The Midterm Elections of 2018

[CoolBlue71]

The Midterm Elections of 2018

One year from today, which will be [Tuesday,] November 6, [2018], are the midterm elections of 2018.

A new report is here: “Post-ABC poll: Voters favor Democrats over Republicans in 2018 House midterms by widest margin in years” (By Sean Sullivan and Emily Guskin | November 6, 2017 | http://www.washingtonpost.com/power...e2b598d8c00_story.html?utm_term=.074b49dec011 ). It relates to this thread topic.

The job-approval percentage ratings for Republican U.S. president Donald Trump have been typically in the 30s. That is pretty much at the level where his predecessor, Democrat Barack Obama, was eight years ago at this time, and one year from a coming, scheduled midterm elections cycle.

All 435 U.S. House seats are on the schedule for 2018. Approximately one-third the U.S. Senate seats are also on the ballot. And 36 of the nation’s 50 states will hold gubernatorial elections. From that 36, nine of the Top 10 populous states are on the schedule: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and Michigan. (The state of North Carolina holds its gubernatorial elections with presidential elections.)

What may play out with the midterm elections of 2018 may remain pretty faithful with established, historical voting pattern. The party which tends to win overall seat gains is the White House opposition party; that this would be applicable, in 2018, to the Democratic Party.

Since 1914, following the 17th Amendment (giving direct elections of U.S. senators to the states’ voters), there have been 26 midterm elections (1914 to 2014). From this number, there were just three which resulted in overall seat gains won by the White House party. (They occurred in 1934, 1998, and 2002.)

I took a look at the Bush and Obama presidencies—Elections 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012—and compared the participating votes for U.S. House in those presidential elections to their following midterm elections cycle (2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014).

The reason I compared the U.S. House is that 100 percent of the 435 congressional districts are on the schedule in both midterm and presidential election cycles. (To compare the U.S. Senate is not appropriate. There are approximately one-third of that 100-member body scheduled for elections every two years.)

From 2000 to 2014, and according to these numbers from Wikipedia, here were the participating votes—specifically for U.S. House—in presidential vs. midterm elections:

• 2000: 98,799,963 | 2002: 74,706,555 (75.61%; –24.39%)
• 2004: 113,192,286 | 2006: 80,975,537 (71.53%; –28.47%)
• 2008: 122,486,293 | 2010: 86,784,957 (70.79%; –29.21%)
• 2012: 122,346,020 | 2014: 78,235,240 (63.94%; –36.06%)
​

—Totals—​

• Presidential: 456,924,562 | Midterm: 320,702,089 (70.18%; –29.82%)​

The midterm elections of 2002 resulted in Republicans having won a pickup of the U.S. Senate. But, usually the flip is to the opposition party. Jim Jeffords, in mid-2001, made the switch from Republican to independent and to caucus with the Democrats. This flipped majority control to the Democrats. 2002 went against historical voting pattern.

The midterm elections of 2006 resulted in Democratic pickups of both houses of Congress on the watch of Republican president George W. Bush.

The midterm elections of 2010 was a Republican pickup of the U.S. House on the watch of Democratic president Barack Obama. Six Democratic-held U.S. Senate seats flipped Republican, going from 59 down to 53 for the Democrats.

The midterm elections of 2014 resulted in a Republican pickup of the U.S. Senate on the watch of Democratic president Barack Obama.

If the 2018 midterm elections have, once again, a decline in participation similar to those listed examples, then it would be very possible—if the Democrats have more participants (as the Republicans did in 2010 and 2014), and the self-identified independent voters cast votes for Democrats (as they did, for the Republicans, in 2010 and 2014)—for at least one of the two houses of Congress to flip Democratic. When they don't flip in the same election cycle, the U.S. House tends to be the one which goes first.

Does this mean that Donald Trump will not get re-elected in 2020? No. You can look at the those presidents, starting with Woodrow Wilson (1912, 1916), and with the last applicable being Barack Obama (2008, 2012), who won two terms. Nearly all of them saw same-party majority control either flip or lose notable or significant numbers in the U.S. House and/or U.S. Senate with their second year in office. This was true of Wilson (1914), Dwight Eisenhower (opposition-party pickups of both houses of Congress, 1954), Richard Nixon (1970), Ronald Reagan (1982), Bill Clinton (opposition-party pickups of both houses of Congress, 1994), and Barack Obama (opposition-party pickup of the U.S. House, 2010). Two years after those midterm losses saw re-elections for Wilson (1916), Eisenhower (1956), Nixon (1972), Reagan (1984), Clinton (1996), and Obama (2012).


What I think, at this point, is this:

The midterm elections of 2018 will be overall seat gains for the Democrats. And they may flip the U.S. House. In fact, I am kind of leaning toward predicting a Democratic pickup of the U.S. House. (One would need to track the polls to get a good idea of the trajectory of that happening. It may be necessary to actually get into the year 2018.) The U.S. Senate is trickier because of the specific states on the schedule.

How would the Democrats win overall seat gains? Looking at the above list of presidential-vs.-midterm U.S. House votes, and decline in participation in midterms, it would be more overall participation from self-identified Democrats than self-identified Republicans. This would be followed by self-identified independents ending up giving more votes for Democratic than Republican candidates. Crunch whatever all those numbers would be, and that creates a strong trajectory that could turn out to be a wave—a potential, national midterm wave election for the Democratic Party.

 

[MystikWizard]

The Midterm Elections of 2018[FONT=&]

One year from today, which will be [Tuesday,] November 6, [2018], are the midterm elections of 2018.

A new report is here: “[/FONT]Post-ABC poll: Voters favor Democrats over Republicans in 2018 House midterms by widest margin in years” (By Sean Sullivan and Emily Guskin | November 6, 2017 | http://www.washingtonpost.com/power...e2b598d8c00_story.html?utm_term=.074b49dec011 ). It relates to this thread topic.[FONT=&]

[/FONT]The job-approval percentage ratings for Republican U.S. president Donald Trump have been typically in the 30s. That is pretty much at the level where his predecessor, Democrat Barack Obama, was eight years ago at this time, and one year from a coming, scheduled midterm elections cycle.[FONT=&]

All 435 U.S. House seats are on the schedule for 2018. Approximately one-third the U.S. Senate seats are also on the ballot. And 36 of the nation’s 50 states will hold gubernatorial elections. From that 36, nine of the Top 10 populous states are on the schedule: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and Michigan. (The state of North Carolina holds its gubernatorial elections with presidential elections.)

What may play out with the midterm elections of 2018 may remain pretty faithful with established, historical voting pattern. The party which tends to win overall seat gains is the White House opposition party; that this would be applicable, in 2018, to the Democratic Party.

[/FONT][FONT=&]Since 1914, following the 17th Amendment (giving direct elections of U.S. senators to the states’ voters), there have been 26 midterm elections (1914 to 2014). From this number, there were just three which resulted in overall seat gains won by the White House party. (They occurred in 1934, 1998, and 2002.)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]I took a look at the Bush and Obama presidencies—Elections 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012—and compared the participating votes for U.S. House in those presidential elections to their following midterm elections cycle (2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014).

The reason I compared the U.S. House is that 100 percent of the 435 congressional districts are on the schedule in both midterm and presidential election cycles. (To compare the U.S. Senate is not appropriate. There are approximately one-third of that 100-member body scheduled for elections every two years.)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]From 2000 to 2014, and according to these numbers from Wikipedia, here were the participating votes—specifically for U.S. House—in presidential vs. midterm elections:
[/FONT]

[FONT=&]• [/FONT]2000:[FONT=&] 98,799,963 | [/FONT]2002:[FONT=&] 74,706,555 (75.61%; –24.39%)[/FONT]
[FONT=&]• [/FONT]2004:[FONT=&] 113,192,286 | [/FONT]2006:[FONT=&] 80,975,537 (71.53%; –28.47%)[/FONT]
[FONT=&]• 2008: 122,486,293 | [/FONT][FONT=&]2010:[/FONT][FONT=&] 86,784,957 (70.79%; –29.21%)[/FONT]
[FONT=&]• 2012: 122,346,020 | [/FONT][FONT=&]2014:[/FONT][FONT=&] 78,235,240 (63.94%; –36.06%)
[/FONT]​

—Totals—​

• [FONT=&]Presidential: 456,924,562 | Midterm: 320,702,089 (70.18%; –29.82%)[/FONT]​

[FONT=&]
The midterm elections of 2002 resulted in Republicans having won a pickup of the U.S. Senate. But, usually the flip is to the opposition party. Jim Jeffords, in mid-2001, made the switch from Republican to independent and to caucus with the Democrats. This flipped majority control to the Democrats. 2002 went against historical voting pattern.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The midterm elections of 2006 resulted in Democratic pickups of both houses of Congress on the watch of Republican president George W. Bush.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The midterm elections of 2010 was a Republican pickup of the U.S. House on the watch of Democratic president Barack Obama. Six Democratic-held U.S. Senate seats flipped Republican, going from 59 down to 53 for the Democrats.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The midterm elections of 2014 resulted in a Republican pickup of the U.S. Senate on the watch of Democratic president Barack Obama.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
If the 2018 midterm elections have, once again, a decline in participation similar to those listed examples, then it would be very possible—if the Democrats have more participants (as the Republicans did in 2010 and 2014), and the self-identified independent voters cast votes for Democrats (as they did, for the Republicans, in 2010 and 2014)—for at least one of the two houses of Congress to flip Democratic. When they don't flip in the same election cycle, the U.S. House tends to be the one which goes first.

Does this mean that Donald Trump will not get re-elected in 2020? No. You can look at the those presidents, starting with Woodrow Wilson (1912, 1916), and with the last applicable being Barack Obama (2008, 2012), who won two terms. Nearly all of them saw same-party majority control either flip or lose notable or significant numbers in the U.S. House and/or U.S. Senate with their second year in office. This was true of Wilson (1914), Dwight Eisenhower (opposition-party pickups of both houses of Congress, 1954), Richard Nixon (1970), Ronald Reagan (1982), Bill Clinton (opposition-party pickups of both houses of Congress, 1994), and Barack Obama (opposition-party pickup of the U.S. House, 2010). Two years after those midterm losses saw re-elections for Wilson (1916), Eisenhower (1956), Nixon (1972), Reagan (1984), Clinton (1996), and Obama (2012).


[/FONT]What I think, at this point, is this:

The midterm elections of 2018 will be overall seat gains for the Democrats. And they may flip the U.S. House. In fact, I am kind of leaning toward predicting a Democratic pickup of the U.S. House. (One would need to track the polls to get a good idea of the trajectory of that happening. It may be necessary to actually get into the year 2018.) The U.S. Senate is trickier because of the specific states on the schedule.

How would the Democrats win overall seat gains? Looking at the above list of presidential-vs.-midterm U.S. House votes, and decline in participation in midterms, it would be more overall participation from self-identified Democrats than self-identified Republicans. This would be followed by self-identified independents ending up giving more votes for Democratic than Republican candidates. Crunch whatever all those numbers would be, and that creates a strong trajectory that could turn out to be a wave—a potential, national midterm wave election for the Democratic Party.

I did see your PM with this very point, however I think you are being overly optimistic. Knowing that Democrats don't have a great track record of voting in Midterm elections, combined with the fact that everyone's 401k's are doing well ... no major terrorist attacks, no recessions, etc. will mean more complacency and things continuing as they are.

Of course, the other factor in all of this is how the Democrats have failed to inspire anyone to actually support them as they are still heavily reeling from the Primaries and antics from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the Clinton campaign. The public's trust in them as taken a serious hit. Even their most recent lawsuit against them from Sanders' supporters, the DNC lawyers argued that even though their charter states for the organization to remain impartial in the Primary, they have no obligation to follow their own rules and charter. This is actually what their attorneys argued in court.

This is a disgraceful organization. How can they be trusted with anything?

When the Democratic Party is serious about reform, maybe I will give them another look ... but until then, I see no distinguishable difference between having parties in office who talk a good game, but have zero real intention of following through with their stated agenda.

 

[CoolBlue71]

I did see your PM with this very point, however I think you are being overly optimistic. Knowing that Democrats don't have a great track record of voting in Midterm elections, combined with the fact that everyone's 401k's are doing well ... no major terrorist attacks, no recessions, etc. will mean more complacency and things continuing as they are.

Of course, the other factor in all of this is how the Democrats have failed to inspire anyone to actually support them as they are still heavily reeling from the Primaries and antics from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the Clinton campaign. The public's trust in them as taken a serious hit. Even their most recent lawsuit against them from Sanders' supporters, the DNC lawyers argued that even though their charter states for the organization to remain impartial in the Primary, they have no obligation to follow their own rules and charter. This is actually what their attorneys argued in court.

This is a disgraceful organization. How can they be trusted with anything?

When the Democratic Party is serious about reform, maybe I will give them another look ... but until then, I see no distinguishable difference between having parties in office who talk a good game, but have zero real intention of following through with their stated agenda.

Let me mention this: I am not presenting this with any feeling about whether I want this to happen. It isn't about what I do or do not want. So, it is not a matter of optimism or any other feeling. This has to do with keeping track of what is going on, to a fairly good extent, and for what may happen with next year's midterm elections.

I mentioned that presidential and midterm elections are not comparable. That we don't get the participating numbers of voters in midterms that are present in presidential elections. And that, since 1914, three of 26 midterms were won by the White House opposition party is an established, historical record that should not be ignored. The repeated polls, throughout so much of 2017, showing Donald Trump's job-approval percentile range in the 30s has me sensing that his Republican Party will see overall seat losses with the midterms of 2018. (There are already a fairly strong number of incumbents, between both houses of Congress, who are not seeking re-election.)



Moving past talking midterms: What you said certainly holds. That is why I don't think the 2020 Democratic nominee for U.S. president—who I anticipate will be the establishment Democrats' last hurrah of a corporate candidate who loses (but with a respectable electoral-vote score, like 1996 Bob Dole, 2004 John Kerry, and 2012 Mitt Romney)—will unseat Republican president Donald Trump. A big part of the reason is voting pattern: In a presidential election in which there is a party switch, the party flipped out does not often flip back with the next such election. In fact, since the 20th century, the only consecutive party switches were 1976 (Democratic pickup for Jimmy Carter) and 1980 (Republican pickup for Ronald Reagan). So, the continued discussions of the Democratic Party, as you mentioned, I think will be more focused on policies, what becomes of the party and what it is about, who yields the influence of its overall direction, and how it operates. I think the Ds, as they are currently, will rejoice in winning the midterms of 2018, and then assume they will have no problem unseating Trump. And then they will fail. The next time this party will flip the presidency wouldn't happen until 2024. And I'm willing to guess, this far in advance, that it will get its Democratic pickup winner specifically with a candidate who offers in leadership what is more in line with Bernie Sanders than Hillary Clinton. That is, of course, another topic.

 

[Kulindahr]

Disgust with both major parties is high enough right now that someone well-funded and in the center ought to be able to tumble the house of cards and set off a new party. A JFK-LBJ style old-time Democrat type could probably upset everything if he had the charm of JFK and the guts of LBJ and the savvy of both.

Of course compared to today's parties, such a person would almost qualify as a libertarian.

 

[Benvolio]

Disgust with both major parties is high enough right now that someone well-funded and in the center ought to be able to tumble the house of cards and set off a new party. A JFK-LBJ style old-time Democrat type could probably upset everything if he had the charm of JFK and the guts of LBJ and the savvy of both.

Of course compared to today's parties, such a person would almost qualify as a libertarian.

No, they would qualify as conservatives. JFK reduced taxes and stimulated the economy. Gasp!

 

[CoolBlue71]

Disgust with both major parties is high enough right now that someone well-funded and in the center ought to be able to tumble the house of cards and set off a new party. A JFK-LBJ style old-time Democrat type could probably upset everything if he had the charm of JFK and the guts of LBJ and the savvy of both.

Of course compared to today's parties, such a person would almost qualify as a libertarian.

This is where specific policies, an agenda, and the kind of leadership offered would play a role in what you suggest.

The two major political parties—the Republicans and Democrats—have and keep control. Despite historical low-approvals for the two-party matchup of Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, participating voters still gave a combined total of nearly 94 percent of their presidential votes to Trump and Clinton for Election 2016. Last year's presidential election was the kind in which the voters could have given closer to combined 80 percent they gave to then-incumbent George Bush vs. Bill Clinton for Election 1992. But, with exception of the six percent who voted outside the two major parties, and with Trump vs. Clinton such a hated matchup, the participating voters still backed the duopoly.

At this point, looking to what has become of these two major parties, and with a coming election cycle, this gets reduced down to dealing with something on the level of weather conditions and sports scores.

 

[CoolBlue71]

http://www.cnn.com/election/2017/


Last night’s [Tuesday, November 7, 2017] elections for the governorships of both New Jersey and Virginia produced interesting results.

After two terms of Republican Chris Christie, New Jersey flips Democratic for Phil Murphy. (New Jersey has elected governors opposite the White House party in every election since 1989.) Christie was re-elected, in 2013, by +22 percentage points. Murphy's pickup margin is +13. This is a 2017 Democratic shift of +35. In New Jersey, the No. 11 most-populous state in the nation, that is a huge margin.

In 2013, Virginia went against pattern. From 1977 to 2009, it elected governors from the White House opposition party. The 2013 Republicans nominated Ken Cuccinelli, was controversial, and it resulted in a Democratic pickup for Terry McAuliffe. The margin for McAuliffe was +2.5. Winning a 2017 Democratic hold is Ralph Northam. His margin is +9. So, Northam received an additional 2017 Democratic shift of +6.5. (Virginia's population ranks it No. 12.)

What I noticed, which really stood out, in the CNN exit polls, with an above link, was Party ID. It turns out that self-identified Democrats outnumbered Republicans by +11 in Virginia and +15 in New Jersey. In presidential years, typically there is no more than a difference of +5. Sometimes, it can be +6 or +7. It is not usually in excess of +10. In fact, Northam did not carry the independent vote. (The margin was R+2.) Northam did win same-party support +2 points higher than losing Republican opponent Ed Gillespie. But, because the Ds had +11 points in higher participation over the Rs, this is why Northam won by +9.

This has the makings of shaping a midterm election wave for the Democratic Party in 2018. It would be a Democratic pickup of the U.S. House. The U.S. Senate, in Tossup, would flip if the Democrats flip the House (needed, as of 11.07.2017, are +24) with the necessary number with a bonus of approximately +10. (Any more, it will more than likely flip.) This sets up also seeing every Democratic-held U.S. Senate seat retained. (Flipping such a high number of House seats won't result in majority Rs being able to flip D-held Senate seats. This was how it played in midterm waves for the 1994 Republicans, the 2006 Democrats, and the 2010 Republicans; even though the Senate, in 2010, was a Democratic hold.) This also will spill over to the 50 governorships. The Rs have 34. The Ds have 15. (One independent is included from Alaska.) With Phil Murphy having flipped New Jersey from Republican to Democratic means, going into 2018, the Ds would need a pickup of +10. They would be prone to get that much, if the national wave is so strong, from the likes and combination of: Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Some of these states, not perceived as flippable to the Ds, because of how they carry R in presidential elections, are on long-established patterns of electing governors opposite the White House party. They include core GOP presidential states Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Wyoming.

 

[CoolBlue71]

…

This also will spill over to the 50 governorships. The Rs have 34. The Ds have 15. (One independent is included from Alaska.) With Phil Murphy having flipped New Jersey from Republican to Democratic means, going into 2018, the Ds would need a pickup of +10. They would be prone to get that much, if the national wave is so strong, from the likes and combination of: Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Some of these states, not perceived as flippable to the Ds, because of how they carry R in presidential elections, are on long-established patterns of electing governors opposite the White House party. They include core GOP presidential states Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Wyoming.

Adding to this: In 2016, when the Democrats did not hold the presidency, nominee Hillary Clinton carried 20 states. From those 20, there are 8 in which the governors are Republicans: Illinois (Bruce Rauner), Maine (Paul LePage, term-limited), Maryland (Larry Hogan), Massachusetts (Charlie Baker), Nevada (Brian Sandoval, term-limited), New Hampshire (Chris Sununu), New Mexico (Susana Martinez, term-limited), and Vermont (Phil Scott). These are [8] of the Democrats’ needed +10 to win over a majority count of the states’ governorships.

 

[CoolBlue71]

UPDATE [12.13.2017 @ 09:00 a.m. ET]

UPDATE 12.13.2017 (09:00 a.m. ET):

A national, midterm election wave for 2018 will result in the White House opposition party, the Democratic Party, winning back majority control of both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate and with also the majority count of governorships. (Republican Party U.S. president Donald Trump’s job-approval remains polling in the 30s percentile range.)

The special 12.12.2017 U.S. Senate election in Alabama, for the seat previously held by now U.S. attorney general Jeff Sessions (who won his last re-election in 2014 unopposed with 97 percent), resulted in former U.S. federal attorney Doug Jones winning a Democratic pickup and defeating Republican nominee and former state supreme court justice Roy Moore, gives the Democrats 49 to the Republicans’ majority 51 seats heading into 2018.

Here were the results: http://www.cnn.com/election/2017/results/alabama-senate .

2017 U.S. SENATE [Special]: ALABAMA (Numbers are not final)
Roy Moore | 652,300 | 48.4%
Doug Jones | 673,236 | 49.9% — Pickup!​

What will happen, if I turn out to be correct, is that all 49 Democratic-held U.S. Senate seats will get retained. It worked that way for the minority parties when they over the majorities in 1994 (Republican), 2006 (Democratic) and 2014 (Republican)—the previous three midterm election cycles in which the U.S. Senate flipped from the party of the sitting U.S. president—and will likely play that way again. So, what would happen is the following:

Tier #01: Sufficient Pickups

[50] Nevada (Dean Heller, first elected in 2012 as the state carried Democratic for re-electing Barack Obama)
[51] Arizona (Open; retiring Jeff Flake) — Tipping Point State!​

Tier #02: Additional Pickups

[52] Tennessee (Open; retiring Bob Corker)
[53] Texas (Ted Cruz, first elected in 2012, in a state which is—like Arizona and Georgia—trending away from Core GOP and poised to flip for a presidential-pickup winning Democrat)​

Tier #03: Underestimated National Wave

[54] Nebraska (Deb Fischer, first elected as a Republican pickup winner in 2012)​

Here are couple election-night calls for the special U.S. Senate election in Alabama:

 

[frankfrank]

Interestingly, about 24 hours ago, I saw one of the networks (CNN?) discussing Talladega County as a bellwether for Alabama. Jones won that county 51-49%. Whoever said that was entirely correct, the Talladege County results were almost spot-on compared to the entire state.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Interestingly, about 24 hours ago, I saw one of the networks (CNN?) discussing Talladega County as a bellwether for Alabama. Jones won that county 51-49%. Whoever said that was entirely correct, the Talladege County results were almost spot-on compared to the entire state.

At the presidential level, and according to the below screen shot from Wikipedia.org, Talledega County (Talledega) has carried for the winner of Alabama in every election since 1904 with just one exception—1980. (Election 1960 was a different kind of exception.)

In 1980, when Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter was unseated by Republican challenger Ronald Reagan, Carter won a Democratic hold of Talladega County +1.2 points while Reagan won a Republican pickup of the state by +1.4 points. That was a margins spread, county-vs.-state, of just 2.6 percentage points—but they officially colored differently from each other. (That was a period in which the Republicans had not yet realigned the south to carry in prevailing elections those eleven Old Confederacy states, including long-established bellwether Florida, with margins above their national support. Reagan’s popular-vote pickup margin, from 1980, was +9.75. So, Alabama was 8-plus points more Democratic vs. the nation in that particular election.)

​

 

[Benvolio]

Democrat overconfidence/apathy is often the best thing going for the GOP. All the money Soros throws at this is probably not enough to get out the dem vote this time.

 

[johaninsc]

Democrat overconfidence/apathy is often the best thing going for the GOP. All the money Soros throws at this is probably not enough to get out the dem vote this time.

 

[rareboy]

Democrat overconfidence/apathy is often the best thing going for the GOP. All the money Soros throws at this is probably not enough to get out the dem vote this time.

Ah right.

Just like voters didn't come out in Virginia and Alabama.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Ah right.

Just like voters didn't come out in Virginia and Alabama.

That Alabama one was considerably closer than I'd like to dwell on. Who the fuck votes for someone who says they want to demolish the amendment that lets you vote. And it's not as Moore's sexual proclivities were unknown on ballot day, some of those demographic peeks are horrifying.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Democrat overconfidence/apathy is often the best thing going for the GOP.…

If the Democrats win back Congress, and the majority of governorships, with the midterm elections of 2018, and then they head into 2020 assuming they will unseat Donald Trump with any candidate—well, in that case, you have a good point.

Let’s deal with one election cycle at a time. (Next: 2018.)

What is turning out to be true in U.S. politics is that, if you don’t like a presidential election which flips party occupancy in the White House (from Republican to Democratic, as it was in 2008; from Democratic to Republican, as it was in 2016), then look forward to the next midterm election.

It’s been a long-established pattern.

I don’t think we will see an exception in 2018.




Here, from early-December 2017, is an interesting report from Gallup.…
(Side Note: I don’t know how to enlarge a pic. If anyone can help—thank you!)

​

Snapshot: Trump Approval Ties Weekly Low, at 35%

By Frank Newport
December 4, 2017 | http://news.gallup.com/poll/223253/snapshot-trump-approval-tied-lowest-weekly-average.aspx

President Donald Trump's weekly job approval dropped to 35% for the week ending Dec. 3, matching the lowest weekly average of his tenure so far.

Republicans' approval of Trump has been at 78% in each of the three weeks he averaged 35% approval.…

Democrats' approval rating for Trump remains in the single digits, at 7% last week, while independents' approval is at 32%.…

That is telling.

“78” is a low percentage number from same-party support when, typically in prevailing elections, it will be between 88 to 92 percent for a presidential nominee—win or lose.

That is not enough back support for Donald Trump’s Republican Party, who currently hold both houses of Congress and the majority-count of governorships, heading into the midterm elections of 2018.

The self-identified independents, giving Trump a job approval of just 32 percent, point to the likelihood that—when choosing strictly between voting for the Republicans or Democrats—they will vote much more for the Democrats. And if that turns out to be the case, you will see lots of Democratic pickups.

These types of poll numbers are what Barack Obama’s Democratic Party had, eight years ago, when heading into the midterms of 2010. And the U.S. House and the majority-count in governorships flipped Republican. And six Democratic-held U.S. Senate seats flipped Republican.

There is another parallel: In January 2010 was the special U.S. Senate election from Massachusetts that resulted in a Republican pickup for Scott Brown. That came in a Democratic base state won in 2008 by Obama by about +26 points. (This was 12 months after Obama became the 44th U.S. president.) In December 2017 was the special U.S. Senate election from Alabama that resulted in a Democratic pickup for Doug Jones. That came in a Republican base state won in 2016 by Trump by about +28 points. (This was 11 months after Trump became the 45th U.S. president.)

The midterm elections of 2018 are likely going to be a sufficient, national blue wave.

 

[Stardreamer]

The number of gains Republicans have made in the last ten years or so has become a standard talking point in political chat groups. I've seen numerous posts that just a list of the number of governorships, statehouse legislatures, and congress critters won by Republicans since 'insert arbitrary date' followed by a claim that Democrats/Liberalism is dead.

I've taken to answering this with the observation that if history teaches us anything in US politics it is that the wheel turns. Eventually, the party in power peaks and overreaches and we move back towards the center. So pointing out how far the political pendulum has swung to right only show how due we are for it to reverse.