Jump to content

2018 Mid-term elections!


Ms. Spam
 Share

Recommended Posts

For what it's worth, I've long advocated a Constitutional amendment that turns over redistricting to a simple computer program that has no access to voting patterns, race, income, etc..

 

But, yeah, gerrymandering as a means for holding power is something that's been done since the beginning of the Republic (literally named after signer of the Declaration of Independence Elbridge Gerry). Democrats received humongous benefits from gerrymandering almost continuously from the 1930 census all the way up to the 2000 census.

 

It's almost the same as the Democrats being giddy about the "blue wall" giving them an advantage in the electoral college until it didn't.

 

I would also point out that as much as Democrats blame gerrymandering, there's also a lot of self-selection going on where Democrat voters tend to be hyper-concentrated in urban areas. Even if we had completely objective lines, Democrats would be at a disadvantage because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's recess and it's raining again so I am stuck indoors.

 

I think the current mess the Democrats are in started with Bill Clinton. Who knew the GOP carried a grudge this long. The current redistricting settings were started by Newt Gingrich when he was Speaker of the House. At some point a lot of this is going to boil down to OMG! We have to get rid of everything Obama did because we hates it. Even the stuff that makes sense to have in place. Poor Hillary got to be the pail carrier for all the hate it seems because no one wants to be seen attacking the black man who just left office a while ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current redistricting settings were started by Newt Gingrich when he was Speaker of the House.

Even if Congress were in charge of the process (it's strictly a state issue), Newt was never in power during a redistricting phase. He gained the gavel in 1995 and lost it at the beginning of1999. Redistricting would have happened in 1992 and 2002.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but it started with him. I am just too lazy to give a history lesson that breaks this down. I'd rather move on. But the seed was planted when the GOP realized they had to do something to break 40 years of Democrat control in Congress. Newt went on to work in a lot of GOP think tanks after he was oustered, laughing silly in this current climate, for cheating on his wife among other things...

 

In other news that is not even related - Sandra Day O'Conner has a form of dementia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went and stood in a two hour line with my parents when I was in GA on Monday to be with them while they voted. This midterm is amazing at the amount of people who woke up and voted. While they pulled the straight GOP ticket lever my Dad finally conceded that I should not vote for Cruz because he also feels strongly about term limits (I am already voting for Beto any ways) and since we don't have term limits he feels Beto is my only option but my Mom said she'd vote for Ted Cruz in a heartbeat. Dad also feels that Kemp is cheating and should have dropped out of the race! I couldn't go in the building but things were pretty nice and civil for the first day of early voting GA.

 

VOTE! That's all I can say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

I vote, but I also recognize that it doesn't really matter if I do or not. Since 2012, I started to no longer look at Rs or Ds. I look at who is the incumbent, and vote against that incumbent, unless the opposition is someone I can't stand. In that case, I vote 3rd party. I also vote no on any propositions unless it is something that impacts me directly, and I support it, and no to retain any judges. That may be a crass and mechanical way of voting, but as far as I can tell, it is few and far in between that there is actually someone I get excited about and worth voting for. Also, when you live in a solidly red state, if you vote against a republican, it usually is a lost cause, anyway, and when you vote against said republican, it's because you want to say "at least I didn't vote for that bum," if/when said bum turns out to be a crook or incompetent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chalupa! I want these elections to surprise you. My Grandma had her neighbor drive her to the library to vote in Tucson. Because she's 101 she got to go before others waiting in line. I don't know how she voted but this is the first time she felt it important enough to ask a neighbor to drive her. She is legally blind but the state does something to help her. She can read large print letters. I wish I'd gotten a picture of my Dad's polling place where we were in line for the first day of early voting. It was easily over 2,000 people for the first day of early voting in GA. So many people of all ages and races and religion.

 

Right now according to a early exit poll with early voting ending on Friday, Cruz is edging out Beto by 3.6%! That is AMAZING in my Red State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

Yeah, well at the end of the day, Trump will still be President, and the Rs will continue to control the Senate, and probably the House. So little will change there. And unless the economy takes a nose-dive in the next 2 years (it could, with all these looming trade wars, and the ruination of relations with some of our staunchest allies...I mean, how do you piss off Canada of all allies?), I think there is better than a good chance Trump will be re-elected. And you know, it's not even that Trump is a republican that bothers me, it's that he is, well, Trump. But, people only care about what affects them directly, and the economy has the biggest impact of any policy, and how people vote. So, it really depends on the economy. If it is doing poorly, Trump is in danger...but that is only if the dems are smart enough not to put forward some polarizing person, like Hillary or Elizabeth Warren. In that scenario, Trump may still be re-elected, even if the economy tanks. However it turns out, though, AZ will likely go red, anyway.

 

In my state, the most important races are the Governor and one of the Senate seats. Ducey will defeat Garcia handily (it won't even be close), and McSally is favored to defeat Sinema. So, like I said, when you live in a red state, and you don't like the republican incumbent, your vote doesn't count for much. Cruz may not be winning handily and still within the margin of error, but if he wins, it's still a win, and proves my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure about Trump. Trump won primarily because Clinton was a horrible candidate and ran an atrocious campaign. Put Trump up against a candidate who can actually excited anyone and you would've had a completely different outcome.

 

Hell, Clinton should've just completely ignored Trump and acted like he wasn't worth the effort. She was a boring and divisive candidate who tried to fight him, and you can't shame the shameless.

 

The point is, Republicans don't own anything any more than the supposed generation of Democratic rule that was supposed to happen a few years ago. The Republicans looked at where they were and worked hard to win important races, they acted as if they owned the world, and Hillary was a perfect example of it. If Democrats are introspective, acknowledge that they need to change, and then do change, there's no reason for Republican rule to continue. Actually, the best thing for the Republicans would be for Trump to lose. The battle for the direction of the party is almost completely won by the Trumpists, but there's still a sizeable number of free trade, conservative Republicans left in the party. But who knows what happens if there's another 6 years of Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

I'm not so sure about Trump. Trump won primarily because Clinton was a horrible candidate and ran an atrocious campaign. Put Trump up against a candidate who can actually excited anyone and you would've had a completely different outcome.

 

Hell, Clinton should've just completely ignored Trump and acted like he wasn't worth the effort. She was a boring and divisive candidate who tried to fight him, and you can't shame the shameless.

 

The point is, Republicans don't own anything any more than the supposed generation of Democratic rule that was supposed to happen a few years ago. The Republicans looked at where they were and worked hard to win important races, they acted as if they owned the world, and Hillary was a perfect example of it. If Democrats are introspective, acknowledge that they need to change, and then do change, there's no reason for Republican rule to continue. Actually, the best thing for the Republicans would be for Trump to lose. The battle for the direction of the party is almost completely won by the Trumpists, but there's still a sizeable number of free trade, conservative Republicans left in the party. But who knows what happens if there's another 6 years of Trump.

I totally agree with you but....who do you thinkon the Dem side can excite anyone right now, or even defeat Trump? It's clearly not Warren. I think we can safely say Hillary is done for. Who else then? Schumer? Bloomberg? Pelosi? Biden? Oprah (laughable)? McAuliffe? Of those, the only one I see having a serious shot at unseating Trump is probably Bloomberg. The rest are long in the tooth, and/or polarizing. Pelosi will die of old age in her seat in Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pelosi isn't reasonable as a candidate, but Biden is a good candidate, Warren is actually solid for exciting the base, Booker, and Beto O'Rourke is obviously Captain Excitement right now.

 

At this point, it's really as much about the base more than convincing anyone in the middle. Warren is a superhero to a lot of the Democrats, especially the ones who need to be excited. She can teach out to the establishment and the "Bernie Bros" and that shouldn't be ignored.

 

She hasn't expressed interest, but I also wouldn't completely rule out Michelle Obama. I'd give it little chance of happening, but in terms of excitement, she'd be hard to beat. Intelligent, respected, wife of an insanely popular (with the base) president, and being both a woman and African American, she would be exciting, and a perfect foil to Trump.

 

Having said that, the Democrats don't need Obama level excitement, they just need to excite a larger percentage of Democrats to get off their butts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

Pelosi isn't reasonable as a candidate, but Biden is a good candidate, Warren is actually solid for exciting the base, Booker, and Beto O'Rourke is obviously Captain Excitement right now.

 

At this point, it's really as much about the base more than convincing anyone in the middle. Warren is a superhero to a lot of the Democrats, especially the ones who need to be excited. She can teach out to the establishment and the "Bernie Bros" and that shouldn't be ignored.

 

She hasn't expressed interest, but I also wouldn't completely rule out Michelle Obama. I'd give it little chance of happening, but in terms of excitement, she'd be hard to beat. Intelligent, respected, wife of an insanely popular (with the base) president, and being both a woman and African American, she would be exciting, and a perfect foil to Trump.

 

Having said that, the Democrats don't need Obama level excitement, they just need to excite a larger percentage of Democrats to get off their butts.

I agree Pelosi is not reasonable as a candidate. I only mentioned her because she is a well known dem many voters would recognize.

 

I have to disagree a little with you on Warren. For feminists, or many women dems in general, and far left dems, maybe she excites at superhero levels. But that is only a portion of the base. Maybe a majority, but not all. I basically chalk her up as a more palatable version of Hillary. If she went against Trump, dems would definitely vote for her, but I don't know if she would be at 2008 Obama level, which is what I think the dems actually need right now. There are a lot of middle-of-the-roaders who probably wouldn't vote for her, over Trump, if the economy is their main concern and assuming its doing well in 2020.

 

I have heard people (mostly cable news) float Michelle Obama, but to be honest, I would be shocked if she actually ran. She has never expressed or confirmed any interest, as far as I know.

 

Finally, see I was one of those who thought Hillary would win. I learned not to underestimate Trump, or his base. To win, the dems need to excite their base the same way Trump did. Not only that, the dems also have to win over the fence sitters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

A lot of Black people stayed home and abstained from voting the last presidential election. They couldn't vote for Trump but they couldn't vote for Hillary. But getting out and voting gives you a right I feel to voice concerns!

And the same thing could happen to Warren. I was in a class in fall 2016 and right after the election, a few other students brought up the idea that Hillary didn't get the African American vote she needed in part because they felt disenfranchised. Obama was leaving office, and his successor was to be a white woman. It was further submitted that many African Americans who stayed home, felt that was a backslide in the progress after having elected the first African American president, and they felt that it was 2 steps forward and 1 step back that Obama's successor was not a person of color. Hillary is a woman, but a white woman to be sure. Essentially, the African Americans who stayed home, were punishing the dems sort of the same way the republicans did in 2012, when they felt Romney wasn't conservative enough.

 

Now I don't know that I totally agree with that, but it does seem to make some sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate Warren and I think she should be part of my term limit policy. I'm bored because I've been a bit sick so I have been home on weekends trolling facebook political posts by saying if your representative has been your representative for two terms it's time to vote that person out. Whomever runs your primaries suck and they're not putting out fresh blood to represent you and incumbents need to be a part of my make it your own term limit setting.

The flip side of that is to join your parties respective group and be a part of the primary process. I've done that and I've never wanted to strangle a group of people more than I did when I went to my county's democratic caucus. I've done some calling and have been doing some emailing and texting but I can't be around those people. Which makes me sad. I've been to two Beto O'Rourke rallies and also worked a campaign for mayor in San Antonio. A lawyer friend who sings in Church choir with me actually is a proctor for the polls though so he helps get people checked in and makes sure that the county's voting process is done correctly and fairly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Pelosi isn't reasonable as a candidate, but Biden is a good candidate, Warren is actually solid for exciting the base, Booker, and Beto O'Rourke is obviously Captain Excitement right now.

At this point, it's really as much about the base more than convincing anyone in the middle. Warren is a superhero to a lot of the Democrats, especially the ones who need to be excited. She can teach out to the establishment and the "Bernie Bros" and that shouldn't be ignored.

She hasn't expressed interest, but I also wouldn't completely rule out Michelle Obama. I'd give it little chance of happening, but in terms of excitement, she'd be hard to beat. Intelligent, respected, wife of an insanely popular (with the base) president, and being both a woman and African American, she would be exciting, and a perfect foil to Trump.

Having said that, the Democrats don't need Obama level excitement, they just need to excite a larger percentage of Democrats to get off their butts.

 

I agree Pelosi is not reasonable as a candidate. I only mentioned her because she is a well known dem many voters would recognize.

 

I have to disagree a little with you on Warren. For feminists, or many women dems in general, and far left dems, maybe she excites at superhero levels. But that is only a portion of the base. Maybe a majority, but not all. I basically chalk her up as a more palatable version of Hillary. If she went against Trump, dems would definitely vote for her, but I don't know if she would be at 2008 Obama level, which is what I think the dems actually need right now. There are a lot of middle-of-the-roaders who probably wouldn't vote for her, over Trump, if the economy is their main concern and assuming its doing well in 2020.

 

I have heard people (mostly cable news) float Michelle Obama, but to be honest, I would be shocked if she actually ran. She has never expressed or confirmed any interest, as far as I know.

 

Finally, see I was one of those who thought Hillary would win. I learned not to underestimate Trump, or his base. To win, the dems need to excite their base the same way Trump did. Not only that, the dems also have to win over the fence sitters.

Once Trump won the nomination, and definitely after a small amount of the general campaign, I knew he would win. But look at the actual numbers: his victory was razor close. It wouldn’t take much to beat him in 2016, really I think any generic Democrat could have won. I can’t stress enough: Hillary lost. Trump didn’t pull out any miracles, even though that’s the narrative. Trump just got a small number of people excited and a large number of people who are going to vote for any Republican. Hillary got the people who are always going to vote Democrat, but they were the only people excited about her. She needed to excite people enough to go to the polls, and she didn’t.

 

Warren’s support overlaps with Bernie more than it overlaps with the Clinton feminists. They’d love to have her, Becca she’s a woman, but the economic liberals love her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

Oh, yeah I agree Trump won just barely, and had the election been decided by popular vote, Hillary Clinton would have been president. But there are 2 factors to not take lightly. First, sitting presidents almost always have the advantage of the bully pulpit. The last two presidents who lost re-election, did so because of bungled campaigns, and because of the economy. Which leads to the second factor, the economy. Not to sound like a broken record, but historically speaking, the economy is the biggest factor. It really depends on how the economy is doing in 2 years. Trump can and will be beat if it is doing poorly, but only if the dems can field someone who is likable and can appear as a reasonable, even tempered person, to contrast with Trump's boorishness and hotheadedness. It's all common sense and a no brainer, really, so it's not like I am saying anything profound there.

 

The question is though, are the dems going to use that opportunity and be smart about it by fielding someone who can win, or will they try to field a candidate that they think "deserves" the presidency, like they did with Hillary Clinton in 2016? While she may have that Bernie crossover vote, I don't think Warren can do it, and while not as disagreeable as Hillary, I think once she is put under the presidential microscope, she will turn a lot of the moderates and fence sitters off, and the hard core right will turn out in droves. Simply energizing the people who will vote for her anyway is not enough. Whomever runs against Trump though, will need to be prepared for a very dirty, mud-slinging campaign. It could quite possibly be the dirtiest campaign in US history.

 

One last thing, I know a lot of people like to cite Bernie Sanders. But it should be remembered he LOST to Clinton. It wasn't some conspiracy. There just wasn't enough votes for him. He had very vocal support, but in the end, not enough of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A lot of Black people stayed home and abstained from voting the last presidential election. They couldn't vote for Trump but they couldn't vote for Hillary. But getting out and voting gives you a right I feel to voice concerns!

And the same thing could happen to Warren. I was in a class in fall 2016 and right after the election, a few other students brought up the idea that Hillary didn't get the African American vote she needed in part because they felt disenfranchised. Obama was leaving office, and his successor was to be a white woman. It was further submitted that many African Americans who stayed home, felt that was a backslide in the progress after having elected the first African American president, and they felt that it was 2 steps forward and 1 step back that Obama's successor was not a person of color. Hillary is a woman, but a white woman to be sure. Essentially, the African Americans who stayed home, were punishing the dems sort of the same way the republicans did in 2012, when they felt Romney wasn't conservative enough.

 

Now I don't know that I totally agree with that, but it does seem to make some sense.

 

It will happen to Warren; she only represents an extremist liberal party that has traditionally suppressed black voters--and their needs--until the next election cycle. If you listen to serious black political minds, they will tell you that they were as unhappy with figurehead Obama as they were/are with Hillary, as he spent more time making arguments for gays and Latinos than anything said about anyone who happened to look like him, which is why BS publicity stunts such as "My Brother's Keeper" were never celebrated by the majority of black Americans. They knew it was lip service from a man who was very much a production of the extremist New Left that was just as manipulative & hostile to black people as anyone with "R" next to their name.

 

Next, there was Hillary's record on race and comments on blacks from the 1990s--not to be forgotten--one of endless reasons they did not support her (including her husband's own record in that regard). People are not the led-by-the-nose followers the Young Turks and MSNBC would like them to be. If a group is only recognized when convenient, or find themselves in a battle to make other groups interests theirs (see: the liberal political and media backlash against black support for California's Proposition 8) they will back away, or, as in some caes, vote for the opposition as in 2016. Black voters are tired are being shoved into a corner until needed for the optics of the Democrats being a party of "inclusion".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

I've gotten used to the crap that's stuffed in my mailbox around election time. The spam calls and text messages are getting out of hand though. I can't wait until after Tuesday is over.

None of that even factors into how I vote, and I am sick of getting junk mail and robo calls too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.