With Strife, Republicans Induced Their Own Poor Showing

Flash said:

The only bar was that the president's party would lose seats.
Click to expand...


Again, if your intention to be so fucking lazy about it, then sure...but that's just your laziness and not even reflective of the dynamic of this election.

Because if the Democrats once again dominate the aggregate House vote, that goes to prove that the only reason they lost seats was because of gerrymandering, not because of historical precedent.

You aren't even considering that.

Democrats: 45,846,105 (46.4%)
Republicans: 51,415,367 (52.1%)
Click to expand...

From where did you get these numbers? They're not complete because all votes haven't been counted, and I can't find any reference to them anywhere in a Google search.

So you're doing that lazy Flash thing where you jump to conclusions because doing the work is too annoying or hard.
 
LV426 said:
What led you to this conclusion? "historical precedent"...which is just a nicer way of saying that you're too fucking lazy to do the work necessary to understanding this particular midterm dynamic.

Because you are trying to credit the loss of seats to some "historical precedent against the sitting President" when the loss of seats was clearly due to partisan gerrymandering since the aggregate vote total will once again show Democrats won by a wide margin for the third consecutive election.
Click to expand...

That the president's party loses seats tells us what will happen. Why it happens is a different issue.

You certainly can't blame most of it on partisan gerrymandering because that tells us nothing about the Senate and doesn't explain why districts have become less competitive and safer for one party even when no redistricting occurred in that district. Don't be so lazy and look into sorting instead of using simplistic partisan gerrymandering explanations.

Since the Democrats did better than expected any partisan gerrymandering obviously occurred in blue states.

"the aggregate vote total will once again show Democrats won by a wide margin for the third consecutive election"

Yet, the Democrats are behind 52.1% to 46.4% or about 6 million votes.

And, the aggregate vote has no relevance to my main point: the president's party will lost seats.

 
Flash said:
Yet, the Democrats are behind 52.1% to 46.4% or about 6 million votes.
Click to expand...

I cannot find any reference to these numbers anywhere and furthermore, almost all the races in CA have only been reporting between 50-60% of the vote right now.

Almost every single CA race hasn't finished the count.

So you are once again jumping to conclusions before all votes have been counted.
 
Flash said:
I disagree. If we look at only a president's first midterm election as this is Biden's first midterm from 1954 we find:

Average Republican seats lost (House + Senate): -21
Average Democratic seats lost (House + Senate): -37

Clinton and Obama are responsible for the big difference.
Click to expand...

trump lost 40.
 
Flash said:
Yet, the Democrats are behind 52.1% to 46.4% or about 6 million votes.
Click to expand...

OK, so I was finally able to find the reference to this on Cook, however it comes with a huge asterisk because not all the votes have been counted, so forming any conclusions at this point is premature.
 
LV426 said:
Again, if your intention to be so fucking lazy about it, then sure...but that's just your laziness and not even reflective of the dynamic of this election.

Because if the Democrats once again dominate the aggregate House vote, that goes to prove that the only reason they lost seats was because of gerrymandering, not because of historical precedent.

You aren't even considering that.

From where did you get these numbers? They're not complete because all votes haven't been counted, and I can't find any reference to them anywhere in a Google search.

So you're doing that lazy Flash thing where you jump to conclusions because doing the work is too annoying or hard.
Click to expand...

In other words, you didn't look long enough to find it.

https://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/house-charts/national-house-vote-tracker/2022

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Did you give up looking for all my posts that claimed there would be a massive red wave and the Republicans would take both houses? It never existed and I even said I thought the Democrats would lose fewer than the average midterm loss-exactly the opposite of your claim.

When you don't find those posts are you going to admit it on JPP?
 
LV426 said:
I cannot find any reference to these numbers anywhere and furthermore, almost all the races in CA have only been reporting between 50-60% of the vote right now.

Almost every single CA race hasn't finished the count.

So you are once again jumping to conclusions before all votes have been counted.
Click to expand...

I showed what we know at this point. I made no prediction.

You are the one who jumped to conclusions by claiming the Democrats would win the aggregate national vote.
 
s nationwidehttps://www.audacy.com › ... › News › National
1 day ago — Republicans lead by 6.1%, which is better than their average in “generic congressional ballot” polls. The 2022 election had simular numbers as...


US House GOP received over six million more votes nationwide
 
LV426 said:
OK, so I was finally able to find the reference to this on Cook, however it comes with a huge asterisk because not all the votes have been counted, so forming any conclusions at this point is premature.
Click to expand...

Agree, I only presented the current numbers because I questioned your premature claim that "the aggregate vote total will once again show Democrats won by a wide margin for the third consecutive election."


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top