US Midterm Election 2018 Megathread- It's Kavanaugh

[Washington Resistance Army]

But maybe it'll take a blowout, maybe several, to show the GOP that maybe, just maybe they need to straighten out? So, I would like to see the base nominate someone extreme just to prove a point.

I doubt that would prove the point to them. If losing a Senate seat in Alabama doesn't prove to republicans that radical nominees can cost them elections nothing will.

Losing a Senate seat in Alabama had nothing to do with the candidate being radical.

[Tobleste]

Yes. They're a minority of the population. The Senate, white house and state house races aren't representative of the national population. The house isn't either because of gerrymandering and crowding.

By what metric are Republicans the minority? Republicans have a majority in the Senate. You can't gerrymander that. Republicans have a governor in 33 of the states. That's not just the small Western states, they reside over ~60% of the U.S. population. You can't gerrymander that. Republicans have a majority in the House. Yes, that can be gerrymandered, but Republican congressman still received more total votes than Democrats in 2016. For Governors, state houses, the Senate, the House, the Presidency, and soon to be the Supreme Court, Republicans are in the majority. Not by cheating, but by winning the most votes.

You can't gerrymander the Senate but it isn't representative of the majority either. Democrats could get 30 million votes and get 2 seats in California while republicans could get 20 million and about 20 seats across 10 small states. The reverse is possible (dems winning small states) but small, rural states are disproportionately republican so the Senate favours republicans. Governor houses are the same though greater turnout among republicans helped them build up that lead over recent years. The same is true of the white house which has given republicans 3 of the last 7 elections despite them losing the popular vote in 6 of the same 7. Again, a case of a minority ruling over the majority.

Also, there's the simple fact that there is less republicans than democrats which is my whole point:

Over the last 10 years, Democrats have yet to trail Republicans in any month. At best, Republicans have tied Democrats, as they did in August 2010 and August and September 2015.

From a longer-term perspective, using annual data from Gallup nontracking polls that go back to the early 1990s, Democrats have averaged a five-point advantage over Republicans in party affiliation, with leads in all but four years.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/223124/dem ... ation.aspx

They're a minority of the population. I don't think you get my point if you think the supreme court is reflective of that. They have an overwhelming majority of political power but are a small slice of the population than democrats and have been for several years. They've built up that extra lead due to higher turnout yes, but also by a system that isn't fully representative of the population.

[Tobleste]

I doubt that would prove the point to them. If losing a Senate seat in Alabama doesn't prove to republicans that radical nominees can cost them elections nothing will.

Losing a Senate seat in Alabama had nothing to do with the candidate being radical.

Good point. I guess I was using radical as a euphemism for 'accused of child molestation'. Though I think a more moderate republican would still have won Alabama with the accusations. He lost because he was a far right conservative with serious accusations against him. I think he could have survived one of the two.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Losing a Senate seat in Alabama had nothing to do with the candidate being radical.

Good point. I guess I was using radical as a euphemism for 'accused of child molestation'. Though I think a more moderate republican would still have won Alabama with the accusations. He lost because he was a far right conservative with serious accusations against him. I think he could have survived one of the two.

Any Republican would have won Alabama without the allegations, it's one of the most deeply conservative states in the union. Come 2020 it's going to go Republican again unless Moore, against all god damn odds, secures a nomination again.

[Cannot think of a name]

So basically McSally is the best bet going forward, even if it's a loss of one seat, it would be a close race, and not a blow-out like with Arpaio, and hopefully McSally doesn't blow that lead to Ward or Arpaio, which I doubt it.

But maybe it'll take a blowout, maybe several, to show the GOP that maybe, just maybe they need to straighten out? So, I would like to see the base nominate someone extreme just to prove a point.

When it happened in 2006 and 2008 they just cranked the dial to 11 and wound up back in power.

[Tobleste]

By what metric are Republicans the minority? Republicans have a majority in the Senate. You can't gerrymander that. Republicans have a governor in 33 of the states. That's not just the small Western states, they reside over ~60% of the U.S. population. You can't gerrymander that. Republicans have a majority in the House. Yes, that can be gerrymandered, but Republican congressman still received more total votes than Democrats in 2016. For Governors, state houses, the Senate, the House, the Presidency, and soon to be the Supreme Court, Republicans are in the majority. Not by cheating, but by winning the most votes.

The Senate, like the electoral college, provides greater influence to smaller or less populated states. This is not a problem because that's what it was designed to do, but it remains true that the per capita influence of a voter in Wyoming is greater than that of New York, and since Republicans are more popular in less populated states, they would, theoretically, have to convince less people to vote for them than Democrats to get their senate seats and, while in the Senate, represent fewer constituents overall.

Further, the House is gerrymandered such that their representation is also undo. This is bad because this is not what the House was meant to do. By gerrymandering the House, they've created a system where they need fewer votes overall to get a larger majority and maintain it. It's why that many people speculate that Dems need to win the vote margins for the House by 5%+ in order to get the narrowest of majorities. That's bad. Gerrymandering has royally fucked the House and the party that does it harder/first will win more often and make it much harder for the Opposition to break their majority, this is what Republicans have done and how they held on to the House on a few occasions while holding less than 50% of all votes cast for the House.

State elections are just generally suppressed turnout-wise and Democrats tend not to turnout for non-major elections like Presidential ones. Older people have more time on their hands to vote in that way, and older people trend Republican.

SCOTUS was bullshit through and through, of course. Pure partisan horseshit stunts to deny a SCOTUS nominee for political points in an upcoming election. Something about SCOTUS needing to be free of politics. The kinds of stunts that got Republicans control of SCOTUS should not be encouraged, because they're reflective of the general "zero-sum game" that Reps turned politics into following Bill Clinton's departure from the White House. That kind of dirty politics is what makes me extremely angry at society in general, so to reiterate, should not be encouraged.

In summation, this post reads like a braggadocios "my side is winning lol" post without much thought beyond that.

I get what you're saying about not encouraging the judicial gamesmanship that republicans have embraced but anything less would equate to democrats disarming themselves while their opponent is still fighting them. Personally, I'd love to see a dem Senate simply refuse to nominate any nominee by a republican president. Simply adapt McConnels tactics and refuse to let the opposition POUTS do his job. Voters have shown that they won't punish this.

[Tobleste]

I doubt that would prove the point to them. If losing a Senate seat in Alabama doesn't prove to republicans that radical nominees can cost them elections nothing will.

Its my hope that this midterm and the 2020 elections are such wave elections they realize they are becoming too extreme.

Hopefully. The Senate map may help them retain that so I don't know if the midterms could do it but 2020 could. Clinton was utterly despised and was about .1% of the vote from beating trump who is less popular now then when he was elected so I can't see him winning in 2020 when the Senate map favours democrats. Maybe a hammering in 2020 could make them realise they've gotten as much votes as possible out of the 'angry, white retiree' approach.

[Tobleste]

Good point. I guess I was using radical as a euphemism for 'accused of child molestation'. Though I think a more moderate republican would still have won Alabama with the accusations. He lost because he was a far right conservative with serious accusations against him. I think he could have survived one of the two.

Any Republican would have won Alabama without the allegations, it's one of the most deeply conservative states in the union. Come 2020 it's going to go Republican again unless Moore, against all god damn odds, secures a nomination again.

I agree but I remember hearing that Moore was doing slightly less well than republicans usually do there. An extreme republican apparently can't win with the allegations against them but I think a less extreme choice would win even if he did end up getting accused.

[The Gipper]

I would personally not go counting the non-christian senators before November if I were a Arizonan. Could be wrong, but I suspect the attacks on Sinema will pick up quite a bit when the threat of her high poll numbers isn't helping the GOP establishment. Right now it is in both parties interests for her to look like a strong candidate. I bet it's going to be a tough race.

[The Gipper]

Any Republican would have won Alabama without the allegations, it's one of the most deeply conservative states in the union. Come 2020 it's going to go Republican again unless Moore, against all god damn odds, secures a nomination again.

I agree but I remember hearing that Moore was doing slightly less well than republicans usually do there. An extreme republican apparently can't win with the allegations against them but I think a less extreme choice would win even if he did end up getting accused.

There's a reason Trump said he could shoot someone on a public street and get away with it. Moore has made it his mission to tie into the most out there wing of the evangelicals (it takes a special type of social conservative to talk about "sodomy" on the campaign trail these days). I never thought in a million years a Republican President might get elected running a campaign that for a while around South Carolina's primary flirted with the idea 9/11 was somewhat Bush's fault. That McCain wasn't a hero. Trump can get away with insane shit precisely because he's far far far outside the mainstream and the outside the mainstream followers are more likely to stay the course. A more moderate person doing stuff 10% as off the wall would be eaten alive.

The idea that Luther Strange or some other stick in the mud, boring establishment candidate would have people stick around them in the face of these type of allegations to a greater extent than someone like Moore that had taken care to see he had fanatical support within some segment of the population is seems counter-intuitive to me.

EDIT: That said, it's kind of beside the point. Neither party should be trying to figure out which child molesters have the best odds at winning in the general. It was a one-off thing that needed to happen and will revert back to GOP hands in 2020 without much importance. But it is important to realize that being a moderate is not an asset in today's fierce media climate. It likely just means when there's some big scandal you're going to catch incoming on both flanks and you won't have that many people willing to stick a neck out for you, because you're a dime a dozen.

[San Lumen]

I agree but I remember hearing that Moore was doing slightly less well than republicans usually do there. An extreme republican apparently can't win with the allegations against them but I think a less extreme choice would win even if he did end up getting accused.

There's a reason Trump said he could shoot someone on a public street and get away with it. Moore has made it his mission to tie into the most out there wing of the evangelicals (it takes a special type of social conservative to talk about "sodomy" on the campaign trail these days). I never thought in a million years a Republican President might get elected running a campaign that for a while around South Carolina's primary flirted with the idea 9/11 was somewhat Bush's fault. That McCain wasn't a hero. Trump can get away with insane shit precisely because he's far far far outside the mainstream and the outside the mainstream followers are more likely to stay the course. A more moderate person doing stuff 10% as off the wall would be eaten alive.

The idea that Luther Strange or some other stick in the mud, boring establishment candidate would have people stick around them in the face of these type of allegations to a greater extent than someone like Moore that had taken care to see he had fanatical support within some segment of the population is seems counter-intuitive to me.

I honestly think in some places a Republican candidate could say the Earth is flat, gravity isn't real, the space program is a lie and call for the firing of anyone who whose not white from a public service job and they still get elected

[Puldania]

There's a reason Trump said he could shoot someone on a public street and get away with it. Moore has made it his mission to tie into the most out there wing of the evangelicals (it takes a special type of social conservative to talk about "sodomy" on the campaign trail these days). I never thought in a million years a Republican President might get elected running a campaign that for a while around South Carolina's primary flirted with the idea 9/11 was somewhat Bush's fault. That McCain wasn't a hero. Trump can get away with insane shit precisely because he's far far far outside the mainstream and the outside the mainstream followers are more likely to stay the course. A more moderate person doing stuff 10% as off the wall would be eaten alive.

The idea that Luther Strange or some other stick in the mud, boring establishment candidate would have people stick around them in the face of these type of allegations to a greater extent than someone like Moore that had taken care to see he had fanatical support within some segment of the population is seems counter-intuitive to me.

I honestly think in some places a Republican candidate could say the Earth is flat, gravity isn't real, the space program is a lie and call for the firing of anyone who whose not white from a public service job and they still get elected

God you're unlikable.
You're not going to win an election with that mentality.

[The Gipper]

I honestly think in some places a Republican candidate could say the Earth is flat, gravity isn't real, the space program is a lie and call for the firing of anyone who whose not white from a public service job and they still get elected

God you're unlikable.
You're not going to win an election with that mentality.

Not unlikable, just partisan. They aren't wrong. The same of course is true of Democrats. Roy Moore almost won. That's mind boggling. Facts have become completely transformable to justify just about anything. The media is now used by both sides to completely obliterate the other side and shield honest discussion of their side's faults. The left is slightly better at distorting things but the right is making rapid gains to level the playing field.

But we're the ones doing it, we're the ones that are acting this partisan. So who are we to complain?

[Cannot think of a name]

I honestly think in some places a Republican candidate could say the Earth is flat, gravity isn't real, the space program is a lie and call for the firing of anyone who whose not white from a public service job and they still get elected

God you're unlikable.
You're not going to win an election with that mentality.

What office is San Lumen running for?

[San Lumen]

God you're unlikable.
You're not going to win an election with that mentality.

What office is San Lumen running for?

Im not running for anything

[San Lumen]

God you're unlikable.
You're not going to win an election with that mentality.

Not unlikable, just partisan. They aren't wrong. The same of course is true of Democrats. Roy Moore almost won. That's mind boggling. Facts have become completely transformable to justify just about anything. The media is now used by both sides to completely obliterate the other side and shield honest discussion of their side's faults. The left is slightly better at distorting things but the right is making rapid gains to level the playing field.

But we're the ones doing it, we're the ones that are acting this partisan. So who are we to complain?

Im not going to deny there are areas where a Democrat is virtually guaranteed of winning but its likely such a candidate for the Democrats would be forced to drop out or disowned by the party. There is a double standard

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Not unlikable, just partisan. They aren't wrong. The same of course is true of Democrats. Roy Moore almost won. That's mind boggling. Facts have become completely transformable to justify just about anything. The media is now used by both sides to completely obliterate the other side and shield honest discussion of their side's faults. The left is slightly better at distorting things but the right is making rapid gains to level the playing field.

But we're the ones doing it, we're the ones that are acting this partisan. So who are we to complain?

Im not going to deny there are areas where a Democrat is virtually guaranteed of winning but its likely such a candidate for the Democrats would be forced to drop out or disowned by the party. There is a double standard

I could see that possibly happening...but I understand what you’re getting at with the fucking piece of shit Nazi running for the house seat in Illinois.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Im not going to deny there are areas where a Democrat is virtually guaranteed of winning but its likely such a candidate for the Democrats would be forced to drop out or disowned by the party. There is a double standard

I could see that possibly happening...but I understand what you’re getting at with the fucking piece of shit Nazi running for the house seat in Illinois.

Who was totally disavowed by literally the entire Republican party. That's just what happens when one side runs totally unopposed, extremists will try to fill the void and use it for their own gains.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

I could see that possibly happening...but I understand what you’re getting at with the fucking piece of shit Nazi running for the house seat in Illinois.

Who was totally disavowed by literally the entire Republican party. That's just what happens when one side runs totally unopposed, extremists will try to fill the void and use it for their own gains.

It was true he was disavowed by the GOP. However, will we see a Democratic candidate that is so far left, they will be disavowed by the Democratic Party? With the state of American politics as bad as it is, I can see that happening.

[San Lumen]

Im not going to deny there are areas where a Democrat is virtually guaranteed of winning but its likely such a candidate for the Democrats would be forced to drop out or disowned by the party. There is a double standard

I could see that possibly happening...but I understand what you’re getting at with the fucking piece of shit Nazi running for the house seat in Illinois.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... rs-697379/
Hes not the only one. Corey Stewart a neo confederate got the nomination for senate in Virginia.
There is another Nazi Holocaust denier running in California 11 John Fitzgerald (R) who think think the Holocaust is total lie.

And if that wasn't;t enough you have Seth Grossman (R) running in New Jerseys 2nd district which includes Atlantic City espousing gay man should have been quarantined in the 1980s and Islam is a cancer among other horrible things.

and then you have Paul Nehlan (R) running in Paul Ryan's seat who has called himself pro white and has palled around David Duke. He's so right wing even Breitbart disowned him.

And of course there is Joe Arpaio running for Senate in Arizona. Arpaio and Nehlan still have to win their primaries.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

I could see that possibly happening...but I understand what you’re getting at with the fucking piece of shit Nazi running for the house seat in Illinois.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... rs-697379/
Hes not the only one. Corey Stewart a neo confederate got the nomination for senate in Virginia.
There is another Nazi Holocaust denier running in California 11 John Fitzgerald (R) who think think the Holocaust is total lie.

And if that wasn't;t enough you have Seth Grossman (R) running in New Jerseys 2nd district which includes Atlantic City espousing gay man should have been quarantined in the 1980s and Islam is a cancer among other horrible things.

and then you have Paul Nehlan (R) running in Paul Ryan's seat who has called himself pro white and has palled around David Duke. He's so right wing even Breitbart disowned him.

And of course there is Joe Arpaio running for Senate in Arizona. Arpaio and Nehlan still have to win their primaries.

Great, the GOP embracing white nationalism and the Democrats embracing socialism. Yep, this election and the next one is sure going to suck....

[San Lumen]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... rs-697379/
Hes not the only one. Corey Stewart a neo confederate got the nomination for senate in Virginia.
There is another Nazi Holocaust denier running in California 11 John Fitzgerald (R) who think think the Holocaust is total lie.

And if that wasn't;t enough you have Seth Grossman (R) running in New Jerseys 2nd district which includes Atlantic City espousing gay man should have been quarantined in the 1980s and Islam is a cancer among other horrible things.

and then you have Paul Nehlan (R) running in Paul Ryan's seat who has called himself pro white and has palled around David Duke. He's so right wing even Breitbart disowned him.

And of course there is Joe Arpaio running for Senate in Arizona. Arpaio and Nehlan still have to win their primaries.

Great, the GOP embracing white nationalism and the Democrats embracing socialism. Yep, this election and the next one is sure going to suck....

Id gladly vote for a socialist over a literal Nazi.

[Valrifell]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... rs-697379/
Hes not the only one. Corey Stewart a neo confederate got the nomination for senate in Virginia.
There is another Nazi Holocaust denier running in California 11 John Fitzgerald (R) who think think the Holocaust is total lie.

And if that wasn't;t enough you have Seth Grossman (R) running in New Jerseys 2nd district which includes Atlantic City espousing gay man should have been quarantined in the 1980s and Islam is a cancer among other horrible things.

and then you have Paul Nehlan (R) running in Paul Ryan's seat who has called himself pro white and has palled around David Duke. He's so right wing even Breitbart disowned him.

And of course there is Joe Arpaio running for Senate in Arizona. Arpaio and Nehlan still have to win their primaries.

Great, the GOP embracing white nationalism and the Democrats embracing socialism. Yep, this election and the next one is sure going to suck....

But Socialism is neat.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Great, the GOP embracing white nationalism and the Democrats embracing socialism. Yep, this election and the next one is sure going to suck....

But Socialism is neat.

Socialism is a bad meme that is worse than capitalism by every metric, change my mind :^]

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Great, the GOP embracing white nationalism and the Democrats embracing socialism. Yep, this election and the next one is sure going to suck....

Id gladly vote for a socialist over a literal Nazi.

And I’m going to vote for the Libertarian candidate...if there is one. If not, I’m not going to vote at all.