Friends, good news! The 2018 midterm elections have already happened...inside my head, and the results are in! Republicans won big! To put it another way, the official WaddyIsRight predictions for the midterms (destined soon to be proven RIGHT) are ready and available for your review.
First, take a gander at this article, which oozed out of the odious cesspool that is the NBC newsroom just today. The article is missing an historical analysis of the figures on early voting it provides, but the message is clear: if there's going to be a blue wave, there's no sign of it in the profile of the voters who have already cast ballots. Could NBC be sending a message to its leftist constituency: Be Afraid -- Be VERY Afraid!?!!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/republicans-outpacing-democrats-early-voting-key-states-nbc-news-finds-n922881
And now...on to the predictions. WaddyIsRight is forecasting a win for Democrats in the national popular vote for the House of Representatives. RealClearPolitics puts the average lead for the Dems on the generic ballot at 7.7%, at this moment in time. For reasons I've already disclosed, I believe these figures are exaggerated. I expect the Dems to win the national popular vote by 2-3 points.
WaddyIsRight forecasts that, despite their strong showing in the national popular vote, Democrats will not gain enough seats to take control of the House. They will net approximately 15 seats, leaving the Republicans in control, albeit narrowly. White liberals will turn out in large numbers, helping Democrats to victory in some suburban swing districts. Minorities and young people will vote in disappointing numbers, dooming the Democratic effort to turn the House blue. Republican turnout will be robust across the board.
WaddyIsRight predicts a Republican pickup of four seats in the Senate. This is greater than the current forecast of RealClearPolitics, which shows the Republicans netting only two seats. The lead currently possessed by several Democratic Senate candidates is very small, though, and, since I believe the polls are stacked in the Dems' favor, some of these close contests will go the Republicans' way. Critical competitive races include: Montana, Nevada, Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, West Virginia, and Florida. Most of these races are pickup opportunities for Republicans.
Democrats will do somewhat better at the state level, where they will pick up five or more governorships, and at least ten state legislative chambers. Nonetheless, most state legislatures, and most governorships, will remain in Republican hands. The top two Governor's races from the WaddyIsRight perspective -- in Georgia and Florida -- will be won by the GOP.
There you have it! The much-ballyhooed blue wave will be more like a blue ripple, and Republicans, fired by enthusiasm for Trumpism, prosperity, the rule of law, immigration sanity, an America First trade policy and foreign policy, and by the timeless concepts of basic human decency and mutual respect (so often violated by irate leftists in recent months), will struggle to an historic victory.
Stay tuned, therefore, for an analysis of the aftermath to this Trumpian triumph. How will the Left react to yet another stunning defeat? Spoiler alert: it won't be pretty!
Dr. Waddy: Gads, your well supported predics will help me thru many a nervous night; this is almost as bad as 2016 but not quite. Florida would be a very big win for us.
ReplyDeleteI love it whenever I see a map like you posted. It shows how fundamentally American our country still is. Leftists will say "so what, so we are concentrated in certain population centers, we should by virtue of our teeming majority therein, dominate you hicks". Two things they forget; out in the sticks the land and the person enjoy a bond that the urban population understandably and forgiveably cannot characteristically comprehend. And: the founding fathers anticipated the possible dictatorship of populous areas over very much different rural areas and provided mitigation (eg. the Electoral College and the Senate). They did that because they had debated the issue to a productive compromise in the seminal Constitutional Convention. Sorry, NYC, L.A. and San Francisco - you have to reckon with us, no matter how much you loathe to do so.
Your prediction seems to be based on two assumptions -- that polls are stacked in favor of Democrats (an assumption for which you have little evidence) and the NBC report that early voting is trending GOP.
ReplyDeleteI am leaving the skewed polls argument alone. The polls have tended to be skewed for both Dems and GOP as fewer Independents tend to get represented in the polls, and this year, Independents have been leaning more Dem.
BTW, you provide absolutely no evidence that POC and "young people" will vote in disappointing numbers. That observation suggests you haven't seen any news on the past six months.
But, as to the NBC article, two things. First, historically, the GOP has led in early voting, and the Dems on late and same day voting. Second, the report of the GOP leading in early voting is based on voter registration. It should be noted that in the same report, women are leading men in terms of voting. What is not known is how many of those women are GOP women voting Dem this time. The gender gap is huge for Dems, so this gap between Dems and GOP may be no actual gap at all -- which would not bode well for GOP.
As for the Senate, there are only three Dems who might lose -- ND, IN and MO. IN and MO have polls all over the place, which is why they are still rated toss-ups. Tester has maintain a 3-4 point edge over Rosendale, who is an awful candidate. Manchin is up 8 in the last poll. Nelson is slightly ahead of Scott despite a flood of Scott ads. Nelson is benefitting from Gillum's candidacy, which is surging and will bring more voters to Nelson. Plus, Gillum had a clear win in the debate over DeSantis. NV has had polls going in both directions. AZ has McSally up 1-2 points. There are two unpredictable factors in both states -- the union vote in NV and the Latino vote in AZ (and how the caravan story plays out).
TN likely goes to Blackburn. Bredesen made a huge mistake weighing in on Kavanaugh. Dems felt betrayed and independents saw him as an opportunist. He went from 5 up to 5 down quickly after that. But, despite what should have been a cakewalk in TX, O'Rourke is still hanging in there. There are a number of competitive House race in TX, and early voting has been up. There is a ton of excitement around O'Rourke, while Cruz is underwater in terms of likability. The appearance of Trump actually works against Cruz as it showed how much of a hypocrite Cruz is (Trump insulted Cruz' wife, and now Cruz is working with Trump? That does not work well in TX - I know. I lived there). The difference in voter registration likely means a win for Cruz, but I would not be shocked if that was an upset.
I see a 30-seat pick-up in the House. The Senate is harder to predict. Could be a 2-seat pickup for Dems. Could be a net 1 for GOP.
Finally, governors. Dems pick up WI, MI, OH, IL, IA, FL, ME, NM. Depending on how much Kemp cheats, GA should be a pick-up. Kobach has only a 1-point lead in KS, and he's a highly flawed candidate. Dems pick up 8 and if all goes well (Kemp and Kobach don't deserve to win given their attempts at voter suppression). That will mean a lot in terms of rolling back voter suppression efforts, and attempts at further gerrymandering efforts.
Jack, I'm glad I could bring you some good cheer! Hey, if I'm wrong and the blue wave is about to sweep us all into oblivion, at least we might as well enjoy these few remaining halcyon days of Trumpism... Ha ha. But I don't think I'm wrong, so the good times may just keep on rolling!
ReplyDeleteAnd naturally I agree with you about the desirability of protecting rural areas from urban domination. Many electoral systems historically have given extra representation to rural areas for this reason. That used to be normal in the US too, where, for example, State Senates often used to provide one Senator per county (an obvious boon to country folk). The Supreme Court swept all that aside in the 60s and decided population figures must reign supreme. And they did that despite the fact that the US Constitution specifically mandates an entirely different arrangement for the US Senate! Those were some cheeky judges...
Rod, your specificity may be your undoing, but I applaud your boldness. You're well-informed about electoral dynamics. All that you predict COULD come to pass, and you're right that domination of governorships and statehouses is very consequential in terms of gerrymandering, etc., so Dem gains there will certainly matter in the long-term.
I'm curious why you seem so convinced that youngsters will vote in large numbers. Sure, anecdotally, there are young people who are mad as hell, but is there data to suggest a big surge in turnout?
Nicholas, I am thinking that younger voters won't disappoint because 1) their numbers were up 4% in the primaries over the 2016 primaries (and that was not a midterm) and 2) various state reports over significant increases in voter registration among 18-24 year olds. Now, that demo does not vote as much as older voting groups, but the numbers are promising.
DeleteRod: BTW, its good to see you relying on sound argument and empirical evidence rather than ad hominemism. That is the way to have truly productive dialogue in a civil setting where both sides afford the other courtesy. I have not a whit of expectation that the left in general will ever give our views objective consideration but it does help to advance a forum in this setting. I'm a take no prisoners conservative partisan, because I see in the left the determination to crush us and I fully expect that our national conflict will culminate in one side destroying the other but, for what its worth (its not my blog) I do appreciate seeing give and take here.
ReplyDeleteDitto! Jack, by giving Rod a "safe space" in which he can interact with conservatives, perhaps we can convince him that not all of us suffer from advanced monsterism... Miracles happen! Personally, I enjoy conversing with people of good will of all stripes.
ReplyDeleteNo, I enjoy the debate here. There are lots of places to go on conservative sites if I want ad hominem. Plus, in another era, I would be a Rockefeller Republican, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. For example, I disagreed with Trump's tax cuts, not because I was against tax cuts, but how they were structured. I would have cut corporate to 25-27%, and gone much deeper on the taxpayer side in the 10-25% area. Our economic system is heavily dependent on consumer spending, so giving a tax cut that people actually noticed (at least for those making less than $125K per year) would have spurred more consumer spending and had a big multiplier effect throughout the economy. Instead, way too many companies used the corporate tax cuts for stock buybacks, which gave a sharp -- but looks like a short-lived -- boost to the markets.
ReplyDeleteGlad you enjoy mixing it up with us deplorables, Rod!
ReplyDeleteI wasn't crazy about the tax cut either, mainly because it failed to achieve much tax simplification, and I don't think we can afford it given the deficit. In the very grand scheme of things, though, it will have a minor fiscal impact. The big decisions on entitlements have all been postponed, as per usual.
Dr. Waddy and Rod: I'm simple minded and ignorant when it comes to taxes and I do not mean this in any ironic or sardonic sense. Having worked in the government of an arrogant and profligate waster of tax payer's money (NY state) I am for all tax cuts. I do not understand economics either and I defer to those who do.
ReplyDeleteI too enjoy amicable conversation with liberals; I know many of them are of good will and I try not in any way to patronize or doubt their intentions. I'm afraid, though, that the national conflict has descended, and irretrievably so, far below such otherwise productive amity. I do objectively (I hope) blame the New Left for having raised the stakes to this level starting in the '60's. I'm very interested in our Civil War and boxing and in both settings we see combatants who were able to see honor in their opponents, despite their existential determination to defeat them on the decisive battlefield.
There is much truth in what you say, Jack. "Civility" was severely challenged by the radical forces that emerged in the 60s. That it has survived in any form up to now is something of a small miracle. My take: the Left has been trying to negate Western Civilization and create something new and better in its place for a long time. When you reject the values of the society that created and nurtured you, you shouldn't be shocked if that decision comes back to bite you.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: When Western culture treats your youthful folly with a deference you have not earned simply because there are so damned many of you, the naivete understandably derived from the material want free childhoods you had is affirmed and ever so much strengthened. The arrogance which enabled you the blithe dismissal of the painfully evolved progress of the West over three millenia shields you now from the yes, shocking, truth: the coarseness of our political and social discourse today is your fault and your aging and eventual departure may herald the end of this bizarre interlude.
ReplyDeleteA lovely sentiment, Jack, but you're relying on the proposition that the rising generation will be somehow better than the Boomers. I don't see much evidence of that as yet, although if the vast majority of them simply stay home on November 6th, it will prove that the Left doesn't have them entirely in its pocket... They might be salvageable.
ReplyDelete