2018 Midterm Election Thread

[chancellor]

Numbers-wise, I'm pretty much aligned with frae. I have the House gains for the Dems at +28 already, likely to go to +33. GOP gains +2 already in Senate, likely to stay there (I think Tester holds serve and GOP holds Arizona).

While I hoped we'd do better, it's a pretty much expected result - I'd say the GOP lost about 4-6 more in the House than predicted, but gained one more in the Senate than predicted. It's certainly not the "blue wave" that was predicted early in the race, nor the recovery the GOP thought they'd see in the last month. I'd posit that Trump 2018 was a better midterm result than either Bush or Obama midterms.

Locally, I was pretty sure Walker was going down. I was just glad to see the Wisconsin House and Senate hold. My numbers had the GOP losing the Wisconsin House, and barely holding onto the Senate. Tammy Baldwin likely has the US Senate seat for life if she wants it. Her numbers, even in many traditionally red districts, were exceptionally strong.

Edit to add: Relative to House impeachment, I'm hoping DMT is right and Hornsby wrong.

Edit to add2: If you can't beat Ted Cruz by pouring about $70 mil into the election with ultra-favorable press coverage for his opponent, you're probably not going to beat him. That said, any hopes he has for a bigger office is dashed. If you can't beat a rich white Democrat by a bigger spread than he did in Texas, regardless of how much money his opponent spent, you ain't going to come close to competing nationally.

[onejayhawk]

I slightly miscalculated earlier. The parties are not marked on the candidate lists. In California, there are Democrats in both columns of candidates. So, in four of the undecided races, the "Republican" leader is actually a Democrat. If I counted correctly, you can add nine Democrats to the tally, because there is no Republican on the ballot. It's just that we do not know which Democrat will win.

California races may take several days to determine. Currently, Districts #10, #41, and #45 have flipped to the Republicans. That's a net 6 vote swing. The Democrats have offset this with three strikes in Republican leaning districts in Red states.

J

[B-Fly]

I slightly miscalculated earlier. The parties are not marked on the candidate lists. In California, there are Democrats in both columns of candidates. So, in four of the undecided races, the "Republican" leader is actually a Democrat. If I counted correctly, you can add nine Democrats to the tally, because there is no Republican on the ballot. It's just that we do not know which Democrat will win.

The current best estimate is 229 to 206 or 230 to 205.

J

Right, so a clear majority with a decent bit of room for Pelosi (or the next Speaker) to let those Democrats in traditionally red districts swing/cater to their constituents as needed.

[frae]

The current best estimate is 229 to 206 or 230 to 205.

J

This is what I have also and will let the Dems hold the line when they need to even if they lose a few votes on some issues.

[chancellor]

Right, so a clear majority with a decent bit of room for Pelosi (or the next Speaker) to let those Democrats in traditionally red districts swing/cater to their constituents as needed.

The Speaker vote will be great political Kabuki theater. Judge Jude's earlier assessment will make it very interesting.

[baldgriff]

Do the Dems really want Pelosi, Feinstien and Waters to be the faces of their party? Nancy Pelosi talks in circles and can sometimes formulate a sentence. Feinstein just seems downright mean and angry as does Waters.

If the Dems want to start attracting votes - be the party that actually starts working across the aisle - work for bi-partisanship - get past running against Trump and build a message that meets more people where they live.

[cardboardbox]

I am not as down as Fly mostly because I thought the midwest came back some. Yes, you need to run good candidates and the Democrats won't make the mistakes Hillary Clinton made of ignoring MI and WI again. The country is very divided so as Fly mentioned in the 2017 and beyond thread, Klobachur might be the exact type of candidate we need to win. It is very simple math in 2020. Flip PA, WI, and MI and the Democrats take back the WH. IA, OH, and FL will be fought over. Possibly NH, NC, and AZ, but the math is simple Democrats need to hold their map and win those 3 midwestern states (PA is essentially like a midwestern state if we want to argue over its regional assignment).

Exactly. The path to defeating Trump runs through PA, WI and MI. I wonder how much impact the re-enfranchisement of felons in FL might have, as well.

Trump had better take the midwest results as a wake up call but look at 2008 and 2010, Obama wins the midwest, democrats get crushed there in 2010, O wins there again in 2012. Its possible something similar is happening now.

[chancellor]

Trump had better take the midwest results as a wake up call but look at 2008 and 2010, Obama wins the midwest, democrats get crushed there in 2010, O wins there again in 2012. Its possible something similar is happening now.

He'll need to, but I'm not optimistic. We were, frankly, lucky that Hillary's arrogance led her to entirely ignore Wisconsin and severely under-campaign in Michigan. I doubt any Dem candidate makes the same mistake again. The key risk of losing the House is that Trump could win Wisconsin again, but lose all of Maine, Michigan and Pennsylvania...and we'd have a 269-269 tie if my math is right.

[OaklandA's]

I slightly miscalculated earlier. The parties are not marked on the candidate lists. In California, there are Democrats in both columns of candidates. So, in four of the undecided races, the "Republican" leader is actually a Democrat. If I counted correctly, you can add nine Democrats to the tally, because there is no Republican on the ballot. It's just that we do not know which Democrat will win.

California races may take several days to determine. Currently, Districts #10, #41, and #45 have flipped to the Republicans. That's a net 6 vote swing. The Democrats have offset this with three strikes in Republican leaning districts in Red states.

So much wrong in this post, even by onejayhawk's usual poor standards for facts.
1) In all of the House races in California that have not been called, it is a Democrat vs a Republican. They are not any Dem vs Dem undecided races. What crazy web site are you looking at?
2) CA-10 (Jeff Denham) and CA-45 (Mimi Walters) are not flips, but Republican holds.
3) In CA-41, the Democrat (Mark Takano) held on his to his seat by 20 pts.

I think the Democrats are looking at a 228-207 win in the house, which would mean that they gained +35 seats.

[onejayhawk]

Right, so a clear majority with a decent bit of room for Pelosi (or the next Speaker) to let those Democrats in traditionally red districts swing/cater to their constituents as needed.

Right. Also seven more states that have Governors to nominate Democrats to vacated seats. It's a narrow win for the Democrats but a clear one.

With 2020 now the next election, a lot of attention will turn to the economy. Trump took the restraints off the economy, but that introduces volatility. A 2020 recession would be lethal to his re-election chances, assuming he runs. I doubt he does but that's just my opinion. Likewise, two years of significant growth could bury the Democrats.

Some things I expect to see:
Congressional investigations from the House though not as many as some think.
Accelerated appointment ratification from the Senate. What else will they have to do?
It would not surprise me to see marijuana removed from Schedule 1 of the controlled substances lists.
More infrastructure. If Trump wants to deal, this is one of the chips in his stack.

J

[baldgriff]

Marijuana should have been removed from Schedule 1 a long time ago. Depending on the money spent by pharma and private prisons this may continue to take longer than it should.

Infrastructure is a place that could be a huge gain. Investing in the country and creating additional jobs could be his biggest play.

[onejayhawk]

So much wrong in this post, even by onejayhawk's usual poor standards for facts.
1) In all of the House races in California that have not been called, it is a Democrat vs a Republican. They are not any Dem vs Dem undecided races. What crazy web site are you looking at?
2) CA-10 (Jeff Denham) and CA-45 (Mimi Walters) are not flips, but Republican holds.
3) In CA-41, the Democrat (Mark Takano) held on his to his seat by 20 pts.

I think the Democrats are looking at a 228-207 win in the house, which would mean that they gained +35 seats.

You're right. It's #39 not #41. Also holds not flips.

Some of the other has changed since earlier this morning when well over a dozen California races were not yet called. At the time I was thinking +30. +35 is not that different, but the +10 margin is significant, ie +25 vs +15.

J

[revo]

He'll need to, but I'm not optimistic. We were, frankly, lucky that Hillary's arrogance led her to entirely ignore Wisconsin and severely under-campaign in Michigan. I doubt any Dem candidate makes the same mistake again. The key risk of losing the House is that Trump could win Wisconsin again, but lose all of Maine, Michigan and Pennsylvania...and we'd have a 269-269 tie if my math is right.

And it's those states currently getting hammered with tariffs. The likelihood of a recession in 2019 has gone up, and then there goes the advantage of a great economy.

[onejayhawk]

And it's those states currently getting hammered with tariffs. The likelihood of a recession in 2019 has gone up, and then there goes the advantage of a great economy.

I seriously doubt a recession next year. Inflation is another matter.

J

[cardboardbox]

I seriously doubt a recession next year. Inflation is another matter.

J

the next recession will happen in mid 2020, just in time for the election.