AZ-2 recount results to be released Dec 17

[zorkpolitics]

There remains one "too close to call" house race: AZ-2 where GOP candidate McSally leads by 161 votes.

The automatic machine recount of AZ-2 was completed last week, reportedly there was only a one vote change in the lead, so Republican McSally leads by 160 or 162 votes.  Pending a hand recount in 5% of the Pima precincts on Monday to confirm the machine results, the final certified results will be released Dec 17.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/politics/Cochise-County-2nd-District-hand-recount-done-285690231.html

McSally's win will give the GOP 147 seats in the House and their largest margin since the Hoover administration.

Its unclear if the Democratic incumbent Barber, will head back into court to try and get a court to order counting the 700 or so ballots that were not counted because the voters did not comply with election laws (not registered, failed to sign mail-in ballots, or failed to vote in their correct polling place). 
http://tucson.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/county-explains-disqualified-ballots-in-tight-cd-race/article_6019b6bf-152b-517e-aaf1-f5392df260f0.html

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

If he is still behind after the Pima hand recount, Barber should just concede. He can win that seat back in 2016 when he'll have presidential turnout on his side. Being a sore loser isn't going to help him in any way, shape, or form

[Türkisblau]

Sad to see Barber go. I do think that it will be harder to dislodge McSally in 2016 than most think.

[The_Doctor]

I want a McSally victory so we can say honestly it's the largest Republican majority since 1929. That just has a better ring than 1946. It kind of says we're back to the pre New Deal era in terms of conservative alignment.  Almost.

[Flake]

I want a McSally victory so we can say honestly it's the largest Republican majority since 1929. That just has a better ring than 1946. It kind of says we're back to the pre New Deal era in terms of conservative alignment.  Almost.

And look how great the economy was after 1929

[The_Doctor]

One happening does not mean it'll happen again. To be fair, we're starting to be an era that rivals the 1920s in terms of a Republican majority. Our legislature strength is even stronger than in 1920, and our House majority rivals 1929 if the AZ 02 count is upheld.

Without dispute, right now, Republicans are at or near their absolute high water mark as America's majority party. By almost every metric, Republicans are the majority party of the United States, in a way that hasn't been seen in decades, with Democrats in the minority in every electoral area except the White House. Were the White House to fall in 2016, Republicans would own the entire government from the White House to the state legislatures - decisively so.

If we had taken the governorship of Colorado and Connecticut and kept Alaska's governorship, we would stand at 34 - same as it was in January 1921. If we pick up the governorships of Kentucky, Montana, and Missouri, and then pick up Virginia in 2017, we would be at 35 Republican governors. Which would break the 1920s record.

[ElectionsGuy]

I want a McSally victory so we can say honestly it's the largest Republican majority since 1929. That just has a better ring than 1946. It kind of says we're back to the pre New Deal era in terms of conservative alignment.  Almost.

And look how great the economy was after 1929

Right, because the crash was the fault of large Republican majorities?

[Bacon King]

I want a McSally victory so we can say honestly it's the largest Republican majority since 1929. That just has a better ring than 1946. It kind of says we're back to the pre New Deal era in terms of conservative alignment.  Almost.

And look how great the economy was after 1929

Right, because the crash was the fault of large Republican majorities?

Votes in favor of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act...
in the House: 208 Republicans, 14 Democrats
in the Senate: 39 Republicans, 5 Democrats

[IceSpear]

One happening does not mean it'll happen again. To be fair, we're starting to be an era that rivals the 1920s in terms of a Republican majority. Our legislature strength is even stronger than in 1920, and our House majority rivals 1929 if the AZ 02 count is upheld.

Without dispute, right now, Republicans are at or near their absolute high water mark as America's majority party. By almost every metric, Republicans are the majority party of the United States, in a way that hasn't been seen in decades, with Democrats in the minority in every electoral area except the White House. Were the White House to fall in 2016, Republicans would own the entire government from the White House to the state legislatures - decisively so.

If we had taken the governorship of Colorado and Connecticut and kept Alaska's governorship, we would stand at 34 - same as it was in January 1921. If we pick up the governorships of Kentucky, Montana, and Missouri, and then pick up Virginia in 2017, we would be at 35 Republican governors. Which would break the 1920s record.

You have to consider the fact that these majorities are built on the foundation of low turnout midterms. That's not to say they aren't "real", it makes no difference in reality. But it's also worth noting the Republican Party has lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. If Republicans truly were the dominant majority of the country, this would certainly not be the case.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Per se, the House majority was sustained in 2012. Why would turnout change the fact that this country is essentially governed by Republicans?

To your point about the Presidential election turnout, I'm more amenable to that point - but I would say structurally and for all intents and purposes, right now, the majority party in the United States is the Republican Party. If 2016 went our way, and we captured the White House, by objective criteria we'd be the absolute majority party.

At the very least, right now - in political terms, we are a dominant party, if not a majority one...

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Per se, the House majority was sustained in 2012. Why would turnout change the fact that this country is essentially governed by Republicans?

To your point about the Presidential election turnout, I'm more amenable to that point - but I would say structurally and for all intents and purposes, right now, the majority party in the United States is the Republican Party. If 2016 went our way, and we captured the White House, by objective criteria we'd be the absolute majority party.

At the very least, right now - in political terms, we are a dominant party, if not a majority one...

Well, it depends on what we're arguing. You're objectively correct that Republicans dominate throughout the country right now. I'm just saying it's in no way a broad mandate from the American populace as a whole. High turnout elections in presidential years seem to confirm this.

The Dems won the House popular vote in 2012. The GOP majority was built on gerrymandering and the natural geographic distribution of Democratic voters, not any broad mandate for a GOP majority in Congress.

Putting it another way: If midterms were abolished and all offices (including governors and state legislatures) were elected in 4 year increments that coincide with presidential elections, the Republican majorities would be cut significantly. Luck also has a lot to do with it, with the fact that the Republican resurgence in 2010 happened to occur in a redistricting year, and as already mentioned, their geographical advantage.

If Republicans are able to comfortably win a high turnout nationwide election, then I'll agree they have a mandate. The last time that happened was 1988. Even Bush's 2004 win came down to a single state and nearly slipped through his fingers.

[RogueBeaver]

McSally wins by 167 votes.

[Vega]

McSally wins by 167 votes.

Hopefully Barber can stage a comeback with Presidential turnout on his side.

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

Fortunately, Barber has a good chance win it back in 2016, although it's going to be another extremely close battle.

[Maxwell]

McSally wins by 167 votes.

Hopefully Barber can stage a comeback with Presidential turnout on his side.

I feel like Democrats would be better suited with a different candidate. Barber is pretty old.

[The_Doctor]

W00t largest House GOP majority since 1929.

[tmthforu94]

Splendid news!

Hopefully she will take the plunge for Senate in 2016 if McCain retires.

[Never]

Roll Call indicates Ron Barber is unlikely to challenge McSally in 2016, viewing newly elected state Rep. Randall Friese, one of Gabby Giffords' surgeons, as a more credible option for the Democrats.

[windjammer]

McSally wins by 167 votes.

Hopefully Barber can stage a comeback with Presidential turnout on his side.

I feel like Democrats would be better suited with a different candidate. Barber is pretty old.

[Miles]

I was expecting Barber to win because he was up in RRH poll out the last week; still within the MoE and they've still racked up a decent record.

[Xing]

I doubt Barber will run in 2016, but the Democrats definitely have a solid chance of taking this seat back in 2016.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Splendid news!

This.

Honestly, I was a little surprised that the GOP's House gains this year weren't bigger.  It was a reverse of 2010; that year, we had big gains in the House and small gains in the Senate, but this year, the Senate was where we had our biggest gains.

[RogueBeaver]

Splendid news!

This.

Honestly, I was a little surprised that the GOP's House gains this year weren't bigger.  It was a reverse of 2010; that year, we had big gains in the House and small gains in the Senate, but this year, the Senate was where we had our biggest gains.

GOP is nosing its ceiling, that's why. Even seats like IA-1 and NV-4 are probably rentals.

[Smash255]

Splendid news!

This.

Honestly, I was a little surprised that the GOP's House gains this year weren't bigger.  It was a reverse of 2010; that year, we had big gains in the House and small gains in the Senate, but this year, the Senate was where we had our biggest gains.

Relative to the amount of seats up in the House and the Senate, the Dems had more seats up in GOP and swing states in the Senate than they did in swing districts in the House.  Also part of their Senate gains in 2010 was diminished by some tea party nominees.

[Kraxner]

McSally wins by 167 votes.

Can't wait for the democrats to do another, "Our guy lost because he wasn't progressive enough!!!"