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

[JoanDavis]

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

Bannon is currently in Eastern Europe helping the far right neo-nazis win elections.

 

[bearpoker]

Bannon is currently in Eastern Europe helping the far right neo-nazis win elections.

We need him home right now! He's our secret weapon.

 

[Harshaw]

Senators are elected by popular vote so it's not non-existent.

He's referring to the aggregation of votes for Democrats and Republicans nationally, as in, more people nationally voted for Democrats than for Republicans.

It's a meaningless figure (not least for the Senate, because the Senate race in the largest state was between two Democrats, with no Republican to get any votes).

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.

How is it the "worst in 100 years"? The exact same states are up every six years (barring any special elections). These were the races up for grabs, pre-election, 2012:

There were races, pre-election, 2018:

They're almost exactly the same map, except it's a little worse for Republicans.

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.

I said they did well, but they didn't do unusually well.

Look, if you have to handicap races to "explain" why the Democrats didn't do better, then you must not think they did superbly well either.

 

[Chomsky]

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?

Pelosi will need to do either, or both, of two things:

1] Pass popular legislation

2] Make Trump & the GOPers take political hits for obstructing said legislation

If she can do either (or both), she will place a 2020 Dem presidential candidate in good staid.

But the Dem House House has one more extremely important job for 2020: They need to restart the committees & investigations, bringing public & transparent light onto all the GOP have hidden and covered-up concerning Trump et al and themselves. If they can do that in a transparent fair manner, a manner appreciated by the Indies, they will additionally be setting themselves up for a successful 2020.

 

[bearpoker]

He's referring to the aggregation of votes for Democrats and Republicans nationally, as in, more people nationally voted for Democrats than for Republicans.

It's a meaningless figure (not least for the Senate, because the Senate race in the largest state was between two Democrats, with no Republican to get any votes).




How is it the "worst in 100 years"? The exact same states are up every six years (barring any special elections). These were the races up for grabs, pre-election, 2012:

There were races, pre-election, 2018:

They're almost exactly the same map, except it's a little worse for Republicans.




I said they did well, but they didn't do unusually well.

Look, if you have to handicap races to "explain" why the Democrats didn't do better, then you must not think they did superbly well either.

Quit being silly. The same states are up every six years, but the parties that hold them vary. The Democrats had to defend almost 3 times as many seats as Republicans. The margin of the popular vote for Democrats is an indication of the severity of the gerrymandering of the Republican house districts. In 2010 the Republicans flipped 60 seats with a smaller popular vote margin. It indicates what a heavy lift the Democrats made. Your attempts to downplay the accomplishment simply tag you as a sore loser.

 

[Harshaw]

Quit being silly. The same states are up every six years, but the parties that hold them vary. The Democrats had to defend almost 3 times as many seats as Republicans. The margin of the popular vote for Democrats is an indication of the severity of the gerrymandering of the Republican house districts. In 2010 the Republicans flipped 60 seats with a smaller popular vote margin. It indicates what a heavy lift the Democrats made. Your attempts to downplay the accomplishment simply tag you as a sore loser.

How am I being silly? The Democrats had more states to defend 6 years ago than they did this year. So how does that make this year "the worst map in 100 years?" That's what you said.

Like I said, it's you who's trying to handicap the race to explain why Democrats didn't do better. If you really thought they won big, you'd have no need to do that.

 

[bearpoker]

How am I being silly? The Democrats had more states to defend 6 years ago than they did this year. So how does that make this year "the worst map in 100 years?" That's what you said.

Like I said, it's you who's trying to handicap the race to explain why Democrats didn't do better. If you really thought they won big, you'd have no need to do that.

I simply explained why it took a wave to flip 40 house seats instead of the 60 in the last wave.

 

[Harshaw]

I simply explained why it took a wave to flip 40 house seats instead of the 60 in the last wave.

Insofar as that is true, you're definitely handicapping the race. Again, if you feel you have to do that, you must not think they won big. Big winners don't handicap.

But maybe you can explain exactly how this year's Senate map was the "worst map in 100 years," when only six years ago, the Democrats had more states to defend.

 

[Anagram]

But maybe you can explain exactly how this year's Senate map was the "worst map in 100 years," when only six years ago, the Democrats had more states to defend.

Huh? Dems had 21 seats up in 2012 vs 24 this year.

 

[bearpoker]

Insofar as that is true, you're definitely handicapping the race. Again, if you feel you have to do that, you must not think they won big. Big winners don't handicap.

But maybe you can explain exactly how this year's Senate map was the "worst map in 100 years," when only six years ago, the Democrats had more states to defend.

I didn't handicap it. The Republicans did. That's what gerrymandering is all about.

 

[Harshaw]

I didn't handicap it. The Republicans did. That's what gerrymandering is all about.

If you're making excuses for why they didn't do better, you are.

 

[Harshaw]

Huh? Dems had 21 seats up in 2012 vs 24 this year.

If that's so, then I'm mistaken; it didn't look that way on the map.

 

[poweRob]

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.

That Ojeda dude who ran for house seat in southern WV could easily win WV senate seat.

 

[bearpoker]

If you're making excuses for why they didn't do better, you are.

I actually don't care if you call it a wave or not, or even is it was a wave or not. So you can caterwaul all you want about hyperbole and excuses. I care that Democrats have a majority in the house and also flipped several govenorships and state legislators. This puts them in a better position for 2020, after which they can start redrawing districts. I hope they continue the movement to have districts drawn by bi-partisan or non-partisan commissions. I'm all for a fair playing field because with the way Republicans have been behaving lately, they won't won't have a chance with it. If they straighten up and regrow their brains, even better. We'll actually have a functioning government.

 

[Harshaw]

I actually don't care if you call it a wave or not, or even is it was a wave or not. So you can caterwaul all you want about hyperbole and excuses. I care that Democrats have a majority in the house and also flipped several govenorships and state legislators.

I didn't disagree with any of that.

 

[Harshaw]

Huh? Dems had 21 seats up in 2012 vs 24 this year.

Looking more closely, you're right.

Democrats also had 24 seats up for this cycle in 1970 and 1964.

 

[Anagram]

That Ojeda dude who ran for house seat in southern WV could easily win WV senate seat.

He’s running for President already. Besides, his margin in his district wasn’t enough to win statewide. He’d have to better in the 3rd district against an incumbent than he did in an open race there. (Or do disproportionately well in the 1st and 2nd, which seems unlikely).

 

[poweRob]

He’s running for President already. Besides, his margin in his district wasn’t enough to win statewide. He’d have to better in the 3rd district against an incumbent than he did in an open race there. (Or do disproportionately well in the 1st and 2nd, which seems unlikely).

His margin was indicative of the redest part of the state hearing his message. I think his message would resonate even much better in the rest of the state. And as far as prez run... I heard his desires of that but it's early and may very well change.

 

[bearpoker]

He’s running for President already. Besides, his margin in his district wasn’t enough to win statewide. He’d have to better in the 3rd district against an incumbent than he did in an open race there. (Or do disproportionately well in the 1st and 2nd, which seems unlikely).

Running for president is a bit premature, but I'd like to see him in the Senate. People need to get some experience before they tackle the big job. I've had enough of neophyte presidents.

 

[Linc]

Huh? Dems had 21 seats up in 2012 vs 24 this year.

More like 23, when you count the two indies Sanders and Lieberman caucusing with the D’s. (and 26 this year to be practical with the two indies) Murphy won in CT for retiring Lieberman and indie King won in ME for retiring Snowe.

2014 was as bad as it gets for D’s in the Senate, losing 9 of their own seats and flipping none of the R’s. As for 2020, AL is probably in trouble for Jones. Flipping four R Senators while holding serve with their seats, and winning potus for D’s, will require superior turnout.

MS only had a drop off of about 45,000 votes on 11/27 vs. 11/06. That’s a pretty good turnout for a 2nd round. MS and LA have the 50% plus one that ended Landrieu’s careeer in 2014. MS even requires a statewide office to win a majority of their house districts along with 50% plus one, or the statewide election goes to their state House members.

 

[Anagram]

His margin was indicative of the redest part of the state hearing his message. I think his message would resonate even much better in the rest of the state. And as far as prez run... I heard his desires of that but it's early and may very well change.

He did worse than Manchin in his district by more than the 3% Manchin won by. He’d have to do a lot better than he did relative to Manchin in the other districts. I think that’s unlikely because you’d expect him to be best in his own district and it’s hard to see him doing well in the 1st which was Capito’s.

 

[Linc]

His margin was indicative of the redest part of the state hearing his message. I think his message would resonate even much better in the rest of the state. And as far as prez run... I heard his desires of that but it's early and may very well change.

West Virginia is a state projected to lose a congressional district, like Alabama, and several Midwest states. We’ll be hearing more about that along with how the Census and its questions will affect redistricting.

Midwest states overall had higher turnouts per CD than Southern states simply because they’re older and have far less non-citizens. Data mining is just dribbling in as votes get certified.

 

[Linc]

He did worse than Manchin in his district by more than the 3% Manchin won by. He’d have to do a lot better than he did relative to Manchin in the other districts. I think that’s unlikely because you’d expect him to be best in his own district and it’s hard to see him doing well in the 1st which was Capito’s.

I’ve only seen one link for a statewide office by CD, in Oklahoma. Even though the Dem got beat for Governor, his margin in OK-05 was actually larger than that of the Dem candidate that won that CD in a big upset. Coattails from a losing candidate, which we may ventually see in TX from Beto. Do you have a link for Manchin’s voter totals by CD?

 

[Anagram]

I’ve only seen one link for a statewide office by CD, in Oklahoma. Even though the Dem got beat for Governor, his margin in OK-05 was actually larger than that of the Dem candidate that won that CD in a big upset. Coattails from a losing candidate, which we may ventually see in TX from Beto. Do you have a link for Manchin’s voter totals by CD?

Nah. Saw one of the Daily Kos commentators count them up to see if Ojeda’s numbers would be enough.

 

[Linc]

Nah. Saw one of the Daily Kos commentators count them up to see if Ojeda’s numbers would be enough.

Thanks anyway. That’s where those Oklahoma numbers came from, daily kos. It’s early. I’m still using their link ‘presidential vote by congressional district’.. Oklahoma’s Up. I’m guessing that d.K. got this data mining originally from REDMAP 2010.