A Blue Wave in One Ocean?

What happened to the Blue Wave?  If you look at the raw vote total, the Democrats had one: an 8.7 congressional ballot advantage, which is at least a point better than past elections dubbed Waves.  Numbers guy Ezra Klein tweeted: Unemployment is 3.7% right now. America isn't at war. A margin this big is nuts — a pure repudiation of Trump."

But in some respects this is like fixating on Hillary winning three million more votes than the White House incumbent.  In many federal and state races Democrats (most spectacularly in the Texas Senate race) cut deeply into R dominance--just not enough to change the outcome.

 If it is a wave, it might be what Josh Marshall calls a Wave in one ocean.  That would be the House of Representatives, where the Democrats fairly easily won back the majority, even before the western state returns were counted.

But it was a very dismal night for the US Senate, as the most contested seats fell to the Rs, including D incumbents.  Now the Rs have a Senate majority it will be almost impossible for them to lose before 2022.  And there are fewer purple states.

The House majority means Russian interference and administration corruption will be investigated, but given the complete hold that Homegrown Hitler has on the Republican Party, that may not mean much because this Senate will never vote to convict on impeachment, and this demagogue in chief will never resign.

The Dem majority will certainly prevent terrible legislation from becoming law, and may at least challenge damaging executive decisions.  But the Senate has real power over the appointment of judges to federal courts, and to administration posts.  Moreover the Senate is now more Trumpian than ever, so those appointments will sail through.

The House majority was settled before California polls closed, which turned out to be a good thing.  Analysts had once suggested that it might come down to flipping several California districts--and so far, only one or two of these seems about to oust a Republican incumbent--possibly including the infamous Dana Rohrabacher--but that isn't even certain yet.  The repulsive Nunes retained his seat, as did other veteran Rs, though they are now relegated to ranking members of the minority.  Nunes in particular will no longer chair the House intelligence committee.  But as a whole, California remained proportionately the same.  And that is a metaphor for the entire outcome.  Things are the same, only more so.

It's true that the Dems did well in governorships--flipping at least six, including finally ousting Wisconsin's notorious Scott Walker--but they failed to win Florida and Ohio, where the governor can instigate and hide voter suppression and other hanky-panky in traditionally close states.  If Dems gained majorities in key state legislatures they may prevent Rs from using the 2020 census to gerrymander even more.

 And it is also true that early indications are that record numbers of people voted.  Whether the lack of visible change will dampen their spirits for next time is yet to be seen.

The changes may be important--not only in the House majority but the specific new members elected (including the first Native American women.)  The House got smarter, but with the arrival of Rick Scott, Josh Hawley and the rest of the new Rs, the Senate got stupider.

So it's possible to look at this election as did Aaron Blake at the Washington Post: "Republicans will pitch this as a split decision, because they held the Senate. It’s not; the Senate map was highly favorable to them. Democrats just took over a chamber of Congress, and that’s a big night for them, period."

And with the Guardian's Richard Wolffe: "Donald Trump's unchecked hold on power has come to an end...Republicans should have sailed to victory at a time of relative peace and prosperity, with unemployment at historic lows and wages rising. But in the House – a truly national contest, unlike the US Senate – voters showed there were clear electoral limits to Trump’s rabidly anti-immigrant racism and stunningly shameless sexism."  And he has the demographic numbers to show where the power shifts are.

Or with the Post's Marc Fisher: "Energized by two years of the most divisive rhetoric in modern American history, voters shared the conviction that their country was at the precipice of a democratic implosion and that their vote mattered."  Or with Dana Milbank that "America steps back from the abyss," or Jennifer Rubin that "Voters give Trump a big thumbs down."

Or perhaps with Ed Rogers: By most measures, Republicans beat the odds of history and nearly everyone’s expectations, while Democrats were left disappointed as the fantasy of Beto O’Rourke, Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams and others winning fizzled. Not one new progressive Democrat was successful bursting onto the scene. It will take a few days to process the meaning of this year’s election returns, but the instant analysis is clear: Democrats may have won the House, but Trump won the election."

I'll probably go with Chuck Todd who said that the American electorate is clearly in transition (he cites Dems taking suburbia for instance) but that we haven't turned the corner yet.  Maybe I'm biased because I'd hoped that the 2008 election was the corner we turned, but it wasn't.  History may say otherwise about the 2018 election, but at this moment, it didn't seem to be this one either.

History may show that the people elected this year began the change.  History might even show that changes in the states meant more momentum to dealing with the ultimate threat of the climate crisis.  But that's not obvious now, either.

 In immediate terms, the House majority means that a lot is going to be different in Washington. Nancy Pelosi is right about that-- and by the way, she is the most effective national Democratic leader there is, and it would be really stupid to get rid of her. Whether it's a difference only in the noise also remains to be seen, or heard.

So today the 2020 presidential campaign starts.  This election may have helped the Dems in creating community and state level infrastructure, but it didn't seem to spotlight a presidential candidate possibility.  Rogers is right about that: it made no new progressive Democratic stars, or even hopes (although some early talk about Beto O'Rourke.)

It seems like a dangerous situation.  There is no outstanding Democratic choice, and most of the candidate possibilities are old and familiar, and with enemies.  My instincts tell me only a fresh voice will work.  Homemade Hitler has proven to be stunningly resilient--just the scandals of this year, of the past month--suggest he can withstand anything.  He has only one real skill, and that is as a demagogue.  But he's very effective at that.  And as his Nazi predecessor proved, that can be fateful.

In my remaining years it would be nice to see this country rally, and fight the good fight as it struggles against the catastrophes coalescing in the near future as a result of our destruction of the planet's ability to sustain the life it has. It probably will rally, just not real soon. In the end, though, it may not make much difference, except to the people involved (which is a big difference to them.)  That's what passes for solace these days.


The Washington state ballot measure to enact a carbon fee on polluters failed, about 57% to 44%.  In Iowa, J.D. Scholten came closer than anyone thought possible to unseating the infamous Steve King, but didn't win.  The remote chance of bipartisan climate crisis action took a hit when one of the leading R proponents (who supported a carbon tax), congressman Carlos Curbelo, lost to a D.  Meanwhile, a number of Ds who support strong climate action won.

And my candidates in PA 10 and Delaware 21 also lost.  Condolences all. You fought the good fight.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programs, which are already in progress.