OT- The US midterms

[MadAmster]

or simply spell it revitleising...

[GUNTERYY36]

We shouldn't forget Trump is a little rotund for a world leader, his hairstyle is a bit silly, his wife once appeared on the cover of a glossy magazine, the other day he had clearly trodden on something while boarding a plane, etc. All good fun and there'll be plenty more news such as that.

What didn't get quite as much coverage (if any) are the 'scandals' that occurred during Obama's administration during the Ferguson riots: the nationwide'Hands up don't shoot' myth which prompted blacks to loot shops and set fire to white neighbours, taunting white cops struggling to contain the thugs; Hilarly Clinton and Bengazi; the year-long investigation into the server scandal, that saw deleting classified emails which put US national security at grave danger of being hacked by other governments.

The fact the mainstream media refuse to highlight (or even mention) reveals much about their agenda. That should be borne in mind when Trump is accused by them of being '***ist', 'xenophobe', and of course the ever-popular 'racist'. Oh, and 'Islamophobe' (always good for a slur as because there's no such thing as Islamophobia then no defence can be offered).

[ramAnag]

We shouldn't forget Trump is a little rotund for a world leader, his hairstyle is a bit silly, his wife once appeared on the cover of a glossy magazine, the other day he had clearly trodden on something while boarding a plane, etc. All good fun and there'll be plenty more news such as that.

What didn't get quite as much coverage (if any) are the 'scandals' that occurred during Obama's administration during the Ferguson riots: the nationwide'Hands up don't shoot' myth which prompted blacks to loot shops and set fire to white neighbours, taunting white cops struggling to contain the thugs; Hilarly Clinton and Bengazi; the year-long investigation into the server scandal, that saw deleting classified emails which put US national security at grave danger of being hacked by other governments.

The fact the mainstream media refuse to highlight (or even mention) reveals much about their agenda. That should be borne in mind when Trump is accused by them of being '***ist', 'xenophobe', and of course the ever-popular 'racist'. Oh, and 'Islamophobe' (always good for a slur as because there's no such thing as Islamophobia then no defence can be offered).

There was plenty of criticism of the Democrats, Guntery...the Clintons in particular and they probably deserved much of it, Hilary especially, not least for giving rise to such doubts amongst the electorate that Trump was allowed to sneak into power. A better and less complacent Democratic candidate with greater integrity and the current tragedy would not be taking place.

You only have to look at Trump’s pronouncements to recognise that he is guilty of being both racist and ***ist and while I haven’t heard of him being described as Islamaphobic I have no idea how you can possibly suggest that Islamaphobia doesn’t exist...just nonsense.

[Romanis]

The results are in and I have to say I am confused. The US electorate went out and gave the Democrats the majority in the House of Representatives but slightly increased the Republican majority in the Senate.

This means that a lot of them will have voted for a Dem Rep and a Rep Sen. There has to be some kind of tactics in there but they escape me. If they really wanted to strip Trump of all power shouldn't they have made sure the Dems got a majority in both houses?

Hopefully, the new situation will turn him into some kind of lame duck anyway. However, I expect Pelosi to block any moves at impeachment.

No I think you're confused about the roles of both Houses and the way they're elected.
To simplify I'll explain this way. Every state is entitled to 2 US Senators - making 100. They're elected on 6 year cycles, Class A B and C. Every 2 years a third of the Senate is up for election.

The House comprises 435 members. They're elected every 2 years. Elections is based on representation. It was around 33000 voters per rep initially but I expect it's higher now. So for certain states like Wyoming maybe Iowa there might only be 1 rep for the whole state based on population while a more populous one like New York has 39 reps. California obviously has the most - well over 50. So Wyoming will have just 1 rep but as a state they have 2 Senators like all others. Whereas California may have 52 reps but still only are entitled to 2 US Senators.

Now to your point as to why the voters split power either way, well this is obviously due to the way the representation is divided. In big cities, it tends to go Democratic but in rural areas it's almost always GOP (Republican). So while a Democrat may garner seats in a GOP leaning state like Oregon with Portland a major city, the state by itself remains largely GOP because of the rural areas. They employ the first past the post system in most races, although some have runoffs. So that's why you have Republicans retaining control of the Senate. They may lose the cities but as long as there are enough votes in rural in suburban states they're safe. Georgia is a classic example. Atlanta is almost certainly Democratic but the rest of the state is all 'red.' So a Democrat winning Georgia is a tall order like Tennessee, despite Taylor Swift's endorsement, was unable to bring the win home.

But the point to note is that the Dems did quite well in these states. Tennessee, Georgia and Texas are all 'red' states but the Dems closed the gap significantly. Another key I must add why the Dems failed to make headway in the Senate, if you go back to what I wrote earlier, the 1/3 of the Senate being up for election. This cycle significantly favoured the GOP. Of the 33-34 seats up for grabs most were Republican states, or where Trump carried. Heitkamp, McCatskill and Donelly all lost in states that Trump won. Thus far the only gain was in Arizona, where Jeff Flake retired and the Dems defeated his replacement. However in 2020, the cycle will favour the Dems as they are defending states Hillary carried and traditionally blue. However it also being a Presidential election year, may affect their chances, if Trump wins re-election.

[Romanis]

We shouldn't forget Trump is a little rotund for a world leader, his hairstyle is a bit silly, his wife once appeared on the cover of a glossy magazine, the other day he had clearly trodden on something while boarding a plane, etc. All good fun and there'll be plenty more news such as that.

What didn't get quite as much coverage (if any) are the 'scandals' that occurred during Obama's administration during the Ferguson riots: the nationwide'Hands up don't shoot' myth which prompted blacks to loot shops and set fire to white neighbours, taunting white cops struggling to contain the thugs; Hilarly Clinton and Bengazi; the year-long investigation into the server scandal, that saw deleting classified emails which put US national security at grave danger of being hacked by other governments.

The fact the mainstream media refuse to highlight (or even mention) reveals much about their agenda. That should be borne in mind when Trump is accused by them of being '***ist', 'xenophobe', and of course the ever-popular 'racist'. Oh, and 'Islamophobe' (always good for a slur as because there's no such thing as Islamophobia then no defence can be offered).

Yes it's true. And I hate the bias of both networks the pro-Trump like Fox and the leaning Dems, although I don't think CNN is that guilty, they do try to bring in Republican voices. However it's beside the point surely, why should the most powerful man in the world be miffed by the Press? George Bush took in his stride, he even said it's important that the Press hold powerful people like him to account.
And don't forget Trump lies tremendously, and his lies and other strange pronouncements are almost always newsworthy. Which network worth it's salt is going to ignore such an 'open goal?' - to use a football analogy.
The President is supposed to bring people together not divide them, or to take only the side of the network that supports the GOP and label the other, enemy of the people. Much of the division and gridlock you see is surprise surprise, created by none other than himself.
He claimed to drain the swamp but look at the people he brought in. They're the ones undermining him and look at the number of people whom he's sacked or resigned. He brought that in. The leaks from the White House is from him. The efforts to stall or stop him is from within his own branch not some 'Deep State' - another fictional creation by him. The Mueller investigation is headed by a lifelong Republican, so how come this is a Democratic conspiracy? Comey is also a Republican.

[Romanis]

It's quite funny to see Trump lie again and try and paint the success of retaining the Senate as a great achievement while declaring the loss of the House was due to retirements and the cycle. Isn't it the same in the senate. The Senate cycle totally favoured the Republicans. Dems were defending more seats - 20-14 and most in 'red states' that vote Republican that he easily carried, yet the margins this time was all smaller. Tennessee, Texas and some other where Republicans usually streak home comfortably all saw close races where the Dems bridged the gap significantly.
The popular vote also shows a significant advantage to the Dems - nearly 7 million. Trump lost by 3 million in 2016, maybe you can account most of that to California, but these extra 4 million didn't come from there. If this holds, he has a major problem in 2020. And Florida where he won by a few points, well this one was a difference of only 0.5% and possibly a recount. And Florida has just passed a bill allowing people with records to be allowed to vote again, an influx of 1.5m new votes, most of them being Blacks and Latinos. If the Dems can organise them properly and get them to the polls, Trump's chances in Florida will diminish significantly.

He can claim success, but deep down he should know he has major issues to fix if he wants to be re-elected. He might need a major conflict or significant issue to rally voters again and of course, if the economy and jobs grow and grow, he stands a good chance. If not, he may be another Jimmy Carter or George HW Bush. Voters are fickle anyway.

What he can claim success, is ensuring that the Senate can and will confirm his executive and judicial appointments/ If Clarence Thomas retires, he can push a replacement easily although that won't affect the court too much. The worry for the Dems is if Ruth Ginsburg dies or retires, Trump will replace her with an ideological opposite and the Court will shift significantly to the right for a generation. They need her to hang on and hope to win 2020 to stops this.

[Romanis]

No I think you're confused about the roles of both Houses and the way they're elected.
To simplify I'll explain this way. Every state is entitled to 2 US Senators - making 100. They're elected on 6 year cycles, Class A B and C. Every 2 years a third of the Senate is up for election.

The House comprises 435 members. They're elected every 2 years. Elections is based on representation. It was around 33000 voters per rep initially but I expect it's higher now. So for certain states like Wyoming maybe Iowa there might only be 1 rep for the whole state based on population while a more populous one like New York has 39 reps. California obviously has the most - well over 50. So Wyoming will have just 1 rep but as a state they have 2 Senators like all others. Whereas California may have 52 reps but still only are entitled to 2 US Senators.

Now to your point as to why the voters split power either way, well this is obviously due to the way the representation is divided. In big cities, it tends to go Democratic but in rural areas it's almost always GOP (Republican). So while a Democrat may garner seats in a GOP leaning state like Oregon with Portland a major city, the state by itself remains largely GOP because of the rural areas. They employ the first past the post system in most races, although some have runoffs. So that's why you have Republicans retaining control of the Senate. They may lose the cities but as long as there are enough votes in rural in suburban states they're safe. Georgia is a classic example. Atlanta is almost certainly Democratic but the rest of the state is all 'red.' So a Democrat winning Georgia is a tall order like Tennessee, despite Taylor Swift's endorsement, was unable to bring the win home.

But the point to note is that the Dems did quite well in these states. Tennessee, Georgia and Texas are all 'red' states but the Dems closed the gap significantly. Another key I must add why the Dems failed to make headway in the Senate, if you go back to what I wrote earlier, the 1/3 of the Senate being up for election. This cycle significantly favoured the GOP. Of the 33-34 seats up for grabs most were Republican states, or where Trump carried. Heitkamp, McCatskill and Donelly all lost in states that Trump won. Thus far the only gain was in Arizona, where Jeff Flake retired and the Dems defeated his replacement. However in 2020, the cycle will favour the Dems as they are defending states Hillary carried and traditionally blue. However it also being a Presidential election year, may affect their chances, if Trump wins re-election.

Correction, the gain was in Nevada not Arizona. In Arizona, the Republican is leading narrowly.

[MadAmster]

No I think you're confused about the roles of both Houses and the way they're elected.
To simplify I'll explain this way. Every state is entitled to 2 US Senators - making 100. They're elected on 6 year cycles, Class A B and C. Every 2 years a third of the Senate is up for election.

The House comprises 435 members. They're elected every 2 years. Elections is based on representation. It was around 33000 voters per rep initially but I expect it's higher now. So for certain states like Wyoming maybe Iowa there might only be 1 rep for the whole state based on population while a more populous one like New York has 39 reps. California obviously has the most - well over 50. So Wyoming will have just 1 rep but as a state they have 2 Senators like all others. Whereas California may have 52 reps but still only are entitled to 2 US Senators.

Now to your point as to why the voters split power either way, well this is obviously due to the way the representation is divided. In big cities, it tends to go Democratic but in rural areas it's almost always GOP (Republican). So while a Democrat may garner seats in a GOP leaning state like Oregon with Portland a major city, the state by itself remains largely GOP because of the rural areas. They employ the first past the post system in most races, although some have runoffs. So that's why you have Republicans retaining control of the Senate. They may lose the cities but as long as there are enough votes in rural in suburban states they're safe. Georgia is a classic example. Atlanta is almost certainly Democratic but the rest of the state is all 'red.' So a Democrat winning Georgia is a tall order like Tennessee, despite Taylor Swift's endorsement, was unable to bring the win home.

But the point to note is that the Dems did quite well in these states. Tennessee, Georgia and Texas are all 'red' states but the Dems closed the gap significantly. Another key I must add why the Dems failed to make headway in the Senate, if you go back to what I wrote earlier, the 1/3 of the Senate being up for election. This cycle significantly favoured the GOP. Of the 33-34 seats up for grabs most were Republican states, or where Trump carried. Heitkamp, McCatskill and Donelly all lost in states that Trump won. Thus far the only gain was in Arizona, where Jeff Flake retired and the Dems defeated his replacement. However in 2020, the cycle will favour the Dems as they are defending states Hillary carried and traditionally blue. However it also being a Presidential election year, may affect their chances, if Trump wins re-election.

Rom, many thanks. I now understand the crazy US system of votes.

[ramAnag]

No I think you're confused about the roles of both Houses and the way they're elected.
To simplify I'll explain this way. Every state is entitled to 2 US Senators - making 100. They're elected on 6 year cycles, Class A B and C. Every 2 years a third of the Senate is up for election.

The House comprises 435 members. They're elected every 2 years. Elections is based on representation. It was around 33000 voters per rep initially but I expect it's higher now. So for certain states like Wyoming maybe Iowa there might only be 1 rep for the whole state based on population while a more populous one like New York has 39 reps. California obviously has the most - well over 50. So Wyoming will have just 1 rep but as a state they have 2 Senators like all others. Whereas California may have 52 reps but still only are entitled to 2 US Senators.

Now to your point as to why the voters split power either way, well this is obviously due to the way the representation is divided. In big cities, it tends to go Democratic but in rural areas it's almost always GOP (Republican). So while a Democrat may garner seats in a GOP leaning state like Oregon with Portland a major city, the state by itself remains largely GOP because of the rural areas. They employ the first past the post system in most races, although some have runoffs. So that's why you have Republicans retaining control of the Senate. They may lose the cities but as long as there are enough votes in rural in suburban states they're safe. Georgia is a classic example. Atlanta is almost certainly Democratic but the rest of the state is all 'red.' So a Democrat winning Georgia is a tall order like Tennessee, despite Taylor Swift's endorsement, was unable to bring the win home.

But the point to note is that the Dems did quite well in these states. Tennessee, Georgia and Texas are all 'red' states but the Dems closed the gap significantly. Another key I must add why the Dems failed to make headway in the Senate, if you go back to what I wrote earlier, the 1/3 of the Senate being up for election. This cycle significantly favoured the GOP. Of the 33-34 seats up for grabs most were Republican states, or where Trump carried. Heitkamp, McCatskill and Donelly all lost in states that Trump won. Thus far the only gain was in Arizona, where Jeff Flake retired and the Dems defeated his replacement. However in 2020, the cycle will favour the Dems as they are defending states Hillary carried and traditionally blue. However it also being a Presidential election year, may affect their chances, if Trump wins re-election.

An award may be in order here for the year’s most helpful post. Great explanation Rom.
It’s a complex situation made more complicated by the Republicans also being known as GoP (Grand Old Party) and the colours of allegiance being the opposite of those in the UK...Republicans/Red...Democrats/Blue.

[Manofpride]

An award may be in order here for the year’s most helpful post. Great explanation Rom.
It’s a complex situation made more complicated by the Republicans also being known as GoP (Grand Old Party) and the colours of allegiance being the opposite of those in the UK...Republicans/Red...Democrats/Blue.

Agree, a great explanation but that is more than complex. I'll have to read that more than a couple of times to fix that in my head!