It's never too early, right? I think we all know the Senate map at this point. No mystery there. The Senate will remain Republican, and possibly even add to their narrow lead. But the House? Well, anything can happen there. No maps to worry about. Everyone is up for reelection. Assuming 2018 becomes a referendum on this Trump led government (and Congress's ability to check his power), it seems useful to target districts where Trump was not very popular. The magic number for Democrats is 24 Here's a list of the 24 districts that voted for GOP representative and Clinton. I'll include Pennsylvania 8th, which technically went to Trump, but it was so close I'll basically call it even. Arizona 2nd (Tucson) - Clinton +5% / McSally + 14% California 10th (Modesto) - Clinton +3% / Denham +3% California 21st (San Joaquin Valley) - Clinton +16% / Valadao + 14% California 25th (Santa Clarita) - Clinton +7% / Knight +6% California 39th (Fullerton) - Clinton +9% / Royce + 15% California 45th (Irvine) - Clinton +5% / Walters +17% California 48th (Huntington Beach) - Clinton + 2% / Rohrbacher +17% California 49th (Oceanside, Carlsbad) - Clinton +8% / Issa + 1% Colorado 6th (Aurora) - Clinton + 9% / Coffman + 8% Florida 26th (Florida Keys) - Clinton + 16% / Curbelo +12% Florida 27th (Miami, Hialeah) - Clinton +20% / Ross-Lehtinen +10% Illinois 6th (West Chicago burbs) - Clinton +7% / Roskam +18% Kansas 3rd (Kansas City) - Clinton + 1% / Yoder + 11% Minnesota 3rd (Bloomington, Eden Prairie) - Clinton + 10% / Paulsen +14% New Jersey 7th (Hunterdon, Somerset counties) - Clinton + 1% / Lance + 11% New York 24th (Syracuse) - Clinton + 4% / Katko + 21% Pennsylvania 6th (NW Philly burbs) - Clinton + 1% / Costello + 15% Pennsylvania 7th (SW Philly burbs) - Clinton + 2 % / Meehan + 19% Pennsylvania 8th (North Philly burbs) - Clinton + 0% / Fitzpatrick + 9% Texas 7th (West Houston ) - Clinton + 1% / Culbertson + 12% Texas 23rd (Border region) - Clinton + 3% / Hurd + 1% Texas 32nd (Garland) - Clinton + 2% / Sessions uncontested Virginia 10th (Manassas, Winchester) - Clinton +10% / Comstock +6% Washington 8th (Maple Valley, Auburn) - Clinton + 3% / Reichert + 20% Now as you look at that list you realize that 16 of those have the incumbent coming off a double digit win. A couple of them even up in the 20% range. There's no way you're getting all 16. Let's say you get 8 of them plus the other 8 where the incumbent has already shown vulnerability. That gets you to 16 pick ups. Where do you get the remaining 8? Well, here's another 8 districts where Trump won by very slim margins : Illinois 13th (Champaign, Bloomington) - Trump + 6 % / Davis + 19% Illinois 14th (Naperville, Geneva) - Trump + 4 % / Hultgren + 19% Iowa 1st (Dubuque, Cedar Rapids) - Trump + 4 % / Blum + 7 % Iowa 3rd (Des Moises ) - Trump + 4 % / Young + 14% Michigan 11th (Auburn Hills) - Trump + 4% / Trott + 13% Minnesota 2nd (Cottage Grove, Eagan) - Trump + 1% / Lewis + 2% Nebraska 2nd (Omaha) - Trump + 2% / Bacon + 1 % New Jersey 11th (Morris County) - Trump + 1% / Frelinghuysen + 19% Again, you're not going to win all 8 of those. You'll be lucky to pick up 4. Which at some point means you have to look at districts that are the reverse. Where Trump did fairly well, but where Dems generally compete in normal years. You'll need to find at least an additional 4 districts on this list. Colorado 3rd (Grand Junction, Pueblo) - Tipton + 14% Florida 18th (Ft. Pierce, Palm Beach) - Mast + 11% Illinois 12th (East St. Louis) - Bost + 14% Indiana 9th (Bloomington) - Hollingsworth + 14% Maine 2nd (Bangor) - Poliquin + 10% Michigan 1st (Upper Peninsula) - Bergman + 15% Michigan 7th (Ann Arbor burbs) - Walberg + 15% Michigan 8th (Rochester Hills) - Bishop + 17% Montana 1st (at large) - Zinke + 15% New York 1st (East Long Island) - Zeldin + 18% New York 19th (Hudson Valley) - Faso + 8% New York 22nd (Utica, Rome) - Tenney + 5% New York 23rd (Jamestown, Ithaca) - Reed + 15% Pennsylvania 16th (Reading) - Smucker + 11% Virginia 5th (Charlottesville) - Garrett + 16%
You also have to include the Democratic seats in districts that voted heavily for Trump. Or change the thread title to something more pro democrat sounding. We all know that is going to end up like, but come on at least lets pretend in the first few posts.
The only way any of this becomes remotely relevant is if there is a groundswell of people who become concerned with too much power concentrating with the GOP. Basically the Dems need a wave to pick up 24 seats. If it's just a ho hum routine mid term, I think their ceiling is a pick up of 10 seats. I see no reason why a wave can't materialize. In the modern era Americans don't like to live under unified government for too long. Of course it's too early to tell. Democrats do have a gift of fumbling at the one yard line.
North Cqrolina's gerrymander is insane. The Dems are winning the lawsuits so far. Districts might be very different in '18.
How about for the Title. How are Democrats going to pull an Atlanta Falcons in 2018. Or Liberals you thought 2016 was bad, wait until the 2018 Senate elections. Or The house is our only hope.
Yes, thank you all, the Senate is scary. The House isn't terribly promising (more on that in a minute). But first: Republicans have to defend ALL the governorships in 2018. The light red and light blue are those where the incumbent is termed out. Democrats have got Maine in the bag (Alternative Vote, Baby!), Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, and NH are likely. Michigan and Ohio are possible. Wisconsin and Illinois are near-locks. I would bet on New Mexico and Nevada going blue. I would also not bet too much against Arizona, Georgia, and Florida if Trump becomes an albatross. So that means nine (ME, MD, MA, VT, MI, IL, NM, NV) near-guaranteed pickups for the Dems. Not to mention the near-certain New Jersey pickup next year. That'll move the needle from this: To 26 Democratic Governors and 24 Republican governors. If there's a wave, and Ohio, Georgia, Florida, New Hampshire, and (my dark horse) Kansas follow suit, Democrats have 30 governorships. Iowa and Alaska could be dark horses as well. Anti-Trump sentiment in Texas could push a Castro into the state house. Mix in the likely pickup of a few hundred state legislative seats, and you're looking at a much bluer country already. Then there's the House. You wanna know which party will win the House? Come back here January 1st and count the number of retiring GOPers minus the number of retiring Dems. Retiring, not running for higher office. If it's higher than 24, Democrats are getting the House back. Also pay attention to the ages and PVI of the district. The three Republicans so far who have announced retirement are 53, 41, and 86, respectively. That suggests, for two of the three, that their districts aren't so safe. But the PVIs are R+7, R+16, and R+17, respectively. The only one of those three I see as vulnerable is Lynn Jenkins', in Kansas. But give it time. In short: if you focus on winning back the Senate, you're just being stupid.
I'm not sure that Maryland is an automatic "get" for the governorship. 12 years ago we had a Republican governor who lost after one term, but he was an idiot and O'Malley was a strong candidate (best stump speaker I've seen over multiple viewings). Our current governor is no idiot, he's got a feel-good cancer recovery narrative, and there's no one as strong as O'Malley readily waiting in the wings. Plus, Hogan is on record, repeatedly, as stating that he detests Trump so he may have some wiggle room to get away from current anti-Trump agitation.
Maybe. If I were a GOP governor, and saw Trump's current poll numbers, and saw the current media frenzy, I'd consider changing parties right now.
Didn't we hear this in September? A year and a half is an eternity for the average American voter. My guess is 75% will barely remember Flynn.
The key difference is the party control of government has changed sides. People always turn against the party in power. Remember, Dubya had 91% approval ratings in October 2001, and won re-election with 50.8% of the vote. Opinion has rarely increased for the incumbent leading into midterms. I also think you give the electorate too little credit, especially since Flynn's departure is going to result in indictments.
Dubya's high rating probably had something to do with a certain event. I doubt I give the electorate too little credit. The electorate gave us Trump.
Donald Trump's share of the popular vote is the same as John McCain's. In another thread I showed that Trump exceeded Dubya '04 in share of the popular vote in just 11 states. The Republican Party is dying. It consists of the same people who vote for Republicans at every level, every time. They're running out of them. Hillary got the same number of votes as Obama '12, but the Libertarians and Greens put forward candidates just good enough to split the anti-Trump vote (as well as bring out voters who otherwise would not have voted). The electorate did NOT give us Trump. If we had PR, or Alternative Vote, President Clinton (or President Johnson) would be in charge. Actually, it'd be President Kasich or something like that because Trump never would have been nominated. Stop reducing complex ideas to sound bites. All of you. stop it.
It's not that simple. It's really not. You're engaging the type of thinking that made Trump sworn in after Obama. Anyone can do this. Anyone can figure it out. You can't. Just like you can't walk into a dentist's office and figure out the equipment in an hour. Just like you can't calculate satellite orbit trajectories on a napkin. Just like you can't predict the unemployment rate six months in advance or the weather ten days in advance. We pay people lots of money to figure these things out for us. Sometimes they are wrong. Most of the time, they are correct. That's why you only hear the mistakes - these people are so good at their jobs that doing it correctly isn't newsworthy. Political science is no different. I would need to spend a year explaining to you how my dissertation works to get you caught up to speed, unless you understand multivariate statistics and observational causal inference. My guess is those words invoke a panic attack from college and that's about it. So stop telling me that what I do is simple. It's not. I don't tell you that what you do is easy. Because I'm not an idiot.
At no point did I attack your job or call you an idiot but at a certain point you sound like Ggg bragging about possession while being on the wrong side of a 3-1 score.
Except it's not. Democrats picked up seats in the Senate - like polls predicted. Democrats picked up seats in the House - like polls predicted. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote - like polls predicted. Democrats and Republicans won exactly the governorships the polls predicted they would win. The GOP lacks the votes to pass a comprehensive alternative to Obamacare - just like I've been saying for seven years. Yes, Trump won an office. Somehow, you think this office cancels out, or even supersedes, every other correct prediction? Or that these predictions are the entirety of political science? Why?
Yes, Republicans controlled congress, they did not get punished. I will stay in my "the sky is falling" position, I think the Democratic party deserves nothing less than my outright most pessimistic view.
No one said anything like that but your cult like poli sci obsession is odd. Are you trying to be a scientist or Scientologist?
Like I said, you are new here. This is who I am. If you're not able to form a coherent argument, that's on you.