2018 US Elections

maniak said:
I am not a fan of the EU system either.

Americans seem to have great aversion to political reform.
Click to expand...

There is no need for political reform. The system has worked great for 200 years. This is the only country with 200 years of democracy and regular voting every 4 years without any major problems. The system has survived Bush and it will survive Trump.

The thing is, in a democracy, the citizens must care, and at the minimum they must go out there and vote. If they don't, democracy will deteriorate. Also, in a democracy, people may vote for the stupid, or the unhinged, or for brexit, or any other idiocy. Yes, this is obviously a problem, but it is still better than the only other alternative: having a strongman like Putin who kills whoever he doesn't like.
 
niMic said:
Mid-terms are often used to put a check on the party with the President. I wouldn't expect the Democrats to do as well as they're going to do now. They very well may have won the House, but I can't see them winning the senate in any case.
Click to expand...
That's how I feel too. 2020 will be insanity.
 
Are CBS polls any good?

According to it, TX +6 for Cruz, TN +7 for Blackburn, AZ +3 Sinema. I am a tad surprised at the TN one.
 
Red Dreams said:
we need to wait a week to see the Kavanaugh effect to disappear.

the dipshit in the white house is helping increase Democrat turnout.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The Repubs are on the rise right now because they were mobilized by the Kavanaugh hearings. Once that dies down and Trump says a few more bone headed things on Twitter, the Dems momentum will continue.
 
The United said:
To be fair, I think in TX, Trump's bump has yet to come.
Click to expand...

You may be right. Beto's rise in Texas is however an ominous sign of things to come for the GOP since changing demographics and social attitudes will at some point put the entire state back in play in Presidential cycles.
 
CA_vampire said:
There is no need for political reform. The system has worked great for 200 years. This is the only country with 200 years of democracy and regular voting every 4 years without any major problems. The system has survived Bush and it will survive Trump.

The thing is, in a democracy, the citizens must care, and at the minimum they must go out there and vote. If they don't, democracy will deteriorate. Also, in a democracy, people may vote for the stupid, or the unhinged, or for brexit, or any other idiocy. Yes, this is obviously a problem, but it is still better than the only other alternative: having a strongman like Putin who kills whoever he doesn't like.
Click to expand...

When the system was "invented" the states had very similar numbers in population. In the senate, one person from South Carolina was worth maybe 3 or 4 new yorkers. Not very fair but maybe a fair price to pay to have a stable nation. Now you need 40 californians to make for one carolinian. It's not very democratic.
 
Raoul said:
You may be right. Beto's rise in Texas is however an ominous sign of things to come for the GOP since changing demographics and social attitudes will at some point put the entire state back in play in Presidential cycles.
Click to expand...
If he stays within 5 points till the election day, I think he has a chance. Of course, he hopes his base will come out to vote.
 
The United said:
If he stays within 5 points till the election day, I think he has a chance. Of course, he hopes his base will come out to vote.
Click to expand...
5 is basically outside the MoE of most credible polls. Especially in a state as large as Texas, a percentage point equals tens of thousands of voters.

He shouldn’t be down by more than 3 come Election Day. And even then that’s still a tough, tough task.
 
Zlatattack said:
so... i take it there's not chance Trump isn't going to be re-elected in 2020?
Click to expand...

I think there's a very good chance he'll get a second term unless he gets impeached due to the Mueller findings. Strong economy usually favours incumbent presidents.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
I think there's a very good chance he'll get a second term unless he gets impeached due to the Mueller findings. Strong economy usually favours incumbent presidents.
Click to expand...

The strong economy is already the reason his approval rating is 42-52%, and not 32-62%. I think Trump has created an environment in which he needs to do more than just presiding over a good economy to actually get re-elected.
 
niMic said:
The strong economy is already the reason his approval rating is 42-52%, and not 32-62%. I think Trump has created an environment in which he needs to do more than just presiding over a good economy to actually get re-elected.
Click to expand...

Obama's approval rating wasn't too far off when he got re-elected to a second term. FWIW Trump is managing to fulfil most of the promises he made in his campaign, so the people who voted for him before will continue to do so with greater verve, the low tax loose regulation republicans will side with him as well and so will the low immigration, high military budget kind. Its upto the democrats to converge on some core issue such as universal healthcare or stronger unions and higher minimum wage etc to coalesce into a meaningful opposition. That's much harder than the shape the Republicans are at now.
 
The fact that the Republicans seemed to have backed away from running on the economy,suggests the people are not really feeling it.
 
Drifter said:
The fact that the Republicans seemed to have backed away from running on the economy,suggests the people are not really feeling it.
Click to expand...

They haven't backed away, federal tax cuts are still a big feature of their message. It currently doesn't behoove them to speak more broadly on it considering that the NYT just came in with a big story on the Orange Don dodging $500M in estate tax.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
Obama's approval rating wasn't too far off when he got re-elected to a second term. FWIW Trump is managing to fulfil most of the promises he made in his campaign, so the people who voted for him before will continue to do so with greater verve, the low tax loose regulation republicans will side with him as well and so will the low immigration, high military budget kind. Its upto the democrats to converge on some core issue such as universal healthcare or stronger unions and higher minimum wage etc to coalesce into a meaningful opposition. That's much harder than the shape the Republicans are at now.
Click to expand...

Obama's approval rating was never quite as bad as Trump's has been, though. And it was rising ahead of the 2012 election. We'll have to see what Trump's approval rating does. I don't think he can win if it stays below 45%. Another thing is the disapproval rating. I couldn't find an equivalent for Obama, but Trump is also pretty well defined by active disapproval.

nield-presapproval-2.png
 
Last edited:
niMic said:
Obama's approval rating was never quite as bad as Trump's has been, though. And it was rising ahead of the 2012 election. We'll have to see what Trump's approval rating does. I don't think he can win if it stays below 45%.

Another thing is the disapproval rating. I couldn't find an equivalent for Obama, but Trump is also pretty well defined by active disapproval.

nield-presapproval-2.png

watch
Click to expand...

That looks like its about 50% which isn't meaningfully higher than the 45% or so that Trump will be able to scrounge up. The liberal energy was apathetic for Obama by his second election.
 
niMic said:
I mean, I don't completely disagree with your point, but 50% and 45% are definitely meaningfully different. Easily the difference between winning and losing in a landslide.
Click to expand...

Statistically, that depends on the number of people polled, how truly representative they are of the voting population and consequently the standard error, which is why I don't read too much into 5% differences.
 
maniak said:
When the system was "invented" the states had very similar numbers in population. In the senate, one person from South Carolina was worth maybe 3 or 4 new yorkers. Not very fair but maybe a fair price to pay to have a stable nation. Now you need 40 californians to make for one carolinian. It's not very democratic.
Click to expand...

This is not true. From the very beginning, the states had very different power and populations. Rhode Island was always tiny compared to Virginia.

In 1790, RI had 69,000 people, Virginia had 690,000, 1:10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_historical_population
 
CA_vampire said:
This is not true. From the very beginning, the states had very different power and populations. Rhode Island was always tiny compared to Virginia.

In 1790, RI had 69,000 people, Virginia had 690,000, 1:10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_historical_population
Click to expand...

Fair enough, proportion was always an issue then. But now the differences are in the tens of millions instead of hundreds of thousands so I still find it strange people from California or NY just suck it up.
 
maniak said:
Fair enough, proportion was always an issue then. But now the differences are in the tens of millions instead of hundreds of thousands so I still find it strange people from California or NY just suck it up.
Click to expand...

It is "United States" for a reason. Vermont has 600,000 people, California has 37,000,000. If everything was proportional to population, Vermont would be completely irrelevant. This would be unfair, too.

The solution by the founding fathers was two parliaments. This has it's faults, but every conceivable system would also have faults.
 
CA_vampire said:
This is not true. From the very beginning, the states had very different power and populations. Rhode Island was always tiny compared to Virginia.

In 1790, RI had 69,000 people, Virginia had 690,000, 1:10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_historical_population
Click to expand...

Discount the number of slaves then the margin becomes much more equal.

The Senate was envisioned as a parliamentary body to safeguard the interest of rich landowners against the plebs (which includes the abominable 3/5th compromise). That vision however has already been undercut by the 17th amendment when state legislatures no longer had the authority to directly appoint Senators, and moved to popular election. So now you have a “perverse” outcome in which a body which was not meant to be representing the common people finds itself somehow elected on that basis, and in that process dilute the founding principle behind popular election due to the reason behind its conception.

This article sums up the absurdity of it all quite succinctly.

http://www2.philly.com/philly/colum...-confirmation-electoral-college-20181007.html
The backstory to Saturday's vote that matters is this: Brett Kavanaugh was named to the Supreme Court by a president who got three million fewer votes than his opponent, in an election where nearly half the eligible voters didn't even cast ballots. He was confirmed by a legislative body so antithetical to the supposedly cherished American ideal of "one person, one vote" that it made no difference that senators representing the majority of the U.S. population — nearly 56 percent — opposed him. Those disconnects led to the ramming through of the most unpopular Supreme Court pick of modern times — who will now spend the rest of his life making the rules about women's bodies, workers' basic rights and your ability to vote, even though no more than 30 to 40 percent of citizens ever wanted him there.

If that doesn't scream out for an American Bastille Day, what does?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
CA_vampire said:
It is "United States" for a reason. Vermont has 600,000 people, California has 37,000,000. If everything was proportional to population, Vermont would be completely irrelevant. This would be unfair, too.

The solution by the founding fathers was two parliaments. This has it's faults, but every conceivable system would also have faults.
Click to expand...

But that happens inevitably. 600k people will always have less political power than 37M, it happens in every democracy. As long as those 37M don't oppress the 600k, then what is the problem?

What exists now creates scenarios where a minority of the population imposes their will on the vast majority. It's absurd.
 
I think Trump can still win the election with an approval rating in the 30s. Every interview I listen to, I see voters saying they don't like Trump but will vote for him. This is the problem with identity politics, A huge number of Americans think they have no choice but to vote for him. Furthermore, Trump won the presidency with an approval rating not much higher than he currently does. Another thing, I can't see the Dems retaking the Rust Belt. Trump is still polling well in those states and without those states, I can't see a path to victory for Dems.
I'm a bit pessimistic and think barring an economic shock, Trump is winning in 2020 and will nominate more judges.
 
maniak said:
But that happens inevitably. 600k people will always have less political power than 37M, it happens in every democracy. As long as those 37M don't oppress the 600k, then what is the problem?

What exists now creates scenarios where a minority of the population imposes their will on the vast majority. It's absurd.
Click to expand...
It is a federation of state though, and similar examples can be seen everywhere (see EU, when for important decision Malta or Luxemburg can veto everything, or more concretely, when Greece pushed Cyprus to be accepted in EU without having satisfied conditions threatening veto on other states, or blocking Macedonia in NATO). When you want these types of federations/confederations, small states need to be relevant in some way.

Then there is the thing that this case is only for senate. When it comes to house and president, the power of states is quite proportional to number of people living there. It is only senate where every state has the same power.
 
Adisa said:
I think Trump can still win the election with an approval rating in the 30s. Every interview I listen to, I see voters saying they don't like Trump but will vote for him. This is the problem with identity politics, A huge number of Americans think they have no choice but to vote for him. Furthermore, Trump won the presidency with an approval rating not much higher than he currently does. Another thing, I can't see the Dems retaking the Rust Belt. Trump is still polling well in those states and without those states, I can't see a path to victory for Dems.
I'm a bit pessimistic and think barring an economic shock, Trump is winning in 2020 and will nominate more judges.
Click to expand...
Democrats need to win only Florida and one of those states to get presidency, providing that they don't lose other states. Hillary was a historically bad candidate, losing states that no Democrat has lost since 1987. It will be a very winnable election for Democrats providing that they run the right candidate in a good platform.
 
Revan said:
Democrats need to win only Florida and one of those states to get presidency, providing that they don't lose other states. Hillary was a historically bad candidate, losing states that no Democrat has lost since 1987. It will be a very winnable election for Democrats providing that they run the right candidate in a good platform.
Click to expand...
I'm not too familiar with the economy of the Rust Belt. My understanding is Trump won those states on protectionist policies and bringing coal back. No Democrat is going to run on that platform.
His poll numbers in those areas are above the national average. As things stand, I just can't see them shifting before 2020.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.