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.
Would it be fair to say that the worst performing Democrats were the ones who ran as Republican-Lite?
The Swiss Alps and Climate Change:
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/european-glaciers-have-been-coming-and-going-for-tens-of-thousands-of-years-now-theyre-just-going?utm_source
.
Another day, another data breech:
https://thenextweb.com/security/2018/11/07/20000-pakistani-debit-card-details-surface-on-the-dark-web/
DTT, are you suggesting Labor demonises Liberals on personality grounds more than Liberals demonised Rudd on personality grounds once Rudd became LOTO, or than Liberals demonised Gillard on personality grounds once she became PM, or than Liberals have been attacking Shorten on personality grounds ever since he became ALP leader? Because I respectfully disagree with that synopsis if you are.
Or are you suggesting both Labor and Liberal do it, but it hurts Labor more because swinging voters expect better from them? Because I still don’t agree with the first part of that disjunctive proposition, but I do agree with the second part.
Thanks Michael A for your reply. I was wondering yesterday why one or two here were already predicting a Trump win in 2020, when the overall swing to the Democrats seemed so big. Your analysis puts a much more positive perspective on it.
Overall a good result for the dems i would have thought.
Repub gains in the senate may end up just being one apparently, whilst house gains may be better than anticipated for the dems. Seemingly 37/38.
Plus the 7/8 governships which will assist with map redraws significantly down the track.
Trump endorsed 33 candidates personally, winning 12.
It wasn’t a great day for Trump. He keeps the senate sure, but he was always going to do that. Increasing the margin there by 1 or 2 doesn’t alter things that much in terms of legislation being passed.
Critical now the dems select the right candidate for 2020.
I think the critical thing will be that whoever wins the next Democratic presidential primary is perceived as having won fairly
Michael A says:
Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 10:10 am
DTT, are you suggesting Labor demonises Liberals on personality grounds ..
dtt is fabricating distortions and deflections, as usual.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/post-midterms-trump-is-in-a-bad-mood
“The President Is Very Depressed”: With Don Jr. Facing Possible Indictment, and Endless House Investigations Forthcoming, No Wonder Trump Is in a Bad Mood
He finally got rid of Jeff Sessions—but Donald Trump’s life is about to get much harder.
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/trumps-acting-attorney-general-matthew-whitaker-was-part-of-world-patent-marketing-a-miami-based-invention-scam-company-10893091
Trump’s Acting Attorney General Was Part of Miami-Based Invention Scam Company
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/7/18073074/jeff-sessions-resigns-war-on-drugs-crime
Jeff Sessions turned Trump’s “tough on crime” dreams into reality
He did everything Trump wanted. Well, except one thing.
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18072282/midterm-election-donald-trump-press-conference-republican-losers
Trump dissed Republicans who lost
Trump: They should have given me more “love.”
Michael A:
“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.”
Big if. I reckon with Trump on the ballot the chances of republicans holding at least WI and IA are pretty good in two years time. Worryingly the Dems failed to make any real advances in their other pathway to winning the EC – ie. Florida, Nth Carolina, Arizona. …
Florida has 29 electoral college votes. Tuesday’s successful constitutional amendment vote to re-enfranchise minor criminal offenders adds 1 million+ potential new voters – many of whom are non-white. For Trump 2020, this may well be the worst outcome to come out of Tuesday. Clinton lost Florida by 1% and Pennsylvania (20 votes) by 0.5%. If the Democrat candidate can win those two states in 2020, Trump’s re-election prospects are grim.
Just imagine what dumpster fire that would have ensued in the USA if the Republicans had held on to the House of Reps by even one member and had retained those half-dozen crucial Governorships in states which will probably decide the Electoral College outcome in 2020.
I don’t care a rat’s arse whether Mueller actually reports impeachable Trump crimes because the Senate was never going to muster a 2/3 majority to convict him. The last thing I want is a President Pence who would be far more likely to be swayed by evangelical mates into triggering their beloved nuclear war Endtimes rapture.
It’s a massive relief that Obamacare cannot be repealed. A plethora of egregious economic, taxation and social safety net laws have been obviated . Of course, the Democratic Party cannot pass beneficial legislation. However, beneficial measures and environmental regulations will continue to get implemented by states at increased levels due to the widespread Democratic Party gains in governorships and legislatures as well as numerous successful referenda for measures to, say, expand Medicaid and increase the minimum wage.
In conclusion, the Senate has become a lame duck and Trump a dead duck on domestic legislation. He’s still got Executive Orders and foreign policy to wreak some more devastation which will lock in a Republican defeat in the 2020 presidential election no matter who they nominate.
Andrew, as long as the Democratic Party puts resources into building its ground campaigns in battle-ground States and, within each State, in toss-up districts, they can win. Trump campaigns against himself as much as he campaigns for himself. That could be seen yesterday, where Blue-leaning voters came out in huge numbers even though Red-bloc voters also surged.
There are millions of potential voters who do not participate in elections. These voters can be enlisted by either side. Their numbers can be summoned. The Democratic Party has to go to work on this, knowing the Reds are trying the same thing. The underlying pro-Dem plurality is larger than it Pro-Republican counter-weight. Turing this plurality into a voting majority can be done by fighting on the issues and by investing in the ground machine.
I think the Dems should be optimistic. Voters stopped Trump yesterday. They will enable a new Democratic majority if there is an organisational commitment to that.
<i?.Prof. Higgins says:
Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 11:24 am
I agree, prof.
Bonza says:
Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 10:01 am
Would it be fair to say that the worst performing Democrats were the ones who ran as Republican-Lite?
No – the other way around, in competitive districts, at least. With the exception of races fought on health care, Democrats who moved left were the ones who didn’t get Republicans defecting to them. In safer districts, Democrats were vulnerable to primary challenges from the left but once they got over that hurdle they weren’t really at risk.
To put the significance of Pennsylvania in context: staunch Trump supporter Lou Barletta managed 42.8% in Tuesday’s Senate vote, with incumbent Democrat Bob Casey polling 55.6%. The Democrats made up some significant ground on Tuesday. Their House strategy for the next 2 years will be critical: hopefully a combination of sensible compromise on the Republican legislative agenda and strict scrutiny of Trump’s worst excesses, whilst avoiding the over-reach of Trump’s impeachment.
Andrew_Earlwood says:
Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 11:01 am
“Big if. I reckon with Trump on the ballot the chances of republicans holding at least WI and IA are pretty good in two years time.”
—————————————
Polls tracking Presidential job approval in three key Midwestern states disagree with your judgement wrt Wisconsin.
Bear in mind, this year Trump’s approval-disapproval numbers have been tracking nationally as follows:
Approval 40-43
Disapproval 51-54.
“In Michigan, which Trump won by nearly 11,000 votes, 36 percent of registered voters approve of the president’s job, while 54 percent disapprove.
“In Wisconsin, which he won by about 23,000 votes, 36 percent give Trump a thumbs up, with 52 percent giving him a thumbs down.
“And in Minnesota, which Trump narrowly lost by 1.5 percentage points, his rating stands at 38 percent approve, 51 percent disapprove.”
So, Wisconsin approves of Trump even less than the US as a whole, and disapproves of him just as much. Doesn’t seem much of a basis on which to judge that Trump will be strongly endorsed there.
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna894556
Briefly,
Same goes back at you!
Outsider,
My only surviving Brother-in-arms from the Vietnam War is an ardent Democratic Party supporter living near Philadelphia, so the result in Pennsylvania is particularly welcome. And there’s more! The Southern California Congressional district where I went to high school appears to have booted out Dana Rohrabacher, who’s been one of the most diabolical Republicans since donkey’s years before Trump’s reign of error.
The Dems won 2 HoR seats in Iowa (and did better than expected in the highly conservative 4th), and now hold 3 of the 4 Iowa seats.
A dem prez candidate needs a tiny swing to flip Penn, Mich and a small swing to flip Oh, Fl, Wisc and Iowa. One would think this is highly probable.
I keep repeating that flipping 5 senate seats to actually pass anything once in the Oval is a totally different proposition.
In the very long run maybe a good start for the Dems. In the horizon thru to 2024 in terms of enacting meaningful change, the Senate result constitutes a lowest denominator nightmare. Bipartisan compromise is dead in this era, you need all 3 limbs. Obama 2008-10 and Trump 2016-18 demonstrate how even having that is no guarantee.
Michael A:
“Polls tracking Presidential job approval in three key Midwestern states disagree with your judgement wrt Wisconsin.
Bear in mind, this year Trump’s approval-disapproval numbers have been tracking nationally as follows:
Approval 40-43
Disapproval 51-54.
“In Michigan, which Trump won by nearly 11,000 votes, 36 percent of registered voters approve of the president’s job, while 54 percent disapprove.
“In Wisconsin, which he won by about 23,000 votes, 36 percent give Trump a thumbs up, with 52 percent giving him a thumbs down.
“And in Minnesota, which Trump narrowly lost by 1.5 percentage points, his rating stands at 38 percent approve, 51 percent disapprove.”
So, Wisconsin approves of Trump even less than the US as a whole, and disapproves of him just as much. Doesn’t seem much of a basis on which to judge that Trump will be strongly endorsed there.”
———————————-
Thumbs up / thumbs down polling is largely irrelevant with Trump: he is such a polarising figure & like no other political personality it all comes down to who is prepared to come out to the ballot box and match their thumbs up or thumbs down in the tracking polls with an actual vote.
I hate the guy, but he does have a singular ability to bring out the republican base and deplorables to the ballot box. In Michigan for example – if 28% of that 36% who approve turn up to vote, then the democrats may likely struggle to match that with actual voters from that pool of 54% who disapprove of him.
I’m not saying he’s going to hold the rust belt, but he may likely do so based on which pool of votes turns out.
The 2020 Senate election will present for the Republicans the reverse of the 2018 situation that faced the Democrats: the 33 “Class 2” seats up for election in 2020 are split 22 Republican and 11 Democrat. Significantly, at the last Class 2 election in 2014, the Republicans won 9 seats from the Democrats. So in the scenario where a Democrat wins the Presidency, it would have to be reasonably likely that some of those seats would also return to Democrat hands, and 5 out of the 9 is not a real stretch.
Andrew_Earlwood:
Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 1:27 pm
—————————————
I think it’s fair to say you and I both hope I’m right and you’re wrong! 🙂
I will be very curious to see how county-level turnout figures have varied from 2016 to 2018. If urban counties have kept higher turnout levels relative to normal midterm levels than rural counties, Trump will be in trouble.
@Observer
“5 out of the 9 is not a real stretch.”
Yes it is, because 5 will likely become 6 when Alabama very probably returns to the republican fold in 2020. Further, as Michael A pointed out in a detailed post yesterday there is no way the democrats can avoid having to flip the senate race in at lest 2 or 3 traditionally deep red states to flip the senate in 2020. Places like Texas and Arizona – both of whom have a senate race in 2020 and both of whom the democrats suffered narrow loses yesterday. Possible? Of course, but a stretch? Yes it is. A very long shot actually.
That’s why losing Florida and Arizona yesterday was such a disaster. If a President Beto wins the Whitehouse in 2020 but the Dems don’t flip the senate he’ll be a lame duck president from day one. Even if the Dems improve in the senate in the 2022 midterms I’d bet they’ll simultaneously lose the house, so Pres Beto would be a lame duck for the whole first term.
Meanwhile the Trump tax cuts will continue to bit into the ability of the federal governemnt to fund social or economic programs, the minimum wage will continue to be stalled at $7.21 and the Republican Supreme Court will continue to dismantle all the constitutional protections won over the last 50 years. A disaster.
Outsider says:
Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 1:41 pm
“Significantly, at the last Class 2 election in 2014, the Republicans won 9 seats from the Democrats. So in the scenario where a Democrat wins the Presidency, it would have to be reasonably likely that some of those seats would also return to Democrat hands, and 5 out of the 9 is not a real stretch.”
—————————————
I hope you’re right. But Class 2 incumbents in 2014 were elected in 2008, which was the high water mark for Democrats in Congress for the past 30 years. The loss of many of those D Senators would be expected even from mere reversion to the mean. That is, it does not follow from the fact that 2014 was a R wave year which saw many D incumbents defeated that those seats were D-leaning to begin with.
Andrew_Earlwood says:
Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 2:04 pm
“ 5 will likely become 6 when Alabama very probably returns to the republican fold in 2020.”
Snap! Was going to say the same thing.
“That’s why losing Florida and Arizona yesterday was such a disaster.”
Yes. And Indiana. I was somewhat shocked Donnelly lost that one.
But the Democrats’ Senate woes really began with their below-par effort in 2016. That result cost them 2 or 3 seats right there, which they can’t rectify until 2022.
Michael A:
“
———————————
Agreed and Agreed!
Michael A – what I was trying to ‘agree and agree’ with was your following comment:
“I think it’s fair to say you and I both hope I’m right and you’re wrong!
I will be very curious to see how county-level turnout figures have varied from 2016 to 2018. If urban counties have kept higher turnout levels relative to normal midterm levels than rural counties, Trump will be in trouble.”
I don’t know what’s going on with the edit function, lol
@Bonza: No – correlation does not equal causation. The Democrats who lost their seats all faced severe uphill climbs, being in States which went for Trump by forbidding margins – or facing moguls who could self-fund eight figure sums to smear them for over a year with constant attack ads.
Of course Andrew Earlwood and Michael A are both correct! The points I was really trying to make were (1) That the Senate seats the Dems need to win in 2020 are seats that the Dems also won in 2008 (2) The 2020 scenario is only relevant if the Dems win the Presidency – which from which it might be implied that the circumstances will be nearer to those of 2008, and further from the Obama mid-term circumstances of 2014.
I agree that it is unlikely to be a repeat of the 2008 circumstances, and the view I expressed in my post was perhaps overly optimistic. But who really knows now what the circumstances will be in 2 years time?
@Dare to tread:
They don’t need 5 seats – they need 4 plus the vice-presidency.
Arizona
Iowa
Maine
North Carolina
Done.
“They don’t need 5 seats – they need 4 plus the vice-presidency.
Arizona
Iowa
Maine
North Carolina
Done.”
Except they also need to retain both Alabama (unlikely) and New Hampshire (difficult) or replace them with other victories.
“@Bonza: No – correlation does not equal causation. The Democrats who lost their seats all faced severe uphill climbs, being in States which went for Trump by forbidding margins – or facing moguls who could self-fund eight figure sums to smear them for over a year with constant attack ads.”
Except that is not really correct. Neither Florida nor Arizona – which Trump both won – “went for Trump by forbidding margins” – both were close races in 2016 and one might have expected that with the benefits of 2 years of the Donald that the democrat senate candidates should have been able to hold on in both.
A_E & Observer,
Of course, if a Trump-induced trade war hit American employment hard enough in the wrong places, all our hand-wringing would be moot anyway. Who in 1990, with the glow of Cold War triumph still surrounding him, thought GHWB would be turfed out after just one term?
Andrew_Earlwood:
Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 2:52 pm
————————————-
It should be noted that Arizona is far from lost to the Democrats:
“In Arizona, Republican Rep. Martha McSally currently leads Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema by about 1 percentage point. However, the Arizona Republic estimates that almost 650,000 votes have yet to be counted statewide — including 80,000 to 100,000 in blue-leaning Pima County and 500,000 (!) in Maricopa County (the Phoenix area). Maricopa has some very blue corners and some very red corners, so without knowing where the outstanding ballots are coming from, this is a totally wide-open race. ”
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-16-races-still-too-close-to-call/
Thought I’d update this post I made yesterday
____________________________________________________________
“”51-44 to the Repubs on called races
Outstanding races
Mississippi runoff – almost certain R win as I see it
Florida – Scott (R) ahead 0.6% and reports the incumbent Dem has conceded
Montana – Rosendale (R) 1.1% ahead and 538 says Dem incumbent Tester is “fighting for his political life”
Nevada – Rosen (D) ahead 5.8% and 538 very bullish on D chances here
Arizona – McSally (R) ahead 1.5% but 538 somewhat bullish here also on D chances
Looks like 54-46 then if the last two 538 leans are correct””
___________________________________________________________
The late counting developments seem to be :
Florida – Scott (R) lead is down to 0.4% with 100% reporting and incumbent D Nelson has rescinded his concession. This is headed to a recount (which will be controlled by Republican-appointed state officers) and 538 seems to be of the opinion that Scott will prevail in the end)
Montana – Tester (D) pulled off a victory, 3.0% ahead with 97% reporting and the race has been called by the networks
Nevada – Rosen (D) won by 5.0% with 100% reporting and the race has been called by the networks
Arizona – McSally (R) leads by 1.0% with 99% reporting (the Green candidate is on 2.2%). 538 reports that there are enough uncounted ballots for this to go either way
So 54-46 as it stands, 53-47 IF Arizona flips with the late ballots
The decision by the Greens to run a candidate in Arizona, notwithstanding that said candidate dropped out late on and endorsed the Democrat, was monumentally stupid. With the incumbent Republican standing down and not seeking re-election there was never a better chance to flip the state.
Of the vulnerable Dems this cycle, of the losers: Heitkamp (ND) underperformed the state polling by about 4 points and Donnelly (IN) and McCaskill (MO) underperformed by double digits. If AZ ends up as an R gain the D candidate there underperformed by a few points also. Nelson (FL) underperformed a couple of points also.
Of the vulnerable Dems who won, Tester (MT) underperformed by a couple of points. The D winner in NV is the only one who did a point or so better than the state polling.
Interesting to note that 538’s model had ALL seven of the above Dems winning in their last update based on the latest polling – as it is at least four, and probably five, ended up losing.
Correction to the last post – the last sentence should read
Interesting to note that 538’s model had SIX OF THE SEVEN Dems above winning in their last update based on the latest polling – as it is at least three, and probably four, ended up losing.
Did someone say Maine? Susan Collins only won that 68-32 in 2014. Piece of piss!
Susan Collins will be the number one target for the Dems in 2020, and assuming that the count ends up at 54-46, it’s quite plausible that they pick up the required 4-5 seats to take back the Senate (though any more than that would be unlikely, you’d imagine). But longer term, the Senate looks tricky for the Democrats. This election has confirmed the decade-long trend towards a hyper-partisan Senate, with Red States having two GOP and Blue States having two Dems. The days of a Democrat representing states like Tennessee or Missouri or a Republican from Pennsylvania or California look gone for good. Given that most Democrats are located in the larger states, the Republicans will likely win those majority of states that are largely empty and Right-leaning. So a Democrat House (and President) with a GOP Senate may well become the norm.
With Texas moving towards the Democrats, the Texas Republicans may decide to try and use a provision in the granting of statehood to Texas that says Texas effectively has pre-approval to turn parts of it into state on a poorer Democratic part of the state, to reduce the state-wide Democratic vote.
the senate will be difficult but not impossible….. maybe can be won over 2020 and 2022………..the house will hopefully stay where it is…; in usa the democrats should look at independent electoral commissions to draw boundaries. Will trump be re elected ? who knows the 2018 vote does not conf8rm he will lose…
the various forms of voter suppression should be legally challenged and even referred to the un
part of the problem is us has too many one party states
Democrats yesterday beat the Tea Party surge of 2010! 6.7% to 8%
Clearly the Democratic Party has to begin the process of turning Red States into Purple and then Blue States.
“Of the vulnerable Dems this cycle, of the losers: Heitkamp (ND) underperformed the state polling by about 4 points and Donnelly (IN) and McCaskill (MO) underperformed by double digits. If AZ ends up as an R gain the D candidate there underperformed by a few points also. Nelson (FL) underperformed a couple of points also.
Of the vulnerable Dems who won, Tester (MT) underperformed by a couple of points. The D winner in NV is the only one who did a point or so better than the state polling.”
This is probably what was giving the Donald an extra Mussolini-esque strut today: realistic hope that the Dems will underperform in key states while he brings out the deplorables hugely.
A_E, I think the only key state that Democrats will feel worried about for 2020, based on this year’s results, is Florida.
IN, MT, ND & MO are in no sense necessary for a Democratic victory in a Presidential race, so indications the Democrats are underperforming in those states can reasonably be brushed aside as irrelevant to strategising for 2020.
But FL has almost always been at or near “tipping point” status in Presidential elections this millennium, so the evidence from this week that they are struggling to break through there, in what was meant to be a wave election, would be troubling to them.
I predict the Democrats will engage in a frenzy of focus group anthropology in Florida over the next 12 months to try to figure out what they can do to kickstart a revival there.
Andrew & Earlwood: You reference AZ and FL as States where Trump didn’t win with a huge margin, but Dems still lost seats.
1. They didn’t have the AZ Senate seat – although they did fail to pick it up to win their first Senate election in AZ since 1988.
2. Florida was the State where the GOP candidate spent $75 million of his own money to bombard the Democratic incumbent for over a year with smears on-air.
Democratic candidates won 57% of all votes cast for Senators, to Republicans’ 42%. Out of 35 Senate seats up for election, 16 were held in States carried by the Republican candidate in the last Presidential election, and 19 in States carried by the Democratic Presidential candidate. Yet Democratic candidates won between 22 (if all the late counts go against them and they lose the MS runoff) and 25 (if the reverse is true) of those 35 Senate seats – in either case, Democrats won a clear majority of all seats up for election.
And in more meaningful wins: Democrats took the House despite Republicans’ outrageous gerrymandering, voter-suppression, abuse of power (lookin’ at you, Brian Kemp!) and (I strongly suspect) outright vote-rigging in key States. This means that Mueller effectively cannot be fired anymore, since the Democratic House will just re-hire him under the House’s oversight powers. And that means that Trump’s day of reckoning continues to march toward him, slowly but inexorably, as the man who sent Manuel Noriega to prison and broke “Teflon Don” John Gotti closes in on his inner circle.
Attempts by Republicans to stack the court in North Carolina failed by popular vote, while the Democratic candidate for the State Supreme Court ousted the Republican incumbent (the two Republicans on the ticket split the right-wing vote evenly), giving the Democrats a 5-2 majority – and near-certainty that the State Supreme Court will soon start striking down GOP dirty-tricks laws left, right and centre.
Florida passed a (State) Constitutional amendment mandating automatic restoration of ex-convicts’ voting rights, making a key part of the GOP playbook there (deny the vote to ex-convicts in perpetuity, and use racist policing tactics to ensure that more blacks can’t vote than whites) history. There are going to be about 1.5 million newly-eligible voters in Florida in 2020, most of them African-American, and all of them painfully aware of which Party spent decades denying them their right to vote. Related to this, the highest GOP margin in Florida since 1988 is 380,000 votes (Bush, 2004) – so, if Democrats play their cards right, Florida’s about to permanently become a light-blue State, not a swing-State with a reddish tint.
In answer to Michael A, above: See immediately above this line – I’m not worried about the Democrats’ ability to win Florida in 2020 at all.
Along with Florida, Maryland, Michigan and Nevada all passed ballot measures to open access to the ballot box in future elections. This significantly narrows the scope of possible GOP voter-suppression efforts in at least two of those States (I doubt they could get much done in Maryland, and I’ve already discussed Florida above).
Four States had anti-gerrymandering initiatives on the ballot – three of them have passed, with Utah’s ballot measure too close to call. This dramatically narrows the scope for Republican gerrymandering in Michigan, Ohio and Colorado going into 2020 reapportionment.
The Rust Belt States that gave Trump narrow wins and a path to the White House have all turned on Trumpism – Democrats carried the Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania Senate elections easily, and the gubernatorial elections almost as easily, except in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, Democrat Tony Evers only succeeded where the past three Democratic candidates failed, and ousted the revolting Gov. Scott Walker by a “mere” 1.2% margin – Walker had won the previous 3 elections with ~6% margins.
Democrats campaigned hard down the ticket, taking seven (out of 38 up for election, less 9 they already held) Governors’ offices across the U.S. to hold 16 out of the 38 when the dust settled. Far less than a majority, but vastly better than before! They won in State legislative elections, gaining unified control of six additional State governments, and removing Republican unified control over another four States.
Overall, even if it was heartbreaking watching the Senate move further into the red, Election Night was a very good one for Democrats – it just wasn’t perfect.
What more would you have of them?!
Thank you, Matt, for your comprehensive summary.
Matt, that’s a really good point you make about the Florida ballot measure. You are right about that: it is a definite re-enfranchisement of voters that will boost the Democrats. You point has put my mind very much at ease about Florida, for 2020 and for pretty much any Presidential election the Democrats aren’t getting a shellacking anyway. And with that, it has put my mind even more at ease about 2020 than it already was, with the Democrats revival in the Midwest.
Given the fundamental change in the composition of the Democrat Congressional Caucus what are the chances of Nancy Pelosi being roled from her leadership position and hence from being the Democrat nominee for Speaker?
She faced a contested ballot after 2016 and although she won comfortably in the end her low profile opponent still garnered significant support. Her leadership (and that of Schumer in the senate) has come under critics for being over,y opposed with Trumps failings, whilst virtually ignoring – let alone articulating – a Democrat alternative for the future. I dont think the young, progressive and mainly female congressional “freshmen” are likely to put up with that.