The gymnastics The Upshot and NYT are doing to explain how incredible the Dems' performance was on Tuesday is hilarious. The unwillingness to provide any real historical perspective is frustrating. With a deeply unpopular president they picked up dramatically fewer seats than the 63 the GOP picked up against Obama in 2010 or the 54 the GOP picked up against Clinton in 1994, even with the incredible advantages the Dems had this year with Trump at the top of the ticket, a slew of GOP retirements and many favorable redistricting decisions. And forget about the Senate, where the GOP actually picked up seats!
The fact is, the stage was set for them yet the Dems underperformed badly. That the NYT won't call that plainly helps explain why so many view the paper as the left's version of FoxNews.
Why the Democrats lost the Senate race in 2018 but can do it in 2020. It is inthe numbers. Ever play poker? The Democrat's odds of taking control of the Senate in 2018 were almost as bad as drawing to an inside straight. In 2020 it is better than even odds. Do I have your attention yet?
To control the Senate, Democrats need to win 4 Senate seats in 2020.
In this election - 2018 - there were 33 Senate Seats up for election. 26 were held by Democrats and 9 held by Republicans. That meant to gain a majority, the Democrats had to hold all of the 26 seats they had and take 3 of the 9 Republican seats.
Looking at it by percentages, the Democrats had 79% of the available seats and had to improve that to 89%. In a country basically split about 50/50, that is REALLY hard. So, it did not happen.
But look at 2020 - there are 33 Senate Seats up for election. 12 are held by Democrats and 21 are held by Republicans. Next time the Democrats have to gain 4 seats overall. That means that to gain a majority, the Democrats will have to hold all 12 of the seats they have and take 4 of the 21 Republican seats.
Looking at it by percentages, the Democrats will have 36% of the available seats and will have to improve that to 45%. In a country split about 50/50, that is BETTER THAN EVEN ODDS.
Having to take 45% of the available seats is MUCH easier than having to take 89% of the available seats. So - it wasn't an effective Senate wave in 2018 for the Democrats, but just watch 2020.
18
Am I the only one not completely stunned that all courts on all levels have not ruled against gerrymandering and completely transparent voter suppression tactics? I thought we were a democracy.
29
The logical conclusion from all of this is that the present system of electing the
Senate is inhibiting the free expression of democracy and should be either modified or the institution should be eliminated. Most Americans seem to have an irrational conviction that the Constitution is a god given document that cannot be questioned but if you look at other countries you will see that while there are attempts to partially reflect geographical aspects no other system gives such an overwhelming weight to individual states while excluding any weight for population. Giving a voter in South Dakota 17 times the weight in electing a Senator of a voter in California clearly can't be justified on rational grounds.
25
North Carolina’s Congressional districts were overturned by federal courts but the lines were not redrawn because 2018 election too close. New districts will be drawn by 2020.
10
To be sure, the Democrats did very well in the House of Representatives. However, the Republicans did equally well in the senate and that may be more important. The Republicans now have the votes in the senate to confirm any federal judge or supreme court justice that President Trump appoints without needing any Democratic votes and without needing the votes of the two pro-choice Republican senators, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. This means that the president can appoint a supreme court justice who is openly hostile to Roe v. Wade and, as Vice President Pence once said, that decision may be "consigned to the ash heap of history". One can argue about whether last Tuesday was a victory for the Democrats or for the Republicans but there can be little doubt that it was a victory for those who oppose abortion rights and a defeat for those who support abortion rights.
6
@Dave F Rather a silly argument. Since the Republicans eliminated the filibuster a simple majority is sufficient to appoint justices. Given the Republicans' behaviour with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh I would expect the Democrats to pack the Supreme Court the next time they have a majority in both houses and the Presidency. Ignore nonsensical talk about the need to reach out to the right from people like Douthat and Bret Stephens (wouldn't they be happier on Fox News?)
1
Is it me or does this article say nothing about the SENATE?
A wave election constitutes flipping the House AND the Senate.
This didn't happen in 2018 when it happened pretty much all the time earlier.
So I'm not sure if you can count it as really "impressive". More like "underperform" to me!
2
@Jim Beam It is you, the article discusses the Senate.
2
@Jim Beam Absolute nonsense. The Republicans have a structural majority in the Senate due to a voting system that was set up over 200 years ago
3
Sounds like Democrats beat the shift.
3
Thanks for an excellent article. This, and the one on redoing Norman Rockwell’s “Four Freedoms,” series broke my heart and gladdened my day.
1
Democrats were expected to pick up at least 23 seats in the House, so 30 and counting is a solid victory. Then there are the gains in state houses, governor's mansions and even local offices, all when the economy is still booming and unemployment is very low.
Trump can try to spin this all he wants. Picking up a couple of seats in the Senate does not make this election a win for Republicans.
17
It's been 500 years give or take a century for Native American Women ( Two to be exact) to be Representatives in Congress. Muslim women win two seats. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez will be our youngest congresswoman to date. Democracy in evolution!
14
I'm thinking this follows historical trends though. Midterm goes to the party not in the white house.
6
Nice chart! Very well thought out and illustrative.
6
We care about humanity. We care about whether human beings suffer atrocities and inhumane treatment once they cross the US border. We care whether public schools remain separate and unequal or whether we have a unified push to prepare all students for success in the 21st century. We care about a smart infrastructure and a smart response to climate change. So the stock market and glowing commentary about the economy not so much.
8
Since the whining seems to be coming mostly from two sources—Trumpists, and that segment of the “Left,” that won’t even listen to Michael Moore about the fact that not everybody in America agrees with them—a few thoughts.
1. Say what you want, the Democrats took the House. Bigly.
2. Republicans didn’t just lose the House...they lost seven governorships, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Kansas (!), and others that show either changes for 2020 or cracks in the Big Red. And, they lost seats in State leges. Good luck with the gerrymandering, Trumpists.
3. Look and the KINDS of people Democrats elected. Look at Republican losses of three of their most senior people.
4. Several states passed initiatives to expand Medicaid and legalize pot.
5. The Senate losses were expectable, given the playing field. Guess white folks still want affirmative action. Y’all must be darn proud of the way you won Georgia and Florida, what with all the loot Rick “$1.4 bil fraud fine, but I got $300 mil anyway” Scott dumped into his campaign, and the firehose of ads so racist that FOX stopped showing them.
6. Trump sure spasmed like he thought he lost something.
So all in all, say hello to my little friend, Trumpists.
Her name’s Nancy.
26
If the gerrymandering remains in place and expands its scope relentlessly (because Republicans captured the judiciary to eliminate oversight and are more willing to fight in the trenches to create structural advantages allowing them to defy the will of the voters) there is little comfort to draw from these results.
10
North Carolina was still gerrymandered in this election. The court ruled against gerrymandered districts but it didn't take effect in this election. Also it only affected a few districts around the state capital. There are still a lot of gerrymandered areas. That is shown by our Congressional delegation -- 10 Republicans vs 3 Democrats. This, in spite of more total Democratic votes in the state.
22
Now, we need to solidify and expand this win.
We Dems need to follow the advice we should have taken from Rep. Tim Ryan 2 years ago: stop ignoring working class people who have been dismissed by both parties. That dismissal by HRC is what lost her (and us) the election.
Pelosi is Trump's choice for Speaker. What does that tell you? He knows she'll be as polarizing as HRC was. We need new blood, from somewhere not on a coast, with connections to blue-collar folks, to lead the party. Ryan would not be a bad choice.
As for the GOP, since the '80s, the GOP's sermons of fear, hate, and lies have only increased in ferocity and number. And they worked! They have led us to Trump.
It is not so much that the GOP is Trump's. It's more that the GOP created Trump. He is their's.
The GOP made Trump inevitable.
14
The thing I like about this is that the “leftists,” arguing for dumping the most-experienced politician in the House yelled that Nancy Pelosi was responsible for the ugly losses in 2014 and 2016, and a) 2006 never happened, and b) she had nothing to do with Tuesday night.
Sorry about St. Bernie and all—he got out-politicked—but does it ever occur that this sort of “it’s always somebody else’s fault,” theory is what you share with Trump and Trumpists?
Democrats won the house because Democrats and lefties showed up to vote in far larger numbers. And millenials STILL didn’t showed in anything like the numbers they could have showed.
So if you need folks to blame...
8
@Robert
Young millennials will get older, and older people vote in much greater numbers. And Republicans die at a higher percent than Democrats (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-votes-linked-with-death-rates-2018-9)
One of the complaints of Republicans in the 2017 Virginia gubernatorial race (which they lost - bigly) was "where are the missing votes in Southwest Virginia"? Check the obituaries! Almost a 20 year difference in average age at death between Southern and Northern Virginia. Last time I checked, dead voters don't vote!
1
Here is why it was a wave: 3.7%!
Unemployment is 3.7%
Inflation is 2.3%
Wage growth is at 3.5%
The economy is booming. There is real middle class wage growth, and there are more jobs than there are people to fill them. We are at relative peace around the globe, engaged in no major military actions. So...?
So, how come Republicans did not crush the Democrats. Has there ever been a time when based on these numbers alone that an incumbent party has going into an election had more wind at their backs than the GOP? Seriously, what happens to the GOP in two years if we are in a recession by then, or if the unemployment numbers tick up to 5%? Or, if mortgage rates are 6 or 7%? Or, if wage growth slows or stops? Or, if inflation returns in any significant manner? What will the 2020 election results be then?
16
Republicans know demographics are not on their side. They know their real agenda is poison to the voting public. So, they cheat every way they can - gerrymandering, purging voter lists, making registering and voting ever harder, demanding ever stricter ID standards... Anything to rig the vote. (And if the Russians or anyone else wants to help, they're fine with that.)
There can be no compromise with them, no "humility in winning or graciousness in losing" on the part of Democrats in the face of this.
26
For the last 70 yrs the US has invaded or intervened in countries all over the world to get political results that suited us. I submit...Vietnam, Chile, Greece, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Haiti, Iraq and the DR, just to name a few. Now karma has caught up with us and we've overthrow our own "democracy". When a person like Trump gets to the top, you know the experiment has failed. The chilling part is that approximately 40% of the voters LIKE what they see. If I wasn't witnessing this with my own eyes, I wouldn't believe. Truly, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man shall be king. Folks, this will end very badly.
24
The parallels with Ronald Reagan in 1982 are eerie. Reagan lost 26 seats, much close to Trump's result than Clinton's or Obama's. Reagan was hated by the press and the press decried his supporters. Then Reagan won by a landslide in 1984 and history has been very kind to him ever since. Go back and read the coverage in 1982 and see if it doesn't rhyme.
4
@Len319 Trump is no Reagan.
5
@Len319Reagan is no Reagan
10
@Len319 History is only kind to Reagan if you confined yourself to a narrow field of sources. While Reagan was a more decent person than Trump personally, his policies led to many problems ranging from gov't destabilization in Central America stemming from US involvement in the 1980s to stagnant wages for the average worker (trickle down economics) to the increase in homelessness we still deal with today (de-institutionalization of psychiatric facilities). Reagan by most historians' measures don't make the top 10 of US presidents.
6
Get some historical perspective. The Democrats gained about 35 seats. The historical average for the out party in the midterms is about thirty seats. This was a blue ripple. If you want to know what a wave looks like, go to 2010, when the Republicans gained 63 seats.
And don't make the conceptual error of blaming gerrymandering. The House was if anything less gerrymandered in 2018 than in 2016. The same goes for vote suppression. The Republicans used voter surpression just as vigorously in 2016 as in 2018.
A win is a win is a win. But don't kid yourself that the Democrats' performance was impressive. Given that they were running against the worst President the US has ever had, their performance was disappointing.
6
On the other hand, the Democrats picked up 30 seats in the House with unemployment at its lowest rate in half a century.
We all know that how rich or poor people feel is *the* main driver of how (or whether) they vote. In House races this year that was clearly not the case.
12
@Cynical Jack, you haven’t Read the data behind the 2010 vs 2016 “waves.” The GOP got their 63 seats with LESS of a plurality of votes than the Dems had this election with their 35 seats. That surely is due to continued gerrymandering, voter ID laws design to be a fraud upon targeted voter groups and not at all about Fraud perpetuated by the voters themselves (voter fraud rate is .0003%), restricting access to early voting, insufficient and/or old voting machines in targeted area, the list goes on. Today’s corrupt GOP is determined to maintain power and their Money machine by whatever means necessary to achieve that end.
3
@Cynical Jack
Sorry but you're wrong. Given the amount of gerrymandering that has occurred since 2010 when Republicans were able to redraw district lines which allowed them to essentially pick their own voters, this was a good showing. In a less gerrymandered time, they probably would have never gained House control after approx. 2002. Many states (MI and PA come to mind) should have had majority Democratic delegates given the number of votes received but with how lines are drawn they were able to flip it without any trouble. So you can console yourself with the thought that Democrats didn't do that well when in fact they did (are doing) very well.
1
This country is only safe under divided government!
If the Republicans can have divided government they'll want what they got, the Senate, which gives them the Judiciary!
4
The Democrats want to celebrate receiving participation ribbons. Go ahead! The Democrats underperformed compared to previous midterm elections. In 2010 the Democrats lost over 60 house seats, half a dozen Senate seats, and Obama's approval rating was much higher than Trump's.
Democrat losses in statewide races, especially Senators who voted against Kavanaugh, indicate the Republicans did very well. The 3 darling "young progressive" candidates all lost statewide races-O'Rourke, Gillum, and Abrams. The race that reveals the weakness of Democrats' new agenda was Gillum.
Gillum got 30% of the vote in the Democratic primary. He got the nomination because mainstream candidates like the daughter of former Senator Bob Graham split the vote and Florida doesn't have a run-off law. His opponent, DeSantis, was a weak candidate with ethical issues and baggage. The polls had Gillum up by 5%, but he lost and most importantly he got roughly 100,000 fewer than creaky, white, mainstream Bill Nelson received in his losing race for Senate. This means many Florida Democrats chose to vote for DeSantis instead. Hardly an endorsement of progressive, socialist, Bernie policies.
Going into the 2020 Presidential election the governorship of the largest swing state is a huge loss for the Democrats. The lesson I would learn is nominating mainstream non-socialist candidates may work. Bernie acolytes will lose.
I'm glad you think you won. I hope you minimize your losses. See you in 2020.
2
@jkemp Next time, read the article. Most of what you are talking about is dealt with there.
17
@jkemp
Context is everything.
The unemployment rate on November 1, 2010 was 9.80%. People were losing their homes in droves. There were no jobs for college graduates, or anyone else. Frozen wages for people lucky enough to have a job. The biggest issue was extending unemployment benefits. The economy was a disaster that Obama and the Dems inherited, but they were the ones in power, and the people took their anger out on them at the polls in 2010. Understandable. People were in pain.
Today, 3.7% unemployment. Still, 200,000 new jobs adding per month. More job openings than people to fill them. Wage growth at 3.5% with 2.3% inflation. A booming economy. So, why did the GOP lose any races this cycle, let alone the House? Given the context of our current economy and relative world peace it was a Blue Tsunami.
24
@jkemp
I'm sorry. As disappointed as I was in the "losses" (two of the three races you note are still going on — FL & GA's governor races) that isn't the whole story. The Senate race never had O'Rourke ahead in the public polls, the best he was going to get was to be very close. And he was but it is still TX. GA is still a red state, the fact that that race is still being decided says a lot. How close was the last governor's race in GA? I'm betting it wasn't in toss up territory. And FL was also always polling within the margin of error, Gillum managed to cut what is usually a 1.2% difference in half and it still will have to go into recount territory because it is THAT close. I'm sure that if you are one of those who hates progressive, social democratic policies, anything that looks like it is that. Stop watching Fox News and reading Breitbart, all three of those candidates are barely touch that category. I wish they were as left as you state but they aren't. At best they are moderate. It's just that if you look at the Republicans as your way of measuring where the middle lies, Eisenhower would be a loony lefty much less Reagan or Nixon. Sorry, Democrats need to embrace more sane fair policies for middle/working class and poor people not try to appear "centrist" when the center is being as far to the right as possible.
1
And here is an obvious fact: Democrats had comfortable Senate (state-wise) wins in Wis., Mich., Ohio, and Pa., which is more than enough to flip the presidential election in 2016.
13
It's not nearly impressive enough - we still have the same president.
3
Pelosi is no longer qualified to be Speaker. She is tooooooo old and out of tough. That's just the way it is.
@AvalancheShe's certainly not "out of tough" - I don't even think she's out of touch.
7
Your headline is wildly inconsistent with the content of the article. Republican retirements coupled with the historical pattern of first-term defeats in mid-term elections explains the results, and in truth Democrats should have done better — especially in the Senate. And the big headliners in Florida, Georgia, and Texas all lost. One should also mention that many victorious Democrats were female military veterans who are far from being hard left-wing progressives, which is the exact formula that Democrats used so effectively in 2006, much to the chagrin of party leaders as they later tried to corral them in support of progressive initiatives.
When both political parties end up with a smile, neither should claim victory.
@William Johnson, we are inching our way back to sanity. Every inch is a milestone. Trump has had two years to get us where we are, we need at least two years to even begin to go uphill.
8
If you’re spinning narrow Democratic losses in Texas and Georgia as proof of the strength of the GOP...
3
The presumably named "Wave" illustration with it's little red and blue 2-D candidates, is so "busy" and complex that it causes far more confusion both to the eye and to the brain than a simple graph, in black, greay and white Benday dots would have instantly illustrated,("Pictures", remember them?). Far too many illustrative demonstrations in the Times end up causing more confusion with their clever graphics ,then ever enlightening many readers.
This has been a "creeping" illustration disaster, ever more difficulof clarity , and it has been forming a giant "black,read & white" wave, growing in more heated confusion and even recognized by the very artists and statisticians of the Times who draw them, at least since before the last Newspaper Strike (in the 20th century), where numbers of objects were depicted by tiny pictographs of them.(an idea from Egyptian hieroglyphs?) Armaments were shown as tiny jets, animals as tiny elephants, etc.
Please!: return you to the days of yore-when black and white graphs any kid from a local city grade school could understand , were the norm.
5
If Amazon were to place its new HQ in, e.g., Wyoming, the leftward shift in the State’s population could swing it blue. We need a blue migration to red States.
11
You first!
4
Florida may become a democratic state since voting rights have been restored to more than one million people who were convicted of a felony anytime in their lives.
9
I disagree, it’s about what it looks like, the Democrats still have no real power and will be at the mercy of the Republicans, I’d much rather have the Senate then the house
1
The Democrats did not benefit from the decision that maps had to be redrawn to address outrageous Republican gerrymandering as both parties agreed the maps could not be redrawn before these midterms. Stay tuned.
4
@RDO
I thought that was only in regard to the NC districts. I thought PA had their districts redrawn prior to the election.
I half agree with you. Yes, the democrats had a good night but not a great night.
They did not have a great night because they did not gain 60+ seats in the House and flip the Senate. Yes there were big structural disadvantages but if the nation was as sick of Trump as the democrats think, they are wrong.
A demagogue is tough to beat. If they want to beat him they should continue doing what they did, promote progress ideas that a majority of Americans can agree on like affordable health insurance, no corporate welfare, reign in Wall Street, infrastructure etc. etc.
Do not concentrate on extreme identity obsessed issues that Hillary put front and center.
7
@Paul Subpoena power will change the conversation soon. I don't have any insider information but Nunes and the Republicans seemed desperate to derail the Russia investigation. I think we may find out why soon.
8
@Paul
Not sure what extreme identity obsessed issues HRC put and center. Are they similar to what seems to allow the current president his fawning public? 'Cause he and Republicans use "identity" as much or more than anyone, funny how Democrats are tagged with being "obsessed" with it by merely mentioning policies and practices that are weighed against the disenfranchised but when it comes to Republicans because it keeps the status quo (rich, white preferably male) at the top then it is "normal" and therefore not "identity politics".
1
Speaking of which, here in Georgia's 6th (of 2017 Jon Ossoff notoriety) Karen Handel just has conceded her House seat to
Lucy McBath.
12
More spin from what is supposed to be a news organization. The Dems lost the Senate and key governorships. How impressive is that? They also lost Jim Acosta. No more need be said.
@Ed
They were going to lose the Senate. The math in so many ways was not on their side. It is a miracle they kept Republicans on the ropes throughout the election cycle the way they did. They lost governorships but they also won quite a few and they did very well in state legislatures which are as important (perhaps more so) than governorships for redrawing districts. It is a shame about Acosta but why do they still do press briefings at the White House? So they can go back and talk about the lies that were told that day? It seems like a waste of time and energy better used actually delivering news about policies affecting various segments of the public.
So since the election ended, we have had a mass shooting, the ban of a prominent reporter, and what looks like a coup at Justice. I believe some white supremacists stoked by for a White House visit.
As impressive as the election results may seem to Mr. Cohn and all., will it much matter in the face of what may be better described as a slow motion coup?
5
Democrat gain was miserable as they lost Senators. This means that Supreme Court justices and lower court judges will be conservative. Democrats used the courts to push left wing agendas when they couldn't pass laws, so this defeat has huge ramifications. Compare the Obama defeat in 2010 to this event...there is no comparison. I really don't care what this article says because it is nothing but the propaganda from the NYT .
A lesson learned from the midterm elections, in some regions identity politics trumps the greater good.
www.isonewsinfo.com
1
Contrary to Trumps boasts that candidates that he endorsed ( he said 'embraced' yuck) fared exceptionally well. This is another untruth that does not hold up to scrutiny.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/11/07/trump-endorsed-75-candidates-in-the-midterms-how-did-they-fare-on-election-day/
2
It starts to look like we need to move to much larger multi representative districts that allocate representatives to parties based on the proportion of votes. Our first past the post system with single representative districts creates a persistent incentive for the party in power to draw district lines in a way that favors them. It also strongly discourages the formation and emergence of new political parties.
1
@oldcolonial85
They also need to get rid of the Senate (or change its proportionality) and term limit the Supreme Court.
Thank you Nate Silver- I think that the vote margin would be even more heavily Democratic, but for some of the other dirty tricks in Republican states. How do you account for numbers of voters disenfranchised due to draconian rules preventing felons who have served their time, from voting? How about the ID laws restricting those that are acceptable? How about voter purges that focus on people of color? How about the lack of polling places in low income areas, forcing citizens to wait for hours on line?
The Republicans get it: they plan to govern as a permanent minority with a restructured election process. This is terrifying, and taking the process back will take far more vigorous and inclusive organizing than the huge job that was the 2018 elections.
11
I think the biggest single factor in House seats flipping was the SALT deduction cap. I used to live in Morris County, NJ where the only relevant election was the Republican primary. Democrats never won anything. But in NJ, pocketbook anger over no longer being able to fully deduct State and local taxes, particularly property taxes, fueled a voter revolt. This year, my old district elected a Democrat. The incumbent, Rodney Frelinghuysen, decided it was a good year to retire, and the GOP fielded a lightweight nominee.
A number of seats flipped in New Jersey over this issue, and I am sure it had the same effect on similar districts in other states.
I think the SALT deduction cap was a major Republican political error. It lost them a number of New Jersey suburban seats, and likely elsewhere as well.
12
@RM
Prior to the election I wondered why this wasn't discussed more often. It was so obvious what this part of the tax bill was meant to do, punish primarily blue states (with local/state taxes). I kept wondering, why would any constituent put in someone who unnecessarily voted to increase their taxes while giving huge benefits to people who don't need it? All those seats should have been lost, if only on principal.
If you want to get a gander at gerrymandering, take a look at North Carolina. Not one Republican lost, and although some of these races were extremely close, they were still won. All the GOP incumbents won by less than 60%, while the Democratic incumbents won in the 70% range. There it is in a nutshell: pack all the Dems into a handful of districts, then draw the rest of the districts to produce a closer yet still comfortable margin for the GOP. Talk about a tilted playing field!
35
Nice title. Reminiscent of Mark Twain quip "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." Nice content too, but it'll all seem better if Scott and Kemp's fragile leads (over Nelson and Abrams, respectively) soon collapse under scrutiny.
10
The Republican wall of gerrymandering, and voter surpression continue to be the big winners, but the American people have finally started to break through that wall that deny "we the people" the right to vote and there is no turning back now. Our precinct in North Carolina worked extremely hard at the grass roots level and all our Democratic candidates won. We now have a playbook and have already started organizing for 2020.
37
We in Michigan just passed a law to get rid of gerrymandering by taking the time and trouble to redistribute without bias. It will not be fast or easy. Do it!
9
The slate of Senate seats up for election in this midterm, where one third of the seats are exposed every two years, was as bad for Democrats as it could have been, and retention of the majority by the GOP was predicated upon this. But make no mistake, the next presidential election and the following, 2022 midterm will be entirely different. Retaking the majority in the Senate has always been viewed as a two-step process, and the behavior of Republicans in the Senate in the next two years will be key to the damage they will bring to their current, slim Senate majority.
The GOP majority there will focus upon filling judge vacancies with conservatives, and that is its right, but where they will suffer the consequences of bad behavior is if they continue to support Trump’s bad behavior, past, present and future. Whether the GOP relegates its entire congressional role to Democrats for the foreseeable future is in its hands and will be determined by voters in 2020 based upon the perception that its first priority is for party and agenda, as it has so repulsively been focused over the last decade, rather than the “nation” and its democratic process.
Republicans in the Senate, judged by the sweep of Democratic victories in this election, really no longer have a free hand and have been put on notice. The voters are finally paying attention. McConnell and his caucus would be wise to do the same.
19
Simple demographics are at work, and no amount of voter suppression, nor gerrymandering is going to stop it.
The election showed a whole lot of red (especially in the sparse middle of the country) but for the first time in the middle of those places, there are dots of blue. Those are going to grow and expand to other districts.
Not only that, but those blue dots represent true Progressive candidates in the middle of a sea of republicanism. They are no longer republican lite candidates.
THAT is the major difference going forward.
21
@FunkyIrishman-WE/I have been waiting for the widely touted “demographic wave” to hit the beach so to speak, and we are still waiting. If millennials , immigrants, LGBT and “minorities” continue to cluster/migrate to reliably blue states, TX and FL eschew and income tax, SCOTUS allows gerrymandering, and the economy doenst collapse, we will still have trump- and his ilk- installed in white house and probably senate for several more elections. Democrats Need to stop hoping for for this supposed “demographic wave “ to hit and put up moderate candidates who can win in PA, MI, WI, OH. All this effort trying to flip GA, FL and TX is Very premature,Who cares if trumps next opponent runs up a ten million vote margin in California? When I hear more and more Dems crowing about “we won the 2016” election I reflect on the false narrative that persists that Gore “won”florida.I suppose if that makes one feel good, but how can any dems feel good when Trump/JAred sit in White Hosue ?
1
@John White I suggest you're missing clear evidence of Democrats doing exactly what we need to do, including in supposedly "red" and "purple" states west of the Appalachians.
Look at Oklahoma City where Democrats flipped a House district in the middle of the reddest state in the country. Ditto in Salt Lake City.
Look at Kansas (governor and a House seat). Look at Iowa (flipped the House delegation to 3 of 4).
And above all, look at New Mexico where Xochitl Torres Small just flipped one of the largest districts in the country (not counting single-state districts). That's a huge patch of blue, that extends into eastern AZ and SW Texas. She ran on a solid progressive platform including protection of public lands.
Arizona is clearly within reach (AZ papers report that there are still 600,000 votes to count despite that the NY Times shows 99% of precincts have reported) and Kyrsten Sinema might flip Jeff Flake's seat yet, when all of the ballots are in. Nevada and Montana came through.
Perhaps Democrats in the old eastern strongholds like Connecticut need to stop talking about what other Democrats need to do, and look at what we're actually doing all across the Midwest and West.
4
@John Whitc
The demographic wave is real. Though it is better thought of as something slower and more considered than a one big event. That makes it like most important events in history. I think people who say this "hoping for a demographic wave" isn't real need to stop looking for the big dramatic action, human history rarely works like that. A race that is down 10% next cycle is down 8% and so on... if it continues in this direction, there is a "wave" it just isn't going to accommodate a limited attention span. All the racists and such are not going to die off in one fell swoop but make no mistake, Fox News viewers are an old lot (I think ave. age is 'round 72). The millennials and esp. Gen Y/Z are much more diverse but all those groups are still young and still vote in lower numbers, but that won't always be the case, and unlike in the past they are not getting more conservative as they get older.
Missing in this analysis and in much of the post-election coverage is the winners at the state level. I pickup by the Dems of governor's mansions and seats in state legislatures throughout the country will have substantial impact longer term. An awful lot of governing gets done outside of Washington that has an even greater day to day impact on the lives of citizens. The media, especially the liberal media, needs to recognize this fact and give it the attention it deserves.
11
The big spot that Dems won was at the state level. Flipping Governor seats (and legislatures as well) in 7 states is a very dramatic change that sets up a cleaner redistricting after the next census. Add in the fact that a million felons can now apply to vote in Florida, and the map in 4 years will be very different.
32
Ballot initiatives for fairer redistricting in all states along with early voting will put the majority back in the majority. Keep up the work, Obama didn't think he had to sell anything but himself and democrats got clobbered. He did help get us out of an economic rut, slowed down the wars and improved healthcare but didn't make it affordable.
8
One of the brightest stars of this awful campaign season was Beto O'Rourke. While i couldn't vote in Texas, i was none the less inspired by this man. He reminded me of the nation i grew up in and that inspired me to enter the Peace Corps and then work as a public servant for most of my life.
27
Mr. O’Rourke will be a requested speaker at Dem pol events, keeping his name in the media.
2
@DJK.
Beto O'Rourke should run for President in 2020. Texas isn't big enough for Beto.
3
But for the failure to move the White rural America, still under the toxic spell of Trump, the midterm gains of the Democratic party are not only impressive but enough to unnerve and unsettle Trump for the remaining term of his office when he would think twice before transgressing his constitutional limits.
38
@Prof. Jai Prakash Sharma
I am not sure what you find so impressive - I am finding it super-depressing, Trump just cemented his 2020 reelection chances. Remember his candidates won in state-wide elections in Florida,Ohio and Indiana - the three swing states a candidate needs to win to be President. He has increased his Senate margin,keeping the Judicial train going.
What Democrat won has little material value other than creating an irritant for Trump.
2
@Sirius Perhaps FL is a swing state (the race hasn't quite been decided there) but I don't know about OH and definitely not true of IN. Only Obama has won it in '08, but it has always been reliably Republican in the electoral college.
I think the left needs a reality check here. Obama and the Democrats lost 61 seats in his first mid term. It looks like Republicans will lose in the low 30s. And the Republicans did pickup Senate seats.
22
@dave- Let's look at why the Democrats didn't pick up more seats: gerrymandered districts that mean even when voting majorities vote for Democrats--Republicans pick up more seats; punitive voter ID restrictions; voting sites that open late, close early, or get moved with sufficient voter notice; malfunctioning machines that flip and lose votes or that fail to count votes--ditto vote counting software. The list is long--but these GOP tactics continue to rob Americans of their choice for representation.
88
@dave Forgive me, but did you read the article? Redistricting in 2010 caused a spectacular number of formerly "safe" Democratic seats to switch to registered Republican majority districts.
When everything is said and done, if we had random district borders an eight percentage point popular vote win should create over 280 seats, not ~230. Recent Democratic state government wins in NC, PA, MI, WI, IL,VA, will shift dozens of "safe" Republican seats back into competition. The state results of 2017 and 2018 set up an need stronger Democratic victory in 2020.
33
@dave You ignore current economic condition. At 2010 midterm election, americans had suffered from great recession. Unemployment rate was near 10%. Trump lost over 30 seats despite economic booming from Obama legacy.
38
The rainbow over the Capitol on Election Day has been heralded as a sign by many...maybe, by some miracle, we can actually find common ground in a two-party Congress?
One can hope...
12
@Marty
If we only were arguing about ending Prohibition.
Sadly, our red blue dichotomy has ended up more like the issue of slavery in pre-civil war America. One possible solution to that was to declare war on South America, or some nation in Europe to bring Americans together over something. We may need some simple solution like that, this time as , I think, we would rather do nothing than kill one another over abortion rights and gender identity.
It may be that the ambient temperature and annual hyped up -hurricanes, will force our collective will, whether we want to or no. It may be a decision already made for us .
3
Finding common ground is simply not going to happen. McConnell's scorched earth, take no hostages 8-year campaign against Obama precludes that.
This is all-out war!
11
@meloop
God help us all if Trump takes a lesson from Presidential history and gins up a war for the sole purpose of getting re-elected. I wouldn’t put it past him.
9
Actually in North Carolina, the districts have not yet been redrawn. If you look at the 3 Democratic wins, they are lopsided because the Republican legislature has thrown all the Dems in those 3 districts. We are waiting for the districts to be adjusted for the next election, then perhaps you can see a more even result in the state! (NC currently has 10 Republicans and 3 Democratic in the House, despite having ½ million more Democratic voters registered in the state!)
70
@Alan Well, that should concern anybody who still have some sense of fair play, right? Just another sign of which one of the two parties who are rotten. One man, one vote, of equal significance and value. When will that simple principle sink into the minds of the GOP-voters?
4
@Alan
I agree this a a huge problem but the other question is do those registered Democrats get to the polls and vote.
2
Every pundit and commentator seems to be missing the point now. The legislature doesn't matter anymore. We now live in a dictatorship. Trump has put an end to Mueller, and nobody will stop him. Nobody will stand up to him. He has put the final nail in the coffin of the American Republic. The House and Senate are now purely ceremonial entities. The state governors and legislatures are powerless relics of a bygone age. The Supreme Court now exists purely to affirm Trump's executive actions as they steadily become more and more grandiose and overreaching. From now on, Trump is the Law. In a matter of months, it will become very dangerous to criticize or oppose him. Fleeing the country will not protect you, as he plans to adopt the tactics of Vladimir Putin and Mohammed bin Salman. Today marks the beginning of his crackdown on the free press as well. From now on, any media entity that fails to worship him will be forced into obscurity and annihilated. Democrats only won 60% of the vote when they needed something like 75%, and Trump has taken the results as a mandate to assert himself as dictator once and for all.
25
@Randy Thompson A tad premature, I'd say.
5
"The Democratic disadvantage in the Senate isn’t going anywhere. State lines aren’t about to be redrawn, after all...."
In fact it is going to get much more partisan. Federalist 68 explains why the Senate was created as it is. The 17th ammendment changed from appointment by State legislators to popular vote by State. Changing the 17th ammendment to national popular vote would require a 2/3 majority in both houses (possible but unlikely) and ratification by 3/4 of the States; Thirty-eight to be exact. Only 13 States would need to withhold ratification. And they will because the only power the non-costal States have in the Federal Government is the Senate. Give that up and they become as powerless as Republicans in California.
Circumstances may make the Senate more red. With the increased migration of liberals to the cities overfly country could get more red. It is within the realm of possibility that the Senate will end up with 70 Republican seats in the near future.
This "demographics is destiny" suggests that Democrats start scheduling some landings in "flyover country."
6
@Sailboat Captain
There is no Democratic disadvantage in a Presidential election.
The Democrats won both New York State and California by huge amounts.
More than they needed to win in those states.
when
Clinton only needed Seven million votes and she would have won the whole state as winning the state all you have to have to get is more than your opponent gets.
She got more than a million and a half more than she needed.
If those million and a half had voted for Trump she still would have beaten him and would get the whole state.
If she could have moved those people to Pennsylvania Florida and Texas she would have won those states and she would have won the electorial vote as well and she would have won the election.
She almost won in Pennsylvania and Florida so because she lost Trump got the whole state .
Nice job, Nate!
8
Analysis is fine but it omits the Elephant's elephant in the room: dirty tricks (de jure and de facto) to prevent people from voting, and hacking voting hardware and software to hand victories to the unpopular.
40
@seriousreader
What is your evidence that there were dirty tricks
2
Compared to yesterday, the Obama 2010 election repudiation looks like a Hurrican Sandy by comparison. Obama and Clinto will go into history with the biggest losses to years into their presidencies.
By the time Obama was finished destroying the Democratic Party 1250 elective officials had been removed, and what remained of the Dems were the most radical Leftists.
Even this year, the dude spoke only about himself on the stump. It's almost like he forgot his candidates' names while referring to himself over eighty times.
Had the party leaders kept Obama in the Senate to let him learn some skills - more than 153 days - he could have really changed things as a president in 2016 or 2020. But we'll never know now.
3
@L'osservatore
Check the facts. Republicans took the House from Obama with a 7.2% vote surge. Democrats took the House from Trump on Tuesday with a 9.2% blue vote wave. The number of seats won, as Nate points out, reflects gerrymandering.
I know your version is more fun for Trumpians, but facts matter. There are more of us out there and we're in control of the House.
44
@Rob
Both sides do gerrymandering
@John
Yes, John, and it has to be eliminated on both sides. The fact is, however, Republican congressional/state control after the 2010 census lead to rampant abuses. There is no other way to explain how states like PA consistently had Democratic vote majorities but won fewer seats. That was eliminated by the court in the last election (after a fight by the incumbent Republicans), but it is still rampant across the country.
So, yes, get rid of all gerrymandering and let voters decide; not the parties. If seats weren't "safe" and politicians were answerable to the voters instead of their parties, maybe they would start doing their jobs to get re-elected. They might even compromise to get things done...the old fashioned way.
2
Being similar to the midterm waves of 2006 and 2010 is remarkably weak given how horrible and outrageous Trump has been. This is not a normal situation, so a normal type midterm pushback is nowhere near enough
21
More disponent editorializng. The Democrats kost virtually ever high profile race after crowing about a Blue Wave for months. Keep up this self-delusion, and we're looking at eight years of Trump and his supporters. At least.
8
@Mike Livingston
Yep!
@Mike Livingston
Yep! Buckle up for 2024. Ted Cruz has six years to campaign for being the most prominent Republican candidate to succeed Trump. I see his victory to be the most significant of all the races.
@Mike Livingston
You keep telling yourself that. The president's reactions to the races already let you know he's lost something significant. Sure, you can find things to pt. to to keep up Republicans spirits but there are a lot of significant things that Democrats got. Trying to downplay them means they are even more significant than what is even written in this article. I feel better now about the wins.
Tens of millions more voters wanted Democratic Party candidates. Republicans should hold no seats. The constitution is an antique document designed to enshrine white male hegemony.
17
Does the constitution still hold elements that disadvantage women? Isn't it society doing that?
My father, a cop his whole life, used to muse on the intelligence of criminals: "People who cheat ain't smart enough to make a honest living."
I thought about that when reading about the Republican vote-tampering in Georgia and elsewhere. Republicans just ain't smart enough to win any other way. Democrats excel on policy and persuasion; we learned that in 2016. But we still haven't learned how to deal with cheaters.
65
Your father’s reflections were absolutely on point. Thank you for sharing his wisdom. I needed it today!
8
Hi, I'm sharing my thoughts. I think that the NYTimes sees that there is a big city they all like to visit where there's a lot of media in the south, and a capital city in the north in a smaller town and says, "Oh, California is just like New York," and tell us about LA's Measure B and nothing else local.
Newsflash, California is not New York, none of us up north in what you consider insignificant places cares what happens in LA, and that feels like such an East Coast snub.
Maybe you should visit the part of the country to the west of Orange NJ sometime.
@ondelette The majority of people live in cities and suburbs. This trend is only going to grow. Blame the media all you like, but rural dwellers such as yourself (and me by the way) are in the minority. There have also been countless stories about the voters in Trump country. I’ll also mention that many conservative writers live in deep blue districts. Essentially, they enjoy the benefits of democratic policies for themselves and their children while espousing conservative principles. A happy existence!
18
I DON’T understand this graphic. At all.
10
A political system that by design perverts the popular will is one in need of radical reform.
51
Gerrymandering needs to go!!
29
I was at least expecting the Rapture yesterday, but here I am back to writing the same old boring comments the day after. As good at spinning things as we have become, can’t we at least spin something that we want to wear.
6
Let's not forget, the Republicans rallied around a pedophile.
25
When I was 16 I worked my butt off for JFK on LI... The thought that Nancy Pelosi would want to continue in a leadership position is beyond me... Oh, I'm sure she could huff & puff a long list of reasons... but just look at her... battle scared, tired and out of touch... does she have the gumption to take a deep breath and help another of her colleagues to unite the party or does she seriously think only she can do the job... We'll see what kind of women she is... won't we.
6
@Usmcsharpshot
USmcsharpshot: And your evidence is? Looks like a picture of Nancy P, deducing something huffing and puffing because she hasn't had a face lift. NO one knows the rules better, no one can herd cats better, and as "Robert - Out West" said above: "So all in all, say hello to my little friend, Trumpists. Her name’s Nancy. "
Like any wave action, it is of course, never just one wave that wears anything down. With the renewed vigor of Democratic women and their presence in the House, more waves can be expected. Breaking down the entrenched gerrymandering and voter suppression will take multiple tides and floods. This is just the start of the process, but it's a good start.
23
Another question to pose: Will the districts that flipped to blue, flip back to red in two years? Mostly no, is my estimate. As the Republican Party becomes ever more Trumpian, its support will continue to shrink. It will be increasingly confined to aging, white, rural, less prosperous, less educated areas of the country. Republicans cannot complete in large and medium-sized cities even now. In two years, they won't be competitive in the suburbs.
25
@WmC
That's right, because republicans tend to be more educated in cities. But those in rural areas that think that they are going to be better off in 2020 then they are now. are just dreaming. The Chinese will not come back to the US and buy soybeans, ever....and they are the largest buyers of US soybeans, which are now piled up in huge piles.
14
I'm an independent voter that has voted both sides in the past. This time, pretty much a blue tickets (Governor's race, excepted). I wish we had more balance for check's and balances. I think the tension is more productive.
I think this 2018 mid-terms are what we need, if not what we wanted. Democrats tend to get some hubris and lose focus when they get power. The GOP tends to focus mightily to consolidate power. So, let this partial victory temper Democratic gloating and focus on the task at hand.
If you want the Senate races in the rural areas, perhaps try adjusting your strategy to attract them again! Stop focusing on identity politics that offend those constituents, and start focusing on the fundamental issue we all have; security, food, housing, and jobs (in no particular order).
Just do it.
16
Let's be even more impressive Good People of America.
Get ready to hit the streets tomorrow night, November 8, at
5 pm for the Trump Is Not Above The Law demonstrations at 900 locations across America.
Many democratic organizations have been planning a massive demonstration across America if The Con Don fired Sessions. He did and Rachel Maddow (MSNBC 9 pm ET weeknights) reported just now that the demonstration is on for tomorrow night.
No One Is Above The Law. Every American citizen who values our democratic form of governance must hit the streets and voice our anger so even The Con Don can hear.
The link is below. This must not stand in OUR United States of America. Not now. Not ever.
https://www.trumpisnotabovethelaw.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response/search/?from=@
18
Please copy this message and get it to everyone you know.
5
You are playing into his hands...stop making it so easy for him! The Dems will become unhinged, disconnected from the everyday American. What’s done is done...tax returns, Russia...Who cares!!!! If the Dems can’t show they can lead with policy and opt to chase the Pres...the same outcome will occurs in 2020
And don’t be surprised when it happens
5
Free Jeff Sessions!
4
"Democrats had so few opportunities because of . . . the tendency for the party to win by lopsided (and thus inefficient) margins in urban areas."
I don't know why people keep saying this. There's nothing inevitable or necessary about urban votes being wasted.
Imagine a state of 1 million people, 600,000 in the city and 400,000 in the country. Imagine ten congressional districts consisting of ten slices of the city that then fan out into the country. Each district would have 60,000 city votes and 40,000 rural votes. The rural votes would be wasted.
1
@Hal Blackfin
You miss the point, but for gerrymandering....
@Hal Blackfin Duh
It's not a math problem. The problem is that more than half of the state legislatures have been Republican. And how are Congressional district boundaries usually established?
Democrats are rightly happy about gains in the House, governors' mansions and statehouses across the country, including in some presumed "red" states like Kansas, heck, even in Oklahoma.
The consequences of losing ground in the Senate are still dire, considering the type of judges that Trump will be emboldened to nominate. We'll have to live with that for a long time.
However in 2020 at least 21 Republican incumbents in the Senate will be up for re-election (maybe 22 if they win the special-election run-off in Mississippi), versus just 12 or 13 Democrats, most of whom are in safe seats.
Time to stop kvetching and get to work.
30
We need many more parties so we can stop being so divided in our rhetoric and our emotional connection to the other half of the country. We need many more parties so we can better represent all the people. The two party system is naturally divisive. I learned that if you want to conquer something, it must be divided against itself. Looks like that is what we have, wave or not. I'm so disgusted with America and American politics. Why haven't we rid ourselves of our bad educational system? Why haven't we rid ourselves of our crumbling infrastructure? Why haven't we rid ourselves of our archaic modes of transportation? Why haven't we rid ourselves of poverty and pollution and illness? We need to imagine a much much better country and world. The two party system doesn't allow for anything above ping pong in the imagination.
10
@RCJCHC I really started to appreciate the representative European systems, that lead to coalition negotiations between (sometimes more than two) parties, as opposed to the winner takes all system in the US that leads to only two parties remaining as a viable choice. The reason is the horrific polarization the present US system created in American society.
Right...so what do you do? If you vote outside of the major parties you’re likely to help the major party candidate that you like least.
If you want to encourage third party voting, there are options. Maine instituted ranked-choice voting. Third parties can get votes but if they lose and deny a candidate majority (50% ), 2nd choices can elect the lesser evil. That might happen in Maine’s northern district this year, if enough independents made the Dem their second choice.
Fargo instituted approval voting, so the candidate with the most approvals wins (you can approve of one or more candidates).
You have to be careful how you institute these changes, however. Maine had election by majority but changed its constitution to get election by plurality over 100 years ago. To address recent problems that the legislature wouldn’t fix, they passed ranked-choice via referendum. The problem is, it won’t apply to state officer elections unless Maine votes to amend its constitution to allow election by ranked choice.
There are other models too. In Japan, people vote candidate and party, so a party that receives enough votes can fill a proportional number of seats with their candidates. Locally, people elect the most popular x candidates for city counsel. That suggests a lack of local accountability, but in practice they campaign in (compete for) territories like districts.
If you’re tired of choosing Coke or Pepsi, try researching ways people vote and see about reforming your state.
1
@RCJCHC
You will never have any of those things if only the citizens pay taxes. Because for this democracy to work everyone needs to pay into the system. Our educational system would be better if it was fully funded, if republicans would stop rolling back environmental regulations we wouldn't have to live in pollution. We did imagine a better country, where do you think Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid come from, those programs didn't just appear.
How does the government pay for infrastructure when the 1% don't want to pay taxes, when corporations don't want to pay taxes, that claim if they pay higher taxes jobs go away, though no empirical evidence exists to suggest that is remotely true. In fact WE pay corporate taxes, because they are priced into the product or service we buy, so again how do lower corporate taxes kill jobs, if the consumer pays 80% of them for the corporation. And by the way, have you seen the price of an iPhone 10 for example drop, relative to the multibillion dollar tax break they got, no you haven't and you probably wont either.
Because of the corporate tax cut, federal receipts from corporations, those revenues have dropped already, and they will continue to drop. So about this imagined country that you seem to think has never been imagined, it once was, we took our eyes off the prize.......
3
Is this election statistically different than other midterms? Doesn't majority control of Congress usually flip against the President like this during a midterm election? Instead of congratulating the Democrats, I think we should be worried that it took this much effort just to achieve a historically normal outcome...
6
Maybe it is more impressive given disadvantages, but we were expecting much more like a blowout with all the incessant talk about a Blue Wave, whereas it looks to be a tie.
Losing more Senate seats and losing government races in large important states like Ohio and Georgia and especially Florida is a substantial loss to Democrats again given the incessantly high expectations with polls like yours from last week having Gillum winning by 5 points.
5
@Dan While I'm upset that Gillum and Nelson didn't win, it can't really be called a big upset. It's been over 24 years since we had a dem governor and the counts between our US House members by party remain the same. And Scott winning the Senate seat is still not a given. We won't know that final result until noon on Saturday. As it stands, it goes to an automatic recount. And Nelson could force a recount even if on Saturday Scott has exceeded the .5 percent threshold.
That said, we did pave the way for a better showing going forward. Giving the vote back to those who have been convicted of felonies in the past brings a million and a half more possible voters into play. Mostly POC's. Voters that have no reason to vote republican.
5
@Holmer If the Democrats can't get many of its law-abiding base to vote, why do you think that a million newly-enfranchised felons are going to exercise their civic duty and be good citizens? All indications are that incarceration punishes but doesn't reform its "clients".
America is center-left.
Republicans and Democrats are well named, now. Republican power is based on regional one-party domination. They need winner-take-all rules to aggregate power. Democrats are also concentrated, but are a much larger group. They win popular votes.
Republicans like Lindsay Graham have boasted that Republican power, evidenced in Congressional control, demonstrated the country is center-right. He's wrong. In an election where people were encourage to vote for naked tribalism, the majority voted for common sense. Their idea of the common good? A center-left party.
6
Let's keep perspective. In the Dems' "bad night" of Senate races, they won over 2/3 of them - a far bigger margin even than their House wins.
7
This part's incorrect: "Democrats also benefited from a string of court decisions that eroded or outright eliminated Republican gerrymanders in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and, most recently, Pennsylvania." North Carolina's decision came too late in the season; a court deferred action it until after this election. So we're still a state with a roughly 50-50 split in the population, but a 10-3 republican-heavy congressional delegation. Democratic vote totals were higher in every district, but no seats flipped.
12
@Apollo Grace That must be so infuriating!
2
@Apollo Grace
That makes no sense.
What do you mean by saying Democratic vote totals were higher.
Higher than what.
Obviously if the Democrat lost then the higher number wasn't high enough.
You imply that the only reason more Democrats aren't elected can only be because of gerrymandering .
Maybe because most of those Democrats live in either Chapel Hill Durham Raleigh or Charlotte and the rest of them are located in places where their numbers are not enough to get a Democrat elected.
This isn't gerrymandering.
To counter the effect of having a concentration of liberals living in four cities you can divide the city into sections and then make congressional districts that are made from one of these sections plus a area that is smaller and not liberal. That way instead of having just one congressional district that has a majority of liberal voters you have a few of them.
That is also gerrymandering
You would be for that because it would help you.
The really impressive results came out of the states that cost Hillary the presidency. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania all went blue. If those states "woke up", and stay blue in '20, then there's some solid hope we can defeat the beast.
10
My side the Dem's are disheartened because we were hoping to make history in Florida and Georgia and we was stopped short of the goal line. I would have loved to wake up hearing Andrew and Stacy had prevailed in the heart of the deep=south. We are not a country where we would like to be but lets not miss the mountain because of the trees. Race had a great deal with the losses in Florida and Georgia and one would be living in La La land if they thought differently. But on the other hand the thought of Mazine Walters and Elijah Cumming now serving at chairman of committees that will be investigatinfg 45 brings me great solace. There is truly a thing called Karma.
7
@Steven McCain You have mispelled Maxine Waters first and last names and couldn't be more wrong about her being the right person to investigate Trump. She will be a perfect foil for Trump to demonize and ridicule. Spare us her antics.
1
Gerrymandering should be illegal. It’s basically cheating. Let’s have the parties compete on actually putting forth policies and candidates that appeal to voters and not allow any one party to have a head start due to gerrymandering.
7
I think we first have to thank Trump and the GOP for providing the motivation that inspired a mass midterm turnout. A turnout inspired by direct open attacks on decency, rule of law, freedom of press and humanity in general. All in the interest of making the rich much more rich at the expense of everyone else. Leadership which relies on division fear hatred and deception to govern is doomed from the beginning in America. That its not who the majority of us are and we rose to the occasion yesterday. Lesson learned here is that complacency is not good for democracy Become complacent and we open the door for sick tyrants like Trump and his supporting cast.
6
So if you eliminate gerrymandering and voter suppression (not to mention hacking of the voting system) you get a Democratic government. And a democracy.
8
Once Trump wins re-election in 2020 he’ll increase the senate and take back the house.
Pelosi is so over her head with Trump.
1
I tire of reading these rosy articles, filled with contortionist-like movements to twist something that was expected - a Democratic takeover of the House - into some revolutionary event. Yes, they won the House but not by an extraordinary measure. And though not expected to keep all their Senate seats, Democrats lost nearly every contested race, particularly the ones where Trump campaigned.
I have longed for the moment when my fellow citizens wake up and realize the ends don’t justify the means. A successful stock market and low unemployment rate isn’t worth the price of a foul-mouthed, classless president whose only desire is to win at any cost. But that didn’t happen. And I don’t expect it to happen in 2020, either. Trump is a master of manipulating the media and getting voters to support him regardless of what he says. Even today’s press conference, which exhibited a nauseating amount of narcissism and arrogance, plays right into Trump’s hands. You think anyone who voted Republican yesterday heard these exchanges and wished they voted Democrat?
We can keep bringing up how Hillary won the popular vote but don’t forget that Trump won nearly 46-48% of the vote. That’s a lot of people and shows how many Americans think he’s worthy of their support. Last night, that number didn’t change as much as I wish it did.
8
Isn't it over simplistic to consider the only explanation for Republican vote in poor rural districts is because they're populated by white supremacists ? May be the Democratic platform is more appealing to dense urban voters than to rural voters.
Democrats did extremely well in upper middle class suburbs, ultra rich urban families don't have same priorities than poor rural families, why should they all vote the same ?
3
In the NC gerrymandered Congressional districts 2, 3, and 9 (all which went for Trump by 12 pts.), went down to the wire in nail-biting elections. In gerrymandered Congressional districts that went for Trump by 12 points (the state went for Trump by 3) a black woman lost by just 4 points, a Jewish lesbian lost by just 3 points, and a white guy lost by 0.6.
Overall, 50.3% of North Carolinians voted for Democratic Congressional candidates. The districts that went to Democrats were won by over 75%. With the exception of just one district, the best the Republicans could do in any of their own gerrymandered districts was 59%.
The best thing? The GOP lost it's gerrymandered super-majority in the North Carolina legislature.
I, for one, am psyched by the results in North Carolina.
4
Nice analysis, thanks. One truth seldom pointed out because it is unlikely uncomfortable to discuss, but Republicans are definitely dying off faster than Democrats, which could definitely shape the future of Senate races. Also, GOP is widely predicted to lurch ever further to the right, turning off most sane people in all states. Trump today was truly unhinged and the gavels haven't even switched ...yet.
4
One factor not noted in this commentary is the effect on the lower level races. Minnesota is a prime example. While MN kept the same split in representatives that went to DC, the increased turnout in the suburban areas (which flipped two seats) led to flipping the state House from Repub to Dem. Many of these are younger folk that could move into higher positions as the years go on. They are also a very diverse group (as is the Congressional team), which should help the Dems grow the party.
8
I personally consider part of "the blue wave" the three outstanding progressive candidates in the Florida and Georgia governor's races and in the Texas senate race, all of whom won the votes of just under 50 percent of voters and increased voter turnout for their parties. Yes, they were edged out by Republicans, but their candidacies, their messages, their methods,and their authenticity were a boost for democratic values in their states.
So great respect and appreciation to Congressman Beto O'Rourke, Mayor Andrew Gillum, and Ms.Stacy Abrams.
38
@kld, could not agree more. I canvassed for Beto and Lizzie in Tx 07, and I saw personally the "Beto bump": people who rarely voted all starry-eyed, eager for change. Lizzie --a wonderful candidate herself-- and others benefited by the star at the top of the ticket. And wow, the number of younger voters. I am sad 2 stars lost on Tuesday (w one still too close to call), but with that charisma, intellect and humanity, I know they will be back. Beto 2020.
2
The blue ripple leaves Dems with a 3 seat majority in the 435 seat house. Trump lost fewer house seats than any President in modern history; plus the fact that most candidates Obama stumped for lost, while 9 of 11 Trump stumped for won. Perhaps it is time for the Democratic party to reassess whether they truly represent what most thinking Americans want from their government.
3
@OldEngineert First of all it's a 28 seat majority in the House not a 3 seat. Also Democrats gained hundreds of legislative seats and secured a majority of state attorneys general throughout the country while flipping 4 states for Governor.
Democrats got more votes than the Tea Party did in 2010.
And you talk about thinking Americans. At the end of the count a solid majority of Americans voted for Democrats in this election. In fact Americans voted for more Democrats in the House, Senate and White House in 2016.
Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression, along with some key Russian influence have put a minority government in power over the majority of the people.
14
@OldEngineerI want to pay the taxes that the very rich were obligated to. The Koch brothers got $1,200,000,000 in tax cuts every year from now on--while we are so lucky, we get our taxes taken out of our paychecks in advance, and a much much higher % than the Koch's. They are very fragile billionaires, needing relief.
4
@OldEngineer: Right now the count on declared races is 223 to 197, so where does this 3-seat majority thing come from? And on your other point, perhaps you should wonder whether or not Democrats should continue to accept the gerrymandering which requires them to win the popular vote by 8 to 10 points in order to win a bare majority. And as for values of "thinking Americans", consider that in the popular vote the Democrats were actually about 12 points above the Republicans. Take all that into account and your blue ripple becomes a blue tsunami.
6
Skimpy analysis. This means that the Repubs most probably control the Senate no matter who is President in 2020. Say goodbye to any reforms or mitigating judicial appointments at that time.
6
The best hope for this country is for middle of the road Democrats and Republicans to form personal cliques and alliances within the Senate -- forming bonds that are stronger than the artificial bonds to the idealogues of far left and far right who dominate each party at present.
That would reflect the bonds that are most typical of the voting public--at least as I experience them in everyday life.
14
@Penseur That used to be true, especially when Congressional families lived in DC as well. Now the bonds are party loyalty above all else.
3
@lee4713: but in the party of Trump, "middle-of-the-road" Republicans are far and few between. They've either died, retired because they can't stomach the current President, or were defeated in the GOP primaries at Trump's instigation. So who does one form these bonds with? I don't see the Tea Party zealots who currently run the Republican party -- the ones who see a decent and workable health care system as a positive evil and prefer bullying and bombast to constructive communication -- as being particularly willing to compromise with anybody about anything.
3
Political coverage and public discourse about elections always focuses on the horserace aspect (who's In, who's Out; can a Prez become a two-termer; etc.). And overall, over time, Democrats seem to me to do just as well as Republicans. BUT, in terms of moving an agenda, serving their constituents, stacking the judiciary, moving the needle on the political "middle", the Republicans when they are In seem to do so much more for their agenda, then Democrats do for ours. It feels more normal to me for Dems to control the "People's House" with the Repub elite controlling the Sen and Exec (like it was more typically back in the day). But Trump doesn't need the House. All he's done (except tax cuts) was by Senate confirming nominations and Executive action. Losing House was critical to his re-election. Dems will make fossil Pelosi speaker and next two years will be Donald versus Nancy and outside of myopic well to do liberals, the Donald is likely to trounce her and use that running back and forth as his springboard to second term. Next two years with REpubs still in control of all three would have been awful, but a blue wave in 2020 ultimately is far more important. I don't consider Pelosi too far left (I think she is a rich, privileged moderate), but Dems need new leadership; they should not at all be impressed by these results.
14
I'm not a statistician, not by a long shot, but my gut tells me that Democrats will have to win the popular vote by around 5,000,000 to win the electoral college in 2020.
My dad taught me as a boy that the US is not a democracy, it's a republic. Ideas matter and the faster those who would appeal to our better angels realize the structural inequities built into our system, the better.
Complaining won't help, we have strategize appropriately.
64
@andy b
Did your dad point out what happened to the Republic of Rome?
1
@andy b Had 100K votes shifted in PA, WI and MI, and Clinton had 5 million fewer votes in NY and CA, she would have won the presidency yet lost the popular vote by three million.
2
@Elizabeth Carlisle Yes.
1
I am so grateful for the large number of voters who turned out across the country and voted for democratic principles. While disappointed we weren't able to take the senate, I believe we will still see great improvement in civility, justice and fairness. Two years was two years too long for the 1% to be the benefactors in our country. Now issues that affect the majority of Americans like healthcare, tax reform and infrastructure will be better addressed.
95
@Sandy Morgan Oh Sandy you're so sweet and also living in a bubble.
1
@Usmcsharpshot It is so wrong to equate kindness and idealism with naivete. The kind and idealistic are the salt of the earth and the ferment that changes society for the better.
1
I was happy to see democrats fared better in St. Louis county than they did in the last election. Senator McCaskill lost statewide, but it was still encouraging that STL Countians saw the error of their 2016 vote.
Not only that, a state campaign finance/redistricting amendment passed as well as a STL county campaign finance limit law.
I hope the millennial voters stay engaged, they are needed for progress on critical issues.
22
Republicans lost fewer in the House than Obama, Bush, and Clinton did.
Republicans gained in the Senate, where the overhaul of the judiciary will proceed apace.
10
Which brings us to the next constitutional crisis. Democrats have the House. They will win the Presidency in 2020, because unless the President undergoes some sort of epiphany which makes St. Paul's look like some sort of minor life-style change, the suburban voters he lost yesterday are not going to come back to him. But the disproportional advantage which small-population rural states enjoy in the Senate makes Democratic control of that body unlikely, at least for the foreseeable future.
The kicker will come after the 2020 elections, when a Republicans follows up on their 2016 shell-game, continue the "overhaul" and makes it clear that a Senate controlled by the party of Trump will not, under any circumstances, allow any Democratic President to make any substantive judicial appointments. The whole Kavanaugh debacle will look like a tempest in a teapot, and I have no idea how that situation is going to be resolved -- or even if it can be.
5
Nate what was impressive was that the Republicans not losing the Senate and all the other races. This is about how people hate the Donald, not able how good Demos are. Both parties should be disbanded. The Constitution has nothing about political parties in it.
1
@stevemr03
They hate the way he lies and uses racial appeals. They hate the way that his voters are either unable to fact-check or are unwilling to hold him accountable for these betrayals of his office. They fear a descent into fascism.
"Both parties" are not equally at fault on these issues.
3
Excellent analysis about the obstacles to overcome. And one more point to make. Many thanks to the citizens that saw Trump and his Administration for what they are, biased, nationalistic, and power hungry. They care nothing for the people, only themselves.
Without those millions of voters and the great Democratic candidates, many fresh faces and women, today would have been tragic for America, and the World.
Thank you voters.
360
@cherrylog754 I wish I could recommend this 100 times!
18
@cherrylog754 I had a full court Democratic press on me. I've never seen anything like it and I'm 62. The grassroots effort by our neighbors was amazing.
15
@cherrylog754- be careful of what you hope for, you may get it. While I agree with what you said about Trump, you don't beat him on identity politics, ie fresh faces(young), and women.
That is what Hillary got herself in trouble with, ie running an identity obsessed campaign that not only ticked off white men but white women. She lost both.
Run a progress campaign on issues that a majority of Americans can agree upon like health care, no corporate welfare etc. etc. not identity obsessed issues.
4
Very helpful analysis. It explains why the "eye test" which revealed unprecedented Democratic mobilization did not match up with the "scoreboard." Like a road team overcoming unfavorable referee calls and a measurable home field advantage. The Democrats, continuing with the sports analogy, need to keep the momentum. Find out what worked (appeal to independents on kitchen table issues, stay out of screaming matches with the Narcissist in Chief), improve on what did not work, and get ready for the next game. No excuses just results.
85
Yes, find out what worked and learn from it! Cannot agree more!
Pelosi is unfortunately a relic and should be replaced by someone, ANYONE, with an ounce of ambition, decent charisma, and the will to keep this machine a’ rolling for the next 2 years.
I agree with your assessment and would add that the result is also due to the resolve among so many in the electorate to eschew the lies and propaganda spewed daily by the President and his band of followers. That awareness was equally impressive and demonstrates how terribly sad it is that there are those who allow themselves to be influenced by him when he clearly uses their fervor for his own needs while not considering their real ones for even a second.
You briefly allude to gerrymandering as a factor, a large one in some places. Voter suppression and intimidation and making actual voting extremely difficult in minority and poorer districts were also very real factors and cannot be discounted.
99
According to Wikipedia "The party of the incumbent president tends to lose ground during midterm elections: over the past 21 midterm elections, the President's party has lost an average 30 seats in the House, and an average 4 seats in the Senate."
I don't admire Trump, but how was this a big load for him?
8
@J. Robert Hunter: because in this election the incumbent President had the benefit of gerrymandering unlike that seen at any time in recent American history. The fact is that the Democrats have to win the popular vote by 8 to 10 points to make any progress at all, and in this case they exceeded that margin. Tie that to Republican losses in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin (all must-win states for Trump in 2020) along with the fact that Democrats now control all the various House oversight committees, and the man has a lot to be worried about. Something which was reflected in all that hyper-aggressive posturing during today's press conference.
6
Please. The Dems knew all this back in the summer, and they were predicting a 60 seat pickup. They will never have a more infuriated and supportive electorate than they had yesterday, and emotions drive turnout. This was the Democratic high-water mark, and it turned out not to be all that high.
14
I have no doubt Trump’s Presidency will keep democratic fury at stratospheric heights.
To the extent he’s a shame to most of the country he’’s a boon to the Democratic party.
1
@Observer of the Zeitgeist Perhaps you didn't read the article. Gerrymandered districts and extreme partisanship have narrowed the range for Congressional power. Democrats will win the popular vote by nearly 10 points, which in a democracy is a huge amount.
1
@Observer of the Zeitgeist
Which Democrats were predicting a 60 seat pickup? Please provide a link. Most estimates I've seen over the past few months had the Democrats picking up 25-40 seats. And that's what they did.
Moreover, the name of the game was always winning the House of Reps., and they accomplished their goal. It was a great night to be a Democrat, despite conservative's efforts at trying to spin their losses away.
2
Yes, this was as big as Obama wave in 2008.
2016 - Hillary/Democrats 48% of popular vote, Trump/GOP : 46 %
2018 - Democrats 51% of popular vote, Trump/GOP 43%
If you added up the states where democrats won the popular vote last night, it would give then 325 or more electoral college votes.
78
@Matt In the right states, such as the upper mid-west it could change the outcome of a presidential race.
11
@Matt
Doesn’t strike you as undemocratic does it? If we turned the scenario around you’d be singing a different tune.....
4
@Matt If you win Governor's mansions, popular vote wins the house. More people voted for Democrats in the house in 2016 than for Republicans, the Republicans had a 47 seat majority. With 2020 redistricting, Democrats with 2018 numbers might win 260 or more seats.
2
Thank you for a bit of good news in a never ending 'wave' of negative "Liberals are doomed" messaging from what seems like every outlet, including the NYT.
14
Thank you, Nate Cohn. It was very impressive, and we hope for more of the same.
5
According to the NY Times own numbers, the latest updates in voting show that approximately 4.2 million more people voted for Democrats in House elections and a startling 12.4 million more people voted for Democrats in the Senate.
People complain about gerrymandering a great deal; and they should. The real growing problem is the misrepresentation of states' populations in the Senate. Rural states with two Senators simply have a statistically easier task of maintaining minority rule, simply due to the disproportional number of Senators based on population. Constitutionally we need to either reduce the number of Senators (based on size of state) or increase the number of Senators (based on size of states); or face a long-term inequity built into our system.
256
@Bryan Bryan sorry to hear your ignorance of the federal government, but not surprised. Please read some history of the founding fathers and their reasoning. And if you subscribe to simple majority rule, why not just call for the abolition of the Senate? Then federalize state governments into subjugation of Washington. No need for independent states, right? Then change the name of the country to simply "America". Cheers.
4
@Bryan ....that "long-term inequity" you mention was indeed built into our system. it wasn't a mistake...it was a deal with those slave states that were rural, sparsely populated relative to the urban centers, and at a disadvantage. unfortunately it isn't going to change - because the incentive hasn't changed (power).
19
@Jack
The Senate is also an echo of the land-based House Of Lords, as is the Canadian Senate. This provides protection for regional or minority interests against the power of the majority.
11
Good spin, the liberal media is trying to spin a stalemate election into a victory. More than anything else the election results demonstrate the mercurial character, the fickleness, of the electorate. Thank you.
4
@Southern Boy
The Republicans had control of the Senate before the election, they still do and still do not have a supermajority.
The Democrats took the House and picked up a number of Governorships.
How is it a stalemate? Do you think the media are reporting fictitious results?
1
@Southern Boy
Before the elections, the Republicans controlled 2 chambers of Congress, the House and the Senate.
After the elections, the Republicans controlled 1 chamber of Congress, the Senate.
Therefore, 2-1=1. That is called a net loss, not a "stalemate."
Glad I could help.
1
@Southern Boy
To S.B. and Raindog63,
Didn't you read the NYT op-eds? There is one that discusses the election results as a stalemate. When one side wins as the Republicans did in the Senate and another wins as the Dems did in the House that's a stalemate. I thought that you informed NYT readers would know that, not us stupid Southern Boys!
Gerrymandering is not the only way that Republicans manipulate the electoral process; Voter suppression and outright cheating are suspected in Texas (machines selecting R senator on straight party-line D option, suspicious locations of power outages) and Georgia (only 1/10th of the number of machines previously used at some black precincts while hundreds sat unused in a warehouse, non-functional machines at other predominately Democratic voting sites, unprotected wifi access to tabulating machines, limited audit points). Also in Georgia, Kemp has been allowed to supervise an election in which he is himself standing, all the while refusing any federal help or oversight.
Does the US Constitution not guarantee the right of citizens to have their vote counted?
Meanwhile the whole winner-take-all first-past-the-post system leaves half of those who actually vote feeling disenfranchised.
The latest RadioLab podcast (https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/tweak-vote) describes how the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system addresses one of the 'wasted votes' issues. Today I am sending in my ballot for a referendum on whether to adopt such a system here in British Columbia, Canada (https://elections.bc.ca/referendum/about-the-referendum/what-are-we-voting-on/). I am choosing the STV (RUP) option. I hope it will result in a more civil and inclusive process.
8
So yes, democrats won the House. And we lost a Senatorial seat. We accomplished an insurmountable feat, especially given the magnitude of gerrymandering and voter suppression existing throughout America.
That is one way to look at it. Another way is this:
We control 53% of the House. We need three GOP votes to overcome ANY Senate action (2 from the "52" + 1 for Pence's tie-breaker), to accomplish ANYTHING legislatively.
This means we cannot legislate anything without trump's approval. If we get 3 Senate votes, his veto power will make us fail. Yet if trump and the GOP/senate wish to, they can arm-twist democrats into "compromising" on one legislation "with the promise" to help on another - which they will not (they will renege on any promise, as Pelosi and Schumer saw occur in 2017 but did not learn from).
trump has executive orders. He will issue more, and ones that further challenge our Constitution. And he knows the Senate will sit by, doing nothing (while blocking the House).
The courts will try to restrict trump's executive orders - but this will become harder and more mired (delayed) as trump installs more of his own judges throughout the federal judiciary (including SCOTUS King Kavanaugh, who is trump's trump-card - Kavanaugh even cried during his hearings to get trump's accolade; Kavanaugh is a trump idolizer).
Mueller cannot get evidence to impeach trump - he can at most jail his lower ranks.
trump is winning his war against our Constitution!
He is dangerous!
8
@IN The House controls all appropriations, which is pretty powerful in itself.
5
@IN Too pessimist by half. The House can get Trump's taxes, they can ensure Mueller's story goes public. And the idea that Mueller can't get evidence of treason or high crimes is nonsense. Don't mistake discretion for failure. The more Mueller has, the more carefully it's kept under wraps. Kavanaugh is a place holder. His past is yet to be fully exposed, and when it does, it's quite possible he'll face trial. At which point, he's off the bench. But isn't that best after 2020?
1
Remember: 1) The Democrats won the popular vote in the Senate elections by a significant number. 2) By comparison, there were very few Republican incumbents who were up for reelection during this election cycle.
This was a great night for Democrats (and by extension, a great night for the United States in protecting its democracy from a fascist agenda).
41
We must resist the urge to rest on our laurels. We must start immediately to not only hold on to our control of the house but also make a crack in the Republican stranglehold on the Senate. I will support financially the Democrats who run against McConnell and Grassley. Democrats need to continue to fight hard, but remain decent. Speaking of decency, I'm glad Kim Davis was voted out.
10
Two African American Democrats were overwhelming favorites to win the crucial Governorships of Georgia and Florida. How did they lose ?
25
@Common ground They were not "overwhelming" favorites but excellent challengers. Don't mistake the number of articles published for their actual content.
Given all that though, the % of difference for traditionally red states was not at all large. 0.6% difference in Texas and the counts still contested in Georgia. Change happens slowly but I bet the next governor's election, these states will turn blue.
12
Overwhelming? Hardly. Most polls had those races neck and neck. Factor in voting suppression, and you've got an answer.
16
Turnout.
3
Even having to run up the down escalator didn't phase the dauntless Democrats. In the timeless wisdom of Mick Jagger, you can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes you get what you need!
8
A majority of about 12 or 13 seats is “impressive?”
Will the partisan spin for the Democrats never stop?
3
@Frank The final total is projected to be around 230 seats for the Dems, and 205 for the Repubs. So, more like 25 seats. And in an age of voter suppression and gerrymandering, yes, that is pretty impressive.
Sorry, you lose.
You need a map that shows how many people each congressional district represents. The standard map shows most of the USA is Red, some of these Red Congressmen represent a handful of people compared to a district in NY or CA or FLA.
28
@Roy Crowe I thought districts were supposed to have an equal number of constituents. Am I wrong?
5
@JFMACC That was the original intention, but then Congress passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929, which established that Congress would always have a constant 435 seats in the House of Representatives.
That's produced a deeply lopsided population-per-district, and has also broken the Electoral College system as originally intended.
We have not been operating according to the designs of the founders for nearly 100 years.
22
@JFMACC
They are roughly equal. In low population (read: rural) states, the constitutional requirement is for 2 Senators and for 1 'at large' House member, no matter how small the population is.
The average population for each House district is about 710,000 residents. However each states population doesn't exactly fit exactly into that formula - a state can't have say 2 1/2 seats - so in smaller states with 1 or 2 or 3 districts, those districts can have fewer or more than the 710,000 figure.
1
If you look at historical midterms Trump and crew had a massive victory, not losing as many in the midterm as Obama or many other presidents except Regan. NYT has the stats recently, if would be good that they printed them again just to show how successful this was for Trump.
4
@Tony J Mann: Or you could look at it like this. Obama and the Democrats had the congressional districts heavily gerrymandered against them in 2010 and 2014. Trump had that gerrymandering working in his favor, and still lost heavily. His candidates were soundly defeated in Pennsylvania and Michigan and Scott Walker lost in Wisconsin -- all must-win states for him in 2020. Frankly, under the circumstances the Democrats did as well as could be reasonably expected.
2
@Tony J Mann
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but having the House of Reps, then losing the House of Reps, does not qualify as a victory.
The Democrats had a good night. They need to parlay this momentum into a presidential victory in 2020 with an Andrew Cuomo/Beto O’Rourke ticket.
3
@Aaron VanAlstine Nay to Cuomo. Married to a Kennedy. Dad, Mario, was also New York governor, blah blah blah. Can't we get someone outside the circle of insiders????
@Aaron VanAlstine Bring it on!
Thank you for the expertise.
Astute GOP operatives know this. That is why they are stepping up the lying, and moving quickly.
Republicans are in a panic. None more so than their cult leader.
When people panic, they often act rashly, compounding the trouble they are in.
3
For the good news for Dems the media missed ... Ten, count 'em 10, Texas Republican Congressman won with less than 55 percent of the vote (and that doesn't count the 2 that lost) despite the fact that districts are the most gerrymandered on the planet:
District 2 - 53.01 percent
District 3 - 54.25 percent
District 6 - 53.13 percent
District 10 - 50.91 percent
District 21 - 50.34 percent
District 23 - 49.14 percent [race still to be decided]
District 24 - 50.67 percent
District 25 - 53.61 percent
District 31 - 50.65 percent
And that all happened with a bunch of "no name/virtually invisible Democratic statewide candidates" (except for Beto O'Rourke). So tell me again how red a state Texas is?
12
@No Trace The media ignored the same in North Carolina. It doesn't fit their narrative about "The South".
I remember hearing, with gerrymandering, Dems will never ever have the house again.
If Trump had a lock on things, Dems could not take the house.
Dems took the house.
That's not nothing.
Trump should be scared.
44% may love him. But 56% don't, and it is not dislike, they hate him.
And now they have a giant pitchfork.
Trump absolutely deserves anything he gets from an angry house.
15
BIG BEAUTIFUL BLUE WAVE
3
If we really want our representative democracy to survive, we need to make sure our elected leaders actually reflect the people. With all of these structural disadvantages--created by the lust for power by Republicans--the Democrats made me very proud. The House is now halfway to equal representation of women. And many more Americans have a seat at the table. The fight for equality has been nudged forward once again, continuing the brave work of Americans in the past. There are many nudges left to come.
10
This is what redistricting has gotten us to. In 2010, Republicans won the popular vote by 6% and as a result, got a net gain of 63 seats. In 2018, Democrats won with a larger margin (I've heard anywhere from 6% to 9%) and will gain only 35 seats. How is this fair or equitable?
44
The Democrats will continue to be at a disadvantage in House elections until redistricting is taken away from the politicians and put into the hands of an independent redistricting panel. The Senate is a different problem, how do we convince a million people to move to the Dakotas and Wyoming or at least move from LA and San Francisco to Los Vegas and Reno.
22
Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. And make Cali 3 states.
3
@Joe Barnett If we could just get some Seattleites to move to Spokane (where homes are still amazingly affordable, everyone) or get some Portlanders to cross the Columbia River to Vancouver, WA, we'd be able to flip those two congressional districts pretty easily. Talk to your bosses people! :)
2
A system that consistently denies political power to the same majority of people in a country is not sustainable and not a democracy.
70
@David A.You don't know what you're talking about. Have you heard that one house of congress represents the people aka 'the people's house' and the other represents the states? Have you read about the writing of the Constitution?
@ComradeBrezhnev The constitution was written at a time when the country was uncertain about the sovereign nature of states. That issue was settled in 1865. There is nothing especially constitutional about the state boundaries. Right now Wyoming with less population than Flatbush has 2 senators of its very own. How about making Wyoming, Montana and Idaho a single state? Sure it would be big, but so is Texas and Alaska. And you could get from one end to the other faster today than a founding father could traverse Delaware in 1789.
8
@ComradeBrezhnev: You miss the point. The fact is that a political arrangement which was (arguably) workable in 1789 had morphed into something best described as suicidal by 1860. Failure to adapt almost destroyed the country then, and it might well do in the future. For example -- in the present day -- how long do you expect Democrats to quietly accept a system which requires them to win the popular vote by 8 to 10 points to win a bare majority in the House or electoral college? Which makes a vote from California or New York worth a fraction of that of a vote from Wyoming or North Dakota? And which -- as a result -- makes the Senate pretty much unwinnable under any circumstances at all. That can't last forever.
7
The message I keep hearing is that Democrats should console themselves with continually getting more votes, even if it doesn't really result in any more influence or power. We have a 2 party system where the party who gets fewer votes will continue winning presidential elections, will continue wielding more power in the senate and will continue seating judges to the supreme court.
23
@Mike B
I agree. So, what’s the solution?
1
@Mike B
We actually have a 3-party system: Republicans, Democrats and Greens, the party that continuously takes votes away from Democrats and gives elections to Republicans. The Arizona senatorial race, while not yet called, is leaning toward the Republucan. The Green candidate, with only 2% of the vote, took votes far in excess for the Democrat to win. Thanks Green Party. Your stubborn hubris strikes once again.
3
@Nova yos Galan
The Green party, which is not Green anyway due to their immigration policies, should be renamed the Democratic Spoiler/Republican Guarantor party.
I have Green friends and they actually say they would not change their vote to Hillary if they had a chance for a do -- over. Then they prattle on about not being willing to vote for the lesser of two evils. So they insure the greater, far far far far greater of two evils.
Nader was actually someone who had accomplished something worthwhile in life before he put Bush II in the White House. Jill Stein accomplished only putting Trump in the White House.
Lordy, I am so sick of their self absorption.
Pre-mature republican retirements softened the ground much more than in the usual cycle.
4
@TD
They weren't pre-mature, per se. A lot of those folks left because they knew in the wake of Trump they may very well have had a tough re-election campaign and might lose. A lot of them left because they don't want to work in Trump-land politics anymore.
12
Thank you for setting the record straight. This was indeed a wave election, despite media treatments that fail to factor the Democrats' terrible structural disadvantages, and as though anything short of sweeping the ruby-red states proves our hopes naive and overblown.
The "incredible triumph" was ours, Trump--sorry, not sorry. Have those tax returns ready.
130
The unstated problem is that we do not live in a democratic nation in any electoral sense. We live in a federalist republic.
When we can casually note that Democrats will almost always win the national popular vote, and almost never win the Senate (not to mention often losing the House, and twice the Presidency in this century), how can we call this a democracy?
For a long time this was "acceptable" for a few reasons. First, the political parties were more clubs than ideological homes. Elected Democrats and Republicans covered the political spectrum which made compromise and bipartisan legislation possible. This has radically changed in the past 25 years.
Second, throughout the entire 20th century, no one lost the popular vote but won the presidency, but it has now happened twice in the span of 16 years.
Lastly, Americans used to be much less partisan in their voting habits. Yes there were the regional differences, especially regarding race. And of course there were the rural vs urban differences. But nothing as pronounced as what has emerged in the 21st century, particularly on a cultural level. It is as if we occupy different countries. But we elect people to represent all of us and the deck is completely stacked to favor rural conservatives even though they are not even close to a majority. Oh and of course, the socially liberal, but economically wealthy elites are happy to have their votes help them maintain the status quo.
Democracy it ain't. And it can't last.
215
@AA This line of thinking is wrong for 1 good reason and 1 bad reason:
Good: The entire point of federalism is to cool the impulsive nature of the electorate (Americans are nothing if not impulsive). We need progress to be methodical and that has allowour nation to end without fractur3 for since 1865.
Bad: Urban and close suburban residents already excercise disproportionate influence on our cultural and financial lives. There is vast inequality in living and working outside of NY, or even Houston, than out in the country. For all the talk about reducing inequality, the Senate is the best tool there is for that.
3
@Arturo I'd be on board - if the Senate actually reduce inequality - Get us back to the tax rates of 1953?
https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1953
You might see an article that those in the top brackets did not pay that much more - I suspect this is because it was not culturally acceptable to pay 400x the average employee - and it would have been taxed away anyway.
The Senate seems to increase inequality.
Technology is increasing the ability for inequality to increase - will that be sustainable? Will the population accept that difference? I'm afraid we are going to find out.
11
@AA
Democracies don't last. We need to preserve the institutions of our constitutional republic.
1
Great win through massive grassroots efforts!
Personally, and as a Democrat, I find it incredibly painful to watch Pelosi take the mic and assume the leadership of the new majority. While she's obviously very bright and capable of inspiring large donors to come forward, she had very little to do with inspiring the flood of small donors who gave money and time in droves. When speaking to a crowd of, presumably, insiders last night, she didn't look at the camera and congratulate the masses, she looked at her audience and congratulated them for the win. I know it's subtle, but it mattered to me.
Further, in her speech today, she waxed the philosophic. As someone prone to this myself, it has taken me years of leading teams to realize the potential impact this behavior. Specifically, it disengages people. When trying to engage and inspire, she needs to keep her language simple and to the point, i.e. "Democrats are here to hold government accountable, to make sure health care stays put, to prevent the GOP from giving away any more of your tax dollars to the .01%, and to make sure social security and medicare dollars go where they should."
PLEASE Congresswoman Pelosi, step aside and be the great mentor you can be to a younger inspiration voice in the house!!!
106
@Aleutian Low yes, amen 100%.
and it will NOT happen. she does what she does for HERSELF...just like pretty much all of them.
there is a reason she will hold power - it's called fund raising. unfortunately, the kind of folks good at it, tend to be establishment, boring, stats-oriented. you aren't going to get warren or sanders. you're going to get a more ethical version of mitch mcconnell in a dress.
now rub your eyes hard to get that image out of your head!
1
This! I've been saying this for years. Despite her many admirable achievements, Ms. Pelosi is considered toxic by far too many of the people we need to restore progressive policies to our troubled nation.
This very nearly cost my new Congressman, Joe Cunningham, his incredible victory in SC1. Nasty PAC ads flooded our TV stations, claiming that Joe would be a stooge for NP, despite his having stated he wouldn't vote for her as party leader. These ads would have made Goebbels proud.
This is no reflection on NP, but, sadly, perceptions are often far more important than reality. Yes, you can argue that NP's replacement would be treated the same way, but at least they would have a chance to establish their own legacy as party leader. If she, Steny Hoyer, & SC's own James Clyburn insist on controlling the levers of power for the next two years, expect a Republican-controlled House, and worse, in 2020.
2
@Aleutian Low:
Ms. Pelosi is experienced enough to ward off trump's attacks. A junior congressperson will be fooled by trump.
This is not a normal situation where we need someone to "talk back" to trump. We need someone with sufficient experience, political power, and chutzpah to adequate de-fang trump's expected personal vitriolic attacks.
Ms. Pelosi is one of few democrats capable of doing this. Her job right now is not to build the democratic base, or to help our party.
It is ONLY to restrain trump's continuing power grab.
He now shows dictatorial behavior, and his psychology and megalomania reveal that he is a serious threat to our democracy - with no-one in the GOP being strong enough to even curtail him.
1
Nice charts. The colors are beautiful. Now brace for the next Supreme Court nominee.
13
This may be true, but the structural disadvantages facing the Democratic Party are not going away. A relatively good Election Night in 2018 does not make the Dems’ chances of winning the Electoral College in 2020 look any better. The fact is that the Electoral College system, like the Senate, gives disproportionate weight to the votes of people in rural states with small populations— people whose views increasingly diverge from the views of the majority of Americans. Until these rural white baby boomers die off, or the electoral system is overthrown, or partisan gerrymandering is dismantled (fat chance), I fear that Democrats will not be able to mount a strong enough opposition to the GOP. The US population is going to get younger, more urban, and more diverse, but our political system will not represent that as much as it should.
275
@Michael W As noted by 538.com, the Democrats didn't lose the 2016 election because of the distortion caused by over-weighting small states in the Electoral College but rather because they only won 3 of the 10 largest states.
Something that could be done to help the democratic process without changing the Constitution is to create more Congressional districts. The UK has 650 MPs, or about 1 MP for every 100,000 people. The US has over 700,000 people in every Congressional District. Going to smaller districts would make the House more representative of the public's voting preferences. It would also reduce, but not eliminate, the over-representation that small states have in the Electoral College.
50
@Michael W - it is not a function of age but education, experience, religion, economics. and unfortunately, that means that boomers dying off won't change anything. remember those boomers were supposedly the hippies of the sixties! agree on electoral college. trump...despite his pathetically small mind and abilities...probably will go the way of reagan (2nd term) as opposed to another joe mccarthy or father coughlin. we can hope tho and stay motivated and engaged.
10
@Michael W For the good news for Dems the media missed ... Ten, count 'em 10, Texas Republican Congressman won with less than 55 percent of the vote (and that doesn't count the 2 that lost) despite the fact that districts are the most gerrymandered on the planet:
District 2 - 53.01 percent
District 3 - 54.25 percent
District 6 - 53.13 percent
District 10 - 50.91 percent
District 21 - 50.34 percent
District 23 - 49.14 percent [race still to be decided]
District 24 - 50.67 percent
District 25 - 53.61 percent
District 31 - 50.65 percent
And that all happened with a bunch of "no name/virtually invisible Democratic statewide candidates" (except for Beto O'Rourke). Going into 2020, Texas Democrats will have tens of thousands of fired up, experienced volunteers ready to do the leg work, the phone work, the fundraising, and everything else needed to push more Democrats over the line.
37
2018 election is one more clear sign that the Democrats need to
enlarge their political tent once again, to make a greater appeal particularly to demographic, educational, and income groups that were at one time their solid base.
Those fly over States in the midwest, north central, mountain States and the South, were solidly Democratic at one time.
They have collectively a decisive number of Senatorial seats and electoral votes in the presidential election.
Democrats need to win back lower income and lesser educated
white men, get them back into the bigger tent the Democratic Party was historically but no longer is.
6
Democrats won many "fly over" places. Maybe you didn't see WI. MI, KS or IL? Just saying.
Senate map was HORRIBLE for dems this time. Yet they won MT and let's see about AZ. Won NV too. CO Gov as well won. Relax.
@David
And those southern democratic states went republican after the Civil Rights act....
Democrats' House victories were hard to accomplish and they are to be congratulated for fielding so many good candidates.
But their losses in the Senate are fatal. The courts will be filled with far right judges who have ultimate power over legislation. We are in for a dark time. Our constitution has failed us when an 8 million voter majority for Senate race voting results in losing the Senate. We are in the throes of a Constitutional crisis and no one has any clue about how to solve it which is actually doable.
189
@San Francisco Voter, Oh for heaven’s sake, hang up the crying towel and get a grip. Those of us from those rural states with smaller populations are citizens of the same country as you are. Or are they? Those of you in CA might as well have seceeded from the United States as your ideas certainly do not reflect the values of much of our nation. Our Founding Fathers were very wise men to create a republic, not a true democracy.
1
@San Francisco Voter Crisis? What Crisis? When Democrats don't win by the rules, the rules need changing? Like Dirty Harry did in the Senate, which of course came back as a curse?
Have you studied Constitutional history and disagree with the reasoning of the founders? BTW why does SF spend $70 million per year scooping up human waste from the sidewalks of a once beautiful city?
2
@India And don't forget, much of CA is rural and Republican - the North, and the Central Valley for sure. Cheers
2
My son played on a really lousy soccer team when he was eight. After every loss, while driving home, he and his buddy would analyze the game for instances of referee unfairness and other missed calls. Every week, by the time we pulled into the driveway, they'd recalculated the score to show that in truth, they had won.
This article is from the same playbook. Sorry.
12
@Lydia except for the fact where the Democrats took over the House, and gained 7 governorships.
13
@Lydia funny...but no, wrong. the author backs it up. take note of his points about redistricting, # of seats up in senate, safe v. vulnerable offices.
Senate only lost TWO dems...one of whom did the ethical thing about kavanaugh knowing it would cost her seat.
10
Democrats need to start standing for people outside the cities instead of complaining that the system gives more power to rural voters. Stop lecturing and explaining. Come up with an answer to MAGA that is equally punchy.
11
@Dan Ari - Dan I definitely agree with part of what you're saying...specifically focusing less on social justice causes and more on economics. In other words, champion the cause the 'common man' loudly - that is the ones who are straight, white, limited education, and MALE...while quietly also advancing the rights of the disenfranchised.
In other words, our collective words can match our current agenda...without precluding historical sources of support (white working class). It does require, however, less talk about transgender rights, immigrant rights, rainbow coalitions.
Remember, however, it doesn't mean LEAVING those principles behind...just not throwing them forward in a self-righteous way...that clearly alienates too many voters.
At this point, I would be willing to try this approach and so should you all...since we desperately need a much more progressive set of politicians than we have and are likely to have on our current tack.
18
@Dan Ari
Democrats have answered MAGA with programs that work for rural America. Democrats care about things like fertilizer run-off and the impact of agribusiness on rural communities. Democrats want to make sure rural people aren't ripped off by predatory loans and that veterans have health care. However rural America continually votes for the party that undermines them based on, yes, the identity politics of the mythical endangered white midwestern Christian. Plus, rural America believes, against all logic, the fear-mongering lies such as the "open borders" smear Republicans used against Amy McGrath.
Frankly, I'm tired of being lectured and explained to by rural citizens why I am somehow not equal to them --the "real" Americans--and how wanting to be educated makes me "elite" despite the fact that I don't have a salary to match that epithet.
Rural America has been beaten down and their zeal for MAGA only makes them seem punch drink.
13
I love the spin, keep telling yourself this. The democratic party owns popular culture, owns the media, owns education and has the most money and the still can't convince everyday Americans that their leftist/progressive agenda is the way to go. I am so proud of this country right now. Trump will win big in 2020!
7
@JP. I really don't understand how one can support the republican agenda. Fear, money, bigotry, misogyny, tax breaks for the wealthy, etc. What makes you support them?
79
@JP "Everyday Americans"... actually, "everyday" Americans are increasingly located in urban areas where their votes count for less than the more atypical Americans in rural areas that support Trump. Actually, "everyday" Americans don't support Trump. Remember, he lost the popular vote. The electoral college and the Senate -- which lopsidedly protect the ability of a minority of rural citizens to project their views onto us "everyday" Americans are the only thing keeping the GOP in power.
120
@JP Seeing that over twelve million more Americans voted for a Democrat rather than a Republican candidate for Senate your glee in how your party can manipulate the rotten borough aspect of the Constitution has nothing to do with not convincing "everyday Americans" but the wisdom of a criminal who knows the fix is in. If the further structural impediments like extreme gerrymandering are ever addressed your party will end up in the dust bin of history.
13
Given the Trump environment, the fact that the D party significantly underperformed should be embarrassing. Again, the approach is to declare victory and make excuses. An honest accounting would be more useful. If Beto for example had cared one whit about independents, he would have one easily. Extremism from either side of the spectrum is short term at best. I mean really, he spent $70M and list to Ted Cruz.
4
@Tim Kulhanek
I don't think it's the Democratic party who has anything to be embarrassed about. Rather, it's the voting public who should feel embarrassed for how they voted.
Beto, extremist? That just shows how narrow the political spectrum is in the US and how the right wing--despite their whining about the "liberal media"--controls the narrative through inapt and just plain incorrect labels.
12
Beto came within striking distance. In Texas. That's not for nothing.
7
@Tim Kulhanek
You obviously never watched Beto campaign. He did it in a most dignified manner , unlike Cruz, and avoided partisan attacks, unlike Cruz to appeal to all Texans.
And also , democrats won big, very very big last night winning the popular vote again , now with almost 9% margin, something GOP has almost never ever done.
13