Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on November 05, 2018, 06:12:03 PM
-
I'm seeing the term "popular vote" pop up all over right now regarding the elections tomorrow. As in, "If Rs win seats but lose the "popular vote" there will be riots. These morons are equating presidential voting with house/senate/gubnatorial votes? Or I guess dem operatives are trying to convince moron/sheep that the electoral college will somehow be responsible if Rs keep the majority? Or is it something like if Hollywood favorite Beto loses in Texas it will have been cheating because he won the popular vote in Hollywood?
I can't even...
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2018/11/05/there-it-is-ezra-klein-predicts-dem-meltdown-if-electionday-house-popular-vote-crisis-unfolds-cue-facepalms/
-
The predictions that I am seeing are for the Democrats to take back the House and the Republicans to keep the Senate. I guess we will find out tomorrow.
-
I'm going to turn off everything Tuesday afternoon. I want to just have a good nights sleep Tuesday night and wake up Wednesday morning to see where the carnage is. [popcorn]
-
What they are torqued about it that MT, SD, ND and WY get 1 representative, yet have fewer people then a district in say NY or CA. Also since they get 90%+ of the vote in those places, they don't think it's "fair" that an R that squeaks out a 51-49% in flyover country counts the same. What they are advocating is that everyone in the US votes, and then the House is divvied up by what percentage each party wins. True democracy. Mob rule.
Exactly what the founders DID NOT want.
-
The Democrats clearly have internal polling that matches my analysis in the "Place Your Bets" thread.
They are going to WIN BIG!!!!.... in areas that they already hold and have really FIRED UP THEIR BASE!!!!... in the areas that they already hold so they are going to WIN THE POPULAR VOTE!!!.... because they are generally a party that is only popular in very highly populated areas.
The "gerrymandering" that hurts the Democrats is the fact that they have gone all in on pandering ONLY to the concerns of ultra-urban voters and act to the detriment of rural and sub-urban voters.
And now that they've gotten an absolutely solid lock on this highly populated areas... they plan on whining that it isn't enough to give them total power.
As an example, look at the primary where Occasio-Cortez won- the incumbent (liberal democrat) won the votes of the minorities, while the challenger (out and out socialist) won the vote of the EXTREMELY fired up extra liberal, rich whites, who turned out massively to put her in office.
I can only hope this insanity starts a reassessment by minority voters whether this party is truly representing their interests. And I have about 12 more hours of hoping for this cycle left.
-
I am hopeful Republicans keep everything but I have no numbers to back it up. I heard one comment that an average of polls shows Cruz only up a little on Beto, but if you grade the polls on past accuracy and drop the worst ones, Cruz is up by a lot. We will see.
I am still debating whether I will try to watch the returns tonight. I think I will just try to ignore it.
-
The fun in watching the returns tonight will be seeing all the Lefties melt down when they get swamped by a big RED WAVE ... :lol:
-
The fun in watching the returns tonight will be seeing all the Lefties melt down when they get swamped by a big RED WAVE ... :lol:
I hope you're right - - - - - but I fear you're wrong. Or might be. The pundits say you're wrong .... and they're like ....GODS!
Or, so we're told. [tinfoil]
-
I hope you're right - - - - - but I fear you're wrong. Or might be. The pundits say you're wrong .... and they're like ....GODS!
Or, so we're told. [tinfoil]
IMO, look at the crowds at the Trump rallies. They are huge and almost all have people outside who can't get in. I don't think the Democrats have anything going on like that. The question is if that translates to enthusiasm to vote for all the other R candidates. I think it does.
Rush had a caller who said he registered and was voting for the first time in a long time this election because of Trump. I have heard there were record numbers of registrations this year in some states. Are those all new Dems or new Repubs? I don't think anyone knows or will know for sure until tonight.
-
IMO, look at the crowds at the Trump rallies. They are huge and almost all have people outside who can't get in. I don't think the Democrats have anything going on like that. The question is if that translates to enthusiasm to vote for all the other R candidates. I think it does.
Rush had a caller who said he registered and was voting for the first time in a long time this election because of Trump. I have heard there were record numbers of registrations this year in some states. Are those all new Dems or new Repubs? I don't think anyone knows or will know for sure until tonight.
It's being said the democrats are as charged up as the republicans .... so we're going to have to :'( wait....wait some more ..... and pray.
-
I hope you're right - - - - - but I fear you're wrong. Or might be. The pundits say you're wrong .... and they're like ....GODS!
Or, so we're told. [tinfoil]
Well, they certainly nailed it in 2016.
Wait . . . what?
-
My wife was telling me she's heard all kinds of conflicting news about what to expect today.
I said that no one has any idea what's going to happen today.
Those who claim that they did (because they got it right this time) were basically lucky. I have very little faith in polls, ESPECIALLY in the midterms. Every "model" for turnout turns out to be wrong.*
*(Yes, I did that on purpose.)
-
Hey, let's also abolish the senate!
The Palpatine reference was classic. :laugh:
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/11/06/abolish-your-mom-ian-millhiser-takes-bipartisan-beating-for-this-scorching-hot-take-on-free-and-fair-elections/
-
It's being said the democrats are as charged up as the republicans .... so we're going to have to :'( wait....wait some more ..... and pray.
I have heard that too, but I am not so sure it is happening outside the core activist types. However, I admit I know few Democrats and none who are activists. Other than "Hate Trump!", what inspiring stuff is there on that side?
-
I have heard that too, but I am not so sure it is happening outside the core activist types. However, I admit I know few Democrats and none who are activists. Other than "Hate Trump!", what inspiring stuff is there on that side?
Based on what I see in my Facebook feed from my two Democratic senators, the three primary Democratic issues being publicized for the midterms are healthcare, women's rights and immigration.
-
The fun in watching the returns tonight will be seeing all the Lefties melt down when they get swamped by a big RED WAVE ... :lol:
You mean like they did in 2000? Yea, that was fun to watch.
-
This "popular vote" thing is killing me. Now political science professors (and I use the title loosely) are promoting it, in case you're wondering where the kids get it.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/11/08/even-political-science-professors-are-offering-up-the-math-behind-the-senate-popular-vote/
A couple of good comments (there are several at the link):
If they want to play that game...
So, Dems won 55 percent of the Senate vote but 66 percent of the seats up for election. You're right, that's not fair! They should have to give up 7 more seats! A political science prof who doesn't understand politics, the Constitution, or math.
Remember the evil rich 1% we're all supposed to hate?
The US is a federation. Has been since 1776. This is EXACTLY how the system is supposed to work to protect the interests of many small poor states against those of a few large rich ones.
-
One point I heard yesterday was that both California Senate candidates were Democrats because of some jungle primary nonsense. I think it is safe to assume they counting 100% of Democrat votes in that total.
Either way, it is a ridiculous notion. And the USA is not and has never been a democracy.
-
One point I heard yesterday was that both California Senate candidates were Democrats because of some jungle primary nonsense. I think it is safe to assume they counting 100% of Democrat votes in that total.
Either way, it is a ridiculous notion. And the USA is not and has never been a democracy.
Yes. Talk about voter suppression, when I voted in CA this time, I had to leave three offices blank because I only had the choice of two dem candidates and no option for a write-in for those offices. That included the office of Senator, which offered a dem (Feinstein) and a super far left dem.
So as a voter, I was denied my rights to vote for a candidate of my choosing. It's a pretty great example of the tyranny of the majority, and why we want the checks and balances of a confederation of states where the states vote, not the conglomerate of populations of all the states.
-
^^^A few years back, Washington changed its primary system so that the two candidates receiving the most votes advance to the general election. So it is not unusual for a ballot in Washington to have two Democrats or two Republicans as the only candidates in the general. There is always room for a write-in.
-
Folks, we've reached peak derp.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/07/watch-joy-behar-claims-democrats-lost-senate-races-due-to-gerrymandering/
-
Folks, we've reached peak derp.
I’ll take that bet!
-
Yes. Talk about voter suppression, when I voted in CA this time, I had to leave three offices blank because I only had the choice of two dem candidates and no option for a write-in for those offices. That included the office of Senator, which offered a dem (Feinstein) and a super far left dem.
So as a voter, I was denied my rights to vote for a candidate of my choosing. It's a pretty great example of the tyranny of the majority, and why we want the checks and balances of a confederation of states where the states vote, not the conglomerate of populations of all the states.
There's no consitutional guarantee that you'll get the candidate or party you prefer on your ballot. There are plenty of incumbents that go unchallenged, and if you want to vote Green or Libertarian, good luck always having that choice for every office.
-
There's no consitutional guarantee that you'll get the candidate or party you prefer on your ballot. There are plenty of incumbents that go unchallenged, and if you want to vote Green or Libertarian, good luck always having that choice for every office.
If I were King, I would decree that all offices had a write-in option so that people have a choice, if only to make a statement. Then I would immediately thereafter decree that all voting is invalid and that I am King for life.
-
And Newsweek, unsurprisingly, parrots the democrats "popular vote" talking points.
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-won-popular-vote-2018-midterms-1207230
-
And Newsweek, unsurprisingly, parrots the democrats "popular vote" talking points.
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-won-popular-vote-2018-midterms-1207230
WHAAAAAT???
In challenges to the Electoral College, many have questioned whether less populous states like Wyoming, Montana and others should have as much representation, and thus power, in the Senate as more populous states. Every state has two representatives in the Senate.
The electoral college applies only to the election of the President. How does this have anything whatsoever to do with the electoral college?
Somebody should remind these dweebs that the original Constitution didn't have a popular vote for senators. Originally, senators were elected by the respective state legislatures.
-
Somebody should remind these dweebs that the original Constitution didn't have a popular vote for senators. Originally, senators were elected by the respective state legislatures.
You can't remind someone of something they never bothered to know in the first place.
-
The "Senate popular vote" dogma continues:
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/11/12/holy-derp-batman-blue-checks-thread-about-how-he-would-restructure-the-u-s-govt-is-crazy-dumb/
If anything, that graphic conveys the opposite of what that guy wants you to be sympathetic to. It shows one state to rule them all, one state to find them. One state to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
-
Were I King, I would mandate two things:
1) You must be an American citizen to be eligible to vote in any election, at any level.
2) You must certify through testing that you have a basic understanding of our political system and how it works before registering to vote.
-
The "Senate popular vote" dogma continues:
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/11/12/holy-derp-batman-blue-checks-thread-about-how-he-would-restructure-the-u-s-govt-is-crazy-dumb/
If anything, that graphic conveys the opposite of what that guy wants you to be sympathetic to. It shows one state to rule them all, one state to find them. One state to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
It's fvktards like that that make scared as hell of a Constitutional Convention.
Many to many morons out there.
We don't need a new and improved constitution, we need to use and enforce the one we have.
-
The "Senate popular vote" dogma continues:
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/11/12/holy-derp-batman-blue-checks-thread-about-how-he-would-restructure-the-u-s-govt-is-crazy-dumb/
If anything, that graphic conveys the opposite of what that guy wants you to be sympathetic to. It shows one state to rule them all, one state to find them. One state to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
The lack of critical thought or fact-checking is shameful, which is to say it's standard 21st-century opinion journalism.
The Constitution of 1787 certainly did not limit voting to males, much less land-owning ones.
He tries to dis the Constitution by saying that we didn't use it as a model for the Japanese, German, or Iraqi governments. Because those are obviously very similar countries to the United States, I guess. ;/
-
The "Senate popular vote" dogma continues:
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/11/12/holy-derp-batman-blue-checks-thread-about-how-he-would-restructure-the-u-s-govt-is-crazy-dumb/
If anything, that graphic conveys the opposite of what that guy wants you to be sympathetic to. It shows one state to rule them all, one state to find them. One state to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
They are still completely unaware of what the "3/5 compromise" was even for I see.
-
They are still completely unaware of what the "3/5 compromise" was even for I see.
They just stuck it in there to be mean.