2018 US Midterm Elections - DEMOCRATS WIN HOUSE, REPUBLICANS RETAIN SENATE

[iBeng]

And yet Obama lost 63(?) seats in his first midterms how'd that happen if he was so loved?

Its almost like Obama wasnt running for every single one of those seats himself

 

[FireKrakouer]

Could some of that be due to immediately post GFC and having a target to be pissed at?

Yet his approval was allegedly higher than Trump's? You can see why we're sceptical.

 

[Financialpanther]

Yet his approval was allegedly higher than Trump's? You can see why we're sceptical.

Given it was probably the largest financial event to hit the globe since the crash of 1929, you can see why I am sceptical that people don't believe of voter retaliation against who sits there regardless of party lines.

 

[smokingjacket]

And yet Obama lost 63(?) seats in his first midterms how'd that happen if he was so loved?

https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/explainers/the-global-financial-crisis.html

Among other factors, like Democrats typically don't turnout well for midterms.

 

[Poor Form]

Could some of that be due to immediately post GFC and having a target to be pissed at?

When were those held again?

Sorry Obama's approval rating was higher than Trumps so clearly the GFC wasn't that relevant to the people who voted him in and yet there's the result.

Its almost like Obama wasnt running for every single one of those seats himself

Nor did Trump? Yet people are trying to frame it as a failure on his part in spite of it being a mixed result as opposed to 2010 which were a clear cut rebuke to Obama.

 

[Chicago1]

Illinois did not let the party down. A Blue Wave swept all state offices, including defeating an incumbent Republican Governor. Two local US House seats switched to the Democrats. My local Illinois State House of Representatives seat went Democratic for the first time.


My cousin's daughter was just declared the winner in her Illinois House of Representatives seat. She beat the incumbent Republican 50.49% to 49.51%. Won by 347 votes out of over 45000. Easy peasy.

ILLINOIS:

 

[smokingjacket]

Don’t see how this result differs much to 94.

Not sure who should be more worried, Republicans because the Democrats were able to motivate so many people to vote in a midterm that they typically do very poorly in, or Democrats who managed to put up an 8% raw swing in their favour that looks like only barely pushing the scales in their favour in the House.

 

[Poor Form]

https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/explainers/the-global-financial-crisis.html

Among other factors, like Democrats typically don't turnout well for midterms.

I see that, but that clearly didn't affect people's opinions of Obama that much for the people to strip his majority in spectacular fashion as they did. My point wasn't to throw shade at Obama for 2010 it was to point out that those polls are largely irrelevant since someone with 50% approval got eviscerated and a guy with 44% had a mixed bag.

 

[tommyTitch]

Illinois did not let the party down. A Blue Wave swept all state offices, including defeating an incumbent Republican Governor. Two local US House seats switched to the Democrats. My local Illinois State House of Representatives seat went Democratic for the first time.


My cousin's daughter was just declared the winner in her Illinois House of Representatives seat. She beat the incumbent Republican 50.49% to 49.51%. Won by 347 votes out of over 45000. Easy peasy.

ILLINOIS:

Ah yes, the state dictated to by Chicago, one of the worst cities on earth.

 

[its free real estate]

The best comparison is 1994 imo. Clinton won 92 in a three way contest that caused a lot of resentment in Republicans that he’d won unfairly, and they turned in huge numbers to take the house. There were also a few scandals surrounding him, the pissweak Whitewater chief among them.

The economy was booming then too.

Not sure who should be more worried, Republicans because the Democrats were able to motivate so many people to vote in a midterm that they typically do very poorly in, or Democrats who managed to put up an 8% raw swing in their favour that looks like only barely pushing the scales in their favour in the House.

If the Democrats had won on a Gingrich-style platform I think the Republicans would be more worried, but this looks like anti-Trump resentment that could easily peter out.

US politics still lingers with Gingrich’s anti New Deal platform, that still hasn’t been scrubbed clear.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

More of a victory for the GOP. Given that it's normal to have a swing against the party with the White House, and given that voter apathy supposedly wasn't going to be an issue this time (with all anti-trumpers energised to vote), the Dems should've done better. They've also had all MSM (besides Fox) on their side these 2 years!

The guy with the culturally appropriated fake name is gonna run for president? I sure hope so!

The spin begins.

There are mixed results for both parties.

What a surprise that your instant, know-nothing take lacks balance.

 

[Gough]

Ah yes, the state dictated to by Chicago, one of the worst cities on earth.

Any city gave the world Chess Records, Howlin Wolf and Muddy Waters can't be all bad.

 

[smokingjacket]

I see that, but that clearly didn't affect people's opinions of Obama that much for the people to strip his majority in spectacular fashion as they did. My point wasn't to throw shade at Obama for 2010 it was to point out that those polls are largely irrelevant since someone with 50% approval got eviscerated and a guy with 44% had a mixed bag.

Democrats have had a structural problem with their base not turning out for midterms for a long time. Part the demographics, more young people, less enthusiam, technically Obama isn't on the ballot and so on.

In nearly any other democracy in the world, an 8% raw swing would be an absolute landslide in voting. It's just the way the US is divided up that makes key states more valuable to the overall process.

 

[Sainteric]

Looks like the same problem for the Dems as in 2016. Big bump in their voter turnout and a solid overall blue swing but not enough in key states, gerrymandered districts.

Andrew Gillum not getting up in Florida is a real worry even though it was tight.

Wrong candidate

 

[AmericanAFL]

Short term, the Dems are the big winners. That short term win would be just as relevant with a one seat majority as the 10-15 they’ll likely end up with, because they’ll now control the committees which gives them control of executive oversight.

Long term- the GOP Senate gains are significant and will give them a buffer in two years when the Senate map might not be as favorable for them as it was this year.

As for the 2020 presidential election, I’ve given up trying to predict what will happen with Trump. He won’t be easily defeated, I know that much.

 

[AM]

 

[SilentHunter_]

Short term, the Dems are the big winners. That short term win would be just as relevant with a one seat majority as the 10-15 they’ll likely end up with, because they’ll now control the committees which gives them control of executive oversight.

Long term- their Senate gains are significant and will give them a buffer in two years when the Senate map might not be as favorable for them as it was this year.

As for the 2020 presidential election, I’ve given up trying to predict what will happen with Trump. He won’t be easily defeated, I know that much.

Dems need someone who can unite all their internal factions, from the left to the centre. IMO Clinton failed with that big time and that caused apathy - which is what caused her to lose the election. Easier said than done obviously but they need to focus on 2020 right now to find this person.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Short term, the Dems are the big winners. That short term win would be just as relevant with a one seat majority as the 10-15 they’ll likely end up with, because they’ll now control the committees which gives them control of executive oversight.

Long term- the GOP Senate gains are significant and will give them a buffer in two years when the Senate map might not be as favorable for them as it was this year.

As for the 2020 presidential election, I’ve given up trying to predict what will happen with Trump. He won’t be easily defeated, I know that much.

Can you explain please why the us system thinks governors are the appropriate means to draw district boundaries rather than an impartial body (such as in Australia). It seems not smart.

 

[tommyTitch]

Any city gave the world Chess Records, Howlin Wolf and Muddy Waters can't be all bad.

Why do progressives refer back to the 1950's when it suits them?
Do you want to MAGA?

 

[Maggie5]

Yet his approval was allegedly higher than Trump's? You can see why we're sceptical.

I don't think it was a popularity contest.

According to all reports the economy is booming, unemployment record down, two key factors yet they lose the House convincingly?

In a fair contest (gerrymandering) it would be very interesting.

No I can't see why you are sceptical.

Good thing Nunes no longer chair of Intelligence Committee.

 

[The Warlord]

Ah yes, the state dictated to by Chicago, one of the worst cities on earth.

Yeah, those poor buggers living in the extensive rich suburbs of Chicago, bet they'd much prefer to be Mosul or Lagos.

 

[tommyTitch]

Yeah, those poor buggers living in the extensive rich suburbs of Chicago, bet they'd much prefer to be Mosul or Lagos.

What is wrong with those places?

 

[Crankyhawk]

What is wrong with those places?

None of them are Melbourne.

 

[Taylor]

Tayl0r aka Catherine McGregor wannabe your commentary is asinine. "Well Democrats should've got more votes." They ******* did. Again. It's why gerrymandering and voter suppression get brought up. Elections this century have a pattern of Democrats and their voters getting ****** over despite having the public onside.

That's the transgender military person? I have no idea what connection you're trying to make here.

Turnout for Democrats:
33.7% - Obama elected
30.6% - Obama re-elected
26.5% - Hillary not elected

A bounce is to be expected but that's where the comment comes from and that's a stat based off total votes so it doesn't matter where the voter is or where they are allocated.

 

[AmericanAFL]

Can you explain please why the us system thinks governors are the appropriate means to draw district boundaries rather than an impartial body (such as in Australia). It seems not smart.

It’s a huge issue (obviously). Both sides are guilty of drawing ridiculous districts when they have the opportunity to do it, it’s just that in the last few decades the GOP has been so much better at putting themselves in position to be the ones drawing the maps, that things have gotten skewed quite a bit.

There have been some recent state Supreme Court rulings in Pennsylvania and North Carolina that have ordered maps to be redrawn. Ultimately, I expect the issue will find its way to the US Supreme Court.

Hopefully a more equitable system comes out of it.