Now that the results of the 2018
General Election across the American Union have been certified, it is
appropriate to analyze them fully. The
Democrats were clearly victorious in both federal and even state elections at
the expense of the GOP because of the unpopularity of Republican Donald Trump
and an ineffective exercise of constitutional checks and balances by
Congressional Republicans.
Democrats gained control of the
United States House of Representatives, in their largest increase in seats
since the 1974 post-Watergate election.
There will be two score more Democrats in the lower chamber of Congress
in January than currently, enough for a majority for the first time in eight
years. Republicans gained a net two seats
in the closely divided Senate. However,
Democrats won two thirds of the seats that were on the ballot, as only one
third of the upper chamber’s seats are on the ballot very two years.
In both federal and state
elections, Democrats made gains especially in the three States that decided the
2016 Presidential election for Trump, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, as
well as in a few other States. See my
post from last month, Conservative Analysis of the 2018 Pennsylvania General
Election, https://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2018/11/conservative-analysis-of-2018.html.
In state elections across the Union generally, Democrats gained several Governors and
hundreds of state legislative seats and legislative chambers, among other
offices. However, two anti-Trump
Republicans in heavily-Democratic seats were re-elected Governors of
Massachusetts and Maryland . Democrats were elected state Attorneys General
in a majority of States. Republicans had
long held the majority. These Attorneys
General will be able to sue the federal government for Trump’s violations of
federalism or other harmful effects of Trump’s policies that affect the States.
Despite a good economy and relative
peace, Republicans lost because of Trump, who had declared the congressional
mid-term elections a referendum on him.
Even though he tended to make endorsements in Republican-leaning U.S.
House and Senate election districts and to campaign only in safe Republican
areas, many candidates he endorsed lost.
Although some anti-Trump Republican
U.S.
Representatives lost re-election, they did so because of Trump, not because of
being against him. In fact, voters
perceived them as not being sufficiently anti-Trump, as the electorate was seeking
a more effective check on him. By
contrast, several other anti-Trump Republican incumbent members of the House were
victorious, including by campaigning against Trump. Anti-Trump congressional incumbents generally
represent competitive districts. The Republicans lost some seats held by
anti-Trump Republican Representatives who resigned or did not seek re-election. Similarly, in the Senate, an anti-Trump
Republican incumbent from Arizona
was driven out of the GOP primary by the Trumpified Republican Party. A Democrat was elected to the seat that had
been held by Republicans since 1988.
Trump’s nativist demagoguery was politically ineffective in the border
State. In the one instance in which an
anti-Trump Republican U.S. Representative was defeated in the primary election
by a Trumpist, in South Carolina ,
the Trumpist lost the seat, which had been Republican since 1981, to a
Democrat. Trump’s protectionist policies
were a negative in the Palmetto
State
Conservative policies generally
were not what cost the GOP, but Trumpist ones.
Trump’s nativist demagoguery and protectionism cost the GOP votes across
the Union .
His tax cuts, which actually increased taxes for many in high-tax
liberal Democratic States, cost Congressional Republican incumbents in California , New
York and elsewhere.
The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Russian interference
in the 2016 presidential election on behalf of Trump was not thorough or
bipartisan, in contrast to that of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was the lower chamber’s lack of being an adequate
check on Trump that contributed to the Republican House losses, although the failure of Congressional Republicans in general to hold the Trump Administration accountable was the largest factor in the overall GOP defeat.
The other big loser of the 2018
mid-term elections was Russian
Federation tyrant, Vladimir Putin. Pro-Russian longtime U.S. Representative Dana
Rohrbacher of California
was defeated for reelection. The
Democratic takeover of the House means that there will be no lifting of
economic sanctions on Russia
and the House Intelligence Committee will conduct a more thorough investigation
of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election on behalf of Trump,
while other Committees will investigate corruption in the Administration.
There was Russian interference in
the 2018 mid-term elections, not in terms of the elections themselves, but
about issues, including a number of issues that were part of the campaign, such
as protests during the National Anthem, the fiscal 2018 budget, the Brett
Kavanaugh confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court and on Russian interference in
the 2016 election and the investigation of it.
Russian interference is not limited to election campaigns, but is
targeted at American politics in general, which can affect public opinion and,
thus influences the decisions of voters.
But even Putin could not save Trump
and Trumpist Republicans from a Democratic wave as Americans grow wary of
Russian influence and anti-Trump Republicans and conservatives abandoned the
Congressional GOP to take away control of the House from Trump defenders. Anti-Trump Republicans and conservatives have
been vindicated for predicting before Trump’s election the harm to the
Republican Party and to conservatism. As
I posted in January of this year in Conservative Analysis of the First Year of
the Presidential Administration of Donald Trump, https://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2018/01/conservative-analysis-of-first-year-of.html,
his presidency is “a mortal danger to the Republican Party and a cancer on the
conservative movement.”
No comments:
Post a Comment