2022 Midterm & Michigan Elections - Who Ya Got Winning?

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:

I’m not sure why you are surprised by this.

At least my age group is 50/50

Why am I surprised.  I didn't know what dumb fucks the 45- to 64-year-old voters are, I guess. The Republicans have been screwing them their entire lives and they still are 40/60 for them?

Maybe it’s the dumb fucks who are tired of the younger generations telling them “we can’t wait until you are dead”?

I thought we weren’t supposed to generalize by generation anymore i remember someone getting really upset about that :(

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

At least my age group is 50/50

Why am I surprised.  I didn't know what dumb fucks the 45- to 64-year-old voters are, I guess. The Republicans have been screwing them their entire lives and they still are 40/60 for them?

Maybe it’s the dumb fucks who are tired of the younger generations telling them “we can’t wait until you are dead”?

If that is their motivation, to screw everyone else, they are cynical as all fuck and don't give a fuck about the United States. Move to Russia where they could at least die for Putin in Ukraine.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I thought we weren’t supposed to generalize by generation anymore i remember someone getting really upset about that :(

Just following the data, so data driven, which is not a generalization.

It’s not really that complicated though around 45-55 people enter their “I got mine” phase

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:It’s not really that complicated though around 45-55 people enter their “I got mine” phase

I'll have to dig out some research on that, however I have also read that after the first few years of voting people generally keep voting for the same party. I'm thinking they bought into all that "Morning in America" malarky that the snake oil salesman, Reagan, was peddling.

Totally antidotal but here is a refutation of the "people vote conservative as they get older"

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-start-voting-Republican-as-they-get-older-What-insights-drove-you-to-vote-Republican-that-differ-from-when-you-were-younger

edit 1 - Here is the actual data driven answer, which as I thought, is that people vote the same way most of their lives.





https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/

edit 2 - I see I happen to be in the cohort of the Baby Boom that generally votes blue.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Maybe it’s the dumb fucks who are tired of the younger generations telling them “we can’t wait until you are dead”?

If that is their motivation, to screw everyone else, they are cynical as all fuck and don't give a fuck about the United States. Move to Russia where they could at least die for Putin in Ukraine.

There’s a recipe for success. “If you don’t think our way, move out!”

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

If that is their motivation, to screw everyone else, they are cynical as all fuck and don't give a fuck about the United States. Move to Russia where they could at least die for Putin in Ukraine.

There’s a recipe for success. “If you don’t think our way, move out!”

It's what the Republicans always tell everyone else, so turnabout is fair play.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
There’s a recipe for success. “If you don’t think our way, move out!”

It's what the Republicans always tell everyone else, so turnabout is fair play.

I just wish Progressive candidates would have the guts to say that. Let’s see if telling voters who don’t support them they’re stupid and should move out really works as a campaign strategy.

Trapper Gus wrote:Totally antidotal but here is a refutation of the "people vote conservative as they get older"

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-start-voting-Republican-as-they-get-older-What-insights-drove-you-to-vote-Republican-that-differ-from-when-you-were-younger

edit 1 - Here is the actual data driven answer, which as I thought, is that people vote the same way most of their lives.





https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/

edit 2 - I see I happen to be in the cohort of the Baby Boom that generally votes blue.

If this were the case, there would be no need for campaigns and advertising.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:It’s not really that complicated though around 45-55 people enter their “I got mine” phase

I'll have to dig out some research on that, however I have also read that after the first few years of voting people generally keep voting for the same party. I'm thinking they bought into all that "Morning in America" malarky that the snake oil salesman, Reagan, was peddling.

The chart you originally posted has always looked like that, within the lifetime of those 45-65 year olds at least. When they were younger, in those Reagan years, they were more liberal. Then they get older and a bunch of them peel off and start voting more conservative. It happens with every generation as they get older and acquire more stuff.

The question will be if that continues in the future. That trend has mostly been built under “we don’t want to tax anyone for anything” style republicans that many people still think of them as. And it makes sense- people get more wealth, they don’t have problems other than not wanting to pay taxes and they haven’t yet entered the “I am constantly having to engage the healthcare system and realizing how insane it is” phase of their life yet. I’m not sure if that will continue going forward as the Republican brand dives further into “the only thing we care about is racism against people you don’t like either”

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I'll have to dig out some research on that, however I have also read that after the first few years of voting people generally keep voting for the same party.  I'm thinking they bought into all that "Morning in America" malarky that the snake oil salesman, Reagan, was peddling.

The chart you originally posted has always looked like that, within the lifetime of those 45-65 year olds at least. When they were younger, in those Reagan years, they were more liberal. Then they get older and a bunch of them peel off and start voting more conservative. It happens with every generation as they get older and acquire more stuff.

The question will be if that continues in the future. That trend has mostly been built under “we don’t want to tax anyone for anything” style republicans that many people still think of them as. And it makes sense- people get more wealth, they don’t have problems other than not wanting to pay taxes and they haven’t yet entered the “I am constantly having to engage the healthcare system and realizing how insane it is” phase of their life yet. I’m not sure if that will continue going forward as the Republican brand dives further into “the only thing we care about is racism against people you don’t like either”

Here is an approximation using the 45 to 64 age group and the PEW chart:

1994 - NNN --- Republican Year WAG - (45 to 64 voted Republican)
1996 - NNN --- Democratic Year WAG - (45 to 64 voted Democratic)
1998 - NDR --- Republican Year WAG - (45 to 64 voted Republican)
2000 - DRD --- Republican Year WAG - (45 to 64 voted Democratic)
2002 - DNR --- Republican Year WAG - (45 to 64 voted Republican)
2004 - NDN --- Republican Year WAG - (45 to 64 voted Republican)
2006 - DNN --- Democratic Year WAG - (45 to 64 voted Democratic)
2008 - RNR --- Democratic Year WAG - (45 to 64 voted Republican)
2010 - NRNN --- Republican Year WAG - (45 to 64 voted Republican)
2012 - RRDR --- Democratic Year WAG - (45 to 64 voted Republican)

What this doesn't show is voters always voting for Republicans when they are between 45 to 64.  (edit 2 - each year is a different cohort of votes between apx. 45 to 64)

The PEW chart is somewhat problematic, as it is showing deviation from the overall voting pattern for that year.

Also, there is a deeper report on the link in PEW, but it is all about 2014, and not about voting over time.

That other chart you posted is weird and problematic for a number of reasons so I’m not going to address it because I don’t feel like going down that rabbit hole with you.

All you really need to do is google for is each presidential year, vote by age, and figure out how old that 45-64 group was at the time. You have to consider that years like 2008 when people in general voted overwhelmingly for one side probably aren’t the best years to consider. 2000 seems like a good one, yeah? That age group, like the rest of the country, was mostly evenly split around 50/50. What they were not is overwhelmingly conservative like the chart you originally posted is. Ergo, they got more conservative as they aged. They will start to swing back as they age more.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:That other chart you posted is weird and problematic for a number of reasons so I’m not going to address it because I don’t feel like going down that rabbit hole with you.

All you really need to do is google for is each presidential year, vote by age, and figure out how old that 45-64 group was at the time. You have to consider that years like 2008 when people in general voted overwhelmingly for one side probably aren’t the best years for consider. 2000 seems like a good one, yeah? That age group, like the rest of the country, was mostly evenly split around 50/50. What they were not is overwhelmingly conservative like the chart you originally posted is. Ergo, they got more conservative as they aged. They will start to swing back as they age more.

That's okay - I like being in holes by myself, and it isn't problematic enough the throw it out, just looking at it.

The other chart, by age, in the PEW report is only for 2014, so is pretty useless as to tracking changes in voting over age for the same voters.

So far cannot find exact enough data, as the age groups which as used for exit polls are not in equal sets of years. which makes it messy, not have I found a long enough time period to match or exceed the PEW chart.

Thus, from the PEW chart is still appears that voting tracks the cohort as much as the age group as voting.

Everyone "in the know" seems to agree that the "voters become more conservative as they age trope" was invented by people who wanted people to vote for conservatives.

I’ll give you one problem with the chart and why it isn’t very helpful here- more conservative isn’t defined by who they voted for. If they were 51/49 voting for bush in 2000, that gets a red r in that chart. But that’s not in the same world as the 59/38 chart you posted originally. That’s still getting more conservative around that 45-64 age range than they were when they were younger, and you’re going to be hard pressed to find data that shows that age range (edit, that group of people not age range. Sorry) has always been 59/38, which is your hypothesis here if you’re trying to say that they aren’t more conservative now than they were before (you’ll be hard pressed because it doesn’t exist because they’ve gotten more conservative)

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:That other chart you posted is weird and problematic for a number of reasons so I’m not going to address it because I don’t feel like going down that rabbit hole with you.

All you really need to do is google for is each presidential year, vote by age, and figure out how old that 45-64 group was at the time. You have to consider that years like 2008 when people in general voted overwhelmingly for one side probably aren’t the best years for consider. 2000 seems like a good one, yeah? That age group, like the rest of the country, was mostly evenly split around 50/50. What they were not is overwhelmingly conservative like the chart you originally posted is. Ergo, they got more conservative as they aged. They will start to swing back as they age more.

Everyone "in the know" seems to agree that the "voters become more conservative as they age trope" was invented by people who wanted people to vote for conservatives.

Oh brother. You’re infamous for this kind of “data”.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I’ll give you one problem with the chart and why it isn’t very helpful here- more conservative isn’t defined by who they voted for. If they were 51/49 voting for bush in 2000, that gets a red r in that chart. But that’s not in the same world as the 59/38 chart you posted originally. That’s still getting more conservative around that 45-64 age range than they were when they were younger, and you’re going to be hard pressed to find data that shows that age range has always been 59/38, which is your hypothesis here if you’re trying to say that they aren’t more conservative now than they were before (you’ll be hard pressed because it doesn’t exist because they’ve gotten more conservative)

Okay.

My interchangeable use of conservative with votes for republicans noted, valid comment, though I'm the one who traded "conservative" for "republican" so will just use "republican" going forward, and just switch republican and democratic in for conservative & liberal in these posts.

The chart isn't by percentage for one or the other.  The tan color, which I called "N", is if they voted with the majority of voters, thus if Bush won 51/49 to rate a "D" in the chart that age cohort would have had to vote at least 50/50 to get the "D", likewise 52/48 to get the "R", though PEW doesn't say how far from the majority they are to be a "R" or a "D".

Thus, if the vote was 55/45 "R" the Tan Color could represent 53/47, since PEW didn't say we don't know where they divided it, and the age cohort still overall voted "R".  That is why I say the chart is problematic, along with not being able to exactly track age.

The one thing that struck me about tNYT's chart was how far out of line the 45 to 64 age cohort is.  If we look at a 2014 chart of age groups, below, it doesn't have this sudden budge and snap back over age groups.



Of course, the PEW chart is the population in 2014, and conseratives v liberals by attitude, not voting, and tNYT chart is the population in 2022, and by expected voting, but there is nothing in 2014 to suggest the bulge to the "R" in that age cohort. (note that the two PEW charts don't use the same criteria, one is voting, the other is attitudes, probably where I picked up on, incorrectly, interchanging party names with attitude names)

Maybe Penn is correct.  They are just pissed off at the Democratic Party.

All right man sure, yeah.

After ruminating on it the Times/Seina poll numbers for the 45- to 64-year-old group don't really make any sense.  While there are differences in age groups to have one age group swing by 10 points away from the three other age groups is highly unlikely.

edit - a discussion of polls from a math guy - https://gelliottmorris.substack.com/p/the-polling-website-where-republicans

periodic reminder to not pay attention to the polls and the mainstream media.. they want/need the anti-America, anti-democracy, fascist GOP in power.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:periodic reminder to not pay attention to the polls and the mainstream media.. they want/need the anti-America, anti-democracy, fascist GOP in power.

Poll in Colorado has batschit crazy election denying dog shooting incumbent candidate down by 8 points or so.

Sounds like Moscow Mitch will be getting help from another Putin lackey GOP Congressman Kevin McCarthy who indicated the GOP won’t be supporting military aid to Ukraine to the levels Biden has done since the Russian invasion.

GOP looks like it’s becoming an agent of Putin and Saudi Arabia.  The party that will take payoffs from anyone to get and remain in control of the US government.

They’ll trade cheaper gas for Ukraine returning to Russian control.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/mccarthy-no-blank-check-for-ukraine-if-gop-wins-majority/

GRR Spartan wrote:Sounds like Moscow Mitch will be getting help from another Putin lackey GOP Congressman Kevin McCarthy who indicated the GOP won’t be supporting military aid to Ukraine to the levels Biden has done since the Russian invasion.

GOP looks like it’s becoming an agent of Putin and Saudi Arabia.  The party that will take payoffs from anyone to get and remain in control of the US government.

They’ll trade cheaper gas for Ukraine returning to Russian control.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/mccarthy-no-blank-check-for-ukraine-if-gop-wins-majority/

I keep hoping that the pundits and polls are wrong about the House, but sadly I'm not thinking they are, which sucks.

Since the Republicans don't give a fuck about the country, only their own power, anymore, we all will be screwed.

upport them they’re stupid and should move out really works as a campaign strategy.

Winning is about turnout.

You don't need to convince someone to decide on you if they vote. But you do need to convince them to go out off their fat ass and cast the actual vote.

Trapper Gus wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Sounds like Moscow Mitch will be getting help from another Putin lackey GOP Congressman Kevin McCarthy who indicated the GOP won’t be supporting military aid to Ukraine to the levels Biden has done since the Russian invasion.

GOP looks like it’s becoming an agent of Putin and Saudi Arabia.  The party that will take payoffs from anyone to get and remain in control of the US government.

They’ll trade cheaper gas for Ukraine returning to Russian control.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/mccarthy-no-blank-check-for-ukraine-if-gop-wins-majority/

I keep hoping that the pundits and polls are wrong about the House, but sadly I'm not thinking they are, which sucks.

Since the Republicans don't give a fuck about the country, only their own power, anymore, we all will be screwed.

Trapper Gus wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Sounds like Moscow Mitch will be getting help from another Putin lackey GOP Congressman Kevin McCarthy who indicated the GOP won’t be supporting military aid to Ukraine to the levels Biden has done since the Russian invasion.

GOP looks like it’s becoming an agent of Putin and Saudi Arabia.  The party that will take payoffs from anyone to get and remain in control of the US government.

They’ll trade cheaper gas for Ukraine returning to Russian control.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/mccarthy-no-blank-check-for-ukraine-if-gop-wins-majority/

I keep hoping that the pundits and polls are wrong about the House, but sadly I'm not thinking they are, which sucks.

Since the Republicans don't give a fuck about the country, only their own power, anymore, we all will be screwed.

I'm hoping for a "silent majority" uprising thanks to R v. W.  Alas, i don't think it's happening.

I have no freaking clue why the Dems can't figure out how to run a campaign that churns out viral content.  They just suck at it.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I keep hoping that the pundits and polls are wrong about the House, but sadly I'm not thinking they are, which sucks.

Since the Republicans don't give a fuck about the country, only their own power, anymore, we all will be screwed.

Trapper Gus wrote:

I keep hoping that the pundits and polls are wrong about the House, but sadly I'm not thinking they are, which sucks.

Since the Republicans don't give a fuck about the country, only their own power, anymore, we all will be screwed.

I'm hoping for a "silent majority" uprising thanks to R v. W.  Alas, i don't think it's happening.

I have no freaking clue why the Dems can't figure out how to run a campaign that churns out viral content.  They just suck at it.

What is all this doubt I’m reading? I have been told repeatedly here that if Joe gives Progressives what they want, they will vote in massive numbers. Was I lied to?

The doubt is moderate (because they determine all election according to Penn) whiny baby bitches sitting out elections or voting for candidates like Oz because these hypocrites hate people more than they support a better America.

No idea what this means, but voting appears to be up.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-early-vote-counts-hit-million-surpassing-ordinary/story?id=91620263

PennSpartan wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:


I'm hoping for a "silent majority" uprising thanks to R v. W.  Alas, i don't think it's happening.

I have no freaking clue why the Dems can't figure out how to run a campaign that churns out viral content.  They just suck at it.

What is all this doubt I’m reading? I have been told repeatedly here that if Joe gives Progressives what they want, they will vote in massive numbers. Was I lied to?

Biden is promising a nationwide abortion rights law if dems can elect more senators and keep control of the house. That should get more people out to vote.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

I'm hoping for a "silent majority" uprising thanks to R v. W.  Alas, i don't think it's happening.

Leftists just can't get it through their collective heads that the country is basically split on abortion. Thinking that a viable 8 month in utero baby can be killed and call it "reproductive health" is just as extreme as not allowing a 10 year old rape victim to have an abortion.

RQA wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

I'm hoping for a "silent majority" uprising thanks to R v. W.  Alas, i don't think it's happening.

Leftists just can't get it through their collective heads that the country is basically split on abortion. Thinking that a viable 8 month in utero baby can be killed and call it "reproductive health" is just as extreme as not allowing a 10 year old rape victim to have an abortion.

Please site the sources where there are 8 month in utero abortions happening, that don't include special circumstances. Blogs are not sources.

RQA wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

I'm hoping for a "silent majority" uprising thanks to R v. W.  Alas, i don't think it's happening.

Leftists just can't get it through their collective heads that the country is basically split on abortion. Thinking that a viable 8 month in utero baby can be killed and call it "reproductive health" is just as extreme as not allowing a 10 year old rape victim to have an abortion.

This country decided long ago that killing humans is okay. That’s why we have wars. And the death penalty. And guns. The founding fathers saw fit to make sure we allow killing in penning the second amendment. The ONLY difference with abortion is people think it’s a cute, cuddly baby. It’s not. It’s a fetus that you wouldn’t want to hold once it’s removed from the womb.

The Russian Quisling Agent trying to flip the conversation is using his typical cruel MF’er persona.

Handwringing about the “unborn” but once the human is out of the womb pivoting to “personal responsibility” and “bootstraps” to lift yourself up. But in the Quislings world you can’t afford the goddamn boots.

Someone asked why Democrats and their candidates can’t get any traction. Because “conservatives” and Trump acolytes don’t care about what a candidate says or does so long as they are not a Democrat.  

OH US Senate candidate J D Vance was supporting the Jan 6 protestors and accepting their support for his campaign.  Was insulted by Trump then begging for his support.

Most egregious is GOP US Senate candidate Herschel Walker who is strong anti-abortion after paying for at least one abortion and wanting the woman (not either of his wives) to get a second abortion.  Lying about his college degree, his business success, etc.  

Yet both Vance and Walker are in close races because they are running as Republicans in places where that’s all that matters.

InTenSity wrote:

RQA wrote:

Leftists just can't get it through their collective heads that the country is basically split on abortion. Thinking that a viable 8 month in utero baby can be killed and call it "reproductive health" is just as extreme as not allowing a 10 year old rape victim to have an abortion.

Please site the sources where there are 8 month in utero abortions happening, that don't include special circumstances. Blogs are not sources.

This is exactly what they do. For example, there have been two trans gender athletes in the state of Michigan that have requested to play sports in their new gender. That’s literally out of 100’s of thousands of hi school athletes. And I see political advertisements on TV like it’s happening all the time. Less than 1% of abortions happen in 3rd trimester and often if they do it’s for reasons of the mothers health.

Just preying on the stupid people to believe their fear mongering, and vote their way. The very people they despise.

We suck as a nation.

Please site the sources where there are 8 month in utero abortions happening, that don't include special circumstances. Blogs are not sources.

Does DWags count as a credible source?

He reports that <1% of abortions are 3rd trimester.  Well if thats 0.75%, given that there are about 600,000 abortions each year in the USA. that would be 4500 3rd trimester abortions each year.

You are defensive about the topic of 3rd trimester abortion - would you favor restricting abortion to the 1st trimester or first two trimesters?

DWags wrote:

InTenSity wrote:
Please site the sources where there are 8 month in utero abortions happening, that don't include special circumstances. Blogs are not sources.

This is exactly what they do. For example, there have been two trans gender athletes in the state of Michigan that have requested to play sports in their new gender. That’s literally out of 100’s of thousands of hi school athletes. And I see political advertisements on TV like it’s happening all the time. Less than 1% of abortions happen in 3rd trimester and often if they do it’s for reasons of the mothers health.

Just preying on the stupid people to believe their fear mongering, and vote their way. The very people they despise.

We suck as a nation.

Hence all the "Too Confusing, Too Extreme" lawn signs. It's not that hard people, just read what you're voting for, it's pretty clear what it is that's on the ballot.

RQA wrote:

Please site the sources where there are 8 month in utero abortions happening, that don't include special circumstances. Blogs are not sources.

Does DWags count as a credible source?

He reports that <1% of abortions are 3rd trimester.  Well if thats 0.75% given that there are about 600,000 abortions each year in the USA that would be 4500 3rd trimester abortions each year.

You are defensive about the topic of 3rd trimester abortion - would you favor restricting abortion to the 1st trimester or first two trimesters?

My wife used to be an RN in OB... I know she has been in the OR for a number of 3rd trimester "abortions" of babies without brain stems or that have died in utero... when induction to end goes bad they take the baby.

Btw, the "too confusing" allows for regulation after the point of viability.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

I have no freaking clue why the Dems can't figure out how to run a campaign that churns out viral content.  They just suck at it.

in general, Democrats give the American people way too much credit. They fail to realize that the average American is as dumb as a stump.

DWags wrote:

InTenSity wrote:
Please site the sources where there are 8 month in utero abortions happening, that don't include special circumstances. Blogs are not sources.

This is exactly what they do.  For example, there have been two trans gender athletes in the state of Michigan that have requested to play sports in their new gender. That’s literally out of 100’s of thousands of hi school athletes. And I see political advertisements on TV like it’s happening all the time.  Less than 1% of abortions happen in 3rd trimester and often if they do it’s for reasons of the mothers health.

Just preying on the stupid people to believe their fear mongering, and vote their way. The very people they despise.  

We suck as a nation.

it's also important to remember that the 'pro-life' christian right is as far from being pro-life as you could actually be. They actually have contempt for human life.