2022 Midterm Election thread

[Bostondevil]

Have we reached a consensus on why most of us posting here were slightly wrong to way off in our predictions on the outcome of the midterms?

[ClemmonsDevil]

Have we reached a consensus on why most of us posting here were slightly wrong to way off in our predictions on the outcome of the midterms?

I posted something a couple of weeks ago. I would like to hear your thoughts. I think Ymo was clearly closest to what was coming. Bundabergdevil and I were fairly bullish on the Democrats but it was better for Democrats than either of us predicted.

[Kdogg]

Well, this is a Biden proposal and he's always done very well with Black voters (probably due to the Obama connection). More than half of registered Democrats in SC are Black. So, not saying it wouldn't happen anyways, but being a skeptic, it also makes sense for Biden to be in favor of a policy putting SC first to help pay back the demographic that really propelled him to the nomination. Biden was not the preferred Democratic candidate among white voters, especially early on. But yeah, it's totally bizarre the outsized influence Iowa and NH voters have...I'd be in favor of a random drawing to see what state(s) get to go first or all states go at the same time (just like the general election).

Also South Carolina is an open primary state. Any voter can cast a ballot regardless of party affiliation (if any) in either R or D primaries.

Today, U.S. Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA), a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, released a video statement calling for a federal investigation regarding the corporate greed of ocean carriers. In a letter to President Joe Biden, Senator Warnock urged the White House’s Supply Chain Disruption Task Force to investigate and issue a report on apparent price-gouging by international cargo carriers that have raised costs for Georgia families. There’s ample evidence that global shipping carriers have used market volatility, cause by the COVID-19 pandemic, to increase profits and pad their earnings. Instead of cutting prices to pass savings onto consumers, companies are giving billions in profits, earned at the expense of American families, to their wealthy investors.

The union was not happy about this.
The thought that this may drive work from Georgia to other est coast ports.
All of whom are expanding .
Larger ships can call fewer ports with millions to billions in cargo.
If a ship switches ports .that's up to 52 calls a year of 2 to 3 days of work.
Or about 180000 man hours which equals
Around 93 jobs for a year of 2000 hrs.9.3 million in lost pay give or take.
I'm doing math in my head so it's a guesstimate.
You lose 2 or 3 vessel calls that's a couple 100 family's not eating just from the ila. Plus quite a lot in lost union dues .

I totally understand where they are comming from.

Now will it effect Warnock now I don't believe it will .not enough to matter.
The few days after he did it.
He probably couldn't have walked down the dock .

Took me a while to get back.
I had to cook a few meals for local football team and do some fundraising.
Bit off more than I could chew.
Salute to school lunch ladies .they don't get paid enough.

Isn't the problem that ports along the East Coast are not expanding enough and charging more for limited space. I've talked to a few people in Charleston and Wilmington. They are trying to maximize volume without increasing labor too much because they can't project into the future with great certainty. It's basically trying to eliminate any excess capacity until they feel it's a permanent increase in volume. If they expand the workforce and then don't need that many workers they can't reduce it quickly. I think Warnock was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to pitch the idea that they should be hiring more people instead of booking bigger profits.

[Kdogg]

Whoa, next thing you'll say is that economists get things wrong.

Only if they have one hand..

[JasonEvans]

As I told ya'll a few day ago, Mother Nature is not a Walker fan.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/1...-2022-00072147

The weather report also looks grim for Republicans: Rain is forecast across Georgia on Tuesday. The GOP is relying heavily on Election Day turnout — and already struggling to motivate voters to go to the polls for the second time in a month.

From that same article:

Georgia Republican operatives have grown less hopeful in recent days. With Walker being significantly outraised and the candidate keeping a light schedule even in the final days of the race, allies are privately conceding that his chances of victory are slim.

[Matches]

As I told ya'll a few day ago, Mother Nature is not a Walker fan.
:

(Considers making joke about how and why a mother would not be a Walker fan)

(Reviews board rules)

(Begins twitching…)

[JasonEvans]

(Considers making joke about how and why a mother would not be a Walker fan)

(Reviews board rules)

(Begins twitching…)

Sporks awarded.

[OldPhiKap]

Same.

[Bostondevil]

I posted something a couple of weeks ago. I would like to hear your thoughts. I think Ymo was clearly closest to what was coming. Bundabergdevil and I were fairly bullish on the Democrats but it was better for Democrats than either of us predicted.

Maybe. I'll wait to see what others have to say first, if anything.

[ClemmonsDevil]

Maybe. I'll wait to see what others have to say first, if anything.

My argument:
I want to workshop an idea I've been playing around with about Biden approval numbers. In modern political history if you were asked about approval of the president it was policy related and completely divorced from the other party. I would argue that was even true for Trump. Republicans celebrated Trump's judicial picks and the tax cut for the Uber wealthy. Democrats universally hated everything about this. Biden is universal loathed on the right and his numbers are bad on the left. Normally that kind of universal disdain is completely destructive to the party. Looking at the way the question is asked, it doesn't get into where the dissatisfaction lies. And honestly that's never mattered before. Most presidents are popular with their party and unpopular with the other party. So I think the reading of presidential dissatisfaction among Democrats is an absolute misreading. Democrats have not done one thing that is unpopular among Democrats. All the legislation has been exceedingly popular. What Democrats are pissed off about is that none of that legislation went far enough. Republicans were rejoicing and saying Biden was unpopular because he went too far. The legislation that has been passed has been exceptionally moderate by Democratic party standards. Plus they weren't able to repeal the filibuster and Republicans have exercised a ton of power from the judicial branch. So it never felt like Democrats were in power at all because the Supreme Court acted so forcefully against even moderate ideals. So his actual approval ratings for Democrats versus Republicans aren't related at all. Democrats are pissed he couldn't go far enough. So normally that kind of presidential approval rating sees the other party elevated. But no Democrat was going to think that way. And just enough moderates agree with that to explain this election. Democrats wanted to go further. Not scale back. They definitely weren't going to vote Republican and were clearly motivated to vote.

[budwom]

My argument:
I want to workshop an idea I've been playing around with about Biden approval numbers. In modern political history if you were asked about approval of the president it was policy related and completely divorced from the other party. I would argue that was even true for Trump. Republicans celebrated Trump's judicial picks and the tax cut for the Uber wealthy. Democrats universally hated everything about this. Biden is universal loathed on the right and his numbers are bad on the left. Normally that kind of universal disdain is completely destructive to the party. Looking at the way the question is asked, it doesn't get into where the dissatisfaction lies. And honestly that's never mattered before. Most presidents are popular with their party and unpopular with the other party. So I think the reading of presidential dissatisfaction among Democrats is an absolute misreading. Democrats have not done one thing that is unpopular among Democrats. All the legislation has been exceedingly popular. What Democrats are pissed off about is that none of that legislation went far enough. Republicans were rejoicing and saying Biden was unpopular because he went too far. The legislation that has been passed has been exceptionally moderate by Democratic party standards. Plus they weren't able to repeal the filibuster and Republicans have exercised a ton of power from the judicial branch. So it never felt like Democrats were in power at all because the Supreme Court acted so forcefully against even moderate ideals. So his actual approval ratings for Democrats versus Republicans aren't related at all. Democrats are pissed he couldn't go far enough. So normally that kind of presidential approval rating sees the other party elevated. But no Democrat was going to think that way. And just enough moderates agree with that to explain this election. Democrats wanted to go further. Not scale back. They definitely weren't going to vote Republican and were clearly motivated to vote.

I think I largely agree...in any event I do not feel that Biden is truly as unpopular as his approval ratings might indicate....good place for folks to pizz and moan about gas prices, inflation, but may not indicate voting disapproval.

[acdevil]

My argument:
I want to workshop an idea I've been playing around with about Biden approval numbers. In modern political history if you were asked about approval of the president it was policy related and completely divorced from the other party. I would argue that was even true for Trump. Republicans celebrated Trump's judicial picks and the tax cut for the Uber wealthy. Democrats universally hated everything about this. Biden is universal loathed on the right and his numbers are bad on the left. Normally that kind of universal disdain is completely destructive to the party. Looking at the way the question is asked, it doesn't get into where the dissatisfaction lies. And honestly that's never mattered before. Most presidents are popular with their party and unpopular with the other party. So I think the reading of presidential dissatisfaction among Democrats is an absolute misreading. Democrats have not done one thing that is unpopular among Democrats. All the legislation has been exceedingly popular. What Democrats are pissed off about is that none of that legislation went far enough. Republicans were rejoicing and saying Biden was unpopular because he went too far. The legislation that has been passed has been exceptionally moderate by Democratic party standards. Plus they weren't able to repeal the filibuster and Republicans have exercised a ton of power from the judicial branch. So it never felt like Democrats were in power at all because the Supreme Court acted so forcefully against even moderate ideals. So his actual approval ratings for Democrats versus Republicans aren't related at all. Democrats are pissed he couldn't go far enough. So normally that kind of presidential approval rating sees the other party elevated. But no Democrat was going to think that way. And just enough moderates agree with that to explain this election. Democrats wanted to go further. Not scale back. They definitely weren't going to vote Republican and were clearly motivated to vote.

I agree with this. All of the Dems I know that are dissatisfied with Biden want him to have done more (who cares about the practical hurdles to getting that done) and I can’t say I’ve heard a single one say that they are dissatisfied enough to switch their vote to the other party.

[dudog84]

I agree with this. All of the Dems I know that are dissatisfied with Biden want him to have done more (who cares about the practical hurdles to getting that done) and I can’t say I’ve heard a single one say that they are dissatisfied enough to switch their vote to the other party.

Not sure there is going to be much switching any more. In the past, people might switch because of age or personal experiences (moving into different tax bracket (either way ), getting mugged, child coming out, etc.). But now, people are entrenched. If they are unhappy with their party, they're just staying home on election day.

[OldPhiKap]

Not sure there is going to be much switching any more. In the past, people might switch because of age or personal experiences (moving into different tax bracket (either way ), getting mugged, child coming out, etc.). But now, people are entrenched. If they are unhappy with their party, they're just staying home on election day.

There is also a tranche of people who are fed up with both parties, and whose vote is candidate-dependent or is based on the ordering of issue priority at the time.

While the two sides have dug in, a third group wants both trenches filled with cement and sealed up.

[dudog84]

Trump continues his assistance to the Walker campaign on election eve:

"The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to 'terminate' the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES, just like RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, and all of their other HOAXES & SCAMS. What I said was that when there is 'MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION,' as has been irrefutably proven in the 2020 Presidential Election, steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG. Only FOOLS would disagree with that and accept STOLEN ELECTIONS. MAGA! SIMPLY PUT, IF AN ELECTION IS IRREFUTABLY FRAUDULENT, IT SHOULD GO TO THE RIGHTFUL WINNER OR, AT A MINIMUM, BE REDONE. WHERE OPEN AND BLATANT FRAUD IS INVOLVED, THERE SHOULD BE NO TIME LIMIT FOR CHANGE!"

Again, emphasis his.

Am I the only one who has Jan Brady's voice ringing in his head with RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA?

[TrickDribbles99]

There is also a tranche of people who are fed up with both parties, and whose vote is candidate-dependent or is based on the ordering of issue priority at the time.

While the two sides have dug in, a third group wants both trenches filled with cement and sealed up.

Good point. For those folks true gridlock is the ideal, and is attainable at least on the congressional level.

[JasonEvans]

We are probably about 30 hours from knowing the last senate seat of the cycle. Can we possibly put Trump and other nonsense to bed for just a little bit and stay on topic? Please...

[Bostondevil]

There is also a tranche of people who are fed up with both parties, and whose vote is candidate-dependent or is based on the ordering of issue priority at the time.

While the two sides have dug in, a third group wants both trenches filled with cement and sealed up.

Yes, but that third group skews older and becomes more politically irrelevant with each election cycle.

[OldPhiKap]

Yes, but that third group skews older and becomes more politically irrelevant with each election cycle.

Actually, I think the number is in a fairly consistent band:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Not sure of the age info, would love a link. (Not doubting you, just haven’t seen the data upon which you rely).

As far as irrelevant, here in Georgia they’ve made the difference in electing Biden and two Democratic Senators in 2020 despite this still being a Republican-leaning state. I don’t know what happens tomorrow, but so far they voted in a Republican Governor while coming within a whisker of giving Warnock a straight-up victory last month.

Far from being irrelevant, I would argue that they are the key demographic in a purple state.

[OldPhiKap]

Pew Research reports that younger generations are more likely to identify as independent than older generations fwiw, and also found the trend towards identifying as independent increasing overall over time:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...raphic-groups/