logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Election Predictions and Retrospective!, Share predictions, how you voted, and summeries of this election.
net2007
post Nov 5 2018, 10:00 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,236
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



I’m going to start with my prediction followed by my reasoning's. If your not going to vote or don’t have a prediction for the midterms feel free to share anything in relation to this election cycle.

My prediction is that the Republicans will increase their majority in the Senate by a few seats, and as far as the House goes, I think it’s a toss up. I’d give the Democrats a 60% chance at best of retaking the House and I would have never said this a couple months ago. I don't think this will be a blue wave on the order of the red wave that Obama saw. The Democrats lost enough seats under Obama to break records. We'll see what happens but it's not looking like that's the trend for the Republicans, though they're certainly fighting an uphill battle.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/state...atic-seats-con/
https://www.rollcall.com/news/obama-poised-...erm-loss-record

QUOTE
Obama had one midterm where his party lost 63 House seats, and Democrats are expected to lose another 5 to possibly 12 House seats (or more), taking the sitting president’s total midterm House loses to the 68 seat to 75 seat range.

Most recent presidents have one disastrous midterm and another midterm that was not terrible. The GOP lost 30 House seats in George W. Bush’s second midterm, but gained 8 seats in his first midterm for a net loss of 22 seats. The party lost 26 seats in Ronald Reagan’s first midterm, but a mere 5 seats in his second midterm for a net loss of 31 seats.


(From my understanding they used the Supreme Court to counter their lack of legislative power.)

I believe that one of the primary reasons for the recent boost Republicans have seen is incivility. To give some quick examples, Before the Kavanaugh hearings the Senate was a toss up and the House was considered out of reach. Now Republicans are expected to gain seats in the Senate and the House is now a toss up, especially if polling metrics are being misread as they were in 2016. The idea of Incivility being a key factor may not sit well with some, Trump is bombastic and says a number of things which contribute to the divisiveness, I think most people understand that.

The problem that I see is that the excessive focus on Trump by the left and Democrats often comes with little to no desire to reflect on problems that they’re helping to create. Many people are holding up Trump and conservatives to a high standard that they’re not meeting. I believe that this lack of inward focus has lead to less discipline in regards to their own speech and behaviors. It makes sense that this would lead to an explosion of uncivil rhetoric and even violence. I think most Americans see that there’s a double standard, it’s part of why Trump gets away with saying things that could have easily sunk prior Republican candidates before they had a chance to be elected. The political dynamics in America are changing in many ways. As a side note, I'm not saying conservatives don't contribute to these problems and the majority of leftist are not violent,

As far as this election goes, apart from the Kavanaugh hearings, multiple events have exposed the left and Democrats in a way that we haven’t seen in the past. The age of political correctness and using double standards as a tactic may not be coming to a close but more people are wise to what’s going on than ever before, those types of methods don't appear to be as effective as they used to be. Take the multiple “caravans” coming to the U.S., There’s evidence that there’s 100’s of criminals wanting to cross, most who are wanting to cross are able bodied men, some of whom have decided to place women, including pregnant women, at the front of the line to increase their chances of getting through, and they’ve already attacked law enforcement in Mexico. Republicans are depicted as either racist or unsympathetic to a group who are less fortunate than ourselves. While I think that it’s an argument that’s fair to apply to some, there’s often little or no mention of role the left and Democrats have played.

They’re often incentivizing immigrants to cross illegally, if not directly through activist groups, they do it through policies which encourage immigrants to break our laws. This is what helps initiate a process which has lead to sexual assaults on children coming into the U.S., drug cartels using immigrants as they cross, violence, and ultimately those family separations that the Democrats are putting focus on. The Democrats and left certainly aren’t the ones primarily responsible for something like the child abuse that occurs as immigrants push to cross our southern border, the ones committing those acts are, but they’re often not being straight forward about the full effect of the decisions they’re making. I don't think most of those crossing are criminals or a danger to our country, I think that some don't believe those who lean to the right when they say something like that though. Communication really needs to improve on both sides these days, hopefully it gets there.

To wrap this up, there’s more to this than I could explain in a few paragraphs, but there are reasons why the Democrat party isn’t doing as well as expected. Some aren’t being educated on the problems within the Democrat party, and many who are aware of these types of problems decide to ignore them while holding Republicans up to standards they’re not meeting, especially those who have more power, like politicians and media pundits, they seem to be the worst at misleading the public and turning the other cheek when something goes wrong. There’s still a strong part of me that wants Democrats to have a healthy party, but the current Senate and House is the most corrupt I’ve seen in my lifetime and they’re running several candidates who are going to add to the problem if elected.

The unfortunate part about this for me is that I don’t think that all of the Democrats ideas are bad ones, especially old school Democrats but the direction the party is headed now makes me fear that they’re not going to change anytime soon. I voted early for the first time in my life and voted Republican across the board for the first time in several elections. So much of what I’ve seen has pushed me away and it’s clear that current events have united the Republican party in many respects, will it be enough to hold both the House and Senate? I can’t say I’m convinced of that, historical trends are not on the Republicans side and their layout in the House is horrible this year with so many terms ending for Republicans, but if the Democrats squeak by with a win in the House, as harsh as it might sound I think it’ll have a lot to do with being at the right place at the right time, in some respects they’d be taking the House despite their strategy and actions rather than because of them.

I do want to say good luck regardless, this is an important election!

Questions for Debate….

1. If voting, which party will you cast more votes for and why?

2. Are there any individual candidates you want to mention in this race?

3. Do you have any predictions for this election? Any details on why you've made a prediction are welcome.

This forum was a little late and very close to election day so for after the election....

4. Can you summarize what happened during this election process, and what you think of the results?

5. Did the results of this election turn out the way you thought it would?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 10)
Gray Seal
post Nov 6 2018, 01:27 PM
Post #2


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,424
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



1. If voting, which party will you cast more votes for and why?

Libertarian. I do not vote for big money candidates which eliminates many Republicans and Democrats. Libertrians are broadly self funded.

2. Are there any individual candidates you want to mention in this race?



3. Do you have any predictions for this election? Any details on why you've made a prediction are welcome.

I predict incumbents win over 90% of the time. Big money works. Big money controls. The biggest money is behind incumbents. Voters are ignorant and susceptible to big money.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 6 2018, 03:02 PM
Post #3


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



1. If voting, which party will you cast more votes for and why?

As many voters have done, I did it early. I voted for Republicans when there was no other choice, which were quite a few local slots. One Libertarian running against a Republican and one independent, same deal. All others were Democrats.

2. Are there any individual candidates you want to mention in this race?

No, but the Democrats were mostly women. Seems to be a national trend for the Democrats.

3. Do you have any predictions for this election? Any details on why you've made a prediction are welcome.

Record turnout for the midterms, lots of new and/or young voters. Reminds me of the '70s when old white people at the polls were surprised that young people actually showed up.

Other than that, I'm not making predictions on the winners/losers due to not trusting the polls (surveys). The unknowns are just too many, including how bad weather in the East might impact turnout in those races.

I do think this election has a strong sense of the POTUS in it, but I don't think it'll trump mrsparkle.gif local issues.

For example, Republicans who don't like Trump will likely not vote for Democrats to run county governments.

I will be surprised if the Demos don't take the House, but I also understand that it's an especially uphill climb due to the 2010 gerrymandering. We had an amendment that would require a balanced committee outside of state government for redrawing districts after the 2020 census. I voted yes on that because gerrymandering has gotten out of hand. Redrawing districts is supposed to improve representation, not thwart it.

It's also possible for the Demos to take both the House and Senate, but just the House will make quite a bit of difference. I'll also be surprised if the entire Congress turns Democratic.

I can make this prediction: The midterms will reflect the actual will of the electorate due to all races being based on popular vote counts. The only problem with this is gerrymandering impacting the outcomes, but we'll still be able to see who voted for whom/what after it's all over.This in turn will impact the 2020 election season.

I can see the Democrats benefiting no matter what, since having power over the next couple of years might not be so great for 2020. An example would be an economic crash like in 2008 with Republicans holding their own bags of really bad ideas. Another example, if the Demos take the House, would be greater oversight of a POTUS who isn't exactly hitting on all cylinders.

I don't see Republican wins benefiting them at all. Way too much baggage. This will be especially bad for them if the electorate comes to understand gerrymandering as rigging the midterms.

In all though, these are the most interesting midterms I've ever witnessed.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Nov 6 2018, 03:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 6 2018, 06:46 PM
Post #4


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,236
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 6 2018, 11:02 AM) *
1. If voting, which party will you cast more votes for and why?

As many voters have done, I did it early. I voted for Republicans when there was no other choice, which were quite a few local slots. One Libertarian running against a Republican and one independent, same deal. All others were Democrats.

2. Are there any individual candidates you want to mention in this race?

No, but the Democrats were mostly women. Seems to be a national trend for the Democrats.

3. Do you have any predictions for this election? Any details on why you've made a prediction are welcome.

Record turnout for the midterms, lots of new and/or young voters. Reminds me of the '70s when old white people at the polls were surprised that young people actually showed up.

Other than that, I'm not making predictions on the winners/losers due to not trusting the polls (surveys). The unknowns are just too many, including how bad weather in the East might impact turnout in those races.

I do think this election has a strong sense of the POTUS in it, but I don't think it'll trump mrsparkle.gif local issues.

For example, Republicans who don't like Trump will likely not vote for Democrats to run county governments.

I will be surprised if the Demos don't take the House, but I also understand that it's an especially uphill climb due to the 2010 gerrymandering. We had an amendment that would require a balanced committee outside of state government for redrawing districts after the 2020 census. I voted yes on that because gerrymandering has gotten out of hand. Redrawing districts is supposed to improve representation, not thwart it.

It's also possible for the Demos to take both the House and Senate, but just the House will make quite a bit of difference. I'll also be surprised if the entire Congress turns Democratic.

I can make this prediction: The midterms will reflect the actual will of the electorate due to all races being based on popular vote counts. The only problem with this is gerrymandering impacting the outcomes, but we'll still be able to see who voted for whom/what after it's all over.This in turn will impact the 2020 election season.

I can see the Democrats benefiting no matter what, since having power over the next couple of years might not be so great for 2020. An example would be an economic crash like in 2008 with Republicans holding their own bags of really bad ideas. Another example, if the Demos take the House, would be greater oversight of a POTUS who isn't exactly hitting on all cylinders.

I don't see Republican wins benefiting them at all. Way too much baggage. This will be especially bad for them if the electorate comes to understand gerrymandering as rigging the midterms.

In all though, these are the most interesting midterms I've ever witnessed.


To reply on what I can from my phone, I can agree with a lot of what you're saying here. For example there's a strong sense of the POTUS in this race, and I don't trust the polls either. In part due to the last presidential election and other elections following a similar path, such as the 2004 presidential election where John Kerry was ahead in the polls but ending up losing, including the popular vote in that case.

However, personally I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats don't take the House. I said I think that there's about a 60% chance the Democrats will flip the House but I'm going against some of my gut instinct when I say that. Although the Democrats are doing well with turnout, Republicans have seen a slightly higher turnout in early voting than the Democrats in several key states, (much to my surprise given how motivated Democrats are), and I believe the polling metrics are similar to 2016. I'm thinking the polls will be more in favor of Republicans than some are realizing.

With that said, my gut instinct could be wrong, based on over half of the data I have the Democrats would barely take the House and they'll almost certainly gain seats. To me it comes down to how much the polls are off and how strong the Trump effect is this year. There's a similar feeling in the air as there was in 2016. This could be another upset victory for Republicans, but ultimately my gut instinct is one thing and the unpromising layout in the House, the polls, and the motivation Democrats have right now, say something different.

This post has been edited by net2007: Nov 6 2018, 06:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 7 2018, 12:50 PM
Post #5


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



4. Can you summarize what happened during this election process, and what you think of the results?

Looks to me that this part of the American experiment worked as designed. The House went to a popular push to preserve benefits for the people, mostly health care insurance, by the people, as in the popular vote counted, but the Senate remained the way it was. The House was designed expressly to turn over more quickly than the Senate and as a check of the common people over the power people (big money). The Senate, with its longer terms, is supposed to act as a check on the common people going woo-hoo-bat-crap-crazy.

5. Did the results of this election turn out the way you thought it would?

I haven't reviewed what happened in detail, but so far there are no surprises.

Now I'm wondering what impacts this will have for 2020. Two more years of attrition for old white guys will make a difference for sure. Could see some major movers and shakers heading to the happy hunting grounds. But will younger voters remain motivated? Will women continue to push back on patriarch-based policies? The trend for the browning of the population will likely continue, but will it motivate voters?

Then there's the issue of Trump. Will he be running again? Or will it be Pence in there or maybe a whole new crew? Although it'd be a big deal anyway, rolling over the Executive on purpose before the 2020 season would be a game-changer.

What if Trump and Pence were to leave politics -- then it'd be the Speaker of the House, who is going to be a Democrat, and might be Pelosi. But would she run after filling in like Ford did or defer to some other Democrat?

I am happy that the Demos won the House mostly because its way more interesting than if they had not. Also that, despite the craziness of TEA types and Trump, the foundations of our democratic republic survived yet once again.

Perhaps the electorate will come to understand that apathy for voting is as dangerous as any foreign foe or internal social upheaval to our way of government. Hope people stay involved -- sure beats wasting away, or as Neil Young put it, it's better to burn out than to fade away. My my, hey hey.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Nov 7 2018, 03:31 PM
Post #6


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,424
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



4. Can you summarize what happened during this election process, and what you think of the results?

Big money won. Whether a woman wins, a Republican, or a Democrat the results are the same. No surprises. The only question was style. Substance remains the same. Bigger government by big money for big money and for bigger money.

5. Did the results of this election turn out the way you thought it would?

yes

--------

QUOTE
The Senate, with its longer terms, is supposed to act as a check on the common people going woo-hoo-bat-crap-crazy.

My understanding was that the Senate was to represent the states. The Senate was to be the regional democracy model to balance the popular vote model.

-------

https://www.politico.com/election-results/2...inois/governor/

If you have clicked on the above you will see a map of Illinois showing the Illinois governor vote by county. The county vote was 90 for Rauner and 15 for Pritzker.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician)
The midterms will reflect the actual will of the electorate due to all races being based on popular vote counts.

Is there no value in regional democracy? Should the will of the majority in a smaller region wash over the will of people in larger regions? In Illinois, it is such a wide discrepancy between popular vote and regional vote. Should cities dominate elections?

As for myself, I would prefer an electoral college based theme for electing governors. Half the vote would come from popular vote and the other half from regional votes. I think this would be a better reflection of the will of the people.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Nov 8 2018, 05:53 AM
Post #7


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,832
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Questions for Debate….

1. If voting, which party will you cast more votes for and why?
Voted. Primarily Republican, but also voted for an assortment of 3rd party candidates. Downvoted retention for ALL judges.

2. Are there any individual candidates you want to mention in this race?
Late to the party, not applicable.

3. Do you have any predictions for this election? Any details on why you've made a prediction are welcome.
Late to the party, not applicable.

This forum was a little late and very close to election day so for after the election....

4. Can you summarize what happened during this election process, and what you think of the results?
Democrats and their MSM operatives spent 2 years attacking Trump. Other than "Orange Man Bad", they really didn't have any message. Republicans semi-blew it by squandering their legislative opportunity. The Kavanaugh circus was as great a political misstep as "no new taxes", if not greater.

5. Did the results of this election turn out the way you thought it would?
Close, but not quite. I really thought that Menendez and Keith Ellison would lose. Apparently, #BelieveAllWomen expired with Kavanaugh's confirmation. Likewise for the Dem candidate who had married her own brother. (ewwwwww).

Medical Marijuana passed in Utah. A zoning change for student housing in Orem, Utah is currently in the "For" column by ONE vote. Democrats have done their best (and looks like they'll succeed) to eliminate all diversity from the Utah Congressional delegation, replacing a woman of color with a white male. Seems remarkably racist of them, eh?

Initiative to ban local soda and grocery taxes leading in Washington.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/p...-in-washington/

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 9 2018, 04:20 PM
Post #8


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Nov 7 2018, 11:31 AM) *
Is there no value in regional democracy? Should the will of the majority in a smaller region wash over the will of people in larger regions? In Illinois, it is such a wide discrepancy between popular vote and regional vote. Should cities dominate elections?


At the national level, yes, cities should dominate rural areas. That's because more constituents live in cities. At the state level, the small towns can dominate through state house/senate elections, plus county/town elections, and that domination usually has more to do with the daily lives of constituents than national dominance.

There are exceptions, of course.

The idea of having state ECs for US Senate elections would help how? Wouldn't the number of delegates from cities be a lot higher than from rural areas? Or are you thinking every district/county would have an equal number of delegates?

In any case, I suppose a state is free to structure its election system however it wants via state constitutional amendments. The challenge would be to get enough signatures for the idea to be put on the ballot, like how Colorado has tried to control gerrymandering.

*

I was expecting the results of the midterms to be drawn out, but not as much. That's because a lot of races were very close, and that has kicked in recounts/runoffs. Seems the Demos did a lot better than I thought possible. And apparently better than the POTUS feared. More than a ripple, less than a tsunami, pretty much a blue wave.

This could very well continue into the next election season, as it's a movement based more on facts than fears. However, fear of another four years of Trump or whoever takes his place could be significant. The question is whether lies and propaganda will win over more supporters than truth and track records.

For examples, health care, foreign wars, subsidizing the already wealthy, allowing taxpayer money thieves in, racist policies, and now I've run out of commas. Dang!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 11 2018, 12:23 AM
Post #9


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,236
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



I'm still restricted on available writing time but will have a longer reply here after I reply in another thread. For now, congrats to the Democrats for flipping the House. I really hope that our politicians are able to tone things down some. Unfortunately there are no signs of that yet but I haven't lost hope that things will eventually calm back down somewhat

Authormusichian, your gut instinct was right on the House, the polls were still a bit off and more in favor of Republicans than how they were presented, but not by enough in many races. I'll address some other points before too long.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Nov 19 2018, 10:19 PM
Post #10


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,236
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Okay, let me see if I can get some of my spelling gaffes under control this time (it's still a work in progress) tongue.gif

4. Can you summarize what happened during this election process, and what you think of the results?

I answered part of this in the opening post but the new development of voter fraud, or perhaps incompetence, in Florida is worth a mention. Here are some excerpts from the Washington Times...

QUOTE
"President Trump and other Republicans are crying foul and accusing Democrats of trying to steal the election. Given the history of voter fraud in this country and the heavily Democratic makeup of Broward and Palm Beach counties, their suspicions may be justified."

........

"Brenda Snipes, the supervisor of Elections in Broward County, has held her job for 15 years. Her history, to put it charitably, has been checkered. Last May, a judge ruled that Snipes violated federal and state election laws when she destroyed ballots in the 2016 congressional race in which Tim Canova lost a primary contest to incumbent Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

In August, a judge ordered Ms. Snipes to stop opening mail-in ballots in secret. Ms. Snipes has engaged in other behavior that has raised concerns about her competence and nonpartisanship, including again in 2016 when she "accidentally" posted election results 30 minutes before polls closed."

........

[Marco Rubio phrased it like this...] "Bay County was hit by a Cat 4 Hurricane just 4 weeks ago, yet managed to count votes & submit timely results. Yet over 41 hours after polls closed #Broward elections office is still counting votes?


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/n...rida-elections/

Politico covered another aspect of potential fraud or incompetence in Florida....

QUOTE
"After getting crushed in the 2018 midterms, the Florida Democratic Party is now playing defense after staffers sent altered state election documents to voters, a move state officials have asked federal prosecutors to investigate.

The issue arose after state party staff sent voters forms that are intended to fix vote-by-mail ballots that had been initially rejected. Those forms, which are official state documents, were sent with altered dates, leading the Florida Department of State to turn over the paperwork to several U.S. attorneys and request an inquiry into the irregularities."

......

"To cure a mail-in ballot, voters needed to submit an affidavit on Nov. 5, the day before Election Day. But the altered version changed the date to Nov. 8, the deadline to cure issues with provisional ballots. It's unclear if any voters availed themselves of the altered affidavit produced by party operatives.

Under state law governing "fraudulent practices", it's a third-degree felony to knowingly and willfully ... make or use any false document, knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry connected to the Department of State. While the fraud statute is not contained in the state election code, it relates to the 2018 election because the affidavit in question concerned the elections division, which falls under the Department of State."

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/sto...tigation-701989

At first glance, a lot of this smells fishy given the history of fraud in Florida during elections and Brenda Snipes checkered history but I'm still waiting for all of this to finish playing out before I call it more than just incompetence. In the meantime, Democrats have concerns and are making accusations of their own in regards to both Florida and Georgia. Over the years, increasingly I've felt like whoever turns out to be at fault in either party that the truth is often lost in all of the back and forth chaos. One thing I can say for certain is that the way this election panned out, fits right in with 2016 where both Republicans and Democrats are going at each other and trust in our government feels like it's at historic lows.

5. Did the results of this election turn out the way you thought it would?

Close, the Democrats gained more seats in the House than I thought they would but I don't consider it a blue wave given that Obama lost over 60 seats in the House in one election and Republicans just gained seats in the Senate. Here's how PolitiFact phrased it...

QUOTE
"Few presidents first midterm elections in modern American political history have yielded Senate gains for the presidents party.

Part of the equation in this particular election was that Democrats were disadvantaged by the fact that they were defending more seats than Republicans. That included 10 states Trump won handily in the 2016 presidential election.

It's also not unprecedented that the House and Senate end up split between two parties following a midterm.

Still, it's fairly unusual for a president's party to notch a net gain in the Senate during a president's first midterm, as the data from 538.com below shows:

YEAR
PRESIDENT
SENATE NET LOSS/GAIN BY PRESIDENT'S PARTY

2018
Donald Trump ®
+0-3

2010
Barack Obama (D)
-6

2002
George W. Bush ®
+2

1994
Bill Clinton (D)
-8

1990
George H.W. Bush ®
-1

1982
Ronald Reagan ®
+1

1978
Jimmy Carter (D)
-3

1974
Gerald Ford ®
-4

1970
Richard Nixon ®
+1

1966
Lyndon Johnson (D)
-3

1962
John F. Kennedy (D)
+4

1954
Dwight D. Eisenhower ®
-2

1946
Harry S Truman (D)
-11

1934
Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
+9

No matter how things turn out, Trump's party fared much better in the Senate than Democrats did during President Barack Obama's first midterm election, which he famously conceded was a "shellacking."

But the outstanding elections will determine if Trump's claim is ultimately correct.

President George W. Bush saw Republicans net two Senate seats in 2002, while President Richard Nixon and Republicans gained one seat in 1970, according to 538.com.

If the results hold and Republicans win in Mississippi, Florida and Arizona, Trump would be correct that Republicans Senate gains in the 2018 midterms (+3) represent the largest first midterm Senate pickup since President John F. Kennedy's Democratic party gained four seats in 1962.

Those races are not yet called, though. While Republicans are in a better position in all three states, Trump is counting gains that are not yet certain. We rate statements based on what's known at the time they were made. So we this claim rates Half True."


https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...publicans-sena/

This article follows Trump's claim that "This election marks the largest Senate gains for a president's party in a first midterm election since at least President Kennedy's in 1962,"

To mention this briefly, I have a little pet peeve with some of these fact checker sites, on more than one occasion I've seen them mix data that's unfavorable for the left or Democrats with something silly or premature that Trump says. This is just a theory but I believe they do that sometimes so that they can rate information that doesn't reflect positively on the left as "Half-True". Part of my suspicion comes from finding out that some of these fact checker sites originate from left-leaning media companies. PolitiFact is operated by the Tampa Bay Times, from the political articles I've read from the TBT, they appear to be more critical of Republicans than the other way around, though not nearly as bad as The New York Times.

Mediabiasfactcheck.com, a site that didn't hesitate to call out Fox News, marks the Tampa Bay Times as having a left of center bias and the public poll on the TBT revealed that those who took the poll felt even stronger about that with 15.5% marking it as a center-left source, 36.05% ranking it as a left-wing source, and 28.68% marking it as extreme left...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tampa-bay-times/

To update the fact checker, which marked "0 - 3" net Senate gains for Republicans this year, the Republicans appear to have gained two seats with Florida now looking like it's wrapping up. 538.com is marking it as 2 net gains for Republicans.....

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-di...ate-get-redder/

One of these "0-3" seats depends on what happens in Mississippi which has gone to a November 27th runoff where the Republican candidate is favored to win. To look at the numbers from another angle than the fact checker did, after 1934 only 2 presidents in American history have gained 2 or more seats in the Senate during their first midterm. A gain of a couple seats in the Senate doesn't sound like a lot but if you look at past midterm results, the Senate doesn't swing as wildly as the House does in midterm elections. With Obama losing 6 Senate seats during his first midterm and Bill Clinton losing 8, I think it's safe to say that the Republicans Senate gains this year were worth touting.

Lastly, for both parties, I think it's fair to point out that the layout for Democrats in the Senate was not favorable and neither was the layout for Republicans in the House, this election went as one would expect if they were simply taking into account the handicaps that each party had in either the House or Senate. I think Democrats deserve credit for their gains in the House but a blue wave to me would have meant defying expectations. If Republicans had either lost both the House and Senate or lost a similar amount of House seats to what Obama saw then I'd say blue wave. Bottom line though is that, overall, this election helped the Democrats more than Republicans. The biggest exception to that is that the gains in the Senate will make it a bit harder for Democrats to block judicial nominees, the Senate is considered the upper chamber as well so it was important for the Republicans to hold it.

At this point Democrats will be deciding how they're going to improve on some of the gains they've made. Personally, I think it'd be a mistake if they take on Nancy Pelosi again or focus too much on impeachment and investigations. The effect that the Kavanaugh hearings had on the Democrats midterm momentum in the Senate and what happened to Republicans when they overreached by continuing to try to impeach Bill Clinton after Whitewater fell through, are both things which should come as warning signs to elected Democrats who feel that resistance, at all cost, is the way to go. I'd understand if they were simply resisting policies and a President they don't favor, it's more about the approach and methods they're using which has caused a lot of backlash. So far they don't seem too concerned which could nip them in the butt come 2020.

QUOTE
QUOTE
[Gray Seal]lIs there no value in regional democracy? Should the will of the majority in a smaller region wash over the will of people in larger regions? In Illinois, it is such a wide discrepancy between popular vote and regional vote. Should cities dominate elections?

[AuthorMusician]At the national level, yes, cities should dominate rural areas. That's because more constituents live in cities. At the state level, the small towns can dominate through state house/senate elections, plus county/town elections, and that domination usually has more to do with the daily lives of constituents than national dominance.


Although it's not perfect, I favor the Electoral College because I don't think anyone should dominate too much. AM, I'd agree with you that county and town elections have a significant impact on the daily lives of the residents who live there but when a national law is passed there's only so much local governments can do to help those who disagree with that law and in some counties that'd be the vast majority of the residents who are not being represented. One key thing I consider is that a national law can have a large effect on the daily lives of the residents in a small town, but the laws in one small town alone have very little impact on residents outside of that town. I believe this places a greater deal of responsibility on those who are creating our national laws, many of whom aren't very responsible, I'm willing to bet you'd agree with the latter. Our founding fathers foresaw this and it's part of the reason we have the EC.

I view the EC as a check on the most powerful among us, it's controversial but I don't view it as unfair. Trump benefited from the EC but he now has a number of checks on him in other ways. The cities and states with the highest populations still have the majority of the influence during elections, which is the way I think it should be and the popular vote is always close (percentage wise) in cases where the White House is won due solely to an electoral victory. I think I understand where you're coming from as well but there'd be little stopping presidential candidates from disregarding people who live outside of highly populated areas if we elected our presidents based purely on the popular vote. The Electoral College gives representation to a wider range of Americans because it incentivizes our leaders to diversify their efforts in a way that benefits more areas. That's my take on it.

This post has been edited by net2007: Yesterday, 01:11 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Yesterday, 03:09 PM
Post #11


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,332
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(net2007 @ Nov 19 2018, 04:19 PM) *
AM, I'd agree with you that county and town elections have a significant impact on the daily lives of the residents who live there but when a national law is passed there's only so much local governments can do to help those who disagree with that law and in some counties that'd be the vast majority of the residents who are not being represented.


Exactly why we should push all government down to the lowest level, not consolidate it at the top.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: November 21st, 2018 - 09:47 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.