# [Poll]American midterm prediction



## Taleweaver (Oct 29, 2018)

So...on November 6th, there are elections for the US Senate. As it stands, republicans hold the majority there, but since a political shift can be a huge nuisance to the guy in power (see also: Obama's affordable care act that was mostly blocked by a republican-dominated senate) and democrats disagreeing with pretty much everything Trump says, this thing is rather important.

To illustrate: I only ever heard of "midterm elections" before in the context of that affordable care act. I had no idea what it was, and couldn't even tell if this is an election for (certain) politicians or for the general public.


I guess I could look up a poll about predictions who would win, but they've proved to be pretty unreliable lately. So I'm holding one myself. It'll be equally useless in terms of the outcome, but it might give some interesting debates on what gbatemp-members think.


----------



## Fugelmir (Oct 29, 2018)

Trump is going to win here then again in 2020.  No big surprises.  Best president in my lifetime.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Oct 29, 2018)

It's rigged as fuck regardless of which side you support. Both sides are pretty much useful idiots at this point.

They make you think your vote and opinion counts but they will do as they see fit to run their businesses.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Fugelmir said:


> Trump is going to win here then again in 2020. No big surprises. *Best president* in my lifetime.


Suppose there's a positive side to believe in a lie. Makes you feel good.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 29, 2018)

Democrats don't have much chance at winning the senate, but they're very likely to win congress.  We're essentially following the same pattern that we did toward the end of GWB's presidency, and that bodes well for Dems in 2020.  Odds are that Trump leads the economy right off a cliff at some point in 2019, then, as is tradition, the next Democrat in office will be expected to clean up his mess.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Democrats don't have much chance at winning the senate, but they're very likely to win congress.  We're essentially following the same pattern that we did toward the end of GWB's presidency, and that bodes well for Dems in 2020.  Odds are that Trump leads the economy right off a cliff at some point in 2019, then, as is tradition, the next Democrat in office will be expected to clean up his mess.



I doubt he'll lose 2020. Even if he does lead the economy off the cliff, he'll probably pin the blame on the dem majority in the senate/congress/whoever else is in power.

One thing I've learned from watching the guy is that he is not an idiot. pretty much everything he does is carefully designed to give him power. If he leads us into a depression, it's gonna be intentional.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 30, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I doubt he'll lose 2020. Even if he does lead the economy off the cliff, he'll probably pin the blame on the dem majority in the senate/congress/whoever else is in power.
> 
> One thing I've learned from watching the guy is that he is not an idiot. pretty much everything he does is carefully designed to give him power. If he leads us into a depression, it's gonna be intentional.


Pinning it on the Dems only works on his most fanatical base, who _are_ idiots.  ~33%.  The rest can be convinced that facts do matter and things aren't going so well for them under the Trump administration.

I should also mention that I expect extreme right terrorist attacks like the ones we've seen recently to increase in frequency, which will _hopefully_ make some people come to their senses a bit.  Of course the narrative will be "fake news" and "false flag" with every one of them, but again, overly-vocal minority there.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Pinning it on the Dems only works on his most fanatical base, who _are_ idiots.  ~33%.  The rest can be convinced that facts do matter and things aren't going so well for them under the Trump administration.
> 
> I should also mention that I expect extreme right terrorist attacks like the ones we've seen recently to increase in frequency, which will _hopefully_ make some people come to their senses a bit.  Of course the narrative will be "fake news" and "false flag" with every one of them, but again, overly-vocal minority there.



Eh, it was just an example, so my point still stands. Nonetheless, I'm not voting for him. 

I'm hoping for Rand Paul to run. Got my vote. You?


----------



## Xzi (Oct 30, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Eh, it was just an example, so my point still stands. Nonetheless, I'm not voting for him.
> 
> I'm hoping for Rand Paul to run. Got my vote. You?


I'm not sure yet.  I think the 2020 pool will become a lot clearer after the mid-term.  Likely whoever Bernie endorses.

Do you really think Rand would break rank with Trump, even as an independent?  I don't see it happening, but it would be nice if somebody closer to the center tried to primary Trump.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 30, 2018)

IDK, at least I don't think it will be a massive margin from the Republican side.



Fugelmir said:


> Trump is going to win here then again in 2020.  No big surprises.  Best president in my lifetime.


*Looks at flag.* Um...


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I'm not sure yet.  I think the 2020 pool will become a lot clearer after the mid-term.  Likely whoever Bernie endorses.
> 
> Do you really think Rand would break rank with Trump, even as an independent?  I don't see it happening, but it would be nice if somebody closer to the center tried to primary Trump.



I doubt it. But I gotta stick to my ideals, y'know? It's my duty as a American voter to vote for who I believe would best run the country.


----------



## Fugelmir (Oct 30, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> IDK, at least I don't think it will be a massive margin from the Republican side.
> 
> 
> *Looks at flag.* Um...



Just by sheer co-op work opportunities in the states for the University where I work.  Funding is up in every sector (especially math and engineering departments).  It's all attributed to Trump.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Oct 30, 2018)

in a fair election where current in-office republicans weren't in charge of their own elections, I'd almost confidently say democrats by a wide margin.

now, I'm really just hoping democrats by small margin with 'republicans but every other race will be a case for the judges' as a close second :/


----------



## Xzi (Oct 30, 2018)

Fugelmir said:


> Just by sheer co-op work opportunities in the states for the University where I work.  Funding is up in every sector (especially math and engineering departments).  It's all attributed to Trump.


Trump hired Betsy DeVos as education secretary, and she wanted to cut 9 billion from department spending.  It's only because congress rejected her agenda altogether that we got any boost in education spending.



			
				WaPo said:
			
		

> Congress dealt a blow to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s school choice agenda in a tentative spending bill released late Wednesday, rejecting her attempt to spend more than $1 billion promoting choice-friendly policies and private school vouchers.
> 
> The House on Thursday approved the 1.3 trillion spending package, which includes a $3.9 billion boost for the Education Department. It heads to the Senate for a vote.
> 
> DeVos had sought to cut Education Department funding by $9 billion — about 13 percent. She wanted to eliminate money for after-school programs for needy youth and ax a grant program that helps low-income students go to college in favor of spending more than $1 billion to promote charter schools, magnet schools and private school vouchers. Her proposal also outlined cuts to the Office for Civil Rights.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...enda-in-spending-bill/?utm_term=.cd54ba0a0e19


----------



## SG854 (Oct 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Trump hired Betsy DeVos as education secretary, and she wanted to cut 9 billion from department spending.  It's only because congress rejected her agenda altogether that we got any boost in education spending.
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...enda-in-spending-bill/?utm_term=.cd54ba0a0e19


I don't know why Congress is against charter schools and privatizing education. School choice and Charter schools have shown to be very beneficial. Kids from charter schools have higher IQ's and graduate with higher grades. Even Blacks from the same neighboorhood, and educated in the same building, with public schools on the bottom floor and charter schools on the top floor, has shown that charter schools produced better results. (This is due to charter schools have less funding so they put them in the same building as public schools.)

School choice promotes competition. Which then teachers must compete to be better in order to have a job. Teachers unions have been known to be against school choice because it competes with their member's salaries. Charter schools usually hire for less starting pay but they produce better results. So teachers unions have worked to crush school choice because they care less about student education and care more about protecting their jobs. They eliminate competition. Throwing more money at education has shown not to work because there is no competition. And teachers unions make it extremely hard to fire teachers. 

When it comes to educating our government-run schools suck. Majority of our STEM degrees are earned by foreigners, who usually have less funding per student then we have but they produce better results. Less then half of Ph.D.s in engineering and mathematics are earned by Americans. The more difficult the subject the less you'll see an American. Physical Sciences it's barely half. And Engineering and Math they are the minority. Our schools suck because they are more concerned with improving self-esteem and promoting SJW agenda instead of focusing on proper education. 

From that article, it seemed DeVous wanted to allocate the money somewhere else like to promote charter schools.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 30, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I don't know why Congress is against charter schools and privatizing education.


The vast majority of students in public school don't have families which can afford to send them to private schools.  Even with the "vouchers" that have been proposed numerous times, you're looking at cutting out maybe 10% of the total cost.

It's also worth considering that perhaps private schools are so successful because they only accept individuals who have already proven themselves exceptional in some way.  If you shift the majority of students from public schools to private schools, then the lack of teachers and resources becomes just as problematic as it was before.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 30, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The vast majority of students in public school don't have families which can afford to send them to private schools.  Even with the "vouchers" that have been proposed numerous times, you're looking at cutting out maybe 10% of the total cost.
> 
> It's also worth considering that perhaps private schools are so successful because they only accept individuals who have already proven themselves exceptional in some way.  If you shift the majority of students from public schools to private schools, then the lack of teachers and resources becomes just as problematic as it was before.


They can do something more along the lines of Sweden. They privatized their education. And had great success with it.

They actually did a test on this with random lottery vouchers, kids were randomly selected regardless of income status and education. Kids that come from poor neighborhoods performed better at charter schools than their peers from the same neighborhood that went to a government school. So some weren't kids that were top performers or from rich neighborhoods, they were poor but they performed better at charter schools, came out with higher IQ's, and had higher grades.

There are great teachers like Marvin Collins and Jamie Escalante that had great success in educating poor students. It's all in the teacher and whether they do a good job. Fewer resources are from less funding, but immigrants that come from countries that have less money per pupil perform better and earn more degrees than people here in America. So fewer resources aren't the full problem here. Detroit had more money poured in but their students perform horribly. It's in the teachers and how they educate.

For people just becoming educators, the average score for teachers is 389 out of 800 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Our schools are doing a horrible job of educating soon to be teachers, and they are letting teachers in that are poorly educated. Poor education because they are too focused on social justice agenda, shutting down dissenting opinions, and going against facts to promote what makes people feel good. They promote self-esteem even though this has been shown to be a failure, instead of focusing on actual education.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 30, 2018)

SG854 said:


> They actually did a test on this with random lottery vouchers, kids were randomly selected regardless of income status and education.


Maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't think receiving a proper education should depend on winning a "lottery."  I'd prefer we reform and fix the education system we have now by installing someone competent (IE not Betsy DeVos) as education secretary.



SG854 said:


> For people just becoming educators, the average score for teachers is 389 out of 800 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Our schools are doing a horrible job of educating soon to be teachers, and they are letting teachers in that are poorly educated. Poor education because they are too focused on social justice agenda, shutting down dissenting opinions, and going against facts to promote what makes people feel good. They promote self-esteem even though this has been shown to be a failure, instead of focusing on actual education.


The failures of our education system have nothing to do with social justice.  As a matter of fact I'd say that, at least up until college, schools teach mostly imperialist ideals and history.  Once you hit college it's the students that demand a "PC" environment more than anyone else, and the faculty acquiesce to those demands.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 31, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't think receiving a proper education should depend on winning a "lottery."


I'm not saying that selection should be a lottery.

What I mentioned was that there was a study to get rid of selection bias, which was the concern of your comment that private schools were doing better by selecting top students, making sure they don't pick top performers. So a lottery was the best way to do that. And it was shown that kids from poor neighborhoods had done better with charter schools. If a school is doing bad, parents should be able to put their kids in a different school and not be stuck by address.



Xzi said:


> The failures of our education system have nothing to do with social justice.  As a matter of fact I'd say that, at least up until college, schools teach mostly imperialist ideals and history.  Once you hit college it's the students that demand a "PC" environment more than anyone else, and the faculty acquiesce to those demands.


Well, schools should teach history. Whether it was imperialistic or not. And teachers comes from PC college campuses goes on to teach middle school and high school kids. There is a PC agenda even in these schools.

They waste their time by teaching non-academic activities. American kids come out at the bottom on international science and math tests. Instead of focusing on getting kids an education, they instead focus on giving teachers something they like and easy for them to teach, since many have bad Aptitude test scores. They instead focus on non-academic subjects that make themselves feel good and important.

They have a problem of bad teachers and being unable to fire bad teachers. There is a thing in the education world called "The Dances of the Lemons" or "Passing the Trash" where they pass problem teachers to someone else. Felons, child molesters, and people that can't teach, Unions makes it almost impossible to fire them. It can take a few years and tens of thousands of dollars to fire them. So instead of going through the hassle of firing them they instead pass them along to another school to let someone else deal with them.

One put 6-year-old students in a trash cans and she would kick it. And threatened to cut a student's private parts with scissors. It cost the district $100,000 to get rid of her. She still got a teaching job somewhere else. New York, it takes an average of 319 days and $112,000 to fire one teacher. If teacher appeals it can cost $300,000. New York had the "rubber room" where bad teachers, since they couldn't easily get rid of them, would wait in a room and do nothing and get paid. They got rid of it, but it recently made a comeback. They are more concerned with protecting teachers jobs than educating students.

https://www.hoover.org/research/dance-lemons


----------



## Xzi (Oct 31, 2018)

SG854 said:


> What I mentioned was that there was a study to get rid of selection bias, which was the concern of your comment that private schools were doing better by selecting top students, making sure they don't pick top performers.


That's not my concern though.  I was saying that limiting the amount of students which will be accepted year to year is what keeps private schools from becoming just as inefficient as public schools are now.  Individual attention from teachers makes a big difference, and that's not something you're going to get from public schools as long as we keep slashing budgets and adding more students to already-overfilled classes.



SG854 said:


> They have a problem of bad teachers and being unable to fire bad teachers. There is a thing in the education world called "The Dances of the Lemons" or "Passing the Trash" where they pass problem teachers to someone else. Felons, child molesters, and people that can't teach, Unions makes it almost impossible to fire them. It can take a few years and tens of thousands of dollars to fire them. So instead of going through the hassle of firing them they instead pass them along to another school to let someone else deal with them.


I recognize that there are bad teachers out there, and I think we'll keep seeing more of them as long as we keep paying shit wages for such tough jobs, but I don't think teachers unions are akin to the Catholic church, sorry.  Anti-union nonsense is just speeding the death of the middle class.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 31, 2018)

I'm sure the results, whatever they are, will be a bombshell. The beginning of the end.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 31, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm sure the results, whatever they are, will be a bombshell. The beginning of the end.


No, you're thinking about when Mueller presents his report on obstruction _after_ the mid-term.  All in due time, don't get ahead of yourself.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 6, 2018)

So...I've kept out of the ongoing discussion, as I don't want to meddle. So a few facts:

* never before have there been so many early votes (35 million...as opposed to 21 million during Obama's shift).
* there have been some controvers...sorry: there have been relatively more controversies than usual. Bomb packages, a shooting, the NPC kerfuffle...
* Trump's midterm commercial was deemed racist. Not only by NBC but by all other media outlets (including fox) as well.

As to results: nothing thus far. I guess it's still too early for that.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 6, 2018)

I really hope we start seeing some Republicans voted out, that's all I would like to see.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Nov 6, 2018)

No vote for me. Never will. Simple: Political corruption. Disgusting! It is not getting better. Never.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> * Trump's midterm commercial was deemed racist. Not only by NBC but by all other media outlets (including fox) as well.




I'd like someone to explain what exactly was 'racist' about it. The major media outlets and a bunch of celebrities have declared it, but nobody's explained how. Because it shows 10,000 mostly Hondurans violently breaking through the Mexican border and continuing north with the intention to cross the US border too? That's factual, not racist. Because it shows an illegal alien who committed murders and then laughed and boasted about it in court? That's also factual, not racist.

The ad is anti illegal immigration, certainly. It's also anti Democratic Party, maybe even unfairly so. (the murderer illegal alien Bracamontes re-entered the US multiple times after being deported, under both Repubs and Dems) But how is it racist? Illegal immigration is illegal (duh). There's a lot of it happening. A high percentage of illegal aliens commit crimes that would never occur within our borders if they did not enter. I don't care if the percentage is higher or lower than US citizens, more or less violent, etc. All crime committed by illegal aliens is unnecessary damage to our society that needn't happen if they just didn't enter the country illegally in the first place. The only immigration that should be happening is LEGAL immigration.


Again, what's racist about that ad? You might find it objectionable because it rubs your political hair the wrong way, points a finger 100% at the Democrat Party and ignores Republicans' complicit role in allowing illegal immigration over the years  .... but how is it racist?


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> I'd like someone to explain what exactly was 'racist' about it. The major media outlets and a bunch of celebrities have declared it, but nobody's explained how. Because it shows 10,000 mostly Hondurans violently breaking through the Mexican border and continuing north with the intention to cross the US border too? That's factual, not racist. Because it shows an illegal alien who committed murders and then laughed and boasted about it in court? That's also factual, not racist.
> 
> The ad is anti illegal immigration, certainly. It's also anti Democratic Party, maybe even unfairly so. (the murderer illegal alien Bracamontes re-entered the US multiple times after being deported, under both Repubs and Dems) But how is it racist? Illegal immigration is illegal (duh). There's a lot of it happening. A high percentage of illegal aliens commit crimes that would never occur within our borders if they did not enter. I don't care if the percentage is higher or lower than US citizens, more or less violent, etc. All crime committed by illegal aliens is unnecessary damage to our society that needn't happen if they just didn't enter the country illegally in the first place. The only immigration that should be happening is LEGAL immigration.
> 
> ...


What isn't factual is that that Bracamontes piece has anything to do with the refugees. 
A mob rioting against a wall fence? One of them saying he's a wanted criminal? All of this makes a context that paints these people (mostly families, from what I've read) as being criminals. Because this is an attack on a group (hondurans... Or arguably immigrants in general), it's a simple case of racism.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> refugees.




Bullshit. This type of selective, misleading vocabulary is how the 'news' gets slanted. What are they refugees from? How much money does it take to feed and transport and provide for medical for 14,000 people a day? *Whose *money is it? Mexico offered them asylum, jobs, benefits, school for the kids .... it was all refused. After turning down an offer like that from a nation where their native language is spoken, they would be legal residents, there would be security for their kids, and they wouldn't have to continue travelling ...  are they still refugees now? Why are they obstinately insisting on continuing on to force their way into the US??




Taleweaver said:


> All of this makes a context that paints these people (mostly families, from what I've read) as being criminals.



How Mexico chooses to deal with them illegally breaking across their border is up to Mexico. But if they enter the US illegally, they are criminals. That's what illegal immigration is ... criminally crossing the border. 




> Because this is an attack on a group (hondurans... Or arguably immigrants in general), it's a simple case of racism.



_They_ instigated this situation with their organized march. The "attack" is from them, i.e. if they weren't doing this, there'd be nothing to oppose. If someone rounded up and concentrated  10,000 Hondurans together with the specific intent of attacking them on the basis of their race, you'd have a point. But they collected themselves into a population with a declared intent to force entry into the US. Being opposed to an invading force isn't racist just because all of the invaders are of a particular race.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 6, 2018)

@Hanafuda : you asked why it's racist. I'm not responsible for you not liking the answer.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Nov 6, 2018)

I mean, I don't vote for people that are terrified of gay dudes, solar panels, weed, or the Spanish language.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> @Hanafuda : you asked why it's racist. I'm not responsible for you not liking the answer.




Or seeing where there's any validity in it.


----------



## Chary (Nov 6, 2018)

Interestingly, I've seen an utter crapton of posters and lawn signs for Beto. Granted, I'm in Houston, which is known to swing Democrat against Texas' overall republican, but I'm curious to wonder if the wild support of Beto is enough to push Cruz out. Not that I like either candidates to begin with, but it's interesting how major support I see for Beto, as opposed to Cruz.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 6, 2018)

Chary said:


> Interestingly, I've seen an utter crapton of posters and lawn signs for Beto. Granted, I'm in Houston, which is known to swing Democrat against Texas' overall republican, but I'm curious to wonder if the wild support of Beto is enough to push Cruz out. Not that I like either candidates to begin with, but it's interesting how major support I see for Beto, as opposed to Cruz.



not with voting machines conveniently switching out beto for cruz in some places...



azoreseuropa said:


> No vote for me. Never will. Simple: Political corruption. Disgusting! It is not getting better. Never.


that is really no reason not to vote. especially when, in these midterms, there are more candidates than ever before competing on a get rid of lobbyism and corruption in government platform than ever before.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2018)

Chary said:


> Interestingly, I've seen an utter crapton of posters and lawn signs for Beto. Granted, I'm in Houston, which is known to swing Democrat against Texas' overall republican, but I'm curious to wonder if the wild support of Beto is enough to push Cruz out. Not that I like either candidates to begin with, but it's interesting how major support I see for Beto, as opposed to Cruz.




Democrats have spent LARGE on that dude. They think he's a prospect for POTUS, and given their shallow bench currently, he may be their best shot. Whether he pulls out the win today, I don't know. But anyone who commits DUI with a crash into innocent peoples' vehicles and tries to flee the scene doesn't deserve to be dog catcher as far as I'm concerned.





Clydefrosch said:


> not with voting machines conveniently switching out beto for cruz in some places....



If you have proof of this, not just anecdotal accusations, post it. And report it to authorities.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 6, 2018)

Chary said:


> Interestingly, I've seen an utter crapton of posters and lawn signs for Beto. Granted, I'm in Houston, which is known to swing Democrat against Texas' overall republican, but I'm curious to wonder if the wild support of Beto is enough to push Cruz out. Not that I like either candidates to begin with, but it's interesting how major support I see for Beto, as opposed to Cruz.


I can't believe anyone in Texas ever voted for Cruz to begin with.  He's weak, whiny, and always looks wet.  Like the exact opposite of the image Texas has tried to cultivate for itself.

For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, this parody site is hilarious:

https://www.tedcruzforhumanpresident.com/


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> But if they enter the US illegally, they are criminals. That's what illegal immigration is ... criminally crossing the border.
> Being opposed to an invading force isn't racist just because all of the invaders are of a particular race.




you might have a point if they were actual invading forces, you know, with tanks and guns and air support.
or if it wasn't entirely legal to chose where you ask for refuge. and if you didn't have to be on us soil to do so legally.
they're only illegal immigrants if they enter the us undetected and go into hiding or after their request for asylum is officially denied.
that is how it is in your laws.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> you might have a point if they were actual invading forces, you know, with tanks and guns and air support.
> or if it wasn't entirely legal to chose where you ask for refuge. and if you didn't have to be on us soil to do so legally.
> they're only illegal immigrants if they enter the us undetected and go into hiding or after their request for asylum is officially denied.
> that is how it is in your laws.




You didn't explain how they're refugees though, especially since they're already being offered means of living better then they came from. If I can just declare myself a refugee and choose where I may ask for refuge, then please let me know when I can expect my expense-paid trip to Monaco with state-provided residence and benefits when I get there.




Xzi said:


> I can't believe anyone in Texas ever voted for Cruz to begin with.  He's .... always looks wet.



You might want to rephrase that. What's that racist derogatory term for Mexicans/Central Americans?


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> If you have proof of this, not just anecdotal accusations, post it. And report it to authorities.



what? they literally admitted the machines do this and blamed the users for hitting the voting button too quickly.
it's just a convenient error that apparently didn't come up in any prior election these machines have been used in and it very conveniently helps cruz if people vote 'straight democrat'. in the other case, the field remains empty so people will definitely notice something is wrong.
your entire election system is shoddy and it's intentionally so, with red states not even being shy about admitting that they didn't care to upgrade, secure or otherwise improve their shit.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> what? they literally admitted the machines do this and blamed the users for hitting the voting button too quickly.
> your entire election system is shoddy and it's intentionally so, with red states not even being shy about admitting that they didn't care to upgrade, secure or otherwise improve their shit.




Then you have something to back it up? Post the link.


----------



## Chary (Nov 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> But anyone who commits DUI with a crash into innocent peoples' vehicles and tries to flee the scene doesn't deserve to be dog catcher as far as I'm concerned.


That's my biggest issue against him. I mean, forgive and forget, but DUIs are just...that's one step too far for me. I'm certain Cruz is no hero either, so it's lose-lose. I'm going out to vote in 20 minutes, and I still don't know who I'm going to vote for on that one.



Xzi said:


> I can't believe anyone in Texas ever voted for Cruz to begin with. He's weak, whiny, and always looks wet. Like the exact opposite of the image Texas has tried to cultivate for itself.


When I was 15, I thought it was cute that he was reading stories while philibustering to his daughters. That's about the only time he's been likeable outside of memes. I think he's gotten along just by being republican all this time.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> You might want to rephrase that. What's that racist derogatory term for Mexicans/Central Americans?


Why would I rephrase?  I said exactly what I meant, Cruz does always look wet, kind of slimy even.  He's also as pale as they come and half-Canadian, so certainly nothing racist intended.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2018)

Chary said:


> That's my biggest issue against him. I mean, forgive and forget, but DUIs are just...that's one step too far for me. I'm certain Cruz is no hero either, so it's lose-lose. I'm going out to vote in 20 minutes, and I still don't know who I'm going to vote for on that one.




It's not the DUI 20 years ago that bother me. It's the still lying about it 20 years later.


Even WaPo gave him four Pinocchio's for it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...t-try-leave-scene-dwi/?utm_term=.0ebc8b100d7e




Xzi said:


> nothing racist intended.



Didn't think there was. Just seemed an odd choice of word.

I'm off to vote, hope you all (who are US citizens) have or do as well.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> You didn't explain how they're refugees though, especially since they're already being offered means of living better then they came from. If I can just declare myself a refugee and choose where I may ask for refuge, then please let me know when I can expect my expense-paid trip to Monaco with state-provided residence and benefits when I get there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



because it's your right to try and flee to a place where you deem it to be safe. when the jews fled germany, they didn't just move into the next country, they moved across oceans if they could.
you're idiotically implying that asking for refugee is the same as having that granted. or that fleeing your home somehow means you get shit for free along the way. that's rarely the case and one marketplace being nice enough to hand out vouchers doesn't change that, no matter how many times that act is shared on social media.
most of these people sold of whatever they had to finance this 'trip'.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> most of these people sold of whatever they had to finance this 'trip'.



Then they're idiots. We don't need any more of those in the USA, trust me.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 6, 2018)

Chary said:


> When I was 15, I thought it was cute that he was reading stories while philibustering to his daughters. That's about the only time he's been likeable outside of memes. I think he's gotten along just by being republican all this time.


Yup.  Cruz is unlikable to all his colleagues, but given the pattern of blindly voting R, Texas is just lucky they have yet to vote in someone even worse.  Like a Roy Moore type figure.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Then you have something to back it up? Post the link.



https://www.apnews.com/a8825810d10441f2ad828e95d6851d55

"
The secretary of state’s office said Friday that there have been reported issues with Hart eSlate voting machines, which are used in around 30 percent of counties statewide and feature a wheel for selecting candidates and buttons to move from screen to screen. But it says they are caused by voters themselves and often occur when they complete and submit ballots too quickly.

“The Hart eSlate machines are not malfunctioning, the problems being reported are a result of user error — usually voters hitting a button or using the selection wheel before the screen is finished rendering,” said Sam Taylor, spokesman for the office of Secretary of State Rolando Pablos, who was appointed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott."

But I got one thing wrong, this is apparently nothing new and the machines have been this user unfriendly for the entire 16 years they've been in use.
Cause if there's anything people shouldn't expect to work simple, fast and clean and without a chance to mess up or get messed up, it's a voting machine.
It's still conveniently convenient how the only one to benefit this time around seems to be Cruz. And how they see no problem or reason to, at least in the future, fix this shit.


----------



## Viri (Nov 6, 2018)

Chary said:


> That's my biggest issue against him. I mean, forgive and forget, but DUIs are just...that's one step too far for me.


Agreed. I could never forgive anyone who drinks and drives, even if it was my own family member. You chose to get hammered and get behind a wheel, and risk killing people. You're the lowest of the low.


----------



## Glyptofane (Nov 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I can't believe anyone in Texas ever voted for Cruz to begin with.  He's weak, whiny, and always looks wet.  Like the exact opposite of the image Texas has tried to cultivate for itself.
> 
> For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, this parody site is hilarious:
> 
> https://www.tedcruzforhumanpresident.com/


I always thought Cruz looked kind of like Grandpa Munster only, you know, not lovable and endearing.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> https://www.apnews.com/a8825810d10441f2ad828e95d6851d55
> 
> "
> The secretary of state’s office said Friday that there have been reported issues with Hart eSlate voting machines, which are used in around 30 percent of counties statewide and feature a wheel for selecting candidates and buttons to move from screen to screen. But it says they are caused by voters themselves and often occur when they complete and submit ballots too quickly.
> ...




So it's not rigged machines at all. Just people not following instructions. But let's complain with hyperbolic accusations of vote rigging.

Those voting machines give you a summary of all your votes to give you one last opportunity to verify/change before printing the ticket at the end. I just used one minutes ago.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 6, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> I always thought Cruz looked kind of like Grandpa Munster only, you know, not lovable and endearing.



Oh, and I suppose other politicians are loving and endearing?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> So it's not rigged machines at all. Just people not following instructions. But let's complain with hyperbolic accusations of vote rigging.
> 
> Those voting machines give you a summary of all your votes to give you one last opportunity to verify/change before printing the ticket at the end. I just used one minutes ago.


Purposefully shitty machines without any paper backup is _potentially_ vote rigging because there's no way of knowing what your vote is ultimately counted as.  Regardless of any sort of "final verification."  The only case of _definite_ vote rigging we know of so far is in Georgia where the Republican running for re-election is also the one in charge of managing/purging voter rolls.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brian-kemp-340000-voters-748165/



the_randomizer said:


> Oh, and I suppose other politicians are loving and endearing?


The vast majority tend to be a lot more charismatic and endearing than Ted Cruz, yes.  That's not a very high bar though.


----------



## Glyptofane (Nov 6, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Oh, and I suppose other politicians are loving and endearing?


Well, no, but Grandpa Munster is.


----------



## Viri (Nov 6, 2018)

Heh, machines were down at the place I voted, so they sent me elsewhere to go vote. One day out of the year, and they cannot get the voting machines working correctly. One fucking job, lol.


----------



## Chary (Nov 6, 2018)

Proud to say I voted. It'll be fun to see the results!


----------



## dAVID_ (Nov 6, 2018)

I think voting machines are unreliable, and are prone to exploits. Don't you think there's a very big interest to control US politics?


----------



## Viri (Nov 6, 2018)

Chary said:


> View attachment 148846
> 
> Proud to say I voted. It'll be fun to see the results!


I'm just happy I won't have to keep hearing about this damn election so much, and will finally not have to see so many damn political commercials on TV!


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 7, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> So it's not rigged machines at all. Just people not following instructions. But let's complain with hyperbolic accusations of vote rigging.
> 
> Those voting machines give you a summary of all your votes to give you one last opportunity to verify/change before printing the ticket at the end. I just used one minutes ago.



notice how I'm not the one who used the word rigged.
but keep on talking about hyperbole, asshole.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 7, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> notice how I'm not the one who used the word rigged.
> but keep on talking about hyperbole, asshole.




"voting machines conveniently switching out beto for cruz" is about as explicitly one can describe 'rigged' without using the actual word.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 7, 2018)

as it looks right now R will retain control of the senate but D will get the house
Pretty much as predicted, you can see also trump knew it was going to happen as he was just focusing on senate races in all the rallies over the last few weeks

My distinct was one that flipped (NY-11) to D

Cruz retains his seat in TX
It looks like rick scott will flip FL though


----------



## Xzi (Nov 7, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> as it looks right now R will retain control of the senate but D will get the house
> Pretty much as predicted, you can see also trump knew it was going to happen as he was just focusing on senate races in all the rallies over the last few weeks
> 
> My distinct was one that flipped (NY-11) to D


More wins in the house for Democrats than were expected, but came up _just_ short in those big senate races for Texas and Florida.  Still pretty historic being that close in Texas, and it looks like the Dems will take some house and local races there anyway.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Nov 7, 2018)

actually for all the doom and glood some news channels are portraying this seems to be playing exactly as predicted if not a wee bit better for Dems.
1 out of the 3 doesnt (and strong control over it) doesnt seem bad if you ask me

@Chary under 21. you spring chicken voters! good for you!


----------



## Xzi (Nov 7, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> actually for all the doom and glood some news channels are portraying this seems to be playing exactly as predicted if not a wee bit better for Dems.
> 1 out of the 3 doesnt (and strong control over it) doesnt seem bad if you ask me


Hopefully the same pattern as '06 midterm when Dems took the house, then took senate and the presidency in '08.  Trump does seem to be repeating many of the same mistakes as GWB, and adding some original mistakes in to the mix as well.  Mueller will likely help push things in the right direction.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 7, 2018)

Pretty unexceptional midterm election after all. If this is the great referendum on Trump, it's a resounding 'meh' at best. Look at Obama's first midterm in 2010 for example, Republicans +6 in Senate and +63 in the House. _That_ was a wave election. This one's more of an ooze, but still the Congress is divided so back to good ol' legislative quagmire lol.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Nov 7, 2018)

if you ask me this is was a brawl. actually a ton of the races are still to close too close to call at this hour.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 7, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Pretty unexceptional midterm election after all. If this is the great referendum on Trump, it's a resounding 'meh' at best. Look at Obama's first midterm in 2010 for example, Republicans +6 in Senate and +63 in the House. _That_ was a wave election. This one's more of an ooze, but still the Congress is divided so back to good ol' legislative quagmire lol.


The biggest referendum on Trump I think is how many women are being elected, especially out of Midwest states that he won solidly in '16.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 7, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> "voting machines conveniently switching out beto for cruz" is about as explicitly one can describe 'rigged' without using the actual word.



but I didn't.
I didn't say they rigged the machines to do this. I say they have machines that do this (because they do), very convenient thing where a vote as clear as straight ticket doesn't go through as straight ticket for dem voters and is much harder to spot on a glance than for the other side.
and I'm saying they saw no reason to address this clearly fatal flaw with anything more than 'not our problem' (because it's not, it's a good thing for them).

there's a difference between fixing what is hopefully just a coincidentally biased voting machine and downright rigging the voting machine.
h
aving said that, with reps hard fight to not improve on any election machine safety and explicit work to remove what little funding there is to ensure uncompromised elections in the us, it also wouldn't be farfetched to expect foul play.


----------



## Chary (Nov 7, 2018)

Interesting turnout so far. I'm shocked, but also not shocked, at Beto's loss in Texas. 

Does anyone know of who the 1 "other party" person is that won a senate seat? The fact that someone out there not tied to the two major parties managed to get somewhere amuses me. (unless he was already an incumbent...? Is it Sanders?)

I expected a larger flip due to all the Democrats who are looking to stake their claim in this post-Trump world. Really close race on so many fronts. It's awesome to know that there were a lot of record breaking voter turnouts, regardless; every vote counts.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Nov 7, 2018)

he is independent afaik. so probably yes. 
Also may i ask what your take on Beto was? legitimately curious how millenials felt about him in Texas.


----------



## brickmii82 (Nov 7, 2018)

Chary said:


> Interesting turnout so far. I'm shocked, but also not shocked, at Beto's loss in Texas.
> 
> Does anyone know of who the 1 "other party" person is that won a senate seat? The fact that someone out there not tied to the two major parties managed to get somewhere amuses me. (unless he was already an incumbent...? Is it Sanders?)
> 
> I expected a larger flip due to all the Democrats who are looking to stake their claim in this post-Trump world. Really close race on so many fronts. It's awesome to know that there were a lot of record breaking voter turnouts, regardless; every vote counts.


Bernie Sanders.


----------



## Chary (Nov 7, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> he is independent afaik. so probably yes.
> Also may i ask what your take on Beto was? legitimately curious how millenials felt about him in Texas.



1. He's perfect because he's not Cruz. 

Kidding aside, he seemed like he had a lot of good ideas, and I liked how he really did try to get out there and make an effort to have a friendly campaign that focused on the people. I'm sure tons of other politicians try that same stuff...but whenever he was on the TV, he just seemed likeable. I wanted to root for him. His stances on Texas schools were great imo, (we need less focus on the standardized tests) as well as his view on term limits (he claimed if he was voted in, he'd only serve limited terms because that's what he truly believes in).

(Also he wants to increase funding for the Pell Grant...and as someone who's to go to college, more grants = yay! lol. Overall, I liked his public+higher education stuff)

The only negative points that really stuck with me were the fact he tried to backpedal on the DUI incident he had. Claiming the police and witnesses got the event wrong rubbed me the wrong way. It's 20 years ago, you were drunk, let it go, it's old news at this point. I'd be more willing (albeit pained) to look past that if he accepted it without the "but...". 

And his immigration stances, which kinda leaned into "too lax", for my tastes. Neither him nor Cruz really had a good plan on that one.

I kinda expected a Beto win, purely because Cruz sounds too preachy and he's hard to like, at least, to me. I can see Republicans not caring enough to show up to vote for Cruz, or people flipping because they're tired of him. I don't hate him as a candidate, but I'm not over the moon over his re-election either.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Nov 7, 2018)

you sound like a left leaning conservative to me  (I kid, I kid)

I do agree though, I want kids to get a better education.(educated kids means a stronger country and a stronger future!)

On my end i dunno... Ted Cruz just seems like a smarmy dude.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts much appreciated!


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 7, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Oh, and I suppose other politicians are loving and endearing?



Why do I always see you injecting things that are just simply not there? You do it all the damn time here. The comparison was with Grandpa Munster, not with other politicians. I'll tell you again, you seriously need to work on your reading comprehension.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 7, 2018)

Chary said:


> 1. He's perfect because he's not Cruz.


You just need to end it there. Almost anyone is better than Cruz, Vermin Supreme would be better than Cruz.


----------



## DBlaze (Nov 7, 2018)

News reports on russia riggin' the elections/midterms/whatever you want to call it when?


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 7, 2018)

Is it me, or is Trump (yet again) breaking new grounds of hypocrisy?

Pre-voting, it was all "IT'S ALL DEMOCRATS' FAULT!!!" and "IF DEMOCRATS WIN, EVERYTHING WE DID WILL BE UNDONE!!!". Now that democrats've taken the house, he's calling it "a great success". 



Clydefrosch said:


> but I didn't.
> I didn't say they rigged the machines to do this. I say they have machines that do this (because they do), very convenient thing where a vote as clear as straight ticket doesn't go through as straight ticket for dem voters and is much harder to spot on a glance than for the other side.
> and I'm saying they saw no reason to address this clearly fatal flaw with anything more than 'not our problem' (because it's not, it's a good thing for them).
> 
> ...


Sorry, but I really have to side with @Hanafuda on this. It certainly baffles me that in this day and age, you still have computers who cannot 100% correctly process a simple task as "vote A or vote B" (top notch country you guys have. A real shining beacon of democracy ). And yeah...with that, it's real easy to see where conspiracy theories regarding vote mingling stem from. But truth is: thus far you've shown nothing that indicates that it directly benefits either side. The way you explain it, I give it as much (or as small) chance that a republican vote goes to democrats as that a democrat vote goes republican.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Nov 7, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Is it me, or is Trump (yet again) breaking new grounds of hypocrisy?
> 
> Pre-voting, it was all "IT'S ALL DEMOCRATS' FAULT!!!" and "IF DEMOCRATS WIN, EVERYTHING WE DID WILL BE UNDONE!!!". Now that democrats've taken the house, he's calling it "a great success".
> 
> ...



Then you didnt read. The machines in question sometimes changed beto for Cruz when voting straight dem. 
But when voting straight rep, they would sometimes leave the thing blank, meaning no rep vote would accidentally go to beto ever and a blank spot is also much easier to notice and correct.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 7, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> Then you didnt read. The machines in question sometimes changed beto for Cruz when voting straight dem.
> But when voting straight rep, they would sometimes leave the thing blank, meaning no rep vote would accidentally go to beto ever and a blank spot is also much easier to notice and correct.


I stand corrected. I hadn't read the full article you linked to. Sorry.


----------



## emigre (Nov 7, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> I stand corrected. I hadn't read the full article you linked to. Sorry.



Sounds like they should just use paper and pen like here in blighty.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2018)

Both relieved and disappointed.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 8, 2018)

Chary said:


> 1. He's perfect because he's not Cruz.
> 
> Kidding aside, he seemed like he had a lot of good ideas, and I liked how he really did try to get out there and make an effort to have a friendly campaign that focused on the people. I'm sure tons of other politicians try that same stuff...but whenever he was on the TV, he just seemed likeable. I wanted to root for him. His stances on Texas schools were great imo, (we need less focus on the standardized tests) as well as his view on term limits (he claimed if he was voted in, he'd only serve limited terms because that's what he truly believes in).
> 
> ...


Have you seen this discussion? There seems to be many people supporting Cruz. TBH I don’t really know much about him or Beto. I’m like out of it when it comes to these two guys. I know Ted from Lyin’ Ted thanks to Trump. And this commercial. It seems like Beto is very far left. And Cruz obviously right.

Some people were going crazy against Kavanaugh calling him an alcoholic and using that saying he’s not fit for politics, which I personally don’t see as a big deal because that’s what people do when they’re young, get drunk. Beto was arrested for DWI and Burglary. I would find it hypocritical if the same people went against Kavanaugh because of him drinking beer but not against Beto that did far worse.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 8, 2018)

Another day, another toxic pile that is politics.


----------



## KingBlank (Nov 8, 2018)

Poor Americans.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 9, 2018)

Know what I did? I voted libertarian for everything I could, when I couldn't do that, I went with the guy running as US Taxpayers. When the few positions on the ballot that were only R or D, I just did one of each. Too bad just myself isn't enough to throw a wrench into the cogs of the political machine.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 10, 2018)

So the votes are still being recounted in some areas, and it seems like Democrats have a good shot at winning the Arizona senate race and possibly the Florida senate race.  Statistically, there's little denying that this was a blue wave election.  Democrats haven't won this many seats in a single election since Nixon.  They were expected to pick up 27 in congress on the high end, and they got 31.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 10, 2018)

Xzi said:


> So the votes are still being recounted in some areas, and it seems like Democrats have a good shot at winning the Arizona senate race and possibly the Florida senate race.  Statistically, there's little denying that this was a blue wave election.  Democrats haven't won this many seats in a single election since Nixon.  They were expected to pick up 27 in congress on the high end, and they got 31.




Funny how it's always Democrats who 'find' uncounted ballots in Democrat-heavy districts after the election is over, and only where the race was close enough to merit a recount.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 10, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Funny how it's always Democrats who 'find' uncounted ballots in Democrat-heavy districts after the election is over, and only where the race was close enough to merit a recount.


It's not funny at all.  It means some jackass was initially trying to hide mail-in and provisional ballots to keep them from being counted.  In several states they also found locked buildings full of unused voting machines that were meant to be available on election day.  This shit is to be expected in every election from now on to some degree, at least until the voting rights act is fully restored.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 13, 2018)

Arizona went to democrats. Countin still going on in Florida.

At the time I wrote the poll I hadn't realised that it were multiple races. The republicans won the senate, as was predicted. How close it was is up for debate (it's all in perception, I guess?  ).

I hadn't polled on the house of representative, but as it turns out that was a landslide victory for democrats (it's been 40 years since they won more seats).


----------



## Xzi (Nov 13, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Arizona went to democrats. Countin still going on in Florida.
> 
> At the time I wrote the poll I hadn't realised that it were multiple races. The republicans won the senate, as was predicted. How close it was is up for debate (it's all in perception, I guess?  ).
> 
> I hadn't polled on the house of representative, but as it turns out that was a landslide victory for democrats (it's been 40 years since they won more seats).


Yeah, the dems weren't expected to take the senate as the vast majority of seats up for election were Democrat incumbents.  With the house win they do have a big opportunity to take all three branches in 2020, but only if voter turnout is as high or higher than the midterm.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 13, 2018)

As an additional thought, the Democrat primary for president should be really interesting next year.  Beto is a possibility, then you've got Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and still some potential (however remote) of Bernie and Biden running, among others.  At least it will be a good showcase of how composed the entire field is in comparison to the nutjobs in government on the right, and there are a lot of solid options.


----------



## Attacker3 (Nov 14, 2018)

-Hey guys, the voting machines are overheating! All right, they're fixed, looks like they were all Democrat anyways, whew!
-Hey guys, we found huge boxed of ballots? Where? Who cares, they're all Democrat anyways.
-Hey, people are transporting ballot boxes in Uber? That's fine, they're all Democrat votes anyways.
-Hey, dead people are voting and others are voting twice? No matter, that's a conspiracy theory, go away!
-Hey, the Democrats have a history of breaking election laws? It didn't happen this time, you dumb Republican!

Do you want to know why the Democrats are the party of immigration and minorities? Because they need the vote. More immigrants means more Democratic voters. Absolutely disgusting practice.

What should be bi-partisan is requiring voter ID.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 15, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Do you want to know why the Democrats are the party of immigration and minorities? Because they need the vote. More immigrants means more Democratic voters. Absolutely disgusting practice.


Democrats are the party of the majority.  When they turn out, they win, simple as that.  This is why for decades Republicans have done whatever they can to keep voter turnout low.  Gerrymandering, voter roll purges, poll closures, claims of voter fraud that never pan out, voter ID, and so forth.  To be _so_ repulsive that Republicans _still_ get voted out despite all these advantages being stacked in their favor, and despite the electoral map being favorable to them, is quite the accomplishment.

If the Republicans had a smart leader who had played to their strengths in the midterm, primarily the economy*, god knows they might've been able to lock Dems out of all three branches for at least another two years, if not six.  Probably fortunate then that they only have Trump, the guy who prefers hate and/or fear mongering about immigrants, and the guy who makes clear his disdain for veterans and the military.

* For the moment


----------

