I went to bed on Election Day thinking that Donald Trump had a pretty good night. I knew that the Democrats had won back the House of Representatives, but that was the bare minimum for what they needed to accomplish. That majority looked somewhat modest. More importantly, they were on track to lose four senate seats that they were defending without flipping any Republican seats. When I went to bed, there was even a chance that Scott Walker migth hang on for a third term as governor of Wisconsin.
When morning came, I learned that Walker was out and that the Democrats had booted Dean Heller out of his senate seat from Nevada. And there was suddenly more than a little doubt about the outcomes in both Arizona and Florida. In the five days since then, it seems almost certain that the Arizona senate seat will be won by the Democrats. And Florida is not done counting yet, although I suspect that Bill Nelson will come up short. For purposes of this post, we'll assume that Democrats lost a net of two seats.
The other piece of happy news since Tuesday has been the steady drip of house races going blue. There are still 13 seats that have not been called by news outlets. Nate Silver estimates that ten of those 13 seats will wind up in the Democratic column. That will mean a net gain of 38 House seats.
First, A Word About Me.
My official prediction was that the Democrats would gain 32 seats in the house. That was slightly pessimistic. The real number will be closer to 40. That's an impressive number by an reasonable measure. The Democratic majority will be about the same size that the Republican majority has been the last 2 years. It will be awhile before we have the final results but it appears that the Democrats have won most of the very close races, which means they put their resources in the right places in the right quanities. That is cause for optimism.
My official senate prediction was a loss of one seat, but I broke that down into four categories of races. The below passage is from the preidcitions post, which are in the maroon background. I've also added post-elections commentary in ALL CAPS BOLD. (So you know I'm serious.)
A. One Likely Loss. The Dems will lose North Dakota. CORRECT
B. Two True Toss-ups. The Dems will split Missouri and Florida. CLOSE BUT NO CIGAR, UNLESS NELSON PICKS UP 12,000 VOTES IN THE RECOUNT.
C. Three Lean Democrats. The Dems will take 2 out of 3 among Indiana, Arizona and Nevada. CORRECT
D. Long Shots The Dems could lose Montana, but I don't think they will. They could put an upset in Tennessee but I think they will come about 3 points shy there. Texas is hard for me to judge because I so badly want Ted Cruz to lose. CORRECT, ALTHOUGH TENNESSE WAS NOT AS CLOSE AS I HOPED. BREDESEN LOST BY 11, NOT THREE.
I came pretty close to getting this exactly right. Whatever Nelson's margin of defeat winds up being will also be the difference between me and a perfect night in the upper house. (Yes, I'm aware my model built in some fudge factor by grouping races. The truth is that I overestimated the Dems in Indiana, Tennesse and Missouri more than I did in Florida, but hey results are what matters.)
I also predicted that the Democrats would gain eight governor's mansions but I didn't specify which ones. It looks like the final number will be seven. I did think Gillum and Abrahms each had a chance to win, so I guess we can put the difference there. (Full disclosure: I spent less than 90 seconds working on my Governor predictions.)
I'll gve my self an A- on the predictions. And shake my fist at the design of the Broward County ballot for keeping me from having a truly impressive night.
Report Card Time.
In my election preview I created a somewhat vague grading scheme for how to evaluate the Democrats performance on the night. (I reserved F Scenarios for failing to win either house. We can skip that, thankfully.)
D Scenarios. If the Democrats win one house but underperform in the other, then they have done the bare minimum to stay relevant to government. The most likely D scenario is a gain of 25 seats, giving them a razor-thin margin in the House, but they lose several of their senate seats and don't pick up any GOP seats. So about 221 in the house and 46 or 47 in the Senate. Awful, but not technically a complete failure. WE WELL EXCEEDED THAT IN THE HOUSE, BUT WILL PROBALY END UP WITH THAT TALLY IN THE SENATE.
C Scenarios. If the Dems win at least 30 seats and don't lose more than one senate seat (net), they will get a gentleman's C. (C+ if they do well in the governor's race.) TECHNICALLY WE'RE IN C+ COUNTRY AS OF NOW, BUT I THINK I MAY HAVE PUT TOO MUCH VALUE ON THE SENATE FOR MY GRADING SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE TOUGH TERRAIN FOR DEMOCRATS. THIS NIGHT FEELS MUCH BETTER THAN A C+, EVEN WITH THE DISSAPOINTMENTS IN FLORIDA.
B Scenarios. A lot of the advanced analytics types have the most likely outcome for the Dems being about +37 in the House and -1 in the senate. I think that's a solid B. THIS IS ABOUT RIGHT, BUT THE GOVERNOR'S RACES WERE ALSO STRONG.
A Scenarios. So what makes a wave? The biggest recent was the 2010 Tea Party election when the Dems lost 63 seats. But they started that year with 256. The GOP only has 241 at the moment. So +48 would match that end result. I think anything over 40 would be a wave and it probably means picking up at least one senate seat. So let's call this 235 in the House and a 50/50 Senate. WE DIDN'T GET THERE BUT THE HOUSE CAME AWFULLY CLOSE.
A+ Scenario: This is easy-the House by more than a handful of seats and the Senate. But to really earn the +, we'd have to see some really awful Republicans lose. It's not an A+night if Ted Cruz is re-elected. Beating Steve King or Dan Rohrbacher would be nice cherries on top too. Stace Abrams winning in Georgia would also be a profound outcome for the party WELL, DANA ROHBACHER IS A NICE PLET TO PUT ON THE MANTLE.
I'm torn between giving them a B or a B+. For now I'll call it a B but I will run back here to upgrade if Nelson and/or Gillum winds up winning. And there is going to be a runoff race in Mississippi. Hopefully we'll make that competitive at least. It sure feels like our base is energized by the results.
What Does it Mean?
The Democrats will be able to pass all kinds of stuff in the house. But if they want any of that stuff to become law, they will need to reach agreement with the senate. And it's not just a matter of persuading four Republicans to join them. Mitch McConnell will control the senate and he alone will decide what gets put to a vote. I think that means a lot of gridlock.
But there are a handful of Republican senators who are vulnerable to losing in 2020. Specifically Susan Collins (ME), Joni Ernst (IA) and Cory Gardner (CO) will all be in very close races. There will also be an election for the remainder of John McCain's term in Arizona. John Kyl has said he will not run in that race and he will probably resign in January, allowing Arizona to nominate a person who will run. Whoever is chosen, will have to worry about facing a close election in 2020.
Those Republicans will want to run on some accomplishments. They can put pressure on McConnel to let some things get done, especially if it means avoiding a government shut down. The senate is also close enough that there will be at least some very modest limits on who Trump can appoint to the senate. (But I'm not optimistic on this point. It's pretty easy to imagine Mitch getting 50 of his 53 member coalition to vote for just about anyone.)
What We Really Care About: 2020.
The map at the top of this post was put up by Nate Silver on Twitter the day after the elections. He tabulated the "popular" vote of every house race, by state. (This required an adjustment for Florida where votes in uncontested races do not get counted.) The result was a near replic of Obama's 2012 victory. (Republicans winning Ohio and the 2nd district of Maine, for a 324-214 Democratic win.)
That's certainly encouraging. And I think that's a possible outcome for 2020, although something would have to change for Iowa to flip back to blue, having gone for Trump by eight points last time. Trump's tariffs might just be disastrous enough to swin the race, but if that's the case, Democrats have probably sewn up the race in other places.
I think the biggest take-aways from Tuesday are this:
1. Trump is not imploding but he's also no invincible. The results in senate races correlated with Trump's current popularity. The Republican candidates in Indian, Tennesse and Missouri benefitted from his popularity. Those in Nevada and Arizona suffered. And Florida, as always, was a wash.
2. The next race will be close. Trump will start 2020 with the command of his party and a solid 200 electoral votes in his pocket. The race is going to be decided in about eight states. A few analysts have identified two paths for the Democrats to win the White House back-a northern strategy of winning back Wisonsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan or a southern strategy of winning Florida and either North Carolia or Arizona.
I think for now we have to keep as many states in play as poosible. A geographic hybrid of PA and NC would require just one more state to flip. In 2016, we got complacent because of the "Blue Wall." I don't want us to think too narrowly in 2020 because we think there is "Red Wall" behind Trump. So let's keep an eye on any pink state in that map. (Yes, even Montana. Crazier things have happened, and John Tester might be on the ticket.)
3. If the economy stays strong, Trump will probably be re-elected. One of the most remarkable things about the Democratic gains on Tuesday is that they happened despite low-unemployment and at least some glimmer of hope that wages are beginning to finally rise. If that growth in employment lasts another two years, then Trump will be in a strong position. He will have the support of the investor class and have much more credibility than he did two years ago.
I went to bed on election night before the race was officially called for Trump. I didn't want to experience that moment live. I went to bed with Hillary having a chance for an inside straight, if some western state flipped for her. That did not happen and I leanred the awful news at about seven AM on Wednesday. This year I went to bed fearing that Trump's coalition outperformed the polls. It didn't. But it had a stronger than expected showing in Florida and Georgia.
I expect 2020 to be another nail biter. Unless there is a war or massive scandal coming out of the Mueller probe, then both bases will be fired up for their side. Lots of people will go to bed before anything has been called. I will not. I'm going to see that one through. And I encourage you to begin to think about how you want that night to turn out and what you are going to do to bring about that result. My plan is to vote first thing in the morning, then drive to Wisconsin and take little old ladies to the polls for as long as I can, whereever the Democratic candidate needs me most. If I have to live with eight years of this clown show, I'm going to do so with a clear conscience as to my own efforts.
I will close with one last snipped from my predictions post. Because it needs to be drilled into everyone's head for the next 721 days: I will never, ever trust Florida in an election
No comments:
Post a Comment