Were the midterms a slow motion blue wave? By Thomas Lifson

[mystery-ak]

November 13, 2018
Were the midterms a slow motion blue wave?
By Thomas Lifson

Lots of conservatives are feeling upset, cheated, or – worst of all – doomed.  We have watched an  uncanny and statistically unlikely wave of contests moving from GOP to Dem wins as more votes are discovered. Writing at Commentary, NeverTrumper John Podhoretz lays out the doom scenario:

    Resist the happy talk. This election is very bad for the GOP, and harbingers ill for 2020. With the exception of Ohio, Democrats have shown strength in the states that gave Donald Trump his victory in 2016.

    Ds took two Congressional seats in Iowa, defeated Scott Walker in his third gubernatorial bid in Wisconsin, and won most of the Pennsylvania House seats they tried for (with the happy exception of the defeat of the anti-Israel grandson-of-a-Soviet-lover Scott Wallace). Democrats romped in Michigan, notwithstanding a surprising showing for the GOP gubernatorial candidate (who still lost). (snip)

    Remember that 80,000 votes across three states in the upper Midwest made Trump president. Getting 80,000 new voters to replace the ones who didn’t turn out for Hillary Clinton in 2016 shouldn’t be that hard for Dems, especially since they know exactly where they need to go to get them.

    Meanwhile, The scenario I’ve painted here suggests states he won—Florida, Iowa, Georgia, Arizona—might be lost, in which case it doesn’t matter all that much what happens in the upper Midwest. Dems might only need to win one of those back, or two. Meanwhile, the results suggest there isn’t a single state Trump failed to carry that is moving in his direction.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/were_the_midterms_a_slow_motion_blue_wave.html

[Frank Cannon]

One way to lose for sure is to assume one is going to lose.

Yup.

[Jazzhead]

It ought to sound the alarm when an economy as healthy as this one -  with unprecedented low unemployment -  doesn't translate into gains for the party that achieved it.   

Carville said it was the economy, stupid - and Trump turns out to be the exception that proves the rule.   There is a huge danger for the GOP to hitch its wagon to man who, with a booming economy blowing at his back, still can't expand his base.   

Trump must be opposed for the nomination in 2020.   Otherwise, a newly radicalized Democratic party will sweep to victory.   

[TomSea]

I'd just as much assume it's McCain's fault like Jason Lewis says.

I think there are certainly, obviously, a variety of reasons. It does keep coming back to me that perhaps GOP and Conservative voters didn't show up as much as they should have.  I will have to see voter turnout, compare 2016 to 2018 and so on.

Trump's always the exception to the rule.

[TomSea]

Incumbents stand the best chance of wining.

Bush 41 actually looked good before the '92 election, of course,  Ross Perot had a role to play.

Maybe if the usual suspects are against him, Bushes, Romney, we can take that as a sign he should win.

[Free Vulcan]

The Dems got the House with a lot of razor thin margins and questionable vote counting. We kept the Senate and may have gained a couple of seats by the time it's all said and done.

By mid-term standards we didn't do bad. Not going to cry in my beer over this.

We will still be able to confim in the Senate, and overhaul the Executive even if we can't get legislation passed.

[Jazzhead]

By mid-term standards we didn't do bad. Not going to cry in my beer over this.

By mid-term standards we didn't do bad.  By booming-economy standards, we should have done better.   

The Dems also were smart in running centrists in many of the swing districts they won.  About 2/3rds of their pickups, according to analysis in the WJS,  were the result of moderate candidates running in districts where voters were repelled by Trump's bullying rhetoric.   Their media-darling progressives mostly lost.

Conservative ideas still have more than a fighting chance.   But we need a better face of the  party than Donald Trump.  We had a golden opportunity this year to solidify a conservative governing majority,  but Trump turned out to be a millstone.     

[Free Vulcan]

By mid-term standards we didn't do bad.  By booming-economy standards, we should have done better.   

The Dems also were smart in running centrists in many of the swing districts they won.  About 2/3rds of their pickups, according to analysis in the WJS,  were the result of moderate candidates running in districts where voters were repelled by Trump's bullying rhetoric.   Their media-darling progressives mostly lost.

Conservative ideas still have more than a fighting chance.   But we need a better face of the  party than Donald Trump.  We had a golden opportunity this year to solidify a conservative governing majority,  but Trump turned out to be a millstone.   

Yes, and many of their wins were sub-5% running as those moderates. So let Nancy go all bat crazy the next two years with nutty bar antics and see how those seats flip right back.

By your logic, we should not have lost in '06. Notice how the game this played this time was just like then, when Bush was the ChimpyBushHitler war criminal?

Doesn't matter who we run, even McCain, the tactics will still be the same.

[Jazzhead]

Yes, and many of their wins were sub-5% running as those moderates. So let Nancy go all bat crazy the next two years with nutty bar antics and see how those seats flip right back.

Oh, you could be right about that.  Centrists, generally speaking, despise politics as warfare and may well react as badly to bat-crazy Nancy as they did to trash-mouth Trump.   Those seats could flip back - all I'm saying is there's a greater chance they do so if the head of the ticket isn't so deliberately polarizing as Donald Trump. 

[Gefn]

All I know is the polling place I worked in was crazy busy, and didn’t stop until 8pm when we closed. I’ve never seen so many people vote for a non presidential election

[dfwgator]

By mid-term standards we didn't do bad.  By booming-economy standards, we should have done better.   

The Dems also were smart in running centrists in many of the swing districts they won.  About 2/3rds of their pickups, according to analysis in the WJS,  were the result of moderate candidates running in districts where voters were repelled by Trump's bullying rhetoric.   Their media-darling progressives mostly lost.

Conservative ideas still have more than a fighting chance.   But we need a better face of the  party than Donald Trump.  We had a golden opportunity this year to solidify a conservative governing majority,  but Trump turned out to be a millstone.   

It may turn out to have been a Pyrrhic Victory for the Democrats,  I don't see this coalition they have staying together for too long,  by 2020 they may be very disunited,  meanwhile Trump and the GOP can get their act together (I hope),  and be a united front for 2020.

[Jazzhead]

It may turn out to have been a Pyrrhic Victory for the Democrats,  I don't see this coalition they have staying together for too long,  by 2020 they may be very disunited,  meanwhile Trump and the GOP can get their act together (I hope),  and be a united front for 2020.

A lot depends on how Dem leadership responds.   The Dem progressive base wants blood,  and the blood may ultimately be their own.  But if the Dem leadership seeks to strike deals with Trump  - on immigration, the Dreamers,  middle class tax cuts,  "improving" ObamaCare, infrastructure, etc. - I have no reason to doubt that Trump will be more than willing to sit down with them.    The GOP base may be as intransigent to compromise as the Dem base -  but Trump won't be.