Blue Wave Boogaloo

[C0|dB|00ded]

Results of recent Presidential first mid-term elections ...

President	House seats	Senate seats
Obama	-63	-6
Bush Jr	+8	+1
Clinton	-54	-9
Bush Sr	-8	-1
Reagan	-54	0
Carter	-15	-2

Projection by 538

Trump

-39 (-59 to -21 is one std dev)

+0.7

If Trump retains the Senate, it is a huge win for the GOP and Trump, because losing a ton of house seats in a President's first mid-term is expected, but going 0 or even gaining a seat in the Senate is quite the feat.

Keep in mind that 9/11 happened one year before Bush Jr's first mid-term and his ratings were through the roof as the Americans rallied behind him due to the attack -- so I discount that data point from a historical perspective.

I agree. Trump has penetrated normally Democratic strongholds and is actually challenging some of those Dem seats. The Republican party isn't purely on defense this election cycle and that is AMAZING considering every major news agency besides Fox and Breitbart have had their entire staffs working around the clock churning out propaganda and Fake News in hopes of overthrowing a rightfully elected president.

People talk about Beta raising $70 million dollars. Big effing deal! The collective value of the Fake News media's onslaught would stretch into the billions; I'm talking 10's of billions. Remember what they said Wichita State earned during the F4 run - $500 million. Now compare that with the nonstop bullshit being recycled in front of 100's of millions of people on television and print for the last 2 years. I cannot imagine there has been a more concerted effort against any political figure since Hitler. And I'm not even sure about Hitler.

Meanwhile:

• Almost 4 million jobs created since election.
• More Americans are now employed than ever recorded before in our history.
• We have created more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since my election.
• Manufacturing jobs growing at the fastest rate in more than THREE DECADES.
• Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent.
• New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.
• Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.
• African-American unemployment has recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
• Hispanic-American unemployment is at the lowest rate ever recorded.
• Asian-American unemployment recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
• Women’s unemployment recently reached the lowest rate in 65 years.
• Youth unemployment has recently hit the lowest rate in nearly half a century.
• Lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma.
• Under my Administration, veterans’ unemployment recently reached its lowest rate in nearly 20 years.
• Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.
• The Pledge to America’s Workers has resulted in employers committing to train more than 4 million Americans. We are committed to VOCATIONAL education.
• 95 percent of U.S. manufacturers are optimistic about the future—the highest ever.
• Retail sales surged last month, up another 6 percent over last year.
• Signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. After tax cuts, over $300 billion poured back in to the U.S. in the first quarter alone.
• As a result of our tax bill, small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.
• Helped win U.S. bid for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.
• Helped win U.S.-Mexico-Canada’s united bid for 2026 World Cup.
• Opened ANWR and approved Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines.
• Enacted regulatory relief for community banks and credit unions.
• My Administration is providing more affordable healthcare options for Americans through association health plans and short-term duration plans.
• Last month, the FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history. And thanks to our efforts, many drug companies are freezing or reversing planned price increases.
• We reformed the Medicare program to stop hospitals from overcharging low-income seniors on their drugs—saving seniors hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone.
• Signed Right-To-Try legislation.
• Secured $6 billion in NEW funding to fight the opioid epidemic.
• We have reduced high-dose opioid prescriptions by 16 percent during my first year in office.
• Signed VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act, expanded VA telehealth services, walk-in-clinics, and same-day urgent primary and mental health care.
• Increased our coal exports by 60 percent; U.S. oil production recently reached all-time high.
• United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.
• Withdrew the United States from the job-killing Paris Climate Accord.
• Secured record $700 billion in military funding; $716 billion next year.
• NATO allies are spending $69 billion more on defense since 2016.
• Process has begun to make the Space Force the 6th branch of the Armed Forces.
• Protecting Americans from terrorists with the Travel Ban, upheld by Supreme Court.
• Issued Executive Order to keep open Guantanamo Bay.
• Concluded a historic U.S.-Mexico Trade Deal to replace NAFTA. And negotiations with Canada are underway as we speak.
• Reached a breakthrough agreement with the E.U. to increase U.S. exports.
• Imposed tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum to protect our national security.
• Imposed tariffs on China in response to China’s forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and their chronically abusive trade practices.
• Net exports are on track to increase by $59 billion this year.
• Improved vetting and screening for refugees, and switched focus to overseas resettlement.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-adm...complishments/ (I removed some of the conservative-only accomplishments)


Oh yeah... and vanquished ISIS. You can't make this stuff up.



Bad things Trump has done:

Called an opportunist pornographer, "horseface" - AFTER she attacked him.
Trolled the Khan family when they sold their souls to the Dems - AFTER they attacked him.
Said to "look at that face" when criticizing a female Repub opponents ability to run for president - AFTER she attacked him.
Said Mika showed up at his country club bleeding from her plastic surgery wounds - AFTER she attacked him.
Said he liked veterans who avoided capture to those that got captured - AFTER McCain attacked him.
Said Megyn Kelly was bleeding out of her whatever (translated: PMS'ing) when she hit him with everything she had in a debate (even bringing up Rosie O'donnell ffs...)
Called political opponents, "Lyin' Ted", "Low-energy Jeb", "Little Marco", "Crooked Hillary", "Pocahontas", "Crazy/Low-IQ Maxine Waters", "Crazy/1% Joe Biden", "Cryin' Chuck Schumer", "Little Rocket Man" (hard to count this as bad), "Failing New York Times", "Fake News Media".. -AFTER they attacked him.


T


...:cool:

[shoxplode]

Maybe people getting tired of winning?

[ShockingButTrue]

Maybe people getting tired of winning?

Nah

[Kung Wu]

It's not logical to say "If Trump retains the Senate, it is a huge win for the GOP." Since Senators are in place for six years, it doesn't make sense to calculate relative gains and losses the same way you do with the House. The Senate map is really, really, really bad for Democrats. If Republicans gain zero seats this time, that is absolutely not a win for the GOP. The GOP will be in a really rough situation for the 2020 and 2022 maps.

Edit to clarify: this particular grouping of senators (Class 1) were up in 2012, 2006, 2000, 1994, 1988, 1982. Obama's first midterm occurred in 2010, Bush's occurred in 2002, Clinton's occurred in 1994, Bush Sr's was 1990, and Reagan was 1982. The only ones that line up at all are Clinton and Reagan, and those are long enough ago that Class 1 is not close to the same breakdown. All of it depends on if that particular breakdown is a good map for the presidential party or not.

It's not the map.

If Trump retains the Senate, it is a very, extremely, super bigly win for the GOP (and Trump). For poop's sake -- they will still have the Senate!

What causes nearly all Presidents to lose the midterms is:

1) Alienation: From day one the President necessarily has to alienate specific voting blocs, causing a dip in their polls. That negatively affects the congressmen on his team.

2) Apathy: Voter turnout is much lower, so the voters are much more partisan.

Those two effects, when combined, nearly always lead to a change up. All other effects (this class, that class, this map, that map) are secondary effects. They matter, but to a lesser extent.

Keep this quote in mind from 538 when arguing how "this class" and "the map" are against you:

"There have been 114 opposition senators who have run in a midterm general election since 1982. Only four of the 114 (4 percent) lost." Democrats have 23 of the 33 seats up for reelection. The worst it has ever been in modern times was a 14% loss -- that's a loss of 3.22 incumbent seats in the absolute worst case scenario.

Yes, this Senate class has a trickier map than the other two classes this particular cycle, however historically speaking, they offset that with a lot of opposition incumbents.

If the GOP breaks even in the Senate tonight, it's a feat. Heck, if they lose less than 39 house members, it's a feat.

[jdshock]

It's not the map.

If Trump retains the Senate, it is a very, extremely, super bigly win for the GOP (and Trump). For poop's sake -- they will still have the Senate!

What causes nearly all Presidents to lose the midterms is:

1) Alienation: From day one the President necessarily has to alienate specific voting blocs, causing a dip in their polls. That negatively affects the congressmen on his team.

2) Apathy: Voter turnout is much lower, so the voters are much more partisan.

Those two effects, when combined, nearly always lead to a change up. All other effects (this class, that class, this map, that map) are secondary effects. They matter, but to a lesser extent.

Keep this quote in mind from 538 when arguing how "this class" and "the map" are against you:

"There have been 114 opposition senators who have run in a midterm general election since 1982. Only four of the 114 (4 percent) lost." Democrats have 23 of the 33 seats up for reelection. The worst it has ever been in modern times was a 14% loss -- that's a loss of 3.22 incumbent seats in the absolute worst case scenario.

Yes, this Senate class has a trickier map than the other two classes this particular cycle, however historically speaking, they offset that with a lot of opposition incumbents.

If the GOP breaks even in the Senate tonight, it's a feat. Heck, if they lose less than 39 house members, it's a feat.

"Yes, this Senate class has a trickier map ... however historically speaking, they offset that with a lot of opposition incumbents."

I do not understand this point at all. There is not an "offset" here. It is a tricky map because there are a lot of "opposition incumbents." Dems have few chances to gain seats specifically because they have a lot of incumbents. I mean, think about it in the most extreme scenario, let's say there were 33 Senators up for re-election and all 33 were dems. That would be a terrible map for dems because they have to play defense. There is NO place to gain seats, there is literally only a risk of losing seats. You agree with this premise so far, right? Obviously Democrats would rather defend that map in a year like this one where they are "opposition incumbents," but they'd rather not have to defend that map at all.

The same (obviously to a lesser extent here) is true here. Republicans have essentially 1/3 the number of seats to defend as Democrats. Republicans have 26 seats to possibly flip whereas Democrats only have 9 seats to flip.

I'm not just arguing to argue, and I don't really think reasonable minds can disagree on this. Yes, absolutely Democrats are lucky that this class of Senators came up in a "blue wave" year. If this class were up in 2016 or 2014, they'd likely have lost a lot more than they will lose tonight. If Republicans do not flip any of the seats tonight (very unlikely), republicans will be required to defend twice as many seats in 2020 and 2022 as democrats will in order to keep the Senate majority.

[ShockCrazy]

It's not the map.

If Trump retains the Senate, it is a very, extremely, super bigly win for the GOP (and Trump). For poop's sake -- they will still have the Senate!

What causes nearly all Presidents to lose the midterms is:

1) Alienation: From day one the President necessarily has to alienate specific voting blocs, causing a dip in their polls. That negatively affects the congressmen on his team.

2) Apathy: Voter turnout is much lower, so the voters are much more partisan.

Those two effects, when combined, nearly always lead to a change up. All other effects (this class, that class, this map, that map) are secondary effects. They matter, but to a lesser extent.

Keep this quote in mind from 538 when arguing how "this class" and "the map" are against you:

"There have been 114 opposition senators who have run in a midterm general election since 1982. Only four of the 114 (4 percent) lost." Democrats have 23 of the 33 seats up for reelection. The worst it has ever been in modern times was a 14% loss -- that's a loss of 3.22 incumbent seats in the absolute worst case scenario.

Yes, this Senate class has a trickier map than the other two classes this particular cycle, however historically speaking, they offset that with a lot of opposition incumbents.

If the GOP breaks even in the Senate tonight, it's a feat. Heck, if they lose less than 39 house members, it's a feat.

Breaking even/holding onto the senate is no feat for the GOP. They need to win 8 of 35 races, that's it. Write in stonecold locks: UT, MS-1, NE, and WY. We're down to 4. Then also what should be really favorable/locks(some aren't which is showing serious weakness) in TX, TN, MS-2. That leaves needing one seat among a bunch of toss ups or competitive races, or races with a Dem incumbent in a state that voted for Trump: NV, MT, ND, FL, AZ, WV, IN, and MO. So no holding the Senate is not some great achievement. The map greatly favors the GOP this cycle. Again Dems winning the Senate would be catastrophic for the GOP as I've elaborated before(and I don't think it will happen, but there is a definite chance). It would lock in 28+ seats for the Dems for the next 6 years, many of which as you can see above are competitive seats. The GOP then would have to play defense in much more unfavorable maps in the next two AND make gains.

[ShockCrazy]

I also want to make people aware that there is a very real scenario where the Senate is not settled tonight/tomorrow. We could be looking at 50 Democrats with 49 GOP and the MS-2 special election runoff still to come in a few weeks. That likely favors the GOP but polling has suggested Espy would beat McDaniel but would lose to Hyde-Smith. Now Hyde-Smith is the favorite to make it through from the GOP but either way things will get silly and it will be a pretty intense couple weeks of campaigning.

[jdshock]

[Kung Wu]

It is a tricky map becausethere are a lot of "opposition incumbents." Dems have few chances to gain seats specifically because they have a lot of incumbents. I mean, think about it in the most extreme scenario, let's say there were 33 Senators up for re-election and all 33 were dems. That would be a terrible map for dems because they have to play defense. There is NO place to gain seats, there is literally only a risk of losing seats. You agree with this premise so far, right? Obviously Democrats would rather defend that map in a year like this one where they are "opposition incumbents," but they'd rather not have to defend that map at all.

The same (obviously to a lesser extent here) is true here. Republicans have essentially 1/3 the number of seats to defend as Democrats. Republicans have 26 seats to possibly flip whereas Democrats only have 9 seats to flip.

I'm not just arguing to argue, and I don't really think reasonable minds can disagree on this. Yes, absolutely Democrats are lucky that this class of Senators came up in a "blue wave" year. If this class were up in 2016 or 2014, they'd likely have lost a lot more than they will lose tonight. If Republicans do not flip any of the seats tonight (very unlikely), republicans will be required to defend twice as many seats in 2020 and 2022 as democrats will in order to keep the Senate majority.

This is like saying you'd rather not be rich, because you will get taxed too much.

FOUR LOSSES OUT OF 114 SINCE 1982.

Statistically speaking, there is absolutely NO REASON to defend incumbent seats in a midterm. You will statistically only lose 23 * 0.04 = 1 seat. Most money should be spent on attacking the other 10 seats, and let the incumbents defend themselves (for the most part). And if you are scared the night will go the way of the historically worst night in history for opposition incumbents, then you could lose up to 14% of them ... about 3 seats. That's historically the worst case. The answer is STILL to attack whatever mix of the other 10 states you feel like you can cherry pick.

What makes the map bad is not that there are a lot of incumbents, it's that there are incumbents in states that recently flipped for Trump. In my opinion, Trump's results in most of those states will not hurt the incumbents as much as conventional wisdom is putting on.

Having a LOT of opposition incumbents during a midterm is fantastic in that it lets you focus on the seats you can gain, without having to worry about losing the incumbents (with only a few exceptions).

I would much rather have 33 Senators up for election that were Republicans out of 33 Senate seats, because that means my party is in power and there is very unlikely to be a shift in that power any time soon -- even if I lose 2 of those seats (4%).

[jdshock]

"I would much rather have 33 Senators up for election that were Republicans out of 33 Senate seats, because that means my party is in power and there is very unlikely to be a shift in that power any time soon -- even if I lose 2 of those seats (4%)."

We're dancing around the key issues here, but this is just blatantly not true. All else equal, you would rather those 33 Senate seats be spread out over the three classes. Democrats don't have 26 seats up in EVERY class. Clearly, if I were saying I didn't want that, it'd be like saying I don't want to be rich because of taxes. But it's just objectively worse to have the seats you DO have to be clustered into a single class.

[Kung Wu]

Yes, that's true, but it wasn't a part of the discussion. We are talking about this class, at this midterm, with this White House.

[Kung Wu]

The one thing I HOPE we can all agree on is that political robocalls and text messaging bots should be outlawed.

[WuDrWu]

I can't believe how much my phone was blown up this cycle.

[Kung Wu]

Same here!

[pinstripers]

1. I don't know nuthin, but I'll go with.....GOP in the Senate by 5 or 6 seats, Dems take the House by 5 or 6. Cruz wins by 5 points, Kobach loses by 1 point.

[jdshock]

I'm up for predictions:

I'll say Dems get to 230+ in the House, Senate stays firm at 51 Republicans, and Kobach gets KS.

Edit to add: missed Cruz. I think he wins, but it's tighter than it has any right to be. I'll say 3 or under.

[WuDrWu]

I think Kobach is a dead man walking today as well. I'm going with 52 in the Senate. 42 + NE, WY, MSX2, UT, ND, TN, MO plus 2 of AZ, NV, TX, FL. Thinking MT, WV and IN are out of reach (what terrible GOP opposition), MN2, MI and NJ will be a little closer than expected. 225-210 in the House (total guess) and Pelosi back in charge.

That's THE biggest joke and disgust of this election cycle, if it happens.

[WstateU]

If Pelosi's "back in charge"...

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7aby...Q0pi/giphy.gif

[jdshock]

I think it's totally possible that 225 is not enough for Pelosi. Just from what I've read online, it seems like there might be a few democrats looking to challenge her. It seems like if it's close at all, she might not have the support necessary. If Dems win by 20+ seats, it seems more likely she gets it. It'll certainly be interesting to see if there is a legit challenge to her.

[1972Shocker]

I also think that Kobach will not win in Kansas. Politics is often more about packaging than substance and Kelly/Democrats have done a good job of tying and equating Kobach to Brownback and Kobach has not done much, if anything, to counteract that. Being equated with a guy who had a 25% approval rating when he left office is not exactly a good thing.

Most likley the Senate stays Red and the house turns Blue but who knows for sure. Not sure how accurated the polls are when you have to make 50,000 phone calls to get 700 responses. Of course, the actual vote is the only poll that counts and we will find out the actual lay of the land in about 8 hours.

[Kung Wu]

I predict the economy will spike briefly and then enter a slow growth phase with increased inflation for two years.

[C0|dB|00ded]

The only way this economy slows is with an overexcited Fed and/or a protracted trade war. People are just getting back to work. Consumer demand will be spiking. Expect a monster Christmas season!


T


...:cool:

[ShockerPrez]

I'm not opposed to gridlock. If GOP holds the Senate and can still confirm potential judges....

Well, the Dems can do stupid things from the House that probably will hurt them in 2020 and the GOP, with Trump on the ticket can retake it.

[C0|dB|00ded]

It would be exciting to see how Trump navigates the troubled waters of a Dem House. Besides, they can't do anything besides paper cuts without the Senate. What if Trump starts flipping Dems and still advances his agenda lol. Stay tuned!

One thing that he hasn't even brought up yet is an infrastructure spending package. I believe he's been strategically holding that back in case he loses the super majority. There's no Dem on earth that can oppose that without completely changing their stripes. Talk about superheating the economy...


T


...:cool: