[arista]

The Big Fight
for the Democrats to try take many republican seats.
We will find out our time Weds AM


[The collective rage of women could
tip the balance in the US midterms
Record numbers of women are running
for political office, inspired by the anger
they felt at the election of Donald Trump.]

https://news.sky.com/story/the-colle...terms-11544484


[Is this the most successful month of the Trump presidency?
Nick Bryant New York correspondent]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45871362


[As America retreats from the world,
the politics of fear takes over?
Analysis by Robyn Curnow, CNN HD]

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/02/p...ntl/index.html


Celebs trying to get more voting for Democrats
Could backfire.

[Underscore]

I predict that the Dems will take the house, but not by a considerable amount. They'll gain within the region of 35-38 seats.

I predict that the Republicans will narrowly retain the Senate by about 50-50 (due to VP casting vote) or 51-49.

It is going to be a very interesting election and will set us up going into 2020. If Donald Trump does crap, he could be facing a challenge in 2020 although challenges rarely ever work.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Underscore

I predict that the Dems will take the house, but not by a considerable amount. They'll gain within the region of 35-38 seats.

I predict that the Republicans will narrowly retain the Senate by about 50-50 (due to VP casting vote) or 51-49.

It is going to be a very interesting election and will set us up going into 2020. If Donald Trump does crap, he could be facing a challenge in 2020 although challenges rarely ever work.

Yes Could Be
Underscore

[Maru]

I already voted. And with the rise in crime in the past week or so, I'm even happier I did because I wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere near a polling place on Nov 6.

I usually vote early anyway to avoid electioneering and because it's convenient. There were way more people there than has been at any other time during early voting. I think in Texas, 4.5m people have already voted.

I'm just glad more people are voting. We usually have sh1t turnout.

[bots]

These mid terms will be quite interesting. If the dems do well, will Trump void the results? I think it's a possibility. We will know soon enough.

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

These mid terms will be quite interesting. If the dems do well, will Trump void the results? I think it's a possibility. We will know soon enough.

He wouldn’t dare. At the end of the day this is still America and nobody is above the law (supposedly)

[Alf]

The Dems will get crushed.

[arista]

Democrats have won the house

Republicans of course keeps the Senate


https://news.sky.com/story/live-poll...-2018-11546151

[iRyan]

All I can say is thank ****ing god we won the House

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Alf

The Dems will get crushed.

Originally Posted by arista

Democrats have won the house

[Oliver_W]

Predictable result. Trump will obviously get his second term though.

[Nick.]

Over 100 women are set to be elected

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by Alf

The Dems will get crushed.

[Nick.]

Make way for speaker Nancy Pelosi

[bots]

Now the dems can start there long list of investigations. Trump's tax returns should make interesting reading

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by Nick.

Make way for speaker Nancy Pelosi

Our qween

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Nick.

Over 100 women are set to be elected

Who cares what policies they stand for as long as they don't have a dick, that's the important thing.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Not the blue wave many predicted
The Democrats really are fecking useless

Lol

[Maru]

It's not a blue wave, no, but it is not the red wave either some were demanding. This is good news for Democrats if they want to keep Congress locked (legislatively) for the next two years. That gives them plenty of time, two years in fact, to play Inspector Gadget. Nancy Pelosi can be Chief Quimby.

What's gonna really suck is when the budget comes back around for a vote. Both parties are going to attempt to pack as much pork that can fit in order to 1) impress their base 2) "negotiate" (i.e. give each other free money) in order to get a bill passed. They'll be at a stalemate for a bit yeah. Rah rah, party line, etc. It could lead to a monstrocity (like Obamacare) where the budget will have so much pork, it will blow up the deficit even further. Both parties pull these shenanigans at other times, sure, but with a split Congress, Republicans or Democrats won't really introduce any major cuts, because neither party can never agree on where these cuts should be. So it's much more likely that this Congress will make our deficit much worse, and very unlikely we will see any meaningful cuts and tax-reform is pretty much off the table. With the House being explicitly responsible for making budgets, this will be particularly fun for our deficit.

Someone said the last time we had both houses under party control for more than 4 years was 1968 (an epic year). Can't remember if that statistic included the Presidency or not, but I'm trying to research it. I would believe it.

With the Senate, Republicans will still have control over appointments with regards to the appellate courts. Also, the Supreme Court will be further in their pocket if anyone else retires. Ruth Gader Ginsburg is 85 for one. Republicans also have a bigger majority now, so approval for Presidential nominees will be cake.

A few of the far-left candidates have gone mainstream tonight, so that will be very interesting. Some say this is handing them rope to hang themselves... sure, but the Democrats show an amazing ability to learn from their mistakes. The Republicans keep hobbling on with a loyal base, and as much as I hate Trump at times, he's at least pushed them to at least try to reform beyond "low taxes for everyone"... they also have to tune into the social&cultural narratives that are playing out across the country... something they've never been keen to focus on as a platform. Outside of "more experienced" and "family values" anyway.

It's also interesting that in Purple-ish States where Republican candidates were unfavorable towards Trump, most of them ended up losing.

Basically this was a Purple wave with big bright spots of Red and Blue... but zoom out, and this is actually a moderated Congress. It's just a shame both our majority parties are complete r*tards who can't negotiate. It could end up being a silver-lining though... culturally. Questionable, but maybe.

It will be even more interesting to see how Trump deals with a grid-locked Congress... it's so much easier to talk sh** I think when the same team runs the Presidency, the House and Senate.

[arista]

Yes Nancy has a choice
Road block everything
but possibly making the Democrats not worth electing
in 2 years,
they are scared of getting a leader?

By now they should have a Democratic Leader



Or she can build a bridge and try to work together.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes Nancy has a choice
Road block everything
but possibly making the Democrats not worth electing
in 2 years,
they are scared of getting a leader?

By now they should have a Democratic Leader



Or she can build a bridge and try to work together.

Yeah, there's infighting in the Democratic party with regards to direction. That could be a real problem for them if it's not somehow resolved. Republicans are adopting more moderate candidates more easily I think. Especially since they've had quite a few retirements, including one of the people I voted for during primaries. He is a lot more relaxed with regard to social issues (such as gay marriage), so while the progress is slow, it is there.

Hard left candidates running against run-of-the-mill blue dogs may not come out of the wash the same way because two are running on very different ways of governing/policy.

The other controversy is that Nancy should step aside and let new blood come in and let the next generation step up to run the party. That's wise advise, but Nancy is considered a safe bet.

She is a bit whackadoo though... I remember a ways back after one election right before a recess. I want to say closer to the Holidays. She made this big speech, that they would all stop everything they were doing, going to really knuckle down, wouldn't leave until they were done and come out with the biggest Reforms in history.

Yeah, they went on that recess. She does things like that.

[arista]

[The other controversy is that Nancy should step aside and let new blood come in and let the next generation step up to run the party]

Yes she should let someone else take her job.

[Maru]

Some great articles out there this morning. mmm... Purple party.

Source: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opin...mn/1906702002/

Election results 2018: Forget the blue wave and behold the purple puddle

Democrats in the House and Republicans in the Senate means gridlock. That's a good thing, but it is only a temporary solution.

Well, it wasn’t the huge Blue Wave we were promised, a change in Congress on a par with the Tea Party’s “shellacking” of President Barack Obama in 2010, or President Bill Clinton’s big midterm losses in 1994. It looks more like a Blue Slosh. Or maybe a Purple Puddle. The Democrats regained some ground, but it wasn’t the overwhelming repudiation of President Donald Trump and the Republicans they were hoping for.

As I write this, it looks as if Democrats will control the House of Representatives by a narrow margin, while the GOP keeps control of the Senate. What does that mean? Gridlock.

Is that good? It just might be.

The idea that gridlock is good is based on the notion that most of what Congress does is probably bad, and that when Congress can’t do much we’re better off. As Bill Kort wrote in 2017, “Gridlock is good because when Congress is tied up in knots they can’t do anything to hurt us. This idea has been verified by the market many times over the past 25 years.”

Gridlock in Congress can be a good thing

Kort notes that the economic boom of the 1990s took place after Clinton was forced to moderate his approach post-1994, and that times of government unity often lead to bad decisions. Under divided government, things have to appeal to both parties or they don’t pass. That will take a lot, given how divided the parties are.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that "divided government is the perfect time to do big things." Pointing to Social Security reform in 1983, the 1986 Tax Reform Act, and the Clinton-era welfare reform program, McConnell said, “None of those things in my view would have occurred in unified government."

There are a lot of things that need to be done, ranging from infrastructure, to trade, to a health care fix that will get us past the Obamacare debacle. They won’t get addressed unless the two parties can come together. I think there’s room for them to work together — and former Democratic National Committee Chair Ed Rendell was saying the same thing on election night on Fox News. It’ll be interesting to see whether President Trump can bring some of his famed “Art of the Deal” skills into play.

For Trump, at least, there are some upsides to a Democratic-controlled House. If, as expected, the leadership consists of people like Nancy Pelosi, Jerrold Nadler, Adam Schiff and Maxine Waters, Trump will have a useful array of foils. He’ll have to balance his desire to use them as convenient enemies in the run-up to 2020 and his need to work with them to produce some sort of legislative achievement.

Likewise, the Democrats will have to decide whether to weaponize the House via investigations and subpoenas or to work with the president. Rendell strongly encouraged the latter, but the party’s Trump-hating base will strongly favor the former. On the other hand, the Trump-hating base failed to produce the promised Blue Wave.

The federal government is too powerful

Meanwhile, there’s a bigger lesson, as brought home by satire site The Babylon Bee, which wrote, "Nation torn apart by routine election starting to wonder if government may be too powerful."

Yes, it’s a satire site, but is this really satire? And no, the idea isn’t “crazy talk.”

The outcome of national elections is such a big deal because the federal government possesses such far reaching power over people’s lives. When the Constitution was drafted, James Madison told us that the powers of the federal government were “few and defined.” And that was true then.

It’s not true now, and people get upset over the idea of the other party in power more because they fear what the federal government might do to them than because they have hopes for what the federal government might do for them. An oversize, overreaching federal government really is tearing us apart. Gridlock is only a temporary solution to that.

If we do something to shrink the federal government, we’ll likely make things better. Is that crazy talk? Maybe. But it’s also true.

[arista]

[Democrat candidate for Georgia governor
Stacey Abrams refused to concede defeat against Republican rival Brian Kemp who said he was "confident victory is near" but was waiting
on final results in the close race.
She is hoping to become the first black female US governor.]

https://news.sky.com/story/live-poll...-2018-11546151


She has lost and must accept it.

[arista]

The markets are up
as Trump says he will work with the Democrats
and not the total take over the democrats dreamed of.

Trump is to hold a News Conference
in a Few hours