By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - US Midterm Elections 2018- Dems take the House, GOP Keeps the Senate.

 

Who did you vote for?

GOP Rep and GOP Senator 20 30.77%
 
Democrat Rep and Democrat Senator 38 58.46%
 
GOP Rep and Democrat Senator 0 0%
 
Democrat Rep and GOP Senator 4 6.15%
 
Third Party/Other 3 4.62%
 
Total:65
Snoopy on 07 November 2018
shikamaru317 said:

Well, the night didn't go quite as well for team red as I hoped, but could have been worse. Looking like we gained a few seats in the senate. Would have been nice to take the house as well, or at least have a smaller gap in the house, but it is what it is. I'm glad my district went 60/40 in favor of the GOP candidate.

Don't worry, Trump has the supreme court and he can just do executive orders. Also, we now have the ability to blame Democrats if anything goes wrong.



Around the Network
haxxiy on 07 November 2018
Proxy-Pie said:
Also, Democrats have a 9 million vote lead in the Senate popular vote, but still lost?
Such a beacon of democracy!

A lot of upper houses are by definition anti-democratic. They represent states or provinces, not people. It's the same thing over here, where a federal senator can be elected with less votes than the mayor of an average town. The Republicans own a lot of those smaller states.

If Democrats want to do something about it instead of watching the Senate favor Republicans for decades, they need to know how to play the game: push for Puerto Rico and DC statehood, split California, go for candidates representing local needs over national needs etc.



 

 

 

 

 

outlawauron on 07 November 2018
JWeinCom said:
DarthMetalliCube said:
So 90% of the media, celebs, athletes, etc ALL imploring the youth to get out and vote (for OUR guys on the left, wink wink), this massive "blue wave", etc.. results in a *slight* Dem majority of the House, probably LOSE seats in the Senate, and minority of Governorships? Sweet..

Eh... if you think a swing of about 30 seats, and likely five or so governorships, is not a big deal, then you probably don't follow politics that closely.  It's kind of a big deal.  People are generally too set in their political parties for any sort of massive change.  Nobody expected Democrats to take like 50 seats cause that just doesn't happen.  Senate losses were expected simply because more democrats were up for reelection.  |

It's not quite the slam dunk that people would have hoped for (democratic people at least) but if you think this result is sweet for republicans, you're deluding yourself.  

Republicans took over 60 seats in the House in 2010. That does happen when the new President is unpopular. It was an ok night for Democrats, but definitely not a big win. Feels like a pretty standard result.

Here, found this:

Midterm Election, Most House Seats Lost by President's Party in Power 

2010 Obama: -63 
1994 Clinton: -52 
1958: Eisenhower: -48 
1974 Ford (Nixon): -48 
1966 Johnson: -47 
1946 Truman: -45
2018 Trump: -34
2006 Bush: -30 
1950 Truman: -29 
1982 Reagan: -26 


*NY Times data since 1946

Last edited by outlawauron - on 07 November 2018

"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

palou on 07 November 2018
shikamaru317 said:
outlawauron said:

Republicans took over 60 seats in the House in 2010. That does happen when the new President is unpopular. It was an ok night for Democrats, but definitely not a big win. Feels like a pretty standard result.

Here, found this:

Midterm Election, Most House Seats Lost by President's Party in Power 

2010 Obama: -63 
1994 Clinton: -52 
1958: Eisenhower: -48 
1974 Ford (Nixon): -48 
1966 Johnson: -47 
1946 Truman: -45
2018 Trump: -34
2006 Bush: -30 
1950 Truman: -29 
1982 Reagan: -26 


*NY Times data since 1946

Wow, so the 4th lowest, that is not bad at all. Also, I find it funny that Reagan, the poster boy of the GOP, is the lowest, while Clinton and Obama, the only 2 democrat presidents of my lifetime, lost the most seats on their midterms

I mean, there were more than 10 midterms since 1946... there's 8 bellow that that aren't displayed. 



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Poliwrathlord on 07 November 2018
Proxy-Pie said:
Also, Democrats have a 9 million vote lead in the Senate popular vote, but still lost?
Such a beacon of democracy!

Well it should surprise you that America is in fact a Republic, and not a democracy, also the whole point of having two houses in the legislature was so that smaller states would feel more equally represented than just having one house based off population, in which small states would have almost no voice whatsoever.



Around the Network
Jumpin on 07 November 2018
Proxy-Pie said:
Also, Democrats have a 9 million vote lead in the Senate popular vote, but still lost?
Such a beacon of democracy!

They didn't lose, they just didn't do as well as 6 years ago.

There were 33 seats up for grabs, so far 4 are still being considered: The Democrats have won 19, the Republicans only 10.

The Democrats also currently lead the House of Representatives, 21 seats still being considered, 220 won by Democrats, while only 194 to Republicans.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 07 November 2018

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

CosmicSex on 07 November 2018

Democrats did really well. Especially by picking up those governors. This essentially let's the keep the house on lock. Also considering they had to defend so many Senate races this isn't bad at all.



Proxy-Pie on 07 November 2018
Poliwrathlord said:
Proxy-Pie said:
Also, Democrats have a 9 million vote lead in the Senate popular vote, but still lost?
Such a beacon of democracy!

Well it should surprise you that America is in fact a Republic, and not a democracy, also the whole point of having two houses in the legislature was so that smaller states would feel more equally represented than just having one house based off population, in which small states would have almost no voice whatsoever.

Is that what you guys say to justify things like California having as many senators as Wyoming, when the former has a population that's bigger by over 60 times? Why is a Californian's vote worth 1/60th of a Wyomingian's?



Jumpin on 07 November 2018
Proxy-Pie said:
Poliwrathlord said:

Well it should surprise you that America is in fact a Republic, and not a democracy, also the whole point of having two houses in the legislature was so that smaller states would feel more equally represented than just having one house based off population, in which small states would have almost no voice whatsoever.

Is that what you guys say to justify things like California having as many senators as Wyoming, when the former has a population that's bigger by over 60 times? Why is a Californian's vote worth 1/60th of a Wyomingian's?

In the US I believe their House of Representatives are based on population sizes, while the Senate are based on Statehood. So each designated area regarded as a "state" is granted two electors in the Senate. It is kind of like the UN, China doesn't get more electors based on their population.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Nighthawk117 on 07 November 2018
Proxy-Pie said:
Poliwrathlord said:

Well it should surprise you that America is in fact a Republic, and not a democracy, also the whole point of having two houses in the legislature was so that smaller states would feel more equally represented than just having one house based off population, in which small states would have almost no voice whatsoever.

Is that what you guys say to justify things like California having as many senators as Wyoming, when the former has a population that's bigger by over 60 times? Why is a Californian's vote worth 1/60th of a Wyomingian's?

All states are granted 2 senators, thus the Senate has 100 members.  The House has 435 members, doled out based on a state's population, of which California has the largest share at 53 representatives.