Mid-Term Elections 2018

POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 02:13
VIEWED: 24731
PAGE 16 of 23

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

BRENDA

Saturday, November 17, 2018 9:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Forget the Sweet Talk -- Both Parties Will Go to the Map

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/11/10/forget_the_sweet
_talk_--_both_parties_will_go_to_the_mat_138614.html

T

The gerrymanding did hold as both the Dakotas went red. There should have been two big blue spots on South Dakota but because of the Republicans denying Native Americans their right to vote there isn't.

Sorry Brenda. The Dakotas are always red.

North Dakota:

Quote:
North Dakota joined the Union in November 1889 and has participated in all elections from 1892 onwards. Since 1900, North Dakota voted Democratic 17.24 percent of the time and Republican 82.76 percent of the time. Since 1968, the state has always voted Republican.

South Dakota:

Quote:
South Dakota is reliably Republican in presidential elections – only voting Democratic four times, most recently in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson won a landslide victory over Barry Goldwater. South Dakota is one of seven states with the minimum three electoral votes.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Jack, I just went and looked up how many reserves there are in those two states. There are 9 reservations in South Dakota and 5 in North Dakota. The majority of Indians in North Dakota are Dakotah/Lakotah along with Wahpeton, Sisseton, Yanktonia, Arikara, Hidasta and Mandan. Also Chippewa, Cree and Metis.
Should also mention that in South Dakota too would be majority Dakotah/Lakotah.

Native Americans vote Democrat. Why in the hell do you think the Republicans were trying to get P.O. Boxes banned during the mid-terms? The majority of those are used by Indians on reservations.

I would think that majority of those voter numbers you posted to me will and have been white.

BRENDA

Saturday, November 17, 2018 9:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Forget the Sweet Talk -- Both Parties Will Go to the Map

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/11/10/forget_the_sweet
_talk_--_both_parties_will_go_to_the_mat_138614.html

T

The gerrymanding did hold as both the Dakotas went red. There should have been two big blue spots on South Dakota but because of the Republicans denying Native Americans their right to vote there isn't.

It's sad Brenda but even sadder is our local trolls denying the truth of it all.

T

Hey, you guys know what white supremacist hate more than Jews, Polaks. Who here fits that description? kiki and sig to name two. Who loves the Polak hater Trump, kiki and sig to name two.

Fucking dummies

6IXSTRINGJACK
Saturday, November 17, 2018 10:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Forget the Sweet Talk -- Both Parties Will Go to the Map

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/11/10/forget_the_sweet
_talk_--_both_parties_will_go_to_the_mat_138614.html

T

The gerrymanding did hold as both the Dakotas went red. There should have been two big blue spots on South Dakota but because of the Republicans denying Native Americans their right to vote there isn't.

Sorry Brenda. The Dakotas are always red.

North Dakota:

Quote:
North Dakota joined the Union in November 1889 and has participated in all elections from 1892 onwards. Since 1900, North Dakota voted Democratic 17.24 percent of the time and Republican 82.76 percent of the time. Since 1968, the state has always voted Republican.

South Dakota:

Quote:
South Dakota is reliably Republican in presidential elections – only voting Democratic four times, most recently in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson won a landslide victory over Barry Goldwater. South Dakota is one of seven states with the minimum three electoral votes.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Jack, I just went and looked up how many reserves there are in those two states. There are 9 reservations in South Dakota and 5 in North Dakota. The majority of Indians in North Dakota are Dakotah/Lakotah along with Wahpeton, Sisseton, Yanktonia, Arikara, Hidasta and Mandan. Also Chippewa, Cree and Metis.
Should also mention that in South Dakota too would be majority Dakotah/Lakotah.

Native Americans vote Democrat. Why in the hell do you think the Republicans were trying to get P.O. Boxes banned during the mid-terms? The majority of those are used by Indians on reservations.

I would think that majority of those voter numbers you posted to me will and have been white.

North Dakota's Native American population is 5.2%
South Dakota's Native American population is 8.9% (This stat is mixed with "Alaskan Native" for some reason).

Both house races ended up right around 60% Republican to 36% Democrat.

There was no Senate race in South Dakota.

North Dakota's Senate race was 55.4% Republican to 44.6% Democrat.

In the house, neither race would have been close if every Native, including all children not even eligible voted.

In the North Dakota Senate race it is extremely unlikely that it would have swayed the results by 11% when the demographic makeup of Natives is only 5.2%, which doesn't even take into account how many are even registered to vote. I was not able to find that information anywhere for either state.

I think it's pretty bold to say that all Native Americans vote Democrat. If you didn't have the ancestry yourself, I'd say that's just as racist as saying all black people vote Democrat, which isn't true by a long shot.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Saturday, November 17, 2018 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
I'm not just sad but I am angry.

Even though jack has some good points in terms of the pragmatics of changing the outcome, imo no one should be disenfranchised.

BRENDA

Saturday, November 17, 2018 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Forget the Sweet Talk -- Both Parties Will Go to the Map

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/11/10/forget_the_sweet
_talk_--_both_parties_will_go_to_the_mat_138614.html

T

The gerrymanding did hold as both the Dakotas went red. There should have been two big blue spots on South Dakota but because of the Republicans denying Native Americans their right to vote there isn't.

Sorry Brenda. The Dakotas are always red.

North Dakota:

Quote:
North Dakota joined the Union in November 1889 and has participated in all elections from 1892 onwards. Since 1900, North Dakota voted Democratic 17.24 percent of the time and Republican 82.76 percent of the time. Since 1968, the state has always voted Republican.

South Dakota:

Quote:
South Dakota is reliably Republican in presidential elections – only voting Democratic four times, most recently in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson won a landslide victory over Barry Goldwater. South Dakota is one of seven states with the minimum three electoral votes.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Jack, I just went and looked up how many reserves there are in those two states. There are 9 reservations in South Dakota and 5 in North Dakota. The majority of Indians in North Dakota are Dakotah/Lakotah along with Wahpeton, Sisseton, Yanktonia, Arikara, Hidasta and Mandan. Also Chippewa, Cree and Metis.
Should also mention that in South Dakota too would be majority Dakotah/Lakotah.

Native Americans vote Democrat. Why in the hell do you think the Republicans were trying to get P.O. Boxes banned during the mid-terms? The majority of those are used by Indians on reservations.

I would think that majority of those voter numbers you posted to me will and have been white.

North Dakota's Native American population is 5.2%
South Dakota's Native American population is 8.9% (This stat is mixed with "Alaskan Native" for some reason).

Both house races ended up right around 60% Republican to 36% Democrat.

There was no Senate race in South Dakota.

North Dakota's Senate race was 55.4% Republican to 44.6% Democrat.

In the house, neither race would have been close if every Native, including all children not even eligible voted.

In the North Dakota Senate race it is extremely unlikely that it would have swayed the results by 11% when the demographic makeup of Natives is only 5.2%, which doesn't even take into account how many are even registered to vote. I was not able to find that information anywhere for either state.

I think it's pretty bold to say that all Native Americans vote Democrat. If you didn't have the ancestry yourself, I'd say that's just as racist as saying all black people vote Democrat, which isn't true by a long shot.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

You are correct that I shouldn't have implied that all Native Americans vote Democrat, Jack.

I get tired when I hear stories of Native Americans getting the short end of the stick. That's why I posted or tried to post the link to that NPR story about Native IDs not being accepted at polling places. So everyone could read what was being done. That story came out of South Dakota and I mentioned voting notices not going to PO boxes and that meant those notices wouldn't reach reservations because that is how the mail is delivered to reservations. There are no street addresses or little towns or whatever on reserves.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, November 17, 2018 3:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
North Dakota's Native American population is 5.2%
South Dakota's Native American population is 8.9% (This stat is mixed with "Alaskan Native" for some reason).

Both house races ended up right around 60% Republican to 36% Democrat.

There was no Senate race in South Dakota.

North Dakota's Senate race was 55.4% Republican to 44.6% Democrat.

In the house, neither race would have been close if every Native, including all children not even eligible voted.

In the North Dakota Senate race it is extremely unlikely that it would have swayed the results by 11% when the demographic makeup of Natives is only 5.2%, which doesn't even take into account how many are even registered to vote. I was not able to find that information anywhere for either state.

I think it's pretty bold to say that all Native Americans vote Democrat. If you didn't have the ancestry yourself, I'd say that's just as racist as saying all black people vote Democrat, which isn't true by a long shot.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

You are correct that I shouldn't have implied that all Native Americans vote Democrat, Jack.

I get tired when I hear stories of Native Americans getting the short end of the stick. That's why I posted or tried to post the link to that NPR story about Native IDs not being accepted at polling places. So everyone could read what was being done. That story came out of South Dakota and I mentioned voting notices not going to PO boxes and that meant those notices wouldn't reach reservations because that is how the mail is delivered to reservations. There are no street addresses or little towns or whatever on reserves.

Thank you for taking what I said at face value and not reading things into it that weren't implied. This is what rational people like us do, but I must admit my hesitation when talking anything politics with you Brenda because I know that we probably don't see eye to eye on some things and I like you. :)

Like Kiki, I think any effort that is actively or even passively has motives to disenfranchise voters is wrong, but I wasn't commenting on that specifically.

I was just saying that if this really did happen I don't know why somebody would do it in the Dakotas because the impact either way was next to negligible. I don't see the ROI on it.

If it were a swing state like Florida it would make a lot more sense to me. (Definitely not saying that it would be right, just that I could see why a person or a group would think it was worth the risk).

Do Right, Be Right. :)

BRENDA

Sunday, November 18, 2018 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
North Dakota's Native American population is 5.2%
South Dakota's Native American population is 8.9% (This stat is mixed with "Alaskan Native" for some reason).

Both house races ended up right around 60% Republican to 36% Democrat.

There was no Senate race in South Dakota.

North Dakota's Senate race was 55.4% Republican to 44.6% Democrat.

In the house, neither race would have been close if every Native, including all children not even eligible voted.

In the North Dakota Senate race it is extremely unlikely that it would have swayed the results by 11% when the demographic makeup of Natives is only 5.2%, which doesn't even take into account how many are even registered to vote. I was not able to find that information anywhere for either state.

I think it's pretty bold to say that all Native Americans vote Democrat. If you didn't have the ancestry yourself, I'd say that's just as racist as saying all black people vote Democrat, which isn't true by a long shot.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

You are correct that I shouldn't have implied that all Native Americans vote Democrat, Jack.

I get tired when I hear stories of Native Americans getting the short end of the stick. That's why I posted or tried to post the link to that NPR story about Native IDs not being accepted at polling places. So everyone could read what was being done. That story came out of South Dakota and I mentioned voting notices not going to PO boxes and that meant those notices wouldn't reach reservations because that is how the mail is delivered to reservations. There are no street addresses or little towns or whatever on reserves.

Thank you for taking what I said at face value and not reading things into it that weren't implied. This is what rational people like us do, but I must admit my hesitation when talking anything politics with you Brenda because I know that we probably don't see eye to eye on some things and I like you. :)

Like Kiki, I think any effort that is actively or even passively has motives to disenfranchise voters is wrong, but I wasn't commenting on that specifically.

I was just saying that if this really did happen I don't know why somebody would do it in the Dakotas because the impact either way was next to negligible. I don't see the ROI on it.

If it were a swing state like Florida it would make a lot more sense to me. (Definitely not saying that it would be right, just that I could see why a person or a group would think it was worth the risk).

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I can understand your reluctance to discuss politics with me Jack. And I know we won't see eye to eye on a great deal of things. 1) is that I am Canadian. 2) I am about 20years older than you and after everything that has happened to me and my family I have a different world view to you. Such is things.

Disenfranchising anyone on voting is wrong regardless of who is being talked about.

I understand from elections down in the US that Florida can go either way which is why it is called a "swing" state. Very different from up here in Canada. So, yes from what you are saying it would make more sense for it to have happened there.

1KIKI

Sunday, November 18, 2018 6:50 AM

"I was just saying that if this really did happen I don't know why somebody would do it in the Dakotas because the impact either way was next to negligible. I don't see the ROI on it."

For now I'm going to assume it's a fact, just because the fact should be easy enough to check with some investment of time. So, assuming it's a fact, that makes the 'why' very puzzling.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, November 18, 2018 7:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I was just saying that if this really did happen I don't know why somebody would do it in the Dakotas because the impact either way was next to negligible. I don't see the ROI on it."

For now I'm going to assume it's a fact, just because the fact should be easy enough to check with some investment of time. So, assuming it's a fact, that makes the 'why' very puzzling.

Yeah. I should probably clairify that statement. I didn't mean to say that I think it's a lie or "fake news". Just like doing this in the Dakotas for any political gain wouldn't make any sense, lying about it happening when it would be pretty easy to check up on wouldn't make any sense either.

I may be way off base, but here's my guess...

It had nothing to do with American Indians in the Dakotas at all and that was just an unfortunate side effect of new laws to curb voter fraud that wern't thought out very well, considering the large American Indian population in those two states and their way of handling addresses and post office affairs. I mean, I'm not from the Dakota's myself, but I certainly didn't know that most people living on reservations in America did not have street addresses where they live until this story came up.

If you look at the law itself without how it was unfortunately handled and applied to the Native population, I don't see anything wrong with it really, TBH. In almost any other situation I can think of it sounds good on paper... except of course when it doesn't. Although I wouldn't have thought about how it would have affected American Indians if the proposal were brought to my table since I was completely unaware of their situation, my first question would have been "what about homeless people? Don't they get a vote if they're registered?"

Then again, I don't get the feeling that there is much of a homeless population in the Dakotas either. Legislation like that would never have picked up any steam in Illinois with the homeless population in Chicago and (one assumes) Springfield and Peoria.

Didn't I read somewhere that there was a halt to that legislation leading up to the elections and the Natives were to get a vote in the mid-terms or am I mistaken?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THG

Sunday, November 18, 2018 6:29 PM

Election results show how gerrymandering is difficult to overcome: 'We did everything we could`

With an election looming, courts earlier this year declared congressional districts in two states to be unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. One map was redrawn. The other was not.

The sharply contrasting outcomes that resulted on Election Day in Pennsylvania and North Carolina illustrate the importance of how political lines are drawn — and the stakes for the nation because that process helps determine which party controls Congress.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-election-g
errymandering-20181117-story.html

T

Hey, you guys know what white supremacist hate more than Jews, Polaks. Who here fits that description? kiki and sig to name two. Who loves the Polak hater Trump, kiki and sig to name two.

Fucking dummies