Did 33 Republicans Who Voted to Repeal Obamacare Lose Their Congressional Seats?

[ffr]

Claim - The Congressional seats of almost three dozen Republicans who voted to repeal Obamacare were lost to Democrats in 2018.

True
<snip>

House of Representatives

Jason Lewis
Erik Paulson
Kevin Yoder
Pete Sessions
Steve Russell
Rod Blum
David Young
Randy Hultgren
Peter Roskam
Bruce Poliquin
Keith Rothfus
Mike Bishop
Jeff Denham
Steve Knight
Mimi Walters
Dana Rorbacher
Mia Love
Claudia Tenney
Tom Macarthur
Carlos Curbelo
Dave Brat
Scott Taylor
John Faso
John Culberson
Rodney Frellinghuysen (retired, seat flipped)
Martha McSally (ran for U.S. Senate, seat flipped)
Mark Sanford (retired, seat flipped)
Dave Trott (retired, seat flipped)
Darrell Issa (retired, seat flipped)
Steve Pearce (retired, seat flipped)
Ed Royce (retired, seat flipped)

U.S. Senate

Jeff Flake (retired, seat flipped)
Dean Heller
- Snopes

[Hekate]

1. KnR!

[onenote]

2. How many kept their seats?

[erronis]

5. Yes - that's the obvious question. Let's have all the counts/percentages.

Still, that snapshot of losers is gratifying.

[Honeycombe8]

6. All the Senate, except McCain, voted to repeal, right? They were re-elected.

Almost all the House Republicans voted to repeal, right? Most of them won re-election. We flipped, what, 39?

I don't think Obamacare was a defining issue for the mid-term elections. It was a general Blue Wave, to put in some checks and balances to the administration and express displeasure with the administration generally. The children in cages, the tyranny, the anti-environmental actions, the Kavanaugh appointment, pre-existing conditions...everything. There are so many things to list.

[progree]

9. Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins were also no votes

McCain got the spot light because he was last to decide, and a yes vote from him was needed to pass it, given Murkowski and Collins' no votes.

[Honeycombe8]

10. Thx. nt

[WeekiWater]

17. McCain voted multiple times, at different parts of processes,

To repeal all of or parts of the ACA.

[Honeycombe8]

18. For the mid-terms....the last votes...almost all Senators voted to repeal.

They were re-elected.

That's the point I'm making.

Saying that one thing that is common among members of a group, does not mean that one thing caused something that happened to the group. Especially when you find out that that common thing is common to an even larger group of the same subgroup.

There is always something common among members of all groups. Just making a statistical point. The fact that 33 Republican House members who had brown eyes weren't re-elected does not mean they weren't re-elected because they have brown eyes.

[malaise]

3. Good n/t

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. Karma is a bitch

[Honeycombe8]

7. Pretty sure that means that the 200 who DID vote to repeal Obamacare were re-elected.

And almost all the Republican Senators up for re-election were re-elected, all of whom had voted to repeal Obamacare when they replaced it with a skinny bill.

I don't think Obamacare was a defining issue in the mid-terms for many. It was bigger than that. It was just everything. Mainly checks and balance, IMO.

[JI7]

12. most of those are in solid red areas

[Honeycombe8]

13. You see how the two things are unrelated, then? 30 Repubs with blue eyes were NOT re-elected!

They were all in red areas. That's why Repubs were the reps for those areas. The fact that there is something, or multiple things, in common with a group of people is irrelevant to whether they are re-elected or not, unless there is something tying the two together.

Almost all Repubs voted to repeal Obamacare. So for anything that happens to any of them, whether re-elected or not, it can be said that all those elected, or not elected, voted to repeal Obamacare. So that's a meaningless stat.

It's as meaningful a stat as picking something else the flipped seat Repubs have in common: blue eyes, short height, brown hair, white race, male, etc.

39 Republicans who were male were not re-elected!
39 Republicans who were white were not re-elected!
35 Republicans with brown hair were not re-elected!

What we do know is that there was a Blue Wave in general, and preference toward electing females, and wanting to install people who would be a check & balance on the administration. There were a slew of individual reasons for the Blue Wave, among them pre-existing conditions. There is no evidence that Obamacare played any significant part, though. It was just everything about the administration, and in particular the Kavanaugh hearing, that spurred the big turnout.

[Demsrule86]

15. the ones who lost faced opponents who ran on health care.

[Jim Lane]

16. I share your concern about checks and balances, but I'm not sure voters do

You write, "There is no evidence that Obamacare played any significant part" in the blue wave. The evidence is that Democratic candidates paid a lot more attention to health care than to checks and balances (see the information I posted in #14). As between "James Madison would have disapproved of Trump" and "The Republicans are trying to push Granny off the cliff," the latter is more likely to be a winning message with most people.

[oasis]

8. Snakes need to crawl back under their rocks.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Gosh! Sure would be a shame if they couldn't afford

medical care now that they are private citizens again.

[Jim Lane]

14. Health care was definitely a big reason

The Wesleyan Media Project analyzed the broadcast advertising, as of mid-October, and found that both parties, especially the Democrats, had amped up their attention to the issue:

It’s official: the 2018 midterms are about health care. In the period between September 18 and October 15, nearly half (45.9 percent) of airings in federal races mentioned the topic while nearly a third (30.2 percent) of gubernatorial airings did the same. Although both parties are mentioning health care, the topic is most prominent in ads supporting Democrats, appearing in 54.5 percent of pro-Democratic airings.

As shown in Figure 1, health care appeared in a third (33.9 percent) of all pro-Republican ads aired in federal races in 2010 (following passage of the Affordable Care Act), but the issue declined in prominence in the following election cycles (appearing in 28.4 percent of pro-Republican airings in 2012, in 20.8 percent in 2014 and in 16 percent in 2016). Mentions of health care in pro-Republican ads airing in federal races jumped in 2018, however, appearing in 31.5 percent of ad airings.

After the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, pro-Democratic ads tended to avoid the issue of health care. It appeared in a mere 8.7 percent of ad airings in 2010, 7.6 percent in 2012, 7.0 percent in 2014, and 10 percent in 2016, a stark contrast to the 54.5 percent of pro-Democratic airings in 2018 that mentioned health care.

(Source: "2018: The Health Care Election")