Everything Is Great and Amazing

[Precious Doll]

Well, after watching Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 11/9 I can now understand why people didn't vote at the last election. And my admiration for Obama evaporated within about 10 minutes during the film. His 'I need a glass of water' stunt in Flint was pulled right of the the Trump playbook and is a truely disgusting 'act' and a huge blight on an otherwise impressive Presidency (from someone outside looking in like me). But I kept having to lift my jaw from the floor watching some of the revelations and behaviour in the film, from both the Republicans (not so surprising) and the Democrats (I should not have been surprised but I was). Michael Moore pulls a stunt or two himself but they pale compared to the actions of people in power that he exposes through there own words and actions. Its a flawed and messy film, like Michael Moore himself, but a vital film and whilst Michael Moore has always lacked finesse most of his work passionate and urgent.

Still what is happening in the U.S. is being played out through many countries around the world so you guys are not alone. And when the U.S. trembles the rest of world trembles along with it.

I think this would be the first time that the mid terms US elections got massive coverage and interest outside the U.S. In past years my only knowledge of them even being on was from this board - nothing in the press.

[OscarGuy]

I don't remember the exact details, I just challenged him on his very proudly displayed vote for Ted Cruz. I think I mentioned that I couldn't imagine anyone voting for the man who considered themselves an ally to the gay (or other minority) community.

I get feeling strongly about abortion, but he could have 3rd Party voted. It was that he voted for the odious troll Cruz that bugged me. I also find that people who talk about late-term abortion A) don't actually know anything about it; B) have formed an opinion based on junk science (like the exact measure that Beto voted against that Wes was so inflamed about; and C) don't support the very things that help reduce incidences of abortion (sex education, women's health services funding, and more).

[Sabin]

OscarGuy wrote
he tacitly admitted that he doesn't care about the rights of LGBTQ, Women, blacks, Hispanics, non-Christians, or any other minority as long as his one "moral" issue was met.

How? Truly interested

That’s the thing about abortion. While I don’t agree with MovieWes, I absolutely 100% understand how somebody could feel that strongly about that issue. That’s why I am so interested in how this conversation occurred.

[OscarGuy]

I unfriended MovieWes on Facebook tonight. He tried to morally defend his vote for Ted Cruz simply because Beto O'Rourke voted against a measure that would eliminate late-term abortions in Texas. One issue determined his vote. I called him out on it, not only did he double-down on it, he tacitly admitted that he doesn't care about the rights of LGBTQ, Women, blacks, Hispanics, non-Christians, or any other minority as long as his one "moral" issue was met.

That does not fly with me and I'm done allowing these kinds of people think that they can continue to remain friends with people who are directly hurt by the candidates they vote for. The time for apolitical tolerance is done for me. Outside of my work place, I'm not going to suffer fools any longer. He showed me tonight that he doesn't deserve my friendship, nor does he deserve yours.

[The Original BJ]

Now that the story has moved on to Trump's press conference meltdown and the Sessions firing, it feels a bit like the midterms were a week ago, but to add a few more thoughts...

The race I volunteered for has finally been called, and we won! Katie Hill will be the first woman to ever represent the CA-25 district in Congress, the first Democrat in 25 years, and -- at 31 -- will be one of the youngest members in Congress. It was a VERY close election in a genuine swing district -- a Bush-Obama-Romney-Clinton district, to give you an impression of just how swingy -- but it looks like she'll prevail by around 2.5%, depending on final ballot totals. I'm very proud of her, and inspired by the smart, positive, and generous campaign she ran. I hope she will be a presence in California politics for a while.

I went to bed thinking Tester might be doomed, so the fact that at least Dems had one big razor-thin race that broke toward them was a relief. And it seems Sinema is at least still in the hunt in Arizona -- even when I woke up this morning, general vibe was that she was done for.

Mister Tee, I agree with you that all those Senate seats are the ones Dems should have their eyes on in 2020. (Collins & Gardner, in particular, feel like they're in the Heitkamp/Donnelly spots this year, in that both have taken pretty key votes that have pissed off states whose partisan lean doesn't remotely favor them.) Still, given that Doug Jones seems a real longshot for re-election -- perhaps even more than that if a now-unemployed former Alabama senator decides he wants his old job back -- Dems will have a lot of ground to make up just to get to 50-50. Which doesn't mean anyone should concede defeat today -- who knows what the environment will look like in 2020, and perhaps the strong runs in GA & TX this year might even make those Senate races competitive too -- but the unfavorability of the Senate map is going to be a near-term issue for the Democrats. (And should they win it in 2020 or 2022, with -- God willing -- a Democratic president, they certainly should move to vote for statehood for DC and, if the residents want it, Puerto Rico.)

As disappointing as the results in TX and GA (and maybe AZ) were, the optimistic read is that Republicans should be pretty scared of the narrow outcomes in all three. These are states that seem to have been "on the cusp" of turning blue for a while, that could very well be legitimate swing states in the next election -- assuming the upper Midwest reversion to its Democratic mean lasts, that's going to force Republicans to play defense in a lot of places it's used to having in the bag.

All in all, a night that definitely put a stop to a lot of bleeding in important ways, even if it's clear there is much work to do to combat the popularity of Trumpism in areas that are giving Republicans some pretty severe structural advantages.

[Mister Tee]

A note on turnout. Current estimates are over 48%; the highest for a midterm since at least 1966.

Worth remembering: when the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971, overall turnout in both midterms and presidential elections took a drop. So to get close to a number from prior to that time is even more impressive. Americans were fully engaged. (Dems may wish Republicans were a bit less engaged, but at least for once Dems weren't killed by low participation on their own side.)

[Greg]

Some perspective on the Senate: There were 35 seats up this cycle, and, Democrats have so far won 23 of them. The Republican majority in the Senate is entirely built on their large majorities in the other two classes.

[Mister Tee]

Well, I'll tell you someone who thinks we won last night: Donald Trump. His press conference was as petulant a tantrum as any president has ever thrown (Nixon included). And the firing of Sessions seems a blatant attempt to change the subject/assert control. I'm presuming Robert Mueller is ready to mount his horse at any given moment.

Given expectations, it was, yes, a somewhat disappointing night, especially in state houses. Many of us had hoped for a lightning-strike repudiation of Trumpism, and that didn't happen. As someone said on Political Wire last night, knocking back the Trump movement is not going to be like the first Gulf War -- it might be more akin to the Wars of the Roses (Shakespeare, not Turner/Douglas). I don't see it taking the 40 years of Sabin's nightmares, but right now we're in combat positions for the foreseeable future.

I'd been saying to people for weeks that, on this day, we'd either be in far better position or far worse. It turned out to be neither. Where we are is in SOMEWHAT better position. Dems had unquestionable highs last night. They're estimated to take 37 or so seats in the House, a comfortable majority -- and, remember: this was done in the teeth of the gerrymander. Dems won the House popular vote by 8-9%, which is more margin than the 2010 Tea Party group had. Neutral analysts say a fair map would have given the party 240-250 seats, as opposed to the 230 they'll likely end up with. This is as close to a national popular vote as we had this year, and it shows how weak Trump's national position is.

Dems also, as many have noted, won back the three states that freakishly put Trump over in the Electoral College two years ago -- they triumphed in both Senate and Governors races in MI, WI and PA. This will limit the amount of gerrymander/voter ID suppression that GOPers hoped to use to tilt a close election in 2020. There were also glorious victories in NV, NM, KS. Ned Lamont held on in CT, as did Tester in MT (by his now-standard 1% margin). A whole lot of odious people were defeated: Dean Heller, Scott Walker, Bruce Rauner, Kris Kobach, Dana Rohrabacher, Pete Sessions, Dave Brat, Claudia Tenney, Kim Davis. Oh, and remember that talking point Bernie Bros loved throwing around, that Obama oversaw the loss of 1000 state legislature seats? Pubs lost at least 333 last night -- on a pace to match it. And here in NY, Dems took solid control of the state Senate. As someone quipped, hey -- Cuomo will have to govern as a Democrat, now. These are REALLY good outcomes. We can't let the obvious so-close crushers in FL, TX, OH and GA blind us to all that.

Speaking of those crushers: last night, when I listed the outcomes for Beto/Gillum/Abrams, I forgot about the way vote margins have of going Dem with late returns. Abrams now trails by only 1.6%, and may drive Kemp to a run-off. Beto's losing margin was only 2.6%, phenomenal for Texas (Cruz won by 17 points in 2014). Gillum trails by only .6%. (Nelson is even closer, at .4%, and is inside recount territory). These are great showings in defeat; how close we were to a truly triumphant night. (By the way: those re-enfranchised felons in FL that okri noted last night? If they'd been eligible this time, both Gillum and Nelson would likely have won.)

As for Is the Senate out of reach for years? -- people thought the same after '04, and Dems took the chamber next time out. First off, we don't know this year's full outcome yet -- the AZ race has a ton of uncounted ballots in Dem territory and could flip; Nelson MIGHT still be alive. It's not impossible Dems hold the Pubs to a 2-3 seat gain. And there are a fair number of seats that will be contestable in 2020: CO for sure, NC (which had no national races last night, but downballot went Dem in all sorts of ways), IA (which saw Dems win 3 of 4 House seats last night), AZ (McCain's seat), ME (I think Collins is deeply vulnerable).

And we don't know what the national landscape will look like in two years. Remember: this strong Dem showing happened with an economy that's still booming. An anodyne president would have had a 55-60% approval, not Trump's 40-ish. If -- as all economic history suggests -- we have a recession, the numbers could go down. (People thought Bush couldn't go lower than his high-30s of 2006, but 2008 had other ideas.) If the incumbent is that unpopular, Congressional gains can go to unexpected reaches.

[Big Magilla]

Jeff Sessions has just resigned at Trump's request. Sessions' chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, who has criticized the Mueller investigation, is the Acting Attorney General.

[Sabin]

Stacey Abrams isn't conceding. Don't blame her.

Some election nights, I drink to celebrate. Some, I drink to forget. Last night I drank because I had no idea what was going on. Did we lose? Did we win? If so, which "we" and why? I'm not sure any lessons were learned from last night.

"The Democratic party is here to confront racism... and lose!"

Midterms are always about referendums on the sitting administration, so the Democratic party can't be blamed for not having a cohesive message. It was always going to be a rebuke of Trumpism. To be frank, I don't blame them for not doing a little better because the news cycle is bananas. But one thing remains certain to me. There are fewer divisions in the Republican party than the Democratic party. They are the party of Trump. 2018 was the year they learned how to make Trumpism a winning strategy through media manipulation, fear mongering, and false equivalencies. And that is my biggest concern as we lurch forward to 2020 sorting out our pecking order. Mister Tee wrote a while ago about the rise and fall of coalitions. I wonder if 2016 was a realigning election, where the Democratic Party entirely aligned itself as the party of "identity politics" (a term I loathe) with disagreements about money, healthcare, etc, while the Republican Party entirely aligned itself as the party of fear and widening divides. We're not in George Allen country anymore. I've heard this current incarnation of the party described as "The last gasp of the angry white man." What if this gasp lasts forty years?

All I know is the fact that we can't figure out if we won means they did.

[Sabin]

My fear is that because the Senate is unobtainable, the Republicans will pick up Arizona and Mississippi in the runoffs.

How crazy were these midterms? Mitt Romney going to be a Senator. That is TINY news but this is pretty historic stuff. When was the last time a Presidential contender even tried to go for elected office after their defeat? And in an body of government they had never served in before. That excluded Mondale, who lost (and under unpleasant circumstances) and Humphrey, who won. Nixon running for Governor, and he lost.

I honestly don't know if it's ever happened. Clearly, the man's not done. He wants to remain a leader in his party. Although he didn't have a blowout defeat, his 2012 race for the Presidency was largely embarrassing with few high notes. Maybe I'm delusional but I'm interested to see how Romney chooses to define himself. He hates Trump. He will have opportunities to vote against him.

[Big Magilla]

Great that the Dems are taking back the House in January. Maybe they'll actually get something done. But the story in the Senate is truly heartbreaking.

It's time for the pundits to stop saying Hillary was a flawed candidate, that many of the Trump voters wanted a change, didn't realize how odious he really was. The truth is half the country doesn't care. They know Trump lies, makes things up as he goes along, don't know if he really means what he says but he says what they want to hear.

We can stop blaming the Russians too. They don't care about that either. They would have voted the same way without their help. And they don't care about his taxes. They would all pull the same tricks if they thought they could get away with it.

The only thing that's going to turn them against Trump and Trumpism is if it hits them in the pocketbook, which may happen.

[Mister Tee]

I wonder what this outcome is going to do to Sabin's theory about high youth/minority turnout becoming the new normal. That increase in turnout HAS been responsible for much of the good news from tonight -- Beto's youth appeal probably won some Dem House seats in Texas. But the bald fact is, the glamour candidates who did most to get these groups excited -- O'Rourke, Gillum, Abrams -- all lost. Will that disillusionment push these reluctant voters back into their caves?

ON EDIT: So, I just checked and saw that Gillum lost by a heartbreaking 1% and Beto by only 3.1%. Sometimes, I think it was easier living during the Reagan era, when we knew we were going to lose big and had few expectations. To be losing these important races, with such excellent candidates, by such paltry margins hurts a lot more.

And Stacey Abrams is down by 3 -- another strong showing. Her race actually hasn't been called, because Kemp could conceivably drop under the 50% mark and trigger a runoff -- though it's unlikely, with him sitting at 51% with 96% in. (Unless there are some ton of provisionals out there -- a possibility, given how much I presume Kemp had his people blocking Abrams-leaners from casting regular ballots.)

Anyway, the point here: these are all REALLY great showings, and do nothing to call into question the quality of the candidates. They just ran in the wrong states.

[The Original BJ]

But they're enduring multiple disappointments at the governor and Senate level.

And I think the biggest disappointment has to be that the 2020 Senate map is starting to look close to insurmountable for the Democrats to even get to 50-50.

[Mister Tee]

This is the most schizophrenic election I've ever lived through. Dems are getting every conceivable break in House toss-ups (even Steve King is running behind at the moment). But they're enduring multiple disappointments at the governor and Senate level.

The election as a whole feels like the result of someone rubbing a magic lamp who failed to be specific enough about some of it.