UN US Midterm Elections 2018 Megathread - Blue Wave or Red Tsunami? Because you know we need one.

November 6th, 2018.
You have less than one month to sperg about the midterm elections.

Hot Takes :
Tis the end of Drumpf!

It's been an inauspicious beginning to the voting season for Mr Trump and his Republican Party, which continue to struggle under the weight of near-constant self-imposed crises and chaos.

http://archive.is/1rEYe

Could the US midterm elections break Trump's presidency?

President Donald Trump. Source: AAP


Voting in the US midterm elections is now underway.

UpdatedUpdated 27 September
By Rashida Yosufzai, Nick Baker
In this article...

• What are the midterms?
• What do the polls predict?
• Why do these elections matter?
• How could recent developments affect things?
• Could Trump be impeached?
• Will the youth vote make a difference?
• What does it mean for Australia?

Americans have started to cast their ballots in a vote that could shape the rest of Donald Trump's presidency.

Although the US midterm elections are technically held on 6 November, early voting has already started in a handful of states.

Minnesota was the first state to allow early in-person voting on 21 September, with a handful of key states following, including New Jersey, California and Arizona.


Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia offer some form of early voting, meaning every day until 6 November counts for Democrats and Republicans.

It's been an inauspicious beginning to the voting season for Mr Trump and his Republican Party, which continue to struggle under the weight of near-constant self-imposed crises and chaos.

80 per cent chance of winning back the chamber.

Republicans have a 1 in 5 chance of keeping control of the House, while Democrats have about a 4 in 5 chance of winning control of the House. https://t.co/lyNh30TEIw pic.twitter.com/O38qtMPpIz

— FiveThirtyEight (@FiveThirtyEight) September 25, 2018
The Senate though is likely to be retained by the Republicans.

According to CNN, the Democrats are defending some two dozen seats, including 10 in states where Mr Trump secured victory in 2016, and five of those where he won resoundingly.

FiveThirtyEight gives the Democrats just a 30 per cent chance of taking the Senate.

Trump's election one year on: What do Americans think of him now?[/paste:font]


The Democrats could also use their numbers to set up House select committees targeting the president.

"They will have an opportunity to set up special panels and committees to essentially smear President Trump," United States Studies Centre research fellow Dougal Robinson told SBS News in April.

Mr Robinson pointed to the Benghazi committee set up by the Republicans against Hillary Clinton in 2014 to further investigate the fatal 2012 terrorist attack on two US government facilities in Libya.

Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Once seen as cruising to an easy vote - fulfilling Mr Trump's key promise to stack the Supreme Court with conservative justices - a string of sexual assault allegations has turned the Kavanaugh decision into all-out political war.

According to CNN's national political reporter Eric Bradner, the scandal and lukewarm response from some Republicans to Mr Kavanaugh's accusers could "drive suburban women away in midterms".

I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 21, 2018
Analysts also point to Robert Mueller's investigation as an ongoing potential source of political curveballs.

Mr Mueller has already indicted more than 30 people in connection with his probe into whether members of Mr Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to help get the real estate tycoon elected.

And speculation has swirled in recent days that Mr Trump may fire embattled deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein - who oversees the Russia collusion probe.

Doubts over how long Mr Rosenstein can keep the job have swirled since shock media reports that he once suggested secretly recording Mr Trump to collect evidence for ousting him under a constitutional amendment for presidents unfit to remain in office.

Mr Rosenstein's firing - and Mr Trump possibly putting someone more pliable in his place - would set off alarm bells over the future independence of a probe, which has the potential to rock both the midterms and the entire Trump presidency.

US wants ‘partnership, not domination’ in Australia and region[/paste:font]


A report co-authored by Mr Robinson predicted after the midterms, Congress would be highly unlikely to support a US re-entry to the Trans-Pacific Partnership - a trade deal between 11 Pacific nations including Australia and New Zealand which Mr Trump pulled the US out of last year.

Another issue that may affect Australia is that if the Democrats retake the House, it is likely to lead to lower defence spending.

Additional reporting: AAP, AFP

This article was originally published in April 2018 and updated in September 2018.

How will Trump keep his voter base energized? "More Winning."
http://archive.fo/VkaHH

TRUMP HAS A TWO WORD RESPONSE WHEN REPORTER ASKS HIM HOW HE WILL KEEP GOP BASE ENERGIZED
5:52 PM 10/10/2018
Benny Johnson | Reporter At Large

President Donald Trump made portions of the White House press corps chuckle with his response on how he intends to keep Republican voters fired up after the ultimately successful confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“How do you keep your base energized now that you have this Kavanaugh victory?” one reporter asked. Tuesday was the first day that Kavanaugh sat on the court after a contentious battle over his nomination.

“More winning,” Trump said.

Trump was leaving the White House on his way to a campaign rally Tuesday night when he took questions from reporters in the White House driveway.

The president was also asked about the mobs of paid progressive protesters that took over Capitol Hill during the contentious debate over Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Trump was specifically asked about the intense “energy” of the protesters.

“A lot of those were paid protesters. You saw that they are all unhappy because they haven’t been paid yet,” Trump alleged about the protesters. (RELATED: Trump Has A Theory Why The Anti-Kavanaugh Protesters Are So Mad)


Trump brought up his new trade deal with Canada and Mexico as a major policy win. “Our deal with Mexico and Canada was fantastic,” Trump said. “China wants to make a deal so badly. We will see where it goes. But I don’t think they are ready.”

Trump Will Lose 60 Seats in the house... Unless... Please Visit My Site
http://archive.fo/zHe4o

MATT DRUDGE WARNS OF MIDTERM BLOODBATH: TRUMP TO LOSE ’60 SEATS IN THE HOUSE LIKE OBAMA DID’
2:41 PM 09/14/2018
Peter Hasson | Reporter

Conservative news giant Matt Drudge on Friday made a somber prediction about Republicans’ chances in the November midterm elections, predicting President Donald Trump will see his party lose 60 seats in the House of Representatives.

Drudge, who runs the influential Drudge Report, compared the upcoming midterms to the electoral bloodbath Democrats suffered in the 2010 midterm elections under former President Barack Obama.

Screenshot/Twitter

“Trump and Obama both have 47% approval at this time of presidency, according to Rasmussen. Trump will also lose 60 seats in the House like Obama did during first midterm!” Drudge wrote on Twitter. (RELATED: Democrats Should Immediately Abolish ICE After Retaking Congress)

He added cryptically: “Unless…”

Democrats have to gain 23 House seats in November in order to flip the lower chamber. Democrats have an 83 percent chance of retaking the House, according to FiveThirty Eight.

Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Weird :
Mark Taylor "Red Tsunami Prophecy"
http://archive.fo/KJjj2

Mark Taylor (The Trump Prophecies): Most Important Midterm Elections In All Of US History
July 30, 2018 29 3159


Mark Taylor says the upcoming 2018 elections are the most important mid-term elections in all of America’s history. Here’s why…

Mark Taylor interviewed by Greg Hunter on USA Watchdog

Mark Taylor, author of the popular book “The Trump Prophecies,” contends, “If you are part of the army of God, you need to be ready also because there are going to be politicians that are going to resign. We have had the biggest number of resignations probably in history. This midterm election is going to be huge. This is going to be a red tsunami. They keep talking about the blue wave. I think it’s going to be a blue drip, a leaky faucet, and that is all they are going to get. You have had more resignations than we have ever seen. Now is the time to go in and capture this ground and hold it for the Kingdom of God. . . . It’s not a left or right thing. God is moving us towards a place of righteousness. That’s what’s happening right now. So, he’s going to be replacing these people. If you are called to be a judge, senator, congressman or a council person, I don’t care what level local, state or federal, take your place and get ready. If you are in the Army of God and you don’t vote, you need to get off your behind and register to vote. These are going to be the most important midterm elections in America’s history—period.”

In closing, Taylor says, “I don’t think there is going to be another Democrat in the White House for a long time, if ever again. I believe you are seeing the death of the Democrat party right now.”

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Mark Taylor, co-author of “The Trump Prophecies,” which has been made into a movie that is releasing in early October.

Donations: https://usawatchdog.com/donations/

 

[redlenses2112]

GOP will probably lose the midterms because that's what always happens when after an election, the winning party loses the midterms.

I keep seeing others regurgitate this same establishment media appproved exceptional meme time and again, and I fail to see any sort of coherent basis for it. Democrats controlled the house between 1952-94, and ditto for the senate except 1980-86. Contrast to how the R's have been in relatively consistent control of both house and senate since 1994, sans 2006-10 and 06-14, respectively. Unless the White Hut fucks up big time ('94 for Billy Jeffy, '06 for Dubya and '10 for Barry), it has little to no barring in midterms.

 

[Black4STA]

I've said this before, and my opinion hasn't changed at all. It seems that Democrats have the upper hand by far and will regain the House. I would be amazed if this doesn't happen.

 

[millais]

I've said this before, and my opinion hasn't changed at all. It seems that Democrats have the upper hand by far and will regain the House. I would be amazed if this doesn't happen.

All the polling and early projections indicate this as well.

 

[MembersSchoolPizza]

I wouldn't be suprised either way; historically polls seem to underestimate republican turnout, for example, and the dems seem to be figuring out a new way to screw up by the hour almost.

 

[TowinKarz]

Yeah, it's just their mishandling of the situation has turned what was "Best case - Blue Wave, Worst case - slim majority" back in August into the current "Best case - Slim majority, Worst case - fail to retake".

And that doesn't bode well at all for 2020 because the overall party trajectory is still downward with Dem performance consistently hitting below where they aim and refusing to change tactics even as the results get poorer and poorer with each iteration.

 

[heathercho]

Hey Jake, your boy Shane here is stealing your schtick. Pure Googleshng.

All the polling and early projections indicate this as well.

You know what they say, a broken clock is right twice a day. I just don't know how much I trust them in the current climate.

 

[TowinKarz]

You know what they say, a broken clock is right twice a day. I just don't know how much I trust them in the current climate.

Until we get post election results that line up with the pre-vote polling, I also don't have much faith they still aren't using some of Nate "98% Chance for Hillary" Silver's methodology.

 

[Hungry Wes Borland]

Until we get post election results that line up with the pre-vote polling, I also don't have much faith they still aren't using some of Nate "98% Chance for Hillary" Silver's methodology.

In Silver's defense, he revised his model in the last week or so to say that Trump had a roughly 1/3 chance of winning. It was Huffington Post that were saying Hillary had a 98% chance of winning and they actually posted multiple articles mocking Nate Silver for his hedging prior to the election.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nate-silver-election-forecast_us_581e1c33e4b0d9ce6fbc6f7f

The GOP is not going to lose the House. Historical precedent is a terrible argument, the congressional districts are aggressively gerrymandered and despite national polls that show modest advantages for Democrats, local races are decided locally. A million media-addled Democrats in NYC have no bearing on voters in rural Georgia or North Dakota.
This is 2016 all over again and the amount of seats the Democrats have to take back to gain control is prohibitive outside of something truly catastrophic for the GOP in the next couple weeks (like they all fucked little boys while Trump and Melania watched).

 

[Black4STA]

The GOP is not going to lose the House. Historical precedent is a terrible argument, the congressional districts are aggressively gerrymandered and despite national polls that show modest advantages for Democrats, local races are decided locally. A million media-addled Democrats in NYC have no bearing on voters in rural Georgia or North Dakota.
This is 2016 all over again and the amount of seats the Democrats have to take back to gain control is prohibitive outside of something truly catastrophic for the GOP in the next couple weeks (like they all fucked little boys while Trump and Melania watched).

The GOP House majority is neither as big nor as stable as you think. They only need to lose a couple of seats in California, they will lose many seats in Pennsylvania due to redistricting, and many more in New Jersey. Beyond that, very few seats need to flip for the loss of a majority, and there's already some surefire ones where the R incumbent is unpopular.

Is it a completely done deal? Of course not, only votes count, but it is more than possible.

 

[Hungry Wes Borland]

The GOP House majority is neither as big nor as stable as you think. They only need to lose a couple of seats in California, they will lose many seats in Pennsylvania due to redistricting, and many more in New Jersey. Beyond that, very few seats need to flip for the loss of a majority, and there's already some surefire ones where the R incumbent is unpopular.

Is it a completely done deal? Of course not, only votes count, but it is more than possible.

"Many"? Assuming a clean sweep of ALL the tossups in CA, PA and NJ, it's like +15. They need like 10 more.
I don't want to Huffpo myself and claim it's 99% certain the GOP will win but, despite the polling, it's highly likely and the trend is not in the Democrats' favor. They could have let Republicans run on their complete lack of accomplishments, now they have an energized GOP base furious at the Democratic mob behavior and Kavanaugh situation. They fucked up big time in the past 60 days.
It's silly to spend too much time debating what will happen in the future, so of course we will see, but I know how I would place my bets.

 

[TowinKarz]

Even if they get the House, I'm fairly certain they could easily turn that into a loss by constantly feeding baseless and self-defeating articles of impeachment up the line to a Republican-controlled Senate for 2 years straight to "keep the base energized" and "prove" Republican-Russian collusion, certain that will make them sweep EVERYTHING in 2020.

Or at least they could leverage the budget-making powers of the House to shut down the government for a few weeks via fiscal impasse and try to blame it on Drumpf, same result in the end.

 

[fam]

I also don't have much faith they still aren't using some of Nate "98% Chance for Hillary" Silver's methodology.

I think you're confusing Nate Silver with pretty much everyone else. Trump was given a 29% chance of winning by his model on Election Day. To put it into perspective, that's a slightly greater probability than two coin flips landing on heads both times. At one point his model had Trump at just over 50%. It definitely didn't suggest an easy win for the low-energy Clinton campaign.

 

[CWCchange]

The GOP House majority is neither as big nor as stable as you think. They only need to lose a couple of seats in California, they will lose many seats in Pennsylvania due to redistricting, and many more in New Jersey. Beyond that, very few seats need to flip for the loss of a majority, and there's already some surefire ones where the R incumbent is unpopular.

Soros will bus in some spics and their kids to vote, and no eighty-year-old poll worker is going to stop them.

 

[RodgerDodger]

How do you prove someone follows a religion? People have filed claims that they were fired due to the tenets of their religion requiring facial piercings. (The Church of Body Modification) The case is Cloutier v. Costco. While Costco won the case since they offered her accommodations and she refused, the court declined to rule on whether the Church of Body Modification was officially a “religion.” This is a subject that courts really don't like to handle. I expect a case involving gender identity would go similarly.

This comes up a lot. But here’s the thing. Unlike other Subjective elements, the carve out for religion is explicitly embedded in the US Constitution. And further the court has long established certain objective standards tests and guidelines regarding religious arguments. You can’t just walk into court and claim worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that allows you to eat people. The objective tests for faith based arguments are well established. “Do you regularly and actively participate in a faith community and follow it’s clearly laid out doctrines” being a pretty obvious one. The limits of government with regard to questions of faith was the first rule of the nation. And it’s one the courts operate very carefully around. It’s an enumerated right. The First enumerated right on the list. Sexuality and perception of reality is another thing altogether. Granted there is an objective test for homosexuality... but I don’t think any court would be willing to enter it into the record. Not even San Francisco...

I've said this before, and my opinion hasn't changed at all. It seems that Democrats have the upper hand by far and will regain the House. I would be amazed if this doesn't happen.

All the polling and early projections indicate this as well.

There is no publicly revealed polling regarding House races. None! Certainly no media polling. It’s expensive and incredibly hard to do. So nobody does it. They aren’t even polling the big media spotlight races such as Ocasio-Cortez. Everything the Media is saying is based on National and sometimes State polling. Which is utterly worthless in the Mid Term Congressional races. They know this, but are feeding a narrative. The truth is the Senate is staying GOP, probably gaining seats. The House could go either way, but it will be on a razors edge. There is no edge or advantage to the Dems. All of that perceived edge comes from the dense urban areas, that are already Dem. the Dems have an exceedingly narrow path to House victory. Generic Voter Preference is meaningless when the bulk of the sample is in the cities.

This will be largely a status quo election. The economy is good. There are no pressing widely contemplated national issues roiling the nation. (Sorry but “Drumpf!!!” Is not a National Issue. It’s a niche one.) So each House seat will be hard fought locally. The Dems are counting on redistricting in Pennsylvania and greater Blue waves in California. That might get them some of the needed seats. But it presumes they hold their current seats as well. Which is not a sure thing in the South and Midwest.

Whichever way the House goes the margin of seats will be in the single digits.

 

[TowinKarz]

I hope in the next few years, some court returns sanity to the land by applying the objective gender test - "Y chromosome? Then you're male and can't sue your employer for making you work through your "period" breaks"

 

[Shokew]

Red Tsunami or Russia all the way. Dems have nothing to gain and deserve to lose, IMHO. I'm not on anyone's side anymore, either - I'm just pointing out common sense at this point: Let Trumpndo his job or screw up at it on his own merits and stop trying to scare me!

 

[Wallace]

This comes up a lot. But here’s the thing. Unlike other Subjective elements, the carve out for religion is explicitly embedded in the US Constitution. And further the court has long established certain objective standards tests and guidelines regarding religious arguments. You can’t just walk into court and claim worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that allows you to eat people. The objective tests for faith based arguments are well established. “Do you regularly and actively participate in a faith community and follow it’s clearly laid out doctrines” being a pretty obvious one. The limits of government with regard to questions of faith was the first rule of the nation. And it’s one the courts operate very carefully around. It’s an enumerated right. The First enumerated right on the list. Sexuality and perception of reality is another thing altogether. Granted there is an objective test for homosexuality... but I don’t think any court would be willing to enter it into the record. Not even San Francisco...

But Cloutier wasn't a First Amendment case, it's a Title VII. The First Amendment isn't the last word on civil liberties. The Civil Rights act gets a lot of play too from the feral appeals courts. Just not the Supremes.

 

[Übertroon]

We all know why listening to the media drivel is pointless.

"The party with the sitting president has never held unto the house"

Sure, and "Michigan is not a battleground state"

 

[TowinKarz]

We all know why listening to the media drivel is pointless.

"The party with the sitting president has never held unto the house"

Sure, and "Michigan is not a battleground state"

11 - 8 - 16 - "Trump has a 10,000 vote lead in Florida, but, with 99% of the votes in, we remind you there's a lot of votes to be counted yet. Meanwhile, he trails by 10,000 in Pennsylvania, a state he HAS to win, and that lead shows no signs of closing with 8% of the vote in"

 

[whatever I feel like]

I keep seeing others regurgitate this same establishment media appproved exceptional meme time and again, and I fail to see any sort of coherent basis for it. Democrats controlled the house between 1952-94, and ditto for the senate except 1980-86. Contrast to how the R's have been in relatively consistent control of both house and senate since 1994, sans 2006-10 and 06-14, respectively. Unless the White Hut fucks up big time ('94 for Billy Jeffy, '06 for Dubya and '10 for Barry), it has little to no barring in midterms.

If you count "win" or "lose" as just gaining or losing House seats, it pretty much held true in every year except 2002 (right after 9/11.) If you take it to mean actually gaining or losing control of the house, then no of course it doesn't happen every single time.

The GOP is not going to lose the House. Historical precedent is a terrible argument, the congressional districts are aggressively gerrymandered and despite national polls that show modest advantages for Democrats, local races are decided locally. A million media-addled Democrats in NYC have no bearing on voters in rural Georgia or North Dakota.
This is 2016 all over again and the amount of seats the Democrats have to take back to gain control is prohibitive outside of something truly catastrophic for the GOP in the next couple weeks (like they all fucked little boys while Trump and Melania watched).

I disagree, I think the gerrymandering actually makes it worse for them in some areas. The way that the maps were drawn in 2010 gave Democrats a solid core which they were hemmed into and it was hard to suffer additional loses after that, we've yet to see what a wave election can do to all of these light red districts. All of these suburban districts that look to be heading blue were carved out to have as many "acceptably" red districts as possible, but now with the party hurting in that area they are all equally at risk, with none having a safety belt of rural voters. New Jersey is the best example of this, in the current election Republicans would have been better off with a Democratic drawn map giving them 3/4 safe seats out of 9 than the current map giving them 5 "favored" seats, of which they seem likely to lose 3 or 4.

There is no publicly revealed polling regarding House races. None! Certainly no media polling. It’s expensive and incredibly hard to do. So nobody does it.

This is not true. The very first race I bothered looking up, Steve Chabot, has a public poll done specifically on him in his district. Right here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/elections-poll-oh01-1.html

And its not alone, there are shit loads of them. Less than governor and senator, sure, but there were no less than 11 released today.