Sociology prof Musa al-Gharbi casts some rain on the Democrats’ parade in an op-ed at the Washington Post:
Despite significant structural disadvantages and a difficult Senate map, some great ballot initiatives were passed, state legislatures got bluer in many instances, and Democrats won governorships in some key states. These are worth celebrating (in contrast with claims to have “won the popular vote,†which are spurious). Yet, on balance, Democrats should be more disturbed than comforted by how the elections shook out.
For instance, turnout was much higher than in 2014. However, the increased engagement proved to be bipartisan: Trump’s supporters also showed up in force, significantly undercutting the expected “blue wave.â€
Yes, Republicans ultimately lost control of the House — but even here, the Democrats’ continued weakness shines through:
It was expected that the Republicans would lose a significant number of seats, irrespective of public opinions about Trump. Republicans had many more difficult House seats to defend than Democrats overall. There were twice as many Republican incumbents defending House seats in states Hillary Clinton won in 2016 than there were Democrats defending seats in states Trump won.
Republicans also had more than twice as many “open†House seats to hold on to as their Democratic rivals had: 36 Republican representatives chose not to stand for reelection this year because they were retiring or seeking another office. Seven others either resigned or otherwise left office before the election. As a result, Republicans had 43 House seats to defend without the benefit of a true incumbent candidate. On top of this, Republicans had three “open†Senate seats, and one more with a pseudo-incumbent (interim Mississippi Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith took office in April).
Yet Democrats managed to win surprisingly few of these “open†contests. In the vast majority of cases, a new Republican was elected instead, and they tended to be even closer to Trump than their predecessors. So Trump actually cemented his hold over the Republican Party: Most of his staunchest Republican critics have either stepped down, been removed through a primary challenge or otherwise failed to win reelection. On top of this, virtually all of the Senate Democrats who voted against Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh from the states that Trump won in 2016 were voted out of office and replaced by Republicans.
I have a question for Democrats looking towards 2020. 2018 saw the highest turnout of the “youth vote” in history, much of it going to Democratic candidates. Republicans essentially negated that increased turnout through increased turnout of their own. If your plan is even greater turnout, what makes you think that is likely let alone possible?
The last two years have seen non-stop negative coverage of Trump and Republicans generally. That did not result in a “blue wave” but a continuing stalemate. Is doubling down on strategies that have had disappointing results really the best we can do?
It is also kind of unusual for a party to lose seats when the economy is performing well. Add in the fact that Democrats didn’t have any single overwhelming issue. They tried health care as a last minute thing, but absent the focus of a presidential election coverage n the issue was scattered. So you could have the Republicans actually suing to have pre-existing conditions protections removed (I think this is on the way to the Supreme Court) while at the same time claiming they were going to protect them. That just didn’t get much coverage, or at least I didn’t see it. (Of course maybe it wouldn’t matter if it was covered. The Trump supporters seem to absolutely believe anything he says. It really does seem like a cult sometimes.)
I think this also reflects how evenly things are split and how tribal things are now. It doesn’t matter how bad or good a candidate is for most people now. They are just going to vote for their party.
Steve
When the House and Senate routinely vote in lockstep by party, voters also see themselves as a bloc and ad money spent on persuasive arguments is wasted. I know everyone here has read a little down the comments section below news articles. Any story quickly becomes political and adversarial and, fairly monotonously commented on.
As for Trump’s lies, if you like his policies, you accept them as we do “puffery” in the advertisement game. Also, he comments before being fully informed. If that drives you crazy, comfort yourself, rest assured, the world leaders are already used to his style and he will never lie us into war.
Plus, he’s pondering strong action on Climate Change.
Next time for sure, the Hispanic voters will come through and lead to overwhelming electoral mandates. In short, more of the same rain dancing