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
Post a Comment