MS-01, IL-14, LA-06 -- WTF?

[JSojourner]

Yeah, I'm a partisan Democrat but I try to fall short of being a hack.  Most of the time, I am not but sometimes, I just can't help it.

So what I need -- in all seriousness -- is for some of you sensible Republican and conservative Indies to tamp down my enthusiasm.  See, if I have learned anything after 2000, 2002 and 2004...it's that I get my hopes up and then spend the next month under my desk with a bottle.  (LOL -- not quite but you get then idea.)

When I see these seats changing hands -- R+10, R+5, R+7...I start thinking 10 to 15 seats in November might be a bit stingy.  Was 2006 a harbinger of something bigger? Could a 1994-style sweep be on the horizon? 

Talk me out of thinking so.  I really don't want to spend the rest of November under my desk again!

[Keystone Phil]

Listen, we should have won those seats but I have one question for all these races: What was turnout like?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Listen, we should have won those seats but I have one question for all these races: What was turnout like?

Here's the lesson for your side: Quit nominating absolutely gut-wrenchingly terrible candidates like you did in all three seats.

[Brittain33]

Listen, we should have won those seats but I have one question for all these races: What was turnout like?

It's all out there on the Internet; if you have a point you're thinking of making, go to Wikipedia, pull the numbers, and post about it. I can't say I can even guess what you're aiming for.

[Alcon]

Listen, we should have won those seats but I have one question for all these races: What was turnout like?

Here's the lesson for your side: Quit nominating absolutely gut-wrenchingly terrible candidates like you did in all three seats.

How was Davis so terrible?  Boring, maybe, but...

[Keystone Phil]

Listen, we should have won those seats but I have one question for all these races: What was turnout like?

Here's the lesson for your side: Quit nominating absolutely gut-wrenchingly terrible candidates like you did in all three seats.

Ok, fine. Would you like to answer my question though?

Listen, we should have won those seats but I have one question for all these races: What was turnout like?

It's all out there on the Internet; if you have a point you're thinking of making, go to Wikipedia, pull the numbers, and post about it. I can't say I can even guess what you're aiming for.

Do you know the turnout numbers because I don't. But yes, I do have a feeling they can help make my point.

[Joe Republic]

So what I need -- in all seriousness -- is for some of you sensible Republican and conservative Indies to tamp down my enthusiasm.

Alrighty.

During the 108th Congress (2003-05), there were five special elections to the House.  Of those, three saw no change in party control, but the other two switched from Republican to Democratic control (KY-06 and SD-at large).  Despite keeping both of those seats in the subsequent general election of 2004, the Democrats lost a net five seats elsewhere.

[Brittain33]

During the 108th Congress (2003-05), there were five special elections to the House.  Of those, three saw no change in party control, but the other two switched from Republican to Democratic control (KY-06 and SD-at large).  Despite keeping both of those seats in the subsequent general election of 2004, the Democrats lost a net five seats elsewhere.

See, while this is true, I knew from the results in SD-AL that it wasn't going to be a good Democratic year. Herseth was a strong candidate, a veteran of a previous race and heavily promoted, while the Republican wasn't expected to win. He ended up making it quite close. That made it clear that Republicans were still going to turn out in solid numbers for their candidates, although we'd have an opportunity to win districts where circumstances favored us.

KY-6 was similar because it was a historically Democratic district with swing tendencies, Ben Chandler had run statewide, and Alice Forgy Kerr was considered a poor candidate.

It's like in 2001, where people looked at Mark Warner's win in Virginia as a harbinger of Democratic strength in the coming year, and all I could see was the Democrats getting utterly wiped out from north to south, east to west in the House of Delegates following redistricting.

Also, for 2004, the net loss of 5 seats was due entirely to the Texas redistricting. Essentially the House races were a draw mirroring past trends, with red getting redder and blue getting bluer.

[minionofmidas]

Listen, we should have won those seats but I have one question for all these races: What was turnout like?

Here's the lesson for your side: Quit nominating absolutely gut-wrenchingly terrible candidates like you did in all three seats.

Ok, fine. Would you like to answer my question though?

Listen, we should have won those seats but I have one question for all these races: What was turnout like?

It's all out there on the Internet; if you have a point you're thinking of making, go to Wikipedia, pull the numbers, and post about it. I can't say I can even guess what you're aiming for.

Do you know the turnout numbers because I don't. But yes, I do have a feeling they can help make my point.

LA-6 and the MS-1 second round had about a 100k votes in them. That's very high for a by-election. LA-1 had less than half that total. In MS-1, that represents about 70% of midterms turnout. In LA-6, is actually almost 90% of midterms turnout, but that's because the Democrats didn't even contest that seat in 2006 (but Libertarians did.)

[Verily]

So what I need -- in all seriousness -- is for some of you sensible Republican and conservative Indies to tamp down my enthusiasm.

Alrighty.

During the 108th Congress (2003-05), there were five special elections to the House.  Of those, three saw no change in party control, but the other two switched from Republican to Democratic control (KY-06 and SD-at large).  Despite keeping both of those seats in the subsequent general election of 2004, the Democrats lost a net five seats elsewhere.

Exactly what I was going to post.

Of course, the simple counterargument is that 2004 was the year the new Texas gerrymander came into force. Had that not happened, the Democrats would have won a net two seats (counting the special elections as gains).

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha, ok...what was the overall turnout? I know "90% of midterm turnout" sounds good but that doesn't reflect overall turnout. And I'm sorry but turnout is a special election may be "very high" for a special election but that's not the point I'm getting across. Wait until we hit average turnout for a General and then we'll see how these types are doing. I'm not saying they'll lose. I'm just saying my friends on the other side ought to contain their excitment just a bit.

[TheresNoMoney]

Turnout in MS-01 was something like 110,000.

[Brittain33]

Haha, ok...what was the overall turnout? I know "90% of midterm turnout" sounds good but that doesn't reflect overall turnout. And I'm sorry but turnout is a special election may be "very high" for a special election but that's not the point I'm getting across. Wait until we hit average turnout for a General and then we'll see how these types are doing. I'm not saying they'll lose. I'm just saying my friends on the other side ought to contain their excitment just a bit.

While this is true, I'll note that turnout from the last primary to yesterday went up substantially from 64,000 to 107,000--an increase I was worried about on yesterday's thread--and it served to increase Childers' lead instead of diminishing it.

Independents and low-information voters swung Democratic last year and will do so again this year if logic and reason have anything to do with it. There is not some slug of Republican voters who sit out the special elections but show up for the general election in 2008 in greater proportion than in the Democratic party.

[Brittain33]

I'm just saying my friends on the other side ought to contain their excitment just a bit.

The gloating may be inconsiderate, rude, and shortsighted about the implications of Democratic wins in November, and that's a reason to contain it, but you've got a hard case to make that it is wrong.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha, ok...what was the overall turnout? I know "90% of midterm turnout" sounds good but that doesn't reflect overall turnout.

Yeah, that 90 figure is meaningless. As I pointed out. The other figure is not, though. (Although admittedly, Wicker's opponent wasn't exactly competitive.)
This is turnout comparable to, though still somewhat lower than, at midterm elections. You don't see a major difference between midterms and general elections in the US in anything but turnout. (You do in some areas and for some congresspeople, but we're talking of something like 2-3 points. Not enough to swing races like MS-1 or IL-14, which weren't really all that close.)

Also, what brittain said about the first round. (Some of that is due to the high percentage of Blacks who sat out the first round because Childers hadn't got the point across to them that the race was competitive, though white Democrats - yeah they exist in this part of MS, even for Presidential contests. More than anywhere else in MS, anyhow - did know so before.)

[troosvelt]

Here's the lesson for your side: Quit nominating absolutely gut-wrenchingly terrible candidates like you did in all three seats.

Exactly !

[Keystone Phil]

I'm just saying my friends on the other side ought to contain their excitment just a bit.

The gloating may be inconsiderate, rude, and shortsighted about the implications of Democratic wins in November, and that's a reason to contain it, but you've got a hard case to make that it is wrong.

But it is wrong in that you can't really compare the results in a special to what will probably happen in a General election during a Presidential election year.

You don't see a major difference between midterms and general elections in the US in anything but turnout.

And that matters so let's not go that crazy when the Dems pick up solid GOP seats in a special. Is it something the GOP should worry about? Absolutely. Is it necessarily a sign of bad things to come? Not necessarily.

[Brittain33]

But it is wrong in that you can't really compare the results in a special to what will probably happen in a General election during a Presidential election year.

Would you argue that if the Republicans had held 1, 2, or all 3 of these seats, it wouldn't have mean anything different about the outcome in November? If Oberweis, Jenkins, and Davis had all won, we'd be heading toward the same results because "they're just special elections."

These races have salience. The campaigns have tested messages they planned to use in November. They've hauled out their voter activation plans. The people in power, who I trust to know how best to react, are reacting as if these elections are predictive.

No, the elections and their circumstances are not identical to general election races. For one, the universe of voters is smaller. For another, the Republicans could afford to plow $1 million plus into every open seat in the special election season while they won't be able to in November. Certainly things are going to change.

However, taking the special elections even as one factor among many, it looks very, very good for Democrats in the House and Senate this year. The only argument one can marshal against that is the "you don't know, anything can happen" and I believe we're taking that into account.

[Brittain33]

And that matters so let's not go that crazy when the Dems pick up solid GOP seats in a special.

Hey, would you say that Republicans went a little bit crazy when the President won reelection with a stunning 51% of the vote in 2004, and with majorities in Congress that are smaller than what Democrats already have in the House and will likely have in the Senate come November?

There was a little bit of excitement, a sense of victory and that you were the majority who should be listened to and respected, no?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Listen, we should have won those seats but I have one question for all these races: What was turnout like?

Here's the lesson for your side: Quit nominating absolutely gut-wrenchingly terrible candidates like you did in all three seats.

For once, BRTD is 100% right.

How was Davis so terrible?  Boring, maybe, but...

A) He's from Southaven.  Heck he's not just from there, he's their leader!

B) He's from Desoto County.  He might have been elected if he had been from more Mississippi-friendly places like Outer Mongolia or Mars.

C) He got rid of a friend of mine who was his campaign manager when he was winning elections, and replaced them with folks who refuse to say anything positive about their candidate and instead only believe in going negative on their opponent.

Here's my rendition of the MS-01 campaign:
Greg Davis: MY OPPONENT IS A DEMOCRUT.  HE LUVZ OBAMA AND PELOSIIII LIBURL!!!

Travis Childers:  Hi, I'm Travis Childers, I just wanna take my pro-gun and pro-life values to Washington, won't you help me?

Greg Davis:   MY OPPONENT IS LIBRUL!!!OMG!!

Travis Childers: I sure hope we can elect a Congressman from Mississippi, not Memphis.

NRCC:  CHILDERS IS LIBRUL OMG!!! LOLZ!!!

DCCC: You know Greg Davis drives a big car paid for by the taxpayers and raised taxes.  Not so sure he's a conservative like we are.

(NRCC to Davis:   Hey Greg, I learned in my boarding school in Connecticut that Mississippians hate blacks.  Watch this!)

NRCC:   OMG TRAVIS CHILDERS IS FROM SAME PARTY AS OBAMA OMG!!!

Travis Childers:   I don't even know who that Obama fellow is.  Is he running for something in Memphis?  You know, that place where Greg Davis is from.....

(Davis to NRCC:  WAshington DC people, I'm not sure if all this negative stuff is working.  Should I talk about how I spent hundreds of hours volunteering to help victims of Hurricane Katrina?  Should I talk about what I would do to help all residents of our district, from Corinth to Horn Lake?)

(NRCC to Davis:  NO!  Say nothing positive about yourself.  I learned at my college in New Jersey that Mississippians love fried chicken, lynchings, and negative campaign ads.  Fire anyone on your campaign that wants to say anything positive about you, its a distraction from our message)

Greg Davis  LIBRUL  TRAVIS CHILDERZ LIBRUL!

Travis Childers:   Please vote for me, I'm pro-gun, pro-life, just like y'all.

NRCC:  LIBRUL!  HE HAS D NEX TO NAME LIKE OBAMALOSI SAN FRANSISCHICAGOLIBRUL OMGZ!

Greg Davis:  IM PRO GUN TOO THOUGH I CANT SHOOT ONE MUCH CUZ I MAYOR OF MEMPHIS SUBURB

Travis Childers  My big red barn is pretty.   I'm so glad we live in a scenic rural area and have solid Mississippi values.  Well Greg Davis doesn't have a pretty red barn... they don't have any of those in Memphis.

NRCC: OBAMA LIBRUL OBAMA PELOSI OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA LOLZ

Travis Childers:   I really hope you will vote for me.  I just want to go to washington and support our pro-gun and pro-life values.



Desoto County actually swung towards Davis from the Bush result. (72% for Bush, 75% for Davis) Every other county swung to Childers, relative to their proximity away from Southaven.

Prentiss County (where Childers is from) went 66% for Bush, 15% for Davis.  Itawamba County on the Alabama line: 70% for Bush, 39% for Davis.

[minionofmidas]

I would like to add the following: Both Bill Foster and Travis Childers will face the same opponent in 2008. Really, the over-under here - an indicator of how long they'll be around, and if they're destined for greater things - is if they can get an additional swing in their favor in 2008, not if they'll lose. Barring a major screwup - think Vito Fossella - , they're safe for 2008.
Cazayoux had arguably the worst opponent (though perhaps not for the district), was considered the strongest candidate, won by the narrowest margin, and probably won't have the same opponent. If you want to look for a straw of hope, it's here.
Of course, Cazayoux ran in a district that included a middling-big city, some ultra-Republican and in parts very rich suburbs, and a wee bit of country. Childers ran in a district that included some similar suburbs, but is still and will be for decades to come dominated by country and smaller towns. Foster ran in a district with some similarly rich but not nearly as Republican suburbs, some older working class suburbs and a wee bit of country. Bottom line: Partisan Republicanism survives. The Gingrich (House) - Bush (Presidential) winning coalition is, at least for the House and the time being, dead.

Add for new post: Hilarious. I'm still trying to choke back further attacks of laughter.
(Not quite fair though: Childers added a dose of negativity too.)

[Brittain33]

OMG LOLZ

[JSojourner]

I'm just saying my friends on the other side ought to contain their excitment just a bit.

The gloating may be inconsiderate, rude, and shortsighted about the implications of Democratic wins in November, and that's a reason to contain it, but you've got a hard case to make that it is wrong.

I wasn't gloating.  I honestly think I don't ever gloat over political victories.  (Well, I might if Saxby Chambliss lost because of what he did to Cleland.)  But I really am starting to think that however the Presidential goes, we could be on the verge of bigger gains in the House and Senate than in 2006.

I actually want to limit my enthusiasm and optimism because, if Republicans have taught me anything -- it's that they are masters of political gamesmanship (in the best and the worst sense) and that a Democratic victory in any district or state is never a sure thing.

[TheresNoMoney]

Here's my rendition of the MS-01 campaign:

The funniest thing is that this is the same as every other Republican campaign run over the past four years.

[7,052,770]

I am going to disagree with what Don said.  Davis was not an awful candidate.  He ran a stupid campaign, and no one bought the Jeremiah Wright connection he tried to draw, but regionalism was not enough to completely pull Childers over the edge.  Maybe national mood made the race close, and regionalism put Davis over the top.

You can discount one race due to local factors, but when there's 3 upsets in 3 Republican districts with 3 different sets of circumstances, you have to see that there's a trend going on, and that trend is a national mood that is strongly against Republicans, and unless something changes drastically, the Democrats are in for a big November.