2018 U.S election

[metalhead]

A good chunk of that vote margin is the result of Democrats receiving 100% of the vote for Senator in California.

The Senate was meant to be unrepresentative. Maybe it should be less so, I dunno, but it wouldn't matter nearly as much if the unequal representation didn't also affect House apportionment and the Electoral College.

 

[Sommerswerd]

LOL California was a Democrat v. Democrat race

Isn't that what primaries are for?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

LOL California was a Democrat v. Democrat race

Isn't that what primaries are for?

Jungle primaries allow for this

 

[onejayhawk]

Jungle primaries allow for this

Some prefer the term jugular.

J

 

[Samson]

Apparently the total Senate votes were about 44 million for the Democrats and 33 million for the Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ve-over-million-more-senate-votes-still-lose/

Clearly this is a fair and rational system

That does not sound too bad for the democrats. So the democrats got 57% of the vote and won 74% of the seats?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Apparently the total Senate votes were about 44 million for the Democrats and 33 million for the Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ve-over-million-more-senate-votes-still-lose/

Clearly this is a fair and rational system

I find it hilarious that in that entire article they make no mention of the fact that out of 35 senate races the democrats won 22 of them, 62%, while only getting 57% of the votes.

@Samson, where did you come up with 74%?

 

[AdrienIer]

I'm not entirely sure what to do about the senate. Barring a recession, Republicans have it now pretty safe through 2020 and 2022. This either means a full 8 years of Trump court packing with far right conspiratorial bigots, or on the off chance Trump loses in 2020, a Dem president who Republicans will probably escalate against by simply refusing appointment votes.

Not so sure about 2020. If it's a 54/46 senate this year, the dems can target AZ CO GA IA ME NC plus maybe TX (and lose AL). It's not safe for republicans. And 2022 has the dems looking at FL GA IA IN NC OH PA and WI.

 

[Samson]

I find it hilarious that in that entire article they make no mention of the fact that out of 35 senate races the democrats won 22 of them, 62%, while only getting 57% of the votes.

@Samson, where did you come up with 74%?

I thought the dems won 26, so 26/35. I stand corrected.

 

[AdrienIer]

If the missing precincts in Montana go like the rest of their counties Tester will win. Which would make it 23/25 for democrats

 

[Bootstoots]

The Senate outcome is pretty bad, almost a disaster. The Dems have a structural disadvantage there - just like everywhere else in our political system - and they lost four seats that they're unlikely to win back in six years (MT, ND, MO, IN) plus another in a close state (FL), all the while picking up only one of the four possible pickups (NV, AZ, TX, TN). It's certainly not impossible for them to pick up enough seats for the majority in the next cycle or two (probably two), but it's a whole lot harder than it would have been if FL, MT, and AZ had gone just one percentage point the other way.

What, because large amounts of Republicans support rape if it means owning the libs? That's nothing we didn't know before this election. They elected a rapist to the Presidency after all.

It's not surprising that Republican base voters think that way. The question is whether bringing up Ford's allegation of attempted rape made for good electoral strategy. Although I had some hope that it would be, it seems clear now that it wasn't. Immediately after the Kavanaugh hearings, Senate races shifted substantially toward the Republicans, with the key exception of West Virginia where Manchin easily held on. From a purely tactical perspective, ignoring anything resembling morality, the Dems should take away that they should tread carefully if they see an opportunity like that again.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not so sure about 2020. If it's a 54/46 senate this year, the dems can target AZ CO GA IA ME NC plus maybe TX (and lose AL). It's not safe for republicans. And 2022 has the dems looking at FL GA IA IN NC OH PA and WI.

Simple math...if the Dems consistently win 22 out of 35 races the GOP is toast.

Complex math...Blue states get nothing but bluer. Purple states turn blue. Red states turn purple. All the shenanigans in the world aren't stopping those trends, and there is a limit how much can be compensated for.

 

[Farm Boy]

That does not sound too bad for the democrats. So the democrats got 57% of the vote and won 74% of the seats?

About right if you count the Independents as caucusing with the Democrats, which they do. (yeah 63% is closer to right).

But shhhhh. That's a winner take all thing. Also, don't look at California either, there's a bubble of outraged European news media to feed from what I'm gathering online.

 

[Phrossack]

Please clap

 

[Birdjaguar]

So political deadlock is "Happier Days" to you? Because with Republicans holding the Senate and Democrats taking the House, that's what we can look forward to for the next two years. I don't know about you, but the idea of the government getting nothing done for the next two years doesn't exactly fill me with optimism.

Of course it's Happier Days! The senate was a stretch for the Dems and unlikely. The Democratic House will either produce gridlock without success on any Repub agenda or it will force compromise. Either of those is better than what we have had. Yes, the Dems have lost the battle for judges. In addition, trump will be under constant pressure from any investigations and will continue to do stupid stuff to make himself look good. Self-preservation may kick in and he will ignore everything else. I see more Trump administration staff quitting in fear of being investigated with fewer places to hide their misdeeds. The more turmoil in the WH the better for all of us. Trump is the problem and the more miserable he is the better I feel.

And we may even get an infrastructure bill!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Rohrabacher is essentially defeated. Not sure if he has conceded yet.

So the plan for 2020 is as follows:

1. Democrats defend all their 11 other seats.
2. Democrats defend their seat in Alabama.
3. Democrats defeat whatshisface in NC, and the other guy in Colorado.
4. Democrats defeat Susan Collins and Joni Ernst.
5. Erm...
We're at 16 at that point. Where do you want to go for the other six?
Perdue is up in Georgia and that's totally purple, as we have established.
Arizona may be worth a try. A great candidate couldn't defeat the walking definition of cartoonish, but hey, we'll give it another go.
6. And after that... Cornyn? Alexander? Cassidy? Cotton? Graham? Not being obstinent, these are actually the more reasonable propostitions at that point.
I mean you have to have one of these dudes not run and then win the open seat in, you know, one of those kind of states.
And then you have to do that three more times. On top of that other Jenga nonsense.

Color me sceptical.

This has already been addressed ad nauseum. Rather than search back for where I've addressed it I'll defer to @AdrienIer just nine posts above.

 

[metalhead]

It will probably come down to the same things that will make or break Trump's re-election.

If the economy avoids a recession between now and then, barring any damning revelations from Mueller or Congressional investigations, Trump will be favored to get re-elected and Republicans heavily favored to hold the Senate. The House is probably in toss-up territory, although the districts as constituted probably move further away from Republicans.

Democrats need Trump to be facing serious headwinds to even have a fighting chance at the Senate in 2020. Losing most of the toss-up races this time around really hurts, because 2 or 3 seats would be a much easier lift than the 4 or 5 it looks like they'll need.

 

[Broken_Erika]

2020 election plans:
Gary Busey for every seat and governorship!

Spoiler :

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It will probably come down to the same things that will make or break Trump's re-election.

If the economy avoids a recession between now and then, barring any damning revelations from Mueller or Congressional investigations, Trump will be favored to get re-elected and Republicans heavily favored to hold the Senate. The House is probably in toss-up territory, although the districts as constituted probably move further away from Republicans.

Democrats need Trump to be facing serious headwinds to even have a fighting chance at the Senate in 2020. Losing most of the toss-up races this time around really hurts, because 2 or 3 seats would be a much easier lift than the 4 or 5 it looks like they'll need.

Unless Trump radically changes, everything as constituted continues to move further away from Republicans. Is there any indication, anywhere, of a Democrat held state or district that is moving towards the Republicans? No. Currently, for the Democrats to control the senate they have to rely on Red state Democrats, but there's no way to dispute that the number of red states is in decline. That isn't going to stop.

Urban voters are overwhelmingly Democratic, and urban population is rising rapidly. Trump is driving suburban voters in droves to the Democrats. Is rural population rising at a rate to make that up? No.

 

[Farm Boy]

If and when there aren't enough economic interests left to pillage among old foes, you'll infight with what is currently "each other." I promise.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I guess the Arizona Senate seat to replace Jeff Flake won't be determined soon? AP shows it 49.3% to 48.4% in favor of McSally (the Republican) with 99% reporting.