How? What do you imagine an investigation would uncover? or are you suggesting a fishing expedition?
It just seems far fetched that you would uncover evidence of an attempted rape from 30+ years ago that Ford told no one of at the time (and I understand why she might not, but there is no contemporaneous testimony).
The evidence that could reasonably become available was not going to change any votes.
No, I said that it’s reasonable to consider that all the possible info should be gathered, especially about allegations of serious misconduct (and potential lying to Congress), prior to a vote on a nominee. That’s reasonable. Maybe it happens to coincide with one side’s political goals, but the reasonable thing to support is still the reasonable thing to support, and it’s unreasonable to oppose it, even with conflicting political concerns.
If only we just had an election that, say, 538 demonstrated to be a significant blue wave that matched their rough expectations from even prior to the Kavanaugh hearings, showing that the Democrats performed quite well and the Kavanaugh hearings probably did not do any significant damage to their performance, if any damage at all. Then we could be relieved that your worst fears were not realized.
There were 35 senate races in 2018.
17 in states that Clinton won. Dems (and two independents that caucus with the Dems) went 17-0 in those races.
18 in states that Trump won. Dems went 7-11 in those race.
Dems went 24-11 overall.
Where should I look for the Kavanaugh effect? In the less than two thirds of Trump states where Republicans won senate races? If Kavanaugh only helped in deep red states, let’s have some more Kavanaugh hearings.
Brett Kavanaugh probably hurt the GOP in 2018.
As I noted above in post #116, Martha McSally’s failed re-election campaign certainly thinks so.
People point to Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and North Dakota as evidence of the Kavanaugh effect, but there’s really not much there, datawise, to support it.
Florida was unquestionably a good pick up for the Republicans. Rick Scott outperformed polls, the national trend, everything. This is a huge bright spot for team R from 2018.
Indiana, Missouri, and North Dakota were all wins, but were pretty low hanging fruit.
I’m going to define something that I will call swing here. Swing is the difference in net of the proportion of two party vote between the 2016 presidential vote and and the 2018 senate vote in a given state.
For example, Trump won Arizona by 3.8 points (in two party vote share) and Sinema won her senate race by 2.4 points so we have a swing of 6.2 points in favor of the Dems.
The average swing in all 35 senate races was 9.9 point toward the Dems.
Sinema actually underperformed the national trend by a few points using this metric.
You know who didn’t underperform?
Joe Donnelly - 14.1 point swing
Claire McCaskill - 13.4 point swing
Heidi Heitkamp - 28.7 point swing (!)
Pointing to Heidi Heitkamp as evidence of the Kavanaugh Effect is bonkers.
We can look at the charts here and see that the Democrats prospects to win the House actually improved, slightly, after the Kavanaugh hearings were completed: 2018 House Forecast | FiveThirtyEight
The Democrats actions re: Kavanaugh did not harm them for the 2018 cycle, at least as far as the evidence shows.
True.
I think we should arrange to have him questioned by congress in October 2020. He’d do his typical lying his ass of under oath schtick and the voters will react accordingly. What’s not to like?
However, the House and the Senate were two different animals, as this post at FiveThirtyEight discusses.
But as others have noted, that’s almost entirely due to the 2018 map. Compared to partisan lean of the states that had Senate elections, the Democrats greatly overperformed.
Correct. Democrats went 10- 1 in swing states.
Democrats lost zero senate races in Clinton states.
Democrats won seven of eighteen senate races in Trump states.
If the Kavanaugh effect doesn’t help Republicans in swing states, and the battle lines are actually being drawn in the middle third of Trump states, I say bring on the Kavanaugh effect.
Team D won more that 2/3 of the senate races in 2018. The idea that that trend could possibly continue should be making Republicans very nervous. Instead they’re talking about how the Kavanuagh effect helped them in the senate. Bonkers.
Or I can put it another way.
Democrats won over 54% of house races and everyone agrees that this is a big win for the Democrats.
Democrats won over 68% (!) of senate races and many people are saying that this is a win for the Republicans.
Different animals indeed.
There seem to be some, especially in the media who are invested in the idea of elections as horse races, who want every race to be treated as a 50/50 coin flip, and that every race is winnable if you just try hard enough and want it more. It ignores many structural advantages and tendencies that simply does not give you a clean slate each time and ends up driving these BS narratives about how anything less than total victory is an embarrassment. It’s also mostly one way - not one word out there about total Republican failure to have an impact in California… that state just doesn’t count for some unidentifiable reason.
No, no its not. Not when there is no evidence beyond the uncorroborated testimony of one woman.
Once again, people have to choose between stupid liberals and evil conservatives. people seem to feel more comfortable with stupid than evil.
Was this blue wave significantly bigger than the red wave in 2010? AFAICT, we lost more seats in the house in 2010 than we won in 2018. We also lost 6 senate seats in 2010.
This COULD have been a blue wave election but then we had the Kavanaugh hearings and that got all the conservatives to come out and vote, which limited the effect of the blue wave.
Republican turnout was much higher in 2018 than normal for a party that occupies the White House.
A thorough investigation is how we find out the extent of any potentially corroborating information.
But this is really, really old, and really, really boring. I get it - you don’t think these allegations should have been taken seriously. Some of us disagree. We don’t have to go on and on and on about it.
Sorry, but I’ll trust Nate Silver’s analysis over that of an internet person who, by my evaluation, has a questionable record on the facts, at best. It was a blue wave. So says Nate Silver and pretty much every other political analyst with a good record on the facts.
Democrats won the House with the largest midterms margin of all time
And to think, it could have been a blue wave.
National House vote:
R D Margin
2010 44,827,441 38,980,192 R+7.0%
2018 50,815,265 60,488,814 D+8.7%
Republican turnout was higher than baseline possibly in part due to Kavanaugh.
However, Democratic turnout was much, much higher than baseline also possibly in part due to Kavanaugh.
To put it another way, Republicans got 80.4% of their 2016 house vote in 2018. That is pretty remarkable. However, Democrats got 97.9% of their 2016 house vote in 2018. That is earth shattering.
From the same site.
The same effect is present in the house race but the house races recovered (IMHO because of the underlying wave caused by having Trump in office). I think we would have seen a larger majority in the House without the kavanaugh hearings driving conservatives to the polls.
Back to we again I take it.