Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 22, 2017, 03:32:11 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 463
1  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: June 21, 2017, 02:09:48 am
Vanguard96 seems like he might be Eharding
2  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: List of post-2016 state/federal special elections & results on: June 21, 2017, 02:06:53 am
Updated congressionals. I'll get around to doing the 2 state legislative races tomorrow (unless somebody beats me to it).
3  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 21, 2017, 01:55:04 am
The last candidate was a nobody with no money. So it's not really relevant. The Presidential numbers are more relevant, especially if you're using the fact that Hillary did so much better than Obama in this district to double down on the rich sunbelt district strategy. For $30 million, you could have done better than normal in many races, rather than just 1 that you still lost.

You lack basic understanding of Southern politics. It doesn't matter if it's a "nobody" or a well-known commodity: a literal dildo (D) and a legacy candidate (D) are going to generally be right alongside one another with respect to their shares of the vote in an identical race. This is a very inelastic area.

Ultimately, there are several independent dynamics at work here - along with the infrastructure of the Ossoff campaign - that lead to a significant over-performance for a candidate not seeking the Presidency. This is a big development for this part of the South, especially considering Ossoff got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton or Obama (see what I did there?), and did so with a much-lower-than-presidential turnout that simultaneously exceeded that of a midterm.

So spending $30 million to lose a race in very inelastic area was a good idea?

Once an inelastic area flips, it stays flipped. Happened in Virginia in '08, happened on what's now called The Left Coast in the late '80's and early '90's.

I'm not sure whether MI, PA and WI stay GOP. In congress, TX-23 has flipped back and forth several times the past few years.

Those areas are not inelastic by any means, at least when compared to the South. You can also have inelastic areas that are literally right at 50/50 that sway back and forth ever so much; it simply means that the difference in the two parties' vote shares there is smaller than the already-small amount by which the district or area can shift.
4  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 21, 2017, 01:25:54 am
The last candidate was a nobody with no money. So it's not really relevant. The Presidential numbers are more relevant, especially if you're using the fact that Hillary did so much better than Obama in this district to double down on the rich sunbelt district strategy. For $30 million, you could have done better than normal in many races, rather than just 1 that you still lost.

You lack basic understanding of Southern politics. It doesn't matter if it's a "nobody" or a well-known commodity: a literal dildo (D) and a legacy candidate (D) are going to generally be right alongside one another with respect to their shares of the vote in an identical race. This is a very inelastic area.

Ultimately, there are several independent dynamics at work here - along with the infrastructure of the Ossoff campaign - that lead to a significant over-performance for a candidate not seeking the Presidency. This is a big development for this part of the South, especially considering Ossoff got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton or Obama (see what I did there?), and did so with a much-lower-than-presidential turnout that simultaneously exceeded that of a midterm.
5  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 21, 2017, 01:13:51 am
OK, but still not as good a margin as Hillary. And Trump probably did better in the median district than GA-06.

You're still not grasping that this district is notoriously more GOP down-ballot than it is at the top of the ticket and that comparing against presidential results is useless. This is a trend that goes back years and years. I wrote about it on here months ago when I said I thought Ossoff would lose. Kerry, Obama and Clinton alike have easily over-performed all down-ballot Democrats in huge portions of the northern metro by anywhere from 5-20 points. The fact that Ossoff even managed to get above 42% is indicative of him making significant ground against that trend.
6  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 21, 2017, 12:49:41 am
Thank you for posting a quote that validates the idea that dems shouldn't have tried in this seat.

Virginia, Holmes, I understand you guys have obligations to spin this however you can, but let's face it, your party threw everything but the kitchen sink at this race and didn't gain a single tenth of a percentage point over round 1. You aren't winning this in '18, and you're not winning the 7th or some other seat in GA either. If the house  will have a dem majority, it will be because seats flipped elsewhere - the GA  delegation will be unchanged.

Ultimately, throwing the kitchen sink at it was what likely caused the problem. The massive amount of spending - brought on by the fact that virtually nothing else interesting to donors on both sides was going on - increased attention and awareness for the race by so much that it ultimately dragged out several thousand more Republicans in the second round than it did Democrats. This race had 25% more voters than the previous midterm. In an environment where Democratic enthusiasm remains but there are 435 of these elections occurring simultaneously, things might look a bit different. I'm sure there isn't going to be $50 million spent on this race in 2018.
7  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 21, 2017, 12:43:11 am
Ossoff get a lower percentage of the vote than in the first round.

Oh, and here's another dumb narrative already circulating on jfern Twitter that's pure BS:

April: 48.12%
June: 48.13%
8  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 21, 2017, 12:37:25 am
Trump won the district by only 1.5 points. The Democrats spent $30 million to have the margin be worse than the 2016 Presidential, and Ossoff get a lower percentage of the vote than in the first round.

Who gives a f[inks] what Trump won it by? This is an election for House, not for President. The last Republican to run for this seat - in 2016 - won by 23 points. The Republican in this race won it by (apparently now) 4 points. That's a 19 point swing. Compare that to Quist's paltry 9 point swing and Thompson's larger 23 point swing.

And again, you're either being completely obtuse or disingenous. DCCC contributed $6m to Ossoff; a few hundred thousand to the other two. In total money raised/spent, Ossoff raised more than $20m; Quist had around $10m spent on his behalf and broke all previous Montana records. If anything, the amount spent on Quist's race was more obscene than Ossoff's because of the relative costs of media/campaigning in the two districts.

That dumbass image is purposefully lying. You don't come up with those figures unless you're deliberately trying to mislead. You either compare one group of figures consistently or the other; you don't mix them up so that they all display the best outcome for your pissy narrative.
9  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 21, 2017, 12:29:10 am
In the end, Ossoff received the exact same % of the vote he got in round 1 - 48.1%. All that money to get the same exact % of the vote. What a complete waste. Democrats should have never tried in this seat.

Quote
10  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 21, 2017, 12:19:11 am
Speaking of comparing House races to presidential ones...

11  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 21, 2017, 12:17:57 am


Just leaving this here...

Just correcting this wack-ass image that uses DCCC funding for Group A and total contributions (including small donations) for Ossoff; that uses presidential results instead of House results because it self-cherrypicks the data-points for the narrative they want
12  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 20, 2017, 09:04:49 pm
Guys, save your angst for when we actually have elections where the Democratic House candidate in normal elections hasn't regularly lost by 20+ points.
13  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 20, 2017, 09:00:32 pm
Can we stop this stupid "Pelosi" meme? Even veteran GOP strategists have said that the Pelosi attack angle has produced ZERO proof of improving GOP vote-share in elections like these. There's virtually nobody who's going to bother voting in a mid-term or special election who both a) doesn't know who Pelosi is and b) suddenly hear about her and go "oh, now I have to vote". Think logically.

I think losing elections over and over again is all the proof you need. Why Democrats didn't turn Handel into "the woman who supports killing cancer patients" is lost on me

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Correlation =/= causation, especially with such a loose one. "Oh somebody's in an insignificant office that 99.8% of the country has never voted for/against so that's why were losing". Maybe - just maybe - we're losing because of other, substantive reasons?

We lost GA-6 because it's filled with Southern suburbanites who decided to vote how they've always voted.
14  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 20, 2017, 08:56:07 pm
Can we stop this stupid "Pelosi" meme? Even veteran GOP strategists have said that the Pelosi attack angle has produced ZERO proof of improving GOP vote-share in elections like these. There's virtually nobody who's going to bother voting in a mid-term or special election who both a) doesn't know who Pelosi is and b) suddenly hear about her and go "oh, now I have to vote". Think logically.
15  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 20, 2017, 07:30:47 pm
Jesus, why is SoS so far behind? NYT is always garbage in that regard, but SoS is like 20 minutes behind DDHQ at this point.
16  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 20, 2017, 07:25:22 pm
Handel still holding just inside of recanvass range:

Karen Handel (Republican)    50.4%   65,371
Jon Ossoff (Democratic)    49.6%   64,243
17  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 20, 2017, 07:08:13 pm
Ossoff got 45.3% and 60.2% and of the in-person EV in Cobb and Dekalb respectively.

Are we sure this is all the EV out of Cobb/Dekalb? It looks a bit low in comparison to Fulton.
18  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 20, 2017, 06:56:05 pm
Ossoff probably ends up with 52-53% of the EV in Fulton once mail ballots are counted.
19  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 20, 2017, 06:40:59 pm
I see nobody saw the posts that these early vote numbers are just in-person early vote, and doesn't including the Dem-leaning mail votes.

How many are there?
20  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-08 2018: Should Democrats look to defeat Austin Scott? on: June 20, 2017, 05:22:14 pm
Where's Jim Marshall when you need him?
21  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 20, 2017, 05:04:39 pm
Any of our resident experts on GA-06 know which areas tend to report votes earlier/later?

Also, do they tend to dump EVs separately at the very beginning or include with individual precinct results as a consolidated total?

Just like in most GA elections, the early vote in each of the counties will dump to varying degrees over the first hour, then Cobb and North Dekalb will likely start coming in in large chunks after 8 PM (with Cobb fully wrapping up after Dekalb), and Fulton will inevitably screw something up and be late as hell tallying all of its votes. Fulton also has the longest distance for poll workers to drive to report results, so that factors in as well.

Depending on how streamlined early vote counting is, we may not have anything reported before 7:30-7:45.
22  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread on: June 20, 2017, 04:26:15 am
Yeah, the main page of SoS will have a link up front and center shortly before 7 PM. It may also show up here, but I can't recall if it shows up there immediately or sometime after.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Why did WV vote for Bernie in the Democratic primary? on: June 20, 2017, 03:03:33 am
Because he's a man.

Didn't stop her from winning in 2008.

WV be like:

White woman > black man
White man > white woman



Anyway, I've been arguing with the delusionals about this for months:



Y'all just don't get it.

Tons 👏 of Bernie voters 👏 in WV 👏 protest 👏 voted 👏 for him.

I'm not painting any other picture than what is fair, and I'm certainly not using "isolated examples: 40 percent of the Democratic primary electorate always planned on voting for Trump. Of the remaining sixty percent or so, 35 percent legitimately supported Sanders and 25 percent legitimately supported Clinton. The overall group of Trump supporters was the plurality among those three groups, and 25% of all WV Democratic primary voters were Trump supporters who voted Bernie despite never supporting him.

They didn't vote for him because they liked him or wanted to see him as President: they voted for him because he wasn't Hillary Clinton - just like a huge portion of the love for Clinton there in the 2008 primary was fueled by her not being Blacky McBlackface.

They are conservatives who are registered Democrats because the Democratic Party has and still does rule WV local politics with an iron fist: they have closed primaries and if you want any say whatsoever over who ultimately runs your local and state politics, you register as a Democrat. This stuff isn't hard: a majority of registered voters in WV are registered Democrats but WV hasn't given a majority of its votes to a [presidential GE] Democrat since 1996; in the past four elections, it [the margin] hasn't even been in the single-digits.

It's not an outlier, it's not an exception: the difference between the picture you and others are trying to paint versus what is the reality is the difference between a solidly-progressive state and a heavily-conservative one; the difference between a legitimate Sanders rout (in both primary and general) and a victory where the primary's margin was fueled solely by protest voting.

^^^ I mean, this is a state where 40% of the Democratic primary voters in 2012 voted for a literal convict sitting in federal prison over the sitting Democratic President. It truly has always bothered me how there are people who are perplexed by the notion of registered Democrats in WV protest-voting.  



If Manchin were to lose the Democratic primary somehow, then the only way it'd happen is if scores of registered conservative Democrats decided they no longer wanted Manchin at all, threw a wrench into things, and protest-voted en masse for his opponent knowing it'd bolster the GOP candidate's chances. That combined with the self-ascribed "progressive vote" in WV might be enough to oust him in the primary, but short of that happening, it ain't happenin'.
24  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-6 Special election discussion thread on: June 19, 2017, 10:11:55 pm
Jfern doesn't seem to understand that people give money to the candidates to whom they want to give, and that said money isn't automatically earmarked "for all candidates" or whichever ones he likes in lieu of that.

Even if I liked Ossoff, this would be a waste. Of course people like you got mad when Van Jones said that the Hillary campaign basically set a billion on fire, so I guess it makes since that you don't see the issue with over $23 million in a House race.

When did I get mad about that? Unlike you, I don't have to build strawmen to assail your character.

Whether it's a "waste" or not isn't up to us to decide. The guy has raised the money he has because he became the lightning rod for anti-Trump resentment in a way that the others never did (just like "MUH HILLARY" became the lightning rod for you and others). His district barely being won by Trump is the contributing factor, unlike the others that were won by Trump by 20-30 points. There are no other elections going on - the kind of money that's being raised wouldn't be raised if it were a mere appeal to "fund future campaigns now" or whatever.

Even if you could raise the $23 million (probably more like $30m by now) and spread it across multiple specials, it wouldn't have any meaningful effect. Money advantages and superior campaign infrastructure can only buy you 2-3 points over what you'd get organically: that means Quist would have still lost and so would Thompson. You also seem to forget that in most cases, the GOP easily matches in the end whatever Dems raise, so the advantage you think that money would buy would be completely wiped out in the end anyway.
25  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-6 Special election discussion thread on: June 19, 2017, 10:07:42 pm
snip

Second one is definitely fake.

I'm actually pretty sure they're real (they were shared here some time ago, but maybe it was fake then). Nevertheless, campaigns do it because it works: people pour money into campaign coffers when they receive a higher frequency of emails. Of course, all campaigns engaging in this behavior create an inflationary-like effect where even more emails have to be sent over time in order to yield the same results. You can largely thank Barack Obama's campaign for this.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 463


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines