The Blue Wave Is Real, and It Appears Really BigProvided Democrats Dont Block It

0
262

Two more districts flipped. In New Hampshire, Democrat Philip Spagnuolo won a county legislative seat by 8 percentage points in a district Donald Trump had carried by 13 phases. In Connecticut, Democrat Phil Young won a country legislative seat that Hillary Clinton narrowly carried but that had been held by a Republican for the last 44 years. They attain the 38 th and 39 th districts since Donald Trump’s election that have gone from Republican to Democrat.

So: How confident should Democrat be about all this? I’d say pretty confident, for a bunch of reasons. But let’s stick to five 😛 TAGEND

1. The generic polling has the Democrats pretty comfortably ahead. It’s been ricochet around–while Democrat have always has the lead, it constricted in January and February but seems to be opening back up a little now. A CNN poll released Monday had it at 54 -3 8. I should say, though, that the fivethirtyeight average as of Wednesday morning is lower, at 47 -3 9.

2. While you may say ” but it’s so far out ,” it’s really not, in polling words. The four elections in modern history when the House changed party control were 1994, 2006, 2010, and 2014. In every one of those cases, to differing degrees, polling in the early part of the year ended up being basically accurate. Here for example is a piece from fivethirtyeight in September of 2009, explaining that the GOP was probably poised to retake the House in 14 months. If anything, the polling in those years tended to suggest results that were closer than they ended up being, which would mean that even an 8-point result at this juncture is pretty formidable.

3. Democratic turnout has been overperforming in these special elections. A good case in point is a rural Wisconsin state legislative district that a Democrat won in January and that Trump had won by 17 phases. The turnout for the Democrat was down from prior elections, but that’s natural because this was a special election. But the turnout for the Republican was style, way down.

4. The average House loss for an incumbent party in off-year elections when the president is below 50 percentage approval since Harry Truman’s time is 36 seats, according to Gallup. The Democrats need about 24( depending on vacancies that develop between now and November ). It seems instead unlikely that Trump is going to be anywhere near 50 percentage by November.

5. We’ve seen an usually high number of Republican retirement proclamations. Rat, weasels, snakes, and centipedes can feel earthquakes coming days in advance. Similarly, these people must sense something coming.

All this points toward a Democratic capture of 24 seats pretty easily. In fact it points to 40 or 50 or maybe more. The prevailing winds might even point toward the party retaking the Senate, which I’d have believed impossible a few months ago.

I don’t want to devote much of this column to meditate the effects of a sweep. Too superstitious. Suffice it to say that if the Democrat take even one home, two things happen instantly: 1, the Trump legislative agenda is dead; 2, subpoena power. And if the Democrat take the Senate, that means nominations can be bottled up.

The next big battle comes on March 13, when the special election happens in that southwestern Pennsylvania congressional district, the state’s 18 th. The Republican incumbent retire. It’s an R +11 district, according to Cook, and it gave Trump 58 percent of the vote. That Cook rating induces it kind of like different districts Republicans have narrowly held this past year–in Georgia and Montana, for example. What might make it different are two factors. One, Democrat still have a registration advantage there, and two, the GOP incumbent resigned because of a sex/ mistress/ abortion scandal( i.e ., he urged her to get one; needless to say, he’s pro-life ).

The Republican is Rick Saccone. The Democrat is Conor Lamb. And the Republican are pretty freaked out. Look at this report on outside spending in this race. The total outside spending is close to$ 9 million. As a point of comparison, the abortion-scandal incumbent, Tim Murphy, expended $1.1 million to get himself reelected in 2016. That$ 9 million figure is the total for outside spending by both sides. But looking over the list and picking out the known Democratic/ liberal groups( DCCC, End Citizens United, People for the American Way, etc .), I see that merely about $800,000 of that outside spending has been by them. So conservative outside spending is at a ratio of 10:1.

The seat’s a test for Republicans in the obvious way–can they hold an incumbent seat where they have a clear advantage. But it’s a test for the Democrats, too. It’s a culturally conservative district, and Lamb has taken some postures that reflect that. He’s not so good on firearms. He’s said he won’t subsistence Nancy Pelosi for speaker( which doesn’t mean he’ll back a Republican; Pelosi will almost certainly face Democratic opponent in a speaker’s race if the Democrat win ).

If national Democratic fund doesn’t deliver for Lamb for these reasons, that’s stupid and short-sighted. You want the Democrats to win 50 seats? Great. You know how many of those 50 are going to have to run as squishy on handguns and anti-Pelosi? Surely half of them if not more. It’s the only route to a majority.

Democrats have a lot going for them this year. They merely can’t let ideological purity get in the way. The time for determining the party’s ideological direction will be the presidential nomination battle. For now, the tent needs to be as wide as possible.

Read more: www.thedailybeast.com

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here