The predix this time around seem to be fairly accurate; i.e. Pubs keeping the Senate and Dems gaining the house. This is reasonably satisfactory; at least there is now some chance that the House will provide some sort of checks and balances against our wannabe dictatorial administration.
Would have liked to have seen Beto prevail over Cruz, but even coming within 2-3 points (a Democrat! In Texas!) is still quite an accomplishment.
Feeling a bit better that there is some sanity amongst the electorate after all. off to bed.
I’m in between youse’s views: I think in its opinion it is everything that conservatives complain about in the liberal media and is indeed close (but I don’t watch it enough to tell for sure) to the opposite spin that FOX puts on things. However, I don’t recall them deliberately speculating on actual falsehoods that much (in the vein of the “what if X happened?” => “some people are saying X happened?” => “pundit: X happened!” loop) unlike Fox. Which is of course itself a substantial distance from actual fake news made up out of whole cloth.
Looking at What Went Down In The 2018 Midterms | FiveThirtyEight the called seats are R-141 D-138. But for the uncalled seats, the Democratic-leaning seats outnumber the Republican ones by a margin of 88 to 58, with 10 additional tossup seats.
Not at all. A.) I wouldn’t call +30 a wave, I believe it’s actually below the average loss for a President’s incumbent party in a mid-term election. Maybe +40 would be more wave-like. B.) The Democrats had an awful map this year. They were always very unlikely to take the Senate - if they only take a net loss of 2 or 3, that isn’t all that bad( they may lose more ).
If the results tend up holding at +30ish for the Ds and control of the House and -2 or -3 in the Senate, that is still an modesty victory under the circumstances. On the other hand if the Republicans hold the House, no matter how narrow their margin of victory and how small their new majority is, that is a de facto defeat for the Ds.
I watch MSNBC pretty much daily. On any given day I probably watch more people who identify as conservative than liberal. (Joe Scarborough (15 hours of programming/wk), Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Bill Crystal, Rick Tyler, and a ton other I can’t think of right now.
I have never, not once, seen a segment on MSNBC that was motivated by a political agenda. Maybe a liberal bias, but they are in no way, shape, or form, agenda-driven propaganda.
Beto’s coattails still helped. It looks like Pete Sessions (Tx-32) is gone–last time he ran unopposed. TX-7 may flip, too. It also looks like several seats in the TX legislature have flipped. The state isn’t purple yet, but the blue pockets are spreading. Beto’s campaign did a lot to energize them, and helping flip two house seats isn’t nothing.
Unlike Fox, MSNBC is usually reasonably truthful and accurate. And their partisans (Matthews, Hayes, Maddow, Scarborough, etc.) don’t come close to Hannity, Ingraham, and Carlson for bigotry, idiocy, inaccuracy, and general stupidity.
That cite doesn’t say what you say it says (just because Republicans called MSNBC biased doesn’t make it true. Considering they elected Donald Trump president, I reckon their opinion is nonsense).
And Obama was the first time I voted for a Democrat for president. So, neither sentence is based in fact.
For those looking for signs & potents, I’ll be very interested to see the vote totals countrywide: how many people voted for Democrats, how many for Republicans. I imagine it’ll be blue by a significant amount – which says things about where the country is, without the factors of geography and gerrymandering.