|
Left Battles Itself: Sanders, Warren wings face off in Ohio primary
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 30 2018, 11:48 PM (214 Views)
|
|
The Inquisitor
|
Apr 30 2018, 11:48 PM
Post #1
|
|
- Posts:
- 10,780
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #472
- Joined:
- Feb 25, 2017
|
Democrats’ fight to win key gubernatorial races has produced primary battles splitting the liberal base -- and the first test will play out next week in Ohio, where candidates backed by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders supporters are facing off.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/30/left-battles-itself-sanders-warren-wings-face-off-in-ohio-primary.html
|
|
Warning....Leftist's Post Here....Take Precautions
|
| |
|
The Inquisitor
|
Apr 30 2018, 11:52 PM
Post #2
|
|
- Posts:
- 10,780
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #472
- Joined:
- Feb 25, 2017
|
This will be interesting....
|
|
Warning....Leftist's Post Here....Take Precautions
|
| |
|
BuckFan
|
May 1 2018, 10:57 AM
Post #3
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,704
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
The fact that the Sanders wing is supporting Kucinich validates my lack of support for Sanders. Kucinich is a wing-nut and should not even be in this discussion.
The real race should be between Cordray and Joe Schiavoni
|
|
|
| |
|
_g R_
|
May 1 2018, 11:03 AM
Post #4
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,667
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #252
- Joined:
- Jun 20, 2016
|
- BuckFan
- May 1 2018, 10:57 AM
The fact that the Sanders wing is supporting Kucinich validates my lack of support for Sanders. Kucinich is a wing-nut and should not even be in this discussion.
The real race should be between Cordray and Joe Schiavoni You and your Clinton Democrat friends are about to find out just how out of touch you are.
|
|
The real leftists are the silenced majority, the sleeping giant.
|
| |
|
clone
|
May 1 2018, 11:13 AM
Post #5
|
|
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
- Posts:
- 26,334
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #155
- Joined:
- Apr 4, 2016
|
- BuckFan
- May 1 2018, 10:57 AM
The fact that the Sanders wing is supporting Kucinich validates my lack of support for Sanders. Kucinich is a wing-nut and should not even be in this discussion.
The real race should be between Cordray and Joe Schiavoni Kucinich is one of the few Libs I actually have respect for....
|
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
|
| |
|
George Aligator
|
May 1 2018, 11:32 AM
Post #6
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,637
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #37
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
Which ever candidate wins, what are the chances that the loser's supporters will defect to the GOP? The clouds gather...
|
|
Conservatism is a social disease
|
| |
|
_g R_
|
May 1 2018, 11:32 AM
Post #7
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,667
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #252
- Joined:
- Jun 20, 2016
|
- clone
- May 1 2018, 11:13 AM
- BuckFan
- May 1 2018, 10:57 AM
The fact that the Sanders wing is supporting Kucinich validates my lack of support for Sanders. Kucinich is a wing-nut and should not even be in this discussion.
The real race should be between Cordray and Joe Schiavoni
Kucinich is one of the few Libs I actually have respect for.... He's honest. Corporate Dems hate honesty.I wish Bernie would just start a third party and really ruffle some feathers. Elizabeth Warren is being a traitor to progressives here and she knows it.
Edited by _g R_, May 1 2018, 11:34 AM.
|
|
The real leftists are the silenced majority, the sleeping giant.
|
| |
|
Eddo26
|
May 1 2018, 12:03 PM
Post #8
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,077
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #123
- Joined:
- Mar 23, 2016
|
- _g R_
- May 1 2018, 11:32 AM
- clone
- May 1 2018, 11:13 AM
- BuckFan
- May 1 2018, 10:57 AM
The fact that the Sanders wing is supporting Kucinich validates my lack of support for Sanders. Kucinich is a wing-nut and should not even be in this discussion.
The real race should be between Cordray and Joe Schiavoni
Kucinich is one of the few Libs I actually have respect for.... He's honest. Corporate Dems hate honesty.I wish Bernie would just start a third party and really ruffle some feathers. Elizabeth Warren is being a traitor to progressives here and she knows it. I'll join that party.
|
|
We believe only what we want to believe.
|
| |
|
BuckFan
|
May 1 2018, 12:06 PM
Post #9
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,704
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- _g R_
- May 1 2018, 11:32 AM
- clone
- May 1 2018, 11:13 AM
- BuckFan
- May 1 2018, 10:57 AM
The fact that the Sanders wing is supporting Kucinich validates my lack of support for Sanders. Kucinich is a wing-nut and should not even be in this discussion.
The real race should be between Cordray and Joe Schiavoni
Kucinich is one of the few Libs I actually have respect for.... He's honest. Corporate Dems hate honesty.I wish Bernie would just start a third party and really ruffle some feathers. Elizabeth Warren is being a traitor to progressives here and she knows it. I'm not surprised you two are marching together.
Kucinich honest? What a joke. Crazy, yes. Honest, no.
Kucinich is part of the Alex Jones conspiracy group Kucinich is a supporter of Assad in Syria Kucinich is a 9/11 denier Kucinich believes that the "deep state" is unfairly attacking Trump Kucinich is a foil for Sean Hannity
Kucinich represents the wing-nut wing of the Party that we need to shun but unfortunately Democrats cannot help themselves.
|
|
|
| |
|
BuckFan
|
May 1 2018, 12:10 PM
Post #10
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,704
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Eddo26
- May 1 2018, 12:03 PM
- _g R_
- May 1 2018, 11:32 AM
- clone
- May 1 2018, 11:13 AM
- BuckFan
- May 1 2018, 10:57 AM
The fact that the Sanders wing is supporting Kucinich validates my lack of support for Sanders. Kucinich is a wing-nut and should not even be in this discussion.
The real race should be between Cordray and Joe Schiavoni
Kucinich is one of the few Libs I actually have respect for.... He's honest. Corporate Dems hate honesty.I wish Bernie would just start a third party and really ruffle some feathers. Elizabeth Warren is being a traitor to progressives here and she knows it.
I'll join that party. Want a real Progressive that is not bat-s**t crazy? Check out Joe Schiavoni
He is the real Progressive that should be giving Cordray a run but Crazy Dennis makes for better headlines.
|
|
|
| |
|
Colors Plus
|
May 4 2018, 10:50 PM
Post #11
|
|
- Posts:
- 243
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #562
- Joined:
- Sep 2, 2017
|
- BuckFan
- May 1 2018, 12:10 PM
- Eddo26
- May 1 2018, 12:03 PM
- _g R_
- May 1 2018, 11:32 AM
- clone
- May 1 2018, 11:13 AM
- BuckFan
- May 1 2018, 10:57 AM
The fact that the Sanders wing is supporting Kucinich validates my lack of support for Sanders. Kucinich is a wing-nut and should not even be in this discussion.
The real race should be between Cordray and Joe Schiavoni
Kucinich is one of the few Libs I actually have respect for.... He's honest. Corporate Dems hate honesty.I wish Bernie would just start a third party and really ruffle some feathers. Elizabeth Warren is being a traitor to progressives here and she knows it.
I'll join that party.
Want a real Progressive that is not bat-s**t crazy? Check out Joe Schiavoni He is the real Progressive that should be giving Cordray a run but Crazy Dennis makes for better headlines. Richard Cordray is a corporatist, supported by the corrupt Democratic Party Establishment.
Joe Schiavoni’s website, in the area mentioning his positions, does not state he supports Medicare For All. No one Democratic candidate who is refraining from getting on board (and is opposed) is actually progressive and worthy of voter support.
I reject what you wrote, BuckFan, and I also dismiss your dishonest, desperate, corporate Democratic Party Establishment attacks on Dennis Kucinich.
|
|
|
| |
|
The Inquisitor
|
May 4 2018, 11:03 PM
Post #12
|
|
- Posts:
- 10,780
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #472
- Joined:
- Feb 25, 2017
|
I love the way the Bernie Progressive Left are constantly trying to sneak into power under the Democrat brand....
If they had the balls....They'd run under their own brand....
|
|
Warning....Leftist's Post Here....Take Precautions
|
| |
|
Eddo26
|
May 5 2018, 12:52 AM
Post #13
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,077
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #123
- Joined:
- Mar 23, 2016
|
- Colors Plus
- May 4 2018, 10:50 PM
- BuckFan
- May 1 2018, 12:10 PM
- Eddo26
- May 1 2018, 12:03 PM
- _g R_
- May 1 2018, 11:32 AM
- clone
- May 1 2018, 11:13 AM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
He's honest. Corporate Dems hate honesty.I wish Bernie would just start a third party and really ruffle some feathers. Elizabeth Warren is being a traitor to progressives here and she knows it.
I'll join that party.
Want a real Progressive that is not bat-s**t crazy? Check out Joe Schiavoni He is the real Progressive that should be giving Cordray a run but Crazy Dennis makes for better headlines.
Richard Cordray is a corporatist, supported by the corrupt Democratic Party Establishment. Joe Schiavoni’s website, in the area mentioning his positions, does not state he supports Medicare For All. No one Democratic candidate who is refraining from getting on board (and is opposed) is actually progressive and worthy of voter support. I reject what you wrote, BuckFan, and I also dismiss your dishonest, desperate, corporate Democratic Party Establishment attacks on Dennis Kucinich. That was obvious.
|
|
We believe only what we want to believe.
|
| |
|
Eddo26
|
May 5 2018, 12:54 AM
Post #14
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,077
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #123
- Joined:
- Mar 23, 2016
|
- The Inquisitor
- May 4 2018, 11:03 PM
I love the way the Bernie Progressive Left are constantly trying to sneak into power under the Democrat brand.... If they had the balls....They'd run under their own brand.... Trump snuck under the Republican brand. No balls.
|
|
We believe only what we want to believe.
|
| |
|
Colors Plus
|
May 5 2018, 01:02 AM
Post #15
|
|
- Posts:
- 243
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #562
- Joined:
- Sep 2, 2017
|
- The Inquisitor
- May 4 2018, 11:03 PM
I love the way the Bernie Progressive Left are constantly trying to sneak into power under the Democrat brand.... If they had the balls....They'd run under their own brand.... Fair point. (But up to a limited extent.)
In the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, Bernie Sanders garnered 70 percent-plus of 17–29 primaries voters; meaning, Hillary Clinton did not even muster 30 percent. Why is that important? The Democrats have bragged about winning the U.S. Popular Vote in presidential elections since the 1990s, with the sole exception of 2004, and the first voting-age group they carry are 18–29 voters. (They were the only ones which nationally carried for John Kerry. Republican incumbent president George W. Bush won the other voting-age groups: 30–44; 45–64; and 65+. (65+ are the first to vote Republican. In 2008, 65+ were the only ones nationally won by losing Republican presidential nominee John McCain.)
The infrastructure of the Democratic Party, and the uncertainty of going into the political wilderness, are two reasons why it appears not enough of the “Bernie Progressive Left” have officially done a #DemExit. Or, perhaps, maybe a sufficient amount have but that it’s actually too soon to tell. I’m thinking about the 2018 midterm elections. People often draw the wrong conclusions from those types of elections. About 30 percent less participation of votes tend to take place in midterm elections vs. the full picture of participating voters in presidential elections. (People will vote in a presidential election cycle before any other kind.) The corporate Democratic Party Establishment can mathematically win 2018 without the “Bernie Progressive Left” in the general elections of midterms—and off of a Republican incumbent president and a wave against the White House party—but they cannot succeed without a key voting base in the general election of a presidential election. This is part of the reason why I think, with assuming another hollow corporatist as the 2020 Democratic nominee for president, and at this point here in 2018, that re-election will happen in 2020 for Donald Trump.
What also needs to get mentioned (which is why I wrote in parenthesis, after your “fair point,” that it was a “limited extent”) is the duopoly of the Republican vs. Democratic party system in the United States. These two major parties conspire to make sure no other voice is allowed in the political arena that is not Team Red and Team Blue. This includes ballot access, state after state. This includes the debates. So, that is a rigged system.
|
|
|
| |
|
Robert Stout
|
May 5 2018, 01:27 AM
Post #16
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,174
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #112
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- Colors Plus
- May 5 2018, 01:02 AM
- The Inquisitor
- May 4 2018, 11:03 PM
I love the way the Bernie Progressive Left are constantly trying to sneak into power under the Democrat brand.... If they had the balls....They'd run under their own brand....
Fair point. (But up to a limited extent.) In the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, Bernie Sanders garnered 70 percent-plus of 17–29 primaries voters; meaning, Hillary Clinton did not even muster 30 percent. Why is that important? The Democrats have bragged about winning the U.S. Popular Vote in presidential elections since the 1990s, with the sole exception of 2004, and the first voting-age group they carry are 18–29 voters. (They were the only ones which nationally carried for John Kerry. Republican incumbent president George W. Bush won the other voting-age groups: 30–44; 45–64; and 65+. (65+ are the first to vote Republican. In 2008, 65+ were the only ones nationally won by losing Republican presidential nominee John McCain.) The infrastructure of the Democratic Party, and the uncertainty of going into the political wilderness, are two reasons why it appears not enough of the “Bernie Progressive Left” have officially done a #DemExit. Or, perhaps, maybe a sufficient amount have but that it’s actually too soon to tell. I’m thinking about the 2018 midterm elections. People often draw the wrong conclusions from those types of elections. About 30 percent less participation of votes tend to take place in midterm elections vs. the full picture of participating voters in presidential elections. (People will vote in a presidential election cycle before any other kind.) The corporate Democratic Party Establishment can mathematically win 2018 without the “Bernie Progressive Left” in the general elections of midterms—and off of a Republican incumbent president and a wave against the White House party—but they cannot succeed without a key voting base in the general election of a presidential election. This is part of the reason why I think, with assuming another hollow corporatist as the 2020 Democratic nominee for president, and at this point here in 2018, that re-election will happen in 2020 for Donald Trump. What also needs to get mentioned (which is why I wrote in parenthesis, after your “fair point,” that it was a “limited extent”) is the duopoly of the Republican vs. Democratic party system in the United States. These two major parties conspire to make sure no other voice is allowed in the political arena that is not Team Red and Team Blue. This includes ballot access, state after state. This includes the debates. So, that is a rigged system. It sounds like the Democrats have some serious ideological fractures, but you assume the establishment Democrat political whores can pull it together for 2018....I suspect the Democratic Party is too dysfunctional to take control of the Senate and House in the midterms....Their black and Hispanic vote is weakening...............
|
|
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
|
| |
|
The Inquisitor
|
May 5 2018, 01:28 AM
Post #17
|
|
- Posts:
- 10,780
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #472
- Joined:
- Feb 25, 2017
|
- Eddo26
- May 5 2018, 12:54 AM
- The Inquisitor
- May 4 2018, 11:03 PM
I love the way the Bernie Progressive Left are constantly trying to sneak into power under the Democrat brand.... If they had the balls....They'd run under their own brand....
Trump snuck under the Republican brand. No balls. No balls?....More like....He's got cannon balls....
|
|
Warning....Leftist's Post Here....Take Precautions
|
| |
|
Colors Plus
|
May 5 2018, 02:16 AM
Post #18
|
|
- Posts:
- 243
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #562
- Joined:
- Sep 2, 2017
|
- Robert Stout
- May 5 2018, 01:27 AM
- Colors Plus
- May 5 2018, 01:02 AM
- The Inquisitor
- May 4 2018, 11:03 PM
I love the way the Bernie Progressive Left are constantly trying to sneak into power under the Democrat brand.... If they had the balls....They'd run under their own brand....
Fair point. (But up to a limited extent.) In the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, Bernie Sanders garnered 70 percent-plus of 17–29 primaries voters; meaning, Hillary Clinton did not even muster 30 percent. Why is that important? The Democrats have bragged about winning the U.S. Popular Vote in presidential elections since the 1990s, with the sole exception of 2004, and the first voting-age group they carry are 18–29 voters. (They were the only ones which nationally carried for John Kerry. Republican incumbent president George W. Bush won the other voting-age groups: 30–44; 45–64; and 65+. (65+ are the first to vote Republican. In 2008, 65+ were the only ones nationally won by losing Republican presidential nominee John McCain.) The infrastructure of the Democratic Party, and the uncertainty of going into the political wilderness, are two reasons why it appears not enough of the “Bernie Progressive Left” have officially done a #DemExit. Or, perhaps, maybe a sufficient amount have but that it’s actually too soon to tell. I’m thinking about the 2018 midterm elections. People often draw the wrong conclusions from those types of elections. About 30 percent less participation of votes tend to take place in midterm elections vs. the full picture of participating voters in presidential elections. (People will vote in a presidential election cycle before any other kind.) The corporate Democratic Party Establishment can mathematically win 2018 without the “Bernie Progressive Left” in the general elections of midterms—and off of a Republican incumbent president and a wave against the White House party—but they cannot succeed without a key voting base in the general election of a presidential election. This is part of the reason why I think, with assuming another hollow corporatist as the 2020 Democratic nominee for president, and at this point here in 2018, that re-election will happen in 2020 for Donald Trump. What also needs to get mentioned (which is why I wrote in parenthesis, after your “fair point,” that it was a “limited extent”) is the duopoly of the Republican vs. Democratic party system in the United States. These two major parties conspire to make sure no other voice is allowed in the political arena that is not Team Red and Team Blue. This includes ballot access, state after state. This includes the debates. So, that is a rigged system.
It sounds like the Democrats have some serious ideological fractures, but you assume the establishment Democrat political whores can pull it together for 2018....I suspect the Democratic Party is too dysfunctional to take control of the Senate and House in the midterms....Their black and Hispanic vote is weakening............... It is ideological and party divide. But, midterm and presidential elections are not comparable to each other.
There is about 30-percent less participation in midterm vs. those who vote in presidential elections.
According to Wikipedia, the number of presidential votes cast in 2016 was 137,125,040.
The number of votes cast in 2016 nationwide for U.S. House were 128,627,010.
Looking back to the presidential elections of 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, and looking at the midterm elections of 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014, here the numbers of votes cast for U.S. House:
• 2000: 98,799,963 | 2002: 74,706,555 (75.61%; –24.39%) • 2004: 113,192,286 | 2006: 80,975,537 (71.53%; –28.47%) • 2008: 122,486,293 | 2010: 86,784,957 (70.79%; –29.21%) • 2012: 122,346,020 | 2014: 78,235,240 (63.94%; –36.06%) —Totals— • Presidential: 456,924,562 | Midterm: 320,702,089 (70.18%; –29.82%)
The best way to compare is U.S. House. All 435 seats have to face both types of elections. (This is not true with U.S. Senate. And it is not true with state governorships—36 of the nation’s 50 state are on the schedule in midterm elections.)
The polls showing a preference for Democrats, in Congress, and winning the U.S. Popular Vote by however many points would show Democrats being the ones who would gain over seats particularly in the U.S. House.
In 2016, the Republicans won the U.S. Popular Vote for U.S. House by +1.1 percentage points. (Wikipedia has the 2016 Republicans with 49.1 percent; the Democrats at 48.0 percent.) If the 2018 Democrats win a majority pickup of the U.S. House, that means a 2016-to-2018 shift, of course, and the overall seat gains not for the Republicans but the Democrats. So, if the outcome ends up being +2 or +3 or +4 or +5 or +6 or +7 or +8 or +9 or +10 or more…that would be a national, 2016-to-2018 Democratic shift of +3.1 or +4.1 or +5.1 or +6.1 or +7.1 or +8.1 or +9.1 or +10.1 or +11.1 or more. That would yield a good number of Republican-held seats to flip Democratic. (I can’t say right now. I mean, I don’t know what the average is in percentage points. It’s not easy to nail down given that shifts are not exactly the same all over the place.)
When it comes to who participates, since 1914 and through 2014, which is a period of 100 years with 26 midterm elections, the White House party won the overall seat gains in just three: 1934, 1998, and 2002. It means, in part, the opposition party participated more. The U.S. House and/or U.S. Senate flipped (to the party opposite the one for the incumbent U.S. president) in 1918, 1930, 1946, 1954, 1986, 1994, 2006, 2010, and 2014.
The 2018 Democrats (particularly the establishment of the party) are in their favorable position because of the job-approval numbers of Republican incumbent president of the United States Donald Trump. (Well, Trump has moved up past 40 percent recently. But, he was constantly in the 30s during enough of 2017, and early 2018, to put the Republican congress in a bad spot. This is key to all those retirements.) The inverse was the case with the 2010 Republicans of then-Democratic incumbent president of the United States Barack Obama. But, with what happened with the post-2010 Republicans, in their efforts to unseat Barack Obama [in 2012], that can very happen for the post-2018 Democrats, in their efforts unseat Donald Trump [in 2020].
|
|
|
| |
|
The Inquisitor
|
May 5 2018, 02:40 AM
Post #19
|
|
- Posts:
- 10,780
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #472
- Joined:
- Feb 25, 2017
|
- Colors Plus
- May 5 2018, 02:16 AM
- Robert Stout
- May 5 2018, 01:27 AM
- Colors Plus
- May 5 2018, 01:02 AM
- The Inquisitor
- May 4 2018, 11:03 PM
I love the way the Bernie Progressive Left are constantly trying to sneak into power under the Democrat brand.... If they had the balls....They'd run under their own brand....
Fair point. (But up to a limited extent.) In the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, Bernie Sanders garnered 70 percent-plus of 17–29 primaries voters; meaning, Hillary Clinton did not even muster 30 percent. Why is that important? The Democrats have bragged about winning the U.S. Popular Vote in presidential elections since the 1990s, with the sole exception of 2004, and the first voting-age group they carry are 18–29 voters. (They were the only ones which nationally carried for John Kerry. Republican incumbent president George W. Bush won the other voting-age groups: 30–44; 45–64; and 65+. (65+ are the first to vote Republican. In 2008, 65+ were the only ones nationally won by losing Republican presidential nominee John McCain.) The infrastructure of the Democratic Party, and the uncertainty of going into the political wilderness, are two reasons why it appears not enough of the “Bernie Progressive Left” have officially done a #DemExit. Or, perhaps, maybe a sufficient amount have but that it’s actually too soon to tell. I’m thinking about the 2018 midterm elections. People often draw the wrong conclusions from those types of elections. About 30 percent less participation of votes tend to take place in midterm elections vs. the full picture of participating voters in presidential elections. (People will vote in a presidential election cycle before any other kind.) The corporate Democratic Party Establishment can mathematically win 2018 without the “Bernie Progressive Left” in the general elections of midterms—and off of a Republican incumbent president and a wave against the White House party—but they cannot succeed without a key voting base in the general election of a presidential election. This is part of the reason why I think, with assuming another hollow corporatist as the 2020 Democratic nominee for president, and at this point here in 2018, that re-election will happen in 2020 for Donald Trump. What also needs to get mentioned (which is why I wrote in parenthesis, after your “fair point,” that it was a “limited extent”) is the duopoly of the Republican vs. Democratic party system in the United States. These two major parties conspire to make sure no other voice is allowed in the political arena that is not Team Red and Team Blue. This includes ballot access, state after state. This includes the debates. So, that is a rigged system.
It sounds like the Democrats have some serious ideological fractures, but you assume the establishment Democrat political whores can pull it together for 2018....I suspect the Democratic Party is too dysfunctional to take control of the Senate and House in the midterms....Their black and Hispanic vote is weakening...............
It is ideological and party divide. But, midterm and presidential elections are not comparable to each other. There is about 30-percent less participation in midterm vs. those who vote in presidential elections. According to Wikipedia, the number of presidential votes cast in 2016 was 137,125,040. The number of votes cast in 2016 nationwide for U.S. House were 128,627,010. Looking back to the presidential elections of 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, and looking at the midterm elections of 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014, here the numbers of votes cast for U.S. House: • 2000: 98,799,963 | 2002: 74,706,555 (75.61%; –24.39%)• 2004: 113,192,286 | 2006: 80,975,537 (71.53%; –28.47%)• 2008: 122,486,293 | 2010: 86,784,957 (70.79%; –29.21%)• 2012: 122,346,020 | 2014: 78,235,240 (63.94%; –36.06%)—Totals— • Presidential: 456,924,562 | Midterm: 320,702,089 (70.18%; –29.82%) The best way to compare is U.S. House. All 435 seats have to face both types of elections. (This is not true with U.S. Senate. And it is not true with state governorships—36 of the nation’s 50 state are on the schedule in midterm elections.) The polls showing a preference for Democrats, in Congress, and winning the U.S. Popular Vote by however many points would show Democrats being the ones who would gain over seats particularly in the U.S. House. In 2016, the Republicans won the U.S. Popular Vote for U.S. House by +1.1 percentage points. (Wikipedia has the 2016 Republicans with 49.1 percent; the Democrats at 48.0 percent.) If the 2018 Democrats win a majority pickup of the U.S. House, that means a 2016-to-2018 shift, of course, and the overall seat gains not for the Republicans but the Democrats. So, if the outcome ends up being +2 or +3 or +4 or +5 or +6 or +7 or +8 or +9 or +10 or more…that would be a national, 2016-to-2018 Democratic shift of +3.1 or +4.1 or +5.1 or +6.1 or +7.1 or +8.1 or +9.1 or +10.1 or +11.1 or more. That would yield a good number of Republican-held seats to flip Democratic. (I can’t say right now. I mean, I don’t know what the average is in percentage points. It’s not easy to nail down given that shifts are not exactly the same all over the place.) When it comes to who participates, since 1914 and through 2014, which is a period of 100 years with 26 midterm elections, the White House party won the overall seat gains in just three: 1934, 1998, and 2002. It means, in part, the opposition party participated more. The U.S. House and/or U.S. Senate flipped (to the party opposite the one for the incumbent U.S. president) in 1918, 1930, 1946, 1954, 1986, 1994, 2006, 2010, and 2014. The 2018 Democrats (particularly the establishment of the party) are in their favorable position because of the job-approval numbers of Republican incumbent president of the United States Donald Trump. (Well, Trump has moved up past 40 percent recently. But, he was constantly in the 30s during enough of 2017, and early 2018, to put the Republican congress in a bad spot. This is key to all those retirements.) The inverse was the case with the 2010 Republicans of then-Democratic incumbent president of the United States Barack Obama. But, with what happened with the post-2010 Republicans, in their efforts to unseat Barack Obama [in 2012], that can very happen for the post-2018 Democrats, in their efforts unseat Donald Trump [in 2020]. I know ya put a lot into your post....Unfortunately it's based on if's, but's, maybe's and poll's....
|
|
Warning....Leftist's Post Here....Take Precautions
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|