Contrary to Falwell claim, Trump did worse that 'average president' in first midterm

[tulc]

Contrary to Falwell claim, Trump did worse that 'average president' in first midterm

Falwell said, "This midterm, the president did better than the average president does in his first midterms." The claim does not stand up.

Republicans lost 38 congressional seats in the 2018 elections and control of the House of Representatives. Of the 28 presidents who have served since 1862, that’s the 18th highest losses by their party during their first midterms. The average drop was 30 seats. If we just consider the 13 post-World War II presidents, Trump saw the eighth highest losses. Those presidents experienced an average drop of 31 seats in their first midterm.

Falwell, asked to prove his statement, substitutes a different claim: that Trump outperformed Democrats Clinton and Obama during their first midterms.

Statistics consistently show Trump performed slightly worse than the average president during his first midterm. We rate Falwell’s statement False.

tulc(thought this was interesting)

 

[Halbhh]

If you make a post for every Trump false statement, it perhaps can also make us get used to hearing made up claims, as normal.

We shouldn't get used to it.

What Trump claimed about other Presidents saying they wished they had done a wall, and they didn't say that, is so glaring, it should be paid attention to, but how can we pay attention if we have 4 or 10 things about Trump in a day. This is part of what Trump does -- to divert attention from something bad already in front of us, he makes a new attention grabbing statement.

I wonder if America can avoid getting used to this, and continue to know it's wrong.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The President's party's losses in the House were indeed greater than average for a midterm, but those losses were arguably offset by gains in the Senate. It's rather strange that Politifact would measure a seat in the Senate as equal to a seat in the House.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

The President's party's losses in the House were indeed greater than average for a midterm, but those losses were arguably offset by gains in the Senate. It's rather strange that Politifact would measure a seat in the Senate as equal to a seat in the House.

How are they offset? He lost one side of Congress but did not gain a filibuster proof majority on the other side.

 

[tulc]

The President's party's losses in the House were indeed greater than average for a midterm, but those losses were arguably offset by gains in the Senate. (snip)

Ahhh! Once again, Republicans claiming "losing the "popular vote" isn't a big deal!".
tulc(just something he noticed)

 

[Albion]

Numerically, the GOP losses were slightly above average, but the analysts (not the notoriously unreliable Politifact) also pointed out that an unprecedented number of incumbent Republican congressmen retired, frustrated at the obstructionism and politics of personal destruction (and threats of literal destruction) that have taken over our political system lately. Some did so very late in the going. All of those seats had to be defended by Republican nominees who did not have the usual benefit of incumbency which, as we all know, is very powerful.

In addition, several states had their congressional district lines redrawn pursuant to a court order shortly before the 2016 elections, and those came in response to Democrat lawsuits. If that is not unprecedented, it surely is rare. Again, reputable analysts pointed out that this delivered perhaps half a dozen seats that had been expected to stay Republican to the other column.

An then we had the new factor that all but wiped out the longstanding Republican stronghold, Orange County California, plus a few seats in other states. I refer to the new legislation that allows anyone to take a ballot to just about anybody, anywhere, without verification of signatures or the marking of the ballots and return these--thousands of them in an organized effort, it turns out--after election day.

All in all, at least 10-15 Republican seats in the House were shifted to the democrats because of these factors.

Trump was right about his party's losses compared to other, earlier elections.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Numerically, the GOP losses were slightly above average, but the analysts (not the notoriously unreliable Politifact) also pointed out that an unprecedented number of incumbent Republican congressmen retired, frustrated at the obstructionism and politics of personal destruction (and threats of literal destruction) that have taken over our political system lately. Some did so very late in the going. All of those seats had to be defended by Republican nominees who did not have the usual benefit of incumbency which, as we all know, is very powerful.

In addition, several states had their congressional district lines redrawn pursuant to a court order shortly before the 2016 elections, and those came in response to Democrat lawsuits. If that is not unprecedented, it surely is rare. Again, reputable analysts pointed out that this delivered perhaps half a dozen seats that had been expected to stay Republican to the other column.

An then we had the new factor that all but wiped out the longstanding Republican stronghold, Orange County California, plus a few seats in other states. I refer to the new legislation that allows anyone to take a ballot to just about anybody, anywhere, without verification of signatures or the marking of the ballots and return these--thousands of them in an organized effort, it turns out--after election day.

All in all, at least 10-15 Republican seats in the House were shifted to the democrats because of these factors.

Trump was right about his party's losses compared to other, earlier elections.

Excuses excuses.

There were a number of Republican legislators who retired due to Trump. This does mean the Republicans do not have the advantage of an incumbent, but so be it.

The redistricting is an interesting issue. Is it wrong to un-gerrymander? In these cases courts found that Republicans had packed districts with traditionally Democratic voting constituents - often minorities. This is illegal and the courts corrected it.
Supreme Court Allows Court-Ordered Redistricting in Pennsylvania
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...e75b36-137c-11e9-803c-4ef28312c8b9_story.html
North Carolina Is Ordered to Redraw Its Gerrymandered Congressional Map. Again.

As for the “hand delivered ballots” there is no evidence for malfeasance in California. Republicans and Democrats both took advantage of the law.
“There’s no evidence that the ballot collection law was misused, even in the few reported cases when people turned in dozens of collected ballots. (Indeed, GOP campaigners employed the same tactic, just not as well, evidently.) Republicans are just looking for an excuse to explain their embarrassing election day drubbing.”
No, Republicans didn't lose in California because of ballot harvesting. But the practice is concerning

In fact, in North Carolina, it is the Republicans who appear to have committed “ballot harvesting.”
“An analysis by the News & Observer found that the ballots of minority voters went unreturned to counting stations at a disproportionate rate. More than four out of 10 ballots requested by African Americans did not make it back to election officials, the analysis showed. That number jumps to more than 60% for Native American voters. In comparison, white voters’ ballots non-return rate was just 17%.”
Absentee-ballot fraud scandal speaks to wider issue of racism in North Carolina

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

If Politifact were honest, it would call itself Politopinion.

 

[tulc]

If Politifact were honest, it would call itself Politopinion.

Only if you think "alt-facts" are real.
tulc(another of President Trumps administration contribution to American politics)

 

[The Barbarian]

The redistricting is an interesting issue. Is it wrong to un-gerrymander? In these cases courts found that Republicans had packed districts with traditionally Democratic voting constituents - often minorities. This is illegal and the courts corrected it.

How do you expect republicans to compete, if they can't rig elections in their favor? Sheesh.