Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think Trende's piece is a great reality check for those expecting a "blue wave" midterm election to be inevitable. The current political climate will not necessarily hold until November, but with their unfavorable geographic distribution of voters, Democrats will likely need a significant lead on the generic ballot to capture either House, and what they have now may not be enough.
I am thinking that the distribution of voters could go either way. The Rs can run up huge margins in rural areas but still come up short in the suburbs/exurbs that are likely to decide the fate of the house.
In the Senate I agree entirely that the geographic distribution of voters is a death knell for Democrats. If they were to hold losses there to 1 or 2 it would be a raging success. They have 5 seats that are legitimately high risk, only one likely pickup and one Hail Mary in Arizona.
I am thinking that the distribution of voters could go either way. The Rs can run up huge margins in rural areas but still come up short in the suburbs/exurbs that are likely to decide the fate of the house.
In the Senate I agree entirely that the geographic distribution of voters is a death knell for Democrats. If they were to hold losses there to 1 or 2 it would be a raging success. They have 5 seats that are legitimately high risk, only one likely pickup and one Hail Mary in Arizona.
Hopefully Trende will write a column on how he sees the Senate races unfolding, but from my recollection he has found the president's approval rate corresponds very closely to the vote percentage earned by the candidate from the same party in the state. No doubt, with incumbents' typical advantages the Republican challenger in WV will not get all of the votes from residents who approve of the president, but he can afford to lose a lot. It doesn't look like Republicans aren't going to be nominating Roy Moore clones in the 2018 Senate contests, so it will be very tough for Democrats to avoid falling deeper into the minority.
Hopefully Trende will write a column on how he sees the Senate races unfolding, but from my recollection he has found the president's approval rate corresponds very closely to the vote percentage earned by the candidate from the same party in the state. No doubt, with incumbents' typical advantages the Republican challenger in WV will not get all of the votes from residents who approve of the president, but he can afford to lose a lot. It doesn't look like Republicans aren't going to be nominating Roy Moore clones in the 2018 Senate contests, so it will be very tough for Democrats to avoid falling deeper into the minority.
That would be surprising given the 3rd district voted for Trump even more strongly than the state, although it was historically Democratic. It does look like the Democrats' nominee Ojeda is running on a very different platform from most members of his party. But districts that are highly rural with an energy dependent economy fit better with the Republican party today. Democrats' potential House pickups are more likely to come from suburban districts than Appalachia.
That would be surprising given the 3rd district voted for Trump even more strongly than the state, although it was historically Democratic. It does look like the Democrats' nominee Ojeda is running on a very different platform from most members of his party. But districts that are highly rural with an energy dependent economy fit better with the Republican party today. Democrats' potential House pickups are more likely to come from suburban districts than Appalachia.
Watch. He may be the most popular politician in WV right now. The same year that WV went for Trump they also elected a (D) for governor.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 27 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,560,540 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
It's why pundits are now flipping the script from a few months ago.
no. a 13 point win was always unrealistic. 2010 was a wave year and the spread was 6.8.
as far as i can tell, not a single competitive seat has gone closer the republican side
so we are back to debating national popular vote vs district votes. Districts in Southern California, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania and North Carolina are going to decide the house, not districts in new york or Oklahoma were they run up the margins.
no. a 13 point win was always unrealistic. 2010 was a wave year and the spread was 6.8.
as far as i can tell, not a single competitive seat has gone closer the republican side
so we are back to debating national popular vote vs district votes. Districts in Southern California, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania and North Carolina are going to decide the house, not districts in new york or Oklahoma were they run up the margins.
Once again we see this week the DNC ticking off a large number of people they need to win.
"If you had asked me six months ago who I thought would win control of the House of Representatives in 2018, I wouldn’t have hesitated before answering, “It’s early, but Democrats are heavily favored, although conventional wisdom has been very slow to catch up.” With a raft of GOP retirements in highly vulnerable open seats, a president with job approval ratings in the 30s, and a generic ballot lead for Democrats in the double digits, it was increasingly difficult to spell out a path to victory for Republicans. In fact, things were bad enough that it appeared their losses could grow into the 40 or even 50 seat range.
Things have changed. If the election were held today, it’s not clear who would hold the chamber. I might put a thumb on the scale for Republicans, but right now – and it is still early – the House is likely to be close."
What if anything positive are Democrats offering? Impeachment promises a drawn out political nightmare. Democrats also want to raise our taxes and stop this growing economy dead in its tracks. They've abandoned the white vote and taken up identity politics with a vengeance. I suspect most people are thinking who needs this nonsense.
I thought the Dims were poised to easily take the House, they still might but I think now the likelihood is greatly reduced. In fact, it might be that Republicans turn around the normal pattern of the opposing party of the President gaining 40 seats in the non-Presidential election cycle.
At what threshold can we claim a "Trump Effect" in November?
We see the common wisdom for the upcoming mid terms and seat loss invoked, and I do agree that tradition dictates a GOP loss. At what level of seat loss count do we switch from "traditional expected seat loss" to "negative mandate on Trump"? 20 seats, 30 seats. If the GOP gains or hold losses to a minimum and maintains control, does Trump engender any credit?
I am very conservative and I predict either part will have a 5 seat or less majority next year.
I ask this because after all the talk of how the party of the President looses after the first midterm, I just know that a seat loss of only five will create a media narrative of " because of Trump".
Machin is up 13 in the WV senate race, thought this was going to be close. More empirical data of a blue wave.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At what threshold can we claim a "Trump Effect" in November?
