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.
I grant you that, but I wouldn’t say it shifts the result from “the expected” to “very disappointing”.
At the moment the result looks pretty much as expected.
“It is the most frustrating and depressing aspect of USA politics. The power is there for the taking by the Dems’ side of politics, if only a few more of those voters could be bothered to turn out.”
A big question is how many of them are willing to turn up and vote, but are either scared off or prevented from voting. Quite a lot, I would guess, and because Democrats have more support amongst minorities, there are no consequences and it’s potentially quite hard to quantify.
Even this morning there were many reports of people at polling places being turned away despite being allowed to vote last time, or being told that it would be a waste of time to cast a provisional vote because it will just be disregarded anyway, and so on.
Oh Dear – trump won’t speak tonight – maybe working out how he will approach the House subpoena’s.
Trump lost the female vote by some 20 points. Thanks ladies.
Re Indiana, it would be a weird election where there are no upsets at all. Given the makeup of the seats up for re-election, it was inherently more likely that there would be an upset adverse to the Democrat’s chances.
There have been plenty of upsets in the House going against the Republicans.
As we move West there are a couple of interesting races in the House going on. Incumbent Republicans being challenged and looking like they might lose in Montana At-Large District, where Greg Gianforte is looking shaky, and in Utah District 4, where Mia Love (R) is trailing Ben McAdams(D).
The Republicans wanted one thing out of today. Hold the Senate. They’ll be delighted with today. With a three seat gain on the cards they have put a significant block on losing the Senate in 2020.
They’ll be a bit annoyed not to jag a surprise hold on the house, but not overly.
So in the US it’s the same as Australia??? The Senate are “unrepresentative swill”???
Upnorth:
[‘…trump won’t speak tonight – maybe working out how he will approach the House subpoena’s.’]
If I were him I’d get on the piss, given he’ll now be the subject of all manner of inquiry. It’ll be interesting to see whether he refuse to comply with a subpoena(s).
No, the Dem voters don’t deserve blame because in an economic and political system that strongly discourages active direct citizenship, the onus is on political parties to provide voters with a proactive reason to vote for them.
The “lesser of two evils” logic that appears so obvious to Labor-supporting political junkies carries little weight with normal people.
Political parties need to communicate with the electorate as they are, not as they would wish the electorate to be.
That’s why it is important to be compelling, bold, perceptive, and eloquent. “Lesser of two evils” timid proposals don’t cut it, especially in an electoral system that is heavily gerrymandered in the favour of your opponents.
Had the national Democratic leadership been more forceful and relevant to regular voters, the Senate outcomes could have been more favourable for Democrats.
Agree Patrick Bateman @3:10,
I only bother to view the US elections from a broad perspective and it’s almost boring how accurate 538’s projections were (apart from when their forecast gave me a heart attack earlier today. Good thing I don’t have any whiskey in the house.)
With respect I think some of you are jumping the gun on the senate outcome v. 538 forecast
The R’s have already gained 2 (IN, ND) and are ahead in FL and MO
Tester looks good so far in MT
NV still to come, but the polls had that close and the state polls have been quite a way off in the other D losses
Could easily be 4 gains rather than 2
Dems gain seats in Michigan, California, and Hawaii.
Wow! There’s a Democrat vs Green, only, contest in Arizona District 7! 84:16 to the Dem. 🙂
I think the simple answer is YES. You just reminded me of Colbert’s joke about North AND South Dakota.
Maryland has:
2 federal Senators, both Dem.
7/8 House members are Dems.
At the state level, Dems have 2:1 in the assembly and 3:1 in the Senate against the Repubs.
And they’ve just re-elected a Republican governor. A friend of mine who lives in Md (works across the road in DC) says he’s not too much of a nutjob. Still, I don’t really get it.
trump will spruik the lie that “The leftist fake new media all predicted we’d lose the senate. They predicted we’d lose 100 seats in the house. We won seats in the senate. Obama lost 6 seats. We only lost 35 seats in the house. Obama lost 63. So many people voted for us. The most ever. etc etc”.
it’s not enough of a win for the democrats – the republicans did a good job getting people out to vote. the rust belt states seem to have stuck with Trump and unless the democrats get someone good as a candidate I fear trump will win in 2020. If the democrats use their numbers in the house to frustrate trump he will use it a rallying call to get the voters out again next time. He now has an excuse for not getting things done and can put forward populist fantasies knowing they’ll get voted down. He can also demonstrate that he can work with both sides and will peel off dems in conservative seats to get things through.
not a great outcome. I wanted him to get thumped, but this is pretty mild and he’ll use it to his advantage. the Right wing media will paint it as victory because it wasn’t a crushing defeat.
California District 8 – 2 candidates both Republicans – no others. What a strange place it is.
It’s not unusual for the major parties to not contest unwinnable seats, which means a bit of caution is needed in assessing the aggregate national vote.
OK Ray,
Will keep that in mind.
538 predicted +2 GOP, at the moment the projections are closer to +3, which is what I was going “Meh” about.
Some people here are very hard to please. Losing the House is a very big kick in the guts for Trump and the Republicans. The Senate was always a long shot at this stage and can wait till next time around.
Let’s hope the Democrats in the House cause as much trouble and embarrassment for Trump as they possibly can. The boot is on the other foot now.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Tremendous success tonight. Thank you to all!
I should point out that in 2010 midterms the Republicans failed to win the Senate while winning the House; the only reason why that election is considered a wave and this one probably won’t be is because Republicans had so much to gain and little to lose; due to the fact that loads of Democrats sat on traditionally Republican territory and almost none vice versa.
Darn
If tonight ends up 55-45, and bearing in mind Doug Jones in Alabama is almost certain to lose in 2020, the Dems would need 7 pickups in 2020 for a bare majority 🙁
That’s a big ask, even with a friendly map
First openly gay Governor elected in Colorado.
Muslim women, Native American and first Somali American woman elected to the House.
Agree Darn,
Currently the Senate vote (EDIT: projection) has 20 won by Dem, to 8 won by Rep, and 7 undecided. Doesn’t seem so fantastic for the GOP when you put it that way.
Trump should be home with the shredder by now surely?
Good afternoon all,
I have no insight or knowledge re the US voting system and the real winners and losers out of today.
Therefore, I do have a questions that I hope some kind poster may answer for me.
Would the House results not be a better guide to the current political mood in America than the senate results ?
Given every House seat across the country was up for grabs compared to a select ” sample ” of senate seats I would have thought the political ” pulse of the nation” would be better judged from the house results.
Or, most likely, am I missing something ?
Cheers and thanks in advance.
Nate Silver 11:27 PM
I’ve been told not to expect a call in Florida’s Senate race tonight, where we could easily be in recount territory again.
God not Nancy Pelosi again puhleeeeeeeeaze…
Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter
1h
Kansas is dead to me.
Ken Reid
@KennethWReid
Replying to @AnnCoulter
Come on Ann, you’ve hated Kansas since it dropped a house on your sister
I’m clairvoyant
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-midterms-2018-america-goes-to-the-polls-for-referendum-on-trump/news-story/526d00613465a312f0acc1d2b05eebcb
the RW media will report this as a ‘disappointing result’
they’re not wrong.
I don’t think you are, Doyley.
Sounds very reasonable to me doyley. That is how I would read it.
Congratulations Laura Kelly in Kansas.
However, sadly, the defeat of Kris Kobach means he is looking for a job and I’m sure Trump will provide one for him.
Diogenes @ #208 Wednesday, November 7th, 2018 – 10:59 am
Agreed!
Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter
1h
Kansas is dead to me.
Ken Reid
@KennethWReid
Replying to @AnnCoulter
Come on Ann, you’ve hated Kansas since it dropped a house on your sister
some things can’t be repeated too much.
Steve King only 0.1% ahead in Iowa after 2/3 counted.
There was the UK, of course. Make of that exception what you will.
Imagine, if you will, that in this midterms there was 30 House seats and 6 Senate seats in Blue turf had been won by Democrats off of vulnerable Republicans rather than being merely retained on ridiculous margins. This election would almost certainly be deemed a wave election, even if the results were exactly the same.
Patrick Bateman @ #302
All true. But,
1. This problem of inadequate voter turnout is not a new one for the Dems. It might be worse now with the cranking up of voter suppression in more recent times, but it is not new.
2. The USA has primaries, so the voters get a choice of which Dem candidates to vote for at the election proper.
If they want to influence the Dem party and its policies, and win, they have to turn out for both the primaries and election proper.
———————–
Nicholas
While the Dem leadership has to deal with small winning margins, they must play to moderate Repubs to swing. Which makes them less attractive to more left leaning Dems.
The only way that can be fixed is by enough Dem voters turning out to give the party enough margin to not require relying on moderate Repubs swinging.
FFS, try living in the real world occasionally. All voting systems, especially first-past-the-post, require optimising your vote, because you never get your ideal choice of candidate or policy suite.
All voting choices have at least some element of least worst. Been voting since the early ’80s, and have yet to vote in an election that didn’t require a bit of nose-holding compromise in my choice.
Yes. But not only. If one is looking for a reflection on the Presidency of Trump….
One thing to look for is if the Dems can hold senate seats they won six years ago. If they cant, Trump can say “I am winning back territory’.
The other thing to look for is how, in each state or district, the vote compares to 2 years ago taking into account the usual incumbent midterm slump.
One might also want to keep in mind the amount of effort and money spent by the Dems.
Australia 2016 was very marginally better than expectations.
Dems now forecast at+7.6% in the House Popular Vote, pretty close to the final RCP average of 7.3% if it stays there – was +9% earlier and I have no idea what the West Coast numbers will do to the forecast
Well, I reckon winning the Governorship of Kansas by a female candidate of the Left is outperforming expectations on steroids!
Re the lesser of two evils argument
In the AZ Senate, the Green candidate (who dropped out last week urging supporters to vote Dem) is pulling 2.3% in a race the R is winning by 0.7%
William and Question,
Thank you for your replies.
Just heard an interview with an Hispanic supporter of the Republicans in Arizona. Yes, you would think that Trump’s anti Hispanic/Central American rhetoric would have turned her off the party. Nope. Nope. Nope. For her, it was all about Abortion. Pro Life vs Pro Choice.
*sigh*
And jobs. That’s been the other big issue that has filtered through in vox pops. People are crediting the Republicans with their having a job now and being able to afford to pay their bills and keep a roof over their heads. So they got their vote.
Nate Silver now speculating the Senate could be out of reach in 2020 🙁
Steve King wins, apparently.