Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Zkribbler, Jun 4, 2018.
I know, and you just spoiled my oblique approach to precisely this conversation!
Preemptive conversational strike successful!
I know, I pointed out the Hillary thing in my own post. And I hope you are right; I just worry at how handily she won this primary. It wasn't even close - but yeah the field was fragmented and the Democrats haven't gone all-in yet so maybe things will be better in the general election.
Random aside: I actually voted for some socialist candidates for this primary.
The thing to keep in mind is that big party money and effort is pretty much banned from primaries when there are multiple candidates. The incumbent has party backing, so the incumbent did well against a field that had no party backing.
I nominally backed the Democrat that ran in my district two years ago, but never really looked at his competitors...other than some late game attack ads she ran against my guy. He came in third, so now I have taken a look at the democratic party candidate and can see that I probably would have backed her if I'd looked earlier. Time to campaign. The primary did its job.
The governor's race in Michigan should be pretty interesting this year. Front runners for republican spot are the attorney general Bill Schuette and Lt. Gov. Brian Calley. Either might get dinged in the real election though from the fallout from Flint water crisis. Schuette is kind of a hard ass and some think his prosecution of those involved in the Flint crises is political. Brian Calley may need to distance himself from the current administration since many people directly blame current governor Snyder for it. Other than that Snyder was pretty well liked. He gets a lot of credit with helping to revamp Michigan's business culture and fixed some weird business tax laws. The roads are still awful and our schools are declining though.
The democrats only have two guys, one is an Indian businessman who I think sounds just like a republican to me and the other is Abdul El-Sayed who has some really drastic ideas about welfare and education including wanting free college tuition for families making less than 100k a year and single payer health care throughout the state. Sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders. The sad part is he won't have any shot of winning because he is a Muslim. There are some pretty big Muslim pockets in south east Michigan, including Dearborn which is around 30% Arab american families, but outside of south east Michigan almost the whole state is white Christians who will never vote for the guy. I think they would much sooner vote for a black woman than a devout Muslim.
Maine is moving towards a ranking system of voting. I see two big advantages. One, campaigning will become more civil because candidates will be wary of alienating 2nd-and-3rd choice voters. Two, voting for a third-party candidate will no longer be "wasting your vote."
I wouldn't be so sure about that one to be honest, but it's a large improvement still.
Somewhat related, the next election is after a census. One early estimate shows:
The gainers and losers are:
States Gaining Districts
Arizona +1 (from 9 to 10)
Calif. +1 (from 53 to 54)
Colorado +1 (from 7 to 8)
Florida +1 (from 27 to 28)
North Carolina +1 (from 13 to 14)
Oregon +1 (from 5 to 6)
Texas +3 (from 36 to 39)
Virginia +1 (from 11 to 12)
States Loosing Districts
Alabama -1 (from 7 to 6)
Illinois -1 (from 18 to 17)
Michigan -1 (from 14 to 13)
Minnesota -1 (from 8 to 7)
New York -1 (from 27 to 26)
Ohio -1 (from 16 to 15)
Pennsylvania -1 (from 18 to 17)
Rhode Island -1 (from 2 to 1)
West Virginia -1 (from 3 to 2)https://www.electiondataservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/NR_Appor14bwTablesMaps.pdf
Using the 2012 actual map, it's dead even. Trump and Clinton both gain 1.
Very interesting. Thank you, J.
This is just in:
You are not supposed to care about or comment on elections outside your state. Because you don't vote in them.
I am not supposed to care at all, because i'm not American.
If we do, that's probably the result of nefarious motives.
Don't ask me. I'm just reporting this stuff.
1. Some newer projections show at least the possibility for Montana to gain a second seat.
Which isn't all that relevant but very cute.
2. You said "the next election". I am not sure what you meant to imply with that, but it may be incorrect.
Elections in census years still use the old data set. The first election affected by the 24th census will be the 2022 mid terms.
What ever happened to that thread?
I liked that thread.
Thing I found interesting about it...they list more states as gaining a seat than they list as losing a seat, so basic mathematics should have told them to recheck their data. I just wrote it off as yet another top notch source provided by @onejayhawk.
It's not "data," it's a preliminary estimate. A difference of 1 is not a big deal.
If your estimation method produces a result that actually cannot happen, get a new one. Even at a preliminary stage.
My prediction for the 2018 midterms is no change in the Senate in terms of numbers. Some seats will flip but ultimately it will stay at 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 2 Independents. As for the House, I think the Democrats will lose two seats from what they have now (they currently have 198, and they will drop to 196) and the Republicans will end with 239 seats.
My method for arriving at this prediction was based on a combination of "current" (as current as I could manage to find) polling data and the Cook PVI for each district.
This prediction may look bad for the Democrats, but while putting it together, I saw some warning signs for the Republicans that they would be wise to not ignore if they want to keep winning elections. The biggest one being that Democrats are really starting to make some gains in traditionally red districts. This can be easily seen in Arizona, but it's also happening in other states too like Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Especially Pennsylvania with the redrawing of the districts. And while it does seem like Republicans are making some gains in traditionally blue areas, they aren't nearly as dramatic or widespread as the gains the Democrats are making. So while it may look like the Democrats are going to lose in the short term, they are certainly going to win in the long term unless the Republicans can do something to stop their spread into Republican strongholds.
That's very odd. 2016 was a good turnout year for republicans, and 2018 will likely be a good turnout year for democrats. Current polling has democrats winning by 6-7 points, which I'm not sure is really going to happen but it's the only number we have. Given the number of republican incumbents retiring, and the number of R+5 districts at play, wouldn't it be more likely that Dems gain a dozen seats overall ?
Not entirely on topic (but surely not that off topic either) :
Given i am not familiar with the US system, will Bernie (afaik he is to run as independent?) actually form some kind of party for the next elections? I do know the 2018 are just midterms, but will there be anything like this?
I suppose that he will only run in 2020, but just asking
Bernie's senate seat is at play, so he will be reelected in Vermont in november. Some left leaning democrats have won democratic primaries and will compete in the general election as well, but that doesn't constitute a political party (they will represent the democratic party)
It's certainly possible. I'm not going to say my predictions are ironclad. However, I still think Republicans are energized to get out and vote specifically because the Democrats are energized as well. Republicans are deathly afraid of losing control of Congress, even if it's just losing control of one house of Congress.
Plus, that 6 or 7 point margin is based on overall national polls. I tend to ignore national polls for House elections,because those elections are decided at the district level. And when you go district by district, the Republicans are still polling decently well. Of course, that's going off numbers I looked at a few days ago. Come October and November, those numbers could tell a completely different story.
This is a common statement, but I don't buy the usual reasoning. At this point, there is no reason to believe either party has an edge in turnout.
If the current polling is accurate, the Democrats could win 30 seats in the House and gain the right to force an impeachment vote. It is a very big "if", but it could happen. I am leary of polling this early. Some of the polls are not even of voters, just people of voting age. This is notoriously unreliable. Likely Voter polls are not yet available from multiple sources. Democrats were giddy about one poll that showed a 17% margin. Republicans were hyped because one poll had them with a 1% lead. They are both shooting at the moon.
Commodore is making a solid point. The Cook data is a solid way to judge the ground under the candidates, so to speak. The head to head matters, but it good to know if one of them is fighting uphill.
The only thing we know for a fact is who is running for re-election and which seats are open.
I don't know if it will be Sanders specifically, but there is hope for third parties in the future if the last election is anything to go on. In the 2016 election, while still not coming close to winning any state except Utah (more on that later), third party candidates overall gained an increased percentage of the vote in every state. I think that shows the American people might be getting fed up with the two party system and want something different to vote for. If that is the case and the trend of third parties getting a larger percentage of the vote continues, they could become a viable political force in the near future. This is especially true with a number of states considering changes to their voting laws which would create a more favorable environment for third parties to compete in.
Now as for Utah: I think a third party presidential candidate could actually win Utah in 2020. Why? Consider this: In 2012 third party candidates in total only managed to garner 2.4% of the vote in Utah while Romney got 72.8% and Obama got 24.8%. In 2016, Hillary only got 27.5%, which is to be expected since Democrats aren't exactly popular in Utah. However, Trump only managed to get 45.5% of the vote to win the state. That means in the span of a single election cycle, support in Utah for third party candidates jumped from 2.4% to 27% which was the most dramatic gain third party candidates made in any state in the 2016 election. The reason? Mormons in Utah don't like Trump. And since Trump is likely to be the Republican candidate again in 2020, I doubt he's going to get much more support in Utah than he did in 2016. So if the right third party candidate comes along (perhaps Romney runs as an independent), that candidate might just be able to steal Utah.
That would be a significant political victory for third party candidates, even though it still wouldn't bring them anywhere close to the presidency. The last time a third party candidate won a state was 1968, so winning a state again in 2020, especially in light of the increasing support for third party candidates, could embolden more people to actually vote third party. Before you know it, they go from winning one state, to maybe winning two or three, so and and so forth until we finally get a president that doesn't have an R or D in front of their name.
Even if it doesn't lead to a third party victory, a third party candidate taking a state could serve as a wake-up call to both Democrats and Republicans that the American people are getting fed up with them and their increasing polarization. Increased support for third party candidates could force the Democrats and Republicans back towards the center in order to win back the increasing number of disillusioned voters.
Separate names with a comma.