Wall Street seems to think it will.

Vice President Mike Pence arrives for a campaign rally with President Donald Trump at Southport High School,
Friday, Nov. 2, 2018, in Indianapolis. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Vice President Mike Pence stated, “I think we’re going to expand our majority in the United States Senate, and I think we’re going to hold our Republican majority in the House of Representatives,” Pence said in a Friday interview with Hill.TV

“But that being said, there is certainly common ground in areas that we can work [with Democrats] that the president has laid out,” he continued. “I think there’s a broad range of areas that we’ll be able to work with that Democrat minority in the House and the Senate, and we’ll continue to reach out to do that.”

Pence’s optimistic assessment came the same day President Donald Trump acknowledged Dems could “squeak” out a win in the House . . .

Democrats need to acquire 23 seats Tuesday to win control over the House, according to The Hill.

© 2018 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

They did. They acquired 35 seats according to the latest reports. The average loss in midterm elections is 30 seats. This was more like business as usual according to Peggy Noonan in the WSJ. (Barack Obama’s Democrats lost 63 in 2010, Bill Clinton’s Democrats lost 54.) With the contested seats in Florida and Arizona, they may also win control of the Senate!

But this is a win for the Constitution as more Constitutional Justices will be confirmed in the next 6-years of the Trump administration and the 8-years of the Pence administration and then another 8-years of hopefully someone like the UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Elections will never terminated the Pseudo-Progressives which is really the Red Party of yore. The colors need to revert to the initial when Democrats were the true Red Commies as Bernie is today. Traditionally, the leftists world-wide have been identified as “Red” and the right-wing have been identified as “Blue.”

_______________________________________________________________________

Biggest Loser: Elizabeth Warren Outside deep-blue districts, the election proves a wipeout for progressives.

By Kimberley A. Strassel | WSJ | Nov. 8, 2018

Tuesday’s midterms served up mixed results, handing both parties big wins and big losses. It will take some time to sort out what it means. Yet the evening did nonetheless provide one total, complete, unalloyed loser: Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. 

For a decade Ms. Warren, 69, has been busy trying to remake Washington in her progressive image. Her role in creating a new financial regulatory apparatus gave her outsize influence over the bureaucracy. Her successful 2012 Senate bid gave her a megaphone to rail against “billionaires, bigots and Wall Street bankers”—and Donald Trump. The left begged her to challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016 and rebrand the Democratic Party as a populist, progressive force. Ms. Warren demurred, leaving the field to Bernie Sanders.

She instead carefully designed this year’s midterms as her launchpad to the presidency. Ms. Warren seeded into key races several handpicked progressive protégés, in particular Richard Cordray, former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (who ran for Ohio governor), and a former law student, Katie Porter (who ran in a California House district). Ms. Warren geared up a shadow war room, built ties with some 150 campaigns, directed millions of fundraising dollars to select candidates, and thereby earned chits. She dispersed staffers to early primary states and crisscrossed the country herself. A week ago she was dominating Ohio headlines at rallies for Mr. Cordray. If Mr. Trump was on the ballot nationally, Ms. Warren was on it in the Buckeye State.

The lead-up to Tuesday had already been brutal for her. Hoping to elbow her way back into the headlines after Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Ms. Warren chose in mid-October to release a five-minute video and piles of documentation aimed at proving she really is at least 1/1,024th Native American. The ridicule was ruthless, matched only by the anger Democrats directed at her for distracting from the election.

But Tuesday compounded the disaster. Ms. Porter—who campaigned in Orange County on single-payer health care, expanded Social Security and debt-free college—flamed out to two-term Rep. Mimi Walters. In Ohio, Mr. Cordray lost to Attorney General Mike DeWine. And in Indiana, in what many claimed was the closest of that state’s House races going into the midterm, Republican Rep. Trey Hollingsworth blew out Warren-endorsed Liz Watson, 59% to 41%.

These results reflected a national collapse by progressive candidates. National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar put together a list of nine progressive candidates as a “test” of “lefty strength.” They included gubernatorial candidates Andrew Gillum of Florida and Ben Jealous of Maryland and Leslie Cockburn, who ran in one of Virginia’s most vulnerable Republican congressional districts. They went 0 for 9. Indeed, outside safe Democratic districts, the left-wing movement took a complete bath—including in House races in Nebraska’s Second, New York’s 24th and Pennsylvania’s First districts. Progressive candidates were Democrats’ biggest gift to Republicans Tuesday night.

But by far the biggest repudiation of Ms. Warren was in her own liberal state. She endorsed a ballot initiative that would have mandated nurse-to-patient ratios in hospitals; voters destroyed it, 70% to 30%. She rallied for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jay Gonzalez, who lost to Republican Gov. Charlie Baker by 34 points. And while Ms. Warren dispatched her own Senate challenger on Tuesday, she underperformed the state’s top Republican. Some 1.7 million voters went for Mr. Baker; 1.6 for Ms. Warren.

She put on a brave face Wednesday, when she told a crowd at Brown University that many Democrats coming to Washington ran “on a very progressive agenda that government is an important part of our lives.” She failed to mention that nearly all of them won in deep-blue districts that would have voted for a ferret with a D next to its name. These are not areas that win the presidency. The center-left think tank Third Way reports its team watched “every one of the 967 ads that Democrats ran in competitive House districts since Labor Day, and just two candidates mentioned either Medicare-for-all or single payer.” Both lost.

Elections have a way of clearing the board, bringing forth new faces that eclipse those from prior cycles. That—along with Ms. Warren’s terrible night—is what should concern her. Democrats didn’t get the blue wave they wanted, but they are still fired up to beat Mr. Trump in 2020. And they showed a thirst for new names and personalities that might get them there. The Democratic bench has over this past year become wider and deeper—Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Andrew Cuomo, Eric Holder, Kirsten Gillibrand, Deval Patrick, Michael Bloomberg.

Ms. Warren? She is looking more like old news.

Write to kim@wsj.com.

Appeared in the November 9, 2018, print edition.

Feedback . . .
Subscribe MedicalTuesday . . .
Subscribe HealthPlanUSA . . .