2018 U.S election

[onejayhawk]

Yeah, but the thing is, what Donald Trump says doesn't matter.
His odiousness would have cost him the presidential election against a slightly less odious opponent, if not for the meddling of foreign propagandists and/or the FBI. Take away both of those things and put a recession on top of it, and he's not going to win re-election.

We will see about the timing. There are things that can be done to delay the inevitable. Still, this is progress. You finally admit that Hillary is almost as odious than Donald. Kudos.

Now, if you would only let go of the conspiracy theories about Russian collusion. The FBI had people embedded in Trump's campaign looking for things like that.

The following article in the Guardian concludes something similar and adds as analysis that Trump has as much focus on "his taking over" of the GOP, by his agenda on radical right nativism, pushing more traditional politicians out of the seats and party influence. Under the tactical banner and disguise of making this midterm election a referendum on him. Focus on the GOP power structure as prep for 2020.
(I like the author Cas Mudde BTW, a professor in Georgia, I guess also because he is Dutch and I can better read and pick up what he says)

The article is pretty accurate. Nothing wins like winning and Trump has delivered. Even where he does not have exactly what he promised, it is not for lack of effort.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Has anyone analyzed the accuracy of FiveThirtyEight this time around? I only looked at their forecasts and aggregated polling for two races (MO Senate and CA 45) and their projections were laughably wrong. Of course that's only two races and I do know they correctly called the House/Senate split but I'm wondering if any further analysis was done.

Also how did Democrat turnout fare? Which groups showed up and which didn't? How many millions more votes than the Republicans did they get overall?

 

[rah]

The only downside is now that the Dems control the house and I expect will ramp up attacks on the Dumpster, is what type of atrocities will Trump have to do to distract everyone away from all the attacks.

 

[metalhead]

You finally admit that Hillary is more odious than Donald.

I mean honestly dude, my post says "less odious." How the fudge did you interpret "less" to mean "more?" I swear to christ I think you would fail a Turing test. Do you even know how to read?

 

[onejayhawk]

I mean honestly dude, my post says "less odious." How the fudge did you interpret "less" to mean "more?" I swear to christ I think you would fail a Turing test. Do you even know how to read?

Sorry. My bad. No need to swear.

Fixed.

I have been scrolling through the undecided House races. If current margins hold up, the Democrats will have a five-vote margin in the House. That's not paper thin; it's onion skin.

RCP averages were dead on for the House (Democrats gain 27 seats and control) and the Governor's seats (Democrats +7). If current margins hold up, which looks likely, the Republicans significantly overperformed in the Senate (That would be +5. RCP had them at +2). Mitch McConnell will have a bigger vote margin than Nancy Pelosi.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

3 states expanded access to cannabis last night, including Utah of all places. When Trump kicks off the apocalypse at least we can be good and baked to enjoy the fireworks.

 

[onejayhawk]

3 states expanded access to cannabis last night, including Utah of all places. When Trump kicks off the apocalypse at least we can be good and baked to enjoy the fireworks.

This will go federal in the next two years and Trump will claim credit.

There is an interesting article in National Review. It talks of the virtues of moderation.

Progressives looked to candidates focused on turning out new, liberal voters—at the possible expense of suburban swing voters—to recreate the electorate in their states. Stacey Abrams, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Gillum weren’t just inspirational candidates looking to make history; they also offered a test of whether the best way to challenge Trumpism is with unapologetic progressivism. All three lost, and Gillum’s defeat came despite ample polling showing him ahead.

House Democrats took a different approach in their attempt to win back control of the lower chamber—and to check the president. They recruited military veterans and national security experts without partisan backgrounds. They understood that to win suburban areas where Republicans once dominated, they needed to reassure swing voters that they didn’t support single-payer health insurance, open borders, and a wild-eyed foreign policy. It’s why so many of the Democratic victors were running as apolitical outsiders.​

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/674476?unlock=Y2S8NYBX4MW7GX0S

J

 

[AdrienIer]

I have been scrolling through the undecided House races. If current margins hold up, the Democrats will have a five-vote margin in the House. That's not paper thin; it's onion skin.

RCP averages were dead on for the House (Democrats gain 27 seats and control) and the Governor's seats (Democrats +7). If current margins hold up, which looks likely, the Republicans significantly overperformed in the Senate (That would be +5. RCP had them at +2). Mitch McConnell will have a bigger vote margin than Nancy Pelosi.

J

It'll be 229 or 230 dems in the house, that means they have a 12 vote margin. What are you talking about ??

 

[rah]

What is still disappointing is that the Openly Nazi candidate running as a republican in an Illinois state house race still got 50,000 votes out of the 200,000. Now granted that still a devastating lose but you have to wonder. Out of the 50K, how many were because they voted for him because he was a republican and were so clueless that they didn't know he was a NAZi or because they knew he was one.

Why I know everyone should have the right to vote, sometimes you question that.

 

[metalhead]

It'll be 229 or 230 dems in the house, that means they have a 12 vote margin. What are you talking about ??

Interestingly, the Democrats' %age of seats in the House will only be about 1% and change lower than their %age margin in the national House popular vote - and could actually be higher if all the current 50-50 races tip their way.

I assume that gerrymandering is probably a lot less effective for Republicans when there is high turnout for House races, plus there has been significant realignment of electoral coalitions since 2010. A lot of their own districts have gotten significantly more packed with their own voters, on account of the pronounced shift away from the GOP among educated, high-income suburbanites.

Also, don't mind J. He has basic comprehension issues. The vote margin matters not. It's control of the committees that matters the next 2 years, and they only need a 1 vote margin for that.

 

[AdrienIer]

In 2014 the republican win was by less than 6 points (51 to 45), yet the seat percentage was 57/43. In 2016 it was 49/48 in popular vote in the house and 55/45 in seat percentage. This time the democrats got a lesser victory in the percentage of seats than in the percentage of votes. It's always skewed towards the same party, and I don't really get your optimism

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Interestingly, the Democrats' %age of seats in the House will only be about 1% and change lower than their %age margin in the national House popular vote - and could actually be higher if all the current 50-50 races tip their way.

I assume that gerrymandering is probably a lot less effective for Republicans when there is high turnout for House races, plus there has been significant realignment of electoral coalitions since 2010. A lot of their own districts have gotten significantly more packed with their own voters, on account of the pronounced shift away from the GOP among educated, high-income suburbanites.

Also, don't mind J. He has basic comprehension issues. The vote margin matters not. It's control of the committees that matters the next 2 years, and they only need a 1 vote margin for that.

Well we can't count on high turnout unfortunately. And when so many elections come down to razor thin margins, the baked-in advantage Republicans have given themselves through voter suppression and gerrymandering makes them tough to beat. And it's not like they have to gift themselves ironclad margins by taking suprression and gerrymandering to extremes.

They only have to give themselves enough advantage to hold onto enough power to keep the Democrats from undoing their mess. This split congressional decision is a great example - while the Democrats will be launching endless Trump investigations that won't go anywhere for two years, the Republicans will be busy stacking the courts with their appointees who will reinforce their various power grabs for decades to come.

I did not expect Democrats to take the Senate but I also did not expect them to lose seats. I think we have crossed the tipping point for one-party rule. It'll be impossible to tell for a few years but I think last night was our last chance to fix this mess. We take it for a given that Trump will go down in 2020 - but most people were doing that in 2016 as well.

 

[onejayhawk]

It'll be 229 or 230 dems in the house, that means they have a 12 vote margin. What are you talking about ??

13 or 15 if your numbers are correct.

I overlooked that in California both candidates can be Democrats. Currently, the Democrats have 220 to the Republicans 195. However, there are several races with no Republican on the ballot. None are pick-ups but they are guaranteed Democratic holds.

A House margin of 15 is still thin, but not claustrophobic.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I overlooked that in California both candidates can be Democrats

This doesn't explain how badly you were wrong. Were you posting stormfront projections or what?

 

[onejayhawk]

This doesn't explain how badly you were wrong. Were you posting stormfront projections or what?

It completely explains it. The left column is Democrat and in most cases the right column is Republican. Four of the leaders in the right column were tallied as Republican when they were actually Democrats.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So somehow four = ten to fifteen

Just drop it dude you're embarrassing yourself

Quoting to account for the inevitable edit

It completely explains it. The left column is Democrat and in most cases the right column is Republican. Four of the leaders in the right column were tallied as Republican when they were actually Democrats.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

So somehow four = ten to fifteen Just drop it dude you're embarrassing yourself

You know better than this.

Flipping a vote is a net margin change of 2. Flipping four votes is a margin change of eight. Five or seven becomes 13 or 15.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Fair enough

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Apparently the total Senate votes were about 44 million for the Democrats and 33 million for the Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ve-over-million-more-senate-votes-still-lose/

Clearly this is a fair and rational system

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I'm not entirely sure what to do about the senate. Barring a recession, Republicans have it now pretty safe through 2020 and 2022. This either means a full 8 years of Trump court packing with far right conspiratorial bigots, or on the off chance Trump loses in 2020, a Dem president who Republicans will probably escalate against by simply refusing appointment votes.