Democrats Get CRUSHED in 2018 Midterms!

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

Sessions won't be the last between now and New Years. Nielsen, Mattis, Kelly, Sanders, Rosenstein, and mnuchin are all on the chopping block. I will be surprised if most aren't gone shortly. 

Will this stop the Russian collusion investigation?

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Will this stop the Russian collusion investigation?

No, now that Democrats have the House they can conduct hearings and launch investigations of their own if Trump moves against the Mueller investigation.  

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No, now that Democrats have the House they can conduct hearings and launch investigations of their own if Trump moves against the Mueller investigation.  

Worked out ok then for that.

[Ten oz]

Looks like Nelson in FL and Abrams aren't conceding yet. This is excellent news in my opinion and makes me very happy. I am sick and tired of Democrats just rolling over even when Races are still within a rounding errors. Democrats too often appear more concerned with potentially bad optics than they are with fighting to win. If the shoes were on the other foot Republicans absolutely would demand recounts. It sickens me we didn't get real ballot recounts in 2016. 

Quote

 

Florida Sen. Bill Nelson (D) said Wednesday that his close contest with Republican opponent Gov. Rick Scott is “proceeding to a recount.” The margin appears to have triggered a recount under Florida state law. More than 8.1 million people voted in the race. Nelson, a three-term incumbent, trailed behind Scott on Wednesday by a margin of less than .05 percent, according to the Associated Press. Florida law allows for a recount where two candidates are separated by one-half of a percentage or less. Just 38,717 votes short of his opponent, the Democratic incumbent apparently met the mark. Here

Kemp holds a 2-point lead over Abrams with all precincts reporting. Abrams' hope was to close the gap by some 15,000 votes, enough to deny Kemp an outright majority and force a head-to-head runoff on Dec. 4. Here

 

 

[rangerx]

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Sessions won't be the last between now and New Years. Nielsen, Mattis, Kelly, Sanders, Rosenstein, and mnuchin are all on the chopping block. I will be surprised if most aren't gone shortly. 

I don't know what's worse. Firing or elevating them to high positions.

Sen. Graham: "If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay"

I guess by holy hell, he meant being appointed Chairman of the Senate Judicial Committee?

If that's not corruption, nothing is.

Besides that, the Saturday Night Massacre is now the day after the election massacre.

You know what they say about ignoring history.

[Ten oz]

39 minutes ago, rangerx said:

I don't know what's worse. Firing or elevating them to high positions.

Sen. Graham: "If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay"

I guess by holy hell, he meant being appointed Chairman of the Senate Judicial Committee?

If that's not corruption, nothing is.

Besides that, the Saturday Night Massacre is now the day after the election massacre.

You know what they say about ignoring history.

The acting AG previously criticized the Mueller investigation in a published OP-ed. Unless he is willing to get indicted for Trump he'd be smart to recuse himself.

[rangerx]

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The acting AG previously criticized the Mueller investigation in a published OP-ed. Unless he is willing to get indicted for Trump he'd be smart to recuse himself.

Indeed. Especially given Peter Stzrok was fired from the FBI for doing something similar (to a much lesser degree) you'd think that would be true.

But no, we're seeing a glaring double standard instead.

[mistermack]

'Kavanaugh's Revenge': Every Democratic senator in a competitive midterm race who voted against Brett Kavanaugh lost 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/democratic-senators-who-voted-against-brett-kavanaugh-lost-close-reelection-races-2018-11  

 

[Carrock]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

'Kavanaugh's Revenge': Every Democratic senator in a competitive midterm race who voted against Brett Kavanaugh lost 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/democratic-senators-who-voted-against-brett-kavanaugh-lost-close-reelection-races-2018-11  

 

"Virtually all Senate Democrats running in Trump states who voted against Brett Kavanaugh were defeated"

 

Why let facts spoil a good headline?

[Ten oz]

On 10/25/2018 at 8:00 AM, Ten oz said:

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.  

As predicted Trump is claiming victory and the media is debating it.

On 10/24/2018 at 1:53 PM, Ten oz said:

Sessions and Rosenstein are toast after the mid-terms. There is a good change "sort of a Democrat" Mattis, Kelly, Sanders, and mnuchin are all gone as well. 

Session was fire today.

On 10/24/2018 at 7:55 PM, Ten oz said:

What most people expect to happen is for Democrats to win the House and Republicans to keep the Senate. For me though anything seems possible. Reading about what's happening in places like GA makes me think this could be 2016 all over and despite polling Republicans eek out improvable wins with anomalously low margins for victory. A landslide for Democrats seems like the longest shot as too much is stacked against them. They have far more Senate races they need to win just to stay even and simply winning more votes hasn't seemed to be enough in the past.  

I think for sure Democratic candidates will get more votes but that is all  I know. It is anyone's guess how those votes translate into seats. 

Dems won the House and Republicans held the Senate. Democrats won at least 4 million more votes and that number is still rising.

People will continue to spin this a lot of different ways but ultimately nothing particularly surprising has happened. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

As predicted Trump is claiming victory and the media is debating it.

Session was fire today.

Dems won the House and Republicans held the Senate. Democrats won at least 4 million more votes and that number is still rising.

People will continue to spin this a lot of different ways but ultimately nothing particularly surprising has happened. 

Interestingly, the expected results (overall) came about despite a very much higher than originally anticipated voter turnout.

[Ten oz]

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

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

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Interestingly, the expected results (overall) came about despite a very much higher than originally anticipated voter turnout.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

58 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

How would you explain some of the sizeable margins in individual races, that vary strongly in the same districts from election to election?

[iNow]

32 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How would you explain some of the sizeable margins in individual races, that vary strongly in the same districts from election to election?

Underdog effect. 

Too much talk about blue waves too soon and too often allows red waving voters to plan a more effective counterpunch, then also strategize about and execute on ways to soften the expected blow. 

[NortonH]

The Mueller search for evidence of 'collusion' reminds me of the endless search for Bigfoot.

 

[Silvestru]

5 minutes ago, NortonH said:

The Mueller search for evidence of 'collusion' reminds me of the endless search for Bigfoot.

As in it takes the same gullible prick who thinks Bigfoot is real to think that there was no collusion? I agree

Edited November 8, 2018 by Silvestru

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How would you explain some of the sizeable margins in individual races, that vary strongly in the same districts from election to election?

Which races specifically are you talking about? Depending on the race just 10,000 can be a fraction of voters or a sizable number of voters. I would need to know which ones you have in mind to render an opinion. 

Edit - Who voted doesn't appear to have changed and the result was broadly as expected. Consider the follow:

Quote

 

To get one issue out of the way, there were actually two national exit-poll operations this year: on the one hand, the traditional Edison Research surveys done for ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC. On the other, a new survey was conducted by NORC for AP and Fox News. For purposes of apples-to-apples comparisons of 2014 and 2018, let’s focus on the Edison exits.

The white makeup of the electorate was 75 percent in 2014 and 72 percent this year, though the modest difference is mostly attributable to demographic change rather than some sort of voter mobilization effort. African-Americans formed 11 percent of the electorate in 2014 and 12 percent in 2018, another modest change. Latinos are a rapidly rising share of the population, so it’s not too surprising that they grew from 8 percent to 11 percent (they were only 9 percent, by the way, in the NORC exit polls).

Looking at the age distribution, did young people turn out in big and atypical numbers in 2018, as some analysts suggested they might? Doesn’t look that way. Under-30 voters were 13 percent of the electorate in 2014 and 13 percent of the electorate in 2018. The percentage of voters who were over 65 actually went up a tick, from 22 percent in 2014 to 26 percent in 2016 (the percentage of white voters over 65, that famously conservative demographic, was stable at 22 percent).

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/the-2018-electorate-wasnt-all-that-different-from-2014s.html?utm_source=nym&utm_medium=f1&utm_campaign=feed-part

 

 

Edited November 8, 2018 by Ten oz

[NortonH]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Underdog effect. 

Too much talk about blue waves too soon and too often allows red waving voters to plan a more effective counterpunch, then also strategize about and execute on ways to soften the expected blow. 

There was definitely collusion with the Russians by the Clinton campaign - eg the Steele Dossier, but I am not sure what the Russians are supposed to have done for Trump.

It seems more like a case of trying to wish something into existence. Sorry, but if there was a Bigfoot he would have been found by now. Same with the 'collusion'.

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

44 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Which races specifically are you talking about? Depending on the race just 10,000 can be a fraction of voters or a sizable number of voters. I would need to know which ones you have in mind to render an opinion. 

Edit - Who voted doesn't appear to have changed and the result was broadly as expected. Consider the follow:

 

But as the article states, they voted significantly differently from 2014...or more correctly seem to have. They are suggesting turnout overall was not as key as people changing the party they voted for (they are not suggesting that with certainty, just that that is how it appear...no one knows for sure).

The voting pattern changed within each demographic, and while this could be due to turnout (relatively more Democrats of each demographic showing up) it is more likely due to change of voting choice by many voters.

Is this not contrary to how you perceive it?

Edited November 8, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

23 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Can you not see that what you are saying may be true to some extent, in some areas, but backfired to some extent in others? And the same can be said of the Democrat campaign.

As Ten oz points out, though it might be a missed opportunity for more, the final results were pretty much close to what was expected for quite a while.

The biggest News is the turnout.

Another stat I would encourage you to consider is the total number of votes cast for Senate candidates. Democratic Senate Candidates received 44 million votes while Republican candidates received 33 million votes. In the media much is being made of the fact Democrats lost a Senate seat and Republicans are claiming victory but clearly the will of the nation was largely with Democrats. Republicans had a built in systematic advantage which prevented from losing. In total votes for Democratic senate candidate vs Republican Senate candidates Democrat won 57% to 43%. This disparity in national desire vs election outcome is one of the reasons why people like Holder and Booker (the "mob" as you call it) encourage people to be more aggressive. From Trump losing the popular vote in 2016 to Republicans gaining seats on Tuesday despite a deficit in voter support the U.S. is presently ran by people the majority do not support and do not want in office. 

Quote

 

But just like in the United States, European news networks still dedicated hours-long specials to the key vote. And while viewers here tried to make sense of the results, they repeatedly stumbled over two numbers: the total votes for Democratic and Republican Senate candidates. As of 7 a.m. EST on Wednesday, more than 44 million Americans had voted for Democratic Senate candidates, versus about 33 million for Republican contenders.

As the animated TV graphics clearly showed, the Republicans had still gained two seats and defended their narrow Senate lead – and not the Democrats.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/07/how-to-explain-to-someone-living-abroad-that-democrats-can-have-over-10-million-more-senate-votes-and-still-lose/

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Another stat I would encourage you to consider is the total number of votes cast for Senate candidates. Democratic Senate Candidates received 44 million votes while Republican candidates received 33 million votes. In the media much is being made of the fact Democrats lost a Senate seat and Republicans are claiming victory but clearly the will of the nation was largely with Democrats. Republicans had a built in systematic advantage which prevented from losing. In total votes for Democratic senate candidate vs Republican Senate candidates Democrat won 57% to 43%. This disparity in national desire vs election outcome is one of the reasons why people like Holder and Booker (the "mob" as you call it) encourage people to be more aggressive. From Trump losing the popular vote in 2016 to Republicans gaining seats on Tuesday despite a deficit in voter support the U.S. is presently ran by people the majority do not support and do not want in office. 

 

Republicans had a built in disadvantage in getting total Senate vote, for the exact same reason they had an advantage in gaining seats...many more Democrat seats up for grabs.

I think the "will of the nation" was with Democrats, and not due just to turnout...enough people voted differently. 

I admit this is not certain...and also admit it is what I prefer to think...but I think it is more likely than not, and that many voters were not just swayed to get out and vote...but who to vote for.

Edited November 8, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But as the article states, they voted significantly differently from 2014...or more correctly seem to have. They are suggesting turnout overall was not as key as people changing the party they voted for (they are not suggesting that with certainty, just that that is how it appear...no one knows for sure).

Is this not contrary to how you perceive it?

 "The white makeup of the electorate was 75 percent in 2014 and 72 percent this year, though the modest difference is mostly attributable to demographic change rather than some sort of voter mobilization effort. African-Americans formed 11 percent of the electorate in 2014 and 12 percent in 2018, another modest change. Latinos are a rapidly rising share of the population, so it’s not too surprising that they grew from 8 percent to 11 percent (they were only 9 percent, by the way, in the NORC exit polls)"

Not only did all the same groups show up in the same numbers but if you look at the Edison exit survey they more or less identical to 2016 overall. 

White - 16'  57% Trump / 18' 54% Republican

Black - 16'  08% Trump / 18' 09% Republican 

Latino - 16' 28% Trump / 18' 29% Republican 

Woman - 16' 41% Trump / 18' 40% Republican 

2018  Numbers  2016 Numbers

Considering that Trump wasn't on the ballot this past Tuesday and voters all over the nation had to make individual decisions about individual candidates which varied locality by locality the outcome was shockingly similar. I already know the stats and expect them yet am always still a little surprise by how identical they are every time. Mueller, Kavanaugh, Migrant family separations, tax cuts, and etc doesn't seems to have impacted anything. People vote party line regardless and the lines were drawn a long time ago.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 "The white makeup of the electorate was 75 percent in 2014 and 72 percent this year, though the modest difference is mostly attributable to demographic change rather than some sort of voter mobilization effort. African-Americans formed 11 percent of the electorate in 2014 and 12 percent in 2018, another modest change. Latinos are a rapidly rising share of the population, so it’s not too surprising that they grew from 8 percent to 11 percent (they were only 9 percent, by the way, in the NORC exit polls)"

Not only did all the same groups show up in the same numbers but if you look at the Edison exit survey they more or less identical to 2016 overall. 

White - 16'  57% Trump / 18' 54% Republican

Black - 16'  08% Trump / 18' 09% Republican 

Latino - 16' 28% Trump / 18' 29% Republican 

Woman - 16' 41% Trump / 18' 40% Republican 

2018  Numbers  2016 Numbers

Considering that Trump wasn't on the ballot this past Tuesday and voters all over the nation had to make individual decisions about individual candidates which varied locality by locality the outcome was shockingly similar. I already know the stats and expect them yet am always still a little surprise by how identical they are every time. Mueller, Kavanaugh, Migrant family separations, tax cuts, and etc doesn't seems to have impacted anything. People vote party line regardless and the lines were drawn a long time ago.  

The article you cited compared 2018 to 2014 and the numbers they cited were very different.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/the-2018-electorate-wasnt-all-that-different-from-2014s.html?utm_source=nym&utm_medium=f1&utm_campaign=feed-part

My key point all along is that the moderate middle is as key to turning an election as is turnout...it just hasn't had as much focus on it lately....

32 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Another stat I would encourage you to consider is the total number of votes cast for Senate candidates. Democratic Senate Candidates received 44 million votes while Republican candidates received 33 million votes. In the media much is being made of the fact Democrats lost a Senate seat and Republicans are claiming victory but clearly the will of the nation was largely with Democrats. Republicans had a built in systematic advantage which prevented from losing. In total votes for Democratic senate candidate vs Republican Senate candidates Democrat won 57% to 43%. This disparity in national desire vs election outcome is one of the reasons why people like Holder and Booker (the "mob" as you call it) encourage people to be more aggressive. From Trump losing the popular vote in 2016 to Republicans gaining seats on Tuesday despite a deficit in voter support the U.S. is presently ran by people the majority do not support and do not want in office. 

 

The Democrat "mobs" are what Booker and, to a lesser extent, Holder incite. They don't take part in it, and I have never suggested they did. (you can check) 

Edited November 8, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

19 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The article you cited compared 2018 to 2014 and the numbers they cited were very different.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/the-2018-electorate-wasnt-all-that-different-from-2014s.html?utm_source=nym&utm_medium=f1&utm_campaign=feed-part

My key point all along is that the moderate middle is as key to turning an election as is turnout...it just hasn't had as much focus on it lately....

 

I do not understand what in the link you are referencing. The link is literally about the fact that it was not different. 

From the opening of the article:

Quote

But a comparison of exit polls, the best preliminary indicator we have of the shape of the 2014 and 2018 electorates, doesn’t show as much change as you might expect.

More over the result by group was basically indentical to 2016 yet neither Clinton or Trump were on the ballot and all the political issues have changed appreciably. 

If you are claiming the "moderate middle" is the key what numbers do you have to support it? By group everyone voted the same as last time. The Edison survey (previously linked) goes into to great detail breaking voters down by age, gender, race, education, religion, martial status, income, and etc. There were no substantial changes or surprises on Tuesday. That is statistically demonstratable.

You seem married to an idea and aren't soberly looking at the cold dry numbers. I understand why one would feel differently. All over the media pundits are weighing in with their take on why voters did X, Y, Z. It creates a palpable sense that these matters are considerably more fluid than they actually are. The media is in the ratings business and not the accurate information business. Pundits say what they say for the sake of their audience. They play up on peoples bias's, desires, fears, hopes, and misconceptions. 

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Republicans had a built in disadvantage in getting total Senate vote, for the exact same reason they had an advantage in gaining seats...many more Democrat seats up for grabs.

I think the "will of the nation" was with Democrats, and not due just to turnout...enough people voted differently. 

I admit this is not certain...and also admit it is what I prefer to think...but I think it is more likely than not, and that many voters were not just swayed to get out and vote...but who to vote for.

No, just ignore that rambling.

Inside of the United States of America there are two chambers of Congress. The House and the Senate.

How many House Representatives each state gets depends on the population of the state.

How many Senators a state gets simply depends on if it's a state: Each state gets 2 senators. Regardless. This is to prevent smaller states from getting completely ignored in terms of politics.

The Republicans did not "build in" an advantage for them as Ten Oz suggests, he's just trying to blame something on them that predated Republicans by almost 100 years.

With the Senate, because it doesn't depend on the population, it comes down to individual races. The Senate isn't chosen by the nation as a whole, it's chosen by state voters. If a smaller state wants to vote Republican Senators in to represent them, I don't have a problem with that. I don't think they should be forced to have a Senator representing them that they don't like.

 

I assure you, had the shoe been on the other foot, Democrats wouldn't be complaining its unfair, and the Republicans would be. Because really neither of them care about the American people, they care about getting in office and making themselves money.

If you'd like an example, simply look at the 2016 election.

Democrats complain they won the popular vote but still lost the presidency. Yet, I have yet to hear Democrats complaining that Republicans won the popular vote in the House, yet lost 6 seats. I have heard Republicans complain about losing 6 seats even though they won the popular vote for the House, yet I have yet to hear Republicans complain about winning the Presidency and losing the popular vote.

Anyone can cherry pick data. I encourage you not to take their word for it and actually research the facts as well.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Raider5678