Acosta's white house pass removed ..

[Cow Poke]

Of course. But in threads where the thing being discussed is something Trumpian, I give my opinions about those things Trumpian. I started this thread because I have serious concerns about Trumps presidency and especially his attacks on the press, immigrants, and his nationalistic/autocratic leanings. IIRC we had just talked/debated in another tread about the fact Trump is waging war on the press. So when this happened, it made sense to me to start another thread highlighting one of his attacks on the press.


Jim

I withdrew my question. Carry on!

[Tassman]

I believe that I noted before that the Washington press corp really dislikes Acosta.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/16/a...-back-to-work/

[oxmixmudd]

I withdrew my question. Carry on!

Yeah, noticed that after.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, noticed that after.

[RumTumTugger]

My integrity has not changed. I said that there was no assault when Lewandowski grabbed Fields, and I said there was no assault when Acosta touched the intern. But Acosta was one of the reporters who went after Lewandowski for something that was very similar to his own situation. As well as all of the other reporters. Why don't they have integrity?

and if they don't have integrity why should we act like calling them on their lack of integrity is evil like oxmixmudd seems to be saying.

[carpedm9587]

JimL has abundantly shown that the Democrats have talked themselves into believing it was a blue wave after all.

Oh I think that is pretty well established, OBP. Of course many (most?) on the right see it as an ankle-lapper and many (most?) on the left see it as a modest tsunami. So - let's take stock:

• Republicans picked up 1 or 2 seats in the U.S. Senate - retaining control of the Senate 52-48 or 53-47
• Democrats picked up 39 seats in the U.S. House - taking control of the U.S. House 232-197 (essentially almost polar opposite - despite Operation Red Map)
• Democrats picked up 7 governorships - including the three states that gave Trump the White House (PA, WI, MI) - now 23D, 27R
• Democrats picked up 7 lieutenant governorships - including two of the three states that gave Trump the White House (WI, MI). PA stayed Democratic (now 19D, 25R)
• Democrats picked up 3 states AGs (now 24D, 23R, 2 other)
• Democrats gained 52 state senate seats (now 845D, 1,048R, 39 Other, 1 Vacant)
• Democrats picked up 382 state house seats (now 2,516D, 2,719R, 22 Other, 1 Vacant)
• Democrats picked up 5 state supreme court seats (now 21D, 46R, 272 Other)
• Six state legislative chambers went from Republican to Democrat, one went Democrat to Republican

Trifectas saw changes in 11 states, plus one undecided. Currently 14 Democratic (gain of 6) and 22 Republican trifectas (loss of 4). If Kemp wins Georgia (seems likely), there will be 37 trifectas, which ties with 2013 and 2014 for the highest national trifecta count in recent history. Only one state has a divided legislature (Minnesota).

So...clearly many on the right will focus on the Republican's continued dominance in many places and see "the wave" as an ankle-lapper. Many on the left are going to focus on the impressive gains in almost all places and see a tsunami of some degree. I am more towards the middle, and I see good gains towards rebalancing government nationwide, but not enough yet. And I am concerned about the sheer number of state trifectas and partisan state legislatures. Hopefully, 2020 will continue the correction to a balance point, reduce the partisanship (i.e. more divided legislatures and fewer trifectas), and remove Mr. Trump from office.

Rumor has it that Kasich may run as a 33rd party candidate or independent. I hope he does. He doesn't have a prayer of primarying Trump, given Trump's HUGE approval in the Republican party, but he may be able to siphon off the remaining moderate base and weaken Trump's chances - which are fairly narrow to begin with. Then it rather depends on what the Democrats do. It looks to be a really large slate on that side. Hopefully they will have the wisdom to not "get into the mud," which will only arm Trump with ammunition for the GA.

[lilpixieofterror]

Oh I think that is pretty well established, OBP. Of course many (most?) on the right see it as an ankle-lapper and many (most?) on the left see it as a modest tsunami. So - let's take stock:

• Republicans picked up 1 or 2 seats in the U.S. Senate - retaining control of the Senate 52-48 or 53-47
• Democrats picked up 39 seats in the U.S. House - taking control of the U.S. House 232-197 (essentially almost polar opposite - despite Operation Red Map)
• Democrats picked up 7 governorships - including the three states that gave Trump the White House (PA, WI, MI) - now 23D, 27R
• Democrats picked up 7 lieutenant governorships - including two of the three states that gave Trump the White House (WI, MI). PA stayed Democratic (now 19D, 25R)
• Democrats picked up 3 states AGs (now 24D, 23R, 2 other)
• Democrats gained 52 state senate seats (now 845D, 1,048R, 39 Other, 1 Vacant)
• Democrats picked up 382 state house seats (now 2,516D, 2,719R, 22 Other, 1 Vacant)
• Democrats picked up 5 state supreme court seats (now 21D, 46R, 272 Other)
• Six state legislative chambers went from Republican to Democrat, one went Democrat to Republican

Trifectas saw changes in 11 states, plus one undecided. Currently 14 Democratic (gain of 6) and 22 Republican trifectas (loss of 4). If Kemp wins Georgia (seems likely), there will be 37 trifectas, which ties with 2013 and 2014 for the highest national trifecta count in recent history. Only one state has a divided legislature (Minnesota).

So...clearly many on the right will focus on the Republican's continued dominance in many places and see "the wave" as an ankle-lapper. Many on the left are going to focus on the impressive gains in almost all places and see a tsunami of some degree. I am more towards the middle, and I see good gains towards rebalancing government nationwide, but not enough yet. And I am concerned about the sheer number of state trifectas and partisan state legislatures. Hopefully, 2020 will continue the correction to a balance point, reduce the partisanship (i.e. more divided legislatures and fewer trifectas), and remove Mr. Trump from office.

Rumor has it that Kasich may run as a 33rd party candidate or independent. I hope he does. He doesn't have a prayer of primarying Trump, given Trump's HUGE approval in the Republican party, but he may be able to siphon off the remaining moderate base and weaken Trump's chances - which are fairly narrow to begin with. Then it rather depends on what the Democrats do. It looks to be a really large slate on that side. Hopefully they will have the wisdom to not "get into the mud," which will only arm Trump with ammunition for the GA.

[Cow Poke]

Rumor has it that Kasich may run as a 33rd party candidate or independent.....

I can't WAIT to see THAT ballot!

[rogue06]

Political historians say it was pretty typical. In fact with something like 44 or 45 Republicans retiring from Congress the real mystery is why the Democrat gains weren't significantly higher.

[carpedm9587]

For midterms - significantly higher than the average, but not records. If you narrow it to "unpopular presidents," (i.e., popularity below 50%) the gain is slightly above average (39 compared to 37 average). Popular presidents have seen an average 11-seat adjustment. If you compare it to all midterms since 1862, the average is 32.9.

23 of the midterms since 1862 had a higher seat loss; 16 had a lower seat loss. Seat gains happened 4 times (2 Dem, 2 Rep).

However, if you're going to suggest that the height of a wave is determined against the mean, that is really not how it works. When measuring ocean waves, the height is measured trough-to-crest. We don't say that the 311 tsunami in Japan was "X feet" because that's the difference between the average tsunami and the one that hit Japan. We say it is "X feet" as measured from the base of the wave (ground) when it hits shore to the top of the crest.

[lilpixieofterror]

For midterms - significantly higher than the average, but not records. If you narrow it to "unpopular presidents," (i.e., popularity below 50%) the gain is slightly above average (39 compared to 37 average). Popular presidents have seen an average 11-seat adjustment. If you compare it to all midterms since 1862, the average is 32.9.

23 of the midterms since 1862 had a higher seat loss; 16 had a lower seat loss. Seat gains happened 4 times (2 Dem, 2 Rep).

However, if you're going to suggest that the height of a wave is determined against the mean, that is really not how it works. When measuring ocean waves, the height is measured trough-to-crest. We don't say that the 311 tsunami in Japan was "X feet" because that's the difference between the average tsunami and the one that hit Japan. We say it is "X feet" as measured from the base of the wave (ground) when it hits shore to the top of the crest.

[carpedm9587]

Again - I know of no "wave" phenomenon that is measured against the mean. If you can think of one, I'm all ears...

[rogue06]

For midterms - significantly higher than the average, but not records. If you narrow it to "unpopular presidents," (i.e., popularity below 50%) the gain is slightly above average (39 compared to 37 average). Popular presidents have seen an average 11-seat adjustment. If you compare it to all midterms since 1862, the average is 32.9.

23 of the midterms since 1862 had a higher seat loss; 16 had a lower seat loss. Seat gains happened 4 times (2 Dem, 2 Rep).

However, if you're going to suggest that the height of a wave is determined against the mean, that is really not how it works. When measuring ocean waves, the height is measured trough-to-crest. We don't say that the 311 tsunami in Japan was "X feet" because that's the difference between the average tsunami and the one that hit Japan. We say it is "X feet" as measured from the base of the wave (ground) when it hits shore to the top of the crest.

According to CNN as of 3 days ago the Democrats picked up 33 seats in the House (they can still pick up a few more) with 30 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate flipping over to the party that lost the presidency being average^[1]. So the loses in the House, where 435 are up for grabs, are a little above average but the gains in the Senate, where only 33 or 34 are up for grabs, is much more telling.



1. until very recently Wikipedia said that "over the past 21 midterm elections, the President's party has lost an average 30 seats in the House" but this has been changed to "since WWII the President's party has lost an average 26 seats in the House." The chart they provide dating back to Taft reveals a typical loss of 31.4 seats between 1910 and 2014.

[carpedm9587]

According to CNN as of 3 days ago the Democrats picked up 33 seats in the House (they can still pick up a few more) with 30 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate flipping over to the party that lost the presidency being average^[1]. So the loses in the House, where 435 are up for grabs, are a little above average but the gains in the Senate, where only 33 or 34 are up for grabs, is much more telling.

1. until very recently Wikipedia said that "over the past 21 midterm elections, the President's party has lost an average 30 seats in the House" but this has been changed to "since WWII the President's party has lost an average 26 seats in the House." The chart they provide dating back to Taft reveals a typical loss of 31.4 seats between 1910 and 2014.

I gave you the link to the data, Rogue. I can only conclude that CNN's story is dated or they don't have the latest numbers. I have found Ballotpedia to be highly reliable, and it is run by a conservative group to boot.

As for the wikipedia info, I too could have been selective about the midterms I include. topping at 1934 eliminates some of the bigger losses in prior years (i.e., 125 seats in 1894). I elected to include all the data I could find. I would have preferred to go back to the founding of the country, but I cannot find those numbers. They only seem to go back to the Civil War.

As for focusing on the Senate instead of the house, naturally this would be your focus - it is the one bright spot in the elections - the one place where Republicans saw gains. Of course, the gains were well within the predicted margin, long before the midterm. The Republicans were protecting 1/3 the seats the Dems were protecting, many of them in deep red states. No one I know is surprised by the Senate outcome. And the Senate is always a long shot for Dems because they cannot win it without "Red State Dems," whereas the Reps can win it with no "Blue State Reps."

Sorry, Rogue - but when you combine the extreme gerrymandering of Operation Red Map with the outcome of 2018 - you get a pretty decent "wave." Not a tsunami, mind you, but a significant start at rebalancing our government and ending the dominance of Republicans at both the state and federal levels. There is more work to be done, mind you. There is still WAY too much Republican dominance. My hope is it won't OVER balance and swing to far to the left.

If it does - you can bet I will be cheering for Republican successes to bring it back to a more balanced level.

[Mountain Man]

Political historians say it was pretty typical. In fact with something like 44 or 45 Republicans retiring from Congress the real mystery is why the Democrat gains weren't significantly higher.

And one wonders what would have happened if those Republicans hadn't bought into the "blue wave" hype and stuck it out. It's entirely possible and even likely that Republicans would have maintained control of the House.