2018 Midterm Election Thread

[Sour Masher]

While on the topic of voter fraud, for which I can find no evidence, I thought it would be good to remind some folks of some of the things done in the past to suppress voters, specifically minority voters. Remember the stuff done during the Bush campaign, like caging, and challenging minority votes to invalidate them in Florida and Ohio, or when Americans for Prosperity tried to trick Dem voters into invalidating their votes in the Obama years?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/3956129.stm

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-n...e24465595.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.0b1228c0b48b

These were large scale efforts to target Democrats, especially minorities, to ensure their votes would not be counted.

[Hornsby]

Actual voter fraud is pretty much akin to Bigfoot and Unicorn sightings. Now actual Voter SUPPRESSION on the other hand is very real thing.

[B-Fly]

From a purely political perspective, despite my agreement that "voter fraud" is de minimus while "voter suppression" is rampant, I recognize that any perceived voter fraud risk is going to be used to justify voter suppression. Therefore I'd be willing to support a federal bill or state bills that add material controls against "voter fraud" risk, "voter suppression" risk and "voting security" risk (e.g., potential hacking of voting machines or counts/databases), to increase overall public confidence in the integrity of our voting system. Make it convenient and simple enough for those who currently lack picture IDs to obtain a free government photo ID card and combine it with regulations to ease voter registration and voting itself, as well as monitoring and enforcement to reduce voter suppression and monitoring and R&D to reduce voting security risks and I'm on board.

[baldgriff]

From a purely political perspective, despite my agreement that "voter fraud" is de minimus while "voter suppression" is rampant, I recognize that any perceived voter fraud risk is going to be used to justify voter suppression. Therefore I'd be willing to support a federal bill or state bills that add material controls against "voter fraud" risk, "voter suppression" risk and "voting security" risk (e.g., potential hacking of voting machines or counts/databases), to increase overall public confidence in the integrity of our voting system. Make it convenient and simple enough for those who currently lack picture IDs to obtain a free government photo ID card and combine it with regulations to ease voter registration and voting itself, as well as monitoring and enforcement to reduce voter suppression and monitoring and R&D to reduce voting security risks and I'm on board.

Is that a shift in perspective for you? I think there was a conversation 5+ years ago and I think you were opposed to the idea as it would disenfranchise various population classes. Maybe it wasnt you, but I will say that I seem to recall that the idea of voter ID was an absolute no-no for many on the left of this topic.

[Sour Masher]

From a purely political perspective, despite my agreement that "voter fraud" is de minimus while "voter suppression" is rampant, I recognize that any perceived voter fraud risk is going to be used to justify voter suppression. Therefore I'd be willing to support a federal bill or state bills that add material controls against "voter fraud" risk, "voter suppression" risk and "voting security" risk (e.g., potential hacking of voting machines or counts/databases), to increase overall public confidence in the integrity of our voting system. Make it convenient and simple enough for those who currently lack picture IDs to obtain a free government photo ID card and combine it with regulations to ease voter registration and voting itself, as well as monitoring and enforcement to reduce voter suppression and monitoring and R&D to reduce voting security risks and I'm on board.

Sounds like a plan to me. I'd support that too.

[B-Fly]

Is that a shift in perspective for you? I think there was a conversation 5+ years ago and I think you were opposed to the idea as it would disenfranchise various population classes. Maybe it wasnt you, but I will say that I seem to recall that the idea of voter ID was an absolute no-no for many on the left of this topic.

Because it wasn't tied to a program to identify and distribute free government picture IDs to eligible voters who might need them. If we're going to do it, we need to link it to a genuine, widespread, publicly-funded effort to get IDs to the folks who need them, and it needs to be combined with a genuine commitment to rubbing out voter suppression.

[Judge Jude]

Ed O'Keefe
Verified account @edokeefe
38m38 minutes ago

HISTORY: With @CindyHydeSmith’s win in the Mississippi runoff election, 24 women will serve in the U.S. Senate — a new record. 17 Democratic women and 7 Republican women will serve alongside 76 men.

..............

(30 years ago, this would have been celebrated as progress. now? either 7 or 17 Senators suck, depending on your laundry preferences. more female representation as a goal has taken a back seat.)

[frae]

Hyde-Smith wins 53.9 - 46.1. She remains a terrible candidate and the numbers in this vote show that some. The last two MS Senate races went 57.2 - 40.6 (2012) and 59.9 - 37.9 (2014). In 2016 Trump won 57.86 - 40.06. Since the Senate was a true run off with only 2 candidates on the ballot it is a little harder to compare it to these other 3 races because none of them were true runoffs but regardless you can see the numbers did move. I don't say any of this to suggest MS is moving toward being purple or even pink just that Hyde-Smith was a truly terrible candidate who is not ready for primetime and I would bet when her special election seat is up in 2020 she gets primaried by a better Republican candidate.

[B-Fly]

Ed O'Keefe
Verified account @edokeefe
38m38 minutes ago

HISTORY: With @CindyHydeSmith’s win in the Mississippi runoff election, 24 women will serve in the U.S. Senate — a new record. 17 Democratic women and 7 Republican women will serve alongside 76 men.

..............

(30 years ago, this would have been celebrated as progress. now? either 7 or 17 Senators suck, depending on your laundry preferences. more female representation as a goal has taken a back seat.)

I actually saw a great deal of celebration about the record level of female representation in Congress and the progress it represents, JJ. No need to be so negative all the time.

[frae]

Cook Political calls it for Cox in CA 21. His lead holds and the other networks that called it wrong before won't recall until it is certified, but this baby is over!

Final house count D+40 235-200.

Some fun numbers now with votes still being counted but we are almost there...

Dems are +8.3 and up over 9.3 million in the House popular vote.

Only 3 house seats from districts Clinton won in 16 survived. Dems flipped 31 CD that Trump won in 16.

The raw vote total is 82.7% of the 2016 presidential election as of today.

[Sour Masher]

Frae, now that the dust has finally settled, is your sense of the results that they show clear dissatisfaction with Trump's GOP? Is it strong evidence that if the Dems nominate anyone decent, Trump will be defeated in 2020? Or does these results not translate that way, because of how many flips happened in already blue states?

[frae]

Frae, now that the dust has finally settled, is your sense of the results that they show clear dissatisfaction with Trump's GOP? Is it strong evidence that if the Dems nominate anyone decent, Trump will be defeated in 2020? Or does these results not translate that way, because of how many flips happened in already blue states?

I don't want to take too much from one election cycle, but somethings people smarter than me have said...

In 2016 the rural north showed they will vote like the rural south. In 2018 the suburbs in the south started to vote like the suburbs in the north.

Democrats passed 60 million votes for them in the house smashing the previous house record of 44.5 million that Republicans set in 2010. The R's also set a record with 50.6 million votes cast. So massive turnout for both parties, but something to be said for if Democrats get the vote out they have an advantage.

I take away from this that it was definitely the overall electorate voting against Trump. Clinton won the 2016 popular vote by 2.1 points and the dems are currently up 8.4 points. The economy did not crash, we don't have any new wars going on, or any other things to point to since 2016 to say why we had a 6.3 point swing. This was an energized Democratic party getting out their vote and swing voters turning away from Trump especially in suburbs all over the country.

Defeating Trump in 2020 is not something I am ready to make assumptions about based on this vote. I have already said to me the math is really simple focus on any Clinton states that were close and attack PA, MI, and WI. After those if you want to look at other states to flip NC, FL, and OH might be in play, but keep your focus on winning what you can and I'd say as of today there is a good chance. The ticket matters though and all of us have differnet opinions about who we want to see on it. I like Harris, O'Rourke, and Klobuchar as of today and would be happy to see two of them pair up to make a ticket.

2020 is a long way off and we will get into it plenty between now and then, but for me this was very good election in the house. I wish the senate had setup better to see what dems could have done in states like NC, PA, CO or other states like that where a Republican has a seante seat. NV, and AZ were nice to see and MT and WV as well. Of the losses FL is the only one that I find really disturbing. It reamins a state that Democrats can't regularly crack and I don't know if they will be able to fix that.

It was a very good election night in the house and all the numbers in how voting went and turnout are positive. What it will mean in 2020 we will see, for now enjoy that +40 house swing.

[B-Fly]

I don't want to take too much from one election cycle, but somethings people smarter than me have said...

In 2016 the rural north showed they will vote like the rural south. In 2018 the suburbs in the south started to vote like the suburbs in the north.

Democrats passed 60 million votes for them in the house smashing the previous house record of 44.5 million that Republicans set in 2010. The R's also set a record with 50.6 million votes cast. So massive turnout for both parties, but something to be said for if Democrats get the vote out they have an advantage.

I take away from this that it was definitely the overall electorate voting against Trump. Clinton won the 2016 popular vote by 2.1 points and teh dems are currently up 8.4 points. The economy did not crash, we don't have any new wars going on, or any other things to point to since 2016 to say why we had a 6.3 point swing. This was an energized Democratic party getting out their vote and swing voters turning away from Trump especially in suburbs all over the country.

Defeating Trump in 2020 is not something I am ready to make assumptions about based on this vote. I have already said to me the math is really simple focus on any Clinton states that were close and attack PA, MI, and WI. After those if you want to look at other states to flip NC, FL, and OH might be in play, but keep your focus on winning what you can and I'd say as of today there is a good chance. The ticket matters though and all of us have differnet opinions about who we want to see on it. I like Harris, O'Rourke, and Klobuchar as of today and would be happy to see two of them pair up to make a ticket.

2020 is a long way off and we will get into it plenty between now and then, but for me this was very good election in the house. I wish the senate had setup better to see what dems could have done in states like NC, PA, CO or other states like that where a Republican has a seante seat. NV, and AZ were nice to see and MT and WV as well. Of the losses FL is the only one that I find really disturbing. It reamins a state that Democrats can't regularly crack and I don't know if they will be able to fix that.

It was a very good election night in the house and all the numbers in how voting went and turnout are positive. What it will mean in 2020 we will see, for now enjoy that +40 house swing.

I largely agree. One thing I'd say to maybe temper your pessimism on Florida is that the did approve the ballot initiative to restore voting eligibility to former felons. As close as those governor and senate races were, that has the potential to be a difference maker. And AZ could be in play. But you're right that the path of least resistance would seem to be holding the 2016 Clinton states and adding PA, MI and WI. For that reason, you probably need to add Sherrod Brown and Joe Biden to the candidates for discussion, although I too find myself pulling for Harris or Klobuchar and maybe O'Rourke. I'm still interested to see what state governors (e.g., Hickenlooper, Bullock, Cuomo) might jump in, since executive experience is something I generally view very positively.

Beyond the candidates, though, the exit polling in PA, MI, WI, FL, OH, NC, AZ is key. How much overlap is there on the issues that drove voters to the Democrat in those states? Economic fairness? Health insurance security? Education? Or anti-Trump? The successful Democrat will take both the positive and negative influences that drove voters to vote blue in 2016 and craft it into an optimistic message girded with concrete policy ideas.

[TS Garp]

Pretty interesting piece:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/26/why-democrats-shouldnt-nominate-someone-over/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1745b1809252

[frae]

I largely agree. One thing I'd say to maybe temper your pessimism on Florida is that the did approve the ballot initiative to restore voting eligibility to former felons. As close as those governor and senate races were, that has the potential to be a difference maker. And AZ could be in play. But you're right that the path of least resistance would seem to be holding the 2016 Clinton states and adding PA, MI and WI. For that reason, you probably need to add Sherrod Brown and Joe Biden to the candidates for discussion, although I too find myself pulling for Harris or Klobuchar and maybe O'Rourke. I'm still interested to see what state governors (e.g., Hickenlooper, Bullock, Cuomo) might jump in, since executive experience is something I generally view very positively.

Beyond the candidates, though, the exit polling in PA, MI, WI, FL, OH, NC, AZ is key. How much overlap is there on the issues that drove voters to the Democrat in those states? Economic fairness? Health insurance security? Education? Or anti-Trump? The successful Democrat will take both the positive and negative influences that drove voters to vote blue in 2016 and craft it into an optimistic message girded with concrete policy ideas.

I agree I meant to include AZ, just a mistake on my part. It definitely fits into the NC FL OH group.