concordtom said:

---

My MAGA cousin in TX posted this:

Midterm Election, Most House Seats Lost by President's Party in Power
2010 Obama: -63
1994 Clinton: -52
1958: Eisenhower: -48
1974 Ford (Nixon): -48
1966 Johnson: -47
1946 Truman: -45
2006 Bush: -30
1950 Truman: -29
1982 Reagan: -26
2018 Trump: -26
*NY Times data since 1946

I let him know that the -26 may very well be -35, depending on the final counts.

The current congress has 235 Republicans with 5 Republican vacancies. If I add those 5, the number of 2016-election held seats is 240.

Meanwhile, CNN reports Republicans have won 200 seats from Tuesday with 10 seats still too close to call. As it happens, scrolling down shows those 10 have 5 Republicans leading, and 5 Democrats leading.

Thus, 200 + 5 = 205. And 240 - 205 = 35.
Conclusion, the initial list shown had Trump losing 26 seats. That appears to have been based on either uncounted vacancies and/or as yet undetermined races from Tuesday. Unless we were to contact the NyTimes, we will not know how they tabulated the 26 figure, what their counting methodology was for the other presidents/years. Were "vacancies" counted there as I have done here? Who knows.

My point is, his table appears to be BS. Typical for a MAGA-zombie.

Hey, that's a good moniker: MAGA Zombies.

---

Honestly, the election is looking better for the Dems at the week had moved on. Gaining the Arizona senate seat, and potentially grabbing the Florida seat, reconfigures the math for the senate in 2020, allowing for a potential triple crown win for the Dems (not saying it is going to happen, just that it is possible).

Don't know why its purely money-driven. Rich people can be racist too.

golden sloth said:

---

concordtom said:

---

My MAGA cousin in TX posted this:

Midterm Election, Most House Seats Lost by President's Party in Power
2010 Obama: -63
1994 Clinton: -52
1958: Eisenhower: -48
1974 Ford (Nixon): -48
1966 Johnson: -47
1946 Truman: -45
2006 Bush: -30
1950 Truman: -29
1982 Reagan: -26
2018 Trump: -26
*NY Times data since 1946

I let him know that the -26 may very well be -35, depending on the final counts.

The current congress has 235 Republicans with 5 Republican vacancies. If I add those 5, the number of 2016-election held seats is 240.

Meanwhile, CNN reports Republicans have won 200 seats from Tuesday with 10 seats still too close to call. As it happens, scrolling down shows those 10 have 5 Republicans leading, and 5 Democrats leading.

Thus, 200 + 5 = 205. And 240 - 205 = 35.
Conclusion, the initial list shown had Trump losing 26 seats. That appears to have been based on either uncounted vacancies and/or as yet undetermined races from Tuesday. Unless we were to contact the NyTimes, we will not know how they tabulated the 26 figure, what their counting methodology was for the other presidents/years. Were "vacancies" counted there as I have done here? Who knows.

My point is, his table appears to be BS. Typical for a MAGA-zombie.

Hey, that's a good moniker: MAGA Zombies.

---

Honestly, the election is looking better for the Dems at the week had moved on. Gaining the Arizona senate seat, and potentially grabbing the Florida seat, reconfigures the math for the senate in 2020, allowing for a potential triple crown win for the Dems (not saying it is going to happen, just that it is possible).

---

Also, three of those "Republican leading" uncalled House seats are likely to flip (all in CA). That would mean it's a 38-seat gain.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

My mom still lives in CA 48, Rohrabacher's old district. To say the switch over isn't a big deal is pure bull. The 48th is/was prime Reagan country but also home of John Wayne and a long tradition of GOP and hardline cold war warriors...not to mentioned a bunch of Birchers, Christian kooks (Crystal Cathedral) and wing nuts.

The one commonality might be level of education and I think that's the basis of the flip...educated people don't swallow horse pucky by the gallon, and women were fed up and po'ed. They looked the other way for economics for a long time but Trump ended that, as did the Russkies. Educated people tend to stop and ask questions, like if Rohrabacher is a Russkie asset and tool. Trump didn't help nor did Kavanaugh.

Also Issa's seat in CA 49 flipped and that's just as big of a deal given it borders southern OC and SD is more conservative then OC and includes Camp Pendleton.

Flipping 48 and 49 were big deals. Both were as solidly GOP as SF is Dem. Imagine if SF flipped...that's how big of a deal it is.

---

I'm assuming you make this stuff in the Dajo vain.

Maybe you should talk to your mom some more to get you facts straight.

Rohrbacker has not lost yet nor has the race been called. He probably losses but it will be real close. The District may be full of wing nuts since it voted for Obama and Clinton, and has a higher Dem registration than GOP registration. The District boundaries have changed a lot (in fact Issa was once the Congressman), but it never included (and is not geographically close) to the Crystal Cathedral. The District was not even rated red (Cook toss-up, Sabato's toss-up, and Inside Elections blue). Your thinking is decades old and full of stereotypes. Just like SF flipping. Yes, maybe 1950 SF flipping.

As for 49, it was a District, when created , that was held by 2 Democrats and a Republican, before Issa, who was gerrymandered out of the 48th (don't tell Dajo). The 49th District had then been gerrymandered to isolate all the GOP votes in one district so it included conservative portions of the Inland Empire and inland northern San Diego County giving Issa a strong base. But in 2012, the District was redrawn to take out the conservative inland areas, to include a small portion of very southern OC and the San Diego coast all the way down to La Jolla. Your talking the few SC cities that mostly voted for Obama and Kerry, and to the extent there are liberals in San Diego county, they are in these beach cities. Issa didn't run because he knew a Democrat would win. Again, this is not even close to your SF flipping scenario. I don't know where you get this cr@p.

---

I've owned you on these boards so many times it's nice to know I've got permanent space in your head.

---

I'm not sure who has a bigger ego, Trump or you. You both seem to have propensity for just making **** up.

---

Why not just call it FAKE NEWS like TRUMP, the GOP and wing nuts. That's essentially what you're doing by calling things you disagree with as "made up". Not exactly hefty intellectual arguments, instead typical ignorant GOP no brain gibberish. It's Sarah Huckabee Sanders being flippant about facts. You know FCCK facts, they don't matter...just call stuff you don't like as made up or FAKE.

Frankly it's this lack of intellectual honesty and willful ignorance that now drives the GOP. If you don't like something, call it fake, disparage it. Trump does this daily.

The thing is, no one calls your arguments FAKE or made up here because most people understand it's a forum and BS and opinions fly. The sad thing is when arguments go south for you, you revert to this...calling something made up or fake, which is a TRUMP MOVE if there ever was one and it's complete and utter BS.

---

My problem with Trump is he just makes stuff up. Every president has shaded the truth or spun stuff (and even lied for legitimate reasons like national security). But the one or two times they got caught with an outright lie to the nation on something important to the public, they got creamed unlike Trump. Clinton saying he didn't have sex for example. But no other president of either party has behaved as Trump. He is trying to create an atmosphere, when combined with the internet, in which reality is irrelevant. Aside from volume, Trump's lies differ significantly from those of previous presidents. Some of his most frequent lies are demonstrably untrue and contrary to well-known and accepted fact, that no President would make. These lies undermine public confidence in the American government, and increase public cynicism. What they don't seem to do is come back at the guy making the false statements, or impact elections. And they emblazon people to just say anything they like such as a neutral or blue tending district for over decade or a gerrymandered trending blue district flipping is the same as SF voting GOP. That is just demonstrably false. Trump creates a psychology that "misinformation" so encoded in a person's mind, that they just say anything to support their views, and they brag about it, like Trump. And that is why my comment to Dajo.

---

While you have a problem with Trump and go on to explain "lying" in many contexts, it's not so ironic you're using some of the same Trump tactics. You stated I made stuff up. As I mentioned, that's basically the same as calling it fake news. It's the same tactic, don't engage just disparage, call it made up if you disagree is just another form of Trump. Frankly I don't get why you bring up disliking Trump but in fact you're using some of his rhetorical methods. Instead of "fake", you're using "made up". In my book that's BS but also oddly blind. Do you realize you're doing this?

Regarding if SF went GOP, I said CA 48 going Democrat is every bit as crazy and unlikely. CA 48 hasn't been gerrymandered. I grew up in that district. It was deep dark red, literal home of John Wayne, U$C's core fan base, a bunch of Birchers and hardcore Cold War warriors...and it flipped blue like that? How is this false or made up? The votes are being counted and the history of the area didn't change.

Finally why bring Dajo in regarding this as an "add-on". It just adds to the confusion and weirdly constructed argument.

WIAF, you're usually reasonable and coherent but in this case, no.

golden sloth said:

---

Don't know why its purely money-driven. Rich people can be racist too.

---

Definitely a venn diagram situation

golden sloth said:

---

Don't know why its purely money-driven. Rich people can be racist too.

---

In fact the Southern gentry were both money driven and racist and they pitted poor whites agains blacks in a classic divide and conquer move to control the economy and politics. The rich will play all side of an issue for gain. Trump is doing the same thing. He hates the South or Southerners but has no problem using it's racist legacy as leverage.

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

concordtom said:

---

My MAGA cousin in TX posted this:

Midterm Election, Most House Seats Lost by President's Party in Power
2010 Obama: -63
1994 Clinton: -52
1958: Eisenhower: -48
1974 Ford (Nixon): -48
1966 Johnson: -47
1946 Truman: -45
2006 Bush: -30
1950 Truman: -29
1982 Reagan: -26
2018 Trump: -26
*NY Times data since 1946

I let him know that the -26 may very well be -35, depending on the final counts.

The current congress has 235 Republicans with 5 Republican vacancies. If I add those 5, the number of 2016-election held seats is 240.

Meanwhile, CNN reports Republicans have won 200 seats from Tuesday with 10 seats still too close to call. As it happens, scrolling down shows those 10 have 5 Republicans leading, and 5 Democrats leading.

Thus, 200 + 5 = 205. And 240 - 205 = 35.
Conclusion, the initial list shown had Trump losing 26 seats. That appears to have been based on either uncounted vacancies and/or as yet undetermined races from Tuesday. Unless we were to contact the NyTimes, we will not know how they tabulated the 26 figure, what their counting methodology was for the other presidents/years. Were "vacancies" counted there as I have done here? Who knows.

My point is, his table appears to be BS. Typical for a MAGA-zombie.

Hey, that's a good moniker: MAGA Zombies.

---

Honestly, the election is looking better for the Dems at the week had moved on. Gaining the Arizona senate seat, and potentially grabbing the Florida seat, reconfigures the math for the senate in 2020, allowing for a potential triple crown win for the Dems (not saying it is going to happen, just that it is possible).

---

Also, three of those "Republican leading" uncalled House seats are likely to flip (all in CA). That would mean it's a 38-seat gain.

---

Oh man, and one more, The seat in Maine has the Republican narrowly "leading," but it was a three-way race and ME has ranked-choice voting. It's likely that once the second-place votes get counted the Democrat wins. So possibly a 39-seat gain.

2016 election
Republican Trump < Democrat Hillary
62,984,828 < 65,853,514
difference of 2,868,686, or 2.09% of total vote count for all parties
(source: wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016)

2018 Midterms
Republicans < Democrats
48,092,967 < 54,230,671
6,137,704, or 5.9% difference of totals, so far.
(source: morning joe/MSNBC, 11/9/18, per video below, flashed very quickly :11 seconds in)

Boy, the Republicans would appear to be in long term trouble if this continues. By caving to the monster, Paul Ryan, Lindsay Graham et all sold their souls and I wonder if they have also sold the Republican Party, too. As Newt said: "we'll see if the Kavanaugh fight was worth it."

Dems may end up with triple crown, indeed, in 2020.
Mika calls it a blue wave indeed, and, perhaps!

dajo9 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I'll be honest, I'm a little disappointed in the results. Yes, the Democrats achieved their baseline goal of getting the house, and did so easily (but not dominately). They changed a few governorship's, but I'd trade all three of Kansas, New Mexico and Nevada for one of Ohio or Georgia. The Senate looks like it will be slightly worse for Dem's than I thought. I was hoping for a final 50/50 split, but would be okay with Republicans grabbing 51 or 52, and it looks like they will grab 53+, which means it will be harder to retake the Senate in 2020.

Also, seeing Florida go Republican for both the Senate and the Governor when the polls had the Dems in the lead on both leads me to believe there is still an underrepresented portion of Trump's base that isn't getting polled, and that will support him, meaning going into 2020 you should assume Florida goes Republican.

---

I'm disappointed too in how some of these individual races went. Looks like Georgia was stolen via voter suppression, as expected. Other states were just disappointing.

But Florida will be interesting because they passed Amendment 4, restoring felons who have served their time, their right to vote. This gives 1 - 2 million Floridians the ability to vote in 2020 that they didn't have before. A disproportionate number of these people are black. So, I don't know how that will shake out and I'm not making any predictions about Florida. I'm just saying Florida will continue to be interesting.

---

Apparently Rick Scott and Marco Rubio don't believe that every vote should be counted, while in Georgia the former Secretary of State is claiming victory after kicking some 700,000 people off the voter rolls. Is this what they mean when they say, "Democracy at work and every vote counts".

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

concordtom said:

---

My MAGA cousin in TX posted this:

Midterm Election, Most House Seats Lost by President's Party in Power
2010 Obama: -63
1994 Clinton: -52
1958: Eisenhower: -48
1974 Ford (Nixon): -48
1966 Johnson: -47
1946 Truman: -45
2006 Bush: -30
1950 Truman: -29
1982 Reagan: -26
2018 Trump: -26
*NY Times data since 1946

I let him know that the -26 may very well be -35, depending on the final counts.

The current congress has 235 Republicans with 5 Republican vacancies. If I add those 5, the number of 2016-election held seats is 240.

Meanwhile, CNN reports Republicans have won 200 seats from Tuesday with 10 seats still too close to call. As it happens, scrolling down shows those 10 have 5 Republicans leading, and 5 Democrats leading.

Thus, 200 + 5 = 205. And 240 - 205 = 35.
Conclusion, the initial list shown had Trump losing 26 seats. That appears to have been based on either uncounted vacancies and/or as yet undetermined races from Tuesday. Unless we were to contact the NyTimes, we will not know how they tabulated the 26 figure, what their counting methodology was for the other presidents/years. Were "vacancies" counted there as I have done here? Who knows.

My point is, his table appears to be BS. Typical for a MAGA-zombie.

Hey, that's a good moniker: MAGA Zombies.

---

Honestly, the election is looking better for the Dems at the week had moved on. Gaining the Arizona senate seat, and potentially grabbing the Florida seat, reconfigures the math for the senate in 2020, allowing for a potential triple crown win for the Dems (not saying it is going to happen, just that it is possible).

---

Also, three of those "Republican leading" uncalled House seats are likely to flip (all in CA). That would mean it's a 38-seat gain.

---

Please don't over-count. There are 5 CA seats undecided at this time in CA, 3 where GOP leads (districts 10, 35, 45) and 2 where Dems lead (48, 49). You can see per link below. That's how I got to 35.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/politics/remember-the-midterms-where-things-stand/index.html

Looks like Florida, Arizona and Georgia will wind up in the legal system.

concordtom said:

---

My MAGA cousin in TX posted this:

Midterm Election, Most House Seats Lost by President's Party in Power
2010 Obama: -63
1994 Clinton: -52
1958: Eisenhower: -48
1974 Ford (Nixon): -48
1966 Johnson: -47
1946 Truman: -45
2006 Bush: -30
1950 Truman: -29
1982 Reagan: -26
2018 Trump: -26
*NY Times data since 1946

I let him know that the -26 may very well be -35, depending on the final counts.

The current congress has 235 Republicans with 5 Republican vacancies. If I add those 5, the number of 2016-election held seats is 240.

Meanwhile, CNN reports Republicans have won 200 seats from Tuesday with 10 seats still too close to call. As it happens, scrolling down shows those 10 have 5 Republicans leading, and 5 Democrats leading.

Thus, 200 + 5 = 205. And 240 - 205 = 35.
Conclusion, the initial list shown had Trump losing 26 seats. That appears to have been based on either uncounted vacancies and/or as yet undetermined races from Tuesday. Unless we were to contact the NyTimes, we will not know how they tabulated the 26 figure, what their counting methodology was for the other presidents/years. Were "vacancies" counted there as I have done here? Who knows.

My point is, his table appears to be BS. Typical for a MAGA-zombie.

Hey, that's a good moniker: MAGA Zombies.

---

Wow, you sure showed him! SARCASM. #NOTABLUEWAVE #SORRYMAYBENEXTTIME

BearNIt said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I'll be honest, I'm a little disappointed in the results. Yes, the Democrats achieved their baseline goal of getting the house, and did so easily (but not dominately). They changed a few governorship's, but I'd trade all three of Kansas, New Mexico and Nevada for one of Ohio or Georgia. The Senate looks like it will be slightly worse for Dem's than I thought. I was hoping for a final 50/50 split, but would be okay with Republicans grabbing 51 or 52, and it looks like they will grab 53+, which means it will be harder to retake the Senate in 2020.

Also, seeing Florida go Republican for both the Senate and the Governor when the polls had the Dems in the lead on both leads me to believe there is still an underrepresented portion of Trump's base that isn't getting polled, and that will support him, meaning going into 2020 you should assume Florida goes Republican.

---

I'm disappointed too in how some of these individual races went. Looks like Georgia was stolen via voter suppression, as expected. Other states were just disappointing.

But Florida will be interesting because they passed Amendment 4, restoring felons who have served their time, their right to vote. This gives 1 - 2 million Floridians the ability to vote in 2020 that they didn't have before. A disproportionate number of these people are black. So, I don't know how that will shake out and I'm not making any predictions about Florida. I'm just saying Florida will continue to be interesting.

---

Apparently Rick Scott and Marco Rubio don't believe that every vote should be counted, while in Georgia the former Secretary of State is claiming victory after kicking some 700,000 people off the voter rolls. Is this what they mean when they say, "Democracy at work and every vote counts".

---

As predicted when the GOP uniformly caved (save Corker, McCain, Flake, and a couple others), they have destroyed the party by turning it over to Trump so passively, and the long term consequences may be devastating and felt for a very long time.

What the hell was a guy like Jeb Bush doing giving the oath of allegiance to whomever won the Republican Primary? He should have said, "yes, unless it's Trump." He'd be the 2020 front runner had he said that. As it is now, his career is over.

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

My MAGA cousin in TX posted this:

Midterm Election, Most House Seats Lost by President's Party in Power
2010 Obama: -63
1994 Clinton: -52
1958: Eisenhower: -48
1974 Ford (Nixon): -48
1966 Johnson: -47
1946 Truman: -45
2006 Bush: -30
1950 Truman: -29
1982 Reagan: -26
2018 Trump: -26
*NY Times data since 1946

I let him know that the -26 may very well be -35, depending on the final counts.

The current congress has 235 Republicans with 5 Republican vacancies. If I add those 5, the number of 2016-election held seats is 240.

Meanwhile, CNN reports Republicans have won 200 seats from Tuesday with 10 seats still too close to call. As it happens, scrolling down shows those 10 have 5 Republicans leading, and 5 Democrats leading.

Thus, 200 + 5 = 205. And 240 - 205 = 35.
Conclusion, the initial list shown had Trump losing 26 seats. That appears to have been based on either uncounted vacancies and/or as yet undetermined races from Tuesday. Unless we were to contact the NyTimes, we will not know how they tabulated the 26 figure, what their counting methodology was for the other presidents/years. Were "vacancies" counted there as I have done here? Who knows.

My point is, his table appears to be BS. Typical for a MAGA-zombie.

Hey, that's a good moniker: MAGA Zombies.

---

Wow, you sure showed him! SARCASM. #NOTABLUEWAVE #SORRYMAYBENEXTTIME

---

(Snark. Not funny.)

I didn't mean to show him up. He's my cousin. I meant to educate him.
You might consider looking at the numbers I've posted, too.

dajo9 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Don't know why its purely money-driven. Rich people can be racist too.

---

Definitely a venn diagram situation

---

Answer: Dark Money. Here you go, available on PBS (PBS compass subscription may be required for you to view). It was free to view until Nov 1.

dajo9 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Don't know why its purely money-driven. Rich people can be racist too.

---

Definitely a venn diagram situation

---

Also here:

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

concordtom said:

---

My MAGA cousin in TX posted this:

Midterm Election, Most House Seats Lost by President's Party in Power
2010 Obama: -63
1994 Clinton: -52
1958: Eisenhower: -48
1974 Ford (Nixon): -48
1966 Johnson: -47
1946 Truman: -45
2006 Bush: -30
1950 Truman: -29
1982 Reagan: -26
2018 Trump: -26
*NY Times data since 1946

I let him know that the -26 may very well be -35, depending on the final counts.

The current congress has 235 Republicans with 5 Republican vacancies. If I add those 5, the number of 2016-election held seats is 240.

Meanwhile, CNN reports Republicans have won 200 seats from Tuesday with 10 seats still too close to call. As it happens, scrolling down shows those 10 have 5 Republicans leading, and 5 Democrats leading.

Thus, 200 + 5 = 205. And 240 - 205 = 35.
Conclusion, the initial list shown had Trump losing 26 seats. That appears to have been based on either uncounted vacancies and/or as yet undetermined races from Tuesday. Unless we were to contact the NyTimes, we will not know how they tabulated the 26 figure, what their counting methodology was for the other presidents/years. Were "vacancies" counted there as I have done here? Who knows.

My point is, his table appears to be BS. Typical for a MAGA-zombie.

Hey, that's a good moniker: MAGA Zombies.

---

Honestly, the election is looking better for the Dems at the week had moved on. Gaining the Arizona senate seat, and potentially grabbing the Florida seat, reconfigures the math for the senate in 2020, allowing for a potential triple crown win for the Dems (not saying it is going to happen, just that it is possible).

---

Also, three of those "Republican leading" uncalled House seats are likely to flip (all in CA). That would mean it's a 38-seat gain.

---

Please don't over-count. There are 5 CA seats undecided at this time in CA, 3 where GOP leads (districts 10, 35, 45) and 2 where Dems lead (48, 49). You can see per link below. That's how I got to 35.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/politics/remember-the-midterms-where-things-stand/index.html

---

I think I was pretty clear. I said those other three seats are likely to flip.

Dark Money, a big problem, not the way democracy is supposed to work.
Citizens United and 501-c-4's are a big problem.

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Honestly, the election is looking better for the Dems at the week had moved on. Gaining the Arizona senate seat, and potentially grabbing the Florida seat, reconfigures the math for the senate in 2020, allowing for a potential triple crown win for the Dems (not saying it is going to happen, just that it is possible).

---

Also, three of those "Republican leading" uncalled House seats are likely to flip (all in CA). That would mean it's a 38-seat gain.

---

Please don't over-count. There are 5 CA seats undecided at this time in CA, 3 where GOP leads (districts 10, 35, 45) and 2 where Dems lead (48, 49). You can see per link below. That's how I got to 35.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/politics/remember-the-midterms-where-things-stand/index.html

---

I think I was pretty clear. I said those other three seats are likely to flip.

---

So you think all 5 of the outstanding CA seats will go Democrat?
Wow, that's bold. Could be I suppose.

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Honestly, the election is looking better for the Dems at the week had moved on. Gaining the Arizona senate seat, and potentially grabbing the Florida seat, reconfigures the math for the senate in 2020, allowing for a potential triple crown win for the Dems (not saying it is going to happen, just that it is possible).

---

Also, three of those "Republican leading" uncalled House seats are likely to flip (all in CA). That would mean it's a 38-seat gain.

---

Please don't over-count. There are 5 CA seats undecided at this time in CA, 3 where GOP leads (districts 10, 35, 45) and 2 where Dems lead (48, 49). You can see per link below. That's how I got to 35.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/politics/remember-the-midterms-where-things-stand/index.html

---

I think I was pretty clear. I said those other three seats are likely to flip.

---

So you think all 5 of the outstanding CA seats will go Democrat?
Wow, that's bold. Could be I suppose.

---

Given the current margins and typical CA trends in late counting (heavily Democratic), yes I think its likely. Most of the election forecasters I follow (Nate Silver, Dave Wasserman, etc.) think so too.

sycasey said:

---

Issa's seat was redistricted to include more liberal areas, true. I don't think it's correct to say it was "gerrymandered," because gerrymandering means politicians or political parties setting up district boundaries to protect themselves. Given that California uses an independent panel to set district boundaries, there's no real evidence a partisan gerrymander happened to Issa. It may just be a consequence of that whole area becoming more liberal in general as population grows.

Rohrabacher's seat was indeed rated as a "tossup" by 2018 election time, however in Rohrabacher's previous election he won 58-41. In the one before that he won 64-36. So this result is a big shift in a pretty short time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_48th_congressional_district

---

I respectfully disagree. The Commission is basically a bunch of cronies picked by the Assembly Speaker, the State Senate President and the minority leaders in the State assembly and Senate. Add 3 "independents" selected by the parties. Not hard to believe they could come-up with safe districts. In fact, has been the subject of several lawsuits.

For example:

The commission intentionally diluted African-American votes in three Los Angeles Area districts and packed several Hispanic districts in order to keep the three African-American incumbents in place. The suit claims that this alleged racial gerrymandering caused ripple effects for other districts throughout the Southern Californian region, raising further issues of compactness and state constitutionality. One such disrupted congressional district is, according to the suit, the 47th, which starts at Long Beach and reaches into portions of Orange County. The suit argued that the plan cuts the Orange County Asian community known as "Little Saigon" in half. The court acknowledged that in fact there was racial gerrymandering, but that the redistricting commissioners are public officers rather than public employees, and therefore beyond the reach of the state constitutional provision prohibiting discrimination or favorable treatment based on race. (Connerly vs. California)

There was then suit based on the Federal Voting Rights Act that the Commission had created safe seats and racial gerrymandering brought by certain Republicans (those with safe seats didn't object). This case made it no where, since the courts said that gerrymandering based on political affiliation and taking into account race is okay under federal rulings.

Which gets us to what happened in Orange County. The 47th Districts was suppose to go to a Hispanic candidate and didn't because of greater turnout by Asians. The winner was an Asian woman who was a former aide of the prior GOP congressman in the District, Ed Royce, in a fairly tight race (edit: at least last I heard, it may have changed). Interestingly, this is exactly was the point of the legislation, to have more competitive districts, but was not the result even the court agreed the Commission was seeking, which was a Hispanic winner.

The fact that they took the entire red inland area of San Diego and Riverside out of Issa's District in 2012 was an attempt to give a safe GOP District for Hunter, by literally taking out the San Diego coast line and putting it in another District. That is by definition gerrymandering. So much so that the reconstituted 50th District chose to elect a Republican under indictment rather than vote for Democrat. This came at the expense of Issa, who got a slightly blue or neutral district. Just look at the cut on the San Diego county map, its obvious what that the attempt was to divide the red inland County from the coastal blue. There is no other reason to divide the county this way. Bi-partisan gerrymandering is still gerrymandering.

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

My MAGA cousin in TX posted this:

Midterm Election, Most House Seats Lost by President's Party in Power
2010 Obama: -63
1994 Clinton: -52
1958: Eisenhower: -48
1974 Ford (Nixon): -48
1966 Johnson: -47
1946 Truman: -45
2006 Bush: -30
1950 Truman: -29
1982 Reagan: -26
2018 Trump: -26
*NY Times data since 1946

I let him know that the -26 may very well be -35, depending on the final counts.

The current congress has 235 Republicans with 5 Republican vacancies. If I add those 5, the number of 2016-election held seats is 240.

Meanwhile, CNN reports Republicans have won 200 seats from Tuesday with 10 seats still too close to call. As it happens, scrolling down shows those 10 have 5 Republicans leading, and 5 Democrats leading.

Thus, 200 + 5 = 205. And 240 - 205 = 35.
Conclusion, the initial list shown had Trump losing 26 seats. That appears to have been based on either uncounted vacancies and/or as yet undetermined races from Tuesday. Unless we were to contact the NyTimes, we will not know how they tabulated the 26 figure, what their counting methodology was for the other presidents/years. Were "vacancies" counted there as I have done here? Who knows.

My point is, his table appears to be BS. Typical for a MAGA-zombie.

Hey, that's a good moniker: MAGA Zombies.

---

Wow, you sure showed him! SARCASM. #NOTABLUEWAVE #SORRYMAYBENEXTTIME

---

(Snark. Not funny.)

I didn't mean to show him up. He's my cousin. I meant to educate him.
You might consider looking at the numbers I've posted, too.

---

You absolutely meant to show him up. You called him a MAGA zombie twice. Don't lose perspective just because you believe that your side is better than the other.

It was my understanding that districts are supposed to break along county lines where possible and then group similar communities where possible. Inland San Diego has more in common with inland Riverside than the coastal communities. Therefore it would make more sense to group coastal communities and inland communities separately.

Further, I don't know if the commission's goal should be to have every district be competitive, rather have it accurately reflect the will of the people. Essentially, if you add up all the votes statewide and divide them into percentages. That percentage should reflect the number of seats each party received. For example, if Democrats win the overall vote 60% to 40%, the number of Representatives should be 6 to 4 (if the hypothetical state has 10 Reps).

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Issa's seat was redistricted to include more liberal areas, true. I don't think it's correct to say it was "gerrymandered," because gerrymandering means politicians or political parties setting up district boundaries to protect themselves. Given that California uses an independent panel to set district boundaries, there's no real evidence a partisan gerrymander happened to Issa. It may just be a consequence of that whole area becoming more liberal in general as population grows.

Rohrabacher's seat was indeed rated as a "tossup" by 2018 election time, however in Rohrabacher's previous election he won 58-41. In the one before that he won 64-36. So this result is a big shift in a pretty short time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_48th_congressional_district

---

I respectfully disagree. The Commission is basically a bunch of cronies picked by the Assembly Speaker, the State Senate President and the minority leaders in the State assembly and Senate. Add 3 "independents" selected by the parties. Not hard to believe they could come-up with safe districts. In fact, has been the subject of several lawsuits.

For example:

The commission intentionally diluted African-American votes in three Los Angeles Area districts and packed several Hispanic districts in order to keep the three African-American incumbents in place. The suit claims that this alleged racial gerrymandering caused ripple effects for other districts throughout the Southern Californian region, raising further issues of compactness and state constitutionality. One such disrupted congressional district is, according to the suit, the 47th, which starts at Long Beach and reaches into portions of Orange County. The suit argued that the plan cuts the Orange County Asian community known as "Little Saigon" in half. The court acknowledged that in fact there was racial gerrymandering, but that the redistricting commissioners are public officers rather than public employees, and therefore beyond the reach of the state constitutional provision prohibiting discrimination or favorable treatment based on race. (Connerly vs. California)

There was then suit based on the Federal Voting Rights Act that the Commission had created safe seats and racial gerrymandering brought by certain Republicans (those with safe seats didn't object). This case made it no where, since the courts said that gerrymandering based on political affiliation and taking into account race is okay under federal rulings.

Which gets us to what happened in Orange County. The 47th Districts was suppose to go to a Hispanic candidate and didn't because of greater turnout by Asians. The winner was an Asian woman who was a former aide of the prior GOP congressman in the District, Ed Royce, in a fairly tight race (edit: at least last I heard, it may have changed). Interestingly, this is exactly was the point of the legislation, to have more competitive districts, but was not the result even the court agreed the Commission was seeking, which was a Hispanic winner.

The fact that they took the entire red inland area of San Diego and Riverside out of Issa's District in 2012 was an attempt to give a safe GOP District for Hunter, by literally taking out the San Diego coast line and putting it in another District. That is by definition gerrymandering. So much so that the reconstituted 50th District chose to elect a Republican under indictment rather than vote for Democrat. This came at the expense of Issa, who got a slightly blue or neutral district. Just look at the cut on the San Diego county map, its obvious what that the attempt was to divide the red inland County from the coastal blue. There is no other reason to divide the county this way. Bi-partisan gerrymandering is still gerrymandering.

---

I know there have been lawsuits against the commission (I would expect nothing less), but I don't know that you've proven intentionality here. It's not possible to always group all "communities of interest" together, but splitting some up does not necessarily mean it was done intentionally. I couldn't find the specific lawsuit you're talking about; do you have a link?

Whatever info I can find on this commission seems to suggest it did its job well.

Another Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

My mom still lives in CA 48, Rohrabacher's old district. To say the switch over isn't a big deal is pure bull. The 48th is/was prime Reagan country but also home of John Wayne and a long tradition of GOP and hardline cold war warriors...not to mentioned a bunch of Birchers, Christian kooks (Crystal Cathedral) and wing nuts.

The one commonality might be level of education and I think that's the basis of the flip...educated people don't swallow horse pucky by the gallon, and women were fed up and po'ed. They looked the other way for economics for a long time but Trump ended that, as did the Russkies. Educated people tend to stop and ask questions, like if Rohrabacher is a Russkie asset and tool. Trump didn't help nor did Kavanaugh.

Also Issa's seat in CA 49 flipped and that's just as big of a deal given it borders southern OC and SD is more conservative then OC and includes Camp Pendleton.

Flipping 48 and 49 were big deals. Both were as solidly GOP as SF is Dem. Imagine if SF flipped...that's how big of a deal it is.

---

I'm assuming you make this stuff in the Dajo vain.

Maybe you should talk to your mom some more to get you facts straight.

Rohrbacker has not lost yet nor has the race been called. He probably losses but it will be real close. The District may be full of wing nuts since it voted for Obama and Clinton, and has a higher Dem registration than GOP registration. The District boundaries have changed a lot (in fact Issa was once the Congressman), but it never included (and is not geographically close) to the Crystal Cathedral. The District was not even rated red (Cook toss-up, Sabato's toss-up, and Inside Elections blue). Your thinking is decades old and full of stereotypes. Just like SF flipping. Yes, maybe 1950 SF flipping.

As for 49, it was a District, when created , that was held by 2 Democrats and a Republican, before Issa, who was gerrymandered out of the 48th (don't tell Dajo). The 49th District had then been gerrymandered to isolate all the GOP votes in one district so it included conservative portions of the Inland Empire and inland northern San Diego County giving Issa a strong base. But in 2012, the District was redrawn to take out the conservative inland areas, to include a small portion of very southern OC and the San Diego coast all the way down to La Jolla. Your talking the few SC cities that mostly voted for Obama and Kerry, and to the extent there are liberals in San Diego county, they are in these beach cities. Issa didn't run because he knew a Democrat would win. Again, this is not even close to your SF flipping scenario. I don't know where you get this cr@p.

---

I've owned you on these boards so many times it's nice to know I've got permanent space in your head.

---

I'm not sure who has a bigger ego, Trump or you. You both seem to have propensity for just making **** up.

---

Why not just call it FAKE NEWS like TRUMP, the GOP and wing nuts. That's essentially what you're doing by calling things you disagree with as "made up". Not exactly hefty intellectual arguments, instead typical ignorant GOP no brain gibberish. It's Sarah Huckabee Sanders being flippant about facts. You know FCCK facts, they don't matter...just call stuff you don't like as made up or FAKE.

Frankly it's this lack of intellectual honesty and willful ignorance that now drives the GOP. If you don't like something, call it fake, disparage it. Trump does this daily.

The thing is, no one calls your arguments FAKE or made up here because most people understand it's a forum and BS and opinions fly. The sad thing is when arguments go south for you, you revert to this...calling something made up or fake, which is a TRUMP MOVE if there ever was one and it's complete and utter BS.

---

My problem with Trump is he just makes stuff up. Every president has shaded the truth or spun stuff (and even lied for legitimate reasons like national security). But the one or two times they got caught with an outright lie to the nation on something important to the public, they got creamed unlike Trump. Clinton saying he didn't have sex for example. But no other president of either party has behaved as Trump. He is trying to create an atmosphere, when combined with the internet, in which reality is irrelevant. Aside from volume, Trump's lies differ significantly from those of previous presidents. Some of his most frequent lies are demonstrably untrue and contrary to well-known and accepted fact, that no President would make. These lies undermine public confidence in the American government, and increase public cynicism. What they don't seem to do is come back at the guy making the false statements, or impact elections. And they emblazon people to just say anything they like such as a neutral or blue tending district for over decade or a gerrymandered trending blue district flipping is the same as SF voting GOP. That is just demonstrably false. Trump creates a psychology that "misinformation" so encoded in a person's mind, that they just say anything to support their views, and they brag about it, like Trump. And that is why my comment to Dajo.

---

While you have a problem with Trump and go on to explain "lying" in many contexts, it's not so ironic you're using some of the same Trump tactics. You stated I made stuff up. As I mentioned, that's basically the same as calling it fake news. It's the same tactic, don't engage just disparage, call it made up if you disagree is just another form of Trump. Frankly I don't get why you bring up disliking Trump but in fact you're using some of his rhetorical methods. Instead of "fake", you're using "made up". In my book that's BS but also oddly blind. Do you realize you're doing this?

Regarding if SF went GOP, I said CA 48 going Democrat is every bit as crazy and unlikely. CA 48 hasn't been gerrymandered. I grew up in that district. It was deep dark red, literal home of John Wayne, U$C's core fan base, a bunch of Birchers and hardcore Cold War warriors...and it flipped blue like that? How is this false or made up? The votes are being counted and the history of the area didn't change.

Finally why bring Dajo in regarding this as an "add-on". It just adds to the confusion and weirdly constructed argument.

WIAF, you're usually reasonable and coherent but in this case, no.

---

Your trying to limit what your post said. Your comment on the 49 failed to reflect that it is an entirely different geographical district. Even a decent portion of Rohrbacker's district changed in 2012. Removed were conservative southern orange country cities, an added were inland Democratic areas like Santa Ana. It is not the same District that you lived in. Even without the changes, the District voted for Obama in 2018, a decade ago. No pundit was surprised that these districts flipped. The Dems were favored in the polls. Maybe Rohrbacker had an easier time in response to Obama and perhaps a lousy opponent in the earlier election, but the District was changing, perhaps ever faster than I anticipated. Trump, Rohrrbacker's Russian problems and a good Democratic opponent didn't help. But even without all of that, pundits have been viewing the District as changing over a decade ago. Obama didn't lose San Francisco 10 years. I simply find the comparison absurd. Not to mention the Cathedral mention to wing-nuts, cooks, etc. I don't go around calling the people in SF names that if that is the comparison. Remember my ignores and I are the people who live in the District that your calling these names.

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Wow, you sure showed him! SARCASM. #NOTABLUEWAVE #SORRYMAYBENEXTTIME

---

(Snark. Not funny.)

I didn't mean to show him up. He's my cousin. I meant to educate him.
You might consider looking at the numbers I've posted, too.

---

You absolutely meant to show him up. You called him a MAGA zombie twice. Don't lose perspective just because you believe that your side is better than the other.

---

Uh, dude....
My message to him did not call him a maga zombie.
My post here did, but he did not see that.
One is not showing anyone up when one merely talks behind another's back to people who have zero point zero zero zero idea who it is I'm talking about.

My side is not better than the other side, which used to be mine before it turned into a tribe of hate, lies, and divisiveness. The extreme other side is Trump. If you wish to align yourself with him, that's your perogative, and, in my opinion, fault.

Arizona Senate Race, mail-in ballot count continues: https://results.arizona.vote/#/featured/4/0

Sinema (D) as of right now (4:15pm PST) up on McSally (R) by roughly 20k votes, which is roughly 1% of total.

Kyrsten Sinema (D): 991,189 (49.34%)
Martha McSally (R): 970,986 (48.33%)

BOOM

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Issa's seat was redistricted to include more liberal areas, true. I don't think it's correct to say it was "gerrymandered," because gerrymandering means politicians or political parties setting up district boundaries to protect themselves. Given that California uses an independent panel to set district boundaries, there's no real evidence a partisan gerrymander happened to Issa. It may just be a consequence of that whole area becoming more liberal in general as population grows.

Rohrabacher's seat was indeed rated as a "tossup" by 2018 election time, however in Rohrabacher's previous election he won 58-41. In the one before that he won 64-36. So this result is a big shift in a pretty short time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_48th_congressional_district

---

I respectfully disagree. The Commission is basically a bunch of cronies picked by the Assembly Speaker, the State Senate President and the minority leaders in the State assembly and Senate. Add 3 "independents" selected by the parties. Not hard to believe they could come-up with safe districts. In fact, has been the subject of several lawsuits.

For example:

The commission intentionally diluted African-American votes in three Los Angeles Area districts and packed several Hispanic districts in order to keep the three African-American incumbents in place. The suit claims that this alleged racial gerrymandering caused ripple effects for other districts throughout the Southern Californian region, raising further issues of compactness and state constitutionality. One such disrupted congressional district is, according to the suit, the 47th, which starts at Long Beach and reaches into portions of Orange County. The suit argued that the plan cuts the Orange County Asian community known as "Little Saigon" in half. The court acknowledged that in fact there was racial gerrymandering, but that the redistricting commissioners are public officers rather than public employees, and therefore beyond the reach of the state constitutional provision prohibiting discrimination or favorable treatment based on race. (Connerly vs. California)

There was then suit based on the Federal Voting Rights Act that the Commission had created safe seats and racial gerrymandering brought by certain Republicans (those with safe seats didn't object). This case made it no where, since the courts said that gerrymandering based on political affiliation and taking into account race is okay under federal rulings.

Which gets us to what happened in Orange County. The 47th Districts was suppose to go to a Hispanic candidate and didn't because of greater turnout by Asians. The winner was an Asian woman who was a former aide of the prior GOP congressman in the District, Ed Royce, in a fairly tight race (edit: at least last I heard, it may have changed). Interestingly, this is exactly was the point of the legislation, to have more competitive districts, but was not the result even the court agreed the Commission was seeking, which was a Hispanic winner.

The fact that they took the entire red inland area of San Diego and Riverside out of Issa's District in 2012 was an attempt to give a safe GOP District for Hunter, by literally taking out the San Diego coast line and putting it in another District. That is by definition gerrymandering. So much so that the reconstituted 50th District chose to elect a Republican under indictment rather than vote for Democrat. This came at the expense of Issa, who got a slightly blue or neutral district. Just look at the cut on the San Diego county map, its obvious what that the attempt was to divide the red inland County from the coastal blue. There is no other reason to divide the county this way. Bi-partisan gerrymandering is still gerrymandering.

---

I know there have been lawsuits against the commission (I would expect nothing less), but I don't know that you've proven intentionality here. It's not possible to always group all "communities of interest" together, but splitting some up does not necessarily mean it was done intentionally. I couldn't find the specific lawsuit you're talking about; do you have a link?

Whatever info I can find on this commission seems to suggest it did its job well.

---

The law journal articles seem to also agree the Commission is better than the prior way where one party controlled the process generally. There are some criticisms (including informal use of safe districts), but I would expect that you are not going to keep everyone happy when dividing the populace. The case about racial gerrymandering was the Connerly case cited above. The voting rights cases are Vandermost v. Bowen, which was actually two cases, after being kicked back once on appeal, and Radanovich v. Bowen. Bottom line is you can discriminate based on race within constitutional limits (which after the last couple SCOTUS cases means a lot) and by party affiliation.

golden sloth said:

---

It was my understanding that districts are supposed to break along county lines where possible and then group similar communities where possible. Inland San Diego has more in common with inland Riverside than the coastal communities. Therefore it would make more sense to group coastal communities and inland communities separately.

Further, I don't know if the commission's goal should be to have every district be competitive, rather have it accurately reflect the will of the people. Essentially, if you add up all the votes statewide and divide them into percentages. That percentage should reflect the number of seats each party received. For example, if Democrats win the overall vote 60% to 40%, the number of Representatives should be 6 to 4 (if the hypothetical state has 10 Reps).

---

Actually one goal of the legislation was competitiveness. Assessing California's Redistricting Commission: Effects on Partisan ...www.ppic.org/.../assessing-californias-redistricting-commission-effects-on-partisan-fai...Did the California Citizens Redistricting Commission Really Create More Competitive Districts? http://www.fairvote.org/did-the-california-citizens-redistricting-commission-really-create-more-competitive-districts.


When you start looking at the boundaries, the only distinctions I see is that very red suburban cities like Poway went to the GOP district and more liberal cities were included in the jagged border of the coastal district. I can assure you the people of Poway (the second highest income city in San Diego) think they have nothing in common with inland Riverside County other than voting preference. Please pass the Grey Poupon Rancho Santa Fe.

The Voters First Act and Voters First Act for Congress amended Article XXI section 2(d) of the California Constitution to establish a set of rank-ordered criteria that the Commission followed to create new districts, and nothing even remotely resembling your second paragraph appears.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Looks like Florida, Arizona and Georgia will wind up in the legal system.

---

Isn't that a given these days for Florida?

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Honestly, the election is looking better for the Dems at the week had moved on. Gaining the Arizona senate seat, and potentially grabbing the Florida seat, reconfigures the math for the senate in 2020, allowing for a potential triple crown win for the Dems (not saying it is going to happen, just that it is possible).

---

Also, three of those "Republican leading" uncalled House seats are likely to flip (all in CA). That would mean it's a 38-seat gain.

---

Please don't over-count. There are 5 CA seats undecided at this time in CA, 3 where GOP leads (districts 10, 35, 45) and 2 where Dems lead (48, 49). You can see per link below. That's how I got to 35.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/politics/remember-the-midterms-where-things-stand/index.html

---

I think I was pretty clear. I said those other three seats are likely to flip.

---

So you think all 5 of the outstanding CA seats will go Democrat?
Wow, that's bold. Could be I suppose.

---

Given the current margins and typical CA trends in late counting (heavily Democratic), yes I think its likely. Most of the election forecasters I follow (Nate Silver, Dave Wasserman, etc.) think so too.

---

Your becoming my go to guy on elections. Kim and Waters down to 1% leads.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Your trying to limit what your post said. Your comment on the 49 failed to reflect that it is an entirely different geographical district. Even a decent portion of Rohrbacker's district changed in 2012. Removed were conservative southern orange country cities, an added were inland Democratic areas like Santa Ana. It is not the same District that you lived in. Even without the changes, the District voted for Obama in 2018, a decade ago. No pundit was surprised that these districts flipped. The Dems were favored in the polls. Maybe Rohrbacker had an easier time in response to Obama and perhaps a lousy opponent in the earlier election, but the District was changing, perhaps ever faster than I anticipated. Trump, Rohrrbacker's Russian problems and a good Democratic opponent didn't help. But even without all of that, pundits have been viewing the District as changing over a decade ago. Obama didn't lose San Francisco 10 years. I simply find the comparison absurd. Not to mention the Cathedral mention to wing-nuts, cooks, etc. I don't go around calling the people in SF names that if that is the comparison. Remember my ignores and I are the people who live in the District that your calling these names.

---

I'm admittedly confused because I don't know anything about SoCal congressional districts, but in a different argument last year didn't you tell someone (@sycasey?) that he didn't know what he was talking about when he said Rohrabacher's district was more likely to flip than some other district? Based on your post above Wiaf, it appears you now vociferously agree that the flip was a foregone conclusion.

What am I missing? Did I confuse districts?

Much of the military is calling troops at the border a PR stunt, a very expensive one.