MT-AL: Rob Quist (D) vs. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Mark Wicks (L), May 25
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:16:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  MT-AL: Rob Quist (D) vs. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Mark Wicks (L), May 25
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 119
Author Topic: MT-AL: Rob Quist (D) vs. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Mark Wicks (L), May 25  (Read 230446 times)
Rjjr77
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,994
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #475 on: April 12, 2017, 10:40:10 AM »

You are assuming that nationalizing races in blood red Trump states makes sense.  The DCCC coming in will allow Gianforte to credibly tie Quist to San Fran Nan and New York Chuck, who I'm sure aren't that popular in Montana.  Whose to say Thompson wouldn't have lost by a larger margin had the KS-04 race been nationalized more?
But then what is the alternative? Democrats abandon candidates in deeply Republican territory out of fear of it backfiring? I'm sure there are instances where it will be plenty valid, but the 'nationalization' excuse doesn't seem that strong to me. It seems like a good excuse to keep doing what the party said it would stop doing.
No.  The Democratic establishment should quietly support the candidate in other ways, by sending in surrogates that don't have ties to the Democratic establishment (like Sanders), and finding other ways to quietly get them resources behind the scenes.  Share the GOTV apparatus, microtargeting data and donor lists, for example.  Don't get into a situation where your Kansas or Montana candidate can be tied to unlikable characters from San Francisco and New York City.

But the Republicans did that anyways. Estes literally says in one of his ads that Thompson "will vote the way Pelosi tells him to."

The result of this election can be attributed to the fact the GOP put a ton of resources into this race after they realized they might lose. Instead of capitalizing on that momentum, the Democrats just sat on their asses and said, "well, we can't win every election."

Democrats constantly think they're playing a chess game with the GOP where they have to sacrifice some moves, when in reality the GOP is playing dodgeball and constantly putting time and money into these elections and winning.

As a non-democrat would you like to know the difference between GOP and Democrat house campaigns? The Dems are fantastic at running on coat tails (either on a dems popularity or on an GOP unpopularity), that is what their strategists and candidates do best, and they attempt to shoehorn all their candidates into this mold.

Republicans are better at running their candidates as individuals, which is why they so easily tie dems to unpopular national dems. This is easily the biggest difference I see in so many dem/rep house campaigns
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,202
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #476 on: April 12, 2017, 06:07:37 PM »

You are assuming that nationalizing races in blood red Trump states makes sense.  The DCCC coming in will allow Gianforte to credibly tie Quist to San Fran Nan and New York Chuck, who I'm sure aren't that popular in Montana.  Whose to say Thompson wouldn't have lost by a larger margin had the KS-04 race been nationalized more?

But then what is the alternative? Democrats abandon candidates in deeply Republican territory out of fear of it backfiring? I'm sure there are instances where it will be plenty valid, but the 'nationalization' excuse doesn't seem that strong to me. It seems like a good excuse to keep doing what the party said it would stop doing.

No.  The Democratic establishment should quietly support the candidate in other ways, by sending in surrogates that don't have ties to the Democratic establishment (like Sanders), and finding other ways to quietly get them resources behind the scenes.  Share the GOTV apparatus, microtargeting data and donor lists, for example.  Don't get into a situation where your Kansas or Montana candidate can be tied to unlikable characters from San Francisco and New York City.
I agree with this point, but I still feel like the national party can do more in these races. I'm happy Perez sent Quist some staffers, but that Kansas race should've been contested more. The fact that the DCCC chair didn't know there was an election going on Montana is absolutely horrifying. That suggests to us that they aren't even thinking about how they can help candidates.

Jim Clyburn isn't the DCCC chair Roll Eyes
Logged
Chief Justice Keef
etr906
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,100
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #477 on: April 12, 2017, 06:28:07 PM »

Matt Stoller did a thread on Twitter about the DCCC's failures that's really depressing:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #478 on: April 12, 2017, 07:52:34 PM »

You are assuming that nationalizing races in blood red Trump states makes sense.  The DCCC coming in will allow Gianforte to credibly tie Quist to San Fran Nan and New York Chuck, who I'm sure aren't that popular in Montana.  Whose to say Thompson wouldn't have lost by a larger margin had the KS-04 race been nationalized more?

But then what is the alternative? Democrats abandon candidates in deeply Republican territory out of fear of it backfiring? I'm sure there are instances where it will be plenty valid, but the 'nationalization' excuse doesn't seem that strong to me. It seems like a good excuse to keep doing what the party said it would stop doing.

No.  The Democratic establishment should quietly support the candidate in other ways, by sending in surrogates that don't have ties to the Democratic establishment (like Sanders), and finding other ways to quietly get them resources behind the scenes.  Share the GOTV apparatus, microtargeting data and donor lists, for example.  Don't get into a situation where your Kansas or Montana candidate can be tied to unlikable characters from San Francisco and New York City.
I agree with this point, but I still feel like the national party can do more in these races. I'm happy Perez sent Quist some staffers, but that Kansas race should've been contested more. The fact that the DCCC chair didn't know there was an election going on Montana is absolutely horrifying. That suggests to us that they aren't even thinking about how they can help candidates.

Jim Clyburn isn't the DCCC chair Roll Eyes

I mean true but do you honestly think Congressman Lujan has a great understanding of the dynamics of the race either?
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #479 on: April 13, 2017, 01:45:21 AM »

Google Consumer Survey poll, April 6-8, Sample size: 333, MoE: 5.4%

45.4% Rob Quist (D)
43.5% Greg Gianforte (R)
11.1% Mark Wicks (L)

Link.
Logged
Tartarus Sauce
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,363
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #480 on: April 13, 2017, 02:38:31 AM »

Google Consumer Survey poll, April 6-8, Sample size: 333, MoE: 5.4%

45.4% Rob Quist (D)
43.5% Greg Gianforte (R)
11.1% Mark Wicks (L)

Link.

Woah, that's a really high libertarian vote percentage.
Logged
McGovernForPrez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #481 on: April 13, 2017, 06:30:10 AM »

Google Consumer Survey poll, April 6-8, Sample size: 333, MoE: 5.4%

45.4% Rob Quist (D)
43.5% Greg Gianforte (R)
11.1% Mark Wicks (L)

Link.

Woah, that's a really high libertarian vote percentage.
Not surprising since the sample size is so small. I wouldn't be surprised if a libertarian got that much since this is Montana.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #482 on: April 13, 2017, 10:36:21 AM »

If Quist wins or just comes closer than Ossoff, that will have profound implications for the Bernie strategy vs. the Clinton strategy, particularly if KS-04 ends up closer than GA-06.  In other words, if Ossoff actually is mired in the 30's, it should be taken as an early indication Clinton's massive overperformance in the Sunbelt suburbs was a one-time thing.  The KS and MT races being close would suggest it is possible to get enough rural voters back.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #483 on: April 13, 2017, 11:12:59 AM »

In other words, if Ossoff actually is mired in the 30's, it should be taken as an early indication Clinton's massive overperformance in the Sunbelt suburbs was a one-time thing.  The KS and MT races being close would suggest it is possible to get enough rural voters back.

Is that really a fair assumption? Montana has been more friendly overall to Democrats than GA-6 - it's not like this is a new thing. It may be the case that certain suburban areas need more time to develop. It's not like various districts immediately start voting the same way for downballot offices as they do for president, and it may even take a couple years of Trump screwing up to finally cause a loss of confidence in the party as a whole and not just Trump.

The best targets under Trump specifically, so for 2018 and 2020, would seem to be districts/states filled with people who dislike/disapprove of him most. In terms of GOP-held targets, those are college educated white voters, with a few exceptions. It doesn't mean it'll be like that forever, but they are the most ripe to turn on Republicans at least temporarily.

Let's put aside various trends for right now - if not suburbs, then what districts? Where is the path back to a house majority for Democrats without them?
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #484 on: April 13, 2017, 12:44:11 PM »

In other words, if Ossoff actually is mired in the 30's, it should be taken as an early indication Clinton's massive overperformance in the Sunbelt suburbs was a one-time thing.  The KS and MT races being close would suggest it is possible to get enough rural voters back.

Is that really a fair assumption? Montana has been more friendly overall to Democrats than GA-6 - it's not like this is a new thing. It may be the case that certain suburban areas need more time to develop. It's not like various districts immediately start voting the same way for downballot offices as they do for president, and it may even take a couple years of Trump screwing up to finally cause a loss of confidence in the party as a whole and not just Trump.

The best targets under Trump specifically, so for 2018 and 2020, would seem to be districts/states filled with people who dislike/disapprove of him most. In terms of GOP-held targets, those are college educated white voters, with a few exceptions. It doesn't mean it'll be like that forever, but they are the most ripe to turn on Republicans at least temporarily.

Let's put aside various trends for right now - if not suburbs, then what districts? Where is the path back to a house majority for Democrats without them?

None of us know yet, but the Dems have to decide by 2019 at the latest between two mutually exclusive ways to campaign in 2020.  The (cumulative) results of these specials and the 2018 results should help them decide.

If they go the countryside route, they would have the most long term trouble in the House, flipping it in 2022 at the earliest, but it could do wonders in the Senate and EC.  If they go the inner suburbs route, they will get the House next year if Trump remains at all unpopular, but will have an even bigger Senate and EC problem going forward.
Logged
Chief Justice Keef
etr906
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,100
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #485 on: April 13, 2017, 01:30:55 PM »

Dave Weigel: https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/852589127757291520
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #486 on: April 13, 2017, 01:31:06 PM »

Google Consumer Survey poll, April 6-8, Sample size: 333, MoE: 5.4%

45.4% Rob Quist (D)
43.5% Greg Gianforte (R)
11.1% Mark Wicks (L)

Link.

Woah, that's a really high libertarian vote percentage.

That's pretty much par for the course for a Google Survey when you don't include another opt out.  Those who won't vote or don't care about the question tend to pick minor party candidates.

I'll run the weighting and regional breakdowns when I get a chance.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #487 on: April 13, 2017, 02:31:34 PM »

Weighting the latest Google Survey poll to 2014 LV by age and sex, I'm getting a two-point Gianforte lead after rounding, 46%-44%-10%.  If you heart decimals, it's a 1.2 point Gianforte lead, 45.6%-44.4%-10.0%.  The reason Gianforte does better in the weighted results is he's doing well among 65+ Males, and worse among the young'uns, who are less likely to vote.

Quist is up by 13 in Western Montana (weighted).  Gianforte leads by 22 in Eastern Montana. 
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #488 on: April 13, 2017, 10:32:57 PM »
« Edited: April 13, 2017, 10:44:43 PM by Shadows »

The weighting stuff is irrelevant because a huge share of people voted Unknown in age bracket, no1 knows what their age is & makes the whole exercise meaningless. The number of people who selected male selected is higher than female, so don't know how weighting hurts Quist (but anyways problem of Unknowns here as well).

You could say this is a toss-up election with a fair share of undecided/3rd party voters !
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #489 on: April 13, 2017, 11:51:37 PM »
« Edited: April 13, 2017, 11:54:42 PM by cinyc »

The weighting stuff is irrelevant because a huge share of people voted Unknown in age bracket, no1 knows what their age is & makes the whole exercise meaningless. The number of people who selected male selected is higher than female, so don't know how weighting hurts Quist (but anyways problem of Unknowns here as well).

You could say this is a toss-up election with a fair share of undecided/3rd party voters !

We've experimented with different ways of weighting the unknowns.  Totally ignoring them in the 2016 Presidential GE polling generally lead to worse results than including them.  Since then, following the lead of RRH for the Google component of their polls, I've generally weighted the unknowns at 1.  Totally ignoring the unknowns gives Quist a 4 point lead.

There may have been more males overall in the poll, but there were fewer Male 65+s sampled compared to their 2014 counterparts or 65+ women.  That means that they got a weight of about 2.26, compared to 1.8 for Female 65+s or .31 for Male 18-24s.  And Males 65+ were Gianforte's best group.

The general problem with Google Surveys is that they tend to skew younger than the electorate.  Thus, not weighting a Google Survey poll overemphasizes those who are less likely to vote, generally (but not always) skewing it toward minor party candidates, like Libertarians, and (usually, but not always) Democrats.  IIRC, weighting my initial poll of this race last month actually worked in Quist's favor.  IVR phone polls tend to skew old, which is why RRH Elections has been running composite phone/Google Survey polls recently.

By the way, technically, nobody selected male or female.  Google infers sex and age data.

The thing I'm not convinced of is that these Google Surveys are worth spending money on.  The track record of Atlas' 2016 GE polling was terrible.
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #490 on: April 14, 2017, 01:33:08 AM »

The weighting stuff is irrelevant because a huge share of people voted Unknown in age bracket, no1 knows what their age is & makes the whole exercise meaningless. The number of people who selected male selected is higher than female, so don't know how weighting hurts Quist (but anyways problem of Unknowns here as well).

You could say this is a toss-up election with a fair share of undecided/3rd party voters !

We've experimented with different ways of weighting the unknowns.  Totally ignoring them in the 2016 Presidential GE polling generally lead to worse results than including them.  Since then, following the lead of RRH for the Google component of their polls, I've generally weighted the unknowns at 1.  Totally ignoring the unknowns gives Quist a 4 point lead.

There may have been more males overall in the poll, but there were fewer Male 65+s sampled compared to their 2014 counterparts or 65+ women.  That means that they got a weight of about 2.26, compared to 1.8 for Female 65+s or .31 for Male 18-24s.  And Males 65+ were Gianforte's best group.

The general problem with Google Surveys is that they tend to skew younger than the electorate.  Thus, not weighting a Google Survey poll overemphasizes those who are less likely to vote, generally (but not always) skewing it toward minor party candidates, like Libertarians, and (usually, but not always) Democrats.  IIRC, weighting my initial poll of this race last month actually worked in Quist's favor.  IVR phone polls tend to skew old, which is why RRH Elections has been running composite phone/Google Survey polls recently.

By the way, technically, nobody selected male or female.  Google infers sex and age data.

The thing I'm not convinced of is that these Google Surveys are worth spending money on.  The track record of Atlas' 2016 GE polling was terrible.

Assuming a 2014 electorate in itself is wrong because the Dem turnout will be far higher while the GOP turnout will be much worse. Also if we try & weigh it to increase the 65+ males, it will further unskew the whole damn thing because this survey has too many males & isn't representative.

Other than that, guessing & assuming about the age of unknowns is kinda throwing stones into the dark as is trying to find out their gender. If it was 4-5 out of 300, maybe yes. But it is so god damn high that it could totally screw up the entire thing !
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #491 on: April 14, 2017, 01:40:57 AM »
« Edited: April 14, 2017, 01:42:47 AM by Shadows »

Anyways this survey has as much chance of being R friendly as it has of beinG D friendly & the unknowns could be disproportionately 65+ males if you analyze the results -

Without Unknowns - '
Quist - 127 - 47.7%
Wicks - 32- 12%
Gianforte - 107 - 40.2%

Only Unknowns -
Quist - 24 - 35.8%
Wicks - 5 - 7.5%
Gianforte - 38 - 56.7%

As you can see Gianforte is closer due to disproportionately high support for unknowns who could well be older & 65+ voters. It is crazy than Quist is leading 48-40 w/o unknowns & is trailing 36-58 among only unknowns (shows how different the unknown voting population is compared to the rest).

This makes the weighting for Gianforte & increasing the 65+ makes even more redundant considering females are under-represented !
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #492 on: April 14, 2017, 12:04:58 PM »

Looks like Republicans are going to spend quite a bit here, after all. Not taking anything for granted.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-pours-money-into-montana-house-race-1492023603
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/republicans-arent-taking-any-chances-in-montana-house-race/article/2620137
Logged
socaldem
skolodji
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,040


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #493 on: April 14, 2017, 02:40:50 PM »
« Edited: April 14, 2017, 03:46:23 PM by socaldem »

If Quist wins or just comes closer than Ossoff, that will have profound implications for the Bernie strategy vs. the Clinton strategy, particularly if KS-04 ends up closer than GA-06.  In other words, if Ossoff actually is mired in the 30's, it should be taken as an early indication Clinton's massive overperformance in the Sunbelt suburbs was a one-time thing.  The KS and MT races being close would suggest it is possible to get enough rural voters back.

It should be noted that Thompson in KS-04 did terribly in the rural areas. He mostly made up territory for Dems in urban/suburban Wichita. Democrats do need a better rural strategy--with one we may have, in fact, won KS-04. The rural South and Plains, however, are going to continue to be deadzones. If we can consolidate control in the Pacific West and Northeast; make progress in traditionally conservative urban/suburban areas like GA-06, GA-07, TX-32, and TX-07; and hold our own in the rural West and rust belt, that, it seems to me, is the best route to a majority.

This either Hillary OR Bernie strategy stuff is nonsense. It has to be BOTH suburban D-growth areas like Orange County (CA) AND populist ancestrally Democratic areas like rural Minnesota/Wisconsin.

If Quist wins MT-AL, it will show that a populist Sanders-oriented strategy may work. While Thompson was certainly more of a Sanders Democrat, his performance relied more on a Hillary+ coalition than something Sanderseque.
Logged
Kamala
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,499
Madagascar


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #494 on: April 14, 2017, 02:50:45 PM »

If Quist wins or just comes closer than Ossoff, that will have profound implications for the Bernie strategy vs. the Clinton strategy, particularly if KS-04 ends up closer than GA-06.  In other words, if Ossoff actually is mired in the 30's, it should be taken as an early indication Clinton's massive overperformance in the Sunbelt suburbs was a one-time thing.  The KS and MT races being close would suggest it is possible to get enough rural voters back.

It should be noted that Thompson in KS-04 did terribly in the rural areas. He mostly made up territory for Dems in urban/suburban Wichita. Democrats do need a better rural strategy--with one we may have, in fact, won KS-04. The rural South and Plains, however, are going to continue to be deadzones. If we can consolidate control in the Pacific West and Northeast; make progress in traditionally conservative urban/suburban areas like GA-06, GA-07, TX-32, and TX-07; and hold our own in the rural West and rust belt, that, it seems to me, is the best route to a majority.

This either Hillary OR Bernie strategy stuff is nonsense. It has to be BOTH suburban D-growth areas like Orange County (CA) AND populist ancestrally Democratic areas like rural Minnesota/Wisconsin.

If Quist wins MT-AL, it will show that a populist Sanders-oriented strategy may work. While Thompson was certainly more of a Sanders Democrat, his performance relied more on a Hillary+ coalition than something Sanderseque.
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #495 on: April 16, 2017, 09:34:23 PM »

Rob Quist already 3 ads - Voice, No Wonder, Right - You can find them in Ads section in "Team Quist information" in youtube (only 35 subscribers lol).

Apart from public lands, there's huge focus on Social Security, continous jabs at millionaires in Washington, Wall Street folks. He is also using shades of his singing popularity with guitar being played by him or as background music etc.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #496 on: April 16, 2017, 10:20:02 PM »

If Quist wins or just comes closer than Ossoff, that will have profound implications for the Bernie strategy vs. the Clinton strategy, particularly if KS-04 ends up closer than GA-06.  In other words, if Ossoff actually is mired in the 30's, it should be taken as an early indication Clinton's massive overperformance in the Sunbelt suburbs was a one-time thing.  The KS and MT races being close would suggest it is possible to get enough rural voters back.

It should be noted that Thompson in KS-04 did terribly in the rural areas. He mostly made up territory for Dems in urban/suburban Wichita. Democrats do need a better rural strategy--with one we may have, in fact, won KS-04. The rural South and Plains, however, are going to continue to be deadzones. If we can consolidate control in the Pacific West and Northeast; make progress in traditionally conservative urban/suburban areas like GA-06, GA-07, TX-32, and TX-07; and hold our own in the rural West and rust belt, that, it seems to me, is the best route to a majority.

This either Hillary OR Bernie strategy stuff is nonsense. It has to be BOTH suburban D-growth areas like Orange County (CA) AND populist ancestrally Democratic areas like rural Minnesota/Wisconsin.

If Quist wins MT-AL, it will show that a populist Sanders-oriented strategy may work. While Thompson was certainly more of a Sanders Democrat, his performance relied more on a Hillary+ coalition than something Sanderseque.

Actually Thompson's swing from Trump in Sedgwick County was almost exactly the same as his swing from Trump in the district as a whole.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #497 on: April 16, 2017, 10:42:52 PM »

If Quist wins or just comes closer than Ossoff, that will have profound implications for the Bernie strategy vs. the Clinton strategy, particularly if KS-04 ends up closer than GA-06.  In other words, if Ossoff actually is mired in the 30's, it should be taken as an early indication Clinton's massive overperformance in the Sunbelt suburbs was a one-time thing.  The KS and MT races being close would suggest it is possible to get enough rural voters back.

It should be noted that Thompson in KS-04 did terribly in the rural areas. He mostly made up territory for Dems in urban/suburban Wichita. Democrats do need a better rural strategy--with one we may have, in fact, won KS-04. The rural South and Plains, however, are going to continue to be deadzones. If we can consolidate control in the Pacific West and Northeast; make progress in traditionally conservative urban/suburban areas like GA-06, GA-07, TX-32, and TX-07; and hold our own in the rural West and rust belt, that, it seems to me, is the best route to a majority.

This either Hillary OR Bernie strategy stuff is nonsense. It has to be BOTH suburban D-growth areas like Orange County (CA) AND populist ancestrally Democratic areas like rural Minnesota/Wisconsin.

If Quist wins MT-AL, it will show that a populist Sanders-oriented strategy may work. While Thompson was certainly more of a Sanders Democrat, his performance relied more on a Hillary+ coalition than something Sanderseque.

Actually Thompson's swing from Trump in Sedgwick County was almost exactly the same as his swing from Trump in the district as a whole.
Sedgewick county has like 70% of the vote in the district, so it would be very surprising if its swing didn't closely match the overall district's swing.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #498 on: April 16, 2017, 11:35:04 PM »

If Quist wins or just comes closer than Ossoff, that will have profound implications for the Bernie strategy vs. the Clinton strategy, particularly if KS-04 ends up closer than GA-06.  In other words, if Ossoff actually is mired in the 30's, it should be taken as an early indication Clinton's massive overperformance in the Sunbelt suburbs was a one-time thing.  The KS and MT races being close would suggest it is possible to get enough rural voters back.

It should be noted that Thompson in KS-04 did terribly in the rural areas. He mostly made up territory for Dems in urban/suburban Wichita. Democrats do need a better rural strategy--with one we may have, in fact, won KS-04. The rural South and Plains, however, are going to continue to be deadzones. If we can consolidate control in the Pacific West and Northeast; make progress in traditionally conservative urban/suburban areas like GA-06, GA-07, TX-32, and TX-07; and hold our own in the rural West and rust belt, that, it seems to me, is the best route to a majority.

This either Hillary OR Bernie strategy stuff is nonsense. It has to be BOTH suburban D-growth areas like Orange County (CA) AND populist ancestrally Democratic areas like rural Minnesota/Wisconsin.

If Quist wins MT-AL, it will show that a populist Sanders-oriented strategy may work. While Thompson was certainly more of a Sanders Democrat, his performance relied more on a Hillary+ coalition than something Sanderseque.

Actually Thompson's swing from Trump in Sedgwick County was almost exactly the same as his swing from Trump in the district as a whole.
Sedgewick county has like 70% of the vote in the district, so it would be very surprising if its swing didn't closely match the overall district's swing.

My point is that he didn't do any worse (compared to Trump) in the rural counties than in Sedgwick.
Logged
socaldem
skolodji
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,040


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #499 on: April 17, 2017, 02:39:00 AM »
« Edited: April 17, 2017, 02:45:14 AM by socaldem »

If Quist wins or just comes closer than Ossoff, that will have profound implications for the Bernie strategy vs. the Clinton strategy, particularly if KS-04 ends up closer than GA-06.  In other words, if Ossoff actually is mired in the 30's, it should be taken as an early indication Clinton's massive overperformance in the Sunbelt suburbs was a one-time thing.  The KS and MT races being close would suggest it is possible to get enough rural voters back.

It should be noted that Thompson in KS-04 did terribly in the rural areas. He mostly made up territory for Dems in urban/suburban Wichita. Democrats do need a better rural strategy--with one we may have, in fact, won KS-04. The rural South and Plains, however, are going to continue to be deadzones. If we can consolidate control in the Pacific West and Northeast; make progress in traditionally conservative urban/suburban areas like GA-06, GA-07, TX-32, and TX-07; and hold our own in the rural West and rust belt, that, it seems to me, is the best route to a majority.

This either Hillary OR Bernie strategy stuff is nonsense. It has to be BOTH suburban D-growth areas like Orange County (CA) AND populist ancestrally Democratic areas like rural Minnesota/Wisconsin.

If Quist wins MT-AL, it will show that a populist Sanders-oriented strategy may work. While Thompson was certainly more of a Sanders Democrat, his performance relied more on a Hillary+ coalition than something Sanderseque.

Actually Thompson's swing from Trump in Sedgwick County was almost exactly the same as his swing from Trump in the district as a whole.
Sedgewick county has like 70% of the vote in the district, so it would be very surprising if its swing didn't closely match the overall district's swing.

My point is that he didn't do any worse (compared to Trump) in the rural counties than in Sedgwick.

If we look at Dem performance in KS-04, a good point of comparison is the 2014 gubernatorial race. Paul Davis lost Sedgwick. Meanwhile, Brownback did not receive 70% in any county in the district. Estes exceeded 70% of the vote in 10 of the 17 counties in the district. Davis reached 46% in Cowley and 42% in Sumner, compared to 42% and 35%, respectively, for Thompson.

If we go back to Sebelius' gubernatorial campaigns in 2006 and 2012, Thompson bested her 2002 Sedgwick performance and did marginally worse than she did in 2012. But Sebelius did really well in a number of rural counties, receiving well over 50% in Pratt and Cowley both years.

Clinton underperformed typical Democratic performance in rural counties. A more-or-less uniform swing for Thompson (and presumably other Dems in upcoming midterms/specials) on Clinton's performance indicates a continuation of the Clinton-Trump voting pattern.

This is disappointing because Dems would hope to see a swing in rural areas back to Dems that is STRONGER than the swing in urban/suburban areas where Hillary tended to hold closer to (or even do better than) typical Dem performance.

I hope that Dems can figure out how to win some of these ancestral Dem voters back... a left-wing coalition reliant on wealthy, well-educated suburbanites doesn't seem sustainable...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 119  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.077 seconds with 12 queries.