2018 U.S election

[Takhisis]

I think he's making a California based argument. I mean, it caters right to my particular prejudices, but even I'm hackling. MetroCalifornia professional white people thing, maybe? I have a hard time believing the hispanic population would have been rendered so fundamentally inept. Dunno, maybe they've gotten richer since I was last paying attention?

I wouldn't know.

Federal courts, yup. Ratifies treaties at 2/3rds vote, too.

Having to choose whether to focus on the House or the Senate is a bit of a pick-your-poison thing.

Thank the 10th Amendment for that. The Constitution is largely silent on how state elections are to be held and the 10th Amendment says any power not specifically granted to the federal government goes to the states and/or the people. That means the states are largely allowed to write their own election laws as long as they aren't blatantly unconstitutional.

Well, besides the argument that the U.S. Constitution protects democracy and state legislation often prevents poor people, blacks, injuns and what-not from voting, I can also say that since this is an election to federal government office state governments shouldn't be in charge of doing it anymore. When I was in university I read about how Latin American constitutions were modelled after the U.S. one, but right now the implementation in the US stinks of what it was down here in the late 19th century.

So you'll admit

I stopped reading after that. The answer is no.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think he's making a California based argument. I mean, it caters right to my particular prejudices, but even I'm hackling. MetroCalifornia professional white people thing, maybe? I have a hard time believing the hispanic population would have been rendered so fundamentally inept. Dunno, maybe they've gotten richer since I was last paying attention?

Professional, yes. Universally white, no. It may be a California thing though I guess. There is a whole lot of "my status image relies on being above even learning the basics of how things work...I have people for that" in California. A friend of mine just involved me in a remodel of a custom built multi-million dollar home where the homeowner mentioned wanting to replace their built in refrigerator "if only that could be done." The guy who was doing the bid had to bite his tongue to avoid saying "yeah, we'd have to totally demolish the house and start from scratch." I think the customer was just trying to call attention to his cool built in fridge that sets him above us mere plebes with our uncouth boxes with wheels on the bottom, but it was hard to tell. He wasn't there when we stripped off two cabinetry panels and rolled his old built in out since it has wheels on the bottom anyway, but if that was it he'd have been disappointed.

Your prejudices are probably justified, though they don't apply universally.

 

[Farm Boy]

Having to choose whether to focus on the House or the Senate is a bit of a pick-your-poison thing.

Tim seems to think so, at any rate.

I think he might need to hang with cooler people than his locale seems to suggest.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Arizona is breaking for the Democrat in its Senate race.

Arizona's laws state that mail in ballots have to have arrived by election day to count. Being postmarked before that day doesn't matter. The process they go through to verify and count these ballots is famously long and drawn out so it may take a week for the final tally.

The Republicans have asked to throw out all ballots from targeted, Dem-leaning counties that haven't already been counted, even if they arrived before the deadline. They are also acting as if this drawn out count (which happens every cycle in Arizona) is some last minute Democratic ploy to steal the election and not just a normal occurrence.

Because of course they are.

@onejayhawk
Even removing half of California's Senate vote count still puts them Dems up by what, 7 million give or take? Get the hell out of here with your real-time revisionist history.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you look at House race votes by state, the electoral map looks like the 2012 map.

 

[Dachs]

@onejayhawk
Even removing half of California's Senate vote count still puts them Dems up by what, 7 million give or take? Get the hell out of here with your real-time revisionist history.

California has a jungle primary system. Republicans were free to contest it. They did not put up a good showing, because the Republican Party in California is a sad, shriveled husk. None of that stops California's Democratic voters from being, y'know, voters.

 

[Zkribbler]

... the 10th Amendment says any power not specifically granted to the federal government goes to the states and/or the people.

It does not contain the word "specifically," which puts it into a perpetual dance with the "necessary and proper" clause.

 

[Farm Boy]

California has a jungle primary system. Republicans were free to contest it. They did not put up a good showing, because the Republican Party in California is a sad, shriveled husk. None of that stops California's Democratic voters from being, y'know, voters.

Of course they are. But if you follow this particular subthought of the thread, it spawns from what was, I think, originally a European article/confusion about how could the Democrats have gotten 50 some percent of the vote on the 6th and still not control the Senate? At which point, there was as correction from Sampson, sorting out that due to the winner takes all system, which does throw some Europeans, and the fact that only about 1/3 of senate seats are up in a given election, the Democrats actually won a higher percentage of the Senate seats, as opposed to the Republicans, by their percentages of the vote. Now if you're going to compare seats won on 11/06/18 D to R and toss that alongside votes cast D to R on 11/06/18, one must account for the fact that the largest total amount of votes in play for a senate seat(again which throws some Europeans) is an unusual format, a jungle primary(which is fine) which California has implemented in such a way that there was no Republican on the ballot to cast votes for. If it wasn't a jungle primary in CA, and was a primary like most of the rest of the country, CA is big enough to skew the total number of votes up a significant amount for Rs while the percent of seats won would stay the same. Too much attention to detail? I don't think it changes with any but the most vapid narratives, does it?

 

[Bootstoots]

Tell you what, let's add up the 2018, 2016, and 2014 Senate popular vote totals. That way we get a 50-state sample, representing all 100 seats. I'll treat the California elections as if the losing Democrat was a third-party candidate, not adding their votes to either party's column.

Vote totals in thousands, 2018's obviously preliminary. Order is D-R

2018: 39457 - 30553
2016: 46835 - 40424
2014: 19553 - 22480
Total: 105845 - 93457 (53.1% - 46.9% of two-party total)

If you want, I can be more charitable to the Republicans by acting as if the losing CA Democrats were actually Republicans. This would add 7597 thousand votes to the GOP column, changing the percentages to 51.2% - 48.8% in the Dems' favor.

No matter how you slice it, the Democrats won the Senate popular vote and had this translate to 46-47 seats, depending on how Arizona works out.

 

[JollyRoger]

Half the House Republicans that wrote the tax cut bill will be out of office when the new Congress is seated.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Of course they are. But if you follow this particular subthought of the thread, it spawns from what was, I think, originally a European article/confusion about how could the Democrats have gotten 50 some percent of the vote on the 6th and still not control the Senate? At which point, there was as correction from Sampson, sorting out that(due to the winner takes all system, which does throw some Europeans) the Democrats actually won a higher percentage of the Senate seats, as opposed to the Republicans, by their percentages of the vote. Now if you're going to compare seats won on 11/06/18 D to R and toss that alongside votes cast D to R on 11/06/18, one must account for the fact that the largest total amount of votes in play for a senate seat(again which throws some Europeans) is an usual format, a jungle primary(which is fine) which California has implemented in such a way that there was no Republican on the ballot to cast votes for. If it wasn't a jungle primary in CA, and was a primary like most of the rest of the country, CA is big enough to skew the total number of votes up significantly for Rs while the percent of seats won would stay the same. Too much attention to detail? I don't think it changes with any but the most vapid narratives, does it?

Removing double-counted (in effect, not reality) Californians would likely bring the win margin more in line with the number of Senate seats the Democrats picked up.

It isn't as if the Republicans regularly get a million+ less House vites and still come out ahead and also lost the popular Presidential vote twice in as many decades yet took the prize due to the EC.

You also imply California chose the jungle primary system to shut out Republicans.

 

[Farm Boy]

And that is, of course, also true. And statistically different! Which is why the slice of geography and economic diversity the Democratic party wins regularly(and recently harder and harder) is too damned narrow. That is what the Senate does by design. States are no damn joke depite what the economies of consumption despise. Maybe they'll win harder tomorrow today, sometime. That seems to be the gameplan.

 

[Takhisis]

If you look at House race votes by state, the electoral map looks like the 2012 map.

So what changed?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

All glory to @Bootstoots for the effort he went to in order to combat the Fake News

 

[JollyRoger]

Can we at least consolidate the Dakotas?

 

[Farm Boy]

They're the same districts, so, larger margins of victory in less districts won. If looking at the blue colored ones?

*At which point I'm tempted to make the joke, in light of the exchange with Tim, that it's a function of pure concentrated stupid**.

**But I get the feeling that the implied backhand that polarization is concentrating stupid on both sides is going to be lost in an increasingly dumb*** conversational environment on this particular slice of issue.

***

 

[Bootstoots]

All glory to @Bootstoots for the effort he went to in order to combat the Fake News

And just try to revoke my credentials!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

But I get the feeling that the implied backhand that polarization is concentrating stupid on both sides is going to be lost in an increasingly dumb*** conversational environment on this particular slice of issue.

Thanks for playing. I guess?

Not really sure how to avoid reading this as anything but an insult to everyone.

 

[Farm Boy]

I do like numbers. I just get the feeling that people who should be better with numbers frequently choose not to be. That was the conversational environment jab. Not a swipe at you Boots. Made the mistake of reading articles. They're bad and the people who like them are bad.

Can we at least consolidate the Dakotas?

Given that the possibel 51st, if ever, is Puerto Rico, the states that are the biggest problems are the beheamoths. More feasible to even it out(some) by splitting CA, NY, or TX probably, than try and nuke a Dakota.

 

[Dachs]

Of course they are. But if you follow this particular subthought of the thread, it spawns from what was, I think, originally a European article/confusion about how could the Democrats have gotten 50 some percent of the vote on the 6th and still not control the Senate? At which point, there was as correction from Sampson, sorting out that due to the winner takes all system, which does throw some Europeans, and the fact that only about 1/3 of senate seats are up in a given election, the Democrats actually won a higher percentage of the Senate seats, as opposed to the Republicans, by their percentages of the vote. Now if you're going to compare seats won on 11/06/18 D to R and toss that alongside votes cast D to R on 11/06/18, one must account for the fact that the largest total amount of votes in play for a senate seat(again which throws some Europeans) is an unusual format, a jungle primary(which is fine) which California has implemented in such a way that there was no Republican on the ballot to cast votes for. If it wasn't a jungle primary in CA, and was a primary like most of the rest of the country, CA is big enough to skew the total number of votes up a significant amount for Rs while the percent of seats won would stay the same. Too much attention to detail? I don't think it changes with any but the most vapid narratives, does it?

I am unable to follow the entire subthought for...technical reasons. I'm sure you'll understand if I don't elaborate.

That said, yes, that particular complaint about number of votes cast for Senate candidates this cycle is off base for basically those reasons. (I agree with what @hobbsyoyo pointed out as well.) The Democratic voters who are making the complaint are conflating it with the much more valid complaint about the Electoral College and popular vote in 2016. Unfortunately, the most common response by Republicans thus far on most social media is vague whining about the Left Coast, rather than coherent thoughts as seen above.