Election 2018

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Hmmm....that's different than what I read before, but you make a compelling argument. 

I think people have too short a memory on these things. Congress had four consecutive GOP-friendly elections in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. The Democrats aren't going to erase the deficit in a single election of a house that has six year terms.

[stringer bell]

538 mentioned the two inequities of the Electoral College—first is overrepresentation of small population states and the second is the winner take all portion. Democrats are at a disadvantage because of the many red states with low populations, but they can overcome that by being competitive in growing states, such as Nevada, Arizona, Georgia. It has already happened in Virginia. North Carolina could be next.

[TheLeviathan]

 

538 mentioned the two inequities of the Electoral College—first is overrepresentation of small population states and the second is the winner take all portion. Democrats are at a disadvantage because of the many red states with low populations, but they can overcome that by being competitive in growing states, such as Nevada, Arizona, Georgia. It has already happened in Virginia. North Carolina could be next.

 

It wasn't that long ago that Colorado was solid red too.  AZ and NV were solid red and are now pretty much purple.  

 

I can't recall the last solid blue state that tipped red.  Wisconsin?  Even then it seems to be something of a fluke rather than a trend.

[Badsmerf]

The last flip was when the south turned red and the North blue. The party demographics are changing right now. The red voters are older and less educated. I don't think that is a good strategy long term. For now, it is holding the Senate and the edge in the EC.... but once Texas goes purple the gop is screwed..... and Texas will go purple. There are too many educated, racially diverse, urban, and suburban areas for it not to.

[howeda7]

 

It wasn't that long ago that Colorado was solid red too.  AZ and NV were solid red and are now pretty much purple.  

 

I can't recall the last solid blue state that tipped red.  Wisconsin?  Even then it seems to be something of a fluke rather than a trend.

I'm not sure about blue, but some purple states have gone red. Missouri voted for every Presidential winner from the 50's through 2004. In 2008 Obama lost it by less than 1%. It is now deep red.

 

It feels like Ohio is headed down a similar path, and perhaps Iowa as well. I think WI, MI and PA were more 2016 flukes (with some outside funny business). But in general the B1G/Rust Belt is turning red and the ACC/Sun Belt (VA, NC, GA) is turning blue.

[howeda7]

 

No, it doesn't look bad in two years.

 

The Democrats have 12 seats up in 2020. Of those, only two are really questionable without knowing the candidates involved: Alabama and Virginia. The rest are places like MN, NM, IL, and a smattering of New England states.

 

The Republicans have 21 seats up in 2020. Most are comfortably red middle of the country states but there are interesting seats in play: ME, AZ, CO, WV.

 

And you never know when a state like Georgia might flip and there are a few states like that on the fringes, depending on the candidates involved. If the suburbs continue their anti-Trump stance, a lot of those fringes could be close and/or flip blue.

The Dems probably have no questionable seats. Virginia is completely safe. VA is bluer than MN now. No Republican has won a state-wide race in VA since 2009, and he got indicted.

 

AL on the other hand is going to flip back. That the Dems held it for 2 years was a perfect storm and there's almost no chance they can hold it. Nothing against Doug Jones.

 

CO is the only relatively likely Dem flip. ME, NC and IA are possible, but I don't like their odds of getting to 4.

[howeda7]

 

538 mentioned the two inequities of the Electoral College—first is overrepresentation of small population states and the second is the winner take all portion. Democrats are at a disadvantage because of the many red states with low populations, but they can overcome that by being competitive in growing states, such as Nevada, Arizona, Georgia. It has already happened in Virginia. North Carolina could be next.

I disagree about the winner-take-all being a disadvantage for the Dems in the EC. The GOP in some states proposed dividing their EC votes by Congressional District like Maine and Nebraska do because it would help them.

 

Yes the Dems would pick up some EC votes in Texas and Georgia. But they would lose them in almost every blue state.NY, CA, MN, VA, etc. and purple states they can easily flip back like PA and MI.

 

There are plenty of small completely red states where the Dems would net nothing from this change. There are very few completely blue states where the R's wouldn't pick up some. (HI and a handful of New England states).

[Badsmerf]

I disagree about the winner-take-all being a disadvantage for the Dems in the EC. The GOP in some states proposed dividing their EC votes by Congressional District like Maine and Nebraska do because it would help them.

 

Yes the Dems would pick up some EC votes in Texas and Georgia. But they would lose them in almost every blue state.NY, CA, MN, VA, etc. and purple states they can easily flip back like PA and MI.

 

There are plenty of small completely red states where the Dems would net nothing from this change. There are very few completely blue states where the R's wouldn't pick up some. (HI and a handful of New England states).

Basing this on the 2010 redistricting that forced the democrats to win the popular vote by 5% just to win an even number of seats isn't fair. Fairly drawn lines would have substantially different outcomes.

 

Some of my hope is that in 2020 with democrats in control we will have fair districts. This will reduce partisanship and reward working across party lines. And, Democrats will pick up a ton of seats, just by evening the playing field in some states.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Basing this on the 2010 redistricting that forced the democrats to win the popular vote by 5% just to win an even number of seats isn't fair. Fairly drawn lines would have substantially different outcomes.

Some of my hope is that in 2020 with democrats in control we will have fair districts. This will reduce partisanship and reward working across party lines. And, Democrats will pick up a ton of seats, just by evening the playing field in some states.

 

Winning in 2020 to redistrict is arguably more important than any other issue IMO.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not sure about blue, but some purple states have gone red. Missouri voted for every Presidential winner from the 50's through 2004. In 2008 Obama lost it by less than 1%. It is now deep red.

 

It feels like Ohio is headed down a similar path, and perhaps Iowa as well. I think WI, MI and PA were more 2016 flukes (with some outside funny business). But in general the B1G/Rust Belt is turning red and the ACC/Sun Belt (VA, NC, GA) is turning blue.

 

Fair points, thank you.  IMO, I think the Sun Belt is more likely to fold over Blue than PA, MI, and WI are to fold over to red.

 

It took historic incompetence from Clinton to manage the latter and all three reversed course two years later.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The Dems probably have no questionable seats. Virginia is completely safe. VA is bluer than MN now. No Republican has won a state-wide race in VA since 2009, and he got indicted.

 

AL on the other hand is going to flip back. That the Dems held it for 2 years was a perfect storm and there's almost no chance they can hold it. Nothing against Doug Jones.

 

CO is the only relatively likely Dem flip. ME, NC and IA are possible, but I don't like their odds of getting to 4.

Ah, good point about Alabama. I missed the election coming up there in 2020 because of the special election (much like Minnesota, actually).

 

But after this election, you don't think Democrats can pick up enough seats for at least a stalemate with that many states in play?

 

They just won in AZ. I think the GOP holds the other senate seat but we shouldn't downplay just how firmly urban and suburban areas have unified against the GOP over the past two years. Of course, that could change in two more years but things don't look good for the GOP the way things are going right now.

 

And remember that the 2018 election wasn't won out of apathy (which usually ensures a GOP victory). Everybody showed up, the GOP had its ass handed to it, and Trump wasn't even on the ticket.

 

I don't get why liberals are so eager to downplay just how much of a wave cascaded through this country in 2018. People showed up and they were pissed on both sides... but one side has more people and they're a hell of a lot angrier about the situation.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Winning in 2020 to redistrict is arguably more important than any other issue IMO.

Absolutely. As I'm sure you're aware, I've been hammering at this for quite awhile now.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Some of my hope is that in 2020 with democrats in control we will have fair districts.

I don't want fair districts in 2020. I want machine learning, completely out of control down to the street and house number level, gerrymandering. Let's not only use computers, spend $500m and hire a slew of Google, Facebook, and Apple developers to predict behavior and drill down to the predicted number of people living in every house for the next ten years.

 

Let's break this ****, yo.

 

If the GOP can do it and ignore Democrat squealing for a decade, hoist them upon that ****ing petard and turn that machine back on the beasts that created it.

 

Because only when both parties feel the crushing pain of having their vote diminished will we see actual movement on this topic.

 

And when that movement comes, I will support it wholly.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I don't want fair districts in 2020. I want machine learning, completely out of control down to the street and house number level, gerrymandering. Let's not only use computers, spend $500m and hire a slew of Google, Facebook, and Apple developers to predict behavior and drill down to the predicted number of people living in every house for the next ten years.

 

Let's break this ****, yo.

 

If the GOP can do it and ignore Democrat squealing for a decade, hoist them upon that ****ing petard and turn that machine back on the beasts that created it.

 

Because only when both parties feel the crushing pain of having their vote diminished will we see actual movement on this topic.

 

And when that movement comes, I will support it wholly.

Ha! I get it, but it's more than a bit unpalatable for me. I'm not down for the Machiavellian win.  

 

More, I don't think there's any set of circumstances or punishment that will make the uber-wealthy (the money behind the GOP) fall in line; they will continue to cheat, steal, entrench their advantage at every turn.  

 

I think, not being the jerk* matters, in terms of coveting the electorate. 

 

*I want to use another word than that.  Very much so.

[stringer bell]

My point was actually that the two factors can cancel each other out. The smaller population states favor Republicans and Trump filled an inside straight to win enough larger states by small margins to win the Electoral College comfortably. I think Democrats can win enough purple middle-sized states to neutralize Republican rural states.

[stringer bell]

It’s been said that Democrats group themselves so that it is much more difficult to gerrymander. While I’d love to see Republicans “get theirs”, I detest the results of gerrymandering too much to wish it on our country.

 

Draw fair lines and let each election be a real referendum of whose policies should be followed.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

If you are pro-Pelosi remaining as speaker, then I venture to say you will enjoy Josh Marshall’s running editorials at TPM https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/do-the-dems-need-nancy-pelosi

 

I personally think now is a good time for change. After all, Pelosi surely has the good of the party in mind, no? She recognizes the so-called wave election we just had, and will offer to help the new speaker be successful to pursue a good agenda. Or is an absolute grip on power of the House the most important thing to her?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Ha! I get it, but it's more than a bit unpalatable for me. I'm not down for the Machiavellian win.  

 

More, I don't think there's any set of circumstances or punishment that will make the uber-wealthy (the money behind the GOP) fall in line; they will continue to cheat, steal, entrench their advantage at every turn.  

 

I think, not being the jerk* matters, in terms of coveting the electorate. 

 

*I want to use another word than that.  Very much so.

And that's fair. I've struggled over this a bit and came down on the side that "make everybody hurt" is the best way to fix computerized gerrymandering.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Draw fair lines and let each election be a real referendum of whose policies should be followed.

Absolutely, but my point is that to draw fair lines, you have to anger everyone enough to force it from the populace. The parties won't do it on their own.

[Badsmerf]

Brock democrats are not the sorry puppy that gets kicked all over the country, they have their part in this too. We should all want a level playing field.

 

At this moment, the democrats seem to have better intentions for the nation, but I'm not willing to place all my eggs in that basket considering what's happened to the gop in the last ten years.

 

Fair elections are our only hope. We are in this mess because of citizens United and gerrymandering. Let's learn from that.

[Mr. Brooks]

Ah, good point about Alabama. I missed the election coming up there in 2020 because of the special election (much like Minnesota, actually).

 

But after this election, you don't think Democrats can pick up enough seats for at least a stalemate with that many states in play?

 

They just won in AZ. I think the GOP holds the other senate seat but we shouldn't downplay just how firmly urban and suburban areas have unified against the GOP over the past two years. Of course, that could change in two more years but things don't look good for the GOP the way things are going right now.

 

And remember that the 2018 election wasn't won out of apathy (which usually ensures a GOP victory). Everybody showed up, the GOP had its ass handed to it, and Trump wasn't even on the ticket.

 

I don't get why liberals are so eager to downplay just how much of a wave cascaded through this country in 2018. People showed up and they were pissed on both sides... but one side has more people and they're a hell of a lot angrier about the situation.

Pending the hand recount in Florida, and the run off in MS, and assuming the dems lose Alabama in 2020, they'd have to flip 4 seats (Pence breaks a tie, so dems need 51, 50 does them no good).

Can you find 4 seats they can flip? I get a lot can happen in 2 years, but I find it doubtful they can.

[TheLeviathan]

Well, I think they could flip North Carolina, Colorado, and Maine.  

 

The more difficult options are Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky (make the Rs fight amongst themselves), and Arizona.  

 

But let's face it....ultimately their odds may come down to the quality of the candidate they run for President.

[Squirrel]

Well, I think they could flip North Carolina, Colorado, and Maine.  

 

The more difficult options are Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky (make the Rs fight amongst themselves), and Arizona.  

 

But let's face it....ultimately their odds may come down to the quality of the candidate they run for President.

I hope that it’s not Bernie, Hillary, Biden or Warren.

[ashbury]

And that's fair. I've struggled over this a bit and came down on the side that "make everybody hurt" is the best way to fix computerized gerrymandering.

I became less enamored of this tactic after watching how my teens interacted with their peers.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Pending the hand recount in Florida, and the run off in MS, and assuming the dems lose Alabama in 2020, they'd have to flip 4 seats (Pence breaks a tie, so dems need 51, 50 does them no good).
Can you find 4 seats they can flip? I get a lot can happen in 2 years, but I find it doubtful they can.

You only have to worry about the tiebreaker if you lose the presidential election.

[biggentleben]

 

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) Mike's concerns about rural vs urban voters as how it pertains to and is quantified by the EC. And I'm not really in disagreement with him there, that I think it's way off balance in how the EC is constructed. But I'll let Mike correct me ... and perhaps that ongoing discussion is for the general politics thread.

 

That said, I think rural America is still pretty solidly red over all. The biggest gain (I think I read this somewhere) is the flip in the suburbs this election.

 

There was a lot of rural purple this election. In general, a candidate truly concerned with the people in rural areas will resonate and get elected. If you combine the last 50 years between both Senate positions, South Dakota has been represented by a Democrat for 55/100 of those years, with by far the least popular Senator up for re-election in 2020, the state could certainly vote blue.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Brock democrats are not the sorry puppy that gets kicked all over the country, they have their part in this too. We should all want a level playing field.

You're missing my point. I want a level playing field and I've been talking about computerized gerrymandering for a long time now, at least five years.

 

But I don't think the parties will do it for us. I want to see the prevailing party use computerized gerrymandering so nefariously that the public snaps out of its trance and forces actual change.

 

Gerrymandering has always existed but only in the past 15 years have we seen computing power coupled with data gathering become so powerful that it becomes a tool of ruling, not governance.

[PseudoSABR]

Midterm Election Results Saw Republicans Suffer Worst House Defeat in U.S. History Based on Popular Vote

 

 

Democrats earned over 59.2 million votes in House contests and Republicans 50.3 million votes as the former flipped 38 House seats around the country, Cook Political Report editor Dave Wasserman said. The difference proved to be the biggest popular vote difference for either party in the country’s history.

 

Republicans earned 45.2 percent of the overall vote in House races and Democrats 53.1 percent

 

[stringer bell]

A full month after the election and they're still counting votes in some places (California). The final numbers look like Democrats will gain 40 seats in the House, while losing two in the Senate. The overall plurality will be between 8.5 and 9%. There's a real chance that one close race will be overturned. It appears there was real election fraud in North Carolina where a Republican "won" by less than 1000 votes. 

[Squirrel]

A full month after the election and they're still counting votes in some places (California). The final numbers look like Democrats will gain 40 seats in the House, while losing two in the Senate. The overall plurality will be between 8.5 and 9%. There's a real chance that one close race will be overturned. It appears there was real election fraud in North Carolina where a Republican "won" by less than 1000 votes.

 

Not only that, there’s a very real case of voter fraud being investigated in NC that could result in a special election.