As the big day dawns (if that’s the right way to put it, taking time differences into account), here is a thread for discussion of the US mid-terms – and a piece I wrote for Crikey yesterday that proved surplus to their requirements. I will possibly supplement this post with live coverage tomorrow, depending on how I go. Also find at the bottom of the post a guide to when polls close, repasted from Adrian Beaumont’s previous post.
On the eve of America’s mid-term elections, all signs point to a dramatic upsurge in turnout compared with four years ago – something that would ordinarily be seen as a sign of robust democratic good health. However, the last few years of American politics have made a mockery of the word “ordinarily”, and this circumstance is no exception.
The high pitch of interest can instead be seen as a symptom of the dangerous polarisation that increasingly defines American society – one effect of which has been to raise the stakes as Republicans and Democrats vie for control of Congress. Unhappily for liberal America, the dice are loaded against the Democrats tomorrow, for reasons fair and foul.
Among the latter are the efforts of state Republicans to test the limits of what courts will allow in limiting the franchise and placing obstacles before pro-Democratic constituencies in the name of fighting “voter fraud”.
Other problems for the Democrats are more intractable – such as the allocation of two Senate seats per state, an incontrovertible constitutional reality that privileges conservative rural and small town America over the liberal metropolises. This is illustrated by two of the states with seats up for election tomorrow: Wyoming, the least populous in the union (less than 580,000), and a Republican lock; and California, the most populous (nearly 40 million), and a similarly sure bet for the Democrats.
The other difficulty for the Democrats in the Senate is that the seats up for election, accounting for around a third of the total, are mostly those whose six-year terms began in 2012. That was the year of Barack Obama’s re-election, and thus of strong performance by the Democrats, in contrast to the drafts of Senators elected in the 2014 mid-terms and in 2016. This leaves the Democrats and their independent allies defending 26 seats against just nine held by Republicans, from which they need a net gain of two to boost their representation from 49 to a bare working majority of 51.
In the House of Representatives, the Democrats are handicapped by dramatically unfavourable boundaries, owing to a combination of bad luck and bad design. The first of these refers to over-concentration of Democratic support in big cities, where its members enjoy wastefully large majorities. The second involves the distinctively American blight of gerrymandering, of which there has been an outbreak since Republicans seized state legislatures as part of their mid-term sweep in 2010.
Such are the challenges the Democrats face tomorrow, at elections in which they are sure to do well by normal standards – but in which normal standards are not the ones by which they will be judged.
Democratic Senate incumbents are favoured in the states where presidential elections are usually decided, including the mid-west rust belt states that famously tipped the balance to Trump: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. However, they must repeat seemingly unlikely victories from 2012 merely to break even, in such unpromising states as West Virginia, Montana, North Dakota, Missouri and Indiana.
If a path to a Democratic majority exists, it most likely runs through the tricky terrain of Tennessee and Texas – the later presenting the most intriguing contest of the election, with Republican heavyweight Ted Cruz only slightly favoured to hold out against Democratic upstart Beto O’Rourke.
The House, being freshly elected in its entirety every two years, is greatly more promising for them, despite a consensus that their national vote will need to be fully 7% higher than the Republicans if they are to score a majority. Forecasting models suggest they are more likely to make it than not, partly reflecting the decisiveness of suburbia and the city fringes – places where the Republicans are vulnerable to the allergic reaction to Trump among better educated voters, female ones in particular.
As ever, everything depends on the demographic balance of turnout, and here the Democrats are encouraged by signs that the younger generation is at last shaking off its apathy. However, they will also know from bitter experience how elusive pre-election portents can prove when the scores start to go on the board.
Poll closing times
All times listed here are Wednesday November 7 AEDT. Some states straddle two time zones. In this case, networks will not call a state, and exit polls will not be officially released, until all polls in the state are closed. I will concentrate on poll closing times for the key Senate races below. Source: The Green Papers.
10am: Indiana Senate, eastern zone. Most of Indiana is in this zone, while a small part closes at 11am.
11am: Florida Senate, eastern, and Virginia. The part of Florida that closes at 11am is relatively Democratic-friendly. The deeply conservative “panhandle” closes at noon, and will assist Republicans. Several House races in both Virginia and Florida are contested.
11:30am: West Virginia Senate, where Democrat Joe Manchin is expected to win in a state that vote for Trump by a crushing 42 points.
12noon: Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan (eastern) and Tennessee, Missouri and Texas (eastern) Senate. New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania have many contested House seats. Most of Michigan and Texas are in the eastern zone. Republicans are a long shot in New Jersey Senate, and Democrats are a long shot in Tennessee and Texas Senate. Missouri Senate is expected to be close.
1pm: New York, Minnesota, Colorado, Wisconsin and Arizona Senate; many House races are contested in these states, and the Arizona Senate is close.
2pm: Nevada and North Dakota (eastern) Senate. Republicans are favoured to gain North Dakota, while Nevada is expected to be close. Polls in the trailing part of North Dakota close at 3pm.
3pm: California and Washington State, where many House seats are contested.
Cheers, confessions. 🙂
Trump has been stopped. It’s that simple. The poll has turned out much as predicted and will be seen as turning point in American politics. Trump has been the author of Red defeat in the House and in numerous States.
The Democratic Party has won with the support of a new plurality, never mind the whinging from the enemies of constitutional democracy.
Confessions @ #596 Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 – 10:17 pm
Oh, but I think Brown is too old to start a Presidency in 2020.
http://alert5.com/2018/11/07/two-usmc-aviators-grounded-pending-investigation-into-sky-penis-flight-pattern/
Light relief from the USA. 🙂
Results may feel disappointing for Dems because star candidates like Beto, Stacey Abrahams, Gillum all lost but overall seems like a decent night. Here are some of the important state level flips
Governorships
Michigan
Illinois
Kansas
Maine
New Mexico
Nevada
Wisconsin
Guam Lou
Senate
Nevada
State Legislatures
Colorado State Senate
New York State Senate
New Hampshire State House + State Senate
Minnesota State House
Maine State Senate
Attorneys General
Colorado
Wisconsin
Solid result for the Democrats. Of course DDT will pour cold water over the results having backed Trump against Clinton.
Steve777 @ #594 Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 – 9:21 pm
Steve yes and no
The Senate was never a chance for the democrats but I think they hoped to maybe gain one seat or at least keep status quo so that in 2020 when there were more seats up for grabs they could easily gain two to take a majority. NOW having fallen from 49 to 45, the task in 2020 looks, much, much harder.
The house was expected to go to the Democrats because there is a pattern of it swinging away from the white house party. More to the point they had a few months ago been talking in terms of a Blue tsunami or wave that really did shrink to just a ripple.
I have not been following the “celebrity candidates” whom I gather did not fare well. That in itself should be a chapter in whatever review the Democrat Party does. ie did the campaigning of high profile people help or hinder. I have honestly no opinion either way – I have not been following it but it is a question that should be answered. I have a bit of a suspicion (and I mean a little bit) that Hollywood and other celebrities may be a turn off, in contrast to the situation say 10 years ago.
It seems as if the really good news story are the Governor’s races. again i am not across the details at all but I was pleased to see the rust belt go democrat again.
Kate @ #599 Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 – 9:56 pm
Kate
You seem unable to distinguish between rational analysis and emotional gibberish. I backed Trump in 2016 and would again, because I STILL think he is a tad less likely to start nuclear war, but that is a long long long long way from in any way being a Trump supporter.
We have survived two years of Trump and no nukes yet, whereas I think the animosity between Hillary and Putin was such that it would have been very hard to avoid hot conflict. The reality is that on military matters Trump is all talk no action (for which I am very grateful) and hope it stays that way.
This is a wave election. It’s not a large wave, nor a tsuanmi. On top of the various state government changes, we’re talking about a gain of about 36 seats for Democrats, maybe slightly more depending on late returns out of California (think postals, except here late postals favour the left).
In any case, to say that there was talk of a wave that became a puddle simply shows one doesn’t know American politics at all, and only follows media narrative or twitter feeds. The prediction this entire year, by virtually all independent analysts, was a 25-40 seat gain. Democrats are at the somewhat higher end of that.
What the Senate shows us is that red-state Democrats can’t hang on, and everything is about the (usually national) political environment, not incumbency.
Kate @ #605 Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 – 7:56 pm
Yep fantastic results for Democrats who have performed above expectations.
Analysing an election such as this requires answering 3 basic questions:
1) What effect does the result have on how the US will be governed?
2) What does the result tell us about American voters’ political wishes?
3) What does the result tell us about the suitability of the political actions of each of the political actors involved?
My first stab at offering suggestions for answers to these questions:
1) From 1 Jan 2019, Trump, or the GOP, cannot pass any bill into law without the agreement of a dozen or more House Democrats. The legislative agenda of the US Congress will shift leftward, or shudder to a complete halt. If the latter, US Federal politics will descend into an ineffective shouting match for 2 years. But Americans better like the laws of the land as they are on 31 Dec 2018, because I can’t see them changing much for the two years afterwards.
The Senate will continue to confirm Trump appointments, but with greater ease than now.
The Democrats will control House committees and so gain a vital base from which to set the country’s domestic and foreign policy agenda. And from which to conduct forensic investigations into the propriety of the conduct of the Executive, aka, the Trump White House.
2) and 3) I’m still mulling. On 2), about 8% of American voters switched from voting R in the House in 2016 to voting D in the House now. That is a very solid shift in support. It beggars belief that this represents distrust in the Democrats or faith in Trump or the GOP. At the least, it looks like an intention to block Trump/GOP from implementing their policy agenda, and so a rejection of it. I’m not convinced it is valid to conclude anything further, of a more positive nature, about what this result says American voters want their government to do.
I don’t get why Democrats are so disappointed with this result.
They have a net gain of 28 seats and regained the House – which is fantastic, and what they were expected to do.
The Republicans retained the Senate – which is disappointing, but not unexpected as the Democrats were never likely to win enough seats to flip it when the vast majority of seats up for grabs this mid-term were Democrat held seats. This sets them up well for 2020 when the majority of seats in play are Republican.
Sure, they didn’t win any of the Red state senate races (Georgia, Texas, Virginia, Dakotas, Indiana, Florida), and in reality they were never likely to, but in most they came within 2-3 points of winning states that had 10-20 point margins supporting Trump in 2016. To even make these races competitive is an amazing achievement. And look at the voter suppression they had to overcome!
They won a heap of Gubernatorial races too, which gives them the opportunity to shape the electoral boundaries before the 2020 election.
Democratic women have flipped 21 Republican seats.
The Democrats won the popular vote by 8 points.
What’s there to cry about?
On the Democrats prospects of winning the Senate in 2020, they look somewhat arduous.
Assuming 538’s projection of a net +3 to the Republicans now, the Senate will be 54-46 to R going into 2020, so the Democrats will need a net +4 if they beat Trump and +5 if they don’t.
They will quite probably lose Alabama, and less probably New Hampshire, so they will need to flip 5-7 Republican Senate seats. The strongest D-leaning targets are Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, Texas and Georgia. This is possible, but it will mean appealing to a majority of voters in at least two of the southern and sunbelt states on that list. Their path to a Senate majority in 2020 cannot avoid it.
That must mean either: a) inspiring unprecedented turnout among relevant minority groups likely to be confirmed in hostility to Trump, and/or b) persuading retirees to at least sit out the poll, if they won’t jump across to the Democrats. They need an extra “x-factor” to bridge the current gap they face in those states they will need.
DaretoTread @ #607 Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 – 10:17 pm
DTT, would you be interested in buying this rock I own that keeps tigers away?
Millennial @ #607 Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 – 11:00 pm
Millenial
Debate my point by all means but stupid throw away lines about rocks just makes you look silly.
I have an opinion and if someone has a well reasoned and well informed response I am happy to consider it.
But rocks do not cut it. I am impatient with group think.
Any way sleep beckons.
Michael A @ #606 Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 – 10:58 pm
On the current figures i think the Republicans will end up with 55 so the democrats will need to win back 6 seats in 2020. This is a very big ask.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/07/parkland-student-activists-florida-races-pro-gun-nra
Genuinely sad. 🙁
Hopefully they are in for the long haul though.
DaretoTread @ #614 Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 – 11:07 pm
Oh, IDK DTT, I’d think you’ll have a quite a fondness for one if you watch this little explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
DR says:
Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 11:52 pm
I don’t get why Democrats are so disappointed with this result.
DR, don’t make the error of supposing dtt is Dem-leaning. They’re far from that. They are trying to deflect from the Red-defeat, from the rejection of Trump.
The Democrats have done well. They have stopped Trump. New echelons of successful candidates – many of them women – have been elected with the support of voters who have expressly rejected Trump. Even as the Red vote was whipped up and surged, the Blue vote has surpassed it from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The Republicans threw everything have at this and lost.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-took-the-house-on-election-night/
Democrats won all over the place.
HOUSE:
Dems ~48 million votes, 230 seats
Rs ~45M votes, 205 seats
SENATE:
Dems ~42M votes, 22 seats
Rs ~32M votes, 13 seats
DaretoTread @ #607 Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 – 10:17 pm
…..I supported Trump in 2016 and would do so again because I still think he is less likely to start a nuclear war…
…one of the more fatuous reasons ever advanced for becoming Trumpy….
This is unbelievable that it took so long.
Women didn`t even have the vote in most of the USA until 1920.
Native Americans wern`t US Citizens until 1924.
Many Native Americans were denied the vote until the Civil Rights Act of 1965 came in and there are still issues with Native American voter suppression today (such as the North Dakota voter I.D. law).
Unlike the Maori in New Zealand, they do not have separate legislatives seats, even for the Sovereign Tribes.
Many Native Americans live in Republican dominated rural areas, including in smaller states but many are Democratic, making electing people to the large single member seats of the US Congress hard. In other places they tend to be in a small minority, again making congressional representation hard.
These are the fact of the US. The facts about the past can`t change but the facts about the future should.
@Expat Follower – Sounds like what Chuck Schumer was meaning, when he advised HRC to triangulate: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we’ll pick up two moderate Republicans in Philadelphia’s suburbs.”
How’d following that advice that work out for her?
The reality is that voting in America is not compulsory – elections are about turnout at least as much as they are about building 50%+1 voting coalitions. A candidate doesn’t have the luxury of refusing to take any controversial stances, because if they do that, their own base will stay at home rather than vote for them. Someone like Biden is exactly who the Democrats shouldn’t nominate. Why not? Simple. He won’t pick up the Coal Country (former) Democrats – that ship has well and truly sailed – and he will lose the suburban and urban areas the Dems have picked up recently.
They should by no means nominate a firebreathing leftist radical, because that will turn out their opponents’ base to vote against them. But someone like Tim Kaine, or Mark Warner – they’d be a disastrously bad candidate. The electorate needs to know that the Democrat stands for something.
@ DareToTread:
I respectfully disagree. And for “why”, consider this: Democrats were defending 23 Senate seats to the Republicans’ 9. And of those 23 Senate seats, no less than 10 were in States Trump carried – some of them by 40(!) points. The map was, in a word, brutal for Democrats this year. To limit the losses to 3 seats means that they still won 20 out of 34 Senate seats contested.
Meanwhile, Democrats have picked up the House despite massive Republican gerrymandering and voter-suppression, gained seven Governors’ mansions (KS, IL, ME, MI, NM, NV and WI) to the Republicans’ one (AK), removed four States from being Republican ‘trifectas’ (a “trifecta” being the same party controlling both houses of the State legislature and the Governor’s office) and added six of their own. For those interested in which States have gone where:
– Alaska became a Republican trifecta, with Republican candidate Mike Dunleavy winning the election to succeed independent Gov. Bill Walker and Republicans winning the Alaska House of Representatives;
– Colorado became a Democratic trifecta, as Democrats picked up the Colorado State Senate;
– Illinois became a Democratic trifecta with Democrat J.B. Pritzker’s defeat of Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner;
– Kansas lost its Republican trifecta as State Sen. Laura Kelly (D) defeated Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) for the Governor’s office – side note, Kobach is one of the worst of the worst;
– Maine became a Democratic trifecta, with termed-out Gov. Paul LePage (R) being replaced by Democratic Gov-elect Janet Mills, along with the Democrats seizing control of the Maine State Senate;
– Michigan lost its Republican trifecta, as State Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D) easily defeated Attorney-General Bill Schuette (R) for the vacant Governor’s office;
– New Hampshire lost its Republican trifecta as the Democrats swept both houses of the State legislature, even as Gov. Chris Sununu (R) handily won re-election
– New Mexico became a Democratic trifecta with Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) winning the election to succeed term-limited Gov. Susana Martinez (R);
– New York became a Democratic trifecta, as the so-called “Independent Democratic Caucus” was all but annihilated. Of the IDC’s 8 members, 6 lost their primary elections, and the other two returned to the fold meekly. The general election was a Democratic sweep – Democratic candidates have won at least four more State Senate seats held by Republicans;
– Nevada became a Democratic trifecta as Rep. Steve Sisolak (D) took over the office vacated by term-limited Gov. Brian Sandoval (R).
– Wisconsin lost its Republican trifecta as Democrat Tony Evers defeated incumbent Gov. Scott Walker (R), who was seeking a third term. Evers will be the second Democrat elected to this office since Reagan was the President (Democrat Jim Doyle won the 2002 and 2006 elections).
Trifectas matter. In US politics, the State Government – legislature and Governor combined – draw the Congressional maps in most States after each census. They decide on the rules to govern who can and cannot appear on the ballot. They decide on the rules to govern how people may and may not vote. They appoint State election officials at all levels to count the ballots, decide on how many polling places are set up and where, check the counting of the ballots, verify petitions’ signatures and more. The Democrats picking up a net ten trifectas (+6 for them, -4 for the GOP) is a big win.
And if two years of Trump being Trump has produced this backlash, two more years of experiencing the same won’t improve the situation for Team Red. They’ve got two more years to stack the courts, dismantle the Federal Government and do their damndest to turn America into the Republic of Gilead – but if they don’t succeed by then, it’s curtains for them as a national political force and they know it.
Trump may be delusional enough to think that this election result is a vote of confidence in him; if so, the look on his face on Election Night 2020 will be priceless!
Matt
Look at the Senate seats up in 2020 and tell me the 5 they can best flip. What kind of candidate matches that. Juxtapose it with FL and the midwest which need to be won at the electoral college.
You really shouldnt conjure up strawmen like that Schumer theory… Hilary depressed base turnout in the swing states and lost swing voters in those states too. Her strategic problem was that she was an awful unlikable candidate.
Im less worried about winning the presidency as long as they dont put up someone dislikable or overly polarising. Winning back those 5 senate seats so said president can actually pass anything… is the not insignificant issue created yesterday. No house majority or number of governorship pickups can offset that practical problem
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/11/17/navy-grounds-two-aviators-behind-penis-skydrawing/
I and others here have said the Democrats have many substantive policy issues with which to hammer Trump and the GOP, and that they would reap better dividends from pursuing that strategy than one of taking down Trump with one big hit. Micah Cohen from 538 agrees:
“MICAH COHEN12:50 PM
I have no idea what’s in Trump’s tax returns, but I think Democrats have this tendency to look for silver bullets to defeat Trump that come from outside the normal flow of politics, whether it’s hoping Mueller finds something or releasing the tax returns.
That just seems stupid — even if either or both turn something up. Every election Trump has been involved in has been pretty normal in terms of the results and what we’d expect based on the fundamentals. I think they need a “normal” plan to beat Trump, even if they also have more moonshot hopes.”
https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2018-election-results-coverage/
This is an excellent article about the problems with Georgia’s gubernatorial race. Stacey Abrahams (D) was dudded by voter suppression, but the margin is still close enough that she has a slight chance of winning after all votes are counted.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/stacey-abrams-new-georgia-might-have-to-wait/575158/?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=the-atlantic-fb-test-568-3-&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR3YLh0-sRfuhsroCL91Wd5wxcV_ZBiEGVu4yQDJCSoaoXKkcBf98fEXnws
briefly @ #621 Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 – 11:30 pm
Briefly
Once again just be abusive and refuse to consider the issue. As I said subtlety of a 10 ton truck on a cliff. Loosen the strings on that box.
I think the reason why they seek Trump’s demise “outside the normal flow of politics” is that they regard his approach as so flagrantly beyond the pale that, deep down, they think being challenged through normal political combat is too good a fate for him. They don’t just want him defeated: they want him disgraced and humiliated.
However, they need to make sure a sufficient majority of the American electorate agree with that objective before they embark upon the pursuit of it. Most American voters vehemently disapprove of Trump as President, but it does not automatically follow from this that they see the disgrace and humiliation of Trump as the main objective the Democrats should pursue, if it meant takin their focus off advancing debate on issues of poor Republican governance impacting deleteriously on the lives of most Americans.
Expat Follower @ #625 Thursday, November 8th, 2018 – 5:37 am
Basically I think the democrats need to identify 5-10 actual programs with universal appeal that target the inequality in US society and run with them hard. Whoever is the candidate for POTUS should be able to sell those policies.
Their recent policy of niche targeting is dangerous because these niche groups can swing.
To give a local example in Brisbane, Labor selected a gay military guy as candidate. Nice guy and I think they thought he would capture BOTH the large military vote in the electorate (army base) AND the gay vote heavily concentrated in New Farm and surrounds. The Liberals (in a very rare show of competence) selected a very personable GAY candidate who won over the inner city gay people and because he was a personable young conservative he also collected the usual Liberal voters. I am not sure how the military voted, but for whatever reason the strategy did not work.
In the USA you sort of saw that a little in the Kanye west stuff and again with the shifts in some of the Latino community.
Niche targeting is the opposite of unifying and is a strategy best lest to minor parties.
So yes something like minimum wages should be a winner along with universal health care. Taxing Wall st will probably work along with commitment to infrastructure spending to replace some of the lost jobs. Industry subsidies rather than tariffs is probably a wiser strategy. Now some of these were on the Clinton agenda but in such a mousy way that somehow she lacked conviction on them.
The guy, Matt Whitaker, who Trump wants to replace Sessions as Attorney General, has an interesting history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Whitaker_(lawyer)
So he’s going to run interference for Trump over the Mueller investigation and provide guidance as Trump starts a Patent Trade War, with China, I am assuming.
The fact is the fact because we have the results
Therefore, as a projection what can we glean from these results?
And the reason for projecting is Trump and my view of Trump, his agenda and his performance and where I view the Stiglitz opinion, as an example, is polite and polite in the extreme
The Democrats will have a candidate in opposition to Trump
So there will be a focus
The start point is the Electoral College historic result, and the reversal of the 2016 result to give the Democrat nominee the numbers
I note comment that the Democrats won the popular vote by 8%, replicating the 538 Poll numbers
But they won the popular vote in 2016 as well (by what as a percentage?)
So is the 8% an improvement and what is the impact State by State in regards Electoral College numbers?
Noting voting is not compulsory
And noting the turn out for mid terms which we are told was strong – so even stronger for a polarising, divisive, insult laden Presidential election?
Because, with Trump, it will be a race to the bottom in terms of rudeness, ridicule, manners and insult
And will his opponent be female?
Michael A @ #630 Thursday, November 8th, 2018 – 6:36 am
Matt
I agree.
As I said yesterday attacking the person almost ALWAYS backfires. Just think for a second
So the Dems attack Trump for his tax records. Just how many ordinary voters would be uncomfortable about close scrutiny of their tax returns ie did they really donate $300 to charity or did they “forget” to include that subletting income, or did they take some work for “cash”.
It is even MORE the case with sexual behaviour stuff. How many guys have fantasised about some of the boorish Trump behaviours – perhaps only when teenagers but they can still recall it. When you attack behaviour you are implicitly attacking the voters.
I have seen this time and time again. labor often does it – attack the Libs on personality grounds and it mostly back fires. The ONLY way to do it is with humour – then it can be devastating, but harping on like an annoying 6th Class teacher or Deputy Head just will not work.
Observer @ #633 Thursday, November 8th, 2018 – 6:55 am
Observer I think the difference in 2016 was 2% (for POTUS) so this recent result IS a big gain for the democrats.
As I posted yesterday I think the very best sign for the Democrats was the return of the Rust Belt states, which had been democrat heartland but swung to trump. If they can get them back then they should win in 2020 if they choose a good candidate. There are some demographic forces also in their favour – as Californian values spread to Nevada and Arizona and Washington gobbles up Virginia and even Georgia.
@Michael A
“On the Democrats prospects of winning the Senate in 2020, they look somewhat arduous.
Assuming 538’s projection of a net +3 to the Republicans now, the Senate will be 54-46 to R going into 2020, so the Democrats will need a net +4 if they beat Trump and +5 if they don’t.
They will quite probably lose Alabama, and less probably New Hampshire, so they will need to flip 5-7 Republican Senate seats. The strongest D-leaning targets are Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, Texas and Georgia. This is possible, but it will mean appealing to a majority of voters in at least two of the southern and sunbelt states on that list. Their path to a Senate majority in 2020 cannot avoid it.
That must mean either: a) inspiring unprecedented turnout among relevant minority groups likely to be confirmed in hostility to Trump, and/or b) persuading retirees to at least sit out the poll, if they won’t jump across to the Democrats. They need an extra “x-factor” to bridge the current gap they face in those states they will need.”
This.
Further, what has to be appreciated is that the 3-5 senate seats lost overnight were won by the Dems back in 2012 when Obama was a significantly weakened president politically. Sure he was more a more potent draw than in 2010 and he beat Romney but he only managed to get out 65 million dem voters – about the same as Hilary in 2016.
Sure it was going to be tough for dems to hold senate seats in red states, and yet it happened in 2012 and one would think given the last two years that if there was ever a realistic possibility of it happening it was yesterday, but no.
So, even though there was some strong evidence of a blue wave there was also strong evidence of Trump’s ability to get out the republic base in strategically important regions. For those folk obsessed with winning back the Whitehouse what must be remembered is the actual bottom line: there are only two realistic pathways to the presidency for the democrats – either win back 4 of the 5 rust belt states (Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania) OR win at least one big southern state (Florida or Texas) and one smaller red state in the heartland. Although weakened yesterday overall, the republicans look very competitive in all the battleground states that matter for Trump’s election 2020 campaign.
Realistically if the Dems when the Whitehouse in 2020 they will face a republican veto in the senate – that means no progressive legislation and no progressive nominations to the courts. It means that only red democrats will be confirmed to cabinet and important agencies of government.
On top of that this the inevitable backlash against the democrat incumbents in 2022 and onwards: so if the Dems finally get back the senate and there is a dem president in the Whitehouse at the same time they’ll also likely simultaneously loose the House in those midterms. The most realistic possibility is that that the Trump legacy of 2016-18 will be in place for two whole political cycles (ie out to the 2030s). I’d actually place a large 6 figure bet on that outcome as a result of yesterday.
There is no way to rationally spin yesterday. It is a disaster for the democrats: any realistic chance of winning the trifecta (Whitehouse, congress and Senate) at the same time in 2020 is gone. That means gridlock, which means no progress, rather just a status quo of the trump legacy.
I agree that attacking Trump would be counterproductive.
Far better to run on Health & Infrastructure – Americans obviously want ‘Obamacare’ is some form or other and they know (and see almost every day) the parlous state of their roads & bridges & other infrastructure. Just those two issues alone would be vote winners for Democrats.
DTT
LOL vote for a tax avoiding, big business, fraudster.
Seriously what must go through your head to vote for a crazy shit head like Trump?
Strong arm tactics?
Well done Tester in Montana… keeps it to 54. An Arizona or Florida miracle is pretty unlikely.
In 2020 i would imagine the Repubs will win back Alabama. Dems looking at <10% swings to win senate races in places like Colorado, Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Georgia, Kentucky and S Carolina. Even the most one-eyed dem supporter must acknowledge getting 2-3 from this set is incredibly challenging and 5 just about fantasy territory.
Even with Obama 2 and a big house nothing significant will legislatively pass. Clawing back more in a 2022 midterm is highly ambitious. It reduces the first term agenda of the would-be Dem president to "not being Trump"
We'll all take that of course. But those wondering why some are not massively excited abt yesterdays results… thats why. The prospect of meaningful progressive reform and judicial appts being stymied is very high.
Zoidlord
Its not an allegiance to Trump. Its an allegiance to mother Russia and quite likely the influence of the GRU.
Very interesting to read the American perspectives poated here yesterday. As always, we miss a lot of the nuances of these contests when observing from the other side of the world.
Having had time to reflect, I think this is a better result for the Democrats than I had assumed yesterday afternoon, particularly given all the governerships that have flipped. I probably got a bit too caught up in the pre-election predictions of the Blue wave and got disappointed when the result ended up being more realistic.
Does anybody have any thoughts on what an 8% overall margin to the democrats would mean if repeated in the presidential election in 2020? Can’t recall the exact margin in 2016 when Trump won but it must have been much less than that.
Observer says:
Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 7:55 am
“So is the 8% an improvement and what is the impact State by State in regards Electoral College numbers?”
—————————————
The nationwide House votes in 2016 were:
Republican 49.1%
Democrat 48.0%
Margin: R+1
So a margin of D+8 in 2018 (if that’s the final nationwide House margin) is a 9% swing from the last House elections.
There is no clear relationship between swing in nationwide House vote in a midterm and swing in Electoral College vote at the subsequent Presidential election AFAIK.
I think a lot of people here felt the same way Asha. Do you have any thoughts on my query above regarding the outlook for the next presidential election based on what we have seen here?
@Cud
Indeed!
DaretoTread says:
Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 7:34 am
briefly @ #621 Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 – 11:30 pm
DaretoTread @ #607 Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 – 10:17 pm
…..I supported Trump in 2016 and would do so again because I still think he is less likely to start a nuclear war…
…one of the more fatuous reasons ever advanced for becoming Trumpy….
Briefly
Once again just be abusive and refuse to consider the issue.
Issue? What issue? There is no issue. There is a stated opinion. There is no point “considering” an opinion. The opinion is just preposterous, to say the very least.
Darn says:
Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 9:30 am
“Do you have any thoughts on my query above regarding the outlook for the next presidential election based on what we have seen here?”
————————————-
Can’t speak for Asha, but my view is: very promising.
Democrats got a huge boost in support in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. Together, these make up 52 EC votes, and Trump won them all in 2016. His total that election was 304. Deduct those 52 and he gets 252. In no state which Trump lost in 2016 did Republicans get any sort of boost from voters, so there is no state which you’d expect Trump would pick up from the Democrats to make up for these losses, based on this year’s pattern of voter support.
You need 270 EC votes to win. If voters in PA, MI, WI & IA keep supporting Democrats like they did yesterday, Trump is a one-term President.
To be clear…..Trump put himself on the ticket. Trump ran on Trumpism in order to motivate the Reds. He also inexorably motivated the Blues. The Democrats ran on healthcare and on the issues. They did not run on Trump. Really, there is no need for Democrats to do that.
Re my last post:
This reality must have dawned on Trump, if his conduct thus far today is any guide. If he actually saw the results as good news for his image of himself as “a winner”, he’d have devoted this and the next 40 days at least to indulging his favourite pastime of bragging about his own political “smarts” to adoring rent-a-crowds in a victory lap of basketball stadiums, instead of bickering testily with reporters in the Press Room and shoving the midterm results off the front pages with sackings of senior Cabinet members, as he has done.
Dare to tread
labor often does it – attack the Libs on personality grounds
Bullshit. Absolute effing bullshit. Name an instance. Name one.