It was a Blue Wave

What makes it wavey at all is the fact that so much of the country is gerrymandered up the ass to favor Republicans, and the Democrats still gained the majority in the House.

The national popular vote was “only” a Democratic majority by 6% as opposed to the hoped for 10+%, so a it was a blue ripple.

Now, if the DNC had presented a united front instead of the same old leftist vs centrist self-destruction, it might have been different.
 
What makes it wavey at all is the fact that so much of the country is gerrymandered up the ass to favor Republicans, and the Democrats still gained the majority in the House.

What are the stats on Dems gaining control of state legislatures, before the 2020 census and the post-2020 redistricting?
 
Republicans lost more than 300 state legislative positions, and Democrats now occupy the majority of attorneys general positions. No Republicans have yet won Senate seats in swing states. In the broader context, the GOP took a beating last Tuesday.
 
Republicans lost more than 300 state legislative positions, and Democrats now occupy the majority of attorneys general positions. No Republicans have yet won Senate seats in swing states. In the broader context, the GOP took a beating last Tuesday.

Nowhere near as bad as the one Obama and the (D)'s took, even with Trump and all ya'll collective hate?

Statistical average "blue wave" LOL


Enjoy the LWCJ boys.
 
Nowhere near as bad as the one Obama and the (D)'s took, even with Trump and all ya'll collective hate?

Statistical average "blue wave" LOL


Enjoy the LWCJ boys.

Enjoy the Pubs' penultimate triumph. After the post-2020 redistricting wipes out the gains of the REDMAP project, the Pubs will never again hold the House.
 
What's interesting are the early signs of Texas becoming a battleground state. If/When Texas turns blue for presidential elections in around 2024, that could doom Republican hopes of ever controlling the White House for the foreseeable future.
 
Enjoy the Pubs' penultimate triumph.

Enjoy? They are almost as worthless as the (D)'s...look at them they do almost nothing but run their mouths.

Only decent thing they did was cut my taxes and that's just temporary because (D)'s are going to jack them up as soon as they can. Can't let people keep their shit....(D)'s hate that.

After the post-2020 redistricting wipes out the gains of the REDMAP project, the Pubs will never again hold the House.


LOL like (D)'s are going to collectively re-gerrymander shit in their favor?

Ya'll been saying that shit since BUSH.....H. W. Bush and NEVER delivered on it along with anything else.

That would require organization and commitment, fucking kryptonite to the left.

Even with 70% of the country backing you and giving you TOTAL control over the government, you couldn't even do HC worth a flying fuck but you think they are going to get to do redistricting?

What's interesting are the early signs of Texas becoming a battleground state. If/When Texas turns blue for presidential elections in around 2024, that could doom Republican hopes of ever controlling the White House for the foreseeable future.

Now THAT is interesting.

And yes, (R)'s better get their shit together or it's over for them.

However, it will only doom (R)'s if the (D)'s manage to do SOMETHING other than just give everyone not (D)'s the finger and rage at white people.

First party to stop the pissing contest for 2 seconds and ACTUALLY DELIVER on something important/major that the country has been desperate for those mother fuckers to do something about (immigration reform, HC reform, etc) is going to crush the other team for years to come.

They know that, thus the pissing contest of both parties doing everything they can to shit on the other sides plans.
 
There is actually science involved in political science and so there is a widely accepted definition of a wave election (Stuart Rothenberg) among political scientists:

Midterm Elections:
House: 20+ Seats
Senate: 1+ Seat

Presidential Elections:
President: +1
House: 20+
Senate: +1

By that definition, it was not a "wave". (That's why so many political scientists are saying it wasn't a wave.)

Still, a nice set of wins by the DNC, so all credit to their ground-game in the assorted areas, their selection of candidates, and some of the campaigns they ran.

I'd just be wary of the whole "we won and we're never going to lose again" trope. The very nature of political dominance is that it swings back and forth like a pendulum. Contrary to what the fierce partisans hope and dream, no matter which way the pendulum swings or how far it swings, it will eventually swing back.

There is a lot of data from the last election that is still being unpacked and analyzed. For example - by percentages - "Democrats" did well and "Progressives" did not. So, it appears at first blush to be a swing toward the middle (which I think is a good thing) as opposed to a swing to the end of the spectrum.

Dominance in America politics is not decided by the partisans on either end of the spectrum, though they like to take credit. Who is ascendant and who is descendant at any given time is decided by the folks in the middle, who are willing to vote for either party and change their mind year over year.
 
What's interesting are the early signs of Texas becoming a battleground state. If/When Texas turns blue for presidential elections in around 2024, that could doom Republican hopes of ever controlling the White House for the foreseeable future.

Texas has only been red for around 30 years or so depending on how you look at it. Republicans won before without it.
 
There is actually science involved in political science and so there is a widely accepted definition of a wave election (Stuart Rothenberg) among political scientists:

Midterm Elections:
House: 20+ Seats
Senate: 1+ Seat

Presidential Elections:
President: +1
House: 20+
Senate: +1
A definition that ignores the cyclical incumbency map of senate elections seems exceptionally stupid.
 
A definition that ignores the cyclical incumbency map of senate elections seems exceptionally stupid.

Well, definitions are what definitions are. In terms of political science, they tend to be a mutually agreed on points against which other points are measured - the baseline, so to speak. There are other political scientists who put the measure point higher, there are others that say "wave election" is essentially a meaningless term. Rothenburg tends to have wide acceptance because he is the "low threshold mark". Anything more than this is, anything below this isn't. He based it on analysis of prior elections and establishing the threshold at 1 standard deviation from the norm. Anything below it is within the normal range of variance.

I liked Oblimo's term "wavey". It might not have been a "wave", but it was "wavey".
 
Will you drop that stupid canard already?!

I laid it out for you yesterday FROM the DNC platform.

Which is why you ran from most of the questions and that conversation as a whole.

And will do so again right now.

If it's a stupid canard then tell me how the (D)'s plan to use government authority to create racial/gender EQUITY without racist/sexist policy oppressing white males in order to do so?

They can't....so they are either lying to their constituents about their platform or they are racist and sexist as fuck against white males. Which is it?

Oh, good golly molly, but how many times have we heard this in the past few decades?

EVERY time the (D)'s take control of something it's the end of all (R)'s forever!!!

LOL
 
A definition that ignores the cyclical incumbency map of senate elections seems exceptionally stupid.

Caring and arguing over whether the election was a “wave” or not doesn’t seem like a very productive use of intellectual bandwidth, either, though.

The fact that a good cluster of Democrats managed to their defy gerrymandered destinies should be enough to get GOP strategists to scramble their jets.
 
The very nature of political dominance is that it swings back and forth like a pendulum. Contrary to what the fierce partisans hope and dream, no matter which way the pendulum swings or how far it swings, it will eventually swing back.

Winner most rational post of the day. Ebb and flow.
 
Contrary to what the fierce partisans hope and dream, no matter which way the pendulum swings or how far it swings, it will eventually swing back.

We have no reason to believe such a pendulum exists, even in a metaphorical sense. Nor "ebb and flow," either.
 
They should start calling it a Blue Period, like Picasso
 
We have no reason to believe such a pendulum exists, even in a metaphorical sense. Nor "ebb and flow," either.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

America has had continual swings of the pendulum from conservative to liberal and back again ever since the days of the founders (and probably before then). It is the way of the world for one generation to try and outdo their predecessors by either loosening the restrictions or tightening them.

The nation which loses that social dynamic, dies. The nation which allows the pendulum to swing too far in either direction and get stuck there, dies. Finally, the nation which attempts to hold the pendulum centered, dies.

Life is not stagnant. Neither is society.
 
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

America has had continual swings of the pendulum from conservative to liberal and back again ever since the days of the founders (and probably before then). It is the way of the world for one generation to try and outdo their predecessors by either loosening the restrictions or tightening them.

Such cycles as may be discernible in history are a lot more complicated than that.
 
Such cycles as may be discernible in history are a lot more complicated than that.

The reason may be complex, the the fact that it exists is not. And, incidentally, you just admitted that your prior post on this subject was utter BS.
 
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

America has had continual swings of the pendulum from conservative to liberal and back again ever since the days of the founders (and probably before then). It is the way of the world for one generation to try and outdo their predecessors by either loosening the restrictions or tightening them.

The nation which loses that social dynamic, dies. The nation which allows the pendulum to swing too far in either direction and get stuck there, dies. Finally, the nation which attempts to hold the pendulum centered, dies.

Life is not stagnant. Neither is society.
I like to think of a microcosm. A small town called "Mayberry".

Floyd the barber is mad because kids keep spitting their chewing gum on the sidewalk in front of his shop. He complains to Andy and soon Barny is out handing out tickets to "juvenile delinquents".

Not to be outdone, "Old Ben" complains about people parking illegally in front of his grocery store. Barny, always the public servant, starts handing out citations to pregnant women who park "closer than the LAW STATES! 6 INCHES FROM THE CURB!".

Finally the town is ready to riot at the rampant abuse of power and Andy is forced to tear up all the citations and issue a public apology for his "overentusiastic deputy".

Everything is then back to normal with Barny on his leash harassing the occasional out of towner.

UNTIL...Otis. :D
 
Back
Top