# The Kavanaugh Effect. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 8, 2018, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189 "2018-11-08T14:43:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2018, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/141 "2018-12-04T18:19:43Z")
> [@Raygun99](#): > > There seem to be some, especially in the media who are invested in the idea of elections as horse races, who want every race to be treated as a 50/50 coin flip, and that every race is winnable if you just try hard enough and want it more. It ignores many structural advantages and tendencies that simply does not give you a clean slate each time and ends up driving these BS narratives about how anything less than total victory is an embarrassment. It’s also mostly one way - not one word out there about total Republican failure to have an impact in California… that state just doesn’t count for some unidentifiable reason. [https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/17/rip-california-gop-republicans-lash-out-after-midterm-election-debacle-1000481](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/17/rip-california-gop-republicans-lash-out-after-midterm-election-debacle-1000481) > **['There is no more Republican party': will California’s Orange county swing...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/18/orange-county-turn-blue-republicans-democrats)** > > In the affluent area of yachting marinas and country clubs, Republicans are growing tired of Washington’s rancor > **[Op-Ed: Is the California Republican Party content to stay dead? Or will it...](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-friedersdorf-california-gop-republicans-20181203-story.html)** > > Can anyone still doubt that the California Republican Party must reinvent itself? But sure, the media is a large anti-liberal conspiracy to downplay Republican failures. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2018, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/142 "2018-12-04T18:21:53Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Or I can put it another way. > > Democrats won over 54% of house races and everyone agrees that this is a big win for the Democrats. > > Democrats won over 68% (!) of senate races and many people are saying that this is a win for the Republicans. > > Different animals indeed. Over 75% (!) of house seats were won by men and people are saying this is a win for women. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/143 "2018-12-04T18:22:09Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > From the same site. > > [2018 Senate Forecast | FiveThirtyEight](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=midterms-header) > > The same effect is present in the house race but the house races recovered (IMHO because of the underlying wave caused by having Trump in office). I think we would have seen a larger majority in the House without the kavanaugh hearings driving conservatives to the polls. And I think differently. That’s okay. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2018, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/144 "2018-12-04T18:36:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > A thorough investigation is how we find out the extent of any potentially corroborating information. > > But this is really, really old, and really, really boring. I get it - you don’t think these allegations should have been taken seriously. Some of us disagree. We don’t have to go on and on and on about it. We really ought to spend more time on the Hillary emails, Bill Clinton’s sexual assaults. The allegations that Hillary ordered assassinations of all sorts of people. I mean how will we ever know without FBI investigation? In fact we ought to investigate every incoming Democratic senator and congressman to rule out the possibility that they have sex with animals. An allegation about a 35 year old event is meaningless without corroboration. Significant corroboration. > [@](#): > > Sorry, but I’ll trust Nate Silver’s analysis over that of an internet person who, by my evaluation, has a questionable record on the facts, at best. It was a blue wave. So says Nate Silver and pretty much every other political analyst with a good record on the facts. Well, that’s interesting because Nate Silver thinks the Democratic behavior during the last Kavanaugh hearing probably helped Republicans (although its not cut and dried). We’re not arguing about whether there was a blue wave of some sort. We are arguing about whether the Democratic efforts to derail Kavanaugh with uncorroborated allegations of attempted rape helped or hurt the Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2018, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/145 "2018-12-04T18:38:50Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > [Democrats won the House with the largest midterms margin of all time](https://www.axios.com/2018-midterm-elections-democrats-won-house-biggest-margin-a56a1049-8823-4667-8d81-2c67ef3f36f4.html) > > And to think, it could have been a blue wave. > > National House vote: > > ```auto > > R D Margin > 2010 44,827,441 38,980,192 R+7.0% > 2018 50,815,265 60,488,814 D+8.7% > > ``` > > Republican turnout was higher than baseline possibly in part due to Kavanaugh. > > However, Democratic turnout was much, much higher than baseline also possibly in part due to Kavanaugh. > > To put it another way, Republicans got 80.4% of their 2016 house vote in 2018. That is pretty remarkable. However, Democrats got 97.9% of their 2016 house vote in 2018. That is earth shattering. I think Trump already pinned the needle on the Democratic turnout. I don’t think that 80% of Republicans were all that excited voting until the Democratic attempts to derail the Kavanaugh confirmation. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2018, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/146 "2018-12-04T18:46:33Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > We really ought to spend more time on the Hillary emails, Bill Clinton’s sexual assaults. The allegations that Hillary ordered assassinations of all sorts of people. I mean how will we ever know without FBI investigation? In fact we ought to investigate every incoming Democratic senator and congressman to rule out the possibility that they have sex with animals. > > An allegation about a 35 year old event is meaningless without corroboration. Significant corroboration. The Hillary stuff was very heavily investigated. Allegations of assault against Bill Clinton should have been much more seriously investigated, especially by the Democrats. I’ll ignore the silly games stuff. It’s reasonable to want to fully investigate serious allegations against a nominee prior to voting on that nominee. > [@](#): > > Well, that’s interesting because Nate Silver thinks the Democratic behavior during the last Kavanaugh hearing probably helped Republicans (although its not cut and dried). > > We’re not arguing about whether there was a blue wave of some sort. We are arguing about whether the Democratic efforts to derail Kavanaugh with uncorroborated allegations of attempted rape helped or hurt the Democrats. I’ll ignore the cite free claim about Silver. I showed the graphs of his data that showed that the eventual result was well in line, or even better, than his site’s predictions were prior to the Kavanaugh hearing. That shows with his data, as far as such things can be demonstrated, that the Kavanaugh hearing did not cause a better result for Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2018, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/147 "2018-12-04T19:25:22Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think Trump already pinned the needle on the Democratic turnout. I don’t think that 80% of Republicans were all that excited voting until the Democratic attempts to derail the Kavanaugh confirmation. Data indicates that you are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/148 "2018-12-05T16:29:46Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > As I noted above in post #116, Martha McSally’s failed re-election campaign certainly thinks so. Nitpick: she was running for an open seat, not for reelection. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/149 "2018-12-06T13:34:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The Hillary stuff was very heavily investigated. There is no shortage of uncorroborated allegations against Hillary. > [@](#): > > Allegations of assault against Bill Clinton should have been much more seriously investigated, especially by the Democrats. But it wasn’t. Not by Democrats. Not by feminists. > [@](#): > > I’ll ignore the silly games stuff. And that’s what the senate should have done with the uncorroborated allegations of Ford. > [@](#): > > It’s reasonable to want to fully investigate serious allegations against a nominee prior to voting on that nominee. They’re not serious if all they are is uncorroborated accusations. > [@](#): > > I’ll ignore the cite free claim about Silver. I showed the graphs of his data that showed that the eventual result was well in line, or even better, than his site’s predictions were prior to the Kavanaugh hearing. That shows with his data, as far as such things can be demonstrated, that the Kavanaugh hearing did not cause a better result for Republicans. > **[Is Kavanaugh Helping Republicans’ Midterm Chances?](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/)** > > In midterm elections, with different candidates on the ballot in every state and district, it’s rare to see the sort of sharp, turn-on-a-dime shifts in the poll… ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/150 "2018-12-06T13:36:17Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Data indicates that you are wrong. No, they don’t. You just cherry pick data (or let it get spoon fed to you by people who cherry pick data). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/151 "2018-12-06T13:38:10Z")
> **[McCaskill Blames Senate Defeat On Democratic 'Failure' With Rural America](https://www.npr.org/2018/11/30/671988738/mccaskill-blames-senate-defeat-on-democratic-failure-with-rural-america)** > > The Missouri Democrat reflected on her loss in an interview with NPR. McCaskill criticizes how Democrats handled the Kavanaugh nomination and warns her party against going too far investigating Trump. “I don’t think my vote [against Kavanaugh] hurt me as much as the spectacle that occurred.” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/152 "2018-12-06T14:23:55Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > There is no shortage of uncorroborated allegations against Hillary. > > But it wasn’t. Not by Democrats. Not by feminists. > > And that’s what the senate should have done with the uncorroborated allegations of Ford. > > They’re not serious if all they are is uncorroborated accusations. I get it – you’re not interested in thoroughly investigating serious and credible allegations of sexual assault (or you don’t think Ford’s allegations were serious and credible). We don’t need to go on and on about this. I think your assertions on this are of great assistance to harassers and abusers, but you certainly have the right to your opinion. > [@](#): > > [Is Kavanaugh Helping Republicans’ Midterm Chances? | FiveThirtyEight](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/) LOL. I cited the results _after_ the election, and compared them to the predictions over the months prior. And you’re citing an article from before the election? That’s laughable now that we actually have the results of the election to look at. The question “how did the Kavanaugh hearings affect the election” has been answered by comparing the 538 day-by-day predictions before the elections to the actual results of the elections. Actual data. There may have been a temporary polling bump (that subsequently evaporated, per the data), but the actual results of the election were as good for the Democrats, or better, than the 538 polling aggregates showed from _before the Kavanaugh hearings_. Thus there is no actual election-results data to suggest that the Kavanaugh hearings harmed the Democratic performance. The question – a reasonable one – was asked, and has now been answered by the election data. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/153 "2018-12-06T14:36:19Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I get it – you’re not interested in thoroughly investigating serious and credible allegations of sexual assault (or you don’t think Ford’s allegations were serious and credible). Ford’s allegation was serious, but was thoroughly investigated and found not to be credible. > [@](#): > > We don’t need to go on and on about this. Then don’t. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/154 "2018-12-06T14:42:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Ford’s allegation was serious, but was thoroughly investigated and found not to be credible. This is false; there are many lines of inquiry related to Ford’s allegations that the Republican leaders explicitly prevented from being investigated. Just for anyone reading – I know your mind is made up. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/155 "2018-12-06T16:01:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is false; there are many lines of inquiry related to Ford’s allegations that the Republican leaders explicitly prevented from being investigated. How did the Republican leaders prevent Ford from going to the Maryland police and reporting the allegation, so it could be investigated by the proper authorities? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/156 "2018-12-06T16:04:21Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > How did the Republican leaders prevent Ford from going to the Maryland police and reporting the allegation, so it could be investigated by the proper authorities? This has nothing to do with the wholly inadequate Senate investigation. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/157 "2018-12-06T16:13:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This has nothing to do with the wholly inadequate Senate investigation. Apart from your classification of the Senate investigation as inadequate, that’s basically the point - investigating an alleged State level crime is nothing to do with them. Kavanaugh was investigated at least as thoroughly as any other candidate for the Supreme Court, and there is nothing in his background that disqualifies him. I don’t know why you continue to believe an allegation that’s been shown to be false rather than the people who actually investigated it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/158 "2018-12-06T17:41:31Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Apart from your classification of the Senate investigation as inadequate, that’s basically the point - investigating an alleged State level crime is nothing to do with them. Kavanaugh was investigated at least as thoroughly as any other candidate for the Supreme Court, and there is nothing in his background that disqualifies him. I strongly disagree with both sentences in this paragraph. They’re both a matter of opinion, and considering how far apart we are in some our underlying philosophical assumptions, there’s not much point to further back-and-forth on it. > [@](#): > > I don’t know why you continue to believe an allegation that’s been shown to be false rather than the people who actually investigated it. What the hell are you talking about? Where did I say anything about whether I believe these allegations? I’ve asked you many, many, oh-so-many times before, but could you please respond _only to the words I actually post_, and not your wild random assumptions about what you think I believe? And it’s utter bullshit that any allegations has been “shown to be false”. But go ahead and accuse Ford of committing the crime of perjury, when she hasn’t even been charged, much less convicted, if you’re all about making evidence-free allegations of crimes against individuals. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/159 "2018-12-06T19:19:34Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And it’s utter bullshit that any allegations has been “shown to be false”. But go ahead and accuse Ford of committing the crime of perjury, when she hasn’t even been charged, much less convicted, if you’re all about making evidence-free allegations of crimes against individuals. Speaking of responding only to the words I posted… I’ve not claimed that Ford lied or perjured, I’ve claimed that her allegation was false. Which we know because we know from the evidence that the party she described did not happen. I don’t believe she’s lying. It’s possible she is, but there’s no evidence for it, so I don’t believe it. She is clearly mistaken about many of the details of the attack, but saying something you falsely believe to be true is not a lie, nor is it perjury. I will admit, I was assuming that you believed the accusation because you’ve repeatedly said that think that it means Kavanaugh is unfit for the Supreme Court. Surely you don’t think that an accusation that you don’t even believe should be disqualifying? That’s ludicrous, it would be an absurd position to hold, and for all that we disagree I don’t expect you to think that. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/160 "2018-12-06T19:36:27Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Speaking of responding only to the words I posted… I’ve not claimed that Ford lied or perjured, I’ve claimed that her allegation was false. Which we know because we know from the evidence that the party she described did not happen. This is entirely false. You couldn’t possibly know whether or not that party happened with any certainty at all. > [@](#): > > She is clearly mistaken about many of the details of the attack, but saying something you falsely believe to be true is not a lie, nor is it perjury. You couldn’t possibly know whether her recollection of the attack is accurate or not with any certainty at all. > [@](#): > > I will admit, I was assuming that you believed the accusation because you’ve repeatedly said that think that it means Kavanaugh is unfit for the Supreme Court. Surely you don’t think that an accusation that you don’t even believe should be disqualifying? That’s ludicrous, it would be an absurd position to hold, and for all that we disagree I don’t expect you to think that. I think Kavanaugh is unfit for SCOTUS (my standards are pretty high for such a high office) based on nothing more than his own words and actions (things he’s either written or said that were signed by him or on video/audio recording). I also think the allegations against him should have been fully and thoroughly investigated prior to any vote for such a high office. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189.md?page=9)