Blue Wave

[refugee 169]

1 hour ago, Satisfied said:

Ever hear of #walkaway?  It’s never too late for you to join.

If you could speak in a straightforward way, it might help. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

A majority of those who voted (for both House and Senate) voted "Blue". 

 

US Senate Results (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-senate-elections.html) - ~52 million voted Democrat, ~35 million voted Republican

US House Results (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.html) - ~57 million voted Democrat, ~50 million voted Republican

 

The problem for Democrats is their constituency isn't as well spread out, and since we are representative democracy and not a pure democracy, they may have the majority of Americans in their corner but they need the majority of countries/districts geographically. So while overall more Americans who turned out to vote side with Democrats, they still lost the Senate because of the distribution of voters across America. 

 

Obviously this only captures those who voted (turnout is becoming more and more of a record as the final numbers are tallied), and combines many individual races into one total "party tally". Obviously people can vote one color for one situation and vote the other color for another choice. Given how polarized our nation has become my guess is that doesn't happen very often, but I don't think we can quantify it except with exit polls (if they even asked a question like that).

You are correct that you can't just look at the numbers and say "look see we have the majority" when in reality it is more complex than that. If you take California for example, their was no Republican in the ballot for the Senate race it was just 2 Democrats. This is because the state goes off the top 2 primary system no matter the party. 

Then you have stayed like MY where the majority of the population is in NYC so that city runs the state.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

You are correct that you can't just look at the numbers and say "look see we have the majority" when in reality it is more complex than that. If you take California for example, their was no Republican in the ballot for the Senate race it was just 2 Democrats. This is because the state goes off the top 2 primary system no matter the party. 

Then you have stayed like MY where the majority of the population is in NYC so that city runs the state.

Absolutely, but in a midterm it's the best "popular vote" metric we have. Obviously Presidential years offer a slightly better indication, but again the vote is between two people not two parties so it still isn't perfect.

 

By both metrics, however, the democrats seem to have a "majority" of those who choose to vote. They had the majority in 2016 Presidential election and the Senate election (Republicans had the majority in the House election ~63 million to 62 million). Now in 2018 the Democrats had more in both House and Senate.

 

No measure is ever perfect. We have to work with what we have. The whole idea that Trump represents "the people" or "average America" isn't based in any actual data. Trump's victory (and similarly Republicans in the Senate in 2018) has more to do with the distribution of those who support him and the Republican party. It's been that way for awhile. Since the urban population tends to vote Democrat, they aren't as "spread out" so Republicans have a geographic advantage.  

 

This isn't suggest that Republican (or Trump) victories aren't legitimate. In our political system they completely are. But the statements about how "most" Americans feel how Trump feels or how the "average" American agrees with Trump just isn't consistent with any of the available evidence. Certain portions of the US sure, but if you are talking about "most" or "average" you are talking about the entire adjusted US population, not adjusted for geographic location. It shouldn't matter if more people live in cities than in rural areas, we are all American and are opinions should all be weighted equally, unless you want to add a qualify like "The average rural American agrees with Trump" or something more specific.

[bcking 3,157]

Another tool you can use is pools (which are, again, never perfect). Due to concerns regarding selection bias, random sampling, discrepancies in how questions are worded (etc...), it is better to look at a "meta-analysis" of polls (Or a "poll of polls"). One poll may have an issue, but it's less likely that many polls over a series of time would have the same issue over and over again. Again it still isn't perfect, but we it's the "best" we have for objective information.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=midterms-header

 

These are the two I'm aware of, though there may be others. They are slightly off from each other, but not too bad I'd say. They have some other results as well, like "Direction of the country" and other outcomes that they have pooled together from multiple polls.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, refugee said:

If you could speak in a straightforward way, it might help. 

I do, most of the time.  If you don’t understand me when I say #walkaway, then perhaps google or DuckDuckGo can help you out.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

8 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

I do, most of the time.  If you don’t understand me when I say #walkaway, then perhaps google or DuckDuckGo can help you out.

I love the walk away movement.and the videos on yt are great. 

[Dashinka 23,262]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

Another tool you can use is pools (which are, again, never perfect). Due to concerns regarding selection bias, random sampling, discrepancies in how questions are worded (etc...), it is better to look at a "meta-analysis" of polls (Or a "poll of polls"). One poll may have an issue, but it's less likely that many polls over a series of time would have the same issue over and over again. Again it still isn't perfect, but we it's the "best" we have for objective information.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=midterms-header

 

These are the two I'm aware of, though there may be others. They are slightly off from each other, but not too bad I'd say. They have some other results as well, like "Direction of the country" and other outcomes that they have pooled together from multiple polls.

Pools of what?  Swamp water? 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Satisfied said:

I do, most of the time.  If you don’t understand me when I say #walkaway, then perhaps google or DuckDuckGo can help you out.

Maybe you got sn ESL issue going on 

[bcking 3,157]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Pools of what?  Swamp water? 

Apologies for the typo. They are still likely better than unsubstantiated anecdotal opinions on random immigration forums. Do you have specific complaints regarding their methodology or are you just discrediting them because their results aren't in agreement with your unsubstantiated opinion?

 

[Dashinka 23,262]

7 hours ago, bcking said:

Apologies for the typo. They are still likely better than unsubstantiated anecdotal opinions on random immigration forums. Do you have specific complaints regarding their methodology or are you just discrediting them because their results aren't in agreement with your unsubstantiated opinion?

 

I was simply having fun.  All the items you discussed have their own issues when it comes to Senate and House elections.  It seems irrelevant to even look at the total popular vote of the country when the number is truly meaningless because of the way the political population is distributed.  I am not sure anyone can really get a good understanding of the political feelings of the US by looking at the popular vote of House and Senate elections.  A good example is Arizona, in the statewide governor's race, the GOP cleaned house, but of course the Democrat candidate won the Senate seat (also a statewide race), so should we look at the results of the Governor's race or the Senate race to try and get an understanding of the political bent of the people of Arizona?  Polls might be a better data set, but as you say that is also flawed as has been demonstrated many times