November was a pretty solid purple puddle

The Senatorial map greatly favored Republicans. Democrats gained 50,388,364 votes (58.5%) vs Republican 34,422,837 votes (39.9%) in the Senate. There's a lot of issues with that statistics, but the difference is staggering.

In the House, which is by far a better representation than the Senate because it more evenly represents all of America, Democrats out-gained Republicans 58,639,919 to 50,129,404 (53.0% vs 45.3%).

Before herp derp that's not how the Senate and country works or how the founders drew it up etc, my point is that a favorable Senate map for Republicans prevented a blue wave.

Republicans outperformed as far as governorships too but pretty much



Lefties generally have lost their place in the story of history. They're swimming towards something that doesn't exist and I agree itll be fun to watch them drown while they blame the far reich for their own choices. The general trend is that an empire lasts 10 generations, but ours might last a few more to 15-20. If it comes to that we'll have to move to Taiwan or something.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Nov 20 2018 01:21pm

That's actually what is currently happening if you ask most Americans. The executive branch is practically the furthest thing from a meritocracy at this point.

Sam Harris has proposed that electing an average American adult citizen at random might have been better than Trump because at least that person would have a higher chance of realizing they were not equipped to do the job and had no idea what they were doing. I think that is a reasonable argument.

If you were an outsider looking to take down America in 2016, you'd want to help elect Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton very likely results in the more slow, steady decline that we saw under Obama. Trump's populism had potential for more upside, but it also had a much greater chance at a rapid decline. He was the better bet, hence WikiLeak's and Assange's actions.



Citizens United is what is helping keep the left financially at bay in many cases, but there are races and instances where they can use it to their advantage. The decision wasn't a full win for Conservatives, but it was a big one.

The best way to hasten the end of this nation is probably to tank its economy and weaken its alliances. Protectionist economic policies and isolationism from the West probably aren't the fastest ways to accomplish those objectives, but they are paths.

[tinfoil hat]
who says that "lots of small donor contributions" cant be astroturfed?
[/tinfoil hat]


and who says that having more people automatically means your coalition has more cash to spend?
and who says that 2018's Democratic fundraising advantage was the result of their coalition being "structurally dominant", as is usually implied in analyses like yours? couldnt this fundraising edge be a result of the enthusiasm gap instead? I, personally, would like to wait for an additional 1-2 cycles before concluding that the Democratic coalition's fundraising is reliably superior to the Republican coalition's. (excluding billionaire money from super PACs on both sides.)

Pew Research estimates that 8% more of US adults identify as Democrats than Republicans. That's a whole lot of people. You're right, that doesn't necessarily translate into more small and large individual contributions every election cycle. You're also correct that enthusiasm won't always be as high for the Left as it was during these midterms. Enthusiasm was probably higher in the 2010 and 2014 midterms for Republicans, for instance.

But controlling for these factors, over long periods of time, unless there is a dramatic shift in party affiliation in the United States (and there very well could be, depending on the party's platforms over these next few decades), the Democrats will likely have a relatively large edge in small and large individual political donation contributions for the foreseeable future across most major political races.

I've debated with many of my friends whether it should be legal to donate to a Senate, House, Governor, or state/local campaign of a state that you are not a resident of. In other words, should it be legal for millions of donations to pour into Beto O'Rourke's campaign from non-Texans? I go back on forth on this. On one hand, it's free speech per the SCOTUS (money is speech). On the other hand, from the delegate model of representation's perspective, elected officials probably should represent the will of their own constituents and not a broader, national constituency.

But as it stands now, I believe Democrats do have an advantage in terms of small and large individual political contributions. Republicans have an advantage with Super PACs since Citizens United. There's more money in politics as a whole, and I think it's a bad thing.

Vote GOP to turn the country into trash time and time again. There have only been a couple good Republican presidents ever, the one that freed the slaves and one who was stronger than a bull moose.

Trump spent half as much money as hillary and still won. You overestimate the importance of money and how it is raised.

The fact is liberals don't believe in objective morality truth so they will use any excuse they want to attack conservatives whether it is money or anything else.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Nov 20 2018 07:54pm

Ignoring all the free coverage Trump got because he drew ratings by acting like an idiot.