Posted on 02/18/2018 1:41:19 PM PST by Kaslin
A new interview with Mitch McConnell this week showed the first cracks in the wall of his optimism about the midterms. While not going down a path of gloom and doom, he no longer sounds positive of breaking a long-standing trend of the party in power losing ground in such scenarios. He’s not coming out and saying the GOP’s majorities in both chambers are toast, but he seems to think they’ll be losing seats. (The Hill)
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says in a new interview that he expects to see GOP majorities in the House and Senate shrink in November as a result of the 2018 midterms.
The top Republican in the Senate told The New York Times that “the odds are” his party will face net losses in both chambers of Congress this year, the first time McConnell has made such an admission publicly.“The odds are that we will lose seats in the House and the Senate,” McConnell said.
“History tells you that, the fired-up nature of the political left tells you that. We go into this cleareyed that this is going to be quite a challenging election,” he added.
McConnell looks like he’s zigging when everyone else zags. It seemed like everyone was predicting that the Democrats would at least take the Senate back before Christmas, but Mitch was all sunshine and roses. Now that Trump’s numbers have begun to creep back up and some GOP strategists have a bit more spring in their step, McConnell is lowering expectations.
The biggest question is the Senate, of course, and you’d expect the Majority Leader to be more in tune with that. But how many seats are going to flip and which way will they go? The Democrats need at least a net pickup of two now that the Alabama mess is settled. Granted, we’re probably going to lose Nevada because Dean Heller is in a deep hole right now, being attacked from both sides. The #RESIST movement there is strong and Hillary carried the state easily. It looked like we were going to lose Arizona with Flake’s retirement, but if the primary electorate there can settle down and nominate Martha McSally, we could be in good shape. (Nominating Joe Arpaio, on the other hand, would likely turn into Roy Moore Phase Two.)
But let’s say the Dems take Arizona. There’s your flip, right? Not so fast. That means they still have to hang on to all of the more than two dozen of their own they’re defending. And those include:
Granted, they’ll probably keep some of them. But all of them? Particularly looking at McCaskill, Donnelly and Manchin, I’m thinking it’s going to have to be a tsunami and not just a “wave” to go three for three there. As usual, we should remind ourselves that it’s still ridiculously early in the year to pretend that anything is set in stone, and one turn of the news cycle can change any number of things. But as it stands right now, particularly if Trump can somehow keep his nose above water in the mid-forties, it looks like the Democrats have a massive amount of work ahead of them. All the GOP really needs to do at this point is avoid being stupid.
Okay… I didn’t say was a sure thing.
Get thee behind me satan.....
It's been said since 1800. During the House debates on whether to choose Jefferson or Burr to be President, rumors circulated that President John Adams would use the contested election as a way to stay in office even though he had not been reelected.
I know what you mean, and I agree with you. He should have been voted out in 2017 as majority leader. After all he did such a lousy job.
Yes, I agree with that.
His description of his performance last year was, “Well, it will be hard to match that again.” (Paraphrased > He may have said it will be hard to surpass the Senate’s performance)
What this tells me, is that he has already done all he wants to.
What a blithering idiot. He’s blowing the best chance we’ve had in our lifetime. Trump is willing to give us almost everything, and we have the majority of both bodies of Congress.
It truly boggles the mind, what a lightweight this man is.
It was claimed to be different in 1999, and it was.
The 2000 elections went ahead anyway.
Q: What’s moist, pink and surrounded by hair?
A: McCONNELL!
McConnel: Odds are we’re going to lose.
Quite succinctly stated, my good FRiend.
(And, it's a prediction, up with which, we Conservative voters shall not put.)
I used to like Mr. Kasich, then he sold out to the Inside the Evil Beltway Establishment crowd.
I don’t much like him anymore.
Not this time.
We should pick up 5 Senate seats and lose a few House seats.
Trump voters are going to vote for the Trump agenda in 2018.
Well; when the MSM is the major source of your information; this is the takeaway feeling one gets.
Hey Mitch. Implement Trump’s plan and I’ll bet you’ll fare pretty well this Novemebr.
Mc can take that attitude back to his old country with him.
Things are different this time, of that there is no doubt.
However, I’ll just go on the record that 2018 elections will be held as normal. As will 2020.
Not necessarily. You cannot be certain that you will be alive tomorrow. No one can and that is a proven fact. There is enough bad things coming to surface now that lowers the probability those elections will be held.
It’s interesting once President Trump was elected and began to demonstrate that there is a reason for renewed hope that these United States can endure for a while longer, an increasing number of people come forward with their prediction of the end of the world.
The MSM is so far left that Hillary actually called Trump to concede a full 24 minutes before any network called the election for Trump. And 40 minutes after Trump won an electoral vote in Maine and she could probably read the writing on the wall.
I'm not sure when Fox called it, but it might have been a minute or two before Hillary made her call. Hillary herself said that Fox news was the most fair and balanced of all the major networks. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know?
It’s not the end of the world but a reality that can happen in extricating the deep state domestic enemies he is dealing with. This is not his fault but theirs.
I think the Obama numbers are more relevant than Hillary's, because she was such a terrible candidate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.