Democrats won the House, but Trump won the election

Many of the newly elected democrats ran on that and on saying they were moderates that supported Trump policies. Some I'm sure we're lying to get elected but there may be enough that were telling the truth to throw a monkey wrench into the gears of the pelosi machine.

 

Understandably, Trumpery compelled many to abandon Lyin' Don's manure barge of state.

Even gerrymandered districting could not save those seats from the sentiments of the American people after 2 years of rampant Trumpery.

Increasing participation by women, racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse Americans, and the younger and better-educated will insure the progress continues.

 

Rampant Trumpery? Oh you mean the booming economy and job growth and stock market. Yeah, gotta hate that. Lol

 

No, I reference, despite economic good times, the relentless loathing of most Americans for the p-grabbing narcissistic cry baby, confirmed in poll after poll.

 

Remember that Obama had 63 seats flip in his first midterm and he lost both the house and the Senate so compared to that this is a trump endorsement

 

Trump won the election. What an odd interpretation of the facts. In the final count, Democrats took the House by over 30 seats, flpped seven governorships, and shrunk by over 300 seats the much vaunted GOP claim of a 1000 pickup over ten years of Obama. It was the worst mid-year drubbing of the GOP since Watergate. Trump and his supporters were never very good with numbers.

 

If the past affords you solace, cling to it.

 

The past is how you judge the present and put it in perspective

 

This is where historical perspective comes into play.

"Democrats have underperformed in comparison with the historical markers and general expectations of a midterm cycle. The president’s party loses 37 seats in the House on average in midterm elections when his approval is below 50 percent — but Democrats aren’t projected to pick up nearly that many seats."

 

Going forward, the encouraging signs for democracy in the US include Democratic governorships for 2020's congressional districting as well as ballot questions passing in several states that establish non-partisan methodologies. That will make it far harder for a party to seize power with the support of a minority of Americans.

Republicans have managed to control the presidency, the senate, and the house with fewer folks voting for them than for the opposition.

 

Democrats will never understand that we live a republic or how that works I guess. As far as the Senate goes each member did indeed win a popular vote and the majority of voters did indeed vote for them.

 

It's the rural/urban divide. The rurals have fewer people, but more space. Now, I know the Democrat dream is to scrap the EC and somehow make the Senate to also be formed according to national popular vote (a pipe dream that would require the consent of the states that would be downgraded in power. Never gonna happen). But the truth is, it makes more sense for the rural areas to be selecting federal representatives than urban areas. The reason is this: federal law applies to all 50 states, so it should be a baseline "common denominator". Rural areas neither need nor want as many rules as urban areas; therefore that is the baseline. Urban areas can then take that baseline and add on their extra rules for people in the big cities. Far superior to, say, people in LA and NYC deciding that the whole country (including rural areas) needs to get rid of their guns just because people in urban areas can't seem to handle theirs properly.

 

Excellent post but it will fall on deaf ears or in this case blind eyes

 

Naturally, a political party that can control the presidency and legislative branches with a minority of Americans' votes likes the status quo.

I anticipate that gerrymandered districting (that has been contrived by both Parties to their advantage) will be the one to go. Whether it is rural areas dictating gun policies to urban areas where far more Americans are killed by them or otherwise, it is obvious that it is not a one-size-fits-all issue.

 

People who respect the Founding Fathers also like that constitutional status quo. (Minus, perhaps, the 17th Amendment)

"It is not a one-size-fits-all issue". That was exactly my point. If rurals decide to have lax federal gun laws, urbans can enact stricter ones in their areas ("opt in" to additional state and local laws). Everyone is happy. Conversely, if urbans enact strict federal gun laws, they affect everyone (rurals can't "opt out". i.e. "one size for all").

 

So here's another election come & gone like federal sin ChristHitler KKK churchstate thieving US Constitution-old glory-old testament-absentee ballot arsonists of the mid 70's where not being a citizen according to Nazington, Drugs of Christianity supreme swastika up Uranus court by immaculate drug conceptions has sociologically evolved from their second coming thru 9/11 into a national religion of super ego suicidal-homicidal Islam Christiananality pedophilia mentality slavery business of sociopsychopathilogical human farming Catholic Church megalomaniacal patriot act heroes "man is God" lynching enforcement to protect & serve Arab terrorists that threatened POTUS & to nuke Temple Mount before 9/11 by baptizing eyes by urinations under color of law as a more better perfect union one nation under God with equal justice under law survival of the fittest fascists pseudo science pyramid scheme.

 

So where is the redistricting map to show anything like these, and why can't I find ANY article on gerrymandering by Democrats when I Google it? Hmmm?

 

However, more Americans are being governed by Democratic governors. That is what counts. Republican governors control more states. Democratic governors control more people.

 

As I noted, gerrymandered districting has to go.

We agree concerning sensible gun regulation to reduce the obscene level of firearm massacres in the US. No parent should have his children in a suburban school slaughtered by a deranged gunster because a farmer wants a shotgun to scare crows away. Can permissive laws for rural areas keep crackpots from amassing arsenals to wreak carnage in population centers? If a way can be found, I'm all for it.

 

Counts how? My governor has just as much power as your governor regardless of what state you or I live in.

If you don't like it, move some where else or change the system. The system is what it is.

 

The democrats won the house and the republicans won the senate. Gerrymandering can only take place in the house. So what is your beef?

The gun problem is not in the rural area. Most guns are bought and sold and used illegally in urban areas. Certainly it has nothing to do with shotguns. Sounds like you urban folks have a gun problem and you want to punish the rural areas for it.

I keep guns in the house for personal protection. Most of the home intrusions in this area are by urban people hoping we are so isolated that we can do nothing about it. Many are surprised to find out the homes are not gun free zones.

 

The fact that the Republicans gained more seats in the Senate in a mid-term election is an anomaly, but Trump deserves no credit. Republicans gained more seats in the Senate because of the red hot, history making economy.

Trump has done little or nothing to stimulate the economy. He has actually threatened the economy with his harsh tariffs and trade wars while failing to sign one trade deal in his nearly two years in office. Also, yesterday proved Wall Street pays very little attention to what Trump says or does. Trump fired the attorney general he appointed -- a former Senator who was very much a part of Trump's election campaign -- and appointed an attack dog to temporarily replace him. Whitaker, who has been strongly critical of the Mueller investigation, will now be in charge of the all important Mueller investigation. Wall Street didn't even blink. The stock market totally ignored what Trump said and did and the DOW added over 500 points. After all, for most of his political life, Trump was a New York Democrat.

However, the Republicans are a different story. CEO's, CFO's, and business owners like the GOP and their kind now control matters. They react accordingly. That is why our economy is red hot. The Republican Congress wrote the entire tax bill. Trump acted as cheerleader and signed it. Those people who control our corporations and Wall Street loved that tax bill and they love it when the GOP controls both houses of Congress, the Oval Office, and the Supreme Court.

Given all this, it is a wonder the Democrats won anything. Yet, they captured the House and gained seven governor seats. Since this election was a referendum on Trump, according to Trump, those GOP losses are attributed to him. Americans have wised up. They know Trump has threatened the economy, not stimulated it.

 

You misunderstood what I wrote. Read it again.

 

I didn't misunderstand. What you said is not relevant. The system is what it is. If you don't like it, either leave or change it.

 

Putting the GOP’s House losses in context does Trump no favors
11/08/18 10:54 AM—UPDATED 11/08/18 11:09 AM

By Steve Benen

From: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...rFkIxYuotNOH4hGUKJfBtp4o1iRu1oFs36VotWJLhL0oI



There is no consensus about the precise definition of a “wave” election, so there’s been a fair amount of debate since Tuesday night about whether Democratic gains this year meet the standard. Whether the argument is constructive or not is a matter of perspective.


Perhaps there’s another way of looking at this. I put together the above chart showing House losses and gains for the president’s party by midterm cycle since 1914 (the first midterm cycle in which the House had 435 members). Red columns point to years in which the White House was held by a Republican, blue columns point to years in which the president was a Democrat.

Results from this year are still coming into focus, of course, which makes this a little tricky. As of this morning, most news outlets show Democrats with a net gain of 29 or so seats, but FiveThirtyEight projects Dems will end up with a net gain of 37, so I went with that for now.

Let’s also talk a bit about averages. Between 1914 and 2014, the president’s party lost an average of about 30 House seats in midterm elections. If we narrow the focus to midterms since World War II, the average is about 26. Since Watergate, the average is 23.

If we look only at a president’s first midterm cycle – in other words, after a president has been in office for two years, as opposed to six – the average between 1914 and 2014 is nearly 33 seats. If we look only at Republican presidents, the average is about 27 seats.

With these metrics in mind, 2018 doesn’t look great for Trump’s GOP.


This year’s Republican losses, barring major surprises in the final tallies, are higher than the historical average and the worst for a GOP president since the 1974 midterms in the aftermath of Watergate.

The exceedingly Republican-friendly Senate landscape notwithstanding, it’s tough to see this as anything but a significant setback for the president and his party.