Election Betting Odds
Quote: JackSpadehttps://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7326/Who-will-be-Speaker-of-the-House-of-Representatives-in-the-next-Congress
I don't know why people are buying Scalise for 11 cents when he has endorsed McCarthy.
link to original post
Because it is not impossible that there are enough far right house members that will not vote for McCarthy, but would accept Scalise. And Scalise would be acceptable to all, I think? 9-1 odds seems about right.
Quote: TigerWuIt looks like one Senate seat is leaning towards Dems, and one is leaning towards Reps. That would make the count 49 Dem and 50 Rep. It's going to come down to the Georgia runoff for who controls the Senate, and there are actually people who think Herschel Walker is a good candidate.
What a mess.
link to original post
I personally do not think Walker is a good candidate, but Warnock is his equal in my opinion. I will vote Red. As I stated before, even if the GOP wins both houses, nothing will be accomplished with the exceptions of hearings chaired by the GOP. If the collective GOP had the stones to actually put in place the budget process and stop the "continuing resolutions," perhaps there might be some spending sanity and real fiscal responsibility. Probably never will happen.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: TigerWuIt looks like one Senate seat is leaning towards Dems, and one is leaning towards Reps. That would make the count 49 Dem and 50 Rep. It's going to come down to the Georgia runoff for who controls the Senate, and there are actually people who think Herschel Walker is a good candidate.
What a mess.
link to original post
I personally do not think Walker is a good candidate, but Warnock is his equal in my opinion. I will vote Red. As I stated before, even if the GOP wins both houses, nothing will be accomplished with the exceptions of hearings chaired by the GOP. If the collective GOP had the stones to actually put in place the budget process and stop the "continuing resolutions," perhaps there might be some spending sanity and real fiscal responsibility. Probably never will happen.
tuttigym
link to original post
I understand that voting for Walker is really just a vote against the Shumer/Biden/Pelosi policies. And Warnock is nothing more than a rubber stamp vote along those lines. But he is well spoken, clear on his views, well educated, and generally a ‘normal’ candidate. Other than disagreeing with him on policy, why do you consider him NOT a ‘good candidate’?
Quote: SOOPOO
I understand that voting for Walker is really just a vote against the Shumer/Biden/Pelosi policies. And Warnock is nothing more than a rubber stamp vote along those lines. But he is well spoken, clear on his views, well educated, and generally a ‘normal’ candidate. Other than disagreeing with him on policy, why do you consider him NOT a ‘good candidate’?
Quit being so non-biased. This is an internet forum and that isn't allowed.
Quote: DRichQuote: SOOPOO
I understand that voting for Walker is really just a vote against the Shumer/Biden/Pelosi policies. And Warnock is nothing more than a rubber stamp vote along those lines. But he is well spoken, clear on his views, well educated, and generally a ‘normal’ candidate. Other than disagreeing with him on policy, why do you consider him NOT a ‘good candidate’?
Quit being so non-biased. This is an internet forum and that isn't allowed.
link to original post
Thanks! But we are all biased to some degree. Your education and individual life experiences color how you look at things. As I’ve said before, I’ve sat and ‘lobbied’ many politicians, around half who are ‘for’ my side, and half ‘against’. Of course it was rare to ever change someone’s opinion, but you learn a lot about someone by the nature of the back and forth. I’ll repeat this story…. I met with then Senator Byron Brown, who was clearly not going to vote my way. But he asked me pertinent questions, listened to my reasoning, and asked questions to have me clarify my points, and refute the other side’s. He’s a ‘regular’ Democrat, now Mayor of Buffalo. I definitely could vote for him against a poor Republican candidate. (I can’t because I don’t live in the city of Buffalo). I certainly was biased against him before meeting him.
In going through life, I try and identify my biases, and figure out if I should keep them or adjust.
A very popular Arizona State Senator won his primary and ran unopposed in the General Election when he took a job and withdrew from the race. Nine candidates joined the race as write-in candidates and tried to explain that if you voted for the man on the ballot, it didn't count.
32,000 votes were cast, with over 21,000 either naming the man not running or making no choice. Of the nine write-ins, the leading candidate got just over 3,000 votes, so he was elected even though 90% of those who voted didn't vote for him.
Perhaps the betting market is full of republicans?
Either way, I’ll continue my strategy of betting Dems until it’s not worth it anymore.
Quote: Myself538 would have the Democrat from Kansas in what I would consider a fairly safe lead in most election cycles, over five point aggregate lead. One thing that should be noted is that there hasn't been much polling in the state.
They give the Republican a slight lead in Wisconsin, but I'd call it anybody's game looking at individual polls.
Oregon is interesting in that it's a dead heat, but we've got an independent polling at or just below the teens. Interestingly, according to the date from this poll:
https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2022/10/dfp_oregon_october18_2022_tabs.pdf
Democrats have a more negative view of the third-party candidate, Betsy Johnson (-51) compared to Republicans at (-27).
However, it would appear that a greater percentage of Democrats (8%) than Republicans (5%) plan to vote for Betsy Johnson.
My inclination is to think that she is seen as pulling votes away from the Democratic Nominee, Tina Kotek, so perhaps that is why so many Democrats seem to hate her. It would also appear that she is a centrist who used to be a Democrat, so that could be another reason they hate her. If social media is any indication, then it would seem that Democrats hate centrists who still themselves identify as Democrats.
The interesting dynamic that this creates is that we have seen, over several elections, that the third-party almost never pulls the percentage that polls would persuade people to presume. With that, it would seem that Democrats have a less favorable opinion of Johnson, but more are now claiming they are going to vote for her (compared to Republicans) so we assume there is going to be breakage and that the breakage is proportionate, then that would throw more votes to Kotek than the Republican nominee. If anyone else wants to dive into more polls, go ahead, I'm not planning to do an article on this election cycle, so that's about as deep as I plan to dive.
Georgia does not look particularly close.
Conclusion
It looks like 20 Democratic Governors (assuming Kansas holds) which would be a maximum of 30 Republican Governors, so I'm not sure where you are getting 34 of anything.
If you put a gun to my head, I think the Democrat wins Oregon and probably Kansas, from the look of it. I think Kansas might be a West Virginia sort of thing in that a Democrat in that state would be called a moderate Republican in most others. That would make it look like 29 (Republican) to 21 (Democrat) Governors, which is a flip of one state assuming Republicans win Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin.
Tina Kotek wins Oregon. The Independent candidate, Betsy Johnson, receives fewer votes than polls would have led one to believe. The breakage almost entirely goes to Kotek.
Do I ever get tired of being right?
No, I do not.
I think there's a certain bias people are going to naturally have towards the party they would rather see in power, but for me, being right holds more value than anything.
Quote: Mission146
I think there's a certain bias people are going to naturally have towards the party they would rather see in power, but for me, being right holds more value than anything.
That is why I think the college football rankings should be done by the bookmakers. Eliminate bias and make the numbers based on how people will bet it.
Trump voters are "done" with ex-President: "He needs to disappear."
Quote: JackSpadeMy election bets have so far resulted in a small net loss thanks to the voters of PA and OR. I could still eke out an overall gain when AZ finally gets around to counting all the votes. I need Masters to lose (95% chance) and Lake to win (50% chance according to PredictIt, 100% chance according to her).
link to original post
AZ Senate race is done. It’s frankly embarrassing that the major news agencies are so chicken shit afraid to call the race over.
They also KNOW that the Nevada race is over, in favor of the Democrat. The remaining votes are from an area the Democrat will outperform the Republican by more than enough to win. The news agencies are AFRAID of the optics of calling a race for the candidate technically trailing at that point.
I’d bet Cortez Masto wins by OVER 5k votes. And lake loses by over 5k votes.
The Arizona governor race is actually too close to call. But Predictit has it around 2/1 in favor of the Democrat
Today, they announced there would not be a total recount. Instead, they will approve a random hand count of 99.98 percent of the votes. They say they are allowed a random hand count, and nothing in the law dictates how random it must be.
Quote: SOOPOOIt’s frankly embarrassing that the major news agencies are so chicken shit afraid to call the race over.
Mistakes don't help people who tend to cast doubt on everything that's perceived wrong. You want more rioters? Check and double check and triple check. Fine with me.
Measure twice and cut once. We can't afford to get this wrong.
Quote: rxwineQuote: SOOPOOIt’s frankly embarrassing that the major news agencies are so chicken shit afraid to call the race over.
Mistakes don't help people who tend to cast doubt on everything that's perceived wrong. You want more rioters? Check and double check and triple check. Fine with me.
link to original post
Sorry. That is just a cop out. They call many races SECONDS after the polls close. Because they trust the science they use. They are just chicken shit to trust it in a ‘controversial’ race. The news media should not be afraid to call races when the data and science available lead them to the conclusion the race is determined.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: rxwineQuote: SOOPOOIt’s frankly embarrassing that the major news agencies are so chicken shit afraid to call the race over.
Mistakes don't help people who tend to cast doubt on everything that's perceived wrong. You want more rioters? Check and double check and triple check. Fine with me.
link to original post
Sorry. That is just a cop out. They call many races SECONDS after the polls close. Because they trust the science they use. They are just chicken shit to trust it in a ‘controversial’ race. The news media should not be afraid to call races when the data and science available lead them to the conclusion the race is determined.
link to original post
“Calling the race” has no actual meaningful effect. The state will continue to count the ballots. And if the state comes to a different conclusion than ABC or CBS or any other station, the state’s conclusion is what controls.
I get that when you’re invested in a race it’s satisfying to have a race called.
“The news media should not be afraid to call races when the data and science available lead them to the conclusion the race is determined.” What confidence level do you think is appropriate? 90%? 95% Even if their judgment is appropriate for 90/95% confidence, that means they’ll have egg on their face 5-10% of the time. I get why news agencies don’t want to have do retractions 5-10% of the time, especially with something that people are so invested in.
Trending reply: as predictable as “They killed Kenny” in a South Park episode :-)
********************************************************************************************
Trump's startling DeSantis claim made it into a Florida courtroom in only 24 hours: report - Raw Story -
https://www.rawstory.com/trumps-startling-confession-made-it-into-a-florida-courtroom-in-only-24-hours-report/
Gillum's lawyers seized on Trump's social media remarks in their filing.
"Former President Trump's posts raise serious questions about how exactly Trump 'fixed' DeSantis' campaign and what Trump directed the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office to do, and whether there is any connection to the FBI's investigation and later prosecution of Gillum," Gillum's lawyers argued.
The attorneys said Trump's Truth Social post demonstrates a "prima facie case of selective prosecution (at a minimum for political purposes), because Donald Trump confirms that he took action through the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office."
************************************************************************************
'They're haunted': Trump allies reportedly fear his 2024 announcement will blow up GOP's chances in Georgia.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: rxwineQuote: SOOPOOIt’s frankly embarrassing that the major news agencies are so chicken shit afraid to call the race over.
Mistakes don't help people who tend to cast doubt on everything that's perceived wrong. You want more rioters? Check and double check and triple check. Fine with me.
link to original post
Sorry. That is just a cop out. They call many races SECONDS after the polls close. Because they trust the science they use. They are just chicken shit to trust it in a ‘controversial’ race. The news media should not be afraid to call races when the data and science available lead them to the conclusion the race is determined.
link to original post
Well then, you own a news media company one day, you can do it your way.
Quote: rxwineQuote: SOOPOOQuote: rxwineQuote: SOOPOOIt’s frankly embarrassing that the major news agencies are so chicken shit afraid to call the race over.
Mistakes don't help people who tend to cast doubt on everything that's perceived wrong. You want more rioters? Check and double check and triple check. Fine with me.
link to original post
Sorry. That is just a cop out. They call many races SECONDS after the polls close. Because they trust the science they use. They are just chicken shit to trust it in a ‘controversial’ race. The news media should not be afraid to call races when the data and science available lead them to the conclusion the race is determined.
link to original post
Well then, you own a news media company one day, you can do it your way.
link to original post
That’s basically the point of my post. When I see weaknesses I point out how I would do it better if I had the power/resources/authority.
How ‘confident’ do you need to be to ‘call’ an election? It has to exceed 99%, probably exceed 99.8%. Ask President Dewey….
It looks like Republicans are going to take over the House, one way or another, not that such should come as a surprise to anyone.
It's possible that Laxalt holds on, but I don't see it based on the remaining vote that is out there. Based on how the mail-in voting has broken so far, and the number of votes outstanding, it would be something of a minor miracle (for Laxalt) not to be overcome by Cortez-Masto by a vote count that a recount would be highly unlikely to change.
Here's how the numbers might look, if what I have been reading is correct:
The vote count between Laxalt and Cortez-Masto currently stands at 468,437-467,575 (Respectively). That would be a difference of 862 votes in favor of Laxalt. There have been a total of 965,814 votes cast and counted, from what I am seeing.
Reports would indicate that somewhere between 93%-95% of the vote has been counted, depending on where you get your estimate from. For these purposes, I'm going to go with 5% as that would, almost indisputably, be a better scenario for Laxalt than 7% left to be counted.
That would mean there are some 48,290 votes to count, so we're just going to call it 48,500 since we are using the lowest percentage of outstanding votes anyway. It would seem about 3.1% have gone to third-parties, so I guess we can assume that will hold. That being the case, you are left with about 47,000 votes outstanding.
They say 85% of these outstanding votes are in Clark and Washoe counties, which 538 reports that Cortez-Masto won the most recent batch counted 63%-33%.
Let's go ahead and say that Cortez Masto overperformed that batch, however, and that it should really look like 55%-45%, just for the sake of argument.
47000 * .85 = 39,950
39950 * .55 = 21,973
39950 * .45 = 17,978
21973 - 17978 = 3995
3995 - 862 = 3133
Okay, so the most Laxalt favorable assumptions would still see Cortez-Masto lead by something like 3,100 votes after Washoe and Clark County votes are counted.
That would leave 7,050 votes outside of those counties that would generally favor Laxalt, though as we know, Democrats are more likely to vote by mail and that is what is being counted. Even then, Laxalt would have to absolutely dominate to overcome what I would consider a minimum case for his detriment given the disparity in votes remaining and disparity in Clark and Washoe results.
To that point, ABC News has reported about 70,000 ballots remaining, which would be much worse for Laxalt. In my scenario, he would still need to get 70% of the remaining vote outside of Clark and Washoe Counties...and all of my other assumptions would be ridiculously beneficial to him. Not only am I doing a minimum case for outstanding votes, but I'm also trimming significantly from the most recent batch (in terms of Cortez-Masto percent) that we have seen.
With that, I think Laxalt is cooked.
Conclusion
This might be the final day of anything with any broader consequence.
1.) GOP wins the House, which was all but a given, but does so more narrowly than they ever wanted to.
2.) People endorsed by Trump did not do particularly well. In my opinion, Pennsylvania was the Republicans' Senate seat to lose in more ways than they were just defending it and Trump-endorsed Oz managed to lose to someone who just suffered a stroke not long ago. We'll never know, but even without the stroke, I'm convinced McCormick (had he been nominated) would have made easy work of Fetterman. McCormick might also be a carpetbagger, but he has strong ties and grew up in Fetterman's second-best region (Pittsburgh area) so certainly would have moved some votes from D to R there.
In terms of strategy, Oz was just an awful pick.
3.) Democrats should win the Nevada Senate seat, which would leave the Georgia runoff election between Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker for nothing but bragging points as the Kamala Harris tiebreaker renders 50-50 a Democratic Senate. I suppose, with Warnock as D51, Democrats would only have to worry about getting Sinema OR Manchin on their side with things, but with a Republican House, it'll be kind of moot anyway.
4.) Democrats GAIN either one or two state capitals in terms of Gubernatorial races, pending the result of Arizona.
---My ultimate observation is that this came largely as a result of the SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade as the question of abortion access is one that is going to mobilize, particularly, younger voters and single women. It's also going to be tough for those voter demographics to ever trust Republicans going into the future because it was Conservative SCOTUS Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, who referred to Roe v. Wade as, "Settled law," in his opinion, during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings.
---Of course, at the time, the Conservative Right seemed to celebrate the overturn without understanding the sort of implications that it would have on election prospects in the long-run. With runaway inflation and the country sitting on the precipice of an impending recession, Republicans should have steamrolled in this midterm, and instead, it's probably going to be Gain-Push-Loss and might even be Gain-Loss-Loss.
Quote: Mission146Today might be all she wrote, in the macro-sense.
It looks like Republicans are going to take over the House, one way or another, not that such should come as a surprise to anyone.
It's possible that Laxalt holds on, but I don't see it based on the remaining vote that is out there. Based on how the mail-in voting has broken so far, and the number of votes outstanding, it would be something of a minor miracle (for Laxalt) not to be overcome by Cortez-Masto by a vote count that a recount would be highly unlikely to change.
Here's how the numbers might look, if what I have been reading is correct:
The vote count between Laxalt and Cortez-Masto currently stands at 468,437-467,575 (Respectively). That would be a difference of 862 votes in favor of Laxalt. There have been a total of 965,814 votes cast and counted, from what I am seeing.
Reports would indicate that somewhere between 93%-95% of the vote has been counted, depending on where you get your estimate from. For these purposes, I'm going to go with 5% as that would, almost indisputably, be a better scenario for Laxalt than 7% left to be counted.
That would mean there are some 48,290 votes to count, so we're just going to call it 48,500 since we are using the lowest percentage of outstanding votes anyway. It would seem about 3.1% have gone to third-parties, so I guess we can assume that will hold. That being the case, you are left with about 47,000 votes outstanding.
They say 85% of these outstanding votes are in Clark and Washoe counties, which 538 reports that Cortez-Masto won the most recent batch counted 63%-33%.
Let's go ahead and say that Cortez Masto overperformed that batch, however, and that it should really look like 55%-45%, just for the sake of argument.
47000 * .85 = 39,950
39950 * .55 = 21,973
39950 * .45 = 17,978
21973 - 17978 = 3995
3995 - 862 = 3133
Okay, so the most Sisolak favorable assumptions would still see Cortez-Masto lead by something like 3,100 votes after Washoe and Clark County votes are counted.
That would leave 7,050 votes outside of those counties that would generally favor Sisolak, though as we know, Democrats are more likely to vote by mail and that is what is being counted. Even then, Sisolak would have to absolutely dominate to overcome what I would consider a minimum case for his detriment given the disparity in votes remaining and disparity in Clark and Washoe results.
To that point, ABC News has reported about 70,000 ballots remaining, which would be much worse for Sisolak. In my scenario, he would still need to get 70% of the remaining vote outside of Clark and Washoe Counties...and all of my other assumptions would be ridiculously beneficial to him. Not only am I doing a minimum case for outstanding votes, but I'm also trimming significantly from the most recent batch (in terms of Cortez-Masto percent) that we have seen.
With that, I think Sisolak is cooked.
Conclusion
This might be the final day of anything with any broader consequence.
1.) GOP wins the House, which was all but a given, but does so more narrowly than they ever wanted to.
2.) People endorsed by Trump did not do particularly well. In my opinion, Pennsylvania was the Republicans' Senate seat to lose in more ways than they were just defending it and Trump-endorsed Oz managed to lose to someone who just suffered a stroke not long ago. We'll never know, but even without the stroke, I'm convinced McCormick (had he been nominated) would have made easy work of Fetterman. McCormick might also be a carpetbagger, but he has strong ties and grew up in Fetterman's second-best region (Pittsburgh area) so certainly would have moved some votes from D to R there.
In terms of strategy, Oz was just an awful pick.
3.) Democrats should win the Nevada Senate seat, which would leave the Georgia runoff election between Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker for nothing but bragging points as the Kamala Harris tiebreaker renders 50-50 a Democratic Senate. I suppose, with Warnock as D51, Democrats would only have to worry about getting Sinema OR Manchin on their side with things, but with a Republican House, it'll be kind of moot anyway.
4.) Democrats GAIN either one or two state capitals in terms of Gubernatorial races, pending the result of Arizona.
---My ultimate observation is that this came largely as a result of the SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade as the question of abortion access is one that is going to mobilize, particularly, younger voters and single women. It's also going to be tough for those voter demographics to ever trust Republicans going into the future because it was Conservative SCOTUS Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, who referred to Roe v. Wade as, "Settled law," in his opinion, during his Senate confirmation hearings.
---Of course, at the time, the Conservative Right seemed to celebrate the overturn without understanding the sort of implications that it would have on election prospects in the long-run. With runaway inflation and the country sitting on the precipice of an impending recession, Republicans should have steamrolled in this midterm, and instead, it's probably going to be Gain-Push-Loss and might even be Gain-Loss-Loss.
link to original post
Maybe because it’s TLDR it all, and just skimmed…. But why do you mention Sisolak? Aren’t you talking about Laxalt versus Cortez Masto? Edit…. Sisolak has conceded already. I wasn’t sure why you were analyzing that race. I posted this earlier…. They ‘know’ Cortez Masto will win by around 5k votes. Maybe more.
Quote: SOOPOO
Maybe because it’s TLDR it all, and just skimmed…. But why do you mention Sisolak? Aren’t you talking about Laxalt versus Cortez Masto?
link to original post
(Quote unintentionally clipped; the quote above is from a post that has since been edited)
Thank you; you're quite correct. Somehow, my brain switched from one last name to another. I'll edit the corrections where I used the wrong name.
JFK- Ask not what your country can do for you....
DJT- They stole the Electron.
Quote: billryanPeople are underplaying it, but Biden's performance in the mid-terms is historic. Go back and look at other Presidents whose personal popularity is so low but whose party did so well. It seems the GOP has succeeded in making its brand so toxic that moderates want no part of it.
link to original post
I think a lot of odds were based on Biden's approval/disapproval rating, "it's the economy stupid", and historical context.
More than a couple things made this election different. For instance, school shootings pushed gun rights off the table which always happens with recent shootings, Abortion ruling derailed the support for Republicans since it has never polled in the majority in 30 years. Although we didn't have an official third-party spoiler, the Trump wing actually functioned as a third-party spoiler, IMO. It just didn't get pointed out as such, but that may be the effect.
And people didn't notice small bites at the electorate. When you can't affect a big change, you can target smaller groups. There were things done affecting smaller groups of people in a positive way. I don't think people were accounting for that either. Eventually lots of small bites of the elephant makes a big meal.
Not typical, but that's what I think happened.
Post might be a too political, but I tried to make it an evaluation of how things were calculated vs. what I think happened and why the win (If a win is assumed) was more modest than expected.
Quote: billryanIt's very complex, but, in the end, credit or blame goes to the Captain of the ship. That is Biden.
link to original post
Not a chance.
I would say that this is a historically strong performance for an incumbent party in the midterm...which Biden had exactly nothing to do with.
1.) Trump endorsed candidates did terribly, overall, and Trump has a lower net favorability rating than Biden does. In terms of Biden Approval v. Trump Net Favorability, it's pretty much a wash.
2.) Some campaigns, such as Fetterman's Senate campaign in Pennsylvania, actually wanted to distance themselves from the current Administration. They wanted to tie themselves to public opinion on Biden as little as possible because public opinion on Biden is not very good.
3.) I would say, however, despite Trump's endorsement of deeply flawed candidates that led to losing very winnable contests, and arguably, some contests that the Republicans should have won, Democrats need look no further than the SCOTUS if they want to know who to thank for this historically successful midterm performance. Every winning Democrat in a reasonably contested race should send Kavanaugh a Christmas card.
But go have a drink with Barf. He could use a friend or two.
Quote: billryanThe fish rots from the head. One only has to look at God's Own Party to realize how true that is. I'm sure it is all a big coincidence that Grandpa Joe brought calm and order to a country reeling after a four-year shitshow.
But go have a drink with Barf. He could use a friend or two.
link to original post
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/05/politics/voters-issues-economy-midterms-2022
Quote:In CNN’s September/October poll, nearly three-quarters (72%) of registered voters called abortion at least very important to their vote, with 52% calling it extremely important. The share of voters calling abortion extremely important to their vote varied along both partisan and gender lines: 72% of Democratic women, 54% of independent women and 53% of Republican women rated it that highly, compared with fewer than half of men of any partisan affiliation.
Further:
Quote:Abortion policy does stand out in some surveys as particularly likely to serve as a litmus test. In the Fox News poll, 21% of voters named abortion or women’s rights as an issue “so important to them that they must agree with a candidate on it, or they will NOT vote for them,”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/inflation-abortion-lead-list-voter-concerns-nbc-news-exit-poll-finds-rcna56258
Quote:Americans named inflation and abortion as the most important issues driving their votes Tuesday, edging out crime despite Republicans' hammering the issue, according to the NBC News Exit Poll.
Democrats care most about abortion rights, while Republicans are most concerned about inflation, according to the poll. Independent voters also named inflation and abortion as the most important issues determining how they cast their ballots.
The above quote would later highlight a poll showing that abortion (27%) was the most important issue for voters coming in second only to inflation/economy (32%).
Of course, the key difference in those two things, given the voting blocs that those issues are important to, is the fact that voters are going to be more split on which party is the better one to handle inflation. Granted, that's an issue that is generally going to favor Republicans, but abortion is not even close.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2022/11/01/the-economics-of-5-big-election-issues/
Quote:Learn more: “The states where children are more likely to be born into the worst circumstances, and are receiving the least support after birth, also tend to be the ones that are restricting a women’s right to choose,” write Sawhill and Welch.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/404243/economy-top-election-issue-abortion-crime-next.aspx
Quote:WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Among the policy issues being debated and discussed this election year, the economy leads in importance to Americans. Nearly half of U.S. registered voters, 49%, say the economy will be extremely important to their vote for Congress. But abortion and crime are nearly as prominent; 42% and 40% of voters, respectively, say each of these is extremely important.
The SCOTUS handed Democrats their winning issue this midterm. Democrats get steamrolled if Roe hadn't been overturned. You create whatever narrative you want and, against all logic, go ahead and believe the narrative that Biden is somehow responsible for this strong Democratic performance. I'll just continue to be right, so I don't mind.
Compare his results with those of Bill Clinton, Obama, or trump.
Sometimes you get lucky, but the win is still the win.
Quote: billryanBiden's mid-term performance is historic. You can deflect from it and give a brazzilion reasons why he had nothing to do with it, but that ignores one simple fact- Biden's mid-term performance was historic.
Compare his results with those of Bill Clinton, Obama, or trump.
Sometimes you get lucky, but the win is still the win.
link to original post
I'm not ignoring anything. I agree completely that this was a historically strong performance for an incumbent party.
Quote: Mission146Quote: billryanBiden's mid-term performance is historic. You can deflect from it and give a bazillion reasons why he had nothing to do with it, but that ignores one simple fact- Biden's mid-term performance was historic.
Compare his results with those of Bill Clinton, Obama, or trump.
Sometimes you get lucky, but the win is still the winner.
link to original post
I'm not ignoring anything. I agree that this was a historically strong performance for an incumbent party.
link to original post
You are so close. Just admit it was a historic performance by an incumbent President. He doesn't care who takes credit for it, nor do I. If it makes you feel better, I'll say you also had a part in it. Real leaders care about the results, not who gets credit for them.
Quote: billryan
You are so close. Just admit it was a historic performance by an incumbent President. He doesn't care who takes credit for it, nor do I. If it makes you feel better, I'll say you also had a part in it. Real leaders care about the results, not who gets credit for them.
link to original post
That is what incumbent means, yes. You can't have a historic performance for an incumbent party without the POTUS also being a member of that party.
Anyway, I don't know if you think I have something against Biden, because I don't. I didn't vote for him, but I certainly prefer him to Trump---people are more quiet now.
Quote: billryanQuote: Mission146Quote: billryanBiden's mid-term performance is historic. You can deflect from it and give a bazillion reasons why he had nothing to do with it, but that ignores one simple fact- Biden's mid-term performance was historic.
Compare his results with those of Bill Clinton, Obama, or trump.
Sometimes you get lucky, but the win is still the winner.
link to original post
I'm not ignoring anything. I agree that this was a historically strong performance for an incumbent party.
link to original post
You are so close. Just admit it was a historic performance by an incumbent President. He doesn't care who takes credit for it, nor do I. If it makes you feel better, I'll say you also had a part in it. Real leaders care about the results, not who gets credit for them.
link to original post
I don’t know. Biden’s low approval rating drags down Democrat expectations, and when they manage to step over the lowered bar Biden’s supposed to get kudos?
Sure I guess. If we all agree it’s damning with faint praise.
Quote: unJonQuote: billryanQuote: Mission146Quote: billryanBiden's mid-term performance is historic. You can deflect from it and give a bazillion reasons why he had nothing to do with it, but that ignores one simple fact- Biden's mid-term performance was historic.
Compare his results with those of Bill Clinton, Obama, or trump.
Sometimes you get lucky, but the win is still the winner.
link to original post
I'm not ignoring anything. I agree that this was a historically strong performance for an incumbent party.
link to original post
You are so close. Just admit it was a historic performance by an incumbent President. He doesn't care who takes credit for it, nor do I. If it makes you feel better, I'll say you also had a part in it. Real leaders care about the results, not who gets credit for them.
link to original post
I don’t know. Biden’s low approval rating drags down Democrat expectations, and when they manage to step over the lowered bar Biden’s supposed to get kudos?
Yes. When a party celebrates a historical win, leadership deserves to get credit for it. Just as FDR gets credit for winning WW2 or GWB gets credit for winning The Gulf War, even though they didn't fire a shot.
Sure I guess. If we all agree it’s damning with faint praise.
link to original post
Early ballots should not be accepted on Election Day. The biggest delay in Arizona is the 250,000 early ballots that people dropped off on Election Day. Had those people voted in person while there to drop off the ballots, the election would have been called by now.
End Early voting at midnight on Election Day Eve.
******************************
Just hours after Arizona Republican Party Senate nominee Blake Masters was declared the loser in his bid to unseat Sen. Mark Kelly (D), Donald Trump raged on his Truth Social media platform that there needs to be a do-over election.
I wonder what hand pays at Trump casinos were like. "You cheated and we won't pay you!" Slot player gets angry, then Trump says to security "Be sure to bang his head on something on the way out!"
Quote: mcallister3200How many pages am I going to have to scroll back to find the election betting topic?
link to original post
I don't know, do you feel lucky?
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: tuttigymQuote: TigerWuIt looks like one Senate seat is leaning towards Dems, and one is leaning towards Reps. That would make the count 49 Dem and 50 Rep. It's going to come down to the Georgia runoff for who controls the Senate, and there are actually people who think Herschel Walker is a good candidate.
What a mess.
link to original post
I personally do not think Walker is a good candidate, but Warnock is his equal in my opinion. I will vote Red. As I stated before, even if the GOP wins both houses, nothing will be accomplished with the exceptions of hearings chaired by the GOP. If the collective GOP had the stones to actually put in place the budget process and stop the "continuing resolutions," perhaps there might be some spending sanity and real fiscal responsibility. Probably never will happen.
tuttigym
link to original post
I understand that voting for Walker is really just a vote against the Shumer/Biden/Pelosi policies. And Warnock is nothing more than a rubber stamp vote along those lines. But he is well spoken, clear on his views, well educated, and generally a ‘normal’ candidate. Other than disagreeing with him on policy, why do you consider him NOT a ‘good candidate’?
link to original post
Well spoken? Does that mean he does NOT speak in a "southern" or "black/ebonic" dialect? If he is "well educated and clear on his views," then how can he be a "rubber stamp vote"? Not sure what a "normal candidate" is defined as. I have no idea what his net worth might be, but I am sure it is well beyond that of an average man of the cloth seeing as he does own a number of rental properties and other assets. As an ally of Stacie Abrams and other BLM constituents, I find his politics and allegiances at odds with my own.
tuttigym
Quote: billryanOne simple rule change would eliminate an awful lot of the wait.
Early ballots should not be accepted on Election Day. The biggest delay in Arizona is the 250,000 early ballots that people dropped off on Election Day. Had those people voted in person while there to drop off the ballots, the election would have been called by now.
End Early voting at midnight on Election Day Eve.
link to original post
The wait is not important. More people voting is more important.
Quote: FinsRuleQuote: billryanOne simple rule change would eliminate an awful lot of the wait.
Early ballots should not be accepted on Election Day. The biggest delay in Arizona is the 250,000 early ballots that people dropped off on Election Day. Had those people voted in person while there to drop off the ballots, the election would have been called by now.
End Early voting at midnight on Election Day Eve.
link to original post
The wait is not important. More people voting is more important.
link to original post
I agree. We can wait a few days to count the votes if that's the cost of allowing more eligible people to cast a ballot.
