Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

My Initial Midterm Reactions

Recommended Posts

My reactions are mixed. Democrats exceeded my expectations in the House, but they seriously disappointed me in the senate and governors races. Although, I had expected GOP to retain the Senate. 

I am happiest with the House, WI gov, KS gov election results. The losses that hurt the most were FL gov and sen, GA gov (I think something fishy happened here), TX sen (Beto overperformed, however), and potential loses on AZ and MT senate races. 

Every rising star Dem was defeated (not counting those that were expected to easily win).

In 1858, Fmr Rep. Abraham Lincoln lost his senate race narrowly against a powerful incumbent. Two years later Lincoln was president. Let’s hope O’Rourke follows this path.

Kobach’s loss in KS is a huge slap in Trump’s face, considering this was Trump’s handpicked candidate. 

I don’t think focusing on identity politics helps outside the primaries. Our country is still too 

WI, PA, and MI appear to be moving back to the Blue column. 

Pollsters were about as inaccurate as they were in 2016. They can’t be trusted. 

Sherrod Brown won’t be a VP candidate since DeWine won the governorship of Ohio.

Sinema is likely to lose her race, taking her off the table as a VP pick.

Longterm, I think GOP won, as Democrats are in a bind for who they can pick as VP. Also a crop of rising stars must join Jason Kander as rising stars without a high profile office. Retreat must be converted into advance.

Short term, Democrats look good with the House     . They best not F it up. All actions must be serious, sincere, and fair—including any investigations or related matters concerning Trump collusion. It’s time to build credibility  and to play it smart. Don’t let Trump use Pelosi as fuel for 2020. Pelosi has to somehow come off as more reliable—and likable—than Trump. This will be difficult considering how interchangeable Pelosi and Clinton are to Republicans. Pelosi should willingly transfer the Speakership in Nov 2019, if she becomes more helpful to GOP support than Dem support. The new Speaker should probably be Rep. Tim Ryan, and not someone that rouses the opposition to action like Rep  Adam Schiff. Ryan is also Trump’s demographic.

In all, I’m mixed. GOP looks better longterm, and Dems short term. Dems can make some opportunities if they play this smart rather than ideological.

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 12 of the 33 candidates Trump endorsed on twitter won. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like a big part of the story is the ongoing decline in ticket-splitting and the obstacle it poses to "waves." Traditionally, it's been difficult for the President's party to pick off opposition Senators in a midterm, especially when the President is unpopular overall, but perhaps we've reached the point where simply being Democrats was too big of a disadvantage for McCaskill, Donnelly, and Heitkamp to overcome. Nelson, if he does lose once the counts in FL are finalized, is a little more of a surprise to me - maybe he didn't run the best campaign, but FL isn't as red as MO, IN, or ND.

I suppose the upside of this for the Dems is that they might be able to beat Trump in 2020 *and* win some of the purple-state Senate seats in 2022 that they lost in 2016, which I would have otherwise thought would be an unlikely combination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, vcczar said:

My reactions are mixed. Democrats exceeded my expectations in the House, but they seriously disappointed me in the senate and governors races. Although, I had expected GOP to retain the Senate. 

I am happiest with the House, WI gov, KS gov election results. The losses that hurt the most were FL gov and sen, GA gov (I think something fishy happened here), TX sen (Beto overperformed, however), and potential loses on AZ and MT senate races. 

Every rising star Dem was defeated (not counting those that were expected to easily win).

In 1858, Fmr Rep. Abraham Lincoln lost his senate race narrowly against a powerful incumbent. Two years later Lincoln was president. Let’s hope O’Rourke follows this path.

Kobach’s loss in KS is a huge slap in Trump’s face, considering this was Trump’s handpicked candidate. 

I don’t think focusing on identity politics helps outside the primaries. Our country is still too 

WI, PA, and MI appear to be moving back to the Blue column. 

Pollsters were about as inaccurate as they were in 2016. They can’t be trusted. 

Sherrod Brown won’t be a VP candidate since DeWine won the governorship of Ohio.

Sinema is likely to lose her race, taking her off the table as a VP pick.

Longterm, I think GOP won, as Democrats are in a bind for who they can pick as VP. Also a crop of rising stars must join Jason Kander as rising stars without a high profile office. Retreat must be converted into advance.

Short term, Democrats look good with the House     . They best not F it up. All actions must be serious, sincere, and fair—including any investigations or related matters concerning Trump collusion. It’s time to build credibility  and to play it smart. Don’t let Trump use Pelosi as fuel for 2020. Pelosi has to somehow come off as more reliable—and likable—than Trump. This will be difficult considering how interchangeable Pelosi and Clinton are to Republicans. Pelosi should willingly transfer the Speakership in Nov 2019, if she becomes more helpful to GOP support than Dem support. The new Speaker should probably be Rep. Tim Ryan, and not someone that rouses the opposition to action like Rep  Adam Schiff. Ryan is also Trump’s demographic.

In all, I’m mixed. GOP looks better longterm, and Dems short term. Dems can make some opportunities if they play this smart rather than ideological.

  

 

Although I expected fully it would end up being one chamber won by each party, I was hoping it would have been the Senate the Democrats controlled, to drive hard bargains and compromises on Supreme Court nominations, as well as ones for Trump's revolving door cabinet and White House offices. And besides, what good, moral, decent human being wouldn't want to unseat an emotionless, uncaring, unfeeling political drone like Mitch McConnell from such a high legislative leadership position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"compromises on Supreme Court nominations"

I have to wonder if there will be another SC nomination before 2020. My guess is there won't be, but the Senators who have won for this cycle won't be up for re-election until 2024.

So if there's another vacancy on the court between 2020 and 2023, it might still be an important difference.

Having said that, there are lots of other judicial appointments that will be made in the next 2 years.

In March, 2023 Ginsburg turns 90. If she intends to serve a year beyond that, it would make her the oldest Supreme Court justice ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

"compromises on Supreme Court nominations"

I have to wonder if there will be another SC nomination before 2020. My guess is there won't be, but the Senators who have won for this cycle won't be up for re-election until 2024.

So if there's another vacancy on the court between 2020 and 2023, it might still be an important difference.

Having said that, there are lots of other judicial appointments that will be made in the next 2 years.

In March, 2023 Ginsburg turns 90. If she intends to serve a year beyond that, it would make her the oldest Supreme Court justice ever.

The only situation I could see another SC nomination in the next two years is a death. The remaining liberal judges are surely clutching their seats, especially Ginsburg. I've been saying she'd die on the court for the past few years, and I still believe that to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

Although I expected fully it would end up being one chamber won by each party, I was hoping it would have been the Senate the Democrats controlled, to drive hard bargains and compromises on Supreme Court nominations, as well as ones for Trump's revolving door cabinet and White House offices. And besides, what good, moral, decent human being wouldn't want to unseat an emotionless, uncaring, unfeeling political drone like Mitch McConnell from such a high legislative leadership position?

The 2020 Senate also looks bad for Democrats. I think they'll defend every seat, except one. But then I see only two seats that they have a shot picking off, which gives them a net gain of 1, with GOP still controlling the Senate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

The 2020 Senate also looks bad for Democrats. I think they'll defend every seat, except one. But then I see only two seats that they have a shot picking off, which gives them a net gain of 1, with GOP still controlling the Senate. 

Mind you, Obama lost control of the House, but kept control of the Senate in the first mid-term after he was elected, were as both Reagan and Clinton lost both chambers in that first mid-term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the Senate is definitely a YUGE win for Trump. The two oldest Supreme Court members are in their mid to late 80s and are left-wing. The House has absolutely no power when it comes to appointments, and Trump already got his healthcare and tax bills passed so he has less use for the house at the moment. Definitely agree that this is better for the GOP in the long run.

Wish Cordray would have won Ohio though. Mike DeWine is a dumbass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Having the Senate is definitely a YUGE win for Trump. The two oldest Supreme Court members are in their mid to late 80s and are left-wing. The House has absolutely no power when it comes to appointments, and Trump already got his healthcare and tax bills passed so he has less use for the house at the moment. Definitely agree that this is better for the GOP in the long run.

Wish Cordray would have won Ohio though. Mike DeWine is a dumbass.

Trump didn’t get his healthcare passed. That was rejected by McCain and others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Trump didn’t get his healthcare passed. That was rejected by McCain and others. 

I thought I recalled a really stripped down part of it being passed a while after that. I haven't really been following politics as intensely following last election so I'm probably wrong.

Also wish Issue 1 passed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Trump didn’t get his healthcare passed. That was rejected by McCain and others. 

What'd be interesting is if all those GOPers who are leaving decided to as a last ditch sabotage to repeal Obamacare before the new Democrats are sworn in.

29 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I thought I recalled a really stripped down part of it being passed a while after that. I haven't really been following politics as intensely following last election so I'm probably wrong.

Well me since 2017. Trump's presidency is too crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, vcczar said:

My reactions are mixed. Democrats exceeded my expectations in the House, but they seriously disappointed me in the senate and governors races. Although, I had expected GOP to retain the Senate. 

I am happiest with the House, WI gov, KS gov election results. The losses that hurt the most were FL gov and sen, GA gov (I think something fishy happened here), TX sen (Beto overperformed, however), and potential loses on AZ and MT senate races. 

Every rising star Dem was defeated (not counting those that were expected to easily win).

In 1858, Fmr Rep. Abraham Lincoln lost his senate race narrowly against a powerful incumbent. Two years later Lincoln was president. Let’s hope O’Rourke follows this path.

Kobach’s loss in KS is a huge slap in Trump’s face, considering this was Trump’s handpicked candidate. 

I don’t think focusing on identity politics helps outside the primaries. Our country is still too 

WI, PA, and MI appear to be moving back to the Blue column. 

Pollsters were about as inaccurate as they were in 2016. They can’t be trusted. 

Sherrod Brown won’t be a VP candidate since DeWine won the governorship of Ohio.

Sinema is likely to lose her race, taking her off the table as a VP pick.

Longterm, I think GOP won, as Democrats are in a bind for who they can pick as VP. Also a crop of rising stars must join Jason Kander as rising stars without a high profile office. Retreat must be converted into advance.

Short term, Democrats look good with the House     . They best not F it up. All actions must be serious, sincere, and fair—including any investigations or related matters concerning Trump collusion. It’s time to build credibility  and to play it smart. Don’t let Trump use Pelosi as fuel for 2020. Pelosi has to somehow come off as more reliable—and likable—than Trump. This will be difficult considering how interchangeable Pelosi and Clinton are to Republicans. Pelosi should willingly transfer the Speakership in Nov 2019, if she becomes more helpful to GOP support than Dem support. The new Speaker should probably be Rep. Tim Ryan, and not someone that rouses the opposition to action like Rep  Adam Schiff. Ryan is also Trump’s demographic.

In all, I’m mixed. GOP looks better longterm, and Dems short term. Dems can make some opportunities if they play this smart rather than ideological.

  

 

 

https://twitter.com/PatrickRuffini/status/1060276682819584000

I know you said pollsters, but the forecasts were roughly 94% correct.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realized a few things this election cycle. Polls are overrated. Even though they are a real good indicator people, myself included, most of the times read and rely too much on them. The Florida races are good examples. Even though Democrats led most polls they both lost (recount withstanding). Same can be said for the Ohio Governor's race and a few House races.

The Trump effect is real. He remains undamaged from about 95% of what he does. His campaigning in key Senate races is definitely what helped the Republicans gain 3-4 seats. He deserves more credit. 

The Kavanaugh effect was real. His confirmation vote definitely affected a few of these close races. I was initially dismissive but it seems I was wrong. 

This election is definitely one for the history books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, an obstructionist House is a good thing - but with the Republicans gaining more seats in the Senate - well it looks like the American populace is now in even more trouble than it started in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CalebsParadox said:

@vcczar Is Beto already in the 2020 scenario?

No. I’m going to add him.  The next update will come out when Anthony releases the next update with the 10 point rating system and favorability. I think that comes out this month?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

I realized a few things this election cycle. Polls are overrated. Even though they are a real good indicator people, myself included, most of the times read and rely too much on them. The Florida races are good examples. Even though Democrats led most polls they both lost (recount withstanding). Same can be said for the Ohio Governor's race and a few House races.

The Trump effect is real. He remains undamaged from about 95% of what he does. His campaigning in key Senate races is definitely what helped the Republicans gain 3-4 seats. He deserves more credit. 

The Kavanaugh effect was real. His confirmation vote definitely affected a few of these close races. I was initially dismissive but it seems I was wrong. 

This election is definitely one for the history books.

I don’t see it that historical. I think it could have been had Gillum, Abrams, O’Rourke, and Cordray had won their elections. That isn’t to say history wasn’t made in certain ways, such as first openly gay governor, first lesbian Native American US Rep, youngest woman US Rep, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wiw said:

Don't get me wrong, an obstructionist House is a good thing - but with the Republicans gaining more seats in the Senate - well it looks like the American populace is now in even more trouble than it started in!

I think we are only in more trouble if the Democrat house screws this up. The GOP senate increase does pose a problem for 2020. I looked at the map and I see Democrats gaining 2 seats and losing 1 for a net gain of 1. That’s still a senate majority for GOP. Basically, 2020 will have to be a Wave. Unfortunately, I feel the states are so either red or blue that the GOP will generally control the senate since they are favored in WY, MT, ID, ND, SD, places that combine for 10 total senators even though their combined population is less than Blue CA that only has 2 senators. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually was hoping Gillum would win so that in 5-10 years time we could see him running possibly for president, a younger less radical version of Sanders.

Very sad but hopefully he goes for senate next time with the felons being able to vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wolves said:

I actually was hoping Gillum would win so that in 5-10 years time we could see him running possibly for president, a younger less radical version of Sanders.

Very sad but hopefully he goes for senate next time with the felons being able to vote

You mean by felons the "citizens who are, or have been, under incarceration but not formerly stripped of citizenship, and many of their convictions were forced or bogus ones so the State could meet it's artificial quotas to the vile, detestable, loathsome, and Third World despotism-worthy "prison industrial complex" that should be a criminal enterprise in and of itself," who have not become a class of resident non-citizens and have no real justification other than high-minded (and usually hypocritical-sounding from the mouths it comes from) moral preaching and the desire to cut a demographic who would likely, more than not, vote against the State's current partisan majority, from voting. A form of gerrymandering, albeit not in typical legal wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was initially surprised that IN, TN, MO we're not as close as I expected. But I feel that this election solidify what happened in 2016: if you live in the major cities/suburbs you're gonna blue; and heavily red if you're in the rural areas. 

That said, in a map that skewed heavily towards the GoP the Democratic party retook the chamber and pulled off surprising upsets(like my district: SC-01, or the one in Oklahoma City). Also the Democratic Party won seats that they would have never won 20 years ago- hell maybe even 10! Such as the California 49th, VA-10,  and Texas 32nd. This will greatly expand the Democratic bench that had been decimated during the Obama years to the point only the ideological progressives were seen as the leaders of the party. 

And I haven't even touched on the ballot inititives that passed across the nation! States expanded Medicare, or restored the right to exfelons. Massachusetts passed a law protecting the LGBT community from discrimination. 

If I were to rate this midterm. 

10 being 1994, and 0 being 1998.

I'm giving this a 7. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

You mean by felons the "citizens who are, or have been, under incarceration but not formerly stripped of citizenship, and many of their convictions were forced or bogus ones so the State could meet it's artificial quotas to the vile, detestable, loathsome, and Third World despotism-worthy "prison industrial complex" that should be a criminal enterprise in and of itself," who have not become a class of resident non-citizens and have no real justification other than high-minded (and usually hypocritical-sounding from the mouths it comes from) moral preaching and the desire to cut a demographic who would likely, more than not, vote against the State's current partisan majority, from voting. A form of gerrymandering, albeit not in typical legal wording.

Yes. I mean that entirely.

I'm not saying felons shouldn't vote. I'm saying the opposite. The USA's legal system is built on money and trying to attain more of it, they don't care about anything but that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...