The Senate? Kavanaugh. The House? No Kavanaugh

 

Simon Templar and I were talking, and this is the simplest explanation. The Senate got to have the Big Vote — the Republicans actually had to stand for something. Even the RINOs. And the Senate swung right.

House RINO squishes did not have their Kavanaugh. They acted just like normal useless politicians. So they were punished at the polls.

This elections was not, after all was said and done, entirely about Donald Trump. The House was judged on its own merits, and came up short.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 47 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Gumby Mark Coolidge
    Gumby Mark
    @GumbyMark

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (View Comment):

    Trump won in 2016 because of small margins in non-suburban districts in WI, MI, and PA. If suburbs trend more against him in those states (and PA is particularly worrisome) can he replicate that victory?

    The Democrats also have their own dilemma. This reminds me of 2006 when they took the House by running moderate sounding candidates in suburban districts. Those “moderates” were then wiped out in 2010 in reaction to the first two years of Obama. How do the D’s play it this time around?

     

    The D’s saving grace this time is that they don’t have to Govern. In 2008 they held all three branches. They then passed momentous legislation and had to defend it. Now they won’t. Maybe if they sweep in 2020 and take the White House and Senate then in 2022 those Democrats are in trouble again. But if Trump wins in 2020 then they can keep just being anti-Trump and safe until he is gone.

    Agree.  That’s why last time the newly elected suburban D’s did okay in 2008 and only took the hit in 2010 when Pelosi asked them to fall on their swords for Obama.  The game plan last time around for 2006-8 was obstruction, obstruction, obstruction, rather than forcing the House D’s to any difficult votes.

     

    • #31
  2. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    Jeff Hawkins (View Comment):

    GrannyDude (View Comment):

    I realize that the personal is not always political. Still, from my own experience I agree with @arizonapatriot; I was motivated to vote against my senator (whom I actually like, personally) by the Kavanaugh hearings. And had Susan Collins been on the ballot, I would’ve voted for her because of her defense of Kavanaugh.

    What I found difficult about voting <R> was disregarding my personal impressions of the individual candidates, some of whom are neighbors and friendly acquaintances. This is probably more of a factor in house races even in states more populous and impersonal than mine, and senators are almost by definition going to seem more remote. Does that make sense?

    If government were more decentralized and it wasn’t about national party politics, this would be the ideal. But I also think we should eliminate the 17th Amendment to undercut national party power. You should have a different kind of Democrat from a California than a Missouri. Pro life Democrats. Pro mililtary Democrats.

    The Senate is no longer a body arguing for what’s best for their state but control of the Federal.

    I get your dilema. Especially if they’re relatively new or have a moderate bonafide like military service or business experience

    But then they vote monolith. They run on moderate and vote purity.

    Republicans tend to have the opposite problem: run on the purity and vote moderate.

     

     

    I voted for the republicans. The monolith issue was the reason! 

    • #32
  3. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    Counter-factual question – would anything have turned out differently if not for the mail bomber and Pittsburgh shooting?

    This feels like so much gaslighting! And it makes me really irate.

    Two fools that supposedly line up with the right (but actually seriously HARM the right) are supposed to outweigh the last two years of riots, antifa, and restaurant harassments?

    • #33
  4. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Stina (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    Counter-factual question – would anything have turned out differently if not for the mail bomber and Pittsburgh shooting?

    This feels like so much gaslighting! And it makes me really irate.

    Two fools that supposedly line up with the right (but actually seriously HARM the right) are supposed to outweigh the last two years of riots, antifa, and restaurant harassments?

    Recency bias. It’s a thing. 

    • #34
  5. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Gumby Mark (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (View Comment):

    Trump won in 2016 because of small margins in non-suburban districts in WI, MI, and PA. If suburbs trend more against him in those states (and PA is particularly worrisome) can he replicate that victory?

    The Democrats also have their own dilemma. This reminds me of 2006 when they took the House by running moderate sounding candidates in suburban districts. Those “moderates” were then wiped out in 2010 in reaction to the first two years of Obama. How do the D’s play it this time around?

     

    The D’s saving grace this time is that they don’t have to Govern. In 2008 they held all three branches. They then passed momentous legislation and had to defend it. Now they won’t. Maybe if they sweep in 2020 and take the White House and Senate then in 2022 those Democrats are in trouble again. But if Trump wins in 2020 then they can keep just being anti-Trump and safe until he is gone.

    Agree. That’s why last time the newly elected suburban D’s did okay in 2008 and only took the hit in 2010 when Pelosi asked them to fall on their swords for Obama. The game plan last time around for 2006-8 was obstruction, obstruction, obstruction, rather than forcing the House D’s to any difficult votes.

    Basically we are in for two more years of the same pointless arguments and impotent rage. Democrats will start the 2020 presidential campaign soon. Trump will just throw gasoline on all the fires he can because Trump. And 24 hour news services will be all covering it breathlessly with their partisanship’s showing. 

    I picked the wrong year to stop sniffing glue. 

    • #35
  6. Mister D Inactive
    Mister D
    @MisterD

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Isn’t the better explanation that Republicans won the Senate because they had the structural advantage of challenging Democrats in highly Red states? And likewise Dems took back the he House because Republicans had to defend too many seats in blueish districts? What happened last night is what you would have expected just given the setup.

    And even then, the GOP swung and missed on Nevada and Montana, and came dangerously close to losing Arizona and Florida. Couldn’t even bounce faux-conservative Manchin. There are a lot of warning signs out there for 2020. We shouldn’t get too giddy in a short term victory.

    • #36
  7. Mister D Inactive
    Mister D
    @MisterD

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Counter-factual question – would anything have turned out differently if not for the mail bomber and Pittsburgh shooting?

     

    Exit Poll data via CNN.com:

     

    In your vote today, was recent extremist violence:

    DemocratRepublicanNo Answer

    The most important factor23% 62% 37% 1%
    An important factor51% 51% 48% 1%
    A minor factor9% 38% 60% 2%
    Not a factor at all9% 36% 61% 3%

    18778 Respondents

    Was recent extremist violence important to vote?

    DemocratRepublicanNo Answer

    Yes74% 54% 44% 2%
    No18% 37% 61% 2%

    18778 Respondents

    Was recent extremist violence a factor in vote?

    DemocratRepublicanNo Answer

    Yes83% 53% 46% 1%
    No9% 36% 61% 3%

    18778 Respondents

    Is that how the people voted, or how they are registered? If they are registered dems, they were voting as they did one way or another. It would be more enlightening if this was counting everyone who voted Dem as they may have been persuaded. I also don’t think Trump handled himself well with either the attacks or the caravan. He doesn’t need to go out and remind people why they don’t like him.

     

    • #37
  8. aardo vozz Member
    aardo vozz
    @aardovozz

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    “…Aside from judges, I see two wasted years where we could have been passing bills and putting people in record on real votes.”

    I strongly agree.  But let’s not forget that the judges were a VERY big deal.

     

     

     

     

     

    • #38
  9. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Mister D (View Comment):
    Is that how the people voted, or how they are registered? If they are registered dems, they were voting as they did one way or another. It would be more enlightening if this was counting everyone who voted Dem as they may have been persuaded. I also don’t think Trump handled himself well with either the attacks or the caravan. He doesn’t need to go out and remind people why they don’t like him.

    It’s exit polling, so I’m assuming it’s how they voted.

    • #39
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    I think Henry Olsen’s pre-election analysis over at National Review was pretty much correct about the vote being the “Revenge of the RINOs”, the irony being that those who either voted Democrat or sat out voting for Republicans over their animosity to Trump in large part took out the more moderate House Republicans, since their protest votes or non-votes turned the districts those moderates were most likely to represent. GOP reps who were stronger in their support for Trump and who were in deeper Red districts may in some cases have seen their margins decline from 2016, but for the most part survived.

    Olson may have slightly overstated the effect as far as being a net positive for Democrats — the “Kavanaugh Effect” may have saved a few Republican positions, and we still have to see how Arizona and Montana come out in the Senate races. But the results last night were least good for the more moderate GOP members, and looking towards 2020, it will be interesting to see how the people who switched or didn’t vote on Tuesday view the almost certain battles between Trump and Pelosi (and for the hardest of the hard-core #NeverTrumpers, they’ll now be faced with the dilemma of trying to maintain their credibility while at the same time trying to convince their readers that Speaker Pelosi is suddenly some font of wisdom compared to the guy in the White House. Your move, Max Boot and Jen Rubin….)

    And Jonah Goldberg…

    • #40
  11. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Yes, there was a structural hill to climb for Republicans this time around. No doubt about it. However, hills can be climbed. The house Republicans chose to dicker at tbe bottom of the hill instead of mounting up and charging up the hill guns blazing. Prevent defense, run out the clock, bend but don’t break rarely ever works. Offense is the best defense.

    There was.no offense from Paul Ryan’s house. Why aren’t they making the Dems pay a price for their Russia Collusion hysteria instead of letting the whole thing slip meekly away? Look to Grassleye in the Senate for the example, referring bad actors in the Kavanaugh mess for criminal prosecution.

    Perhaps the Senate would have chosen the same lump on a log approach as the house were it not for Kavanaugh. Aside from judges, I see two wasted years where we could have been passing bills and putting people in record on real votes.

    Well, the House voted to repeal Obamacare. The Senate shut that down, by John McCain’s one treacherous vote.

    Strange, this brought to mind an image of McCain on the bridge of a burning Enterprise:

    You know, I didn’t realize that this quote was originally from Moby Dick, directed at a white whale.

    Nice, but he wasn’t on Enterprise, he was on Reliant.

    • #41
  12. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    I think Henry Olsen’s pre-election analysis over at National Review was pretty much correct about the vote being the “Revenge of the RINOs”, the irony being that those who either voted Democrat or sat out voting for Republicans over their animosity to Trump in large part took out the more moderate House Republicans, since their protest votes or non-votes turned the districts those moderates were most likely to represent. GOP reps who were stronger in their support for Trump and who were in deeper Red districts may in some cases have seen their margins decline from 2016, but for the most part survived.

    Olson may have slightly overstated the effect as far as being a net positive for Democrats — the “Kavanaugh Effect” may have saved a few Republican positions, and we still have to see how Arizona and Montana come out in the Senate races. But the results last night were least good for the more moderate GOP members, and looking towards 2020, it will be interesting to see how the people who switched or didn’t vote on Tuesday view the almost certain battles between Trump and Pelosi (and for the hardest of the hard-core #NeverTrumpers, they’ll now be faced with the dilemma of trying to maintain their credibility while at the same time trying to convince their readers that Speaker Pelosi is suddenly some font of wisdom compared to the guy in the White House. Your move, Max Boot and Jen Rubin….)

    And Jonah Goldberg…

    I’d say more Bill Kristol than Jonah — the animus to Trump is there with both, but Jonah’s yet to start tweeting out things like “…my inner socialist” as Kristol was already doing in only a half-joking manner a year ago, when the Republicans were about to pass their tax cut bill. Now that Pelosi’s running the House, supporting the Democrats over Trump and the GOP is no longer something abstract, but as of Jan. 1 is a binary choice for the hardcore #NeverTrump crowd.

    • #42
  13. Brian Clendinen Inactive
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    Trying to simplify why millions of people vote differently or don’t vote when they have multiple reasons why they are voting a specific way. When many them don’t really know them selves. Its all just speculative fun, but anecdotal. Only G-d  knows. I think considering all the close races. And plenty of first hand anecdotal stories. The hearings really did the Democrats in. How much only God knows.

    • #43
  14. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    That’s as good as any generalization.  Also yes/no votes on an individual are easy.   Crafting legislation to undo the disaster of our healthcare isn’t.   It needed very strong and articulate Presidential leadership.  

    • #44
  15. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (View Comment):

    Trump won in 2016 because of small margins in non-suburban districts in WI, MI, and PA. If suburbs trend more against him in those states (and PA is particularly worrisome) can he replicate that victory?

    The Democrats also have their own dilemma. This reminds me of 2006 when they took the House by running moderate sounding candidates in suburban districts. Those “moderates” were then wiped out in 2010 in reaction to the first two years of Obama. How do the D’s play it this time around?

     

    The D’s saving grace this time is that they don’t have to Govern. In 2008 they held all three branches. They then passed momentous legislation and had to defend it. Now they won’t. Maybe if they sweep in 2020 and take the White House and Senate then in 2022 those Democrats are in trouble again. But if Trump wins in 2020 then they can keep just being anti-Trump and safe until he is gone.

     

    8 more years of Democrats?  I’d not count on meaningful elections after that.  They’ve learned they have to move even faster and take no risks of losing and they will.  Now they’ll be able to frustrate budget cuts and deregulation that require legislation.   We must understand who the Democrat party has become and we must not let them back in power before a serious swamp draining under the mistaken notion that they’re the Democrats of the 50’s or even 60’s.  

    • #45
  16. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    The fact is that House Republicans stood for very little and as such there was very little reason to vote for them.  At least the Senate Republicans had the approval of Gorsuch and  Kavanaugh  to run on.  The border wall, which actually was approved way back in 2006, was not funded even though there was a clear majority of Republicans in the House.

    The funny thing is the country voted for Hell – two years of unending Democrat accusations based on lies along with unending hype for those lies by the media. If you like political strife and I guess these “moderates” who voted for the ugly, nasty Dems must,  you are definitely going to get it 24/7 big time for the next two years. And also with it probably more political killings by Prog Radicals which most likely  happened last night in the Thousand Oaks country and western  bar .

    Speaking of strife,  with Sessions gone, Mathew Whitaker and/or his replacement may take the Democrats to the woodshed big time. I certainly hope this new AG, unlike Jeff Sessions,  takes care to enforce the law like in: ( among other things)

    • Prosecuting those involved in Mueller travesty who criminally entrapped  Papadaloulus, Carter Page, General Hayes and others.

    • Prosecuting those  in the Mueller team who illegally shredded Attorney/Client privilege based on a non-criminal act by Michael Cohen.

    • Investigating the Clinton worldwide pay to play scheme that garnered hundreds of millions of dollars for the Clinton foundation.

    • Investigating and prosecuting those who perpetuated a rogue, legally unsupported Special Counsel that was not based upon the required statutory predicate of a  identified crime.

    • Investigating and prosecuting those who obstructed and successfully suppressed the prosecution of the crimes by the NYPD revealed by Anthony Weiner’s second batch of emails in 2016.

    • Investigating and prosecuting the conspiracy behind the “Russian Conspiracy” espionage investigation of 2016 that violated statutory protocols on the use of CIA human intelligence, fraudulent fabrication of evidence and fraudulent FISA applications.

    • Fully investigate the criminal treason behind the Uranium One deal.

    • Investigate and prosecute the nationwide conspiracy by Antifa to disrupt legal political gatherings through violence and intimidation.

    We need an Attorney General that will again respect the Rule of Law.

    • #46
  17. Mrs. Ink Inactive
    Mrs. Ink
    @MrsInk

    Gumby Mark (View Comment):

    (snipped other quoted posts)

    I agree with this analysis. House districts are very different from Senate races. The suburban districts, which were critical to the R loss of the House, would not have swung the other way if Obamacare were repealed. In those districts it was about Trump. Those nice suburban R’s just can’t stand him and are embarrassed to vote for him.

    (snipped rest of this post)

    I take issue with this-those “nice suburban Rs” voted for Republican candidates in 2016, when Trump was actually on the ballot. Furthermore, you cannot know that the failure to repeal Obamacare was a deciding factor, especially since, by voting Democrat, those same people have now ensured that Obamacare will never go away, barring some national catastrophe.

    Supposedly, incumbents in the House win 95% of the time. Forty-one Republican House members retired, 95% of 41 is about 38, which would have held the House. Like any one else, the suburban Rs are subject to fatigue. They had the same congressman for a long time, who then retired, why not give the other team a try, rather than go with an unknown Republican? Not to mention what redistricting has done to red districts in blue states.

    The Republicans who retired are responsible for the loss of the House, especially Paul Ryan, whose poor leadership and lackadaisical support for the President contributed to the poor performance of the House Republicans during his tenure. 

    The fact that Ryan did not want to be Speaker is no defense-there are many examples of people who had leadership thrust upon them who lived up to the duty to be good leaders. Ryan failed.

     

     

     

    • #47
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.