-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/ks/kansas_senate_roberts_vs_orman-5216.html
How does that work? Undecideds are increasing going into the election...
How does that work? Undecideds are increasing going into the election...
This kind of thinking is horribly misguided.
Senators are elected in off-years to help keep them focused on their jobs and less worried about reelection and short-time politics. Also to keep the country from swinging too much in one direction all at once.
If everybody re-elected at 4 years, there would be absolutely no purpose to have the senate. The country would get extreme whiplash as it lurched right and left and the government would become as dysfunctional as the house is now.
The best way to improve the federal government is to allow more representatives. They stopped adding representatives about 70 years ago for some reason. Doing that simultaneously reduces the impact of gerrymandering and money. It would make representatives more accountable to their district because they are serving less people. It would allow representatives to specialize more so they don't get sucked into a bunch of issues they have no clue about (because it doesn't affect their district) and end up nursing the lobbyist teat to compensate for the lack of knowledge.
Squirrel Killer
Member
Now you're just talking crazy.
It's not bad news but the reporting here is bad. Nobody is counting votes. That's illegal.
They are counting how many registered voters have turned in a ballot and making an assumption they voted party line. Maybe a distinction without a difference but a difference, nonetheless.
My senate prediction is 52 republicans in the senate. It's disappointing but 538's never let me down yet.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
unchecked? no, they don't eliminate the court, congress, etc. they eliminate the staggering I'd be fine with mid terms without the stupid classes, just have all legislative elections the same year
they want a government to actually be consistent for more than 1 1/2 years
Aaron Strife
Banned
At least KS-SEN, NH-GOV and IA-SEN are all pretty easy
They said 7 of these are correct:
Hassan+6
Shaheen+2
Hagan+2
Davis+1
Orman+1
Ernst+1
Perdue+3
Deal+4
Branstad+11
Squirrel Killer
Member
R+11 has to be IA Gov.
If Orman wins and the other races leave it 47 D, 50 R and 2 I, what kind of hell is going to break loose? Has he said he will caucus with the majority party or majority caucus? Whichever side he chooses creates the majority in that case (assuming King sticks with the Democrats).
Yeah, those are the two obvious ones.
EDIT: HERE WE GO!
Ivy's 2 for 2!
3 for 4!
5 for 6!
6 for 8!
7 of 9!!! Alright!
RustyNails
Member
so landrieu pretty much am cry at this point.
That's also the one absolutely going to a runoff.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
A democrat winning a runoff election in Georgia is the definition of impossible.
Squirrel Killer
Member
So my social media bitching about Americans for Prosperity and the Iowa GOP threats to track my votes have gotten two replies from people saying this shit is making them NOT vote. That's a pretty long vote suppression con though, piss off enough people to get them to vote and bitch against you enough that it turns more people off from voting at all.
If the poll says Branstad is only up 11, in reality, Ernst might be up by more than 3. That said, I think the blowout status of IA Gov weakens the motivation for IA GOP turnout. So basically, I have no fucking idea.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Dammit Iowa, don't screw this up.
Democrats have said they've hit their early voting targets - just have to hope Braley does ok on Election Day.
Btw - Quinnipiac's poll of Iowa which had Braley and Ernst tied also had Branstad only up by 11.
Democrats have said they've hit their early voting targets - just have to hope Braley does ok on Election Day.
Btw - Quinnipiac's poll of Iowa which had Braley and Ernst tied also had Branstad only up by 11.
Joe Molotov
Member
NeoGAF Politics thread is good place for u kno what
benjipwns
Banned
Black Mamba
Member
We're at the point where we have to hope there's some systematic bias in the midterm polling right now.
All the modelers agree the GOP have a good shot at winning the Senate.
the pollsters seem to agree as well.
If the Dems barely hold on but there's little bias overall, then it's just probabilities. If they lose, then the pollsters' methods seem mostly fine. If Dems overperform everywhere and hold on, then bias.
We'll see what happens. Don't get too high or too low tomorrow.
I honestly don't know what will happen. Just hoping for a win in Co, Alaska, and IA somehow (I think Kagan is safe).
the GOP getting the Senate will suck but it won't be the end of the world. The GOP losing, even if it's 50/50, would be a catastrophe for them IMO. Being 51-49 would be even worse.
edit: It's just as important the Dems/Is pick up governorships as well!
All the modelers agree the GOP have a good shot at winning the Senate.
the pollsters seem to agree as well.
If the Dems barely hold on but there's little bias overall, then it's just probabilities. If they lose, then the pollsters' methods seem mostly fine. If Dems overperform everywhere and hold on, then bias.
We'll see what happens. Don't get too high or too low tomorrow.
I honestly don't know what will happen. Just hoping for a win in Co, Alaska, and IA somehow (I think Kagan is safe).
the GOP getting the Senate will suck but it won't be the end of the world. The GOP losing, even if it's 50/50, would be a catastrophe for them IMO. Being 51-49 would be even worse.
edit: It's just as important the Dems/Is pick up governorships as well!
NYCmetsfan
Banned
? its impossible to amend the constitution.
our entire voting structure (leaving it to the states? localities, different voting times?, mail in ballots some places not others), and structure of the legislature (senate getting two votes per state, weird staggering, districts drawn by states) is all horribly anachronistic, ESPECIALLY in practice.
we need to start fixing are proposing ideas because lot of our Constitution sucks and we need to stop saying no to anyone who dares to challenge it.
{here goes your snarky comment}
benjipwns
Banned
No, for government to be consistent for that long.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Yeah, benji, we need to have nationally uniform voting rules so I don't have to wonder if I'm doing it right when I vote in Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Texas.
benjipwns
Banned
Two of those seem like a waste, I keep my voting fraud/behavior to states where it might mess with the outcome or process.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
You don't understand just how many times I vote in each state.
benjipwns
Banned
And yet Kinky Friedman didn't win the Texas Governorship?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Yes we do need nationally uniform voting rules when voting for federal office. Its not fair that certain federal office are selected differently in different states.
We have a 18th century system that we bizarrely cling to, we have voter suppression, voting on a day were many people can not vote since the only voting times are during working hours, with no mandatory time off, voter ID laws, partisan control of the counting and polling places, differing funding, lack of access
We should be laughed at, our elections are an embarrassment for a 1st world country.
but that's the republican/libertarian mindset in action: me, me, me, me, me.
The system doesn't work. It needs changing.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Unfair to whom? Any given voter is subject to the voting laws of a single state. Every voter voting for a given federal officeholder (EDIT: except for the president, natch) is subject to the exact same voting rules. So, who's getting the short end of the stick on account of state control over elections?
I agree with you that voting should be easy--though secure--but that doesn't mean state sovereignty over elections has to go.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
People in certain states have longer to vote, others have longer early voting, others have to provide a reason for absentee, others not.
Its unfair that we're all US citizens but out ability to vote and the rules governing it aren't uniform.
vote.
Not voting is the same as voting for the winner. If you don't vote, you support whoever wins.
benjipwns
Banned
The election being held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November is federal law. It's nothing out of the 18th century.
The list of First World nations is a lot shorter than I thought. Unless you're saying they should be laughed at for how we treat them like a religious ritual.
Voting for the losers is the same as voting for the winner.
benjipwns
Banned
They claim there isn't the room to accommodate more House members and their staff.
Obviously, in reality they just want to limit the amount of club members.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I don't dispute that there are differences; I just don't see why those differences render the process unfair. So long as each state provides an adequate opportunity for a voter to cast his or her vote and have that vote be counted, I'm not sure why it would be unfair that states have different rules regarding the time, place, and manner of holding elections.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Is this about that Checkthingy? Because if you were going to be affected by that, it'd already have happened.
Yeah, and I'm voting, like, at least 12 times each in at least 7 states.
You're right, as long as minorities know that it is harder for them to vote in advance, I don't see what the problem is either.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Why the hell are you on this forum? you do nothing but respond back sarcastically to everything and quote inane articles and comments,. You can't be engaged because you twist and turn even more. We're stuck with you derailing everything because politics sucks in your mind.
Youre in a US politics thread.
Dude, I couldn't even choose who I want my state rep to be because it wasn't on my ballot. In that case, I don't even have a say on who the winner is either way.
Plus, to know my own state signed up for a system of voter fraud protection that disproportionately affects people of color, then turn around and say they won't use it... Idk, bro...
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Now, you're talking about intrastate unfairness resulting from laws having a disparate impact on different groups within a single state, not interstate unfairness caused by differing election laws among states.
Sure. I think we would mostly debate the question of whether people have adequate opportunities to cast their vote and have it be counted. Presumably we agree that it is possible for a state to make election laws that would make voting hard enough to remove that adequate opportunity. If it is possible, then it makes sense to have regulations that prevent that, which would have the effect of partially standardizing elections.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
geography shouldn't matter for federal elections, its doesn't for federal tax purposes, federal criminal law, etc.
And you know leaving it up to the states kinda precludes those fair elections, there's a reason we have constantly passed laws when states have been unfair, VRA (racism over tho), Motor Voter, the 2002 bill. why have the states set but the most mundane rules.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
geography shouldn't matter for federal elections, its doesn't for federal tax purposes, federal criminal law, etc.
And you know leaving it up to the states kinda precludes those fair elections, there's a reason we have constantly passed laws when states have been unfair, VRA (racism over tho), Motor Voter, the 2002 bill.
what is this difference.I'm arguing there should be one law so we don't have these problems.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked