2018 Election Reflection

I foolishly over-expected entering into election night, while remaining incredibly nervous about an upset. At first, 538's cardiograph, slid from a 85% chance for a Democratic House, to a 95 plus. Then doubts set in. Joe Donnelly struggled to secure his reelection for the Senate in Indiana. Within half an hour of 538's predictor peaking in the mid to upper nineties, it began a sudden descent into the Republican side, promising only a 33% chance for a Democratic House.

One could tell things were going badly for Democrats, because hosts on ABC and CNN were saying things like, “Don't worry about Florida, it's still early” and “I know the Democrat is behind in X State and 90% of the vote has been counted, but there's still some uncounted votes in Y city where they've been performing well.”

Nate Silver returned to console his viewers as well. “... We think our live election day forecast is definitely being too aggressive and are going to put it on a more conservative setting where it waits more for projections/calls instead of making inferences from partial vote counts.” Shortly after this tweet the forecast favored the Democrats again.

Eventually CNN called the Indiana Senate seat for the Republican challenger, essentially ending any chance of a Democratic Senate, and at the same time, the slim Democratic leads for Florida's Governor and Senator began to slip out of reach. Around this time, The New York Times posted its list of 80 Key House races, and Democrats failed to sweep over them, but began to pick up a few at a time. Both Beto's initial lead in Texas and Cordray's for Ohio's Governor, vanished, while Stacy Abrams of Georgia never ever had the lead.

It felt as if Democrats would lose the major Governor races, lose the Senate, and maybe, fail to control the House. It felt as if the majority of citizens found the Presidents incendiary, fear-mongering compelling.

Then better news began to arrive, but only in the House. At 11:50 pm, the NYT and 538 both projected Democrats to win 230 of 435 seats, though they also said it could be as many as 240 or as few as 220. Democrats lost Senate seats in IN, MO, ND, and FL, but won MT and still had a shot at NV and AZ. Though Democrats gained at least 4 Governorships, in NM, KS, IL, and MI (and probably ME), IA and WI were still extremely close, and the incredibly important states of Ohio, Florida, and Georgia, which Democrats had reasonable chances at, were lost.

For some reason, though there may not be a single Republican Representative (maybe ME-2) and only a single Republican Senator in New England, voters elected Republicans to govern MA, VT, NH, and probably CT). Voters also overwhelmingly elected Democratic Senators in WI, OH, and MD, yet elected Republican Governors (WI still in progress, recount level close). When will Democrats stop voting for Republican governors? While no individual exercises a huge effect in elections, Governors have a significantly relevant power to aid their party win in future Congressional and Presidential elections. In all, voters in six (seven if WI reelects Scott Walker) reliably blue States elected Democratic Senators and Republican Governors. You know how many Republican states did the same this election? None! (Well, unless NV or AZ do, the results are not in yet).

In all the data, Democrats received only one other consolation, but it comes mixed with bitterness as well. As of now, the New York Times predicts that Democrats won the national popular vote by 7 to 8 percentage points. At first, that's a good feeling, 53.7% of the county is against the xenophobia, the anti-environmentalism, the corporate greed of the Republican party. 53.7 to 46.3. Then the compounded mixture releases its potency. A party which wins by 7.5 percent loses 3 or 4 (or 5!) senate seats and the most important Governorships, and gains only 34 House seats. In 2010, when the Republicans swung the House by 63 seats, they only won by 6.8%. Of course 6.8 isn't only, but they won with less than Democrats today, and picked up roughly double the seats, plus got 6 Senate seats. Vox has been running some excellent pieces on the current imbalance of the American political system: how it disproportionately benefits the Republican party. Part of me thinks, Democrats have to make policy changes to put these rural voters in play, and it can be done, but still, winning by 7.5% and not have it be an earthshaking landslide is bound to shake some of the remaining faith in the system.

My conclusion, added the afternoon after, but not correcting any information above with new data, is as follows. One, Democrats achieved the bare minimum for relevance. They had to win the House, the Senate, or sweep an incredible number of governorships. If they hadn't done one of those, they might as well ahve given up for the next six years. With a slim majority they have just enough power to investigate the corruption of the current administration.

Another thought, everyone said this was a bad map for Democrats in the Senate. But when is it going to be better? If Democrats can't win Florida with a 7 or 8 point advantage, shouldn't it be considered a red state? And there are only a few Senate seats in reach, assuming the 2016 and 2018 election results are relevant in the future. There's Senate seats held by Republicans in WI, PA, ME, and CO. Those are the only reasonable pick ups Democrats can hope to make according to the last two elections. That doesn't even get them to 50 (They'll also probably lose AL Doug Jones in 2020). That's the only good news: they have one seat to lose and four to gain, but that leaves them at 49.

Overall, the night is a minor victory for the President. Republicans stuck with him, they beat the polls and gain seats in the Senate, held onto the most valuable Governorships, and gave the Democrats a small house majority.

The Democrats failed to sell their plan, their message, to the citizens of the United States, and that bodes poorly for their chances in 2020. Of all the streams I watched last night; ABC, NBC, and The Intercep, the latter ran the only one worthy of consideration. While the major stations were trying to seem non-biased by inviting provocateurs from both sides, who spent their time arguing inanities and spinning the horse race, The Intercept invited progressives of all types and engaged in a relevant debate about how the Democrats are continuing to blow the elections because of their policy and messaging. Who really wants to watch Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, Kellyanne Conway, Donna Brazile and other political hack has-beens spin for their Red or Blue team?

And that's it. Still lots of valuable property out there in CA, NV, AZ, WI, and AK, but its 12:30am, and bed time.

Recent:

Relevant:

Comments