• 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!

Election Day 2018

Katie Porter has taken the lead in CA-45. Thread on Katie Porter:

 
Post-kid brazilian waxes seems like the ultimate example of putting lipstick on a pig.
 
avalon said:
Katie Porter has taken the lead in CA-45. Thread on Katie Porter:

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/11/midterm-elections-reconstruction-du-bois
"...The geographic diversity of these victories should not disguise their economic homogeneity. Among the nearly forty House districts where Democrats took control in 2018, about thirty are rated “prosperous” or “comfortable” by the Economic Innovation Group, a bipartisan think tank. Of the forty-three “distressed” districts held by Republicans, Democrats flipped just two (NJ-2 and NM-2).
In other words, the midterms confirmed that the Democrats have become — perhaps more than ever before in their two-hundred-year history — a party of the prosperous. The millionaire and billionaire governors, like Phil Murphy in New Jersey and J.B. Pritzker in Illinois, are only the gaudiest new constructions on the Democratic block.
Cast your eye across a list of the twenty richest House districts in the United States, measured by median income: every single one of them now has a Democratic representative. Of the wealthiest forty districts, thirty-five of them just elected a Democrat; of the wealthiest fifty, that number is forty-two.
According to exit polls, Republicans still maintain a slim advantage among all voters making six-figure incomes, but that margin has shrunk considerably since the 1980s and 1990s. With Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco (the twenty-fourth richest district in the country) and Steny Hoyer of suburban Maryland (the eighteenth richest) poised to take charge of the House, it’s worth considering what kind of politics are possible under the current party configuration.
In policy terms, as Lily Geismer and Matthew Lassiter have argued, a Democratic pivot to the suburbs risks producing a party unwilling or unable to challenge entrenched inequalities. “The political culture of upscale suburbs,” they write, “revolves around resource hoarding of children’s educational advantages, pervasive opposition to economic integration and affordable housing, and the consistent defense of homeowner privileges and taxpayer rights..."
 
I’m not sure how a party becomes the party of educated people who believe in science without being a party of the more prosperous people.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/11/midterm-elections-reconstruction-du-bois
"...The geographic diversity of these victories should not disguise their economic homogeneity. Among the nearly forty House districts where Democrats took control in 2018, about thirty are rated “prosperous” or “comfortable” by the Economic Innovation Group, a bipartisan think tank. Of the forty-three “distressed” districts held by Republicans, Democrats flipped just two (NJ-2 and NM-2).
In other words, the midterms confirmed that the Democrats have become — perhaps more than ever before in their two-hundred-year history — a party of the prosperous. The millionaire and billionaire governors, like Phil Murphy in New Jersey and J.B. Pritzker in Illinois, are only the gaudiest new constructions on the Democratic block.
Cast your eye across a list of the twenty richest House districts in the United States, measured by median income: every single one of them now has a Democratic representative. Of the wealthiest forty districts, thirty-five of them just elected a Democrat; of the wealthiest fifty, that number is forty-two.
According to exit polls, Republicans still maintain a slim advantage among all voters making six-figure incomes, but that margin has shrunk considerably since the 1980s and 1990s. With Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco (the twenty-fourth richest district in the country) and Steny Hoyer of suburban Maryland (the eighteenth richest) poised to take charge of the House, it’s worth considering what kind of politics are possible under the current party configuration.
In policy terms, as Lily Geismer and Matthew Lassiter have argued, a Democratic pivot to the suburbs risks producing a party unwilling or unable to challenge entrenched inequalities. “The political culture of upscale suburbs,” they write, “revolves around resource hoarding of children’s educational advantages, pervasive opposition to economic integration and affordable housing, and the consistent defense of homeowner privileges and taxpayer rights..."
Click to expand...

even when we win we lose
 
So one party will be the party of the well off and successful that believe in science and the other party will be the party of the racist Nazi nationalist white people, lots of room for others to pick a side.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/11/midterm-elections-reconstruction-du-bois
"...The geographic diversity of these victories should not disguise their economic homogeneity. Among the nearly forty House districts where Democrats took control in 2018, about thirty are rated “prosperous” or “comfortable” by the Economic Innovation Group, a bipartisan think tank. Of the forty-three “distressed” districts held by Republicans, Democrats flipped just two (NJ-2 and NM-2).
In other words, the midterms confirmed that the Democrats have become — perhaps more than ever before in their two-hundred-year history — a party of the prosperous. The millionaire and billionaire governors, like Phil Murphy in New Jersey and J.B. Pritzker in Illinois, are only the gaudiest new constructions on the Democratic block.
Cast your eye across a list of the twenty richest House districts in the United States, measured by median income: every single one of them now has a Democratic representative. Of the wealthiest forty districts, thirty-five of them just elected a Democrat; of the wealthiest fifty, that number is forty-two.
According to exit polls, Republicans still maintain a slim advantage among all voters making six-figure incomes, but that margin has shrunk considerably since the 1980s and 1990s. With Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco (the twenty-fourth richest district in the country) and Steny Hoyer of suburban Maryland (the eighteenth richest) poised to take charge of the House, it’s worth considering what kind of politics are possible under the current party configuration.
In policy terms, as Lily Geismer and Matthew Lassiter have argued, a Democratic pivot to the suburbs risks producing a party unwilling or unable to challenge entrenched inequalities. “The political culture of upscale suburbs,” they write, “revolves around resource hoarding of children’s educational advantages, pervasive opposition to economic integration and affordable housing, and the consistent defense of homeowner privileges and taxpayer rights..."
Click to expand...

Seems disingenuous not to point out that Dems held 45 of those seats, so they now hold 47 to the Rs 41.

Also, they should have won a third, but had a recruitment failure in CA-21. Should be a prime target for 2020.

Dems also had some good candidates in a few of the other districts, but they lost.

I hope we'll be able to win over working class people in areas where they don't vote for Dems right now, but that's going to take more than one election cycle.
 
"Of the forty-three “distressed” districts held by Republicans, Democrats flipped just two (NJ-2 and NM-2)." Many of those are in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, etc. where people aren't voting based on economic best interests, they are voting based on social issues like Abortion and gay marriage and immigration not on health care etc. Alabama has 5 out of 7 congressional districts listed as "distressed" and one more listed as "at-risk" yet the Governor refused to expand Medicaid under then ACA and the won re-election in an absolute landslide. Large swaths of our population are voting irrationally, and I am not sure there is anything that the Democrats or the DSA can do or say to ever win them over and I am not not sure they should try.
 
birdman said:
"Of the forty-three “distressed” districts held by Republicans, Democrats flipped just two (NJ-2 and NM-2)." Many of those are in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, etc. where people aren't voting based on economic best interests, they are voting based on social issues like Abortion and gay marriage and immigration not on health care etc. Alabama has 5 out of 7 congressional districts listed as "distressed" and one more listed as "at-risk" yet the Governor refused to expand Medicaid under then ACA and the won re-election in an absolute landslide. Large swaths of our population are voting irrationally, and I am not sure there is anything that the Democrats or the DSA can do or say to ever win them over and I am not not sure they should try.
Click to expand...
49% of eligible voters voted in the primary, and voting participation among the poor is very low. I'm not necessarily talking ahout you birdman, but i'm always disappointed at how poorly fellow Democrats handle criticism regarding low-income outreach and engagement. For PH to be such an educated sociologist he sure does a shitty job differentiating between stupid poor Republicans and non-voting poor(the vast majority).
 
NY gubenatorial candidate Marc Molinaro is saying voter fraud could easily to the 25% of the vote that he lost by last week. He continued that it is quite obvious that all of the fake votes were for Cuomo.

Watch for a Trump tweet this evening.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
49% of eligible voters voted in the primary, and voting participation among the poor is very low. I'm not necessarily talking ahout you birdman, but i'm always disappointed at how poorly fellow Democrats handle criticism regarding low-income outreach and engagement. For PH to be such an educated sociologist he sure does a shitty job differentiating between stupid poor Republicans and non-voting poor(the vast majority).
Click to expand...

This is a good point.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
49% of eligible voters voted in the primary, and voting participation among the poor is very low. I'm not necessarily talking ahout you birdman, but i'm always disappointed at how poorly fellow Democrats handle criticism regarding low-income outreach and engagement. For PH to be such an educated sociologist he sure does a shitty job differentiating between stupid poor Republicans and non-voting poor(the vast majority).
Click to expand...

Differentiating how? Where have I not made this distinction? Quit making up stuff.
 
ELECTION 2018
Voter Turnout Hit Records This Year. Where It Surged Matters.
Voters line up to cast ballots Nov. 6 at the University of New Mexico. ADOLPHE PIERRE-LOUIS/ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL/ZUMA PRESS


Link copied…
328 COMMENTS
By Aaron Zitner and Dante Chinni | Graphics by Brian McGill
Nov. 14, 2018 7:24 a.m. ET
More voters around Austin, Texas, turned out for the midterms than for the last presidential election, a rarity in politics. Fifteen counties in Montana produced more votes in last week’s election than in 2016. In Georgia, vote totals were near or above presidential-year levels across most of the state.

Far fewer voters participate in midterms than in presidential elections. But interest in this year’s races was so high that vote tallies in some places hit or exceeded presidential levels.

Nationally, voters cast more than 100 million ballots in the Nov. 6 election, up from 83 million in 2014 and setting a record for a midterm.

Moreover, voter turnout—the share of eligible voters who cast ballots—reached a high not seen in a century, one estimate shows.


Record High
Voter turnout in the midterms is estimated to top 49% of eligible voters, the highest since 1914.
Percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots
Source: Michael McDonald, University of Florida.
Note: As of Nov. 11
%
Presidential elections
Midterm elections
1905
’20
’35
’50
’65
’80
’95
’10
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
Initial calculations by Michael McDonald, a University of Florida associate professor, find that 49.2% of eligible voters cast ballots. If that holds, Mr. McDonald says, turnout would surpass the modern midterm high of 48.7% in 1966, a time when the nation was roiled by the civil-rights movement and the expanding Vietnam War.

The 2018 turnout approaches the record 50.4% of 1914, says Mr. McDonald, who cautions that the data carry more uncertainties the further back they go.

But the turnout surge wasn’t equal across the country. Looking at where it hit high marks helps explain the outcome of some races.


A High-Interest Midterm
Midterm vote totals exceeded 2016 levels in some counties (shown in yellow) and neared presidential levels in many other parts of the country (shown in dark blue).

Midterm vote as a share of 2016 presidential election tally, using the largest statewide vote total in 2018 balloting

Turnout boomed in Montana, where President Trump held four rallies. Vote totals in 15 counties topped 2016 levels. But Democrats held the Senate seat.

80

90

70%

100

Wash.

Maine

Mont.

N.D.

Vt.

Ore.

Minn.

N.H.

Mass.

Idaho

N.Y.

Wis.

S.D.

Conn.

Mich.

Wyo.

R.I.

Iowa

Pa.

N.J.

Neb.

Nev.

Ohio

Del.

Md.

Ind.

Ill.

Utah

W.Va.

Colo.

Calif.

Va.

Mo.

Kan.

Tenn.

Ariz.

Okla.

S.C.

Ark.

N.M.

Ga.

Miss.

Ala.

Texas

Alaska

Hawaii

Fla.

Eight counties in Texas produced more votes than in 2016, many in metropolitan areas that favored Democrats.

Vote totals in eight Georgia counties surpassed 2016 presidential levels. The GOP candidate for governor carried most of them by large margins.

Note: Data as of 5 p.m. Monday. Kentucky, Louisiana and North Carolina didn't have statewide elections in 2018. Some counties in California haven't been fully counted.

Sources: Associated Press (2018); Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (2016)
President Trump focused heavily on Montana this year, holding four rallies there since the summer. His visits, and the publicity they generated, likely are a central reason for high turnout. Vote tallies exceeded 2016 presidential levels in 15 of the state’s 56 counties.

But Mr. Trump appeared to have an effect on both parties. In 10 of the counties where vote tallies topped 2016 totals, Democratic Sen. Jon Tester received a similar or greater share of the vote than he did in his last election, and he won more than 50% of the vote statewide.

In Georgia, the race for governor is still inconclusive, with Republican Brian Kemp leading but Democrat Stacey Abrams hoping that final vote-counting will push the contest into a runoff. While Ms. Abrams generated excitement as the first African-American woman in the U.S. to win a major-party nomination for governor, vote totals show that Mr. Kemp generated energy among the GOP base.


Midterms 2018: How the Night Unfolded
Midterms 2018: How the Night Unfolded
Millions of voters flocked to the polls Tuesday, giving Democrats a House majority while strengthening Republicans’ control of the Senate. WSJ’s Gerald F. Seib explains.
In eight Georgia counties, votes cast in the gubernatorial election exceeded the tallies of the 2016 presidential race. Those counties were largely rural, and the vote there heavily favored Mr. Kemp.

He carried seven of the eight counties and won a larger share of the vote from each than did Mr. Trump in 2016.

In Texas, Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke failed in his bid to unseat Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, but turnout spiked in a clutch of counties in and around Austin, following a national trend of college-educated voters swinging Democratic.

Together, three counties in the Austin area produced nearly 24,000 more votes than they did in the 2016 presidential election. All of those counties were won by Mr. O’Rourke, who lost statewide by less than three percentage points.


The First 100 Million-Ballot Midterm
Total votes in presidential and midterm years
Source: Michael McDonald, University of Florida
Note: 2018 number is estimated. Data for 1980-1996 are for highest office on the ballot. Data from 1998 are for total ballotscounted.
.million
Presidential Years
Midterm Years
1980
’85
’90
’95
2000
’05
’10
’15
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Mr. McDonald estimates that nearly 116 million voters cast ballots this year—115,873,500, to be precise, by his tally as of Sunday.

The Associated Press, the source most news organizations count on for election data, had tallied nearly 105 million votes as of Wednesday morning. The AP total excludes ballots that state officials say they have in hand but have yet to count, and so it will grow in the coming days.

Democrats have won 52.6% of the two-party vote in the AP tally so far, with Republicans winning 47.4%.

—Danny Dougherty contributed to this article.

Corrections & Amplifications
Democratic Sen. Jon Tester ‘s first name was incorrectly spelled as John in an earlier version of this article. (Nov. 14)

Write to Aaron Zitner at Aaron.Zitner@dowjones.com and Dante Chinni at Dante.Chinni@wsj.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top