2018 USA Mid Terms! Red or Blue Waves?!?

[Spendulus]

I am not overly optimistic about the result.

I just hope people will go and VOTE! That is the most important thing of all. Keeping my fingers crossed.

Staying home is also a vote.

By the way, how WOULD a SOS run for another office under the laws of a particular state without overseeing his own election? I assume that since you've complained about that, you have determined that the current action is improper under the Alabama state law, and are prepared to explain what the right method is?

What does this have to do with Alabama? You might want to start reading what you're commenting on unless your goal is to make yourself look like a moron, in which case - well done.

Kemp could have resigned, which is quite normal for people seeking higher office. It's probably not illegal to not do so but it's also quite appropriate to criticize for obvious conflict of interest.

My mistake, your mis direction.

[Flying Hellfish]

Well it was a big blue wave!

Trump handed the dems their biggest win since Watergate, they picked up 31 seats so far and could be 37!  Arizona and Florida senate seats are still very much up for grabs, so Republicans may only gain 1 seat in the senate with an extremely favourable senate election map.

I can't wait for the 2020 "vulnerable" Republicans to start to distance themselves from the POTUS!

A lot of Republican politicians won't want to follow Trump over the cliff LOL.

When the investigations start rolling out, Trump spends 2 more years humiliating himself in public and the election maps start to favour dems the Republicans are going to get decimated in 2020!

[suchmoon]

Well it was a big blue wave!

Trump handed the dems their biggest win since Watergate, they picked up 31 seats so far and could be 37!  Arizona and Florida senate seats are still very much up for grabs, so Republicans may only gain 1 seat in the senate with an extremely favourable senate election map.

I can't wait for the 2020 "vulnerable" Republicans to start to distance themselves from the POTUS!

A lot of Republican politicians won't want to follow Trump over the cliff LOL.

When the investigations start rolling out, Trump spends 2 more years humiliating himself in public and the election maps start to favour dems the Republicans are going to get decimated in 2020!

Democrats also gained 7 governors and made gains (flipped or split or broke supermajorities) in about a dozen state legislatures. Gained 3 or 4 state AGs.

The fact that Democrats came out to vote (thanks mostly to Trump) made the difference. They consistently outnumber Republicans just rarely vote in midterms. Indeed a "tremendous success" for Trump but not quite for the Republicans.

[TECSHARE]

Well it was a big blue wave!

Trump handed the dems their biggest win since Watergate, they picked up 31 seats so far and could be 37!  Arizona and Florida senate seats are still very much up for grabs, so Republicans may only gain 1 seat in the senate with an extremely favourable senate election map.

I can't wait for the 2020 "vulnerable" Republicans to start to distance themselves from the POTUS!

A lot of Republican politicians won't want to follow Trump over the cliff LOL.

When the investigations start rolling out, Trump spends 2 more years humiliating himself in public and the election maps start to favour dems the Republicans are going to get decimated in 2020!

Democrats also gained 7 governors and made gains (flipped or split or broke supermajorities) in about a dozen state legislatures. Gained 3 or 4 state AGs.

The fact that Democrats came out to vote (thanks mostly to Trump) made the difference. They consistently outnumber Republicans just rarely vote in midterms. Indeed a "tremendous success" for Trump but not quite for the Republicans.

LOL. K.

"Average result, since 1970, for President’s Party in midterm when job approval is below 50% - 33 seat loss"

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-midterm-elections-preview/



Seats gained? 33

https://www.politico.com/election-results/2018/house/

Congrats Democrats, you get a C. Maybe a C+ if you do the extra credit. The blue wave star sticker goes to people who get A's.

[suchmoon]

LOL. K.

"Average result, since 1970, for President’s Party in midterm when job approval is below 50% - 33 seat loss"

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-midterm-elections-preview/

Average flipped seats when approval is below 45%: 23

See you can pick any made-up criteria to make it look as bad as you want to.

[bluefirecorp_]

LOL. K.

"Average result, since 1970, for President’s Party in midterm when job approval is below 50% - 33 seat loss"

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-midterm-elections-preview/

Average flipped seats when approval is below 45%: 23

See you can pick any made-up criteria to make it look as bad as you want to.

A+ for the Dems then. 

[Flying Hellfish]

LOL. K.

"Average result, since 1970, for President’s Party in midterm when job approval is below 50% - 33 seat loss"

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-midterm-elections-preview/

Average flipped seats when approval is below 45%: 23

See you can pick any made-up criteria to make it look as bad as you want to.

I hope the Republicans never get tired of winning like this!  These are the kinds of "wins" that will help make the republican party more and more irrelevant!

The dems picked up the most house seats in an election since watergate, some how the dems best showing in 40 years is a republican win, only the conspiracy morons here and in the WH could spin that kind of horseshit!

[suchmoon]

I hope the Republicans never get tired of winning like this!  These are the kinds of "wins" that will help make the republican party more and more irrelevant!

The dems picked up the most house seats in an election since watergate, some how the dems best showing in 40 years is a republican win, only the conspiracy morons here and in the WH could spin that kind of horseshit!

You're just jealous of the most expensive healthcare in the world and the 10x gun murder rate and the stable genius POTUS.

[Quickseller]

The dems picked up the most house seats in an election since watergate, some how the dems best showing in 40 years is a republican win, only the conspiracy morons here and in the WH could spin that kind of horseshit!

I think you forgot about 2010 when republicans picked up 65+ house and senate seats.

The number of house seats picked up by Democrats was about average as the party who doesn’t control the White House picks up in the first midterm election. This is with Democrats vastly outstanding republicans (with much of the money coming from out of state, that Democrats hate so much that they gladly solicit and spend).

Also many of the picked up seats were by moderate Democrats.

[Flying Hellfish]

The dems picked up the most house seats in an election since watergate, some how the dems best showing in 40 years is a republican win, only the conspiracy morons here and in the WH could spin that kind of horseshit!

I think you forgot about 2010 when republicans picked up 65+ house and senate seats.

The number of house seats picked up by Democrats was about average as the party who doesn’t control the White House picks up in the first

I didn't forget about shit you just didn't read properly...

The DEMOCRATS picked up more house seats in the 2018 MT's then they have since watergate.  My statements was comparing only democrat wins in elections.  The statement is factually correct.

Well it was a big blue wave!

Trump handed the dems their biggest win since Watergate, they picked up 31 seats so far and could be 37!  

[TECSHARE]

LOL. K.

"Average result, since 1970, for President’s Party in midterm when job approval is below 50% - 33 seat loss"

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-midterm-elections-preview/

Average flipped seats when approval is below 45%: 23

See you can pick any made-up criteria to make it look as bad as you want to.

I see! So is the turn out for Republicans more impressive or less impressive if you use lower approval rating? lol. Good job arguing against yourself and understanding simple addition and subtraction.

[suchmoon]

I see! So is the turn out for Republicans more impressive or less impressive if you use lower approval rating? lol. Good job arguing against yourself and understanding simple addition and subtraction.

What are you babbling about? Turnout was relatively high for both parties but Democrats outvoted Republicans by ~5 million. Trump's immigration hysteria backfired bigly. So much effort for 1 or 2 Senate seats and losses everywhere else. Or as you call it - impressive.

[TECSHARE]

I see! So is the turn out for Republicans more impressive or less impressive if you use lower approval rating? lol. Good job arguing against yourself and understanding simple addition and subtraction.

What are you babbling about? Turnout was relatively high for both parties but Democrats outvoted Republicans by ~5 million. Trump's immigration hysteria backfired bigly. So much effort for 1 or 2 Senate seats and losses everywhere else. Or as you call it - impressive.

Ok, sit down Timmy and I will explain it for you in simple words.

Orange man bad right? Ok so orange man, have approval under 45% yes?

Which is harder for orange man to keep more seats than past times of keeping seats, if orange man have 45% approval or 50% approval?

lower approval than what I stated with average results = even more impressive for Republicans (IE not an argument in support of your point)



At this point if you don't know how to add and subtract I am not sure I can help you any more than this.

[suchmoon]

lower approval than what I stated with average results = even more impressive for Republicans (IE not an argument in support of your point)

I don't see how it's "impressive" that Republicans are failing to support their President, or failing to elect someone who would have a slightly wider appeal, whichever way you want to look at it. Low approval rating is the result of this failure, not the cause of it.

[TECSHARE]

lower approval than what I stated with average results = even more impressive for Republicans (IE not an argument in support of your point)

I don't see how it's "impressive" that Republicans are failing to support their President, or failing to elect someone who would have a slightly wider appeal, whichever way you want to look at it. Low approval rating is the result of this failure, not the cause of it.

I am very sorry your reading comprehension is so poor.

I say "Hey! This approval rating has this average rate of loss, and the Democrats did just that number" (a
you reply (unsourced I might add) saying essentially "Yeah but, if his approval rating were LOWER he would have lost less seats!"

It is "more impressive" because the example showed an approval rating HIGHER than Trump had, and the average was 33 seats

Trumps ACTUAL approval rating at the time of election was actually about 10 points lower, 40%... meaning that in spite of having an approval rating LOWER than used in the average calculation, he still maintained the same number of seats as in the average... meaning that the Dems actually had less than average gains for an incumbent with his approval ratings.

If you don't see the issue with your logic here by now, my explaining is not going to make anything better for you.

[Spendulus]

lower approval than what I stated with average results = even more impressive for Republicans (IE not an argument in support of your point)

I don't see how it's "impressive" that Republicans are failing to support their President, or failing to elect someone who would have a slightly wider appeal, whichever way you want to look at it. Low approval rating is the result of this failure, not the cause of it.

A presidential election year finds a lot of people voting straight party ticket, so many Congressmen and some Senators, up for election at that same time, find themselves  surprisingly in office only because they were in the winning POTUS's party. This is partly corrected in the mid terms.

Nine of the eleven candidates that Trump campaigned for won.

[suchmoon]

I say "Hey! This approval rating has this average rate of loss, and the Democrats did just that number" (a
you reply (unsourced I might add) saying essentially "Yeah but, if his approval rating were LOWER he would have lost less seats!"

I took the numbers from the same article you linked to. I didn't say he would have lost less seats. It's just the average from past elections.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-midterm-elections-preview/

It is "more impressive" because the example showed an approval rating HIGHER than Trump had, and the average was 33 seats

Trumps ACTUAL approval rating at the time of election was actually about 10 points lower, 40%... meaning that in spite of having an approval rating LOWER than used in the average calculation, he still maintained the same number of seats as in the average... meaning that the Dems actually had less than average gains for an incumbent with his approval ratings.

Which doesn't make any sense because there is no linear correlation "lower rating -> more lost seats". Again, from the same article the two elections where the President's rating was 40% or less had losses of 12 and 30 seats, or 21 on average. Trump lost 35-37. So which is it - Trump is worse at presidenting than Obama and Dubya, or this rating-to-seats criteria is meaningless? I'm leaning towards both.

[TECSHARE]

I say "Hey! This approval rating has this average rate of loss, and the Democrats did just that number" (a
you reply (unsourced I might add) saying essentially "Yeah but, if his approval rating were LOWER he would have lost less seats!"

I took the numbers from the same article you linked to. I didn't say he would have lost less seats. It's just the average from past elections.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-midterm-elections-preview/

It is "more impressive" because the example showed an approval rating HIGHER than Trump had, and the average was 33 seats

Trumps ACTUAL approval rating at the time of election was actually about 10 points lower, 40%... meaning that in spite of having an approval rating LOWER than used in the average calculation, he still maintained the same number of seats as in the average... meaning that the Dems actually had less than average gains for an incumbent with his approval ratings.

Which doesn't make any sense because there is no linear correlation "lower rating -> more lost seats". Again, from the same article the two elections where the President's rating was 40% or less had losses of 12 and 30 seats, or 21 on average. Trump lost 35-37. So which is it - Trump is worse at presidenting than Obama and Dubya, or this rating-to-seats criteria is meaningless? I'm leaning towards both.

Its fine. You keep pretending like you never had any fault in logic here. That is pretty much all the left can do at this point. Fake it till you make it.

[Wayan_Pedjeng]

I see! So is the turn out for Republicans more impressive or less impressive if you use lower approval rating? lol. Good job arguing against yourself and understanding simple addition and subtraction.

What are you babbling about? Turnout was relatively high for both parties but Democrats outvoted Republicans by ~5 million. Trump's immigration hysteria backfired bigly. So much effort for 1 or 2 Senate seats and losses everywhere else. Or as you call it - impressive.

You can't interpret the elections by counting the total number of votes, because a lot of Republican voters who live in deep blue states such as California and New York don't go out to vote (because even if they do, their votes won't matter). On the other hand, relatively fewer people live in the deep red states such as W.Va or Wyoming and so the Democrats don't face this issue.

[suchmoon]

You can't interpret the elections by counting the total number of votes, because a lot of Republican voters who live in deep blue states such as California and New York don't go out to vote (because even if they do, their votes won't matter). On the other hand, relatively fewer people live in the deep red states such as W.Va or Wyoming and so the Democrats don't face this issue.

Congressional districts are based on population so aside from gerrymandering (which tends to favor Republicans so Democrats need to have ~ +5% for parity) the total number of votes is a reasonable measure for the House elections. There are red districts in California and there are blue districts in Texas.