The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread

this is what I had hoped would happen…the largest Mid-term turnout in my lifetime

2018 wave was indisputably unlike any other in recent midterm history: It came with exceptionally high turnout. Turnout is currently estimated at 116 million voters, or 49.4 percent of the voting-eligible population. That’s an astounding number; only 83 million people voted in 2014, by contrast.


I'm really hoping https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ has some wins before 2020…
The National Popular Vote interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
of course TX, FL, IA and OH aren't even considering this…but we can always hope

I am a little nervous that Trump and Newt supports this
http://archive.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/misc/gingrich_20140819.php
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/president-trump-reaffirms-his-long-standing-opposition-electoral-college-and-favors-nationwide-vote

Defamatory wrote:

I'm really hoping https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ has some wins before 2020…
The National Popular Vote interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
of course TX, FL, IA and OH aren't even considering this…but we can always hope

Good news people….only 89 more electoral college votes to go to make this a reality

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) will sign a measure to award his state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote,

Colorado will become the 12th state to join the national popular vote interstate compact. Those 12 states and the District of Columbia, which has also passed a popular-vote bill, account for 181 electoral votes, just under 90 shy of the 270 votes a presidential candidate needs to win the White House.

The compact will not go into effect until the coalition includes states that add up to 270 electoral votes or more. Once it does go into effect, states that are part of the coalition would award their electoral votes en masse to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.


man, if we could just get FL and NH…this could be a reality
I really think democratic $$$ should be targeting this in key states to get this passed before 2020

Why do I get the feeling this sounds good now, but the first time it is used it's going to fuck me over?

^ in the category of ' be careful what you wish for'

That Trump and newt are supportive has me concerned…. but I think it is lip service as they don't really want popular vote, it just sounds good

Defamatory wrote:
^ in the category of ' be careful what you wish for'

That Trump and newt are supportive has me concerned…. but I think it is lip service as they don't really want popular vote, it just sounds good

Absent some sort of ballot stuffing strategy, the Republicans definitely do NOT want this.  Not only does it make it very difficult for them to win the Presidency, but it will hurt them down the ballot as well because it incentivizes everyone to turn out and vote.

gavroche wrote:

Defamatory wrote:
^ in the category of ' be careful what you wish for'

That Trump and newt are supportive has me concerned…. but I think it is lip service as they don't really want popular vote, it just sounds good

Absent some sort of ballot stuffing strategy, the Republicans definitely do NOT want this.  Not only does it make it very difficult for them to win the Presidency, but it will hurt them down the ballot as well because it incentivizes everyone to turn out and vote.

With that said….shouldn't this be Priority #1 for the DNC

such an easy topic to get good press on…
but this has to happen state by state (which is good) but honestly, we don't need that many more at this point
you'd think this have some good traction with the actual voters rather than the heads of the GOP

I need to correct my statement below
man, if we could just get FL and NH…this could be a reality 
not enough…

we need 90 more

CO isn't done as the Gov needs to sign
I think we should focus on some of the big orange/yellow MI/AZ/NC…you'd think DE/ME/OR would be easy too? (56)

and then really dump some money into FL(29)/PA(20)/GA(16)/VA(13) to get a few of the big ones …


edit…just found this out…not a win yet, but a good sign
National Popular Vote bill introduced in Oregon Senate


although…this is my fear if the states actually do it…they will keep it in the courts until after 2020
Some constitutional scholars expect lawsuits to fly if the compact states reach 270 electoral votes combined and the Electoral College national-vote laws thus take effect.

Defamatory wrote:

gavroche wrote:

Defamatory wrote:
^ in the category of ' be careful what you wish for'

That Trump and newt are supportive has me concerned…. but I think it is lip service as they don't really want popular vote, it just sounds good

Absent some sort of ballot stuffing strategy, the Republicans definitely do NOT want this.  Not only does it make it very difficult for them to win the Presidency, but it will hurt them down the ballot as well because it incentivizes everyone to turn out and vote.

With that said….shouldn't this be Priority #1 for the DNC

such an easy topic to get good press on…
but this has to happen state by state (which is good) but honestly, we don't need that many more at this point
you'd think this have some good traction with the actual voters rather than the heads of the GOP

I need to correct my statement below
man, if we could just get FL and NH…this could be a reality 
not enough…

we need 90 more

CO isn't done as the Gov needs to sign
I think we should focus on some of the big orange/yellow MI/AZ/NC…you'd think DE/ME/OR would be easy too? (56)

and then really dump some money into FL(29)/PA(20)/GA(16)/VA(13) to get a few of the big ones …


edit…just found this out…not a win yet, but a good sign
National Popular Vote bill introduced in Oregon Senate


although…this is my fear if the states actually do it…they will keep it in the courts until after 2020
Some constitutional scholars expect lawsuits to fly if the compact states reach 270 electoral votes combined and the Electoral College national-vote laws thus take effect.

I think it is likely harder to get this passed, in the short term, then it is to win the Presidential for the Dems under the current system.  The impact is obvious and places like VA are so gerrymandered that it isn't going to fly there, but the Dem presidential candidate will win there. 

Defamatory wrote:
I think we should focus on some of the big orange/yellow MI/AZ/NC…you'd think DE/ME/OR would be easy too? (56)

Ok, not a done deal yet….but looking like 3 more votes closer

On March 7, 2019, the Delaware Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill in a bi-partisan 14-7 vote (status of SB 22).  The bill now goes to the Delaware House of Representatives, where it is sponsored by a 24 of the 41 members.  The bill has passed the House on two previous occasions. 

In 2004, President Bush won the popular vote 62,040,610 to John Kerry's 59,028,444.  If Kerry had won Ohio (shift Ohio votes by 60,000), he would have won the electoral college and still lost the popular vote.

As I said in my comment before, manage your expectations carefully.

smakie…not going to let you get me down on that
Kerry was a horrible candidate IMO, especially after 9/11, people loved bush

Yes, I would hate if this got passed and then Trump wins the pop and the Dem wins the EC
I agree it 'could' happen, but the math doesn't seem like it's there

In related news…Poular Vote Compact bill passes both houses and is going to Democratic Gov Michelle Lujan Grisham
Haven't really heard reports if she is going to sign (I think she will) unlike in CO where Polis said he'd sign

this has me concerned tho…
Law professor: National popular vote bill may create constitutional conundrum

Liberals supporting this measure do not appear to realize that strong conservatives in this nation are a plurality — not a majority, necessarily, but a strong plurality, Natelson said.

"A strong right-wing candidate could win a plurality and every other state would be forced to vote for them," Natelson said.

This happens regularly in countries with direct vote elections, Natelson said.

"Mexico's presidents are often elected with 40 percent of the popular vote," Natelson said, noting the Electoral College is there as a check and balance to direct vote elections.

The loser is always a horrible candidate

He lost by 50,000 votes in Ohio to the apparently super popular Bush

let's get the fact straight on Ohio 2004

United States presidential election in Ohio, 2004
Party Candidate Votes Percentage Electoral votes
Republican Bush 2,859,768 50.8% 20
Democratic Kerry 2,741,167 48.7% 0

my math says that Bush got closer to 120,000 more votes…or  a 2.1% margin of victory

yes if 59k of those bush voters, voted for Kerry, he would have won the state and the election…but that's not how it works

So it was close…but it wasn't Florida close
(in 2004 bush crushed FL)

Name the last person to lose a presidential election you don’t think was a terrible candidate?


I will wait

Defamatory wrote:
let's get the fact straight on Ohio 2004

I'm quite certain that's why I said "a shift of 60,000 votes" and not "if he received 60,000 more votes."

this appears to be a common way to confuse things

if one person gets 120k votes more than the other person…yes a shift of 60k votes turns the election

but it doesn't work that way and it makes it sound closer than winning by 2.1 percentage points

So you did correctly state your case, but typically election results are not discussed like that
only when you want to make it seem closer

I'm not arguing that this could backfire…but I feel that the Dems have been getting screwed on 5 of 6 elections because of the GOP being able to play the EC like a game of jenga (not sure if that's an accurate metaphor)

The benefit of getting rid of the EC is that elections are decided by 7 or 8 states and millions upon millions votes don't really matter…so what incentive is for them to vote or for presidents to care what goes on in that state

hutch wrote:
Name the last person to lose a presidential election you don’t think was a terrible candidate?


I will wait

I didn't vote for him, but I thought McCain was a not terrible candidate. Until he picked Palin for his veep.

Defamatory wrote:
this appears to be a common way to confuse things

Only one person seems to be confused.

vansmack wrote:

Defamatory wrote:
this appears to be a common way to confuse things

Only one person seems to be confused.

hutch wrote:
He lost by 50,000 votes in Ohio

are you referring to Hutch?

but I do think when I read your statement, I thought it was the same as Hutch's
As no one really talks about the shift, they just talk about how many votes some one got more than the other person

Space wrote:

hutch wrote:
Name the last person to lose a presidential election you don’t think was a terrible candidate?


I will wait

I didn't vote for him, but I thought McCain was a not terrible candidate. Until he picked Palin for his veep.

Mr Suspend Campaign?!?