2018 U.S election

[rah]

I think predicting the political landscape a couple of years out is mostly futile. A lot of different (unforeseen) things are bound to happen. Even our researchers here give little credence to their models that far out. But since we're paid to do it, we do.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

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

And I am glad @Timsup2nothin brought that up because it does show how much a blue wave this was. They still won most of the elections even if they didn't retake the Senate. The map wasn't in thier favor in a big way.

It gives me some glimmer of hope in a crappy situation

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think predicting the political landscape a couple of years out is mostly futile. A lot of different (unforeseen) things are bound to happen. Even our researchers here give little credence to their models that far out. But since we're paid to do it, we do.

Agreed, but there is certainly a clear long term trend. The GOP acknowledged their own difficulty before Trump even came along. They desperately needed to diversify as a hedge against the reality that aging white racists cannot continue to hold a majority on their own. The GOP faced a very difficult task since diversifying directly offended a large chunk of their core support. Trump turned them away from the effort and energized that part of the core support, but that doesn't solve the acknowledged long term problem.

 

[rah]

Yes, agreed, republicans median age is higher so they will die first.
Their solution is disenfranchised younger whites' anger. (and disenfranchising all others)
Still hard to predict that far out. At least our models played out better this time. (Indiana and a few others were off) but generally pretty reliable.

 

[zxcvbob]

Yes, agreed, republicans median age is higher so they will die first.
Their solution is disenfranchised younger whites' anger. (and disenfranchising all others)
Still hard to predict that far out. At least our models played out better this time. (Indiana and a few others were off) but generally pretty reliable.

You're forgetting that the young voters will age too, and that shifts a lot of people to the right. The only thing that really means is it's even harder to predict long-term trends.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Their solution is disenfranchised younger whites' anger.

Is that viable? It's hard to stir up anger in a very contained segment. It's even harder to appeal to the disenfranchised while simultaneously being caught red handed using disenfranchisement.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're forgetting that the young voters will age too, and that shifts a lot of people to the right.

Does it generally? It did with a generation that was right inclined to begin with during a time of supportive circumstances, but I'm not sure that holds. My hippie brother aged into a fascist, as did many of his circle, but my own age group, just ten years younger, has predominantly moved left as we aged. That's anecdotal, but I don't see any evidence that it is exceptional, and I certainly don't see any reason to assign "every generation moves right as they age" as a fact to be accepted without proof.

 

[metalhead]

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.

Now picture if Democrats nominate Michael Avenatti in 2020.

But anyways, my point was merely that the gerrymandered House map did Republicans no favors in this election. The red rural districts have become redder, while previously red-purple suburban districts have become purple-blue. Their voters are increasingly inefficiently distributed in the 2010 districts, and that trend will continue through 2 more years of Trump.

But Democrats need to stop ignoring those voters. Ideally they would nominate someone (*cough* Beto *cough*) who can credibly appeal both to rural voters and the Democratic base. It's faulty to assume that Trump and ONLY Trump can energize rural voters.

Democrats have ignored the reality that a heavily urban coalition leaves them vulnerable in the Senate and the Electoral College. Rather than complain about the rules, they should try playing better within them, because they're not going to change any time soon.

 

[Lexicus]

Sorry. My bad. No need to swear.

Fixed.

Well you say this as though you don't have a longggggg track record of deliberately interpreting people's statements to mean the opposite of what they plainly meant...

Democrats have ignored the reality that a heavily urban coalition leaves them vulnerable in the Senate and the Electoral College. Rather than complain about the rules, they should try playing better within them, because they're not going to change any time soon.

My feeling is that it's likely that Democrats' class allegiances will prevent them from appealing properly to rural voters in a non-racist way. So they either won't or they'll insist that investing in white supremacy is necessary to appeal to rural voters. In either case...bad

 

[Hrothbern]

Kiss the ring

Trump is dissing the Republicans that lost "because they kept distance to him in their election campaign".

President Donald Trump’s party lost control of the House of Representatives last night, and Trump is blaming the losing Republican candidates for not loving him more. Literally.
“Mia Love gave me no love and she lost — too bad, sorry about that, Mia,” Trump said about Republican Utah Rep. Mia Love, who looks like she is going to lose her Republican-leaning but competitive district to a Democrat this year.
He didn’t stop with Love. He went down the list of Republicans who couldn’t muster enough support to overcome the blue wave this year, chastising them for not “embracing” the Donald.
“Carlos Curbelo, Mike Coffman. Too bad, Mike,” Trump said. “And Barbara Comstock was another. I think that she could’ve won that race, but she did not want to have an embrace ...
“Peter Roskam did not want the embrace ...
“Erik Paulsen did not want the embrace ...
“John Faso; those are some of the people that decided for their own reason not to embrace, whether it is me or what we stand for, but what we stand for meant a lot to a lot of people,” Trump said at a press conference Wednesday.
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18072282/midterm-election-results-donald-trump-republican-losers

Trump is doing the same as before the 2016 election: warning Republicans that do not follow him.

preparing for 2020 he wants an obedient Republican elite.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Does it generally? It did with a generation that was right inclined to begin with during a time of supportive circumstances, but I'm not sure that holds. My hippie brother aged into a fascist, as did many of his circle, but my own age group, just ten years younger, has predominantly moved left as we aged. That's anecdotal, but I don't see any evidence that it is exceptional, and I certainly don't see any reason to assign "every generation moves right as they age" as a fact to be accepted without proof.

I've always questioned that 'common wisdom' too. I don't have a link handy, but a while ago I read that opinion polls on same-sex marriage had shifted faster over N years than "population turnover" alone could account for. That is, the growing acceptance couldn't be explained purely by older people dying and younger people reaching voting age. There had to be some people actually changing their minds, and since younger people tended to view the issue more favorably already, the shift must have been more pronounced among older people. I've no idea whether a rapid change of opinions on one issue are any kind of indicator of changing opinions more generally, though.

 

[rah]

but my own age group, just ten years younger, has predominantly moved left as we aged. That's anecdotal, but I don't see any evidence that it is exceptional,

That's consistent with myself and my group of friends. Of course some of my friends credit trump for that.
Heck I voted for more democrats yesterday than I have ever before.

 

[Lexicus]

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.

I think the assumption that the Democrats were using this as an 'electoral strategy' is pretty much false.

Trump is the problem

This attitude is almost as much of a problem as Trump frankly.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Now picture if Democrats nominate Michael Avenatti in 2020.

But anyways, my point was merely that the gerrymandered House map did Republicans no favors in this election. The red rural districts have become redder, while previously red-purple suburban districts have become purple-blue. Their voters are increasingly inefficiently distributed in the 2010 districts, and that trend will continue through 2 more years of Trump.

But Democrats need to stop ignoring those voters. Ideally they would nominate someone (*cough* Beto *cough*) who can credibly appeal both to rural voters and the Democratic base. It's faulty to assume that Trump and ONLY Trump can energize rural voters.

Democrats have ignored the reality that a heavily urban coalition leaves them vulnerable in the Senate and the Electoral College. Rather than complain about the rules, they should try playing better within them, because they're not going to change any time soon.

The rules aren't changing, but the raw numbers are. There isn't any way for rural voters to keep up, even in the senate, if the GOP loses the suburbs the way they have lost the urban areas. Look at Kansas, where currently the Democrats have theoretically no chance...while from a practical standpoint they just elected a governor. What's the population growth in rural Kansas that will compensate for the sprawling suburban invasion coming out of Kansas City? There isn't any. Turning suburbia blue turns a red state purple, then blue. No amount of gerrymandering can fix that, because it's the demographics of the state as a whole that are shifting.

And there's no indication that coughing Beto accomplished anything much in rural areas. Again, the difference in Texas that made a close race in a red state is that the GOP abandoned the suburbs. Suburban Texas is among the fastest growing populations in the country. Rural Texas is rural Texas, it hasn't changed and it isn't going to, but in the face of population growth in urban and suburban Texas rural Texas is going to matter less and less. Texas is on the road to blue, and should be regarded as purple at this point.

 

[rah]

https://www.sourcepolitics.com/brea...order-one-day-after-midterms-no-reason-given/

Now, it's being reported by NBC News, that the Pentagon is changing its mission at the Mexican border. It will no longer refer to it as "Operation Faithful Patriot." When indicating the change, they gave no reason.

What's odd about this is that the change happened less than 12 hours after the midterm elections, not even a full day.

Well if there was ever any doubt to his motivation, it has been resolved.

 

[metalhead]

The rules aren't changing, but the raw numbers are. There isn't any way for rural voters to keep up, even in the senate, if the GOP loses the suburbs the way they have lost the urban areas. Look at Kansas, where currently the Democrats have theoretically no chance...while from a practical standpoint they just elected a governor. What's the population growth in rural Kansas that will compensate for the sprawling suburban invasion coming out of Kansas City? There isn't any. Turning suburbia blue turns a red state purple, then blue. No amount of gerrymandering can fix that, because it's the demographics of the state as a whole that are shifting.

And there's no indication that coughing Beto accomplished anything much in rural areas. Again, the difference in Texas that made a close race in a red state is that the GOP abandoned the suburbs. Suburban Texas is among the fastest growing populations in the country. Rural Texas is rural Texas, it hasn't changed and it isn't going to, but in the face of population growth in urban and suburban Texas rural Texas is going to matter less and less. Texas is on the road to blue, and should be regarded as purple at this point.

But things don't shift that much that quickly, and the Trump coalition is history the moment Trump disappears. Projecting out past 2022 is folly, because we have no idea what the parties will look like then.

I mean sure, the rural counties are losing population and electoral clout, but right now they have a lot of it because they uniformly vote one way. The suburbs turned against Trump in 2016, but he won the presidency anyways because rural and small town voters were energized, and came out in big numbers. The same thing just happened in 2018 to wipe 3 Democratic senators off the map, possibly 4 depending on what happens in Florida.

These trends won't last, but that doesn't matter. They'll last for the next cycle and probably the one after that if Trump is re-elected, so even though Democrats are better positioned for the 2020 House elections than they were the 2012 and 2014 ones, they're positioned poorly for the Senate elections and Electoral College that year even though the Rs are defending a lot of seats.

Dems need to play to that reality in the short term if they want to win the Senate and presidency in 2020. The fact that rural districts will be completely hollowed out in 10 years doesn't help me much 2 years from now.

 

[Bootstoots]

Oh hey, it looks like Tester managed to hold on after all, and Arizona is still legitimately a tossup hanging on a bunch of uncounted mail votes, provisional ballots, etc. That's good news. -4 seats would have been a borderline disaster, but -3 is less bad and -2 is pretty close to what was expected to happen.

I think the assumption that the Democrats were using this as an 'electoral strategy' is pretty much false.

That may not have been the single primary goal, but it's hard to imagine that winning support for Democratic Senate candidates wasn't one of their top two or three motivations for bringing up Ford's allegation in a dramatic way. It certainly seemed they were hopeful that this would play out well for them at the time.

To whatever extent they thought it would help, it backfired - they suffered a net loss. It also failed to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation. Maybe they could theoretically impeach him for perjury now, but he'd never be removed. I don't blame them at all for playing a card they were dealt - in fact I'd blame them more if they had decided not to gamble. But it's worth noting that this was a failure and using that to inform future strategy.

 

[metalhead]

I think they believed they could sink his nomination, and I don't think there was a broader strategy behind it than that. We often look at things done by powerful people in politics and try to divine some long-game strategy from it, but I think a lot of times this gives people too much credit.

I mean, look at how poorly prepared they were for the hearing. That did not have the air of being a heavily strategized thing at all. It looked more like a group of people who suddenly got involved in something and maybe had bit off more than they could chew, or at least, more than they were willing to chew.

I think they overestimated how much of the public would be on the side of Kavanaugh withdrawing his nomination, and how much pressure would be put on the Senate and Trump to find someone else. They thought they could win, which I guess itself necessarily has electoral implications given how close this was to the midterms, but I think defeating the nomination was itself the only real goal.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But things don't shift that much that quickly, and the Trump coalition is history the moment Trump disappears. Projecting out past 2022 is folly, because we have no idea what the parties will look like then.

I mean sure, the rural counties are losing population and electoral clout, but right now they have a lot of it because they uniformly vote one way. The suburbs turned against Trump in 2016, but he won the presidency anyways because rural and small town voters were energized, and came out in big numbers. The same thing just happened in 2018 to wipe 3 Democratic senators off the map.

These trends won't last, but that doesn't matter. They'll last for the next cycle and probably the one after that if Trump is re-elected, so even though Democrats are better positioned for the 2020 House elections than they were the 2012 and 2014 ones, they're positioned poorly for the Senate elections and Electoral College that year even though the Rs are defending a lot of seats.

Dems need to play to that reality in the short term if they want to win the Senate and presidency in 2020. The fact that rural districts will be completely hollowed out in 10 years doesn't help me much 2 years from now.

Have you looked at the suburban splits? Sure, energized rural voters overcame "the suburbs turning against Trump," but the split they overcame was actually just a smaller split in favor of the GOP than usual. Yesterday the split was even. Even in a nominally "rural" state, if the suburban vote is evenly split the rural vote may have a hard time overcoming the urban vote. If the split in the suburbs actually follows trend and turns against the GOP their hopes are shot in everything but the most barrenly devoid of population states.

 

[metalhead]

Have you looked at the suburban splits? Sure, energized rural voters overcame "the suburbs turning against Trump," but the split they overcame was actually just a smaller split in favor of the GOP than usual. Yesterday the split was even. Even in a nominally "rural" state, if the suburban vote is evenly split the rural vote may have a hard time overcoming the urban vote. If the split in the suburbs actually follows trend and turns against the GOP their hopes are shot in everything but the most barrenly devoid of population states.

I would caution against divining any sort of trend out of it. It was still a midterm, millions fewer voted than in 2016, and discouraged suburban Republicans who sat this one out can just as easily drag themselves dejectedly to the polls in 2020 because the presidency is at stake.

Now to be fair, given the margins involved in Trump's win, Democrats can still win in the Electoral College even if the suburban vote tilts part way back towards the GOP in 2020. But there is no way they get the Senate back without trying to lower the GOP margins among whites without college degrees and out in rural and small town counties.