Jump to content

2018 - Elections and Trends

atomheartbevo

By atomheartbevo
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

You said it in the only way that matters: you voted for it. 

Gatorubet
Gatorubet

I told my friends at work today to get ready for some excuse destroying reality.   We are no longer going to be able to excuse the behavior of voters in this election as 'being foolish', 'hoping Trump

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Fire protection. Police protection. Local road construction and maintenance. Interstate highway construction and maintenance. Airport operation, air traffic control, airline safety

Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13391

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is the best article I have seen in months.  Spot Fucking On.  This should be required reading for all.

Agree.  Really spells out the argument why the GOP needs to purge themselves to ultimately get rid of Trump.   Written by a republican.    This section really demonstrates how the congressional republicans have fallen to their knees:

Quote

Look no further than Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) who, in 2016, called Trump a “kook,” who was “unfit for office” and said he didn’t vote for Trump because he “couldn’t go where Trump was taking the party.” Recently, though, he’s become one of Trump’s golf buddies, has said the president is “growing into the job” and is now running interference for him: Last year, Graham said there would be “holy hell to pay” if Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Last week, Graham gave Trump a green light to get rid of Sessions after Election Day. In July, via Twitter, Graham scolded Trump for his failure, to “hold Russia accountable for 2016 meddling” when asked about it during the president’s news conference with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, but then quickly demurred, “Meddling and collusion are not the same thing.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

So 51% of Americans polled think Donald Trump is intelligent?  How dumb do you have to be to think that? Lulz. 

Very dumb.   But many people don't realize how much of Trump's self-proclaimed business "success" is fabricated, so they assume he must be smart to wind up where he is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jack Straw

Jack Straw 2953

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Very dumb.   But many people don't realize how much of Trump's self-proclaimed business "success" is fabricated, so they assume he must be smart to wind up where he is. 

This is part of why I think Trump will be re-elected.  Even after it gets worse from here - and it will get worse - way worse - the combined percentage of voting Americans who are:  (1) that actually so dumb, real life life dumb, that they think Trump is intelligent and doing a great job, and (2) such complete and utter partisan hacks and shitbags that they will vote for Trump no matter how much fraud, incompetence, collusion, and embarrassment on the world stage he causes and angages in - and no matter how good the Democratic/ Independent/Other opponent(s) is (are) - is greater than 50%.  

I wish it weren’t true, but it is.   I’m afraid that this country is irretrievably lost. Seriously, if nothing has been done to remove this utterly worthless sack of shit from office by this point, nothing ever will.  I really don’t understand how there isn’t widespread rioting in the streets across the country right now. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32682

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’m wondering how many polls are distorted to scare certain groups of voters, to get them out to vote.  

Seems like a dangerous game to play. Bad polls can sometimes suppress voter turnout just like good polls can. I'm sure a study has been done but lazy voters will find any reason not to go to the polls, although I suppose you could be saying that polls are distorted to make the race seem closer than it is. That would drive turnout no matter what I'd think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22582

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

This is part of why I think Trump will be re-elected.  Even after it gets worse from here - and it will get worse - way worse - the combined percentage of voting Americans who are:  (1) that actually so dumb, real life life dumb, that they think Trump is intelligent and doing a great job, and (2) such complete and utter partisan hacks and shitbags that they will vote for Trump no matter how much fraud, incompetence, collusion, and embarrassment on the world stage he causes and angages in - and no matter how good the Democratic/ Independent/Other opponent(s) is (are) - is greater than 50%.  

I wish it weren’t true, but it is.   I’m afraid that this country is irretrievably lost. Seriously, if nothing has been done to remove this utterly worthless sack of shit from office by this point, nothing ever will.  I really don’t understand how there isn’t widespread rioting in the streets across the country right now. 

Talked with a Republican friend about this during the Longhorn game on Saturday.  Called Trump a douchebag, hates his tweeting, but his paycheck has gone up and his stocks are looking good, and those pros outweigh the cons in his mind.  Even when the downsides of tariffs came up, he mentioned how he liked Trump's trade strategy ("we were totally being taken advantage of before"), and that any short term struggles will lead eventually to benefits for the country.

He's a great guy who usually leans pretty hard right at the ballot box, and as long as he is personally still doing okay, then Trump is okay in his book, and I don't think anything short of a big stock market crash will change that.  While there definitely are people like me who have bailed on the Republican party over Trump, I know there are tens of millions just like him who are quietly sticking with their team.

Edited by Chuckie Finster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17501

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Talked with a Republican friend about this during the Longhorn game on Saturday.  Called Trump a douchebag, hates his tweeting, but his paycheck has gone up and his stocks are looking good, and those pros outweigh the cons in his mind.  Even when the downsides of tariffs came up, he mentioned how he liked Trump's trade strategy ("we were totally being taken advantage of before"), and that any short term struggles will lead eventually to benefits for the country.

He's a great guy who usually leans pretty hard right at the ballot box, and as long as he is personally still doing okay, then Trump is okay in his book, and I don't think anything short of a big stock market crash will change that.  While there definitely are people like me who have bailed on the Republican party over Trump, I know there are tens of millions just like him who are quietly sticking with their team.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/opinion/anonymous-op-ed-republican-party-trump.html

Quote

'Anonymous' Is Hiding in Plain Sight

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 27593

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Gillum 47 DeSantis 43 in new poll today from Florida Chamber of Commerce that usually leans GOP.

 

26 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Marist poll has dems up 57 to 29 among women in generic party vote.

Yes, that's it. More please.

That article from the WaPo, Death of Expertise author is scorching. I gotta take a look at his Twitter feed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jack Straw

Jack Straw 2953

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

He's a great guy who usually leans pretty hard right at the ballot box, and as long as he is personally still doing okay, then Trump is okay in his book, and I don't think anything short of a big stock market crash will change that.  While there definitely are people like me who have bailed on the Republican party over Trump, I know there are tens of millions just like him who are quietly sticking with their team.

Yeah - I think a lot of people underestimate just how many of the Slorch/Johnny Sack "I got mine, fuck everybody else" types there are in this country.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Talked with a Republican friend about this during the Longhorn game on Saturday.  Called Trump a douchebag, hates his tweeting, but his paycheck has gone up and his stocks are looking good, and those pros outweigh the cons in his mind.  Even when the downsides of tariffs came up, he mentioned how he liked Trump's trade strategy ("we were totally being taken advantage of before"), and that any short term struggles will lead eventually to benefits for the country.

He's a great guy who usually leans pretty hard right at the ballot box, and as long as he is personally still doing okay, then Trump is okay in his book, and I don't think anything short of a big stock market crash will change that.  While there definitely are people like me who have bailed on the Republican party over Trump, I know there are tens of millions just like him who are quietly sticking with their team.

And how did the economy and stock market factor in with him when assessing Obama in, say, 2016?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick Bateman

Patrick Bateman 3902

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

And how did the economy and stock market factor in with him when assessing Obama in, say, 2016?

They don't care.  One of my best friends, who is an intelligent and well schooled guy, is almost exactly like Chuckie's friend.  His statement to me, "I hate Donald Trump the person, he's terrible.  But Donald Trump the President has been okay".  When pressed, he basically has no answers except SCOTUS (he's a conservative and originalist) and the economy.  When challenged further about what he means by the economy, he points to the stock market and unemployment numbers.  Look, it would be folly to say that some lagging or even coincident indicators such as unemployment, CPI and GDP aren't strong and my friend isn't interested if the rally started with Obama, he concedes this, he looks at his own situation and some overall top line numbers and figures Trump has done a good job in steering the ship.  He's less bullish on tariffs, but they have impacted him so he doesn't know what to think and will let them play out he says. 

He's probably one of the more conservative friends I have that has any type of strong political opinions and he's an attorney (around DC) so you know he's a douche bag..... I just laugh at him and shrug.  I'm not going to change his mind, he's too dug in and he's argumentative (remember he's a douche bag lawyer), so we agree to disagree..... Agree with Chuckie, millions of folks just like this, who desperately rationalize not only their choices (they don't want to be wrong with their Trump vote) but their futures, who bargain with themselves about what what and who matters.  They don't want to be wrong and unless it's going to impact them directly, they won't change anything about their small and limited views....

 

Edited by Patrick Bateman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85049

Posted
Posted

The 538 Senate model confirms what I’ve been saying - out of power party Senate incumbents just don’t lose, barring the 2 times the in-power party gained Senate seats in the midterms (98, 02) due to other factors (Lewinsky, 9/11). 

538 has Democrat incumbents favored in ND, IN, MO, MT and WV with the 2 tossups being Nevada and FL. Sinema is favored in AZ. Blackburn and Cruz favored due to the fundamentals of their states. I think we’re looking at 50/50 Senate with Democrats picking up 2 seats out West and holding their incumbents.  Legitimately, a Democrat Senate would come down to Bredesen or Beto in upsets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The 538 Senate model confirms what I’ve been saying - out of power party Senate incumbents just don’t lose, barring the 2 times the in-power party gained Senate seats in the midterms (98, 02) due to other factors (Lewinsky, 9/11). 

538 has Democrat incumbents favored in ND, IN, MO, MT and WV with the 2 tossups being Nevada and FL. Sinema is favored in AZ. Blackburn and Cruz favored due to the fundamentals of their states. I think we’re looking at 50/50 Senate with Democrats picking up 2 seats out West and holding their incumbents.  Legitimately, a Democrat Senate would come down to Bredesen or Beto in upsets. 

Don't forget how far we've come.  Remember this is a terrible map for Democrats.  Now thinking about taking both chambers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85049

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Don't forget how far we've come.  Remember this is a terrible map for Democrats.  Now thinking about taking both chambers.

It is a terrible map for Democrats. Under Democratic President Hillary Clinton.

actually works in their favor under Republican President Donald Trump. Because minority party incumbents just don’t lose in midterms! It took Bill admitting to an affair and a rah-rah rallying after a terrorist attack/war in Afghanistan to defy that CW. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15347

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Don't forget how far we've come.  Remember this is a terrible map for Democrats.  Now thinking about taking both chambers.

And as bad as 2018 is for Democrats in the Senate, 2020 is equally bad for Republicans.

The Democrats in 2020 could have the presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And as bad as 2018 is for Democrats in the Senate, 2020 is equally bad for Republicans.

The Democrats in 2020 could have the presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

And then easily add two seats to the Supreme Court, quickly nullifying what Rs sold their souls to get.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15347

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

How's about we make gerrymandering illegal and let computers draw districts?  Then we don't have to worry about fucking maps.

The list of what Democrats could do with that kind of power is endless.  Inasmuch as they are the majority party, they could render the GOP powerless for a generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

How's about we make gerrymandering illegal and let computers draw districts?  Then we don't have to worry about fucking maps.

PSA.  I see this sort of thing all the time when we are discussing gerrymandering.  This sort of thing would likely violate the VRA by not providing "minority opportunity districts."  See section 2 here:  http://redistricting.lls.edu/where.php

If you got truly randomized districts, and there was racially polarized voting, the minority would never be able to have one of their preferred candidates.  I imagine randomly drawn districts in Texas would result in more R reps, not fewer.  (e.g.: If 60% of voters in Texas would pull the lever for an R, and 40% for D, then in each randomized district the R would win 60-40 , and every rep would be R despite millions of votes for Ds).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18561

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And as bad as 2018 is for Democrats in the Senate, 2020 is equally bad for Republicans.

The Democrats in 2020 could have the presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

This is why Donald Trump being elected might end up being the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in a long, long time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13391

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It is a terrible map for Democrats. Under Democratic President Hillary Clinton.

actually works in their favor under Republican President Donald Trump. Because minority party incumbents just don’t lose in midterms! It took Bill admitting to an affair and a rah-rah rallying after a terrorist attack/war in Afghanistan to defy that CW. 

I think it was meant that it's a terrible map in 2018 for Dems because they had 25 seats up for elections, including King and Sanders, while the Republicans only had 8.  2020 has 12 Dems and 21 Reps.    At a high strategy level, you want to defend as few seats as possible while being able to pick & choose your offensive targets.   

But you're right that IF Hillary had won, the GOP lead in the Senate would most likely be off the charts for 2019-2021.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17417

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

PSA.  I see this sort of thing all the time when we are discussing gerrymandering.  This sort of thing would likely violate the VRA by not providing "minority opportunity districts."  See section 2 here:  http://redistricting.lls.edu/where.php

If you got truly randomized districts, and there was racially polarized voting, the minority would never be able to have one of their preferred candidates.  I imagine randomly drawn districts in Texas would result in more R reps, not fewer.  (e.g.: If 60% of voters in Texas would pull the lever for an R, and 40% for D, then in each randomized district the R would win 60-40 , and every rep would be R despite millions of votes for Ds).

I disagree. The VRA requirements can be easily met by a relatively simple algorithm. Remember, the VRA exists to avoid the types of weird elongated and far reaching districts we have now (obviously not very effective). An algorithm that accounted for geography and the location of populations could be designed such that districts would be made up of neighboring population centers, not far flung areas of the state.  Further, there is no requirement that any computer algorithm be entirely random. That is to say, we wouldn't have one that mixed up the entire population of the state in a bag and randomly assigned voters to districts. Instead, the algorithm would be tasked with keeping reasonable geographic boundaries for each district based on the location of population.  Accordingly, you would still have conclaves of districts (for instance, Travis County or really any metropolitan are in Texas) that would vote differently than a district that was randomly generated from a state wide voting pool (the mixed bag approach discussed earlier).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32682

Posted
Posted
PSA.  I see this sort of thing all the time when we are discussing gerrymandering.  This sort of thing would likely violate the VRA by not providing "minority opportunity districts."  See section 2 here:  http://redistricting.lls.edu/where.php
If you got truly randomized districts, and there was racially polarized voting, the minority would never be able to have one of their preferred candidates.  I imagine randomly drawn districts in Texas would result in more R reps, not fewer.  (e.g.: If 60% of voters in Texas would pull the lever for an R, and 40% for D, then in each randomized district the R would win 60-40 , and every rep would be R despite millions of votes for Ds).
That's not how it works in real life. People tend to live near others with common interests. They're not geographically randomly distributed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
Just now, Huckleberry said:
31 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:
PSA.  I see this sort of thing all the time when we are discussing gerrymandering.  This sort of thing would likely violate the VRA by not providing "minority opportunity districts."  See section 2 here:  http://redistricting.lls.edu/where.php
If you got truly randomized districts, and there was racially polarized voting, the minority would never be able to have one of their preferred candidates.  I imagine randomly drawn districts in Texas would result in more R reps, not fewer.  (e.g.: If 60% of voters in Texas would pull the lever for an R, and 40% for D, then in each randomized district the R would win 60-40 , and every rep would be R despite millions of votes for Ds).

Read more  

That's not how it works in real life. People tend to live near others with common interests. They're not geographically randomly distributed.

It works in both directions.  You’d be in the “pack” of “pack and crack” if you took advantage of that.   Same result.   A few districts of 95% D dilutes the D overall power.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32682

Posted
Posted
It works in both directions.  You’d be in the “pack” of “pack and crack” if you took advantage of that.   Same result.   A few districts of 95% D dilutes the D overall power.
 
 
 
I don't care about party demographics, that's how we got into this absurd gerrymandering situation to begin with. You need to let that go, party affiliation should not have any bearing on redistricting.

As for pack and crack, that also wouldn't be nearly as bad in a computer generated map. While people tend to live near like-minded neighbors, it is not nearly 95%. The terrible gerrymander maps show that the "pack" districts are usually the most ridiculously shaped.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17417

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It works in both directions.  You’d be in the “pack” of “pack and crack” if you took advantage of that.   Same result.   A few districts of 95% D dilutes the D overall power.

 

 

 

Ok, but you realize the "pack and crack" districts tend to include voters over an expanded geographic area, with tendrils or arms reaching out to some area and avoiding others. That is that the VRA was designed to avoid. Districts made of something resembling simply geometric shapes, which is what I would expect from a decent algorithm, also avoids the problem. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

I don't care about party demographics, that's how we got into this absurd gerrymandering situation to begin with. You need to let that go, party affiliation should not have any bearing on redistricting.

 

It’s only when a demographic is a proxy for voting habit (ie party).  That’s the first part of the test of section 2. So you have to care about that or VRA just doesn’t have any bearing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...