Congressional Special Elections Results Thread (OLD, PLEASE UNSTICKY)

[Mehmentum]

Speaking of SC-05 (Mulvaney's seat), has anyone heard anything about Democratis fielding a credible candidate there? The district has a fairly high floor for Democratic performance (even if Clinton did poorly there).

There are 3 Democratic candidates.  Parnell worked for Goldman Sachs, hopefully he isn't the nominee.  The other two are veterans, and complete political unknowns.  We could do worse.

[Maxwell]

Mulvaney always won that district with underwhelming margins but that may just be because its Mick Mulvaney rather than the district being particularly competitive.

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

An overwhelmingly white red state is safe Republican, no different than Kander in Missouri. They always make noises about considering a moderate Democrat, but will come home in the end.

Kander is not a moderate. If he and Hillary had been elected, he would have voted with Hillary 99% of the time.

[Mr.Phips]

Mulvaney always won that district with underwhelming margins but that may just be because its Mick Mulvaney rather than the district being particularly competitive.

Pretty much any Democrat is guaranteed 40% in that district due to the black population.  It's getting above 45% that is very difficult.

[Holmes]

An overwhelmingly white red state is safe Republican, no different than Kander in Missouri. They always make noises about considering a moderate Democrat, but will come home in the end.

Kander is not a moderate. If he and Hillary had been elected, he would have voted with Hillary 99% of the time.

I guess in the same way that Collins is not a moderate, then.

[Shadows]

Kander is less of a moderate than a Evan Bayh & is to the left of Donnelly.  He didn't run as an uber centrist, there were distinct undertones of running like a subdued liberal & he did surprisingly well.

[Maxwell]

Kander did better than the much more conservative/moderate Chris Koster, and did so against an incumbent. Sounds to me like running as a moderate isn't everything.

[Shadows]

Kander did better than the much more conservative/moderate Chris Koster, and did so against an incumbent. Sounds to me like running as a moderate isn't everything.

I agree, but tbh Roy Blunt ran a disastrous campaign. I suspect any other Republican would have done better.

We don't know how the race would have panned out do we? Kander deserves credit for running so far ahead of HRC too & it is not always hey the other candidate is bad but a myriad of complex factors.

Elections aren't decided by 1 issue. I still think empathy, the ability to connect with voters emotionally, candidates personal honesty perception, the ability to turn out the base etc also play a pivotal role.

People don't vote on Economic & Social Score only. An issue close to the heart like honesty, corruption, war-mongering, marijuana, abortion etc could totally turn the votes from a candidate someone agrees with 90% of the time. Honesty, Authenticity & trustworthiness have massive cross-over appeal & can cut across some "small" policy differences given how politicians are these days.

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

 

Kander did better than the much more conservative/moderate Chris Koster, and did so against an incumbent. Sounds to me like running as a moderate isn't everything.

Well it helped that he got huge swaths of voters to disregard his F rating from the NRA with this little gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wqOApBLPio

[MalaspinaGold]

An overwhelmingly white red state is safe Republican, no different than Kander in Missouri. They always make noises about considering a moderate Democrat, but will come home in the end.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[publicunofficial]

For the record, the worst performance I can find for Republicans since they took the seat in 1994 was in 2000, when Todd Tiahrt won by *only* 12 points.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Kander did better than the much more conservative/moderate Chris Koster, and did so against an incumbent. Sounds to me like running as a moderate isn't everything.

Kander did so well because he ran the best campaign of any Democratic Senate candidate in 2016 and pretty clearly would've won had he not been running in a Republican wave year where the Democratic Presidential nominee lost the state by nearly 20%.  Koster probably would've also won in even a mildly Republican-leaning non-wave year (i.e. a reverse 2012), for that matter.  We would've still lost the AG and LG races, but I don't think they'd have been blowouts either were it not for the wave. 

On a different note (and this part isn't at all directed at Maxwell), as Ebsy noted elsewhere, it's not really accurate when some folks here act like Kander only did well because Blunt ran a lousy campaign.  Yes, Blunt took the race for granted for a while, but he woke up as the cycle continued.  He still didn't run an amazing campaign, but he didn't run a horrible one either once he started taking Kander seriously.  Kander was a liberal who ran an incredibly strong campaign who ran against a Republican incumbent who ran a campaign that was on par with Richard Burr's 2016 re-election campaign (i.e. a bit lazy and rather unremarkable, but hardly some sort of disaster).  Blunt does strike me as a pretty uninspiring guy, especially when contrasted with someone as likable as Kander (who like Schweitzer has a real knack for articulating liberal views in a way that appeals to conservative voters).  The 2016 Missouri Senate result had far more to do with the quality of Kander's campaign than it did with anything Roy Blunt did or didn't do.

For the record, the worst performance I can find for Republicans since they took the seat in 1994 was in 2000, when Todd Tiahrt won by *only* 12 points.

He only won by like 3% in 1996, IIRC.

[Ebsy]

For the record, the worst performance I can find for Republicans since they took the seat in 1994 was in 2000, when Todd Tiahrt won by *only* 12 points.

That's true if you only look at Congressional results.

[Heisenberg]

For the record, the worst performance I can find for Republicans since they took the seat in 1994 was in 2000, when Todd Tiahrt won by *only* 12 points.

That's true if you only look at Congressional results.

Wasn't 1996 closer than 2000?

[VPH]

For the record, the worst performance I can find for Republicans since they took the seat in 1994 was in 2000, when Todd Tiahrt won by *only* 12 points.

That's true if you only look at Congressional results.

Wasn't 1996 closer than 2000?

Yeah, Rathbun damn near won it in 1996.

[Ebsy]

What I meant was that Sebelius won the district's current boundaries in 2006 and likely did in 2002 as well.

[Ebsy]

@alexis_levinson
Ron Estes got some last minute $ from House Rs per FEC filing - Reps. Lynn Jenkins, Tom Emmer, Jason Smith, David Rouzer donated #ks04

@jmartNYT
No TV, but i'm told @CLFSuperPAC is spending $50K on live GOTV phone calls to all past R primary voters in lead up to #KS04

Nothing to see here!

[Shadows]

Kander did better than the much more conservative/moderate Chris Koster, and did so against an incumbent. Sounds to me like running as a moderate isn't everything.

Well it helped that he got huge swaths of voters to disregard his F rating from the NRA with this little gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wqOApBLPio

Phenomenal & even that maybe under-appreciating gem - His whole background, candour, seemingly honesty & charisma really makes the ad stick out !

[GlobeSoc]

I'm going to make a very bold prediction on KS-4
50% (D)
47% (R)
3% (L)

Brownback is extremely unpopular, which would act to suppress Democratic defections and drive up their turnout on election night, while creating the potential for some moderate registered republicans to actually be voting dem as a rebuke to Brownback. Obama no longer being president also means that Republican turnout overall may go down, and Trump being president will drive turnout of Democrats up.

[windjammer]

The Pub will win by 10 points. The dem nominee should then run for some statewide offices in KS, he would have a non negligible chance to win.

[Gass3268]

The Pub will win by 10 points. The dem nominee should then run for some statewide offices in KS, he would have a non negligible chance to win.

I'm hoping it's somewhere closer to Brownback's 6.6% win 2014. A margin around there would:

1. Scare Republicans in competitive districts away from Trump's agenda. Repealing Obamacare would be even deader than it is now and it would make tax reform even more difficult.
2. Harm Republican recruitment efforts, while boosting Democratic recruitment.
3. Convince some Republicans that it would be better to retire than face a competitive reelection in 2018. Open seats are always easier to pick up.

[heatcharger]

The Pub will win by 10 points. The dem nominee should then run for some statewide offices in KS, he would have a non negligible chance to win.

I'm hoping it's somewhere closer to Brownback's 6.6% win 2014.

Brownback only won by 3.8% actually. If Republicans only held this seat by single-digits, that would be a huge scare to Republicans for the reasons you mentioned, but here's my prediction:

Estes (R) 54%
Thompson (D) 42%
Rockhold (L) 4%

Brownback might be completely toxic in the state, but it's only good enough to elect better Republicans, not Democrats, at least not yet.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Being optimistic for the final result:

Estes (R) - 54%
Thompson (D) - 43%
Rockhold (L) - 3%

A closer loss for Thompson would probably set him up for some other kind of office, and of course scare the crap out of Republicans.

[Jeppe]

What time do the polls close today?

[Ebsy]

What time do the polls close today?

Early voting ended at noon.