Democrats Get CRUSHED in 2018 Midterms!

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

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.

 

Democrats Senators represent 40 million more people than Republican Senators yet Democrat are in the minority. In my opinion that is not how democracy should work nor it it what the Constitution intended. 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

You like to use sarcasm a lot and I'm not sure if this is it or not.

Basically, write it out in crayon for me. Preferably with pictures of animals too. Something simple.

 

there's no perfect system... the founding fathers tried, but a few amendments/centuries later and here we are...

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

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:

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. 

Second bold: I am not disputing that. The difference was in 2014 (not last time)despite the  (first bold) demographic spread being essentially the same in 2014.

That is the point of the article you quoted: (I am bolding within the link)

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

Despite the similar demographic spread...different result in 2018 from 2014. (not just overall but within most groups)

The inference (not proof) is that it is from the difference in how people voted...not just from who showed up to vote (turnout)

I think you are missing the intent of the article you linked. It does not agree with your perception. This does not mean you are wrong but you both can't be right...they readily admit that their stance is not certain...just that the exit polls tend to point in that direction...unless turnout within the groups was the key...which seems unlikely.

As per the title of the article: "The 2018 Electorate Wasn’t All That Different. It Just Voted Differently."   (from 2014)

Edited November 8, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Democrats Senators represent 40 million more people than Republican Senators yet Democrat are in the minority. In my opinion that is not how democracy should work nor it it what the Constitution intended. 

And the majority of the Democratic population lives in two states: New York, at 19.8 Million people, and California, 39.54 million people.

That's how the Senate works.

It's also exactly how the Senate was intended, hence the fact that the population doesn't matter for the number of Senators a state gets.

 

However, I suspect we simply disagree. I don't like the idea of what's known as mob rule, where the majority get their voice heard and minorities are ignored. Regardless of which side it benefits. As such, I support the way our Legislative branch is created. 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

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.

Not sure what you are referring to. In 2016 Reps got 49% of the popular vote but received 55% of the seats. Dems got 48% of the vote but only got 44% of the seats. This is in part what the others were talking about and goes to the gerrymandering process.

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

And the majority of the Democratic population lives in two states: New York, at 19.8 Million people, and California, 39.54 million people.

That's how the Senate works.

It's also exactly how the Senate was intended, hence the fact that the population doesn't matter for the number of Senators a state gets.

 

However, I suspect we simply disagree. I don't like the idea of what's known as mob rule, where the majority get their voice heard and minorities are ignored. Regardless of which side it benefits. As such, I support the way our Legislative branch is created. 

The majority of Republicans live in two states as well, TX and FL. 

I am not implying mob rule but merely more accurate representation in our representative democracy. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Despite the similar demographic spread...different result in 2018 from 2014. (not just overall but within most groups)

Different result because 30 million less people voted. Not because any particular demo voted differently. If you are saying you believe various issue influence turnout I agree. If you are saying various issue influence the way one votes assuming they vote I disagree. 

[StringJunky]

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg (Dem) has just fractured 3 ribs, and she''s 85. I'm sure Trump is praying that she gets better...not.

Edited November 8, 2018 by StringJunky

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I am not implying mob rule but merely more accurate representation in our representative democracy. 

You're implying the complete abolishment of the way the Senate was designed and created.

Not "merely" changing a small thing. 

If you don't like it and would like to change it, that's fine. But do realize it is a major part of how our democracy was created and is a protection against majority rule.

 

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Not sure what you are referring to. In 2016 Reps got 49% of the popular vote but received 55% of the seats. Dems got 48% of the vote but only got 44% of the seats. This is in part what the others were talking about and goes to the gerrymandering process.

 

Fair enough, I wasn't looking at it like that, and looking at it now I can see that from 2010 - 2016 the elections always over-represented Republican holdings, a statistical improbability.

 

 

Edited November 8, 2018 by Raider5678

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 

Different result because 30 million less people voted. Not because any particular demo voted differently. If you are saying you believe various issue influence turnout I agree. If you are saying various issue influence the way one votes assuming they vote I disagree. 

You might be right...but not according to your linked article. Did you read it or just assume it agreed with you?

"The example that jumps off the page in reading the exits is voters over 65. Republicans won them 57-41 in 2014, but only 50-48 in 2018. That’s about the same margin as in 2006, the last Democratic “wave” election, before the tea party movement-driven realignment of the electorate made “old” all but synonymous with “Republican.” White college graduates shifted from 57-41 Republican in 2014 to 53-45 Democratic this year. By contrast, white voters without a college degree changed marginally, from 64-34 Republican to 61-37. White women didn’t trend as massively Democratic in 2018 as some of the anecdotal evidence suggested, but did go from 56-42 Republican to 49-49 this year. The 2014 exits didn’t provide a breakdown by race, gender, and education-level, but given the relatively low change in the vote of non-college educated white voters generally, you can figure this year’s 59-39 Democratic margin among college-educated white women was a pretty big shift."

Edited November 8, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You might be right...but not according to your linked article. Did you read it or just assume it agreed with you?

 

The following is how the article opens:

Quote

 

If you heard it once, you probably heard it a hundred times: the 2018 midterm elections, and perhaps all midterm elections, were “all about turnout.” With the electorate polarized down to its every molecule, the winning equation was simply to identify demographic groups that were in or trending towards one’s own side, then nag and scare and excite and anger and knock and drag them to the polls. If “base mobilization” was in fact all that mattered, then it would be logical to expect that the shape of the 2018 electorate would be dramatically different from that of the 2014 midterms, in which Republicans had a very solid performance, gaining 13 House seats, 9 Senate seats, and 2 governorships. 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. Yes, the 2018 electorate was much bigger than 2014’s: an estimated 114 million people voted this year, as opposed to 83 million four years ago. But the shape of this bigger electorate is familiar.

 

Then the article covers which exit polls it is analyzing and states how different racial demos voted. It follows by then looking at whether or not younger people turned out in greater numbers as was predicted:

Quote

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).

The article then asks a few rhetorical questions about the relative value of various predictions vs reality relating to gender education level and etc and concludes:

Quote

So if the electorate isn’t all that different in its component parts than it was four years ago, what did change? It’s hard to say definitively, since it’s always possible that one party or the other did better at turning out their particular share of various demographic groups than the other. But it looks like public opinion changed, with our without partisan efforts to sway it

The article then goes into various things could've been different which is the part you quoted. However as quoted above no specific value is given to those numbers. It is ambiguous. Demos within demos and not the larger component groups. It follows up those numbers with:

Quote

Yes, the exit polls are quite fallible, as the evidence of the undercounting of white non-college educated voters in the 2016 exit polls shows. But if the change of partisan outcome between 2014 and 2018 was strictly a matter of one mobilization machine outperforming another, it would show up pretty dramatically in the numbers.

The article concludes stating that it is something to ponder in 2020. The main demographics didn't change which is why the article states "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." in its opening. Whites, Blacks, Latinos, and Women voted almost identical. Perhaps a specific subgroup like Black female college educated protestants over the age of 65 voted marginally different but how does one quantify the value of that? How would a politician be able to pinpoint such a demo within a demo to target? It is far easier to understand how one is doing Black Females at large and campaign accordingly. 

 

*this article is not the be all end all. I only went through it bit by bit because you questioned it I read it. At this point the entire article has been quoted. 

Edited November 8, 2018 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

32 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

The article concludes stating that it is something to ponder in 2020. The main demographics didn't change which is why the article states "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." in its opening. Whites, Blacks, Latinos, and Women voted almost identical. Perhaps a specific subgroup like Black female college educated protestants over the age of 65 voted marginally different but how does one quantify the value of that? How would a politician be able to pinpoint such a demo within a demo to target? It is far easier to understand how one is doing Black Females at large and campaign accordingly. 

 

*this article is not the be all end all. I only went through it bit by bit because you questioned it I read it. At this point the entire article has been quoted. 

"the shape of the 2014 and 2018 electorates, doesn’t show as much change as you might expect."

What do you think this means?

The whole point of the article being that the demographic "shape" (demographic of electorate remained essentially proportional even with the extra turnout) was the same....yet the results were different in 2018 from 2014

...and not...

turnout varied the "shape" (proportionality) of the various groups, with those groups voting the same way as they always do, as you seem to believe. (again...you could be right...but the article suggests otherwise)

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

"the shape of the 2014 and 2018 electorates, doesn’t show as much change as you might expect."

What do you think this means?

The whole point of the article being that the demographic "shape" (demographic of electorate remained essentially proportional even with the extra turnout) was the same....yet the results were different in 2018 from 2014

...and not...

turnout varied the "shape" (proportionality) of the various groups, with those groups voting the same way as they always do, as you seem to believe. (again...you could be right...but the article suggests otherwise)

I am not sure what in your point is? I already went over the whole article for you qoutinng full portions in order. I think that is more than enough. What you have highlighted isn't in full context or point of the article. The article has out lived it's usefulness. My initial point  was centered around the Demographical breakdown and I referenced more than just the one article.

I honestly don't know what you are attempting to dispute. The way Men, Women, Whites, Blacks, and Latinos voted is nearly indentical. That is indisputable and what I posted the numbers to show. Those broad strokes are incredibly consistent and that is undeniable. 

Quote

 

 Democrats received 51.2 percent of all votes cast in House races, or more than 51.5 million in total. Republicans, in turn, won more than 47.3 million votes, or 47.1 percent, and lost 28 total seats.

In the 36 governor races, Republicans garnered more than 40.5 million, or 48.4 percent, of all votes compared with more than 41.3 million votes or 49.2 percent for Democrats. Democrats flipped seven states and could gain another victory depending on the outcome of Stacy Abrams's battle with Republican Brian Kemp in Georgia.

The Senate results were by far more favorable to Democrats, even though they lost two seats and could lose two more. Republicans had 41.5 percent of all votes cast in Senate races, and Democrats 56.9 percent. The GOP received more than 33.5 million votes to the Democrats more than 46 million.

https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-won-popular-vote-2018-midterms-1207230

 

While Trump continues to brag about the Senate and some Progressive lament that things didn't go better I think it is working noting that Democratic candidates won more support across board in every type of race Tuesday night be it House, Senate, or Governors mansion. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I am not sure what in your point is? 

Same as the article.

20 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I am not sure what in your point is? I already went over the whole article for you qoutinng full portions in order. I think that is more than enough. What you have highlighted isn't in full context or point of the article. The article has out lived it's usefulness. My initial point  was centered around the Demographical breakdown and I referenced more than just the one article.

 

Then why is the article titled "The 2018 Electorate was not all that different. They just voted differently."

20 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

I honestly don't know what you are attempting to dispute. The way Men, Women, Whites, Blacks, and Latinos voted is nearly indentical. That is indisputable and what I posted the numbers to show. Those broad strokes are incredibly consistent and that is undeniable. 

 

Clearly not identical to 2014...or it would have taken significantly different proportions of each to get the significantly different results they got.

 

38 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

While Trump continues to brag about the Senate and some Progressive lament that things didn't go better I think it is working noting that Democratic candidates won more support across board in every type of race Tuesday night be it House, Senate, or Governors mansion. 

It certainly is...and also worth noting this did not happen in 2014...the different demographic groups (most of them) voting differently being the most likely reason...(not turnout that favoured both)

 

50 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

While Trump continues to brag about the Senate and some Progressive lament that things didn't go better I think it is working noting that Democratic candidates won more support across board in every type of race Tuesday night be it House, Senate, or Governors mansion. 

If Trump is impeached and incarcerated I would expect he would continue to brag to the guards and inmates...so no surprise there...

I would hope the Progressives and Conservatives would both lament the fact that they missed an opportunity to appeal more to the middle...as that may have been the difference given the (apparent, but according to the article) stalemate on turnout.

 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

The way Men, Women, Whites, Blacks, and Latinos voted is nearly indentical.

"The 2018 Electorate Wasn’t All That Different. It Just Voted Differently."

If you're going to claim that, don't cite an article that says the exact opposite thing in the title and then goes in to say that what you're saying is false.

The article goes in to say the composition of the voters was roughly the same. I.E.1/4 this group 3/4 this group, etc.

However, those groups did not simply vote the same way, they voted much differently. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen such a shift(in the multi millions) of votes.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Raider5678

[MonDie]

22 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg (Dem) has just fractured 3 ribs, and she''s 85. I'm sure Trump is praying that she gets better...not.

All of it is very troubling:  Trump's suspicious meetings with Russian representatives; the profitable conversion of his hotels into embassies (which violates the emoluments clause); and the unprecedented opening and filling of seats on the judiciary, which include the long-obstructed supreme court seat that now holds a Republican nominee who will not reprimand trump (for violating the emoluments clause).  Trump might be remembered as our most corrupt president, and he appeared in a modern political climate that is increasingly polarized.

http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/political-polarization/

If we vote in the primary elections, the main site of this polarization, maybe we will stop this seesaw madness.

Trump's Jared Kushner's

[J.C.MacSwell]

38 minutes ago, MonDie said:

All of it is very troubling:  Trump's suspicious meetings with Russian representatives; the profitable conversion of his hotels into embassies (which violates the emoluments clause); and the unprecedented opening and filling of seats on the judiciary, which include the long-obstructed supreme court seat that now holds a Republican nominee who will not reprimand trump (for violating the emoluments clause).  Trump might be remembered as our most corrupt president, and he appeared in a modern political climate that is increasingly polarized.

http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/political-polarization/

If we vote in the primary elections, the main site of this polarization, maybe we will stop this seesaw madness.

Trump's Jared Kushner's

From the first link:

"Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in the last two decades."

That was from 2014...ahhh..the good 'ol days!

[Ten oz]

On 11/6/2018 at 9:08 PM, iNow said:

It’s early, but the democrats have to be disappointed in the current results. 

It appears Trumps strategy to combat the blue wave may be working. 

Lots of races Dems should’ve won? They didn’t. 

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. 

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

are you feeling anymore encouraged?

I am slightly, yes, but TBH am still rather disappointed about what happed in my state legislature and governorship.

I’m also watching RBG with her broken ribs and thinking he’ll get a 3rd SCOTUS pick, which makes the GOP gains in Senate all the more troubling. 

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I am slightly, yes, but TBH am still rather disappointed about what happed in my state legislature and governorship.

I’m also watching RBG with her broken ribs and thinking he’ll get a 3rd SCOTUS pick, which makes the GOP gains in Senate all the more troubling. 

Slight correction, only to make it appear  a bit more positive: they are fractured, so, hopefully, she'll mend ok. Broken bones in an octagenarian are a big deal, it can kill them.

Edited November 9, 2018 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Good clarification. Thx SJ

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Slight correction, only to make it appear  a bit more positive: they are fractured, so, hopefully, she'll mend ok. Broken bones in an octagenarian are a big deal, it can kill them.

Ribs can be painful but if not displaced she might do OK. Hopefully most of us can turn out to be half as tough as she is.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Ribs can be painful but if not displaced she might do OK. Hopefully most of us can turn out to be half as tough as she is.

i'm sure she'll do her best.

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

I am slightly, yes, but TBH am still rather disappointed about what happed in my state legislature and governorship.

I’m also watching RBG with her broken ribs and thinking he’ll get a 3rd SCOTUS pick, which makes the GOP gains in Senate all the more troubling. 

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. 

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Slight correction, only to make it appear  a bit more positive: they are fractured, so, hopefully, she'll mend ok. Broken bones in an octagenarian are a big deal, it can kill them.

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. 

[iNow]

You raise good points. Game theory suggests that the cheaters will keep winning against the side that keeps playing fair. 

Heres a super cool interactive about exactly this issue called The Evolution of Trust:  https://ncase.me/trust/

[J.C.MacSwell]

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

You raise good points. Game theory suggests that the cheaters will keep winning against the side that keeps playing fair. 

Heres a super cool interactive about exactly this issue called The Evolution of Trust:  https://ncase.me/trust/

If you want to discuss trade agreements...shouldn't you start a new thread? 

Edit: This is the Democrats crushed in midterms thread...LOL!

Edited November 9, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell