2017-18 State/Federal Special Election Results & Swings (UPDATED)

[Sorenroy]

State Legislative

Type	State	Dist	Date	Runoff	'16 Mar	'16 P Mar	Special Mar	Swing (Avg)
Senate	SC	3	5/30/17		No Oppo		No Oppo*
House	SC	84	5/30/17		No Oppo		R+21

Senate 03
https://www.scvotes.org/state-senate-district-3-special-election
*Write-In, the "opponent", won 18.3% of the vote against the Republican candidate.
https://ballotpedia.org/South_Carolina_State_Senate_District_3

House 84
https://www.scvotes.org/state-house-representatives-district-84-special-election
https://ballotpedia.org/South_Carolina_House_of_Representatives_District_84

[Brittain33]

State Legislative

Type	State	Dist	Date	Runoff	'16 Mar	'16 P Mar	Special Mar	Swing (Avg)
House	TN	95	6/15/17		N/A	R+39	R+27	D+12

No D has contested this legislative seat near Memphis for 20 years. Turnout was an abysmal 9%.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/politics/elections/2017/06/16/kevin-vaughan-wins-tennessee-house-district-95-race/390263001/
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C2MVeM2K7WgqmJw5RCQbWyTo2u73CX1pI8zw_G-7BJo/edit#gid=0

[Adam Griffin]

Updated congressionals. I'll get around to doing the 2 state legislative races tomorrow (unless somebody beats me to it).

[Adam Griffin]

Oklahoma races added.

[Adam Griffin]

NH's Merrimack 18 will have an election tonight between Kris Schultz (D) and Michael Feeley (R). For reference, the Democrat won 56-44 last year. Small electorates here, though: I could see almost any imaginable result here tonight.

[Adam Griffin]

NH's Merrimack 18 will have an election tonight between Kris Schultz (D) and Michael Feeley (R). For reference, the Democrat won 56-44 last year. Small electorates here, though: I could see almost any imaginable result here tonight.

Schultz wins 78-22 (284-82).

[Gustaf]

Is there an aggregated average somewhere in the thread that I somehow missed?

[windjammer]

Is there an aggregated average somewhere in the thread that I somehow missed?

The average is +13

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

NH's Merrimack 18 will have an election tonight between Kris Schultz (D) and Michael Feeley (R). For reference, the Democrat won 56-44 last year. Small electorates here, though: I could see almost any imaginable result here tonight.

Schultz wins 78-22 (284-82).

44 point swing that is insane. Liberals are willing to walk through shards of glass to slap Trump in the face.

[Adam Griffin]

Is there an aggregated average somewhere in the thread that I somehow missed?

Excluding a few situations where something went off-track (one candidate dropping out after winning the primary, etc):

State legislative: 11.7-point swing
Congressional: 15.4-point swing

Total: 12.3-point swing

[Adam Griffin]

Elections tonight in New Hampshire's State Senate District 10 and in Massachusetts' Senate Middlesex District 4.

In New Hampshire, the Democrat won by 10 points (the Dem won this district by 2 in 2016; Clinton won by less than 1 point).

In Massachusetts, the election came down to a Democrat versus a Green; the Democrat won with 88% of the vote; no Republican qualified. In 2016, Clinton won this district by 29 points.

[Adam Griffin]

WA Senate 45 special jungle primary results added (runoff will be 11/7). More was spent during this jungle primary than in all other races in the district going back to 2000 - combined.

Also, can we just reflect for a moment on how dumb Washington's jungle primary system is (namely, the fact that you can win a majority and still have to do it all over again in a runoff)?

[Tintrlvr]

WA Senate 45 special jungle primary results added (runoff will be 11/7).

Also, can we just reflect for a moment on how dumb Washington's jungle primary system is (namely, the fact that you can win a majority and still have to do it all over again in a runoff)?

I think that part is fair. Otherwise, low-turnout primaries could determine general election results even though they are not necessarily representative of the wider pool of voters who vote in general elections.

[Adam Griffin]

WA Senate 45 special jungle primary results added (runoff will be 11/7).

Also, can we just reflect for a moment on how dumb Washington's jungle primary system is (namely, the fact that you can win a majority and still have to do it all over again in a runoff)?

I think that part is fair. Otherwise, low-turnout primaries could determine general election results even though they are not necessarily representative of the wider pool of voters who vote in general elections.

It's a special election, though. WA doesn't even require that a candidate reach a majority in the general, right? If not, I don't necessarily see the justification here.

In most cases, without a majority required, a candidate can win without the confidence of the majority of voters whether it's high-turnout or not. With a majority required, you inevitably need to have runoffs that don't necessarily coincide with the general, which means the final decision is made by a lower turnout electorate.

Washington specifically seems to have circumvented this by a) opting for jungle primaries and b) allowing interim appointments to be made, which thankfully means that constituents aren't without representation for up to a year (since they insist on holding even special elections on the usual November GE date).

However, I don't think it necessarily prevents what you're describing, as an off-year election - even if it's on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November - is likely to have lower turnout than a midterm or presidential election cycle.

In addition, it's very rare for a first-place candidate in a primary (whether it be jungle or not) or general election to lose vote share in a runoff, making the exercise largely a big waste of time and money.

[windjammer]

WA Senate 45 special jungle primary results added (runoff will be 11/7).

Also, can we just reflect for a moment on how dumb Washington's jungle primary system is (namely, the fact that you can win a majority and still have to do it all over again in a runoff)?

I think that part is fair. Otherwise, low-turnout primaries could determine general election results even though they are not necessarily representative of the wider pool of voters who vote in general elections.

It's a special election, though. WA doesn't even require that a candidate reach a majority in the general, right? If not, I don't necessarily see the justification here.

In most cases, without a majority required, a candidate can win without the confidence of the majority of voters whether it's high-turnout or not. With a majority required, you inevitably need to have runoffs that don't necessarily coincide with the general, which means the final decision is made by a lower turnout electorate.

Washington specifically seems to have circumvented this by a) opting for jungle primaries and b) allowing interim appointments to be made, which thankfully means that constituents aren't without representation for up to a year (since they insist on holding even special elections on the usual November GE date).

However, I don't think it necessarily prevents what you're describing, as an off-year election - even if it's on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November - is likely to have lower turnout than a midterm or presidential election cycle.

In addition, it's very rare for a first-place candidate in a primary (whether it be jungle or not) or general election to lose vote share in a runoff, making the exercise largely a big waste of time and money.

Adam, that was a primary, not a general election for WA

[Adam Griffin]

WA Senate 45 special jungle primary results added (runoff will be 11/7).

Also, can we just reflect for a moment on how dumb Washington's jungle primary system is (namely, the fact that you can win a majority and still have to do it all over again in a runoff)?

I think that part is fair. Otherwise, low-turnout primaries could determine general election results even though they are not necessarily representative of the wider pool of voters who vote in general elections.

It's a special election, though. WA doesn't even require that a candidate reach a majority in the general, right? If not, I don't necessarily see the justification here.

In most cases, without a majority required, a candidate can win without the confidence of the majority of voters whether it's high-turnout or not. With a majority required, you inevitably need to have runoffs that don't necessarily coincide with the general, which means the final decision is made by a lower turnout electorate.

Washington specifically seems to have circumvented this by a) opting for jungle primaries and b) allowing interim appointments to be made, which thankfully means that constituents aren't without representation for up to a year (since they insist on holding even special elections on the usual November GE date).

However, I don't think it necessarily prevents what you're describing, as an off-year election - even if it's on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November - is likely to have lower turnout than a midterm or presidential election cycle.

In addition, it's very rare for a first-place candidate in a primary (whether it be jungle or not) or general election to lose vote share in a runoff, making the exercise largely a big waste of time and money.

Adam, that was a primary, not a general election for WA

It was a "jungle primary", which I do not consider to be a real primary; essentially, what they call a "general election" in this situation is a run-off, as it presumably will be for all elections held in November 2017 (I don't believe there are any regularly-scheduled state elections in WA in the odd years).

If all parties/candidates are running on the same ballot and a candidate can win a majority, that should be that. Otherwise, let each party hold its own primary and nominate accordingly; literally no point to the jungle primary if you can't get a win on the first-round.

I think this is one situation where my state actually got run-offs right. Georgia actually does utilize jungle primaries in one specific instance: state legislative elections. Candidates can declare and run as Republican, Democratic or "Non-Partisan" (the only instance in which a candidate can run under such a label) and all are on the same ballot. If one person gets 50%+1, then there is no runoff.

[windjammer]

WA Senate 45 special jungle primary results added (runoff will be 11/7).

Also, can we just reflect for a moment on how dumb Washington's jungle primary system is (namely, the fact that you can win a majority and still have to do it all over again in a runoff)?

I think that part is fair. Otherwise, low-turnout primaries could determine general election results even though they are not necessarily representative of the wider pool of voters who vote in general elections.

It's a special election, though. WA doesn't even require that a candidate reach a majority in the general, right? If not, I don't necessarily see the justification here.

In most cases, without a majority required, a candidate can win without the confidence of the majority of voters whether it's high-turnout or not. With a majority required, you inevitably need to have runoffs that don't necessarily coincide with the general, which means the final decision is made by a lower turnout electorate.

Washington specifically seems to have circumvented this by a) opting for jungle primaries and b) allowing interim appointments to be made, which thankfully means that constituents aren't without representation for up to a year (since they insist on holding even special elections on the usual November GE date).

However, I don't think it necessarily prevents what you're describing, as an off-year election - even if it's on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November - is likely to have lower turnout than a midterm or presidential election cycle.

In addition, it's very rare for a first-place candidate in a primary (whether it be jungle or not) or general election to lose vote share in a runoff, making the exercise largely a big waste of time and money.

Adam, that was a primary, not a general election for WA

It was a "jungle primary", which I do not consider to be a real primary; essentially, what they call a "general election" in this situation is a run-off, as it presumably will be for all elections held in November 2017 (I don't believe there are any regularly-scheduled state elections in WA in the odd years).

If all parties/candidates are running on the same ballot and a candidate can win a majority, that should be that. I think this is one situation where my state actually got run-offs right. Georgia actually does utilize jungle primaries in one specific instance: state legislative elections. Candidates can declare and run as Republican, Democratic or "Non-Partisan" (the only instance in which a candidate can run under such a label). If one person gets 50%+1, then there is no runoff.

Adam, I"m 90% sure if someone gets 50%+1 there is still a run off, this is the CA system

[Adam Griffin]

Adam, I"m 90% sure if someone gets 50%+1 there is still a run off, this is the CA system

Yes, that's what I'm saying is ridiculous: the Democratic candidate in WA-45 won approximately 51% of the vote and will still have to run for election in November.

If you're going to make all parties/candidates run on the same ballot, then you might as well eliminate any need for a run-off (you can call it a "general" if you want, but that is what it is in actuality) if one candidate actually gets a majority in a crowded field consisting of all possible contenders.

[Adam Griffin]

Here are tonight's results from IA & MO:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You have OK SD 44 listed as being today in the OP, but that election happened months ago (Democrats won).

[Adam Griffin]

You have OK SD 44 listed as being today in the OP, but that election happened months ago (Democrats won).

Fixed.


Looks like Oklahoma Democrats pick up yet another seat in the State House tonight - the third one this year.

Type	State	Dist	Date	Runoff	'16 Mar	'16 P Mar	Special Mar	Swing (Avg)
House	OK	46	9/12/17		R+20	R+10	D+21	D+36

[Adam Griffin]

As a sidenote, if I have missed any elections that have occurred this year that aren't on the sheet above, please let me know. Castro was kind enough to give me a comprehensive list of upcoming specials back in May - and I have updated these figures as the elections roll around - but I'll admit that I haven't actually kept tabs on any special elections scheduled since then unless they somehow inadvertently crossed my radar.

P.S.: I finally had to convert the results post to an image format because I ran out of characters. The pastebin link above that has the original forum code in it, however.

[Adam Griffin]

Home state update: three special elections will occur in the next couple of months in GA, all created by vacancies: HDs 004, 026 & another one (Dem-held, I forget which one).

[GeorgiaModerate]

Ballotpedia lists seven Georgia HD and two SD special elections this November: https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_state_legislative_special_elections,_2017

P.S.: You need to add the Florida SD-40 and HD-116 results from this week.

[Tintrlvr]

Ballotpedia lists seven Georgia HD and two SD special elections this November: https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_state_legislative_special_elections,_2017

P.S.: You need to add the Florida SD-40 and HD-116 results from this week.

Most will not be competitive. SD-6, HD-117 and maybe HD-119 could be interesting.

HD-4 is a very safe Republican seat covering Dalton. Safe R, may be an RvR runoff, although there is a Democrat in the race.
HD-26 is a very safe Republican seat in Forsyth County. Safe R, may be an RvR runoff, although there is a Democrat in the race.
HD-42, covering parts of Smyrna and Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Cobb County, seems on its face like a relatively marginal Democratic seat (though don't have voting figures), but no Republican filed. Teri Anulewicz (D) is the only candidate, so she will be acclaimed.
HD-60 is a very safe Democratic seat in south Fulton and north Clayton Counties, and in any case no Republican filed. Three Democrats will compete for the seat. Safe D.
HD-89 is a very safe Democratic seat in southwest Dekalb County, and in any case no Republican filed. Four Democrats will compete for the seat. Safe D.
HD-117 is a lean Republican seat covering what might be called exurbs of Athens in Barrow and Jackson Counties, suburbs of Athens in Oconee County and part of Athens proper (which is cracked across three districts). Moved hard towards the Democrats in 2016. Will be decided in the jungle as there are only two candidates (one Democrat and one Republican). Lean R.
HD-119 is a likely Republican seat that takes some of the more marginal parts of Athens and attaches them to rural Oconee County (the most suburban parts of Oconee, which are also moving sharply towards the Democrats, are in HD-117). Plausibly could be competitive in this environment but probably will not be. Likely R, Democrat should make it to the runoff as there are three Republicans and only one Democrat.
SD-6 is a marginal Republican-held seat that includes the territory of HD-42 above (perhaps explaining why only one candidate filed there) plus the rest of Smyrna, bits of Cobb County connecting it to Fulton County, north Atlanta and Sandy Springs. It could very plausibly vote for a Democrat and is easily the most competitive seat, although it is unclear to me how serious any of the Democratic candidates are. I would call it a Toss-up.
SD-39 is a safe Democratic seat covering much of Atlanta. A Republican did manage to file, but the runoff, if there is one, will very likely be DvD. Safe D.