No, Democrats Didn’t ‘Lose’ the Election

But that inaccurate narrative is good for national stability.

By
180

Some commentators are inaccurately claiming Democrats lost the election. I’m referring here not to false conspiracy theories about rigging and fraud — Attorney General William Barr is the latest high-profile figure to acknowledge that there’s no evidence  for that— but to claims of a conservative moral victory, a better-than-expected result with which Republicans should be happy.

Explaining “the meaning of the 2020 election,” Commentary’s Noah Rothman argues that “Trump lost. And so, astonishingly, did his pursuers. Joe Biden had a triumph. The Democratic Party has a disaster.” More specifically, according to Andrew Sullivan, the election was “clearly and unequivocally a rejection of the woke left.” Others offer alternative explanations, but they share the interpretation that 2020 was bad for the Democratic Party.

The most-often cited example is the House of Representatives. With two races left to call, Democrats won 222 and Republicans 211, a net gain of nine for the GOP. “House Republican leaders are taking a victory lap following their surprising strength in the election,” reported the Wall Street Journal. Taking this sentiment to absurdity, as is his wont, Dinesh D’Souza claimed “it was a red wave, not a blue wave, in the House of Representatives.”

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the entire House is up for re-election every two years. Democrats won a majority of seats, so they won the House. Republicans lost by less than they did in 2018, but they still lost. And if you’re searching for a Republican mandate in the House popular vote, you won’t find it. More Americans voted Democratic.

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
180
By
Comments (180)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Luke Thompson (not that one)

    Comparing the 2020 election to the 2016 election is rather dishonest if you don't acknowledge that the Republicans won convincingly in 2016 and overcame predictions even in 2020.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    This wasn’t a blue wave, I don’t know what this guy is smoking but I want some. That said if Democrats win both seats in Georgia it will feel like a Blue Wave. So as a fact check I give this story a False, but only temporarily. If Cocaine Mitch pulls it out, the GOP beat back the Blue Wave.

    Collapse
    1. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

      1. Avatar photo
        Earl King

        I agree, just saying up front there was no blue wave. I still want what he is smoking the GOP in the face of a potential blue wave had a better night than expected. That said if Dems win Georgia it will feel like. Blue wave

        Collapse
    2. Boatbody

      I'm a dufus; could someone tell me where Cocaine Mitch got his nickname? A Democrat employed nickname? Doesn't seem fitting for the majority leader of the Senate.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Earl King

        Cocaine Mitch
        The backstory: This nickname came via a political candidate from a neighboring state to Kentucky. In May 2018, coal executive and Don Blankenship, a candidate running in the West Virginia GOP Senate primary, promised to “ditch ‘Cocaine Mitch’” if elected.

        Blankenship, who eventually lost in the primary, created the nickname in an attempt to link McConnell to a report that 90 pounds of cocaine were discovered aboard a vessel owned by the father of McConnell’s wife, U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.

        Collapse
  3. JohnO

    "In 2016, Democrats lost the White House, lost the House while gaining six seats, and picked up two senators, but no one described that as the American people rejecting the Republican Party. "

    Usual problem I think with characterizing 'what people say'. My perception is plenty of people pointed out Trump's lack of strong coattails in 2016. And my impression of 2020 is pretty much the flip side of that.

    Also you can't expect people to ignore the gap between what the Democrats were supposed to gain per polls, likely wide victory by Biden, pick up in House, likely flip Senate, v non-squeaker but non-wide win by Biden, actual loss of House seats, possibly just 1 pick up in Senate and also modest net losses at state level. That's upsetting plenty of elected Democrats, so why would I as conservative not think it a setback for them?

    'Democrats lost the election', OK again in the internet age people one-up one another in their reaction to things till somebody goes overboard. The commentary is never over till it's gone too far.

    Collapse
  4. Matt M

    Let's not delude ourselves here. It's good for national stability in that a vocal minority of the republican base needs a "win" or they're liable to abandon democratic elections specifically and liberal democratic capitalism in general.

    Color me surprised that we're trying to flatter that base into accepting reality rather than calling out their reprehensible behavior.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill B

      Not sure which point you're trying make here. But the notion that a "vocal minority" of the Republican(Trump) Party never gets any wins and that we have to humor thier base and elected US Congressmen and Senators efforts at a coup or they'll go Red Dawn on us?

      As if two Presidential elections in which their candidates lost the popular vote and still took office; with a Senate in which Republican voters are over-represented as a percentage of the electorate; and a conservative Supreme Court and majorities in both the House and the Senate more than once, aren't "wins".

      If that's how they really feel then neither flatter or humor them... immediately invoke the exceptions to the Speech and Debate Clause and arrest them for sedition and insurrection right now.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Carl M

    Excellent analysis.

    Collapse
  6. rob

    The election was promised to be a 10 point, 400+ electoral college landslide. The complete election was moved to "mail in" voting where fraud is much easier to commit. Trump voters outnumbered Biden voters 4/1 on Election Day. And these are real voters (not just ballots in the back of a truck). And after all of that the Biden could only manage a marginal win in a 3 states. But when I turn on CNN its all anti trump nonsense as if the projected landslide victory came through. I don't think that as long the media is so ideological that they do not report what is actually happening but instead report the state they wish things were we will ever get national stability.

    Collapse
    1. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

      1. Deleted Comment

        This comment has been deleted

      2. rob

        Nate Silvers “model” is too complex and has too many cranks and levers. I’ve heard him describe it as 7000 lines of code where he does such things as adjust poll results of certain poll makers based on how good he thinks the poll is, use a poll for one state in the calculation of another state based on how alike he thinks the states are etc.

        Every one of those 7000 lines could have a bug in it and that is probably why his results are usually wrong.

        Collapse
        1. Deleted Comment

          This comment has been deleted

          1. Deleted Comment

            This comment has been deleted

    2. Avatar photo
      rlritt

      rlritt1 hr ago

      Are you kidding me? Biden won in 2020 by more than Trump won in 2016, but Biden barely won in your view because some poll (which I never saw) said he should win by 10 points. Also, Biden did campaign. He just didn't act like a carnival barker because he is not a grifter and a game show clown he is actually a statesman

      Collapse
      1. rob

        Im not sure how you didn't see the polls. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

        Economisst, Quinnipac, CNBC, NBC all had 10+ polls. And yet it came down to 40,000 votes in 3 states. And when I turn on CNN it is anti-trump nonsense all the time.

        How can you trust anything these people say?



        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          John Kramer

          Your link shows the RCP poll average predicted Biden's vote to within 0.2%.

          Where the RCP averages were out was that Trump got 2.9% more votes than they predicted.

          If the conspiracy nuts were honest, they should be questioning where these extra Trump votes above the levels of polled voting intention came from, not Biden's which were pretty much exactly as predicted.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          Not all poles had 10%. And polls have a Bias to whom they poll. For example Rasmussen polls mostly older people. They had Biden by only points fay before election.

          Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Boring Oatmeal

      Who specifically promised "a 10 point, 400+ electoral college landslide."

      Collapse
      1. rob

        I heard it on the commentary podcast. But historically 10+ wins translate into 400+ electoral landslides.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Boring Oatmeal

          I hope you sent a vigorous complaint to John Podhoretz in that case. Commentary shouldn't be making promises that they can't keep.

          Collapse
    4. Scroop Moth

      The election was between Trump and Biden, not between polling places and trucks.

      Collapse
      1. rob

        Trucks that pulled up in the middle of the night with mail in votes after counting had stopped.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          CVS

          Again, you're just making stuff up and have no clue what you're talking about.

          Collapse
          1. rob

            This is highly documented.

            Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      scott

      Are you saying my mail-in ballot shouldn't be counted? I'm not a "real person"? You voting in person makes you better than me? You think telling vets and military personnel they shouldn't have their votes counted is going to work out for you?

      Collapse
      1. Anonymous

        Collapse
        1. rob

          My state "just mailed out ballots" in the primary. I got 5. What a great system your state has! Just giving out ballots to everyone whether they still live there or not. I guess as long as *your guy* wins that is ok. But that is NOT democracy.

          Collapse
      2. rob

        I am saying that switching to all mail in voting has enabled fraud and not all of the 80 million mail in votes for Biden are real people.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          The only state that has all mail in voting is Oregon.

          Collapse
          1. Jess

            Also, Colorado, Hawaii, Utah and Washington.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          scott

          Why are you saying that? Every vote for Trump was a "real person"? I'm not so naïve to think there is no fraud, but I'm saying arguments that the whole thing is a sham is disingenuous, based on little evidence, and your arguments are spurious.

          Collapse
          1. rob

            Most of Trump's votes came from in person voting on Election Day. So at very least if you show up on Election Day you're a person and you're alive! Sadly we have found thousands of examples of that not being true for mail in ballots.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Mudskipper

            Because Trump voters are true real people. Biden voters are lizard people.

            Collapse
        3. Avatar photo
          Mudskipper

          You are probably right. Maybe only 79,900 were real people.

          Collapse
          1. rob

            When you don't have to show you a physical human being it is a lot easier to commit fraud.

            Collapse
    6. Avatar photo
      CVS

      "And after all of that the Biden could only manage a marginal win in a 3 states."

      Uhh...Biden won a lot more than three states.

      If you mean three swing states...that's also incorrect. It depends on how you count swing states but its way more than three.

      If you mean three states Trump won last time, that's ALSO incorrect. He won five states Trump won last time (AZ, MI, WI, PA and GA).

      Collapse
      1. rob

        Cliff, you have a knack for being very confidently completely incorrect.

        AZ 10457 (0.3%), GA 11778 0.2%), WI 20682 (0.6%) - A total of 42917 (37 electoral votes). Which would swing the election. And remember Trumps votes were overwhelmingly real people that showed up to the polls.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Mudskipper

          ?? That's completely illogical. Why are you ignoring Biden's less than marginal wins in Michigan and Pennsylvania?

          Collapse
          1. rob

            Those states were also very close. Those are just the three closest states that flip the race,

            Collapse
        2. Anonymous

          Collapse
          1. rob

            It’s impossible to say because they did not check ID or have chain of custody on mail in votes.

            Collapse
        3. Avatar photo
          CVS

          So...Biden won all those states. Just like I said.

          He also won PA and MI which Trump did in 2016. Just like I said.

          Thanks for pointing out my total vindication.

          Collapse
          1. rob

            It’s a 3 state margin, with a totally revamped voting system that does not check that the mail in voters are real people.

            Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    This article is sound from the perspective of the actual results: Democrats won the presidency, held the house, and picked up seats in the Senate. However, this analysis misses the more important question of how the Democrats performed against what they realistically could've achieved. In thermodynamics, we call this an availability analysis, and it's a better measure of the efficiency of a system than simply looking at how much work you got out vs. the energy put in. The Democrats failed to pick up a lot of winnable seats in the House of Representatives, and the presidential race was closer in a lot of swing states than it could've been. This points to weaknesses in their strategy when running against a very unpopular incumbent during a poorly-managed pandemic and recession. If they don't figure out those weaknesses and mitigate them, their opponents will certainly exploit the weaknesses in coming election cycles. If there's a saving grace, it's that the Republicans are largely in denial of Trump's role in all of this, and are probably going to double down on Trumpiness instead of adjusted their approach for 2022 and 2024.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    I think I disagree-ish with this article. Although he gets the facts right I think the important thing is not just what the polls said. Everyone on the left FELT that a blue wave was imminent. Almost exactly zero of my liberal friends have been happy since election day. And it was the result not the fear of Trump stealing the election that had them depressed. The real winner in this election was the never-trump conservative *raises hand* who can actually say (after Senator Manchins commitment) that "I got everything I wanted for Christmas"

    Collapse
    1. JohnO

      Yeah, left's disappointment is real (no, it's not your friends being nice). That is of significance, hardly the dawn of GOP dominance, but who is actually saying that? 'The Democrats lost the election' seems to me mainly a straw man. I'm sure one can find examples of that statement on the internet...along with virtually any statement on any topic.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      rlritt

      Maybe your Democratic friends are just trying to make you feel better.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Jason Gibson

        why would they start now? lol

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    CVS

    I agree with most of what you say here. Any idea that this was a Republican "victory" is only if gaged against expectations of a blowout.

    That said, it is fairly clear, it seems to me, that Trump did worse than your average GOP candidate, particularly in contested swing seats. That's not a huge thing to brag about given that Trump lost the popular vote by roughly 4.1% and R's haven't won the popular vote for President since 2004 and only once since 1988. That obviously portents long-term problems that remain unaddressed. But it's not nothing.

    In other words, Sullivan's claim that the election results were “clearly and unequivocally a rejection of the woke left," has more truth to it than I think you're giving it credit for. A fair amount of Biden voters nonetheless voted R down ballot, and more than that, Biden himself did worse than average given how most voters felt about Trump, and more than that still, Biden himself *was* in part a repudiation of the "woke left."

    I don't think that "Trump was repudiated, but the Democrats were not embraced," is a bad take on the election. I think it's the most accurate one. That isn't to minimize Republican problems or overestimate their strength. It is to say that whatever the left may think, and whatever sins Trump committed (many) it didn't lead most voters to embrace the D's.

    Put another way: if the Congressional GOP had lost the popular vote by as much as Biden did, things would have been a LOT worse for them. And that means something.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill B

      I think you're being too kind and optimistic. If we hadn't had the pandemic Trump would have taken it walking away.

      The Democrats have crapped all over their brand that badly. And I voted a straight Democratic ticket.

      Collapse
    2. Scroop Moth

      Conventional wisdom says a president’s second election is always a referendum on that president rather than a choice. Assuming that to be correct, the thesis that “the woke left” was on the ballot requires a lot more evidence.

      Few people believe that “defund the police” means abolishing the police, or that it could happen anywhere besides Portland or Seattle, or that the national Democratic Party would approve, let alone embark on abolition. 40% of whites, 49% of Hispanics and 70% of Blacks support diverting some funds from street patrols to social services. Rather than cutting funds from police, House Democrats (with some Republican support) voted to fund retraining schemes, literally “funding the police.” Meanwhile, large cities around the country have actually shifted money from police patrols to softer interventions — with no cries about anarchy. “Defund the police” was a powerful motivator for voters who were going to vote for Republicans anyway.

      If the election was a referendum on Trump, what kind of a referendum was it? Conservatives claim that the key issue in the referendum was the president’s demeanor, dishonesty, and lack of discipline. I don’t buy that theory either. 73 million Republican voters, the largest number in history, didn’t put on such an amazing display of power to validate mental illness and lying. This historic wave of Republican voters expressed something else. I believe Republicans were trying to turn Trump’s authoritarian bid of 2016 into an authoritarian breakthrough. The fact that Democrats stopped that terrifying effort — decisively but narrowly— is the what the referendum was about.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        rlritt

        I agree. History is full of people who supported the jack boot on the neck. They are insecure and need a tyrant to coddle them and kill their enemies. People adored Mussolini, Franco and Stalin because they were their bullies. They say they love America. But they hate that America is a free democracy.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          scott

          One quibble...it's beginning to look like more folks than I would have believed think their freedom is great, but they're not too sure "your" freedom is on the "up-and-up". (*not you specifically)

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        CVS

        "Few people believe that “defund the police” means abolishing the police,"

        Uhh...yeah...this is the most "in my own bubble" take ever. Both the hard-left, and much of the right, absolutely believed that, at minimum, a significant drawdown on police was potentially in the cards.

        People who are experts in how politics actually work, political history of the US, etc. knew this was basically impossible. That isn't your average voter.

        I had right-wing relatives AND far-left friends tell me this was on the horizon. Poll after poll after poll showed that a significant section of people believed it.

        "I believe Republicans were trying to turn Trump’s authoritarian bid of 2016 into an authoritarian breakthrough. "

        See my above comment. Pure "in my own bubble" thinking with a near-zero reflection on reality.

        Collapse
        1. Scroop Moth

          Do you know of any polling that found a majority of registered voters believed defund=abolish ? I’ve read the opposite. As noted, a majority of voters thinks police funds should be redirected — which is what “defund” actually means. Slogan grammar is tricky. It uses indeterminacy to inflame. “Defund” could mean “completely defund,” or “slightly defund” without self-contradiction. So did the slogan troll conservatives? Obviously, but most people know how grammar and the world work, and they understood that abolition was not in fact on deck.

          Of course, this ain’t the last word.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            CVS

            "Slogan grammar is tricky."

            That's correct.

            And voters don't think that way. That's the entire point. You're using a grammarical defense of a toxic slogan. Whether or not voters actually thought it abolished all the police or not is beside the point.

            If you disagree, don't take it up with me. Take it up with Jim Clyburn (hardly anyone's idea of a right-wing troll). He's made this quite explicit.

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/08/james-clyburn-defund-police-cost-democrats-seats-hurt-black-lives-matter/6216371002/

            Collapse
    3. Anonymous

      Collapse
      1. Davis Everson-Rose

        I think you replied to the wrong person

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        CVS

        Huh?

        I literally never said any of the things you claim and/or imply I said. Nor anything close to them. Who are you replying to?

        The only thing that is sorta-related to something I said is the polls I cited. It is a demonstrable fact that the polling averages had Biden up by 3-5pts more than he ended up winning by. If you didn't see them it's because you didn't look. They were everywhere.

        But that doesn't mean his win was narrow. It wasn't. It was just smaller than expected. Again, demonstrably true.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          Sorry, I was replying to the first post. It accidently got deleted and I retype it in the wrong place.

          Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Ed P

      I tend to see it as that Republican propaganda successfully conned many people into believing a party wholly supporting an autocratic criminal was less dangerous than the moderate Democrats who were conflated with the furthest of the left, wanting to implement socialism and to 'Defund the police'. Somehow, moderate Democrats were painted as the most extreme left when they clearly separated themselves from that rhetoric and policy while Republicans were not punished for Trump's excesses, even though they enabled them and will not sand up to him.

      The party that appears to me to be a clear and present threat to Constitutional governance is the ones protecting the President as he threatened to lock up his opponents and would not commit to a peaceful transfer, and now continue to appease him as he still tries to overturn the clear election results. They would not even attempt to compel key evidence in his impeachment trial, a total sham that telegraphed to Donald that he is totally off the hook from Congressional oversight.

      This lack of repudiation has set the stage for our unfortunate state of affairs today. The Arizona GOP Twitter account just this morning asked its followers if they would lay down their life for Donald Trump's election challenge (aka coup attempt) in steadily escalating rhetoric now bordering on calls to violence.

      While Donald' gambit to overturn the election results is of course likely to fail, its been incredibly corrosive and will likely result in some level of insurgency throughout the Biden Presidency.

      Collapse
      1. teddytruther

        "Somehow, moderate Democrats were painted as the most extreme left when they clearly separated themselves from that rhetoric and policy while Republicans were not punished for Trump's excesses, even though they enabled them and will not sand up to him."

        This is a really eloquent summary of the dynamic that has been driving me up the wall the past few years. Republican politicians are not accountable for the behaviors of an administration they directly protected from investigation and oversight, whereas Democratic politicians are accountable for the behaviors of Twitter activists and left-associated fringe anarchist groups.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          I'm hoping the Republicans who are ready to die for an elitist, upper Eastside NY playboy who wouldn't spit on them if they were on fire, are just outliers like the far left who want to defund the police and abolish private health insurance.

          Collapse
      2. Peter

        The gop have to play this game very carefully.

        They have over 30 senate seats up for re election in 2022. The democrats dont have to defend as many seats.



        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Andy

    I think Rothman is more correct than Grossman. Look at the results from the Democrats' point of view. I don't think many feel good about the results. Imagine Jaime Harrison raising $130 M ($30 M more than Graham) to defeat Lindsay Graham and losing by 10 points. Imagine Amy McGrath raising $93 M ($33 M more than McConnell) to defeat Mitch McConnell and losing by 20 points. Imagine Sara Gideon raising $76M (2.5X Collins) to defeat Susan Collins and losing by 9 points. Imagine Theresa Greenfield raising $56 M ($25M more than Ernst) to defeat Ernst and losing by 6 points. It wasn't just these Senate races where Democrats spent heavily and fell short. It was the House and state legislatures. Wealthy Democratic donors, often from the 2 coasts, hoped and expected that they would be able to impose their ideas, values, and candidates on the rest of the nation. And they failed, in many cases dismally. Yes, Trump was defeated, but for Democrats 2020 was a bummer. And if 2020 was a bummer for them, it was a pretty good result for the GOP.

    Collapse
    1. Peter

      To be honest, no one really expected Graham or McConnell to lose their seats. Just look at those states. They don’t buck trends.

      Susan Collins was a surprise to a lot of folks though.

      I think you’re last sentence shows this is all about the “feels”. Even when the gop still lost the house, lost the presidency and nearly lost and still could lose the senate.

      And how many seats does the gop need to defend in 2022? Over 30.


      If i were the gop i would immediately start looking forward and not backwards. If they lose the senate in 2021 or 2022 they will regret it.

      Collapse
Load More