2022 Midterm Elections - Results and Post Mortem

[Copernicus]

The House still looks likely to flip to Republicans by a very narrow margin, but here is another piece of good news for Democrats. A House race in southwestern Washington state that was thought to be a safe Republican seat was just flipped by the Democrat. This was highly unexpected and will help the Democrats in their uphill struggle to keep control of the House.

Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez defeats Republican Joe Kent in WA House race​

 

[blastula]

Yeah that was Jaime Herrera Beutler's old seat. She was one of the few GOP who voted to impeach. She's also the one who let us know about what Trump was saying to McCarthy during 1/6. She lost her primary. Trump backed her primary challenger who is a crazy Trumper, which is the main reason they lost. She probably would have held it. Sad.

 

[Toni]

However, I don't seem to be the only person with this problem and so I think that perhaps you might consider that your meaning is not conveyed as well as you believe it is and stop taking offense when someone misunderstands or misinterprets you.

It certainly seems to me that the people who 'misunderstand' my posts all have the same ideological basis. I wonder if that's a coincidence.

Your earlier assertion in this thread (paraphrasing here) that you might infer from ld's post that Americans have no standards for which they determine what makes an effective Senator seems, at first reading to be meant with no sarcasm or irony.

In fact, the comment isn't about Americans at all. It's a dig at laughing dog.

I would have taken it at face value as well. If that, however, is not how you intended it to be interpreted, you could correct the impression LD had of your typed words and simply say; Sorry, I meant that in an ironical or in a sarcastic or whatever fits way. It would help people learn to understand when you type words how you intend for them to be taken. Here, you are saying that it was just a figure of speech. There are other instances when you refuse to accept that some other poster is merely employing a figure of speech---which sort of implies that you do not employ figures of speech.

When have I 'refused' to accept a figure of speech simply because it was a figure of speech?

Nothing I've written here is intended as any kind of attack on you or your writing style. I'm just hoping to find a way so that what you type is understood in the way you intended by everyone who reads it. Just as I hope people understand what I write in the way I intend them to understand it. And for those times when things are not understood as the writer intended, that different interpretations or meanings or implications are pointed out as an addition to the discussion and not as a discussion of the merits of one person's writing style vs another. I like to be understood and I am assuming everyone also wants to be understood as well.

What would help considerably is if people actually acknowledged when I correct their misperceptions, even if the misperceptions arose because of an alleged deficit in my communication.

It would also help if you could manage to acknowledge fair points made by others you disagree with.

I will not "acknowledge" falsehoods, like the multiple falsehoods leveled at me in this thread.

As for your claim that misunderstandings are only because of ideological differences:

Not "only" because of that. I did not say that.

I often sharply disagree with Derec. He and I sometimes split hairs pretty finely but there really is not much disagreement about what the other meant, or claims of misperceptions. The same goes with Loren—he and I often really disagree. Rhea, who is probably more on the sane side of any right/left ideological divide as I am do disagree from time to time. Bilby and I can bicker like siblings.

With all of these fellow posters, if a point or statement isn’t clear, we manage to clear it up without making the thread about how words mean only what the person who wrote them thinks they mean in the particular circumstance, date, time they are talking about.

I tried to clear it up. I have multiple times told people the inferences they've drawn are wrong.

However, I don't seem to be the only person with this problem and so I think that perhaps you might consider that your meaning is not conveyed as well as you believe it is and stop taking offense when someone misunderstands or misinterprets you.

It certainly seems to me that the people who 'misunderstand' my posts all have the same ideological basis. I wonder if that's a coincidence.

Your earlier assertion in this thread (paraphrasing here) that you might infer from ld's post that Americans have no standards for which they determine what makes an effective Senator seems, at first reading to be meant with no sarcasm or irony.

In fact, the comment isn't about Americans at all. It's a dig at laughing dog.

I would have taken it at face value as well. If that, however, is not how you intended it to be interpreted, you could correct the impression LD had of your typed words and simply say; Sorry, I meant that in an ironical or in a sarcastic or whatever fits way. It would help people learn to understand when you type words how you intend for them to be taken. Here, you are saying that it was just a figure of speech. There are other instances when you refuse to accept that some other poster is merely employing a figure of speech---which sort of implies that you do not employ figures of speech.

When have I 'refused' to accept a figure of speech simply because it was a figure of speech?

Nothing I've written here is intended as any kind of attack on you or your writing style. I'm just hoping to find a way so that what you type is understood in the way you intended by everyone who reads it. Just as I hope people understand what I write in the way I intend them to understand it. And for those times when things are not understood as the writer intended, that different interpretations or meanings or implications are pointed out as an addition to the discussion and not as a discussion of the merits of one person's writing style vs another. I like to be understood and I am assuming everyone also wants to be understood as well.

What would help considerably is if people actually acknowledged when I correct their misperceptions, even if the misperceptions arose because of an alleged deficit in my communication.

It would also help if you could manage to acknowledge fair points made by others you disagree with.

I will not "acknowledge" falsehoods, like the multiple falsehoods leveled at me in this thread.

As for your claim that misunderstandings are only because of ideological differences:

Not "only" because of that. I did not say that.

I often sharply disagree with Derec. He and I sometimes split hairs pretty finely but there really is not much disagreement about what the other meant, or claims of misperceptions. The same goes with Loren—he and I often really disagree. Rhea, who is probably more on the sane side of any right/left ideological divide as I am do disagree from time to time. Bilby and I can bicker like siblings.

With all of these fellow posters, if a point or statement isn’t clear, we manage to clear it up without making the thread about how words mean only what the person who wrote them thinks they mean in the particular circumstance, date, time they are talking about.

I tried to clear it up. I have multiple times told people the inferences they've drawn are wrong.

Question that I don't want or expect you to answer here: Is that your strategy with people IRL who seem to not understand or misinterpret what you say or write?

In my experience, telling someone who has misunderstood or misinterpreted something I said or wrote that they are wrong is ineffective in making my actual meaning more clear. For me, that is important. If I write or say something, I really do want the intended audience to understand what I was saying/writing. If there is a failure on that ground, I assume it was my failure in being clear enough. I try to re-state the idea I was originally conveying in a more clear way. Or I ask questions. I am genuine in wishing to clear up misunderstandings.

Of course, sometimes tempers are hot and no one is in the mood to listen in which case, a break is really the best thing. But it's still important to try to clear up misunderstandings if possible.

 

[Metaphor]

Besides, even if there were a statistically significant difference, only a very disingenuous person, to put it charitably, would conclude that Reagan, at 43.0 percent popularity on day 661, was notably more popular than Biden at 41.5 percent.

I didn't make any such call, let alone use the term "notably".

This is precisely why talking to you is a waste of time. Of COURSE you IMPLIED that there was a significant popularity difference between Reagan’s 43.0 and I Biden’s 41.5,

I implied only that 43.0 is higher than 41.5, which it is, to illustrate how dishonest your framing was.

which is preicsley why you characterized me as grossly dishonest for my characterization of Biden’s popularity relative to other presidents. Now you are backtracking,

I am doing no such thing.

My point stands unrefuted. Biden’s popularity for this stage in his tenure in office is roughly equivalent to or above fully seven of the last 13 presidents.

Your point is nonsense, and it is was dishonestly framed nonsense.

Even under your own reasoning, it is only Truman who one might say Biden was 'higher than' - and even then you are assuming - under your own reasoning - that the point estimate difference was large enough that it justifies your 'higher than' remark.

I would not try to compare modern polling with polling done more than seven decades ago. I have no idea of the sampling error on the Truman polling, let alone the non-sampling error.

Anyone can consult the data contained in the link I posted and see that this is so. I have no interest in further responding to your dishonest blather on this subject.

I hope everybody does consult the data.

EDIT: I can just imagine how easily any poster would have been torn down had she had the balls to say 'Trump, at this stage in his presidency' is at the same level or higher than fully six previous presidents.'

 

[Metaphor]

Question that I don't want or expect you to answer here: Is that your strategy with people IRL who seem to not understand or misinterpret what you say or write?

It's quite rare that people seem to not understand me in real life. Certainly I can't think of any recent incidents, at work or with friends, where there has been the kind of 'misunderstanding' that so often happens to me on this board.

In my experience, telling someone who has misunderstood or misinterpreted something I said or wrote that they are wrong is ineffective in making my actual meaning more clear. For me, that is important. If I write or say something, I really do want the intended audience to understand what I was saying/writing. If there is a failure on that ground, I assume it was my failure in being clear enough. I try to re-state the idea I was originally conveying in a more clear way. Or I ask questions. I am genuine in wishing to clear up misunderstandings.

Of course, sometimes tempers are hot and no one is in the mood to listen in which case, a break is really the best thing. But it's still important to try to clear up misunderstandings if possible.

When I say 'I did not say that and do not believe it', it is not clear to me what else I can do. I am telling you directly your inference about my beliefs is wrong. It seems not to make any difference.

 

[Lunawalk]

I'm just relieved that there was no red wave. I didn't expect Stacey to win. It would have been like a miracle if she did. Despite my support of her, I think she ran a much better campaign in 2018, and the Republicans did an effectivel job of demonizing her this time around. Sure, there was likely a little bit of sexism in the mix, along with the usual Democratic voter apathy. Perhaps the biggest obstacle was that she ran against an incumbent, who despite some of his despicable policies, he never lied about the 2020 election and he didn't let Trump manipulate him into election denial. We will only be stuck with him for one more term. With the growing population in Georgia, the state might be a bit more blue in 2024. Hoping...

I am also relieved Not only that the democrats are projected to hold the Senate!! Without Georgia. Just curious how do you think the runoff go off without the motivation of control of the Senate off the table. How will the runoff turn out since Walker is a fault candidate?

 

[Toni]

Question that I don't want or expect you to answer here: Is that your strategy with people IRL who seem to not understand or misinterpret what you say or write?

It's quite rare that people seem to not understand me in real life. Certainly I can't think of any recent incidents, at work or with friends, where there has been the kind of 'misunderstanding' that so often happens to me on this board.

In my experience, telling someone who has misunderstood or misinterpreted something I said or wrote that they are wrong is ineffective in making my actual meaning more clear. For me, that is important. If I write or say something, I really do want the intended audience to understand what I was saying/writing. If there is a failure on that ground, I assume it was my failure in being clear enough. I try to re-state the idea I was originally conveying in a more clear way. Or I ask questions. I am genuine in wishing to clear up misunderstandings.

Of course, sometimes tempers are hot and no one is in the mood to listen in which case, a break is really the best thing. But it's still important to try to clear up misunderstandings if possible.

When I say 'I did not say that and do not believe it', it is not clear to me what else I can do. I am telling you directly your inference about my beliefs is wrong. It seems not to make any difference.

Here's a good example: I was not implying ANYTHING about your beliefs. I was making a suggestion. Yes, the premise of my suggestion was that you cared about other people understanding you and that you want to work towards building understanding.

If someone has gotten something you said/wrote wrong, instead of saying NO THAT"S WRONG you could try to say, no, that's not what I meant. Let me explain it better---and then really really try to re-state, in different words/terms/examples, WITHOUT TEMPER, your position.

I can't promise you that anyone will agree with you but fewer people will misunderstand what you said.

OTOH if you are one of those very rare individuals who does not care if other people understand them, carry on.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm just relieved that there was no red wave. I didn't expect Stacey to win. It would have been like a miracle if she did. Despite my support of her, I think she ran a much better campaign in 2018, and the Republicans did an effectivel job of demonizing her this time around. Sure, there was likely a little bit of sexism in the mix, along with the usual Democratic voter apathy. Perhaps the biggest obstacle was that she ran against an incumbent, who despite some of his despicable policies, he never lied about the 2020 election and he didn't let Trump manipulate him into election denial. We will only be stuck with him for one more term. With the growing population in Georgia, the state might be a bit more blue in 2024. Hoping...

I am also relieved Not only that the democrats are projected to hold the Senate!! Without Georgia. Just curious how do you think the runoff go off without the motivation of control of the Senate off the table. How will the runoff turn out since Walker is a fault candidate?

Your guess is probably as good as mine, but my hope is that since the Senate is already going to be controlled by the Dems, perhaps a lot of Republicans who held their noses to vote for Walker, won't bother to show up for the run off election. They say that Dems are the ones who don't vote enough in run offs here, but the two Dems both won in the last run off, so maybe Georgia Dems are finally getting more motivated. Despite Stacy's loss, I think she will probably work to get out the vote for Warnock.

 

[jonatha]

I have seen speculation that the original turnout was for Kemp. If so the runoff should be less popular among the gop

 

[Swammerdami]

It has come to my attention that some of the posts in this thread are off-topic: They are about aphasia rather than the midterms.
I will transfer ALL the hijacking posts to one or two other threads and Post a notice here when I am done.

Please do not discuss aphasia until the split is complete. Thanks in advance.

 

[ZiprHead]

I have a question.

With the dems taking the senate, can they next year vote on the two voting rights bills previously blocked there or would they have to be voted on again in the house?

 

[jonatha]

I have a question.

With the dems taking the senate, can they next year vote on the two voting rights bills previously blocked there or would they have to be voted on again in the house?

When a new Congress starts all prior business is reset, so the bill would have to pass the House again

 

[Elixir]

I have a question.

With the dems taking the senate, can they next year vote on the two voting rights bills previously blocked there or would they have to be voted on again in the house?

It might be worthwhile to pass those bills in the Senate, just to force the House to declare their allegiances.
Right now it looks like casting doubt on the integrity of elections is a powerful poison pill. Certainly at the National level, and in most cases at the State level as well. Refusal to endorse reinforcement of voting rights could be pretty awkward for MAGAts, and it would take very few aisle-crossers to cause it to pass.

Denying The 2020 Election Wasn’t A Winning Strategy For Political Newcomers
​

Of the 80 non-incumbent Republican election deniers who ran for House, Senate, governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, just 22 are currently projected to win (28 percent), while 49 (61 percent) are projected to lose, and nine are in races that have yet to be called.

I think Dems should continue to turn the screw and "out" as many election deniers as possible, as long and as loudly as possible. This election revealed that the majority of the American public wants no part of Republicans' anti-democratic bullshit.
Kudos to that American public, which has pleasantly surprised me this go-round. But the victories have been very narrow, and the stupidity has to be held at bay if we are to recover fully from the devastation brought by the ignorance, cruelty and greed of the Trump era.

 

[Copernicus]

If Republicans control the House, they can block bills from coming up for a vote. They won't be forced to vote on anything they don't want to vote on.

 

[Elixir]

If Republicans control the House, they can block bills from coming up for a vote. They won't be forced to vote on anything they don't want to vote on.

I question their unity, now that MAGA has gone politically rancid. And it’s only going to get worse. Of course what Dems might be able to get away with will depend on the margins and just how stupidly the MAGAts proceed, no matter who they alienate.

 

[Swammerdami]

If Republicans control the House, they can block bills from coming up for a vote. They won't be forced to vote on anything they don't want to vote on.

Am I correct that — should the Insurrectionist Party refuse to agree on a spending bill — Biden will be able to proceed with Executive Orders?

A problem arises if the debt ceiling needs to be lifted, I think the Treasury can issue trillion-dollar platinum coins with the public disclaimer that the coins will be redeemed if/when the Insurrectionists come to their senses or care about the country.

 

[ZiprHead]

I have a question.

With the dems taking the senate, can they next year vote on the two voting rights bills previously blocked there or would they have to be voted on again in the house?

When a new Congress starts all prior business is reset, so the bill would have to pass the House again

shit

 

[Swammerdami]

It has come to my attention that some of the posts in this thread are off-topic: They are about aphasia rather than the midterms.
I will transfer ALL the hijacking posts to one or two other threads and Post a notice here when I am done.

Please do not discuss aphasia until the split is complete. Thanks in advance.

With Rhea's help, The splits are complete.

With over 130 posts in the hijack, it seemed best to create TWO new threads:

A Philosophy thread to discuss whether Aphasia is a cognitive disability:

Split - Is aphasia a cognitive disability?

STAFF NOTICE - This is a split of a split Was the political discussions 2020 mid-terms, then Fetterman fit to work. This split is the clinical and philosophical discussion of the condition of aphasia Very happy for Fetterman. Would have been too dispiriting if he lost over a disability...

iidb.org

A Political thread focused on Fetterman's qualifications. Many of the posts in this thread are back-and-forths between posters and are of minimal value.

Split - Is Fetterman's aphasia relevant to his being a Senator?

STAFF NOTICE This thread is a split from https://iidb.org/threads/2022-midterm-elections-results-and-post-mortem.26711/ Focusing on John Fetterman’s stroke symptoms ============================== Very happy for Fetterman. Would have been too dispiriting if he lost over a disability...

iidb.org

If anyone feels that a post has been placed in the wrong thread, please contact me or Rhea.

 

[laughing dog]

I think the Democrats should thank the theocrats on SCOTUS for motivating young voters and suburban women to get out and vote. Those two "blocks" helped (not the only cause) to turn the predicted big red wave into a ripple.

 

[Elixir]

Just curious how do you think the runoff go off without the motivation of control of the Senate off the table.

Of course one would hope it might blunt the National fundraising fervor, but at the State level? I defer to SH.