• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ohio 12th District

MTAtech said:
Indeed they do. This election should have been a cakewalk for Republicans. The district hasn't been represented by a Democrat since DOS was used on IBM PCs. It should have been won by double-digits. Since days after the election it is so close we don't know difinitively who won, this does speak for itself.
Click to expand...

In order to win the House in three months, Dems need to perform about 4.5 points better in swing districts. In every special election so far they have done more than 8 points better than usual.

Those numbers speak volumes about what is to come in November.
 
MovingPictures said:
The numbers represent about the same trends as 2010, where the Democrats lost 60 seats.
Click to expand...

MTAtech said:
Indeed they do. This election should have been a cakewalk for Republicans. The district hasn't been represented by a Democrat since DOS was used on IBM PCs. It should have been won by double-digits. Since days after the election it is so close we don't know difinitively who won, this does speak for itself.
Click to expand...

The numbers represent voter apathy on the right, not some sudden groundswell of support for democrats.
 
Fletch said:
The numbers represent voter apathy on the right, not some sudden groundswell of support for democrats.
Click to expand...

Which if this is a national thing get ready for impeachment.

R's will be getting a shellacking
 
bearpoker said:
The point here isn't that the Republican won in a district that has been Republican since '82, and has been gerrymandered to be Democrat proof. It's that he barely squeaked by. This was supposed to be a safe seat for Republicans. Godzilla should have been able to coast to victory. Instead, Republicans has to pull out all the stops, spend lots of money, and bring in the president. There are a lot of other districts where the Republican is more vulnerable. Democrats continue to over perform in congressional elections by about 15%. That makes a lot more Republican seats vulnerable.
Click to expand...

You realize republicans only had 40% turnout, while democrat turnout was 90%. Trump got more republicans to vote in a special election, than all democrats in a general election.
 
Fletch said:
The numbers represent voter apathy on the right, not some sudden groundswell of support for democrats.
Click to expand...
The numbers are simply right-leaning independents going for Democrats.
 
Fletch said:
The numbers represent voter apathy on the right, not some sudden groundswell of support for democrats.
Click to expand...
That’s typical of Democrats in midterm elections, they stay home. If Republicans, who typically vote in midterms, stay home and Democratic vote, we end up with at least a Democratic House.
 
cuban smokes said:
If the 'fairy god mother of the GOP' aka Trump had not visited & waved his magic wand O'Conner would have likely won

I understand there were hundreds of uncounted votes discovered ............

Hotly contested Ohio race gets closer after hundreds of uncounted votes are found

Hotly contested Ohio race gets closer after hundreds of uncounted votes are found | Fox News
Click to expand...
Not sure how much Swampy helped his side. When he shoots his mouth off, he loses all but the KoolAid drinkers, with talk of destroying those that defy him.
 
MTAtech said:
Not sure how much Swampy helped his side. When he shoots his mouth off, he loses all but the KoolAid drinkers, with talk of destroying those that defy him.
Click to expand...

Chris Cillizza has a fresh piece up speaking on that point:

What Tuesday (re)proved is that Trump has tremendous power to move Republican voters behind his preferred candidate. Without the Trump endorsement, there is no way James is the Senate nominee in Michigan. And Kobach almost certainly comes up short without Trump

This should not be surprising -- as poll after poll has shown that Trump is among the most popular Republican presidents ever among Republicans. The latest Gallup weekly tracking poll showed that 89% of Republicans approved of the job he is doing. And that's in a poll in which Trump's overall approval among the broader electorate is just 41%!
Trump's takeover of the party is total. The Republican base is almost entirely aligned with him; those who cross Trump -- especially people in the GOP -- are made to feel the pain. (See: John McCain, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker.)
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/08/politics/donald-trump-primaries/index.html
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Chris Cillizza has a fresh piece up speaking on that point:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/08/politics/donald-trump-primaries/index.html
Click to expand...

Chris Cillizza is entitled to that opinion -- but it is opinion. Balderson was leading by 1 point before Trump visited and Balderson led in the election count on Tuesday night by 1 point. That Trump effect was very powerful, sure.

Trump is indeed popular among hard-core Republicans. However, that's a shrinking metric. Trump is turning off the very moderate, best-educated Republicans and suburban women that Trump will need to hold the G.O.P. majority in the House, let alone get re-elected.

Trump has not been able to widen his coalition beyond his core 40 to 45 percent. Why? His very applause lines and abusive and divisive behaviors that appeal to his base turn off more-moderate and more-educated suburban Republicans, and do nothing to attract independents, while energizing Democrats.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
Chris Cillizza is entitled to that opinion -- but it is opinion. Balderson was leading by 1 point before Trump visited and Balderson led in the election count on Tuesday night by 1 point. That Trump effect was very powerful, sure.

Trump is indeed popular among hard-core Republicans. However, that's a shrinking metric. Trump is turning off the very moderate, best-educated Republicans and suburban women that Trump will need to hold the G.O.P. majority in the House, let alone get re-elected.
Click to expand...

He is EXTREMELY popular with all those who identify as Republican..There is no "Hard Core" about it..you gotta do a better job of grasping reality man...
 
DarkWizard12 said:
You realize republicans only had 40% turnout, while democrat turnout was 90%. Trump got more republicans to vote in a special election, than all democrats in a general election.
Click to expand...

You realize that this is a gerrymandered Republican district that we're talking about? Of course there are a lot more Republicans in it than Democrats. Fletch has a point when he calls it a Red Boycott, rather than a Blue Wave. The results are the same. That's all I care about.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
He is EXTREMELY popular with all those who identify as Republican..There is no "Hard Core" about it..you gotta do a better job of grasping reality man...
Click to expand...
That's contrary to the research: Trump owns a shrinking Republican party

20180621_Party_ID_Gallup1.png


From the beginning of the Trump administration the oldest Americans, those aged 50 and over, have consistently given Trump his highest approval ratings while young people aged 18–29 have consistently given him his lowest approval ratings. The chart below by David A. Hopkins of Boston College illustrates this reality. The generation gap keeps showing up in American elections. In the two big governors’ races in 2017, Virginia and New Jersey, younger voters chose Democrats by large margins and older voters went for the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Evidence Trump is shrinking the GOP
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
That’s typical of Democrats in midterm elections, they stay home. If Republicans, who typically vote in midterms, stay home and Democratic vote, we end up with at least a Democratic House.
Click to expand...

Yes. As I said that isnt a blue wave but a red boycott.
 
Fletch said:
Yes. As I said that isnt a blue wave but a red boycott.
Click to expand...

What was the turnout of Democratic registered voters compared to previous elections? If it was the same, you are right. If it was higher on Tuesday, it reinforces the notion of a Blue Wave. If you don't know, you can't definitively make a statement.
 
MTAtech said:
What was the turnout of Democratic registered voters compared to previous elections? If it was the same, you are right. If it was higher on Tuesday, it reinforces the notion of a Blue Wave. If you don't know, you can't definitively make a statement.
Click to expand...
In 2016, the republican beat the democrat in that district 251,000 to 112,000. the election result for the race that just happened was 101,000 to 100,000. That amounts to 150,000 fewer republican votes and only 12,000 fewer democrat votes. This is a solidly republican district. THe race was close for one reason and one reason only--republicans didnt show up to vote and democrats did. If that continues, then dems will almost certainly take back the House. There is still quite a bit of enthusiasm on the right for Trump but very little for republican members of congress. That is what this election showed
 
Fletch said:
In 2016, the republican beat the democrat in that district 251,000 to 112,000. the election result for the race that just happened was 101,000 to 100,000. That amounts to 150,000 fewer republican votes and only 12,000 fewer democrat votes. This is a solidly republican district. THe race was close for one reason and one reason only--republicans didnt show up to vote and democrats did. If that continues, then dems will almost certainly take back the House. There is still quite a bit of enthusiasm on the right for Trump but very little for republican members of congress. That is what this election showed
Click to expand...

It’s really not a lack of enthusiasm for participating in the political process but moreso a dislike of Balderson - who many believe stole the primary.
 
Fletch said:
In 2016, the republican beat the democrat in that district 251,000 to 112,000. the election result for the race that just happened was 101,000 to 100,000. That amounts to 150,000 fewer republican votes and only 12,000 fewer democrat votes. This is a solidly republican district. THe race was close for one reason and one reason only--republicans didnt show up to vote and democrats did. If that continues, then dems will almost certainly take back the House. There is still quite a bit of enthusiasm on the right for Trump but very little for republican members of congress. That is what this election showed
Click to expand...
Can't imagine why fewer voters would vote in a special election than a presidential election.
 
MTAtech said:
Can't imagine why fewer voters would vote in a special election than a presidential election.
Click to expand...

You keep missing the point for some reason. 12,000 fewer democrats voted in this special election. 150,000 fewer republicans voted. Thats why the election was close. Democrats kept much of their enthusiasm, republicans turned out less than half
 
Fletch said:
You keep missing the point for some reason. 12,000 fewer democrats voted in this special election. 150,000 fewer republicans voted. Thats why the election was close. Democrats kept much of their enthusiasm, republicans turned out less than half
Click to expand...
Special elections always attract fewer voters than presidential elections. Those numbers tell me that Democrats were energized.
To put it another way, only 12,000 fewer Democrats voted in a special election than they did in a presidential election.
what was the turnout in 2014?
 
MTAtech said:
Special elections always attract fewer voters than presidential elections. Those numbers tell me that Democrats were energized.
To put it another way, only 12,000 fewer Democrats voted in a special election than they did in a presidential election.
what was the turnout in 2014?
Click to expand...

150,000 to 61,000. That shows an impressive 2018 jump for dems and major apathy for the GOP.
 
Fletch said:
150,000 to 61,000. That shows an impressive 2018 jump for dems and major apathy for the GOP.
Click to expand...

Have all the votes been tabulated yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom