The news media are still a-buzz with subject in which I have little interest so let’s talk about the prospects for the midterm elections, shall we? At CNN Harry Enten sums up his analysis of the midterms:
We can also look at district-by-district ratings produced by organizations such CNN, the Cook Political Report and Inside Elections. All of these rating systems point towards Democrats picking up seats, and the average outcome would be a Democratic takeover. But there’s a wide range of possible outcomes given the predictiveness of these ratings at this point in the last few cycles. Anything from a Democratic pickup of roughly 10 to 50 seats would be in-line with these ratings.
The national environment could certainly change over the next few months. But if we’re looking at the polls and all the available evidence to us, the House is not a lost cause for Republicans at this time. Certainly not in the way described to Trump.
Anyone categorizing the House as “all but” certain to be won by Democrats in 2018 is repeating the same mistake of 2016, when polls showed a Hillary Clinton win as more likely than not but far from inevitable.
while Kyle Kondik at Sabato’s Crystal Ball concludes:
In total, we have 211 House seats rated Safe/Likely/Leaning Republican, 198 Safe/Likely/Leaning Democratic, and 26 Toss-ups. Splitting the Toss-ups evenly, 13-13, would lead to a 224-211 Republican House, a 16-seat Democratic gain from the current House, which is 240-195 Republican assuming no vacancies.
When we talk about a “floor†for Democratic gains, a gain of about 10-15 seats for the Democrats seems to be about the lowest we would expect barring a massive change in public opinion. Sometimes in elections there is a debate about expectations. For instance, one might credibly argue that Democrats would do well in the Senate if they just didn’t lose any net seats given their very challenging map this year. Such an outcome would still leave Republicans in the Senate majority, though. However, in the case of the 2018 battle for the House, there’s no need to discuss what a moral victory might look like for either side: Whichever side gets to elect the speaker next year had the better election, period. That means that even if Republicans lose, say, 20 seats, they still would have had a good election given this year’s difficult circumstances.
To my eye the great lesson of the 2016 election wasn’t that the Russians stole the election for Trump or collusion or that Americans are irredeemably sexist or even that the DNC foisted a lousy candidate on the party. It’s that money is not dispositive. The Clinton campaign spent a multiple of what the Trump campaign spent. It still didn’t ensure victory.
The conclusion is that, while money is necessary to run political campaigns, it doesn’t ensure victory. To win the House Democrats must back candidates well-suited for the districts in which they’re running regardless of their fit with the ideology that some in the caucus would like for the new Democratic majority.
Man, am I confused. I mean, like, Through the Looking Glass confused. Let’s see if I can’t talk my way through the fog.
There’s a storm a-coming. A Big Blue tsunami. It’s gonna level the Appalachians and the Rockies and sweep the Republicans on down the Mississippi into the Gulf to sleep with the fishies. All they’ve got to do is pick up 24 seats in the House. Easy peasy. They’ve actually done it before, twice as a matter of fact, in the last 19 elections. The first was 1982 (D+26) when the Misery Index was near its all time high and again in 2006 (D+31) at the low point of the Iraq conflict. In fact, they’ve gained more than 10 seats in only 3 of the last 19 elections. In the last 9 elections the Ds are -19. In the last 4 they are -62.
So, where’s the Blue Wave (TM) coming from? The cratering stock market? Rising unemployment? Zero growth of GDP? North Korean nuclear missiles? ISIS atrocities? The dynamic leadership of Hillary, Nancy, Chuck, Kamala and Corey?
Like I say, I’m confused.
The wave looks bigger from where they’re looking at it—everyone they know is a Democrat. Additionally, when you consider the generic ballot and polling the Democrats’ 7 point advantage puts them in striking distance of that House majority.
Or would if we elected representatives at large, there were no advantage to incumbency, all other things were equal. As it is the tsunami may be more like a swell.
Democrats seem to be suffering from the same issue that has long-plagued Republicans – an increasing disparity between the primary and general election voter. Democrats need to veer left to get selected then do the “moderation tango” to win a general election.
Partisan control of electioneering and the primary systems is destroying our politics and making it impossible for us to get decent major party candidates on the ballot. Election thus become battles of the weak between lowest-common-denominator candidates.