Current Events > It's weird how smug Republicans are about losing the House

(+) Yeah! (+)

"Hurr durr some blue wave. Trump's still President!"

I see or hear variations of that everywhere

I don't get it.
---

"And the ego goes into defense mode" - Stan Smith, Republican.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election#Historical_record_of_midterm

Midterm elections are sometimes regarded as a referendum on the sitting president's and/or incumbent party's performance.[4][5] The party of the incumbent president tends to lose ground during midterm elections: since WWII the President's party has lost an average 26 seats in the House, and an average four seats in the Senate; moreover, in only five of those has the President's party gained seats in either house and of those only one has seen the President's party gain seats in both houses.

Trump lost about the average in the house and gained 3 instead of losing 4 in the senate. Smugness likely comes from the recognition that if this was meant to be a referendum on Trump, that the country as a whole is a lot less dissatisfied than Democrats would want people to believe, which bodes well for 2020 when the ruling party often fares better.

Basically a loss of seats was almost guaranteed, regardless of president, so losing less than expected and actually gaining in the senate (which is uncommon) is a positive sign in terms of overall party appeal.
---

Republicans lost the average House seats in Trumps first midterm and gained 4 in the Senate. Obama lost double that in his first midterm.
---

Deadlock is actually beneficial to the economy.
It means stability in law, and probably also regulation, for at least two years. Businesses love stability.

Let them ignore it at their own peril.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Deadlock is actually beneficial to the economy.
It means stability in law, and probably also regulation, for at least two years. Businesses love stability.

Historically I'd agree with you, but in the last decade deadlock seems to increasingly lead to government shutdowns, which is not only bad for business but actively hurts our nation's credit rating.
---

Its because the people are uneducated.
---

Denial has been a key part of the Trump ideology from the beginning

s0nicfan posted...

Trump lost about the average in the house and gained 3 instead of losing 4 in the senate

This is false. House is going to be between 35-40 and AZ and FL are still up in the air.

Also you know damn well that Democrats had a historically bad Senate map to work with and would have lost more without such a historically unpopular president.
---

They've still stuck around and support Trump after two years of his shitshow of a presidency. They only care about sticking it to the libs.
---

trump's flipping his shit over a democrat conspiracy with the voter recount lmao.
---

Nevermind Florida law requires a recount when it's that close.
---

This is the "Winning!" Party. They can never cop to anything else.
---

davyheinz posted...

Its because the people are uneducated.

We is not!
---

s0nicfan posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election#Historical_record_of_midterm

Midterm elections are sometimes regarded as a referendum on the sitting president's and/or incumbent party's performance.[4][5] The party of the incumbent president tends to lose ground during midterm elections: since WWII the President's party has lost an average 26 seats in the House, and an average four seats in the Senate; moreover, in only five of those has the President's party gained seats in either house and of those only one has seen the President's party gain seats in both houses.

Trump lost about the average in the house and gained 3 instead of losing 4 in the senate. Smugness likely comes from the recognition that if this was meant to be a referendum on Trump, that the country as a whole is a lot less dissatisfied than Democrats would want people to believe, which bodes well for 2020 when the ruling party often fares better.

Basically a loss of seats was almost guaranteed, regardless of president, so losing less than expected and actually gaining in the senate (which is uncommon) is a positive sign in terms of overall party appeal.

VictimComplex already addressed some of this, but I'd also like to point out that "Only 5 times since WWII" is about 25% of the time.
---

Anteaterking posted...

s0nicfan posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election#Historical_record_of_midterm

Midterm elections are sometimes regarded as a referendum on the sitting president's and/or incumbent party's performance.[4][5] The party of the incumbent president tends to lose ground during midterm elections: since WWII the President's party has lost an average 26 seats in the House, and an average four seats in the Senate; moreover, in only five of those has the President's party gained seats in either house and of those only one has seen the President's party gain seats in both houses.

Trump lost about the average in the house and gained 3 instead of losing 4 in the senate. Smugness likely comes from the recognition that if this was meant to be a referendum on Trump, that the country as a whole is a lot less dissatisfied than Democrats would want people to believe, which bodes well for 2020 when the ruling party often fares better.

Basically a loss of seats was almost guaranteed, regardless of president, so losing less than expected and actually gaining in the senate (which is uncommon) is a positive sign in terms of overall party appeal.

VictimComplex already addressed some of this, but I'd also like to point out that "Only 5 times since WWII" is about 25% of the time.

So 75% of the time they dont gain in either house or Senate.

And only 5% of the time they gain in both.

Seems like Trump fared pretty well for being supposedly hated so badly.
---

There were record numbers of people voting against him. The only thing this showed was that Trump supporters are as loyal and blind as the country believed them to be. Everyone else was galvanized against his administration

Houston posted...

Seems like Trump fared pretty well for being supposedly hated so badly.

The Senate map was horribly against democrats this cycle. They had to defend multiple seats in Trump states and were projected to lose 2-3 seats. If they pull off FL and AZ, that's a net loss of 1
---

Gaining as many seats as they did despite the gerrymandering and the voter suppression seems pretty good to me. All I'm seeing are a bunch of cheaters patting themselves on the back for cheating pretty effectively.
---

Houston posted...

So 75% of the time they dont gain in either house or Senate.

And only 5% of the time they gain in both.

Seems like Trump fared pretty well for being supposedly hated so badly.

That's a stupid take-away. I'm just pointing out that anytime we talk about elections and how frequently certain things happen, consideration needs to be made that elections (especially if we restrict to midterm elections) are not frequent events.
---

I remember these same Trump supporters posting ITT after 2016 bragging about how they were about to roll to a super majority and take seats in WV, Montana, PA, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin....

What happened guys?
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

What happened guys?

2016: "Hillary's gonna win, duh."
2018: "Oh shit - panic!" + "Oh shit, they're panicking - we should panic, too!"

Secretly many republicans are happy Trump's power is reduced.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

"Hurr durr some blue wave. Trump's still President!"

I see or hear variations of that everywhere

I don't get it.

I think its because there was the sense of a massive sweep winner take all scenario that was being propagandized, then reality hits and the Democrats took the house by a significant yet appropriate margin.

And then each party has the other in a box. The democrats start taunting the republicans over their important but somewhat underwhelming victory, and the republicans start taunting the democrats over not taking as much as they theoretically could have.

Its boring and predictable garbage from the both of us.
---

For a lot of internet conservatives their internet identity isn't actually being conservative so much as trying to make left wing people upset. There isn't really a capacity to do anything but be smug there because it would mean admitting defeat
---

well people were claiming that there was going to be a 80%+ wave
---

Roxborough4Ever posted...

well people were claiming that there was going to be a 80%+ wave

No one ever predicted such nonsense. Go back to whining about meltdowns
---

Roxborough4Ever posted...

well people were claiming that there was going to be a 80%+ wave

Lmao no one other that Twitter trolls ever claimed such a thing. I don't even know what the fuck a "80%+ wave" even means
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Roxborough4Ever posted...

well people were claiming that there was going to be a 80%+ wave

Lmao no one other that Twitter trolls ever claimed such a thing. I don't even know what the fuck a "80%+ wave" even means

you dont know what it means, but you still decided to comment lol

it means that on every front, republicans were supposed to have a complete defeat....a 100 percent loss because they are old, white racists who are conservative and they didn't stand a chance because we are shaming their MAGA hats into not coming out on voting day....that was the plan verbatim

VictimComplex posted...

Roxborough4Ever posted...

well people were claiming that there was going to be a 80%+ wave

No one ever predicted such nonsense. Go back to whining about meltdowns

lol...."meltdown"....right dude, just like how melted down when your account got warned because you said racist shit and then had a second meltdown because you couldn't even believe what you said was racist.....
---

Roxborough4Ever posted...

lol...."meltdown"....right dude, just like how melted down when your account got warned because you said racist shit and then had a second meltdown because you couldn't even believe what you said was racist.....

What account was this? In your rage, you've obviously mistaken me for someone. Tell me what account you're referring to so we can clarify and you can get back to whining about meltdowns.
---

MrPeppers posted...

The democrats start taunting the republicans over their important but somewhat underwhelming victory

I mean their victory looks like it's going to be on the upper range of predicted outcomes.

I think the main problem is how the votes came in. The Dems outcome looked a lot less when people were going to bed on Tuesday than it did even a day or two later.

Well, at least the main problem besides dumb posters who thought that Democrats were favored to take the Senate or things like that.
---

Anteaterking posted...

besides dumb posters who thought that Democrats were favored to take the Senate

Did we actually have any who said that? Only people I've seen say Dems would take senate are Trumpers claiming they saw people say that.
---

Anyone who seriously thought Dems would gain seats in the Senate was, and still is, crazy. Anyone who puts any stock into those people are equally crazy.
---

VictimComplex posted...

Did we actually have any who said that? Only people I've seen say Dems would take senate are Trumpers claiming they saw people say that.

I'm just talking about Trumpers who believed that's what people were claiming.
---

Roxborough4Ever posted...

it means that on every front, republicans were supposed to have a complete defeat....a 100 percent loss because they are old, white racists who are conservative and they didn't stand a chance because we are shaming their MAGA hats into not coming out on voting day....that was the plan verbatim

Lmao no one at all aside from people trying to troll you seriously felt that way. Hahaha
---

spend a couple hours on twitter, you'll see that its actually the reality for some....they actually believe it.
---

Anteaterking posted...

s0nicfan posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election#Historical_record_of_midterm

Midterm elections are sometimes regarded as a referendum on the sitting president's and/or incumbent party's performance.[4][5] The party of the incumbent president tends to lose ground during midterm elections: since WWII the President's party has lost an average 26 seats in the House, and an average four seats in the Senate; moreover, in only five of those has the President's party gained seats in either house and of those only one has seen the President's party gain seats in both houses.

Trump lost about the average in the house and gained 3 instead of losing 4 in the senate. Smugness likely comes from the recognition that if this was meant to be a referendum on Trump, that the country as a whole is a lot less dissatisfied than Democrats would want people to believe, which bodes well for 2020 when the ruling party often fares better.

Basically a loss of seats was almost guaranteed, regardless of president, so losing less than expected and actually gaining in the senate (which is uncommon) is a positive sign in terms of overall party appeal.

VictimComplex already addressed some of this, but I'd also like to point out that "Only 5 times since WWII" is about 25% of the time.

Sort of. I pulled my numbers from wikipedia (-29 in the house) so I'm not sure where he's getting 35-40 but I could be totally wrong on that. I also said it was "uncommon" which seems fair for 25%, but if you have some other word you'd prefer I have used I'm fine using that too. It doesn't really change my point, though, that he's not really that far off from average and outperformed predictions in terms of expectations for this midterm, which is a good sign in general for republicans looking forward to 2020.

You could argue that high participation by dems is "proof" that they really hate him, but I don't think anyone was really debating it. I'm also not taking a hard stance here on calling this a "victory." I was simply highlighting why some people might be acting smug as the TC asked.
---

Roxborough4Ever posted...

spend a couple hours on twitter, you'll see that its actually the reality for some....they actually believe it.

Yeah, no shit people trolling on Twitter felt that way. That's literally what I said earlier in this topic:

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Lmao no one other that Twitter trolls ever claimed such a thing.

Like jesus dude, come on
---

Let's hope they stay convinced that losing the House isnt a big deal.
---

losing elections to own the libs

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Roxborough4Ever posted...

spend a couple hours on twitter, you'll see that its actually the reality for some....they actually believe it.

Yeah, no shit people trolling on Twitter felt that way. That's literally what I said earlier in this topic:

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Lmao no one other that Twitter trolls ever claimed such a thing.

Like jesus dude, come on

no dude, they weren't trolls....they were real people expecting the complete blue tsunami....i know how to look back through peoples tweets and see if they are a real account, not just some fake sock using somebody elses picture on a fake email....if you want to say "well they were just saying that to troll" then you need to accept that some of the "racists" that are saying bad things on the right are undercover "trolls" from the left pretending to be conservatives as well
---

s0nicfan posted...

which is a good sign in general for republicans looking forward to 2020.

It's really not. They struggled big time in places like Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, and PA, all of which are extremely important for Trump to win reelection. The only thing you could paint as a positive for Republicans in this cycle is that Florida is trending more and more to the right overall, and that they've completely solidified Ohio. But they've also completely lost Virginia, likely have lost Arizona and Nevada for good, and Texas keeps trending more and more to being a true toss up. They lost a vast majority of the Romney to Clinton districts as well, which shows that it wasn't just Trump specifically that cost them those places, it's the party as a whole. And they went about 50/50 in the Obama to Trump districts, showing that those voters that swung in 2016 aren't permanently swung to the Republican side.

I don't care what the Senate results claim, once you dig deeper into the weeds and break it down this was a bad midterm cycle for the Republicans and likely a sign of things to come in 2020 and especially 2022, where they are facing extremely difficult Senate maps.
---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

losing elections to own the libs

5D Chess
---

Roxborough4Ever posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Roxborough4Ever posted...

spend a couple hours on twitter, you'll see that its actually the reality for some....they actually believe it.

Yeah, no shit people trolling on Twitter felt that way. That's literally what I said earlier in this topic:

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Lmao no one other that Twitter trolls ever claimed such a thing.

Like jesus dude, come on

no dude, they weren't trolls....they were real people expecting the complete blue tsunami....i know how to look back through peoples tweets and see if they are a real account, not just some fake sock using somebody elses picture on a fake email....if you want to say "well they were just saying that to troll" then you need to accept that some of the "racists" that are saying bad things on the right are undercover "trolls" from the left pretending to be conservatives as well

I don't give a fuck what rando's on Twitter say even if they are being completely serious and are politically ignorant. Almost every pollster out there and every reputable person who covers this for a living were close to spot on in what happened. And the end result was a blue wave. Not a blue tsunami like some people ridiculously thought. But the fact is so many articles and pundits after the 2016 election claimed that the 2018 map for Democrats in the Senate could have resulted with them losing up to 10 seats, and they didn't even come close to that. And a lot of those areas that swung towards Trump in 2016 swung BACK towards Democrats now, proving that more than likely it was how toxic of a candidate Hillary was more than them flipping entirely to the Republicans.
---

You're wasting your time if you're trying to have a serious argument with Rox
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

You're wasting your time if you're trying to have a serious argument with Rox

It's less for him and more for other people. This whole narrative of "LMAO DEMS DIDN'T WIN AS MUCH AS IT WAS PREDICTED!" is completely asinine and as someone who follows election results as much as I do it pisses me off to see misinformation spread.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Sort of. I pulled my numbers from wikipedia (-29 in the house) so I'm not sure where he's getting 35-40

The House has gone from

235R - 193D - 7 vacancies
To
225D - 197R with 13 elections left to be declared. Most of which have at least lean left as their prediction
---

lol....i know you are lying when you say "i dont care what randoms on twitter say" because if it was somebody talking X on your precious Y you would be all over it to debunk it.

and im not "LMAO DEMS DIDN'T WIN AS MUCH AS IT WAS PREDICTED!" i'm actually more like "If the Republicans are so bad, then why are the democrats having such a hard time beating them when the grass roots voters think they are so much more smarter and superior to their counterparts?"
---

This should also be rather sobering to Republicans

Nate Silver

@NateSilver538

Among Senate races held in swing states, Democrats won in PA, OH, MI, WI, MN (x2), NV and VA. FL and AZ are uncalled. Republicans haven't yet won any Senate races yet in what you'd think of a presidential swing states. MO is the closest but it's quite red now.

---