Active Now

WelbyQuentin
Patchouli
lavender
TIME for JUSTICE
Nanoose
Melonman26
Thebigd
Pearl
Discussion » Questions » Politics » The Blue Wave is getting bigger and Trump is losing his freaking mind.

The Blue Wave is getting bigger and Trump is losing his freaking mind.

Dave Wasserman, the Cook Political Report's House analyst, says the most under-covered aspect of 2018 is that "a blue wave is obscuring a red exodus." Republican House members are retiring at a startling clip —  a trend that senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway told me earlier this year was worrying her more than any other trend affecting the midterms.

What's happening: There are 43 Republican seats now without an incumbent on the ballot. That's more than one out of every six Republicans in the House — a record in at least a century, Wasserman says.

Show less

Why this matters: Just in the past eight months, the number of vulnerable Republican seats has almost doubled, according to Wasserman. Democrats need to win 23 seats to claim control of the House. Today, the Cook Political Report rates 37 Republican-held seats as toss-ups or worse. At the beginning of the year, it was only 20.

The big picture: Wasserman says the most important sign that 2018 will be a "wave" year — with Democrats winning control of the House — is the intensity gap between the two parties. In polls, Democrats consistently rate their interest in voting as significantly higher than Republicans. And Democrats have voted in extraordinary numbers in the special elections held the past year, despite Republicans holding on to win almost all of these races.

  • "There's a bit of over-caution, perhaps, on the part of the punditocracy, after what happened in 2016," Wasserman told Axios. "But if anything most media could be under-rating Democrats' potential to gain a lot of seats. They could be caught being cautious in the wrong direction."

Wasserman has a vivid way of describing the most harmful dynamic for Republicans in November. "This election is the year of the angry female college graduate," he said.

  • "The most telling number in the most recent NBC/WSJ poll is that Trump's approval rating among women with college degrees was 26 percent. That's absolutely awful and the intensity of that group is extraordinary. They're already the most likely demographic to turn out to vote in midterms. But never have they been this fervently anti-Republican."
  • "In 2010 when Republicans won back control of the House, I would argue that was the year of the angry white senior ... and yes, there was a lot of consternation and upset about Obamacare."
  • "But the main reason for that was who wasn't voting. It was the young, and non-white Obama surge voter from 2008, who stayed home, and it lost Democrats the election in 2010."

The bottom line: "Yes, it's about how upset suburban professional women are, with regard to family separations at the border and Trump's temperament and behavior. But it's also about who's not voting. And that's primarily men without college degrees who are Trump true believers."

  • "They believed in Trump fervently, but they've never liked congressional Republicans at all. In fact, Trump gained ground by running against them in 2016. So why are they going to turn out this year for congressional Republicans?"

Posted - November 22

Responses


  • 3745
    Why are you talking about who is or isn't on the ballot now that the election is over? All those seats have been filled, some by Democrats and others by Republicans, and since all the results are in, the "blue wave," if you insist on calling it that considering that the Senate stayed under GOP control, cannot get any bigger or smaller.
      November 22, 2018 10:41 PM MST
    1

  • 28209

    I took out the first paragraph.  It was invective at your words.  SIGH

    There are things called facts.  The facts are in.  We blew the GOP away.   That is where I am going.  You want facts?  You want to turn on a tv or something?  You want to read a paper that is not run by David Pecker or some paid genius on the right?  

     

    This post was edited by TIME for JUSTICE at November 23, 2018 4:34 AM MST
      November 23, 2018 4:20 AM MST
    0

  • 3745
    But you missed one very important fact, which is that the election is over, yet you write as though it's still to come. What's up with that?
      November 23, 2018 4:51 AM MST
    1

  • 28209
    Fair enough.  I figured most people would accept the facts that have been all over everyplace besides FOX news.   The lying FOX. 

    The real news.  New York Times.  CBS. NBC.  MSNBC.  Reporters that have merit.  Reporters that have facts to back them. Reporters who have actual numbers have proven that this has been the most votes against the GOP since Nixon.   The voters who voted, ousted anyone they could that was a Republican.

    This does not mean just House and Senate. This means all the candidates that were on each ballot.

    The amount of votes against TRUMP?  about 8 million.  THAT IS MORE THAN ANY OTHER MIDTERM IN HISTORY.


    This is a nonpartisan report by David Wasserman

    Despite President Donald Trump’s claim of a tremendous victory in this month’s midterm elections, Democrats pulled off the biggest midterm victory in the country’s history by claiming 8.8 million more votes than Republicans in House races, according to popular vote results from the Cook Political Report.

    Democrats earned over 59.2 million votes in House contests and Republicans 50.3 million votes as the former flipped 38 House seats around the country, Cook Political Report editor Dave Wasserman said. The difference proved to be the biggest popular vote difference for either party in the country’s history.

    Republicans earned 45.2 percent of the overall vote in House races and Democrats 53.1 percent.

    “Dems' national lead in raw House votes - now 8.8 million - just broke the record for largest for either party in the history of midterm elections (previous record was 8.7 million set by Dems in 1974)” Wasserman tweeted.

     

    Dave Wasserman
     
    @Redistrict
     
     

    Dems' national lead in raw House votes - now 8.8 million - just broke the record for largest for either party in the history of midterm elections (previous record was 8.7 million set by Dems in 1974). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/edit#gid=0 

    2018 House Popular Vote Tracker

    Sheet1 State, CD#, 2018 Cook PVI Score, 2018 Winner, Party, Dem Votes, GOP Votes, Other Votes, Dem%, GOP%, Other%, Dem Margin, 2016 Clinton Margin, Swing vs. 2016 Prez, 2016 Total Votes Cast, Raw...

    docs.google.com
     
    7,987 people are talking about this
     
     

     

    The 1974 midterm elections came roughly three months after late Republican President Richard Nixon resigned over the Watergate scandal. Democrats took over 49 seats in the House and four in the Senate that year.

    Trump claimed a massive “red wave” would head to the polls to counteract the so-called “blue wave” of Democrats in opposition to his first two years office. Instead, Democrats have earned at least a 233 to 199-seat majority in the House with three races still undecided.

    Notably, Democrats made significant gains in typical Republican-stronghold districts in California, New Jersey, Utah and others around the country as the president made the elections a referendum on his divisive first two years in office.

    Democrats also picked up seven governor’s mansions and stymied Republican hopes of deepening their hold on the Senate. Republicans did flip Florida, Missouri, Indiana and North Dakota’s Senate seats, but also lost seats in Nevada and Arizona.

    The president is all too familiar with losing the popular vote. Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton and claimed the White House with a 306-232 victory in the Electoral College, but lost the popular vote by over 2.8 million votes.

    Trump has made unfounded assertions that illegal voters contributed to his popular vote loss in 2016 and that of Republicans in this year’s midterms. Last week, the president cited illicit voting as the reason for Republican losses but did not offer any proof.

    “The Republicans don’t win and that’s because of potentially illegal votes,” Trump said in an interview with The Daily Caller. “When people get in line that have absolutely no right to vote and they go around in circles. Sometimes they go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, come in and vote again. Nobody takes anything. It’s really a disgrace what’s going on.”

    republicans defeat midterm electionsPresident Donald Trump delivers remarks on supporting veterans and military families at the White House in Washington, DC, on November 15.AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES/JIM WATSON

    This post was edited by TIME for JUSTICE at November 23, 2018 3:16 PM MST
      November 23, 2018 4:55 AM MST
    1

  • 4615
    "all the results are in"

    Oh really.

    Did they cancel the Mississippi senate run-off set for next Tuesday? 
      November 24, 2018 3:42 PM MST
    0

  • 3745
    You love to quibble, don't you? OK, except for one. Happy now? My point still stands.
      November 24, 2018 3:46 PM MST
    0

  • 4615
    Not quibbling at all, Stu---just concerned you may have suffered an undiagnosed TIA.  I usually try to find a cause when I observe something strange to be happening.

    For example, declaring the election is over when in fact it is not; and then treating my pointing that out as if it were unimportant.


      November 24, 2018 3:51 PM MST
    0

  • 3745
    It is unimportant. The election is over but for that one runoff. That means you were splitting hairs, which is the same as quibbling. No TIA here, just focusing on the bigger picture and not getting bogged down with you and your minutiae.
      November 24, 2018 5:44 PM MST
    0

  • 708
    Be careful, giving common sense answers like that will get you in trouble with some folks.  :)
      November 24, 2018 9:05 AM MST
    1

  • 2352
    The point of a “Red Exodus” is a poignant one, as indeed many (I don’t have the exact number, but more than one or two) longtime Republican stalwarts have not run for re-election or have publicly distanced themselves from the current iteration of the party. 

    It was curious, if not absurd, to hear Trump’s bold proclamation of victory in an election that cost his party control of a chamber of Congress, hundreds of state/local seats and a slew of Governorships. 

    Based on the last two years, think it inevitable that Trump will alienate enough groups, stoke enough division, and sufficiently disgrace the Office and the country, that his remaining supporters will be hard pressed to coherently defend him and his temperament and behavior, and be damned weary of doing so. Re-electing Trump will not be so easy as they (or he) currently imagine. The opposition will be increasingly energized by dint of the President’s own antics, and armed with a wealth of fodder he himself provided. 

    What remains clear is that Trump’s limited “base“ is not growing (or evolving!), but his problems, stumbles and detractors are, and he doesn’t care, or learn, or listen. This post was edited by Don Barzini at November 23, 2018 11:39 AM MST
      November 23, 2018 6:14 AM MST
    4

  • 7100
    I agree with what you've said, but I also think a lot depends on who the Democrats put up against him.  If they were foolish enough to run Hilary Clinton again, he's got a second term.  Personally, I'd vote for Biden if he threw his hat in the ring, but I think his age might be a factor against him.  
      November 23, 2018 7:33 AM MST
    2

  • 2352
    Agreed. All the Dems’ prospects rest on bringing forth a viable candidate, running Hillary again represents a forfeit. 
    If only there were more than two parties...
      November 23, 2018 8:36 AM MST
    3

  • 3745
    Same problem if they nominate a far lefty like Bernie Sanders or a coastal liberal like Elizabeth Warren. The fact is that they need to appeal to white, working class, middle Americans. They determine the winner in most presidential elections - Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, and Trump.
      November 23, 2018 3:20 PM MST
    3

  • 7100
    I agree with you on Sanders and Warren.  In Bernie's case, it's not only that he's too far left, but his age is also a factor which is Biden's problem.  At least in Biden's case, he's more middle of the road than far left and he has a lot of experience.  Whoever it is, really needs to appeal to those of us in the middle - not far left or far right.  There are more midliners than either of the extremes.  I think it also has to be someone who our European allies will respect.  
      November 25, 2018 1:04 PM MST
    1

  • 4615
    "Anybody but Hillary" in 2016---why not "anybody but Trump" in 2020?.

    "Never say never"
      November 24, 2018 3:46 PM MST
    1

  • 7100
    The Dems have done a poor job grooming someone relatively young for the presidency.  There are some good possibilities, but not for 2020 - they just haven't got the chops yet.  
      November 25, 2018 1:00 PM MST
    1

  • 28209
    Hi Spunk,

    I agree but it is going to be a lot easier to show the folly of his ways now that he has to be accountable.

    No more just bowing and scraping to keep a job.  The Dems are pissed and it is not just Congress, it is in the lower levels of government where clean-ups are just as important.

    This blue wave is silent and humble but deadly.

    But I hear you.  There are few heroes I get behind.  But I love Elizabeth Warren.  People like that. Biden would be awesome.  I think he knows how to govern without pissing people off.  And I would like to see Berny have a shot.  He would be a dream come true. This post was edited by TIME for JUSTICE at November 23, 2018 3:16 PM MST
      November 23, 2018 9:34 AM MST
    2

  • 3745
    But if they nominate Sanders or Warren, Trump will sail to re-election, just like Nixon against McGovern in 1972 and Reagan against Mondale in 1984. Guaranteed.
      November 24, 2018 11:51 AM MST
    0

  • 28209
    To hear Trump crying victory?

    Let me tell you a truth.  I have a best friend.  She is no dummy.  She is aware, alert, in touch and loves Donald Trump.  

    I have no idea what drives this.  I cannot have a discussion because the last time I did, I told her I never want to see her again.  We did not speak for six months.  Of course, I am an IDIOT for doing that, but to hear someone defend and love HITLER?  That's how it felt.  Anything you say?  They do not hear it.  They think it is lies about him and it is INSANE that they buy this lie.  He just has to move his lips and they believe satan.

    My job is to not react.  You can see I have a lot of work to do.
      November 23, 2018 9:32 AM MST
    3

  • 4615
    Being aware, alert, and in touch is no defense against poor decisions.

    Psychologically, what we do is over-determined.  Our so-called independent decisions are occasionally pre-determined by forgotten positive associations with less-than desirable traits made when we were too young to remember as adults.

    Education is key.  Forty years ago I could have an intelligent conversation with a high school graduate.  More recently, what used to be taught in high school is not taught until college.

    The emphasis used to be on learning what is correct or valuable---now the emphasis seems to be on learning how to defend whatever you say, regardless of whether you are correct.
      November 24, 2018 3:21 PM MST
    1

  • 20973
    i dont think so
      November 23, 2018 11:36 AM MST
    0

  • 708
    Blue Puddle maybe but hardly a wave. :) :)
      November 23, 2018 2:15 PM MST
    2

  • 28209
    Are you sure?  Because you are not right.

    I don't know what the National Enquirer or FLAT EARTH NEWS is telling you, honey, but just as sure as the sun is hot whether you deny it or not?

    This is not a blue wave, you are right.  It is a BLUE TSUNAMI.

    No worries.  You have so little information, you won't even notice when Trump is gone and someone else is in office.

    Give it up.  Childish at best.

    Read FACTS.

    Read what is under Stu Bee's reply.  That is not me.  That is a BI-partisan report.  

    And please  do not bother answering me.  You weary my eyes.


    This post was edited by TIME for JUSTICE at November 23, 2018 2:31 PM MST
      November 23, 2018 2:28 PM MST
    0

  • 708
    Actually, my answer was meant to be facetious (two smiling faces, short answer, capital B and P) but I guess for some that don't translate well in the written (typed) word. Your response is a testament to that. I do apologize for causing you to embarrass yourself with the response you gave. Can we be friends now? :)
      November 24, 2018 8:59 AM MST
    1