Since the Democrats have the majority of voters, they do apples to the mainstream.
That’s a pretty weak argument. Democrats have a majority of voters if the choice is between Democrats and Republicans, but the Democratic Party is well to the left of their median voter and that’s the primary reason why Democrats lose as many elections as they do. This really is a party that should be doing better given how much of a pure trainwreck the Republican Party has been at the national level.
If the Dems take a majority of seats in the House, it won’t matter what House Reps try to do, they won’t have the votes to do it.
I don’t think they will, but if they win the House, the Dems could use the opportunity to model good governance. “Here, America, is how the budget process should work. We’re going to use regular order, and allow committees to mark up a proper budget, and we’re going to allow amendments from the minority to be considered because that’s what we think a responsible majority should do. And we can’t control what the Senate does with this bill, but we’ve done the work on our side the right way, and we stand ready to enter into a conference committee with them and negotiate our differences and reach a compromise that we can both live with.”
Yeah… Democrats ran on that in 2006. Too soon for anyone to believe it now, which is why they aren’t really trying. The party of activist government SHOULD be the good government party, but for whatever reason they don’t want to be. Which I guess is fine, because the Republican Party doesn’t want to be a good government, or even a very good anti-government, party either.
Now, try saying that with a straight face 
So, what metrics would you guys consider to be a “blue wave?”
- Capturing both the House and Senate = clearly a blue wave
- Getting the House but not the Senate = a mixed bag (and also likeliest outcome)
- Failing to take the House would clearly be a blue fizzle for the D’s.
What if only getting the House by a very narrow margin, as opposed to hitting 230 or 240 seats?
Failure to take the House would be a Blue Fizzle for sure. It would be not only a vast underperformance compared to what they expected, but a vast underperformance given the fundamentals. Although I’d caution that due to gerrymandering and concentration of Democratic voters, the popular vote margin matters. If they fall short winning by only 1 or 2 points, it’s a big fizzle. If they win by 5 and still don’t take the House, it’s a pretty reasonable performance even if they fail to take the House. A symbolic victory at least.
Taking the House but not the Senate is a blue wave IF they break even on the Senate or lose only one seat net. If 2-4 of their incumbents go down, then the wave starts to look a lot more like an anti incumbent wave than a blue wave. I don’t care how bad the map is, if you lose more incumbents than your opponent, it was a tough night.
Governors’ races are big too, as are state legislatures, since a lot of these offices will play a role in 2020 redistricting and aren’t up for reelection until 2022. Given Republican dominance here in recent years, it’s a very good night if Democrats take a majority of governorships and state legislatures, even if they disappoint at the federal level. Actually, given that Democrats overperformed at the federal level and neglected state races during the Obama era, it would actually be a good sign if they did better at the state level.
So basically, unless it’s a total fizzle or a huge wave, both parties will have something to crow about the next day. And they’ll both have a point.
I agree that we won’t get enough votes in the Senate to impeach.
But. What if Mueller drops a half dozen bomb shells after November 6th.
[ul]
[li]Conspiracy with a hostile foreign power to subvert a federal election (treason in the colloquial view). He, his son and Giuliani have all admitted to it.[/li][li]Obstruction of Justice (which trump admitted to on national TV)[/li][/ul]
We know the above. Is that enough? No?
Where are his tax returns anyway. Is there fraud and tax invasion in there? He’s bragged about not paying taxes. Hmm…
Seems also that there may be a bit of money laundering going on. With Russia, and the Philippines mob. Ooopps.
He does have close ties to Russia. American banks won’t touch this crook. Gosh, I wonder if Putin has his thumb on old Donnie.
And what about the money paid for… escorts. Where did that money come from? Was it from campaign funds? Did he write it off as a business expense?
If all this becomes glaringly true. That trump is a crook working with foreign countries, I don’t think his base will turn against him. But will the Senate do the right thing?
to Treason, Obstruction,
Yes, but they won’t do the correct thing.
I just voted straight D for the first time in my life; one of them was hard to do but as an American, I feel I have to do whatever I can to send a message to the GOP.
That’s my plan, too. (Also for my first time ever.) I’ll be voting against some decent R’s, but any R vote is ultimately a vote for Trump.
Yep, because it’s already glaringly true that this, this … person is not fit for office of any kind. They will do the ‘right’ thing.
I’ve worked for small county government for 26 years. Some of the elected officials are better than others. We’ve never had an actual disgraceful moron though. Or, at the very least, others would keep them from steeping on their dick every single dam day.
So, I’m off subject again. Blue will take the house. The house will maybe be able to prevent some damage over the next two years. The country will remain a laughing stock of the world for years.
I came of voting age in the Reagan administration, and that pretty much ruined the GOP for me. I have never voted for a Republican.
(I’ve mentioned the following in another thread.) My 83 year old father, on the other hand, has voted mostly GOP for as long as I can remember (I talked him into voting for Kerry in 2004, and I think he’s voted for a few other Democrats from time to time). He voted for Gary Johnson in 2016, because he couldn’t take Trump, but had watched way too much Fox News to have any kind of nuanced view of Clinton. This year, for the first time in his life, he voted straight-ticket Democrat. In Florida. He also voted to re-enfranchise former felons. He’s still no progressive, but the irresponsibility, cruelty, and tacit racism of the modern GOP made it impossible for him to vote for any individual who continued to associate with them. Anecdotes are not data, yadda, yadda.
I’m cautiously optimistic for something close to the mean predictions at 538 (House D+39, Senate R+1, Governors roughly even in number of states, Dems dominating in population).
Taking the House is just an important step in a lengthy process. If the Democrats can take it, then they can launch investigations to help shed light on the crimes of this administration with the aim of informing the electorate for the 2020 presidential and senate races and if Democrats get elected in red states at the state level, to perhaps put brakes on GOP minority voter suppression efforts, but I’m not hopeful that any of it is possible. I’ve said before that the damage that has been done is permanent and catastrophic. I think that the real service will be in establishing a historical record for future generations.
Well again, turnout in midterms is lower than in presidential years.
In 2016 Hillary got 66 million votes, Trump got 63 million.
IN a regular midterm, each party will get about 40 million votes. That means 23-26 million people on each side of the isle who bothered to vote in 2016 will stay home in 2018.
If the democrats get a 45 to 40 million vote margin, that should be enough to flip the house and at least 500 state seats.
Democrats don’t have to win a bunch of republicans, or a bunch of people who never vote to their side.
They just have to ensure that instead of 26 million Hillary voters staying home in 2018, only 20 million stay home. That’ll give the democrats 46 million votes and a landslide victory.
The real victory is 2020, because that is when the census is done and districts are redrawn. Normally I’m against gerrymandering, but if it isn’t going to be overturned on a national level by the SCOTUS, then the democrats need to gerrymander as much as possible after 2020. Honestly, democratic gerrymandering may be the only thing that causes the GOP supreme court to overturn gerrymandering on a national level. As long as only republicans benefit, the SCOTUS may look the other way on the issue.
I have a bet with ThingFish on this topic. If the dems get 47M+, I lose, if they get <46M, he does.
I don’t know how well the dems will do.
I used to think they’d get 50-55 million votes. But now I’m not so sure. Probably closer to 45.
What had you so optimistic before?
Special election results. Generally, in special elections in 2017 the democratic candidate saw presidential year levels of turnout while the gop candidate saw midterm year levels of turnout. If the democrats held those levels, then the midterm would be 60 vs 40 million votes. Well beyond a blowout.
But I think a lot of anti Trump passion has died down, and I’m not too hopeful that the least motivated 20 million democrats will bother to show up.