2018 U.S. Elections - Midterms & More

overedge

crying in the TSL bathroom
Messages
24,958
Ratings
19,414
I like Warren but she needs to remain in the Senate and far away from the Presidential race. If Trump could pick his opponent, I’d wager she’d be at the top of the list. She wouldn’t perform any better than Hillary and might even lose ground. IMO, someone from Klobuchar, Harris, O’Rourke or Brown would be our best chance against him.
Which is why I would like her to be the VP candidate, to use her skills without necessarily exposing her to all of the Trump hate.

I don't agree that she "wouldn't perform any better than Hillary". IMO she would call out Trump's sexist crap a lot more forcefully than Hillary did, which was one of the problems with Hillary's campaign.
 

VIETgrlTerifa

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,616
Ratings
42,889
Everyone on the right or who were anti-Hillary kept saying Hillary played the "woman card" too much even when I didn't think she did. Would they do the same to Elizabeth Warren if she would call out his crap or would they someone be more receptive to it from Warren? If it's the latter, then I wonder why.
 

Skittl1321

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,203
Ratings
9,051
Australia ~ 24 million
USA ~ 325 million

Therein lies a major source of difference.
Also the founding documents that give states rights to anything that isn't explicitly mentioned as a federal right.

The federal government can't just decide it's going to take control and states would fall in line. That's against one of the major principles that the nation was founded on.
 

Skittl1321

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,203
Ratings
9,051
Everyone on the right or who were anti-Hillary kept saying Hillary played the "woman card" too much even when I didn't think she did. Would they do the same to Elizabeth Warren if she would call out his crap or would they someone be more receptive to it from Warren? If it's the latter, then I wonder why.
People who are anti-Hillary generally also hate Warren.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,985
Ratings
8,570
@Debbie S- I appreciate your take on Maryland however the information I relayed was what I read in articles and from those who had knowledge of the ground game was a little different from your information.

Ben Jealous received little support monetary and GOTV from the state's Democratic party. With more resources he could have targeted more voters.

There was A lot attention and work force resources that were given to campaigns, like Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gollum.
 
Last edited:

SpeedySucks

Well-Known Member
Messages
403
Ratings
336
People who are anti-Hillary generally also hate Warren.
Warren would be one of the worst choices the Democrats could make for 2020. Trump has already branded her as Pocahontas, and thanks to the debacle over the DNA test (a huge unforced error by Warren), she will never overcome the Pocahontas label. And, quite frankly, the way that she handled that situation showed that she will not win in one-on-one battles with Trump. Nominating Warren is a sure bet that the Democrats will lose in 2020.
 

Skittl1321

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,203
Ratings
9,051
Warren would be one of the worst choices the Democrats could make for 2020. Trump has already branded her as Pocahontas, and thanks to the debacle over the DNA test (a huge unforced error by Warren), she will never overcome the Pocahontas label. And, quite frankly, the way that she handled that situation showed that she will not win in one-on-one battles with Trump. Nominating Warren is a sure bet that the Democrats will lose in 2020.
Agree. I'm a democrat who really likes Warren. She'd be a horrible candidate.

I also think Hillary's presidency would have been a disaster, unfortunately, though man I still wish she was our president.

The hate is just so extreme for these women.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,778
Ratings
13,259
:lol: I want to hear from these voters too. There’s the puzzle to decipher - find out why someone voted for higher minimum wage and a republican at the same time.
That's why I say, I'm under the impression that party matters more than who is running to Republicans. It seems like they didn't look at issues at all. All that matters was that the Senator had Republican attached to their name.

And a number probably believes Trump and not the news. (Even though they are experiencing first-hand what the news is saying)


Agree. FL would have had a very different outcome with higher turnout in Dade county. :(
Dade is the subject of the article I linked to yesterday that said that at least one of the polling places turned away 90% of the voters and many didn't vote after all.


I usually don't like to jump ahead but this! Dems need someone to create excitement and they need someone new. Beto O'Rourke really seems to fit the ticket. He is a three-term Congressman so he's not without experience.
Wasn't there criticism that he's not known well-known throughout the state? (Which completely baffled me because he visisted every county!) Could he really win nation-wide?



Personally I think getting rid of voter suppression and gerrymandering should be our focus for the next two years plus expanding the House to more closely match the population.
This. This. This!



Not saying the investigations aren't a good idea, just that we shouldn't spend 2 years trying to punish Trump and not get anything else done that will improve our country in the long run.
Investigations are not punishment. They should already be ongoing. They are Congress' job. Investigations (if taken seriously and done properly and not used as a political tool) also improve the country because if Congress does their job and does oversight then a President realizes that they can't just do what they want.

That said, I absolutely don't think that oversight is all Democrats should focus on.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
51,659
Ratings
25,846
There was a guy who ran as a Republican in a D.C. city council race who tried to differentiate himself from Trump Republicans by calling himself an "urban Republican" which is described as "a fiscal conservative who shares his city’s core values."

He didn't get many votes. :lol: But the point is there are some out there that want to be non-Trump Republicans and often they call themselves "fiscal conservatives." I just want to point out that being a "fiscal conservative" and being "fiscally responsible" are two very different things which people frequently confuse.

Fiscal conservative is code for against government spending. So for instance this DC candidate as a "fiscal conservative" fundamentally did NOT share the city's values, which include strong government programs to help those living in poverty, the homeless, the hungry, etc. One can support government programs while being fiscally responsible however, making sure that deficits do not explode and harm the very services the programs were set up to help with.

Fiscal conservatives aren't necessarily fiscally responsible either. They don't want spending but they don't want taxes either and the latter supercedes concern for fiscal responsibility most of the time.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,742
Ratings
16,661
I realize that there are Republicans living in the District of Columbia. Dozens and dozens of them, in fact. ;)

But it does not strike me as the type of place where anyone arguing in favor of reducing government spending, especially on employees and contractors, is likely to go over well with the voters. :shuffle:
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
51,659
Ratings
25,846
I realize that there are Republicans living in the District of Columbia. Dozens and dozens of them, in fact. ;)

But it does not strike me as the type of place where anyone arguing in favor of reducing government spending, especially on employees and contractors, is likely to go over well with the voters. :shuffle:
:lol: The government contractors and their employees mostly live in the suburbs. :p

This guy wants to reduce D.C.'s spending, and probably D.C.'s taxes on the young and the beautiful gentrifiers like himself.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,742
Ratings
16,661
The D.C. economy is still dependent on those government employees and their spending. Asking Washingtonians to vote against government spending would be like asking San Francsicans to ban tourism.
 

MacMadame

Cat Lady-in-Training
Messages
27,366
Ratings
19,443
Actually Australia is about the same size in land mass as the US. It is just a smaller population.
It's less than 1/10th the size of the US and that's a BIG difference.

Australia has 3 levels of government - federal, state and local - which are all managed by the one body - the Australian Electoral Commission. You register once - you have registered for all 3 levels. And if you move you go to one website to change your address. It is such a simple process.
It's the same here. You register locally and you can vote in any election. You don't have to register 3 times!
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
21,483
Ratings
8,474
It's less than 1/10th the size of the US and that's a BIG difference.
Granted size does matter :). But does it necessarily mean that there have to be so many different types of voting systems set up around the country? I could understand why states might operate differently, but when it comes to voting federally, I would think that the lack of consistency would be a problem. Not everyone has been elected under the same criteria. Again that is how my procedure based brain thinks.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,985
Ratings
8,570
@clairecloutier and @BlueRidge -

I hope this makes you feel better about yesterday's results.

WI - Scott Walker finally conceded this afternoon.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...isconsin-and-end-scott-walker-era/1894426002/

Tony Evers and his running mate, Mandela Barnes, won on a night that saw Democrats capture all other partisan state constitutional offices — attorney general (Josh Kaul), secretary of state (Doug La Follette) and state treasurer (Sarah Godlewski and Tammy Baldwin was re-elected. WI's top legislators are all Dems. This has not happened since 1982. Also, Dems will have upper hand in redistricting in the state.

WI is purple again with a deeper shade of purple than previously.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...s-tony-evers-likely-face-gridlock/1918875002/
 

Louis

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,939
Ratings
8,520
To illustrate how big, diverse, and legally different the various parts of the US are, I had no idea that people could be convicted of a felony anywhere without a unanimous jury. Wow. Don't commit a serious crime in Louisiana!
 

VIETgrlTerifa

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,616
Ratings
42,889
To illustrate how big, diverse, and legally different the various parts of the US are, I had no idea that people could be convicted of a felony anywhere without a unanimous jury. Wow. Don't commit a serious crime in Louisiana!
Louisiana and Oregon! For some reason, only one of those states had the distinction of being the state with the highest rate of incarceration in the U.S. until some sentencing measures were passed recently and now it's "only" number 2. I have a theory about that related to why Louisiana changed it so that one could be convicted of a felony with only 10 out of the 12 (before it was 9 out of 12 before that changed due to a "compromise") during the Jim Crow era. At least this all has changed with a popular vote.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,742
Ratings
16,661
To illustrate how big, diverse, and legally different the various parts of the US are, I had no idea that people could be convicted of a felony anywhere without a unanimous jury. Wow. Don't commit a serious crime in Louisiana!
I lived in England for a while and had no idea at the time that the same was true there!

Jeremy Bamber was convicted in 1988 of murdering his adoptive parents and sister by a vote of 10-2 and faces the rest of his life in prison. And yet, there are still questions about the validity of some of the forensic evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...t-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-bamber-trial-evidence
 

MacMadame

Cat Lady-in-Training
Messages
27,366
Ratings
19,443
First of all, turns out I was wrong. While I slept an okay guy beat the guy I hate to be my city council rep. I'm just okay with him but he's better than a lot of the other choices so it could be worse.

Granted size does matter :). But does it necessarily mean that there have to be so many different types of voting systems set up around the country? I could understand why states might operate differently, but when it comes to voting federally, I would think that the lack of consistency would be a problem. Not everyone has been elected under the same criteria. Again that is how my procedure based brain thinks.
But having everything run centrally also has issues. What works in one part of the country won't necessarily work in another part.

Also, I'm not sure the criteria are different from place to place. If the Dems nominate someone for President, that person is their nomination on every ballot. It's not like there is one candidate in Minnesota and another California. The procedures for getting on the ballot are different, but that's just paperwork.

The problems I see with our system is that:
-some states have not invested in voting infrastructure which causes machines to break down and sometimes even record the wrong votes!
-some states have people in charge who are actively working to suppress the vote vs. other states that are trying to encourage people to vote
-moving to new voting machines that have been proven easy to hack and no money to fix it or political will from the party in charge to do anything about it
-The way parties select their Presidential nominees is whack.

Having a centralized system would solve some of those problems, maybe. But it might make them worse.

For example, given who is in charge in DC these days, having centralized rules for registering and voting would make it worse because these guys are actively trying to suppress the vote. They would require IDs and close polling places and do other things that would make voting harder especially for minorities and young people.

For the insecure machines, if the machines were picked by the feds then there would be one vendor. If that vendor had secure machines, that would be good. If they didn't, hackers could steal every machine in the country and not have to figure out how to hack multiple types of machines.

For states who haven't invested in their infrastructure, if the Feds were to give them more money than they have now, that would be good because they could upgrade their infrastructure. But if they don't give each polling place enough money then that could be bad because maybe states with good infrastructure wouldn't be able to replace them when needed.

The main benefit I can see to making all of this more centralized is that it would make it easier to set things up so that you could vote from anywhere and not have to go to one specific local polling place during a limited number of hours. There's no reason with modern technology that I shouldn't be able to go to any polling place, give them my name and address and have them print me a personalized ballot on the spot with only my races on it.

As for how parties pick their nominees, I'm not sure you can do anything about via laws or having a centralized election unit running things. They are private entities and can do what they want.
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
21,483
Ratings
8,474
For example, given who is in charge in DC these days, having centralized rules for registering and voting would make it worse because these guys are actively trying to suppress the vote. They would require IDs and close polling places and do other things that would make voting harder especially for minorities and young people.
Thanks for the response. Appreciate the detail.

Can I ask are the way elections run are conducted tied to party political affiliations or is this done by an independent authority? Also are they audited by an independent authority to ensure the processes are verifiable and follow procedure?
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,413
Ratings
3,685
Australia ~ 24 million
USA ~ 325 million

Therein lies a major source of difference.
Not a reply on this, but when I saw Australia - my friend Jill who has dual citizenship in Australia and US, JUST had her Florida absentee (or whatever you would call it for dual citizenship) ballot mailed back to her in Australia!!!!! And she's a democrat. And she's :mad::mad:!!!
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,778
Ratings
13,259
Not a reply on this, but when I saw Australia - my friend Jill who has dual citizenship in Australia and US, JUST had her Florida absentee (or whatever you would call it for dual citizenship) ballot mailed back to her in Australia!!!!! And she's a democrat. And she's :mad::mad:!!!
I posted a link to an article that states that this was one of Florida's issues. That is voter suppression and that is why I keep saying that it should not be discounted or dismissed. Pointing that out is not a sore loser. Voter suppression is undemocratic, does play a role and is a big deal.
But the MSM is largely silent on the issue today. Yes, Trump threw them a curveball with Sessions, still, they've managed to cover more than one story before. They could cover two stories, today, too.
For now, it's the very left news outlets that largely cover it: Mother Jones, Huffington Post, for example. So, it's getting dismissed as leftist propaganda. That won't change until the MSM makes as big a deal out of it as it is, and until that happens, fighting voter suppression and getting it recognized as a potentially deciding factor is an uphill battle.
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
21,483
Ratings
8,474
Not a reply on this, but when I saw Australia - my friend Jill who has dual citizenship in Australia and US, JUST had her Florida absentee (or whatever you would call it for dual citizenship) ballot mailed back to her in Australia!!!!! And she's a democrat. And she's :mad::mad:!!!
Wow. Why would someone's vote be mailed back? I assume that it is in a reply paid envelope with a printed address. Particularly when the vote was so close in Florida every vote does count.
 

MacMadame

Cat Lady-in-Training
Messages
27,366
Ratings
19,443
Wow. Why would someone's vote be mailed back? I assume that it is in a reply paid envelope with a printed address. Particularly when the vote was so close in Florida every vote does count.
They may have decided she wasn't eligible to vote because of her Australian citizenship. Or because the name on the ballot didn't match something. The later is the voter suppression tactic of the day.

I wouldn't assume it was postage paid though. They are in my state but not every state. But most of us drop them off into an official box (I go to City Hall as it's close to me) and skip the post office.
Can I ask are the way elections run are conducted tied to party political affiliations or is this done by an independent authority?
They are run by the government. At the state level, they are run by the Secretary of State's department. The county has something to do with it too. I'm not 100% clear on exactly how it all works but precincts report to the County Registrar of Voters who reports to the Secretary of State in California.

This is why Kemp is going to be Stacy Abrams IMO. He's running for Governor AND he's in charge of the voting process!! It's a complete conflict of interest.

So I guess I should put that on my list of problems to be fixed.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 9, Guests: 3)

Top