Correct---and thus that is part of the reason that betting odds are better at predicting the winner of the election.
Reader---this is due to the fact that most Senate races were held in states that had incumbent Democrats. This affects the vote total across all races and would lend itself to more Dem votes. Dems getting more votes overall and by a wide margin in 2018 is singularly meaningless . Furthermore, Trump was not on the ballot in any race since Nov 2016.
For example, PhoneySnark continuously mentions that Dems got 10 million more votes in the 2018 election. But, here is a fact for you----4 million of that surplus was in California alone. This was a state that had a Democrat incumbent, Dianne Feinstein running for reelection. As far as I am concerned, California can have all the surplus Dem votes that it wants. It won't have any bearing on the 2020 presidential election.
In addition, another 2 million Democrat surplus came from New York's House Elections. This was a state that had Tina Rutnick, the Democrat incumbent running for reelection.
Tony Stark is a genius. for the past 3 years, he has continuously and successfully been able to make you, the bootlicker in chief defend a president who won the election. he has been living in the biggest condo in your head, rent-free. My hats off to you @Tony Stark
New Jersey, a state where Bob Menendez, the incumbent Democrat was running for reelection, yielded a 660k surplus of Democrat House votes.
Illinois, where there was not a Democrat running for reelection, but there is a corrupt Chicago and Obama Dem machine yielded a 1 million Dem House vote surplus.
Massachusetts, where Elizabeth Warren was the Democrat incumbent running for reelection, yielded a 1.4 million Dem House vote surplus.
The state of Washington, where Maria Cantwell, the Democrat incumbent, was running for reelection yielded an 840k surplus of Dem House votes.