The only way? What if the economy is tanking at the time? That doesn’t affects votes?
Fake news. The NY Times didn’t cover the election that way because it accurately describes the magnitude of the Republican victory back then. The lib media would never have done that so I’m calling shenanigans.
In all seriousness? I do not expect the same degree of contrition from Donald. It was a tremendous, tremendous victory for him and therefore America. End of story.
I was actually waiting for someone to come in here and assume/claim that the GOP actually won the Senate back in 2010, because (clearly) everyone hated Obama so much: I’ve actually had the argument on this forum more than once over the years, believe it or not. I suspect that’s related to how the 2010 elections were covered.
Lets see +1 seat (1%)
+2 (2%)
+3 (3%)
not compare that to +37 (8%)
nope percentage was the dems have a nice edge.
not as much as the R’s in 2010 (14%)
its not a big as 2010.
but its most certainly isnt a wash.
Allan
The needle moved, of that there is no doubt, but you’ll admit it’s nothing close to expectations.
Are you sure “expectations” is the word you want to use? This is exactly what was expected, at least by me, according to the aggregate polling: the Democrats pick up the House (mind you, with a low unemployment rate and no recession). The GOP keeps or gains Senate seats in a year that’s enormously favorable for their Senate prospects, with economic tailwinds. Were you looking at different aggregate polling?
Even the disappointments are reasonable: How the hell did Beto O’Rourke even get that close to winning in Texas? Sure, I am disappointed in FLA and GA (potentially), but it’s not like the Democrats were heavily favored there, or anything. I was pleasantly surprised in Kansas, Michigan, and Wisconsin, that’s for sure.
1 Like
Democrats were expected to take up to 35 seats in the House and took 37. How did that not meet expectations?
1 Like
I knew this thread would be fascinating as an example of arguing over reality instead of arguing about politics.
It seems like there’s some weird projection going on.
2 Likes
Actually, you’re right, but your math is off. You have to adjust the ratio’s but the dems win percentage wise.
I base my expectations on 538. well within expectations.
senate:
house:
Allan
Yes the dems won 53% of the house and 68% of the senate elections
those are facts,
still a wash?
compared to 2016 where they only won 44% of the house elections.
Allan
Wow, with 68% they must have made gains…
Funny thing though, the Democrats in 2018 had a larger margin of overall votes than the Republicans did in 2010, yet they got half the seat gains.
Gerrymandering is quite effective, it seems.
1 Like
if the economy is tanking, then yes. People will also blame, and be mad at the president.
1 Like
Gerrymandering is very effective. Having said that, I am not sure if it is all bad, or how I feel about it.
On the surface, It is easy to think to think and say gerrymandering is wrong. On the other hand, if there are pockets of minorities in several districts there representation will be drowned out by the majorities. If on the other hand, like with Bobby Scott in Va, they take those pockets and make a district out of them, then they get representation.
Im not saying it is right or wrong, just that I can see cases where it isnt all bad.
It was make a great difference if redistricting was an open and transparent process. In Michigan, the legislature receive their maps from the RNC and had 30 minutes to vote on it. No questions or discussion.
That’s why both Republicans and Democrats supported Prop 2 in Michigan this year.
In Michigan we just voted to remove gerrymandering entirely. Districts should be drawn by geography and not demographics. Otherwise we get where we are now, representatives who live in such precise districts that they face no scrutiny and become more extreme as a result, never fearing the loss of their position.
7 Likes
That’s sad. I grew up in Detroit, and still have a brother in Clinton Township, and a sister in Wixom.
The bottom line though is that the overall electorate in those communities do not demand better of their representatives. If they did, than their representatives would have to worry about their position. I think a case could be made that it is changing. Ocasio Cortez was elected over an established politician
Speaking of fake news, as a footnote to this thread, I found this statistic fascinating.
Look at the vote totals for Senate:
Democrats:
23 Democrats not up for election
Lost 2 seats
46,813,706 votes (57.0%)Republicans:
42 Republicans not up for election
Gained 2 seats
33,947,237 votes (41.3%)
Democrats received more than 12 million more votes for Senate than the GOP–and lost seats.
I know and understand how the Senate works, and how Senators are elected, and the rationale for Senate representation, etc.
But when you couple this with the electoral college, I am sorry: down the road, if these discrepancies start getting wider, we’re headed for legitimacy problems.
After all of the gerrymandering and voter suppression ■■■■■■■■ the republicans have pulled since 2010 I’ll take the results from this election with pleasure.
It’s a shame the whole Kavanaugh crap happened or it could have been much, much better. But republicans do like to rally around obvious scumballs.
