Republicans hold Ohio. Blue Wave fizzles.

Oh! It is a little more concerning than that. They are gaming the preferential voting system to get politicians elected that are sympathetic to a gun legislation roll back

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10...play-role-in-more-election-campaigns/10395516

 

Industries centered around products that harm and kill other people are also the most ruthlessly led, it would seem. Tobacco is another instance of an industry that continues to produce and market something that causes so much misery, merely because there is so much money to be had from all of the demand out there.

 

The Russian budget was 1.5 million. The total budget that the Clinton campaign spent was almost a billion dollars. She had ground games in most states. She also had a staff that was focused on social media. She had TV, radio and a ground game in most states. Most MSM were pulling for her. CNN was totally complicate with Clinton's campaign. How much influence do you think that 1.5 million on Facebook and Twitter had compared to Clinton's billion?

Hillary Clinton
Total raised
$1,191M
Candidate Raised to Date* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $973.2M

Spent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $969.1M

Cash on Hand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.1M


Super-PACs Raised to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $217.5M

Spent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $215.1M

Cash on Hand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.7M


Total Raised to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,190.7M

Total Spent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,184.1M

Total Cash on Hand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.8M

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

 

You don't mind if I start an "I told you so" list of your posts for after the elections do you?

 

It doesn't matter if they don't vote. Colorado was one of those states where the Democrats doubled their registration. So far it hasn't turned out to be much of a factor in Colorado. Colorado is a purple state. We have a Dem governor, one Dem Senator, one Rep senator, 3 Dem house reps and 4 Rep house reps. Colorado is a mail ballot state. Everyone gets a ballot in the mail. There is the choice of either mailing a ballot or going to the polling station where they can drop off their ballots. Most mail their ballots. So far the Republicans are leading the Democrats in the ballot count, where there are more Democrats registered. I don't think there is as much excitement in the Democrats to vote this cycle.

 

Dems voted in RECORD NUMBERS in the CO primaries and are motivated to vote in November too.

Colorado has consistently been ranked in the top 5 voter turnout states except for 2010 when it was still in the top 10. Given the Progressive energy levels nationwide there is no reason to believe that CO is going to be an exception this year.

 

WOW!....Republicans actually won a special election?

I suppose odds were they eventually would.

 

Barely holding onto a traditionally SAFE republican seat in a red state only to have to do it all over again next month with the polling showing it is still a tossup race.

 

Let them slurp up the chum while they can....the boat is still circling the school and loaded with hungry anglers.

 

I am averse to boasting, and may be embarrassed by your laudations, but I can't prevent your accolades.

In all humility, I do not indulge in auguries based upon wishful thinking but merely cite the consensus of reputable surveys. I am certainly hopeful at the portents of progress, but readily acknowledge that whatever optimism is inculcated by polls is not, by any rational calculus, a guarantee.

 

Ohio's 12th district, solidly Republican for decades, has never been seriously considered a likely Democratic pick-up, and has had no part in the expectation of Democrats taking control of the House and picking up several governorships, whether one falls for the media "Blue Wave" hype or not.

 

Right, sure. Whatever keeps your fuzzy feeling going.
Some stats:

"So far, 57,695 Republicans have voted versus 55,450 Democrats and 44,300 unaffiliated voters.
Voters between the ages of 61 and 70 voted more than any other age group so far — to the tune of 45,148 votes. Meanwhile, only 4,940 voters between the ages of 18 and 25 have already turned in their ballots. Men have out-voted women with 81,911 men turning in their ballots early versus 76,517 women.

Around this time in 2016, it was Democrats who took the early lead in ballot returns but with a larger sample size of around 290,00 voters."


https://www.coloradoindependent.com/2018/10/23/colorado-early-voting-returns-2018/

 

I will take this as a "yes".

 

Of course. Thank you for asking, but I have no idea why you would think that I would care.

 

I just find it curious that some people don't seem to care if they are right or wrong while making wild predictions. It goes to credibility but some don't seem to make that connection.

 

Tracker sam your right wing agenda failed to mention LOOT SOCIAL SECURITY ,MEDICARE and MEDICAID to give the wealthy bigger tax cuts!!

 

Your "fuzzy" projection is duly noted!

Early voting does NOT determine the actual outcome of the election.

If that "fuzzy" is all you have then there is nothing that refutes my position WRT CO turnouts.

 

Very interesting, thoughtful, practical, positive post. I like your ideas & sincerely wish our Congress would act in the way you suggest. The one concern I'd have is your suggestion to base elections & Elector votes on Congressional district boundaries to avoid gerrymandering. I may be wrong, but aren't Congressional districts gerrymandered themselves? I think Congressional districts should be drawn by political neutral computer statisticians with the goal of drawing districts as closely as possible to have equal party representation in each district. That way every election would be close to equally divided party wise, and decided by how independents & middle of road voters leaned in that particular election. That would force candidates to move toward the political middle just to get elected. And that would be less divisive nationwide.

 

true, congressional districts are vulnerable to gerrymandering, i would have suggested using 'hard' boundaries such as individual counties but that has the same effect of overshadowing individual towns/villages/cities... besides, in light of election '16, many will 'kick & scream' if it were changed to county, however i'm all for it...

another avenue is to do away with partisan altogether & abolish the current party system... all this bs 'my side' your side' is getting out of hand...

 

The best idea came from @Statistikhengst IMO. He suggested that we expand the House to 1000 representatives and then allocate exactly 1/10th of one percent of the population to a Congressional district regardless of state lines. That way EVERYONE is EQUALLY represented in Congress. It does away with the red/blue state nonsense since districts are not beholden to states, only We the People. It also opens the door to the concept of multiple parties since a House Representative is ONLY answerable to the people of their district. If they prefer a Libertarian or Green representative then sobeit.

 

not bad, but it will depend on how they 'divide' up the population, geographically would be my input, otherwise they could 'mander the 'big cities' into several districts rendering them 'one sided'

 

Stat did a better job of explaining how the population is divided into districts than I can and it avoided that problem as I recall.

If we include the proposals that @Meta777 is advocating for Ranked Voting then we get a much better representation of ALL of the varied viewpoints of the population. In essence you don't just get a choice between two or three candidates. You vote for ALL of them by RANKED PREFERENCE. 2nd, 3rd, 4th....Nth choices can be counted to determine who ends up in Congress. It effectively eliminates the concept of parties because you vote for the individuals you believe to be most qualified to represent your own positions.

 

I had not heard of these possible abuses of power on the part of Puerto Rican officials. If they prove to be true, then hopefully they will be removed from office. For certain, the charges should be investigated to determine the truth.

Yes, Trump did run promising to remove us from NAFTA and some other global trade agreements. But he's not only done that, but he's removed us from other non-trade agreements that are critical to keeping world peace. And, he's done so without so much as a discussion on the merits of those treaties or possible fixes. His personal approach in such instances has repeatedly been connected to arrogance, disrespect toward partner treaty signers, and a complete dismissiveness toward anyone who might disagree with his spontaneous decisions. His refusal to remain on the Paris Global Warming Agreement was a disaster for not only the U.S., but the whole world. I strongly disagree with Trump on these poorly thought out actions.

Thank you.

 

I didn't make a projection. Please quote where I made a projection. I refuted that erroneous claims that you made. So far you have offered zilch to refute my argument.

 

If only there was a cure for this... verbose diarrhea is a terrible thing to witness... you know.... In public....