nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Midterm Elections

Captain Obvious

Americans go to the polls today to vote on a number of issues but primarily the US Senate and Congress. The Democrats are expected to take control of Congress and the Republicans are expected to retain their slim minority in the Senate but there could be a few surprises. Record numbers of early voters and massive voter suppression mean that polls may not be too reliable and Democrats only need to flip two seats to take control.

Here's a quick rundown from CNN

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/27/politics/us-midterm-election-explainer-intl-trnd/index.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Manic Moran

Well, that’s an interesting result so far.

Bottom line, a win for the Democrats. Control of the house is huge for them. I don’t think it’s going to have any practical effect on legislation: By and large, the Republican House couldn’t get their act together and pass much, and anything significant which the Democrat house puts out is hardly likely to get past the Senate and President, so we continue our not doing much. The one caution is to not do what Newt Gingrich did after taking the house and over-reach/overdo with their new-found power.

The Blue Wave, though, was anything but tidal. I am surprised at the number of Republican Senate gains. A number of swing states sent up Republican Senators and Governors. Ohio and Georgia weren’t particularly close. (Which is another example of the polls being slightly wrong). Useful D wins for Governor in Pennsylvania, countered by some surprising R wins for the governor’s houses in New England. (Then again... Kansas). But what happened in Florida? Compare the size of the Democrat gains in the House to the Republican Revolution of 1994 or the loss of the House under Obama. Another large surprise to me was that a number of the not-pro-Trump-Republicans lost, whilst those Trump campaigned for tended to win. On the other hand The Kavanaugh Effect, such as can be determined so far, does seem to have favored Republicans: The D Senators who voted against him are out, the one who voted for stays in. The big deal of this is that those one or two Senators who may be holdouts on something have suddenly lost a lot of the power that they used to have. Now instead of that one or two votes, Republicans can afford to lose them and still get their appointments through.

My takeaway from the results, though, as one of the CNN commentators observed: The Democrats attempted to test a thesis, the question of what sort of candidates to run to win. The more progressive types lost their races. They came close, but close only counts in horseshoes and with nuclear weapons. The wins came from the moderate candidates. The trend has remained steady from the special elections over the last two years, these are candidates who have openly stated that they disagree with much of the Democrat leadership. Many of them have declared that they will not vote for Pelosi as Speaker. I’m sure she will still win, there aren’t enough of these new ones, but it’s an example of the continued division. Another observation is the percentage of military veterans. Compare the number of Democratic veterans out of the total who flipped R seats to the percentage of veterans in the US population, it’s an order of magnitude different.

The Democrats put forward some very good candidates. (Not that the Republicans didn’t have a few either, mind, as soon-to-be-ex-Senator McCaskill discovered). They put them forward in flippable districts. Bottom line, they deserved to win. The question is how to turn this into Presidential victory in 2020. Those flippable districts are a microcosm of the flippable States.

However, and this is the big ‘but’. Districts are one thing, but the Electoral College is won by States, and the State level elections were not exactly a disaster for the Republicans. Some losses, some wins. But, again, who were they running against? Beto did well mainly because he was fundamentally seen as a very good person who ran a respectful race. Independents, even if they weren’t incredibly enthralled with his policies, found him worthy of their vote. But he still had some more left-leaning tendencies and cannot be compared to many of the D winners in suburban Pennsylvania.

Before 2020 comes around, the Democrats still have the same fundamental question that they had before today. Who exactly are they? I think they have shown what is proven to win. I am unsure that their base or leadership will agree with that course, though.

Not that the Republicans are sitting happy there either. If they continue their (in my opinion erroneous) focus away from swingable suburban voters, their voter base will decrease over time, it’s a losing proposition. Escpecially if Trump, with his relative lack of a fixed internal compass, decides to start making deals with Democrats and effectively abandons that base.

Oh. Important news from California. Ambulancemen must be on call during their lunch breaks, and egg-laying chickens are to be authorized one square foot of floor space. (Yes, we voted on that)

Peregrinus

Manic Moran wrote: »

My takeaway from the results, though, as one of the CNN commentators observed: The Democrats attempted to test a thesis, the question of what sort of candidates to run to win. The more progressive types lost their races. They came close, but close only counts in horseshoes and with nuclear weapons. The wins came from the moderate candidates. The trend has remained steady from the special elections over the last two years, these are candidates who have openly stated that they disagree with much of the Democrat leadership . . .

Good point, but...

We have to factor in the characteristics of the seats in which they ran. If you have Democrats putting up progressive candidates in seats where they have little hope of winning (on the basis that "we can try shaking things up here, we have nothing to lose") but centrist candidates in more competitive races, then naturally centrists will be over-represented among the winners. In judging the relative appeal of progressivism versus centrism, I think you need to control for this. An interesting datum would be the swing obtained by progressives versus the swing obtained by centrists. If the former turns out to be higher than the latter, then running more progressive candidates in competitive seats would be a good strategy for the Dems.

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, and this is the big ‘but’. Districts are one thing, but the Electoral College is won by States, and the State level elections were not exactly a disaster for the Republicans. Some losses, some wins . . .

Yeah, but we need to be careful extrapolating from the mid-terms to the presidential election. What's not on the ballot paper in this election, even indirectly, is the name, record or policy platform of the Democratic candidate in 2020, since we have no clue who that will be.

listermint

What's bizarre is that each state has power over the voting setup. These are national power elections. They should be following federal rules and federal mandated specific same voting operations.

Its the pick and mix selection box method that makes it bizarrely less democratic than the number one democracy it claims to be.

It's a horrible system

Peregrinus

listermint wrote: »

What's bizarre is that each state has power over the voting setup. These are national power elections. They should be following federal rules and federal mandated specific same voting operations.

Its the pick and mix selection box method that makes it bizarrely less democratic than the number one democracy it claims to be.

It's a horrible system

This is actually a feature, not a bug. The dispersal of authority over elections (not only to the states but also, within each state, to municipalities) is supposed to make it more difficult for a tyrant in power to rig elections.

Which, in fairness, it has done; the US is one of the longest-surviving democracies on the planet.

But, yeah, it does make for pretty crapulous electoral standards, and a political culture which either accepts this as normal and sees nothing wrong with it, or positively benefits from it. US elections are a bit like British plumbing; they get credit for having been early adaptors of the idea, but they get saddled with outdated, dysfunctional, archaic systems that, once installed, are hard to replace.

Manic Moran

There is also the federal nature of the thing. The federal government is comprised of the representatives of the states to serve the states, it should not be in the business of telling the states their own business of how they select their representatives.

ricero

Another great victory for The Donald. He will walk it in 2020.

[Deleted User]

listermint wrote: »

What's bizarre is that each state has power over the voting setup. These are national power elections. They should be following federal rules and federal mandated specific same voting operations.

Its the pick and mix selection box method that makes it bizarrely less democratic than the number one democracy it claims to be.

It's a horrible system

It's about 'states right's and has been for centuries, that's what the civil war was fought for.

Would people prefer a federal mandate that said voter id is compulsory?

gmisk

ricero wrote: »

Another great victory for The Donald. He will walk it in 2020.

They way he walked it despite losing the popular vote by millions last time? Lol
He would have lost against someone better than Hilary

listermint

Oh I get it's a feature. But it's one the rather that disperse powered is regularised it. Prevents change.

[Deleted User]

ricero wrote: »

Another great victory for The Donald. He will walk it in 2020.

This election ended up the way many expected it to.

Dems won the House
Republicans kept the Senate.
Conservatives won in red states and cities.
Liberals won in blue states and cities

But that won't stop people spinning it six ways to Sunday.

Peregrinus

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is also the federal nature of the thing. The federal government is comprised of the representatives of the states to serve the states, it should not be in the business of telling the states their own business of how they select their representatives.

Well, there's a balance to be struck here. Federal law does guarantee to each state a "republican form of government". Presumably if a state's government structures or operations became conspicuously undemocratic or even antidemocratic there'd be some basis for the feds to intevene and say, look, this isn't sufficiently republican for a state of the Union.

And if they can insist on minimal standards of republican democracy for the internal government of a state, then logic suggests that they can do the same for the role each state plays in the Union. So Ohio (say) law on federal elections would have to comply with (federally-imposed) standards of republican democracy.

Similarly you could challenge state electoral laws or practices on the grounds that they, e.g., fail to afford all citizens the equal protection of the laws etc. And in fact such challenges have often been made to object to, e.g., gerrymandering, Jim Crow electoral laws, etc. Traditionally the federal courts have allowed the states a fair degree of latitude in these areas, though. Electoral laws have to be pretty egregious before the federal courts will strike them down.

everlast75

gmisk wrote: »

They way he walked it despite losing the popular vote by millions last time? Lol
He would have lost against someone better than Hilary

And of course, had he not cheated.

Comey played a part too.

The idea that Trump won fairly or even won at all is laughable to anyone objective.

Franz Von Peppercorn

SNIP. No more nonsense please.

LuckyLloyd

everlast75 wrote: »

And of course, had he not cheated.

Comey played a part too.

The idea that Trump won fairly or even won at all is laughable to anyone objective.

Who cares? Trump and the Republican Party certainly don’t. They are laying the ground work for 50 years of minority rule. It’s impossible for an objective (or even biased) observer to see the Dems as a successful political entity. They are getting destroyed.

This is an excellent result for Trump’s chances in 2020. By the time the Dems get into the mud with the elephants it will be way too late. Shocking - American society is in a really bad place.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Don’t see the angst here. I’m not an American so I don’t follow it that much but I do follow some websites and on twitter FiveThirtyEight.

Here’s his last prediction:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-final-forecast-in-the-senate-house-and-gubernatorial-races/

Republicans hold senate. (Never in doubt). Democrats take house. Both were at approx ~80% probability.

Brian?

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is actually a feature, not a bug. The dispersal of authority over elections (not only to the states but also, within each state, to municipalities) is supposed to make it more difficult for a tyrant in power to rig elections.

Which, in fairness, it has done; the US is one of the longest-surviving democracies on the planet.

But, yeah, it does make for pretty crapulous electoral standards, and a political culture which either accepts this as normal and sees nothing wrong with it, or positively benefits from it. US elections are a bit like British plumbing; they get credit for having been early adaptors of the idea, but they get saddled with outdated, dysfunctional, archaic systems that, once installed, are hard to replace.

The USA isn't really a democracy though, it's a federal Republic. As you say, what people see as flaws are actually designed into the system to provide States with checks and balances on the federal government. It's questionable that the current federal government is anything like that envisioned by the founding fathers.

I'm not endorsing the system, just providing context. It may seem odd to Irish people, but this is how the system was designed. To me, the Senate is an undemocratic institution, Alaska and California have equal representation, but that's how it's meant to be to protect state rights.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Brian? wrote: »

The USA isn't really a democracy though, it's a federal Republic. As you say, what people see as flaws are actually designed into the system to provide States with checks and balances on the federal government. It's questionable that the current federal government is anything like that envisioned by the founding fathers.

I'm not endorsing the system, just providing context. It may seem odd to Irish people, but this is how the system was designed. To me, the Senate is an undemocratic institution, Alaska and California have equal representation, but that's how it's meant to be to protect state rights.

This phrase “america isn’t a democracy, it’s a republic” is like saying chickens aren’t animals they are birds.

A genuine republic is a democracy.

I think people mean that it’s a federal republic not a direct democracy.

Rhineshark

A good night for Dems. The House was always the aim and the governerships have gone well too. They weren't even being considered as potentially winning the Senate until McConnell started talking about it (and O'Rourke in particular was attracting attention).

Notable too the size of the Republican wins in 2018 vs 2016. In states that Trump won handily, it was going down to the wire.

Also a good few significant wins in state votes regarding either voting or decidedly non-GOP policies.

Franz Von Peppercorn

I agree. Dems came out well enough.

[Deleted User]

Brian? wrote: »

The USA isn't really a democracy though, it's a federal Republic. As you say, what people see as flaws are actually designed into the system to provide States with checks and balances on the federal government. It's questionable that the current federal government is anything like that envisioned by the founding fathers.

I'm not endorsing the system, just providing context. It may seem odd to Irish people, but this is how the system was designed. To me, the Senate is an undemocratic institution, Alaska and California have equal representation, but that's how it's meant to be to protect state rights.

Not aimed at the poster quoted by any means but people will always give out about the system if it does not work for their view/candidate.

The US system has survived for over 200 years with just a single civil war.

That's not bad going.

[Deleted User]

everlast75 wrote: »

And of course, had he not cheated.

Comey played a part too.

The idea that Trump won fairly or even won at all is laughable to anyone objective.

And yet there was no blue wave.

pixelburp

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And yet there was no blue wave.

The results went precisely as many / most predicted: only the media and the hyperbolic spoke of Blue Waves TBH. The Democrats won the House; the Senate stayed in GOP hands; turnout appears to be strong.

Some stars failed there's no doubt: Gillum losing out to a dog-whistling Rep. in Florida must sting, while Beto was being touted as a future Presidential candidate yet couldn't unseat Ted Cruz. Beyond that though, everything went as predicted.

Captain Obvious

Gillum, Abrams and O'Rourke are big losses. When you look at the size of the margins you see why GOP had to so aggressively cheat in those races.

I wonder what the Dems will start at? They should definitely go aggressively on election reform. Having candidates oversee their own elections is preposterous. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are major issues too. I have a felling they'll go straight for Trump though. I think that would be a mistake.

prawnsambo

pixelburp wrote: »

The results went precisely as many / most predicted: only the media and the hyperbolic spoke of Blue Waves TBH. The Democrats won the House; the Senate stayed in GOP hands; turnout appears to be strong.

Some stars failed there's no doubt: Gillum losing out to a dog-whistling Rep. in Florida must sting, while Beto was being touted as a future Presidential candidate yet couldn't unseat Ted Cruz. Beyond that though, everything went as predicted.

To be fair, Beto was climbing a mountain in Texas. At no stage was it deemed that he would win that seat. I think the best polling result he got in the run up was an even chance. A lot of polls put him up to nine points behind Cruz. In the end it looks like less than 3% between them. That's a very good result.

flazio

The question I want to know is:
Can we read anything into these results in terms of how America would vote if it was for the White House?

[Deleted User]

flazio wrote: »

The question I want to know is:
Can we read anything into these results in terms of how America would vote if it was for the White House?

All depends on who the Democrats pick to run.

Someone like Warren is popular in liberal Massachusetts but that may not translate well elsewhere.

As a poster posted earlier Democratic gains were in places were they ran, for the use of a better word, less 'progressive' candidates.

I have no idea who thed Democrats should pick by the way.

rossie1977

flazio wrote: »

The question I want to know is:
Can we read anything into these results in terms of how America would vote if it was for the White House?

Doesn't translate much. Dems got destroyed in the house in 2010 and took big losses in Senate yet Obama comfortably won the 2012 presidential election.

Problem for the Dems right now is the rift between the progressive and corporate mainstream wings of the parties.

Water John

Well for the Dems, some great candidates esp women, made it. They have strong votes in suburbia and cities. Holding that and reaching for a bit more of the rural and blue collar vote is the next layer they need to add. Their Pres and Vice Pres picks must reflect that.

In fairness Pelosi offered bipartisanship in her speech last night. Will Trump be able to pick up that olive branch whilst another section of the Dems Congress is going after him?

rossie1977

Water John wrote: »

In fairness Pelosi offered bipartisanship in her speech last night. Will Trump be able to pick up that olive branch whilst another section of the Dems Congress is going after him?

Zero chance the Republicans agree to any bi-partisanship. They will double down in government and on TV/radio/online calling the Dems the enemy of the people. Obama tried the bi-partisanship stuff for a decade and look where it got him..

Right now Dems are playing checkers while Republicans are playing chess.

hill16bhoy

flazio wrote: »

The question I want to know is:
Can we read anything into these results in terms of how America would vote if it was for the White House?

There are definitely certain things to read into 2020 from last night.

Democrats had a good night in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

That certainly bodes well for 2020 and all will have Democratic governors going forward.

Ohio will be harder to get back and losing the Governor's race there was a blow but Sherrod Brown showed the Democrats can still win there.

Nevada is turning into a reasonably steady blue state and Rosen's comfortable win there was the brightest spot on the senate map for them.

Florida was a massive disappointment, there's no getting away from it, especially Gillum's loss to the scumbag De Santis. However the silver lining was the passing of the proposition to enfranchise up to over a million felons. And in a state where the margins are always tiny, that's a huge deal. It does of course set up the mother of all battles over voter suppression in 2020, but the Republicans will have a huge uphill battle on that front now.

North Carolina passed a voter ID law so the odds of Democrats winning there in 2020 are slim.

The defeats of Putin's congresssman Dana Rohrabacher in California and Scott Walker in Wisconsin were probably the two biggest individual feel good stories to emerge from individual races.