I am not here to rub it in...I just want to know why so many of you were so flippant

[Schiff for Senate]

Because VA was a Biden+10 state and I figured polarization was way too strong for a GOP win even if Biden was unpopular. I suppose I also underestimated Biden's unpopularity, but to be fair the only point of comparison we had was the recall in our common state, which we both know was great for Democrats (well, not considering the partisan lean of CA, but considering polling and predictions that it'd be competitive). I didn't think McAuliffe was that bad a candidate - he seemed to me experienced and uncontroversial, actually - and while I thought Youngkin had a good campaign, I figured polarization would win the day. And yes, more polarized states have opposite-party governors, but let's look at them one-by-one. Hogan, Baker and Scott are all anti-Trump and very moderate (I'd call Baker and Scott centrists). Sununu is more libertarian and a good fit for NH, which didn't support Biden by as much as VA did. In contrast to these people, Youngkin is a mainstream Republican except slightly quieter in his support for Trump (to win votes, though it was clear he was pro-Trump even if he didn't explicitly say it or invoke Trump's name). AL, KY, LA don't compare. In LA ancestral Democrats supported a popular and very moderate Democrat in his bid for reelection by enough for him to narrowly win...Youngkin had none of these advantages. In KY (which incidentally borders VA), it was because Bevin was exceedingly unpopular, and even then Beshear barely won, and did so with the support of ancestral registered Democrats in places like Elliott County who backed Trump the following year (basically, similar to LA). I'm shocked you're even bringing AL into this...it hardly compares. Moore would've won comfortably if not for the fact that he was totally scandal-tainted, and Jones was a good candidate (I imagine Moore might've still won if his opponent was a progressive or something). So, yes, while I was wrong, I still feel I was justified in making the predictions I made. I was right that the polls were underestimating a party: My only mistake was thinking polls were underestimating Democrats, when they largely underestimated Republicans.

[Schiff for Senate]

This tweet says it better than I can.…

https://twitter.com/shantmm/status/1455908366409089028?s=21

Wow. Just wow that he's calling Democrats the supporters of conspiracy theories when probably about 90% of the GOP believes in Qanon, the Big Lie, some other conspiracy theory or a combination.

[Schiff for Senate]

Maybe I'm just getter up there in age, but here is the dirty little secret about American politics

Everything you just posted literally does not matter at all because the second Biden got elected the American had already made the decision they were going to give the Republicans power in other to keep him in check.

I have seen this play it out so many times before and no matter what people will always do the same thing. They will elect a president and right after that they will start taking power away from that president and his party until he is nothing but a lame duck at the end

To be more blunt the American people hate 1 party rule and he era where they were willing to give FDR and Dems massive amounts of power for decades are long gone. Nowadays it just took a few years for Obama to lose his super majority and trump only got to pass a tax cut before his party lost control of the house.

bottom line it would not matter if Biden was super popular right now because the American people are still going to want the Republican back in power in order to be a check on the president and his party

2002

2002 was a direct result of 9/11 - Bush's approvals went up to 90% in the direct aftermath of it. And actually, if 9/11 had happened in today's environment, I think the nation would've been too polarized for Bush to gain seats in Congress - Democrats and liberals would probably support Bush for some time but would drop all support of him by the time he proposed Iraq. In the 2000s there was far less partisanship and people could agree on things more. An unfortunate consequence is that Bush took advantage of this to cause Iraq and promote his agenda.

[Schiff for Senate]

[...]

2002

We all know what happened to Bush and the republican party after 2002....

They lost The house, The senate and eventually the white house. It also leads to the rise of Nancy Pelosi since people wanted her a check on bush

In anything bringing up 2002 just proves my point. Back in the 1930s the great depression led to FDR and the Dems having power for decades, but after 9/11 Bush and his party only got 1 good midterm before the American people started kicking them all out of power

A super popular president is really the primary driver for a good midterm for their party. You're right, GWB only got one good midterm, but that is generally more than most termed-out presidents get. GWB got that good midterm because he was super popular in 2002, and then got a shellacking in 2006 because he was unpopular. There are various reasons for why he was, and various structural biases can amplify how good/bad the party does, but the general theme is the same: midterms are referendums on the president. People generally don't feel a need to put a check on a popular president and their party.

The depression comparison doesn't really work for 9/11. They both changed society and generation(s) of people, but not in the same ways. In one, a Republican presided over economic catastrophe and mostly bungled the response to it, and then sat in the White House for years, absorbing the blame as the GDP crashed and unemployment skyrocketed. In the other, we were attacked by foreign enemies and the people rallied around the president as he initiate a war against those enemies and later, another war since that was all the rage then.

Tell that to this guy.....


President Dwight D. Eisenhower was insanely popular and loved by the American people, yet his party still suffered massive losses under him

During his first midterm in 1954 the Republicans lost the Congressional majorities they had won in the previous election and during his second midterm in 1958 They lost 48 seats to the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, and also lost thirteen seats in the U.S. Senate to the Democrats

Even though the American people really did Like Ike they still turned around and kicked the Republican party out of power. In the end it just goes to show that if someone as loved as President Dwight D. Eisenhower could not stop has party from taking huge losses during midterms than no other president can

This is true. I'd add after that brutal midterm, Eisenhower still went on to get reelected in 1956 in a landslide even bigger than 1952.