2018 Midterm Elections Thread.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, my home state of Colorado is on the right track. 538 has Polis holding a healthy lead for Governor. Meanwhile Boulder's Congressional seat is (unsurprisingly) on track to go Democrat in a landslide, with a forecasted <99.9% chance of a Democratic win and a projected total of over 60% of the vote.

Colorado overall is in much the same boat as Virginia- a swing state that has been trending towards becoming a reliable blue state. So I'm glad to see that the trend seems to be continuing.

[Knife]

I'm some what optimistic. Heicamp is neck and neck, Arizona is neck and neck, Cruz looks like he's running scared. Florida look very promising. If Heicamp holds, just need two more. It is by far not a sure thing, but it is looking pretty good at the moment. If turn out is high, we might have the Senate, which is important to stop any more judges and appointments.

I really, really hope Heicamp holds on. I do not want Democrats to see her lose and take away from that the message that she lost because she voted against Kavanaugh rather than "compromising".

Edit: Even one seat in the Senate might be enough. Sure, there's the Pence tie-breaker, but at that point even one Republican absence or defection would fuck them (like, say, Murkowski sitting it out on Kavanaugh). And if Trump does his highly anticipated Cabinet purge after the election (with Lindsey Graham seen as a likely replacement for Jeff Sessions), then there's a possibility of something happening like what happened when Sessions was first appointed- a special election, with a chance to pick up a Senate seat early in the new term.

Don't fool yourself. We need 51/49. I had mild hope for Flake with all the talk he talked the last 6 months and yet he still voted in line with the GOP. We need a majority to stop nut ball appointments. I'd like 66 to impeach but we're not getting that. Need 51. And for Dems to get a back bone, change the Senate rules and probably get someone better as leader than Schumer, but now I'm just dreaming.

[Mr Bean]

Don't fool yourself. We need 51/49. I had mild hope for Flake with all the talk he talked the last 6 months and yet he still voted in line with the GOP. We need a majority to stop nut ball appointments. I'd like 66 to impeach but we're not getting that. Need 51. And for Dems to get a back bone, change the Senate rules and probably get someone better as leader than Schumer, but now I'm just dreaming.

Schumer and Pelosi both need to be replaced both have been in office since the 1980s and both despite being in ultra safe districts/states are so risk averse they do next to nothing when they hold power except try and hold on power for a little bit longer. This is something true since the tea party wing gained control that the Republican goal is to get laws passed and things changed and rile up the base enough to stay in power with enough seats to prevent the other side from changing anything. When Obama held 60 votes did you see a laundry list of Democratic things get passed? No aside from a handful of early votes it degraded into Heathcare because haven forbid we try and do two things at once.

Or in other words a Republican administration (As Trump is doing now) is to try and make enough changes for the next election comes about then fight like hell to prevent the Democratic party from changing anything. Meanwhile the Democratic goal has been to do one thing and hope to get elected on that to win the next election. The hope being it seems to slowly do the things people want until they run out of super popular ideas because if we go faster we'd run out of popular things to do and then what would we run on?

[The Romulan Republic]

Honestly, if it was up to me we'd make Elizabeth Warren majority leader. At least she has something approaching a backbone at times.

For the House... maybe Schiff? He's not as far Left as I might prefer, but he's done pretty well as the Dems' attack dog in the House on the Russia investigation.

[Elheru Aran]

Honestly, if it was up to me we'd make Elizabeth Warren majority leader. At least she has something approaching a backbone at times.

For the House... maybe Schiff? He's not as far Left as I might prefer, but he's done pretty well as the Dems' attack dog in the House on the Russia investigation.

You have to balance what you want with what they're doing, though. If Schiff became House Majority Leader, he would (I think) probably have to leave the Judiciary Committee or whatever it is. That could well mean a less ambitious or less principled Democrat takes his place, and the support Mueller has in the House would thus wane.

[The Romulan Republic]

538's odds of a Dem Senate win have ticked up slightly, though still below 20%. Of the high-profile/close races, both O'Rouke and Heitkamp have fairly poor odds, at a little over 20% (though O'Rouke seems to be benefitting from a Libertarian who is likely pulling some votes from Cruz). Tennessee looks to be in the same range.

Manchin seems pretty safe now (and I honestly don't know how to feel about that, because on the one hand I want the Senate, and on the other I loath the thought of that turncoat being rewarded for voting for Kavanaugh). On the positive side, McCaskill has 4 in 7 odds of winning, as well. The Dem. challenger in Nevada is doing pretty well, and Nelson's hanging on in Florida. They're also giving Flake's seat in Arizona three in five odds of going blue.

[Knife]

Don't fool yourself. We need 51/49. I had mild hope for Flake with all the talk he talked the last 6 months and yet he still voted in line with the GOP. We need a majority to stop nut ball appointments. I'd like 66 to impeach but we're not getting that. Need 51. And for Dems to get a back bone, change the Senate rules and probably get someone better as leader than Schumer, but now I'm just dreaming.

Schumer and Pelosi both need to be replaced both have been in office since the 1980s and both despite being in ultra safe districts/states are so risk averse they do next to nothing when they hold power except try and hold on power for a little bit longer. This is something true since the tea party wing gained control that the Republican goal is to get laws passed and things changed and rile up the base enough to stay in power with enough seats to prevent the other side from changing anything. When Obama held 60 votes did you see a laundry list of Democratic things get passed? No aside from a handful of early votes it degraded into Heathcare because haven forbid we try and do two things at once.

Or in other words a Republican administration (As Trump is doing now) is to try and make enough changes for the next election comes about then fight like hell to prevent the Democratic party from changing anything. Meanwhile the Democratic goal has been to do one thing and hope to get elected on that to win the next election. The hope being it seems to slowly do the things people want until they run out of super popular ideas because if we go faster we'd run out of popular things to do and then what would we run on?

Oh I agree wholeheartedly. I'm just not sure the Dems have their shit together to make that change. And as much as I like Warren, I'd rather she take her shot at the big job in 2020 and let a spitfire take a shot at Leadership in the Senate. Harris maybe.

[FireNexus]

538's odds of a Dem Senate win have ticked up slightly, though still below 20%. Of the high-profile/close races, both O'Rouke and Heitkamp have fairly poor odds, at a little over 20% (though O'Rouke seems to be benefitting from a Libertarian who is likely pulling some votes from Cruz). Tennessee looks to be in the same range.

Manchin seems pretty safe now (and I honestly don't know how to feel about that, because on the one hand I want the Senate, and on the other I loath the thought of that turncoat being rewarded for voting for Kavanaugh). On the positive side, McCaskill has 4 in 7 odds of winning, as well. The Dem. challenger in Nevada is doing pretty well, and Nelson's hanging on in Florida. They're also giving Flake's seat in Arizona three in five odds of going blue.

Manchin’s Kavanaugh vote wasn’t turning coat. Morally, I consider it to be a pretty repulsive move in isolation. Long game, his vote didn’t change anything in terms of kavanaugh’s confirmation (if it would’ve, his history shows he’s in our corner). It may have shored up his position in WVa. A meaningless vote (one that is not decisive) in favor of the GOP’s darkest impulses in order to keep a Democrat who reliably pulls through in clutch situations over a reliably terrible GOP replacement who no matter what gives the Dems the finger when it matters is a devil’s deal I will fully support. To the point where I thought before it happened that it would be best for manchin to vote to confirm if it was non-decisive.

Just... he didn’t betray the party, effectively. If he would’ve in voting that way, he’d have taken the potential electoral hit. For the greater good, Manchin arguably had to vote in a shitty manner that time. And again, with no eye on the broader strategy and his value above replacement, the vote was morally indefensible. But if it keeps him in place to give the Dems the win when his vote matters, then I can sleep well at night supporting his decision.

We’re not rewarding Manchin for voting Kavanaugh. We’re just not punishing him for it because his value above replacement is the highest in the entire fucking caucus, and his votes to confirm Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in non-clutch situations did nothing to reduce that. He’s Republican when it won’t matter to the outcome. He’s solid blue when the game is on the line.

Feel like this: you know Manchin will not die in a progressive hill for no party benefit. But you know that when it’s between him and a loss for the party, he’s reliably with us. Dislike him for being willing to get down into the Kavanaugh mud, but only call him a turncoat when his turns come at a point that sabotages Dems.when yu’re Talking about a senate majority with the current political makeup in the states, you need at least a couple of Joe Manchin’s. And I’d take him I’ve the replacement who would have voted yes and cratered Democratic chances in so doing as a matter of party loyalty.

[Mr Bean]

Presented from imgr without comment

imgr

[The Romulan Republic]

Good news. Hope it's enough to overcome the voter suppression and any foreign interference or other fraud that may occur.

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't fool yourself. We need 51/49. I had mild hope for Flake with all the talk he talked the last 6 months and yet he still voted in line with the GOP. We need a majority to stop nut ball appointments. I'd like 66 to impeach but we're not getting that. Need 51. And for Dems to get a back bone, change the Senate rules and probably get someone better as leader than Schumer, but now I'm just dreaming.

Schumer and Pelosi both need to be replaced both have been in office since the 1980s and both despite being in ultra safe districts/states are so risk averse they do next to nothing when they hold power except try and hold on power for a little bit longer. This is something true since the tea party wing gained control that the Republican goal is to get laws passed and things changed and rile up the base enough to stay in power with enough seats to prevent the other side from changing anything. When Obama held 60 votes did you see a laundry list of Democratic things get passed? No aside from a handful of early votes it degraded into Heathcare because haven forbid we try and do two things at once.

Or in other words a Republican administration (As Trump is doing now) is to try and make enough changes for the next election comes about then fight like hell to prevent the Democratic party from changing anything. Meanwhile the Democratic goal has been to do one thing and hope to get elected on that to win the next election. The hope being it seems to slowly do the things people want until they run out of super popular ideas because if we go faster we'd run out of popular things to do and then what would we run on?

Oh I agree wholeheartedly. I'm just not sure the Dems have their shit together to make that change. And as much as I like Warren, I'd rather she take her shot at the big job in 2020 and let a spitfire take a shot at Leadership in the Senate. Harris maybe.

Yeah, it might be better if Warren focusses on the Presidential race.

538's odds of a Dem Senate win have ticked up slightly, though still below 20%. Of the high-profile/close races, both O'Rouke and Heitkamp have fairly poor odds, at a little over 20% (though O'Rouke seems to be benefitting from a Libertarian who is likely pulling some votes from Cruz). Tennessee looks to be in the same range.

Manchin seems pretty safe now (and I honestly don't know how to feel about that, because on the one hand I want the Senate, and on the other I loath the thought of that turncoat being rewarded for voting for Kavanaugh). On the positive side, McCaskill has 4 in 7 odds of winning, as well. The Dem. challenger in Nevada is doing pretty well, and Nelson's hanging on in Florida. They're also giving Flake's seat in Arizona three in five odds of going blue.

Manchin’s Kavanaugh vote wasn’t turning coat. Morally, I consider it to be a pretty repulsive move in isolation. Long game, his vote didn’t change anything in terms of kavanaugh’s confirmation (if it would’ve, his history shows he’s in our corner). It may have shored up his position in WVa. A meaningless vote (one that is not decisive) in favor of the GOP’s darkest impulses in order to keep a Democrat who reliably pulls through in clutch situations over a reliably terrible GOP replacement who no matter what gives the Dems the finger when it matters is a devil’s deal I will fully support. To the point where I thought before it happened that it would be best for manchin to vote to confirm if it was non-decisive.

Just... he didn’t betray the party, effectively. If he would’ve in voting that way, he’d have taken the potential electoral hit. For the greater good, Manchin arguably had to vote in a shitty manner that time. And again, with no eye on the broader strategy and his value above replacement, the vote was morally indefensible. But if it keeps him in place to give the Dems the win when his vote matters, then I can sleep well at night supporting his decision.

We’re not rewarding Manchin for voting Kavanaugh. We’re just not punishing him for it because his value above replacement is the highest in the entire fucking caucus, and his votes to confirm Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in non-clutch situations did nothing to reduce that. He’s Republican when it won’t matter to the outcome. He’s solid blue when the game is on the line.

Feel like this: you know Manchin will not die in a progressive hill for no party benefit. But you know that when it’s between him and a loss for the party, he’s reliably with us. Dislike him for being willing to get down into the Kavanaugh mud, but only call him a turncoat when his turns come at a point that sabotages Dems.when yu’re Talking about a senate majority with the current political makeup in the states, you need at least a couple of Joe Manchin’s. And I’d take him I’ve the replacement who would have voted yes and cratered Democratic chances in so doing as a matter of party loyalty.

We're probably not going to see eye-to-eye on this, but...

There are a lot of times where it is necessary and right to compromise to achieve some larger political goal. But there has to be a line somewhere, or you end up standing for nothing at all. Its sometimes hard to tell where that line is, but to me, voting to put a violent sex offender and perjurer who is clearly being nominated for the express purpose of putting a President under investigation (possibly for Treason) above the law, is so far over any reasonable line that it isn't even arguable. Moreover, that vote for Kavanaugh is an insult to every woman and ever survivor of sexual assault in America- it is saying "I put short-term political expediency ahead of your humanity".

I'm not even sure that it will be strategically beneficial in the long-run. Sure, if we end up taking the Senate by one seat, I'll be eating crow on that. But one of the most damaging critiques levelled against the Democratic Party is the charge that it is "just the same as"/"just as bad as" the Republicans, and that it doesn't stand for anything. Manchin voting for Kavanaugh plays into that narrative. Sure, its bullshit, because if you look at how the parties voted overall, the contrast is very clear. But perceptions matter in political campaigns, sometimes, unfortunately, more than facts. Most people won't look at the nuanced strategic reasons for why Manchin might have voted for Kavanaugh- they'll just see a Democrat voting for Kavanaugh. Meanwhile, other Democrats facing close races might take away the lesson that the way to win is to give Trump what he wants- and the last thing we need is for more Democrats to start thinking that way.

So it may very well have helped Manchin. And it may very well have hurt the party nationwide. Is Manchin better than a Republican? Yes, but that is damning with the faintest of praise. Would I force myself to vote for him if I were in West Virginia? Probably (and probably be disgusted with myself for doing it). But let's just say I am very grateful that I am not a voter in West Virginia, and do not have to make that choice.

[The Romulan Republic]

From Robert Reich's Facebook page:

On July 3, state voters and a good-government group filed a lawsuit alleging that Georgia officials ignored warnings that the state’s electoral system was extremely vulnerable to hacking. Four days later, Georgia officials deleted the state’s election data, which would likely have been critical evidence in that lawsuit. A coverup? Well, today Kemp's office announced an inquiry into the Democratic Party of Georgia after “a failed attempt to hack the state’s voter registration system.” Kemp’s office offered no evidence or details.
As secretary of state of Georgia, Kemp has continued to suppress voting there. He doesn't deserve to hold on to his current office, let alone be elected governor. What do you think?

So, the Republicans in Georgia:

1) Left the state's electoral system open to hacking, resulting in a lawsuit.

2) Deleted evidence that could have been critical to that suite (aka Obstruction of Justice).

3) Accused Democrats of hacking the system, with no evidence (smart money says Russia or Republicans hacked it, and they're trying to pin it on the Dems, if they didn't just make up the hacking out of whole-cloth).

You see what they're doing? They're creating a pretext to deny the outcome and possibly prevent Democrats from being seated (or rally their mob to violence) if they lose, and cover up their own crimes by blaming the victim if they win.

[Mr Bean]

You see what they're doing? They're creating a pretext to deny the outcome and possibly prevent Democrats from being seated (or rally their mob to violence) if they lose, and cover up their own crimes by blaming the victim if they win.

I'll go with possibility three, the vote totals might be hacked with something very obvious and beneficial to one side like say all Republican/Democratic voters in a district were deleted from the voter database or one county is showing 3000% voter participation.

If your a outside actor looking to mess things up the most then obviously hacking in favor of the Democrat in Republican strongholds is the easy plan for least cost=most effectiveness and as you already noted Georgia is already on the line as the state that ignored the warnings.

[Civil War Man]

(smart money says Russia or Republicans hacked it, and they're trying to pin it on the Dems, if they didn't just make up the hacking out of whole-cloth).

I've heard some information about this, and it's closest to that last part, but significantly dumber.

Here is apparently what happened:
1. A voter notices a security vulnerability in the voter registration system, alerts the attorney for one of the suits against Kemp.
2. The attorney passes it on to the FBI and Kemp's attorney.
3. Someone involved in the previous two steps alerts a volunteer for the state Democratic party, who then passes it up the chain of command.
4. The party's voter protection director shares the info with one of the intelligence agencies (not sure which one) and an election security organization.
5. A lawyer for the security organization passes on the information to Kemp's office.
6. Kemp accuses the Democrats of trying to hack the voter database.

So basically there was no hacking attempt. And even if you decide to be exceptionally generous to Kemp and classify discovering a vulnerability as hacking, this would have been a White Hat hack, since the person who discovered the problem reported it.

[FireNexus]

There are a lot of times where it is necessary and right to compromise to achieve some larger political goal. But there has to be a line somewhere, or you end up standing for nothing at all. Its sometimes hard to tell where that line is, but to me, voting to put a violent sex offender and perjurer who is clearly being nominated for the express purpose of putting a President under investigation (possibly for Treason) above the law, is so far over any reasonable line that it isn't even arguable. Moreover, that vote for Kavanaugh is an insult to every woman and ever survivor of sexual assault in America- it is saying "I put short-term political expediency ahead of your humanity".

A universe in which Manchin is the Senator from West Virginia and not his Republican challenger is a better universe for those survivors, and for the prospect of Trump nominating more judges. Think about it: in the universe where Manchin’s Republican challenger has already been the Senator from WV during the Kavanaugh heading, we wouldn’t even have been talking about the possibility of scuttling the confirmation.

If we want a world where any of this matters in two years, Manchin has to win tomorrow. Period. If we want a world where there is a hope of blocking a replacement to RBG should she shuffle off the coil next year, Manchin has to win tomorrow. If we want a world where a Trump impeachment could result in a conviction, Manchin has to win tomorrow.

I’m not unsympathetic to “principles over short term political expediency” in the case of victims of sexual assault being treated with dignity in a way Ford was clearly not, generally. However, we are in a reality right this moment where short term political expediency could be the inches by which we get the “have a legitimate Democracy in this country the next time Manchin’s seat is up” first down. I would not sacrifice those inches at this point for any principle, least of all one that is completely out the fucking window if we lose.

[Ralin]

I've heard both sides of the 'Manchin needed to vote with the Republicans unless it would have decisive or he would have lost' argument several times. Not going to lie, I was more than a little torn, because he's apparently been the deciding vote on a number of important bills and having a Senate majority would give the Democrats a number of procedural advantages because of how the Senate rules work. What decided it for me was hearing about female campaign volunteers, i.e. the people you'd expect to be the most enthusiastic in his favor, quitting Manchin’s campaign over it. Manchin straight up declared to America that he thought it was good and okay to elect Judge Frat Boy Beer Rapist to the Supreme Court for life because maybe it would make other pro-rape and anti-women's rights West Virginian voters. He declared that catering to Republicans matters more than siding with the many, many people in West Virginia who have been raped or sexually assaulted by someone like Kavanaugh. The acceptable number of pro-Rape Judge Democrat senators is zero. If catering to Republicans is a higher priority than catering to Democrats to Manchin he can damned well change parties. A universe where an anti-Rape Judge Democrat is the Senator from West Virginia is a better universe for survivors than one with a Senator who will side with Republicans unless he has to.

Also, I know the polls showed him losing if he voted against Kavanaugh but I still don’t get the logic behind that. Republican voters aren’t known for being smart or informed, but how the hell is ‘will vote Republican unless he knows for a fact that voting Democrat means the Democrats will win’ supposed to appeal to Republicans more than an actual Republican? It’s not like this is a secret. People have been saying it since before the vote. One thing Trump proved is that catering to people who actually agree with you works a whole let better than pissing off your actual supporters to maybe get people who oppose everything you stand for to vote for you instead.

[FireNexus]

I've heard both sides of the 'Manchin needed to vote with the Republicans unless it would have decisive or he would have lost' argument several times. Not going to lie, I was more than a little torn, because he's apparently been the deciding vote on a number of important bills and having a Senate majority would give the Democrats a number of procedural advantages because of how the Senate rules work. What decided it for me was hearing about female campaign volunteers, i.e. the people you'd expect to be the most enthusiastic in his favor, quitting Manchin’s campaign over it.

I don’t begrudge them that. I wouldn’t be eager to go work for Manchin myself. But that doesn’t get to the point. The alternative to Manchin is not and will never be a better Democrat. It’s a Republican who votes party line 95% of the time and always when it counts. Manchin votes with them 50% of the time and literally never when it counts.

Manchin straight up declared to America that he thought it was good and okay to elect Judge Frat Boy Beer Rapist to the Supreme Court for life because maybe it would make other pro-rape and anti-women's rights West Virginian voters. He declared that catering to Republicans matters more than siding with the many, many people in West Virginia who have been raped or sexually assaulted by someone like Kavanaugh.

No. He said winning to be a deciding vote matters more than a symbolic gesture that doesn’t keep the rape judge off the bench and also makes sure the next guy would have voted for him even when decisive.

The acceptable number of pro-Rape Judge Democrat senators is zero. If catering to Republicans is a higher priority than catering to Democrats to Manchin he can damned well change parties. A universe where an anti-Rape Judge Democrat is the Senator from West Virginia is a better universe for survivors than one with a Senator who will side with Republicans unless he has to.

That is a better universe than the ones on offer, but it is not on offer. You can’t just say “Yeah, if he hadn’t he might have lost. But it would be better if he hadn’t and won!”

Also, I know the polls showed him losing if he voted against Kavanaugh but I still don’t get the logic behind that.

You don’t have to. He’d have been more likely to lose and Kavanaugh would still be on the bench, period.

Republican voters aren’t known for being smart or informed, but how the hell is ‘will vote Republican unless he knows for a fact that voting Democrat means the Democrats will win’ supposed to appeal to Republicans more than an actual Republican?

He’s a longtime incumbent who represents them, and is seen as not purely beholden to the party. Partisanship isn’t the only consideration in West Virginia, but if not for a well-liked longtime incumbent who is on the conservative side that seat would be held by a Republican. And Manchin’s hold is not iron tight.

It’s not like this is a secret. People have been saying it since before the vote. One thing Trump proved is that catering to people who actually agree with you works a whole let better than pissing off your actual supporters to maybe get people who oppose everything you stand for to vote for you instead.

They don’t expect him to fuck over his party, because he has a loyalty to them. They also expect him to be a somewhat conservative vote where it won’t. They like him for both of those things, and he is one of their guys. It’s not hard.

Manchin is in West Virginia, too. He’s not winning elections by catering only to Democrats. That’s just how it is.

[TimothyC]

I did some research a month or so back about the "Manchin votes with republicans all of the time" meme, and it doesn't hold up. I think I used 538 as the data source, but I don't have it handy.

77 major senate votes over the last two years or so.

Of those, Manchin voted for the Trump position 47 times. So that's ~61% of the time.

BUT! 31 of those votes received a total of 60 votes in the senate (implying at least 7 other Dems voted for whatever it was), and that's 40% of the vote total.

I would have to dig back again and look for if he was ever the vote that pushed one side over the edge or not, but I don't remember seeing it be the case (so, as FireNexus says, when he does vote for a Trump position, it doesn't actually matter).

So, in the 46 instances where there were major votes, and there were not 60 votes on Trump's side, Manchin voted for Trump's side only ~35% of the time. If you want a Democrat majority in the Senate, you are better off with Manchin voting against the President ~65% of the time when it matters than a GOP member who would vote against the President's position maybe 5% of the time.

[The Romulan Republic]

(smart money says Russia or Republicans hacked it, and they're trying to pin it on the Dems, if they didn't just make up the hacking out of whole-cloth).

I've heard some information about this, and it's closest to that last part, but significantly dumber.

Here is apparently what happened:
1. A voter notices a security vulnerability in the voter registration system, alerts the attorney for one of the suits against Kemp.
2. The attorney passes it on to the FBI and Kemp's attorney.
3. Someone involved in the previous two steps alerts a volunteer for the state Democratic party, who then passes it up the chain of command.
4. The party's voter protection director shares the info with one of the intelligence agencies (not sure which one) and an election security organization.
5. A lawyer for the security organization passes on the information to Kemp's office.
6. Kemp accuses the Democrats of trying to hack the voter database.

So basically there was no hacking attempt. And even if you decide to be exceptionally generous to Kemp and classify discovering a vulnerability as hacking, this would have been a White Hat hack, since the person who discovered the problem reported it.

So, slander their opponents to cover up their own incompetence/indifference, and undermine confidence in democracy in the process.

In other words, just another day of the week for Republicans.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, it is now officially election day.

538's default (Classic) Senate forecast has ticked up to a 19.5% chance of a Democratic victory, with the single likeliest outcome being no change (51/49). The House forecast is 88% chance of Democrats taking it, and they're projecting 24 state Governorships go blue.

But we'll only really know tomorrow (if we're lucky- if not, it might go to recounts of close races).

If you haven't voted and are eligible to do so- vote. Good luck/God bless/May the Force be with us.

[Ziggy Stardust]

While the large uptick in early voting in this election, relative to previous midterms, is encouraging, I am still a bit cynical of Democratic chances. I very much hope to be proven wrong. But the economy is strong and Trump's approval rating has been trending steadily upwards (a year ago it was ~37%, now it's ~42%), which are inauspicious signs.

[aerius]

Diebold hard at work again!
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11- ... e-midterms

Outside of a Banana Republic, I can't say I've seen a country fuck up its elections as consistently as the US.

[Lonestar]

Voted for the L candidate for Senate, the GOP one for the house because he reminds me of Richard Splett from VEEP and his life story is what mine would be if I randomly decided to run, and against the constitutional amendment(you read that right) that would have subsidized rich fucks beach houses.

[LadyTevar]

1. Why're all y'all talking about Manchin, when not one of y'all are able to vote for him?
2. Two amendments on the WV ballot: #1 wanted to change the State Constitution to make abortions harder to get. (Hard NO on that one). #2 was an amendment to put the Judicial Branch's spending under Treasurer's Office review. (considering the $13k couch one of the Justices bought recently? Yeah, we need control over what those idjits are buying. Voted Yes).
3. Didn't have the option to vote Straight Democrat, but I didn't vote for a single GOP. One Independent got a vote because there weren't enough Dems running for Magistrates.

At worst, I just cancelled out Mom's votes. At best, she'll vote Dem too.

[Elheru Aran]

Diebold hard at work again!
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11- ... e-midterms

Outside of a Banana Republic, I can't say I've seen a country fuck up its elections as consistently as the US.

Again why I think we need federal standards for elections, and appropriate punitive measures for noncompliant states. They should be required to show they have their shit together before early voting begins, and have consistent monitoring throughout to ensure adequate compliance.