Dems taking the House ≠ election loss for Republicans.
Yes, the Democrats did take back the House of Representatives for the first time in eight years, but we exceeded expectations in the Senate. So much so that for the first time since 1970, the President’s party lost seats in the House but gained seats in the Senate. In that year, under Richard Nixon, the Republican Party lost 12 seats in the House but gained two in the Senate. This year, Republicans lost 34 seats in the House, but gained three in the Senate. Senator Ted Cruz in Texas, Governor Rick Scott in Florida, and Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley defeating two-term Senator Claire McCaskill (D), are some of the major wins of the night.
Here are three reasons why Election Day wasn’t as bad as people say it was:
1. Historically speaking, in the House, it could’ve been much worse.
Sure, the handover to Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi is…unfortunate, to put it mildly, but by how much could’ve been way worse:
The 2010 midterm election under President Barack Obama was a major electoral defeat for Democrats. Republicans gained 63 seats in the House, and six seats in the Senate. At the same time, making significant gains in gubernatorial elections.
Presidents almost always lose a few dozen House seats in the midterms. Barack Obama lost 63 in 2010 and Bill Clinton lost 52 in 1994.
– Alex Lockie, Business Insider
2. It was a rocky night for Progressivism.
Andrew Gillum lost to Ron Desantis in the Florida governor’s race. Stacey Abrams lost, a bit sorely to say the least, to Brian Kemp in the Georgia governor’s race. In summary, the Left took a beating here because they chose unequivocally radical candidates.
And on the other hand, you’ve got Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, probably the most uninformed candidate in a long time. And yes, it’s hilarious to make fun of her, but the fact that she was elected presents a sadly real threat. Remember, this is the same candidate that has said the following lovely displays of stupidity:
“Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.”
(Interview on PBS’ Firing Line with Margaret Hoover)
[On Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal, which is estimated to cost $33 trillion]
“People often say, how are you gonna pay for it? And I find the question so puzzling because how do you pay for something that’s more affordable? How do you pay for cheaper rent? How do you pay for…you just pay for it!”
(Interview with Jorge Ramos)
[Her response when asked what she plans to do once she gets to Congress]
“Well, I think a lot of it has to do with changing our strategy around governance. You know there’s a lot of inside baseball and inside the beltway as you, you always hear that term thrown around. But there are very few organizers in Congress. And I do think that organizers operate differently. It’s a different kind of strategy. And what it is, is really about organizing and, and really thinking about that word: organizing. Segmenting people. Being strategic in their actions in really bringing together a cohesive strategy of putting pressure on the chamber instead of only focusing on the pressures inside the chamber.”
(Interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes)
Spoken like a true politician: arbitrary, incoherent jargon.
3. Hollywood celebrities alienated half their audiences again, and actually helped.
Taylor Swift endorsing Phil Bredesen for Senate in Tennessee, Rihanna endorsing Andrew Gillum for Florida governor, both Oprah and Rihanna endorsing Stacey Abrams for Georgia governor, Beyoncé endorsing Beto O’Rourke for Senate in Texas. All of these have two things in common: they’re all Democrats, and they all lost.
Time and time again, it’s acknowledged, mainly by our side, that Americans are caring less and less about celebrity politics, as exhibited from award show ratings to, as it’s clear now, elections. If only they would listen.