservatives, we'd be part of the UK.

[CharonY]

53 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

we'd be part of the UK

Or the Confederated Provinces of Greater Canada.

[J.C.MacSwell]

36 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Or the Confederated Provinces of Greater Canada.

...and Prime Minister Kiefer Sutherland would ensure you all had health care...

4 hours ago, HB of CJ said:

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.

I might not agree with this opinion, but I think this is an honest and respectful answer to the OP.

+1

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I hope turnout is good. I am honestly nervous about the integrity of the whole system though. It wasn't for several months after the 2016 election we learned of various cyber breaches to state voting machines and the Mueller investigation is still shedding like things. Nothing has been done to shore things up. What is happening in GA is worrisome but is at least getting national attention. Imagine what could be doing in small races with less attention. It pains me to say it and I am a little embarrassed to admit it but I do not believe we (USA) have fair elections. My trust in the system has be lost. Not because of Trump alone but because of the nurmous elections across the country which have involved questionable practices over the last decade. Some of the practices are outright criminal and courts have had to step in, some are supressive by design but technically legal, and other haven't been discovered yet. Just as drugs in sports are always one step ahead of testing so too does election rigging seem to be ahead of enforcement. 

I've looked at several election systems throughout the world, and compared to most democracies, for example, the UK's(

Off Notify me of replies

However, in being "fair" it has the other side effect of being a two-party system. Meaning your choice matters more, however, you have fewer choices.

If that makes sense.

 

Regardless, just because we're one of the fairer ones doesn't mean we're 100% fair. Not by a LONG shot.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

If that makes sense.

I’ve been traveling all day. Woke up at 3am to catch a flight. Been in meetings and Uber’s all day since I landed. All of this being a long winded way of saying I’m sure any fault here is mine. 

But I don’t follow the point you’re making. Are you saying we’re more fair than most despite our flaws, and using the UK system as primary supporting evidence?

[Raider5678]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Are you saying we’re more fair than most despite our flaws, and using the UK system as primary supporting evidence?

Essentially, however, the only reason the UK system is primarily supporting evidence is that it's one of the worst.

Not that it's the only evidence I need.

 

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Essentially, however, the only reason the UK system is primarily supporting evidence is that it's one of the worst.

Not that it's the only evidence I need.

 

Support of the British Parliament sits between the upper 30's and low 40's, Here. Those numbers are unheard of for the U.S. Congress which has an approval rating in the teens for the last decade. While the Prime Minister has a low approval in the 30's their disapproval is only in the low 40's with over 20% undecided, Here. Trump's disapproval is in the mid 50's.  So it appears that people in the UK are less disapproving and more satisfied with their govt than we are here in the U.S.. In a Democracy broad public support should matter and here in the U.S. it really hasn't seemed to over the last couple decades. 

It hasn't always been this way. Congressional approval use to be significantly higher. Congressional redistricting occurs every 10yrs and the last 2 rounds (2000 and 2010) were lead by a Republican controlled Congress and state legislatures. The first election after Republican controlled Redistricting was in 2002. Support for Congress has declined every since. The Gerrymandering was put on Steroids in 2010 with a Republican program REDMAP . 

I understand that within our (USA) 2 party system it seems bias to blame one side rather than both sides but truly I don't see how this in a both sides situation. The last 2 Democratic Presidents had high public approval numbers while the last 2 Republicans had/have low approval numbers. Congress has had an embarrassingly low approval rating since Republican redistricting. Gaining and maintaining power without seeking or earning broad public support isn't something both parties do. It is Republicans doing it and it is eroding faith in our democratic institutions. 

 

 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Support of the British Parliament sits between the upper 30's and low 40's, Here. Those numbers are unheard of for the U.S. Congress which has an approval rating in the teens for the last decade. While the Prime Minister has a low approval in the 30's their disapproval is only in the low 40's with over 20% undecided, Here. Trump's disapproval is in the mid 50's.

So broad public support matters more than democracy itself?

Kin Jung Un is apparently pretty popular in North Korea......

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Congress has had an embarrassingly low approval rating since Republican redistricting. Gaining and maintaining power without seeking or earning broad public support isn't something both parties do. It is Republicans doing it and it is eroding faith in our democratic institutions. 

I for one don't believe the public in general even understands enough about redistricting in 2010 and 2002 for those to be what caused the massive drop in redistricting.. Rather, I suspect the low approval ratings, which continued to drop for both Republican and Democrat politicians, are because the public is realizing they're both full of crap. They always promise that if they win the world will be perfect(This is a hyperbole. They don't specifically say this, but often times this is what it comes off as. I.E. "MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN!"), and it never works.

With the growth of social media, things that politicians do are also spread a lot faster, further opening the door to looking at Congress.

I mean, look at Hillary and Trump. Hillary lied like 50% the time. Trump lied like 99% of the time.

Neither of them two should have even been close to suitable to run with those numbers. Yet they were.

Just my opinion...........

[dimreepr]

20 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So broad public support matters more than democracy itself?

broad public support is democracy; no support no votes.

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

broad public support is democracy; no support no votes.

So North Korea is a democracy?

I mean they have broad public support...

Edited November 6, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So broad public support matters more than democracy itself?

Kin Jung Un is apparently pretty popular in North Korea......

Broad public support is definitely important. If a govt is fairly elected than it will have public support otherwise how would it win election in the first place?

People in North Korea are not free to have an opinion one way or another. 

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I for one don't believe the public in general even understands enough about redistricting in 2010 and 2002 for those to be what caused the massive drop in redistricting..

You misunderstand. I am saying redistricting led to individuals who are not broadly supported winning elections. I am not saying people understand why it's happening.

21 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Rather, I suspect the low approval ratings, which continued to drop for both Republican and Democrat politicians, are because the public is realizing they're both full of crap.

Obama left office with a 60% approval rating. Bush left with a 30% approval rating. Trump currently sits at 42%. There is a difference between the approval of Democrats and Republicans. Say both are believe to be "full or crap" ignores that difference. Obama won the popular vote and had the support of the majority of the country. Also despite being in the minority currently Democrats represent 40 million more people:

"the 51 Republican senators now represent about 143 million people, according to the latest Census Bureau state population estimates. The 49 Democratic senators represent about 182 million people, nearly 40 million more. That's about 2.8 million people per Republican senator and 3.7 million people per Democratic senator." Here

35 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

They always promise that if they win the world will be perfect(This is a hyperbole. They don't specifically say this, but often times this is what it comes off as. I.E. "MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN!"), and it never works.

With the growth of social media, things that politicians do are also spread a lot faster, further opening the door to looking at Congress.

I mean, look at Hillary and Trump. Hillary lied like 50% the time. Trump lied like 99% of the time.

Neither of them two should have even been close to suitable to run with those numbers. Yet they were.

Just my opinion...........

 Honestly I think your opinion lacks perspective. You are not old enough to remember a time when the Govt was broadly supported. Congress has had over whelming disapproval your whole life. You have not witness the shift in respect and trust which has accorded. 

[Raider5678]

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You misunderstand. I am saying redistricting led to individuals who are not broadly supported winning elections. I am not saying people understand why it's happening.

Democrats controlled most of Congress and the presidency from 2009-2011(accounting for inauguration being in January).

It jumped briefly and then plummeted once again according to your graph, and I suspect that was in part because of how popular Obama was.

Democrats are not some magical exception where the people love them but just can't get public support to show it.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

44 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So North Korea is a democracy?

I mean they have broad public support...

 

A strawman to support a strawman? dude that's... 

[Ten oz]

36 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Democrats controlled most of Congress and the presidency from 2009-2011(accounting for inauguration being in January).

It jumped briefly and then plummeted once again according to your graph, and I suspect that was in part because of how popular Obama was.

Democrats are not some magical exception where the people love them but just can't get public support to show it.

You still don't get it. In 2008 Democratic Congressional candidates won 13 million more votes than Republicans. 65 million votes for Democrats to just 52 million for Republicans yet Republicans only lost 21 seats. Here Two years later in 2010 Republicans got 6 million more votes (45 million to 39 million) and Democrats lost 63 seats. Here Think about that. It took a 13 million vote advantage to earn Dems just 21 seats but then only 6 million for Republicans to earn 63. For every million more votes Dems earned they picked up less than half a seat while Republicans earned over 10 seats. It isn't merely about who is in control of the Congress it is about peoples votes mattering and people believing they are fairly represented. If Republicans are getting more representation per vote the system is broken. Even when Democrats win by huge margins they don't receive the representation they deserve. That is the current state of Gerrymandering. Democrats must win by tens of millions just to earn meager increases in representation. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Ten oz

[CharonY]

14 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Essentially, however, the only reason the UK system is primarily supporting evidence is that it's one of the worst.

Not that it's the only evidence I need.

Could you summarize the key points of the video? As a rule one should support a position without requiring someone to watch a video. Regardless of whatever is in the video, the voter turnout in the UK had an historic low around 60% in 2001. In the US the historic high was in the 60s, with about 60% for the presidential election and  less than 50% for the midterms. At least from the viewpoint of participation the UK system is clearly more democratic.

[Raider5678]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

A strawman to support a strawman? dude that's... 

So we agree. Broad public support is not a democracy.

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You still don't get it. In 2008 Democratic Congressional candidates won 13 million more votes than Republicans. 65 million votes for Democrats to just 52 million for Republicans yet Republicans only lost 21 seats. Here Two years later in 2010 Republicans got 6 million more votes (45 million to 39 million) and Democrats lost 63 seats. Here Think about that. It took a 13 million vote advantage to earn Dems just 21 seats but then only 6 million for Republicans to earn 63. For every million more votes Dems earned they picked up less than half a seat while Republicans earned over 10 seats. It isn't merely about who is in control of the Congress it is about peoples votes mattering and people believing they are fairly represented. If Republicans are getting more representation per vote the system is broken. Even when Democrats win by huge margins they don't receive the representation they deserve. That is the current state of Gerrymandering. Democrats must win by tens of millions just to earn meager increases in representation. 

 

I fear you've fallen into the trap of not looking at all the information. However, before we get into this, let me say something.

I fully and 100% agree that Republicans have gerrymandered the election system.

But they haven't gerrymandered it anywhere near as much as you seem to believe, and it would not have the effects on the congressional support that you also believe.
Let's add the 2012 elections and the 2016 elections into the data you sent me previously.

First, let's look at the House only. If you don't change your mind after this, we can go into the Senate if you'd like.

2008: Democrats win the popular vote by 13 million, gain 21 seats. 21/13, you get 1.65 seats for every 1 million more votes. (Not sure where you got less than half?)

2010: Republicans win the popular vote by 6 million, gain 63 seats. 63/6, you get 10.5 seats for every 1 million more votes.

2012: Democrats win by 1 million votes, gain 8 seats. 8/1, you get 8 seats for every 1 million more votes. (The Republican redistricting in 2010 affected this election.)

2016: Republicans win the popular vote by 1 million votes, lose 6 seats. -6/1, you get 8 seats lost for every 1 million more votes.

 

Now, the point I'm trying to make is that the difference in gains/losses is not solely dependent on gerrymandering. In 2016 Republicans won the popular vote for Congress by 1 million votes, yet lost 6 seats. It's not that Democrats somehow went in and gerrymandered it. It's the fact that a much larger portion of the gains and losses are dependent on which seats are up for the running, what states they're in, how many of the seats are Senate seats(each state gets 2 senators, regardless of population. This is why you should look at the election vote tallies by each chamber individually, rather than together), and even more factors.

 

 

Listen, man, all I'm trying to do is let you see that it's not as unfair as you think it is. You're an extremely smart guy, and you've done me the favor of pointing out when I was wrong several times, let me return the favor. I really don't want to debate this, as it's off topic, and looking at the numbers you can't deny that it varies massively for every election. Your entire post was built on 2 pieces of data, that when looked at alone, showed huge signs of being unfair, however when put into context with the following two elections as well, proved to simply be the way it worked out when it worked out.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2010

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2016

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

Could you summarize the key points of the video? As a rule one should support a position without requiring someone to watch a video. Regardless of whatever is in the video, the voter turnout in the UK had an historic low around 60% in 2001. In the US the historic high was in the 60s, with about 60% for the presidential election and  less than 50% for the midterms. At least from the viewpoint of participation the UK system is clearly more democratic.

Please accept this when I say it, but because this is off topic I won't summarize the key points of the video. I would go back to edit it, but I can't. So I won't make another post devoted to it. My apologies.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

So North Korea is a democracy?

I mean they have broad public support...

You may consider snarkiness cute but it is actually disrespectful to people living in North Korea. They suffer under a brutal regime and if one criticizes Kim Jung-un  it could result in the death of not only themselves but their families. Because of that fact it is not possible to discern how people in North Korea feel about their govt. You understand this but are still choosing to use their plight sarcastically for a cheap comeback. It is ugly behavior and fails to address the issues raised you are attempting a respond to. 

36 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I fear you've fallen into the trap of not looking at all the information. However, before we get into this, let me say something.

I fully and 100% agree that Republicans have gerrymandered the election system.

But they haven't gerrymandered it anywhere near as much as you seem to believe, and it would not have the effects on the congressional support that you also believe.
Let's add the 2012 elections and the 2016 elections into the data you sent me previously.

I provided real information and you agree Republicans have gerrymandered the system. Point proved. I never stated to what degree. It varies by locality. Ultimately there isn't an acceptable degree so you can stop attempting to frame it in more palatable light.  

42 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Please accept this when I say it, but because this is off topic I won't summarize the key points of the video. I would go back to edit it, but I can't. So I won't make another post devoted to it. My apologies.

More ugly behavior. 

[Raider5678]

14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I never stated to what degree.

Um. Yes you did.

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

That is the current state of Gerrymandering. Democrats must win by tens of millions just to earn meager increases in representation. 

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Raider5678

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You may consider snarkiness cute but it is actually disrespectful to people living in North Korea. They suffer under a brutal regime and if one criticizes Kim Jung-un  it could result in the death of not only themselves but their families. Because of that fact it is not possible to discern how people in North Korea feel about their govt. You understand this but are still choosing to use their plight sarcastically for a cheap comeback. It is ugly behavior and fails to address the issues raised you are attempting a respond to. 

It would be if implied that the broad public support was real, and not on the regimes disallowance of free speech.