[Poll]American midterm prediction

[Taleweaver]

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]

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

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

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 ---------------------------

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

*Looks at flag.* Um...

 

[Deleted User]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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