View Poll Results: Was it a Blue...
Bust 12 5.66%
Trickle 24 11.32%
Small Wave 92 43.40%
Wave 68 32.08%
Big Wave 16 7.55%
Tsunami 0 0%
Megatsunami 0 0%
Voters: 212. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-07-2018, 09:29 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Leave that up to Mueller. Look, even Ed Rendell said you ought to legislate not investigate. You have been given the chance to prove you can make the country better and lessen our divisions. Trump will be the president over at least the next 2 years. The senate pickup virtually guarantees that. You're spinning your wheels.
That's nuts. Investigation and oversight are standard procedure for Congress, and even expected. The last 2 years of Congress has abrogated their duty by refusing to do it.

They should (and will) ask for documents and call witnesses. They don't need to make a giant spectacle of it, but it's just their duty and due diligence to investigate the possibility of wrongdoing in the executive branch.

The idea that they wouldn't, when there's tons of signs of law-breaking, is absolutely insane.

And this doesn't hinder their ability to legislate at all.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-07-2018 at 09:30 AM.
  #52  
Old 11-07-2018, 09:53 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,827
Kind of wavy in Colorado. Dems sweep statewide offices and now control both the state house and senate. My friends in Aurora also booted Mike Coffman.

Cardboard Cory's days in the senate are numbered. That number is like 800, but that's still something.
  #53  
Old 11-07-2018, 09:59 AM
Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Leave that up to Mueller. Look, even Ed Rendell said you ought to legislate not investigate.
They can and should do both. The problem with leaving it up to Mueller is the possibility that Trump did shady things which may not technically be prosecutable but are still egregiously wrong and the American people deserve to know about. If that's the case, Mueller won't be able to tell us about it.
  #54  
Old 11-07-2018, 11:05 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by suranyi View Post
If it’s a net win for the Dems, which I agree it is (they also made significant gains in several state legislatures) then how could it be a bust?
You didn't read the rest of my post? It's a bust now, but will net us more in 2020. Similar to how 2016's huge loss likely netted us the House and specific governorships yesterday.

This isn't to say yesterday sucked for Dems, but the Wave we were expecting was, imo, a bust. (Except in Michigan! Which was a nice little wave.)
  #55  
Old 11-07-2018, 11:42 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,009
Democrats got around +9% of the vote which corresponds to other wave elections. However, districts are so polarized (and gerrymandered) that +9 doesn't mean as much when there's fewer +1 - +8 districts to cover. Regardless, I'm satisfied with the results. I noticed yesterday that the GOP pundits were throwing around fairly ridiculous numbers "Democrats are expecting +60 seats but I don't think they'll see it" and now they can all pat themselves on the back and crow about how Democrats "only" got half that mythical number so it was a big failure for them.

I was more pleased to see the results in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania since those were the states that won it for Trump last time.
  #56  
Old 11-07-2018, 11:43 AM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
This isn't to say yesterday sucked for Dems, but the Wave we were expecting was, imo, a bust.
Who expected? You expected +50 seats in the House, victory in the Senate, flipping every well-contested governor's race? If so you were insanely over-optimistic . That was always a remote possibility, but these results are not some major deviation - they are dead on line with most predictions. Some serious failures, some significant wins. But overall it was a reasonably decent night for the Dems, just not a crushing victory.

I wouldn't call this a wave( unless you go by increased turnout for both parties in a neutral sense ), but calling it a bust is absurd unless only a huge victory counts.
  #57  
Old 11-07-2018, 11:58 AM
drm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
Who expected? You expected +50 seats in the House, victory in the Senate, flipping every well-contested governor's race? If so you were insanely over-optimistic . That was always a remote possibility, but these results are not some major deviation - they are dead on line with most predictions. Some serious failures, some significant wins. But overall it was a reasonably decent night for the Dems, just not a crushing victory.

I wouldn't call this a wave( unless you go by increased turnout for both parties in a neutral sense ), but calling it a bust is absurd unless only a huge victory counts.
Essentially my opinion. I went trickle. I’d add that it’s a step in the right direction

...but I personally feel the Democratic Party still has some real work to do in the next 2 years with respect to its direction.
__________________
Mel Gibson's just a big wacko douche.
  #58  
Old 11-07-2018, 12:08 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 11,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Can we agree that that's crazy, that something's wrong with our system if a Dem popular win by 5% doesn't easily translate into a House majority, while the GOP's win by 1.1% in 2016 won them a huge 241-194 House majority?
I agree that gerrymandering is a problem for the Democrats, but you need more of an analysis than that.

Part of the problem is simply self-sorting. Some amount of that 5% edge leading to parity in representation is due to things like 85% of San Francisco voting for Nancy Pelosi and 60% of North Dakota voting for Kelly Armstrong. Neither district is gerrymandered, but a lot of Democrats' votes are "wasted" because they are strongly concentrated in cities.

Polarization and self-sorting are likely a larger issue than gerrymandering (and probably harder to solve, too).
  #59  
Old 11-07-2018, 12:25 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 14,165
It's a wave, not a tsunami. I knew that last night.

To drill down further I want to know

a) the final tallies (or close enough - wait 2 days),

b) the percentage of the country voting for a Democratic House and the percentage of the country voting for a Democratic Senate,

c) as well as historic comparisons of a) and b).


After that we can discuss gerrymandering, self-sorting, and the legacy of 18th century attempts to protect slave holding via a bicameral legislature.
  #60  
Old 11-07-2018, 12:31 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
It was the biggest wave in a generation in the House. 9.4 point win in the popular vote. In the Senate, holy crap was that ugly though. And in governors races it appears there was no national trend. So a very mixed election, although I do think it's fair for Democrats to call it a wave if they want to. It's also fair for Republicans to be pretty happy with the results. They may have put the Senate out of reach for 2020, which means even if Trump loses, for the first time in forever Democrats will take power without the Senate. Which I actually think would make for a pretty good government.
  #61  
Old 11-07-2018, 12:35 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
I agree that gerrymandering is a problem for the Democrats, but you need more of an analysis than that.

Part of the problem is simply self-sorting. Some amount of that 5% edge leading to parity in representation is due to things like 85% of San Francisco voting for Nancy Pelosi and 60% of North Dakota voting for Kelly Armstrong. Neither district is gerrymandered, but a lot of Democrats' votes are "wasted" because they are strongly concentrated in cities.
The idea of concentration of votes accounting for the problem, though, should balance out. Congressional districts are roughly equal in size, and there's 435 of them.

But in fact that does not happen. In 2016 Republicans won the House popular vote by just 1.1%, but won the House 241-194, a wide margin of victory, much wider than this year. election by election results vary; in 2016 the margins roughly matched, but in 2014, the Republicans actually lost the popular vote and still won the House. Overall, Republican vote totals underperform Democratic ones and yet they win more seats. It's not a huge difference but it's there.

The Senate, of course, is extremely biased towards Republicans. The soon to be Senate is majority Republicans despite the vote over the course of all their elections (2014, 2016, and 2018) being Democratic by a wide, wide margin.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #62  
Old 11-07-2018, 12:44 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
Yeah, but you have to take into account California's jungle primary. It causes general elections for the Senate to just be between two Democrats. Take out the California popular vote when tabulating.
  #63  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:00 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,121
Yeah, it’s pretty much what I had hoped to happen, I’m especially pleased with the gains in governorships.
  #64  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:22 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 11,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
The idea of concentration of votes accounting for the problem, though, should balance out. Congressional districts are roughly equal in size, and there's 435 of them.
Why do you think it should balance out? It could balance out, but there's no reason it has to.

So far, it appears that Democrats are more likely to be clustered into places where 80% of the vote is Democrat and Republicans are more likely to be in places where, say, 55% of the vote is Republican.

Some of that is certainly gerrymandering, but even in the absence of gerrymandering, that kind of thing, where one party tends to cluster more tightly, can still happen.
  #65  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:24 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
God forbid they provide oversight! Precious Trump and his cabinet would never do anything that might come close to violating the law... how dare anyone think about looking into it?
You're misunderstanding. What Ashtura is suggesting is that the message sent by voters in House elections wasn't "Impeach Trump!", it was a message that we want more sane, more compassionate government, and not this really weird, hateful and divisive government we're currently experiencing.

So... legislate, and don't spend much time playing Don Quixote and trying to impeach Trump.
  #66  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:33 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
You're misunderstanding. What Ashtura is suggesting is that the message sent by voters in House elections wasn't "Impeach Trump!", it was a message that we want more sane, more compassionate government, and not this really weird, hateful and divisive government we're currently experiencing.

So... legislate, and don't spend much time playing Don Quixote and trying to impeach Trump.
Ashtura pretty clearly said that the Democrats shouldn't investigate the Trump administration at all. That's nuts. If he meant impeachment, then why would he use the word investigate?

If he doesn't feel that way, then he can say so and I'll gladly retract my criticism.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-07-2018 at 01:34 PM.
  #67  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:37 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
Who expected? You expected +50 seats in the House, victory in the Senate, flipping every well-contested governor's race? If so you were insanely over-optimistic .
Uh where did you get that idea? And the notion of a blue wave wasn't made up by me. I just don't think these results equate to a blue wave any way you squint at it.

But imo, this was sorta a bust. We barley won the house, got embarrassed in the Senate worse than was even predicted, and governor's races didn't break for Dems like we needed them to. Sure, there were bright spots, but considering what a trainwreck Trump is, and how racist he's been, this was a huge disappointment for me. Again, mho.
  #68  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:37 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
It was the biggest wave in a generation in the House. 9.4 point win in the popular vote. In the Senate, holy crap was that ugly though. And in governors races it appears there was no national trend. So a very mixed election, although I do think it's fair for Democrats to call it a wave if they want to. It's also fair for Republicans to be pretty happy with the results. They may have put the Senate out of reach for 2020, which means even if Trump loses, for the first time in forever Democrats will take power without the Senate. Which I actually think would make for a pretty good government.
What Democrats *did* do is stop the forward momentum by Republicans, and that was important. This was not reflected in the Senate, but it was true in local elections, where the Dems were able to split up or take control of legislatures. Florida and Georgia were major disappointments, but you could probably make the case that Kemp won by a razor thin margin because of successful vote suppression. The Dems have about a year to figure out their next move.
  #69  
Old 11-07-2018, 01:40 PM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
Why do you think it should balance out? It could balance out, but there's no reason it has to.

So far, it appears that Democrats are more likely to be clustered into places where 80% of the vote is Democrat and Republicans are more likely to be in places where, say, 55% of the vote is Republican.

Some of that is certainly gerrymandering, but even in the absence of gerrymandering, that kind of thing, where one party tends to cluster more tightly, can still happen.
Broadly speaking, white people are more politically divided than minorities. Minorities tend to cluster together geographically. So you end up in a situation where a district is nearly all minority and nearly all Democrat. Democrats win with overwhelmingly large percentages of the vote in those districts. Predominantly white districts almost never vote that monolithically, so even rural districts that are nearly all white still have significant numbers of Democratic minorities.
  #70  
Old 11-07-2018, 02:41 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 14,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
They may have put the Senate out of reach for 2020, which means even if Trump loses, for the first time in forever Democrats will take power without the Senate. Which I actually think would make for a pretty good government.
No. What would make for pretty good government would be an end to obstructionist tactics. Turn the clock back to pre-Gingrich days. Or even pre-McConnell days. That wasn't an halcyon era of democracy. But it was functional.

The only paths forward involve reform or collapse for the GOP. There's no evidence for any inclination towards the former. So we are left with the latter.

Both sides have had unified control in the past. The GOP used it to pass plutocratic tax cuts, a poorly written one with exemptions ballooning then disappearing in future years. The Democrats used their control to pass healthcare reform.

Healthcare reform. There was broad consensus that the US system was broken: rescission and the inability to get insurance for those with pre-existing conditions were two problems. The Dems discussed it for a year, held hearings, tried to arrange a compromise with the GOP. No dice. Until the GOP Senate forms a rump of at least 10 Senators willing to cross party lines, they deserve the support of nobody. In other words, my bar isn't high.



ETA: The reconstruction of the conservative mentality around staunch neuro-typical principles would be something I could support. I don't see it though.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 11-07-2018 at 02:45 PM.
  #71  
Old 11-07-2018, 06:17 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
Voters usually aren't looking for massive policy shifts when they elect new parties to govern. When massive policy shifts occur, the backlash is usually immediate and crushing. Not having the Senate would force Democrats to just govern. No major policy changes, just small stuff everyone can agree on, pass budgets and spending plans, and don't screw with people's lives or the economy.

If the Democrats prove they can really govern, rather than just pass ambitious legislation they can't implement competently, then they'll get the Senate later and can then do what they want.
  #72  
Old 11-07-2018, 06:47 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,878
I voted 'small wave' but looking at historical results in off-year elections, it wasn't really that. Democrats did about as well in the House as the out party has done in previous midterm elections after a change inPresidency, but they underperformed in the Senate, likely due to the Kavanaugh hearings.

And the popular vote is irrelevant in American politics, and especially in Senate and House races. The Democrats are sorting themselves into large population areas and abandoning the middle of the country where the majority of states are, so in any system of geographic representation they are likely to win the popular vote while losing seats.
  #73  
Old 11-07-2018, 06:47 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Bottom line is that Dems really overplayed their hand with Kavanaugh. While they were doing it, I thought they were overplaying. Democratic turnout was already going to be sky high and was near peak. Taking a stand on Kavanaugh was not going to bring out more Democratic voters. What you wanted to do was suppress Republican turnout. Giving them a rallying point was idiocy. The Republican talking point was 'If you give Democrats control, they're going to start a McCarthy style "witch hunt" of Trump and his supporters. So giving them what could easily be portrayed as a McCarthy style "witch hunt" of a Trump nominee was perhaps the dumbest thing you could do. And to what end?

Kavanaugh was a done deal and I said it as soon as he was nominated. There was nearly a zero chance Republicans were going to let him fall. The drama and the theater just made it something that they could talk about. Who is the Republican base? White men. So attacking a white man when you don't have a completely solid case makes them all feel under attack and that's what gets them to the polls. Kavanaugh is what cost them the Senate and at least some of the House. Current Democratic leadership needs to change. We can bash the Clintons for all of their mistakes, but they knew how to play the game. Current Dem leadership is playing checkers at a chess match. Geeze, even Trump wants Pelosi as House Majority leader because they know she's divisive and someone they can use as a foil to rile their base in 2020. Dems are also going to give her to them, because it doesn't matter how right the Dems are, you can always count on them to do the stupid thing.
Republicans have done genuine witch hunts against democrats (Benghazi hearings for example) and it never cost them any support in the polls.

Maybe the two parties are just different.

I'm still confused, because I think GOP turnout in 2018 was higher than GOP turnout in 2010. That is counterintuitive, they should've had more turnout in 2010 when they were locked out of power. Instead they turned out to keep power, which makes much less sense.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #74  
Old 11-07-2018, 07:17 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
Trump can boost turnout. Obama had the same ability while President. I think another contributing factor was that Democrats hyped everyone up. Pretty much from January 2017 on they were talking "Blue Wave!", whereas in 1994, 2006, 2010, and 2014, no one really talked that way until it got close. You gotta keep that stuff on the downlow. Spend two years telling everyone that 2018 is going to be a HUGE election means that people will start to think it's a pretty huge election.
  #75  
Old 11-07-2018, 08:01 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Republicans have done genuine witch hunts against democrats (Benghazi hearings for example) and it never cost them any support in the polls.

Maybe the two parties are just different.

I'm still confused, because I think GOP turnout in 2018 was higher than GOP turnout in 2010. That is counterintuitive, they should've had more turnout in 2010 when they were locked out of power. Instead they turned out to keep power, which makes much less sense.
Fear is a powerful motivator. Republicans fear(ed) Democrats gaining power these days, more so than in 2010.
  #76  
Old 11-07-2018, 08:05 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,889
It's not a tsunami, we didn't get the Senate or a ton of governor seats. But Trump's legislative agenda is dead, and the Democratic investigative agenda is very much alive and invigorated. I look forward to seeing Trump's pathetic shrivelled secrets being dragged out into daylight for inspection.
  #77  
Old 11-07-2018, 08:09 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,017
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the tax returns that Democrats want from Trump are from before he won the presidency, right? What are they going to do - impeach him for something he did before he became president? Or do they just itch to scour over them and publish something?
  #78  
Old 11-07-2018, 08:25 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the tax returns that Democrats want from Trump are from before he won the presidency, right? What are they going to do - impeach him for something he did before he became president? Or do they just itch to scour over them and publish something?
I won't pretend to speak for everybody, but I expect that when his tax returns are published we'll see he is a total fraud who was propped up by money-laundered Russian interests. It likely won't sway the true believers but I want this on the public record.
  #79  
Old 11-07-2018, 08:28 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
Why do you think it should balance out? It could balance out, but there's no reason it has to.

So far, it appears that Democrats are more likely to be clustered into places where 80% of the vote is Democrat and Republicans are more likely to be in places where, say, 55% of the vote is Republican.
Is there any evidence this is true in cases that aren't gerrymandered? Looking at past results, it sure seems like Republicans have as many lopsided wins.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #80  
Old 11-07-2018, 09:21 PM
Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
It's not a tsunami, we didn't get the Senate or a ton of governor seats. But Trump's legislative agenda is dead, and the Democratic investigative agenda is very much alive and invigorated. I look forward to seeing Trump's pathetic shrivelled secrets being dragged out into daylight for inspection.
Yeah. It's not just Donald that is in jeopardy here, and it's great.

You know what else is cool - we have Democrats taking control of the science committees who actually believe in science!

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...rce=reddit.com


Quote:
Originally Posted by Motherboard article above

The combined effect of Democrats taking control of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, coupled with a surge of newly elected Democratic candidates with STEM backgrounds, stands to dramatically reshape science policy in Congress.

Climate and environmental science will be at the forefront of this shakeup. Under the past eight years of Republican leadership, the House Science Committee delivered an abysmal record on climate science, with GOP committee chair Lamar Smith pushing blatant misinformation about the major influence of human activity on warmer global temperatures.

Committee members have also been accused of intimidating and harassing scientists, and promoting unscientific views on subjects ranging from industrial pollution to evolution.

Texas Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson, a ranking member of the House Science Committee, is favored to take over as the new chair. Johnson has a medical background and became the first registered nurse to be elected to Congress in 1993. She has a long record of science advocacy, and accepts the scientific consensus that humans are contributing to climate change.
If all they do is sideline Lamar Smith, it will be a change worth celebrating.

Last edited by Merneith; 11-07-2018 at 09:21 PM.
  #81  
Old 11-07-2018, 09:36 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim R. Mortiss View Post
Exactly!
And now he faces a House that is extremely hostile to him. So a change from Republicans who let him do what he wants to Democrats who don't.

Only if Republicans blocked him as much as Democrats would it be the same.
  #82  
Old 11-07-2018, 09:39 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the tax returns that Democrats want from Trump are from before he won the presidency, right? What are they going to do - impeach him for something he did before he became president? Or do they just itch to scour over them and publish something?
He's likely done a lot of illegal shit. He deliberately avoided showing them for some reason. And we found a lot of shady stuff by talking to his lawyer.

The point isn't impeachment. Ideally, he could be prosecuted (though with Kavenaugh that may be difficult). If not, we can at least let the people know about him.

He feared something about releasing them. Maybe there could even be some quid pro quo.
  #83  
Old 11-07-2018, 09:46 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the tax returns that Democrats want from Trump are from before he won the presidency, right? What are they going to do - impeach him for something he did before he became president? Or do they just itch to scour over them and publish something?
It's to either find something to embarass him with, or get him to have a meltdown, ignore the subpoena, and provoke a larger crisis.
  #84  
Old 11-07-2018, 09:56 PM
Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,859
It's about the next election, but also all the various criminal charges lining up against Donald and his assorted family & business associates. It's not just pettiness.
  #85  
Old 11-07-2018, 10:21 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
So giving them what could easily be portrayed as a McCarthy style "witch hunt" of a Trump nominee was perhaps the dumbest thing you could do. .
So you're saying that he should have just been allowed to get away with attempted rape, without even fighting?

It wasn't about the judge. It never was. If it were, then they would have just replaced him with another judge. It was about rape.

We did not deliberately "give" them anything. We did what we had to do. Maybe it sucks having one side that actually cares about right and wrong, while the other side knew that there might be something but didn't care, and even celebrated after he passed.

I also note that the general population supported the investigation by double digit margins. Were they are wrong, too?
  #86  
Old 11-07-2018, 11:03 PM
suranyi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,865
I’m changing my vote to “definitely a wave.” To paraphrase Harry Enten, the Dems flipped more house seats than any election since Watergate. How could that not be a wave? Plus all the governorships and state legislative seats they flipped — hundreds, as I understand it. The only downside is the Senate, and they may have held their losses to two.
__________________
Right now, it’s Girls’ Generation. Tomorrow, it’s Girls’ Generation. Forever, it’s Girls’ Generation!
  #87  
Old 11-08-2018, 01:16 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,121
What people are missing is that in addition to the control of the House, the Democrats have gained about 300 legislative seats at the state level, six or seven governorships, and now hold the majority of the Attorney General offices in the states.
  #88  
Old 11-08-2018, 02:41 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,304
Democrats flipped more seats in the House than in any election since immediately after Watergate. The Senate situation sucks but Democrats still won 62% of the seats that were up last night. It's just that this class of Democratic senators was on kind of a sugar high after 2012, when McCaskill and Donnelly won races they had no business winning because the Republicans nominated walking disasters.

As an Ohio Democrat, I think we might be the new Missouri, a state that used to be competitive, but no longer is. We have a surplus of the kinds of voters that Republicans are winning in greater numbers, but there aren't enough people balancing that out (or more) like in Virginia.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 11-08-2018 at 02:42 AM.
  #89  
Old 11-08-2018, 09:10 AM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
So you're saying that he should have just been allowed to get away with attempted rape, without even fighting?

It wasn't about the judge. It never was. If it were, then they would have just replaced him with another judge. It was about rape.

We did not deliberately "give" them anything. We did what we had to do. Maybe it sucks having one side that actually cares about right and wrong, while the other side knew that there might be something but didn't care, and even celebrated after he passed.

I also note that the general population supported the investigation by double digit margins. Were they are wrong, too?
I'm not saying what should have been done from a moral point of view. From a political point of view it was a disaster. It's a big part of the reason that Dems have a bare majority in the House and actually lost seats in the Senate. It's such a thin line, that there's a realistic chance that Republicans take back the House in 2020. I guess you can take consolation in a moral victory, but I'm not really sure if there was even a moral victory, since what really was the negative outcome for Kavanaugh? People that didn't like him don't like him even more and people that did like him now feel like he's a martyr who wasn't even martyred. The victim is now vilified and unless she gets a book deal is likely worse off than she was before. So, pragmatically, I'm not sure exactly what victory was gained anywhere. It was a Democratic Waterloo and the only Dem that managed to survive it was the one that was smart enough to switch sides.
  #90  
Old 11-08-2018, 09:16 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by suranyi View Post
I’m changing my vote to “definitely a wave.” To paraphrase Harry Enten, the Dems flipped more house seats than any election since Watergate. How could that not be a wave? Plus all the governorships and state legislative seats they flipped — hundreds, as I understand it. The only downside is the Senate, and they may have held their losses to two.
Do you mean most seats flipped by the Democrats since Watergate, or most in a midterm by either party since Watergate? There were flips of 53 and 63 seats in midterms in 1994 and 2010.
  #91  
Old 11-08-2018, 09:23 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,265
Looking at all the local races here and surrounding Bexar County (San Antonio), I am quite, quite pleased with the Blue Wave and voted it a Big Wave.
  #92  
Old 11-08-2018, 09:33 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,387
The size of the Democratic gains in the House is now looking like it's going to be in the high 30s, which would be the largest gain in many decades. I think that can be reasonably categorized as a "wave".
  #93  
Old 11-08-2018, 09:34 AM
sciurophobic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Bottom line is that Dems really overplayed their hand with Kavanaugh.
According to exit polls, no they didn't.

From Slate

Quote:
In the network exit poll, voters said by a slight margin, 47 percent to 43 percent, that they opposed Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Those who supported Kavanaugh voted overwhelmingly for Republicans, but those who opposed Kavanaugh voted even more overwhelmingly for Democrats. In the AP/Fox poll, Republicans won among the 25 percent of people who said the Kavanaugh debate wasn’t important to their vote. But among people who said Kavanaugh was somewhat important, Republicans lost narrowly. And among voters who said Kavanaugh was very important—nearly half the electorate—the GOP lost by 13 percentage points.
  #94  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:30 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Ashtura pretty clearly said that the Democrats shouldn't investigate the Trump administration at all. That's nuts. If he meant impeachment, then why would he use the word investigate?

If he doesn't feel that way, then he can say so and I'll gladly retract my criticism.
I'm saying should hold off on the Meuller report. If Trump's committed crimes, I'm pretty sure that will come out. If you guys want to "Benghazi" or "Email" Trump, fine, knock yourself out. However, if it's just to make him look bad, and NOT impeach, well, good luck with that too. Trump flaws are baked in to the cake. Additive mud on Trump does not work on a mud monster. He'll just deflect and we'll be talking about something else in a week. If the end desired result IS impeachment, well, I think everyone but Maxine Waters knows that's a dumb idea. Nancy Pelosi does and you can take that to the bank.

Last edited by Ashtura; 11-08-2018 at 10:31 AM.
  #95  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:36 AM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciurophobic View Post
According to exit polls, no they didn't.

From Slate
Your problem is that you're neglecting turnout. The question is, "If Kavanaugh had not happened, would you have turned out?" I would posit that Democratic voters were already going to turn out and likely voter polls seem to confirm that. Kavanaugh did not rally them to the polls. They were going regardless. What it did though was rally Republicans that maybe were a bit fatigued by the Trump parade and maybe not quite sure that it was imperative for there to be a Republican house or maybe those people who just had better things to do on Tuesday than vote to show up for the Republican side. You can see the polls of LVs that tremendously tightened up after Kavanaugh. Pre-Kavanaugh, it looked like it was going to be a blood bath and after Kavanaugh, Dems were left scrapping for swing states.
  #96  
Old 11-08-2018, 11:03 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 177
Ginsburg is in the hospital and will be dead soon.

If you needed proof that what happened on Tuesday wasn't remotely a blue wave, just think about who will replace her on the Supreme Court now that the Senate drifted further right and it is out of reach for Democrats until 2022, at best.
  #97  
Old 11-08-2018, 11:08 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
I'm saying should hold off on the Meuller report. If Trump's committed crimes, I'm pretty sure that will come out. If you guys want to "Benghazi" or "Email" Trump, fine, knock yourself out. However, if it's just to make him look bad, and NOT impeach, well, good luck with that too. Trump flaws are baked in to the cake. Additive mud on Trump does not work on a mud monster. He'll just deflect and we'll be talking about something else in a week. If the end desired result IS impeachment, well, I think everyone but Maxine Waters knows that's a dumb idea. Nancy Pelosi does and you can take that to the bank.
What does "hold off on the Mueller report" mean? All I'm saying is that the Congress should do its duty -- including the duty of oversight of the Executive Branch. And investigating possible wrongdoing by members of the Executive Branch, including calling witnesses and reviewing documents, is well within this duty and an entirely reasonable thing to expect that Congress does.
  #98  
Old 11-08-2018, 11:25 AM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,019
I like to think that Trump and all involved are just expected and temporary setbacks in the historic advances in social progress. So I'm happy to see any indications to support any interpretation other than that Trump and his supporters are going to be in control long-term. So I'm pleased every time I hear of a black/brown/female/gay/non-christian elected to a major office. I'm also heartened in what I see as increased youth turnout, and evidence that the female support for Trump (which I found inexplicable) seems to have limits.

Locally, I live in DuPage county IL, which has historically been quite red There has been progress in recent past, such as majorities for Hillary and Obama. But lower down on the ticket, things have been quite red. In many instances, the Dems didn't even run candidates for offices such as judgeships and county board. But the longtime Repub chairman of the county board lost to a female dem. County clerk and sheriff also went Dem - for the first time I can ever recall. multiple Dems (tho not a clean sweep) were elected as county board commissioners. Also Dem forest preserve and judgeships. And most significantly, Roskam lost.

I've lived in this county for 30 years, and these results are unprecedented. Definitely a favorable development in my mind.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #99  
Old 11-08-2018, 12:01 PM
suranyi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Do you mean most seats flipped by the Democrats since Watergate, or most in a midterm by either party since Watergate? There were flips of 53 and 63 seats in midterms in 1994 and 2010.
Yes, by Democrats. I should have been specific.
__________________
Right now, it’s Girls’ Generation. Tomorrow, it’s Girls’ Generation. Forever, it’s Girls’ Generation!
  #100  
Old 11-08-2018, 12:08 PM
Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
Ginsburg is in the hospital and will be dead soon.
To be clear - Ginsburg's current injuries are not immediately life threatening. Maybe she will develop something life threatening. Or maybe not, because she's a tough old bird and she's currently under treatment by experienced doctors. She will not be dead by tea time. Hold off on ordering your mourning clothes.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017