The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[Fuzzy Bear]

There is one reason no one references Atlas forum posts from other threads in their discussion.

Because ultimately, it is full of subjective opinion that even the people posting realise is ultimately garbage and can only be supported by someone else having either:

(a) the same opinion; or
(b) an opposing insult to the opposite argument (more common on Atlas).

Politics is a difficult one to discuss using an online platform. We have not set up a very level playing field, because if you post something that is objective, chances are that someone will be offended because it contrasts with their subjective view of how they want to live their life.

The 'easily offended' have taken over.

For example, everyone to the right of Chairman Mao is a right wing fascist at Atlas.

Some really dumbass analysis that you dont even have to argue against get's spewed out. It's self-evident that it is dross. And that is why it is never referenced in future discussions.

Objectivity in this place is not going to happen.

The forum is subjective analysis of a very subjective topic.

[IceSpear]

A Democratic coalition based on suburbanites, white college graduates and upper-class whites is not inherently bad. People are generally sheep and will twist and alter their political views to fit the "tribe" they identify with, so if those people basically become Democrats, then there is a lot of latitude, policy-wise. Further, it's not just flipping previously Republican voters. Millennials have always been strongly Democratic and once they fan out into the burbs, they will shift them into the D column. Ditto for POC who are diversifying districts as well.

I agree that this kind of coalition probably isn't the best long-term bet due to the issue of higher taxes, but Democrats have to play with the hand they are dealt, not the one they want. We can't just decide we want to win "economically leftist" working class whites and then snap our fingers and make it happen. We'd have to change the entire perception of the national party, which includes de-emphasizing and/or dropping certain issues which will probably piss off other faction(s) that we need. It's a very complicated needle to thread and it takes decades to do it, not one or two election cycles.

Also, speaking in terms of pure electoral politics, white college grads are a reliable midterm voting bloc, so that is a bonus for Democrats. They need something to counter their unreasonably low-propensity voters.

[Joe Republic]

Re: Idaho teachers in trouble for dressing as border wall/Mexicans

Just another example of the moral decay and rotten culture of rural America.  Rampant, endemic drug use/addiction, unhealthy diets, sedentary lifestyles, loyalty to damaging and anti-social media, religious, and political spheres...unsafe and unhealthy sex lives (this is true everywhere)..and an extreme anti-intellectual/anti-education culture that has poisoned every facet of rural society.

Valuing education, community, and being active, optimistic civically engaged citizens would allow poverty alleviation and a slow climb out of this hole.  Something to be proud of instead of posturing pride.

[Joe Republic]

Same thread:

This thread is simply a chronological list of the "easily offended".

Nope, it's a list of people who get that being a teacher requires a level of professionalism greater than that of your average job and much greater than just going out for your normal social life, vs. those who haven't picked up on that yet and who don't understand that kids aren't grown-ups.

It's another version of a thread of white guys asking "why can't I use the n word" and not being interested in the actual answer why they can't.

[IceSpear]

Of course Blackburn's still favored to win, but there's still a couple of (garbagy) public polls having it tied and random chatter about internal polls showing it close which mirror the public behavior of the campaigns. Is it that hard to believe all of this is happening at once?

Well let’s take into account that Pew had TN as the most white evangelical state in 2014 - 52% of its total population. And that study also showed that over three times as many Gen X/baby boomer TN residents were white evangelicals than millennials and younger millenials were. So the voting electorate given age turnout differences is probably gonna be at least 60% white evangelical in 2 days.

White evangelicals nationally voted about 80-84% for a thrice married pussy grabbing New Yorker simply cuz of the magic R next to his name. 80% of white evangelicals in the state directly below TN voted for Roy Moore, an accused pedophile who was a notoriously weak candidate even prior to the allegations (he won by a parsley 4 points against a Democrat in 2012 - with Obama on the ballot).

If Blackburn simply wins 80% of whites evanglicals in her state, she’s at 48% of the total share of the electorate without a single voter from the 40% of Tennessee voters that aren’t white evangelicals. If she gets just a tiny 15% of those folks, she’s at 54% total.

Now I know some people love pointing out that “Bredesen was a beloved Governor way back when!” well gubernatorials even today aren’t stongly reflective of the federal leanings of a state (let alone in 2006). Phil Scott as a Republican won his state easily in 2016 despite being in Vermont and Jim Justice also won his state easily in 2016 despite having a D next to his name. Voters are far, far less partisan even today in their gubernatorial races compared to their federal races. And how these voters felt in 2006 of all years is especially less partisan.

There’s no magic solution for Bredesen to beat these fundamentals. If some people just took off their Pom poms and Democratic Party cheerleading for two seconds they’d see this.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Still won't make a difference in the end. Cruz will win.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Election Day -- one of the days we election junkies live for -- is just around the corner, so I'd like to share a few of my personal tips for getting the most out of it.  (This is the 50th anniversary of the first election I followed closely, and the 10th anniversary of the first one I followed on Atlas.)  Some of these are for general election watching and some are Atlas-specific.  Feel free to add your own!

General tips:

1. Pace yourself!  It's going to be a long day and night, and the main event doesn't start until the evening hours.  If you can manage it around work or school, sleep late or take a nap during the day.  Don't stay glued to coverage during the day and burn yourself out early.  Take breaks; talk to your family, go for a walk, play with the dog.

2. Don't read too much into anecdotal weather and local turnout reports.  They have little or no predictive value.  Final turnout reports, OTOH, may (but don't always) provide some useful information.

3. Be very skeptical of reports of outrageous incidents, like people being scared away from polling places, unless they're confirmed by a reputable news source.  Please DON'T repost them on Atlas, social media, or anywhere else without confirmation.

4. Take early exit polls with a grain of salt.  They often don't reflect the actual state of the electorate.

5. Remember that early returns sometimes don't hold up, especially if they're mostly early votes.  Election Day votes can change things dramatically; see the CA-45 House and FL-GOV (D) primaries for examples.

6. If your side does well, always remember that it could have been better ("Damn, we almost got Rep. Dorque.")  If your side does poorly, remember that it could have been worse ("Whew, at least Dorque survived.")  It's OK to celebrate or mourn the results, but try not to lash out at others in the process.

7. Be careful of pronouncements that the results, whatever they are, signify a major change or realignment.  Such events are very rare.  If there's one consistent long-term trend in American politics, it's that the pendulum always swings back again.

8. If you drink or use other mood-altering substances, try to do so in moderation, unless you get to the "drowning your sorrows" stage. Think twice before posting while drunk; you'll probably regret it in the morning.

And some Atlas-specific tips (hopefully the mods will add their advice):

a. Please be civil.  Most posters here are human beings (there are a few I suspect are bots) and some of them have different views than you do.  This doesn't make them vile or your enemy.  To paraphrase what Sen. Mitchell famously said to Oliver North: it's possible for someone to be decent and patriotic and still think you're completely wrong. 

b. OTOH, there are some trolls here, and they're usually easy to identify.  The goal of a troll is to stir up a reaction, not to discuss things in good faith.  Disagreeing with someone is not trolling; deliberately provoking them is.  Please don't respond to the trolls.  Just use the Ignore and/or Report buttons.   (There's nothing wrong with using Ignore.  You don't owe anyone your time to read their stuff.  I use it liberally and it's greatly enhanced my Atlas experience.)

c. Try not to clutter up the main result threads with side topics; they're going to be really busy.  Please take such discussions to separate threads.  Similarly, please don't clutter the main threads with empty quotes or other responses with negligible content. 

d. Don't try to follow everything closely, and don't feel like you have to respond to everything.  There's just too much going on, and it's impossible to keep up with everything to the minute.  The best strategy is to pick just a few things you'll follow closely, and others you'll check on less frequently.

e. Disable the forum feature that warns on new replies when posting.  It's too hard to keep up on fast-moving threads, and this puts a strain on the server.  To do this, in your Profile under "Look and Layout Preferences", check the box for "Don't warn on new replies made while posting."  If this causes your reply to be a little out of continuity, it's OK.

f. Be wary of making overly quick projections or hot takes; it's not a race to see who can do it first.  Some people (who shall remain nameless) have been known to jump on early trends to make projections and be embarrassed by the final result.  Nobody remembers who was the first to make a correct projection, but everybody remembers who made the wrong ones.

g. Stay cool, be patient, and have fun!  The event itself is something we all enjoy, no matter how the results turn out.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

So earlier this week, I decided to start taking a look at the Texas early vote on a county by county basis. I’ve been pouring over the data from places like Tarrant county, looking at past elections and at current early voting statistics. All the information I’ve seen points to one conclusion: Beto is getting the numbers he needs to win.

Now, a few caveats: Beto needs substantial swings across Texas in order to win. He doesn’t just need Democrats to turn out: he needs to win hundreds of thousands more votes from Independents and some Republicans in order to have a chance. With that in mind, the numbers suggest that Beto has done exactly that. Let me list a few preconditions needed for a Beto O’Rourke victory:

1. Phenomenal Latino, youth, and African-American turnout, far better than 2014

2. Improve on Hillary’s margin with Latino voters across Texas

3. Win Hays, Williamson, Nueces, Jefferson, and Tarrant counties

4. Run up the margin in Bexar, Travis, Dallas, and Harris counties

5. Reverse Hillary’s losses in the Rio Grande

6. Get substantial swings in Denton, Collin, Galveston, Brazoria, and Bell counties

7. Improve on Hillary’s margins in East Texas

8. Match Hillary’s performance in West Texas


(Hypothetical O'Rourke victory)

Early voting data suggests that goal 1 has been absolutely smashed. That’s a good sign. Goal 2 is very likely. Given recent data from Hidalgo and Cameron counties, the numbers look good for Beto here. In his capacity as a Congressional representative, he has earned numerous plaudits from the Latino community in Texas. There is also reason to believe that middle class, Tejano Latinos look prime to vote for Beto, too. This voting bloc usually supports Republican candidates in Texas, including people like George Bush and John Cornyn. This year, though, they appear to be much more willing to back Beto O’Rourke. While Beto may not win this group, it will improve his raw vote total substantially.


(2016 Texas Swing Map, courtesy of Dave Leip's US Election Atlas)

Onto point number 3. This is where I start speculating. If you look at the swing map in 2016, all of these counties (save for Jefferson) swung towards Hillary Clinton by a solid margin. This was especially the case in Williamson county, where Clinton improve on Obama’s raw vote total by 23,000 votes and on his margin by 5.5 points. Beto, however, will have to do even better this year to win these counties. But there’s reason to believe that it’s possible. On average, nearly 4.35% of voters in these five counties backed a third party candidate. It was even higher in Hays and Williamson counties. Secondly, most of these five counties contain exactly the kind of voters (white, college educated) that are swinging towards Democrats. Beto has also have heavy investments in all five of these counties. Combined with a differential turnout advantage, Beto has a solid shot to win here.

Sidenote: Jefferson County narrowly swung away from Clinton in 2016. This county contains the city of Beaumont. Beto should be in good shape here, though. Obama carried this county in 2012.

Goal 4 is going to happen. Beto should do extremely well in these counties and pad his raw vote total significantly. The data suggests that Dallas and Harris are going to swing towards Beto. I don’t have much to add here, other than the numbers look good. That’s it, honestly. I’m fairly certain that we’ll see this on election night.

Goal 5 looks very probable, too. I have a hard time believing that places like Hidalgo County are going to trend towards Cruz this year. The amount of enthusiasm and early voters make it likely that Beto will achieve this goal. His margin here will grow, relative to Clinton’s 2016 performance in the Rio Grande basin.

Now, for point 6, I can’t offer substantive evidence here. This is something that we’ll only be able to confirm in the election postmortem. I don’t dispute that Republican turnout in the early vote here is strong. But crucially, Republican turnout is still below its 2016 peak. While the percentages haven’t changed, the raw vote totals have. This helps Beto out a bit. In addition, a cursory glance at the swing map for 2016 vs 2012 suggests that these counties should swing towards Beto, at least marginally.

Goal number 7 is where I’m a bit pessimistic. I don’t see Beto getting better margins here than Hillary. His GOTV effort may yield some new voters, but this is also a very rural and white area of Texas. I don’t see Beto improving much over Hillary. It’s just not in the cards for rural East Texas.

West Texas is a similar story...sort of. The data suggests that Democrats can break 20% in Randall County and will likely break 30% in Lubbock and Potter counties. But it’s a similar story in the rural counties here. O’Rourke really needs to run up the margins in Dallas, Bexar, Harris, and Travis.

(Courtesy of the Texas Tribune)

Just thirty counties in Texas make up over 78% of the total number of registered voters. The Texas Tribune estimates that these counties exceeded total early vote turnout in 2012 by nearly 1%. 40% of registered voters have cast a ballot. In 2014, total voter turnout was an abysmal 33.5%. This year, it’ll likely top 54%. These numbers are good news for Beto. Maybe not enough to win, but definitely enough to give Ted Cruz the fight of his life.

[Atlas Force]

The idea that there's a broad base in American society of neglected, ideologically moderate, centrist/center/central/centrally, middle-of-the-road voters who will only vote for ideologically moderate, centrist/center/central/centrally, middle-of-the-road candidates and will shirk back into their cocoon of neutral, open-minded, see-it-both-ways, centermost centerness the moment somebody steps out from the middle of the political aisle is an idea that needs to die.

I am not at all surprised to see that the forum's most insistent proclaimant of ideologically moderate, centrist/center/central/centrally, middle-of-the-road-politics who shirks back into his self-proclaimed cocoon of neutral, open-minded, see-it-both-ways, centermost centerness the moment somebody steps out from the middle of the political aisle is the one who is asking this question.

[Politician]

The funny thing is, in most every single state where they have had a taste of the Koch brothers agenda being imposed regardless of local factors and interests you have seen massive implosions in the GOP's popularity and strong/spirited bids to take them over by Democrats.

Voters don't want the schools dismantled and sacrificed at the alter of the almighty tax cut. It used to be that Conservatives opposed the teacher unions so that we could reform and improve the public education system. We were dismayed at the federalizing of education but almost overnight the GOP switched back to state based education. Of course, somewhere along the line (probably when a bunch of money started to get sloshed around), the goal posts for those state Republican Parties shifted to dismantling the public school system instead of reforming it.

Take a whole crap ton of money, throw it at a radical proposal that will in turn make you a lot of money (because you just so happened to have invested in some private-for profit schools, which are just one step above a con job or a diploma mill at that), and then force every Republican to go along with it and brand anyone who doesn't "TRAITOR to be executed for heresy" and then thrill as the voters rise up in rebellion and maybe possibly elect a Democrat in OKLAHOMA and KANSAS!!! Nah its probably just Trump's twitter feed!

Baker is safe and Scott is somewhat safe because they have not tried and have no hope of succeeding if they did, to pass any of this nonsense in their states. They were elected to minimize tax hikes, make things work efficiently and keep the trains running on time, not to experiment with utopian social experiments pushed by billionaires who couldn't care less if society descended into anarchy.

Conservatism should be about respecting the constitution and historical traditions in a state, not trying to circumvent them to implement an outside agenda and strip an inconvenient officeholder of power just because he is in the wrong party. This is arbitrary governance, it is at the core a fundamental violation of what should be the first principle underlying anything that can legitimately be styled as conservative. This radicalism is anathema to conservatism and it is destroying the Republican Party. It wrecked them in Louisiana and it wrecked them here in North Carolina.

Conservatism should be about empowering individual decision making and free will and the only way to do that is with an effective and meaningful education provided to everyone as a civic obligation. If the public school system is broke "FIX IT!" don't use it as convenient excuse to strip mine it and be like "oh look we have some money over here, lets cut taxes again".

Conservatism should be about promoting a strong business environment, that means yes a competitive tax code but taxes aren't the miracle elixir. Business also needs a trained workforce, suitable infrastructure accommodations and a healthy workforce that isn't going to drop dead from diseases that could have been prevented rather cheaply if only they had been provided access to such preventative medicine and screenings when it would have made a difference.

Going further on that business environment, supply side economics does not work in commodity based economies (if it works at all in a non-stagflationary economy). What these economies need is economic diversification and responsible investment. If you cut taxes and commodity prices drop, you are just hitting the thrusters into a giant black hole, which is what Kansas did.

Remember this, and I say this to every Republican, Conservative or libertarian minded poster on this forum, whatever happens tonight and whoever ends up losing in these Governorships and state legislatures, be it here in NC, or in KS or in OK or yes even in NH, they earned these defeats with the best think tank generated stupidity the Koch Brothers could buy.

[tmthforu94]

Ford County has used a centralized voting location for Dodge City and 8 surrounding townships for 20 years.  Ford County also has polling locations in Bucklin, Spearman, and Ford City for townships in the eastern part of the county. Bucklin is 27 miles from Dodge City, and the polling place serves townships along US 34. Spearman is 17 miles from Dodge City, and Ford City is a similar distance. Bucklin and Spearman are in different school districts from Dodge City.

Using combined polling places for multiple precincts is not unusual in Kansas, which has lots of small townships and particularly strict laws on election precincts, which must respect many boundaries, including local ward boundaries.  Elections are administered at the county level in Kansas, including elections for township and city offices. I know that Sedgwick County (Wichita) uses larger polling places, including some that include precincts inside and outside the city. You might be able to find a better location with lots of parking and a larger church that was designed for drive-in parishioners. Larger polling places may be more efficient. Instead of poll workers crocheting or playing cards while waiting for a voter to appear, they can be continuously processing voters. They may be better trained and staffed. At some polling sites you may have a clerk who remembers Little Bobby Dole and may not realize that some election procedure has changed.

Unusual for Dodge City is the size of the single polling location. Finney County and Garden City have similar population to Ford County and Dodge City, but there are six voting locations. OTOH, most voters outside Garden City share a polling place with city voters at the fairgrounds  (not sure whether this is inside the city limits or not). OTOOH most of voters outside Garden City have to drive to the fairgrounds where they constitute 3/4 of the voters in a "city" precinct. OTOOOH, most of these voters are in townships just outside the city limits. Most of the truly rural townships might only have 50-100 voters, and perhaps no suitable polling places (any one room school houses might have been abandoned, not maintained or converted to other uses. There might be a barn for road equipment with perhaps an office. For example, Royal Township in Ford County has 105 residents. Its budget is around $100,000 with about half that going for paying off the debt for the grader, truck, and loader. The rest presumably goes for wages for equipment operators, maintenance, and fuel). In Garden City, none of the polling places are in schools. Four are in churches, one is at the county fairgrounds 4-H building, and one at the library. Churches will often have meeting rooms outside the sanctuary that are only used on Sunday and Wednesday. Schools have classes on Tuesdays. There may be little parking beyond that used by teachers and staff. Schools have security issues, while polling places are traditionally open.

Ford County consolidated to a single polling location in Dodge City about 20 years ago, reportedly because polling places at schools were not ADA compliant. Dodge City is at the cross-roads of several US highways. Originally, they went through town down Wyatt Earp Blvd, but loops around the north and south side of the city have been developed. Most of the expansion of the city has been to the north, where the wealthiest areas are. The southern part of the city is across the railroad tracks AND separated by the Arkansas River (flood plain). This area has the largest Hispanic concentration (two of the three elementary schools in the city with 90% Hispanic enrollment are in this area (the lowest percentages are around 65%). That is, the polling place was moved to the poorer more Hispanic part of the city.  The claim by the Kansas ACLU that it is near a wealthier, whiter country club is so false as to be regarded as malicious.

On the northern loop are the casino and a 5300-seat arena, and the new High School. They are located here because they are accessible and there was lots of land for parking. The old high school appears to be landlocked. The southern loop has the Western Bank Expo center which is county owned. Its big event is the 3i show (the three I's are industry, implements, and irrigation) and the adjacent Dodge City Raceway Park (3/8 mile dirt oval). Most of the shows at the Civic Center appear to have moved out to the United Wireless Arena adjacent to the casino.

The main employers in Dodge City are two meatpacking plants, each with around 2500 employees. The next largest is a Walmart with 400 employees. As you would expect, the meatpacking plants are downstream from the city, though they have been annexed into the city. Perhaps the city gets tax revenue and charges them for connecting into the sewer system. There is an industrial park and airport which are exclaves of the city. Whether an area is inside the "city limits" or not may have nothing to do with proximity to the "city", but some other policy reason.

The school district, which includes areas outside the city limits, is planning on constructing a new administration building connected to the Civic Center, which is owned by the school district. At the September board of education meeting, the condition of the existing administration building was discussed. The building is literally losing bricks, the chimney for the boiler does not meet code, and would fall into the building if it collapsed. The building is not ADA compliant. While the board was OK with the money spent for diagnosing the problem (metal beams over the windows are twisting causing bricks on the outside of the building to be pushed out) they were concerned about any sort of major repairs, particularly if that forced bringing the building up to code or make it ADA compliant, since they would be into the new building within 18 months. There is a Kansas Heritage Center archive in the building, which the district has come to be responsible for. They have reached agreement to move the collection and responsibility to the library.

At the October board meeting, they made a phone call to someone at the Kansas education authority (the president dialed a number and kept getting a busy signal, so the superintendent came over, and put in his pin code, and said what's the number, and the president picked up a piece of paper and turned it, and the superintendent then punched the number, and they connected and put the call on speaker phone). The conversation was about financing and spec'ing the new administration building and improvements to the football stadium, which they want to have completed by a June 2019 HS all-star football game. I had the impression that the superintendent had talked to the state guy, and wanted the board to hear what he had to say. There was an emphasis that the plans had to be spec'ed out, so they could be bid.  There must be a state law requiring bidding of any capital project over a certain dollar amount. It was also mentioned that the concepts for the new administration building had expanded, adding several million dollars to the estimates. From other documents it appears that they have reached the limits of their debt authority, but can squeeze by using some reserves and current funds. It was also indicated that the school district could undertake the two projects (new admin building and stadium separately, so long as each were spec'ed out. There is currently a bid packet out on the stadium (for design).

It is unclear why the school district believed that the new admin building would be under construction by October. Maybe they were optimistic., or perhaps they could do preliminary work such as taking up site work without completing plans or funding. But the school district did send a site plan showing the parking area at the Civic Center being unavailable. If you are going to have 5000 voters on election day, having a lot of parking is the key.

Voters had to be given notice 30 days before the election (October 7). So a new location had to be found.

The Casino probably has the parking (it has a 5300 seat arena) but is dubious as a location for public elections. It is also on the outskirts of town. The packing plants have enough parking if there are no workers and no cattle to be processed. The airport might not have enough parking, unless you parked on the tarmac (Dodge City has two flights daily to Denver by 9-seat turboprop). The High School has enough parking, but it is used by students, and it is not particularly close to the buildings.

Walmart, Hobby Lobby, and the strip center south of Hobby Lobby have enough parking, but it might be problematic finding room within the stores for voting and sharing doorways. The stores might have problems with political campaigning outside. If there were an empty store in the strip center that might be an option.

That leaves the Expo Center, which is a modern building designed for public events with lots of parking and an open space for holding the elections inside and is owned by the county. It is at the intersection of two US Highways. Timewise it is closer to the meatpacking plants (5000 workers) than the Civic Center (as indicated in the plaintiffs own evidence). While there may be some workers who rely on public transportation, the parking lots are 95% full in satellite images. Concern about the railroad tracks is misrepresented since there are overpasses on either end of town (the meatpacking plants are on the south side of the tracks).

That it is slightly beyond the city limits is really irrelevant given that 21% of the voters are from outside the city.

Notice to voters were sent out in September. Some were returned as undelivered. The plaintiffs evidence that some were undelivered was the email from the county clerk to the Democratic Party Chair asking his help in getting the word out. The move was also publicized in local newspaper and radio stations.

A voter may also check his registration at

Your guide to Kansas elections.

Op-Ed from County Administrator

As the judge noted, if the ACLU or LULAC were truly concerned about a single voting location, they had 20 years to address the "issue".

[kcguy]

Ford County has used a centralized voting location for Dodge City and 8 surrounding townships for 20 years.  Ford County also has polling locations in Bucklin, Spearman, and Ford City for townships in the eastern part of the county. Bucklin is 27 miles from Dodge City, and the polling place serves townships along US 34. Spearman is 17 miles from Dodge City, and Ford City is a similar distance. Bucklin and Spearman are in different school districts from Dodge City.

. . .

That leaves the Expo Center, which is a modern building designed for public events with lots of parking and an open space for holding the elections inside and is owned by the county. It is at the intersection of two US Highways. Timewise it is closer to the meatpacking plants (5000 workers) than the Civic Center (as indicated in the plaintiffs own evidence). While there may be some workers who rely on public transportation, the parking lots are 95% full in satellite images. Concern about the railroad tracks is misrepresented since there are overpasses on either end of town (the meatpacking plants are on the south side of the tracks).

. . .

As the judge noted, if the ACLU or LULAC were truly concerned about a single voting location, they had 20 years to address the "issue".

To quote a book I bought, "Voter fraud and voter suppression are the Loch Ness Monsters of contemporary political special-pleading--they always vanish back into the lake before witnesses arrive."  Every time I hear the explanation behind one of these incidents, I become more and more skeptical about the entire topic.  Sooner or later, there will be an actual egregious instance of either voter fraud or voter suppression, and I will assume it's just one more instance of someone crying "Wolf!" like every time before.

Thanks to jimrtex for taking the time to research and explain this incident.  If tmthforu94 hadn't beaten me to the High-Quality Posts page, I was considering posting it here myself.

[Technocracy Timmy]

A divergence in gains between House and Senate is something I have noted the possibility of for a while simply based on the fact that the GOP has 5 Dem seats that are so far up the PVI ladder and the possibility for swings to be uneven across groups based on education and other demographic factors.

This makes it very  for Republicans to hold TN, and win IN, MO and ND (with outside longshots in WV and MT) and then barely hold TX etc, even while losing the popular vote for House and Senate by double digits.

Is it likely to happen, probably not. But I think there is a strong possibility of a GOP net gain in the Senate while losing the House majority.

This was written over 12 hours before any of the polls closed. Wow.

[IceSpear]

A divergence in gains between House and Senate is something I have noted the possibility of for a while simply based on the fact that the GOP has 5 Dem seats that are so far up the PVI ladder and the possibility for swings to be uneven across groups based on education and other demographic factors.

This makes it very  for Republicans to hold TN, and win IN, MO and ND (with outside longshots in WV and MT) and then barely hold TX etc, even while losing the popular vote for House and Senate by double digits.

Is it likely to happen, probably not. But I think there is a strong possibility of a GOP net gain in the Senate while losing the House majority.

This was written over 12 hours before any of the polls closed. Wow.

NC Yankee is one of our most insightful posters, that's for sure.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

35+ seats in the house
At least a 7% popular vote victory
Net loss in senate of 2, maybe even 1 depending on Florida despite the worst possible map
7 governors mansions gained
This is a wave my friends

As soon as the words "net loss" appear, the "wave" argument becomes problematic. 

Normally, the party that doesn't control the presidency loses. This is within the normal range. It is not as strong as the shifts in 1994, 2010, both in terms gains and total numbers of seats.  The gain was a bit better than 2006, by one seat, but the total seats are much lower; in that one the winning party gained 6 Senate seats. 

Going from the numbers on atlas's results page for the Senate, Democrats won the popular vote in Senate races Nationwide by 10 million votes and 10 percentage points. Granted, a large chunk of that has to do with California being a top 2 race between a pair of Democrats, but even if one were to give every single one of De Leon's votes to the Republican column - - which I believe we can all agree is completely ludicrous, but just for sake of argument - - Democrats still won by over 4 million votes and more than five percentage points Nationwide. In reality, only assessing the appropriate share of de Leon votes, and some Feinstein votes as well I assume, to the Republican column and there was at least as big wave in terms of percentage points in raw boats as in the house.

If the house was a wave, then the Senate was too. The results were obviously not as good for Democrats because of the increasingly undemocratic shift towards hard-core Republican rural States and strongly democratic Urban States, but then again if the house wasn't so damn gerrymandered oh, it would have easily been over a 60 seat pickup for the Democrats as well.

So yeah, Republicans we're safe from a complete f****** in the house by gerrymandering, and our saved by the fact places of North Dakota and Wyoming have as many senators as New York and California. But in terms of which way the wind is blowing, this was a disastrous year for the Republicans. Institutional and structural advantages save them. They will probably need to do much better for the Electoral College save Trump again in 2020.

One more point about the Senate. It's undemocratic nature was not particularly a problem in the good old days of just 20 to 30 years ago when places like The Dakotas would elect Democrats to the Senate and places like New York or California would elect Republicans. However, that only versus Urban / Suburban divide now makes the Senate essentially a nationwide gerrymander. Add the filibuster in with it, and it just shows how f***** up our system of government is.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I read Poliquin will sue, but on what grounds? Ranked choice is not that different from run-offs.

Presumably, the argument would be that it is unconstitutional to change the congressional election process through citizen initiative, because the Constitution gives the power to regulate congressional elections to state legislatures (subject to federal legislation).

This argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in the Arizona Redistricting Commission case in 2015.  But the vote was 5-4, with Kennedy breaking the tie to side with the four liberals.  With Kennedy replaced by Kavanaugh, the outcome could be different if the Court heard the same argument today.

While this may be grounds to sue, I cannot see how it can have any remedy other than ordering a completely new election under the old rules. This election was run based on a certain law. Had the old law and simple plurality rule been in place, both candidates and voters would have behaved differently: in particular, arguably, many of the voters who went for minor candidates on their first choice would have voted for one of the two major candidates (any amount of political scientists would testify to that as well-established fact: it is, in fact, well-established).  Ordering the count to be done based on the old (plurality) rule would not help establish the result that would have obtained had that rule been in place from the beginning. So, the only remedy available is to annul the election and rerun it. If a court orders simply not counting second preferences, it would not be materially different from ordering one of the candidates to be declared elected without any vote.

[ltomlinson31]

You know it says something about the pathetic nature of Republican capacity for legislating, that for 10 years of running against something, their best strategy for repeal and replace is to pass a bill that repeals the bill at a set date in the future and gives congress two years to "come up with a replacement".

In that sense, John McCain did save the GOP because imagine selling that to voters. "I voted to abolish your pre-existing conditions on the faith that Congress will pass a bill to protect them later". WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS WOULD TRUST CONGRESS TO DO THAT?


Remember the Sequester was never suppose to happen. The threat of defense cuts were suppose to be so scary that people would come together and make a real deal to cut the deficit. Never happened and the sequester triggered.

The idea that congress would come together and find a replacement that even just all Republicans could agree on is laughable. Half of the Republicans, including the Freedom caucus don't want to do anything on health care at all. For a large portion of other Republicans all they want to do is give out some tax credits.

They don't understand that health care is different from other other goods and services. That delayed access means greater expense and thus cutting costs in the short term means higher expenses for Medicare later on down the road. They don't understand that cutting of coverage means, rural hospitals shut down which lowers access to supply and create shortages (and yes waiting lines that are so often threatened in regards to single payer), and thus be extension raises costs for everyone else and raises the cost of Medicare and Medicaid.

Health care policy is being driven by special interests and by political advantage. "OMG we have to pass something else we will have broken our promises" "OMG anything that doesn't gut gov't spending on health care is breaking our promises". Ronald Reagan once said and I paraphrase, "I instituted a policy as Governor and I continue it in this office (President), whereby we never discuss the political implications of any decision, we only discuss the good and bad and proceed with the policy that is best for the American People".

House Republicans lost because have long since squandered any ability to legislate. They couldn't differentiate themselves from Trump because the canard that House Republicans are peddling is the same think thank dog feces that people in even the Republican primary rejected to nominate Trump over Cruz in the first place. It is also the same stuff that is becoming increasing unwanted in its former solid bastions, suburban America, where new voters and younger voters are becoming more and more numerous and they are outvoting the Boomers. They want free college instead of tax cuts, they want free health care instead of deregulation.

If Democrats succeed in getting Medicare for all, it will because of lazy, brain-dead Republican lemmings who like robots are programmed to go up to capital hill, spout the talking points hold the line, knife any dissent in the back as a traitor and advance the agenda of the Koch brothers and other billionaire special interests. This is not conservatism, by any reasonable definition of the word. It is insanity, it is corruption and it is destroying both the Republican Party and the strength of conservatism.

It used to be that 45% of Americans identified as Conservatives, now that is down to 35%. That is not because Conservatives didn't turnout out or some other obfuscating misdirection, it is because conservatism has been hijacked and destroyed from within by the toxic combination of an inflexible agenda backed by big money, and a puritanical crusade to root out and destroy any all dissent from that line.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Re: How to rebuild the Wyoming Democratic Party

Anecdotally, my mom's family is from Wyoming and are all Democrats. I might be biased because of this, but I think there's a path. This is something of what it would look like:

- Distance the local politicians from the national politicians. Make sure they are all totally cool with no gun restrictions, and preferably are avid hunters themselves.

- Massive GOTV operations in Native and Hispanic areas.

- Get local Democrats enthusiastic about running for office. Laramie is a good place to start for this, given the large civil society presence at the University. Jackson has too many carpetbaggers.

- Run against Republicans as "big government" authoritarians.

- Run against the Bureau of Land Management as big government trying to suck up our precious land and resources to feed the desires of the East Coast corporatists.

- Have an environmental message, but keep it far from Al Gore-style environmentalism. Talk about God's precious Earth and our role as stewards over it. Tell people to vote against letting corporations pollute our beautiful lakes and rivers so our kids can play in them but DO NOT talk about climate change or global warming.

- Blame any and every ill facing anyone in Wyoming on the decades of one-party Republican rule, whether fair or not. Basically what the Republicans did in Michigan in 2010.

- Drive a wedge between the religous right and the business/neo-con right as much as possible. Wyoming has one of the largest irreligious Republican constituencies of any state.

Interesting thing to ponder.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Bullock is a fantastic primary candidate but Neil Abercrombie is just a bit too strong. I don't like Abercrombie but will be supporting him in the primary because I always vote for winners.

He will place second fourth in the primary to Neil Abercrombie, Parker Griffith, and Kamala Harris.

I’m curious to see who Democratic 2020 nominee Neil Abercrombie picks as his VP. I’m thinking either Gary Peters to shore up Michigan or Henry Cuellar to shore up Texas.

That's a good question. I'm not sure who he has in mind, but I think that either Heath Shuler or Mike McIntyre would be an extremely strong choice to shore up North Carolina and to make Abercrombie more competitive across the rest of the South, including Georgia and Florida. Tammy Duckworth could also be good to appeal to Midwesterners and veterans, as could Mikie Sherrill if Abercrombie wants to boost his margins in the suburbs. Betsy Markey and Xochitl Torres Small are also potential dark horse choices if he wants to pursue a Western strategy; that is, appealing to Arizona, Texas, and Kansas, while running up massive margins in New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I'm going to be blunt here and call out all these Republicans ITT whining about "optics", "temper tantrums", "entitlement" and "graceless moves". Your faux outrage is nothing more than hypocritical histrionics. You are embarrassing yourselves; don't be surprised when everyone stops taking you seriously.

For at least two decades the go-to Republican strategy in close/contested elections has been this:

If the Republican has a narrow lead:
1. attack the Democrat as a sore loser
2. demand the "result of the election is respected"
3. attempt to suppress/interrupt the remaining vote count
4. demand absolute adherence to insanely strict deadlines to abrogate the democratic contest
5. when courts step in to ensure all votes are counted, attack them as liberal "activists"
6. push propaganda that delegitimizes the democratic process; character assassination on Democrat

if the Democrat has a narrow lead:
1. refuse to concede under any circumstances
2. attempt to abuse the judiciary to overturn the will of the electorate
3. Yell loudly about fraud even when there is no evidence of it
4. dig your heels in for months to prevent the Democratic winner from timely taking office
5. attempt to commit blatant fraud if possible (most obvious example here is AL 2002)
6. make up lies to delegitimize the Democrat ("Christine Gregoire "found" a box of ballots in her trunk")

I have no doubt that every single one of you attacking Stacey Abrams have also been defending Bruce Poliquin in Maine as he demands to change the entire electoral system so he can "win"

This election was full of extremely suspicious irregularities from the very start and a heavy dose of skepticism should be applied to literally anything Brian Kemp has said either as a candidate or as the Secretary of State, especially because he didn't even pretend to respect the boundaries between those two roles. He repeatedly abused his role as the putatively "neutral" arbiter/administrator of the electoral process to fraudulently push the election in his own favor, going as far as to fabricate claims of "democratic hacker investigations" and suppress the minority vote for spurious reasons.

For our democratic process to have even the faintest trace of legitimacy, it is absolutely essential for the judicial system to thoroughly examine every questionable element of this election. Stacey Abrams is a bona fide Profile in Courage here: taking an unpopular stand to ensure the ideals of our republic are respected and every vote is fairly counted. If you think she's doing this for selfish reasons or a sense of entitlement then you fundamentally misunderstand who Stacey Abrams is as a person. She knows she's facing a wall of institutionalized Republican corruption designed to keep itself in power at all costs. She knows the hyperactive and highly funded right wing propaganda machine will dedicate every moment of this process to a character assassination that will ruin any future she could have otherwise had in statewide politics. If she was acting out of self interest she would have dropped out fairly quickly. She's making a principled stand here, to shine a light on the pitiful excuse for a democracy that exists in our state.

Besides it's not like there's any rush for her to step out of the race so the complaints about how she's "stalling" or whatever don't even make sense. Nathan Deal is still governor until the second week of January. Any potential runoff election isn't until December and realistically they'd easily be able to hold the election with a just a few days' prep time. Hell, worst case scenario, it'd be trivial for a court to delay the gubernatorial runoff so it occurs on the allocated date for federal office runoffs.

[IceSpear]

This race is not close. Only white liberal elites in bubbles could possibly think Mississippi whites will be swayed from their hyper tribal political behavior because of some racist remarks. 90% of whites in Mississippi will be saying worse at Thanksgiving dinner.

The only reason Roy Moore lost was because he was credibly accused of raping/molesting/pursuing teenage white girls. You take that out and leave his abhorrent anti-LGBT and anti-black comments he wins by double digits.

What is elitist about hoping people will rise above their worst impulses even when you know it’s ultimately unlikely?  I think you’re mistaking optimism, hopefulness, and idealism for elitism.  I mean, I hope you’d agree there’s nothing elitist about hoping a racist loses a Senate race.  And even if that was elitist, wouldn’t African-American elites living in the same bubble logically be expected to share the same view?  Why would someone’s skin color effect whether they thought Espy could win (btw, it sounded like you were using “white” in a pejorative way which...well...I’m pretty sure many folks here would consider it racist if someone started complaining about “black liberal elites”)? 

I don’t have contempt for whites. It’s a fact that many white liberals are completely ignorant to how rampant racism and hatred is outside of their liberal bastions. I’m not mistaking anything—- I am in several organizations where I’ve had push back on tackling certain issues because the alleged white progressives I was dealing with didn’t think it was a problem. That’s not optimism that’s ignorance and elitism. I’ve seen tweets and think pieces handwringing about Cindy’s behavior like it’s actually going to matter. White southerners are hyper partisan out of hatred and contempt for black folks. It is ridiculous to think that the state that still has the Confederate emblem in their flag and where the people who killed Emmit Till, Medgar Evers, Cheney, Goodman, and Schwerner are secretly celebrated around white dinner tables are going to vote against the crypt keeper because of her comments. If anything it’s making her more popular.

[IceSpear]

Of course it shouldn't be the only thing Democrats run on, but to me, whenever someone says "stop talking about identity politics and making everything about race!", I hear "talking about race makes me uncomfortable and I don't support slavery so it's not my problem!"

These are real issues, and Democrats should not abandon them for political expediency. Frankly, I'm tired of having to coddle white people who want to live in their "racism/sexism is dead" bubble (it's mostly white men who have never experienced it, and conclude that therefore it never happens), and get a little testy whenever anyone dares to suggest that some people have it bad because they're not white men, at least in part. If people would take an honest look at our immigration system (I'm helping my girlfriend deal with it right now, it's beyond horrible), our criminal "justice" system, the achievement gap in education, as well as who certain laws involving voting affect the most, it's not hard to see that we are not living in a post-racial society, and simply "not being racist" doesn't make all of these issues disappear.

This isn't to say that rural white voters in Pennsylvania are causing all of these problems, but if they aren't racist, they shouldn't be afraid of conversations about race taking place, especially given our history. I'll be very clear: If you attempt to derail any conversation about race/gender, or write it off as "PC culture" or "identity politics", you are part of the problem.

[Atlas Force]

Rural areas have abandoned the Democratic party in the midwest. If they couldn't keep those seats in the 2018 election, they won't have much of a chance getting them back in the next decade or so.

Agreed. Minnesota is a perfect representation of the realignment that is taking place. I suspect that within the next ten years, the last remaining cells of Democratic support in rural areas will be completely extinguished, and they will become a solely urban-suburban party. By 2040, 60% of the nation's counties will be going 70, 80, or 90% Republican in each election.

That is a massive assumption. We still saw Dem strength in some rural areas (Evers won SW Wisconsin, Dems won two upstate NY seats and almost got a third, Democrats won one of the most rural CDs in the country in ME-02).

You also can't ignore minority-majority rural areas (like the Black Belt, Southern Texas, and Native reservations).

It would be delusional to suggest rural areas (white ones in particular) aren't trending away from Democrats, but we've been through periods of equal or worse polarization that eventually went away. I have no reason to believe this one is any more permanent.

[ON Progressive]

Beto isn't a completely terrible candidate. He would've been far better of a Senator than Cruz and has a consistent history of voting for and supporting several progressive causes. For example, he has advocated/voted for...

• Drug legalization
• Health benefits for same-sex and unmarried partners
• Staunchly defending immigrants' rights
• Defending abortion rights
• Opposing border miitarization in Congress
• Pressured Obama to close Guantanamo Bay
• Supported legislation to curtail NSA spying
• Opposed the war in Syria and arming the rebels
• Demanding Obama obtain Congressional approval for continuing his war against ISIS

All of those are good, noteworthy positions he has taken and deserves applause for them. He also deserves applause for the campaign he ran against Cruz, wherein he embraced a more progressive agenda, refused special interest money, and proved that a progressive agenda could win in Texas in a certain favorable environment (he lost by only a few points). Really, Beto should stick to politics in Texas and work on developing the Texas Democratic Party and running for office there in the future. Not every Democratic politician with talent and charisma needs to run for President. But, at the same time, I disagree with a Beto-for-President campaign because of his unfortunare policy positions, which are quite important.

• The AFL-CIO failed to endorse him against Cruz because he voted to give Obama the power to fast-track the TPP (which puts him further right than Trump and HRC on this issue)
• In 2015, he voted to weaken the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, changed his mind when a delay of the Volcker Rule was included, then voted to weaken that rule 3 years later
• He voted to exempt mutual funds from stress-tests, which was supported by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
• He only voted against 3 of the 15 deregulatory bills put forward by the Republican-controlled House Financial Services Committee to gut Dodd-Frank
• O'Rourke voted for a bill to make it easier for financial institutions to appeal regulators' decisions
• He voted to triple the size of financial institutions considered to be small bank holding companies, thereby qualifying for to hold higher levels of risky debt
• O'Rourke voted to create an unelected oversight board to restructure Puerto Rico's debt, which cuts pension benefits for Puerto Ricans, cut the island's minimum wage, and wants to cut the territory government's budget by 1/3rd
• He receives consistently high ratings from the National Association of Police Officers for some of his votes, such as when he approved a bill that would implement a mandatory minimum of 15 years imprisonment for teens who even attempt to send or receive sexts
• O'Rourke was 1 of 48 Democrats to vote to make it easier to execute someone for killing or trying to kill a police officer
• He also voted for a bill that'd basically make police into a protected class by turning assaulting a police officer akin to a hate crime
• Beto voted for FOSTA/SESTA, which was an anti-sex trafficking bill not supported by NAPO, but that has devestated sex workers
• After voting against $225mil for replenishing Israel's "iron dome" missile defense system, he received intense lobbying pressure, received a sponsored trip to Israel, and was viciously attacked in the media; since then, O'Rourke has become a reliable vote for the pro-Israel lobby
• Beto wrote to the UN opposing BDS, claiming the UN is "dangerously obsessed" with Israel and supported America's vote against condemning Israel's illegal settlement building

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Historically, liberalism operates under the assumption that to secure to citizens their natural rights will yield a more perfect society; progressivism operates under the assumption that the pursuit of a more perfect society will best secure to citizens their natural rights.

In contemporary parlance, "progressive" tends to be used in reference to the left wing of the Democratic Party, juxtaposed with "moderate" Democrats (in contrast to even twenty years ago, when New Democrats began describing themselves as "progressives" to escape Reagan-era baggage attached to the liberal label). This usage is a novel interpretation of the term, and leads to no shortage of confusion when discussing the historical progressive movement: the notion that 'Lincoln would be a Democrat today' stems in part from the fact that, while certainly not a liberal, Lincoln was arguably a proto-progressive when it came to his views on government.

Early twentieth century progressivism grew out of American conservatism as it then existed; while liberalism did eventually come around to progressive modes of thinking, it was hesitant to do so, and liberal politicians never quite grew comfortable with the progressive label in its earliest iteration. This progressivism was a response to perceived social and civic ills plaguing Gilded Age America; capitalist excess, alcoholism, poverty, and official corruption were seen to undermine the moral underpinnings of the republic. More seriously, progressives like Theodore Roosevelt believed the worst excesses of nineteenth century industrial capitalism posed an existential threat to the economy as a whole, and by extension American democracy. In the aftermath of the sweeping social changes wrought by the Industrial Revolution and the nationalist revolution of 1861–1869, and in the tradition of Protestant social reformers who lived a half-century previous, these elements were more inclined to view the centralizing power of the state as a suitable organ to achieve their ends, both economic (embodied in the anti-trust legislation and consumer protection laws that were enacted during this period), political (civil service reform), and social (most famously, Prohibition). By the second decade of the twentieth century, liberalism had composed its answer to Rooseveltian progressive-conservatism in the form of Wilsonian "New Freedom," which shared many of the same motivations and principles of its Republican counterparts, but which was born of an opposing ideological heredity.

These early progressive schools shared a few key characteristics that set them apart from other broadly 'reformist' ideologies of their time (namely, Bryanite populism and socialism). First, they had the basic assumption that the people would benefit from a more perfect society. This is in opposition to the traditional liberal notion, espoused by Jefferson and Bryan, that society would benefit from policies that help the people; and it is this notion that lent itself to support for prohibition and eugenics, among other less odious social policies. Second, they arose as answer and in opposition to radical ideologies that sought to varying degrees the overthrow of the existing socio-political order. The progressives of this era were not populists, even as they employed populist rhetoric to mobilize public opinion in their favor. Roosevelt in his time as president considered William Jennings Bryan and Eugene Debs as dangerous radicals whose ideas would be the undoing of the republic. While it is a mistake to take Roosevelt's view as the view of all progressives, it is generally true that progressives held stemming the tide of radicalism to be of equal importance to their work undoing Gilded Age corruption in politics and industry.

"New Freedom" was a turning point for the Democratic Party and American liberalism, which had previously eschewed state action as a viable means for achieving their desired ends. This was not, as is commonly misstated, the product of a libertarian perspective that was displaced by the mythic "party switch" of the 1930s; but rather, a belief that the state was a tool of the financial elites wielded for the purpose of preserving an artificial social hierarchy and maintaining the social and political dominance of the upper classes. As such, Jeffersonian liberalism advocated for minimizing the power of the state, with the view that in its absence, the artificial boundary of class would be abolished. Even into the late nineteenth century, the majority of liberals persisted in this view; the rise of the Populist Party and the nomination of William Jennings Bryan in 1896 began to break the stranglehold of laissez faire philosophy on liberal orthodoxy by convincing a key constituent to the liberal coalition—the rural Midwest—that state intervention in the economy was the sought-for remedy to their economic woes. Philosophically, this represented a shift in liberal thinking, in which industry and unregulated capitalism came to replace the medieval state as the force imposing an unequal class structure from on high. It was not until Wilson's election in 1912, however, that American liberalism completed the transition from viewing freedom as inimical to active government, to a belief that "mere freedom" is insufficient to secure the natural rights "endowed by their Creator" to mankind.

In practice, these philosophies lend themselves to similar conclusions, which is why they are often used interchangeably to describe the generic center-left perspective in American politics; but they come from very different places, and from my point of view anyways, it's not a good idea to confuse the two.