J.C.MacSwell

If you want to discuss trade agreements...shouldn't you start a new thread? Edit: This is the Democrats crushed in midterms thread...LOL!

Ribs can be painful but if not displaced she might do OK. Hopefully most of us can turn out to be half as tough as she is.

From the first link: "Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in the last two decades." That was from 2014...ahhh..the good 'ol days!

Same as the article. Then why is the article titled "The 2018 Electorate was not all that different. They just voted differently." Clearly not identical to 2014...or it would have taken significantly different proportions of each to get the significantly different results they got. It certainly is...and also worth noting this did not happen in 2014...the different demographic groups (most of them) voting differently being the most likely reason...(not turnout that favoured both) If Trump is impeached and incarcerated I would expect he would continue to brag to the guards and inmates...so no surprise there... I would hope the Progressives and Conservatives would both lament the fact that they missed an opportunity to appeal more to the middle...as that may have been the difference given the (apparent, but according to the article) stalemate on turnout.

"the shape of the 2014 and 2018 electorates, doesn’t show as much change as you might expect." What do you think this means? The whole point of the article being that the demographic "shape" (demographic of electorate remained essentially proportional even with the extra turnout) was the same....yet the results were different in 2018 from 2014 ...and not... turnout varied the "shape" (proportionality) of the various groups, with those groups voting the same way as they always do, as you seem to believe. (again...you could be right...but the article suggests otherwise)

You might be right...but not according to your linked article. Did you read it or just assume it agreed with you? "The example that jumps off the page in reading the exits is voters over 65. Republicans won them 57-41 in 2014, but only 50-48 in 2018. That’s about the same margin as in 2006, the last Democratic “wave” election, before the tea party movement-driven realignment of the electorate made “old” all but synonymous with “Republican.” White college graduates shifted from 57-41 Republican in 2014 to 53-45 Democratic this year. By contrast, white voters without a college degree changed marginally, from 64-34 Republican to 61-37. White women didn’t trend as massively Democratic in 2018 as some of the anecdotal evidence suggested, but did go from 56-42 Republican to 49-49 this year. The 2014 exits didn’t provide a breakdown by race, gender, and education-level, but given the relatively low change in the vote of non-college educated white voters generally, you can figure this year’s 59-39 Democratic margin among college-educated white women was a pretty big shift."

Second bold: I am not disputing that. The difference was in 2014 (not last time)despite the (first bold) demographic spread being essentially the same in 2014. That is the point of the article you quoted: (I am bolding within the link) http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/the-2018-electorate-wasnt-all-that-different-from-2014s.html?utm_source=nym&utm_medium=f1&utm_campaign=feed-part Despite the similar demographic spread...different result in 2018 from 2014. (not just overall but within most groups) The inference (not proof) is that it is from the difference in how people voted...not just from who showed up to vote (turnout) I think you are missing the intent of the article you linked. It does not agree with your perception. This does not mean you are wrong but you both can't be right...they readily admit that their stance is not certain...just that the exit polls tend to point in that direction...unless turnout within the groups was the key...which seems unlikely. As per the title of the article: "The 2018 Electorate Wasn’t All That Different. It Just Voted Differently." (from 2014)

The article you cited compared 2018 to 2014 and the numbers they cited were very different. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/the-2018-electorate-wasnt-all-that-different-from-2014s.html?utm_source=nym&utm_medium=f1&utm_campaign=feed-part My key point all along is that the moderate middle is as key to turning an election as is turnout...it just hasn't had as much focus on it lately.... The Democrat "mobs" are what Booker and, to a lesser extent, Holder incite. They don't take part in it, and I have never suggested they did. (you can check)

Republicans had a built in disadvantage in getting total Senate vote, for the exact same reason they had an advantage in gaining seats...many more Democrat seats up for grabs. I think the "will of the nation" was with Democrats, and not due just to turnout...enough people voted differently. I admit this is not certain...and also admit it is what I prefer to think...but I think it is more likely than not, and that many voters were not just swayed to get out and vote...but who to vote for.

But as the article states, they voted significantly differently from 2014...or more correctly seem to have. They are suggesting turnout overall was not as key as people changing the party they voted for (they are not suggesting that with certainty, just that that is how it appear...no one knows for sure). The voting pattern changed within each demographic, and while this could be due to turnout (relatively more Democrats of each demographic showing up) it is more likely due to change of voting choice by many voters. Is this not contrary to how you perceive it?

How would you explain some of the sizeable margins in individual races, that vary strongly in the same districts from election to election?

Interestingly, the expected results (overall) came about despite a very much higher than originally anticipated voter turnout.

The advantage of the party system, where there are few parties (2-3, say) and first past the post is that the parties should be trying to target the whole populace rather than a smaller interest group.

Or find the alternative almost as bad...

At this point I count myself as uninformed, to the degree I don't have a clear idea of what the results mean. Nor do I think anyone else does with any certainty. I do think that with the Democrats taking the House, and the inevitable shift in power that goes with it, the results might not be all bad... but I am hardly "excited". No clear winner of what I consider a somewhat "toxic" election campaign might be a good thing... I think another very significant thing is how well O'Rourke did in Texas. I don't know a whole lot about him but I like to think a moderate will get the Democrat ticket for 2020.

This may be more important than any other results in Florida long term. If not a win for Democrats, which it could well be argued it is, it certainly is a win for democracy.

Can you not see that what you are saying may be true to some extent, in some areas, but backfired to some extent in others? And the same can be said of the Democrat campaign. As Ten oz points out, though it might be a missed opportunity for more, the final results were pretty much close to what was expected for quite a while. The biggest News is the turnout.

You can't just assume the Trump's strategy worked. How the Democrats chose to campaign could have been as significant or more so. I think the different strategies played out differently in the different races, but this was an election where the Democrats had an expected advantage in not being aligned with Trump. You could say the votes were just cast on typical party lines, but I think the campaigns effected how people voted as well as turnout.

That or the blue wave got a little off course and flattened out on a shoal before getting to the shore...

It would be if implied that the broad public support was real, and not on the regimes disallowance of free speech.

bad habits...

Fox bias to Republicans, and against Democrats being worse than CNN bias to Democrats/against Republicans

I would, and already have, agreed CNN is not as bad in that specific regard.

I have said CNN has recently become equally bad (ratings notwithstanding, which would leave Fox News still effectively worse ), not equally biased with regard to the 2 parties, and have explained the difference as to why I believe that. Is Fox News getting worse also? I think that is a real possibility leading up to today's vote.

...and Prime Minister Kiefer Sutherland would ensure you all had health care... I might not agree with this opinion, but I think this is an honest and respectful answer to the OP. +1