USA Midterm Elections (predictions etc)

[Wazzzup]

1. polls are often wrong.  They are rarely way wrong, but they are usually wrong.  Some examples-- The repubs taking both houses under Clinton, only one poller predicted that.  Exit polls predicted Kerry would win, he didn't.  Most polls predicted Hillary winning and we know how that went.  Polls tend to undercount conservative voters, not always, but usually.



2. Early voting favors republicans.  Normally early voting favors democrats, but this time it does not.



3. black vote not energized for democrats-- rasmussen puts black approval for trump at 40%, that seems suspiciously high, but I think it is reflective somewhat.  blacks have very high employment (record high) so they will be less motivated to vote dem.  Also issues that blacks care about most are not at the forefront.  Blacks tend to care about police shootings, they don't care about Brett Kavanaugh or illegal immigration.



4. Millennials--A lot of the polls are counting on millennials being strongly motivated to vote.  But they rarely ever turn out.  Maybe this year is different, but past behavior predicts they will not show.



5. Republican voters inscresingly opting out of surveys https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-do-the-polls-keep-getting-it-wrong-many-republicans_us_59033ef4e4b05279d4edbb15">https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wh ... 79d4edbb15">https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-do-the-polls-keep-getting-it-wrong-many-republicans_us_59033ef4e4b05279d4edbb15



6. The democrats have no issues--the only thing they have is hating Trump and offering free health care for all (which they cannot deliver).  is that enough?



Some wild cards in the mix



1. Hispanic vote very low unemployment for Hispanics as well.  Maybe some will care about the caravan, but dunno.



2. Women's vote some may come out because they oppose Kavanaugh etc.  But then there were a lot of republicans women who said they don't want their husbands, sions, brothers to be guilty until proven innocent.



----



So I am predicting the repubs will hold the house just barely and increase their hold of the senate by two.  I could certainly be wrong though, we'll see.

The women vote will be the deciding factor I predict. Lots of women candidates and most are progs.

I just saw this poll today



Majority U.S. Women: Democrats Used Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Accusations for Political Gain

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/02/majority-u-s-women-democrats-used-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accusations-for-political-gain/">https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018 ... ical-gain/">https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/02/majority-u-s-women-democrats-used-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accusations-for-political-gain/

About 55 percent of American women and 56 percent of men say the same, that Democrats were using the Kavanaugh allegations for political purposes. A minority of 45 percent of voters say the Democrats were "genuinely concerned" about Blasey Ford.



Despite the establishment media and Hollywood's "Believe Women" campaign, the vast majority of American voters — including 84 percent of women and 85 percent of men — say when it comes to sexual harassment allegations, the standards of the legal due process should be applied.

Dunno if this will play a role in the outcome.

[Anonymous]

I would say no Wazzzup. Women voters will  help Democrats not Republicans. I could be wrong, and I hope I am.

[Anonymous]

By Walter Williams



A Democratic-controlled House



Democrats are hoping the coming election will give them a majority in the House of Representatives. Republicans and much of our nation dread that prospect. My question is: What would a House majority mean for the Democrats? Let's look at it.



To control the House of Representatives, Democrats must win at least 218 seats, which many predict as being likely. To control the Senate, Democrats must win enough seats to get to 51, which many predict is unlikely. Let's say the Democrats do take the House. If they were to pass a measure that Republicans in both houses didn't like and President Donald Trump didn't like, either, he could use his veto pen. To override Trump's veto, Democrats would need to meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that they muster a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives (290 votes) and a two-thirds vote in the Senate (67 votes). Neither would be likely.



It's quite a challenge to override a presidential veto. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was the veto king, with 635 vetoes. Only nine of them were overridden. President Grover Cleveland vetoed 584 congressional measures and was overridden only seven times. If the House Democrats were to do all that they promise to do and if President Trump were to marshal the guts of Presidents Roosevelt and Cleveland — both Democrats, I might add — the next two years would be a sight to behold.



But wait! Democrats are pushing for the elimination of the Electoral College and having presidents chosen by majority rule. Might they call for the same for all political decisions? That way, it would require only a simple majority vote, rather than two-thirds, to override a presidential veto.



The Founding Fathers had utter contempt for majority rule. They saw it as a form of tyranny. In addition to requiring a supermajority to override a presidential veto, our Constitution has other anti-majority provisions. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution requires a twothirds vote in each house of Congress or two-thirds of state legislatures to vote for it. On top of that, it requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification of a constitutional amendment. Election of the president is done not by a majority popular vote, much to the disappointment of the left, but by the Electoral College.



Having two houses of Congress places another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. As mentioned earlier, our Constitution gives the president veto power to thwart the wishes of a majority in each house of Congress. It takes two-thirds in each house of Congress to override the president's veto.



The Founders recognized that we need government; however, they also recognized that the essence of government is force and that force is evil. To reduce the potential for evil, they thought government should be as small as possible. They intended for us to have a limited republican form of government wherein human rights precede government and there is rule of law. Ordinary citizens and government officials are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud; it does not intervene in cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away.



For those Americans who see majority rule as sacrosanct, ask yourselves how many of your life choices you would like settled by majority rule. Would you want the kind of car you own to be decided through a democratic process? What about decisions as to where you live, what clothes you purchase, what food you eat, what entertainment you enjoy and what wines you drink? I'm sure that if anyone suggested that these decisions should be subject to a democratic process wherein majority rules, we would deem the person tyrannical.



James Madison wrote, "Democracies ... have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

[Bricktop]

The folly, of course, is to govern a nation in the 21st century, based on rules made in the 18th.



Ask yourselves this...if we cannot, and do not, change our Constitutions in accordance with the dynamics of human sociological evolution, at what point will Governments realise that adhering to an ancient manuscript is a bane, not a benefit.



500 years time? 1000? 3000? Or when the rebels are at the city gates, and all is lost.

[Anonymous]

The folly, of course, is to govern a nation in the 21st century, based on rules made in the 18th.



Ask yourselves this...if we cannot, and do not, change our Constitutions in accordance with the dynamics of human sociological evolution, at what point will Governments realise that adhering to an ancient manuscript is a bane, not a benefit.



500 years time? 1000? 3000? Or when the rebels are at the city gates, and all is lost.

The American constitution has amendments.

[Bricktop]

All constitutions have amendments. That is why they are called "constitutions" and not "edicts" or "rules".



However, amending a Constitution is complex, unwieldy and largely controlled by Governments. Whilst governments like ours...and I dare say yours...have mechanisms through which their Constitution can be amended, it is only the Government that can initiate any such amendment.



In Australia "Chapter VIII specifies the procedures for amending the Constitution. Section 128 provides that constitutional amendments must be approved by a referendum. Amendment requires:



    approval of a referendum bill, containing the proposed amendment, by an absolute majority in each house of the federal parliament; and then

    approval of the bill in a referendum, by a majority of electors in each of a majority of the States (that is, in at least four of the six States),



as well as a majority nationwide (that is, comprising voters in both States and Territories); the franchise in a referendum is to be the same as that in an election to the House of Representatives."



Seems fairly straightforward. Yet the last referendum held was in 1967.



A referendum was recommended to the Government in 2010. It has still not been initiated, and it is likely it never will.



I would love to see an argument that supports a situation that the rules under which we are governed can only be changed with the will of the government...the very industry that benefits most from it.



Yet the laws that govern industry, society, criminal conduct and private disputes change regularly in accordance with changes in the community.



Governments will never change the very laws that create them, give them their power, and provide them large salaries.

[Anonymous]

I quite like the US constitution.

[Bricktop]

I must admit there are elements of it that are valid and worthy.



But it all falls apart when it declares that citizens have a right to bear lethal weapons.

[Anonymous]

I don't like most Republicans, but I hope they do well on Tuesday.

[Bricktop]

I don't care...it surprises me that many of you Canucks seem to, though.

[Anonymous]

I don't care...it surprises me that many of you Canucks seem to, though.

I know, I know, I know.

[Wazzzup]

I don't like most Republicans, but I hope they do well on Tuesday.

The way I see it is--A lot of repubs are phonies who abandoned Trump and they deserve to lose...



BUT Trump doesn't deserve to have a dem house messing stuff up for him.

[Wazzzup]

Dunno if this will affect Tuesdays results.



The poll also found likely Hispanic voters nearly twice as inclined to support Democrats for the House of Representatives as Republicans in Tuesday's elections.



Voter registration groups are using Republican President Donald Trump's nationalist, anti-immigrant rhetoric as an opportunity to drive up Latino enthusiasm. [/quote]

people say its Trump dividing but for years democrats supported  border control and not letting illegals in.  Then they decided it would help them politically they adopted pro illegal stances.  its a clear example of party over country and the increasing extremism and tribalism of the democrat party.

[Anonymous]

At the end of the day today, $5.2 billion will have been spent on the American midterm elections. ac_wot

[Bricktop]

And the net result will be either no change or more chaos.



The system doesn't work any more.