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

[Anagram]

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.

I can't find that post. But you can tell from the New York Times results: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/west-virginia-house-district-3

Ojeda did at least 10% worse than Manchin in every single county in the 3rd by margin, and Manchin only won by 3%. Unless Ojeda did disproportionately well in the 1st and 2nd districts, one of which is the incumbent senator's home district, he wouldn't win a statewide race.

 

[ultmd]

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.

Nonsense. In '12, Dems had to defend 21 seats. In 2018, they had to defend 26 seats (counting the 2 seats that caucus with them).

Again I will say....2018 was the WORST Senate Map is HISTORY for the Democratic Party. That is simply not arguable. If you doubt it, please do some homework and get back to us.

You're trying too hard, and it's making you look silly.

 

[TheParser]

• 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.

Yes, it was a fantastic day for the Democrats.

I agree with people who predict "Happy days are here again."

2020 will see the Democrats back in the White House.

I imagine that Ms. H. Clinton / Ms. N. Pelosi / Mr. J. Biden / Senator C. Booker / Senator E. Warren is already picking out new drapes for the White House once s/he moves in.

The long nightmare will be over, and our nation will soon become a Utopia.

 

[Harshaw]

Nonsense. In '12, Dems had to defend 21 seats. In 2018, they had to defend 26 seats (counting the 2 seats that caucus with them).

You should continue reading in the thread before you respond to a post.

In any case, you're saying I'm "trying too hard," yet here, for the "21" number in 2012, you're not including "independents" who caucused with the Dems, but for the "26" number, you are. So, you're dishonestly padding the numbers in your favor.

Again I will say....2018 was the WORST Senate Map is HISTORY for the Democratic Party. That is simply not arguable.

Bull****.

There were 29 straight Democrat seats up in 1938. No independents. And only 3 Republican seats defending.

So:

If you doubt it, please do some homework and get back to us.

You're trying too hard, and it's making you look silly.

:roll:

You get an F on your own homework.

As for the 24 Democrat seats which were up this year, if you had continued reading in the thread, you would have found that not only did I admit to the mistake, there were at least two other years where 24 Dem seats were up on the same Senate cycle. There was another on a different cycle in 1980.

Not that it matters, because 1938 blows all of that out of the water.

 

[bearpoker]

You should continue reading in the thread before you respond to a post.

In any case, you're saying I'm "trying too hard," yet here, for the "21" number in 2012, you're not including "independents" who caucused with the Dems, but for the "26" number, you are. So, you're dishonestly padding the numbers in your favor.



Bull****.

There were 29 straight Democrat seats up in 1938. No independents. And only 3 Republican seats defending.

So:



:roll:

You get an F on your own homework.

As for the 24 Democrat seats which were up this year, if you had continued reading in the thread, you would have found that not only did I admit to the mistake, there were at least two other years where 24 Dem seats were up on the same Senate cycle. There was another on a different cycle in 1980.

Not that it matters, because 1938 blows all of that out of the water.

Not really. Control of the Senate was firmly in Democratic hands that year. They gave up 7 seats and still retained a 2/3rd's majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_United_States_Senate_elections

The United States Senate elections of 1938 occurred in the middle of Franklin D. Roosevelt's second term. This occurred six years after the Democratic landslide in the 1932 election, and so the opposition Republicans gained seven seats from the Democrats. However, the Democrats retained a commanding lead over the Republicans with more than two-thirds of the chamber.

That was a completely different time.

 

[Anagram]

You should continue reading in the thread before you respond to a post.

In any case, you're saying I'm "trying too hard," yet here, for the "21" number in 2012, you're not including "independents" who caucused with the Dems, but for the "26" number, you are. So, you're dishonestly padding the numbers in your favor.



Bull****.

There were 29 straight Democrat seats up in 1938. No independents. And only 3 Republican seats defending.

So:



:roll:

You get an F on your own homework.

As for the 24 Democrat seats which were up this year, if you had continued reading in the thread, you would have found that not only did I admit to the mistake, there were at least two other years where 24 Dem seats were up on the same Senate cycle. There was another on a different cycle in 1980.

Not that it matters, because 1938 blows all of that out of the water.

I don't know if this was the worst map in history, and I frankly don't think it matters.

But to play devil's advocate, I think a part of the reason people claim it was the worst map ever isn't just because of the number of seats up but the number up (10) that had been won by Trump two years prior. Additionally, that 5 of them were won by Trump by at least 18%. In 1938, every single seat the Democrats had up was won by Roosevelt in 1936 (easy enough since he won every state but Vermont and Maine that year).

 

[Harshaw]

Not really. Control of the Senate was firmly in Democratic hands that year. They gave up 7 seats and still retained a 2/3rd's majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_United_States_Senate_elections


That was a completely different time.

None of that matters when the claim is "the WORST Senate Map i[n] HISTORY for the Democratic Party." (Emphasis his.)

Is there some arbitrary date after 1938 that you'd prefer "history" to begin?

 

[Harshaw]

I don't know if this was the worst map in history, and I frankly don't think it matters.

But to play devil's advocate, I think a part of the reason people claim it was the worst map ever isn't just because of the number of seats up but the number up (10) that had been won by Trump two years prior. Additionally, that 5 of them were won by Trump by at least 18%. In 1938, every single seat the Democrats had up was won by Roosevelt in 1936 (easy enough since he won every state but Vermont and Maine that year).

I'm sure people could find ways to argue anything they like, but the criteria given by both bearpoker (until her last post) and ultmd which constitutes "worst map" was the number of seats by party up for grabs. By those numbers, no.

 

[bearpoker]

None of that matters when the claim is "the WORST Senate Map i[n] HISTORY for the Democratic Party." (Emphasis his.)

Is there some arbitrary date after 1938 that you'd prefer "history" to begin?

It wasn't the worst because it in no way affected Democratic power in Washington. It was not a high stakes election for them.

 

[Harshaw]

It wasn't the worst because it in no way affected Democratic power in Washington. It was not a high stakes election for them.

I see. It becomes a "bad map" only after Democrats lose.

On THAT score, there have been many worse maps than this year. Like, say, oh, 1994.

But all you're really doing here is moving the goalposts. You put it in terms of numbers of seats -- even citing a span of "100 years" -- until you saw a much worse map. Then you came up with a new scheme.

 

[ultmd]

r.

Bull****.

There were 29 straight Democrat seats up in 1938. No independents. And only 3 Republican seats defending.

Seriously? Are you being intentionally obtuse, or what? Maybe I've been given you too much credit, to this point.

In 1938, Democrats were not defending states won by a sitting Republican president. Perhaps you are unaware of your own history, but in 1936, FDR won about 530 electoral votes, sweeping every state except Vermont (or Maine, I forget). In the '38 mid-terms, EVERY single Democratic Senator who lost his reelection bid was running is a state that FDR won in '36. So you can talk about them underperforming, but you cannot argue that the Senate map was less favorable for them in the '38 elections.

In contrast, in 2018 Democratic senators in states like N.D., Missouri, WV, Indiana, Florida, Montana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania were running for reelection is states that Trump won as double digits, just 2 years ago.

So again, there has NEVER...in HISTORY...been a senate map as disadvantageous as the 2018 map was for the Democrats.

That is simply not arguable.

So...stop arguing.

 

[Harshaw]

Seriously? Are you being intentionally obtuse, or what? Maybe I've been given you too much credit, to this point.

In 1938, Democrats were not defending states won by a sitting Republican president. Perhaps you are unaware of your own history, but in 1936, FDR won about 530 electoral votes, sweeping every state except Vermont (or Maine, I forget). In the '38 mid-terms, EVERY single Democratic Senator who lost his reelection bid was running is a state that FDR won in '36. So you can talk about them underperforming, but you cannot argue that the Senate map was less favorable for them in the '38 elections.

In contrast, in 2018 Democratic senators in states like N.D., Missouri, WV, Indiana, Florida, Montana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania were running for reelection is states that Trump won as double digits, just 2 years ago.

So again, there has NEVER...in HISTORY...been a senate map as disadvantageous as the 2018 map was for the Democrats.

That is simply not arguable.

So...stop arguing.

"Shut up," he explained, while moving his goalposts.

 

[Anagram]

"Shut up," he explained, while moving his goalposts.

Eh. Having read the exchange I'd agree BearPoker would be moving the goalposts if she said that. She seemed to be talking strictly about the numbers. But he had this in his explanation of why it was the worst map in the opening post.

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.

 

[Harshaw]

Eh. Having read the exchange I'd agree BearPoker would be moving the goalposts if she said that. She seemed to be talking strictly about the numbers. But he had this in his explanation of why it was the worst map in the opening post.

:shrug:

Perhaps. It's definitely a move from the previous post (wherein he never addressed his own sleight-of-hand with the "independents" who caucus with Dems).

But if that's what he wants to rely on rather than the numbers alone, then it's a far cry from being "inarguable," and definitely isn't the debate-ender he claims it is. I agreed earlier that one could come up with scenarios to support this or that claim, but his way is not the only way of looking at it.

 

[ultmd]

"Shut up," he explained, while moving his goalposts.

Umm....I suggest you go back an re-read my OP, and then come back with an apology.

But you've done a nice job of highjacking the thread.

Congrats.

Bottom line remains the same: Conservatives who were predicting the GOP would hold the House....and who are now reduced to "no blue wave" chants....were (and still are) delusional.

 

[Harshaw]

Umm....I suggest you go back an re-read my OP, and then come back with an apology.

I said what I had to say about it in post #64, right above your post.

Still waiting for you to acknowledge that you fudged the "independents caucusing" numbers.

 

[ultmd]

:shrug:

Perhaps. It's definitely a move from the previous post (wherein he never addressed his own sleight-of-hand with the "independents" who caucus with Dems).

But if that's what he wants to rely on rather than the numbers alone, then it's a far cry from being "inarguable," and definitely isn't the debate-ender he claims it is. I agreed earlier that one could come up with scenarios to support this or that claim, but his way is not the only way of looking at it.

There was no "slight of hand" involved. Nor is that even relevant. Again, there has never been a senate map as bad for the Democrats as the map they faced going into the 2018 senate elections. Period. Look back at my OP. If you can find an example in history in which a party's incumbents (in states won handily by opposing party POTUS) performed better during a senate cycle...please post such an example. Last time I checked, 26 is greater than 21...or 23. And the 2012 races were not in states won that supported the opposing party presidential candidate.

I offered 8 bullet points in my OP, and I ended my remarks by noting how funny it is to see the way Trump supporters dodge, deflect and dissemble in order to minimize the gravity of the defeat their party suffered in the 2018 elections. It was, quite literally, historic. When Obama got smacked in 2010...he called it a "shellacking"....and everyone agreed. When W got smacked in the 2006 midterms....he called it a "thumping"...and everyone agreed. But when Trump gets smacked in 2018.....he calls it a "near total victory"....and all Trump acolytes everywhere are doing exactly what you've been doing in this thread.

And, I'm sorry, but that's just funny, to me. :lamo

It really is as though you people (or, at least, your minds) exist in an alternative universe...and you're all perfectly ok with that. LOL

So, feel free to continue with your semantics. You're only proving the point I made at the end of the OP.

 

[Harshaw]

There was no "slight of hand" involved. Nor is that even relevant.

Dude. You said "21" seats in 2012, which doesn't include the independents, but you gave the number 26 for 2018, which did. It was an apples/oranges comparison that you presented as apples/apples.

That you refuse to acknowledge this indicates you did it purposely, deceptively.

Again, there has never been a senate map as bad for the Democrats as the map they faced going into the 2018 senate elections. Period. Look back at my OP. If you can find an example in history in which a party's incumbents (in states won handily by opposing party POTUS) performed better during a senate cycle...please post such an example. Last time I checked, 26 is greater than 21...or 23. And the 2012 races were not in states won that supported the opposing party presidential candidate.

I offered 8 bullet points in my OP, and I ended my remarks by noting how funny it is to see the way Trump supporters dodge, deflect and dissemble in order to minimize the gravity of the defeat their party suffered in the 2018 elections. It was, quite literally, historic. When Obama got smacked in 2010...he called it a "shellacking"....and everyone agreed. When W got smacked in the 2006 midterms....he called it a "thumping"...and everyone agreed. But when Trump gets smacked in 2018.....he calls it a "near total victory"....and all Trump acolytes everywhere are doing exactly what you've been doing in this thread.

And, I'm sorry, but that's just funny, to me. :lamo

It really is as though you people (or, at least, your minds) exist in an alternative universe...and you're all perfectly ok with that. LOL

So, feel free to continue with your semantics. You're only proving the point I made at the end of the OP.

I'm sorry that you can't handle it when someone declines to accept YOUR way of looking at things as the ONLY way to look at things. But that's what's happening here.