Vox: Democrats Just Flipped a Kentucky State Legislature Seat in a District Trump Won by 49 Points

jmotivator said:

I wouldn't put too much credit in a single poll, or even in the trend of a single poll. Traditionally the mid-term polls in general are in double digits against the incumbent power in the lead up to wave elections, Democrats haven't managed that convincingly at this point. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I would expect more of a flood of pro-Democrat fund raising and stronger anti-Republican polling before concluding that a real wave to be building.

Also, while there may certainly be some blue seats currently help by Republicans, I would point you to this map that shows that the Democrats could win all blue seats AND sweep all toss ups and still end up not taking the house:

https://www.270towin.com/2018-house-election/

Click to expand...

It's not a single poll, numerous polls are show basically the same numbers give or take. The trends since at least Nov of last year are in the Democrats favor. No one knows if that will continue or reverse. I doubt it will reverse. The first midterm has never been kind to the party that holds the white house. Do you expect history to be set on its ear this time? I think it is just a question of how many seats will be lost by the republicans.

Here is the history of the first midterm election by president.

Obama lost 63 seats in 2010
Bush gained 8 seats in 2002 But lost 33 seats in 2006
Clinton lost 54 seats in 1994
Bush lost 8 seats in 1990
Reagan lost 26 seats in 1982
Carter lost 15 seats in 1978
Nixon lost 12 seats in 1970
LBJ lost 47 seats in 1966
JFK lost 22 seats in 1962
Eisenhower lost 18 seats in 1954
Truman lost 28 seats in 1950
FDR gained 11 seats in 1934

Bush II bucked the trend, but only because of 9-11

Part of the reason a newly elected president almost always loses seat in congress is coat tails. A winning president's coat tails can bring along new congressmen that normally would have lost. That in a way is good news for the GOP. I don't think Trump had much of a coat tail. So we shall see what happens.

Perotista said:

I would say regardless of how the midterm is framed, the Republicans will lose seats. One they are over extended, they now hold several traditional Democratic seats which will in all likelihood revert to the Democrats. Two, there are at this time 32 Republican house members not seeking re-election. That leaves these seats open and an open seat is a heck of a lot easier to win or switch than one with an incumbent. History isn't on the GOP side either, since FDR the party in power, the party which holds the White House has lost seats in every first midterm election with the lone exception of Bush II in 2002. But 9-11 happened then uniting the country behind Bush II and his party.

Neither congressional party is liked. 31% of all Americans have a favorable view of Democrats in congress, 52% unfavorable. On the republican side, 28% favorable 57% unfavorable. Question 98 A and B. That's not much difference. Even so, in our two party system it is the choice of one or the other when probably most want neither. Much like the 2016 presidential election. The midterm may come down to voting for the least parties candidates you want to lose. If so, that would favor the Democrats because is the face of whatever has been going good or bad or whom one is angry at.

We've been talking independents here, so one last thing. Issues, policy wise, independents are basically split on those when it come to President Trump. For some, against others. The one thing most independents hate about Trump is his persona. His very un-presidential behavior, his obnoxious tweets, call it his character. The real possibility exists that independents could like the direction Trump is taking the country, that is up. But vote against him and his party solely based on Trump's character and his persona he has shown as president. Do not underestimate that.

Click to expand...

Interesting in the bolded, and not to debate for debate's sake, but I want to throw this out here as a counterpoint:

During the Presidential election I saw quite a few old-school Dems vote for Trump, similar to Reagan Dems in '80. Many of the one's I'm familiar with, including my own family members, disliked Trump's behaviour & mannerisms, but got sold on his immigration and economic nationalist platform components.

This crowd essentially held their noses while they voted for Trump, despite their dislike of his behaviours. I wouldn't doubt if there's quite a few like these guys, including amongst Independents. You can't underestimate the nearly universal pull of economics and border/employment security.

Chomsky said:

Thanks.

The Indie turnout ratio you suggest, is about what I suspect will occur - a 10 pt or so spread. That's about a 14% change from the Presidential election, which is a moderate but substantive difference. That would pretty much follow Trump's long & slow slip in Independants' approval rating, of around 12 pts.

One thing I want to point-out, is that we're seeing a lot of separate 7 - 12 pt shifts in Trump's approval from a seemingly plethora of niche electorate subsets. While we are analyzing the effects of a moderate shift of a specific subset here, we can't forget these many different subsets become an aggregate total that may become substantive.

Piss-off enough African-American women, white suburban women, young people, etc., etc., even if only 8 or 10 pts, and as an aggregate whole they can become a substantial force. Especially in an often nearly evenly divided country, where a 3-5 pt aggregate difference seals an election for that candidate.

Click to expand...

I agree with most, but dispute the evenly divided country. Here a Pew research chart, Pew only takes it up to 2014, but Democrats have almost always outnumbered Republicans except for a tie or two.

Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014 | Pew Research Center

Here is a link where you can keep track on party affiliation, usually done on a monthly bases.

Party Affiliation | Gallup Historical Trends

It's very dynamic, changes all the time. Changes here if a trend develops could give you a decent indication of what will happen in the midterms.

Perotista said:

History shows that the party in power, by that I mean holds the white house always loses seats in congress, state legislatures and governorship. This has happened to every president. Now how many varies greatly. From small loses to huge loses as seen during Obama. I think one of the reasons is the independent voter who shifts loyalty from one party to the other. Anything that goes wrong in their life that can be blamed on government they get angry at government and the face of government is always the president.

So the president's party usually suffers during his reign as president. I do think the stars, moon and the planets are aligned for a huge Democratic wave this midterm. Call the wave if it happens the independent anti Trump-persona election. They are roughly split on his policies and issues, but they hate his obnoxious, egotistical, temper tantrum throwing via tweeter, his over all unpresidential behavior.

Click to expand...

In Parliamentary systems it is called "by-election" message sending. When the one or more seats in contention makes no difference to the shape of government, power, the vote rarely goes in the governments favor.

If however, the seats do make a difference, the government seats are usually held.

It is when anything outside of these two norms happen, OR that its a landslide or breakthrough it's not a big story and usually doesn't mean much.

In Alabama it was an impact, because of the breakthrough by women marshaling women to the ballot box....that's the "trend" to watch

jmotivator said:

Well, how many of the seats going Dem were originally Dem seats? Other than Roy Moore, the federal elections in Red districts have stayed red, and the generic ballot has been trending Republican, with some actual favoring Republican when Democrats should be well in double digit advantages for a traditional "wave" election.

I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm just saying that people are reading too much into these elections with extenuating circumstances and they will be so irrationally sure of the blue wave that if it doesn't come their crazy rationalization will reach even crazier levels. At this point people were so certain that Hillary was going to win in 2016 that they believe that 13 Russians buying Facebook adds broke American Democracy.

Click to expand...

That some seats are going back Dem is accurate, but that's not necessarily happened in Virginia & elsewhere. Regardless, if 24 seats flip in the House, irrespective of "how & why", the House flips.

But thanks for your reasonable post, and for not associating me with those you see as hyperbolically predicting a wave.

My prediction is a minimum of the 10-12 seats, that might ordinarily occur in a regular party-out-of-power election, going up to a moderate - but unlikely - chance of 24 and a flip of the House. If I had to be held to a hard prediction, I'd say Dems will approach flipping the House, but stop short. Something like 20 seats, or so.

Perotista said:

I agree with most, but dispute the evenly divided country. Here a Pew research chart, Pew only takes it up to 2014, but Democrats have almost always outnumbered Republicans except for a tie or two.

Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014 | Pew Research Center

Here is a link where you can keep track on party affiliation, usually done on a monthly bases.

Party Affiliation | Gallup Historical Trends

It's very dynamic, changes all the time. Changes here if a trend develops could give you a decent indication of what will happen in the midterms.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry Perotista, let me clarify.

Yes, Dems numerically are a plurality in terms of party affiliation, but in terms of the actual election results, via the electoral college system or gerrymandered CDs, the actual election results at the national level tend to be pretty even. That's where I was describing a 4-5 pt shift being determinate. For example, another 1 or 2 pts nationally in 2016 towards the Dems, and we'd be saying "Madam President". Another couple of generic Dem points nationally in November from where we are polling now, and we may be saying "Speaker Pelosi".

Perotista said:

It's not a single poll, numerous polls are show basically the same numbers give or take. The trends since at least Nov of last year are in the Democrats favor. No one knows if that will continue or reverse. I doubt it will reverse. The first midterm has never been kind to the party that holds the white house. Do you expect history to be set on its ear this time? I think it is just a question of how many seats will be lost by the republicans.

Here is the history of the first midterm election by president.

Obama lost 63 seats in 2010
Bush gained 8 seats in 2002 But lost 33 seats in 2006
Clinton lost 54 seats in 1994
Bush lost 8 seats in 1990
Reagan lost 26 seats in 1982
Carter lost 15 seats in 1978
Nixon lost 12 seats in 1970
LBJ lost 47 seats in 1966
JFK lost 22 seats in 1962
Eisenhower lost 18 seats in 1954
Truman lost 28 seats in 1950
FDR gained 11 seats in 1934

Bush II bucked the trend, but only because of 9-11

Part of the reason a newly elected president almost always loses seat in congress is coat tails. A winning president's coat tails can bring along new congressmen that normally would have lost. That in a way is good news for the GOP. I don't think Trump had much of a coat tail. So we shall see what happens.

Click to expand...

I like that you're a numbers guy, Perotista.

I started calculating the average from your data above, but wasn't sure if your list is incomplete. I may consider doing the legwork myself, but thought I'd ask:

Do you happen to know the average delta in an out-of-power midterm? Or if not, do you believe your list is complete enough that I can calculate it?

(Right now it stands around 23 pts, by my doing a quick & dirty estimated & rounded run in my head, and that seems higher than I would have supposed).

Fearandloathing said:

In Parliamentary systems it is called "by-election" message sending. When the one or more seats in contention makes no difference to the shape of government, power, the vote rarely goes in the governments favor.

If however, the seats do make a difference, the government seats are usually held.

It is when anything outside of these two norms happen, OR that its a landslide or breakthrough it's not a big story and usually doesn't mean much.

In Alabama it was an impact, because of the breakthrough by women marshaling women to the ballot box....that's the "trend" to watch

Click to expand...

Now isn't that interesting?

Not having working experience with parliamentarian systems, I had no idea.

So it seems critical seats in your parliamentarian system, behave very much like incumbent seats in the U.S. system?

Chomsky said:

Interesting in the bolded, and not to debate for debate's sake, but I want to throw this out here as a counterpoint:

During the Presidential election I saw quite a few old-school Dems vote for Trump, similar to Reagan Dems in '80. Many of the one's I'm familiar with, including my own family members, disliked Trump's behaviour & mannerisms, but got sold on his immigration and economic nationalist platform components.

This crowd essentially held their noses while they voted for Trump, despite their dislike of his behaviours. I wouldn't doubt if there's quite a few like these guys, including amongst Independents. You can't underestimate the nearly universal pull of economics and border/employment security.

Click to expand...

Granted. I understand that. Economics is very important to independents, jobs, wages, pocket book issues. Independents aren't as ideological as those who are members or identify with both major parties. Going back in history, one will find in a presidential election those who identify with one party or the other will vote for their party's candidate 90% of time. That's an average.

2016 89% of Democrats voted for Clinton, 8% for trump, 3% third party.
2012 92% for Obama, 7% for Romney
2008 89% for Obama, 10% for McCain
2004 89% for Kerry, 11% for Bush II
2000 87% for Gore, 11% for Bush II, 3% third party
1996 85% for Clinton 10% for Dole, 5% for Perot.

You can go back further and check out group voting here.

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/presidential-elections/2016election/

I should say 90% on average depending on whom the third party candidate is. Perot back in 92 and 96 did get 13% and 5% of the Democratic vote.

So 2016 wasn't anything out of the ordinary when it came to Democrats voting for the Republican candidate. If you go through group voting you will find usually the Republicans are a bit more loyal to their party and their candidate by a couple of points. Although in 2016 that wasn't the case as Trump garnered 88% of the Republican vote to Clinton 89% with 4% voting third party. So Democrats were a bit more loyal to their candidate, by a percentage point. Unusual.

Now that may be due to the Republicans always being the smaller party. If you compare Clinton to Obama 2012 among certain groups, you can see where and why she lost. Here's a few.

Obama 2012/Clinton 2016
Blacks Obama 93%, Clinton 88%
Hispanics Obama 71%, Clinton 65% Does that surprise you? With all the immigration talk, Clinton did worst than Obama in 2012.
Asians Obama 73%, Clinton 65%
Whites Obama 39%, Clinton 37%
Union Households Obama 58%, Clinton 51%

The one that really stuck for me was Union Households. Trump's visits to Wisconsin and Michigan paid off with him talking about jobs, addressing workers fears and worries. That beat the heck of of Hillary promising to be an Obama third term. Trump also showed he took Wisconsin and Michigan seriously where Clinton didn't. Trump made five campaign stops/visits to Wisconsin to none, zero for Hillary and Trump made six to Michigan to just one for Hillary. I think they made quite a difference.

How that all plays out in the midterm, who knows. Neither Trump or Hillary are on the ballot. I would say that gives the Democrats an advantage. Democrats or Clinton supporters will never acknowledge how disliked she was by America as a whole and especially independents. 70% of independents had an unfavorable view of Hillary on election day vs. 57% for Trump. Trump won independents.

If the midterms are about Trump, the democrats take back the house in my opinion. If the republicans can turn the election into a referendum on Pelosi, perhaps not. I seen that in Georgia's 6th congressional district special election. The Democrats was ahead until the GOP in the last two weeks were able to get the attention off Trump and onto Pelosi. Could happen again.

Fearandloathing said:

In Parliamentary systems it is called "by-election" message sending. When the one or more seats in contention makes no difference to the shape of government, power, the vote rarely goes in the governments favor.

If however, the seats do make a difference, the government seats are usually held.

It is when anything outside of these two norms happen, OR that its a landslide or breakthrough it's not a big story and usually doesn't mean much.

In Alabama it was an impact, because of the breakthrough by women marshaling women to the ballot box....that's the "trend" to watch

Click to expand...

Alabama was unique in the choosing of Moore as the republican candidate and the sexual allegations against him. Strange would have waltz to victory and without the sexual allegations, so too probably would Moore. The trend that interested me wasn't Alabama, but in the 4 special election congressional seats. All four in deep red districts, all four won by the Republicans. But by 10-15 less than normal. To me that meant something.

I think if that trend continues and I see no reason why it shouldn't. The republicans will win their deep red districts, but what does that trend say about districts relatively even?

Chomsky said:

I'm sorry Perotista, let me clarify.

Yes, Dems numerically are a plurality in terms of party affiliation, but in terms of the actual election results, via the electoral college system or gerrymandered CDs, the actual election results at the national level tend to be pretty even. That's where I was describing a 4-5 pt shift being determinate. For example, another 1 or 2 pts nationally in 2016 towards the Dems, and we'd be saying "Madam President". Another couple of generic Dem points nationally in November from where we are polling now, and we may be saying "Speaker Pelosi".

Click to expand...

You do hear a lot of talk about Texas and North Carolina being gerrymandered by Republicans, especially on this site. But the Democrats did the same gerrymandering to Illinois and New York. To be saying Madam President, I don't think you needed that swing. All you or should I say Hillary needed to do was pay more attention to her own backyard. She spent a lot of money and effort in trying to win Georgia, Arizona and Utah so she could rack up more electoral votes than Obama did. Her campaign was very inept and she failed to energize her supporters like Trump did his.

All Hillary had to do was keep those voters who voted for Obama, this she failed to do. Yeah, it doesn't take much of a swing from one party to the other for a wave to happen. A percentage point picked up by the Democrats is also a point lost to the Republicans which is a two point swing instead one.

Chomsky said:

I like that you're a numbers guy, Perotista.

I started calculating the average from your data above, but wasn't sure if your list is incomplete. I may consider doing the legwork myself, but thought I'd ask:

Do you happen to know the average delta in an out-of-power midterm? Or if not, do you believe your list is complete enough that I can calculate it?

(Right now it stands around 23 pts, by my doing a quick & dirty estimated & rounded run in my head, and that seems higher than I would have supposed).

Click to expand...

Yeah, the list is complete. You lost me on delta. As for an average, I suppose you could come up with one. But I don't think it would be all that useful. Huge losses usually occur when one party has a huge majority in the House. Smaller loses are usually the result of the party being in the minority. LBJ lost 47 seats in his first midterm, even so the democrats still had a 248-187 margin. When you have 295 seats, losing 47 didn't mean a thing. Eisenhower losing 18 meant he lost the house. That switch of 18 seats gave the Democrats control of the House. Even the losses of JFK, LBJ and Carter, the Democrats remained in firm control of the house by a sizable majority.

No big thing having those losses. The big losses regardless of seats lost come when the other party is able to gain control. 1954 18 seats loss by the GOP, the Democrats took control 1994, 54 seat loss gave the Republicans back the House for the first time in 40 years. 2006, 33 seat loss by the GOP gave the Democrats back the house and in 2010, a whopping 63 seat loss, viola the GOP is back in control.

Just keep 24 in mind. That is the number of seats the Democrats need to take back control.

Chomsky said:

Now isn't that interesting?

Not having working experience with parliamentarian systems, I had no idea.

So it seems critical seats in your parliamentarian system, behave very much like incumbent seats in the U.S. system?

Click to expand...

I do not know what you mean by "critical seats", it is not like you take a whole state by winning the most seats in the state. This is one on one, everyone, including the prime minister must face the home voters. As a result some interesting things happen when the leaders go mainstreeting

There are 'critical" seats in the sense they are "swing" but now days, with five parties those swing seats can go anywhere. One reason they are pressing for weighted ballot or some other reform. My seat had always been Liberal leaning conservative, now it divides across socialist, Green and Liberal, the right wing candidate sneaked in with about 2 % or something. Federally it will remain Liberal

Perotista said:

Alabama was unique in the choosing of Moore as the republican candidate and the sexual allegations against him. Strange would have waltz to victory and without the sexual allegations, so too probably would Moore. The trend that interested me wasn't Alabama, but in the 4 special election congressional seats. All four in deep red districts, all four won by the Republicans. But by 10-15 less than normal. To me that meant something.

I think if that trend continues and I see no reason why it shouldn't. The republicans will win their deep red districts, but what does that trend say about districts relatively even?

Click to expand...

My focus on Alabama was because it was women, unfunded, kitchen cabinet politics. I also think it sent a message to all American women that it's time to act. FFS I marched with women and blacks and Vietnam vets way back in the late 60's to end this horse****. It's 2018, no woman should have to have even a moment of fear of being fondled.

Chomsky said:

I like that you're a numbers guy, Perotista.

I started calculating the average from your data above, but wasn't sure if your list is incomplete. I may consider doing the legwork myself, but thought I'd ask:

Do you happen to know the average delta in an out-of-power midterm? Or if not, do you believe your list is complete enough that I can calculate it?

(Right now it stands around 23 pts, by my doing a quick & dirty estimated & rounded run in my head, and that seems higher than I would have supposed).

Click to expand...

Average seats lost by ruling party in midterm elections has been around 30 seats. Dems will most likely take back the House, but Republicans will keep the Senate.

Fearandloathing said:

My focus on Alabama was because it was women, unfunded, kitchen cabinet politics. I also think it sent a message to all American women that it's time to act. FFS I marched with women and blacks and Vietnam vets way back in the late 60's to end this horse****. It's 2018, no woman should have to have even a moment of fear of being fondled.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. The only marching I ever did was in the army. The Republicans have a knack of choosing, nominating far out wacko's at time. Moore, Alabama in the special election. Aiken Missouri, Mourdock, Indiana back in 2012. All three seats should have been easily won by Republicans, but lost due to, shall I say their nomination incompetence.

Speaking of the female vote, over the month looking at all the generic congressional polls women are voicing support to the Democratic candidates by approximately a 40-30 average with the rest unknown or not sure. Surprisingly, men have been averaging a 45-40 advantage to the Democratic generic congressional candidate. The first, I expected. The later doesn't bode well for the GOP. Overall the Democrats have been averaging a lead of 8-10 points. That usually is an indication of a pick up of around 40 seats.

But it's still early. Until names replace generic, these polls are nothing more than an indication of what might happen. A not too accurate indications at times. In 2010 the generic congressional polls were showing a GOP pick up of around 20 seats until late, by late I mean September and October. The Republicans picked up 63 seats.

Perotista said:

I totally agree. The only marching I ever did was in the army. The Republicans have a knack of choosing, nominating far out wacko's at time. Moore, Alabama in the special election. Aiken Missouri, Mourdock, Indiana back in 2012. All three seats should have been easily won by Republicans, but lost due to, shall I say their nomination incompetence.

Speaking of the female vote, over the month looking at all the generic congressional polls women are voicing support to the Democratic candidates by approximately a 40-30 average with the rest unknown or not sure. Surprisingly, men have been averaging a 45-40 advantage to the Democratic generic congressional candidate. The first, I expected. The later doesn't bode well for the GOP. Overall the Democrats have been averaging a lead of 8-10 points. That usually is an indication of a pick up of around 40 seats.

But it's still early. Until names replace generic, these polls are nothing more than an indication of what might happen. A not too accurate indications at times. In 2010 the generic congressional polls were showing a GOP pick up of around 20 seats until late, by late I mean September and October. The Republicans picked up 63 seats.

Click to expand...

Interesting also is a piece I saw that shows age of men is a factor, those like me born in the baby boomer generation tend to support, and strongly, the #meetoo movement, including self identified Republicans.

While that bodes ill for American conservatives it would effectively cut off Canada's conservatives at the knees, who have relied on middle income males to top off their 'traditional vote'.

And it's not too soon to start looking at the minutea, your midterms are 7 months and change away and our general federal is spring the following year.

Fearandloathing said:

Interesting also is a piece I saw that shows age of men is a factor, those like me born in the baby boomer generation tend to support, and strongly, the #meetoo movement, including self identified Republicans.

While that bodes ill for American conservatives it would effectively cut off Canada's conservatives at the knees, who have relied on middle income males to top off their 'traditional vote'.

And it's not too soon to start looking at the minutea, your midterms are 7 months and change away and our general federal is spring the following year.

Click to expand...

It's hard to get into the minutea. We Americans have very short memories. The hot topic today is school shootings, next week school shootings/gun control will be ancient history and another issue or topic replaced it. Every time something happens, most folks call it a game changer that will totally change the outcome of the election. I don't think it is so much as a single event happening as an accumulation of several events and happenings.

In other words, make me angry once, I still might come back and vote for you. But make me angry several times over a long period of time, then there is no way. I've had enough. It's the accumulation of things that I think will doom the GOP in the midterms and perhaps Trump in the long term. Trump isn't a nice guy, a foul mouth bully who is apt to throw temper tantrums like a five year old via twitter. His avid followers love it. Most of us don't. There are those who may agree with Trump and the GOP more than not, but will be voting against them in the midterm. One reason, Trump's obnoxious behavior, his persona and his lack of character.

Time will tell if I have this right.

Perotista said:

It's hard to get into the minutea. We Americans have very short memories. The hot topic today is school shootings, next week school shootings/gun control will be ancient history and another issue or topic replaced it. Every time something happens, most folks call it a game changer that will totally change the outcome of the election. I don't think it is so much as a single event happening as an accumulation of several events and happenings.

In other words, make me angry once, I still might come back and vote for you. But make me angry several times over a long period of time, then there is no way. I've had enough. It's the accumulation of things that I think will doom the GOP in the midterms and perhaps Trump in the long term. Trump isn't a nice guy, a foul mouth bully who is apt to throw temper tantrums like a five year old via twitter. His avid followers love it. Most of us don't. There are those who may agree with Trump and the GOP more than not, but will be voting against them in the midterm. One reason, Trump's obnoxious behavior, his persona and his lack of character.

Time will tell if I have this right.

Click to expand...

Not sure we are that much different. All governments get rid of the manure out of the gate hoping we will forget. Unlike the US where there politics is in your face, the Canadian voter wants not to hear anything out of Ottawa so long as things run right. We are the epitome of the so-called "silent majority' many of whom will vote against the government for staging an election during the NHL playoffs.

American voters are more "informed" but biased, where Canadian voters don't know the details, but seldom vote along party lines on referendums etc. and the largest "base" is uncommitted - about 65% of the population identifies with no party. (Your system of registering your party would be illegal here - as it violates the concept of an anonymous ballot.

The last election was a complete rejection of conservative policies and one that reflected "Canadian values". I have said that it was as pivotal an election as was the first Trudeau; that was a youth vote too and Canada doesn't even look like it did in 1966...we have a constitution, unity, charter of rights and more equal representation.

What it also did was take a deliberately different and sometimes opposed path than the US. I said at the time the last election would bring about a sea change in Canada-US relations and that the distinctions between Canadians and Americans will become more and more obvious.

Fearandloathing said:

Not sure we are that much different. All governments get rid of the manure out of the gate hoping we will forget. Unlike the US where there politics is in your face, the Canadian voter wants not to hear anything out of Ottawa so long as things run right. We are the epitome of the so-called "silent majority' many of whom will vote against the government for staging an election during the NHL playoffs.

American voters are more "informed" but biased, where Canadian voters don't know the details, but seldom vote along party lines on referendums etc. and the largest "base" is uncommitted - about 65% of the population identifies with no party. (Your system of registering your party would be illegal here - as it violates the concept of an anonymous ballot.

The last election was a complete rejection of conservative policies and one that reflected "Canadian values". I have said that it was as pivotal an election as was the first Trudeau; that was a youth vote too and Canada doesn't even look like it did in 1966...we have a constitution, unity, charter of rights and more equal representation.

What it also did was take a deliberately different and sometimes opposed path than the US. I said at the time the last election would bring about a sea change in Canada-US relations and that the distinctions between Canadians and Americans will become more and more obvious.

Click to expand...

In Georgia, we just register to vote. No party registration. There are a few states like that. Not many. I agree on the bias. There are plenty of uninformed voters that just root for their political party to win like a fan of my Braves or your Maple Leafs. It does seem, at least lately that everything is down to party lines. 30 years ago a straight party line vote in congress was almost unheard of. Today it has become the norm. Down here we have those who affiliate with the Republican and Democratic Party. Roughly 55% of the total electorate. Independents which make up the rest is a kind of misnomer. Most lean toward one party or the other and usually vote for the party's candidate they lean to. But roughly 10% of our population is what I call pure or true independents with no leans.

There are the silent ones down here too. I don't think they make up a majority, but they can sway elections. That is if you make them mad enough. They'll go with the flow of things until something the government does to get them angry. Then boom you have a 1994, 2006 or a 2010. Midterms that gave the out of power party the congress. I have a feeling 2018 will join those other three years.

The people were pretty happy with the leadership in Washington prior to 1994 as you have to go back to 1954 the last time congress switch prior to 94. 40 straight years of Democratic Party rule in congress.

I think the distinctions or differences between us and Canada isn't the people as it is government. Our government has become polarized, hyper partisan, to a point where I have been saying those elected officials in Washington are putting their political party before country. Most Americans want the two major parties to work together for the betterment of America, their partisanship has prevented this. But we have a two party system where when we get mad, our only recourse is to put the other party back in power. Get mad at them switch parties again, then again, then again. The problem is nothing is solved.

There is no such thing as an American agenda anymore. Just a Republican one and a Democratic one. Most Americans I think want neither one, but have little to no recourse.

Perotista said:

In Georgia, we just register to vote. No party registration. There are a few states like that. Not many. I agree on the bias. There are plenty of uninformed voters that just root for their political party to win like a fan of my Braves or your Maple Leafs. It does seem, at least lately that everything is down to party lines. 30 years ago a straight party line vote in congress was almost unheard of. Today it has become the norm. Down here we have those who affiliate with the Republican and Democratic Party. Roughly 55% of the total electorate. Independents which make up the rest is a kind of misnomer. Most lean toward one party or the other and usually vote for the party's candidate they lean to. But roughly 10% of our population is what I call pure or true independents with no leans.

There are the silent ones down here too. I don't think they make up a majority, but they can sway elections. That is if you make them mad enough. They'll go with the flow of things until something the government does to get them angry. Then boom you have a 1994, 2006 or a 2010. Midterms that gave the out of power party the congress. I have a feeling 2018 will join those other three years.

The people were pretty happy with the leadership in Washington prior to 1994 as you have to go back to 1954 the last time congress switch prior to 94. 40 straight years of Democratic Party rule in congress.

I think the distinctions or differences between us and Canada isn't the people as it is government. Our government has become polarized, hyper partisan, to a point where I have been saying those elected officials in Washington are putting their political party before country. Most Americans want the two major parties to work together for the betterment of America, their partisanship has prevented this. But we have a two party system where when we get mad, our only recourse is to put the other party back in power. Get mad at them switch parties again, then again, then again. The problem is nothing is solved.

There is no such thing as an American agenda anymore. Just a Republican one and a Democratic one. Most Americans I think want neither one, but have little to no recourse.

Click to expand...

I will let that one go. I have never been, never will be a fan of the Maple Leafs...and I wish people would lose the misconception they are "Canada's Team".

Les Habitant Canadien du Montreal are Canada's team. They are the oldest sports franchise in north america, have won more Stanley cups by far. The Montreal Canadians, win, loose, or draw, are the team of "The Rocket" Richard, Jean Belleveau, and the greatest players in the history of the game.

It's ok, I'm cool, all's good, but had to address that one right out the bat. In another setting they would be words of war!

Perotista said:

In Georgia, we just register to vote. No party registration. There are a few states like that. Not many. I agree on the bias. There are plenty of uninformed voters that just root for their political party to win like a fan of my Braves or your Maple Leafs. It does seem, at least lately that everything is down to party lines. 30 years ago a straight party line vote in congress was almost unheard of. Today it has become the norm. Down here we have those who affiliate with the Republican and Democratic Party. Roughly 55% of the total electorate. Independents which make up the rest is a kind of misnomer. Most lean toward one party or the other and usually vote for the party's candidate they lean to. But roughly 10% of our population is what I call pure or true independents with no leans.

There are the silent ones down here too. I don't think they make up a majority, but they can sway elections. That is if you make them mad enough. They'll go with the flow of things until something the government does to get them angry. Then boom you have a 1994, 2006 or a 2010. Midterms that gave the out of power party the congress. I have a feeling 2018 will join those other three years.

The people were pretty happy with the leadership in Washington prior to 1994 as you have to go back to 1954 the last time congress switch prior to 94. 40 straight years of Democratic Party rule in congress.

I think the distinctions or differences between us and Canada isn't the people as it is government. Our government has become polarized, hyper partisan, to a point where I have been saying those elected officials in Washington are putting their political party before country. Most Americans want the two major parties to work together for the betterment of America, their partisanship has prevented this. But we have a two party system where when we get mad, our only recourse is to put the other party back in power. Get mad at them switch parties again, then again, then again. The problem is nothing is solved.

There is no such thing as an American agenda anymore. Just a Republican one and a Democratic one. Most Americans I think want neither one, but have little to no recourse.

Click to expand...

Once again we see the advantage of a Parliamentary system. And, the addition of third and fourth parties bring the high flying "boys club" back to earth. Prior to the 1940's, Canada was an oligarchy, oh people got to vote, if they weren't colored but often the most votes in a ballot box were by dead people who had magically escaped the grave just as the polls closed.


In the 30's, Canada suffered almost as badly as did Americans, our wheat farmers did not lose their lands because it had become worthless anyway, which gave birth to the communist aligned Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, and a new kind of party leader, a guy who rolled up his sleeves, a professional pastor, farmer and furniture maker named Thomas C. "Tommy" Douglas who won government in Saskatchewan and then introduced universal health care in the poorest province and made it work. He took on the banks by licensing Credit "Unions"....and soon this CCF, had people in Parliament and were gaining ground. Since then I think the percentage is 35 or 40% of the time Canadians have had a "minority government" where the party in power has to please one of the two other parties to keep government.

In the 50's, the government changed more often than a stripper from Conservative John Deafenbaker to Liberal and Peace Prize winner Mike Pearson. Pearson, a Liberal all his life chose to adopt the principals of the CCF, now called the NDP and the backbone of Canada's social safety net was born.

That one man, and his idea changed the shape of politics in Canada and eventually the US as "progressive" ideas took hold. It is the core of "Canadian" and from literature to my own research is the largest part of the glue that holds us together. Canada is not a country so much as it is an experiment in nation building.....

That and the flexible parliamentary system have shaped every election that has followed. Every election there are more "undecided" and swing voters as we learn that breaking with the establishment doesn't have to hurt.

The biggest problem I see in the states that I do not see here is the need to get even. Every election cycle it seems worse and worse, in the adds I hear you get NO idea what anyone stands for, only that they are evil to the core!

Fearandloathing said:

I will let that one go. I have never been, never will be a fan of the Maple Leafs...and I wish people would lose the misconception they are "Canada's Team".

Les Habitant Canadien du Montreal are Canada's team. They are the oldest sports franchise in north america, have won more Stanley cups by far. The Montreal Canadians, win, loose, or draw, are the team of "The Rocket" Richard, Jean Belleveau, and the greatest players in the history of the game.

It's ok, I'm cool, all's good, but had to address that one right out the bat. In another setting they would be words of war!

Click to expand...

I couldn't think of Montreal's team name. I never been a hockey fan. I never seen a single game. I grew up in the 50's and baseball was the sport. I kept thinking Montreal Expos or Montreal Royals. Yeah, I'm that old to remember the AAA Montreal baseball team.

Fearandloathing said:

Once again we see the advantage of a Parliamentary system. And, the addition of third and fourth parties bring the high flying "boys club" back to earth. Prior to the 1940's, Canada was an oligarchy, oh people got to vote, if they weren't colored but often the most votes in a ballot box were by dead people who had magically escaped the grave just as the polls closed.


In the 30's, Canada suffered almost as badly as did Americans, our wheat farmers did not lose their lands because it had become worthless anyway, which gave birth to the communist aligned Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, and a new kind of party leader, a guy who rolled up his sleeves, a professional pastor, farmer and furniture maker named Thomas C. "Tommy" Douglas who won government in Saskatchewan and then introduced universal health care in the poorest province and made it work. He took on the banks by licensing Credit "Unions"....and soon this CCF, had people in Parliament and were gaining ground. Since then I think the percentage is 35 or 40% of the time Canadians have had a "minority government" where the party in power has to please one of the two other parties to keep government.

In the 50's, the government changed more often than a stripper from Conservative John Deafenbaker to Liberal and Peace Prize winner Mike Pearson. Pearson, a Liberal all his life chose to adopt the principals of the CCF, now called the NDP and the backbone of Canada's social safety net was born.

That one man, and his idea changed the shape of politics in Canada and eventually the US as "progressive" ideas took hold. It is the core of "Canadian" and from literature to my own research is the largest part of the glue that holds us together. Canada is not a country so much as it is an experiment in nation building.....

That and the flexible parliamentary system have shaped every election that has followed. Every election there are more "undecided" and swing voters as we learn that breaking with the establishment doesn't have to hurt.

The biggest problem I see in the states that I do not see here is the need to get even. Every election cycle it seems worse and worse, in the adds I hear you get NO idea what anyone stands for, only that they are evil to the core!

Click to expand...

Sounds like Chicago with the dead voting. And yes, we really don't know what our candidates and major parties stand for. Fiscal Responsibility, supposedly a Republican core principal. Then starting with Reagan, both Bushes and now Trump has added trillions upon trillions to the national debt. Only in rhetoric do the Republicans stand for fiscal Responsibility. Neither do the Democrats, Obama just finished 8 years in office and added 10 trillion in debt.

What each party believes in changes or does a 180 depending whether they have the White House. Raising the debt ceiling, during Bush II, the Democrats almost to a man voted against raising the debt ceiling while almost every Republican voted to raise it. Change presidents, Obama. Now every Democrat is for raising the debt ceiling and the Republicans against it. Neither party has any core value.

The Democrats got howling mad and preach doom and gloom when the Republicans shut down the government back in 2014 over Obamacare, but then what do the Democrats do this year, they shut down the government over DACA. Where was the doom and gloom?

It doesn't help that our elections have become nothing more than negative personal attacks on one another. No substance is debated or even talked about. How can one know where the parties and candidates stand or what their vision is for America if they're too busy calling each other names and digging up dirt from 30 or 40 years ago.

We, the voter let them get away with. Besides all the name calling and negative personal attacks against each other, the only thing I remember about Trump is make America great again. With Hillary Clinton, it was she was going to be an Obama third term. Based on that, Americans went to the polls.

Perotista said:

I couldn't think of Montreal's team name. I never been a hockey fan. I never seen a single game. I grew up in the 50's and baseball was the sport. I kept thinking Montreal Expos or Montreal Royals. Yeah, I'm that old to remember the AAA Montreal baseball team.

Click to expand...

Montreal Canadiens