• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

'17 Specials & '18 Midterms Thread

Just an example of being smart and using the system rather than running as a third party trash can for votes
The context of that tweet was AOC advising leftists who disagreed with the dominant local liberal party (Independence Party) to vote for and run as "third" parties.
 
Hey MDMH!

The Suburbs — All Kinds Of Suburbs — Delivered The House To Democrats

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...the-house-to-democrats/?ex_cid=story-facebook

So how exactly did the suburbs help make a Democratic majority possible? Using CityLab’s neighborhood density categorizations, we can place all 435 districts into six groups that range from “Pure Rural” to “Pure Urban” and get a sense of which types of seats mattered most to Democrats. The two categories we’re most interested in are “Sparse Suburban” and “Dense Suburban.” “Sparse Suburban” covers districts in outer-ring suburbs at the edge of major metropolitan areas, like the Virginia 10th, which sits outside of Washington, D.C. “Dense Suburban” districts, on the other hand, are those where people are packed in more tightly in mostly inner-ring suburbs and some urban areas, like the California 25th, which falls in the Los Angeles metro area. And as the table below shows, Democrats are poised for a net gain of 27 seats from these two categories, which is four more than they needed to gain a majority.2 In other words, 75 percent of Democrats’ gains came from these predominantly suburban districts.

In addition to doing well in the two predominantly suburban categories, Democrats also grabbed eight seats in the two other categories with some suburban characteristics: five in the more densely populated “Urban-Suburban” category and three in the less densely populated “Rural-Suburban” group. And Democrats have nearly eliminated the GOP from the “Urban-Suburban” group, leaving only Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart in the Florida 25th, at least for now — Republican Rep. Mimi Walters could still hold on to the uncalled California 45th, which is also in the “Urban-Suburban” group.

But where things get really interesting is when we look at how these districts voted for president in 2012 and 2016 alongside their neighborhood characteristics. Of the 27 Democratic gains in predominantly suburban districts, nine came from Romney-Clinton districts. And while it is certainly notable that Democrats captured nearly all of the Romney-Clinton seats,3 the group of suburban seats that provided the largest share of Democratic gains were actually Romney-Trump seats. Democrats gained a net of 12 such seats, including flipping 10 predominantly suburban districts. That should not come as a total surprise — after all, there are 207 Romney-Trump districts compared to 13 Romney-Clinton districts. Still, the Romney-Trump seats have been consistently more GOP-leaning in recent years and are therefore harder for a Democrat to pick up.
 
Hey MDMH!

The Suburbs — All Kinds Of Suburbs — Delivered The House To Democrats

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...the-house-to-democrats/?ex_cid=story-facebook

So how exactly did the suburbs help make a Democratic majority possible? Using CityLab’s neighborhood density categorizations, we can place all 435 districts into six groups that range from “Pure Rural” to “Pure Urban” and get a sense of which types of seats mattered most to Democrats. The two categories we’re most interested in are “Sparse Suburban” and “Dense Suburban.” “Sparse Suburban” covers districts in outer-ring suburbs at the edge of major metropolitan areas, like the Virginia 10th, which sits outside of Washington, D.C. “Dense Suburban” districts, on the other hand, are those where people are packed in more tightly in mostly inner-ring suburbs and some urban areas, like the California 25th, which falls in the Los Angeles metro area. And as the table below shows, Democrats are poised for a net gain of 27 seats from these two categories, which is four more than they needed to gain a majority.2 In other words, 75 percent of Democrats’ gains came from these predominantly suburban districts.

In addition to doing well in the two predominantly suburban categories, Democrats also grabbed eight seats in the two other categories with some suburban characteristics: five in the more densely populated “Urban-Suburban” category and three in the less densely populated “Rural-Suburban” group. And Democrats have nearly eliminated the GOP from the “Urban-Suburban” group, leaving only Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart in the Florida 25th, at least for now — Republican Rep. Mimi Walters could still hold on to the uncalled California 45th, which is also in the “Urban-Suburban” group.

But where things get really interesting is when we look at how these districts voted for president in 2012 and 2016 alongside their neighborhood characteristics. Of the 27 Democratic gains in predominantly suburban districts, nine came from Romney-Clinton districts. And while it is certainly notable that Democrats captured nearly all of the Romney-Clinton seats,3 the group of suburban seats that provided the largest share of Democratic gains were actually Romney-Trump seats. Democrats gained a net of 12 such seats, including flipping 10 predominantly suburban districts. That should not come as a total surprise — after all, there are 207 Romney-Trump districts compared to 13 Romney-Clinton districts. Still, the Romney-Trump seats have been consistently more GOP-leaning in recent years and are therefore harder for a Democrat to pick up.
Where was Nate Silver in 2006 to write that exact same article? C'mon man, i'm fully aware of how reactionary and vapid the political moods are in the suburbs. Great, they came out and voted for every (D) on the ballot this election. Rebuking Trump is not an ideology - it's barely progressive.
 
I also think a big point of disagreement here between us is based on the fact that my use and understanding of the term" suburb" includes middle class rural neighborhoods.
 
I like to agree that words mean what they actually mean during a discussion.
 
So...not the suburbs
I like to agree that words mean what they actually mean during a discussion.
Sure. Anyway, i've been clear with you in past discussions that my use of the term "suburban" isn't limited or defined by close proximity to a major city. So there's no point in you trying to rebut me with data that uses such a limited definition. My beef is very obviously with middle & upper income whites, idgaf about where they live.
 
Sorry I’m not familiar with your classist dog whistles.
 
Going to be difficult to continue this conversation, mdmh, if you refuse to acknowledge that my definition of "Urban" includes New Mexico's horned lizard population and Lake Winnebago.
 
Sure. Anyway, i've been clear with you in past discussions that my use of the term "suburban" isn't limited or defined by close proximity to a major city. So there's no point in you trying to rebut me with data that uses such a limited definition. My beef is very obviously with middle & upper income whites, idgaf about where they live.

Yes, but what is small business
 
Making up your own definition, textbook rube behavior, don’t be a rube. Argues something doesn’t matter, people respond showing why it matters, post articles arguing why it matters, well that’s not what I’m talking about because to me the word they are using includes Z not just X and Y, arguments posted only were arguing for X and Y so why are you arguing about Z.
 
Making up your own definition, textbook rube behavior, don’t be a rube. Argues something doesn’t matter, people respond showing why it matters, post articles arguing why it matters, well that’s not what I’m talking about because to me the word they are using includes Z not just X and Y, arguments posted only were arguing for X and Y so why are you arguing about Z.
Don't be an idiot, "suburbanite" and "suburban" have well understood social economic meaning that extends beyond the textbook definition. As if every time you drive by a neighborhood you are calculating the distance to the nearest city center to make the distinction.
rural=the new suburban
With American sprawl, the distinction between the two is very often arbitrary. Lexington NC is 30 minutes from Winston. Would a middle income community in Lexington be a suburb? What about 30 minutes from Raleigh? Atlanta?
 
Yeah but every article posted everyone knows what they are talking about except for some reason you, they aren’t talking about rube commuters that drive 3 hours a day to work because they live 100 miles from a city so now we will call them suburban.
 
lexington is not a suburb of winston-salem

Indeed. As someone who is quite familiar with both towns, lol at the notion that Lexington is a part of suburban Winston. It may be listed as such for census purposes, but they are very different places otherwise.
 
lexington is not a suburb of winston-salem
Sure. How would you classify upper middle class housing developments (The Vineyards at Lexington) and country club neighborhoods (Lexington Golf Club) in Lexington?
 
Back
Top