Arizona–Kyrsten Sinema (D) and Martha McSally (R)
Florida–Rick Scott (R)
Indiana–Mike Braun (R)
Missouri–Josh Hawley (R)
Nevada–Jacky Rosen (D)
North Dakota–Kevin Cramer (R)
Tennessee–Marsha Blackburn (R)
Utah–Mitt Romney (R)
These 9 Senators (2 Democrats and 7 Republicans) will be added to the all time list, which will reach 1,983 people who have served in the US Senate in the 232 years from 1789 to 2021.
It is now evident that the Midterm Elections of 2018 were a revolution in many respects, a true “Blue Wave.”
We now know that 8.8 million more people voted Democratic than Republicans, the widest margin in American history, more than any other midterm election in modern times.
We now know that the Democrats gained 39 seats, and one more possible, in the House of Representatives, greater than anyone could have envisioned, meaning they will have 234 or 235 seats to the Republicans 200 or 201.
We now know that white suburbia, women, younger voters, independents, and racial and ethnic minorities all went over to the Democratic camp by wide margins.
We know know that seven more states have Democratic Governorships, and that such despicable people as Scott Walker, Kris Kobach, David Brat, and all of the Orange County Republican House members (Reagan Country) lost their races to Democrats.
We know that now Arizona and Nevada, along with Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania seem more likely to go Blue in 2020.
However, we also know that Democrats and progressives lost in Florida, Georgia, and in the Texas Senate race, and that seats were lost in the Senate in Florida, Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota.
Overall, with some disappointments, a great result, and optimism about 2020.
Now that the Midterm Elections of 2018 are over, after having time to think about the events that transpired, several conclusions are clear.
There certainly were positives, but also negatives.
The big positives were that the House of Representatives once again fell into the hands of the Democrats, after eight years in the wilderness, and Nancy Pelosi, who was an excellent Speaker from 2007-2011, is likely to become Speaker again, although there is a movement among younger and new members to have someone else as their leader, to be decided in the coming weeks.
Another big positive is the gain of a substantial number of new Governorships, including in the all important Midwest, and having a majority of governorships insures a better future for the Democratic Party when the Census of 2020 occurs, and reapportionment of seats in state legislatures and in the House of Representatives occurs in 2021 and 2022.
A third big positive is that some of the most disgraceful and despicable Republicans lost, including Scott Walker, Kris Kobach, and David Brat.
However, some major negatives stand out, and the most significant is the loss of at least two Senate seats or more, although it is also clear that the Democrats have gained at least one Senate seat in Nevada, and may win in Arizona. However, they have lost North Dakota, Missouri, and Indiana, and likely, Florida,
Also, the most disappointing aspect of the election was in my state of Florida, where it looks like Governor Rick Scott is likely to defeat Senator Bill Nelson, and where right wing extremist Ron DeSantis has defeated Andrew Gillum, who would have been the first African American governor, and had developed quite a following.
Also, it seems as if Stacey Abrams, who would be the first African American female governor in American history, is likely losing the Georgia Governor race to Brian Kemp, another right wing extremist.
And Beto O’Rourke did well, but still lost to Ted Cruz in the Texas Senate race.
So it is a mixed bag in regards to the results of the midterm elections.
The William Brennan Center For Justice, named after the great former Supreme Court Justice, tracks violations of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and has exposed the reality that 19 states, since the Supreme Court backtracked on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in a decision in 2013, have made the right to vote much more difficult, and affecting election results.
In 2016, 14 states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election, with these states including Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.
In 2017, Arkansas, North Dakota, Missouri, Georgia, and Iowa added new laws.
So 8 Southern states of the old Confederacy (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia) are back where they were before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, making it harder for blacks and other people of color, and poor people in general, to be able to have the chance to vote.
But also, the 8 Midwestern states of Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas have gown down the same road.
And Arizona in the West and New Hampshire and Rhode Island on the Atlantic Coast also have made it more difficult to vote.
Look at this list of states, and notice almost all of them, except Virginia, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island voted for Donald Trump.
So we have the possibility that despite public opinion polls that indicate a “Blue Wave”, the restrictions on voting rights could impact election result in November.
The Midwest battleground—Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan—is where the modern political system began, and has been a crucial factor in elections ever since the Republican Party was first created in Michigan and Wisconsin in the summer of 1854.
The Midwest is the heartland of the nation, often ridiculed by those who are from the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, but the states of this area have a “wallop”, the potential to decide the national political trend.
Nine Republican Presidents came from the Midwest—Abraham Lincoln from Illinois; Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding from Ohio; Benjamin Harrison from Indiana; and Herbert Hoover from Iowa; along with Gerald Ford from Michigan inheriting the Presidency via the 25th Amendment.
Also, other Republican nominees (Alf Landon, Bob Dole) and Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower were from “next door” Kansas in the Great Plains.
At the same time, Midwestern Democrats who ran for President include James Cox of Ohio, Adlai Stevenson II of Illinois, Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale from Minnesota, and George McGovern of “next door” South Dakota in the Great Plains, along with Harry Truman of Missouri and Barack Obama of Illinois.
So the Midwest and its nearby neighbors have had an amazing impact, and now the polls indicate the Midwest Governorships that are up for election trend toward Democrats in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, with Ohio also in play.
If the Midwest or most of it is won by Democrats, then the effect on reapportionment of seats in the House of Representatives after the 2020 Census figures are in, will greatly change the political equation for the next decade, so these gubernatorial elections are crucial turning points.
And it may help any Midwestern Democrat who plans to run for President, with Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar having a great opportunity, in the tradition of Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale, plus the image of Eugene McCarthy and Paul Wellstone also helping to give her candidacy a boost.
If the Democratic Presidential nominee is from the Midwest, it gives a boost that a candidate from the Atlantic Coast or Pacific Coast cannot give it, as the “Fly Over” States really will, again, as in the past, determine Presidential elections as well as control of Congress.
Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, and New Mexico have been the five most predictable states in Presidential elections in American history.
Ohio has participated in 54 of the 58 Presidential elections in American history since 1804.
It has often been said that Ohio is the “crucial” state in the quadrennial election process, and that is so true.
No state has had the impact of Ohio, and particularly, due to the fact that Ohio has participated in more elections than all states except the original 13 states, plus Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee, and none of those have been as “predictable” in backing the winners of the election.
Altogether, Ohio has been “correct” in backing the winner all but 9 times, a total of 45 out of 54 times, or 83.3 percent of the time.
The exceptions are the following chronologically:
1824–Henry Clay over John Quincy Adams
1836–William Henry Harrison over Martin Van Buren
1844–Henry Clay over James K. Polk
1848–Lewis Cass over Zachary Taylor
1856–John C. Fremont over James Buchanan
1884–James G. Blaine over Grover Cleveland
1892–Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland
1944–Thomas E. Dewey over Franklin D. Roosevelt
1960–Richard Nixon over John F. Kennedy
Illinois is the second most predictable states, having voted since 1820 for the winner all but 9 times in 50 elections, for a percentage of 82 percent.
The exceptions chronologically are:
1824–Andrew Jackson over John Quincy Adams
1840–Martin Van Buren over William Henry Harrison
1848–Lewis Cass over Zachary Taylor
1884–James G. Blaine over Grover Cleveland
1916–Charles Evans Hughes over Woodrow Wilson
1976–Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter
2000–Al Gore over George W. Bush
2004–John Kerry over George W. Bush
2016–Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump
Note that Illinois voted for the popular vote winner in 1824, 2000 and 2016.
Missouri is the third most “predictable” state, coming into the Union in time for the Presidential election of 1820, so having voted in a total of 50 of the 58 national elections, and being with the winner 37 out of 50 times, or about 74 percent of the time.
The exceptions chronologically are as follows:
1824–Henry Clay over John Quincy Adams
1840– Martin Van Buren over William Henry Harrison
1848–Lewis Cass over Zachary Taylor
1860–Stephen Douglas over Abraham Lincoln
1872–Horace Greeley over Ulysses S. Grant
1876–Samuel Tilden over Rutherford B. Hayes
1880–Winfield Scott Hancock over James A. Garfield
1888–Grover Cleveland over Benjamin Harrison
1896–William Jennings Bryan over William McKinley
1900–William Jennings Bryan over William McKinley
1956–Adlai Stevenson over Dwight D. Eisenhower
2008–John McCain over Barack Obama
2012–Mitt Romney over Barack Obama
Note that Missouri voted with the popular vote winner in 1888.
Two other states also have a high consistency rate of accuracy voting for the winner of Presidential elections, but have fewer times of participation in Presidential elections.
Nevada voted for the winner 31 out of 39 times since 1864, 79.5 percent of the time, with the exceptions chronologically as follows:
1880–Winfield Scott Hancock over James A. Garfield
1884–James G. Blaine over Grover Cleveland
1892–James B. Weaver over Grover Cleveland
1896–William Jennings Bryan over William McKinley
1900–William Jennings Bryan over William McKinley
1908–William Jennings Bryan over William Howard Taft
1976–Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter
2016–Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump
Note that Nevada voted with the popular vote winner in 2016.
Finally, New Mexico, in the Union since 1912, and therefore participating in 27 elections for President, has voted with the winner all but three times, 88.8 percent of the time, the exceptions being:
1976–Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter
2000-Al Gore over George W. Bush
2016–Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump
Note that Al Gore and Hillary Clinton both won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College to their opponents.
It is perfectly understood that all people who work like to keep their jobs and earn their income.
But there is no member of the US Senate that is “desperate” and “needy” to keep their jobs.
What is needed now is, as John F. Kennedy wrote, “Profiles in Courage”.
Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, so called “moderate” Republicans, need to stand up and say, “NO WAY”, would they support Brett Kavanaugh to fill the available seat on the Supreme Court, since he clearly has a record of being anti abortion, and both women Senators claim they are pro choice, so they must refuse to support him.
It is clear that Brett Kavanaugh has committed perjury a number of times in earlier hearings before the Senate while under oath, and he should not be promoted to the Supreme Court, with his record of pursuing Bill Clinton with Ken Starr 20 years ago; his advocacy of torture in the Iraq War; his promotion of an anti gay marriage amendment under George W. Bush; and his unwillingness to say he would recuse himself from any case involving Trump and the scandals that have erupted in the past two years.
But even if Collins and Murkowksi were to back off on Kavanaugh, the requirement also is for Red State Democrats, who are running for reelection, to vote against Kavanaugh in unison, even if it leads to their defeat, which seems unlikely in the present political climate.
So that means West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Indiana Senator Joe Donnelly, Montana Senator Jon Tester, and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill MUST save the nation from a Right Wing extremist Supreme Court, even if they lose their seats, putting the nation ahead of their own ambitions.
With disillusionment with “the older generation” widespread, the possibility now exists that America could elect a President in 2020 who could be younger than any President in American history.
Theodore Roosevelt succeeded to the Presidency at age 42 years and 10.5 months in 1901, upon the assassination of President William McKinley.
And John F. Kennedy was the youngest elected President, taking the oath of office at age 43 years and 7.5 months in 1961.
We have also had three younger Presidential nominees of a major party who lost their campaigns for the Presidency:
Thomas E. Dewey in the 1944 election, who would have been 42 years and 10 months if he had taken the oath in 1945
John C. Breckinridge in the 1860 election, who would have been 40 years and 1.5 months if he had taken the oath in 1861
William Jennings Bryan in the 1896 and 1900 elections, who would have been 36 years and 11.5 months and 40 years and 11.5 months respectively, if he had taken the oath in 1897 and 1901.
Now, in the upcoming election for President in 2020, there are seven theoretical candidates who would be younger than TR and JFK.
They include:
Congressman Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, who would be 42 and three months on Inauguration Day
Congressman Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts, who would be 40 and three and a half months on Inauguration Day
Congressman Eric Swalwell of California, who would be 40 and two months on Inauguration Day
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who would be 39 and nine months on Inauguration Day
Former Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander, who is running to be Mayor of Kansas City, Missouri, in June 2019, who would be 39 and eight months on Inauguration Day
South Bend, Indiana Mayor (since 2012) Pete Buttigieg, who would be 39 and one day old on Inauguration Day
Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg, who has no political experience, who would be 36 and eight months old on Inauguration Day
The odds of any of these seven being the Democratic nominee are very long, and highly unlikely, as four are members of the House of Representatives (and only James A. Garfield was ever elected to the Presidency from the lower house); and two are or will be Mayors, and only Andrew Johnson, in Greeneville, Tennessee; Grover Cleveland, in Buffalo, New York: and Calvin Coolidge in Northampton, Massachusetts were mayors, although Theodore Roosevelt ran for New York City Mayor in 1886, but lost.
Finally, Zuckerberg would only be the second person never in public office after Donald Trump, and seemingly, a real long shot. If Zuckerberg were to become President, he would be the youngest nominee ever, three and a half months younger than William Jennings Bryan in 1896.
The US Senate will be a major battleground this coming November.
Ten “Red State” Democrats face the challenge of winning their seats, with a few of them the most endangered.
If the Senate is to go Democratic, all ten seats must be won by their Democratic veterans, but that is a tall order, and is tied to the hearings over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
The most endangered regarding that issue are West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp, and Indiana Senator Joe Donnelly.
Also possibly in trouble on that issue is Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill.
These four Senators are seen as moderate, rather than liberal Democrats, and all of them except McCaskill, voted for Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch last year.
Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, Jr., Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, and Montana Senator Jon Tester all seem safer in their Senate races as of now, but that could change.
The most endangered incumbent, with or without the Kavanaugh vote, is Florida Senator Bill Nelson, who has Governor Rick Scott as his opponent, and with Scott having triple the amount of funds that Nelson has been able to garner. Scott is horrific, but he won two close races for Governor in 2010 and 2014, using his own wealth.
Now there is a new threat, that New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich might have more trouble being reelected, as former Governor and Libertarian Party 2016 Presidential candidate Gary Johnson, has just entered the race as an Independent, and in a three way race, anything is possible.
The problem is that even if all of these 11 Senators are successfully reelected, the Democrats still must win two more seats, with Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, and Texas as possibilities in that order.
If the Democrats are able to win 51 seats in 2018, it would have to be considered a true miracle!
Ten “Red State” Democratic Senators face a moment of great challenge in November 2018.
Running for reelection in states that went for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016, they face the danger of defeat in their Senate races if they do not support the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, with a final vote expected in October.
Voting for Kavanaugh will insure the likelihood of a conservative majority on the Court for the next 20-30 years, which will affect many areas of domestic and foreign policy, and the powers of the Presidency.
But voting against Kavanaugh may retire many of them, and insure a Republican gain of seats in the US Senate, from 51 to quite a few more, allowing the Republicans to dominate into the future.
So what should these Senators do? Should they be profiles in courage and risk their seats to delay or prevent a conservative Supreme Court majority? Or should they vote for Kavanaugh and give themselves another six years to fight against Trump, without the burden of facing the voters until 2024?
It seems likely that at least the three Senators who voted for Neil Gorsuch last year—Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana—will end up voting to confirm Kavanaugh if the vote cannot be delayed until after the November mid term elections.
The other seven are seen as unlikely to vote for Kavanaugh—Bill Nelson of Florida, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, with all seven now, except possibly Nelson, considered likely for a successful reelection to their Senate seats despite a negative vote on Kavanaugh.