EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 915
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On November 09 2018 00:10 JimmiC wrote: Come up north, when people get shot it makes national news it is that rare. The weather is not hot but it is not as bad as people think. Our leader is a little bit douchey but more in the I need my hair to be perfect and be as super PC as possible at all times. We have issues of course they just seem small in comparison. I'm already acclimated to cold weather; that sounds great. My family used to go on fishing trips to Canada every year. I really loved it. There were so many trees. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On November 09 2018 00:05 Plansix wrote: The Democrats won on Tuesday. Not big national names fell, but it was still a huge victory. A sweeping reshaping of the house, governor’s races and a ton of local elections went the way of the Democrats. This isn’t about taking down big names like Cruz, but winning seats and obtaining power. Along these lines, It's important to keep in mind that even though consumer confidence is high and unemployment is low, the Dems still managed to win the popular vote by 8%+. That in and of itself is a repudiation of Trump. The last time that happened was in 2008 when we were in the middle of an unpopular war and a horrible recession. If the President was less noxious the GOP would probably be doing a lot better. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/08/665197690/a-boatload-of-ballots-midterm-voter-turnout-hit-50-year-high | ||
|
brian
United States9636 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 09 2018 00:34 brian wrote: woof, highest turn out in a half century and we barely took a majority. not a good look. Honestly, only if for people who don't know anything about politics, goverment and institutional power. I understand that Trump and the news have tried to turn elections into pro-wrestling, but it is still just politics. Trump didn't sweep either. He barely won and his part lost seats in his election. People looking for instant gratification and overwhelming victories will always be disappointed by politics. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9636 Posts
On November 09 2018 00:40 Plansix wrote: Honestly, only if for people who don't know anything about politics, goverment and institutional power. I understand that Trump and the news have tried to turn elections into pro-wrestling, but it is still just politics. Trump didn't sweep either. He barely won and his part lost seats in his election. People looking for instant gratification and overwhelming victories will always be disappointed by politics. well i’ll challenge that. historically low turn out favors republicans. in a year with a republican president, as has been shown by many others, a flip in the house isn’t an exception, it’s the rule. in a mid term so impossibly publicized with so much good reason to get out some votes, that the dems only eeked out a win is more than fairly disappointing. and with record turn out for fifty plus years, that we had so much less record winning, should be a cause for concern. if you’re telling me that we had the most dem favored mid term election in fifty years and this is the result AND you’re not concerned, i’m just confused. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On November 09 2018 00:34 brian wrote: woof, highest turn out in a half century and we barely took a majority. not a good look. At the national level, it may not look like much, but a shitload of state and local elections went the Democrats' way. I know in my city (Houston, TX) that Dems won nearly every local and state election, even those that had been Republican since the early 2000s | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22097 Posts
On November 09 2018 00:34 brian wrote: woof, highest turn out in a half century and we barely took a majority. not a good look. Seems like the Democrats won the popular vote by a bit over 8%. Both parties hold ~30% of the vote, remaining ~40 are independent and actually decide elections (assuming all sides have equal distribution showing up) meaning Democrats won independents 60-40. pretty significant. Plus the whole point that turn out and popular vote mean little with how elections are set up in the US. Winning district A 200 thousands vote to 40 thousand and losing district B 10 thousand to 11 thousand still makes it a draw even tho one side is clearly much more popular. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 09 2018 00:46 brian wrote: well i’ll challenge that. historically low turn out favors republicans. in a year with a republican president, as has been shown by many others, a flip in the house isn’t an exception, it’s the rule. in a mid term so impossibly publicized with so much good reason to get out some votes, that the dems only eeked out a win is more than fairly disappointing. and with record turn out for fifty plus years, that we had so much less record winning, should be a cause for concern. If you call flipping the house, a number of governors seats and getting democrats elected in places where they haven’t held office in 30 years “eeking out a victory,” I might call into question your expectations. Politics means victory by attrition, not bombast. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think many Dems will be that up in arms. I was thinking about the Kavanaugh case, but this investigation has been going on for so long that the argument of it being not through enough really won't hold much water https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/politics/trump-reviewing-answers-mueller/index.html | ||
|
brian
United States9636 Posts
On November 09 2018 00:52 Plansix wrote: If you call flipping the house, a number of governors seats and getting democrats elected in places where they haven’t held office in 30 years “eeking out a victory,” I might call into question your expectations. Politics means victory by attrition, not bombast. again, flipping the house is the rule here, not exceptional. correct me if i’m wrong there(sincerely, perhaps i misunderstood.) if that’s not eking out a victory i don’t know what is. we won literally the bare minimum to follow cyclical trends. when do we account for the record turnout, blue wave, and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that simply follows trend? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 09 2018 00:56 brian wrote: again, flipping the house is the rule here, not exceptional. correct me if i’m wrong there. if that’s not eking out a victory i don’t know what is. we won literally the bare minimum to follow cyclical trends. when do we account for the record turnout, blue wave, and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that simply follows trend? The house was the only thing in play and the most accurate indicator of the population’s intent. The Senate is harder to move BY DESIGN. This is how our government was designed to function. I really don’t know what you wanted to see. The chances of them taking the senate were almost non-existent. They were defending more seats than they were trying to take. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7981 Posts
On November 08 2018 01:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think people don't like her because people don't like her edit: I mean, it's more that she represents this calculating politician type of politician which is very much out of style these days. Now, a genuine person who makes occasional missteps is much preferable. She doesn't come off as genuine, even to her base. It strikes me that those “career politicians not to be trusted” happen to be mostly women. Sounds like a Hillary bis to me. | ||
|
brian
United States9636 Posts
On November 09 2018 01:03 Plansix wrote: The house was the only thing in play and the most accurate indicator of the population’s intent. The Senate is harder to move BY DESIGN. This is how our government was designed to function. I really don’t know what you wanted to see. The chances of them taking the senate were almost non-existent. They were defending more seats than they were trying to take. for a record turnout i think it’s pretty fair to expect more than just the usual, no? that is where this conversation started. i had no expectations of gaining a single senate seat. i had expectations of controlling more than 51% of the house. because i’ll pose to you again, when do we account for the record turnout and blue wave and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that is no more than typical? though i’ll concede i am looking at just the house and not the state races. understanding those governorships will set the stage for future elections is great, but we won’t have the record turnout and blue wave and repudiation of trumps agenda in these hypothetical future elections (well christ at least i hope, on that last part.) i’m not saying that the win isn’t a win, i’m just saying that we had a record breaking election that could’ve been any other election as far as results in the house go, and i’m asking why that isn’t concerning. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22097 Posts
On November 09 2018 01:13 brian wrote: Because of the way elections are structured. It doesn't matter if Democrats win District A by 1 vote or 1 million. The result is the same.for a record turnout i think it’s pretty fair to expect more than just the usual, no? that is where this conversation started. i had no expectations of gaining a single senate seat. i had expectations of controlling more than 51% of the house. because i’ll pose to you again, when do we account for the record turnout and blue wave and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that is no more than typical? though i’ll concede i am looking at just the house and not the state races. understanding those governorships will set the stage for future elections is great, but we won’t have the record turnout and blue wave and repudiation of trumps agenda in these hypothetical future elections (well christ at least i hope, on that last part.) i’m not saying that the win isn’t a win, i’m just saying that we had a record breaking election that could’ve been any other election as far as results in the house go, and i’m asking why that isn’t concerning. A lot of extra Democrats turning up in a deep blue state does nothing, its still blue. A lot of extra Democrats turning up in a deep red state does nothing, its still red. You can have a record turnout but those extra votes don't mean jack shit because every vote past 50.00000001% vanishes into oblivion. | ||
| ||
