Ted Cruz said that he expected a 2010 style Republican Party blowout, big, big majorities, a 30,40, 50 seat majority in the House of Representatives and a 53 or 54 Republican seat majority in the Senate.
"Listen, I am very, very optimistic. I think on election day we're not just going to see a red wave; we're going to see a red tsunami. I believe republicans are going to retake both the House and Senate. I think in the House, we're going to see big, big majorities, 30, 40, 50 seats, I think on the order of magnitude of 2010. In the Senate, I think we're likely to end up at 53 or 54 republicans. " He said that he expected Laxalt ("most likely pickup in the country") to win, JD Vance to win, " I think Dr. Oz's going to win in Pennsylvania" , "I think Herschel Walker's going to win in Georgia", in Arizona with Blake Master's and in New Hampshire with General Buldoc, they have "a real shot at winning those races", " I think we have a puncher's chance in Colorado and Washington state" . He said, "I think we're going to have some big, big victories .." He said that he was in the middle of a 17 state month long bus campaign. "I think this is going to be a big, big historic election."
en.wikipedia.org/…
In 2010, the Republican Party picked up 63 seats in the House of Representatives and 6 seats in the Senate and won the popular vote by 6.8%.
Given gerrymandering and the likelihood that we either have the same 50 seat majority in the Senate that we had before or we expand that majority by 1 and that the Republican Party's majority in the House of Representatives is likely to be 5 and the absolute maximum is 10, we probably won the popular vote.
.
Those people who, therefore, are casting aspersions upon our party's election results by minimizing them as terrible and "moral victories" are completely off-base. First, winning more votes is not losing. Second, winning more seats or retaining our majority in the Senate is not losing. Third, it appears clear that if, as seems more likely than not, they win a majority in the House of Representatives, that will be due almost entirely by gerrymandering in as much as without any gerrymandering, we would have retained our majority. Fourth, reality and context do matter. Their argument is essentially that context should not matter. I think that's absolutely absurd.
Of course context matters. Numbers are meaningless without context. What did you get? A 68. Wow, four under par is outstanding. A 68 on your final? That's awful! I was a curve-buster. Without me, the grades of most other students would have been better. Consider an ESL student who has only lived in the US for less than a year taking the STAAR or before that, the TAKS exam. Should I not consider or take into account their status as a student who has only been learning English and in the United States when I evaluate their results from taking an all English STAAR or all English TAKS?
.
To evaluate the performance of a political party in an election without considering the context is ignorant, in the most common use of the word. I can't fathom a defense of evaluating the election results of a political party without considering the context. It's just stupid.
The painful loss is yours, Rampbell .
"And Catherine Rampell argued that Democrats "plugged their ears to bad news” and are, as a result, headed "toward painful losses."
“They’ve downplayed voters’ concerns on crime, violent protests, school closures and rising recession risks,” she wrote. “Democrats have also convinced themselves that pet policies beloved by left-wing Twitter activists will be broadly ‘popular’ even when polls suggested public opinion is mixed at best.”"
Painful losses, if language and context have anything to do with meaning, denotes a large amount of losses.
The norm for a party which holds the White House is to lose 26 seats in the House of Representatives and 4 seats in the Senate. The numbers are probably worse for the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. Put that together with inflation and President Biden's low approval rating and one would expect much worse numbers than those. Rick Wilson anticipated 65 seats lost in the House of Representatives and 7-8 seat majority for the Republican Party in the Senate. That might have been overly pessimistic, but given inflation and President Biden's low approval rating, it was not completely unreasonable.
It's more than fair to say that the baseline for what should be expected is 40 seats lost in the House of Representatives and a 5 seat majority in the Senate for the Republican Party. Anything better than that is better than expected. I would say that anything short of a 20 seat majority for the republicans in the House and a 3 seat majority for them in the Senate is relatively good for the Democratic Party and bad for the Republican Party
This is from today at about 2:30 pm - guessing EST.
From 538 about Kari Lake (AZ Governor's race against Secretary of State Katie Hobbs ) and Adam Laxalt (NV -US Senate against incumbent US Senator Catherine Cortez-Masto) :
fivethirtyeight.com/...
"Kari Lake isn’t the only Republican making inaccurate claims about “mathematically” impossible wins. During a conference call for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham claimed “there is no mathematical way” that the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, Adam Laxalt, could lose, according to Politico. Graham added: “If he does, then it’s a lie.” But this isn’t true. As we’ve already noted, Democratic candidate Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto needs to win just 55 percent of the outstanding ballots to beat Laxalt, and there are an estimated 95,000 votes still yet to be counted, largely in areas where Cortez Masto has been winning more than 60 percent of the vote. There’s a very real, mathematically possible way for Cortez Masto to win, and suggesting otherwise is misleading."