|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 07 2018 13:25 ghrur wrote:
It's actually really scary that the House of Representatives, the chamber aimed to be representative of the people, shows something like +8% of the votes in favor of Democrats while their house majority will be something around +3-4%. Doesn't seem very... representative. Honestly, Idk why geography should play into House elections and have such a large impact. Really, that should be left to the Senate.
The states control their districts, not the federal government. The states elect their representatives and send them to the house/senate.
And yes, that system is super flawed and leads to abuse like we see today. There is a push at in a number of states to have independent commission set the districts.
|
On November 07 2018 13:21 JimmiC wrote:
This feels like an election that both parties are call it a victory.
pretty much my feel. very confident democrats will be so happy after 8 years that they over do it. It would be just such a Democrat thing to do.
On November 07 2018 13:23 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 13:19 Introvert wrote:On November 07 2018 13:04 Doodsmack wrote:On November 07 2018 13:01 Introvert wrote:
Gillum using the race card so much was so off putting, nah, disgusting, very happy.
This is nothing like 2010, just history repeating itself (House flipping). But excellent night in the Senate. The GOP needs to handle its suburban problem, but they seem acutely aware of that, and I hope Trump is as well. He said something like that recently.
Also lots of lefties ran as moderates and won, fun to see if they follow their heart or their brain when House Democrats start raining subpoenas and left wing legislation down on everyone.
btw, the House flip doesnt have any sort of precedent for presidential elections. The record is all over the place. I'm sure trump will be on top of that nuance right away. I am very curious. I think he might when thr Dems go crazy and could try to be the sane one. wont be hard, If he wants to do it. You have learned absolutely nothing if you think Trump is capable of change.
but, he has changed, a noticeable amount. i'm not the blind one here.
edit: tweet not showing in my browser for some reason, but it's there.
|
Dems look to be picking up 7 governorships, so that is quite nice.
Think we are on track for a 30 seat pickup in the House.
|
On November 07 2018 13:26 Plansix wrote:
Edit: Ok, no person who follows politics and understands how elections work expected +40 seats.
It was the average result predicted by Nate Silver?
|
On November 07 2018 13:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 13:26 Plansix wrote:
Edit: Ok, no person who follows politics and understands how elections work expected +40 seats. It was the average result predicted by Nate Silver?
Nah, their final model predicted +36 Dem seats. You might be referring to their live model, but that was poorly tuned from the get go.
|
On November 07 2018 13:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 13:26 Plansix wrote:
Edit: Ok, no person who follows politics and understands how elections work expected +40 seats. It was the average result predicted by Nate Silver?
I rest my case then.
|
On November 07 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 13:25 ghrur wrote:
It's actually really scary that the House of Representatives, the chamber aimed to be representative of the people, shows something like +8% of the votes in favor of Democrats while their house majority will be something around +3-4%. Doesn't seem very... representative. Honestly, Idk why geography should play into House elections and have such a large impact. Really, that should be left to the Senate. The states control their districts, not the federal government. The states elect their representatives and send them to the house/senate. And yes, that system is super flawed and leads to abuse like we see today. There is a push at in a number of states to have independent commission set the districts.
It's not just because of the state level. The national level is flawed too. California has 12.15% of the country's population, but only 11.5% of the representatives. The current system basically has Californian voters giving away their voting powers to low population states even in the one chamber that's supposed to be representative of the populace. Basically... >435 please.
|
On November 07 2018 13:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 13:31 Nebuchad wrote:On November 07 2018 13:26 Plansix wrote:
Edit: Ok, no person who follows politics and understands how elections work expected +40 seats. It was the average result predicted by Nate Silver? Nah, their final model predicted +36 Dem seats. You might be referring to their live model, but that was poorly tuned from the get go.
I mean 36 is close enough. When I wrote this I thought you were on the way to 25, but if Iowa continues to hold you might still get a decent result.
|
On November 07 2018 13:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 13:21 JimmiC wrote:
This feels like an election that both parties are call it a victory. pretty much my feel. very confident democrats will be so happy after 8 years that they over do it. It would be just such a Democrat thing to do. https://twitter.com/jimgeraghty/status/1060018118880387072Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 13:23 Doodsmack wrote:On November 07 2018 13:19 Introvert wrote:On November 07 2018 13:04 Doodsmack wrote:On November 07 2018 13:01 Introvert wrote:
Gillum using the race card so much was so off putting, nah, disgusting, very happy.
This is nothing like 2010, just history repeating itself (House flipping). But excellent night in the Senate. The GOP needs to handle its suburban problem, but they seem acutely aware of that, and I hope Trump is as well. He said something like that recently.
Also lots of lefties ran as moderates and won, fun to see if they follow their heart or their brain when House Democrats start raining subpoenas and left wing legislation down on everyone.
btw, the House flip doesnt have any sort of precedent for presidential elections. The record is all over the place. I'm sure trump will be on top of that nuance right away. I am very curious. I think he might when thr Dems go crazy and could try to be the sane one. wont be hard, If he wants to do it. You have learned absolutely nothing if you think Trump is capable of change. but, he has changed, a noticeable amount. i'm not the blind one here. edit: tweet not showing in my browser for some reason, but it's there.
Citation needed.
|
If Walker holds I will be even happier after tonight. Another person the left hates, maybe able to squeak it out.
Dems do what the out party does in midterms, while the Senate look good, and the state level is alright for the GOP and well. 2020 has a lot of red states, but they are very red, and in presidential election years, they will prob stay that way.
with a president like trump, many were hoping a wipe out ala 2010. not so.
meanwhile Democrats running as moderates won lots of red seats. the presidential race, however, isnt set up that way. I'm so interested in how the next two years go on. if trump can hover at 45%ish percent...
for some context
|
On November 07 2018 14:36 Introvert wrote:If Walker holds I will be even happier after tonight. Another person the left hates, maybe able to squeak it out. Dems do what the out party does in midterms, while the Senate look good, and the state level is alright for the GOP and well. 2020 has a lot of red states, but they are very red, and in presidential election years, they will prob stay that way. with a president like trump, many were hoping a wipe out ala 2010. not so. meanwhile Democrats running as moderates won lots of red seats. the presidential race, however, isnt set up that way. I'm so interested in how the next two years go on. if trump can hover at 45%ish percent... for some context https://twitter.com/jabeale/status/1059973986526920704
If we're interpreting public opinion, why not use popular vote totals rather than number of seats changed? Otherwise you could just be reading how tough a map it was, how gerrymandered it was, how many seats they had to lose, or some similar confounding factor.
|
Decent result.Extra senate seats make it easier to push through new supreme court nominees and voter id legislation passing in some states is a long overdue victory.
|
On November 07 2018 14:51 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 14:36 Introvert wrote:If Walker holds I will be even happier after tonight. Another person the left hates, maybe able to squeak it out. Dems do what the out party does in midterms, while the Senate look good, and the state level is alright for the GOP and well. 2020 has a lot of red states, but they are very red, and in presidential election years, they will prob stay that way. with a president like trump, many were hoping a wipe out ala 2010. not so. meanwhile Democrats running as moderates won lots of red seats. the presidential race, however, isnt set up that way. I'm so interested in how the next two years go on. if trump can hover at 45%ish percent... for some context https://twitter.com/jabeale/status/1059973986526920704 If we're interpreting public opinion, why not use popular vote totals rather than number of seats changed? Otherwise you could just be reading how tough a map it was, how gerrymandered it was, how many seats they had to lose, or some similar confounding factor.
because that isnt how we do elections? seems like a hard concept for some. also any popular vote result that doesnt account that CA has a primary system where the top two can be Democrats doesnt matter anyways. and trump at 45 is based on recent polls. again, this election looks a lot like a regular midterm, besides the Senate. on to the next fight.
I feel good about where we are anyways. the most radical of the Democrats lost most races, while the moderates won. should be a good lesson going forwards. and expect the GOP to learn from the Democrats on the fundraising, I'm sure that put many of these people over the top. GOP dont let the Democrats be the best st something for long.
|
In one sense the House doesn't matter so much because the Republica house couldn't get anything done anyway. Still a significant victory, and the most significant result of the midterms.
|
On November 07 2018 15:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 14:51 ChristianS wrote:On November 07 2018 14:36 Introvert wrote:If Walker holds I will be even happier after tonight. Another person the left hates, maybe able to squeak it out. Dems do what the out party does in midterms, while the Senate look good, and the state level is alright for the GOP and well. 2020 has a lot of red states, but they are very red, and in presidential election years, they will prob stay that way. with a president like trump, many were hoping a wipe out ala 2010. not so. meanwhile Democrats running as moderates won lots of red seats. the presidential race, however, isnt set up that way. I'm so interested in how the next two years go on. if trump can hover at 45%ish percent... for some context https://twitter.com/jabeale/status/1059973986526920704 If we're interpreting public opinion, why not use popular vote totals rather than number of seats changed? Otherwise you could just be reading how tough a map it was, how gerrymandered it was, how many seats they had to lose, or some similar confounding factor. because that isnt how we do elections? seems like a hard concept for some. also any popular vote result that doesnt account that CA has a primary system where the top two can be Democrats doesnt matter anyways. and trump at 45 is based on recent polls. again, this election looks a lot like a regular midterm, besides the Senate. on to the next fight. I feel good about where we are anyways. the most radical of the Democrats lost most races, while the moderates won. should be a good lesson going forwards. and expect the GOP to learn from the Democrats on the fundraising, I'm sure that put many of these people over the top. GOP dont let the Democrats be the best st something for long.
But you're not talking about how we do elections, you're talking about whether voters repudiated Trump's agenda. CA issues aside, popular vote is the most straightforward way to answer what the voters thought. Net seat change is really weirdly roundabout - the number is just as affected by how poorly the minority party did last time as how well they did this time. In the extreme case Republicans could have won every seat last time, and Democrats could flip 217 (!) seats. By your measure that would be the biggest repudiation of the President's agenda of all time - and yet they wouldn't even have taken a majority!
The "typical midterm" line is strange too, considering a "typical midterm" is a repudiation of the President's agenda. Maybe it's not a record-breaking repudiation, but at a bare minimum if voters favored the opposition party by 8 points, it's almost tautological to say that reflects them opposing the party in power.
|
On November 07 2018 15:22 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 15:09 Introvert wrote:On November 07 2018 14:51 ChristianS wrote:On November 07 2018 14:36 Introvert wrote:If Walker holds I will be even happier after tonight. Another person the left hates, maybe able to squeak it out. Dems do what the out party does in midterms, while the Senate look good, and the state level is alright for the GOP and well. 2020 has a lot of red states, but they are very red, and in presidential election years, they will prob stay that way. with a president like trump, many were hoping a wipe out ala 2010. not so. meanwhile Democrats running as moderates won lots of red seats. the presidential race, however, isnt set up that way. I'm so interested in how the next two years go on. if trump can hover at 45%ish percent... for some context https://twitter.com/jabeale/status/1059973986526920704 If we're interpreting public opinion, why not use popular vote totals rather than number of seats changed? Otherwise you could just be reading how tough a map it was, how gerrymandered it was, how many seats they had to lose, or some similar confounding factor. because that isnt how we do elections? seems like a hard concept for some. also any popular vote result that doesnt account that CA has a primary system where the top two can be Democrats doesnt matter anyways. and trump at 45 is based on recent polls. again, this election looks a lot like a regular midterm, besides the Senate. on to the next fight. I feel good about where we are anyways. the most radical of the Democrats lost most races, while the moderates won. should be a good lesson going forwards. and expect the GOP to learn from the Democrats on the fundraising, I'm sure that put many of these people over the top. GOP dont let the Democrats be the best st something for long. But you're not talking about how we do elections, you're talking about whether voters repudiated Trump's agenda. CA issues aside, popular vote is the most straightforward way to answer what the voters thought. Net seat change is really weirdly roundabout - the number is just as affected by how poorly the minority party did last time as how well they did this time. In the extreme case Republicans could have won every seat last time, and Democrats could flip 217 (!) seats. By your measure that would be the biggest repudiation of the President's agenda of all time - and yet they wouldn't even have taken a majority! The "typical midterm" line is strange too, considering a "typical midterm" is a repudiation of the President's agenda. Maybe it's not a record-breaking repudiation, but at a bare minimum if voters favored the opposition party by 8 points, it's almost tautological to say that reflects them opposing the party in power.
you haven't made the case for why the national total should matter at all. there are hundreds of individual elections. to determine if there is the national vote matters you have to work out if that fact affected anything. the fact that people are voting in local elections matters. I'm sure you can argue for the national vote mattering, but it's not self-evident, at least in most cases.
|
On November 07 2018 14:36 Introvert wrote:If Walker holds I will be even happier after tonight. Another person the left hates, maybe able to squeak it out. Dems do what the out party does in midterms, while the Senate look good, and the state level is alright for the GOP and well. 2020 has a lot of red states, but they are very red, and in presidential election years, they will prob stay that way. with a president like trump, many were hoping a wipe out ala 2010. not so. meanwhile Democrats running as moderates won lots of red seats. the presidential race, however, isnt set up that way. I'm so interested in how the next two years go on. if trump can hover at 45%ish percent... for some context https://twitter.com/jabeale/status/1059973986526920704
As someone who lives in WI, please tell you have a reason for supporting Walker that goes past "the left hates." He has completely messed up the state. But I guess who cares about the state as long as the left hates the person in charge, right?
Maybe the left hates Walker because he is really really bad and should be hated. Is that truly a valid reason to support someone?
|
Hahahaha, so Ewers and Walker were running neck and neck, then Milwaukee just dropped 40k of absentees which favored Ewers like 6:1. That's gotta hurt.
RIP.
|
On November 07 2018 15:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 15:22 ChristianS wrote:On November 07 2018 15:09 Introvert wrote:On November 07 2018 14:51 ChristianS wrote:On November 07 2018 14:36 Introvert wrote:If Walker holds I will be even happier after tonight. Another person the left hates, maybe able to squeak it out. Dems do what the out party does in midterms, while the Senate look good, and the state level is alright for the GOP and well. 2020 has a lot of red states, but they are very red, and in presidential election years, they will prob stay that way. with a president like trump, many were hoping a wipe out ala 2010. not so. meanwhile Democrats running as moderates won lots of red seats. the presidential race, however, isnt set up that way. I'm so interested in how the next two years go on. if trump can hover at 45%ish percent... for some context https://twitter.com/jabeale/status/1059973986526920704 If we're interpreting public opinion, why not use popular vote totals rather than number of seats changed? Otherwise you could just be reading how tough a map it was, how gerrymandered it was, how many seats they had to lose, or some similar confounding factor. because that isnt how we do elections? seems like a hard concept for some. also any popular vote result that doesnt account that CA has a primary system where the top two can be Democrats doesnt matter anyways. and trump at 45 is based on recent polls. again, this election looks a lot like a regular midterm, besides the Senate. on to the next fight. I feel good about where we are anyways. the most radical of the Democrats lost most races, while the moderates won. should be a good lesson going forwards. and expect the GOP to learn from the Democrats on the fundraising, I'm sure that put many of these people over the top. GOP dont let the Democrats be the best st something for long. But you're not talking about how we do elections, you're talking about whether voters repudiated Trump's agenda. CA issues aside, popular vote is the most straightforward way to answer what the voters thought. Net seat change is really weirdly roundabout - the number is just as affected by how poorly the minority party did last time as how well they did this time. In the extreme case Republicans could have won every seat last time, and Democrats could flip 217 (!) seats. By your measure that would be the biggest repudiation of the President's agenda of all time - and yet they wouldn't even have taken a majority! The "typical midterm" line is strange too, considering a "typical midterm" is a repudiation of the President's agenda. Maybe it's not a record-breaking repudiation, but at a bare minimum if voters favored the opposition party by 8 points, it's almost tautological to say that reflects them opposing the party in power. you haven't made the case for why the national total should matter at all. there are hundreds of individual elections. to determine if there is the national vote matters you have to work out if that fact affected anything. the fact that people are voting in local elections matters. I'm sure you can argue for the national vote mattering, but it's not self-evident, at least in most cases.
The national vote total is a better reflection of that nebulous concept called "the will of the people" than the ratio of actual winners, because first past the post across a series of parallel elections can cause the percent of offices won to diverge from the percent of votes won. You should be making the case that the results of our antiquated system of apportioning offices based on frequently redrawn geographic areas is a better way of measuring what voters actually want than just looking at the total number of votes, not the other way around.
|
On November 07 2018 13:37 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:On November 07 2018 13:25 ghrur wrote:
It's actually really scary that the House of Representatives, the chamber aimed to be representative of the people, shows something like +8% of the votes in favor of Democrats while their house majority will be something around +3-4%. Doesn't seem very... representative. Honestly, Idk why geography should play into House elections and have such a large impact. Really, that should be left to the Senate. The states control their districts, not the federal government. The states elect their representatives and send them to the house/senate. And yes, that system is super flawed and leads to abuse like we see today. There is a push at in a number of states to have independent commission set the districts. It's not just because of the state level. The national level is flawed too. California has 12.15% of the country's population, but only 11.5% of the representatives. The current system basically has Californian voters giving away their voting powers to low population states even in the one chamber that's supposed to be representative of the populace. Basically... >435 please.
Its even worse in the senate,which arguably is more powerfull then congress.
Sort of gerrymandering by nature,lots of democrats live in california or nort east part of usa.
Both sides can be happy i guess though the democrats probably did hope for more,The senate kinda hurts.
Maybe this isnt such a bad outcome overall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
