View Poll Results: What will be the result of the Midterms (vote twice!!)

Voters
48. You may not vote on this poll
  • GOP holds the House

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the House by less than 12 seats

    20 41.67%
  • Dems win the House by 12-25 seats

    12 25.00%
  • Dems win the House by 25-38 seats

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the House by 38+ seats

    1 2.08%
  • GOP gains 1 or more seats in the Senate (52-48 or more)

    29 60.42%
  • GOP holds the same number of seats in the Senate (51-49)

    7 14.58%
  • GOP loses seats but still holds the Senate (50-50 with Pence breaking tie)

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the Senate (49-51 or more)

    2 4.17%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 4 of 94 FirstFirst ... 234561454 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 1868
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    I think that one of my big concerns going into this election is questions about the legitimacy of outcomes. I think both sides would agree that this is an issue, though it is viewed very differently by each side. Trying to describe each side's thoughts on this is a third rail that I do not want to touch. I truly fear a scenario that will make Gore vs. Bush look like a friendly disagreement - we live in much, much more polarized times now and unfortunately there is a general lack of trust in both directions.
    I agree that from now on, election losers and their backers will tend to think/claim that they were cheated out of a win. It'll become standard, which is sort of sad. I also agree that we will continue to become more polarized.

    At the same time, I can't see any large-scale violence breaking out until many, many years from now, and especially not for a Midterm election. Even for a Presidential cycle, unless an assassination takes place, the Republic will just continue to peter on.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by RPS View Post
    There is some data on this. Per Pew, only 18 percent of Americans trust the government all or most of the time today, down from 65 percent in 1968 (the height of the Vietnam War!) and 44 percent 18 years ago. Meanwhile, also per Pew, roughly half of Democrats and Republicans alike say the other party makes them "afraid."
    Wow, thanks for the great data. An example of one of the things I love about this site. Eye-opening, and a bit scary in and of itself. A bit interesting that over 20% of the population have never trusted the government, even back in the halcyon days of the 1950s.

    Mods, and US especially, please keep this thread open.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by luvdahops View Post
    I consider myself a moderate who at least tries to understand both sides of given issues and stories. But even that has grown more challenging.
    I also consider myself a moderate. Where do you go for true facts, not opinions? IMO, most people now desire to hear their opinions stated as facts. Is that a recipe for ignorance?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    I also consider myself a moderate. Where do you go for true facts, not opinions? IMO, most people now desire to hear their opinions stated as facts. Is that a recipe for ignorance?
    Yes.

    I've written at length about it (here, for example), if you're interested.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by RPS View Post
    There is some data on this. Per Pew, only 18 percent of Americans trust the government all or most of the time today, down from 65 percent in 1968 (the height of the Vietnam War!) and 44 percent 18 years ago. Meanwhile, also per Pew, roughly half of Democrats and Republicans alike say the other party makes them "afraid."
    For them that must obey authority
    That they do not respect in any degree
    Who despise their jobs, their destinies
    Speak jealously of them that are free
    Do what they do just to be nothing more than something they invest in.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by RPS View Post
    Yes.

    I've written at length about it (here, for example), if you're interested.
    Thanks, I'll check it out.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    For them that must obey authority
    That they do not respect in any degree
    Who despise their jobs, their destinies
    Speak jealously of them that are free
    Do what they do just to be nothing more than something they invest in.


    You quoted Dylan in the video perfectly. Dylan's official lyrics are a bit different. I saw him again in concert last fall. "Blowin' in the Wind" was almost unrecognizable. So very impressive recall.

    "For them that must obey authority
    That they do not respect in any degree
    Who despise their jobs, their destinies
    Speak jealously of them that are free
    Cultivate their flowers to be
    Nothing more than something they invest in"

  8. #68
    Thanks, I learned more on the road than inside a building. In the same tune, did Dylan also address my question below?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    IMO, most people now desire to hear their opinions stated as facts. Is that a recipe for ignorance?
    From the fool's gold mouthpiece
    The hollow horn plays wasted words
    Proves to warn that he not busy being born
    Is busy dying.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    I found this article interesting, thought it worthwhile due to several posts wondering how we got here. To me the money quote is "we need leaders...who can channel our frustration rather than exploit it". That is entirely non-partisan, both sides do plenty of exploiting.

    http://time.com/5280446/baby-boomer-...a-steve-brill/

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    Thanks, I learned more on the road than inside a building. In the same tune, did Dylan also address my question below?

    From the fool's gold mouthpiece
    The hollow horn plays wasted words
    Proves to warn that he not busy being born
    Is busy dying.
    Yes.

    Sheldon Cooper has something to say about it too.



    "Don't you think if I were wrong, I'd know it?"

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by RPS View Post
    "Don't you think if I were wrong, I'd know it?"
    You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know.

    Shelly learned much more inside a building than on the road.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know.

    Shelly learned much more inside a building than on the road.
    To be fair, this sort of learning is a lot harder than we think.

    For well more than five decades, the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman has been examining and explaining human attitudes and behavior. His disarmingly simple experiments and profoundly expert analysis have dramatically altered the way we see human reason. Philosophers and social scientists had assumed for centuries that humans are inherently rational. Kahneman’s powerful legacy (largely created with his late colleague Amos Tversky) comes in two parts. The first is that we are not nearly as rational as we tend to assume. Relatedly, we also aren’t as smart and skilled as we readily assume. We are routinely burdened by the “hubris hypothesis” (for example, as an important study found, physicians “who were ‘completely certain’ of the diagnosis ante-mortem were wrong 40 percent of the time”). Thus, as Martha Deevy, director of the Financial Security Division at Stanford’s Center on Longevity points out, “investment fraud works best on highly educated men, who think they’re too smart to be scammed.”

    The second part of Kahneman’s powerful legacy is more insidious and more vexing still. Kahneman’s great memoir of his life’s work, Thinking Fast and Slow, opens with the following. “The premise of this book is that it is easier to recognize other people’s mistakes than your own.” Or, in the careful prose of scientific research, “people who were aware of their own biases were not better able to overcome them.” Kahneman admits as much even for himself. “My intuitive thinking is just as prone to overconfidence, extreme predictions, and the planning fallacy as it was before I made a study of these issues.” We might grudgingly concede that we hold views that are wrong. The problem is in providing current examples. Even worse still is the unfortunate and shocking reality that the smarter and more self-aware we are the more vulnerable we are to these sorts of errors. Bias blindness impedes us all.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by RPS View Post
    To be fair, this sort of learning is a lot harder than we think.

    For well more than five decades, the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman has been examining and explaining human attitudes and behavior. His disarmingly simple experiments and profoundly expert analysis have dramatically altered the way we see human reason. Philosophers and social scientists had assumed for centuries that humans are inherently rational. Kahneman’s powerful legacy (largely created with his late colleague Amos Tversky) comes in two parts. The first is that we are not nearly as rational as we tend to assume. Relatedly, we also aren’t as smart and skilled as we readily assume. We are routinely burdened by the “hubris hypothesis” (for example, as an important study found, physicians “who were ‘completely certain’ of the diagnosis ante-mortem were wrong 40 percent of the time”). Thus, as Martha Deevy, director of the Financial Security Division at Stanford’s Center on Longevity points out, “investment fraud works best on highly educated men, who think they’re too smart to be scammed.”

    The second part of Kahneman’s powerful legacy is more insidious and more vexing still. Kahneman’s great memoir of his life’s work, Thinking Fast and Slow, opens with the following. “The premise of this book is that it is easier to recognize other people’s mistakes than your own.” Or, in the careful prose of scientific research, “people who were aware of their own biases were not better able to overcome them.” Kahneman admits as much even for himself. “My intuitive thinking is just as prone to overconfidence, extreme predictions, and the planning fallacy as it was before I made a study of these issues.” We might grudgingly concede that we hold views that are wrong. The problem is in providing current examples. Even worse still is the unfortunate and shocking reality that the smarter and more self-aware we are the more vulnerable we are to these sorts of errors. Bias blindness impedes us all.
    Excellent post!

    Should we start another thread? If so, would you mind starting it with your post above?

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    Excellent post!
    Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    Should we start another thread? If so, would you mind starting it with your post above?
    I have no opinion either way. I'll follow the consensus...

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    Excellent post!
    Robert Wright has an excellent new article at Wired on this very subject.

    Sam Harris and the Myth of Perfectly Rational Thought

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by RPS View Post
    To be fair, this sort of learning is a lot harder than we think.

    For well more than five decades, the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman has been examining and explaining human attitudes and behavior. His disarmingly simple experiments and profoundly expert analysis have dramatically altered the way we see human reason. Philosophers and social scientists had assumed for centuries that humans are inherently rational. Kahneman’s powerful legacy (largely created with his late colleague Amos Tversky) comes in two parts. The first is that we are not nearly as rational as we tend to assume. Relatedly, we also aren’t as smart and skilled as we readily assume. We are routinely burdened by the “hubris hypothesis” (for example, as an important study found, physicians “who were ‘completely certain’ of the diagnosis ante-mortem were wrong 40 percent of the time”). Thus, as Martha Deevy, director of the Financial Security Division at Stanford’s Center on Longevity points out, “investment fraud works best on highly educated men, who think they’re too smart to be scammed.”

    The second part of Kahneman’s powerful legacy is more insidious and more vexing still. Kahneman’s great memoir of his life’s work, Thinking Fast and Slow, opens with the following. “The premise of this book is that it is easier to recognize other people’s mistakes than your own.” Or, in the careful prose of scientific research, “people who were aware of their own biases were not better able to overcome them.” Kahneman admits as much even for himself. “My intuitive thinking is just as prone to overconfidence, extreme predictions, and the planning fallacy as it was before I made a study of these issues.” We might grudgingly concede that we hold views that are wrong. The problem is in providing current examples. Even worse still is the unfortunate and shocking reality that the smarter and more self-aware we are the more vulnerable we are to these sorts of errors. Bias blindness impedes us all.
    And Duke professor Dan Ariely has a lot of interesting studies around similar topics (since he worked with/for Kahneman). Everybody should check out the book “Predictably Irrational” if you haven’t already. Really intriguing stuff.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    We have a fascinating race that is likely to attract a ton of national attention here in Georgia... especially when you consider it has zero impact on the national balance of power in congress.

    It is the race for Governor. Georgia has increasingly been turning purple from being reliably red in recent years, thanks to increasing population in the cities and more diversity in the population. It is estimated that Georgia has gone from being 56% white, non-Hispanic to just over 51% white, non-Hispanic since 2010. Donald Trump won Georgia with just 51.1% of the vote in 2016, the lowest total for any GOP candidate since Bob Dole in 1996.

    So, the upshot of all this is that Democrats think they might have a real shot at winning the governor's race. There will not be any senator seats up in 2018, so the Governor's race is the big one and turnout will likely be sorta low as a result.

    But, why should the Georgia governor race attract more attention than any number of other governor or senate races nationwide? It is because there is a decent chance Georgia will do something never done before in Us history. Georgia may elect the first female African-American governor ever.

    Her name is Stacey Abrams and she was the minority leader of the Ga House for many years. She has a pretty compelling personal story, coming from a poor family in Mississippi. Her family moved to Atlanta and she became the first ever black valedictorian at her high school. She graduated magna cum laude from Spellman and then went to Yale where she got her JD. She really connects with people when she talks about growing up poor and how hard her family worked to achieve success. Her sister was a US Attorney and is now a Federal Judge. Her brother, who she says was brilliant growing up, has been a drug addict and a criminal for many years. I've heard her speak and when she talks about the struggles of her family and their ups and downs, it really is compelling.

    Anyway, Abrams faces off against Stacey Evans in the Democratic primary this week. Abrams is widely expected to win because she has really been embraced by progressives (Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker are all backing her) and the statewide party is largely on her side. By comparison, Evans really has no national Democratic backing and her most prominent local endorsement is former governor Roy Barnes. Abrams has really endorsed progressive policies, talking up universal healthcare. Many say she is trying to win without getting any white male votes. That will work just fine in the Democratic primary, but can it work in the general election? Most of the polls shows Abrams with about a 20 point lead on Evans, though around 25-30% of the electorate remains undecided. Those undecided voters would have to really break HARD for Evans to make it a close race.

    Abrams will likely face off against Georgia's Lt. Governor Casey Cagel. He's consistently polling in the mid-30s in a crowded GOP field of 5 candidates, 4 of whom reach double-digits. Still, Cagel is likely to win. The GOP race has really focused on being anti-immigrant and pro-guns. One GOP contender appeared in a TV ad where he was cleaning a gun while sternly talking to a boy who wanted to take his daughter out on a date. Another candidate said he wanted to give away free bump stocks (devices that make semi-automatic rifles fully automatic) to every household in the state. Meanwhile, one of the GOP contenders said he wanted to drive around in his truck and pick up illegals who commit crimes to deport them. One of his rivals upped that by getting a bus and touring the state on his "Deportation bus tour."

    Once Tuesday's primary is done, we should know who the candidates will be, probably Cagle and Abrams. The polls seem to indicate that it will be a close race, probably a slight GOP lean. But, if Abrams can pull the upset, Georgia will have made American history. For a state in the deep South to be the one to do that would be kinda cool.

    -Jason "there is little else of note here this cycle... though there are a few congressional races that could get interesting if the predicted 'Blue Wave' comes to pass" Evans
    Good call. Abrams won the D primary. From what I read, she is actually the first African-American woman to even be a major party nominee for governor. Hard to believe.

    Cagle and Kemp will have a run-off in July for the Rs.

    Edit: For the curious, Kemp was the one cleaning the gun.
    Last edited by dudog84; 05-22-2018 at 10:27 PM.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    Good call. Abrams won the D primary. From what I read, she is actually the first African-American woman to even be a major party nominee for governor. Hard to believe.

    Cagle and Kemp will have a run-off in July for the Rs.

    Edit: For the curious, Kemp was the one cleaning the gun.
    There were about 550,000 votes cast in the Democratic primary for governor, and about 600,000 in the Republican. Closer than I would have thought.

    John Barrow (D) could win Secretary of State; if any D is gonna win statewide this year my money would be on John.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    There were about 550,000 votes cast in the Democratic primary for governor, and about 600,000 in the Republican. Closer than I would have thought.
    The GOP race was seen as more competitive (and it now heads to a runoff) but the Democratic race was the one grabbing headlines because of Abrams being a black woman. Abrams has campaigned on the notion of registering tens of thousands of new black voters and turning them out. I think it is not a great sign for Abrams that the Dems came up 50k short of the GOP... thought turnout will be higher for the November race.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    I was reading the Yahoo and AJC comments about Abrams (note to self: STOP READING THE COMMENTS...THEY JUST UPSET YOU), and many on the GOP side were arguing about turnout, saying that there were more Republicans than Democrats who turned out, and that basically that meant Abrams had no chance. But then I read that four years ago the Republicans outnumbered Democtrats by 300,000 in the primary voting and this year it was 50,000. Anyone know if that's true? Of course a lot can determine that. If the Republican (or Dem) ran unopposed, for instance.

    In this case, I'm not sure what the numbers really mean. Clearly the Republicans had a lot of choices, and there's a runoff, and you have the Trump people and the more centrist people, so that could push turnout.

    Guess none of it really matters until November.

    It's stunning to me that this is the first African-American female ever nominated for a governor position in any state. I would have guessed that it would have happened several times, and that there would have been a few governors already. Makes me wish I still lived in Georgia...though maybe not - I can imagine the number of TV ads from now until November is going to be insane.

    (JE - private note to you coming with questions not under the guidelines of this thread)

Similar Threads

  1. Oscars 2018
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-09-2018, 11:23 PM
  2. 2017-2018 team vs 2018-2019 team
    By proelitedota in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-25-2018, 05:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •