Final Tally from the Blue Wave of 2018 and a look at the 2020 Map

[ultmd]

• THE HOUSE: Democrats +40 in the House
• THE SENATE: the Democrats faced the worst electoral map in history, with about 26 seats to defend (compared to 9 for the 'publicans). And of those 26 seats, at least 10 (just off the top of my head...but probably more) were in states that Trump won in 2016 (and 5 of those went for Trump by at LEAST 18 points). And yet, Democrats successfully defended all but four, while managing to actually STEAL 2 long-time republican seats (i.e. Nevada and Arizona). That's a huge win for the Democrats and a huge embarrassment for the gopers.
• POPULAR VOTE: Democrats win the popular vote, nationwide, by about 8.5 MILLION votes...more than an 8% margin, which is larger than the 6% GOP margin in 2010 that netted 63 House seats for the gopers.
• EFFECT OF GERRYMANDERING: Were it not for the grotesquely gerrymandered congressional districts drawn by 'publican state legislatures after the 2010 election, the Blue Wave of 2018 would have been a proverbial Blue Tsunami.
• TRUMP EFFECT: Trump campaigned hard against Democratic candidates (and for Trumpster governors or senators) in staes like Montana, W.V., Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Pensylvania, etc.....and all of those candidates (including several incumbents) LOST...some by large margins.
• GOVERNORS' RACES: There were 26 GOP governors running for reelection (7 GOP governorships were not up for reelection in 2018). There were 9 Democratic Governors up for reelection (7 Dem governorships not up for reelection in 2018). One state (i.e. Alaska) has an Independent Governor who did not seek reelection in 2018. The Results: Democats WON 7 Governor seats that had been previously occupied by Republicans, while Republicans won only the empty seat in Alaska.
• STATE LEGISLATURES: In the 8 years between 2008 and 2016, the 'Publicans gained about 1000 seats in state legislatures across the country. In just two years of Trump, they've already lost almost 400 of those seats....after just ONE midterm election. tHAT'S
• THE 2020 MAP: 2020 is going to be even worse for the Trumpsters. The historically tough (quite literally "worst in history) Democratic Senate map of 2018 is (literally) almost reversed in 2020, with 22 gopers defending seats (compared to only 11 Democrats)...and about 10-12 of those 22 GOP seats just voted Democratic in the 2018 midterms.

It would be fun to go back and find some of the predictions made on (or just before) election day by the conservatives on this board. I cannot recall ANY right winger on this board who predicted the massive blue wave that we've just witnessed. Heck, most of our fake-newsers were still insisting that the GOP would hold on to the House,:lamo

As for me, I beleive I predicted a 38 seat gain in the House for the Dems...and a net-zero change in the Senate. I predicted Democratic pick ups in the Arizona and Nevada Senate races. But I also predicted Sens. Bill Nelson (D) and Claire McCaskall (D) would win reelection in Florida and Missouri, respectively. But, overall...not bad.

But it has been fun to see the delusional behavior of our Trump acolytes here.

 

[haymarket]

blue wave .... Blue Wave .... BLUE WAVE!!!!!!!

And more to come in 2020!!!!!!!!

 

[bearpoker]

• THE HOUSE: Democrats +40 in the House
• THE SENATE: the Democrats faced the worst electoral map in history, with about 26 seats to defend (compared to 9 for the 'publicans). And of those 26 seats, at least 10 (just off the top of my head...but probably more) were in states that Trump won in 2016 (and 5 of those went for Trump by at LEAST 18 points). And yet, Democrats successfully defended all but four, while managing to actually STEAL 2 long-time republican seats (i.e. Nevada and Arizona). That's a huge win for the Democrats and a huge embarrassment for the gopers.
• POPULAR VOTE: Democrats win the popular vote, nationwide, by about 8.5 MILLION votes...more than an 8% margin, which is larger than the 6% GOP margin in 2010 that netted 63 House seats for the gopers.
• EFFECT OF GERRYMANDERING: Were it not for the grotesquely gerrymandered congressional districts drawn by 'publican state legislatures after the 2010 election, the Blue Wave of 2018 would have been a proverbial Blue Tsunami.
• TRUMP EFFECT: Trump campaigned hard against Democratic candidates (and for Trumpster governors or senators) in staes like Montana, W.V., Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Pensylvania, etc.....and all of those candidates (including several incumbents) LOST...some by large margins.
• GOVERNORS' RACES: There were 26 GOP governors running for reelection (7 GOP governorships were not up for reelection in 2018). There were 9 Democratic Governors up for reelection (7 Dem governorships not up for reelection in 2018). One state (i.e. Alaska) has an Independent Governor who did not seek reelection in 2018. The Results: Democats WON 7 Governor seats that had been previously occupied by Republicans, while Republicans won only the empty seat in Alaska.
• STATE LEGISLATURES: In the 8 years between 2008 and 2016, the 'Publicans gained about 1000 seats in state legislatures across the country. In just two years of Trump, they've already lost almost 400 of those seats....after just ONE midterm election. tHAT'S
• THE 2020 MAP: 2020 is going to be even worse for the Trumpsters. The historically tough (quite literally "worst in history) Democratic Senate map of 2018 is (literally) almost reversed in 2020, with 22 gopers defending seats (compared to only 11 Democrats)...and about 10-12 of those 22 GOP seats just voted Democratic in the 2018 midterms.

It would be fun to go back and find some of the predictions made on (or just before) election day by the conservatives on this board. I cannot recall ANY right winger on this board who predicted the massive blue wave that we've just witnessed. Heck, most of our fake-newsers were still insisting that the GOP would hold on to the House,:lamo

As for me, I beleive I predicted a 38 seat gain in the House for the Dems...and a net-zero change in the Senate. I predicted Democratic pick ups in the Arizona and Nevada Senate races. But I also predicted Sens. Bill Nelson (D) and Claire McCaskall (D) would win reelection in Florida and Missouri, respectively. But, overall...not bad.

But it has been fun to see the delusional behavior of our Trump acolytes here.

They do seem to think that there wasn't a blue wave if they say there wasn't. It's all semantics. There's no agreed upon definition of what constitutes a blue wave. Democrats now control the House by a comfortable margin whether there was a blue wave or not. That's what matters.

 

[Xelor]

• THE HOUSE: Democrats +40 in the House
• THE SENATE: the Democrats faced the worst electoral map in history, with about 26 seats to defend (compared to 9 for the 'publicans). And of those 26 seats, at least 10 (just off the top of my head...but probably more) were in states that Trump won in 2016 (and 5 of those went for Trump by at LEAST 18 points). And yet, Democrats successfully defended all but four, while managing to actually STEAL 2 long-time republican seats (i.e. Nevada and Arizona). That's a huge win for the Democrats and a huge embarrassment for the GOP-ers.
• POPULAR VOTE: Democrats win the popular vote, nationwide, by about 8.5 MILLION votes...more than an 8% margin, which is larger than the 6% GOP margin in 2010 that netted 63 House seats for the GOP-ers.
• EFFECT OF GERRYMANDERING: Were it not for the grotesquely gerrymandered congressional districts drawn by 'publican state legislatures after the 2010 election, the Blue Wave of 2018 would have been a proverbial Blue Tsunami.
• TRUMP EFFECT: Trump campaigned hard against Democratic candidates (and for Trumpster governors or senators) in states like Montana, W.V., Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.....and all of those candidates (including several incumbents) LOST...some by large margins.
• GOVERNORS' RACES: There were 26 GOP governors running for reelection (7 GOP governorships were not up for reelection in 2018). There were 9 Democratic Governors up for reelection (7 Dem governorships not up for reelection in 2018). One state (i.e. Alaska) has an Independent Governor who did not seek reelection in 2018. The Results: Democrats WON 7 Governor seats that had been previously occupied by Republicans, while Republicans won only the empty seat in Alaska.
• STATE LEGISLATURES: In the 8 years between 2008 and 2016, the 'Publicans gained about 1000 seats in state legislatures across the country. In just two years of Trump, they've already lost almost 400 of those seats....after just ONE midterm election. tHAT'S
• THE 2020 MAP: 2020 is going to be even worse for the Trumpsters. The historically tough (quite literally "worst in history) Democratic Senate map of 2018 is (literally) almost reversed in 2020, with 22 GOP-ers defending seats (compared to only 11 Democrats)...and about 10-12 of those 22 GOP seats just voted Democratic in the 2018 midterms.

It would be fun to go back and find some of the predictions made on (or just before) election day by the conservatives on this board. I cannot recall ANY right winger on this board who predicted the massive blue wave that we've just witnessed. Heck, most of our fake-newsers were still insisting that the GOP would hold on to the House,:lamo

As for me, I beleive I predicted a 38 seat gain in the House for the Dems...and a net-zero change in the Senate. I predicted Democratic pick ups in the Arizona and Nevada Senate races. But I also predicted Sens. Bill Nelson (D) and Claire McCaskill (D) would win reelection in Florida and Missouri, respectively. But, overall...not bad.

But it has been fun to see the delusional behavior of our Trump acolytes here.

Red:
That is the "wave" that matters.

I mean, really....Republicans added ~125 seats per year for eight years and then lost 400 of them in two years (2016 - 2108). One doesn't need to be good at math to know that's a horrendous loss and a terrible portent of things to come.

 

[Anagram]

• THE HOUSE: Democrats +40 in the House
• THE SENATE: the Democrats faced the worst electoral map in history, with about 26 seats to defend (compared to 9 for the 'publicans). And of those 26 seats, at least 10 (just off the top of my head...but probably more) were in states that Trump won in 2016 (and 5 of those went for Trump by at LEAST 18 points). And yet, Democrats successfully defended all but four, while managing to actually STEAL 2 long-time republican seats (i.e. Nevada and Arizona). That's a huge win for the Democrats and a huge embarrassment for the gopers.
• POPULAR VOTE: Democrats win the popular vote, nationwide, by about 8.5 MILLION votes...more than an 8% margin, which is larger than the 6% GOP margin in 2010 that netted 63 House seats for the gopers.
• EFFECT OF GERRYMANDERING: Were it not for the grotesquely gerrymandered congressional districts drawn by 'publican state legislatures after the 2010 election, the Blue Wave of 2018 would have been a proverbial Blue Tsunami.
• TRUMP EFFECT: Trump campaigned hard against Democratic candidates (and for Trumpster governors or senators) in staes like Montana, W.V., Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Pensylvania, etc.....and all of those candidates (including several incumbents) LOST...some by large margins.
• GOVERNORS' RACES: There were 26 GOP governors running for reelection (7 GOP governorships were not up for reelection in 2018). There were 9 Democratic Governors up for reelection (7 Dem governorships not up for reelection in 2018). One state (i.e. Alaska) has an Independent Governor who did not seek reelection in 2018. The Results: Democats WON 7 Governor seats that had been previously occupied by Republicans, while Republicans won only the empty seat in Alaska.
• STATE LEGISLATURES: In the 8 years between 2008 and 2016, the 'Publicans gained about 1000 seats in state legislatures across the country. In just two years of Trump, they've already lost almost 400 of those seats....after just ONE midterm election. tHAT'S
• THE 2020 MAP: 2020 is going to be even worse for the Trumpsters. The historically tough (quite literally "worst in history) Democratic Senate map of 2018 is (literally) almost reversed in 2020, with 22 gopers defending seats (compared to only 11 Democrats)...and about 10-12 of those 22 GOP seats just voted Democratic in the 2018 midterms.

It would be fun to go back and find some of the predictions made on (or just before) election day by the conservatives on this board. I cannot recall ANY right winger on this board who predicted the massive blue wave that we've just witnessed. Heck, most of our fake-newsers were still insisting that the GOP would hold on to the House,:lamo

As for me, I beleive I predicted a 38 seat gain in the House for the Dems...and a net-zero change in the Senate. I predicted Democratic pick ups in the Arizona and Nevada Senate races. But I also predicted Sens. Bill Nelson (D) and Claire McCaskall (D) would win reelection in Florida and Missouri, respectively. But, overall...not bad.

But it has been fun to see the delusional behavior of our Trump acolytes here.

I don't think I did too bad:

Full prediction:

Senate-

Rs: ND, MO (TX is closest R hold) [FL/IN]

Ds: AZ, NV (MT is closest D hold)

Governors-

Rs: AK, (SD is closest hold, hold GA after runoff)

Ds: NV, NM, IL, WI, OH, IA, MI, FL, ME (OR and CT are close)

House-

Rs: MN-08, PA-14 [MN-01]

Ds: PA-01, PA-05, PA-06, PA-07, PA-17, NJ-02, NJ-03, NJ-07, NJ-11, NY-19, NY-22, ME-02, VA-10, NC-09, FL-15, FL-26, FL-27, GA-06, TX-07, TX-32, MI-08, MI-11, IL-06, IL-14, IA-01, IA-03, MN-02, MN-03, KS-03, CO-06, AZ-02, NM-02, UT-04, WA-08, CA-10, CA-25, CA-39, CA-45, CA-48, CA-49 [CA-21, SC-01, OK-05, NY-11, VA-02, VA-07]

D+38

Misses in bold.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Every time I hear or read the term "Blue Wave" I think of the old Tidy Bowl commercials.

 

[Anagram]

• THE 2020 MAP: 2020 is going to be even worse for the Trumpsters. The historically tough (quite literally "worst in history) Democratic Senate map of 2018 is (literally) almost reversed in 2020, with 22 gopers defending seats (compared to only 11 Democrats)...and about 10-12 of those 22 GOP seats just voted Democratic in the 2018 midterms.

• 
  
  I'll give you Colorado, Maine, Arizona (Sinema), West Virginia (Manchin), Montana (Tester), and Iowa (no one, but Dem's won 3/4 house seats). But even stretching things like I did with Iowa, I don't see another 4-6 Republican held seats up in 2020 that voted Democratic in the 2018 midterms. And it seems unlikely that that other Dems would do anywhere near as well as Manchin or Tester in their states (unless Bullock decides to run for Senate instead of president.)

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I'll give you Colorado, Maine, Arizona (Sinema), West Virginia (Manchin), Montana (Tester), and Iowa (no one, but Dem's won 3/4 house seats). But even stretching things like I did with Iowa, I don't see another 4-6 Republican held seats up in 2020 that voted Democratic in the 2018 midterms. And it seems unlikely that that other Dems would do anywhere near as well as Manchin or Tester in their states (unless Bullock decides to run for Senate instead of president.)

But Beto came within 2.6 points of beating Ted Cruz and flipping texas’s Senate seat.

Democrats could find strong contenders in the senate races West Virginia, north and South Dakota, North Carolina, Montana, Arizona, Ohio, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Iowa.

 

[Anagram]

But Beto came within 2.6 points of beating Ted Cruz and flipping texas’s Senate seat.

Democrats could find strong contenders in the senate races West Virginia, north and South Dakota, North Carolina, Montana, Arizona, Ohio, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Iowa.

Maybe. [Although I pretty strongly doubt WV, ND, NE, ND, SD, and MT (sans Bullock)]. North Dakota and South Dakota each voted for Republicans statewide despite nearly perfect Democratic candidates in Heitkamp and Sutton. No Democrat has come close in Nebraska since Ben Nelson. And even Manchin, the most beloved Dem in WV, barely eked out a win this year. To take out an incumbent like Capito, you'd probably need someone even stronger, who doesn't seem to exist.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Maybe. [Although I pretty strongly doubt WV, ND, NE, ND, SD, and MT (sans Bullock)]. North Dakota and South Dakota each voted for Republicans statewide despite nearly perfect Democratic candidates in Heitkamp and Sutton. No Democrat has come close in Nebraska since Ben Nelson. And even Manchin, the most beloved Dem in WV, barely eked out a win this year. To take out an incumbent like Capito, you'd probably need someone even stronger, who doesn't seem to exist.

Ojeda may be a possibility in West Virginia. But I wonder how many senators in states like Wyoming and Idaho have faced a decent challenger in a while.

 

[Chomsky]

Most impressive to me is those 400 statehouse seats. That's impressive. 7 governorships, too. This is grass-roots bottom-up stuff, especially looking at all the new-comers & neophytes.

I realize the Dems need Pelosi at this time, but they've got to let the new-comers' revolution grow. They've just got to. We're talking of the party reflecting a fundamental change in the country, that is coming and unstoppable. Trump and the recent Red rise to power, is in my opinion the last desperate gasp of the old ways, that was brought about by a unique set of circumstances that temporarily set us back 4 decades or more. But now here today and into the future, the Dems have the potential to harness the wave of the future, a wave that will not be denied. I hope they recognize it, and execute into it.

 

[Anagram]

Ojeda may be a possibility in West Virginia. But I wonder how many senators in states like Wyoming and Idaho have faced a decent challenger in a while.

Ojeda declared for the presidency in 2020.

No senator in WY or ID have faced a decent challenger in awhile. But like Senators in states like HI, VT, and RI they would still win even if they did. Ticket splitting is becoming less and less. And I don't think there are enough people in Idaho willing to vote for someone who would vote for a Democrat like Schumer as majority leader no matter how perfect the candidate was.

 

[Harshaw]

They do seem to think that there wasn't a blue wave if they say there wasn't. It's all semantics. There's no agreed upon definition of what constitutes a blue wave. Democrats now control the House by a comfortable margin whether there was a blue wave or not. That's what matters.

While true, there's also making more of it than there is, and the OP is a good example of it, especially when trying to argue things like a non-existent "popular vote" and hyperbole like "worst electoral map in history." And when you note that the "map" argument made re: the Senate is contradicted in the argument made about Governorships, this is all basically an unwarranted rah-rah piece.

The Dems did well, but within historical norms. "Wave"? No "wave"? Dunno. But it wasn't the shellacking the OP describes, either.

 

[ultmd]

I don't think I did too bad:


Misses in bold.

No, you did quite well, yourself. Very well. Credit where credit is due.

I'll give you Colorado, Maine, Arizona (Sinema), West Virginia (Manchin), Montana (Tester), and Iowa (no one, but Dem's won 3/4 house seats). But even stretching things like I did with Iowa, I don't see another 4-6 Republican held seats up in 2020 that voted Democratic in the 2018 midterms. And it seems unlikely that that other Dems would do anywhere near as well as Manchin or Tester in their states (unless Bullock decides to run for Senate instead of president.)

I agree with you about Maine, Iowa and Az, but the Montana seat up in 2020 is not Tester's. It's Daine's (R), and I don't think he's going to lose unless there is a really good Democratic candidate appears in Montana really soon. Tester and Manchin both just won their reelection bids in 2018, btw.

I also believe that NC and CO will flip in 2020. And I believe that Ky (McConnell) and Georgia (Purdue) are going to be very close contests. Cornyn, in Texas, is going to win easily. He's well-liked, unlike Ted Cruz who is universally despised (by members of both parties). Texas' "blue wave" is not yet ready..but it's coming.

On the GOP side, the only potential pick up I see is in Alabama (obviously) and also potentially in Mn.

And as long as Trump continues to carry a DISAPPROVAL rating of 60%, I'll be predicting a net gain of about 5 seats in the Senate for the Democratic Party in 2020.

 

[Anagram]

No, you did quite well, yourself. Very well. Credit where credit is due.



I agree with you about Maine, Iowa and Az, but the Montana seat up in 2020 is not Tester's. It's Daine's (R), and I don't think he's going to lose unless there is a really good Democratic candidate appears in Montana really soon. Tester and Manchin both just won their reelection bids in 2018, btw.

I also believe that NC and Co will flip in 2020. And I believe that Ky (McConnell) and Georgia (Purdue) are going to be very close contests.

On the GOP side, the only potential pick up I see is in Alabama (obviously) and also potentially in Mn.

And as long as Trump continues to carry a DISAPPROVAL rating of 60%, I'll be predicting a net gain of about 5 seats in the Senate for the Democratic Party in 2020.

I know it's not Tester's. I was counting Tester as a Democrat winning there in 2018 as you said there were 10-12 Senate seats held by Republicans where Democrats won in 2018.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Ojeda declared for the presidency in 2020.

No senator in WY or ID have faced a decent challenger in awhile. But like Senators in states like HI, VT, and RI they would still win even if they did. Ticket splitting is becoming less and less. And I don't think there are enough people in Idaho willing to vote for someone who would vote for a Democrat like Schumer as majority leader no matter how perfect the candidate was.

A democrat won a senate seat in Alabama last year, Arizona’s Senate seat flipped this year and a Democrat nearly won in Texas....

Heck, Mississippi’s runoff election was closer than it should have been for the Republican.

I think the reason why democrats lost close senate elections like the one in Florida is because the local Democratic Party at the state level had been allowed to atrophy and fall apart from neglect due to the Democratic parties fixation on presidential elections.

 

[Anagram]

A democrat won a senate seat in Alabama last year, Arizona’s Senate seat flipped this year and a Democrat nearly won in Texas....

Heck, Mississippi’s runoff election was closer than it should have been for the Republican.

I think the reason why democrats lost close senate elections like the one in Florida is because the local Democratic Party at the state level had been allowed to atrophy and fall apart from neglect due to the Democratic parties fixation on presidential elections.

Ok let me change it. Unless there are accusations that the Republican has raped underage persons (or something like that. Probably rape, murder, etc. too), the Republicans won't lose states like Idaho.

Arizona and Texas are completely different. They're trending Democratic and quickly. They've been doing it for several elections now. States like Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, the Dakotas, have not been trending Democratic at all.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Ok let me change it. Unless there are accusations that the Republican has raped underage persons (or something like that. Probably rape, murder, etc. too), the Republicans won't lose states like Idaho.

Arizona and Texas are completely different. They're trending Democratic and quickly. They've been doing it for several elections now. States like Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, the Dakotas, have not been trending Democratic at all.

Only if one assumes that straight ticket voting is the absolute norm. If a Political canididate ran a completely non-partisan campaign and actually tried to publically campagin in areas long considered Republican strongholds, I would imagine that Democrats could capture seats long held by incumbents. Especially if the ballots did not list the party identification of the canididate.

 

[Anagram]

Only if one assumes that straight ticket voting is the absolute norm. If a Political canididate ran a completely non-partisan campaign and actually tried to publically campagin in areas long considered Republican strongholds, I would imagine that Democrats could capture seats long held by incumbents. Especially if the ballots did not list the party identification of the canididate.

Straight ticket voting for federal races has almost become the absolute norm. And the ballots do list the party identification of the candidate. So it seems unlikely. Democrats like Heitkamp and Bredesen ran near-perfect campaigns as an incumbent and for an open seat and still didn't come particularly close. And seats like WY and ID are a step beyond that. Even if people really, really like a Democrat, there are a lot of people that see the vote for majority leader as so much more important than the individual Senator's positions.

Manchin was able to win WV due to his personal popularity from his time as governor. Idaho hasn't had a statewide Democrat in over 25 years. There aren't any candidates like that. In WY there's

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Straight ticket voting for federal races has almost become the absolute norm. And the ballots do list the party identification of the candidate. So it seems unlikely. Democrats like Heitkamp and Bredesen ran near-perfect campaigns as an incumbent and for an open seat and still didn't come particularly close. And seats like WY and ID are a step beyond that. Even if people really, really like a Democrat, there are a lot of people that see the vote for majority leader as so much more important than the individual Senator's positions.

Manchin was able to win WV due to his personal popularity from his time as governor. Idaho hasn't had a statewide Democrat in over 25 years. There aren't any candidates like that. In WY there's

As long as a candidate can win at the local level, no state is truely out of play.

If there is one thing about American politics I have come to respect is the need for actual competition in the elections.

Idaho has not elected a Democrat in 25 years? Would anyone in rural Idaho even recognize a Democratic Senate canididate if that canididate showed up in town?

 

[JoanDavis]

• THE HOUSE: Democrats +40 in the House
• THE SENATE: the Democrats faced the worst electoral map in history, with about 26 seats to defend (compared to 9 for the 'publicans). And of those 26 seats, at least 10 (just off the top of my head...but probably more) were in states that Trump won in 2016 (and 5 of those went for Trump by at LEAST 18 points). And yet, Democrats successfully defended all but four, while managing to actually STEAL 2 long-time republican seats (i.e. Nevada and Arizona). That's a huge win for the Democrats and a huge embarrassment for the gopers.
• POPULAR VOTE: Democrats win the popular vote, nationwide, by about 8.5 MILLION votes...more than an 8% margin, which is larger than the 6% GOP margin in 2010 that netted 63 House seats for the gopers.
• EFFECT OF GERRYMANDERING: Were it not for the grotesquely gerrymandered congressional districts drawn by 'publican state legislatures after the 2010 election, the Blue Wave of 2018 would have been a proverbial Blue Tsunami.
• TRUMP EFFECT: Trump campaigned hard against Democratic candidates (and for Trumpster governors or senators) in staes like Montana, W.V., Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Pensylvania, etc.....and all of those candidates (including several incumbents) LOST...some by large margins.
• GOVERNORS' RACES: There were 26 GOP governors running for reelection (7 GOP governorships were not up for reelection in 2018). There were 9 Democratic Governors up for reelection (7 Dem governorships not up for reelection in 2018). One state (i.e. Alaska) has an Independent Governor who did not seek reelection in 2018. The Results: Democats WON 7 Governor seats that had been previously occupied by Republicans, while Republicans won only the empty seat in Alaska.
• STATE LEGISLATURES: In the 8 years between 2008 and 2016, the 'Publicans gained about 1000 seats in state legislatures across the country. In just two years of Trump, they've already lost almost 400 of those seats....after just ONE midterm election. tHAT'S
• THE 2020 MAP: 2020 is going to be even worse for the Trumpsters. The historically tough (quite literally "worst in history) Democratic Senate map of 2018 is (literally) almost reversed in 2020, with 22 gopers defending seats (compared to only 11 Democrats)...and about 10-12 of those 22 GOP seats just voted Democratic in the 2018 midterms.

It would be fun to go back and find some of the predictions made on (or just before) election day by the conservatives on this board. I cannot recall ANY right winger on this board who predicted the massive blue wave that we've just witnessed. Heck, most of our fake-newsers were still insisting that the GOP would hold on to the House,:lamo

As for me, I beleive I predicted a 38 seat gain in the House for the Dems...and a net-zero change in the Senate. I predicted Democratic pick ups in the Arizona and Nevada Senate races. But I also predicted Sens. Bill Nelson (D) and Claire McCaskall (D) would win reelection in Florida and Missouri, respectively. But, overall...not bad.

But it has been fun to see the delusional behavior of our Trump acolytes here.

Thank you for the analysis. It won't matter to the republicans. They'll just call it 'fake news'. But the rest of us know a blue wave did occur. Sure we wanted a blue tsunami but we knew the republicans would rig the elections - AGAIN and campaign dirty. And boy did they campaign dirty.

 

[bearpoker]

While true, there's also making more of it than there is, and the OP is a good example of it, especially when trying to argue things like a non-existent "popular vote" and hyperbole like "worst electoral map in history." And when you note that the "map" argument made re: the Senate is contradicted in the argument made about Governorships, this is all basically an unwarranted rah-rah piece.

The Dems did well, but within historical norms. "Wave"? No "wave"? Dunno. But it wasn't the shellacking the OP describes, either.

Senators are elected by popular vote so it's not non-existent. The Senate map was bad because of the high number of Democratic races and small number of Republican races, making Democrats much more vulnerable. It may not have been the worst in history, but just by the numbers, it was the worst in about 100 years. The map for the house was intensely gerrymandered due to Republican control of so many state legislatures. That's why it took such a historically high number of popular votes to win in a lot of districts. I don't find the OP post to be at all hyperbolic. This was a big night for Democrats, whether you admit it or not.

 

[JoanDavis]

They do seem to think that there wasn't a blue wave if they say there wasn't. It's all semantics. There's no agreed upon definition of what constitutes a blue wave. Democrats now control the House by a comfortable margin whether there was a blue wave or not. That's what matters.

I consider it a blue wave. I wanted a blue tsunami but I am thankful we did so well. And the 40 seats in the House was very impressive. Clinton and Obama lost mid-terms by larger margins because they were dealing with bad economies that they inherited from bushes. Losing 40 seats when the economy is booming and unemployment is at record lows is a reflection on how bad this presidency is. And Rick Scott was so gracious in victory that when he was trailing he tried to get the recount stopped. Then when the courts refused , he incited his deplorables to protest outside the electoral office and send death threats at the officials. Now that he NARROWLY won, he demands the democrats stop talking about it.

 

[bearpoker]

Ok let me change it. Unless there are accusations that the Republican has raped underage persons (or something like that. Probably rape, murder, etc. too), the Republicans won't lose states like Idaho.

Arizona and Texas are completely different. They're trending Democratic and quickly. They've been doing it for several elections now. States like Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, the Dakotas, have not been trending Democratic at all.

I'm hoping Steve Bannon will rise again and start picking Republican Senate candidates.:mrgreen:

 

[JoanDavis]

Most impressive to me is those 400 statehouse seats. That's impressive. 7 governorships, too. This is grass-roots bottom-up stuff, especially looking at all the new-comers & neophytes.

I realize the Dems need Pelosi at this time, but they've got to let the new-comers' revolution grow. They've just got to. We're talking of the party reflecting a fundamental change in the country, that is coming and unstoppable. Trump and the recent Red rise to power, is in my opinion the last desperate gasp of the old ways, that was brought about by a unique set of circumstances that temporarily set us back 4 decades or more. But now here today and into the future, the Dems have the potential to harness the wave of the future, a wave that will not be denied. I hope they recognize it, and execute into it.

I'm a far left bleeding heart liberal but I agree that Pelosi is needed at this time. The progressives would want an inexperienced person as Speaker but what is needed is an experienced speaker who has worked with the republicans in the past. Sure enough this republican party is a far right obstructionist party - but Pelosi might just manage to convince some of them to work with her and the democrats FOR THE COUNTRY. For the past 2 years they have done everything FOR TRUMP and nothing for the country.

Hopefully Pelosi won't give in to trump's blackmail and NOT hand over billions of taxpayer dollars on his friggin wall. trump promised Mexico would pay for it - and that is what HE must do. Or will he break one of those election promises that he keeps bragging about being delivered?