Worst-case scenario for House GOP is 70-seat wipeout

[mystery-ak]

 Worst-case scenario for House GOP is 70-seat wipeout
By Reid Wilson - 08/17/18 11:40 AM EDT

Democratic enthusiasm and a GOP malaise surrounding President Trump have set the stage for a potentially devastating midterm election for the House Republican majority.

In a series of special elections mostly in reliably GOP districts, Democratic candidates have routinely outperformed Hillary Clinton’s share of the vote from 2016.

At the same time, Republican candidates have underperformed President Trump's vote share in all but two special elections.

If that pattern holds in November, the worst-case scenario for the GOP is a truly historic wipeout of as many as 72 House seats, according to The Hill’s analysis of special election results and congressional and presidential returns from 2016.

more
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/402329-worst-case-scenario-for-house-gop-is-70-seat-wipeout

[Jazzhead]

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.   

The unifying theme is the need to keep the Congress in GOP hands to keep the current prosperity and low unemployment going.   Hammer home that message to moderates and independents, and keep pointing out that the new face of the Democrat party is radicalism and socialism.     

[INVAR]

The Republican Party has earned it's ignominious defeat should it occur.

And no - Trump will not be the primary reason for it.

The Republican party just decided that 2006 was not so bad.

[Emjay]

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.   

The unifying theme is the need to keep the Congress in GOP hands to keep the current prosperity and low unemployment going.   Hammer home that message to moderates and independents, and keep pointing out that the new face of the Democrat party is radicalism and socialism.   

I know local races have their own mentality but I can't figure out why anyone, anywhere would want to send a democrat to congress.

A good 'democrat' would advance the power of that party to force socialism and odd sexual laws on us.

A good Republican might do nothing that particularly elates us but if he/she keeps that seat out of democrat butts, it is worth voting for.

[Right_in_Virginia]

The author then goes on to write: 

In a multi-candidate Texas special election earlier this summer, Republicans barely underperformed Trump, while Democrats ran close to Clinton’s totals.

If enough races in the fall stick to those patterns, the GOP is likely to retain its majority and lose only 10 seats or so.

In other words, this guy has no idea what he's talking about and is challenging the lunacy of the predictions for 2016.  And there's no mention in his "analysis" that the Democrats are bleeding their most taken for granted, base voters.

But even if these prognostications of doom persist, remember --- it seems to motivate our side in ways no poll can measure.   

[Right_in_Virginia]

Reid Wilson is a national correspondent for The Hill. Previously he was chief political correspondent and Congress editor for Morning Consult.  Wilson was the editor and lead author of the Washington Post’s morning political tip sheet Read In before Morning Consult. He is also the former editor and head of the Washington Post’s GovBeat and the former editor-in-chief of National Journal’s The Hotline.

His work has appeared in outlets like the New York Times, the Hill, RealClearPolitics, the Atlantic Monthly, the New Republic, and other major news networks.  In 2012 Comedy Central named him "The Greatest Political Mind of Our Time" for his skills at cutting through the spin and telling the truth about the state of politics and Washington.

https://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/profile/reid-wilson

[Victoria33]

@mystery-ak

"Democratic enthusiasm and a GOP malaise surrounding President Trump have set the stage for a potentially devastating midterm election for the House Republican majority.  In a series of special elections mostly in reliably GOP districts, Democratic candidates have routinely outperformed Hillary Clinton’s share of the vote from 2016.  At the same time, Republican candidates have under-performed President Trump's vote share in all but two special elections.
If that pattern holds in November, the worst-case scenario for the GOP is a truly historic wipeout of as many as 72 House seats, according to The Hill’s analysis of special election results and congressional and presidential returns from 2016."

This is what I have written several times as these special elections were held. It didn't matter if the Dems didn't "win" a special election - It was the number of each party showing up that is different from other special elections in the recent past.  The Democrats showing up at the special elections, is more than showed up when Hillary was the candidate (they are now energized), and the number of Republicans showing up, is less (not energized) than the recent past.  In the upcoming election, if the Republicans show up less and the Dems show up more, Republican seats are in danger.

[Right_in_Virginia]

This is what I have written several times as these special elections were held. It didn't matter if the Dems didn't "win" a special election -

Of course it damn well matters if the democrats win special elections.  Lose the stupid quote.  Not "winning" is losing.

   @Victoria33

[Applewood]

The Republican Party has earned it's ignominious defeat should it occur.

And no - Trump will not be the primary reason for it.

The Republican party just decided that 2006 was not so bad.

Maybe not the primary reason, but Trump will be one of the reasons.  His unwillingness to work with his own party in getting his supposed agenda done will be a factor. 

Of course, Trump's fans will exonerate him because he has told them to.  Nothing that goes wrong or anything that doesn't get done is never his fault.  From the beginning of his presidency, Trump has blamed "the swamp" or whatever term he likes to use at any given moment, for any campaign promise that wasn't fulfilled.  And his fans will continue the blame game because he said so.

A Democrat majority in either or both houses of congress will be great for Trump.  In that event, Trump won't have to keep any of his promises.  He will have a good excuse for doing nothing.  Heck, he might even go back to being a Democrat again. 

[bilo]

Democratic enthusiasm and a GOP malaise surrounding President Trump have set the stage for a potentially devastating midterm election for the House Republican majority.


I haven't seen or heard any "malaise" concerning Pres. Trump. What I've heard and seen is a lack of enthusiasm for the Pubs in the House and Senate. Everyone I've talked with that backed Trump love the policies he's pursued and people like myself who were on the fence have come over to embrace Trump.

The bad thing about losing the House is it will end any legislative achievements, but other than tax cuts and tax reform the House hasn't done much of anything.

However, that being said I have a hard time believing the country would embrace the lunatic left. But who knows, everything seems upside down these days.

[bilo]

I know local races have their own mentality but I can't figure out why anyone, anywhere would want to send a democrat to congress.

A good 'democrat' would advance the power of that party to force socialism and odd sexual laws on us.

A good Republican might do nothing that particularly elates us but if he/she keeps that seat out of democrat butts, it is worth voting for.

I'm with you. I can't figure out why people would want to embrace the Godless socialist left.

[bilo]

Maybe not the primary reason, but Trump will be one of the reasons. His unwillingness to work with his own party in getting his supposed agenda done will be a factor. 

Of course, Trump's fans will exonerate him because he has told them to.  Nothing that goes wrong or anything that doesn't get done is never his fault.  From the beginning of his presidency, Trump has blamed "the swamp" or whatever term he likes to use at any given moment, for any campaign promise that wasn't fulfilled.  And his fans will continue the blame game because he said so.

A Democrat majority in either or both houses of congress will be great for Trump.  In that event, Trump won't have to keep any of his promises.  He will have a good excuse for doing nothing.  Heck, he might even go back to being a Democrat again.

I couldn't disagree more. He was willing to sign just about any obamacare repeal and the Pubs couldn't get it done. He offered a great DACA compromise and coiuldn't get the Rats to support it, and some were non-committal. It's the Pub party that has failed.

[Bigun]

Just another propaganda piece.   YAWN!!!

[INVAR]

I couldn't disagree more. He was willing to sign just about any obamacare repeal and the Pubs couldn't get it done. He offered a great DACA compromise and coiuldn't get the Rats to support it, and some were non-committal. It's the Pub party that has failed.

So much for Trump's godlike ability to negotiate and make the 'best deals' for the people then.

That is how he was being sold.

Just proof that you bought into a bullshit false claim by a master PT Barnum ringmaster.

[Applewood]

I couldn't disagree more. He was willing to sign just about any obamacare repeal and the Pubs couldn't get it done. He offered a great DACA compromise and coiuldn't get the Rats to support it, and some were non-committal. It's the Pub party that has failed.

But what did Trump actually do to get the lazy lumps moving on repeal?  How many times did he meet with the Republican party hierarchy in both houses?  I recall seeing some photos or maybe a video or two of one or two such meetings, but it all looked like PR to me.   No, Trump delegated or abdicated his responsibilities and when the Republicans didn't get the job done, he took to Twitter to blame them. 

As a Republican president with Republican majorities in both houses, he should have been able to move them forward.  Yes, they have to do the work, but he could have been the great leader, the successful mogul he claimed to be and motivated them to get going.  He didn't. 

So yes, he failed as much as the Republican in both houses did.  Not that his faithful followers will ever blame him. 

[Applewood]

So much for Trump's godlike ability to negotiate and make the 'best deals' for the people then.

That is how he was being sold.

Just proof that you bought into a bullshit false claim by a master PT Barnum ringmaster.

 

[Machiavelli]

Just another propaganda piece.   YAWN!!!

"Midterm elections are sometimes regarded as a referendum on the sitting president's and/or incumbent party's performance... The party of the incumbent president tends to lose ground during midterm elections: over the past 21 midterm elections, the President's party has lost an average 30 seats in the House, and an average 4 seats in the Senate; moreover, in only two of those has the President's party gained seats in both houses."

See table

[bilo]

But what did Trump actually do to get the lazy lumps moving on repeal?  How many times did he meet with the Republican party hierarchy in both houses?  I recall seeing some photos or maybe a video or two of one or two such meetings, but it all looked like PR to me.   No, Trump delegated or abdicated his responsibilities and when the Republicans didn't get the job done, he took to Twitter to blame them. 

As a Republican president with Republican majorities in both houses, he should have been able to move them forward.  Yes, they have to do the work, but he could have been the great leader, the successful mogul he claimed to be and motivated them to get going.  He didn't. 

So yes, he failed as much as the Republican in both houses did.  Not that his faithful followers will ever blame him.

You're wrong about this. The Pubs ran on repealing obamacare for 7 years. They pleaded with us to give them the House, Senate and Presidency. We did it and they couldn't. Pres. Trump made it more than clear he would sign just about anything. They couldn't even pass the most watered down version of repeal.

[Bigun]

"Midterm elections are sometimes regarded as a referendum on the sitting president's and/or incumbent party's performance... The party of the incumbent president tends to lose ground during midterm elections: over the past 21 midterm elections, the President's party has lost an average 30 seats in the House, and an average 4 seats in the Senate; moreover, in only two of those has the President's party gained seats in both houses."

See table

Yeah.  I'm very aware of the history but that doesn't change the fact that this is a pure propaganda piece.

[bilo]

So much for Trump's godlike ability to negotiate and make the 'best deals' for the people then.

That is how he was being sold.

Just proof that you bought into a bullshit false claim by a master PT Barnum ringmaster.

I never thought he had "magical powers" but I have been very impressed in how he has used tariffs to change trade deals and when China said they would cut back soybean purchases (they've quietly started buying again) he got a deal with Europe.

[Applewood]

You're wrong about this. The Pubs ran on repealing obamacare for 7 years. They pleaded with us to give them the House, Senate and Presidency. We did it and they couldn't. Pres. Trump made it more than clear he would sign just about anything. They couldn't even pass the most watered down version of repeal.

And Trump also ran on appealing Obamacare, among other things.  My point is that he did little or nothing to bring that repeal or most of his other promises about. The "art of the deal" guy could not or would not do his part to negotiate a deal.  So yeah, he's just as guilty of failing to deliver as the Republicans in congress.

[INVAR]

You're wrong about this. The Pubs ran on repealing obamacare for 7 years. They pleaded with us to give them the House, Senate and Presidency. We did it and they couldn't.

Applewood's not wrong. 

Despite the fact the GOP had zero intention of repealing Obamacare outside of 'root and branch' lies and empty campaign promises, Trump was absent in the effort to schmooze and work out a deal to get a repeal he could sign.  Of course - bashing your own party as he did - Trump did not ingratiate himself to winning any support to help push his agenda through Congress.

Which is the point.

Trump was sold as a man who could negotiate the 'best deals' better than anyone else.  Apparently the 'best deal' he could negotiate was to keep ObamaCare intact and to spend 1.3 trillion in an exploding deficit budget that out-surpasses what the Democrats under Obama spent.

Pres. Trump made it more than clear he would sign just about anything. They couldn't even pass the most watered down version of repeal.

So an indictment of exactly what I am saying: Trump was not willing to fight for what he promised.  To say he would sign anything they sent him meant he was not going to be 'making the best deals'.  He was going to sit back and let them do all the heavy lifting.  Not exactly the kind of person he was being sold to everyone as.

I never thought he had "magical powers" but I have been very impressed in how he has used tariffs to change trade deals and when China said they would cut back soybean purchases (they've quietly started buying again) he got a deal with Europe.

You're impressed that Trump would tax Americans in order to try and change policy in China, along with then requesting that the American taxpayer now bailout the farmers hurt by his stupid trade war???

Sorry, I'm not impressed at all. 

[Emjay]

I couldn't disagree more. He was willing to sign just about any obamacare repeal and the Pubs couldn't get it done. He offered a great DACA compromise and coiuldn't get the Rats to support it, and some were non-committal. It's the Pub party that has failed.

I disagree also.  Trump has never shown unwillingness to work with Congress ... they just don't want to work with him.

I would still vote for any Rebublican over any democrat.  This idea of 'teaching lazy, defeatist Republicans a lesson" does not work and would backfire horribly.

[bilo]

And Trump also ran on appealing Obamacare, among other things.  My point is that he did little or nothing to bring that repeal or most of his other promises about. The "art of the deal" guy could not or would not do his part to negotiate a deal.  So yeah, he's just as guilty of failing to deliver as the Republicans in congress.

This is why you are wrong, in order to negotiate you have to have willing partners. The liberal pubs "establishment" were never willing to back the agenda Trump ran on. They've always found a way to kill the big ticket items, except tax cuts and reform which their open border business donors wanted.

Trump has had better success negotiating with other nations because he's been able to create leverage. He should be able to create leverage with the Rats in Congress if the Pubs were united with him, but they aren't.

Blame those who deserve it. The Pubs in Congress.

[bilo]

Applewood's not wrong. 


You're impressed that Trump would tax Americans in order to try and change policy in China, along with then requesting that the American taxpayer now bailout the farmers hurt by his stupid trade war???

Sorry, I'm not impressed at all.

No, you're both wrong.

You're animus for Trump regardless of what he does is pretty obvious. It's been clear from the get go that the tariffs are a negotiating tool. He threatened tariffs on cars coming from Europe and all of a sudden they are open to talking and are buying our soybeans. He's raising tariffs on China and even though it is a communist dictatorship they are sending a trade delegation to try and work something out. He's threatening to end NAFTA and Mexico is trying to negotiate a new trade deal.

The people complaing about the tariffs are the same people who complain about how other countries take advantage of us. You don't get to have it both ways just because you don't like Trump. He is doing a lot of good things.