2014 US Congressional Election Results

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The fact that Inhofe did better than Lankford, even if only incrementally, is a disgrace.

Why? Inhofe is a great statesman.

Coburn was a thousand times better and while I am glad that it was not Tom Cole that got his seat, I still think they could have done much better then Lankford. If Lankford had been replacing Inhofe, the relative nature of the question would make Lankford far more appealing.

[publicunofficial]

It makes some sense though -- Lankford's opponent was a state legislator, while Inhofe's was just a Some Dude.

Also incumbents tend to better than new faces.

[KCDem]

The fact that Inhofe did better than Lankford, even if only incrementally, is a disgrace.

Why? Inhofe is a great statesman.

Mods please ban.

[nclib]

With the 2 LA-seats the GOP will have won 120 of 160 in the South, exactly 3 of 4.

... And 21 of the 40 are in Texas (11) and Florida (10).

And just 7 of the 40 are majority Caucasian. (FL-02, FL-18, FL-21, FL-22, KY-03, MO-05, TN-05) Out of the others, only GA-13 is plurality white.

Like in the other thread, everyone is forgetting mine (NC-4). Even if we don't have a white majority, we're definitely at least plurality white.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

With the 2 LA-seats the GOP will have won 120 of 160 in the South, exactly 3 of 4.

... And 21 of the 40 are in Texas (11) and Florida (10).

And just 7 of the 40 are majority Caucasian. (FL-02, FL-18, FL-21, FL-22, KY-03, MO-05, TN-05) Out of the others, only GA-13 is plurality white.

Like in the other thread, everyone is forgetting mine (NC-4). Even if we don't have a white majority, we're definitely at least plurality white.

I was surprised when I found out NC-04 is not majority white- I had assumed it to be so. But yes, it is plurality white and I did forget to mention that, not sure how I missed that.

(It is majority "white" based on the broad census category, but excluding Hispanics it is not-the same case as with many Texas and Florida districts.)

[Beezer]

So when are going to get the final results (aside from the LA runoffs)? What appears to be the most likely GOP # now...247?

[smoltchanov]

So when are going to get the final results (aside from the LA runoffs)? What appears to be the most likely GOP # now...247?

Exactly. Almost universally recognized that it's 244-188 now. With Barber probably losing and 2 almost surely guaranteed Republican seats in Louisiana - 247-188

[Tender Branson]

So when are going to get the final results (aside from the LA runoffs)? What appears to be the most likely GOP # now...247?

247-188 yeah (244-188 now).

AZ-02 and the two LA seats are all R.

In AZ-02, Barber is down by about 160 votes and the results will be certified today. There's a recount, but unlikely that this will change anything.

The last state to certify their results is probably CA on Dec. 12

[rbt48]

When is the AZ-2 recount set to occur?

[rbt48]

Why do you think that Scott out-performed Graham?

Lindsey Graham: 672,941 (54.3%)
Brad Hutto: 480,933 (38.8%)

Tim Scott: 757,215 (61.1%)
Joyce Dickerson: 459,583 (37.1%)


I'm offering these choices as the two most likely scenarios in my mind:
(1) Conservative Republicans withholding votes for Graham or
(2) more blacks voting for Scott?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Why do you think that Scott out-performed Graham?

Lindsey Graham: 672,941 (54.3%)
Brad Hutto: 480,933 (38.8%)

Tim Scott: 757,215 (61.1%)
Joyce Dickerson: 459,583 (37.1%)


I'm offering these choices as the two most likely scenarios in my mind:
(1) Conservative Republicans withholding votes for Graham or
(2) more blacks voting for Scott?

It's probably mostly due to the independent candidate in the Graham Race, Thomas Ravenel. Brad Hutto was counting on Ravenel taking enough votes away from Graham to allow him to pull off a win. Obviously, it didn't work, but Graham still ran 7 points behind Scott.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Conservatives voting for Ravenel.

[morgieb]

Scott's a lot less offensive than Graham, plus I think Hutto was a stronger candidate than Dickerson.

[ElectionsGuy]

Why do you think that Scott out-performed Graham?

Lindsey Graham: 672,941 (54.3%)
Brad Hutto: 480,933 (38.8%)

Tim Scott: 757,215 (61.1%)
Joyce Dickerson: 459,583 (37.1%)


I'm offering these choices as the two most likely scenarios in my mind:
(1) Conservative Republicans withholding votes for Graham or
(2) more blacks voting for Scott?

Some backlash against Graham by independents. Graham won I's 54-35, Scott won them 67-31. Its definitely not #2

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Graham has gone over the deep end on foreign policy and thus could explain the indies.

[rbt48]

Well, good points regarding the Scott vs Graham performance.  I'm wondering if anyone has some insight (perhaps from exit polls or from predominantly black or white precincts:  did Scott tend to do better than Graham?  How much stronger (or perhaps weaker) was Scott than white with black voters. 

My hunch is that except in perhaps more unusual situations, black Republicans tend not to do much better among blacks than do white Republicans when facing a white Democrat. I'm pretty sure that black republicans don't fare any better against black Democrats among black voters than do white Republicans in a similar election.

Your thoughts or even better, evidence?

[Miles]

^ What I noticed when I broke the SC races down by CD was how consistently Scott overperformed Graham. I know Graham had a conservative Indie in his race, but still. The exception was CD6, where Scott only did a few points better, suggesting Scott didn't have any special crossover appeal with blacks.

[KCDem]

^per the exit poll:

Among black voters

Graham: 6% (4% with women, 10% with men)
Hutto: 89% (92% with women, 83% with men)

Scott: 10% (7% with women, 16% with men)
Dickerson: 88% (91% with women, 83% with men)

Among white voters

Graham: 74% (73% with women, 74% with men)
Hutto: 19% (22% with women, 16% with men)

Scott: 82% (78% with women, 85% with men)
Dickerson: 18% (20% with women, 15% with men)

These racial crosstabs make sense in the context of how Dickerson and Hutto performed statewide. While Hutto lost by 15.48% and Dickerson by 24.04%, both won a similar number of raw votes. Hutto only won 21,350 more raw votes statewide than Dickerson. Hutto garnered 38.78% of the vote, while Dickerson won 37.09%. According to the exit poll, Scott marginally improved upon Graham's performance with blacks (10% to 6%) it was Graham's underperformance with whites that accounts for his smaller margin. Almost all these dropoff whites voted for third parties while Hutto only outperformed Dickerson by the barest of margins among whites. Hutto's larger raw vote can be explained almost entirely by a consolidation of African American support.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

^per the exit poll:

Among black voters

Graham: 6% (4% with women, 10% with men)
Hutto: 89% (92% with women, 83% with men)

Scott: 10% (7% with women, 16% with men)
Dickerson: 88% (91% with women, 83% with men)

Among white voters

Graham: 74% (73% with women, 74% with men)
Hutto: 19% (22% with women, 16% with men)

Scott: 82% (78% with women, 85% with men)
Dickerson: 18% (20% with women, 15% with men)

These racial crosstabs make sense in the context of how Dickerson and Hutto performed statewide. While Hutto lost by 15.48% and Dickerson by 24.04%, both won a similar number of raw votes. Hutto only won 21,350 more raw votes statewide than Dickerson. Hutto garnered 38.78% of the vote, while Dickerson won 37.09%. According to the exit poll, Scott marginally improved upon Graham's performance with blacks (10% to 6%) it was Graham's underperformance with whites that accounts for his smaller margin. Almost all these dropoff whites voted for third parties while Hutto only outperformed Dickerson by the barest of margins among whites. Hutto's larger raw vote can be explained almost entirely by a consolidation of African American support.

are you suggesting there were a bunch of blacks who voted for Hutto but not Dickerson?  I don't see any evidence for that, and it would be surprising if true.

[Vosem]

^per the exit poll:

Among black voters

Graham: 6% (4% with women, 10% with men)
Hutto: 89% (92% with women, 83% with men)

Scott: 10% (7% with women, 16% with men)
Dickerson: 88% (91% with women, 83% with men)

Among white voters

Graham: 74% (73% with women, 74% with men)
Hutto: 19% (22% with women, 16% with men)

Scott: 82% (78% with women, 85% with men)
Dickerson: 18% (20% with women, 15% with men)

These racial crosstabs make sense in the context of how Dickerson and Hutto performed statewide. While Hutto lost by 15.48% and Dickerson by 24.04%, both won a similar number of raw votes. Hutto only won 21,350 more raw votes statewide than Dickerson. Hutto garnered 38.78% of the vote, while Dickerson won 37.09%. According to the exit poll, Scott marginally improved upon Graham's performance with blacks (10% to 6%) it was Graham's underperformance with whites that accounts for his smaller margin. Almost all these dropoff whites voted for third parties while Hutto only outperformed Dickerson by the barest of margins among whites. Hutto's larger raw vote can be explained almost entirely by a consolidation of African American support.

are you suggesting there were a bunch of blacks who voted for Hutto but not Dickerson?  I don't see any evidence for that, and it would be surprising if true.

I don't know if you can say 4% of blacks who voted in South Carolina in 2014 is 'a bunch', but he's certainly saying that such people do exist. (Possibly more than 4%, actually, but cancelled out by a smaller population of Graham/Dickerson voters).

[KCDem]

^As Vosem says, if the exit poll is to be believed 4% of blacks voted for Hutto while also voting for Scott. According to the exit poll, blacks made up 26% of the electorate, or about 322,420 votes out of 1,240,075 cast. Those 4% Hutto/Scott blacks would be about 12,897 votes that Hutto nets over Dickerson statewide which would get him from 459,583 to 472,480. Hutto wins 1% more of the white vote than Dickerson, winning him an additional 8,557 votes to get to 481,037. This is only 104 votes off from his actual total of 480,933.

So yes, that explains the difference in raw vote between Dickerson and Hutto. The difference in margin, on the other hand, is explained by the presence of third parties that almost uniformly make up the difference between Graham and Scott's raw numbers. This can be seen pretty much across the entire state with the difference in margin expanding the whiter (and more Republican) the county is. I haven't run an r-value correlation but I would expect it to be fairly significant. This makes sense given Ravenel's status as a former Republican and the stronger showing of the Libertarian candidate in the Hutto-Graham race.

[Tender Branson]

States that have not yet published their official/certified results:

CA
KS
MT
NE
NM
NY
OH
TN

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

States that have not yet published their official/certified results:

KS

KOBACHHHH!!!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

States that have not yet published their official/certified results:

KS

KOBACHHHH!!!

I still can't believe that partisan piece of junk only ran 0.3% behind Romney's 2012 number.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

^As Vosem says, if the exit poll is to be believed 4% of blacks voted for Hutto while also voting for Scott. According to the exit poll, blacks made up 26% of the electorate, or about 322,420 votes out of 1,240,075 cast. Those 4% Hutto/Scott blacks would be about 12,897 votes that Hutto nets over Dickerson statewide which would get him from 459,583 to 472,480. Hutto wins 1% more of the white vote than Dickerson, winning him an additional 8,557 votes to get to 481,037. This is only 104 votes off from his actual total of 480,933.

So yes, that explains the difference in raw vote between Dickerson and Hutto. The difference in margin, on the other hand, is explained by the presence of third parties that almost uniformly make up the difference between Graham and Scott's raw numbers. This can be seen pretty much across the entire state with the difference in margin expanding the whiter (and more Republican) the county is. I haven't run an r-value correlation but I would expect it to be fairly significant. This makes sense given Ravenel's status as a former Republican and the stronger showing of the Libertarian candidate in the Hutto-Graham race.

I don't know how you can get that from the exit poll that 4% of blacks voted for Scott and Hutto. The exit poll says 89% voted for Hutto as opposed to 88% for Dickerson. That is a 1% difference between the Democratic candidates. 2% of blacks according to the exit poll voted for Ravenel.  So the number of blacks who voted for Scott for an independent candidate would be larger than the number who voted Scott and Hutto. But then, all these numbers are within a small portion of the subsample MOE.  There wasn't a large difference in the total vote for Senate between the regular and special elections, so why treat the difference in raw vote and in margin as two separate issues?