Who won the midterms?

[TurtleDude]

One has a clear right to disregard trump because for his lying, immorality and criminality which far outstrips anything

I have seen in my life going back to Ike.

If you do not like the dems since trump, I refer you to 8 years of vicious unrelenting vitriol and resistance to Obama by all repubs.

Introspection is a dirty word for the right for if they would look in the mirror...the enemy is there.

ah more TDS-I am curious-what conservative issues do you support? its amazing how you on the left keep trying to tell us on the right that we were silly to support Trump rather than Hillary. But then again-your concept of "conservative" probably is one that would hold that Hillary was the "conservative" candidate in 2016

 

[MTAtech]

Well you forgot, the right are home to America's racists. all of them came out of the woodwork to show their racism during Obama,

Now out of the woods, they voted in simply the most clearly disgusting piece of flesh ever...to occupy the oval office.

The repubs will have as many dems up in 2020, get back if the repubs hold their senate majority after than.

This is the voting breakdown by geography:

Source: 538

Republicans now win only in rural areas, aka the Real America; they have a grip on power only because those areas are over-represented.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

gerrymandering is just an excuse, proven by the fact that so called gerrymandering didn't stop the blue wave in 2018. Gerrymandering is extremely overrated, no different than the amount of illegals voting. I'm still waiting for the explanation of how gerrymandering effected votes for president, the Senate, and governorships, where Republicans now own about 2/3 of the states.

Why don't you compare the percentage of the population that are represented by Democratic Senators, Reps, State Reps, and Governors, and compare that to percentage of Americans represented by Republicans at those levels.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Not surprised at this poll result because most democrats think Hillary won the 2016 election.

Carry on condition normal!

the 2018 election was a split

Democrats won the house

Republicans won the Senate

Give a slight win to Trump for holding the Senate.

 

[Moderate Right]

Why don't you compare the percentage of the population that are represented by Democratic Senators, Reps, State Reps, and Governors, and compare that to percentage of Americans represented by Republicans at those levels.

Gerrymandering can't be done unless you won in the first place and if you won in the first place how can you prove that that person or party would not have won again? The 2018 midterms are proof that gerrymandering is way overblown. I'm still waiting for the explanation of how the presidency, the Senate, and governorships are gerrymandered. The red tsunami of 2010 happened everywhere, not just the House, more proof that it had nothing to do with gerrymandering.

 

[tres borrachos]

A whipping was 2010, where voters rejected Obama to a much higher degree than voters rejected Trump. Now that is a whipping. You are the one who is in denial.

Why have you brought up Obama in almost every single post you've made in this thread, which is about the 2016 midterms, when Trump was President. It isn't about Obama.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Gerrymandering can't be done unless you won in the first place and if you won in the first place how can you prove that that person or party would not have won again? The 2018 midterms are proof that gerrymandering is way overblown. I'm still waiting for the explanation of how the presidency, the Senate, and governorships are gerrymandered. The red tsunami of 2010 happened everywhere, not just the House, more proof that it had nothing to do with gerrymandering.

Once again, why don't you compare actual vote totals. The Republicans have the Senate because a state like Wyoming get's two senators and a state like California, with 77 times as many people, get's 2 senators. The Republicans have only managed to win the popular vote for the presidency once in the last 30 years. You now have states like North Carolina where Democrats win 50% of the votes, but only take 3 house seats due to how extreme gerrymandering is. We have a system that gives hugely disproportionate political power to rural areas. Frankly, that is the only reason why Republicans have any power at all anymore. Start at the mayoral level in cities, go to state legislators, governorships, house districts, and senators, and even the presidency, and millions more people in this country in total are voting for Democrats than Republicans.

If Republicans do not do cast aside the nativists and racists in their base and do something to attract a more diverse base, this will all eventually catch up with them. Demographics are eventually destiny.

 

[Masterhawk]

Democrats gained control of the house, though the republicans made gains in the senate.

 

[Moderate Right]

Once again, why don't you compare actual vote totals. The Republicans have the Senate because a state like Wyoming get's two senators and a state like California, with 77 times as many people, get's 2 senators. The Republicans have only managed to win the popular vote for the presidency once in the last 30 years. You now have states like North Carolina where Democrats win 50% of the votes, but only take 3 house seats due to how extreme gerrymandering is. We have a system that gives hugely disproportionate political power to rural areas. Frankly, that is the only reason why Republicans have any power at all anymore. Start at the mayoral level in cities, go to state legislators, governorships, house districts, and senators, and even the presidency, and millions more people in this country in total are voting for Democrats than Republicans.

If Republicans do not do cast aside the nativists and racists in their base and do something to attract a more diverse base, this will all eventually catch up with them. Demographics are eventually destiny.

Once again, you want to twist things to your advantage. In 2010 voters kicked out many, many Democrats in several different positions, most of which can't even possibly be gerrymandered so it is impossible to determine that House flips had anything to do with gerrymandering. On top of that, the so called gerrymandering was still in place in 2018 and yet Democrats had a blue wave that they are very proud of, once again proving that gerrymandering is extremely overrated and only an excuse for losers.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Once again, you want to twist things to your advantage. In 2010 voters kicked out many, many Democrats in several different positions, most of which can't even possibly be gerrymandered so it is impossible to determine that House flips had anything to do with gerrymandering. On top of that, the so called gerrymandering was still in place in 2018 and yet Democrats had a blue wave that they are very proud of, once again proving that gerrymandering is extremely overrated and only an excuse for losers.

No one is twisting anything. I am merely pointing out that millions more people are voting for Democrats than Republicans. I merely pointed out that Republicans lost by more votes in this last midterm election than any party has, in any midterm election, in the entire history of the country. You can ignore that all you want, but doesn't change the reality of it.

 

[Moderate Right]

No one is twisting anything. I am merely pointing out that millions more people are voting for Democrats than Republicans. I merely pointed out that Republicans lost by more votes in this last midterm election than any party has, in any midterm election, in the entire history of the country. You can ignore that all you want, but doesn't change the reality of it.

Admit it, gerrymandering is nothing but a hoax. If it was real, the Blue Wave couldn't happen.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Admit it, gerrymandering is nothing but a hoax. If it was real, the Blue Wave couldn't happen.

No, sorry, when one poster makes an utterly ridiculous argument, other posters are not obligated to agree with it.

 

[Moderate Right]

No, sorry, when one poster makes an utterly ridiculous argument, other posters are not obligated to agree with it.

If gerrymandering was real the blue wave could not have happened.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

If gerrymandering was real the blue wave could not have happened.

That is an absurd conclusion you are making. Gerrymandering simply limits the scope of a wave election. For example, in North Carolina, Democrats won 50% or so of the overall votes cast for house races in that state, but only won 3 out of the state's 13 house seats. Are you saying gerrymandering was not real in that state? Thus, one could reasonably argue that had North Carolina not been so extremely gerrymandered, the Democratic wave would have been at least 43 house seats, not just 40. There are other states that are similarly gerrymandered.

This is why it is important to look at the total votes cast for either party in the last election. If you do, you will find that Republicans lost by more votes than any party in a midterm in the history of the country. Thus, if you look at actual votes cast, the Democratic wave in November was the biggest ever for a midterm.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If gerrymandering was real the blue wave could not have happened.

Gerrymandering is very real but obviously has its limits. The trick of gerrymandering is to place (pack?) as many of the R/D voters as possible into as few districts as possible leaving (allowing?) more of the remaining districts to vote the other way. I have been assigned to a (guaranteed?) blue congressional district leaving (allowing?) the surrounding 4 (or 5) congressional districts to be (forever?) red.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_35th_congressional_district

My district has been gerrymandered so as to contain parts of 5 counties and two large cities that are 80 miles apart yet contains no entire county.

 

[Moderate Right]

That is an absurd conclusion you are making. Gerrymandering simply limits the scope of a wave election. For example, in North Carolina, Democrats won 50% or so of the overall votes cast for house races in that state, but only won 3 out of the state's 13 house seats. Are you saying gerrymandering was not real in that state? Thus, one could reasonably argue that had North Carolina not been so extremely gerrymandered, the Democratic wave would have been at least 43 house seats, not just 40. There are other states that are similarly gerrymandered.

This is why it is important to look at the total votes cast for either party in the last election. If you do, you will find that Republicans lost by more votes than any party in a midterm in the history of the country. Thus, if you look at actual votes cast, the Democratic wave in November was the biggest ever for a midterm.

The absurd conclusion is that when Republicans chase out Democrats from every aspect of politics for eight years that it is all attributed to gerrymandering. I'm still waiting to hear how the presidency, the Senate, and the governorships are gerrymandered.

 

[Moderate Right]

Gerrymandering is very real but obviously has its limits. The trick of gerrymandering is to place (pack?) as many of the R/D voters as possible into as few districts as possible leaving (allowing?) more of the remaining districts to vote the other way. I have been assigned to a (guaranteed?) blue congressional district leaving (allowing?) the surrounding 4 (or 5) congressional districts to be (forever?) red.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_35th_congressional_district

My district has been gerrymandered so as to contain parts of 5 counties and two large cities that are 80 miles apart yet contains no entire county.

But, gerrymandering is virtually impossible unless you won in the first place and if you won in the first place, how can anyone prove that you wouldn't have won again? If Democrats want "fairness" or the ability to gerrymander themselves (ah, they've never done that) then they should win the election in the first place so the other side can't gerrymander. Gerrymandering is nothing but an excuse for losers and is as much overrated as the number of illegals voting. Democrats gerrymandered too in the past and guess what? Republicans won elections in spite of that gerrymandering and went on to gerrymander themselves and now Democrats have won in spite of the Republican's gerrymandering. In other words, gerrymandering is highly overrated and is just an excuse for those who lost.

 

[upsideguy]

Need a "who cares?" option.

Trump cares....

 

[ttwtt78640]

But, gerrymandering is virtually impossible unless you won in the first place and if you won in the first place, how can anyone prove that you wouldn't have won again? If Democrats want "fairness" or the ability to gerrymander themselves (ah, they've never done that) then they should win the election in the first place so the other side can't gerrymander. Gerrymandering is nothing but an excuse for losers and is as much overrated as the number of illegals voting. Democrats gerrymandered to and guess what? Republicans won elections in spite of that gerrymandering and went on to gerrymander themselves and now democrats have won in spite of the gerrymandering. In other words, it is highly overrated.

If you barely won in the first place then you may well wish to alter your odds from that point forward. I agree that both parties are adept at that tactic.

 

[upsideguy]

Admit it, gerrymandering is nothing but a hoax. If it was real, the Blue Wave couldn't happen.

Gerrymandering would not prevent a blue wave, but it likely worked to lessen the wave.

The gerrymandering of 2011 was effective in mitigating Republican losses in 2018. Unfortunately for Republicans, the Blue Wave was still strong enough to take 40 seats, but it might have been 55 had the Republicans not fortified their positions in 2011 via gerrymandering.

As a matter of illustration, the overall Congressional vote in North Carolina was 50% Republican / 48% Democrat, but the Republicans retained 9 of 13 seats, a 2 seat premium over what the popular vote supported.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/29/us/politics/north-carolina-gerrymandering.html

Did Gerrymandering Prevent A Stronger Blue Wave? | KJZZ
All About Redistricting

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Gerrymandering is very real but obviously has its limits. The trick of gerrymandering is to place (pack?) as many of the R/D voters as possible into as few districts as possible leaving (allowing?) more of the remaining districts to vote the other way. I have been assigned to a (guaranteed?) blue congressional district leaving (allowing?) the surrounding 4 (or 5) congressional districts to be (forever?) red.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_35th_congressional_district

My district has been gerrymandered so as to contain parts of 5 counties and two large cities that are 80 miles apart yet contains no entire county.

You live in the "snake" connector that allowed them to pack most of Austin and a chunk of San Antonio into one district.

 

[MTAtech]

The absurd conclusion is that when Republicans chase out Democrats from every aspect of politics for eight years that it is all attributed to gerrymandering. I'm still waiting to hear how the presidency, the Senate, and the governorships are gerrymandered.

Oh, gerrymandering is used to draw districts that give one party an advantage. One can't deny that Republicans have packed Democrats into districts that they overwhelmingly win, leaving all the other districts for Republicans to win. Thus, a minority in the popular vote translates into a supermajority in the legislature. The below graph illustrates this:

For governorships, the president and the Senate, Republicans just use voter suppression and dirty tricks -- voter purges and deliberate restriction of minority access to the polls have become standard practice in much of America. Would Brian Kemp, the governor-elect of Georgia -- who oversaw his own election as secretary of state -- have won without these tactics? Almost certainly not.

Then, when Republican lose state-wide offices, such as in Wisconsin last month, Republicans are using the lame-duck legislative session to drastically curtail these offices’ power, effectively keeping rule over the state in the hands of the G.O.P.-controlled Legislature.

 

[Anagram]

But, gerrymandering is virtually impossible unless you won in the first place and if you won in the first place, how can anyone prove that you wouldn't have won again? If Democrats want "fairness" or the ability to gerrymander themselves (ah, they've never done that) then they should win the election in the first place so the other side can't gerrymander. Gerrymandering is nothing but an excuse for losers and is as much overrated as the number of illegals voting. Democrats gerrymandered too in the past and guess what? Republicans won elections in spite of that gerrymandering and went on to gerrymander themselves and now Democrats have won in spite of the Republican's gerrymandering. In other words, gerrymandering is highly overrated and is just an excuse for those who lost.

So if Democrats do well in 2020 and draw a bunch of states the way they drew Maryland you'll be alright with that? Republicans will still be able to win seats from those states with an overwhelming performance so it's fine?

I see people on Daily Kos playing with this all the time. Democrats will likely control all three levels of Virginia government for instance and it's possible to draw about 8 out of 11 districts to be fairly solidly Democratic for the next several years. Republicans could do 5% better than Trump there across the board, getting more than 50% in the state, and still only get 3 seats there in that scenario. Is it really ok because all the Republicans need to do to overcome the gerrymander is do a hell of a lot better than they've done in the state over the last 15 years?

 

[ttwtt78640]

You live in the "snake" connector that allowed them to pack most of Austin and a chunk of San Antonio into one district.

Yet only for US House district purposes, since the rest of the ballot offices and initiatives are shared (allocated?) in other ways. It is a bizarre system indeed.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Yet only for US House district purposes, since the rest of the ballot offices and initiatives are shared (allocated?) in other ways. It is a bizarre system indeed.

I understand. This is mine:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida's_4th_congressional_district#/media/File:FL04_115.png

I think the dems bothered to run in this district 3 times since Y2K. It's that much of a Republican lock. If they added in the city that sits in the donut hole, it would be purple or blue. It actually went purple in 2018 - Trump effect.