State Legislature Special Election Mega Thread

[LimoLiberal]

Looks like the Dem candidate conceded: https://twitter.com/PeterJasinski53/status/938224575409737733

Wow.

[Holmes]

So what happened? Did the Dem candidate just sh**t the bed? lol

[Pandaguineapig]

So what happened? Did the Dem candidate just sh**t the bed? lol

He is also endorsed by Baker

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

17/33 in:

133rd Legislative District County Breakdown
MCNEILL, JEANNE
(DEM)
67.28%
    Votes: 1,018
MOLONY, DAVID
(REP)
28.02%
    Votes: 424
DORNEY, SAMANTHA X
(LIB)
4.69%
    Votes: 71

[Brittain33]

Looks like the Dem candidate conceded: https://twitter.com/PeterJasinski53/status/938224575409737733

Wow.

Tweet says "Not sure on that yet."

[LimoLiberal]

2 R flips in a row in these special elections. Interesting.

[kph14]

I think the results in MA is not sooo surprising. Clinton won it only by 8 points and Obama only by 5. Reps hold State Senate seats in bluer places. Very low turnout was an issue for sure

[Brittain33]

I think the results in MA is not sooo surprising. Clinton won it only by 8 points and Obama only by 5. Reps hold State Senate seats in bluer places. Very low turnout was an issue for sure

It's a reasonable result for this district, but atypical for 2017 I think. I wonder what could have driven this.

Is there any chance the Stan Rosenberg scandal hurt the Democrat?

[IceSpear]

Atlas red avatars when Democrats win abysmally low turnout special elections: "THE WAVE WILL BE MASSIVE!"

Atlas red avatars when Republicans win abysmally low turnout special elections: "Irrelevant, it was low turnout!"

[Ebsy]

Democrats barely held on to a similar state senate seat earlier this year, so it is certainly an upset, but not a very large one. On balance, Democrats are on track to flip an unprecedented number of state legislative seats this year, and the ones they lost have pretty reasonable explanations.

[Brittain33]

Atlas red avatars when Republicans win abysmally low turnout special elections: "Irrelevant, it was low turnout!"

Um, literally no one has said this.

Anyway, the wave talk is mostly driven by what happened in Virginia in a general election, although the wins in 67% Trump seats in Oklahoma is certainly good for morale.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Atlas red avatars when Democrats win abysmally low turnout special elections: "THE WAVE WILL BE MASSIVE!"

Atlas red avatars when Republicans win abysmally low turnout special elections: "Irrelevant, it was low turnout!"

<Holds up a mirror to IceSpear's avatar>

[Ebsy]

Atlas red avatars when Democrats win abysmally low turnout special elections: "THE WAVE WILL BE MASSIVE!"

Atlas red avatars when Republicans win abysmally low turnout special elections: "Irrelevant, it was low turnout!"

No single race tells the whole story, but you are just setting up a straw man to defeat since that seems to be your schtick at this point. You could at the very least avoid invading one of the few quality threads left on the forum with your inanity.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Atlas red avatars when Democrats win abysmally low turnout special elections: "THE WAVE WILL BE MASSIVE!"

Atlas red avatars when Republicans win abysmally low turnout special elections: "Irrelevant, it was low turnout!"

The implication of this post is kinda silly, but Republican success in low turnout state elections during the Obama years were harbingers of wave elections in 2010 and 2014.

[LimoLiberal]

There's some indication that the "wave" has slowed down recently. Special elections and the generic ballot are not looking as rosy for Democrats as they were 3 weeks ago.

[IceSpear]

Atlas red avatars when Republicans win abysmally low turnout special elections: "Irrelevant, it was low turnout!"

Um, literally no one has said this.

Atlas red avatars when Democrats win abysmally low turnout special elections: "THE WAVE WILL BE MASSIVE!"

Atlas red avatars when Republicans win abysmally low turnout special elections: "Irrelevant, it was low turnout!"

No single race tells the whole story, but you are just setting up a straw man to defeat since that seems to be your schtick at this point.

You guys might want to read the post right above yours.

I think the results in MA is not sooo surprising. Clinton won it only by 8 points and Obama only by 5. Reps hold State Senate seats in bluer places. Very low turnout was an issue for sure

And Ebsy, remember when you called me a concern troll for arguing Hillary wouldn't win Texas, Utah, and St. Charles County, MO? Good times, lol.

[Brittain33]

There's some indication that the "wave" has slowed down recently. Special elections and the generic ballot are not looking as rosy for Democrats as they were 3 weeks ago.

A Q-poll came out literally today showing the Democrats with a 14% lead on the generic ballot.

I appreciate your dedication to what you're doing here, but don't try that with me, sweetheart.

[Brittain33]

You guys might want to read the post right above yours.

Yes, where he said low turnout was a factor, just as it was in those Oklahoma specials. I missed "irrelevant" though - that's the part you added.

I live in Massachusetts and I'm genuinely curious why the R won here.

[Dr. Arch]

There's some indication that the "wave" has slowed down recently. Special elections and the generic ballot are not looking as rosy for Democrats as they were 3 weeks ago.

A Q-poll came out literally today showing the Democrats with a 14% lead on the generic ballot.

I appreciate your dedication to what you're doing here, but don't try that with me, sweetheart.

LimoLiberal has nothing of value to contribute, it seems. He may have to be the next one to go on ignore for the first time since Harding.

[Brittain33]

LimoLiberal has nothing of value to contribute, it seems. He may have to be the next one to go on ignore for the first time since Harding.

Good idea.

[LimoLiberal]

There's some indication that the "wave" has slowed down recently. Special elections and the generic ballot are not looking as rosy for Democrats as they were 3 weeks ago.

A Q-poll came out literally today showing the Democrats with a 14% lead on the generic ballot.

I appreciate your dedication to what you're doing here, but don't try that with me, sweetheart.

LimoLiberal has nothing of value to contribute, it seems. He may have to be the next one to go on ignore for the first time since Harding.

I was the first to actually find the Massachusetts results tonight and post them, but whatever.

By the way, I'm not a Republican. Nor do I post at RRH.

[IceSpear]

You guys might want to read the post right above yours.

Yes, where he said low turnout was a factor, just as it was in those Oklahoma specials. I missed "irrelevant" though - that's the part you added.

I live in Massachusetts and I'm genuinely curious why the R won here.

All these races are irrelevant. The turnouts are so ridiculously low that you can get extreme flukes like this Massachusetts race and the Oklahoma races easily. If you're going to build your case for a wave, you'd be best off using generic ballot polls and the Virginia results.

[Brittain33]

All these races are irrelevant. The turnouts are so ridiculously low that you can get extreme flukes like this Massachusetts race and the Oklahoma races easily. If you're going to build your case for a wave, you'd be best off using generic ballot polls and the Virginia results.

I agree with you up to a point, but it's hard to call the Oklahoma races flukes when we've had so many of them and seen so many swing heavily D (and a few modestly D, I grant). The results match what we saw in KS-4, an area similar to Oklahoma. I would be surprised if we saw the kinds of monster swings we see in special elections in November '18, but if they indicate depressed Republican turnout and energized Dem turnout, that's meaningful.

Like I said, I am actually curious why the R won here in Massachusetts. Whether meaningful or not, it's an atypical result for 2017. It's different from the results in NH, for example. But in Massachusetts, the Dems are incredibly dominant in the legislature, so a Republican can make more of a claim to independence from "the swamp" or from Trump than he can in NH.

[Ebsy]

The N of the special elections this year is actually approaching the point where conclusions can be drawn. What is amusing, though, is that IceSpear is accusing everyone here of being obsessed with anecdotes while simultaneously latching onto a single anecdote and dismissing all other anecdotes to drive his preferred narrative.

[Brittain33]

It's different from the results in NH, for example.

Not surprising to me. NH is one of the most anti-Trump/anti-Republican states in the country right now.

True, but so is MA, and this is a district that's narrowly Dem on the federal level.

It's a district that would not surprise me to vote for an R legislator in a neutral year. To vote for an R in a year looking strongly anti-R, indicates something to account for.

Lots of possibilities. Maybe the R is a strong candidate. Maybe the D "shat the bed", as someone said. Maybe it's local politics. Maybe it's Charlie Baker. Maybe it's the scandal with the President of the Senate. I will take IceSpear's bait and say I don't think it's indicative of the national mood. This district is a universe away from the past of Mass. where I live, so I don't know.