Primary Night Results Thread (AL, CA, IA, MT, NJ, NM, SD)

[Meeker]

AP calls it for Steve Pearce

I seriously hope, for everyone's sake, that there's not some clerical error that involves changing a few thousand votes.

"The '5' key on this computer isn't working, Linda"

"Oh just put a 4. I'm sure it won't make a difference"

[HardRCafé]

If you think cashiers are bad at math, what about random volunteers?

[Sam Spade]

If you think cashiers are bad at math, what about random volunteers?

If you think random volunteers are bad at math, what about NM elected officials?

[HardRCafé]

I was trying to be charitable.  In order of preference:

1. random cashiers
2. random volunteers
3. New Mexico state officials

[Meeker]

Did the same people who run the state elections manage that internal Democratic Presidential primary/caucus/disaster? Or is just that everyone in the state is bad at elections?

[HardRCafé]

Or is just that everyone in the state is bad at elections?

Yes.

Now Pearce leads by 2911.  No word from the SOS.

[Sam Spade]

Did the same people who run the state elections manage that internal Democratic Presidential primary/caucus/disaster? Or is just that everyone in the state is bad at elections?

Considering that the Democrats run the elections in NM, what do you think runs the internal Democratic primaries/caucuses?    And vice versa, or something like that.  It's getting too late for me.

[HardRCafé]

SOS update!  Pearce leads by 219.

Who else remembers fuzzy math?

[HardRCafé]

Now they almost match:  Pearce leads by 2984 (AP) and 3010 (SOS).  No doubt as to the outcome.

[HardRCafé]

Pearce now leads by 2940 (SOS).

[Spaghetti Cat]

You're probably right about loebsack, just trying to find at least a little good news for the gop tonite.

Leonard Lance over Kate Christie?

I guess this is good news.  I mean both candidates have advantages over each other.  Lance seems like a genuinely nice guy and very kind and courteous plus he has the experience (15 years in the state Senate).  However, Whitman seemed to have the enthusiasm and drive to beat Stender, and being a young and personable candidate helped too.  All in all, both would have been good candidates IMO, and I'm glad Lance got the nod (as opposed to Kelly Hatfield or Martin Marks).

[Хahar 🤔]

Speier getting absolutely creamed in the 12th:

U.S. Congress District 12 Democratic
Democratic 0.% ( 0 of 490 ) precincts
reporting as of Jun. 3, 2008, at 8:32 p.m.
County Returns   Other Contests
Districtwide Results
Candidate Votes Percent
  Robert M. Barrows 17,629 71.8 %  
  Michelle Taylor McMurry 1,447 5.8 %  
  Jackie Speier 4,900 20.0 %  
  Frank Henry Wade 596 2.4 %  
 

Where the hell did you get those numbers? Those aren't anything like the Secretary of State numbers.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/usrep/1259.htm

That was when there were less precincts in.

[cannonia]

My prediction for CA-04: McClintock 56%, Ose 34%, the others split the last 10%.

And just for laughs, I'll predict that Heather Fargo wins the Sacramento mayoral race with just above 50% and avoids a runoff.

Well, the real numbers right now are McClintock 53.7%, Ose 38.7%.  And Kevin Johnson leads Fargo, but it will go to a runoff in November.

[Spaghetti Cat]

Is Camile Andrews the actual candidate for her husband's district?  I thought she was supposed to be a filler until they found a viable candidate.

[Verily]

Is Camile Andrews the actual candidate for her husband's district?  I thought she was supposed to be a filler until they found a viable candidate.

I believe she plans to step aside for him to run for re-election.

Anyway, here's the highly amusing map of the Senate primary. Everybody loves regional polarization:

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Is Camile Andrews the actual candidate for her husband's district?  I thought she was supposed to be a filler until they found a viable candidate.

She has, basically, until October to step aside and be replaced with whomever Democrats want her to be replaced with.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Called for McClintock in CA-04

Thank you California GOP...

That's the person the CA GOP should want running in that CD.  Sorry.

But, but, Don said...

Don supports moderates of the GOP.  Not necessarily the best candidates.

He used to argue that he was supporting the candidates with the best chances of winning. Then he ended up supporting Kirk Humphreys in the OK Senate primary and Lisa Murkowski in the AK Senate primary back in 2004. I challenged him on why he would say he supports the candidates with the best chances of winning and then actually support two weaker candidates. I don't recall the answer.

As far as a political party is concerned, electability must be the primary objective, but not the only objective.  As far as I am personally concerned I, like you, have to consider my own personal values when deciding whom to support.

Politics is about building coalitions to get candidates elected.  In general, a centrist candidate is more capable of building a larger coalition and is therefore more electable.  This is not always the case, it's just predominant.  In the Oklahoma electorate that has returned Inholfe to the Senate on a number of occasions, perhaps Kirk Humphreys would have been unable to build a coalition deep enough in order to win.  As far as Alaska is concerned, I think Lisa is serving just fine in the Senate

If an extreme candidate can win more easily in one district, but embarrasses us in the other 434 districts, then it is a setback.

In CA-4, I am at least pleased that there were 39% decent and honorable Americans voting in a California Republican primary.

[cannonia]

Called for McClintock in CA-04

Thank you California GOP...

That's the person the CA GOP should want running in that CD.  Sorry.

But, but, Don said...

Don supports moderates of the GOP.  Not necessarily the best candidates.

He used to argue that he was supporting the candidates with the best chances of winning. Then he ended up supporting Kirk Humphreys in the OK Senate primary and Lisa Murkowski in the AK Senate primary back in 2004. I challenged him on why he would say he supports the candidates with the best chances of winning and then actually support two weaker candidates. I don't recall the answer.

As far as a political party is concerned, electability must be the primary objective, but not the only objective.  As far as I am personally concerned I, like you, have to consider my own personal values when deciding whom to support.

Politics is about building coalitions to get candidates elected.  In general, a centrist candidate is more capable of building a larger coalition and is therefore more electable.  This is not always the case, it's just predominant.  In the Oklahoma electorate that has returned Inholfe to the Senate on a number of occasions, perhaps Kirk Humphreys would have been unable to build a coalition deep enough in order to win.  As far as Alaska is concerned, I think Lisa is serving just fine in the Senate

If an extreme candidate can win more easily in one district, but embarrasses us in the other 434 districts, then it is a setback.

In CA-4, I am at least pleased that there were 39% decent and honorable Americans voting in a California Republican primary.

Do you have something against McClintock, or do you just not know California politics?  (Or, do you just not like conservatives?)

McClintock is a Republican icon in California.  He's by far the 2nd most electable Republican statewide.  He's carpetbagging in order to go to Congress, and so is Ose.  But McClintock is a great fit for the district, and the more moderate Ose isn't.  And after Ose's horrible negative campaigning, I'll go with McClintock for the "decent and honorable" vote.

The 4th CD is a safe Republican district either way.  So what's the deal?

[Sam Spade]

Called for McClintock in CA-04

Thank you California GOP...

That's the person the CA GOP should want running in that CD.  Sorry.

But, but, Don said...

Don supports moderates of the GOP.  Not necessarily the best candidates.

He used to argue that he was supporting the candidates with the best chances of winning. Then he ended up supporting Kirk Humphreys in the OK Senate primary and Lisa Murkowski in the AK Senate primary back in 2004. I challenged him on why he would say he supports the candidates with the best chances of winning and then actually support two weaker candidates. I don't recall the answer.

As far as a political party is concerned, electability must be the primary objective, but not the only objective.  As far as I am personally concerned I, like you, have to consider my own personal values when deciding whom to support.

Politics is about building coalitions to get candidates elected.  In general, a centrist candidate is more capable of building a larger coalition and is therefore more electable.  This is not always the case, it's just predominant.  In the Oklahoma electorate that has returned Inholfe to the Senate on a number of occasions, perhaps Kirk Humphreys would have been unable to build a coalition deep enough in order to win.  As far as Alaska is concerned, I think Lisa is serving just fine in the Senate

If an extreme candidate can win more easily in one district, but embarrasses us in the other 434 districts, then it is a setback.

In CA-4, I am at least pleased that there were 39% decent and honorable Americans voting in a California Republican primary.

This logic is incredibly laughable, and yet another reason to me why Republicans are in such bad shape today because I see it thrown around quite a lot.  Political ideology is but one tool in the box of tools to play with, not the overriding tool in building a successful coalition.  Nor should it be the only reason to support a candidate or not support a candidate, but that argument is for another time.

If you believe that an Abramoff-connected moderate will do better than a straight-forward, non-scandalized conservative in building a coalition, not to mention simply winning elections in Republican seats, you have quite a bit to learn.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

You're probably right about loebsack, just trying to find at least a little good news for the gop tonite.

Leonard Lance over Kate Christie?

I guess this is good news.  I mean both candidates have advantages over each other.  Lance seems like a genuinely nice guy and very kind and courteous plus he has the experience (15 years in the state Senate).  However, Whitman seemed to have the enthusiasm and drive to beat Stender, and being a young and personable candidate helped too.  All in all, both would have been good candidates IMO, and I'm glad Lance got the nod (as opposed to Kelly Hatfield or Martin Marks).

Indeed, if you care about holding on to NJ-07, last night was doubly good news as Dick Zimmer won the GOP nod for U.S. Senate.  While he's likely to get overwhelmed by Lautenberg in the general, it's worth noting that he absolutely crushed Pennachio in his old CD (which is, basically, a modified version of NJ-07): he won Hunterdon by 60–30, especially impressive because Pennachio had the "line" there.  Zimmer also scored an off-the-line victory in Somerset, besting Pennachio 46–43.

Having a U.S. Senate candidate on top of the ticket who is destined to win NJ-07 bodes very well for Lance.

[Keystone Phil]

If an extreme candidate can win more easily in one district, but embarrasses us in the other 434 districts, then it is a setback.

I find it hard to believe that a single House candidate (barring the situation involving a controversial incumbent involved in scandal, a la Mark Foley) is going to embarrass and set us back in 434 districts.

As for Murkowski, she may have won but she was given a much harder time than Mike Miller would have received.

[Keystone Phil]

Everybody loves regional polarization:

I know I love it but it's certainly not as bad as it should have been. Lautenberg only losing Cape May by five points is very embarrassing. Same with the even closer Cumberland. Even Atlantic wasn't convincing for Andrews.

[Spaghetti Cat]

You're probably right about loebsack, just trying to find at least a little good news for the gop tonite.

Leonard Lance over Kate Christie?

I guess this is good news.  I mean both candidates have advantages over each other.  Lance seems like a genuinely nice guy and very kind and courteous plus he has the experience (15 years in the state Senate).  However, Whitman seemed to have the enthusiasm and drive to beat Stender, and being a young and personable candidate helped too.  All in all, both would have been good candidates IMO, and I'm glad Lance got the nod (as opposed to Kelly Hatfield or Martin Marks).

Indeed, if you care about holding on to NJ-07, last night was doubly good news as Dick Zimmer won the GOP nod for U.S. Senate.  While he's likely to get overwhelmed by Lautenberg in the general, it's worth noting that he absolutely crushed Pennachio in his old CD (which is, basically, a modified version of NJ-07): he won Hunterdon by 60–30, especially impressive because Pennachio had the "line" there.  Zimmer also scored an off-the-line victory in Somerset, besting Pennachio 46–43.

Having a U.S. Senate candidate on top of the ticket who is destined to win NJ-07 bodes very well for Lance.

This is good news, especially in a year that will be bad for Republicans, specifically in open seat contests.  If the Zimmer support sticks, as you pointed out, this should help Lance win here.  Also, I think that the Dems would have had a better shot here if they hadn't nominated someone as liberal as Stender.

[Brittain33]

I know I love it but it's certainly not as bad as it should have been. Lautenberg only losing Cape May by five points is very embarrassing. Same with the even closer Cumberland. Even Atlantic wasn't convincing for Andrews.

Aren't there a lot of retirees in Cape May? They may not have been receptive to the "Lautenberg's too old" argument.

[Keystone Phil]

I know I love it but it's certainly not as bad as it should have been. Lautenberg only losing Cape May by five points is very embarrassing. Same with the even closer Cumberland. Even Atlantic wasn't convincing for Andrews.

Aren't there a lot of retirees in Cape May? They may not have been receptive to the "Lautenberg's too old" argument.

Yeah, that's what commentators thought last night. It's possible.