Trump is down to 50.1% in the popular vote

 People say it doesn't matter.

It doesn't, except psychologically, especially to Democrats who want to eliminate the Electoral College.

Having an Electoral College landslide without winning a clear majority in the popular vote would only fuel their long-standing rhetoric that it is unfair.

Election results for the popular vote almost always trend narrower as now, and they indicate in this election the same thing the very narrow GOP House win indicates:

This was not a red wave.

The country remains very much divided. And Democrats are wrong to be so dispirited and divided. 

Harris/Walz 48.1% (226) Trump/Vance 50.1% (312)

Two House races were called overnight for the GOP, AZ-6 and CA-41, giving Republicans a 219 seat majority in the US House election with Republicans leading in an additional three races

 Looks like a 222 majority is within reach, except Trump is already poaching Stefanik and Waltz, bringing the majority down to 220, at least temporarily, which is where it is at right now.

And 222 is still not guaranteed, but like a madman Trump is already counting on it. His big mouth is what usually gets him in trouble. Will his impulsiveness do it this time?

In any event, this is no red wave.

 

The new "conservatism": The Republican sweep of Virginia's top offices is a narrow victory for MLKJr-ism over critical race theory, which isn't saying much

 The kooks on the left scared the normies.

It could have easily gone the other way.

Conservatism keeps redefining itself leftward.

Despite record turnout in Election 2018, Democrat hurricane falls far short of 63-seat Republican wave in 2010

Election by the numbers: 113 million voter turnout, 33 flipped seats so far, 110 female winners, $5.2 billion spent

US Chamber of Commerce strategist predicts Republicans keep US House 222-213

The current US House is controlled by Republicans 236-193.

Blue wave hope ebbs as GOP rebounds:

To galvanize their voters, Republicans are airing attack ads that argue Democrats would target Trump and Kavanaugh, unleash mob rule and threaten cultural values. "Closing with a little fear," said Scott Reed, senior political strategist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, describing the GOP approach. Reed predicted that Republicans would keep their losses to 20 House seats, just under the 23 Democrats need to return to power. Republicans are favored to hold their majority in the Senate, which stands at 51-49. 

The WaPo typist of this article for the Democrat Party leads off with some amusing fantasies:

Underscoring the fast-changing political fortunes are the cold calculations by both parties in the final days.

 

The GOP is redirecting $1 million from a suburban district in Colorado to Florida, bailing on incumbent Rep. Mike Coffman to try to hold an open seat in Miami. Democrat Donna Shalala, a former Health and Human Services secretary in the Clinton administration, is struggling to break away from Maria Elvira Salazar, a Cuban American and former television anchor, in a district Hillary Clinton won by nearly 20 points.

Republicans have also pulled back in a Democratic-held open seat in Nevada that includes some of the suburbs of Las Vegas. Clinton won there, as well.

Democrats, meanwhile, are cutting funds in a GOP-held district in Nebraska and a Democratic-held district in northern Minnesota, two places Trump won. The latter represents one of the GOP's best chances to flip a seat from blue to red.

Start with Coffman's Republican seat in CO-6.

It was slated to go Democrat already over a month ago at Real Clear Politics when I checked on September 17th. And it had been a toss-up on September 10th. Whatever's happening with the money there, CO-6's shift toward the Democrat is not part of "fast-changing political fortunes . . . in the final days". The shift occurred much earlier.

As for Donna Shalala in FL-27 (Clinton retread!), she isn't "struggling to break away from Maria Elvira Salazar". Her support there has been ERODING, from likely Democrat in early September to leans Democrat in mid-September to toss-up in mid-October. The Republican Salazar is actually ahead there in the only poll available. The recent movement is all toward the Republican.

Same thing with the open Democrat seat in NV-3. Whatever the parties are doing with their money, the seat has been in the Democrat column for well over a month, since September 10th. But today it's a toss-up. The movement has been toward the Republican, but you would never know that from this propaganda piece.

And why mention Democrats shifting money out of Nebraska? Oooh Mable, look at that! Nebraska doesn't even have a seat on anybody's radar because there isn't one, but saying so makes it seem like there is, deep in the heart of Republican flyover country. The mission is to demoralize Republicans with this stuff, made up out of whole cloth. The Republican Bacon in NE-2 is ahead by nine points.

MN-8 is also instructive. It's not just that Republicans have there "a chance to flip a seat". The Democrat candidate there was +1 to begin September in the NYTimes poll. By mid-October the same poll has the Republican +15. Again, the direction is (massively in this instance) toward the Republican.

Of ten specific races identified in the story, I put six in the Republican column (NE-2, FL-27, MN-8, MI-6 [the Democrats' own latest poll there has Upton up by three], MN-1 and TX-23), one in the Democrat column (CO-6), and three in the toss-ups (NV-3, KY-6, PA-1).

60-40.

Looks more like a Republican wave, not an ebbing Democrat wave.

It wasn't a Republican wave, it wasn't a thumping, IT WAS A DELUGE

Republicans didn't just sweep the House, the Senate and governorships on Tuesday, they took enough legislative chambers to set records that go back to before the Civil War. They took 65% of open state legislative seats. Now if they only had a leader. 

Reuters reports here:

[The Republican Party] gained control of 10 chambers and could be on track to holding the largest number of legislative seats since before the Great Depression. ... With Tuesday's vote, Republicans took over the U.S. Senate, beefed up their majority in the U.S. House and won the governor's office in several key states. The vote also increased the number of state legislative chambers with Republican majorities to 67 from 57. Party control of the Colorado House and Washington House was still up in the air. The number of states with Republicans in control of both legislative chambers came to 27 ahead of the election and has now edged closer to the high mark of 30 in 1920 . . .. By contrast, Democrats will control the lowest number of state legislatures since 1860 . . .. Republican State Leadership Committee President Matt Walter said the party appeared to be on track to eclipse 1928's record high of 4,001 Republican state legislative seats. ... Voters on Tuesday were deciding 6,049 legislative races in 46 states, or nearly 82 percent of all state legislative seats.

Remember "you didn't build that"? Yesterday Obama said "you didn't vote for that" crushing Republican wave

The ideologue, dismissive of the facts, quoted here:

“To everyone that voted, I want you to know that I heard you,” Obama began. “To two-thirds of voters that chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too.”

Sink Sunk In FL 13 By Libertarian Spoiler In Low Turnout Special Election Where Fixing ObamaCare Got No Traction

Flashback to November 2010 when Eric Cantor already said he wanted to keep the good parts of ObamaCare and not repeal the thing outright. Eric Cantor never saw the Republican blowout in 2010 as a resounding verdict against ObamaCare, even though the Republican sweep of the House was history making. Newsmax reported Cantor's remarks here.

Today, repeal of ObamaCare is much more appealing than keeping it as is, by almost 2:1 in December polling by Gallup, here. Those who want to scale it back or expand it somehow to fix it are evenly divided in the polling data and together represent 40% of those polled. The polling overall, however, is negative on ObamaCare by 52% to 37%.

The narrowly won Florida 13 District seat this week by a Republican was a test of the Democrat strategy of running on a platform of fixing ObamaCare. It didn't work.

Politico reports here:

Democrats had hoped that defeating Jolly would show that they could beat the GOP’s anti-Obamacare offensive. Sink had embraced the national Democratic Party’s “fix it, don’t repeal it” mantra, which candidates across the country are expected to adopt this year.

Election results at 10 News WTSP here show that a libertarian spoiled the race for the Democrat Alex Sink. Usually libertarians ruin elections for Republicans, not Democrats. The libertarian strongly supported marriage equality and liberalization of marijuana laws.

Turnout was low in the narrowly Republican majority district where older voters weren't particularly engaged by ObamaCare, as reported separately, here.

Senate is Broken: Congress in 2011 Passed 80 Bills, Fewest Since 1947

Considering what gets passed, why is this a bad thing?

The Washington Times reports here:

The Times‘ analysis suggested that the Senate is an increasingly broken chamber. All five of the worst performances on record were in the past decade. Four of those were when Democrats were in control and Republicans were in the minority.

In the House, the record was decidedly mixed. Of the worst five years, two were in the 1950s, two were in the 1980s and one was in the past decade.

Maybe the Senate is such a mess because it views itself as a more powerful version of the House, with which it is in constant competition as an institution and over which it lords itself at every opportunity, the Senate healthcare bill of 2010, now known as ObamaCare, being the most recent prime example. Had more Democrats in the House opposed this bill in March 2010, fewer of them had lost their seats in the historic Republican sweep in November.

Arguably the Senate is more powerful, for two reasons.

One, because of popular election of Senators, which puts them in direct competition in the same electoral sphere as representatives, contrary to the original intention of the constitution. And two, the fact that the tenure of a Senator is three times longer than a representative's. The lowly two-year man is ever on guard of losing the next election, while a Senator watches him come and go, mindful of the inattention of the voters over so long a period as half a decade.

The Senators' interests should primarily be to protect the interests of the States they represent, especially the States' independence from the federal government. But they are not. Instead they seek at every turn to usurp the representative function of the members of the House, where bills should originate. Is it any wonder the States have no representation in Washington, the legislatures of which must rely on leagues of Attorneys General to file suits in federal courts to protect themselves from encroachments of federal power?

The remedy for all that starts with a much bigger House, which means repealing The Reapportionment Act of 1929.

With the will of the people once adequately represented for a change, Senators might eventually be persuaded to meddle less at pain of repeal of the 17th Amendment. Already the most expensive races in the country, the dilution of the cost of running for office at the representative level with 10,267 districts instead of 435 might occasion an unwelcome shift of focus back upon the excess and corruption evident in running for the Senate, the mean expenditure for which in 2008 was nearly $6 million, six times what it currently costs the typical representative to run.

Representatives will not need to spend $1 million buying TV and radio ads to reach 30,000 constituents instead of 700,000 now, but Senators will still have to in order to reach the millions of their constituents. They will stand out in those media in a way which they haven't been accustomed to in the past and the spotlight will be on them as never before.

And as we all know, sunlight is a marvelous disinfectant.

Patriot Act Votes Show Rep. Bachmann's Tea Party Caucus is Full of TINOs

Tea-Partyers in Name Only.

Everyone's getting this wrong, from Adam Serwer here at The Washington Post to Rush Limbaugh here, on partisan grounds. The Post wants to paint the Tea Party Caucus as a bunch of hypocrites, and Rush wants people to believe the Tea Party actually supports even the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act.

Rush chalked up the Feb. 8 revolt of 26 Republicans to rookies being poorly advised by the Republican leadership:

Now, the Republicans lost 26 of their own members, adding to the 122 Democrats who voted against it," and some of the Republicans say that they 'felt completely uniformed [sic] by their leadership' on this. Some of the rookies, some of the freshmen say they were not really advised about all this in time -- and the leader of the opposition was Dennis Kucinich.  Now, something tells me here that Republicans do not intend to vote with Dennis Kucinich, 'cause he's aligned with the ACLU opposing extending the whole thing, the whole Patriot Act.  So if Kucinich is for it, "all rational people" ought to be against it.  

The only trouble is, the exact same bunch of Republicans all voted against the controversial provisions again yesterday. They've had six days to get brought up to speed by the leadership, but not a single one has changed his vote. And Rep. Hanna joined them to make it 27 and the third from the membership of the more liberal Republican Main Street Partnership.

I guess Rush must think these 27 Republicans are quite irrational after all, voting with Kucinich and the left. Rush was silent about this today, hoping we've forgotten what he said.

The facts are these. The Tea Party in the US House is much smaller than people think, and it isn't co-terminous with Bachmann's caucus. The latter is a bunch of me-too Republicans who find it expedient to identify with the Tea Party politically, just like Michael Steele did, and even Sarah Palin, who took an eternity to speak out against the bailouts. Just 8 self-identified Tea Party Caucus members voted both times against the controversial provisions of the Patriot Act. And only 7 others who joined them were elected in the Tea Party wave last autumn, but they still do not self-identify that way.

When you consider that the vast majority of the Tea Party Caucus voted to extend the Patriot Act provisions, you can understand why 19 Republicans who voted the other way might have a reason not to associate themselves with such pretenders.

Bachmann's list hasn't been updated since last summer, despite the gargantuan Republican sweep in November. Where is all the new blood, huh?

It's staying away for a reason, if it's really there at all.