Election 2022 Results

[SimplyMe]

Yeah, that's possible too. But the Republicans that were just voted in will have to take their actions into consideration if they want to remain there in 2024. Seems that the 2024 election cycle started the day after the 2022 election, so everyone is already in campaign mode. Republicans voting to support the democrats wouldn't be a good way to get started.

OTOH, you have Republicans who won in largely Democratic areas (such as NY and California). So, yes, you are correct that they may be worried about getting re-elected, but wrong as they will likely feel that supporting a moderate Democratic proposal is what they need to do to help their re-election chances.

 

[Aldebaran]

The people voted against them though. 3 million more people voted for hillary than Trump. 11 million more people voted for senate democrats than senate republicans.

And the House? Go ahead and tell me the figures on that.
While you're at it, consider other election results, such as school board races. Dems lost big just on school boards: https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politi...ationwide-conservatives-pleased-with-progress

 

[Aldebaran]

With respect, you seem to have little understanding of how the House works. The Speaker needs to lead at least 218 votes to be effective.
Even Marjorie Green understands that (and supports McCarthy).

I welcome the spectacle of the fight for Speaker. Someone will need to herd cats and secure an agreement that 218 sign on to.

That's between them. They'll work it out.

 

[Vylo]

And the House? Go ahead and tell me the figures on that.
While you're at it, consider other election results, such as school board races. Dems lost big just on school boards: https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politi...ationwide-conservatives-pleased-with-progress

The house isn't involved in SCOTUS appointments. There the gop eeked out a 2 million win in 2016, and managed a 3 million win in 2022. we don't have numbers for the 2022 us senate yet.

 

[Vylo]

But now what you are saying is we just throw out the rules because the people voted in a party.

So I guess we just shouldn't allow a GOP president to ever nominate a SCOTUS member again, I mean, rules don't matter right?

 

[mark46]

And the House? Go ahead and tell me the figures on that.
While you're at it, consider other election results, such as school board races. Dems lost big just on school boards: https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politi...ationwide-conservatives-pleased-with-progress

Yup. Republicans needed to decide where to focus, where to really try to have an influence. They could have focused more on the Senate or on school boards.

Has a newly elected president EVER, EVER kept all the incubent Senators running?

 

[Aldebaran]

Yup. Republicans needed to decide where to focus, where to really try to have an influence. They could have focused more on the Senate or on school boards.

Has a newly elected president EVER, EVER kept all the incubent Senators running?

Why a need to "focus" anywhere? When a person votes on election day, there are numerous races to vote in. They pick whoever they want for each one. Voting for President or Senator is as simple as voting for a school board candidate. Just fill in the circle.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why a need to "focus" anywhere? When a person votes on election day, there are numerous races to vote in. They pick whoever they want for each one. Voting for President or Senator is as simple as voting for a school board candidate. Just fill in the circle.

How do you tell if the school board candidates are Republicans or not?

Mine were not labeled and I had no luck distinguishing their policy positions so I skipped that line on the ballot.

 

[Aldebaran]

How do you tell if the school board candidates are Republicans or not?

Mine were not labeled and I had no luck distinguishing their policy positions so I skipped that line on the ballot.

One way is to look at their mailings to see what they stand for. Or look them up online. All the ones I researched had their own facebook page where they talked about their values and what they wanted to bring to the table if elected.

 

[mark46]

Why a need to "focus" anywhere? When a person votes on election day, there are numerous races to vote in. They pick whoever they want for each one. Voting for President or Senator is as simple as voting for a school board candidate. Just fill in the circle.

I guess what you think that no work or money goes into campaigns. Just put names on a ballot and vote.

That is just NOT the way it works. A party has to decide how to spend its resources.

 

[Aldebaran]

I guess what you think that no work or money goes into campaigns. Just put names on a ballot and vote.

That is just NOT the way it works. A party has to decide how to spend its resources.

For school board races in my area, the only info I got about any of them were mailings, and what they put online. No TV or radio ads.

But yes, I understand money is put into campaigns for bigger races. In the end though, it's up to the voter to decide which circle to fill in. How many millions of dollars does it really take to make a person decide a different way than if the voter made the decision based on their individual values?

 

[mark46]

For school board races in my area, the only info I got about any of them were mailings, and what they put online. No TV or radio ads.

But yes, I understand money is put into campaigns for bigger races. In the end though, it's up to the voter to decide which circle to fill in. How many millions of dollars does it really take to make a person decide a different way than if the voter made the decision based on their individual values?

So, you are saying that the parties, donors and sponsors are wasting many billions on their efforts to present issues to voters and to try to get their vote.

For me, I believe that it works to spend considerable money and effort on campaigns.
===================
I suppose that we could have a long discussion of voting for Walker or Warnock based on individual values.

 

[Aldebaran]

So, you are saying that the parties, donors and sponsors are wasting many billions on their efforts to present issues to voters and to try to get their vote.

For me, I believe that it works to spend considerable money and effort on campaigns.

Much of the time, yes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

One way is to look at their mailings to see what they stand for. Or look them up online. All the ones I researched had their own facebook page where they talked about their values and what they wanted to bring to the table if elected.

No mailings. I looked at what I could find. (From previous attempts related to elections, I found that facebook was near impossible to read without an app that I do not use.) All I found was an article about a candidate forum that had about as much text on their positions as I was in your post (a few dozen words). It was all so generic as to be useless. Nothing stood out so I punted as the little info I got was useless.

Are you're school board elections partisan? Are the "hidden partisan"? (Officially non-partisan, but parties endorse.) And if they are not how do we tell that the GOP was or was not making gains on school boards?

 

[JSRG]

Without Trump insisting on these 3 candidates, Republicans would control the Senate, and be able to block all appointments.

As in 2020 (and his campaigning in GA), we Democrats again have Trump to thank for Democratic control of the Senate.
==========
One man stopped the great Red Wave predicted by so many; that man was Donald Trump.

I am not so sure that Walker can be blamed on Trump. Trump certainly sealed the deal for Walker getting the nomination, but in the one poll for the primary conducted before Trump's endorsement, Walker was leading by a lot. He stood at 54%, with the next highest person having 5% (granted, 35% were undecided). Yeah, this was back in August of the year before, so about 9 months before the primary, and things can change. But he was leading by so much it's unlikely he would have lost the primary. All Trump did was change a "probably" to "certainty" when it came to him getting nominated.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am not so sure that Walker can be blamed on Trump. Trump certainly sealed the deal for Walker getting the nomination, but in the one poll for the primary conducted before Trump's endorsement, Walker was leading by a lot. He stood at 54%, with the next highest person having 5% (granted, 35% were undecided). Yeah, this was back in August of the year before, so about 9 months before the primary, and things can change. But he was leading by so much it's unlikely he would have lost the primary. All Trump did was change a "probably" to "certainty" when it came to him getting nominated.

I thought Trump recruited Walker and then backed him in the primary. (Because he knew him.) Now it was ultimately the GA GOP voters that selected him in the primary, but without Trump Walker may not have run at all.

 

[JSRG]

That makes no sense considering that his endorsements actually won 83% of the time in 2022. That 83% is the highest of Trump endorsement wins over the years, indicating that more people are voting for those that Trump endorses. So they're clearly not moving away from Trump. Endorsements by Donald Trump

That number is rather misleading. I'm going to copy (though edit a little) a post I made at Trump endorsed candidates did not lose at the level that lib media claims. Here we go.

The problem with this statistic you offer is that many of those elections were not competitive at all. Anyone can score a high percentage if they just endorse people who are certain to win anyway. Furthermore, the criticism of Trump is that he would back more fringe candidates in the primaries (causing them to win those primaries), but then they'd perform badly in the general election.

Thus this 83% is a useless number. One should only be examining cases where Trump endorsed a candidate in a primary that wasn't essentially certain to go to that candidate to begin with and the general election was one that could have plausibly gone for either the Democrat or the Republican.

So, for example, Ron Johnson and Marco Rubio should not be counted, as they would have won their primaries regardless of what Trump did; Rubio had no primary challengers, and the only one who went up against Johnson was clearly doing so as a protest rather than a serious candidate.

Similarly, we shouldn't be counting people like John Boozman, who won in Arkansas; it's a state the Republican is going to win regardless of who gets nominated by either party. And, to be fair, we shouldn't be counting losses in non-competitive states either, like Leora Levy losing in Connecticut. Finally, only cases where he give an endorsement during the primary should be counted; giving one after the primary is irrelevant for this purpose.
So once we get rid of all of those cases, here are the ones we seem to be left with:

Ted Budd (North Carolina): Won
J.D. Vance (Ohio): Won
Blake Masters (Arizona): Lost
Adam Laxalt (Nevada): Lost
Mehmet Oz (Pennsylvania): Lost (note that Oz was Trump's second choice; his first endorsement was Sean Parnell, but he got hit with a bunch of scandals that caused him to withdraw during the primary, and Trump changed his endorsement to Oz.)

As a result, we end up with a 40% success rate in Senate elections. Not very impressive ,and certainly much less than 83%. Not sure how it compares for his endorsements in Governor or House races, which I didn't calculate (and for anyone who does calculate them, remember you should remove any endorsements on sure-to-win cases in either the primary or general election, as noted above)

Whether Herschel Walker should be counted is debatable. As I just noted, he was polling really strongly before the formal Trump endorsement. On the other hand, as Hans Blaster just pointed out, it was apparently Trump's suggestion that he run to begin with. I didn't count him in the 40% above, but if one does count him, then Trump's rate drops down to 33%.

 

[rambot]

And the House? Go ahead and tell me the figures on that.
While you're at it, consider other election results, such as school board races. Dems lost big just on school boards: https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politi...ationwide-conservatives-pleased-with-progress

Now they didn't. But you are reading a source that is FOCUSSING on their wins.
Don't worry. It's an echochamber thing.

Did Republicans take over school boards? Key education takeaways from the 2022 midterms

The 1776 Project PAC, a group that targets critical race theory and LGBTQ+-related curricula, as of this week had secured wins for just 20 of their 50 endorsed candidates. Prior to the Nov. 8 election, the group had boasted a roughly 70% success rate.

Of the more than 270 school board candidates nationally endorsed by Moms for Liberty, a network of parents’ rights activists who have pushed for book restrictions and policies banning discussions about LGBTQ+ issues, 49% won, with roughly three dozen seats still outstanding.

Sorry. Seems a bit underwhelming to me.

 

[NxNW]

Dems lost big just on school boards:

I look forward to reviewing any and all legislation passed by Republican school boards.

 

[Aldebaran]

No mailings. I looked at what I could find. (From previous attempts related to elections, I found that facebook was near impossible to read without an app that I do not use.) All I found was an article about a candidate forum that had about as much text on their positions as I was in your post (a few dozen words). It was all so generic as to be useless. Nothing stood out so I punted as the little info I got was useless.

Are you're school board elections partisan? Are the "hidden partisan"? (Officially non-partisan, but parties endorse.) And if they are not how do we tell that the GOP was or was not making gains on school boards?

Many of them make it simple enough. If they say they'll support school choice, traditional values, teaching American history, and keeping parents involved in the children's education, they're likely to be conservative. If they say they'll emphasis gender choice, equity, alternate history, and alternative lifestyle choices, they're likely to be liberal. No need to be partisan as in Republican or democrat when they run for school board. Their plans for office tell the story, and it's up to the voter to understand that.