2018 Midterm Election Results

[dank69]

The Benghazi investigations were a circus and they cost Hillary Clinton the election.

Are you saying there is a different set of rules for Republicans and Democrats? My stars!

 

[realibrad]

They will do that regardless but it's hard to see why that matters. It's strange to me that people think he has some sort of immunity idol so this stuff doesn't hurt him.

1) He's basically the most unpopular US president in history.
2) Despite having complete control of government for two years he accomplished almost nothing legislatively.
3) He just lost control of the House of representatives by a huge vote margin.
4) He was only saved the Senate by a historically favorable senate map.

People dislike him a lot and these antics only serve to make people dislike him more. The evidence is pretty unequivocal about that. If you guys think that him whining about how picked on he is will counteract people uncovering criminal activity well... I guess we'll have to see. I know I wouldn't bet on that.

He has a history of shrugging off stuff that would normally hurt someone. I think that should give anyone pause. He gets the conversation to shift from what he does, to what he says. This shifts the discussion and makes it look like people are just attacking him, and not his actions.

That is why I think it would not be worth it to do until after 2020.

 

[dank69]

Lamont barely fends off Stefanowski.

 

[fskimospy]

He has a history of shrugging off stuff that would normally hurt someone. I think that should give anyone pause. He gets the conversation to shift from what he does, to what he says. This shifts the discussion and makes it look like people are just attacking him, and not his actions.

That is why I think it would not be worth it to do until after 2020.

I think you are mistaking the fact that those things hurt him LESS than they hurt other people for them not hurting him at all, or even helping him. The evidence is pretty clear they hurt him.

 

[realibrad]

Schiff and Cummings (at least Cummings staff anyway) are incredibly intelligent, patient and persistent. Contrast that to bumbling fools Nunes, Jordan, Goodlatte, and Gaetz on the GOP side. I have faith in their ability. They just need to put a leash on Maxine Waters and not let her run too far ahead of the pack.

The Kavanaugh thing is what makes me question it. Its not even that anyone did anything, but, Trump was able to make it all seem like personal attacks rather than an examination on his history. You could be right, but, I still worry. Maybe that is just me though.

 

[blackangst1]

While you were typing that, Nancy Polosi ate your lunch.

I wasnt talking only about federal seats.

I actually think the Dems win in the House is a good thing, but not because Im a fan of Pelosi. With a split majority in House and Senate, it will force both sides to cooperate to get anything done, which is best for the country IMHO.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I think that will likely happen. I also think it will lead to the democrats losing badly in 2020.

Agree 100%. I haven't verified, but heard on the news that pretty well every senator that opposed Kavanaugh lost. The people are tired of a faux corruption bs being used as a tool by the Democrats because they lost in 2016. I think this election shows that Trump has a pretty big head of steam heading towards 2020.

 

[K1052]

lol I didn't realize till now that the woman who primaried Sanford lost the seat to a D challenger. She is now blaming Sanford for the loss.

 

[realibrad]

I think you are mistaking the fact that those things hurt him LESS than they hurt other people for them not hurting him at all, or even helping him. The evidence is pretty clear they hurt him.

It might be different now, but, he still won. Now, with everything that is going on, Dems only slightly win. Its true that Dems vote far more for a pres election, so maybe this slight bump is an indication of a much larger push in 2020, but I still worry.

I don't know if people can take another 4 years of Trump, so maybe I'm took gun shy.

 

[K1052]

It might be different now, but, he still won. Now, with everything that is going on, Dems only slightly win. Its true that Dems vote far more for a pres election, so maybe this slight bump is an indication of a much larger push in 2020, but I still worry.

I don't know if people can take another 4 years of Trump, so maybe I'm took gun shy.

His party just lost a bunch of statewide races in places that were crucial to his EC victory (MI, WI, PA) and showed little to reverse headway in some cuspy ones (MN stands out). Former swings (CO, VA, etc) heading deep blue. Replicating 2016 in 2020 absent HRC is going to be a really tall order, not that the Dems shouldn't take it deadly serious. He needs to make enormous headway in these places but I don't know how he does it.

 

[fskimospy]

It might be different now, but, he still won. Now, with everything that is going on, Dems only slightly win. Its true that Dems vote far more for a pres election, so maybe this slight bump is an indication of a much larger push in 2020, but I still worry.

I don't know if people can take another 4 years of Trump, so maybe I'm took gun shy.

Only slightly win? While it depends on the final count the margin will be among the largest congressional popular vote wins in the last 40 years. The idea that's a 'slight bump' is absurd.

I think you're confusing seat allocation with vote total which means Republicans basically get credit for cheating.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It really doesn't matter until we know who the opponents will be. Let's say Hillary ran again...it would be an auto win for him. The dems need to really step up their candidacy game with someone mostly moderate to beat Trump.

What really needs to happen is either something needs found on Trump that makes him look very bad - with unquestionable evidence - or his name needs cleared. I can disagree with his policies and be okay about it if I don't feel he's dishonest AF. However, the guy just oozes BS and his actions and history speak of a man who has lots of illegal activity under his belt.

 

[Perknose]

Schiff and Cummings (at least Cummings staff anyway) are incredibly intelligent, patient and persistent. Contrast that to bumbling fools Nunes, Jordan, Goodlatte, and Gaetz on the GOP side. I have faith in their ability. They just need to put a leash on Maxine Waters and not let her run too far ahead of the pack.

This really, really needs to happen. No over the top grandstanding, please, Maxine. Let the substance quietly but firmly speak for itself.

 

[Greenman]

Why?

Because it becomes reality tv, and Trump knows how to use reality tv. The actual issues will get lost in the drama. Trump will make it all about the democrats trying to stop his agenda and bring him down, and it will work well enough because the dems aren't as good at it as Trump. Shit storms are what Trump does.

 

[fskimospy]

It really doesn't matter until we know who the opponents will be. Let's say Hillary ran again...it would be an auto win for him. The dems need to really step up their candidacy game with someone mostly moderate to beat Trump.

It's always interesting to me that I see Hillary Clinton's loss blamed on the fact that she was both too liberal and too centrist.

Every Democratic presidential nominee has run on a centrist platform for the last 30 years. They are moderates, it's the Republican candidates that are radicals.

 

[realibrad]

Only slightly win? While it depends on the final count the margin will be among the largest congressional popular vote wins in the last 40 years. The idea that's a 'slight bump' is absurd.

I think you're confusing seat allocation with vote total which means Republicans basically get credit for cheating.

The control that the Dems have is slight. Power shifted, but, not by a huge margin. So slight bump seems correct.

Margins are an indication of voter feelings, but, what matters is who wins. Trump lost the popular vote, but still won.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It's always interesting to me that I see Hillary Clinton's loss blamed on the fact that she was both too liberal and too centrist.

Every Democratic presidential nominee has run on a centrist platform for the last 30 years. They are moderates, it's the Republican candidates that are radicals.

I wasn't alluding to Hillary being leftist, her loss was that she was a known quantity that no one liked since her husband was in office and then the 'scandle' didn't help. However, if you get a too left Dem running against Trump, it will be a tough win. There's lots of Republicans that don't like Trump...they just don't want what the Dems have to offer. Give them someone tolerable in the middle and you might sway them.

 

[fskimospy]

The control that the Dems have is slight. Power shifted, but, not by a huge margin. So slight bump seems correct.

Margins are an indication of voter feelings, but, what matters is who wins. Trump lost the popular vote, but still won.

You are attempting to extrapolate changes in gerrymandered congressional districts with changes in presidential elections which is a very bad idea.

Slight bump is very wrong and what you should really be looking at is vote shift from 2016 to 2018 to get an idea of what that means for the presidential race. When you do that if we had a similar shift in 2020 Trump would lose catastrophically.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Election as I expected. Business as usual in Washington

 

[fskimospy]

I wasn't alluding to Hillary being leftist, her loss was that she was a known quantity that no one liked since her husband was in office and then the 'scandle' didn't help. However, if you get a too left Dem running against Trump, it will be a tough win. There's lots of Republicans that don't like Trump...they just don't want what the Dems have to offer. Give them someone tolerable in the middle and you might sway them.

What's odd is that Republicans DO want most of what Democrats have to offer. (Most of the Democratic platform has majority support from Republican voters)

People rarely vote on the issues though, it's tribalism and culture war.

 

[realibrad]

You are attempting to extrapolate changes in gerrymandered congressional districts with changes in presidential elections which is a very bad idea.

Slight bump is very wrong and what you should really be looking at is vote shift from 2016 to 2018 to get an idea of what that means for the presidential race. When you do that if we had a similar shift in 2020 Trump would lose catastrophically.

I already pointed out that this could be a good indication for 2020.

I think if the Dems get someone to run that is strong, then they have a much better chance of winning and removing Trump. What has me worried is what the Dems might do in the short run, and who they put up. You only get 1 Dem option, vs the hundreds that were just voted for.

 

[SMOGZINN]

With a split majority in House and Senate, it will force both sides to cooperate to get anything done, which is best for the country IMHO.

Heh. Good one. Our politics are too divided to work together. All a split majority in the House and Senate means is that almost nothing is going to get done. Expect 2 years of Trump coming up with more and more desperate excuses on why he can rule by executive order as Congress is unable to pass anything that is not so watered down as to be useless.

Republicans better get their shit together and get an appropriations bill passed in December because if they push it off to January like they usually do the government is going to come to a screeching halt. There is no way a Democratic house and Republican Senate can pass an appropriations bill that Trump will sign.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Democrats were likely to take the House (not abnormal in a midterm), they hoped to take the Senate. Ginsburg turns 86 in about four months...

The Dems hoped but in no way expected to take the Senate. The current midterm dynamics suggested that Dems should have lost power in all ways that count. Instead, they took what is arguably the more important of the two parts of Congress. Yes the Senate controls judges, but Ginsberg isn't dead yet. She might live to see Trump's goose cooked right proper, trimmings and all.

That may leave Pence, but for all his religious nutter business has been in a situation to know when it's time to play ball and compromise and who doesn't appear to be all that clean himself.

The Republicans have given a knife to hold to the political throats of those you embrace, but please continue to think you've just won.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It's always interesting to me that I see Hillary Clinton's loss blamed on the fact that she was both too liberal and too centrist.

Every Democratic presidential nominee has run on a centrist platform for the last 30 years. They are moderates, it's the Republican candidates that are radicals.

What do you consider "radical" about Trump? Opposing socialist health care? Wanting secure borders? Daring to be an advocate for America in our trade deals? Working towards denuclearization of NK? Expecting immigrants to go through the legal process to be vetted? Putting in two moderate judges to the SC?

 

[realibrad]

Heh. Good one. Our politics are too divided to work together. All a split majority in the House and Senate means is that almost nothing is going to get done. Expect 2 years of Trump coming up with more and more desperate excuses on why he can rule by executive order as Congress is unable to pass anything that is not so watered down as to be useless.

Republicans better get their shit together and get an appropriations bill passed in December because if they push it off to January like they usually do the government is going to come to a screeching halt. There is no way a Democratic house and Republican Senate can pass an appropriations bill that Trump will sign.

That will get turned into a positive for Trump.

"We want to do very good things. I try to do very good things, but the Dems, you know the Dems, they are always ruining things"

You would likely see the Rs push more things knowing the Dems will stop it.