Despite the media claiming Trump will lose, the polls predict defeated Democrats in the House and Senate.
Writing about defeated Democrats may seem unrealistic right now. The media is intent on helping Hillary stumble up the stairs to Presidential victory. They’ve even constructed a narrative for her weakness to make it look strategic: “slow and steady.” AP filed a report that presented this incredible lack of energy as a victor’s march:
As Donald Trump jags across the country, battling an onslaught of sexual misconduct allegations, his party’s opposition and the media, Clinton has stepped cautiously on the campaign trail.
She rarely makes news or veers from her script. She keeps a plodding schedule of modest-size events. She relies heavily on her cast of loyal – and arguably more effective – surrogates. And she doesn’t overdo it: With just less than a month left to campaign, Clinton was fundraising in California on Thursday and expected to spend most of the weekend out of the public eye.
While this tries to make Hillary look unconquerable (or undead), the message is slipping when it comes to House and Senate races. For example, Bloomberg admits that, “despite Trump,” the election may end up with a lot of defeated Democrats when it comes to Congress.
If Hillary is so certain to win, it is strange that the Senate is so far out of reach of Democrats:
If Clinton wins, taking the Senate requires a net gain of four seats. It will probably come down to six races rated “tossup” by Sabato’s “Crystal Ball” forecast: five Republican-held seats (New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Missouri, and Indiana) and one Democratic-held seat (Nevada).
Some Republicans, such as New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte and Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, are running ahead of Trump and polling competitively against their Democratic rivals. Ohio’s Rob Portman enjoys a double-digit lead over Democrat Ted Strickland, and Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, long thought to be a lost cause, is within striking distance of Democrat Russ Feingold in two recent polls.
“I continue to be impressed by the ability of Republican Senate candidates to hang in there,” said Ken Goldstein, a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and a polling analyst for Bloomberg Politics. With numerous Republicans separating themselves from Trump so far, it is “too early to say” who will win the Senate, he said.
Congress is even further out of reach.
How is that possible if Trump is so certain to lose?
The smug, odious NeverTrumper Jonah Goldberg espouses one theory that might account for this strange discrepancy (start watching the video below at 3:55). Both donors and voters want a Republican House and Senate.
As loathe as I am to agree with Goldberg, his reasoning makes some sense. If you want to vote for Trump, you want him to have a Republican Congress. If you don’t want to support Trump, then you still want a Republican Congress to oppose Hillary.
Nevertheless, this would be pretty unlikely. Republicans won big in 2010 and 2014. But in 2012, the GOP lost two Senate seats. The Republicans did keep the House, but this was supposed to be a rare occurrence. According to Wikipedia:
In the previous century, on four occasions the party with a plurality of the popular vote was unable to receive a majority in the House, but only twice since World War II. The last times were in 1952 and 1996, in which the GOP held a majority in the House. The 1942 election was the last time that the Democrats held a majority in the House without winning the popular vote.
So now it’s likely to happen twice in a row?
Here’s another theory: Maybe the national polls and presidential polls aren’t as accurate as local congressional polls and statewide Senate polls. Perhaps Trump has a better chance than the media wants you to believe.
I don’t know what the future is going to be, but neither does anyone else. Only a fool will let the media noise about victorious “slow and steady” Hillary discourage them from voting. There is a lot at stake in the election, whether or not Trump wins.