• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2018 mid-term election

Last night I heard Hannity for a couple of minutes. He was reciting Trump's claim that Trump campaigning caused Republican wins and the lack of Trump campaigning caused Republican losses. It reminds me of what David Horowitz said about his father, who was a big Stalin fan. Stalin had given himself eight official-sounding titles, and when he died, those titles went to eight other guys, and the elder Horowitz exclaimed how that was proof of what a great man Stalin had been, because it took eight men to replace him.

What really matters to these people now isn't even how their party does. It's how their Dear Leader does. Party failures don't concern them as long as they can come up with a way to separate the failures from the Dear Leader.
 
smartcooky said:
And the further bad news is that it will stay that way so long as right leaning politicians in power in right leaning states do everything they can to discourage and/or prevent people from voting.

If everyone in America had fair opportunity to vote (as we do in this country) and it was made easy for everyone to vote (also, as we do in this country) then your voter turnout would routinely hit 75%+ (like ours does)*. But the right knows what side their bread is buttered on; they will never allow this to happen because they know that the high turnout would put them in an almost permanent minority. Therefore, they will continue to gerrymander boundaries to their favour, and target those groups of people who are likely Democrat voters to put obstacles between them and the ballot box.


* NZ election turnout in MMP Era

1996 - 88.3%
1999 - 84.1%
2002 - 77.0%
2005 - 80.9%
2008 - 78.7%
2011 - 74.2%
2014 - 77.9%
2017 - 79.8%
Click to expand...

I think low voter turnout has much more to do with voter apathy than any surpression.

One example

In California it was 37% according to the state site. I really don't know the rules there but I doubt if "right leaning politicians in power" had much to do with it.
 
Sideroxylon said:
It is scary that those are considered immoderate/radical policy positions.
Click to expand...


I received multiple campaign flyers in the mail that described single-payer health care as a "radical Socialist agenda." I guess something needs to be done about all of those radical Socialist senior citizens.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I think low voter turnout has much more to do with voter apathy than any surpression.

One example

In California it was 37% according to the state site. I really don't know the rules there but I doubt if "right leaning politicians in power" had much to do with it.
Click to expand...

looking at the lines of voters. it seems to me that it's quite difficult to vote in many parts of the US.
 
jimbob said:
looking at the lines of voters. it seems to me that it's quite difficult to vote in many parts of the US.
Click to expand...
But those are selective pictures. I think in general it is a quick experience. But with probably thousands of polling places there are always some problems and those are the pictures you see.
Such as long lines in NYC this year.
 
I'm actually sort of annoyed because I can find hundreds of articles "Will wait times at the polls be longer in 2018?" and "Why it may take you longer to vote this year" and variations therefore but now two days after the election I'm trying to find if anyone even made an attempt at a rough ballpark guess of what the average wait time at the polls was on Tuesdays and... nothing.

I hate it when the Press stops caring about things after they can no longer just run outrage porn about it.
 
eeyore1954 said:
But those are selective pictures. I think in general it is a quick experience. But with probably thousands of polling places there are always some problems and those are the pictures you see.
Such as long lines in NYC this year.
Click to expand...

I know this is anecdotal, but In my case, there were 2 people ahead of me in line, and it turned out that one of them was in the wrong line. My total wait was maybe 3 minutes. There were three "tables" at my precinct, and the woman behind me noted that we were in the longest line. Though, in retrospect, that was partly because one of the people ahead of me was in the wrong line.

They were doing a fairly brisk business, though. Of about 10 voting booths for my "table," only 2 weren't being used when I got my ballot.

I was there around 8AM, so I was probably there during the morning rush, but the real peak was probably after 5PM.

Over the years, I've voted roughly 25 times in California, and this was a pretty typical voting experience for me.
 
dasmiller said:
I know this is anecdotal, but In my case, there were 2 people ahead of me in line, and it turned out that one of them was in the wrong line. My total wait was maybe 3 minutes. There were three "tables" at my precinct, and the woman behind me noted that we were in the longest line. Though, in retrospect, that was partly because one of the people ahead of me was in the wrong line.

They were doing a fairly brisk business, though. Of about 10 voting booths for my "table," only 2 weren't being used when I got my ballot.

I was there around 8AM, so I was probably there during the morning rush, but the real peak was probably after 5PM.

Over the years, I've voted roughly 25 times in California, and this was a pretty typical voting experience for me.
Click to expand...

Whereas I typically have an hour wait of more. This year was my quickest, in-and-out in about 30 minutes, but that's because I took the day off work and voted during the day, instead of hitting it after work during the rush.

It's extremely inconsistent base don where you are. Some areas seem to be doing things right, but many aren't. I suspect a lot of that is because there's so much left to local control.

I'd love to see some sort of national election commission that would be tasked to set standards for these things. leave enough leeway to allow states and local areas choice in how they go about it, but provide standards for things like number of polling places per unit of population, acceptable security standards and inspections for voting machines or electronic voting, and similar. Heck, even federal funding for poorer districts to help bring them up-to-code.

Of course, no idea how to keep that from being horribly politicized, as well.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'm actually sort of annoyed because I can find hundreds of articles "Will wait times at the polls be longer in 2018?" and "Why it may take you longer to vote this year" and variations therefore but now two days after the election I'm trying to find if anyone even made an attempt at a rough ballpark guess of what the average wait time at the polls was on Tuesdays and... nothing.

I hate it when the Press stops caring about things after they can no longer just run outrage porn about it.
Click to expand...

Reports are that metro Atlanta had 3 hour wait times.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...-3-hours-in-atlanta-metro-area-watchdog-group
 
eeyore1954 said:
I think low voter turnout has much more to do with voter apathy than any surpression.

One example

In California it was 37% according to the state site. I really don't know the rules there but I doubt if "right leaning politicians in power" had much to do with it.
Click to expand...
Its certainly possible that apathy has something to do with it. (Especially for voters in solid-republican or solid-democrat states, who may decide to say home if they think the results won't change the end result.)

The solution to that: Make the president elected by popular vote. That way, a voter in Texas or California won't feel their votes are irrelevant because "My state is solid republican/democrat". The Republicans would never go for that though, because they would have lost 2 of their 3 presidential victories.
 
Segnosaur said:
The solution to that: Make the president elected by popular vote. That way, a voter in Texas or California won't feel their votes are irrelevant because "My state is solid republican/democrat". The Republicans would never go for that though, because they would have lost 2 of their 3 presidential victories.
Click to expand...

Yeah but like gerrymandering and first past the post elections... that's never gonna happen, at least on any timeframe we're discussing here.

Nobody, even on the "losing" side of politics has any reason to try and upset this apple cart because it's the only way they now how to win when they do win. And the mythology of those things, the electoral college especially, is too ingrained. Most people still think it is necessary to "save them from the big states and the cities."

And even then we'll never be able to fix anything because every election is "da most important one evar" so we can't try out anything new this time, maybe next, and next never comes because the next time is "da most important one evar" too.
 
Looks like Georgia and Florida are heading for recounts. Kenp has already resigned as Secretary, so he will no longer be overseeing his own election. A bit late, but better than never.
 
Wow Florida you are just are not happy unless you're causing a recount every election.
 
Delvo said:
Last night I heard Hannity for a couple of minutes. He was reciting Trump's claim that Trump campaigning caused Republican wins and the lack of Trump campaigning caused Republican losses. It reminds me of what David Horowitz said about his father, who was a big Stalin fan. Stalin had given himself eight official-sounding titles, and when he died, those titles went to eight other guys, and the elder Horowitz exclaimed how that was proof of what a great man Stalin had been, because it took eight men to replace him.

What really matters to these people now isn't even how their party does. It's how their Dear Leader does. Party failures don't concern them as long as they can come up with a way to separate the failures from the Dear Leader.
Click to expand...

Rachel Maddow had a somewhat more informative segment. Trump got involved early in GOP primaries, such as in Nevada where he pressured Danny Tarkanian not to primary the incumbent Senator, butt-kisser Dean Heller, whom Trump endorsed as being vital to his MAGA agenda. Fortunately Heller lost the seat by 5 points to Jacky Rosen, who had given up her seat in the House to run. Trump convinced Tarkanian to run for that seat, and endorsed him heavily, but he lost by 9 points to Susie Lee.

Trump also got involved in South Carolina primaries, attacking incumbent Mark Sanford for insufficient Trump butt-kissing and heavily endorsing challenger Katie Arrington, who won the primary but went on to lose that House seat to Joe Cunningham by a 1-point upset.

Trump also waded into the Kansas governor primary, endorsing trumpiest trumper and vote-suppression expert Kris Kobach over a conventional conservative. Trump campaigned for Kobach, who lost by 5 points to Laura Kelly. Anti-Kobach turnout may have also cost the GOP another flipped House seat, with Kevin Yoder losing to Sharice Davids.

Maddow ran down many more cases where Trump's endorsements failed. I don't know the final numbers, but yesterday morning I read that only 12 of the 33 candidates that Trump endorsed had won. In the primaries, Trump's endorsements carried a lot of weight, but in the general, not so much.
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
Whereas I typically have an hour wait of more.
Click to expand...

Ouch!

It's extremely inconsistent base don where you are. Some areas seem to be doing things right, but many aren't. I suspect a lot of that is because there's so much left to local control.

I'd love to see some sort of national election commission that would be tasked to set standards for these things. leave enough leeway to allow states and local areas choice in how they go about it, but provide standards for things like number of polling places per unit of population, acceptable security standards and inspections for voting machines or electronic voting, and similar. Heck, even federal funding for poorer districts to help bring them up-to-code.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see something like that, too. I'd like for there to be national standards (if there aren't already) so that people could sue the state/city/whatever for not meeting the national standards for wait times, accessibility, etc.

Of course, no idea how to keep that from being horribly politicized, as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've gotten pretty discouraged about that.
 
I think, and no it's impossible to be sure about this, we maybe could sell to the American people that Federal Elections should be standardized by the Federal Government, but we aren't going to see in our lifetime the Federal Government being able to do much more than issue vague "outlines" for state and local elections.
 
dasmiller said:
I'd like to see something like that, too. I'd like for there to be national standards (if there aren't already) so that people could sue the state/city/whatever for not meeting the national standards for wait times, accessibility, etc.
Click to expand...
You know, that might actually increase voter turnout.

A class action lawsuit by people who had to wait in line for hours? The possibility of receiving money for having to do so? It may just draw more people in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom