CPRM, Pt 2: AL (RO) 7/17; GA (RO) 7/24; TN 8/2; 274K ballots left in CA

[136or142]

Golden back below 50%.

[136or142]

What is it with the voters of the Maine 2nd district and their Poliquin Romance anyway?

[136or142]

What is it with the voters of the Maine 2nd district and their Poliquin Romance anyway?

Bad Democratic candidate in 2014 and 2016. One of those areas that swung hard right in Obama's second term.

Thanks for the answer even though it wasn't a serious question.

[136or142]

Are any of these primary challengers to incumbents likely to be close?
1.Colorado 1, Diana DeGette vs Saira Rao
2.Colorado 5, Doug Lamborn vs Darryl Glen/Owen Hill
3.New York 9, Yvette Clarke vs Adem Bunkeddeko
4.New York 11, Dan Donovan vs Michael Grimm
5.New York 12, Carolyn Maloney vs. Suraj Patel
6.New York 14, Joe Crowley vs. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
7.Utah 3, John Curtis vs Chris Herrod

[136or142]

Mimi Walters is down to 51.7% of the vote

Hopefully this is below the Mimimum she needs to win the general election.

[136or142]

Even in CA-48, where two candidates split the Dem vote perfectly evenly, they both distanced the closest Republican by 2.5K votes. Tell me again how the muh dem lockout scenario wasn't overblown...

This post is fake news! The Democrats were locked out of the 8th district.  Red Wave coming!   (sorry)  (Although it is a fact that the Democrats were locked out in the 8th district.)

Also, in regards to California 48th, let me repeat: Baugh humbug!

[136or142]

Even in CA-48, where two candidates split the Dem vote perfectly evenly, they both distanced the closest Republican by 2.5K votes. Tell me again how the muh dem lockout scenario wasn't overblown...

This post is fake news! The Democrats were locked out of the 8th district.  Red Wave coming!  (sorry)  (Although it is a fact that the Democrats were locked out in the 8th district.)

Yeah, I find it kind of annoying just because I'd have loved to say Democrats qualified in all 53 seats. Still, it's a solid R seat anyway so whatevs.

Yes, especially since the Democrats did qualify in all 53 seats in 2016. Red Wave Coming!!!!!!

[136or142]

Even in CA-48, where two candidates split the Dem vote perfectly evenly, they both distanced the closest Republican by 2.5K votes. Tell me again how the muh dem lockout scenario wasn't overblown...

B a u g h only fell behind the winner by 1.5%. That's close. From a pre-election standpoint lacking 20-20 hindsight, this was a real threat.

This is actually one of the many cases in statistics where there are different ways to look at the same numbers.  It is 1.5% in terms of all the votes, but if it's looked at in terms of  how close Baugh came to making second, it's close, but not really super close.

Two candidate peferred
Harley Rouda 30,099. 52.2%
Scott Baugh  27,513, 47.8%

[136or142]

Even in CA-48, where two candidates split the Dem vote perfectly evenly, they both distanced the closest Republican by 2.5K votes. Tell me again how the muh dem lockout scenario wasn't overblown...

B a u g h only fell behind the winner by 1.5%. That's close. From a pre-election standpoint lacking 20-20 hindsight, this was a real threat.

This is actually one of the many cases in statistics where there are different ways to look at the same numbers.  It is 1.5% in terms of all the votes, but if it's looked at in terms of  how close Baugh came to making second, it's close, but not really super close.

Two candidate peferred
Harley Rouda 30,099. 52.2%
Scott Baugh  27,513, 47.8%

3 Dems who had dropped out after the filing deadline still got over three times as many votes as the margin between Baugh and Rouda combined.

It’s crystal clear a slightly more crowded Dem field could’ve easily given Baugh second place given the performances of literal ghost candidates.

I know that, but these 'Democrats in disarray' type stories came out after those three candidates dropped out.  We can all decide for ourselves seeing those results whether those stories were over the top or not (and the other two districts where this was supposedly a concern, the 39th and the 49th didn't even end up being close.)  For me, I think those stories were over the top.


Which is not to say that I don't think that these jungle primaries can produce perverse results like that (one party with 5 candidates gets 55% or so of the vote, and the other party with 2 candidates come in first and second) or that these jungle primaries are stupid.  If for no other reason, than they force other credible candidates to drop out to prevent these perverse outcomes.

[136or142]

Even in CA-48, where two candidates split the Dem vote perfectly evenly, they both distanced the closest Republican by 2.5K votes. Tell me again how the muh dem lockout scenario wasn't overblown...

B a u g h only fell behind the winner by 1.5%. That's close. From a pre-election standpoint lacking 20-20 hindsight, this was a real threat.

This is actually one of the many cases in statistics where there are different ways to look at the same numbers.  It is 1.5% in terms of all the votes, but if it's looked at in terms of  how close Baugh came to making second, it's close, but not really super close.

Two candidate peferred
Harley Rouda 30,099. 52.2%
Scott Baugh  27,513, 47.8%

3 Dems who had dropped out after the filing deadline still got over three times as many votes as the margin between Baugh and Rouda combined.

It’s crystal clear a slightly more crowded Dem field could’ve easily given Baugh second place given the performances of literal ghost candidates.

I know that, but these 'Democrats in disarray' type stories came out after those three candidates dropped out.  We can all decide for ourselves seeing those results whether those stories were over the top or not (and the other two districts where this was supposedly a concern, the 39th and the 49th didn't even end up being close.)  For me, I think those stories were over the top.

FWIW I didn’t comment on the races concerning the 49th and 39th districts at all. And I never even bothered to read the “Disaster in California” articles the media was pushing out since anybody who’s followed more than 1 election in their lifetimes knows full well the media has a vested interest in creating horse race narratives at all costs.

But in the case of the 48th with its very high R-D registration advantage (relative to most Hillary won districts), it was fairly obvious to anybody following it that the entry of the former OC GOP chair would shake things up. The primary polling and the DCCC’s 647,000 dollar ad buy last minute against Baugh were proof of this (as was the final tally when looking at how many votes ghost Dem candidates alone took from Rouda and Keirstead).

If you check my posting history I wasn’t too sold on the idea that Baugh could make the top two until the last couple weeks when it became clear he had a shot. And these final results show there was a pathway for him.

This, actually to me, is why this district isn't that big of a deal.  I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if Rohrabacher was reelected (I like to think there are a lot of Republicans who are at  least anti Putin)  and, while I appreciate that every seat counts, I think it will be difficult for the Democrats to hold this seat in 2020, yet alone 2022.

[136or142]

This, actually to me, is why this district isn't that big of a deal.  I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if Rohrabacher was reelected (I like to think there are a lot of Republicans who are at  least anti Putin)  and, while I appreciate that every seat counts, I think it will be difficult for the Democrats to hold this seat in 2020, yet alone 2022.

In 2020 Trump will (probably?) be on the ballot again. In 2022 it won't be the same seat because of redistricting, but yes it will be harder to hold then if there is a D President.

I don't know that Trump is the problem for the Republicans in this district as much as Rohrabacher himself is.

[136or142]

This is just one seat, and it was easily the worst-case scenario for Dems (two equally popular candidates splitting the vote almost evenly) and they still made it pretty comfortably. 1.5 points might not seem like a lot, but in this day and age there are few things in a campaign that move the needle by as much. And again, it's just one seat where this was even a possibility. Compare this to the media narrative that suggested Dems were probably about to get shut out everywhere (including in CA-49 where they took the 2nd, 3rd and 4th spots)...

It is hard to move the needle when each candidate has consolidated support in a general election, but we're talking about races where each candidate was only pulling in like 15, 16, 17 points or so, with an incredible number of candidates. It could have easily gone one way or another, and with Republicans only trailing by <4 points in at least 3 races, I really have to disagree that lockouts were not a real concern in those districts. I don't know if all the hype it got was warranted, but it's not like CA-10, CA-39 and CA-48 did not have close races that could have a different way under slightly different circumstances.

In terms of two candidate preferred, California 10 ended up as a comfortable win for the Democrats (around 55-45% 17,500-14,500) while California 39 was a blow out.

[136or142]

This, actually to me, is why this district isn't that big of a deal.  I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if Rohrabacher was reelected (I like to think there are a lot of Republicans who are at  least anti Putin)  and, while I appreciate that every seat counts, I think  it will be difficult for the Democrats to hold this seat in 2020, yet alone 2022.

In 2020 Trump will (probably?) be on the ballot again. In 2022 it won't be the same seat because of redistricting, but yes it will be harder to hold then if there is a D President.

Actually you give me a good reason to not support Rohrabacher.  He is too pro Putin.  

But then the main reason I support Trump is that in action he is the most anti Russian President since Reagan.  Obama in action was the most pro.  I do not care what they say.  I care how they act.  If Trump had carried on Obama’s actual Russian policies I would become anti Trump.

The only thing I can imagine that you might be referring to is that Trump agreed to sell arms to Ukraine.  While Trump did sign an anti Putin/Russian sanctions bill, he has not implemented it or enforced it.

Of course, I don't know if any weapons have actually be sold to Ukraine.  We see that Trump clearly has made a habit of saying he'll do something and then doesn't do it (while leaving his idiot cultist supporters to believe that he has.)

[136or142]

In terms of two candidate preferred, California 10 ended up as a comfortable win for the Democrats (around 55-45% 17,500-14,500) while California 39 was a blow out.

what do you mean by "two candidate preferred" and where are you getting those numbers?

Hrm, they must have counted a lot more votes since I last checked.

Rather than looking at all the votes for all the candidates, 'two candidate preferred' means only the candidates in question are looked at (so the Democrat who came in second and the leading Republican.) So this:

Josh Harder: 20,010, 54.2%
Ted Howze: 16,902, 45.8%

https://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-rep/district/10

[136or142]

Does anyone have a raw vote total for Orange County? The number of Dems/Reps that cast votes?

Would you settle for raw oranges?

[136or142]

I was the only person in my polling station this morning in NY-09. Voted for Adem Bunkedekko but still think he has no chance. My polling station is split across CDs, though, with the voting location actually in NY-08, so at least half the voters had no contest to vote in because I think Hakeem Jeffries is unopposed in the primary.

What!!!! He's Bunk(edekko.)  

He must be a loser because his name is Adem and not Adam.