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

[Matty]

We have a sitting president with the second worst approvals at this point in a term, behind only the orange clown. This sitting president had perhaps the worst summer news cycle ever, from Afghanistan to congressional sh**tshow.

We had a democrat running for VA gov who was boring, weird, clinton-tainted, and committed a truly terrible gaffe about an issue people care about. We had a republican running who was disciplined, handsome, gentle, and picked an issue that really resonated.

We know, by studying history, that parties in power, especially unpopular parties in power, can see horrible losses in their home turfs. Alabama 2017, louisiana and kentucky 2019, etc.

States far far more partisan in their lean than VA have governors of the opposite party.  It isn't remotely remarkable.

[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.

[DS0816]

This tweet says it better than I can.…

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

[Pollster]

After many years/election cycles marked by Republican errors and missteps starting from the top that those down the ballot rigidly ran in lockstep with (a lot of which predates Trump though he accelerated it to an extreme), many on this board and on twitter and in the media seemed to forget how to react to a Republican who more or less was capable of overperforming partisanship in a pronounced way that is far more characteristic of Democrats. I myself fell victim to this when making my final prediction of McAuliffe +3/4.

[John Dule]

After the last five years, there is no excuse for anyone who doesn't automatically add a minimum of two points to all polling of Republican candidates.

[Southern Reactionary Dem]

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.

I was conflicted... because VA polling 2017 was biased towards Rs but almost all other polling for years now has been D-biased. I predicted a Youngkin +2 win (which Non Swing Voter clowned on me for) and I for once ended up correct.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I think a lot of us were banking on partisanship. Maybe the California recall, which was clearly a one-off or an outlier, spoiled us.

As for New Jersey, not even the most optimistic Ciatarelli supporters saw that coming.

[/tweet]k=topic=469193.msg8327030#msg8327030 date=1635960751 uid=2612]
This tweet says it better than I can.…

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

Some of that tweet is accurate, but it's really ballsy to claim that Republicans have a "theory of governance" and don't cling to conspiracy theories. Come the f*** on!

[omar04]

This tweet says it better than I can.…

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

That sounds closer to the general perception the GOP wants to present rather than Democratic policy like the death panels back in 2009.

[roxas11]

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 people 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

[Pericles]

After the last five years, there is no excuse for anyone who doesn't automatically add a minimum of two points to all polling of Republican candidates.

The final average was Youngkin +1%, so maybe add 1 point to the margin. But for once, Virginia pollsters caught a break.

[ShrekFanboy]

A lot of people here are gonna need therapy when GOP sweeps 2022 followed by a Trump or DeSantis win in 2024.

[Mr. Smith]

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

It's not that people automatically want to put a check, it's more that the in-party base starts wanting things they can't have and the in-party establishment assumes the gravy train is always going to roll, especially if they tell the base that saved them to shut up [Democrats are far worse in this regard than the GOP] so motivation on their side to turnout and vote in simply not there.

Whereas the out-party gets a boost based on anger.

[Person Man]

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

[Mr. Smith]

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 and 1998 were exceptions to the rule thanks to impressive opposition incompetence in those years.

[Pericles]

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 people 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

Inaugurated, otherwise the GA miracle wouldn't have happened.

[Alben Barkley]

Wishcasting.

Which to be fair the Republicans here are also often very guilty of.

[omar04]

Wishcasting.

Which to be fair the Republicans here are also often very guilty of.

Partisans discussing elections online are basically the epitome of "even a broken clock is right twice a day".

[roxas11]

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

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 to be 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

[Progressive Pessimist]

Wishcasting.

Which to be fair the Republicans here are also often very guilty of.

They succeed at it way more though. They always seem capable of willing whatever they want into existence.

[Adam Griffin]

This tweet says it better than I can.…

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

Not to nitpick, but I do think this is more accurate:



It also avoids the broader dynamic that voters generally don't like wimps, pusses and losers - something with which the Democratic Party of today is synonymous.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This tweet says it better than I can.…

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

Not to nitpick, but I do think this is more accurate:



It also avoids the broader dynamic that voters generally don't like wimps, pusses and losers - something with which the Democratic Party of today is synonymous.

We have to keep conspiracy theories in because of the Russia bullsh**t.

[Person Man]

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

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

I guess the 1960s and 1970s don’t really count because of all the conservative Democrats and how it was one thing to have a trifecta then and it’s another to have one now. I will agree now that getting a trifecta re-elected now wouldn’t be tolerated very well. W didn’t even have a trifecta in 2000 and so in reality, maybe this is what is to be expected. 2004 was tough though. A lot of younger voters didn’t think Democrats would be competitive again anytime soon.

[Person Man]

This tweet says it better than I can.…

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

Not to nitpick, but I do think this is more accurate:



It also avoids the broader dynamic that voters generally don't like wimps, pusses and losers - something with which the Democratic Party of today is synonymous.

We have to keep conspiracy theories in because of the Russia bullsh**t.

It didn’t change the result of the election, but people went to jail for it.

[Virginiá]

[...]

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.

[roxas11]

[...]

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