Title : A good column title "How to argue about whether these midterms were a ‘blue wave.'"
link : A good column title "How to argue about whether these midterms were a ‘blue wave.'"
A good column title "How to argue about whether these midterms were a ‘blue wave.'"
That's for a piece by Colby Itkowitz at WaPo.She's ignoring the question whether we should argue about whether these midterms were a "blue wave." In my perfunctory live-blog of the results last night, I said, mid-evening, "Seems fair to say it’s not a 'blue wave.'" Time stamp: 7:51 CT. Does that mean I want to argue about it?
I think Itkowitz is offering arguments for people who want to contend that it was a "blue wave." I think these people are like Trump and other Republicans who want to claim "tremendous success" for themselves. I'm not impressed by any of it. As I said in my live blog, "But I always assume things will be boring!" And I always assume things are boring, and I react very slowly, if not actively negatively, to efforts to nudge me to get excited and to think something huge is happening.
Is it in the interest of Democrats to fight over the label? Should they even respond if they're taunted by people like me saying it wasn't a wave? Maybe the "wave" spin is helpful in justifying a highly active House majority in the next 2 years, but then what if they're held to account for not doing enough with the power and authority represented by the idea that it was a wave? There was a wave, you said it was a wave, but you did not surf it. Shouldn't they manage expectations?
Itkowitz has a good, succinct list of arguments for those who want to argue that was a "wave." Example:
As of the early hours Wednesday morning, Democrats were projected to win the national popular vote by nearly 9 percentage points, which is greater than the Republican “waves” in 1994, 2010 and 2014 and the Democratic “wave” in 2006. If those elections were waves, then this one is, too.That idea of "the national popular vote" is a good way to focus on what happened in the House races. The Senate races only covered some of the states, so the total there is more of a random number, based on which one-third of the seats happened to be up this time, and the states are all different sizes.
On Itkowitz's not-a-wave list of arguments, there's:
The massive repudiation of Trump that Democrats hoped for simply didn’t happen. In fact, in many states where Trump campaigned hard for Republicans, it seems the opposite occurred. He focused throughout the campaign on saving the Senate for the GOP, and it appears his efforts paid off.I think the how-to-argue lists are helpful in deciding whether to argue.
Thus articles A good column title "How to argue about whether these midterms were a ‘blue wave.'"
that is all articles A good column title "How to argue about whether these midterms were a ‘blue wave.'" This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article A good column title "How to argue about whether these midterms were a ‘blue wave.'" with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2018/11/a-good-column-title-how-to-argue-about.html
0 Response to "A good column title "How to argue about whether these midterms were a ‘blue wave.'""
Post a Comment