2018 Midterm Elections - The Aftermath

[allegro]

@Mantra , I’d be (sorta, maybe) willing to consider giving Ellison the benefit of the doubt on everything else, like Farrakhan and NoI etc. etc. if I could get past the abuse shit, bleh. Admittedly, I probably listen to Dershowitz too much*. :-). I agree that there is likely some level of smearing involved, because there always is in politics. It’s hard to tell what’s just news and what’s bullshit or what is opinion disguised as news.

Just found this article, thought it was pretty good.

*For instance.

[theimage13]

Barack Obama was on stage in Chicago’s Grant Park right now declaring victory 10 years ago tonight.

We will always have that. He won by 8.5 million votes.

I was in paralegal grad school at Loyola’s Watertower Law School Campus that night. I drove south down Michigan Avenue toward Grant Park, got as close as I could, in tears, toward the celebration. It was all electric. I still can’t believe it. It’s still miraculous to me.

And now, Stacey Abrams in Georgia. We SHALL overcome.

And to think, the current so-called President LOST by three million votes. I've read article after article after article trying to explain / defend / justify the EC, and I just don't buy it in 2018. That shit needs to go.

I'm going to be livid if Kemp wins. Cruz...I'll be depressed, but not at all surprised. But Kemp is a really dangerous person...he controls the election. If it goes to recount, HE is the one in charge of it and he has refused repeated calls to step down until such time as the election results are clear. Couple that with the overwhelming voting suppression that he's responsible for, and...yeah. Will likely be literally shaking with rage if he wins.

[allegro]

And to think, the current so-called President LOST by three million votes. I've read article after article after article trying to explain / defend / justify the EC, and I just don't buy it in 2018. That shit needs to go.

I'm going to be livid if Kemp wins. Cruz...I'll be depressed, but not at all surprised. But Kemp is a really dangerous person...he controls the election. If it goes to recount, HE is the one in charge of it and he has refused repeated calls to step down until such time as the election results are clear. Couple that with the overwhelming voting suppression that he's responsible for, and...yeah. Will likely be literally shaking with rage if he wins.

Now Kemp is accusing the Democrats of hacking into the voter database, which is total B.S. and a last-minute attempt to fuck up the election. He is SUCH an asshole.

The EC made sense until the Republicans found a way to game it via gerrymandering etc.

Several states have passed legislation where their EC votes automatically go to the winner of the national popular vote. If all of the states do that, it will render the EC useless

[theimage13]

Now Kemp is accusing the Democrats of hacking into the voter database, which is total B.S. and a last-minute attempt to fuck up the election. He is SUCH an asshole.

The EC made sense until the Republicans found a way to game it via gerrymandering etc.

Several states have passed legislation where their EC votes automatically go to their state’s winner of the popular vote. If all of the states do that, it will render the EC useless

Yeah, I posted that "hacking" thing a few pages back. What a cock.

Haven't states historically given the EC votes to their respective popular winner anyway? I get that there's a difference between at least having the right to say "nah, fuck the popular vote" and an automatic process, but effectively speaking, hasn't it gone that way most (if not all) of the time anyway? Has there ever been an election that was decided based on the electorate going against their states' popular vote results?

[halo eighteen]

Just got back from voting. Gretchen Whitmer absolutely must win governor here; Schuette is basically a mini-Trump that already knocked down LGBTQ discrimination protection earlier this year as Attorney General. Not to mention that, working in the media, I can tell you that we've been giving every candidate across the board fair coverage and the ability to come in and make an introduction video/interview. He had rescheduled with us no less than 4 times over the course of about a month and when he finally came in last Thursday, he had the audacity to say that he's pressed for time and needed to be somewhere so make it quick. I hope we didn't even air it.

Also recreational marijuana is on the ballot, and I've no idea what way that'll go but I suspect it'll pass.

[Mantra]

@Mantra, I’d be (sorta, maybe) willing to consider giving Ellison the benefit of the doubt on everything else, like Farrakhan and NoI etc. etc. if I could get past the abuse shit, bleh. Admittedly, I probably listen to Dershowitz too much*. :-). I agree that there is likely some level of smearing involved, because there always is in politics. It’s hard to tell what’s just news and what’s bullshit or what is opinion disguised as news.

Just found this article, thought it was pretty good.

*For instance.

Yeah, I read that Dershowitz piece back when it came out, and I think it's really unfair. In general, I feel like Dershowitz went a little bit off the rails some years back. I saw him on TV arguing that torture is morally acceptable and the US has every right to pursue it in the war on terror. So I don't tend to put too much stock in what he says these days. If the DNC making a perfectly reasonable shift to the left means losing people who are so "centrist" that they literally advocate for torture, I can live with that. That other article you posted was really good, and pretty much sums my position on the antisemitism issue.

There's a Twin Cities artist named Ricardo Levins Morales who's kind of influential in the local left wing scene (or at least in the circles I travel in) and he posted this thing on Facebook about the Ellison situation: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...8378754&type=3

I read that yesterday and found it fairly persuasive. I think that, in general, Morales is a believer in the idea that one can engage in "strategic voting" and still maintain their political integrity. I don't know. I have a feeling I'm gonna find myself in the booth feeling sort of paralyzed by indecision. I wasn't able to make it in before work, so I'll be voting right when I get off.

[allegro]

There's a Twin Cities artist named Ricardo Levins Morales who's kind of influential in the local left wing scene (or at least in the circles I travel in) and he posted this thing on Facebook about the Ellison situation: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...8378754&type=3

I read that yesterday and found it fairly persuasive. I think that, in general, Morales is a believer in the idea that one can engage in "strategic voting" and still maintain their political integrity. I don't know. I have a feeling I'm gonna find myself in the booth feeling sort of paralyzed by indecision. I wasn't able to make it in before work, so I'll be voting right when I get off.

Wow, good article. He makes me dislike Ellison even MORE! But, yes, he makes a good argument, PARTICULARLY related to the Attorney General position.

It’s funny about his “Obama Neoliberal Kool-aid” comment (which is true) because all the Trump people on Twitter think Obama is a far-left-wing super-liberal (they haven’t been introduced to the term “progressive,” yet: everyone left of them is just “liberal”).

Re Dershowitz, he sometimes goes totally off-the-rails, he’s often WAY too pro-Israel (to a FAULT, to the point of single-issue obsession), and therefore he can’t STAND Palestine, and I know many Jews who disagree with Israel’s stance on and treatment of Palestine, BUT he still often has what I consider a brilliant legal mind so I still follow him. The torture argument was mostly made relative to 9-11 and getting warrants for it, he wrote a book about the legal arguments and ramifications, etc. based on a “ticking time bomb” scenario that experts (and everyone else) agrees has never existed and likely will never exist. I’ve gotten into these torture arguments with my younger half-brother; torture advocates are under the false impression that torture yields actual, valid, useful data. Experts and reports have indicated, repeatedly, that torture yields faulty data: Dershowitz has said about plea deals that the Defendants often not only sing but also compose, and THE SAME IS SAID ABOUT TORTURE. Anyway ...

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat...ture-warrants/

[allegro]

Yeah, I posted that "hacking" thing a few pages back. What a cock.

Haven't states historically given the EC votes to their respective popular winner anyway? I get that there's a difference between at least having the right to say "nah, fuck the popular vote" and an automatic process, but effectively speaking, hasn't it gone that way most (if not all) of the time anyway? Has there ever been an election that was decided based on the electorate going against their states' popular vote results?

No, sorry, I meant to say the COUNTRY’s popular vote winner. I edited my above post, thanks.

See this: https://hellogiggles.com/news/states...-popular-vote/

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

[Mantra]

Why the fuck isn't election day a holiday in this country?

[theimage13]

No, sorry, I meant to say the COUNTRY’s popular vote winner. I edited my above post, thanks.

See this: https://hellogiggles.com/news/states...-popular-vote/

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

Oooooooooooooooooooh. Now that would be a novel concept. We have to elect the person that the most people vote for!

Surprise, surprise: the only states on board so far are all "blue states". Wonder if we'd ever see a "red state" agree to vote for the national popular vote winner?

[Demogorgon]

If there were no Electoral College, California would decide every general election. If you think that's acceptable because California is progressive, think about if California was a red state and not a blue. Conservatives every four years forever. That's what the EC is supposed to protect against: big states making decisions for everyone. It's not perfect, but it was designed to protect you from a single party essentially creating a dynasty for itself. Remember also that Obama got two terms, and many of you absolutely still love him, and he won EC votes on both occasions. If he had lost the popular votes, those EC votes would have kept him in office regardless, and if that had been the case, i can't imagine most of you would be complaining about it.

[theimage13]

If there were no Electoral College, California would decide every general election. If you think that's acceptable because California is progressive, think about if California was a red state and not a blue. Conservatives every four years forever. That's what the EC is supposed to protect against: big states making decisions for everyone. It's not perfect, but it was designed to protect you from a single party essentially creating a dynasty for itself. Remember also that Obama got two terms, and many of you absolutely still love him, and he won EC votes on both occasions. If he had lost the popular votes, those EC votes would have kept him in office regardless, and if that had been the case, i can't imagine most of you would be complaining about it.

Since 1876, every President who lost the popular vote but still made it to office belonged to one party.

"It's not perfect"? "Protects from a single party creating a dynasty"?

Funny, it's only stood to benefit a single party over the last 140 years. Seems like it's utterly failing to do precisely the thing you claim it's good at preventing.

And why on earth does Obama winning the EC mean we're not allowed to like him? He won the popular vote. Literally the only vote I care about. If he'd somehow lost the popular but won the electorate, I'd be the first to concede that Republicans have every right to feel cheated. I also like how you assume that most of us support flaws as long as they help us get what we want. I enjoy being presumed a person of no integrity.

[halo eighteen]

If there were no Electoral College, California would decide every general election. If you think that's acceptable because California is progressive, think about if California was a red state and not a blue. Conservatives every four years forever. That's what the EC is supposed to protect against: big states making decisions for everyone. It's not perfect, but it was designed to protect you from a single party essentially creating a dynasty for itself. Remember also that Obama got two terms, and many of you absolutely still love him, and he won EC votes on both occasions. If he had lost the popular votes, those EC votes would have kept him in office regardless, and if that had been the case, i can't imagine most of you would be complaining about it.

But he didn't lose the popular vote so there's no use throwing a hypothetical situation that didn't even occur and projecting how people would or wouldn't have approved of that. You're also pretending like no Republican ever has ever won the state of CA, or that everyone in the state votes the same way. Texas is also a highly populated state.

[Demogorgon]

Since 1876, every President who lost the popular vote but still made it to office belonged to one party.

And that party wasn't ALWAYS the maniacal evil machine that you're saying they are now. *shrug*

"It's not perfect"? "Protects from a single party creating a dynasty"?

Yes on both counts.

Funny, it's only stood to benefit a single party over the last 140 years. Seems like it's utterly failing to do precisely the thing you claim it's good at preventing.

And again, that party was probably not the evil rampaging monster you claim it to be over that entire span. You're so stuck in this us against them mentality. Let it go, dude.

And why on earth does Obama winning the EC mean we're not allowed to like him?

Where did I say that? You're making an implication and an inference that isn't true.

He won the popular vote. Literally the only vote I care about. If he'd somehow lost the popular but won the electorate, I'd be the first to concede that Republicans have every right to feel cheated.

I never said Republicans were cheated. I simply pointed out what the system is designed for and gave you hypothetical examples, because that's how critical thinking works.

I also like how you assume that most of us support flaws as long as they help us get what we want. I enjoy being presumed a person of no integrity.

Again, I did not say that. You are, as per usual, projecting a bunch of antagonistic feelings on me because you don't like what I said.

The point is, with the EC, you win some, and you lose some. Some times you get an amazing candidate who takes it all. Sometimes you get a piece of shit. Without the EC as a possible balance, you run the risk of always getting a piece of shit. If it was clear that one party would always win the popular vote, then every candidate would run on charisma and not on actual governing ability. That's not speculation, that's fact. You can keep on claiming i'm insulting you when I'm not, have at it, but at least try, for the sake of actual conversation, to look at the way government is supposed to work OBJECTIVELY.

[Demogorgon]

But he didn't lose the popular vote so there's no use throwing a hypothetical situation that didn't even occur and projecting how people would or wouldn't have approved of that. You're also pretending like no Republican ever has ever won the state of CA, or that everyone in the state votes the same way. Texas is also a highly populated state.

My point is not a new point, it's that if there was only popular votes, big states would be the only states that count. Every voice should be important individually, not just the ones assembled into the biggest crowd.

[allegro]

I used to be a huge proponent of the EC. But the winner-takes-all EC “battleground” states have been deciding entire elections, which isn’t fair, either.

Also, CA’s largest-growing voting group right now ISN’T Democrat or Republican; it’s Independent, which the EC completely ignores. The EC is antiquated and unfair.

[Demogorgon]

I used to be a huge proponent of the EC. But the winner-takes-all EC “battleground” states have been deciding entire elections, which isn’t fair, either. Also, CA’s largest-growing voting group right now ISN’T Democrat or Republican; it’s Independent, which the EC completely ignores. The EC is antiquated and unfair.

I agree that it has problems. I don't like "winner-take-all" and i think the system should be the same across the board. I also think Independents should be given just as much representation as the others because the two-party monopoly is broken. But i also don't think a purely popular vote would help in the long run, mostly for the reason i stated; votes would lean heavily on charisma with the voters and less on actual capability to govern.

[theimage13]

My point is not a new point, it's that if there was only popular votes, big states would be the only states that count. Every voice should be important individually, not just the ones assembled into the biggest crowd.

So instead the big region of small states with a ton of combined EC votes counts more than a few states with a large share of the actual voting population?

Right. Makes total sense. Great system. You've changed my mind.

(Sorry, I get snippy on election days)

[allegro]

I agree that it has problems. I don't like "winner-take-all" and i think the system should be the same across the board. I also think Independents should be given just as much representation as the others because the two-party monopoly is broken. But i also don't think a purely popular vote would help in the long run, mostly for the reason i stated; votes would lean heavily on charisma with the voters and less on actual capability to govern.

Some of the biggest “problems” is that the EC in many states can vote for whomever they WANT, and the votes in each state are already so fucking gerrymandered in districts, and the winner-take-all system means all those votes don’t matter, anyway, and the EC is not working when four states in the Rust Belt can determine an election for the entire country by 77,000 fucking votes and, yeah, completely shutting out any candidate other than Democrat or Republican STRICTLY BECAUSE of the EC (because it’s pretty much impossible to get enough EC votes).


And what the FUCK is up with the State of NEW YORK?!?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...ts-in-new-york

If you’re Independent, you’re FUCKED in primary voting. There’s NO early voting except for absentee ballots. The whole thing is crazy archaic bordering on suppression, people are waiting for hours to vote. Why don’t they upgrade and modernize that shit? Or is status quo better?

[theimage13]

The point is, with the EC, you win some, and you lose some. Some times you get an amazing candidate who takes it all. Sometimes you get a piece of shit. Without the EC as a possible balance, you run the risk of always getting a piece of shit. If it was clear that one party would always win the popular vote, then every candidate would run on charisma and not on actual governing ability. That's not speculation, that's fact. You can keep on claiming i'm insulting you when I'm not, have at it, but at least try, for the sake of actual conversation, to look at the way government is supposed to work OBJECTIVELY.

No, you don't win some and lose some. You only lose some.

And I am looking at it objectively. 3,000,000 MORE people voted for the candidate who didn't win. Objectively, the desire of the United States of America was ignored. Objectively, the EC failed to listen to the will of the majority of voters. Objectively, the loser of the election was declared the winner.

The EC isn't a balance. Name one instance where a horrible monster ran on charisma, won, and the EC stepped in an said "you guys realize he's a serial killer and will plunge the country into chaos, right?" When has that happened? It hasn't. They may have the *option* to vote against the state's ballots, but they don't. Never have, never will.

[Demogorgon]

So instead the big region of small states with a ton of combined EC votes counts more than a few states with a large share of the actual voting population?

Right. Makes total sense. Great system. You've changed my mind.

(Sorry, I get snippy on election days)

I get what you're saying, brother. I really do. But i think, as i mentioned with allegro, that if the "winner-take-all" was taken out, and the districts in every state were drawn up fairly (which is probably a pipe dream, but oh well) that the system would work as designed more often than not.

[Demogorgon]

Never have, never will.

Yes, it will, and it will probably happen in your lifetime. It happened in 1930's era Germany, it happens in the Middle East in places that actually hold elections, it can happen here. I hope it doesn't. But this is what the midterms are all about: putting in the people who will (supposedly) use their EC vote to support the best candidate. I've said over and over and over that the midterms are the most important votes you can make, and i mean it. Your midterm votes directly impact the EC you're upset with. Just because the EC picked a shit candidate this time around does not mean it will do the same next time. Next time, we may very well get the charismatic monster, and the EC vote will be the only thing that saves us from having them gain the office.

[allegro]

I get what you're saying, brother. I really do. But i think, as i mentioned with allegro, that if the "winner-take-all" was taken out, and the districts in every state were drawn up fairly (which is probably a pipe dream, but oh well) that the system would work as designed more often than not.

And by FAIRLY, that would mean that Bernie Sanders or whomever would not be forced to run as a Democrat even though he’s an Independent and Californians (or anybody else) can vote other than Democrat or Republican and their vote would actually COUNT instead of being thrown away because ... EC. The idea that CA would decide every election is probably false, because they don’t all vote one way, anymore. But I’m okay with it, more than I am a mere 77,000 people in the Midwest deciding it for the entire country.

[Demogorgon]

And by FAIRLY, that would mean that Bernie Sanders or whomever would not be forced to run as a Democrat even though he’s an Independent and Californians (or anybody else) can vote other than Democrat or Republican and their vote would actually COUNT instead of being thrown away because ... EC. The idea that CA would decide every election is probably false, because they don’t all vote one way, anymore. But I’m okay with it, more than I am a mere 77,000 people in the Midwest deciding it for the entire country.

I would be 100% okay with Independents getting a vote on the EC without having to declare as one of the other parties. I don't believe for one second that that EC votes should be restricted to only a particular set of parties. I agree that it does need fixed, and i think it can be fixed. Someone needs to have the guts to propose it and actually get enough momentum to make it happen.

[Louie_Cypher]

22o million on made up bullshit https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/05/r...40M_os-1voK4Ec
-louie

[Mantra]

Yeah, I just don't buy this theory that the EC somehow prevents the situation where a small number of states dominate the elections. That is literally the exact situation that we face every single election. All that changes with the EC is that it switches what those states are. So rather than the election being dominated by CA, NY and TX, our elections instead are dominated by OH, PA, and FL. How is that better in anyway whatsoever?

[ltrandazzo]

I can't wait for the results to come out so I can lock this thread.

[allegro]

I would be 100% okay with Independents getting a vote on the EC without having to declare as one of the other parties. I don't believe for one second that that EC votes should be restricted to only a particular set of parties. I agree that it does need fixed, and i think it can be fixed. Someone needs to have the guts to propose it and actually get enough momentum to make it happen.

The thing is re your assertion that the EC prevents a Hitler scenario: (1) Germany didn't see Hitler as "HITLER" when they elected Hitler, and (2) the EC went ahead and elected Trump, anyway, even though there were protests trying to get the EC NOT to vote for Trump.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nton/95384578/

https://mic.com/articles/162386/anti...-19#.giH6Td48E

So, these groups in all 50 states SAW the damage that Trump would cause and the EC said "yeah, well, whatever, we are going to elect him because that's democracy blah blah blah." So if Trump turns out to be a total Authoritarian (signs point to him already BEING one), the EC didn't protect us from that AT ALL. It's all just partisan BULLSHIT. The whole thing is really just a dog and pony show made to LOOK like some novel way of making things "fair" but it's just bullshit.

Name one instance where a horrible monster ran on charisma, won, and the EC *failed to step* stepped in and said "you guys realize he's a serial killer nightmare and will plunge the country into chaos, right?" When has that happened?

TRUMP.


Anywayyyyyyy I think, technically, this discussion is in the wrong thread ... eek.

[allegro]

I can't wait for the results to come out so I can lock this thread.

[mostlymad]

I can't wait for the results to come out so I can lock this thread.

Now you’re taunting fate to have a clusterfuck like 2000 happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk