Sobering analysis from the Post:
Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in sociology at Columbia University.After flipping dozens of seats in the midterm elections, Democrats are set to take control of the House of Representatives. Many pundits and analysts have attempted to frame the results as a referendum on President Trump. Among these, there seems to be a consensus that the president has somehow been “repudiated.”
Not so fast.
To be sure, there are reasons for Democrats to cheer: Despite significant structural disadvantages and a difficult Senate map, some great ballot initiatives were passed, state legislatures got bluer in many instances, and Democrats won governorships in some key states. These are worth celebrating (in contrast with claims to have “won the popular vote,” which are spurious). Yet, on balance, Democrats should be more disturbed than comforted by how the elections shook out.
For instance, turnout was much higher than in 2014. However, the increased engagement proved to be bipartisan: Trump’s supporters also showed up in force, significantly undercutting the expected “blue wave.”
Yes, Republicans ultimately lost control of the House — but even here, the Democrats’ continued weakness shines through:
It was expected that the Republicans would lose a significant number of seats, irrespective of public opinions about Trump. Republicans had many more difficult House seats to defend than Democrats overall. There were twice as many Republican incumbents defending House seats in states Hillary Clinton won in 2016 than there were Democrats defending seats in states Trump won.
Republicans also had more than twice as many “open” House seats to hold on to as their Democratic rivals had: 36 Republican representatives chose not to stand for reelection this year because they were retiring or seeking another office. Seven others either resigned or otherwise left office before the election. As a result, Republicans had 43 House seats to defend without the benefit of a true incumbent candidate. On top of this, Republicans had three “open” Senate seats, and one more with a pseudo-incumbent (interim Mississippi Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith took office in April).
Yet Democrats managed to win surprisingly few of these “open” contests. In the vast majority of cases, a new Republican was elected instead, and they tended to be even closer to Trump than their predecessors. So Trump actually cemented his hold over the Republican Party: Most of his staunchest Republican critics have either stepped down, been removed through a primary challenge or otherwise failed to win reelection. On top of this, virtually all of the Senate Democrats who voted against Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh from the states that Trump won in 2016 were voted out of office and replaced by Republicans.
Historically speaking, Democrats delivered a thoroughly average result in their first round as Trump’s opposition. Going all the way back to the Civil War, there were only two instances when a new party seized the presidency but didn’t lose seats in the House during their first midterm elections: Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934 (during the Great Depression), and President George W. Bush in 2002 (in the shadow of the 9/11 terrorist attacks). Even including these outliers, the average attrition during a party’s inaugural midterms is 35 House seats; excluding these two exceptions, the average loss is 41. Regardless of which number we run with, Trump could end up performing better than average in preserving his party’s influence in the House. He performed much better than his last two Democratic predecessors: Bill Clinton lost control of both chambers in the 1994 midterm elections. Barack Obama saw historic losses in the House in 2010, and lost seats in the Senate as well — the most sweeping congressional reversal in 62 years.
Yet, not only did Trump suffer far less attrition than Obama or Clinton in the House, his party will gain in the Senate. This may not be surprising given the slanted map against Democrats. It is also somewhat typical overall: Between 1862 and 2014, the president’s party picked up seats in the Senate during their first midterms 56 percent of the time, lost seats 37 percent of the time and broke even once. In other words, there did not seem to be a thorough rebuke of Trump. In fact, there was little exceptional in the results at all, beyond the fact that they were so very normal.
Virtually everything Trump says or does seems so beyond the pale that it becomes difficult for most to imagine that historical patterns may apply. Given the extraordinary context leading into the 2018 midterms, it may seem inconceivable that they yielded perfectly ordinary results. Consider Trump’s historic unpopularity, his passionate opposition, our unprecedented levels of political polarization, the approaching migrant caravan, the mass shooting at a synagogue just before the midterms, the ongoing Mueller investigation and myriad other scandals. Surely these must matter , right?
Truth told, elections are complex social events, and it is difficult to determine (let alone predict) what matters, how much it matters and in what sense it matters. We’re still arguing over what happened in 2016! Yet one thing we do know is that the 2018 election results were consistent with the norm for a ruling party’s initial midterms. This reality should make Democrats deeply anxious because, as I’ve demonstrated elsewhere, if the 2020 presidential election similarly conforms to historical tendencies, the odds are roughly 8 to 1 that Trump wins reelection.
Indeed, the president’s inaugural midterm results are eerily similar to those of another entertainment-star turned political game-changer: Ronald Reagan. In 1982, his party lost 26 seats in the House — but picked up one seat in the Senate. He, too, faced a split Congress. His approval rating going into those midterms was also in the low 40s. He went on to win reelection by a landslide in 1984.
That's actually a pretty strong analysis. A lot of problem I see nowadays is that people consider this a 'wave' election because the democrats are set to win the popular vote by around 7.5% and flip what, net 38 house seats? Then you hear them talk about the fact this 'wave' is bigger than the 2010 republican victory of roughly 7% in the popular vote?
It's nonsense. How you can talk about the 'flipping' of House Seats but not the change in popular vote is beyond me. 2010 was a wave because the Democrats won the 2008 popular vote by what, 10%? A -10% to +7% swing is huge. In contrast the Republicans won the house by 1.1% in 2016, totalling an 8% swing. Strong, sure, but that does not show anywhere near as strong a change in the country's views as 2010.
Keep in mind this democratic win happened despite absurd levels of gerrymandering stacking the deck against them across the nation.
I think what this election showed is Trump is still very popular in places where he is popular, if that makes sense. Deep red states and red districts love him, but he has lost ground in other more purple or traditionally blue areas that he relied on to actually win the presidency, where the gop was largely rebuked. For instance, I believe I read that in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconson - three states he *must* win in 2020 - there were something like 5 statewide elections, and the democrats won them all. That is nothing but bad news for Trump and his party.
Also independents broke against the gop hard this year, if that remains true in 2020, Trump will lose. Independents decide elections in the country.
However, this election did show some things that were promising for the GOP.
Ohio is looking like it's transforming more and more into a red state, electing another gop governor by a pretty comfortable margin. And Florida, well Florida continues to be an enormous shitshow, which seems to always benefit the gop for some reason.
Originally posted by BackFire
Keep in mind this democratic win happened despite absurd levels of gerrymandering stacking the deck against them across the nation.I think what this election showed is Trump is still very popular in places where he is popular, if that makes sense. Deep red states and red districts love him, but he has lost ground in other more purple or traditionally blue areas that he relied on to actually win the presidency, where the gop was largely rebuked. For instance, I believe I read that in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconson - three states he *must* win in 2020 - there were something like 5 statewide elections, and the democrats won them all. That is nothing but bad news for Trump and his party.
Also independents broke against the gop hard this year, if that remains true in 2020, Trump will lose. Independents decide elections in the country.
Originally posted by BackFireI will not let Ohio burn.
However, this election did show some things that were promising for the GOP.Ohio is looking like it's transforming more and more into a red state, electing another gop governor by a pretty comfortable margin. And Florida, well Florida continues to be an enormous shitshow, which seems to always benefit the gop for some reason.
Originally posted by darthgoober
I don't know if you can attribute the areas where Reps lost ground as having a lack of Trump supporters. From what I've heard lots of the Reps who lost were themselves Ant-Trump. So it's possible they lost because the Trump supporters refused to come out for them(or it at least contributed).
This is a talking point I hear a lot, and I'm sure there is some truth to it, but there are plenty of areas where it's not true. Look at California, several pro Trump candidates in traditionally GOP held districts (like mine) went blue for the first time in decades. One of the major revelations of this elections were that the suburbs across the nation, which are usually pretty fertile ground for the GOP, largely rejected Trump and Trump supporting candidates. He's obviously still very popular in rural areas and that probably won't ever change. But the suburbs have definitely shifted. And these are still areas where the registered Republicans still outnumber the registered Dems, and yet the Republicans still lost.
Even on the state level in some places, Trump's support may be waning. Look at Montana and Arizona. He campaigned hard against Tester in Montana and Tester ended up winning. And in Arizona, it's even more disastrous for him. He basically forced Flake to retire by attacking and demonizing him so much because of his meek criticisms of Trump, despite the fact that Flake still voted with Trump something like 85% of the time. And instead of replacing Flake with a more loyal Trump sycophant like he wanted it looks like the state will have a Democrat representing them for the first time in 30 years or something.
Originally posted by BackFire👆
This is a talking point I hear a lot, and I'm sure there is some truth to it, but there are plenty of areas where it's not true. Look at California, several pro Trump candidates in traditionally GOP held districts (like mine) went blue for the first time in decades. One of the major revelations of this elections were that the suburbs across the nation, which are usually pretty fertile ground for the GOP, largely rejected Trump and Trump supporting candidates. He's obviously still very popular in rural areas and that probably won't ever change. But the suburbs have definitely shifted. And these are still areas where the registered Republicans still outnumber the registered Dems, and yet the Republicans still lost.Even on the state level in some places, Trump's support may be waning. Look at Montana and Arizona. He campaigned hard against Tester in Montana and Tester ended up winning. And in Arizona, it's even more disastrous for him. He basically forced Flake to retire by attacking and demonizing him so much because of his meek criticisms of Trump, despite the fact that Flake still voted with Trump something like 85% of the time. And instead of replacing Flake with a more loyal Trump sycophant like he wanted it looks like the state will have a Democrat representing them for the first time in 30 years or something.
Originally posted by BackFire
Keep in mind this democratic win happened despite absurd levels of gerrymandering stacking the deck against them across the nation.I think what this election showed is Trump is still very popular in places where he is popular, if that makes sense. Deep red states and red districts love him, but he has lost ground in other more purple or traditionally blue areas that he relied on to actually win the presidency, where the gop was largely rebuked. For instance, I believe I read that in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconson - three states he *must* win in 2020 - there were something like 5 statewide elections, and the democrats won them all. That is nothing but bad news for Trump and his party.
Also independents broke against the gop hard this year, if that remains true in 2020, Trump will lose. Independents decide elections in the country.
For sure, it was a good night for democrats. I'm just not sure it was good enough, and it certainly wasn't a radical swing away from Trumpism for the country.
Independents broke heavily for Republicans in 2010. They had a far more successful night and, as I mentioned, a 17 point swing away from Obama is far more impressive than a 6.5-7 point one away from Trump. In 2010 the Democrats lost the popular vote in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and Ohio. Notice they were all won by Obama in 2012, despite being won by more than the Democrats won the swing states this year.
Again, I'm not saying it was a bad night for them, but it definitely wasn't a bad night for the Republicans, especially with what they could have had happen.
As an aside, I think people are too overconfident that Trump will lose in 2020. A lot of the election is dependent on Democrats unifying in a way they failed to in 2016. Say what you want about Bernie, but his insistence on fighting Hillary even after he'd lost led to a noticeable rift in the party that hadn't healed even by election day. In 2020, the Democratic convention is almost definitely going to go to multiple ballots, since Super Delegates have had their role reduced substantially.
If we see what a lot of people fear in that it's a brokered convention with factions forming that close to election day, the dems could **** themselves over big time.
As far as I know, no one is saying that the election last week was as successful for the dems as the 2010 elections were for the gop. I'm not at least.
I don't think anyone should be confident in a Trump loss in two years. If anything I'd say he probably has an advantage, but I think it will be a very close election, probably closer than last time, as long as the Dems are able to pick a non-shit candidate that isn't Hillary Clinton. I think it will probably come down to the economy, if the economy is good then I think he'll probably win. If there's a downturn under his watch that people feel on a personal level then I think he's likely toast.
Originally posted by BackFire
Keep in mind this democratic win happened despite absurd levels of gerrymandering stacking the deck against them across the nation.I think what this election showed is Trump is still very popular in places where he is popular, if that makes sense. Deep red states and red districts love him, but he has lost ground in other more purple or traditionally blue areas that he relied on to actually win the presidency, where the gop was largely rebuked. For instance, I believe I read that in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconson - three states he *must* win in 2020 - there were something like 5 statewide elections, and the democrats won them all. That is nothing but bad news for Trump and his party.
Also independents broke against the gop hard this year, if that remains true in 2020, Trump will lose. Independents decide elections in the country.
I'd note that gerrymandering seems to slightly favor Republicans in multiple ways (1) however, the Dems do it as well and quite a lot. I see very little difference between the two parties. You just have to look at NY to see absurd Dem gerrymandering.
Also, 538 did an analysis of gerrymandering and concluded that gerrymandering cannot be blamed for congressional gridlock. (2) It's other factors such as the fact that Dems and Republicans are actually the same party but pretend to have different social issues. 😐
Citations:
2. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ending-gerrymandering-wont-fix-what-ails-america/
Originally posted by Selenial
Say what you want about Bernie, but his insistence on fighting Hillary even after he'd lost led to a noticeable rift in the party that hadn't healed even by election day. In 2020, the Democratic convention is almost definitely going to go to multiple ballots, since Super Delegates have had their role reduced substantially.
I definitely disagree with this. This has been analyzed every which way to sideways. Hillary losing had nothing to do with Bernie. According to research from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 12% of Bernie voters voted for Trump in 2016.
The most poignant takeway from my argument is this: "...the percentage of cross-party voting in 2016 wasn't unusual compared to historical norms."
Hillary lost the election. It wasn't Bernie. It wasn't Russia. It wasn't Trump. She lost the election. She lost the election because she was a terrible candidate and where it mattered, she wasn't wanted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41244474
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/02/why-im-defending-hillary-clinton-commentary.html
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd note that gerrymandering seems to slightly favor Republicans in multiple ways (1) however, the Dems do it as well and quite a lot. I see very little difference between the two parties. You just have to look at NY to see absurd Dem gerrymandering.Also, 538 did an analysis of gerrymandering and concluded that gerrymandering cannot be blamed for congressional gridlock. (2) It's other factors such as the fact that Dems and Republicans are actually the same party but pretend to have different social issues. 😐
Citations:
2. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ending-gerrymandering-wont-fix-what-ails-america/
Good articles, thanks for sharing.
Democrats flipped nearly forty (could be more) House seats—many of them in districts Trump won by double-digits—flipped seven governorships, and lost only two Senate seats in one of the worst maps Democrats have faced in decades. Not to mention the fact that Democrats broke several unified state governments and flipped hundreds of state legislator seats. And in the states that actually matter in 2020, like Arizona, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.—Republicans were embarrassed. These are states (particularly the Midwest) in which Republicans were acutely nervous about, and the results ended up reinforcing their fears; Trump’s grip on his electoral successes in ‘16 are slipping.
Like, guys, Democrats picked up the most seats since ****ing Watergate. This was a wave year by any reasonable person’s measure, so please stop with this excruciatingly annoying defeatism that’s become ubiquitous in liberal corners. We did very well. Trump has been thoroughly repudiated, and his tantrums in the day’s following the election have made it obvious that even he knows that.
Also, a good case-study of gerrymandering effects can be found in North Carolina, where the state’s House popular vote barely went for Republicans, and yet, the Congressional delegation remained at 10R-3D. Perhaps gerrymandering as a whole has been exaggerated as a reason for gridlock, but they’re definitely not nonfactors by any stretch of the imagination.
Originally posted by BackFire
As far as I know, no one is saying that the election last week was as successful for the dems as the 2010 elections were for the gop. I'm not at least.I don't think anyone should be confident in a Trump loss in two years. If anything I'd say he probably has an advantage, but I think it will be a very close election, probably closer than last time, as long as the Dems are able to pick a non-shit candidate that isn't Hillary Clinton. I think it will probably come down to the economy, if the economy is good then I think he'll probably win. If there's a downturn under his watch that people feel on a personal level then I think he's likely toast.
Not outright saying it no, but it’s important to put it in perspective when people suggest this is a rejection of Trumpism and bodes well for the future. Obama got rejected harder and won a second term, accomplishing a fair amount.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t enjoy Trump at all I’m just trying to be realistic.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I definitely disagree with this. This has been analyzed every which way to sideways. Hillary losing had nothing to do with Bernie. According to research from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 12% of Bernie voters voted for Trump in 2016.The most poignant takeway from my argument is this: "...the percentage of cross-party voting in 2016 wasn't unusual compared to historical norms."
Hillary lost the election. It wasn't Bernie. It wasn't Russia. It wasn't Trump. She lost the election. She lost the election because she was a terrible candidate and where it mattered, she wasn't wanted.
And I disagree that those studies hold any validity. Harming Hillary does not mean the same thing as ‘made his voters vote for Trump’. Those studies you mention only analyse voters who turned out to both elections, and does not analyse overall turnout from Bernie supporters at the general.
I cannot fathom how anyone would argue having a cadre of democrats at a nominees own convention booing a candidates speech and holding ‘LIAR’ signs is anything short of a liability.
For the record, the ‘Hillary was a terrible candidate’ line is clinically overused, and I agree to an extent. She genuinely was awful at campaigning. She also held the highest approval rating of any democrat in the years leading up to the primaries, had the biggest war chest of any presumptive nominee and a good ground game waiting for the end of the primaries. She haemorrhaged republican and independent support during the primaries because she was being eviscerated by the Republican field, and bled Democratic voters favorabilities over the later stages of the primaries that led to an image of being unlikable that was nearly impossible to escape.
How much of that you put on Bernie is honestly a matter of opinion until someone does a genuinely in depth study, but as a neutral observer I think it was substantially more than you’re willing to admit.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
There's no way my candidate can lose legitimately. They can only lose because a cabal of evil doers conspired against me--I mean my candidate, to make me look foolish--I mean to destroy our freedoms.
Im English and am currently back at University starting a masters in political science, so wrong on both accounts but nice try 🙂
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
oh great, another "i have to be right because im a uni student guyz"
?
It’s not a trump card at all. I was just trying to make the point I don’t care about Hillary any more than any other foreigner does, I’m just interested in the topic. If that’s what it came across as I apologise, but my BA and my first masters were nothing to do with politics so I’m aware of my own shortcomings here mmm