US Mid Terms

W

Warbler

At the Start
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
8,493
Well tonight is the night, so I thought I'd fire in a few predictions and see where it takes us

Democrats to take back the House (nothing to controversial there)

Now onto the Senate

Democrats to lose North Dakota (that's a given)

I'm going to go for Democrats to flip Nevada. Jack Rosen has made some mistakes along the way, but I think she has enough to get over the line

Not sure that is the same in Arizona though. The GOP dodged a bullet when they managed to get Martha McSally as their candidate. I think they'd have lost with either of the other two, and its worth remembering that both were/ are more right wing than Trump and their combined vote was more than McSally's. If she hadn't told Arizonans to stop worrying about health care and concentrate instead on a caravan of locusts that is six weeks away and about unleash a plague of scrapie on them, then she'd have this won I reckon. I suspect she'll still manage to edge it though

Florida will be a Democrat hold. I normally reckon you need a 2pt lead there due to some of the most effective voter suppression in America, but Bill Nelson has just about established that over Rick Scott after electing to spend his much smaller pile late. Also of course Andrew Guillum is likely to turn the black vote out around Miami which has to help the Democrat up ticket

Missouri is perhaps the closest of all the Senate races, but I'm going to go for Josh Hawley. I think Claire McCaskill's luck will finally run out, but this is hardest of the lot to get a handle on I reckon. It all depends on how many in the Kansas City suburbs decide to abandon Trump

Indiana would be another Republican pick up I reckon were it not for Lucy Brenton taking about 5-6% as a Libertarian. I'm not sure what Brenton's current status is? as she's dropped off the polling, but if she's still running I expect enough of the Republicans who claimed to be voting for her as a quasi protest, to do the opposite in the ballot box. I'm going for Mike Brawn to unseat Joe Donnelly in an upset

Talking of upsets, Texas! In truth, I can't see it. I expect Beto O'Rourke to get close to the Zodiac Killer, but he's never been ahead of Cruz in any LV poll, and he's never looked like breaking 50% yet. Cruz has looked alarmed in recent days though, and begun doing and saying some things to suggest he's under pressure. Anecdotally you're hearing plenty of reports of Beto posters n districts you never expect to see a Democrat presence. Also Austin (a blue dot in a sea of red) and Dallas were the two strongest early voting districts suggesting that the Dem vote is turning out Texas (and unlike a lot of southern states they do have a good base there with 3 major cities). It's possible, but I think Cruz gets home by a 1-2pts

And I've give up on Tennessee, and expect Marsha Blackburn to beat Phil Bearsden there. Could have perhaps done with Taylor Swift speaking up a bit earlier instead of the final day for registration
 
It will be interesting to see how the fall-out from these results plays now

I'd predict that Trump will be buoyed. He threw his own personal campaign into the Senate and a couple of Governors races. Where he did, he seems to have swept the board. Trump is almost certainly more critical to the GOP now than he was at the start of the week. He is the party, a cult of personality. He owns the GOP now and can turn his base on any of them with the possible exception of Utah and Nebraska

I suspect therefore that he'll remove Jeff Sessions in the near future and replace him with Lindsey Graham as Attorney General as a first step to closing down Robert Mueller. This will open up a vacancy in South Carolina of course but with the balance of the Senate as it is, they could even have the luxury of losing that (not that they will) as they have perfect candidate waiting in the wings, a former state Governor who has just resigned from her job at the UN (lucky coincidence? (probably not - more like a plan).

From Nikki Haley's point of view, it sets her up for a run as well after Trump. Governing experience at state level? tick. Foreign policy experience at the UN, tick. And then 6 years of Senatorial experience in Washington, tick

There will be some concern about the way the house seats went naturally, and the fact that even with a raging economy, they lost control, but this is a long way short of the blue wave that many Democrats were banking on.

I'm struggling to see how the Democrats will take Florida now short of a big economic downturn. That state has been trending Republican increasingly for a few decades now. This means that Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan will be the key states in 2020. If they field a candidate that can't connect with the upper mid west, we'll see a repeat of 2016

They do have plenty of paths to victory of course, but I'm not really seeing anyone who seems to be capable of lighting up the race yet. Democrats seem to still be heavy denial and pretty well rudderless. I get sick and tired of hearing "this isn't America", I've got news for you, "yes it is", and further more "it always was". Trumpsters have always existed, and in larger numbers than Americans are comfortable about acknowledging. They've probably believed a lot of their own propaganda about being exceptional over the years, but would be doing themselves if they actually faced up to what they've become instead of clinging to this frankly pathetic "but he didn't win the popular vote" mantra
 
Warns, you don't seem to be too disappointed with the results. I bow to your much superior knowledge of American politics but I find your interpretation of the results thoroughly depressing. The thought of another six years of Trumpism does not appeal, even if I am not around in 2020 and beyond.
 
Nothing is going to get done for the next two years. The Democrats will waste their time trying to nail Trump with no actual chance of impeachment. Both parties may as well start the 2020 campaign now.
 
SlimChance said:
Nothing is going to get done for the next two years. The Democrats will waste their time trying to nail Trump with no actual chance of impeachment. Both parties may as well start the 2020 campaign now.
Click to expand...

You might be surprised both Trump and the Dems certainly aligned on the desire to get started on a massive infrastructure rebuild and they also have similar beliefs on the drug companies and getting prices down. If nothing else Trump knows how to come to the table for the long play and playing nice might be the way forward with an eye on 2020.

In terms of a bet 8/1 about Beto O Rourke as dem candidate for 2020 good value after what he did in Texas last night.
 
SP Only said:
You might be surprised both Trump and the Dems certainly aligned on the desire to get started on a massive infrastructure rebuild and they also have similar beliefs on the drug companies and getting prices down. If nothing else Trump knows how to come to the table for the long play and playing nice might be the way forward with an eye on 2020.

In terms of a bet 8/1 about Beto O Rourke as dem candidate for 2020 good value after what he did in Texas last night.
Click to expand...

I don't get the media love in with Beto. O'Rourke spent 59 million and lost! 2020 starts here and for my money he is nowhere in the Democratic race right now.
 
Politicians lie, that kind of goes with the job description, but

"Congressman can you say definitively say, regardless how results go tomorrow, that you won't be a candidate in 2020"

"I will not be a candidate in 2020" - Beto O'Rourke 24 hours ago
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
Politicians lie, that kind of goes with the job description, but

"Congressman can you say definitely, regardless how results go tomorrow, that you won't be a candidate in 2020"

"I will not be a candidate in 2020" - Beto O'Rourke 24 hours ago
Click to expand...

Do we know what the popular vote ended up in the House race last night? It's hard to see why the Democrats would look outside the current establishment front runners. The blueprint is there for them to win. There is a danger that they alienate the progressive wing of the party who want Bernie.
 
The 2020 campaign pretty much starts tomorrow (giving them one day to analyze the results). For my money seeing that somebody like Andrew Gillum came very close to winning in Florida with tons of affluent white pensioners (Trump voters), running on an extremely progressive agenda (ignorant republicans calling it socialist, even though they wouldn't know what a socialist is if they got kicked in the mouth by one) I could see someone like Sherrod Brown from Ohio whom I would consider more of an old style progressive but with bonafide chops i.e senatorial experience, and just coming off an easy victory over his republican opponent, to be a leading contender at the start of this slog.

Ohio is one of those states that turned Trump in 2016 but and here is my first iron clad prediction of this particular campaign season coming up, will go blue again in 2020, barring any self inflicted calamities (notice plural that's how sure I am) by the Dem's. Trump will still be Trump so no disadvantage there. Wisconsin which was vital to Trump just elected a democratic governor. Can't see how that helps him and finally Pennsylvania where shall we say there won't be a repeat of the 2016 accident.

If Hillary decides she has not had enough then of course all bets are off.
 
Warbler said:
Politicians lie, that kind of goes with the job description, but

"Congressman can you say definitively say, regardless how results go tomorrow, that you won't be a candidate in 2020"

"I will not be a candidate in 2020" - Beto O'Rourke 24 hours ago
Click to expand...

Beto is 40 so he still has lots of time but 2020 is not his time.
 
SlimChance said:
Do we know what the popular vote ended up in the House race last night? It's hard to see why the Democrats would look outside the current establishment front runners. The blueprint is there for them to win. There is a danger that they alienate the progressive wing of the party who want Bernie.
Click to expand...

For the numbers go to a serious news operation like the NY Times. They have everything in an easy to find format.
 
I think it was a 7% majority (which is higher than that which the Tea Party achieved in 2010 when they won something like 65 seats). That the Dems have only 28 so far, is in no small part down to the way that Republican governors have been gerrymandering boundaries. It's no great coincidence to see what happened in Pennsylvania where the practise was successfully legally challenged.

Based on that alone, any number of Democrats could theoretically beat Trump, but it's not unusual for incumbents to have bad mid terms and win the Presidential election.

The path to victory goes through the three states that Trump won which he souldn't have done

Michigan by 10,704
Wisconsin by 22,748
Pennsylvania by 44,292

78,000 votes basically flipped 46 EC votes. If they go the other way, Clinton wins. In fact it doesn't take 78,000. It takes half of them (1 vote on, and 1 vote off etc).

39,000 votes in these key states swung the election. Had the 10% of Bernie supporters who are reckoned to have voted for Trump, not done so (based on the numbers who primaried for Bernie in the respective nomination process). Clinton would have won the upper-mid-west

Now Trump has certainly been losing support in key demographics. We've seen high profile academics and media commentators (Joe Scarborough, Nicole Wallace, Max Boot, Tom Peters etc) leaving the GOP, but my own suspicion is that they could be more than being replaced by people who didn't previously participate

At the moment Trump is taking out something like 38% of the over-round. If you take the view that Trump is a dead duck, then its 9/1 the field (Kamala Harris)
 
I don't get your point on Trump taking up 38% of the book. That's pretty much the price range you'd expect him to be in by 2020.
 
Last edited:
It depends on how you price him (Kelly criterion to some extent). If you take the view that he can't win, then his price is generating value elsewhere by virtue of taking up 38% of the book. He might very well be 13/8 in 2020, but then the Democratic field will have narrowed. If Beto is good to his word, he won't be running, so there's another 6 or 7% of the over round to be absorbed by another horse. If you can find the Democratic candidate at this stage, you're going to have a good bet

I still think you could entertain a saver on Nikki Haley at 100/1. I personally think Trump will seek re-election, but if I were pricing her up, and factor the possibility of him not doing into her price, as I don't believe 100/1 is right. Trump could well step down and leave the ring undefeated provided he were able to get some sort of immunity deal for himself and his family in return
 
You can dutch Harris, Warren, Biden and Sanders at 3.8795. That seems a very fair price. The O'Rourke price is ridiculous.
 
brendanr said:
I could see someone like Sherrod Brown from Ohio whom I would consider more of an old style progressive but with bonafide chops i.e senatorial experience, and just coming off an easy victory over his republican opponent, to be a leading contender at the start of this slog.
Click to expand...

I would regard him as the dark horse. I'd certainly give him a better chance than someone like Gillibrand for instance.

I think however in these days of identity politics, the single biggest factor that is able to galvanise a successful Democrat candidate, is age. It comes back time and time again. Democrats need a candidate who can capture the zeitgeist and light up the country, and inspire a generation to vote.

If you discount Presidents whose pathway to the job involved the death in office of an incumbent (LBJ, & Truman), the last Democrat who was older than 55 when he was elected was Woodrow Wilson back in 1912 (and only then by 66 days). The average age of post war Democrat winners has been 51. The average age of post war Democrat losers is 63 (the average age of Republican candidates in the same period is 67 incidentally)

Democrats have entered candidates under the age of 50 on five occasions. Their record is five wins and no losses (would have been 6-0 as well had Kennedy not been shot)

Quite how anyone thinks Biden (78) Warren (71) or Sanders (79) are going to win, heaven only knows?
 
Trump is giving a speech right now about bipartisan deals with Democrats. He's being very generous in his comments on Nancy Pelosi.
 
Last edited:
Just watched the Acosta exchange. Had a good laugh but good grief, just when you think the bottom is sighted..... Don't know how many times I've had that thought these last two years.
 
Warbler said:
I would regard him as the dark horse. I'd certainly give him a better chance than someone like Gillibrand for instance.

I think however in these days of identity politics, the single biggest factor that is able to galvanise a successful Democrat candidate, is age. It comes back time and time again. Democrats need a candidate who can capture the zeitgeist and light up the country, and inspire a generation to vote.

If you discount Presidents whose pathway to the job involved the death in office of an incumbent (LBJ, & Truman), the last Democrat who was older than 55 when he was elected was Woodrow Wilson back in 1912 (and only then by 66 days). The average age of post war Democrat winners has been 51. The average age of post war Democrat losers is 63 (the average age of Republican candidates in the same period is 67 incidentally)

Democrats have entered candidates under the age of 50 on five occasions. Their record is five wins and no losses (would have been 6-0 as well had Kennedy not been shot)

Quite how anyone thinks Biden (78) Warren (71) or Sanders (79) are going to win, heaven only knows?
Click to expand...

Agree with a lot of that sentiment but how do you explain that at the age of 78 Pelosi, who is holding a speech right now basically slam dunking her position as speaker, talking about unifying etc. is in the spot she is?
 
One man not in the news these last few weeks is Robert Mueller. Looks like that might be about to change.
 
Warbler said:
I suspect therefore that he'll remove Jeff Sessions in the near future and replace him with Lindsey Graham as Attorney General as a first step to closing down Robert Mueller. This will open up a vacancy in South Carolina of course but with the balance of the Senate as it is, they could even have the luxury of losing that (not that they will) as they have perfect candidate waiting in the wings, a former state Governor who has just resigned from her job at the UN (lucky coincidence? (probably not - more like a plan).
Click to expand...

Did you see this happening so quickly? I think you've nailed the Nikki Hayley resignation too. It's all too coincidental.
 
Last edited:
I thought it had been on the cards for months, and when it didn't happen in August (I thought it might happen before the midterms in order to prevent a new congress introducing a bill to protect Mueller) then I was fairly confident it would happen in the next 10 days.

If you witnessed Lindsey Grahams theatrical performance at the Kavanagh hearing, and his subsequent advice that Trump can indeed amend the constitution using an executive order, it was pretty obvious who the front runner was (or at least Graham thinks he is). Nikki Haley cleared the path. When she resigned there'd be no guarantee that a special election might tip the balance of the senate. Trump needed to have someone in place ready to fill Graham's shoes who would win the vacant seat. Why did Trump focus so much on the Senate during the campaigns and abandon the House? Well all the commentators said it was because he wanted to associate with winners and didn't care about the House etc The truth is that Trump cares about Trump, and he needs to get Lindsey Graham confirmed by the senate. That way he can close Mueller down. That's why he concentrated so much on the likes of Marsha Blackburn, Martha McSally and Josh Hawley. He's lost Jeff Flake and John McCain now, and although he's inherited Mitt Romney, his position in the Senate is reinforced

All those Americans who were promising all the brave things they'd do if ……… are about to have their bluff called. What will they do? I rather suspect they'll draw another red line so as to able to justify doing nothing.
 
The big problem I see for Democrats is that they drove up the turnout in the midterms by making it about stopping Trump. It appears from today that Trump has been very strategic and some Democrats could become disillusioned when nothing happens for the next two years.
 
Back
Top