Midterm Election Gameday Thread

[3rdnlng]

Sean Smith‏ @SMSDispHERO 3h3 hours ago

More

 

 

• Copy link to Tweet
• Embed Tweet

Replying to @Mediaite

Brenda Snipes: Time to dig up the time capsule. Staffer: Why? Snipes: We stored extra Democrat votes there a hundred years ago. Staffer: How do you know? Snipes: I was there. Staffer: Won't the voters all be dead? Snipes: If you don't understand how we work by now, get out.

0 replies 3 retweets 29 likes

Reply

Retweet

3

Retweeted

3

 

Like

29

 

Liked

29

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

I swear there are days I wonder how half the people in the media keep their jobs.

 

 

 

 

And there we go.  The dumbest thing I'll see all day.

[3rdnlng]

11 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

And there we go.  The dumbest thing I'll see all day.

You should have waited to say that. Gleeful Gator just said,"Hmmn, so that means I still have a chance"? He then asked Chicken Poo to hold his beer and is presently typing something really stupid.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

You should have waited to say that. Gleeful Gator just said,"Hmmn, so that means I still have a chance"? He then asked Chicken Poo to hold his beer and is presently typing something really stupid.

 

Nice try, but you're still only good for second place.  Try again tomorrow.

[3rdnlng]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Nice try, but you're still only good for second place.  Try again tomorrow.

Alright, you win.

[Warren Zevon]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

ha!

 

[Doc Brown]

Victim of health care bill passed in House.

[3rdnlng]

32 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

ha!

 

I think that's strange enough that the GOP should find a way to poll Maricopa County voters re their vote. I know they're not going to change it but it could trigger an investigation.

[Rob's House]

[Doc Brown]

7 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I think that's strange enough that the GOP should find a way to poll Maricopa County voters re their vote. I know they're not going to change it but it could trigger an investigation.

Not really that strange as a split ticket isn't unusual in midterms.  This one generally shifted to people voting more for a Democrat at a national level and a Senator at a state level.

 

Arizona wasn't even the biggest difference percentage wise between the five states that elected a GOP Governor and a Democratic Senator. 

 

Massachusetts - GOP Governor (66.9%), GOP Senator (36.3%) -  30.6% difference

Vermont - GOP Governor (55.4%), GOP Senator (27.4%) -              28% difference

New Hampshire - GOP Governor (52.8%), GOP Senator (31.1%) - 21.7% difference

Arizona - GOP Governor (56.4%), GOP Senator (48%) -                  8.4% difference

Ohio - GOP Governor (50.7%), GOP Senator (46.8%) -                    3.9% difference

 

Incumbency matters as all these GOP governors were popular in their states above as 2014 was a red wave election.

 

Candidate quality also matter. 

 

ex.) Although they didn't lose....Cruz received 414,378 less votes than Abbott in Texas and Coumo received 372,085 less votes than Gillibrand in New York.

 

Flake pry would've won reelection if he kept his mouth shut about Trump and ran again.

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Doc Brown

[BeginnersMind]

27 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Not really that strange as a split ticket isn't unusual in midterms.  This one generally shifted to people voting more for a Democrat at a national level and a Senator at a state level.

 

Arizona wasn't even the biggest difference percentage wise between the five states that elected a GOP Governor and a Democratic Senator. 

 

Massachusetts - GOP Governor (66.9%), GOP Senator (36.3%) -  30.6% difference

Vermont - GOP Governor (55.4%), GOP Senator (27.4%) -              28% difference

New Hampshire - GOP Governor (52.8%), GOP Senator (31.1%) - 21.7% difference

Arizona - GOP Governor (56.4%), GOP Senator (48%) -                  8.4% difference

Ohio - GOP Governor (50.7%), GOP Senator (46.8%) -                    3.9% difference

 

Incumbency matters as all these GOP governors were popular in their states above as 2014 was a red wave election.

 

Candidate quality also matter. 

 

ex.) Although they didn't lose....Cruz received 414,378 less votes than Abbott in Texas and Coumo received 372,085 less votes than Gillibrand in New York.

 

Flake pry would've won reelection if he kept his mouth shut about Trump and ran again.

 

 

 

 

Great facts there. With 46% of voters independent, it shouldn’t be so shocking when a styled moderate splits a ticket. FL has a lot of split tickets too. 

[Doc Brown]

1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Great facts there. With 46% of voters independent, it shouldn’t be so shocking when a styled moderate splits a ticket. FL has a lot of split tickets too. 

I don't trust Florida election results given its dubious history.  How Brenda Snipes wasn't fired before this election is beyond me.

[BeginnersMind]

4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I don't trust Florida election results given its dubious history.  How Brenda Snipes wasn't fired before this election is beyond me.

 

Broward County is a ***** disaster. I trust the current result and how FL can’t get it’s ***** together is beyond me. 

 

That Snipes’s name is in the media and known to us is something to be ashamed of as voters. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by BeginnersMind

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

41 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Broward County is a ***** disaster. I trust the current result and how FL can’t get it’s ***** together is beyond me. 

 

That Snipes’s name is in the media and known to us is something to be ashamed of as voters. 

 

Florida is no better than a third world country.

[BeginnersMind]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

Florida is no better than a third world country.

 

The way they run their elections feels a bit Venezuelan “democracy” that is for sure. 

 

Its worth beating the dead horse. Punch ballots in 2018. 

[Tiberius]

Quote

 

Before the election, Colorado Republicans controlled the state Senate, occupied three of the state’s five statewide offices and held five of the state’s nine seats in Congress.

Then nearly 900,000 unaffiliated voters cast their ballots and handed decisive victories to Democrats.

“The barn has been completely cleaned out,” said David Flaherty, a Colorado Republican pollster. “We’re trying to learn what motivated them. But you’re kidding yourself if you say President Trump didn’t have something to do with it.”

 

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/11/11/colorado-republicans-cory-gardner-donald-trump/

3 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

Florida is no better than a third world country.

GOP trying to stop military absentee ballots from being counted. Happy Veterans Day! 

[Buffalo_Gal]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Not really that strange as a split ticket isn't unusual in midterms.  This one generally shifted to people voting more for a Democrat at a national level and a Senator at a state level.

 

Arizona wasn't even the biggest difference percentage wise between the five states that elected a GOP Governor and a Democratic Senator. 

 

Massachusetts - GOP Governor (66.9%), GOP Senator (36.3%) -  30.6% difference

Vermont - GOP Governor (55.4%), GOP Senator (27.4%) -              28% difference

New Hampshire - GOP Governor (52.8%), GOP Senator (31.1%) - 21.7% difference

Arizona - GOP Governor (56.4%), GOP Senator (48%) -                  8.4% difference

Ohio - GOP Governor (50.7%), GOP Senator (46.8%) -                    3.9% difference

 

Incumbency matters as all these GOP governors were popular in their states above as 2014 was a red wave election.

 

Candidate quality also matter. 

 

ex.) Although they didn't lose....Cruz received 414,378 less votes than Abbott in Texas and Coumo received 372,085 less votes than Gillibrand in New York.

 

Flake pry would've won reelection if he kept his mouth shut about Trump and ran again.

 

 

 

I wouldn't be strange at all if it was:

moderate/conservative
moderate/liberal

However, this is:

extreme liberal/conservative

It does not align in any political sphere. 

However, McSally was a terrible candidate. Simply terrible. So, there is that.

[Warren Zevon]

#walkaway doh

[Tiberius]

And don't forget, North Carolina is a totally gerrymandered state still. But won't be in 2020. Three or four more Dem seats from that state next time 

[B-Man]

Great news: Broward might start getting around to beginning recount this morning. Maybe.

 

 

.

[Warren Zevon]

 

[B-Man]

Quote

 

POLITICO‏Verified account @politico 16h16 hours ago

 

Counting unlawful votes. Destroying ballots. Busted deadlines.

So many controversies have bedeviled Broward County Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes — culminating in her office’s troubles in the aftermath of Florida’s 2018 elections

 

 

 

.

 

Broward still hasn’t started recount. Deadline is Thursday for 700,000 ballots.

Broward Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes said she was not concerned.

 

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/11/12/broward-still-hasnt-started-recount-deadline-is-thursday-for-700000-ballots/

[whatdrought]

Maybe we can get a two for one from a company that's apt at removing chunks of land from continents. They can take California and Florida and let them be free to mess up crap on their own. 

[B-Man]

Brenda Snipes Says Boxes Found in Rental Car at Ft. Lauderdale Airport Contained Blank Ballots.

 

“The rental car had been driven by a Democratic Broward supervisor of elections employee.”

 

 

.

 

[IDBillzFan]

5 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Brenda Snipes Says Boxes Found in Rental Car at Ft. Lauderdale Airport Contained Blank Ballots.

 

“The rental car had been driven by a Democratic Broward supervisor of elections employee.”

 

 

.

 

 

How Snipes isn't wearing an orange jumpsuit is the most stunning part of this story.

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, LABillzFan said:

 

How Snipes isn't wearing an orange jumpsuit is the most stunning part of this story.

Damn, propaganda works! 

[TakeYouToTasker]

The penalty for organized election fraud needs to be the noose, and I'm being completely serious.

 

It's the only way this stuff will come to an end.

[Tiberius]

SC might be following in Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia's turn towards the good side. 

Quote

While it’s human nature to blame someone, what happened here is far bigger than any postelection spin, given that it has been more than 40 years since a Democrat has held this seat, which runs along South Carolina’s coast and leans Republican by 10 points. In fact, there was not a more conservative district in the country to flip to the Democrats.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/a-wake-up-call-for-the-gop.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

[billsfan89]

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

And don't forget, North Carolina is a totally gerrymandered state still. But won't be in 2020. Three or four more Dem seats from that state next time 

 

Gerrymandering (which is done by both parties, this is not a partisan issue) is one of the biggest and most open forms of corruption and its shocking to me in an age of such advanced technology and algorithms we allow pols of either party to make these horrid maps to their parties benefit. How there isn't an universal algorithm to draw maps in ways that make sense and avoid partisan pols running the system is shocking. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

9 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Gerrymandering (which is done by both parties, this is not a partisan issue) is one of the biggest and most open forms of corruption and its shocking to me in an age of such advanced technology and algorithms we allow pols of either party to make these horrid maps to their parties benefit. How there isn't an universal algorithm to draw maps in ways that make sense and avoid partisan pols running the system is shocking. 

 

The best way to achieve active representation in Congress for the largest amount of Americans is to create districts which are as politically homogeneous as possible.

 

This ensures that citizens in a given area have a greater chance of having a Congress person who accurately represents their views and philosophies in the House of Representatives.

 

Districts designed to be competitive marginalize a higher percentage of the electorate by design as roughly 50% of the voters in a given area have no one in Congress representing their political views.

 

The House of Representatives was designed to give people  a voice in their government. 

 

Your suggestion gives them less of a voice, and insists that rather than individuals be represented within the body, that the body should be constructed in a way that suits a mathematical formula.

 

That's a bad thing.

Edited November 13, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[billsfan89]

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The best way to achieve active representation in Congress for the largest amount of Americans is to create districts which are as politically homogeneous as possible.

 

This ensures that citizens in a given area have a greater chance of having a Congress person who accurately represents their views and philosophies in the House of Representatives.

 

Districts designed to be competitive marginalize a higher percentage of the electorate by design as roughly 50% of the voters in a given area have no one in Congress representing their political views.

 

The House of Representatives was designed to give people  a voice in their government. 

 

Your suggestion gives them less of a voice, and insists that rather than individuals be represented within the body, that the body should be constructed in a way that suits a mathematical formula.

 

That's a bad thing.

 

Your argument would have more weight if districts were drawn to have equal partisan representation and algorithms can provide a better way to actually accomplish what you want too. Often times a part will win 47% of the votes but only gain 23% representation because, you can't always expect 1:1 representation but 1:2 shows you that gerrymandering isn't representing people in any way. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by billsfan89

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

Your argument would have more weight if districts were drawn to have equal partisan representation and algorithms can provide a better way to actually accomplish what you want too. Often times a part will win 47% of the votes but only gain 23% representation because, you can't always expect 1:1 representation but 1:2 shows you that gerrymandering isn't representing people in any way. 

 

Why should districts be drawn to have equal partisan representation?

 

That's not the purpose of the House of Representatives.

 

That's insisting that the House represent mathematical formulas rather than individuals.

 

To refute my argument you'll need to successfully make two cases:

 

1)  That the House was designed to be ideologically split on a 1:1 basis, or close to it.

 

2)  That representative government is better served when a smaller number of franchised individuals have a voice in government.

 

I'm open to hearing your argument, but you haven't made it yet.

[keepthefaith]

52 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Gerrymandering (which is done by both parties, this is not a partisan issue) is one of the biggest and most open forms of corruption and its shocking to me in an age of such advanced technology and algorithms we allow pols of either party to make these horrid maps to their parties benefit. How there isn't an universal algorithm to draw maps in ways that make sense and avoid partisan pols running the system is shocking. 

 

IIRC, the rules for districting are individual to each state and in the case of Illinois somewhat vague.  Pols like it that way just like they usually oppose term limits and strict voting laws.  Increasingly we live in their sandbox unfortunately.  In Illinois our outgoing governor got enough signatures to get term limits on the ballot a few years ago only to have some friendly to the opposition court decide that the constitutional effort to get it on the ballot was unconstitutional or something like that. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by keepthefaith

[Koko78]

3 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

IIRC, the rules for districting are individual to each state and in the case of Illinois somewhat vague.  Pols like it that way just like they usually oppose term limits and strict voting laws.  Increasingly we live in their sandbox unfortunately.  In Illinois our outgoing governor got enough signatures to get term limits on the ballet a few years ago only to have some friendly to the opposition court decide that the constitutional effort to get it on the ballot was unconstitutional or something like that. 

 

The only reason that Illinois gerrymandering is allowed by the Courts is that they worded the law so vaguely that no one can actually tell if it's being violated.

[billsfan89]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Why should districts be drawn to have equal partisan representation?

 

That's not the purpose of the House of Representatives.

 

That's insisting that the House represent mathematical formulas rather than individuals.

 

To refute my argument you'll need to successfully make two cases:

 

1)  That the House was designed to be ideologically split on a 1:1 basis, or close to it.

 

2)  That representative government is better served when a smaller number of franchised individuals have a voice in government.

 

I'm open to hearing your argument, but you haven't made it yet.

 

So you honestly see no problem with 47% of votes going to one party but only 23% of the seats going to that one party? I don't understand your argument here. I am fine with districts being homogeneous if your premise is to be believed but they aren't drawn that way. Gerrymandering will place 2 large population centers of one party into 1 district that will vote 90% with one party then split the suburbs which have 50% less population into 2 districts that tend to vote 60% for one party. 

 

Drawing on partisan lines is fine if it is drawn in accordance to population and reflecting who is being represented. You can't possibly be defending the way lines are drawn to isolate small populations and concentrate large ones. In a Democracy you have to have a system that actually represents the votes of the people and not the power of the party to draw silly and insane lines. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

So you honestly see no problem with 47% of votes going to one party but only 23% of the seats going to that one party? I don't understand your argument here. I am fine with districts being homogeneous if your premise is to be believed but they aren't drawn that way. Gerrymandering will place 2 large population centers of one party into 1 district that will vote 90% with one party then split the suburbs which have 50% less population into 2 districts that tend to vote 60% for one party. 

 

Drawing on partisan lines is fine if it is drawn in accordance to population and reflecting who is being represented. You can't possibly be defending the way lines are drawn to isolate small populations and concentrate large ones. In a Democracy you have to have a system that actually represents the votes of the people and not the power of the party to draw silly and insane lines. 

 

No, I don't, because Congressional districts are designed to function much in the same way the Electoral College does; and the 47% of voters are not in concentrated areas, but rather the large majority of them are located in urban centers, with smaller amounts dispersed throughout areas which are overwhelmingly populated by people of a different political persuasion.

 

No system will be perfect, but a system which systematically works to marginalize 50% of it's population is far worse than what we have.

 

There is no magic bullet, but your solution causes more problems for representative governance than it solves.

[billsfan89]

 

8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

No, I don't, because Congressional districts are designed to function much in the same way the Electoral College does; and the 47% of voters are not in concentrated areas, but rather the large majority of them are located in urban centers, with smaller amounts dispersed throughout areas which are overwhelmingly populated by people of a different political persuasion.

 

No system will be perfect, but a system which systematically works to marginalize 50% of it's population is far worse than what we have.

 

There is no magic bullet, but your solution causes more problems for representative governance than it solves.

 

The current system marginalizes people of one political persuasion based off of which party is in power when the lines are drawn. If you have a large urban center that has 50% of the population of the state but only gets 25% of the representation how is that not marginalizing 50% of the state? 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

The current system marginalizes people of one political persuasion based off of which party is in power when the lines are drawn. If you have a large urban center that has 50% of the population of the state but only gets 25% of the representation how is that not marginalizing 50% of the state? 

 

Again, the system we have isn't perfect, but what you propose is a non-solution which causes more problems than it solves.