The Blue Wave

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 9805
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: The Blue Wave

#51

Post by RVInit »

NMgirl wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:17 pm I'm posting this again, because it's a Big Fucking Deal.

Yes and 100% agree with Mike.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage
User avatar
much ado
Posts: 2425
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am
Location: The Left Coast

Re: The Blue Wave

#52

Post by much ado »

ZekeB wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:55 pm I prefer that the Dems do not control everything. I should say "until another Dem sits in the White House." I've seen overheating economies like this one before. It's going to crash with a loud boom. I predict in 2019. With the national debt so out of hand, there's little that can be done to prop things up. If Dems controlled both houses, the finger would be pointed at them.
Yes, I agree with that point. Trump has spent so much energy taking credit for the economy that when things go sour, it will be difficult for him to deflect the blame though I am certain he will try.
User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 13307
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: #StuggersForBiden "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: The Blue Wave

#53

Post by Orlylicious »

We are happy, happy, happy! After 8 long years we have the House and a seat at the table again! Thank you Nancy Pelosi, she raised over $170 million for Democrats and has now won the House back... twice! Women get the job done :P

Like RV said, in Florida a lot moved forward... the Rs only were up 50-80K votes and the new, fair felon reinstatement is over a million voters. We had some awesome pickups across the country and highlights like Kim Davis going down.

And now that little bastard Jeff Sessions got kicked to the curb! Marijuana stocks soared on the news :lol: Nice cherry on top. Now we're hearing Mueller might push some indictments through as early as this week... if that happens, we're going to Disney World next week!! :thumbs:

We're listening to the Duke Ellington Orchestra on the Echo and might try the new season of House of Cards tonight. After two years of nonstop insanity and absolute Republican control, the dam has broken. My vote is to use the next few months for Donald, Nancy and whomever the Rs choose to find 3-5 concrete, compromise things to pass for the American people and do it. That's what people want. No more falling for shiny Twitter objects and listening to the loudest, most disgusting voice in the room.

Avatar: LDIT's Post-election #FAIL record in court. And hey, don't miss The Fogbow's Favourite TV Show™ starring the titular Mama June Shannon! Returns 2021. TVShowsAce featured Fogbow's love 5/26/20: https://bit.ly/2TNxrbS[/b]
Addie
Posts: 44436
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: The Blue Wave

#54

Post by Addie »

New York Times - Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin
How the House Fell: Republican Chaos and Democratic Focus

The message from Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, was urgent and unsparing. In a meeting with Republican lawmakers before they left Washington for the August congressional recess, Mr. McCarthy warned that time was running short: Unless they intensified their campaign efforts and forcefully delivered a coherent message, he said, Republicans would suffer grievous losses in November.

Instead of arresting their political decline, House Republicans proved unable at every turn to stay ahead of their troubles — including many of their own making.

By Labor Day, Republicans were fatally unprepared for an onslaught of Democratic campaign spending that overwhelmed their candidates from South Florida to Seattle. Party leaders on Capitol Hill and in the White House soon turned on one another and against their candidates with growing intensity. Two key groups — the National Republican Congressional Committee, the party’s campaign arm in the House, and the Congressional Leadership Fund, a powerful Republican super PAC — plunged into all but open warfare over messaging and money.

Democrats, in turn, delivered a message about health care with the repetitive force of a jackhammer. They cracked congressional maps drawn to favor Republicans and seized an array of open seats, while also felling longtime incumbents who had grown complacent.

And in the end, President Trump may have delivered the final blow to his party across the diverse and growing metropolitan communities that decided control of the House. In the last weeks of the campaign, Mr. Trump cast aside a positive Republican message about economic prosperity in favor of stoking racial panic about immigration — with appeals that veered into overt racism, alienating moderate swing voters and further enraging Democrats.

Republicans lost control of the House Tuesday night after eight years in power, with Democrats picking up seats in several suburban districts where the party traditionally did well. But if House Republicans were badly shaken by their defeat, few party leaders were genuinely surprised at the nature of their losses. In interviews with dozens of lawmakers, campaign strategists, activists and donors in both parties, a clear consensus emerged about the arc of the 2018 election.
User avatar
Lani
Posts: 6577
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:01 pm
Location: Some island in the Pacific

Re: The Blue Wave

#55

Post by Lani »

Addie wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:36 am :like:
Mikedunford wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:33 am Oh, for fuck sake.

This isn't even like snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory anymore. It's like inventing ways for a victory to be a defeat so that the defeat can then be snatched out of the jaws of victory. ...

This was a big fucking deal of a win, and people are trying to invent ways to call it a loss. What the fuck?
:like: :like: :like:

Seriously, what the fuck? Our country is still in the hands of fascists, and we're all in deep shit if the non-fascists can't stop stabbing each other even after restoring some tiny bit of balance to an ugly situation. Also not helping is Nina Turner (Our Revolution) who emailed today without even mentioning the Trump Administration. She did comment: "Many of the progressive candidates you supported beat out the divisive and dangerous Republican agenda last night. No, Nina, the agenda is alive and well. Did you even listen to the press conference? The attacks have revved up.

She did write about the real enemy. :roll: "We now have a substantial block of serious progressives in the House of Representatives who will hold establishment Democrats accountable to the people."
User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2950
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: The Blue Wave

#56

Post by Fortinbras »

I agree. Despite Dem attempts to magnify their smattering of victories, the Republicans succeeded in entrenching themselves even further, the Senate outcome being a decisive monument to the Republican victory. Don't expect better for 2020, and by 2024 we may have become used to our new Royal Family.
User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 9275
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Re: The Blue Wave

#57

Post by Estiveo »

Forti, we flipped the house. That's not a smattering of victories, it's the fucking house. Flipping the senate too was always unlikely this time around. This is a good thing and we need to improve on it going forward.

Your defeatist attitude is what discourages others from voting.

I'm officially changing your name to Eeyore.
:nope:
Image Image Image Image Image
User avatar
BrianH
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:00 am

Re: The Blue Wave

#58

Post by BrianH »

RVInit wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:41 pm
NMgirl wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:17 pm I'm posting this again, because it's a Big Fucking Deal.

Yes and 100% agree with Mike.
The flip of state legislatures will impede the Article V constitutional convention push, at least insofar as that is coming from right wing sources.
Addie
Posts: 44436
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: The Blue Wave

#59

Post by Addie »

Quartz
Trump suffered the worst midterm loss in a century, says JP Morgan

Investment bankers may have spent last night watching online election trackers with the rest of us, but the morning after, they can fire up their spreadsheets and take a shot at telling us what it all means.

JP Morgan Asset and Wealth Management’s Michael Cembalest took a look at the vote results (pdf). Adjusted for the strength of the economy, he says they represent the worst performance for a president’s party since 1918. He graced us with this chart:



“There have been large midterm swings before, but usually when markets were bad, when the economy was bad, or both,” Cembalest writes. “The chart tells the story: midterm House seats lost since 1910 are shown alongside changes in inflation, employment, equity markets and home prices. Based on the hand the GOP started with, they should probably have been able to retain the House. Sometimes, however, money can’t buy you love.”

Political scientists say that economic performance is an important factor for election results, with a strong economy generally protecting incumbents. In the chart above, you can see that in action—usually happy workers (strong labor markets) or happy investors (strong asset markets) will buoy the party in power. When things go south in one or both quadrants, they take big losses.
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 17804
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: The Blue Wave

#60

Post by Kendra »

Shirley you jest Addie. Fox and Friends was all over the positive of how great a mid-term victory Donnie had vs. past presidents. ;)
Addie
Posts: 44436
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: The Blue Wave

#61

Post by Addie »

New York Times
A Trump-Fueled ‘Wipeout’ for House Republicans in Northeast

In New Jersey, voters slashed the number of Republicans in Congress from five down to two, and possibly only one.

In New York, Democrats declared victory in three congressional races in President Trump’s home state, ejecting the last remaining Republican from New York City.

And in the six other states in the Northeast, the lone remaining Republican congressman, Representative Bruce Poliquin of Maine, was clinging to his seat on Wednesday, his fate to be decided by the second choices of third-party voters through ranked-choice voting.

If the country delivered a mixed verdict nationally on Mr. Trump and his brand of unrepentant nationalism and white-hot rhetoric on immigration in the 2018 midterms — Democrats seized the House and ceded ground in the Senate, and the two parties split key governorships — the results were far clearer in a region that once defined moderate Republicanism in America.

“This was a wipeout for Republicans in the Northeast,” declared Christopher H. Shays, a former moderate Republican congressman from Connecticut who lost his own re-election a decade ago.
Addie
Posts: 44436
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: The Blue Wave

#62

Post by Addie »

WaPo - EJ Dionne Jr.
How Trump lost the midterms

The 2018 elections began the demolition of the Trump coalition.

There remains much work to do. The results in some states were disappointing, and President Trump’s grip on the Republican Party was strengthened. But a large majority of Americans rejected the president’s divisive, ethnonationalist politics. Democrats shook his hold on voters in the old industrial heartland. And women won in unprecedented numbers.

The anti-Trump movement’s single most important objective was to break unified Republican control of Washington. The opposition achieved this by taking over the House. With votes still to be counted, the Democrats were likely to gain more than 30 seats, and possibly into the mid-to-high 30s.

As important for the long term, the popular vote share for Democratic candidates was overwhelming — when all of slow-counting California’s votes are tallied, the Democrats’ margin will likely surpass the GOP’s in their 1994, 2010 and 2014 waves. While only a third of the Senate was up, all House seats were on the ballot. So the House vote is the best indicator of disaffection with Trump.

Most striking was Democratic success in the historically blue-collar states and counties that flipped to Trump in 2016 and led to his victory.
User avatar
Danraft
Posts: 1014
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: The Blue Wave

#63

Post by Danraft »

I probably should know this intuitively, but I must be foggy headed.... Er ...maybe I'm not "foggy-headed" enough?

I don't think most American voters put US Senators in a special category apart from governor, state legislature, and US House.
If that is true, how(why) is there such a disparity in election results?

Do the campaign expenditures represent a similar disparity of this category apart from others?

I'm somewhat aware of the starting field of candidates running for the 6-yr term, and still can't quite reconcile the difference.
On a side note, does anyone know of a source for a graphical display of number of senators of each party running, displayed by year?
The Mercury Project
User avatar
NotaPerson
Posts: 3622
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: The Blue Wave

#64

Post by NotaPerson »

Danraft wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:13 pm I probably should know this intuitively, but I must be foggy headed.... Er ...maybe I'm not "foggy-headed" enough?

I don't think most American voters put US Senators in a special category apart from governor, state legislature, and US House.
If that is true, how(why) is there such a disparity in election results?
The disparity you refer to is essentially an illusion, due to (a) the small number of U.S. Senate races, and (b) the fact that the 2018 U.S. Senate races consisted of many Democrats defended seats in red states.

In other words, there isn't enough "data" from U.S. Senate races to be able to say there is any real disparity.
Am I being detained?
User avatar
kate520
Posts: 16790
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: The Blue Wave

#65

Post by kate520 »

It also has to do with the outrageous gerrymanders still outstanding. We can’t win anything in a district drawn specifically for Republicans. Notice, in PA where the gerrymander was undone, dems won.

I worked on the CA 1980 redistricting, the first time it was done by computer and the maps drawn by a plotter. The only weirdness we were asked to do was to make sure that the Pres pro tem’s mother’s block was included in his new district. Republicans rolled their eyes but no challenge.
DEFEND DEMOCRACY
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 9805
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: The Blue Wave

#66

Post by RVInit »

NotaPerson wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:21 pm
Danraft wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:13 pm I probably should know this intuitively, but I must be foggy headed.... Er ...maybe I'm not "foggy-headed" enough?

I don't think most American voters put US Senators in a special category apart from governor, state legislature, and US House.
If that is true, how(why) is there such a disparity in election results?
The disparity you refer to is essentially an illusion, due to (a) the small number of U.S. Senate races, and (b) the fact that the 2018 U.S. Senate races consisted of many Democrats defended seats in red states.

In other words, there isn't enough "data" from U.S. Senate races to be able to say there is any real disparity.
Exactly. Had there been the same number of Democratic senators from blue or purple states defending their seats, I have no doubt they would not have lost their seats. Trying to compare what happened in the House and Senate are like comparing apples and oranges. Unless every single Senate seat had been up for reelection, it is useless to try to compare what happened between the two houses of Congress. Totally different and incomparable circumstances.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage
User avatar
Atticus Finch
Posts: 704
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:44 pm
Location: Hairball Ranch and Catnip Rehab centre
Occupation: Professional pirate and cat wrangler

Re: The Blue Wave

#67

Post by Atticus Finch »

Has anyone figure out the total popular vote for democrats and republican candidates per state in this election. In other words, if the presidential election was held in 2018 how many electoral votes would Trump and a democrat presidential candidate would win?
User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 17945
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: The nuttiest congressional district of a nut job state.

Re: The Blue Wave

#68

Post by ZekeB »

Atticus Finch wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:00 pm Has anyone figure out the total popular vote for democrats and republican candidates per state in this election. In other words, if the presidential election was held in 2018 how many electoral votes would Trump and a democrat presidential candidate would win?
There'd be a bit of an apples to oranges comparison there. If electoral votes were allocated strictly by congressional seats, Thump would be down a few. Of course comparing how someone votes for their congressman against how they'd vote for president might not tell the story.
Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 30309
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Blue Wave

#69

Post by bob »

Atticus Finch wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:00 pm Has anyone figure out the total popular vote for democrats and republican candidates per state in this election.
538: The 2018 Map Looked A Lot Like 2012 … And That Got Me Thinking About 2020:
Renewed strength in the Upper Midwest would be great news for Democrats.

* * *

As a “fun,” day-after-the-election experiment, I decided to add up the total popular vote for the U.S. House in each state, based on ABC News’s tally of votes as of Wednesday afternoon. This isn’t a perfect exercise, by any means. The vote is still being counted in many states; there are a few dozen congressional districts where one of the parties (usually Republicans) didn’t nominate a candidate. I did make one adjustment for a slightly different problem, which is that Florida doesn’t bother to count votes in uncontested races, something that cost Democrats in the neighborhood of 720,000 votes off their popular-vote tally in that state.

With those caveats aside, here’s the map you come up with if you count up the popular vote. It ought to look familiar. In fact, it’s the same exact map by which Obama defeated Mitt Romney in 2012, except with Ohio going to Republicans. It would have equated to 314 electoral votes for Democrats and 224 for the GOP.

States shaded in light blue [i.e., Iowa, Florida, parts of Maine] were won by Democrats, but by fewer than 5 percentage points. So it’s noteworthy which states are not in light blue but are solid blue instead. Democrats won the popular vote in Michigan by 7 percentage points, in Wisconsin by 8 points, in Pennsylvania by 10 points, and in Minnesota by 11 points. In other parts of the country, they won Nevada and Colorado by 6 points each, New Hampshire by 12, Virginia by 15 and New Mexico by 19.

* * *

But all of this is a bit tautological: Of course the map looks good for you when you’ve had a good night. How about in an average year instead, when the overall vote is fairly close? Democrats currently lead in the national popular vote for the House by around 6 percentage points, and they’re likely to run that total up to 7 or perhaps 8 percentage points as additional votes are counted, mostly from the West Coast mail-balloting states (California, Oregon, Washington). On the other hand, the Democratic margin is a bit inflated because Republicans let quite a few districts go uncontested. So let’s go ahead and subtract 6 points from the Democrat’s 2018 margin in every state; this is a benchmark for what things might have looked like in a roughly neutral year[.]

This is certainly not a great map for Democrats, but it’s not a bad one either. There are 217 solid Democratic electoral votes on this map, as compared to 225 solid Republican ones; the other 96 are tightly contested, but Democrats trail in Florida while narrowly leading in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. If 2020 were contested on this basis, you wouldn’t say that either side had a clear Electoral College advantage.

What is clear, though, is the importance of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan (although you could also add Minnesota to the mix). Win all three of them — let’s call them the Northern Path — and Democrats don’t need Florida, assuming that they hold the other states. Lose all three, and even Florida wouldn’t be enough. Instead, they’d have to win Florida plus at least one of North Carolina, Arizona, Texas and Georgia as part of what you might call a Sun Belt Strategy.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
Addie
Posts: 44436
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: The Blue Wave

#70

Post by Addie »

NPR
It's Not Over: Days After Election, These Races Are Still Undecided

It's two days after the midterm elections, and there are still a few things unknown about the outcome. There are several House races and a handful of Senate seats still up in the air, along with two high-profile governors races in Georgia and Florida.

Some may be decided shortly, but a few may not be called until next week or later. Democrats have picked up 30 House seats, more than enough to recapture control of the House. But there are still about a dozen undecided, competitive House races held by Republicans, and Democrats lead in six. They are listed below. (Results as of 1:45 p.m. ET Thursday):

CA-10 R leads 50.6-49.4 or 1,287 votes
CA-25 D leads 51.3-48.7 or 4,117
CA-39 R leads 51.3-48.7 or 3,879
CA-45 R leads 51.7-48.3 or 6,223
CA-48 D leads 50.7-49.3 or 2,682
GA-7 R leads 50.2-49.8 or 890
ME-2* R leads 46.1-45.7 or 921
NJ-3 D leads 49.8-48.9 or 2,622
NY-22 D leads 50.3-49.7 or 1,293
NY-27 R leads 49.5-48.4 or 2,910
TX-23 R leads 49.2-48.7 or 1,150
UT-4 D leads 51.3-48.7 or 5,042
WA-8 D leads 52.9-47.1 or 12,576

*Only 88% of precincts are reporting and ranked-choice votes need to be reallocated. There were two independents who ran, who were seen as liberal. Combined they earned more than 22,500 votes.
Adding:
TIME: Here’s Who Would’ve Won If the Midterms Were a Presidential Election
User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 31635
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Devilish Hyena
Avatar: Silly engineers have been using 3D printers to make Godzilla arms for chickens.

Re: The Blue Wave

#71

Post by Foggy »

FB_IMG_1541722310924.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I hope y'all are still wearing your seat belts!
User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5856
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: The Blue Wave

#72

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater »

much ado wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:31 pm
ZekeB wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:55 pm I prefer that the Dems do not control everything. I should say "until another Dem sits in the White House." I've seen overheating economies like this one before. It's going to crash with a loud boom. I predict in 2019. With the national debt so out of hand, there's little that can be done to prop things up. If Dems controlled both houses, the finger would be pointed at them.
Yes, I agree with that point. Trump has spent so much energy taking credit for the economy that when things go sour, it will be difficult for him to deflect the blame though I am certain he will try.
Nonsense. Remember how republicans tried to blame democrats taking over congress in 2007 as the reason the economy down-turned?
User avatar
Danraft
Posts: 1014
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: The Blue Wave

#73

Post by Danraft »

kate520 wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:32 pm It also has to do with the outrageous gerrymanders still outstanding. We can’t win anything in a district drawn specifically for Republicans. Notice, in PA where the gerrymander was undone, dems won.

I worked on the CA 1980 redistricting, the first time it was done by computer and the maps drawn by a plotter. The only weirdness we were asked to do was to make sure that the Pres pro tem’s mother’s block was included in his new district. Republicans rolled their eyes but no challenge.
Fully agree with the overall statement that, by straight popular vote, the Dem's would do better than with current districts. That being said, it is hard to NOT gerrymander districts when starting over after each census.

A state gains or loses based on population and the districts are supposed to, as practically possible, have the same number of population based on the census.

But, urban areas are almost all tending Blue, etc..

I suppose a more advanced shenanigan expert (um, what can I say I come from a family of horse thieves, as the joke goes) would oblige the equal population requirements while being very cognizant of the projected growth or decline in populations which magnify or shrink the value of the individual votes over time.

But, Senators are elected state by state in the US, not by district, so the only thing that could affect the Senate elections are the state lines and they were drawn a long time ago and are never moved from year to year. One could argue that the 2 Senators per state is the original gerrymander, but modern gerrymandering does not affect Senate seats.

Great article by Atticus Finch and insightful. There will some great analysis from this election.
The Mercury Project
User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7751
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: The Blue Wave

#74

Post by Sam the Centipede »

Danraft wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:33 pm Fully agree with the overall statement that, by straight popular vote, the Dem's would do better than with current districts. That being said, it is hard to NOT gerrymander districts when starting over after each census.

A state gains or loses based on population and the districts are supposed to, as practically possible, have the same number of population based on the census.
No dan, what you wrote is incorrect. Gerrymandering is the deliberate drawing of unnatural electoral boundaries so as to advantage one party over others. It is not the seeming unfairness of using old population data or the general imperfections of an electoral system.

As Foggy's post illustrates, the most obvious sign of this is usually that the party doing the gerrymandering requires many fewer votes per elected representative than the disadvantaged party. Anf the evidence that this is deliberate is the clearly unnatural shapes of the districts, designed to corral as many Democratic voters as possible into a few districts so those are super-safe for the Democrats, with effectively many "wasted" votes, whereas the Republican votes are spread to give small majorities in many districts.

All electoral systems everywhere are imperfect in different ways. But that is distinct from dishonest manipulation of those systems.
Post Reply

Return to “Elections 2018”