Two years ago I wrote Larsen Political Analysis posts on my personal Facebook page. I am grateful that these posts now have a home here at Kingdom in the Midst. Without further adieu, the Larsen Political Analysis of this year’s mid-term elections. Here are my takes (in no particular order).
-The President didn’t win the night. I know in a press conference he is saying that it was a victory for him and Trumpism. The election returns do not support that assertion. The president was strategic on which candidates he rallied for. He also focused on the Senate as well. All of the candidates that the president campaigned for were projected to win before the President’s involvement. Conventional wisdom going into the midterms is that Republicans were going to hold the Senate (and perhaps pickups some seats). That is precisely what happened. The president did offer endorsements (on Twitter of house candidates). Almost all of those who received such endorsement lost.
-Progressive candidates also didn’t have a good night. Across the country, the races that were won by Democrats were those where moderates were on the ballot. With few exceptions, those who described themselves as the most progressive lost their races. Looking ahead to 2020, this does not bode well for the most progressive possible candidates for president like Senators Warren and Sanders.
-The President’s loyalty is only with himself. Almost immediately after it was clear that Democrats were going to take the house, the President laid the blame of that loss at the feat of the outgoing Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. In a press conference the next day, the President ridiculed the Republicans that lost because they didn’t “embrace” him.
-From a 2020 perspective (yes, I know it seems early to talk about that, but here we are), the President should be concerned. There were statewide elections in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Democrats swept those elections, some of which saw Republicans lose those offices. 80,000 votes over those three states were the difference in the 2016 election.
-In Missouri, incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill lost her seat because of her vote on Justice Kavanaugh. However, the margin in which she lost can also be attributed to the debacle surrounding the insertion and subsequent deletion of language welcoming those who are more pro-life in the state’s party platform.
-Oklahoma partially confirms that our division in this country is less about partisanship and more about the locality. Oklahoma’s gubernatorial race was supposed to be a nail-biter. The outgoing Republican governor is unpopular, the Republican nominee was deeply flawed, and the Democratic nominee is well-respected. The Republican nominee won the governorship by 12 points. The 5th Congressional district in Oklahoma was supposed to be an easy win for the Republicans. Polling before the race showed that the incumbent was going to win by 15-20 points. The Democratic nominee won the seat. This is the first time a Democrat has won this district since 1975. Oklahoma City is in OK-5.
-Since Senator John McCain died, everyone has been looking for someone to take his place. May I introduce you to Utah Senator-elect Mitt Romney.
-2020 starts now and it is a wide-open race. I do believe that the President will face a primary challenge. I believe that the primary challenger will be the outgoing Governor from Ohio, John Kasich. I also believe that there will be a full slate for the Democratic primary.
Continue to pray for our leaders and our country. Thanks for humoring me in this exercise.
