2018 U.S election

[Berzerker]

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.

I think since its based on future census data it involves the chance a state may or may not meet the thresh hold for an additional seat so there's some leeway.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think since its based on future census data it involves the chance a state may or may not meet the thresh hold for an additional seat so there's some leeway.

Except there isn't any leeway. Every seat gained has to come from somewhere.

 

[Berzerker]

there's gotta be a rational explanation

 

[Broken_Erika]

Gerrymandering?

 

[Berzerker]

that wouldn't change the number of districts, just how the state's population is divvied up

now I'm more curious as to why their numbers dont match up

 

[Broken_Erika]

is "electiondataservices" a government service?

 

[Berzerker]

I doubt it... I did get this from the study

"The states marked by “&” are those where
only one of the multiple projection lines
showed a change. All other states were consistent in multiple projections."

just below the predictions

so they're using multiple projections, but thats strange

 

[Kyriakos]

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.

What happens if neither democrats nor republicans get the number of state votes they need to become the ruling party? Is there any ability to form alliances with a third party that has won a state/a few states?

 

[onejayhawk]

What happens if neither democrats nor republicans get the number of state votes they need to become the ruling party? Is there any ability to form alliances with a third party that has won a state/a few states?

You are close to seeing that now. The Republican hold on the Senate can barely get smaller. It comes down to who can poach a vote from the other side, eg John McCain on the ACA repeal.

The winner-takes-the-prize nature of elections forces the two-party system. As a practical matter, you must align with one or the other.

J

 

[Zkribbler]

What happens if neither democrats nor republicans get the number of state votes they need to become the ruling party? Is there any ability to form alliances with a third party that has won a state/a few states?

If you're talking about the Presidency, our Constitution sets up a really weird system. If there's a tie in the Electoral College, the election is tossed into the House of Representatives, where each state's congressmen caucus and decide how to cast their state's one vote.

In congressional elections, ties don't matter. If, say, the Senate is tied 50/50, then eh bien, it's tied 50/50. Each senator decides how (s)he will vote. There is no formal requirement that they adhere to the party line.

 

[Lexicus]

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.

If the Republicans are allowed sole control of the government during the 2020 census, there will be no more free and fair elections in the United States.

 

[Berzerker]

the courts are already stepping in to block gerrymandering

will the new census be done at the end of 2020 and before a new congress is sworn in?

 

[Arwon]

Inasmuch as they are currently free and fair, which is to say, not particularly.

This ruling seems a pretty catastrophic blow to efforts to prevent further slide away from democracy - https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/11/politics/supreme-court-husted-ohio/index.html

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Inasmuch as they are currently free and fair, which is to say, not particularly.

This ruling seems a pretty catastrophic blow to efforts to prevent further slide away from democracy - https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/11/politics/supreme-court-husted-ohio/index.html

Compared to a lot of other things that are going on I'd call that a minor blow. Which speaks a whole lot more about the other things that are going on. I would only be mildly surprised if Trump and the Republican congress announced sometime this summer that due to the government's inability to ensure the integrity of the electoral process the midterm election will have to be delayed.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If the Republicans are allowed sole control of the government during the 2020 census, there will be no more free and fair elections in the United States.

the courts are already stepping in to block gerrymandering

will the new census be done at the end of 2020 and before a new congress is sworn in?

You know what's even more effective than gerrymandering? Deliberately undercounting the population in the census. The new census won't be complete until around 2021 but the Republicans are already changing the rules of how the census is operated and what questions they ask and massively underfunding it in order to make sure it doesn't work or works to their advantage.

Compared to a lot of other things that are going on I'd call that a minor blow. Which speaks a whole lot more about the other things that are going on. I would only be mildly surprised if Trump and the Republican congress announced sometime this summer that due to the government's inability to ensure the integrity of the electoral process the midterm election will have to be delayed.

They've already floated the idea in the last round of special elections that they lost so yeah, I do find this plausible.

 

[Lexicus]

You know what's even more effective than gerrymandering? Deliberately undercounting the population in the census. The new census won't be complete until around 2021 but the Republicans are already changing the rules of how the census is operated and what questions they ask and massively underfunding it in order to make sure it doesn't work or works to their advantage.

Well, quite.

This ruling seems a pretty catastrophic blow to efforts to prevent further slide away from democracy - https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/11/politics/supreme-court-husted-ohio/index.html

Given the fact that we can take control of Congress and the state legislatures much faster than we can take control of the Supreme Court and lower courts, this doesn't really make it more difficult to change the status quo.

 

[onejayhawk]

Here is a 2015 article on new seats, based on multiple projections.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/updated-2020-reapportionment-projections/

For those interested, here is the Census page on redistricting.
https://www.census.gov/rdo/program_phases/2020_census_redistricting_data_program.html

And something more user-friendly.
https://www.census.gov/rdo/pdf/TheViewFromTheStates_2020.pdf

Given the fact that we can take control of Congress and the state legislatures much faster than we can take control of the Supreme Court and lower courts, this doesn't really make it more difficult to change the status quo.

Therein is the Republican strategy since about 1974. At that point, they had only the White House and that was temporary. Democrats had an iron grip on Congress and the most liberal Supreme Court in History.

The Republicans put more resources into state-level candidates and infrastructure. Reagan flipped the south in 1980, but it took 20 years to retake Congress. Long before GW Bush was President, he was instrumental in amassing over 2/3 of the Governor's seats. Except for a short period, the Republicans have maintained equality in Congress, usually with a small edge. The last decade has seen over 1000 state-level seat flip to Republican. The thing that upsets thinking Democrats most is what this administration is doing and will do to the judiciary.

A lot of people look at Trump as a one-off, because his own party does not like him. They are not seeing the generations of spade work in which his tree was planted. The Republican distaste is personal, because they love what Trump is doing. A lot of trading has gone into the last 40-50 years. Trump is using main force and giving the Democrats very little.

If what you say is accurate, prepare yourself for a lot of wandering in the wilderness.

J

 

[AdrienIer]

The senate election is really strange. Currently it could end up at 42/58 or 52/48 for D/R or anything in between. And the house is even more uncertain. The democrats better not fall on their face in the last weeks of campaigning like in 2016.

I've taken a look at the 2020 seats as well, and if all goes normally (the dems choose an at least ok candidate for presidency, that candidate beats Trump rather easily but not with Obama 08 margins) the dems can target CO NC GA and IA, while being mostly in danger in AL. That could make the senate a lot more safe for them going into the 2020s

 

[Zkribbler]

Prognosticator of Prognosticators Nate Silver sets the odds of the Democrats taking the House at 5 in 6 while their odds of taking the Senate are 1 in 3. He sets out two possible paths for a Dem Senate.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/

I, however, have my eye set on a third path, centered on Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke.
Beto is currently the underdog, but he's set his sights on what he needs to win. Demographically, Texas is a near twin to California. The reason Texas is a solidly red state while California is a solidly blue state is that in Texas, Hispanics don't vote while in California, they do. And when they vote, the vote heavily Democratic. Beto is making a massive effort to register and turn out the Hispanic vote.

A poll by NBC News and Marist released last week had O’Rourke trailing by just 4 percentage points. An electronic poll released by Emerson College on Monday had the two candidates nearly tied, with Ted Cruz at 38 percent against O’Rourke’s 37 percent and more than a fifth of respondents undecided. So as Beto closes in on Cruz, the GOP is taking more and more money out of other Senate Races to prop him up.

The more successful Beto becomes, the more other GOP candidates will be defunded. This could lead to a cascade effect, wherein the GOP will lose numerous senate seats.

 

[metatron]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/2018-u-s-election.633084/
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/us-senate-2018.606130/

I appreciate your effort. I really do.

Also, i am from the Monk country and deeply troubled by this disorder.

Ok, i should add something to the thread... well... in line with my earlier remarks:
This is the derp (i refuse to commit his name to memory):

He's up a point or two against Heidi Heitkamp... and i can't believe that he is.