Blue Waves and Red Waves

[carpedm9587]

There was the big fuss about the "labor participation rate" which was horribly high under Obama, and I was gonna post data to prove that, but the data isn't (aren't?) showing what I want it to show, so I'm not gonna post it.

Good call...

And I am reasonably sure that the labor participation rate fell. After all, when unemployment is at 10%, some amount of the population is going to get discouraged and hang it up. That's pretty much to be expected. When unemployment drops, most of those who have not died or retired will eventually return.

[carpedm9587]

So another "toss-up" has shifted left, and RCP now says that 202 districts are leans/likely/solid Democratic with 191 districts leans/likely/solid Republican, and 42 districts in the "Toss-Up" category. Democratic control of the house seems more and more assured. Democrats are given a 33% chance of taking the Senate, so that one is more "iffy." It requires them to take 7 of the 9 toss-up seats.

Every indication, however, is that a "blue wave" is building. The only question is how high will it go? In some record midterms, we've seen as much as a 70-seat shift. Could it get that high? I'm thinking VERY possibly...

[Bill the Cat]

So another "toss-up" has shifted left, and RCP now says that 202 districts are leans/likely/solid Democratic with 191 districts leans/likely/solid Republican, and 42 districts in the "Toss-Up" category. Democratic control of the house seems more and more assured. Democrats are given a 33% chance of taking the Senate, so that one is more "iffy." It requires them to take 7 of the 9 toss-up seats.

Every indication, however, is that a "blue wave" is building. The only question is how high will it go? In some record midterms, we've seen as much as a 70-seat shift. Could it get that high? I'm thinking VERY possibly...

Polls... snicker...

[Sparko]

I don't have a clue what will happen in November. But one thing to consider is that a lot of Republicans, being conservative, don't go around making a lot of noise about what they are going to do. They just show up at the polls and do it. I think that is a bit of what messed up the predictions at the last election.

But since the coming elections are all state and state congressional elections, it will probably go based on whether the state is typically Republican or Democrat. There are a few states that are likely to switch one way or the other, but most states, like California or New York, are pretty entrenched in their chosen party.

[carpedm9587]

Polls... snicker...

I do SO hope the right keeps thinking that way...

[carpedm9587]

I don't have a clue what will happen in November. But one thing to consider is that a lot of Republicans, being conservative, don't go around making a lot of noise about what they are going to do. They just show up at the polls and do it. I think that is a bit of what messed up the predictions at the last election.

I doubt it. It may have been a slight factor, but I suspect the effect was dominated by other far more important factors (e.g., CDS - the Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Clinton's stupid "deplorables" comment, the presumptive win attitude, the last-minute Comey letter, the barrage of fake news concerning the Clintons from several sources, the lack of effort in clearly critical states, etc.). Remember that Trump won by less than 100,000 votes in 3 states. It was a squeaker.

But since the coming elections are all state and state congressional elections, it will probably go based on whether the state is typically Republican or Democrat. There are a few states that are likely to switch one way or the other, but most states, like California or New York, are pretty entrenched in their chosen party.

Maybe. But that's not what the numbers are saying, and it's not what all of the special elections that have happened since November 2016 are saying. All of them sung to the left by 10-20 points. That wasn't enough to win elections that had a prior history of a 20-30 point gap, but it was enough to make some of them squeakers that really should not have been. The problem Republicans are facing is that there are over 70 districts currently held by Republicans that are UNDER a 10-20 point gap. If all of the elections swing to the left like the special elections, this could be the biggest wave election in the history of our country (I think the record is 70 seats). But it doesn't even have to come CLOSE to that. 25 seats is the magic number.

At this point, it is hard to see how Republicans can possibly hold the House. The question is, will they also lose the Senate? THAT is far less likely, but still possible.

Unfortunately, if Dems don't take the Senate in 2018, they are VERY likely to take it in 2020, when the foot is in the other shoe (so to speak). This cycle Dems are defending 25 seats and Reps are defending 8. But in 2020 the situation is reversed. AND there is a presidential election with an electorate that has a significant degree of disapproval and outright hatred for this president. There is a significant probability that Reps will lose both houses AND the executive - and complete swing to the left. At that point, I'll be rooting for Republicans to retake the house. It is not a good thing when any one party has too many of the levers of power.

[carpedm9587]

The tide just continues to shift to the left. Four more districts have shifted from "toss-up" to "leans/likely/solid" Dem, bringing the total to 206 Dems, 191 Reps, and 38 toss-ups. That means Dems need take only 1/3 of the toss-ups to secure the house. Likelier and likelier.

Senate is unchanged and most odds-makers are giving Dems a 1/3 chance. They need to take 7 of the 9 toss-up races. But that's better than a few weeks ago when they needs to take 6 of 6. Still, I think the Senate is likely to stay in Rep hands, Kavanaugh is likely to be confirmed (I am a bit dubious about the new allegations and many Dems cannot afford to stand against him given their tenuous hold on deeply red states - creating a catch-22).

My best guess: Dems take the house in a significant (maybe historic) wave election. Senate stays Rep. Then, in 2020, it is entirely possible that the Senate flips and the house reverts to Rep control. I still think there is little chance Trump can win a second term. There is simply too much tide against him and his "base" is not enough.

[Terraceth]

I still think there is little chance Trump can win a second term. There is simply too much tide against him and his "base" is not enough.

Enh, too much can happen in 2 years for real speculation now. That said, it is hard to see how Trump can win re-election unless he does something to considerably bolster his popularity or the Democrats nominate someone unpopular again.

[carpedm9587]

Enh, too much can happen in 2 years for real speculation now. That said, it is hard to see how Trump can win re-election unless he does something to considerably bolster his popularity or the Democrats nominate someone unpopular again.

Over 40% of those who disapprove of Trump "disapprove strongly." That number has shifted a bit over the months, but it seems that 3-4% people drift between "disapprove moderately and disapprove strongly." Of those who approve of Trump, only 26-27% "approve strongly" and there's only about 1% drift between "approve moderately" and "approve strongly."

The evidence suggests, after almost two years, that Trump's supporters are not going to abandon him, but Trumps detractors are likewise not going to join him. The a total disapproval rating at over 50%, and only 5% "on the fence," it's not clear to me Trump has much of a chance. Of course, as you point out, the election is 2 years out and we don't know who the Dems will choose. As for "choosing someone "unpopular," I think it's a foregone conclusion that Reps will find a reason to hate anyone the Dems picks. We also don't know what other things may happen between now and then. Maybe Trump will even be primaried (though I doubt he would lose such a contest given his broad support among Reps). The best we can say, right now, is that 2020 looks hopeful. I am SO looking forward to giving this man a loud "you're fired!"

[Terraceth]

The evidence suggests, after almost two years, that Trump's supporters are not going to abandon him, but Trumps detractors are likewise not going to join him. The a total disapproval rating at over 50%, and only 5% "on the fence," it's not clear to me Trump has much of a chance. Of course, as you point out, the election is 2 years out and we don't know who the Dems will choose. As for "choosing someone "unpopular," I think it's a foregone conclusion that Reps will find a reason to hate anyone the Dems picks.

Even if the Republicans will find a reason to dislike anyone the Democrats pick, I'm not sure how that contradicts what I said. Hillary was a legitimately unpopular and disliked candidate. Had the Democrats picked Bernie Sanders, I think they would have won. Granted, in some alternate timeline maybe he did beat Sanders and people said "oh, if only they had nominated Hillary" so that can't be sure, but the fact is that Hillary was just not a particularly liked candidate. Granted, neither was Trump, but at least there were some people really excited about him which is less true of Hillary.

To paraphrase what I once saw someone say in relation to the 2004 and 2012 elections: "The guy some people really hate will generally beat the guy no one really likes." To be honest, that was shown again in 2016.

We also don't know what other things may happen between now and then. Maybe Trump will even be primaried (though I doubt he would lose such a contest given his broad support among Reps).

The question to me is less about whether he's lose a primary but what would happen if he did. Specifically, what Trump would do as a result, i.e. if he'd just accept it (as Grant did) or if he'd run as a third party candidate which would all but guarantee victory for Democrats.

[carpedm9587]

Even if the Republicans will find a reason to dislike anyone the Democrats pick, I'm not sure how that contradicts what I said. Hillary was a legitimately unpopular and disliked candidate.

We can agree on "unliked." We probably will disagree on "legitimately."

Had the Democrats picked Bernie Sanders, I think they would have won.

Agreed, though neither of us could actually prove that assertion.

Granted, in some alternate timeline maybe he did beat Sanders and people said "oh, if only they had nominated Hillary" so that can't be sure, but the fact is that Hillary was just not a particularly liked candidate.

Agreed.

Granted, neither was Trump, but at least there were some people really excited about him which is less true of Hillary.

"Less" is at dispute. The fact is, she won the popular vote. Unfortunately, our country operates on the electoral vote - which she ignored (to her demise).

To paraphrase what I once saw someone say in relation to the 2004 and 2012 elections: "The guy some people really hate will generally beat the guy no one really likes." To be honest, that was shown again in 2016.

I'd have to think about that one...

The question to me is less about whether he's lose a primary but what would happen if he did. Specifically, what Trump would do as a result, i.e. if he'd just accept it (as Grant did) or if he'd run as a third party candidate which would all but guarantee victory for Democrats.

Indeed. But if Trump lost the primary...I suspect he'd tuck tail and go home. Losing twice is not something his ego can handle...

On the other hand, he might actually be deluded enough to think he could win...

[carpedm9587]

And another district just slipped from "leans/likely/solid" Rep to "toss-up," making the count 206 "leans/likely/solid" Dem, 190 "leans/likely/solid" Rep, and 39 toss-ups. 14 seats currently held by Reps are "leans/likely/solid" Dem. 1 seat currently held by Dems is "leans/likely/solid" Rep. 37 of the toss-up seats are currently held by Reps.

The house is looking very good. The Senate is still a narrow squeak, if it is possible at all. But the house would at least be a start to rebalancing the government.

[Cow Poke]

But the house would at least be a start to rebalancing the government.

In your estimation, when was it "balanced" the last time, and what, perzackly, does that mean?

[carpedm9587]

In your estimation, when was it "balanced" the last time, and what, perzackly, does that mean?

I think we have a significant problem when all branches of the federal government are in the hands of one party, as they are now. It's made worse when a significant majority of state governments are also in the hands of that same party. Currently the Republicans have a trifecta at the federal level and (with Kavanaugh) will extend that to a quadfecta. I can't remember the last time the fed was so unbalanced. Republicans also have a trifecta in 26 states compared to 8 Democratic trifectas and 16 states with mixed control. We never achieve perfect balance, of course, but that is BADLY skewed to the right.

So "balanced" means that there are different parties in control of different parts of the government. It helps provide for some of the checks and balances our system was intended to have, which is so badly missing today.

[Sparko]

And another district just slipped from "leans/likely/solid" Rep to "toss-up," making the count 206 "leans/likely/solid" Dem, 190 "leans/likely/solid" Rep, and 39 toss-ups. 14 seats currently held by Reps are "leans/likely/solid" Dem. 1 seat currently held by Dems is "leans/likely/solid" Rep. 37 of the toss-up seats are currently held by Reps.

The house is looking very good. The Senate is still a narrow squeak, if it is possible at all. But the house would at least be a start to rebalancing the government.

for a 'centrist' you seem oddly giddy about possibility of the left winning in November.