2012 Non-Presidential Primaries Thread (6/12 - AR runoff, ME, ND, NV, SC, VA)

[Torie]

The NY Times headline is "2 House Democrats Defeated After Opposing Health Law"

That's pretty bogus, isn't it? Critz campaigned against health care reform in his special election and won in a turf battle; Holden was too conservative for a Dem pack district where 80% of voters were new and would have lost if HCR had never happened.

Correct, but labor was able to punish Altmire for being a moderate in general, or whatever, by goosing up the turnout in Cambria and Somerset Counties.  Apparently the turnout was considerably lighter in the Altmire areas.

[Torie]

WOW@the geographic polarization. Holden won only two counties, Carbon and Schuylkill. But he got 85.4% in Schuylkill. In Lackawanna he only got 225 and in Luzerne only about 28%.

Schuylkill obviously probably won't vote for Cartwright in the general election, but the Democrats usually don't win it anyway. Better question is if this woman is going to appeal to Scranton.

I don't know; something strange is happening.  Kane defeated the favorite, Murphy.  The "establishment" GOP candidate went down to Smith.  Is it still R +6?

The new PA-17 is Obama 57-42

Here's proof J. J. is trolling by deliberately being dense. Everyone who followed this in the slightest knows that the new PA-17 picked up Scranton and is far more Dem and thus pretty far from R+6, basically the inverse in fact.

D +4% to be precise. The seat won't be in play, unless we get a 2010 redux perhaps (which we won't be most probably), but even then probably not given the Pub candidate. But BRTD, not everyone has been following the redistricting game as assiduously as we have been.

[Torie]

I was yearning for those maps Johnny.  Thanks!  You know, that geographic divide of near perfect proportions as one color fades into another and goes deep of hue, is quite remarkable for the Critz/Altmire race, where ideology was merely at the confused margins. Sure there was a geographic divide in the Holden/Cartwright race, and some of it was about geography, but there ideology no doubt played a substantial role as well.

[Torie]

I am moving a bunch of my posts that were put in the wrong thread by me in a senior moment, which has become a garbage dump anyway. Here is the first:

And here gentlemen is the biggest upset of the night going away. The Pubs win a Dem leaning/weak safe seat 5 months early (it's a jungle primary, so 2 Pubs will run against each other in November)! It has a Dem PVI of around 4%. I am in shock. Thank you.

I might add that Gary Miller had to carpet bag into this CD. One can call him an "incumbent," but that is a stretch.



cc: muon2
sbane

[Torie]

And here gentlemen is the biggest upset of the night going away. The Pubs win a Dem leaning/weak safe seat 5 months early (it's a jungle primary, so 2 Pubs will run against each other in November)! It has a Dem PVI of around 4%. I am in shock. Thank you.

And the two Republicans got >50%, so it's not as if split Dem opposition was the only reason. Was it low turnout among Dems for a primary? If so, that's going to kill us again and again in CA in this kind of case.

Probably a combo of a trend to the Pubs in this area (the economy there is a disaster - close to the worst in the nation), light Hispanic turnout, a guy labeled as an "incumbent," another Pub who is a strong candidate in the San Bernardino area, who might well knock Gary Miller off in November, and the main Dem having an Hispanic name (Anglos in this area just don't vote for Hispanics). That is my little list off the top of my head.

The result might have been different if the Dems had a hot race up ballot. But the Senate race is almost a waste of money to even bother having this year, and there of course were no statewide state office races.  The only thing that was sexy at all was the cig tax initiative - a Dem idea that was probably not very popular with more down market voters, including lots of Dems.

And the two Republicans got >50%, so it's not as if split Dem opposition was the only reason. Was it low turnout among Dems for a primary? If so, that's going to kill us again and again in CA in this kind of case.

Yes. Republicans in California generally demonstrated better turnout yesterday then Democrats. They even managed to come first in one Bay area Assembly district (no small feat by present-day standards). Most likely - they will not win it in November, but still - ...

If I had to guess, I would say the primary electorate was skewed about 3 points to the Pubs, plus or minus a point. The Dems for the Senate race got 56% of the vote, and in the General, 59% seems more like it. Looking at the other CD's, which I will put up another thread about in due course, the under performers were Capps in the Santa Barbara area, and Bilbray down in San Diego County. The Pubs seems to have the open "Hispanic" CD in the south Central Valley (used to be a Dem CD elsewhere) in lockdown, which has about a zero PVI. It looks like there may be a fair number of close CD races in the General, in a whole series of Dem PVI plus 2-4% CD's (with the exception of the Garamendi CD up between SF and Sacramento (2.82% Dem PVI), which he seems to have in lockdown), along with more Pub CD's, in particular Bilbray, and Lungren up in the east Sacto burbs (which in general seem to be trending Dem I might add). Another big exception is Riverside, mentioned below.  Oh, and McNerney in the east Contra Costa burbs and San Joaquin (Dem PVI 4.27%), also seems in pretty good shape. He got 48.4% of the vote to the Pubs' 51.6%, and given the Pub skew, should win in November (call it likely Dem).

Overall, despite the Pub skew, it was not a good night for the Dems in CA. It looks like about a 2-5 point trend to the Pubs generally after correcting for the skew (it varies substantially by region, with the Dems in meltdown in the inland empire (in Riverside (ground zero when it comes to economic meltdown, with just about the worst economy in the nation), with a Dem PVI of 7%, the Pubs got 55% of the vote, a trend correcting for the skew of about 9 points), in an even national election environment (which really seems to be the case this year at the moment).

[Torie]

Charles Barron's major interest seems to involve Israel, and Jews in general (e.g., they perambulate in a possessive and arrogant way). He seems as fond of both of them as Cynthia McKinney.

[Torie]

"Easily"? An incumbent winning by 5.odd is not "winning easily". That's "scraping by".

It is down to 3% margin now for Rangel, with more votes left to count.