Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The Presidential elections are every 4 years. Midterm elections are every 2 years, with a third of Senate and the entirety of the House going up for reelection. And yes, it was the 2014 midterms that saw the Republicans gain control of Senate, while also increasing their hold on the House. It was the midterm where they gained a net 9 seats in Senate, which was the largest Senate net gain in decades.
Edited by ITNW1989 on Nov 1st 2018 at 2:15:51 AM
Hitokiri in the streets, daishouri in the sheets.Senatorial elections are staggered, with a predetermined group out of 3 going for re/election every two years.The wiki article provides a better explanation of how the Class system works in the Senate.
Imagine how much more worried and panicked Republicans might have been if it were Class II or III going up for reelection this year, which have mostly Republican Senators compared to Class I, which is up for reelection this year and has 23 Democrats and 2 Independents on the ballot, and only 8 Republicans.
Edited by ITNW1989 on Nov 1st 2018 at 2:24:33 AM
Hitokiri in the streets, daishouri in the sheets.So, apparently, Cruz is likely to win in Texas.
I'm sure this will be disappointing to a lot of people (not necessarily here, because I think most of us understand that O'Rourke was fighting an uphill battle and did very well all things considered), but there is an upside: he has sown the seeds for the Republicans' eventual defeat. O'Rourke has won the support of the youth; this has unfortunately not resulted in votes for the election, but that doesn't mean that this is insignificant. To quote the article.
What is clear is that even if Cruz wins, the Republican Party has set the stage to lose control in the future. Already, the major urban centers are leaning Democratic, and the final holdout—Tarrant County—may go Democratic this year. But the real loss for Republicans is that the young people supporting O’Rourke now but not voting will become voters as they mature, have children and buy homes. Political parties that lose the young lose their future. Just look at the Texas Democratic Party.
When I went to the Republican Party of Texas convention in San Antonio this year, there certainly were a lot of delegates there, and it was a healthier party than the Democrats in 2000. But the visual image was the same. There were few young people in the crowd. White-haired people sat politely in row after row of delegate seating. And the speakers concentrated mostly on social conservative issues and their support for President Trump.
The scene was completely different at the Tarrant County Convention Center where the Democrats gathered for their convention. It not only was different from the Republicans, but different from the one I covered there in 2000. The hallways were filled with people of different ethnicities and young people were everywhere. There was a vibrancy, an electricity in the convention center of young people engaging in the system. Despite structural problems with the party management and the lack of a bench of statewide candidates in waiting, the Democrats after a long night near the crypt are coming back.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Nov 1st 2018 at 6:57:02 AM
"The seeds of Republican defeat" have been being sewn for two years now. Every time a Democrat loses, the articles are all about how the temporarily embarrassed majority party will totes win in the long run despite this defeat. I'll believe it when I see it.
That said, House races are looking good.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Nov 1st 2018 at 8:20:34 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Which is true but besides the point, by showing off the policy we want to pass that the Republicans are mindlessly obstructing it can help us in the Senate races in 2020 and the General Election.
He was always likely to win Texas, Beeto has far better chances then a Democrat has any right to have and thus should not be written out until the last vote is counted.
This would be a foolish way to look at it, a perpetually low turnout Demographic tripling its turnout is extremely noteworthy and the fact that it's still not equivalent to high turnout demographics is only really worth pointing out if you want to ignore the significance.
They will never vote like 60-year-olds and people really need to stop comparing them, it's just not useful.
I have literally never seen this, just people talking about how the Dems chances are getting worse but totally ignore the polls.
What is true is that things are looking extremely good for the Democrats over-all, historically bad Senate map or no.
What does "winning control of the US" even mean? We're in position to do very well in the House and Local legislatures, and the Senate map is bad but 1 in 7 chances happen all the time (after all today is Thursday
) so it would be a mistake to discount it.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Nov 1st 2018 at 11:08:41 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangGoing off what Tobias said a few pages back, I have two friends at work who are in their mid 20s. They don't plan to vote in the midterms. I tried encouraging them to do so, giving many reasons but they just aren't that interested. Sigh.
You can't force enthusiasm but it's disheartening that they don't want to participate.
Edited by speedyboris on Nov 1st 2018 at 10:18:39 AM
Yeah, I've seen it, it's a fundamentally flawed video.
He says that "on its own the [Republican] ideological shift is not a huge problem as long the two parties work together"
Which is where it falls into the classic media critique that is directly responsible for #bothsides and refusal to talk about Republican ills, the idea that the only thing that matters is tone. Their position is that the Republicans can be far-right fascists if they want but they just need to be more polite about it.
Which is insane, you can't act as if their tone is the problem while ignoring the fact that their views are what cause it. They're intrinsically intertwined.
When tone is the only thing that matters people who get angry at Republican depredations are just as bad as the Republicans because they may both sound similar, nevermind the fact that they have very different objectives. Thus spawning the exact #bothsides narrative that the video wants to fight.
I don't think that video is horrible per-se but it's directly feeding the problem that it seems to want to oppose.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Nov 1st 2018 at 11:25:17 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
Unless the reason you didn't vote was that you were prevented from registering or voting due to targeted voter suppression.
Which I feel the need to mention because voter suppression isn't a new thing and I've had several friends from the US mention that they felt personally attacked when, after the 2016 election, white liberals were all complaining about the low voter turnout and how if only these young people/minorities had come out to vote more, we wouldn't have Trump now...
When they 'tried to register and vote only do discover that their registration had been (intentionally) delayed, 'gotten lost' or been revoked without their knowledge.
Edited by Robrecht on Nov 1st 2018 at 4:28:25 PM
Angry gets shit done.Yes, which is why they said don't vote instead of can't.
When they 'tried to register and vote only do discover that their registration had been (intentionally) delayed, 'gotten lost' or been revoked without their knowledge.
Yes, voter suppression existed, but minority and youth turnout were still low and there's no evidence to believe that all of them were suppressed. Democratic turnout is a major thing that helped Obama win and caused Hillary to fail, it's simply false to act as if the sole reason is voter suppression.
Furthermore I take issue with "white Liberal" the Liberal you're responding to is IIRC Asian-American so it's rather egregious to act as if people rightfully complaining about people not bothering to vote is somehow solely a white thing or if that's even relevant, not voting against Donald Trump if you can is absolutely something worth judging regardless of one's race.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Nov 1st 2018 at 11:36:51 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangWell you're a Liberal in the bastardized American sense which means "anyone to the Left of Ronald Reagan"
But yes glad to hear that I was correct, I wouldn't want to incorrectly assign someone to a demographic.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Nov 1st 2018 at 11:40:09 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangIt seems that despite the hand-wringing over Republican voters showing up in high numbers for early voting, there's some evidence that not only are the Democrats keeping more of their own but also snagging undecided by a 2-to-1 margin.
Really anything that looks at early voting is going to be less than ideal, but if this holds out the narrative that the GOP is winning through early voting is bunk.
—
On a more personal note, when the heck did all these campaign ads start appearing here? And why the heck are they all for the local Republican candidates? I've seen more references to evil Mike Madigan (major IL Democratic leader) in the past hour than when watching TV at home!
Oh come on. I said what I said in plain fucking English.
My friends were upset that at the time right after the 2016 a whole bunch of white liberals, i.e. people who didn't get targeted with voter suppression because they were white, were complaining that too few people voted.
Not that too many people were unable to vote, because they probably weren't even aware that race-based voter suppression was still a thing, but that too many people didn't vote. And they blamed all those people who didn't vote without even considering that there could have been another reason besides voluntary choice why people wouldn't vote.
That's why is you mean to say 'You don't get to complain if you chose not to vote', that is what you should say and not 'If you didn't vote, you don't get to complain'.
Angry gets shit done.They will never vote like 60-year-olds and people really need to stop comparing them, it's just not useful.
Anyway, two articles in the news. One, about why Trump talking about birthright citizenship matters
, even if his attempt to wipe his ass with the Constitution fails.
Trump’s argument is radical, and his proposal is plainly unconstitutional; the president can’t simply nullify the meaning of a constitutional amendment. Trump’s rhetoric is just that—rhetoric with little bearing on actual policymaking. But he is the president. His words matter. And attacking birthright citizenship as part of a racist hysteria campaign is as close as we will likely get to Trump openly stating his driving belief: that America is a white nation for white people.
Trump rejection of the constitutional grounding for birthright citizenship echoes a much-derided argument from former adviser Michael Anton. “So-called Birthright Citizenship, which costs our Country billions of dollars and is very unfair to our citizens, will be ended one way or the other,” the president tweeted on Wednesday. “It is not covered by the 14th Amendment because of the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ ”
Trump is trying to create an illusion of constitutional dispute and uncertainty around the issue, citing unnamed “legal scholars” to bolster his point. But birthright citizenship is on firm constitutional ground.
The text of the amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It was understood at the time to include everyone but American-born children of diplomats and Native Americans living on reservations. There have been the debates over the amendment, where opponents raised the issue of citizenship for the children of foreign-born residents and proponents affirmed their intent to provide citizenship to everyone born on American soil. And there is the 1898 Supreme Court ruling that affirmed this understanding when it upheld the citizenship of an American-born Chinese man whose parents had been legally barred by the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act from becoming citizens of the United States.
Trump is staking a radical position. Legal thinkers on both sides are pushing back, blasting his proposal as “unconstitutional,” at odds with the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment, and far beyond the scope of presidential power. “Our Constitution could not be clearer that it is Congress, not the president, who is in the driver’s seat when it comes to immigration. And Congress has already spoken,” wrote George Conway and Neal Katyal for the Washington Post, citing a 1952 statute that reaffirmed birthright citizenship.
Even so, constitutional understandings are not static. A Supreme Court stacked with conservative justices—including two Trump nominees—might revisit our traditional understanding of birthright citizenship, opening a door to the president’s proposal. There’s also the politics. Where Trump goes, the Republican Party follows, and by floating the issue, Trump makes it a partisan concern, the first step in building a constituency for challenging the 14th Amendment. Indeed, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has already promised legislation to end birthright citizenship, calling the constitutional provision a “magnet for illegal immigration in modern times.”
For now, birthright citizenship is secure. Immediate litigation awaits any executive order, and that’s if President Trump ever produces one—recent reports suggest he spends less time on the duties of the office, and more on cable news and social media. And yet, his words have weight. They reveal his intentions. If still empowered after the midterm elections, Trump and his allies will continue their assault on undocumented immigrants and their children. They hope to block citizenship, and recent actions—like an investment in denaturalization procedures—suggest a desire to revoke it altogether.
Donald Trump is often derided as a man of impulse and ego without conviction or belief. This is true on most questions of politics and policy. But on questions of identity, Trump is an ideologue. From his anti-Obama birtherism to his present-day nativism, he has a clear perspective: that race and nationality are the basis for belonging. It’s why he refused to denounce David Duke during the presidential campaign; why he similarly refused to condemn white supremacist protesters in Charlottesville; why he uses social media to denounce black athletes and black politicians; and why he’s ending this election season with naked appeals to white racial resentment. With his broadside against birthright citizenship, he’s as close as he’s ever come to stating that outright.
If the 14th Amendment represents the struggle to build inclusive models of national identity untethered from racial caste or classification, then Trump stands for those who see America in opposite terms: as a white democracy, a master’s democracy, whose promise will always belong to those who dominate.
And second, a tidbit about why we need to stop looking at early voting for elections
. Not stop doing it, but stop reading/watching news articles about the voting turnout until Election Day is actually over.
Political journalists are desperate to fill space right now, and early votes are at least actual votes. As a political scientist who studies early voting, I get the same questions every election: Which party benefits from early voting? What can we tell from early voting so far? And—the most off-base—who will win the early vote? (Pro tip: No one “wins” the early vote—candidates win the final vote.) As Yogi Berra famously said, “it ain’t over until it’s over,” and I’d urge you to look at early voting returns the same way.
As attractive as it may be to try to use early voting results as an indicator of the final results, there are vast areas of uncertainty that make them, at best, an indicator that needs detailed analysis and context, the kind that some campaigns have but to which most observers aren’t privy. The reasons why it’s so hard to get good analysis is because the processes for early voting are very complicated and dissimilar. There are three methods or “modes” of early voting:
1) Early in-person voting: A voter appears in person to cast a ballot, usually using the same voting technology as on Election Day. Thirty-four states and D.C. provide for this.
2) Absentee and no-excuse absentee voting: A voter submits a request to receive an absentee ballot through the mail and returns the ballot via the mail or drops it off at a designated location. Twenty states require an excuse to request an absentee ballot, while 27 states and D.C. don’t require an excuse.
3) Vote at home/Vote by mail: All registered voters receive a ballot in the mail, and ballots are returned by mail or dropped off at a designated location. This is what happens in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington.
These three modes give the general gist, but even still, this masks enormous variability across the country in the methods and times for early voting, consequently influencing which and how many voters cast early ballots. There is a ton of random variability otherwise—for example, Massachusetts allows early voting only in even-year November elections. Colorado uniquely allows you to surrender your vote-at-home ballot and cast a vote in-person at “voter service and polling centers.” Eight states and D.C. allow you to put yourself on a permanent no-excuse absentee list, while some states make you request this status each election or each year. Eighteen states hold some elections fully by mail (usually some municipal or special elections).
If this all seems really complicated, it is! There has been some federal legislation that has standardized some election procedures, but like most voting rights issues, it’s often motivated by partisan competition. Even the original introduction of absentee voting fits this mold: The practice started during the Civil War when Republicans suspected that soldiers would cast a ballot for Lincoln over Mc Clellan and introduced mail-in ballots.
All of the complications around how early voting works should help to explain why it’s so hard to answer the main questions people always want answered, about whether it increases turnout and whether we can use early voting numbers to predict anything meaningful.
The scholarly experts are split on whether or not early voting laws increase or decrease turnout, in part because there’s so much variation. Early voting is just one of many ways that states can make voting easier—or harder. Registration requirements vary substantially across states, and registration has a consistently strong impact on turnout. But most importantly, scholars have known for decades that the primary barrier to higher turnout in the United States is voter disengagement and disaffection, so whatever impact early voting has, it’s probably not that significant.
To the second question, about whether we can infer anything useful from early voting returns, the answer is again familiar: “Early voting” is really complicated, and it’s really complicated to infer anything from early voting returns. I’m not alone in taking this viewpoint. Nate Silver describes why the Five Thirty Eight model doesn’t consider early votes, and Nathaniel Rakich from Five Thirty Eight provides a detailed list of the ways that early vote returns can be misleading. Harry Enten and Eric Bradner, elections analysts for CNN, give us more reasons to be cautious about over-interpreting the early vote.
These caveats coalesce around the idea that something can be learned from early voting returns, but most commentators don’t have all the information needed to put the returns fully in context, e.g., how voters have behaved in the past, how likely they are to vote in 2018, and what campaigns are doing to stimulate early voting.
The highly competitive governor’s race in Georgia is a great example where we may be reading too much into the early voting returns. Both Brian Kemp and Stacey Abrams have put a heavy focus on early voting, but Abrams is a very distinctive candidate. She is trying to make history as the first black female gubernatorial candidate in United States history. It’s no surprise that early voting is way up, especially among African Americans and Democrats. This may be an indicator of higher voter enthusiasm in that state, or it may be cannibalizing voters who would have waited until Election Day. There’s compelling evidence for both arguments.
Early voting is extremely important because it’s becoming a major part of the way people vote in the United States. And yet there are still vast areas where we have only a partial sense of the best way to administer early voting, how it changes campaigns, or how it impacts voters. There’s a lot of work ahead of us.
There are some scholars making a good run at this kind of cross-election, comparative analysis of individual voting histories. Michael Bitzer at Old North State Politics and Daniel Smith aka Election Smith are doing excellent work on North Carolina and Florida respectively, but this is only because these two states make individual voter registration and voter history files readily accessible. Most states do not.
It’s hard to sort the geniuses from the fools in this hyperpoliticized environment. My advice is pretty simple: Don’t obsess over the early vote.
Then it's absolutely possible.
All sign points towards us doing well in the House and taking control of it is more likely than not.
The Senate is unlikely but 1 in 7 odds happen all the time and thus it should not be discounted.
If we're talking about "controlling the US" then it would be a mistake to ignore Local legislatures, they have a massive impact on people's day to day lives and will play a crucial role in redistricting will affect the House for the next decade at minimum. And things are looking good for Dems there too.
And we'll only have a chance at the Presidency in 2020 so it's rather preemptive to talk about that.
Yes, which is what we mean.
There's literally no reason to assume that any regular poster here isn't acutely aware of voter suppression, thus if someone says "if you don't vote then you can't complain" then it's a safe assumption that they are talking about people who can vote but do not.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Nov 1st 2018 at 12:13:50 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

It would have had to have been 2012 or 2016.
Given that elections are every 4 years AFIAK, and this senate map is almost all democrats up for re-election.