Blue Wave 2018

[Baldy]

That race is over.

she's going to be your new governor after the recount....

"recount"

[mainejeff]

Maine went totally BLUE although ranked choice voting will play out for Second District Congressional seat between Bruce Poliquin (R) and Jared Golden (D). Also Maine elected its first female governor ever.

No tranny? You ain’t tryin’ hard enough.

Maine might be a lot of things....but it’s not Vermont.

[JohnStOnge]

30 seats so far, 10 undecided, donks lead in 5.

Probable recounts coming in GA governor's race and FL Senate seat.




Blue wave.

Since 1862, the president’s party on average loses 32 House seats and more than two Senate seats in a midterm.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... tory-35297

I think Politifact has a good article on that. It talks about both the overall history you cite and what one would say is "modern history."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... er-histor/

If we ignore the small number of years in which the president’s party gained seats in the House, the average loss going back to 1862 is 38 seats and the median loss is 30 seats.

That may make the loss of at least 31 seats in 2018 seem pretty average -- though even there it would be wrong to say, as Trump did, that 2018 represented a dramatic overperformance. It would even be worse if Democrats end up winning the five uncalled contests where they are currently ahead.

More problematic is that the swings in recent years have been much smaller.

Going back to 1970, the average midterm loss for the president’s party has been 23 seats, and the median loss has been 14 seats. By this standard, a loss of 31 seats (or more) looks pretty substantial.

Republicans trying to underplay this are whistling past the graveyard. Another thing about this session is that the economy is doing well. The Republicans are in charge of all three branches and the economy is doing well yet they lost the overall vote among US citizens by a relatively large margin in the context of what margins have been. I've said many times that I think it's a mistake to vote on the basis of what the economy is doing and I've said that I don't think the current economy is "because" of Trump and the Republicans being in charge. But at the same time I know most people do attribute the economy to the Party in power and do tend to vote on that basis.

So having the Republicans get thumped like they just did in the overall vote among US citizens is not a small thing.

[JohnStOnge]

Also I think some of the demographic data provided by exit polling is potentially very significant.

Groups that historically voted Democrat still voted Democrat. Blacks, for instance, voted Democrat by an estimated 90% to 9%. Non Whites overall voted Democrat by an estimated 76% to 22%.

But White college graduates normally vote Republican. In fact, much to my chagrin, they voted for Trump by an estimated 54% to 44% in the 2016 house races. But this time they voted by an estimated 53% to 45% for Democrats.

In 2016 Whites in every age group voted majority Republican. This time, Whites 18 through 44 voted Democrat.

In 2016 White female exit poll respondents reported voting Republican by 55% to 43%. This time it was 49% to 49%. And within that is an increase in Democrat support among college educated White women. In 2016 it was 49% and 49%. Pretty much a tie. This time it was 59% of college educated White women voting Democrat vs. 39% voting Republican. That is a very big change.

Meanwhile every time Trump opens his mouth he makes things worse for Republicans.

If the Democrats can come up with a decent Presidential candidate in 2020 it is going to be a bloodbath. And the blood's not going to be Democrat blood.

[houndawg]

Also I think some of the demographic data provided by exit polling is potentially very significant.

Groups that historically voted Democrat still voted Democrat. Blacks, for instance, voted Democrat by an estimated 90% to 9%. Non Whites overall voted Democrat by an estimated 76% to 22%.

But White college graduates normally vote Republican. In fact, much to my chagrin, they voted for Trump by an estimated 54% to 44% in the 2016 house races. But this time they voted by an estimated 53% to 45% for Democrats.

In 2016 Whites in every age group voted majority Republican. This time, Whites 18 through 44 voted Democrat.

In 2016 White female exit poll respondents reported voting Republican by 55% to 43%. This time it was 49% to 49%. And within that is an increase in Democrat support among college educated White women. In 2016 it was 49% and 49%. Pretty much a tie. This time it was 59% of college educated White women voting Democrat vs. 39% voting Republican. That is a very big change.

Meanwhile every time Trump opens his mouth he makes things worse for Republicans.

If the Democrats can come up with a decent Presidential candidate in 2020 it is going to be a bloodbath. And the blood's not going to be Democrat blood.

It was a pretty solid thumping considering everybody seems to agree that the economy is fantastic.

[JohnStOnge]

Ok. "Blue Wave" is a metaphor subject to subjective interpretation. I decided to pick a starting point that has nothing to do with trying to pick a time frame to prove any point and just place the seat gain into objective context. I used my lifetime. I was born in 1957 so that means all House elections 1958 through 2018. I used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2018 as the source. Yes, it's Wikipedia but I have no reason to think it is inaccurate in this case. I did check a few historical numbers against other sources and they checked out. I picked it because it makes things easy. Note that you can go to the box at the right and just click on the arrow at the top left to go to the previous House election data.

So it has the Democrats as having gained 33 seats in 2018 as of now. If I look at all House elections during my lifetime, the median Democrat gain/loss is 1. The average is 0.3. 33 is at the 84th percentile. Also, the three years during which they did better were a long time ago. 1958, 1964, and 1974.

For mid terms only the median Democrat gain/loss is 5 and the average is 0.9. 33 is at the 81st percentile. The only two years during which the Democrats enjoyed greater gains are 1958 and 1974.

The median gain for the "winning" Party, Democrat or Republican, in all House races of my lifetime is 12 and the average is 19.2. 33 is at the 74th percentile. So, again, 2018 was a distinctly better than "average" year for the winning Party for all House races. For mid terms only the winning Party median is 20.5 and the average is 26.1. 33 is at the 63rd percentile. Not quite as much better than "average," but still distinctly better than average.

In any case, again, it's the best the Democrats have done in terms of gaining seats since 1974.

Blue Wave? To each his own on average. But, objectively, it was a very good election for the Democrats in terms of net seat change. The best that Party has had in 44 years.

PLUS: As noted earlier, the Party in control lost all that ground and the control it had when the economy was doing well. That's really remarkable and I think the Republicans have Trump to thank for it. But that's the subject of another post.

[93henfan]

Tuesday was a blue ripple.

Source: CNN

Only Democrats seem to be getting agitated by the result, btw, if that tells you anything. Van Jones was on the verge of tears on Tuesday night. It was awesome!

[JohnStOnge]

Ok. Now for what I think is the "smoking gun" on Trump hurting Republicans in their effort to keep the House.

It's the series of responses to the exit poll question on whether each respondent's vote was cast to support Donald Trump, cast to oppose Donald Trump, or cast with Donald Trump not being a factor.

33% of respondents said Trump was not a factor in their vote. And they voted for Republicans by an estimated 52% to 44%.

26% said they voted to support Trump. They voted Republicans by an estimated 95% to 4%.

The problem for Republicans? The largest single group, consisting of 38% of respondents, said that voted to oppose Donald Trump. They voted Democrat by an estimated 94% to 4%.

Doing the math tells you that the Trump factor translated into an estimated 10.5 percentage point plus for Democrats in the overall vote. Trump can think he helped all he wants. He didn't. He hurt the Republicans in the House.

Another thing: It's not clear that Trump helped in the Senate. The Republicans obviously had a big edge by virtue of the States up this time. But take a look at the NPR article at https://www.npr.org/2018/11/08/66530925 ... dates-lost. If you scroll down you can find a table showing Senate Candidates endorsed by Trump and how they did. As of now 9 he endorsed won and 9 lost. Three are undetermined.

Also, when it comes to those he held rallies for, 5 won and 7 lost. His claim of being magic for those who "embraced" him is totally unsupported.

[93henfan]

Why do some people have to say the same thing over, and over, and.....

[JohnStOnge]

Tuesday was a blue ripple.

Source: CNN

Only Democrats seem to be getting agitated by the result, btw, if that tells you anything. Van Jones was on the verge of tears on Tuesday night. It was awesome!

I've noted that in recent days, as they realize where these numbers stand in historical context, they are feeling a lot better. In fact, the reason I did the historical check is because I saw Ari Melber on MSNBC make the case that it was indeed a Blue Wave while showing a graph indicating it was the best year Democrats had in terms of net seats gain in over 40 years. Didn't want to take his word for it so I checked for myself. And he's right.

If Republicans think it's not an issue for them when the expression of overall national sentiment we just had went the way it just did when the perception is that the economy is doing well AND polls going into the election indicated Republicans have a substantial edge in terms of who voters trust to handle the economy, they are delusional. Trump is toxic for them. He's ruining their brand. I know they're in a box because right now going against him within the Republican context is suicide. But they've got a big, orange albatross hanging from their neck.

[93henfan]

Blue ripple.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's a pretty clear case in which Trump caused the GOP to lose a seat:

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/polit ... -612095604

I think we can all agree that, if incumbent Republican Mark Sanford not been knocked off in the primary because he had the integrity to question Trump, he'd have won that seat in a landslide. But the Trump nut jobs knocked him off.

[CID1990]

Here's a pretty clear case in which Trump caused the GOP to lose a seat:

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/polit ... -612095604

I think we can all agree that, if incumbent Republican Mark Sanford not been knocked off in the primary because he had the integrity to question Trump, he'd have won that seat in a landslide. But the Trump nut jobs knocked him off.

Wow! Dog bites man!

How many seats did the Dems lose in 2010? I forget

BTW do you have your defense essays ready for Kamala Harris/Cory Booker/Liz Warren/Julian Castro?

I'm literally shaking with anticipation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Here's a pretty clear case in which Trump caused the GOP to lose a seat:

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/polit ... -612095604

I think we can all agree that, if incumbent Republican Mark Sanford not been knocked off in the primary because he had the integrity to question Trump, he'd have won that seat in a landslide. But the Trump nut jobs knocked him off.

Wow! Dog bites man!

How many seats did the Dems lose in 2010? I forget

BTW do you have your defense essays ready for Kamala Harris/Cory Booker/Liz Warren/Julian Castro?

I'm literally shaking with anticipation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Republicans achieved a net gain of 63 seats in 2010. They also achieved a net gain of 54 in 1994. However, the Republicans enjoy structural advantages. Right now the 2018 net gain on the part of Democrats is reported as 34. That is the largest net gain for Democrats since 1974; when they gained 49 seats. That's a long time.

In any event this particular case is one in which it's pretty clear that the Trumpists pushing out a Republican incumbent because he wasn't far enough up Trump's rectum cost the Republicans a seat. Jeff Flake's seat in the Senate may turn out to be similar. In that case he decided not to run because he knew he couldn't win a Republican primary without sucking up to Trump. But I think most would agree that if he had run and been the Republican nominee we wouldn't be waiting to see who the Senator from Arizona is going to be. Flake would've won easily.

It's just one more thing. Exit polling results already made it clear that Trump was a net negative for the Republicans in the House elections. This is just a specific case in which he hurt them in a particular way.

[Ibanez]

Here's a pretty clear case in which Trump caused the GOP to lose a seat:

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/polit ... -612095604

I think we can all agree that, if incumbent Republican Mark Sanford not been knocked off in the primary because he had the integrity to question Trump, he'd have won that seat in a landslide. But the Trump nut jobs knocked him off.

The demographics of D1 are changing. There are a lot of transplants from the North and PNW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

[
How many seats did the Dems lose in 2010? I forget

Things do swing wildly back and forth at times. But there is also that underlying trend that the Republicans need to address. For some reason I can't get the 2010 exit polls to load. But in 2006 mid terms House elections an estimated 22 percent of voters were non White. In 2014 an estimated 25 percent of voters were non White. In 2018 an estimated 28 percent of voters were non White. And in the three elections 76%, 72%, and 72% of non Whites voted for Democrats. The Democrats don't have an ominous, consistent trend like that to deal with.

[houndawg]

Blue ripple.

Arizona.

[JohnStOnge]

Real Clear Politics is now showing the Democrats as having a 7.1 percentage point edge in the total House popular vote. If it stays there that will mean the Dems had as large a margin in the House combined popular vote as the Republicans have ever had during my 1957 - Present lifetime. The high point for Republicans during that period is a 7.1 percentage point margin in 1994. That's when they won the House for the first time since 1952.

It's not all THAT historic for Democrats though. If it stays at 7.1 percentage points it'll rank as the 13th best outcome for Democrats of the 31 House races for my lifetime. Better than average with the average being a 4.6 percentage point win. But nowhere near the best outcome; which was a 16.8 percentage point Democrat win in 1974.

[AZGrizFan]

Blue ripple.

Arizona.

Voter fraud.

[GannonFan]

Real Clear Politics is now showing the Democrats as having a 7.1 percentage point edge in the total House popular vote. If it stays there that will mean the Dems had as large a margin in the House combined popular vote as the Republicans have ever had during my 1957 - Present lifetime. The high point for Republicans during that period is a 7.1 percentage point margin in 1994. That's when they won the House for the first time since 1952.

It's not all THAT historic for Democrats though. If it stays at 7.1 percentage points it'll rank as the 13th best outcome for Democrats of the 31 House races for my lifetime. Better than average with the average being a 4.6 percentage point win. But nowhere near the best outcome; which was a 16.8 percentage point Democrat win in 1974.

You do realize that the Democrats held the House for 40 straight years, beginning in the mid 50's to the Gingrich-led GOP surge in the middle of Clinton's first term? There's a reason why this year's Democratic % increase is so large historically - historically (or, in your lifetime, as you like to put it) the Democrats have never been so low in terms of seats in the HoR - I think 2010 might have been their lowest point in almost 3/4 of a century. You're playing games with statistics right now. Shame on you.

[kalm]

Real Clear Politics is now showing the Democrats as having a 7.1 percentage point edge in the total House popular vote. If it stays there that will mean the Dems had as large a margin in the House combined popular vote as the Republicans have ever had during my 1957 - Present lifetime. The high point for Republicans during that period is a 7.1 percentage point margin in 1994. That's when they won the House for the first time since 1952.

It's not all THAT historic for Democrats though. If it stays at 7.1 percentage points it'll rank as the 13th best outcome for Democrats of the 31 House races for my lifetime. Better than average with the average being a 4.6 percentage point win. But nowhere near the best outcome; which was a 16.8 percentage point Democrat win in 1974.

You do realize that the Democrats held the House for 40 straight years, beginning in the mid 50's to the Gingrich-led GOP surge in the middle of Clinton's first term? There's a reason why this year's Democratic % increase is so large historically - historically (or, in your lifetime, as you like to put it) the Democrats have never been so low in terms of seats in the HoR - I think 2010 might have been their lowest point in almost 3/4 of a century. You're playing games with statistics right now. Shame on you.

Yes, he acknowledged that in the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Did you not see where he explained how the lead wasn't all that historic followed by how it was just their 13th best in 31 races?

JFC, Ganny did you even read one word past the first sentence he wrote?

JSODS!

[UNI88]

You do realize that the Democrats held the House for 40 straight years, beginning in the mid 50's to the Gingrich-led GOP surge in the middle of Clinton's first term? There's a reason why this year's Democratic % increase is so large historically - historically (or, in your lifetime, as you like to put it) the Democrats have never been so low in terms of seats in the HoR - I think 2010 might have been their lowest point in almost 3/4 of a century. You're playing games with statistics right now. Shame on you.

Yes, he acknowledged that in the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Did you not see where he explained how the lead wasn't all that historic followed by how it was just their 13th best in 31 races?

JFC, Ganny did you even read one word past the first sentence he wrote?

JSODS!

I rarely read JSO's posts beyond the first paragraph, they're way too biased.

[kalm]

Yes, he acknowledged that in the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Did you not see where he explained how the lead wasn't all that historic followed by how it was just their 13th best in 31 races?

JFC, Ganny did you even read one word past the first sentence he wrote?

JSODS!

I rarely read JSO's posts beyond the first paragraph, they're way too biased.

But you at least have the sense to avoid replying to them.

[UNI88]

I rarely read JSO's posts beyond the first paragraph, they're way too biased.

But you at least have the sense to avoid replying to them.

I reply to them occasionally just to point his bias and hypocrisy.

[kalm]

But you at least have the sense to avoid replying to them.

I reply to them occasionally just to point his bias and hypocrisy.

Is he more hypocritical than fiscal conservatives who support Trump or liberals who support Hillary?