• Thank you for the input.

• I am a big believer in the expression ‘Steel Sharpens Steel’, and I have been hoping that you would move away from Talking Points – and start sharing some useful data (heck, any data).

A) “You’re conflating “Trump endorsements” and MAGA candidates.”
• Please show me the table/ database that you are using that has that breakdown – along with how objectively categorized.
• Then please show me the same data for Trump endorsed candidates that were not labeled MAGA by their Democrat opponent/ MSM.

• Those are not “gotcha” requests, they are just an attempt to clarify if the difference is primarily in the minds of Republicans (i.e., support Republicans, but not Trump) – versus political researchers.

BTW – Why are the Democrats not making the same claims about their wins? See your comments about discipline.

B) “The only one of the Trumpy candidates who won [their 2022 Senate race]…”
• 16 of 24 Trump endorsed candidates won (67%) – and 3 of 6 Obama endorsed candidates won (50%).

BTW – Why are the Democrats not trying to make the same claims about Obama & “Obama candidates” that you are about Trump? See your comments about discipline.

C) “Your numbers are artificially inflated because you’re throwing in the old party candidates and counting them as “Trump endorsed.” That may be technically true,…”
• Has there ever been a time in your lifetime when there was not some variation within the two major parties – especially between the old guard & XYZ?
• Is there anyone doing actual analysis & reporting based on the distinction you are making – if so, please share that with me.

• Again, not a “gotcha” request – there are folks doing some pretty remarkable analysis on the voter base/ profile/ etc.; but I have yet to see anyone trying to report/ attribute ‘Success & Failure’ in the manner you are trying to.

BTW – And again, why are the Democrats not making the same claims about their wins? See your comments about discipline.

BTW – The data on Trump and Obama endorsement records was not prepared by me – it was prepared by election pros – and yes, they can & do parse it in many different ways; but not in the way you are suggesting – and the “Big Picture” (i.e., Wins) is not discounted by them.

D) The dog did not bark
• Control of Congress: the data does not support your “concerns/ objections”, if anything the Republicans have recently outperformed their historical record.

• 2022 – Abortion: the data supports the position that this was a key issue for the election.

• 2022 – Governors romping despite Abortion issue: the data supports the position that all incumbent Republican Governors romped in 2022 – not just the 3 you mentioned.

E) “In short, your analysis is a perfect example of massaging statistics to make them say something that simply doesn’t comport with reality.”
• Please tell me that you can see the irony in your statement (blink once for Yes).
• The analysis – mine & others – is based on: a) the historical record, and b) the political, binary data – W or L – that elections, control of congress, etc. are based on in the real world. That data is available to you as well.

• 100% understand that many may wish they could say that ‘the grass is blue and the sky is green’ because then their positions would make sense – but that strikes me as “piped piper analysis”. Some may disagree.

• Again, thank you for your input.

The candidates who identified most closely with Trump lost. Doug Mastriano and Mehmet Oz in PA, Hershel Walker in GA, Kari Lake in AZ, Tudor Dixon in MI. The only one of the Trumpy candidates who won was JD Vance in Ohio, and he ran 13 points behind DeWine.

As neo pointed out, there are two Republican parties right now, the old party that some here insist is dead and the Trumpy MAGA wing. Your numbers are artificially inflated because you’re throwing in the old party candidates and counting them as “Trump endorsed.” That may be technically true, but it tells us almost nothing about Trump, or the candidates who went all-in on Trumpism in swing states, like those I mentioned above.

In short, your analysis is a perfect example of massaging statistics to make them say something that simply doesn’t comport with reality.

How many more elections are we going to have to lose before people stop falling for this kind of pied piper “analysis.”

• Thank you for the input.

• Let’s review the bidding.

You: MAGA candidates fail – past three cycles/ General elections – 2018, 2020, 2022.

Me: 2018 US Congress Mid-terms: Historical perspective + Data, 1944-2022 | 2020 Presidential election: Historical perspective + Data, Republican results | 2022 US Congress Mid-terms: Historical perspective + Data, Trump endorsement success percentage.

You: Control of Congress – 2018, 2020, 2022.

Me: 2018 US Congress Mid-terms: Historical perspective, 1944-2022 | 2020 Presidential election & Congress results: Historical perspective, 1944-2022 | 2022 US Congress Mid-terms: Historical perspective, 1944-2022

You: 2016 Trump lucky + 2020 Trump not good enough + 2022 Trump candidates not win + 2022 Abortion Issue/ Mike DeWine, Ron DeSantis, and Brian Kemp elections + Spin

Me: 7 No Trump (I kid, I kid).

• 100% agree that our approach is different: Talking Points v. Trends.

• 100% understand the value of messaging/ narrative – but in my professional & personal life know that the difference between feelings & facts is data (trends & compares are too valuable to ignore).

• To be fair, the data is available to both of us to reach conclusions – if we wish to go beyond political shows/ blogs Talking Points – and conclusions based on data is not necessarily the same as Spin. Some may disagree.

*****

A) MAGA candidates fail.

• It is true that the historical data that I shared is not the only useful data – even though it does illustrate that there are election patterns that existed long before Trump.

• It is also true that candidates are listed on the ballot by party – and MAGA is not a party designation.

• It is also true that a Trump endorsement can be viewed as an indication of a MAGA candidate.

• Trump’ General Election endorsement success rate is as follows:
2022: 83%
2021: 67%
2020: 78%
2019: 67%
2018: 59%

• Obama’ General Election endorsement success rate is as follows:
2022: 74%
2021: 59%
2020: 40%
2019: 53%
2018: 68%

B) Control of Congress

• Since 1943/ 78th Congress, the Republicans have controlled the House 15 times (36.5%), and the Senate 13 times (31.7%).
• Since 2017/ 115th Congress, the Republicans have controlled the House 2 times (50%), and the Senate 2 times (50%).

• Since 1943/ 78th Congress, there have been 15 Presidents: 8 Democrat & 7 Republican.
• 3 (43%) Republican Presidents have seen their party control both the House & Senate: Eisenhower, GWB, Trump.
• 8 (100%) Democrat Presidents have seen their party control both the House & Senate: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama, Biden.

C) 2016 Trump lucky

• In the last 10 elections Dems won the popular vote 7 times – and the election 5 times.

• Both Trump (2016) and GWB (2000) won elections without having the most popular votes.
• In 2016 Clinton had 48.1% of the popular vote (2.1% difference).
• In 2000 Gore had 48.4% of the popular vote (.5% difference).

• Clinton won two elections with less than 50% of the popular vote (1992: 43%, 1996: 49.2%).

• Nixon, JFK, and Truman all won elections with less than 50% of the popular vote (1968: 43.4%, 1960: 49.7%, 1948: 49.4%).

D) 2022: Abortion Issue

• “For Democrats, abortion was the clear top issue (35%), followed by the Jan. 6 committee hearings (22%), health care (16%) and inflation (13%).”

• “For Republicans, inflation was by far the top issue (40%), followed by immigration (22%), and abortion (10%). Nothing else received double digits.”

• “For independents, inflation was also tops (37%), but abortion was second (22%) and health care after that (12%).”

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/08/1121535686/poll-abortion-inflation-midterm-elections

E) 2022: Mike DeWine, Ron DeSantis, and Brian Kemp elections

• DeWine – incumbent elected to 2nd term
• DeSantis – incumbent elected to 2nd term
• Kemp – incumbent elected to 2nd term

• !5 incumbent Republican Governers ran for re-election in 2022 – all 15 won their election.

*****

• To be fair, “talking points” – like those you used – can be useful to express a viewpoint, but they are not always accurate or fair (e.g., holding Trump to a different standard than other Presidents). Some may disagree.

• Again, thank you for input. And truth-be-told, this is not the push back I am looking for.

Someone must have forgotten to tell Democrats in Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada, all swing states where Republicans won statewide races in 2022.

Mastriano is another example of my last point too. Josh Shapiro, the Democrats’ nominee for governor, spent more money promoting Doug Mastriano in the GOP primary than Mastriano’s own campaign. (So of course Trump endorsed Mastriano!)

Mastriano was extreme in just about every way, too, not just on abortion. He was present at the J6 riots and was active in trying to get the PA legislature to monkey with the 2020 election results.

Generally, though, my point stands. The candidates who lost were extreme MAGA candidates like Mastriano, who also happened to be extreme on abortion. Candidates like Kemp, DeSantis, DeWine, and the like won despite taking strong pro-life stances in office.

The problem wasn’t abortion.

In PA there was early voting and many of the votes were cast before the one and only debate between Oz and Fetterman. Local media did their best to hide Fetterman’s condition prior to that debate, so many voters were ignorant of his disability. That wasn’t Trump’s fault. (However, the destruction of Kathy Barnett’s campaign was at the hand of Trump and crony Hannity).

Bauxite also wrote: And you can’t blame that on abortion.

In PA you can. Mastriano’s abortion views were so extreme that some of my evangelical pro-life friends were put off by him.

Very true.
Also true was that, not that long ago, the most meaningful polls were “among likely voters”. But that is hardly the case anymore with ballot harvesting. So, can polls have any meaning at all in a word of ballot harvesting and other forms of voter manipulation?

Shadowbass:One thing MAGA types don’t get, is that people can agree with a candidate’s views, while hating him personally so much that they won’t vote for him.

It’s not 1980. Elections are no longer won by appealing to VOTERS. Elections are won by manipulating rules about collecting and tabulating BALLOTS.

The people whose ballots will decide this election will not know or care who the candidates are.

They will be people who give their ballots to a Dem operative in a deep-blue city in a purple state and that ballot will get counted based on a decision made by a Dem operative in a deep-blue city in a purple state.

The Dem operatives are not going to collect Republican ballots, and the Dem operatives are not going to let them be counted.

If this was WWI you guys would be ordering cavalry charges…