2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

cphite
Posts: 1248
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby cphite » Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:03 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
dg61 wrote:A third term, barring a very early resignation of a sitting president and their veep coming to power, is constitutionally impossible.

Well we've seen how much respect Trump has for the constitution...


His travel ban was effectively halted for a while despite being entirely constitutional; all because judges interjected. And while it did eventually get through the SCOTUS; the point is that it was still subject to that process. He couldn't pull it off by ignoring the law.

His immigrant detention program - while being morally abhorrent and unnecessary - was technically legal; but he stopped it due to political pressure.

In short, there are a plethora of examples of Trump being effectively shut down, both legally and politically.

The point is, he hasn't been able to just ignore the constitution even on much smaller issues; there are obstacles even when he's on solid legal footing. For something like ignoring the three term limit - where he'd be facing extreme resistance from the judiciary, the states, both chambers of congress, etc, etc... it's just extremely unlikely.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8077
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby Zohar » Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:15 pm UTC

I didn't say he won't be stopped, I said he doesn't give much of a shit about it. Like wanting to deprive people of due process.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26356
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:16 pm UTC

You mean the judiciary to whose highest court he's planning to appoint his second nomination in as many years? (Despite being currently under federal investigation)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6182
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby sardia » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:16 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:So it is all over the news that a powerful NY representative lost a primary to a woman half his age with no actual experience. Less prominent in the news reports is that said representative was one of the most corrupt and despised among the Dems, but let's ignore that. The point is, all the efforts to get out the vote, to galvanize the democratic base to destroy Trump? The Democratic establishment itself is going to be gutted first, and as much as they should be, this may backfire and result in a weakened Democrat party.


Perhaps in some areas, or in the short term, but in the long term, getting rid of the corrupt and the despised ought to strengthen the party overall.

No actual experience might be a weak point, but it can be pitched as an outsider advantage when the insiders have a reputation of corruption and general awfulness. I don't think this is, in the end, all that bad for Democrats. The specific candidate might have issues in terms of this or that, but party wide, both parties would benefit by shedding a bit of dead weight.

sardia wrote:The economic modeling (which doesn't include polling) would assume that a good night for a generic Democrat party with this seat mix, would mean only LOSING 2 seats in the Senate. The map is fucking that awful.


Oh, I wholly agree. The polling maybe pushes it slightly more for the Dems, but at the end of the day, the map is a really, really steep uphill climb in the senate. I feel confident that my Predictit bets that the Republicans will maintain control there will pay off. There's luck, and then there's the hail mary of factors that need to line up for the Democrats to win 51 seats.

CorruptUser wrote:That's missing the point. The seats arent at stake but these are the seats occupied by the leadership. The leadership itself is getting the boot.


Yeah, and given the state of Dem leadership, that's likely a good thing. Shake things up a little bit, let them know that they're not wholly safe from all repercussion.

gd1 wrote:I used to volunteer with some Republicans who were afraid Obama would go for a third term (though I've glossed over stuff that I shouldn't have in the past so I can't judge them). They seemed like good people generally and had no problem with me being Muslim. My worry is that with a red tide + supreme court + Trump we will be deported for our religion. Maybe it's unfounded, but I don't know the rules anymore. I'm sorry things are going this way. Thank you for having a reasonable view of Muslims.


Republicans said the same thing about Clinton. Some democrats expressed similar fear regarding Bush, and if Trump gets a second term, I imagine they will be concerned about Trump's respect for term limits as well. In the end, it's been a long time since someone's had a third term, and nowadays, it's not done. Perhaps the trend will eventually end, but the amount of fearmongering around it seems out of proportion to the likelihood.

Deporting people directly for their religion is probably not going to fly. However, somewhat more indirect things can. For instance, targeting countries of origin that have a lot of a given religion. It's not identical to targeting religious beliefs, but it does have a highly disproportionate impact. I would generally suggest having one's ducks in a row as much as possible legally if one is not a citizen.

sardia wrote:For everyone talking about just how great the liberal tea party faction is doing, can you explain Chelsea Manning and Nixon's loss in the primary?


Chelsea Manning is an entitled ass, and also sort of a traitor. She does not enjoy much of a reputation hereabouts in MD. Had she somehow pulled off the primary, she'd have likely lost the general. In MD, which is nearly impossible for a democrat.

I think young candidates *can* do well in the democratic party, but certainly not every candidate will. They've got to avoid falling into obvious errors along the way still.

sardia wrote:Let me clarify, how exactly does a organization get immigrants to settle in Republican districts as oppose to say, districts that hire immigrants?
What is the Democrat's generic position on immigrants now and what do progressives hope to shift it to?


I don't think that the party has any particular control over where immigrants go, outside of the case of Sanctuary Cities, which anyways would not be very effective at directing them to Republican districts.

That said, I do think that, logically, Democrats have been well served by courting the immigrant vote, and will continue to do so until it stops providing benefit. Why not, after all? Yeah, some of the benefit may accrue in districts which are currently already safe, but that's still at least some benefit.

I was questioning CU's claim that the Democrats were packing Republican seats via regulations. Separately,I was questioning the strength of the liberal tea party parallel.
It sounded completely crazy and not likely to work when he said you could win seats by nimbyism as an example. Though the local politics in New York State are pretty crazy.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:39 pm UTC

Ah, yes. I'm in agreement with your questioning, then. Both claims sound like they need some support.

I think there's some tension in the Democratic party between the ol' guard and the Bernie sorts, but I don't know that it's an exact mirror of the tea party. If I had to guess, I'd say that the tension first became super apparent during the occupy wall street demonstrations. We go from there to Bernie's run, and now to successful primary challenges by socialists, so it *might* have legs...but that might also be attributing way too much importance nationally to individual events. I don't know new york's local politics well enough to say, but it certainly feels as if the tea party was far more successful nationally than the far left has been.

Anything that gets the youth engaging in politics is probably a good thing for the Democrats, though, so strategically, they probably ought to hope for a leftist tea party equivalent, even if they don't necessarily agree on every score.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6182
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby sardia » Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:01 pm UTC

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/sta ... 2611234816
Time for some good news bad news. The bad news is as of right now, Ted Cruz is maintaining his lead over Beto in Texas.

For your consolation prize, here's an unsourced chart from Harry Enten.
GOP is opting not to share their internal polling while Democrats happily share their internal polling. This implies the GOP candidates don't like releasing bad numbers.
httpss://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/st ... 6633277441
So far about 86% (from what I see) of partisan House polls have been from Dem/liberal groups. Since 06 (as far back as I have data and a small sample size), the percentage of internals from liberal vs. conservative groups has said a lot about the November result

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dh2n0a0X0AMCgVY.jpg
[/img]

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:36 pm UTC

Predictit, at present, is giving approximately 40% odds of the Republicans retaining control of the house, and 74% odds of the senate.

This would indicate a fairly low chance of the Democrats taking both. Obviously, the two variables are far from independent, so it's probably only marginally lower than the odds of a senate victory. Democrats grabbing the senate without also getting the house seems pretty unlikely.

As an aside, if you opt to invest money on the Republicans in congress, I'd strongly suggest betting on a seat spread. The odds are at least somewhat skewed by partisans who believe a huge red tide is possible/probable, whereas a republican-retained congress is highly likely to be fairly modestly red. You can cover the reasonable point spread at about half the cost of betting on simply "republican win" with a marginal amount of additional risk. I'm wrong about this only if Republicans are, somehow, going to utterly blow out the election, but I see no indications of that.

I would add to the the polling comment that, generally, democrat/liberal groups have seemed to have better data gathering/handling overall for the past several election cycles. This is a bit subjective, but I think it may provide them with a small edge. Maybe not huge, but it at least provides a potential way to better approach a given race. This may explain part of the availability discrepancy, but I think it still is a positive indication for Democrats, regardless of which interpretation you go with.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6182
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby sardia » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:34 pm UTC

FYI the internal polling release rate is also correlated to Republicans wave elections as well. This doesn't mean that interna polll release rate is a leading predictor or anything special. It could just be noise, or predicting a small wave or it's a signal about the confidence of each party.
But this month sucks for Democrats, and they need some good news.
I was hoping that McCain and that other old fogey senator would retire/die in time for a November election, but it looks like both of them are playing "Weekend at Bernie's" until the next election. If McCain goes out, the GOP can now appoint a Republican instead of an election.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:48 pm UTC

sardia wrote:FYI the internal polling release rate is also correlated to Republicans wave elections as well.


Huh, interesting, I didn't know that. Why do you think that is?

I was hoping that McCain and that other old fogey senator would retire/die in time for a November election, but it looks like both of them are playing "Weekend at Bernie's" until the next election. If McCain goes out, the GOP can now appoint a Republican instead of an election.


Super common strategy. I suspect at this point, they're all going to stall for the appointment if at all possible. If necessary, they might turn to necromancy.

If it's any consolation, prediction market odds have, over the long term, been sliding more Democrat for the house. If that trend continues until election time, it might look fairly positive for them. There's less good news regarding the Senate, but that was always going to be a rough map.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6182
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby sardia » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:13 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Huh, interesting, I didn't know that. Why do you think that is?
I was hoping that McCain and that other old fogey senator would retire/die in time for a November election, but it looks like both of them are playing "Weekend at Bernie's" until the next election. If McCain goes out, the GOP can now appoint a Republican instead of an election.


Super common strategy. I suspect at this point, they're all going to stall for the appointment if at all possible. If necessary, they might turn to necromancy.
If it's any consolation, prediction market odds have, over the long term, been sliding more Democrat for the house. If that trend continues until election time, it might look fairly positive for them. There's less good news regarding the Senate, but that was always going to be a rough map.

I'm guessing it's confidence inference. Or the Democratic internal pollsters get better numbers, so they release them more. The only thing worse than not saying you're winning is admitting you're losing. Harry has a formal article now about it.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/14/politics ... index.html
As for McCain and other old fogey, the deadline passed in June it doesn't matter if they die now, they'll just be appointed by Republican governor's.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:44 pm UTC

Interesting...probably a mix of looking favorable for Democrat house races and better democrat polling.

Makes sense. I'd guess that the regression to the mean as the election day approaches is because the party who's behind can't get away with releasing nothing for forever. They might sandbag and filter results to some degree, or delay publishing, but just ignoring everything makes you look out of touch. So, sooner or later, you get some studies out.

Shame there's not more non-partisan polling, but this is definitely an interesting way of extracting additional meaning from partisan polling.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7418
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby Zamfir » Tue Jul 17, 2018 12:05 pm UTC

I might have asked this before, but I still dont quite understand it: Why are people so invested in predictions about the election, with all the cycles and epicycles of polling and aggregation and what not? It's only a few months in the future to get the actual outcome.

I understand why it matters for professional politicians, who have to make decisions today, based on what they think will happen in the future. But for the ordinary news-watching public?

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3880
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby Dauric » Tue Jul 17, 2018 12:28 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:I might have asked this before, but I still dont quite understand it: Why are people so invested in predictions about the election, with all the cycles and epicycles of polling and aggregation and what not? It's only a few months in the future to get the actual outcome.

I understand why it matters for professional politicians, who have to make decisions today, based on what they think will happen in the future. But for the ordinary news-watching public?


The tribal conflict. Party affiliation is often a tribal membership thing, more so than actual policy support. Just like backing a local sports team marks one as a member of the community, being a member of a political party can be as much a badge of membership, or even familial connection. Elections are as much about communities being able to say "We're better than you" as any sportsball events.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6182
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby sardia » Tue Jul 17, 2018 2:51 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:I might have asked this before, but I still dont quite understand it: Why are people so invested in predictions about the election, with all the cycles and epicycles of polling and aggregation and what not? It's only a few months in the future to get the actual outcome.

I understand why it matters for professional politicians, who have to make decisions today, based on what they think will happen in the future. But for the ordinary news-watching public?

You have a point that a lot of what we post doesn't matter. But you could say that about much of life. Secondly, I think it has way more value than listening to news commentary on tv.
Lastly, there's a bias towards thinking recent events as the status quo. When Obama was elected, we thought we were in a new age after Bush. When Trump was elected, people thought we were in a dark era that will last decades.

I got tired of people posting wrong assumptions about the world. Like how nothing bad has happened to Trump's approval rating, or how great x thing is for you, only to be debunked later.

Aren't you curious if the age of free trade is coming to an end? Or if the far right in Europe will maintain it's strength? Isn't knowing about that ahead of time important? US Politics (along with the rise of the far right worldwide) touches so much, and with an increasing divergence in the political parties, it affects more than you expect. Wanting to know more can't be that crazy.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7418
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby Zamfir » Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:25 pm UTC

Oh, I get the point of trying to understand the news better. Even imperfectly, and even if you can't do much to change it.

It's just that election prediction has such rapidly diminishing returns. Zero effort tells you that the democrats can theoretically get a majority in one or both chambers. A little bit of polling says that it's more than theoretical, but very far from a sure thing. After that, all the extra effort just gives variations on that theme.

If the goal is to understand broad trends in American politics, than this is enough. A few percent left or right might radically flip the outcome, but it's still only a few percent. The losing party is still big, the winning party not much bigger.

If the goal is to understand what 2019 might be like in advance, then you have to look at multiple scenarios anyway. Once a scenario crosses a certain threshold of possibly, it goes on the list. The subtleties of polling and other forms of haruspicy won't change that.

User avatar
dubsola
Posts: 2264
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:55 am UTC
Location: Sunny Snakeville

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby dubsola » Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:42 am UTC

sardia wrote:When Trump was elected, people thought we were in a dark era that will last decades.

It feels like decades already

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10848
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2018 Midterm Elections Coverage

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:10 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:I might have asked this before, but I still dont quite understand it: Why are people so invested in predictions about the election, with all the cycles and epicycles of polling and aggregation and what not? It's only a few months in the future to get the actual outcome.

I understand why it matters for professional politicians, who have to make decisions today, based on what they think will happen in the future. But for the ordinary news-watching public?


It's like watching sports, only with more potential impact on your life. Part of it's the team-based thing, and part of it's concern for if OtherParty is going to ruin the laws regarding the thing you enjoy. The latter can be quite personal indeed. More abstractly, predicting the future accurately is a fairly challenging problem, and getting better at it is advantageous for a great many things. Pulling apart data models and the like appeals to folks who enjoy understanding trickier problems.

So, all in all, it's probably a good bit more valuable than getting invested in a sports team.

Zamfir wrote:It's just that election prediction has such rapidly diminishing returns. Zero effort tells you that the democrats can theoretically get a majority in one or both chambers. A little bit of polling says that it's more than theoretical, but very far from a sure thing. After that, all the extra effort just gives variations on that theme.


Well, small errors can have significant consequences. Trump's election is a great example. Tons of media sources were posting assessments that he had very little chance to win indeed. More careful analysis was much closer to equal, such as 538's forecast showing him as an underdog, but one with a substantial shot at it. The difference between those two is very large in practice, and understanding that many people were greatly underpricing Trumps odds personally made me a couple hundred dollars.

It also can matter if you intend to dabble into political support yourself. You may not wish to throw money behind a doomed race, but still contribute to one with a fighting chance, though disadvantaged. Knowing where to best allocate money is a potential advantage to the Democrats from their better polling. I'm not sure that all donors do this, but as we all have limited resources, it seems like it could be a pretty concrete advantage.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gmalivuk, Koa and 10 guests