As I suggested above, the talking heads on TV tend to over-interpret election results and impute more to the factual results than is actually there. Whatever happens in any election, numerous opinions are shared about what it means, and, often, the line between fact and opinion is blurred. Partisan enthusiasm often gets the better of these folks and rational, balanced analysis gives way to hyperbole. I try to be responsible in my posts by making it clear when I am rendering an opinion and stating a fact, and I try to monitor my emotions and desires to make sure they do not blind me to the facts or produce baseless interpretations of them.
Looking ahead to the mid-term elections of 2018 for US House and Senate, I believe it is reasonable to assume that the Democrats will do better than the Republicans. It may be reasonable to believe that the Republicans may lose the House to the Democrats, and maybe even the Senate. I was not willing to say so yesterday but after reading this piece I am.
It's not a piece about Trump or any other president in particular. It's about the history of mid-term elections and how they play out. It seems that since World War II, it has ALWAYS been the case that the party in power loses seats to the opposition in mid-term elections. What varies is the number of seats and there is a direct correlation between that number and the incumbent president's popularity numbers. The less popular the president is, the greater number of seats turn over.
When Trump supporters hear of polls that indicate Trump is less popular than previous presidents, they often dismiss the polls, pointing to the 2016 polls that predicted a Hillary win. Or they'll dismiss the poll based on the flawed methodology, questions or whatever else they see wrong with it.
That's fine at the ordinary-citizen level. It's NOT what the candidates and political operatives do. I can tell you from personal experience that Washington is a political data-obsessed town. It does not matter where you are -- hotel lobbies, conferences, the tunnels under the Capitol, Georgetown bars, office conference rooms, wherever -- the political professionals are talking politics ... constantly. No detail is too small. No rumor is too crazy. No opinion is not heard. They seldom talk to each other about family, sports and the weather. They talk shop 18 hours a day. They go to sleep and wake to the political news. Their antennas are always up and they're always looking for more info.They want to know that the senator is thinking. They want to know what the elevator operator is thinking (some high-end hotels have them in Washington).
While people on the street might easily dismiss a poll, the candidates and political professionals make their living by continually pouring over the data, comparing it to other data, generating even more data by initiating private polls.
The poll that has their attention now is Election Day, 2017, and the number very much on their minds is Trump's job approval rating or other popularity indicators. In a word, things don't look good for the Republicans in 2018, and the candidates and political professional know it.
With these facts in mind, what's a seated Republican legislator to do?
Some have already answered that question by announcing their retirements or decisions to not run again. That's an indicator to keep an eye on. If the number of such announcements increase above normal levels, it's an indicator of discouragement and a Republican unwillingness to face the voters.
That does not mean other Republicans will not step in to run for that seat. It does mean that Republicans will lose the advantages of incumbency in that state or district race. History shows that a candidate who already holds the office has a huge advantage over the challenger who does not. The more Republican legislators choose to not run again, the better it is for Democrats.
Some Republican operatives might dismiss the importance of that saying they are protected by gerrymandered districts (districts where the boundary lines are drawn to assure Republican majorities, and thereby assure a Republican-favorable outcome). They have a point. But it's also true that very-same gerrymandering can produce an election-year disaster if the Republicans in those districts become disappointed, disgruntled or discouraged.
I think we saw some of that in Tuesday's elections. The Democrats showed surprising strength in suburban districts, usually a place where Republican support is assured. The political professionals are certainly noting this fact and taking it into account.
So, if you are a Republican legislator who is not retiring and wishes to get re-elected, what is one to do? In an environment where Trump's approval rating is near all-time lows, and has consistently been lower than predecessor presidents at comparable times in office (first month, first 100 days, first year, etc.), one solution may be to get rid of Trump by impeaching him and bring in Pence.
Trump is not running for reelection in 2018. All US representatives and some US senators are. Far more than they care about saving Trump's skin, they care about saving their own.
Because of Tuesday's election results, the likelihood of Trump's impeachment is higher today than it was on Monday.
Having said that, I acknowledge that if you're a hammer, all the world looks like a nail. My central theme in this Trump thread is my prediction that he will be impeached. That opinion influences my perception of the facts. People see things in different ways. Where a two-job night-shift worker sees a sunrise and concludes it's time for bed, a well rested pastor will take the very same sunrise as a cue to praise the Lord.
I'm an impeachment-believing guy and that belief influences my interpretation of the facts. That said, the facts are indeed the facts, and they support the impeachment scenario, do they not?
Looking ahead to the mid-term elections of 2018 for US House and Senate, I believe it is reasonable to assume that the Democrats will do better than the Republicans. It may be reasonable to believe that the Republicans may lose the House to the Democrats, and maybe even the Senate. I was not willing to say so yesterday but after reading this piece I am.
It's not a piece about Trump or any other president in particular. It's about the history of mid-term elections and how they play out. It seems that since World War II, it has ALWAYS been the case that the party in power loses seats to the opposition in mid-term elections. What varies is the number of seats and there is a direct correlation between that number and the incumbent president's popularity numbers. The less popular the president is, the greater number of seats turn over.
When Trump supporters hear of polls that indicate Trump is less popular than previous presidents, they often dismiss the polls, pointing to the 2016 polls that predicted a Hillary win. Or they'll dismiss the poll based on the flawed methodology, questions or whatever else they see wrong with it.
That's fine at the ordinary-citizen level. It's NOT what the candidates and political operatives do. I can tell you from personal experience that Washington is a political data-obsessed town. It does not matter where you are -- hotel lobbies, conferences, the tunnels under the Capitol, Georgetown bars, office conference rooms, wherever -- the political professionals are talking politics ... constantly. No detail is too small. No rumor is too crazy. No opinion is not heard. They seldom talk to each other about family, sports and the weather. They talk shop 18 hours a day. They go to sleep and wake to the political news. Their antennas are always up and they're always looking for more info.They want to know that the senator is thinking. They want to know what the elevator operator is thinking (some high-end hotels have them in Washington).
While people on the street might easily dismiss a poll, the candidates and political professionals make their living by continually pouring over the data, comparing it to other data, generating even more data by initiating private polls.
The poll that has their attention now is Election Day, 2017, and the number very much on their minds is Trump's job approval rating or other popularity indicators. In a word, things don't look good for the Republicans in 2018, and the candidates and political professional know it.
With these facts in mind, what's a seated Republican legislator to do?
Some have already answered that question by announcing their retirements or decisions to not run again. That's an indicator to keep an eye on. If the number of such announcements increase above normal levels, it's an indicator of discouragement and a Republican unwillingness to face the voters.
That does not mean other Republicans will not step in to run for that seat. It does mean that Republicans will lose the advantages of incumbency in that state or district race. History shows that a candidate who already holds the office has a huge advantage over the challenger who does not. The more Republican legislators choose to not run again, the better it is for Democrats.
Some Republican operatives might dismiss the importance of that saying they are protected by gerrymandered districts (districts where the boundary lines are drawn to assure Republican majorities, and thereby assure a Republican-favorable outcome). They have a point. But it's also true that very-same gerrymandering can produce an election-year disaster if the Republicans in those districts become disappointed, disgruntled or discouraged.
I think we saw some of that in Tuesday's elections. The Democrats showed surprising strength in suburban districts, usually a place where Republican support is assured. The political professionals are certainly noting this fact and taking it into account.
So, if you are a Republican legislator who is not retiring and wishes to get re-elected, what is one to do? In an environment where Trump's approval rating is near all-time lows, and has consistently been lower than predecessor presidents at comparable times in office (first month, first 100 days, first year, etc.), one solution may be to get rid of Trump by impeaching him and bring in Pence.
Trump is not running for reelection in 2018. All US representatives and some US senators are. Far more than they care about saving Trump's skin, they care about saving their own.
Because of Tuesday's election results, the likelihood of Trump's impeachment is higher today than it was on Monday.
Having said that, I acknowledge that if you're a hammer, all the world looks like a nail. My central theme in this Trump thread is my prediction that he will be impeached. That opinion influences my perception of the facts. People see things in different ways. Where a two-job night-shift worker sees a sunrise and concludes it's time for bed, a well rested pastor will take the very same sunrise as a cue to praise the Lord.
I'm an impeachment-believing guy and that belief influences my interpretation of the facts. That said, the facts are indeed the facts, and they support the impeachment scenario, do they not?
Last edited:
