Slashdot Mirror
US Midterm Elections Discussion
November 4th will be election day in the U.S. Though the presidential race is still forming, this midterm election has lots of close races that may give a hint about the likely outcome in 2016. Many pundits and pollsters see a strong chance that Republicans will gain a majority in the Senate in Tuesday's election. Think of the discussion attached to this post as the place to discuss the election: candidates, political advertising, voting technology, and the wisdom of voter ID laws. If you are voting, this chart of poll closing times might be useful. (And, as with the similar post from 10 years ago today, you can take a look at the current poll to see what the Zeitgeist looks like for Slashdot readers, and mentally fill in the past tense, if you're one of the many early voters; not much room in the poll question field.)
Think of the discussion attached to this post as the place to discuss the election:...
Yeah...you mean a giant flame fest.
Sometimes I think the Slashdot editors treat Slashdot like a Fire Ant hill...poke it and watch them all scurry around furiously. I bet the popcorn is popped and the drinks are being poured at Slashdot headquarters right now.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Do Democrats Always Win Close Statewide Elections?
. For whatever reason, when statewide races are decided by less than 1 point, Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time. When the margin opens to 1-2 points, that advantage dissipates, and the Democrats win only half the races:
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I hope the Republicans will skip shutting down the government this year. I was out of work for eights months after they shut down the government last year for nothing. I'm still trying to recover from the Great Recession after being out of work three of the last six years and filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2011. These hissy-fits in Washington don't help anyone.
Freedom of the press has taken a huge hit under the Obama admin.
Although one could argue that the wheels were set in motion during Bush's watch, it was under Obama's Napolitano that we lost the freedom to not be groped or oggled at the airport.
sig: sauer
After the 2008 elections we were told the Republican Party was defunct; Democrats had an overwhelming and apparently permanent majority in both houses of Congress and a lock on the White House. Nancy Pelosi was rewriting the House rules to consolidate her control over her own party while Harry Reid had a super-majority in the Senate that prevented the Republican minority from blocking his agenda.
How quickly things changed. A Republican elected to replace Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts? Unthinkable! Pelosi being voted out of the Speaker's job two years later. Republicans gaining enough seats in state legislatures that the Democrats complained about them redrawing congressional districts (*cough* pot meet kettle *cough*). And it looks like the front runner for the Democrats' Presidential candidate in 2012 will be 70 year old Hillary Clinton.
Because we are about to regain some freedom by telling the Democrat party to STFU and sit down?!
Wow. If it was up to me, I'd bitch slap both parties. The problem isn't Democrats or Republicans, the problem is Democrats AND Republicans. Both parties are very incompetent. Instead of trying to help the people, both parties are more worried about the agenda's the superpac's are paying them for.
Be seeing you...
Why do you idiots only have a memory lasting six years? Patriot Act was one of the worst violations of freedom as was the massive expansion of the NSA and creation of the TSA. Those happened on the previous watch. Stop being stupid.
That's right! Vote the republicans back in! That'll work. And then, when you get pissed off with the republicans again, you can vote for... wait for it... democrats! Because everybody knows, if you don't vote for one or the other, the cops will come and shoot your dog. Do you want that blood on your hands?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Why do you idiots only have a memory lasting six years? Patriot Act was one of the worst violations of freedom as was the massive expansion of the NSA and creation of the TSA. Those happened on the previous watch. Stop being stupid.
Actually the Patriot Act was extended by Obama in 2011, extended just long enough to cover his 2nd term. Obama owns the Patriot Act. More importantly, Obama **uses** the Patriot Act. He could have ordered the Justice Department, the FBI and all the other agencies under executive branch control to stop using it, but he **chose not too**.
There are some important things they'll be able to get done. The changes in the rules of the Senate that the Democrats under Harry Reid put in place will see to that. But now the shoe will be on the other foot.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
As to the filibuster, keep in mind that the Dems changed the rules so you don't need that supermajority anymore.
Or did you really think that the Republicans were going to reinstate a rule that would handicap them?
And if the Democrats decide to reinstate the filibuster before they lose control, well, they've still established that it's pretty much okay to change the rules whenever it's convenient. So the Republicans will remove it if needed (I said when the Dems decided to ditch the filibuster that it would come back to haunt them next time they were the Senate minority - most /.'ers at the time insisted that the Reps would never have a Senate majority again)
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The first past the post voting system used in the United States practically guarantees that over time the political choices will devolve into two different groups. In the event that one eventually dies or becomes too unpopular, the new group will splinter and replace the old one. Under other systems, it's quite likely that either party could be relegated to being much more niche in only a matter of decades.
I'll note that the Dems changed the rules so you don't need the 60 votes to override for TWO things: A) Judicial nominations below the Supreme Court level and B) Executive nominations below the cabinet level and in no other situations.
There were no changes to the filibuster for legislation (though personally I'd have loved to see it change from 60 votes to stop debate over to 40 votes to continue debate), and Mitch McConnell has indicated in the past that he doesn't see changing that should he become Majority Leader this fall.
As for the filibuster, I'd love to see it change just on the basis of "If you say you want to continue debate, don't say that then leave town." I'm fine with continuing "debate" (not that they ever actually debate the items they're delaying/killing), but by god if you're going to do it you'd better care enough to actually stick around.
fencepost
just a little off
Because getting votes is all they are required to do. After that they just sign the papers their "donors" put in front of them until the next cycle. If they comply, they will get funding for reelection, put on big committees, free hookers and coke (don't think I'm kidding on that), if not, it's back to managing *Al's Tires and Wheel Alignment*. No competence required, only charisma, and not much of that either. Just sign here... and here... aaand here... thankyouverymuch
I really wonder how anybody can believe there is any honesty and what remotely could be called "honor" and respect in this business. These people couldn't be more overt. City sewers are cleaner than this. And here we are about to reelect over 90% of them back in. Maybe zombies are real.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
For myself, the next candidate who seems reasonably competent will get my vote, doesn't matter what party.
And that is the only way in which real reform will occur. Voting for the more competent regardless of party, voting punitively against the misbehaving or those that act against the public good regardless of party.
Loyally voting for your party makes a person irrelevant. Their party can ignore them because they have their vote, the other party can ignore them because they cannot attain their vote.
Belonging to a party is fine, just don't let them think they get your vote automatically. If they put up a weak candidate, if the incumbent has a history of misbehaving or acting against the public interest then sorry, maybe next time.
Politics is darwinian. Votes are the true currency of politics. If votes are spent wisely, and punitively, politicians will adapt accordingly. This is how real reform can be achieved.
They are absolutely not two extremes - they are two points clustered very tightly around the same extreme.
And when the sample size increases, the trend moves toward equilibrium. I think this is a great example of someone not understanding statistics.
In an article that starts with an anecdote from 1986, and evaluating a Republican worry "Ever since 1986", why is the data only examined from 1998 ?
In 16 years of data for 50 states, there should be about (16/6) * 2 + (16/4) for each state, or about 266 elections. That's 6 year Senate terms, and 4 year terms for governors. 20 out of a subset of 27 hardly seems relevant - that's 1% out of 10% of the sample size.
If we take this quote at the bottom:
And combine it with the opening salvo:
It is fairly self explanatory.
The part that doesn't make sense is all the time spent on a case of Chicago voter fraud from 1982. The article characterizes it as "at least 100,000 fraudulent votes had been cast in Chicago alone", implying there is more to the story. The linked article is all about Chicago.
That last paragraph makes me really suspicious of this crackpot. That I can't access the data to check for missed analysis opportunities kinda bothers me. Maybe he's not a crackpot, let's see if I can find something to support that?
He basically says "Don't read too much into this" right there. But you apparently did.