US mid-terms minus zero days

One last overview of the US mid-terms situation, and a thread for discussion of events as they unfold.

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.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

719 comments on “US mid-terms minus zero days”

Comments Page 9 of 15
1 8 9 10 15
  1. Tremendous success tonight. Thank you to all!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2018

    Tremendous success tonight. Thank you to all!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2018

    Tremendous success tonight. Thank you to all!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2018

    Tremendous success tonight. Thank you to all!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2018

    That is really nice of you to congratulate the Democrats for winning the House. Very magnanimous.— Invictus Forever. Game on!! (@PuffyTMD) 7 November 2018

  2. NathanA,
    They think that nature abhors a vacuum and someone will be creative in looking to the other side for common ground over the next two years.

    Trump’s already there. He has said that he is not averse to doing deals with a Dem-controlled House.

  3. NathanA

    The Justice Kennedy resignation/Kavanaugh nomination looks like it was a carefully planned and timed wedge manoeuvre that worked a treat

    The talking heads are saying it swung IN, MO and ND (and maybe MT – Tester’s lead is down to 1.7% there without about a third of the vote counted)

  4. Asha Leu:

    [‘Looks like my earlier pessimism may have been a bit premature.’]

    Yes, but that’s understandable depending upon which platform you were watching.

    CNN, for instance, was quite pessimistic early in the day, based I think on the last presidential election, but in the end the Dems came through in the House, gaining up to 35 seats.

    The Senate was a different kettle of fish, with the GOP gaining up to five seats. But for the reasons posted earlier in this thread, the Dems were really never in the race.

    Now, though, the House will be able to supervise Trump armed the with power of subpoena – a power that’s likely to go to the Supreme Court. The next two years should be riveting.

  5. winning all 3 branches in 202o was the gameplan. start with house in 2018 and keep close in the senate with a more favourable map to work with in 2 yrs.

    With Senate at 55-57 Repubs that is now a massive challenge instead of within comfortable reach at 51-52. If cant win Senate in 2020 its an absolute disaster i submit.

    we get the most painful triumvirate for nxt 2 years (Trump, Mitch and Pelosi), and Dems now need a knockout unifying candidate with big coattails to bring a senate wave across different regions. I dont see that candidate (80 year old fossils or polarising lefties dominate the field).

    Running up the board in the House in 2018 might feel good, but to me it adds as much value as Hilary running up the popular vote in California and New York in 2016.

    I think this is a pretty shite outcome. Can stop the Repubs doing more legislative damage, but the idea was to be in a position to advance a legislative agenda (let alone judicial appointments and redistricting) from 2020. Big time compromised.

  6. [‘Tremendous success tonight. Thank you to all!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)’]

    Bull feathers, I can here the shredders working overtime from here.

  7. Gees, not so many days ago, the feeling was that if the Republicans won the Reps it was the end of the world as we know it. Now it looks as though this Doomsday scenario is no longer a threat, we have some here bemoaning the largely predicted outcome – Republicans hold the Senate and Democrats take the Reps, as a “Big time compromise” and a “shite outcome”. There is no satisfying some people………..

  8. In good old Alabama a win for Morrison’s happy clapper mates…

    This measure would allow display of the Ten Commandments in schools and on other public property, but it would prohibit the use of public funds to defend the displays or this measure against court challenges.

  9. Devin NunesVerified account@DevinNunes
    Oct 30
    Looks like Republicans have a chance to win house back!

    Unlikely but I’d really love it if he lost his seat along with this projection from a couple days ago.

  10. Tricot

    I think the point is that the Senate is not the forecast outcome – it’s much worse, with the Senate possibly out of D hands until 2022 at the earliest if even then

    The two oldest Justices on the Supreme Court are liberals – IF Trump gets a second term you’re probably looking at a hard right Supreme Court that would be a barrier to Progressive reform in a post-Trump world

  11. Tricot, was never expecting the Dems to take the senate – but there is a massive difference between holding the Repubs at 51-52 and them blowing out to 55-56. Its not about this election (taking the house is enough to stop repub legislative damage), its always been about whether they can take the senate in 2 years. I dont think that is too difficult a concept to grasp? Its why it matters.

    Can someone validate: realistically, only 3 seats where result in doubt… if Dems can cling onto Montana and win both AZ and NV then Repubs are capped at 53. That would be mega sweet relief at this stage. 54 would be painful. 55 would be abysmal and 56 would be suicidal!

    Each number is sadly of massive importance. One senate vote was the difference between confirming an idiot like De Vos and Obamacare repeal succeeding v failing. There are some huge things that need to be done post 2020 (eg confirming judges when RBG/Souter retire, passing congressional redistricting, repealing those disgusting tax cuts) and this is all compromised if the Dems dont get to 50 senators… to say “oh well the Repubs were always going to hold the senate” is missing the entire big picture i suggest?

  12. “Republicans hold the Senate and Democrats take the Reps,”

    That was to me the best of the most realistic outcomes. Disappointed the Repugs seem to have made gains in the Senate…but the situation overall is improved on where it was yesterday. Be fwarking thankful for that people. 🙂

  13. Scott Walker’s lead down to 170 votes (out of 2.5 million) with 97% reporting

    AZ Senate – R lead now out to 0.9% with 34% reporting
    MT Senate – D lead out to 2.2% with 47% reporting

  14. I’ve only been here since Friday, but every news bulletin had Trump saying that it’s only the Senate that mattered and that it was almost impossible to win. Trump supporters will be easily fooled into this being a good result.

  15. Tom NicholsVerified account@RadioFreeTom
    1h1 hour ago
    No matter what else happened tonight, America’s one-party shambling toward authoritarianism – read @davidfrum’s “Trumpocracy” – just hit a big barrier.

  16. NathanA

    Democrats pointed to gerrymander and pointed to Pennsylvania where a non-partisan court set the boundaries. The whole panel laughed him down at the idea that the judges were non-partisan.

    Thanks for the update. It is weird that the panel cannot believe that some of us believe in democracy above partisanship.

    AM

    Is there something strange about Pennsylvania? Of the 18 House districts, nine changed sides, including three going against the flow (from Democrat to Republican).

    Interesting! Sounds to me like the gerrymander has ended, including that of the seats where all the Democrat voters were stashed.

    That being said, it would require a statistical comparison of the current two-party-preferred vote in Pennsylvania to the split between the now elected D and R House members to confirm this. A gerrymander favouring the Dems would show itself as more Dem members than the TPP vote could support within the margin of error.

    But, I am talking to members of a psephology blog, so I guess I did not need to point that out 🙂

  17. The result is quite good for the Republicans considering they have such a terrible president. Gaining seats in the Senate is brilliant for them.

  18. Diogenes

    In 2010, Repubs only achieved to obtain 46 Senate seats compared to Democrat’s 54; and those terms also lasted six years.

    Ergo, if this is a bad result for Dems, then 2010 was a bad result for the Repubs.

  19. Yeah, you can’t sugar coat the Senate result. A Republican gain of 1 or 2 was always on the cards. But this is a seriously bad Senate result for the Democrats. There will be a lot more Republicans up for reelection in 2020 than Dems but that isn’t the same thing as a lot of chances.

    Doug Jones in Alabama is probably the most likely to flip at this early stage. Problem with that of course is he’s a Democrat.

    Collins in Maine will be in trouble, Texas might again be close enough to be of interest but probably not to flip, but there just aren’t many Republicans in Blue or even Purple states to have much confidence in much movement unless it was on the back of a really massively popular Democrat Presidential nominee.

  20. The Democrats had 26 Senators up for re-election this time, 10 of whom were in states Trump won, and faced formidable Republican challenges. The Republicans by comparison only had 9 Senators up for re-election.

  21. Expat

    I think you’re missing the Mississippi runoff (almost certain R win) as an uncalled race

    AZ looks doubtful to me, NV too early, MT probable

    I think FL is gone

    538 have R’s at 51 without a call in Florida

    So R’s = 51 +MS + AZ + FL = 54 with NV and MT up in the air although I fancy D’s in MT

    EDIT: Actually I think I agree with your numbers assuming D’s win MT and NV and AZ

  22. ‘Diogenes says:
    Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 5:37 pm

    BW
    The House gives you two good years. The Senate gives you six bad years.’

    One cup is half full. The other cup is half empty.

    It is very hard to see what is going to happen in the US over the next two years but it is difficult to believe that the blowback, for example, from people who cannot sell their soybeans, etc, etc, etc will not be larger in four years than it was in two years.

  23. Flippin’ ‘ eck – Republican takes the lead in Montana, 0.9% with 55% reporting 🙁

    I happen to think that Sen. Tester is the finest man in the Senate, it’ll be a tragedy if he goes down

  24. This is a massive repudiation of Donald Trump. Due to egregious Republican gerrymandering, the Democratic majority in the House of Reps will not reflect them having won by a beautiful margin of approximately 9% nationwide. Coincidentally, similar to the beautiful margin of Labor Party’s 2PP lead over the Coal-a-lition, which would net the Labor Party a far more accurate number of seats due to the inherent fairness of our electoral commission processes.

    As for the Senate, the map which heavily advantaged Republicans today will be the polar opposite in 2020 when the Democratic Party will scoop up a Senate majority on the coat tails of their winning the White House. Until then, the Senate is relatively impotent unless a progressive SCOTUS judge steps down or dies. The lower level Trump judicial appointments are nearly completed after Schumer waved them through a few weeks ago.

    In short, I am relieved beyond measure.

  25. Prof Higgins:

    Ess@ScottyLiterati
    2h2 hours ago
    Tonight, Dems will take about 33 House seats with a popular vote win of +9.2%.

    In 2010, Republicans took 63 House seats with a popular vote win of +7.2%.

    The difference: Gerrymandering

    Remember this when pundits try to downplay what Dems accomplished tonight.

Comments Page 9 of 15
1 8 9 10 15

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *