11-12-2018, 08:56 AM
(11-12-2018, 01:46 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: You put Illinois in blue when it should be red in your color scheme.
Correction made. Thank you.
Quote:I believe that's 284 electoral votes for the Democrat running in 2020, which agrees with Meet the Press on NBC today which made a similar count.
I show ME-02 still contested due to a runoff. So far the Republican won the first round, but most expect the current, incumbent Republican to lose to the Democrat.
Quote:Not only Florida but North Carolina is problematic because of the uncontested races that would boost the party not leading otherwise. So although NC shows Republicans leading, the vote in the district uncontested would probably change those results, if no votes were counted in that district Tuesday.
Failure to count the uncontested seats under-counts the number of people in such districts who know that their vote for a nominee of their Party for a House seat is meaningless, whichever way that goes. Figure that in practically all districts, the opposition Party that does not contest a seat (campaigning is expensive, and losing badly does not add to one's prospects in later elections) might get 15-20% of the vote. Add those votes into a Presidential race, and those could aid the Party that can't find someone to contest the seat in an underfunded campaign.
Another fault is that a current Representative may be more personable and better at constituent service than not only a challenger, but also less offensive than the current President or his eventual challenger.
So what do I have? You will notice that I have some Democrats winning Senate seats in states that Donald Trump won, but in which the Republicans got the majority of the vote for the House -- Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia, of course... highly-likely Arizona, and possibly (although I expect the Supreme Court to rule in favor the Florida GOP --shades of 2000!) Florida.
Note also that the 2018 election is a midterm election. 78.6 million people voted in Senate elections for someone having a meaningful chance of getting elected, 44.8 million people voting for either the Democrat or for an independent nominee expected to caucus with the Republicans. The 4.4 million who voted for others includes 3.2 million who voted for the 'second' Democrat in basically a runoff following a jungle primary in California, the runoff part of the general election. Draw your own conclusion about what that means. It is California, which hardly anyone thinks is in range of Donald Trump in 2020.
The total number of people participating in the Senate election of 2014 is up -- way up! -- from roughly 42 million people making meaningful (not wasted) votes for Senators. In 2014, Republicans won 24 of 36 Senate seats up for grabs; in 2018 Democrats won 22 of 32. More Democrats were vulnerable in 2018 than were Republicans.
Midterms do not get the attention of Presidential elections. In 2016, 128.8 million voted for the Democrat or the Republican with 137.1 million voting altogether (which includes Johnson, Stein, McMullen, "none of the above", ineligible people like Barack Obama and George W. Bush, and such political luminaries as "Mickey Mouse" and "Bugs Bunny"). Roughly 90 million made meaningful votes for Senators in 2016 (there will always be fewer Senatorial votes than Presidential votes in a Presidential election because, typically, roughly 2/3 of states have Senate elections).
Quote:What is striking is how limited the blue wave was (using the usual reversed color scheme from your map). It washed up mainly in blue states, and the country remains strongly divided.
The 2018 election had unusually-heavy participation for a midterm election. People who had not voted before did vote, far offsetting people who no longer voted (deceased, incarcerated, incapable of voting due to senility, or emigrated). I'm guessing that late-wave X (who lean much more liberal than first-wave X) and Millennial voters voted in greater numbers. So did many who got their citizenship.
The Republican Party did not lose many of its once-reliable voters; they have found everyone who can vote for the current Republican ideology in 2018, and they are unlikely to find more. I expect the increase in participation in 2020 from 2016 to be roughly the difference between the 2014 and 2018 midterm elections. Younger voters do not like what the current GOP has to offer, and even older voters are approaching an even split. Maybe those older voters are finding that the Republican Party is badly serving their kids (and sons-in-laws and daughters-in-law) and grandchildren badly.
If the general election of 2020 has the same demographics as 2018 among voters, then the Democrats will get 284 electoral votes at the least no matter whom they nominate based on House elections alone. That is every (Hillary) Clinton state, the three states that Trump most barely won (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), and Iowa. Republicans will lose Senate seats in Colorado, Iowa, and Maine at a minimum. With a Democrat winning the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency (the VP becoming the President of the Senate and casting the deciding vote during even splits of the vote), such will give a Senate majority.
The projection that I offer here is quite conservative.
Yes, America remains badly polarized, and Donald Trump has done nothing to reduce that. He is also preaching to the choir, so to speak.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.