US "Mid-term" Elections 2018

[Montmorency]

First note: Turnout was massive, and while we can only estimate yet it looks like above 50% of registered voters (~220 million give or take 10?), and not much lower among all eligible voters according to ElectProject.

The average turnout since Nixon during midterms has hovered around 40%, hitting a modern low in 2014.

Heard O'Reilly talking on Beck's radio show this morning.

O'Reilly's take was that suburbia, particularly women, were voting against Trump the person and not so much against the policies/economic situation -- which is why the state-wide races were less problematic to GOP's results.


Mainstream Media is already talking about House subpoena powers -- because nothing is more important than constant conflict. I am sure it will make for good political bloodsport.


Sad.

I don't think O'Reilly and Beck (lol) have a credible interpretation. The reality looks more like Trump drumming up a Red counter-wave in Republican turnout, closing margins to the point that structural barriers showed their advantage to the Republican side.

W-What? What did you think the election was about? Retaking the House, and the size of the House surge. Taking the House isn't about "sending a message" to Trump, it's about concretely blocking and investigating him. Politics has real-world effects, it's not mere symbolic posturing!

If you don't like constant conflict, then you should be glad Democrats achieved the bare minimum necessary to "hold Trump accountable". (Keep reading for my response to ACIN)

People will say the blue wave broke, but this election has more toss ups going down to the last precinct in a long time. This was supposed to be a disastrous year for Dems, the blue wave was really a rally to staunch the blood loss. Once 2020 census hits, many of state legislatures that have flipped blue will reverse the Republican gerrymandering holding back the House.

ACIN, I'm not going to dig into all the numbers but from a preliminary glance at key battleground states we can see that there was a wave in absolute terms. The answer to the mediocre relative performance does not seem to come down to a late fumble in turnout. For example, Georgia saw over 55% turnout and Florida over 60% - pretty good even for a presidential election (based on denominator of registered voters; the figures when accounting for all eligible voters fall by 3-4% and 8% respectively). When you and others chide Democrats not to focus on structural hurdles like gerrymandering and voter suppression, you contend instead that they somehow gin up unprecedented and overwhelming surges in turnout on the regular. In that case, the story goes, the structural hurdles can be rendered obsolete. There's a hint of something sound here, but it indulges in a certain fallacious premise that is after all very common in discussions of the Democratic Party: that only the Democrats have agency.

The thing is, Republicans can try to surge their turnout too! Dems seemed to underperform their polling in many Senate races, to my unsystematic eye. If I have that right it is less likely because turnout fumbled in the end than because Trump's racist agitprop was extremely and distressingly successful. Shit dude, he was working harder in the weeks leading up to the midterms than in all his term so far, holding multiple "rallies" a day throughout the country. *sigh*

So unless the strategy is genuinely 'somehow generate overwhelming Democratic turnout all the time while hoping Republicans stay passive', dismantling structural impediments is just as important. As usually turns out to be the case in such dilemmas, "why not both?" If one can eliminate their opponent's entire projected surplus vote through disenfranchisement, less than abnormal turnout will not do much good. The narrow elections in Georgia and Florida - go to your aggregator of choice and take another look at those numbers - were very likely won by Republicans in a way that would evoke international censure if it happened in, say, Nigeria. Similar events unfolded when North Dakota basically refused to let reservation Native Americans vote, but the margin was large enough that it at least was not dispositive.


For the readers, a little recap of the results:
(Terminology note, when I use "narrow" I usually mean around 1% margin, and when I use "close", I usually mean 3 or 4% margin)


House: Democrats pulled off the bare minimum and retook the House. The final distribution when all seats are called will be 229-206 for Dems. Many seats were won with close margins, and many contested GOP-held seats were saved by close margins as well. I saw probably 10 GOP victories by 1% or less, that if flipped would have at last manifested that "Blue Wave". There were some interesting matches, such as the defeat of Russophile Dana Rohrabacher in California. The Democrats took 1 + 2 out of 4 congressional districts in Iowa, and nearly took the 4th (seat of crypto-Nazi Steve King).

Senate: Some key probabilities I noted beforehand (off FiveThirtyEight) were Nevada (tie); Arizona (+1D); North Dakota (+5R); Tennessee (+6R); Texas (+5R); Missouri (+2D); Indiana (+3D); WV (+7D); PA (+7D); Florida (+3D); MIssissippi (+1R); MT (+8D).

The Senate races were one of the worst possible outcomes for Democrats, with 3 net seats lost. Solidly defeated in the defending territory of North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, and Tennessee, reviled former governor of Florida Rick Scott defeated the Dem incumbent for Senate by a margin of less than half a percentage point, in one of the more bitter outcomes. Due to a split vote between two Republicans, a Dem was (only) narrowly defeated in a Mississippi special election. Beto O'Rourke became one of the nationally most-captivating contenders, against Ted Cruz in Texas; he came quite close. Beto will be back for more national politics soon enough it's safe to assume. Capping off the rout, a narrow race in Arizona ultimately went for the Republicans. Final results not in, but it seems Montana's seat will stay Democratic. The only pickup was Nevada.

Governors: Some key probabilities I noted beforehand (off FiveThirtyEight) were Florida (+4D); Wisconisin (+2D); Georgia (+1R); Nevada (+1R); Ohio (+1D); CT (+5D); Iowa (+2D); Kansas (+1.5R); Alaska (+4R); Oklahoma & South Dakota +7R.

Actually not bad overall, but two of the most infuriating shortfalls of the election occurred in Georgia and Florida. In Florida Mr. '#1 with racists' won by <1% against an aggressive and capable black candidate. In Georgia, another aggressive and capable black candidate lost by 2% to the Republican Secretary of State running for governor, who was overseeing his own election and deciding who would and would not get to vote (hint: hundreds of thousands of probable Dem voters would not get to vote). It would take another post to summarize all the irregularities and malfeasance that transpired under this man's remit; I'll tag in ACIN to handle that.

The rest of the bad is that close races were lost in South Dakota, Ohio, and Iowa, and the Republicans took Alaska from the Independent incumbent (who suspended his campaign at the last minute and endorsed the Dem candidate). Still, picking up 7 governorships while preserving your holdings is a good showing. At least the despised Repubican incumbent of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, was finally ousted (albeit narrowly).

State Legislatures: Democrats controlled 32/99. According to Ballotpedia, they picked up 6 and lost 1. :yawn:


Ballot Initiatives: Florida just restored voting rights to over a million felons. Suppress that. Michigan, Missouri, and Colorado approved non-partisan redistricting committees. Several states expanded Medicaid and raised minimum wages.


Unless the Democratic Party enters Berserker mode soon, this is a fragile platform from which to prosecute a 2020 campaign...


Alright, horse race over, time to get back to work*. Expect Mueller news shortly.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'll revisit anything I got wrong or where my understanding on a point or narrative is amended by new considerations

*"Work" in this context meaning bloviating at an online tavern, and being self-consciously smarmy about it as befits the style of the times

[a completely inoffensive name]

ACIN, I'm not going to dig into all the numbers but from a preliminary glance at key battleground states we can see that there was a wave in absolute terms. The answer to the mediocre relative performance does not seem to come down to a late fumble in turnout. For example, Georgia saw over 55% turnout and Florida over 60% - pretty good even for a presidential election (based on denominator of registered voters; the figures when accounting for all eligible voters fall by 3-4% and 8% respectively). When you and others chide Democrats not to focus on structural hurdles like gerrymandering and voter suppression, you contend instead that they somehow gin up unprecedented and overwhelming surges in turnout on the regular. In that case, the story goes, the structural hurdles can be rendered obsolete. There's a hint of something sound here, but it indulges in a certain fallacious premise that is after all very common in discussions of the Democratic Party: that only the Democrats have agency.

Well, the idea is that certain structural obstacles can only be dismantled through wave elections. Also, depending on how smart gerrymandered districts are structured many of the districts are planned out as only slightly advantageous to the GOP, just enough to secure a solid 3-5 point lead. What this does is maximize the number of districts a party can rig in their favor by not stacking on too few. This also means wave elections with large turnout can easily hop those hurdles and force the opposition to spend everywhere and spread itself thin to prevent a sweep of districts typically solid red.

You are right that ultimately there is another variable, which is the Republican energy. But you are basing this on hindsight. Typically when one side is energized, there is a reciprocated lethargy for the opposition such as when 2012 saw Obama still win by a very comfortable margin despite 4 years of GOP death panel momentum up to that point. Chalk this round to the consistent abnormality of Trumpian politics.

The thing is, Republicans can try to surge their turnout too! Dems seemed to underperform their polling in many Senate races, to my unsystematic eye. If I have that right it is less likely because turnout fumbled in the end than because Trump's racist agitprop was extremely and distressingly successful. Shit dude, he was working harder in the weeks leading up to the midterms than in all his term so far, holding multiple "rallies" a day throughout the country. *sigh*

We will need to wait for the full statistical breakdown. Many states had much higher turnout than normal (oddly enough California was lower than normal at 37% turnout). But whether there is more avenues to expand the voting base next time remains to be seen. Let's keep in mind that Georgia has been considered 'ruby red' only until the last few years. The closeness of the elections were due to the stolen votes by the Secretary of State and Florida is...Florida.

So unless the strategy is genuinely 'somehow generate overwhelming Democratic turnout all the time while hoping Republicans stay passive', dismantling structural impediments is just as important. As usually turns out to be the case in such dilemmas, "why not both?" If one can eliminate their opponent's entire projected surplus vote through disenfranchisement, less than abnormal turnout will not do much good. The narrow elections in Georgia and Florida - go to your aggregator of choice and take another look at those numbers - were very likely won by Republicans in a way that would evoke international censure if it happened in, say, Nigeria. Similar events unfolded when North Dakota basically refused to let reservation Native Americans vote, but the margin was large enough that it at least was not dispositive.

I think we can bet that Republicans will not be staying passive for 2020, but unlike the Obama years, Democratic turnout this year evolved in the opposite direction of Republicans. Local candidates that gave a fresh face energized grassroots democratic efforts which fed off each other with no real guidance from the DNC. Trumpists show up when leader Trump shows up like in panhandle Florida and don't when doesn't like in California.

House: Democrats pulled off the bare minimum and retook the House. The final distribution when all seats are called will be 229-206 for Dems. Many seats were won with close margins, and many contested GOP-held seats were saved by close margins as well. I saw probably 10 GOP victories by 1% or less, that if flipped would have at last manifested that "Blue Wave". There were some interesting matches, such as the defeat of Russophile Dana Rohrabacher in California. The Democrats took 1 + 2 out of 4 congressional districts in Iowa, and nearly took the 4th (seat of crypto-Nazi Steve King).

Senate: Some key probabilities I noted beforehand (off FiveThirtyEight) were Nevada (tie); Arizona (+1D); North Dakota (+5R); Tennessee (+6R); Texas (+5R); Missouri (+2D); Indiana (+3D); WV (+7D); PA (+7D); Florida (+3D); MIssissippi (+1R); MT (+8D).

The Senate races were one of the worst possible outcomes for Democrats, with 3 net seats lost. Solidly defeated in the defending territory of North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, and Tennessee, reviled former governor of Florida Rick Scott defeated the Dem incumbent for Senate by a margin of less than half a percentage point, in one of the more bitter outcomes. Due to a split vote between two Republicans, a Dem was (only) narrowly defeated in a Mississippi special election. Beto O'Rourke became one of the nationally most-captivating contenders, against Ted Cruz in Texas; he came quite close. Beto will be back for more national politics soon enough it's safe to assume. Capping off the rout, a narrow race in Arizona ultimately went for the Republicans. Final results not in, but it seems Montana's seat will stay Democratic. The only pickup was Nevada.

Governors: Some key probabilities I noted beforehand (off FiveThirtyEight) were Florida (+4D); Wisconisin (+2D); Georgia (+1R); Nevada (+1R); Ohio (+1D); CT (+5D); Iowa (+2D); Kansas (+1.5R); Alaska (+4R); Oklahoma & South Dakota +7R.

Actually not bad overall, but two of the most infuriating shortfalls of the election occurred in Georgia and Florida. In Florida Mr. '#1 with racists' won by <1% against an aggressive and capable black candidate. In Georgia, another aggressive and capable black candidate lost by 2% to the Republican Secretary of State running for governor, who was overseeing his own election and deciding who would and would not get to vote (hint: hundreds of thousands of probable Dem voters would not get to vote). It would take another post to summarize all the irregularities and malfeasance that transpired under this man's remit; I'll tag in ACIN to handle that.

The rest of the bad is that close races were lost in South Dakota, Ohio, and Iowa, and the Republicans took Alaska from the Independent incumbent (who suspended his campaign at the last minute and endorsed the Dem candidate). Still, picking up 7 governorships while preserving your holdings is a good showing. At least the despised Repubican incumbent of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, was finally ousted (albeit narrowly).

State Legislatures: Democrats controlled 32/99. According to Ballotpedia, they picked up 6 and lost 1. :yawn:


Ballot Initiatives: Florida just restored voting rights to over a million felons. Suppress that. Michigan, Missouri, and Colorado approved non-partisan redistricting committees. Several states expanded Medicaid and raised minimum wages.

People put too much emphasis on the Senate. The Senate is structured to be a GOP stronghold. Guaranteed dominance for the few dozen rural states leave them to focus their energy on 5 or so states for control of the chamber.
Also, the loss Dems experienced was a consistent loss of moderate Dems in Trump country, while Dems did pickup a spot in the increasingly blue Nevada. This year just ended up being structurally bad since the increasing polarization of the country is turning more and more states into solid red/blue camps. The division is real and I don't see how Dems even thought they could hold on in those regions when the idea of a Democrat now evokes hostility to Trumpists.

Those state legislatures/governorships are the big win. Dems now have trifectas in three more states and each state which elected a Dem governor will be immune to outright GOP gerrymandering in 2021.

Unless the Democratic Party enters Berserker mode soon, this is a fragile platform from which to prosecute a 2020 campaign...

The party is too weak to evoke this energy, I think we both realize this by now. Listening to Trump and Pelosi back to back is a world of difference. The leadership is too old, too removed from the ground to understand how the future needs to play out.
Grassroots movements are emerging and are showing their potential in races like Georgia, Florida, and Texas. Beto single handily carried an extra 2-3 Texas districts to flip even if his own run did not succeed. While at the end of the day a win is better than promise, it's good news that we now see a viable means to effectively fighting than simply spitballing among each other and relying on the DNC's internal structure to adapt and innovate. They are just as slow to react as the RNC in the 2016 primaries.

[Montmorency]

You are right that ultimately there is another variable, which is the Republican energy. But you are basing this on hindsight. Typically when one side is energized, there is a reciprocated lethargy for the opposition such as when 2012 saw Obama still win by a very comfortable margin despite 4 years of GOP death panel momentum up to that point. Chalk this round to the consistent abnormality of Trumpian politics.

The trouble is in the lesson:

For the Democrats, the lesson is build turnout by mobilizing grassroots with direct participation, uplifting candidates, and promises of "dignity", economic security, and a more just balance of power.

For Republicans, the lesson is to embrace Blood and Soil rhetoric, and a death struggle against the liberal menace.

This orientation will be intensified, orthogonally to how I believe the progressive shift should be intensified on the Dems' part, precisely because it's what the base is drawn to, and if it's successful Republicans will adopt it and if they adopt it they will be hemmed into that choice (Weberian dialectic again).

Just another indication that what comes after Trump will be worse.

(The other day I read a piece by an oblivious liberal type on how Americans don't take politics that seriously as evidenced by the way common folk still treat each other civilly in everyday interactions. What, are 5% of us supposed to be continually engaged in running street battles between partisans for it to be a true schism? 10%? Even 1% would be halfway to failed statehood... minds stuck on a permanent Zeno treadmill.)

People put too much emphasis on the Senate. The Senate is structured to be a GOP stronghold. Guaranteed dominance for the few dozen rural states leave them to focus their energy on 5 or so states for control of the chamber.
Also, the loss Dems experienced was a consistent loss of moderate Dems in Trump country, while Dems did pickup a spot in the increasingly blue Nevada. This year just ended up being structurally bad since the increasing polarization of the country is turning more and more states into solid red/blue camps. The division is real and I don't see how Dems even thought they could hold on in those regions when the idea of a Democrat now evokes hostility to Trumpists.

No one ever said the battle for America's soul was going to be easy. Even an outright sweep of both chambers and the executive in 2020 would not settle this. We are in the beginnings of Act 3 of what could be a full 5 part Shakespearean tragedy. This election has seen the first native-Americans, bisexuals, and socialists elected to the House ever. This country also sends to its capitol Neo-Nazi's and authoritarian sycophants. It is truly becoming a battleground of humanity in all of its forms. We simultaneously frighten and inspire ourselves to a degree that will carry both sides forward for decades to come.

While the Senate defeats, particularly in Texas and Florida, were some of the most painful of the election, I agree that they were flesh wounds. Beto will "rise again". The governor-race defeats in Florida and (I'm just going to write off) Georgia are mor consequential.

IIRC even in the 18th century the basis for representation in the Senate was considered a suboptimal arrangement (compromise). The Framers would certainly shit if they saw the Wyoming-California disparity. I don't have a lot of good takes on solutions here. I would definitely like something comprehensive (as in all things) and sweeping to be debated rather than more narrow technical adjustments.

Weirdly enough, Montana is more Democratic than West Virginia at this point (I'm not referring to just the Senate race). As I have argued elsewhere the "Obama-Trump" phenomenon is oversubscribed relative to its real nature and scope, but West Virginia as a whole state could be personified as an archetypical Obama-Trump voter, they've dumped the Democratic Party so harshly. I fear their capacity to accept even a Sanders trying to sell them the economic intervention they want, if their cultural and racial anxieties are not simultaneously assuaged.

As we saw evinced in many of the ballot propositions (though resource extraction companies lobbied rather successfully on their own turf), Republicans like many Democratic policies, but they hate the Democratic Party and embrace the Republican Party's worldview and symbolic politics.

But here's the deal: almost every state can be turned, given time. Is there a single state in the union that hasn't in the past 30 years sent a single Democrat to the Senate, or to the state capital? There are NOT more than 25 states that can be expected to reliably seat Republican senators. 10 years ago there were nearly 60 Dem senators. Plus you can't gerrymander the Senate (unless for some reason you want to repeal the 17th Amendment ).

The left needs insistent counterpropaganda just to negate the saturation of far-right ideology and thinking, not even to persuade but to desaturate. Mere exposure could have a dramatic effect in enabling independent thought. Since the Republican advantage here is in their wealthy patrons, how do we out-billionaire the right, even as we (justifiably) break with billionaire patronage? And what about MSNBC and CNN, which would struggle to be suitably informational even if they were government-owned and run by activists? They have a stultifying effect on viewers that arguably only helps enable the Fox LMOE silo...

Grassroots movements are emerging and are showing their potential in races like Georgia, Florida, and Texas. Beto single handily carried an extra 2-3 Texas districts to flip even if his own run did not succeed. While at the end of the day a win is better than promise, it's good news that we now see a viable means to effectively fighting than simply spitballing among each other and relying on the DNC's internal structure to adapt and innovate. They are just as slow to react as the RNC in the 2016 primaries.

One positive indicator during the midterms was the especially elevated turnout of the "youth". Millennials aren't so young anymore, but if their turnout could be boosted above 50% that would guarantee long-term Democratic majorities in most of the country right quick.

A negative indicator is that millennial Republicans are especially horrid, 4chan demolitionists in the meat. Boomer Republicans have convictions and instincts (bad ones); their younger counterparts have a conscious Sith Lord mission. You will be hard-pressed to find worse people than young college-educated Republicans. Bork Republicans in the 1980s became dominant Republicans under Obama; Bannon Republicans will become dominant by the end of the coming decade I expect. I guess my point is, what the caucus loses in numbers as Boomers decline, they will gain in fervor and unity.



By the way, have you had a chance to read the discussion between HG Wells and Stalin I linked for you in the other thread? It's surprisingly evergreen in its essence.

Husar: I know, I was just trying to relate the effects of turnout to this specific election.