2018 Midterm Elections

[carpedm9587]

I have been saying, for some time now, that the midterms are shaping up to be a significant wave. PA-18 suggests that wave is growing. Even if this is ultimately reversed, the fact that a district Trump won by 20 points is THIS close continues this trend to a leftward shift by 5-20 points in congressional district elections. Republicans are going to have to change their dynamic if they hope to keep the house in 2018. The Senate is almost certain to stay in Republican control, and they may even gain a couple seats. But then they face the reverse situation in 2020, when they will be defending far more seats than the Democrats, at the same time that they are trying to preserve the White House.

Personally, I would like to see one of the three go to Democrats, and either the Senate OR the executive go to Democrats. If either the Senate or W.H. goes Democrat, I don't care what the house does. If neither does, then I care about the House. A federal trifecta, especially when it's the same party that has a trifecta in over half the U.S. states, is a problem, IMO.

Here's for 2018 and 2020 restoring some degree of balance.

[rogue06]

What effect do you think about the fact that the Democrat candidate made a point to mirror several of Trump's positions not to mention a very anti-Nancy Pelosi campaign had and may mean?

[carpedm9587]

What effect do you think about the fact that the Democrat candidate made a point to mirror several of Trump's positions not to mention a very anti-Nancy Pelosi campaign had and may mean?

I think it means that we are seeing Democrats that are moving more to the center, and learning lessons from 2016. Meanwhile, republican candidates appear to be moving more to the right. I also think it means Pelosi will soon be more widely seen by Democrats as the handicap she is. They are in a tough place with her: shes a liability politically, but she is a tremendous asset financially.

There is also an interesting dynamic that may be at play here. In fairly red districts, Republicans may well find that they cannot win the Republican primary without hitching their wagon to Trump. Then, when the general election comes along, that association will stick to them, and fire up the left, making it hard for them to win the general election. Of course, that won't be true of all districts. But there are about 110 districts where Trump won with a narrower margin than in PA-18. Democrats need 23 of them. Statistically, the number of districts that shift when a president is below 50% approval is north of 40.

The numbers do not look good for Republicans.

[Mountain Man]

Eh, Lamb was favored going in, but the fact that he won by the slimmest of margins doesn't give Democrats much reason to celebrate because it gives him pretty much zero momentum going into November.

I know liberals keep harping about this supposed "blue wave", but I think it's going to end up being much like Hillary's "blue wall" that was supposed to guarantee her a victory. The wall crumbled, and I suspect the wave will dissipate once the real campaigning begins.

[carpedm9587]

Eh, Lamb was favored going in, but the fact that he won by the slimmest of margins doesn't give Democrats much reason to celebrate because it gives him pretty much zero momentum going into November.

I know liberals keep harping about this supposed "blue wave", but I think it's going to end up being much like Hillary's "blue wall" that was supposed to guarantee her a victory. The wall crumbled, and I suspect the wave will dissipate once the real campaigning begins.

We shall see...

Personally, I think a LOT of Republicans are in denial....

[Mountain Man]

Personally, I think a LOT of Republicans are in denial....

Just as a lot of Democrats are overestimating the size and extent of the "wave".

But as you say, we shall see.

[carpedm9587]

Just as a lot of Democrats are overestimating the size and extent of the "wave".

But as you say, we shall see.

So, out of curiosity, what do you do with the fact that EVERY election since Nov 8, 2016, has shifted 5-20 points (average is around 11 points) to the left from the Cook PVI and/or the previous election cycle and/or the Trump gap (the latter for places, like PA-18, where the previous election was viewed as unwinnable, so was unopposed)? It's irrelevant? I mean, let's think about this for a second: Lamb won a narrow victory - but he won it in the district that a) Trump won by 20 points and b) is so skewed to the right that Democrats didn't even bother running a candidate in the last election.

P.S. Lamb's win is not irrelevant because it was narrow - it is irrelevant (long term) because PA-18 won't exist as it is now in November. The state has been ruled illegally gerrymandered and completely new districts are being deployed for November.

[hedrick]

Eh, Lamb was favored going in, but the fact that he won by the slimmest of margins doesn't give Democrats much reason to celebrate because it gives him pretty much zero momentum going into November.

In November the districts will be different. He'll probably run in a district where he won't have any trouble.

Mid-term elections when the president is unpopular always show a big win for the other party. I don't doubt that there will be a blue wave, but historically it's sort of expected, and may not have long-term significance.

I doubt Trump will be able to win reelection. It was tight with a bad Democratic candidate, Russian meddling, and the last-minute misleading FBI action on Hillary's email. A second term will be harder. With a sane Republican candidate I think there would be a better chance. My impression is that demographics will become increasingly favorable to Democrats, but probably not by 2020.

I sort of agree with carpedm9587 that it's probably safest not to have the same party in control of everything, though there are some serious problems -- e.g. health care and deficits -- that are going to be hard to deal with without Democrats in full control at least for a while.

[carpedm9587]

In November the districts will be different. He'll probably run in a district where he won't have any trouble.

Mid-term elections when the president is unpopular always show a big win for the other party. I don't doubt that there will be a blue wave, but historically it's sort of expected, and may not have long-term significance.

I doubt Trump will be able to win reelection. It was tight with a bad Democratic candidate, Russian meddling, and the last-minute misleading FBI action on Hillary's email. A second term will be harder. With a sane Republican candidate I think there would be a better chance. My impression is that demographics will become increasingly favorable to Democrats, but probably not by 2020.

I sort of agree with carpedm9587 that it's probably safest not to have the same party in control of everything, though there are some serious problems -- e.g. health care and deficits -- that are going to be hard to deal with without Democrats in full control at least for a while.

Healthcare - yes. Deficits? My impression is that parties care about deficits until they gain power - and then they mostly spend. Democrats don't seem to be any more immune to that than Republicans.

[hedrick]

Healthcare - yes. Deficits? My impression is that parties care about deficits until they gain power - and then they mostly spend. Democrats don't seem to be any more immune to that than Republicans.

Yeah, the record isn't good for either. I used to think Democrats were worse, but several recent Republican administrations have done tax cuts, claiming they'll make the money back on volume. It doesn't work. The current tax cut is a disaster of that kind. I don't think Republicans will fix it, and I don't see how we can do anything sane as long as it's there.

Here's the long-term record: http://goliards.us/adelphi/deficits/. You'll see it used to be that Democrats tended to have larger deficits, but except for Obama (who was dealing with a major recession) it's largely been reversed recently. Here's similar data in another, more graphic, form: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...l-debt/264193/.

[lilpixieofterror]

I think it means that we are seeing Democrats that are moving more to the center, and learning lessons from 2016. Meanwhile, republican candidates appear to be moving more to the right. I also think it means Pelosi will soon be more widely seen by Democrats as the handicap she is. They are in a tough place with her: shes a liability politically, but she is a tremendous asset financially.

There is also an interesting dynamic that may be at play here. In fairly red districts, Republicans may well find that they cannot win the Republican primary without hitching their wagon to Trump. Then, when the general election comes along, that association will stick to them, and fire up the left, making it hard for them to win the general election. Of course, that won't be true of all districts. But there are about 110 districts where Trump won with a narrower margin than in PA-18. Democrats need 23 of them. Statistically, the number of districts that shift when a president is below 50% approval is north of 40.

The numbers do not look good for Republicans.

Problem with your theory is that democrats tried this about 10 years ago towards the end of Bush era and beginning of the Obama era. Problem is many of these consertives democrats were used as fodder to pass the ACA and other such bills and ended up losing those gains. Only time will tell if democrats learned anything yet or if they end up the same way 10 years from now.

[Mountain Man]

It appears that in the recent special election. Paul Ryan's SuperPAC campaigned for Lamb.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...at-conor-lamb/

We saw something similar in Alabama when some Republicans turned their back on Roy Moore. That could make it tough for Republican candidates if members of their own party come out in support of their opponents.

[Sparko]

I have been saying, for some time now, that the midterms are shaping up to be a significant wave. PA-18 suggests that wave is growing. Even if this is ultimately reversed, the fact that a district Trump won by 20 points is THIS close continues this trend to a leftward shift by 5-20 points in congressional district elections. Republicans are going to have to change their dynamic if they hope to keep the house in 2018. The Senate is almost certain to stay in Republican control, and they may even gain a couple seats. But then they face the reverse situation in 2020, when they will be defending far more seats than the Democrats, at the same time that they are trying to preserve the White House.

Personally, I would like to see one of the three go to Democrats, and either the Senate OR the executive go to Democrats. If either the Senate or W.H. goes Democrat, I don't care what the house does. If neither does, then I care about the House. A federal trifecta, especially when it's the same party that has a trifecta in over half the U.S. states, is a problem, IMO.

Here's for 2018 and 2020 restoring some degree of balance.

..and just in time for the elections, the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot:

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2018/03/09/democrats-release-tax-hike-plan/#5d1930137b9e

Democrats Release Tax Hike Plan

This week, Congressional Democrats released a detailed tax hike plan that they promised to implement if given majority control of the House and Senate after the 2018 midterm elections. So much for the crocodile tears about the deficit--Democrats want to raise taxes not to reduce the debt, but rather to spend that tax hike money on boondoggle projects.

As you might expect, hold onto your wallets. Here are the details:

[more at the link]

© Copyright Original Source

It's like they are trying to not get elected. smh.

[carpedm9587]

Problem with your theory is that democrats tried this about 10 years ago towards the end of Bush era and beginning of the Obama era. Problem is many of these consertives democrats were used as fodder to pass the ACA and other such bills and ended up losing those gains. Only time will tell if democrats learned anything yet or if they end up the same way 10 years from now.

Politics are cyclical. Every indication is that the Republican "surge" has peaked and the pendulum is swinging back to the left/Democrats. Then it will undoubtedly (and eventually) peak in that direction and swing back again. It's a cycle I don't see ending anytime soon. Indeed, it seems to be swinging more and more widely. If the Democrats take bouth houses and the WH by 2020, I'll be here advocating for Republicans to retake one or more.

[carpedm9587]

..and just in time for the elections, the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot:

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2018/03/09/democrats-release-tax-hike-plan/#5d1930137b9e

Democrats Release Tax Hike Plan

This week, Congressional Democrats released a detailed tax hike plan that they promised to implement if given majority control of the House and Senate after the 2018 midterm elections. So much for the crocodile tears about the deficit--Democrats want to raise taxes not to reduce the debt, but rather to spend that tax hike money on boondoggle projects.

As you might expect, hold onto your wallets. Here are the details:

[more at the link]

© Copyright Original Source

It's like they are trying to not get elected. smh.

As I noted - we shall see...