Admittedly I haven't looked at House candidates at all, but in the Senate and gubernatorial races, female and ethnic minority candidates almost all underperformed their polling, especially in the South. .
That's interesting if true but it's not the relevant question. You'd be better looking at their swing relative to white/male candidates.
The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.
If Collins had voted no he would have voted no as well.
But, then he would have lost, and the new Senate would have voted through another right wing Justice.
The reverberations of Kavanaugh being defeated are unknowable. For all we know it would have energised WV Dem activists and boosted Manchin's vote.
I think the Democratic base in WV is too small. I think Manchin can only win by winning over people who usually vote Republican.
The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.
This is another under-rated point from the midterms. Manchin is a Democrat but there will be times when, as far as party-line votes go, he isn't.
And on the other side, Mitt Romney says hello...
I'm guessing he (quietly) still harbours presidential ambitions. By winning a Senate seat in Utah, Mitt Romney becomes the first US politician in modern history to make his debut in Congress after running for the presidency.
As former governor of Massachusetts, Mr Romney will also be the first modern US politician to hold major office in different states...
The Texas vote is very, very interesting - though quite what it means is going to be debated for the next couple of years. I'm glad I had a small hedging bet on him as Dem. nominee, ahead of yesterday's vote, even though I remain deeply sceptical about his even running.
Their final House forecast 20 hours ago had the Dems winning 39 House seats, and they are currently projected to win 34. Not far out.
Their final Senate forecast gave the Republicans a 4 out of 5 chance of retaining the Senate, which with hindsight seems about right. It would have taken a uniform swing to the Dems of 1.3% to change that (i.e. overturn Texas plus 3 other results/projections with margins of <1%)
The Texas vote is very, very interesting - though quite what it means is going to be debated for the next couple of years. I'm glad I had a small hedging bet on him as Dem. nominee, ahead of yesterday's vote, even though I remain deeply sceptical about his even running.
What else is he going to do for the next two years? I suppose he could take on Senator Cornyn for the other Texas seat, but he seems to be more popular than Cruz [not a tough bar!]
I think the pattern of the results yesterday is bad news for someone like O'Rourke actually winning the Presidency and they indicate the Democrats would be better off with a candidate prepared to triangulate a bit more. But they don't get to choose their own candidate.
Didn't read past the paywall but that synopsis seems hard to reconcile with them doing pretty well in the rust belt. I suppose it's a PITA for journalists to wait until the event they're talking has happened before they can write their hot takes about it.
Their final House forecast 20 hours ago had the Dems winning 39 House seats, and they are currently projected to win 34. Not far out.
Their final Senate forecast gave the Republicans a 4 out of 5 chance of retaining the Senate, which with hindsight seems about right. It would have taken a uniform swing to the Dems of 1.3% to change that (i.e. overturn Texas plus 3 other results/projections with margins of
Useless on the night itself, but their detailed House analysis gave me great confidence in a Democratic win.
Their final House forecast 20 hours ago had the Dems winning 39 House seats, and they are currently projected to win 34. Not far out.
Their final Senate forecast gave the Republicans a 4 out of 5 chance of retaining the Senate, which with hindsight seems about right. It would have taken a uniform swing to the Dems of 1.3% to change that (i.e. overturn Texas plus 3 other results/projections with margins of
Indeed but their projection model went a bit loopy for a time around 1:15 am. I can see their problem, they want to react fast but they really need a bit more dampening in that system.
The Texas vote is very, very interesting - though quite what it means is going to be debated for the next couple of years. I'm glad I had a small hedging bet on him as Dem. nominee, ahead of yesterday's vote, even though I remain deeply sceptical about his even running.
What else is he going to do for the next two years? I suppose he could take on Senator Cornyn for the other Texas seat, but he seems to be more popular than Cruz [not a tough bar!]
I think the pattern of the results yesterday is bad news for someone like O'Rourke actually winning the Presidency...
In 2020, certainly. O'Rourke has plenty of time, and should be thinking about how not to blow it - as quite a few 'nearly' Senate candidates have done in the past. As a get out the vote proxy for whoever gets the nomination, he could build up a huge amount of credit with the party organisation.
I know it's Janet Daley, but isn't 'GOP have learnt nothing and are completely out of touch with urban middle class' just as accurate (or just as much of a soundbite headline as the case may be)? The bottom line is that both are built on currently intractable bases, and US electoral anomalies apart, pretty much neck and neck.
The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.
This is another under-rated point from the midterms. Manchin is a Democrat but there will be times when, as far as party-line votes go, he isn't.
And on the other side, Mitt Romney says hello...
I'm guessing he (quietly) still harbours presidential ambitions. By winning a Senate seat in Utah, Mitt Romney becomes the first US politician in modern history to make his debut in Congress after running for the presidency.
As former governor of Massachusetts, Mr Romney will also be the first modern US politician to hold major office in different states...
I don't see Romney's path to the White House. He's 71 now. Absent a health black(ish) swan, Trump will be GOP candidate again in 2020, so 2024 will be the next time that the nomination is up for grabs, by which time Romney will be 77. Granted, that's younger than Trump will be by then but then Trump would be finishing a second term (if re-elected), not starting a first one. As far as the White House goes, Romney's time has come and gone.
The Texas vote is very, very interesting - though quite what it means is going to be debated for the next couple of years. I'm glad I had a small hedging bet on him as Dem. nominee, ahead of yesterday's vote, even though I remain deeply sceptical about his even running.
I read that registered Republicans led registered Democrats by about 5% in Texas, compared to 9% in 2016. Abbot outperformed the Republican advantage, Cruz underperformed it.
Re Florida - is it still the case significant numbers of old white people retirees move there every year?
It is quite possibly also the case that significant numbers of old white retirees already living in Florida die each year.
You missed the point....
No, actually you missed the inference of mine, which was that if you meant that the proportion of retirees in Florida is growing, it doesn't follow from what you actually wrote.
I know it's Janet Daley, but isn't 'GOP have learnt nothing and are completely out of touch with urban middle class' just as accurate (or just as much of a soundbite headline as the case may be)? The bottom line is that both are built on currently intractable bases, and US electoral anomalies apart, pretty much neck and neck.
The Texas vote is very, very interesting - though quite what it means is going to be debated for the next couple of years. I'm glad I had a small hedging bet on him as Dem. nominee, ahead of yesterday's vote, even though I remain deeply sceptical about his even running.
What else is he going to do for the next two years? I suppose he could take on Senator Cornyn for the other Texas seat, but he seems to be more popular than Cruz [not a tough bar!]
I think the pattern of the results yesterday is bad news for someone like O'Rourke actually winning the Presidency...
In 2020, certainly. O'Rourke has plenty of time, and should be thinking about how not to blow it - as quite a few 'nearly' Senate candidates have done in the past. As a get out the vote proxy for whoever gets the nomination, he could build up a huge amount of credit with the party organisation.
He might be a very good VP choice for a triangulator.
Re Florida - is it still the case significant numbers of old white people retirees move there every year?
It is quite possibly also the case that significant numbers of old white retirees already living in Florida die each year.
You missed the point....
No, actually you missed the inference of mine, which was that if you meant that the proportion of retirees in Florida is growing, it doesn't follow from what you actually wrote.
No I meant the other way....there was a huge boom over the past 10-20 years, I was asking if that trend is still the case, because if it isn’t, they will be dying off.
Congratulations to Mike for a cracking couple of tips which should cover this year's holidays I guess.Spread betting is not for me.If FOBS are the crack cocaine of gambling,spead betting is the billy whizz,meth-amphetamine.My strategy of 2% of betting bank per bet is a low risk one and I reduce risk by dutching in ante-post markets. My results is down a point on the night but up a point if the Blues win Arizona where I understand the count has been suspended it is so close. No damage done. The Blue Wave was indeed not so much a tsunami but more a big wee-wee. My overall impression of US politics is just how corrupt it is,and how big money de-legitimises democracy.
Yes. For all that the 1832 Reform Act has bagged the 'great' description, in reality, the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883 was much more significant in reforming and improving how politics and elections were done in Britain.
The Texas vote is very, very interesting - though quite what it means is going to be debated for the next couple of years. I'm glad I had a small hedging bet on him as Dem. nominee, ahead of yesterday's vote, even though I remain deeply sceptical about his even running.
What else is he going to do for the next two years? I suppose he could take on Senator Cornyn for the other Texas seat, but he seems to be more popular than Cruz [not a tough bar!]
I think the pattern of the results yesterday is bad news for someone like O'Rourke actually winning the Presidency...
In 2020, certainly. O'Rourke has plenty of time, and should be thinking about how not to blow it - as quite a few 'nearly' Senate candidates have done in the past. As a get out the vote proxy for whoever gets the nomination, he could build up a huge amount of credit with the party organisation.
He might be a very good VP choice for a triangulator.
Agreed, having a southerner as VP would be good if the presidential candidate is from the north or California.
I believe I am correct in saying that the Republican margin in the Florida Seanatorial race was less than 0.5% and that a recount will automatically take place.
The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.
This is another under-rated point from the midterms. Manchin is a Democrat but there will be times when, as far as party-line votes go, he isn't.
And on the other side, Mitt Romney says hello...
I'm guessing he (quietly) still harbours presidential ambitions. By winning a Senate seat in Utah, Mitt Romney becomes the first US politician in modern history to make his debut in Congress after running for the presidency.
As former governor of Massachusetts, Mr Romney will also be the first modern US politician to hold major office in different states...
I don't see Romney's path to the White House. He's 71 now. Absent a health black(ish) swan, Trump will be GOP candidate again in 2020, so 2024 will be the next time that the nomination is up for grabs, by which time Romney will be 77. Granted, that's younger than Trump will be by then but then Trump would be finishing a second term (if re-elected), not starting a first one. As far as the White House goes, Romney's time has come and gone.
That might be true, but my guess is that Romney might not agree. In any event, he’s a very fit teetotaller. He might still harbour dreams of being the party’s saviour if/when Trumpism implodes.
After all the noise, this has been just another bog standard mid-term election. 9 out of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party take the House. 8 of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party receive over 50% of the house popular vote.
The only major exception was 2002, in the year after 9/11, which was exceptional by any standards.
Trump's/the Republicans' loss of the House looks set to be fairly mild compared to most in the last 10 midterms, as is his popular vote deficit - certainly no worse than midtable.
This election is not in any way a wholehearted approval of Trump's performance but nor is it a shellacking - and he can be very pleased with the Senate results although the map was favourable.
Overall, a slightly better than average result for the Republicans and a merely ok result for the Dems.
I said previously that I think losing the house will make Trump's re-election easier in 2020. Statistically, on the 4 occasions since 1982 that a first term president has lost the House in the midterms, he has won reelection two years later 3 out of 4 times.
Personally, I am hoping that the Dems squeak home in either Arizona or Montana, and the Republicans restrict the Dems to 227 or 228 seats. If these come in it'll be a good result - however it looks like I'll miss out on each meaning a break even performance, where I slightly overestimated the Republicans in the House.
This government would never break with precedent and openly publish its legal advice in full, even after a humble address to Brenda was passed. Everyone who is asking for it to be released must know that.
Which suggests that all the actors involved, from Davis and Gove to the creationists and Starmer, are preemptively building their case for rejecting the deal. Hence, very interesting to see if quieter ERG types and Flinty Labour releavers join the bandwagon.
The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.
This is another under-rated point from the midterms. Manchin is a Democrat but there will be times when, as far as party-line votes go, he isn't.
And on the other side, Mitt Romney says hello...
I'm guessing he (quietly) still harbours presidential ambitions. By winning a Senate seat in Utah, Mitt Romney becomes the first US politician in modern history to make his debut in Congress after running for the presidency.
As former governor of Massachusetts, Mr Romney will also be the first modern US politician to hold major office in different states...
I don't see Romney's path to the White House. He's 71 now. Absent a health black(ish) swan, Trump will be GOP candidate again in 2020, so 2024 will be the next time that the nomination is up for grabs, by which time Romney will be 77. Granted, that's younger than Trump will be by then but then Trump would be finishing a second term (if re-elected), not starting a first one. As far as the White House goes, Romney's time has come and gone.
Since Obamacare is by-and-large Romneycare, Romney might be the man to design Trumpcare.
I believe I am correct in saying that the Republican margin in the Florida Seanatorial race was less than 0.5% and that a recount will automatically take place.
After all the noise, this has been just another bog standard mid-term election. 9 out of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party take the House. 8 of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party receive over 50% of the house popular vote.
The only major exception was 2002, in the year after 9/11, which was exceptional by any standards.
Trump's/the Republicans' loss of the House looks set to be fairly mild compared to most in the last 10 midterms, as is his popular vote deficit - certainly no worse than midtable.
This election is not in any way a wholehearted approval of Trump's performance but nor is it a shellacking - and he can be very pleased with the Senate results although the map was favourable.
Overall, a slightly better than average result for the Republicans and a merely ok result for the Dems.
I said previously that I think losing the house will make Trump's re-election easier in 2020. Statistically, on the 4 occasions since 1982 that a first term president has lost the House in the midterms, he has won reelection two years later 3 out of 4 times.
Personally, I am hoping that the Dems squeak home in either Arizona or Montana, and the Republicans restrict the Dems to 227 or 228 seats. If these come in it'll be a good result - however it looks like I'll miss out on each meaning a break even performance, where I slightly overestimated the Republicans in the House.
You are missing out on Govenorships and State elections. Dem's did pretty well there.
After all the noise, this has been just another bog standard mid-term election. 9 out of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party take the House. 8 of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party receive over 50% of the house popular vote.
The only major exception was 2002, in the year after 9/11, which was exceptional by any standards.
Trump's/the Republicans' loss of the House looks set to be fairly mild compared to most in the last 10 midterms, as is his popular vote deficit - certainly no worse than midtable.
This election is not in any way a wholehearted approval of Trump's performance but nor is it a shellacking - and he can be very pleased with the Senate results although the map was favourable.
Overall, a slightly better than average result for the Republicans and a merely ok result for the Dems.
I said previously that I think losing the house will make Trump's re-election easier in 2020. Statistically, on the 4 occasions since 1982 that a first term president has lost the House in the midterms, he has won reelection two years later 3 out of 4 times.
Personally, I am hoping that the Dems squeak home in either Arizona or Montana, and the Republicans restrict the Dems to 227 or 228 seats. If these come in it'll be a good result - however it looks like I'll miss out on each meaning a break even performance, where I slightly overestimated the Republicans in the House.
You are missing out on Govenorships and State elections. Dem's did pretty well there.
After all the noise, this has been just another bog standard mid-term election. 9 out of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party take the House. 8 of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party receive over 50% of the house popular vote.
The only major exception was 2002, in the year after 9/11, which was exceptional by any standards.
Trump's/the Republicans' loss of the House looks set to be fairly mild compared to most in the last 10 midterms, as is his popular vote deficit - certainly no worse than midtable.
This election is not in any way a wholehearted approval of Trump's performance but nor is it a shellacking - and he can be very pleased with the Senate results although the map was favourable.
Overall, a slightly better than average result for the Republicans and a merely ok result for the Dems.
I said previously that I think losing the house will make Trump's re-election easier in 2020. Statistically, on the 4 occasions since 1982 that a first term president has lost the House in the midterms, he has won reelection two years later 3 out of 4 times.
Personally, I am hoping that the Dems squeak home in either Arizona or Montana, and the Republicans restrict the Dems to 227 or 228 seats. If these come in it'll be a good result - however it looks like I'll miss out on each meaning a break even performance, where I slightly overestimated the Republicans in the House.
You are missing out on Govenorships and State elections. Dem's did pretty well there.
After all the noise, this has been just another bog standard mid-term election. 9 out of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party take the House. 8 of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party receive over 50% of the house popular vote.
The only major exception was 2002, in the year after 9/11, which was exceptional by any standards.
Trump's/the Republicans' loss of the House looks set to be fairly mild compared to most in the last 10 midterms, as is his popular vote deficit - certainly no worse than midtable.
This election is not in any way a wholehearted approval of Trump's performance but nor is it a shellacking - and he can be very pleased with the Senate results although the map was favourable.
Overall, a slightly better than average result for the Republicans and a merely ok result for the Dems.
I said previously that I think losing the house will make Trump's re-election easier in 2020. Statistically, on the 4 occasions since 1982 that a first term president has lost the House in the midterms, he has won reelection two years later 3 out of 4 times.
Personally, I am hoping that the Dems squeak home in either Arizona or Montana, and the Republicans restrict the Dems to 227 or 228 seats. If these come in it'll be a good result - however it looks like I'll miss out on each meaning a break even performance, where I slightly overestimated the Republicans in the House.
You are missing out on Govenorships and State elections. Dem's did pretty well there.
They did quite well with a net gain of 6-7 but not exceptional. Obama lost 6 governers in his first midterms, Clinton lost 11 in his first midterms, Reagan lost 7 in his first midterms. The two Bushes only lost one each but had a much lower starting point. As NigelB rightly points out, turnout was the biggest difference.
After all the noise, this has been just another bog standard mid-term election. 9 out of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party take the House. 8 of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party receive over 50% of the house popular vote.
The only major exception was 2002, in the year after 9/11, which was exceptional by any standards.
Trump's/the Republicans' loss of the House looks set to be fairly mild compared to most in the last 10 midterms, as is his popular vote deficit - certainly no worse than midtable.
This election is not in any way a wholehearted approval of Trump's performance but nor is it a shellacking - and he can be very pleased with the Senate results although the map was favourable.
Overall, a slightly better than average result for the Republicans and a merely ok result for the Dems.
I said previously that I think losing the house will make Trump's re-election easier in 2020. Statistically, on the 4 occasions since 1982 that a first term president has lost the House in the midterms, he has won reelection two years later 3 out of 4 times.
Personally, I am hoping that the Dems squeak home in either Arizona or Montana, and the Republicans restrict the Dems to 227 or 228 seats. If these come in it'll be a good result - however it looks like I'll miss out on each meaning a break even performance, where I slightly overestimated the Republicans in the House.
You are missing out on Govenorships and State elections. Dem's did pretty well there.
It doesn't look to me like the Democrats did well in State legislatures. The Republicans still lead by 61 to 37.
After all the noise, this has been just another bog standard mid-term election. 9 out of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party take the House. 8 of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party receive over 50% of the house popular vote.
The only major exception was 2002, in the year after 9/11, which was exceptional by any standards.
Trump's/the Republicans' loss of the House looks set to be fairly mild compared to most in the last 10 midterms, as is his popular vote deficit - certainly no worse than midtable.
This election is not in any way a wholehearted approval of Trump's performance but nor is it a shellacking - and he can be very pleased with the Senate results although the map was favourable.
Overall, a slightly better than average result for the Republicans and a merely ok result for the Dems.
I said previously that I think losing the house will make Trump's re-election easier in 2020. Statistically, on the 4 occasions since 1982 that a first term president has lost the House in the midterms, he has won reelection two years later 3 out of 4 times.
Personally, I am hoping that the Dems squeak home in either Arizona or Montana, and the Republicans restrict the Dems to 227 or 228 seats. If these come in it'll be a good result - however it looks like I'll miss out on each meaning a break even performance, where I slightly overestimated the Republicans in the House.
You are missing out on Govenorships and State elections. Dem's did pretty well there.
It doesn't look to me like the Democrats did well in State legislatures. The Republicans still lead by 61 to 37.
When it comes to state level, the GOP were starting from an historically very high level, and were predicted come what may to lose a reasonable number.
I think if some very tight races like Florida had gone the other way the mood music would be much more blue wave rather than blue ripple.
After all the noise, this has been just another bog standard mid-term election. 9 out of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party take the House. 8 of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party receive over 50% of the house popular vote.
The only major exception was 2002, in the year after 9/11, which was exceptional by any standards.
Trump's/the Republicans' loss of the House looks set to be fairly mild compared to most in the last 10 midterms, as is his popular vote deficit - certainly no worse than midtable.
This election is not in any way a wholehearted approval of Trump's performance but nor is it a shellacking - and he can be very pleased with the Senate results although the map was favourable.
Overall, a slightly better than average result for the Republicans and a merely ok result for the Dems.
I said previously that I think losing the house will make Trump's re-election easier in 2020. Statistically, on the 4 occasions since 1982 that a first term president has lost the House in the midterms, he has won reelection two years later 3 out of 4 times.
Personally, I am hoping that the Dems squeak home in either Arizona or Montana, and the Republicans restrict the Dems to 227 or 228 seats. If these come in it'll be a good result - however it looks like I'll miss out on each meaning a break even performance, where I slightly overestimated the Republicans in the House.
You are missing out on Govenorships and State elections. Dem's did pretty well there.
It doesn't look to me like the Democrats did well in State legislatures. The Republicans still lead by 61 to 37.
It's the location of where they did well that is important.
After all the noise, this has been just another bog standard mid-term election. 9 out of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party take the House. 8 of the last 10 midterms have seen the opposition party receive over 50% of the house popular vote.
The only major exception was 2002, in the year after 9/11, which was exceptional by any standards.
Trump's/the Republicans' loss of the House looks set to be fairly mild compared to most in the last 10 midterms, as is his popular vote deficit - certainly no worse than midtable.
This election is not in any way a wholehearted approval of Trump's performance but nor is it a shellacking - and he can be very pleased with the Senate results although the map was favourable.
Overall, a slightly better than average result for the Republicans and a merely ok result for the Dems.
I said previously that I think losing the house will make Trump's re-election easier in 2020. Statistically, on the 4 occasions since 1982 that a first term president has lost the House in the midterms, he has won reelection two years later 3 out of 4 times.
Personally, I am hoping that the Dems squeak home in either Arizona or Montana, and the Republicans restrict the Dems to 227 or 228 seats. If these come in it'll be a good result - however it looks like I'll miss out on each meaning a break even performance, where I slightly overestimated the Republicans in the House.
You are missing out on Govenorships and State elections. Dem's did pretty well there.
And turnout.
Turnout hit nearly 50% didn’t it?
If only someone had warned us.
LOL. If I’d had an account to spread bet, I would have followed Mike’s tips. Might look into it for 2020.
Mr. B, it seems odd that spread betting on F1 points appears to no longer be an option.
The year I was going to 'shadow' it (not betting but paying close attention to get my eye in for the next year) they stopped doing it, and instead had a rather tedious ranking system (ie X points for 1st, Y for 2nd etc).
If one avoids all the spin. Did the Democrats "win" or did the GOP?. Seems to me that both could claim as much,... The BBC seems to be spinning it as a massive loss for Trump, but then they would...
If one avoids all the spin. Did the Democrats "win" or did the GOP?. Seems to me that both could claim as much,... The BBC seems to be spinning it as a massive loss for Trump, but then they would...
I think what the Republicans have lost is more significant than what they won. A bigger senate lead is certainly valuable, but given senators have been increasingly disciplined of late it doesn't give them as much use as control of the house gave the Democrats. They could already get their senators to pass laws/judges they wanted, for example.
Mr. Herdson, supposing Trump wants to stand again, what are the chances of the Republicans having a rival stand for their nomination?
Who knows? Running against Trump for the nomination would be wholly futile in terms of any chance of winning - Trump has the base sown up. The only value would be to fly a flag for the future, either for the individual or for a campaigning stance (style or policies) - though I wouldn't have thought that getting hammered by Trump in pretty much every state is a great way of going about it.
I do think that there's a market for a candidate touting "a better way is possible" or something like that, and refusing to be dragged into the gutter, but he'll lose and if Trump then wins the general election, the reply writes itself.
I don't really see the point of someone going to all that effort and expense given the risks and sacrifices involved but it only takes one person to do it so it'd be foolish to say 'never'.
If one avoids all the spin. Did the Democrats "win" or did the GOP?. Seems to me that both could claim as much,... The BBC seems to be spinning it as a massive loss for Trump, but then they would...
I think what the Republicans have lost is more significant than what they won. A bigger senate lead is certainly valuable, but given senators have been increasingly disciplined of late it doesn't give them as much use as control of the house gave the Democrats. They could already get their senators to pass laws/judges they wanted, for example.
I would argue that the big loss for Reps is the gubernatorials in Minn, Mich, Penn and Wisconsin. All decent sized States. Loss of the ability to influence voter rolls and re-districting is v important, as well as the ability to set the legislative agenda. Kansas was an upset too, and a blow to the minimal state experiment there.
Mr. Herdson, supposing Trump wants to stand again, what are the chances of the Republicans having a rival stand for their nomination?
Can that happen? I thought the sitting president has first dibs.
It can indeed happen. However, no sitting president since Bush-41 has faced any challenge worth speaking of (and Bush won every state in his re-election nomination in 1992). None since Carter in 1980 - challenged by Edward Kennedy - has faced a rival who could credibly have defeated him (Carter was the second in a row: Ford could have lost to Reagan in 1976 too), and none since Johnson in 1968 has failed to be renominated having initially sought renomination - though both Truman and Johnson withdrew from the contest rather than risk defeat: neither was certain of being denied the nomination.
I can't offhand remember the last time a sitting president fought for the nomination all the way and was denied it: you'd have to go well back into the 19th century.
If one avoids all the spin. Did the Democrats "win" or did the GOP?. Seems to me that both could claim as much,... The BBC seems to be spinning it as a massive loss for Trump, but then they would...
I think what the Republicans have lost is more significant than what they won. A bigger senate lead is certainly valuable, but given senators have been increasingly disciplined of late it doesn't give them as much use as control of the house gave the Democrats. They could already get their senators to pass laws/judges they wanted, for example.
Overall - The Dems have won. It doesn't feel so much that way because
i) Models overestimated their chances ii) CNN's ridiculous leading exit poll overhyped their chances. Ignore that one in future. iii) The GOP had many notable successes, outperforming in the Senate; and Florida was a biggy too. Overall though the House and Wisconsin Governor's mansion amongst others made it a good night for the blues.
I wonder if people are ever going to realise that Joe Public constantly saying "Labour picked the wrong brother!" in 2010-15 was just their flippant way of saying how crap Ed was, rather than saying how good they thought David was.
If one avoids all the spin. Did the Democrats "win" or did the GOP?. Seems to me that both could claim as much,... The BBC seems to be spinning it as a massive loss for Trump, but then they would...
I think what the Republicans have lost is more significant than what they won. A bigger senate lead is certainly valuable, but given senators have been increasingly disciplined of late it doesn't give them as much use as control of the house gave the Democrats. They could already get their senators to pass laws/judges they wanted, for example.
Overall - The Dems have won. It doesn't feel so much that way because
i) Models overestimated their chances ii) CNN's ridiculous leading exit poll overhyped their chances. Ignore that one in future. iii) The GOP had many notable successes, outperforming in the Senate; and Florida was a biggy too. Overall though the House and Wisconsin Governor's mansion amongst others made it a good night for the blues.
Do CNN actually ever release an overall party vote % in that exit poll (or even state wide ones) ? All I ever hear them doing is over hyping an answer to particular question or very specific demographic that fits their narrative for first 2-3hrs of their coverage and then totally drop it.
I just wish they did as they do here and have a straight forward exit poll predictor.
If one avoids all the spin. Did the Democrats "win" or did the GOP?. Seems to me that both could claim as much,... The BBC seems to be spinning it as a massive loss for Trump, but then they would...
I think what the Republicans have lost is more significant than what they won. A bigger senate lead is certainly valuable, but given senators have been increasingly disciplined of late it doesn't give them as much use as control of the house gave the Democrats. They could already get their senators to pass laws/judges they wanted, for example.
The Democrats won, insofar as they made gains overall, but their performance was distinctly mediocre. I'd compare it to the local election results that Labour achieved in 2011-14.
If one avoids all the spin. Did the Democrats "win" or did the GOP?. Seems to me that both could claim as much,... The BBC seems to be spinning it as a massive loss for Trump, but then they would...
I think what the Republicans have lost is more significant than what they won. A bigger senate lead is certainly valuable, but given senators have been increasingly disciplined of late it doesn't give them as much use as control of the house gave the Democrats. They could already get their senators to pass laws/judges they wanted, for example.
Overall - The Dems have won. It doesn't feel so much that way because
i) Models overestimated their chances ii) CNN's ridiculous leading exit poll overhyped their chances. Ignore that one in future. iii) The GOP had many notable successes, outperforming in the Senate; and Florida was a biggy too. Overall though the House and Wisconsin Governor's mansion amongst others made it a good night for the blues.
Do CNN actually ever release an overall party vote % in that exit poll (or even state wide ones) ? All I ever hear them doing is over hyping an answer to particular question or very specific demographic that fits their narrative for first 2-3hrs of their coverage and then totally drop it.
I just wish they did as they do here and have a straight forward exit poll predictor.
They released the full exit poll data for Senate/governor races on their website (well, sort of - they didn't include the "headline" figures, but they were pretty easy to work out from the gender splits):
EDIT: Actually, they seem to have cheekily changed their exit poll data after the results came in, because their initial exit polls last night inaccurately put the Democrats ahead in Missouri, and a dead heat in Indiana. They did tip Texas to go to Cruz all along, though.
If one avoids all the spin. Did the Democrats "win" or did the GOP?. Seems to me that both could claim as much,... The BBC seems to be spinning it as a massive loss for Trump, but then they would...
I think what the Republicans have lost is more significant than what they won. A bigger senate lead is certainly valuable, but given senators have been increasingly disciplined of late it doesn't give them as much use as control of the house gave the Democrats. They could already get their senators to pass laws/judges they wanted, for example.
Overall - The Dems have won. It doesn't feel so much that way because
i) Models overestimated their chances ii) CNN's ridiculous leading exit poll overhyped their chances. Ignore that one in future. iii) The GOP had many notable successes, outperforming in the Senate; and Florida was a biggy too. Overall though the House and Wisconsin Governor's mansion amongst others made it a good night for the blues.
Do CNN actually ever release an overall party vote % in that exit poll (or even state wide ones) ? All I ever hear them doing is over hyping an answer to particular question or very specific demographic that fits their narrative for first 2-3hrs of their coverage and then totally drop it.
I just wish they did as they do here and have a straight forward exit poll predictor.
They released the full exit poll data for Senate/governor races on their website (well, sort of - they didn't include the "headline" figures, but they were pretty easy to work out from the gender splits):
EDIT: Actually, they seem to have cheekily changed their exit poll data after the results came in, because their initial exit polls last night inaccurately put the Democrats ahead in Missouri, and a dead heat in Indiana. They did tip Texas to go to Cruz all along, though.
I wonder why they don’t just do the headline figure when they are literally breaking it down into women Jews with PhDs who like to own guns....
Comments
Beto currently at 48.3. There seem to be a lot of Cooke & Houston county precincts outstanding.
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/texas-senate
@Philip_Thompson 47.66
@rkrkrk 48.14
@YBarrdCwsc 48.28
@bookseller 48.35
@Toms 48.50
@CarlottaVance 48.52
@SquareRoot 48.57
@OldKingCole 48.78
@Mr_Bake 48.83
@nunuone 48.90
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2018/house/
I'm guessing he (quietly) still harbours presidential ambitions.
By winning a Senate seat in Utah, Mitt Romney becomes the first US politician in modern history to make his debut in Congress after running for the presidency.
As former governor of Massachusetts, Mr Romney will also be the first modern US politician to hold major office in different states...
I'm glad I had a small hedging bet on him as Dem. nominee, ahead of yesterday's vote, even though I remain deeply sceptical about his even running.
Their final House forecast 20 hours ago had the Dems winning 39 House seats, and they are currently projected to win 34. Not far out.
Their final Senate forecast gave the Republicans a 4 out of 5 chance of retaining the Senate, which with hindsight seems about right. It would have taken a uniform swing to the Dems of 1.3% to change that (i.e. overturn Texas plus 3 other results/projections with margins of <1%)
I think the pattern of the results yesterday is bad news for someone like O'Rourke actually winning the Presidency and they indicate the Democrats would be better off with a candidate prepared to triangulate a bit more. But they don't get to choose their own candidate.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/07/democrats-still-have-nothing-offer-americas-working-class/
Charlotte Gill"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/grenfell-effigy-arrests-are-a-waste-of-police-time-6fzfmd83t
Most of the forecasters did great. Fisher kept track:
https://electionsetc.com/2018/11/06/forecasts-for-the-us-midterm-elections-2018/
Or at least, the non-live forecasters did great *cough*
O'Rourke has plenty of time, and should be thinking about how not to blow it - as quite a few 'nearly' Senate candidates have done in the past. As a get out the vote proxy for whoever gets the nomination, he could build up a huge amount of credit with the party organisation.
https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1060141093868785664
This rather makes the point, as it does not apply to Mitt...
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/415448-trump-candidates-that-did-not-embrace-me-can-say-goodbye
The only major exception was 2002, in the year after 9/11, which was exceptional by any standards.
Trump's/the Republicans' loss of the House looks set to be fairly mild compared to most in the last 10 midterms, as is his popular vote deficit - certainly no worse than midtable.
This election is not in any way a wholehearted approval of Trump's performance but nor is it a shellacking - and he can be very pleased with the Senate results although the map was favourable.
Overall, a slightly better than average result for the Republicans and a merely ok result for the Dems.
I said previously that I think losing the house will make Trump's re-election easier in 2020. Statistically, on the 4 occasions since 1982 that a first term president has lost the House in the midterms, he has won reelection two years later 3 out of 4 times.
Personally, I am hoping that the Dems squeak home in either Arizona or Montana, and the Republicans restrict the Dems to 227 or 228 seats. If these come in it'll be a good result - however it looks like I'll miss out on each meaning a break even performance, where I slightly overestimated the Republicans in the House.
Which suggests that all the actors involved, from Davis and Gove to the creationists and Starmer, are preemptively building their case for rejecting the deal. Hence, very interesting to see if quieter ERG types and Flinty Labour releavers join the bandwagon.
https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2009/07/a_president_denied_renominatio.html?t=1541596213100
The winner of the worst human being named Donald Trump award for the last forty years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012
If only someone had warned us.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/07/charts-show-donald-trump-called-midterms-tremendous-success/
Telegraph more pro-Trump than Fox News...
Now he's donated that to Ladbrokes.
(to be fair it looks like he also bet a smaller amount on Republicans winning seats in the Senate).
https://www.covers.com/Editorial/Article/43697421-df6e-11e8-a97c-0a73013d6078/This-proven-political-bettor-is-so-sure-of-his-midterm-election-bets-hes-crossing-the-pond-to-play-them?utm_campaign=Misc. Covers&utm_content=79411911&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
I think if some very tight races like Florida had gone the other way the mood music would be much more blue wave rather than blue ripple.
If I’d had an account to spread bet, I would have followed Mike’s tips. Might look into it for 2020.
The year I was going to 'shadow' it (not betting but paying close attention to get my eye in for the next year) they stopped doing it, and instead had a rather tedious ranking system (ie X points for 1st, Y for 2nd etc).
https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/1060020278917586945
https://apnews.com/2911bbdc4d6f48d39c5c7e6766d57bef
NEW ZEALAND vs TONGA (in rugby league last year)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNquejkZMo
I do think that there's a market for a candidate touting "a better way is possible" or something like that, and refusing to be dragged into the gutter, but he'll lose and if Trump then wins the general election, the reply writes itself.
I don't really see the point of someone going to all that effort and expense given the risks and sacrifices involved but it only takes one person to do it so it'd be foolish to say 'never'.
Floridian felons is the new Mondeo man....
I can't offhand remember the last time a sitting president fought for the nomination all the way and was denied it: you'd have to go well back into the 19th century.
i) Models overestimated their chances
ii) CNN's ridiculous leading exit poll overhyped their chances. Ignore that one in future.
iii) The GOP had many notable successes, outperforming in the Senate; and Florida was a biggy too.
Overall though the House and Wisconsin Governor's mansion amongst others made it a good night for the blues.
I just wish they did as they do here and have a straight forward exit poll predictor.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls
EDIT: Actually, they seem to have cheekily changed their exit poll data after the results came in, because their initial exit polls last night inaccurately put the Democrats ahead in Missouri, and a dead heat in Indiana. They did tip Texas to go to Cruz all along, though.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls