Discussion Congratulations America!!
Discussion Congratulations America!!
10 hours ago
(Yes I kid. A little.)
Anyway, I think by now we all know the crux of what just happened this week with the American midterm elections, so I won't bore you with the basics, I'll bore you with other things instead. I did want to offer some kind of formal commentary though.
I take pride in the accuracy of my election predictions and feel the need to gloat a bit over the fact that I accurately predicted a Democratic landslide that would specifically see the Dems gain upwards of 45 more House seats, upwards of seven to ten Senate seats, and most state governorships all year now. It actually wasn't that tough to see it coming, you just had to look below the topline numbers in the polls and notice the enthusiasm gap that they recorded because it's been my observation that enthusiasm gaps are more accurate than topline numbers, as they predict who will and won't actually vote. Still, this outcome was somewhat more dramatic than even I could've foreseen. I didn't expect the Dems to retake the local House of Representatives in Texas, for example, or to land more than 50 additional seats in the U.S. House (which is what they're on course for based on the current vote counts). The most important takeaway though isn't so much any of that as the end result itself, which is the fact that the Democrats are gonna wind up with the largest House majority they've had since the early 1990s. Based on the current race calls only, they've already won the biggest House majority any party has had in this century. It's significant in that it reflects a trend in midterm elections we've seen emerge since the 2010 tea party wave. That was the last true Republican wave election we've seen in this country. In the four midterm cycles since, Republicans have won twice and Democrats have now won twice, but the two Republican victories (2014 and '22) have been smallish ones won by dwindling margins while the two Democratic victories (2018 and obviously '26) have been large ones won by increasing margins. I think this tells you that a certain political realignment has occurred since 2010 such that it's now the Democrats who have the stronger midterm coalition overall, in contrast to the period running from 1994 to 2010 (which was the result of the GOP gradually absorbing the Democratic Party's conservative, rural wing; a process that is now pretty complete.) This kind of realignment carries a similar kind of cultural weight I think to the 1994 realignment, which marked the first time in 40 years that Republicans had won the House of Representatives.
Since all House seats go up for election every two years, the party balance of the House is really the single best gauge there is of which party is more popular over during a given era. During the Cold War, it was the Democrats. Between the Cold War and the start of the Trump era, it was the Republicans because they controlled the House for nearly that entire period. Since the start of the Trump era, the balance has been gradually moving back toward the Democrats, but for somewhat different reasons than the last time that was the case. After all, the previous age of Democratic dominance was partially rooted in them retaining a large conservative wing that they no longer possess. In examining the evolution of the Democratic Party over time...
...you will find that today's Dem coalition is no longer helmed by the laboring classes. Rather, they form a periphery of mostly external support for the party today. The actual "grassroots" base of the Democratic Party today is a bourgeois demographic composed of affluent white collar workers and professionals. In good years, like this one, the Dems win the votes of most blue collar workers, but most blue collar voters are no longer registered as Democrats today; they're moderate independents of less consistent voting loyalties than in the past. This more bourgeois base of support gives them a stronger midterm coalition because richer people tend to be more interested in politics and vote more reliably, including in less prominent sorts of elections like midterm cycles. In other words, the recent trend toward Democrats faring better in midterm elections is in essence a byproduct of the party's modern bourgeoisification / liberalization.
Anyway, all this talk of party coalitions aside, the specific question of why this cycle went so especially heavily to the Democrats I think was best answered by the conservative commentator Erick Erickson, whose pertinent tweet I will quote the key parts of below for you to absorb:
Quote:For the last two years, the Trump Administration has been governed by a simple mantra: “We can just do things.” On Tuesday, voters replied, “So can we,” and wiped out the GOP. ...
.....
It was gas prices.
And it was the war.
But it was also calling affordability a “hoax.”
And it was also the corruption.
The incompetence.
The tariffs.
The playing nice with Russia while treating our allies worse than our enemies.
The impression of cruelty.
The overly aggressive deportations.
The accidental arrests of American citizens who were Hispanic.
The arrogance.
The ballroom.
The reflecting poll. [sic]
The golf courses.
The arch.
The Qatari 747.
The aggressive redistricting push.
The threats against enemies.
To this one apt commentator added a mention of the administration's strategic backtracking on the Epstein files, although I think we could really file that under the corruption category. Anyway yeah, this was obviously more of a referendum on Republican rule and the Trump presidency more specifically than it was a resounding endorsement of the Democratic agenda, as significantly more voters cast Democratic ballots (roughly 55% in House races) than indicated a favorable opinion of the party in exit polling (47%). And yes, Trump specifically was a drag on his party because their job approval rating in the exit polling was slightly higher than his. This was a repudiation of Trumpism, full stop. I'd like for any rightists reading this to take a moment to absorb that factual reality not just to gloat (although partially to gloat
), but also because it is important to the future viability of their preferred party, as nearly every demographic in the country voted for Democrats this time around, including, as I predicted earlier this year, a majority of white women for the first time I can remember and even most heterosexual women for a change.To be clear, to respond to those pundits claiming that "woke is back", ballot initiative results suggest maybe not as much as they think. All ballot initiatives proposing to limit women's sports to women, for example, passed, including the ones in so-called blue states like Colorado and Washington that simultaneously swept Democrats to power up and down that ballot. In fact, one of the only "anti-trans" measure of any kind that didn't pass was one in Missouri that proposed to enshrine an already-existing ban on gender transition medications and treatments for kids into the state constitution but also included new, heavy restrictions on abortion access. Abortion access, speaking of, was also a winning issue in general, with multiple states voting to enshrine protections into their state constitutions. The consistent thread there is that women's rights are just generally a winning cause. Also Arizona voted to designate drug cartels as terrorist organizations and Colorado voted to increase penalties for human trafficking (most of which is specifically sex trafficking) and for everything to do with fentanyl while also voting to establish a graduated state income tax. Washington voted to keep their wealth tax while also voting for women's athletics to be open to women only. Data centers restrictions were a winning cause just generally, which strikes across party lines and marriage equality won protection at the state level in a Virginia referendum. (List of ballot initiatives and results here.) So even in a blue wave year where nearly half of voters identified as Democrats, the results on culture war issues was ideologically mixed, most often favoring a fairly centrist balance of positions (economic populist, tough on crime, pro-choice, trans-skeptical, etc.). As much reflects America's increasingly moderating views on moral questions broadly in recent years following decades of consistent liberalization before the pandemic. The culture substantively appears to be done liberalizing for the time being, prolly owing in part to that recent uptick in youth religiosity you've heard about in the last few years. But at the same time, a more moderate social climate obviously doesn't just mean Republicans win elections. So what I'm saying here is that progressives, conservatives...nobody should be getting arrogant about how aligned with their worldview the broad public is in the culture wars just because an election goes this way or that. People vote on more than just that stuff. Especially moderates.
What does this all mean for the 2028 presidential election, if anything? Well...I think the statewide victories of people like Troy Jackson in Maine, Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota, and above all Abdul El-Sayed in the typically very swing-y state of Michigan signal a newfound viability of political progressives specifically that Democrats may just opt to try and take advantage of. The typical winning argument by the party's establishment faction is that progressives aren't viable candidates in statewide contests in swing states, and therefore aren't federally either. Now they are, proven, including even against less extreme Republicans (like Susan Collins). At least under present circumstances anyway, they are. So the non-viability argument will no longer carry the same weight anymore after this week, which greatly increases the odds of the Democrats picking someone like oh say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as their presidential nominee. So yeah, the Dems may wind up picking a candidate who is well to the left of the public's preference because they might just be able to get away with it given how widely hated the Republican brand is atm. To be clear though, less extreme liberals definitely fare better against Republicans as the rule, and you can see that manifested once again in the fact that the Dems' Michigan gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson fared better than El-Sayed did for the state's open Senate seat, and likewise in the fact that Maine gubernatorial candidate Hannah Pingree fared better than Troy Jackson in Maine, and likewise in the fact that Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Amy Klobuchar fared better than Peggy Flanagan did in her Senate race in the same state, on the same ballot. It's a strikingly consistent pattern that the establishment candidates enjoy a wider reach in terms of support in general elections, so picking one of those sorts of candidates is what would actually max out the odds of a Dem prez victory. They just tend to get more blue collar support. The establishment is established for a reason. But I think the overall strength of their viability argument has just been weakened, as an establishment candidate victory only seems to make about two points worth of difference now. That said, it may also be worth reminding everyone though that El-Sayed is male and AOC is, y'know, not, so AOC for that reason also may prove less electorally viable than someone like El-Sayed despite their similar political stances and youth and oratory skills and all that.
For the Republicans, I suspect this outcome means that we'll see some more people jump in the race than might've otherwise. If Trump were a popular president, his hand-picked VP would be a shoe-in for the nomination (yes despite how rarely VPs get elected; it's an irony of how our politics work). While Vance is still almost certain to win it in the end, I think he may wind up with more competition than he might've faced otherwise in light of the administration's manifest unpopularity, proven by these midterm results. We're already seeing characters like Ron DeSantis and Ted Cruz seeming to test out opening salvos for potential presidential runs this week, making sure their voices are heard nationally on what went wrong just now and all. But yeah, I'm forecasting a Democratic win in 2028 because that just seems to be what happens right after a blue wave midterm cycle (e.g. Barack Obama won in 2008 following the 2006 blue wave, Joe Biden won in 2020 following the 2018 blue wave, etc.). Republican administrations just don't seem to really recover from these things in the short run. But things will likely swing back the other direction very quickly under a new, Democratic president unless the Democrats, once in power, can quickly prove qualitatively more successful in getting the seemingly permanent global cost of living crisis that has felled so many governments left, right, and in the middle lately, and also government corruption, under control. And on that only time will tell. That said, history says that after countries replace authoritarian leaders, democratic backsliding tends to resume within the next five years, so I wouldn't bank on it.
Those are my thoughts.
Edited 9 hours ago by Impress Polly.
1
This future is now ours!
(Yes I kid. A little.)
Anyway, I think by now we all know the crux of what just happened this week with the American midterm elections, so I won't bore you with the basics, I'll bore you with other things instead. I did want to offer some kind of formal commentary though.
I take pride in the accuracy of my election predictions and feel the need to gloat a bit over the fact that I accurately predicted a Democratic landslide that would specifically see the Dems gain upwards of 45 more House seats, upwards of seven to ten Senate seats, and most state governorships all year now. It actually wasn't that tough to see it coming, you just had to look below the topline numbers in the polls and notice the enthusiasm gap that they recorded because it's been my observation that enthusiasm gaps are more accurate than topline numbers, as they predict who will and won't actually vote. Still, this outcome was somewhat more dramatic than even I could've foreseen. I didn't expect the Dems to retake the local House of Representatives in Texas, for example, or to land more than 50 additional seats in the U.S. House (which is what they're on course for based on the current vote counts). The most important takeaway though isn't so much any of that as the end result itself, which is the fact that the Democrats are gonna wind up with the largest House majority they've had since the early 1990s. Based on the current race calls only, they've already won the biggest House majority any party has had in this century. It's significant in that it reflects a trend in midterm elections we've seen emerge since the 2010 tea party wave. That was the last true Republican wave election we've seen in this country. In the four midterm cycles since, Republicans have won twice and Democrats have now won twice, but the two Republican victories (2014 and '22) have been smallish ones won by dwindling margins while the two Democratic victories (2018 and obviously '26) have been large ones won by increasing margins. I think this tells you that a certain political realignment has occurred since 2010 such that it's now the Democrats who have the stronger midterm coalition overall, in contrast to the period running from 1994 to 2010 (which was the result of the GOP gradually absorbing the Democratic Party's conservative, rural wing; a process that is now pretty complete.) This kind of realignment carries a similar kind of cultural weight I think to the 1994 realignment, which marked the first time in 40 years that Republicans had won the House of Representatives.
Since all House seats go up for election every two years, the party balance of the House is really the single best gauge there is of which party is more popular over during a given era. During the Cold War, it was the Democrats. Between the Cold War and the start of the Trump era, it was the Republicans because they controlled the House for nearly that entire period. Since the start of the Trump era, the balance has been gradually moving back toward the Democrats, but for somewhat different reasons than the last time that was the case. After all, the previous age of Democratic dominance was partially rooted in them retaining a large conservative wing that they no longer possess. In examining the evolution of the Democratic Party over time...
...you will find that today's Dem coalition is no longer helmed by the laboring classes. Rather, they form a periphery of mostly external support for the party today. The actual "grassroots" base of the Democratic Party today is a bourgeois demographic composed of affluent white collar workers and professionals. In good years, like this one, the Dems win the votes of most blue collar workers, but most blue collar voters are no longer registered as Democrats today; they're moderate independents of less consistent voting loyalties than in the past. This more bourgeois base of support gives them a stronger midterm coalition because richer people tend to be more interested in politics and vote more reliably, including in less prominent sorts of elections like midterm cycles. In other words, the recent trend toward Democrats faring better in midterm elections is in essence a byproduct of the party's modern bourgeoisification / liberalization.
Anyway, all this talk of party coalitions aside, the specific question of why this cycle went so especially heavily to the Democrats I think was best answered by the conservative commentator Erick Erickson, whose pertinent tweet I will quote the key parts of below for you to absorb:
Quote:For the last two years, the Trump Administration has been governed by a simple mantra: “We can just do things.” On Tuesday, voters replied, “So can we,” and wiped out the GOP. ...
.....
It was gas prices.
And it was the war.
But it was also calling affordability a “hoax.”
And it was also the corruption.
The incompetence.
The tariffs.
The playing nice with Russia while treating our allies worse than our enemies.
The impression of cruelty.
The overly aggressive deportations.
The accidental arrests of American citizens who were Hispanic.
The arrogance.
The ballroom.
The reflecting poll. [sic]
The golf courses.
The arch.
The Qatari 747.
The aggressive redistricting push.
The threats against enemies.
To this one apt commentator added a mention of the administration's strategic backtracking on the Epstein files, although I think we could really file that under the corruption category. Anyway yeah, this was obviously more of a referendum on Republican rule and the Trump presidency more specifically than it was a resounding endorsement of the Democratic agenda, as significantly more voters cast Democratic ballots (roughly 55% in House races) than indicated a favorable opinion of the party in exit polling (47%). And yes, Trump specifically was a drag on his party because their job approval rating in the exit polling was slightly higher than his. This was a repudiation of Trumpism, full stop. I'd like for any rightists reading this to take a moment to absorb that factual reality not just to gloat (although partially to gloat
), but also because it is important to the future viability of their preferred party, as nearly every demographic in the country voted for Democrats this time around, including, as I predicted earlier this year, a majority of white women for the first time I can remember and even most heterosexual women for a change.To be clear, to respond to those pundits claiming that "woke is back", ballot initiative results suggest maybe not as much as they think. All ballot initiatives proposing to limit women's sports to women, for example, passed, including the ones in so-called blue states like Colorado and Washington that simultaneously swept Democrats to power up and down that ballot. In fact, one of the only "anti-trans" measure of any kind that didn't pass was one in Missouri that proposed to enshrine an already-existing ban on gender transition medications and treatments for kids into the state constitution but also included new, heavy restrictions on abortion access. Abortion access, speaking of, was also a winning issue in general, with multiple states voting to enshrine protections into their state constitutions. The consistent thread there is that women's rights are just generally a winning cause. Also Arizona voted to designate drug cartels as terrorist organizations and Colorado voted to increase penalties for human trafficking (most of which is specifically sex trafficking) and for everything to do with fentanyl while also voting to establish a graduated state income tax. Washington voted to keep their wealth tax while also voting for women's athletics to be open to women only. Data centers restrictions were a winning cause just generally, which strikes across party lines and marriage equality won protection at the state level in a Virginia referendum. (List of ballot initiatives and results here.) So even in a blue wave year where nearly half of voters identified as Democrats, the results on culture war issues was ideologically mixed, most often favoring a fairly centrist balance of positions (economic populist, tough on crime, pro-choice, trans-skeptical, etc.). As much reflects America's increasingly moderating views on moral questions broadly in recent years following decades of consistent liberalization before the pandemic. The culture substantively appears to be done liberalizing for the time being, prolly owing in part to that recent uptick in youth religiosity you've heard about in the last few years. But at the same time, a more moderate social climate obviously doesn't just mean Republicans win elections. So what I'm saying here is that progressives, conservatives...nobody should be getting arrogant about how aligned with their worldview the broad public is in the culture wars just because an election goes this way or that. People vote on more than just that stuff. Especially moderates.
What does this all mean for the 2028 presidential election, if anything? Well...I think the statewide victories of people like Troy Jackson in Maine, Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota, and above all Abdul El-Sayed in the typically very swing-y state of Michigan signal a newfound viability of political progressives specifically that Democrats may just opt to try and take advantage of. The typical winning argument by the party's establishment faction is that progressives aren't viable candidates in statewide contests in swing states, and therefore aren't federally either. Now they are, proven, including even against less extreme Republicans (like Susan Collins). At least under present circumstances anyway, they are. So the non-viability argument will no longer carry the same weight anymore after this week, which greatly increases the odds of the Democrats picking someone like oh say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as their presidential nominee. So yeah, the Dems may wind up picking a candidate who is well to the left of the public's preference because they might just be able to get away with it given how widely hated the Republican brand is atm. To be clear though, less extreme liberals definitely fare better against Republicans as the rule, and you can see that manifested once again in the fact that the Dems' Michigan gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson fared better than El-Sayed did for the state's open Senate seat, and likewise in the fact that Maine gubernatorial candidate Hannah Pingree fared better than Troy Jackson in Maine, and likewise in the fact that Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Amy Klobuchar fared better than Peggy Flanagan did in her Senate race in the same state, on the same ballot. It's a strikingly consistent pattern that the establishment candidates enjoy a wider reach in terms of support in general elections, so picking one of those sorts of candidates is what would actually max out the odds of a Dem prez victory. They just tend to get more blue collar support. The establishment is established for a reason. But I think the overall strength of their viability argument has just been weakened, as an establishment candidate victory only seems to make about two points worth of difference now. That said, it may also be worth reminding everyone though that El-Sayed is male and AOC is, y'know, not, so AOC for that reason also may prove less electorally viable than someone like El-Sayed despite their similar political stances and youth and oratory skills and all that.
For the Republicans, I suspect this outcome means that we'll see some more people jump in the race than might've otherwise. If Trump were a popular president, his hand-picked VP would be a shoe-in for the nomination (yes despite how rarely VPs get elected; it's an irony of how our politics work). While Vance is still almost certain to win it in the end, I think he may wind up with more competition than he might've faced otherwise in light of the administration's manifest unpopularity, proven by these midterm results. We're already seeing characters like Ron DeSantis and Ted Cruz seeming to test out opening salvos for potential presidential runs this week, making sure their voices are heard nationally on what went wrong just now and all. But yeah, I'm forecasting a Democratic win in 2028 because that just seems to be what happens right after a blue wave midterm cycle (e.g. Barack Obama won in 2008 following the 2006 blue wave, Joe Biden won in 2020 following the 2018 blue wave, etc.). Republican administrations just don't seem to really recover from these things in the short run. But things will likely swing back the other direction very quickly under a new, Democratic president unless the Democrats, once in power, can quickly prove qualitatively more successful in getting the seemingly permanent global cost of living crisis that has felled so many governments left, right, and in the middle lately, and also government corruption, under control. And on that only time will tell. That said, history says that after countries replace authoritarian leaders, democratic backsliding tends to resume within the next five years, so I wouldn't bank on it.
Those are my thoughts.