Congressional Primary Results Megathread: AR, GA, KY & TX (Runoff) - May 22

[Doimper]

The Texas results appear to have provoked a lot of Twitter drama and slapfights between election analysts:

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/971513745263427584

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/971215219266551808

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

I wish TX 32nd was just settled by a brawl, Allred would dominate! If Sessions agrees to debates (doubt), Colin should tower over him, and intimidate him lol.

[OSR stands with Israel]

As long as TX whites vote 70+ for GOP then it will not be competitive for the near future. VA/CO flipped mainly because whites, every TX blue scenario relies on Latinos and misses the white voters in the equation.

Clinton made gains in Texas mainly on the backs of whites.

No she made gains in the margins due to many Never Trump Republicans voting for Gary Johnson

I mean, a lot of Republicans in TX also crossed over for Hillary. You don't just go from -17 to -9 because of Gary Johnson (who only got 3% of the vote). Some of the suburban districts shifted over 20 points over for Hillary.

There was a pretty big margin shift (17 point margin shift in fact) among college educated whites to Hillary, so yeah, Hillary did make gains due to college educated whites.

Obama won 41.4% of vote in 2012 , Hillary won 43.2%(thats not much of an increase).

[Landslide Lyndon]

As long as TX whites vote 70+ for GOP then it will not be competitive for the near future. VA/CO flipped mainly because whites, every TX blue scenario relies on Latinos and misses the white voters in the equation.

Clinton made gains in Texas mainly on the backs of whites.

No she made gains in the margins due to many Never Trump Republicans voting for Gary Johnson

I mean, a lot of Republicans in TX also crossed over for Hillary. You don't just go from -17 to -9 because of Gary Johnson (who only got 3% of the vote). Some of the suburban districts shifted over 20 points over for Hillary.

There was a pretty big margin shift (17 point margin shift in fact) among college educated whites to Hillary, so yeah, Hillary did make gains due to college educated whites.

Obama won 41.4% of vote in 2012 , Hillary won 43.2%(thats not much of an increase).

It is if you consider that she lost three points compared to Obama nationally.

[Former Kentuckian]

The Texas results appear to have provoked a lot of Twitter drama and slapfights between election analysts:

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/971513745263427584

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/971215219266551808

Nerds. I love it.

[Nyvin]

As long as TX whites vote 70+ for GOP then it will not be competitive for the near future. VA/CO flipped mainly because whites, every TX blue scenario relies on Latinos and misses the white voters in the equation.

Clinton made gains in Texas mainly on the backs of whites.

No she made gains in the margins due to many Never Trump Republicans voting for Gary Johnson

I mean, a lot of Republicans in TX also crossed over for Hillary. You don't just go from -17 to -9 because of Gary Johnson (who only got 3% of the vote). Some of the suburban districts shifted over 20 points over for Hillary.

There was a pretty big margin shift (17 point margin shift in fact) among college educated whites to Hillary, so yeah, Hillary did make gains due to college educated whites.

Obama won 41.4% of vote in 2012 , Hillary won 43.2%(thats not much of an increase).

It is if you consider that she lost three points compared to Obama nationally.

It also ignores that third party vote surged.   Romney won 57% of the vote, Trump won 52%.   When the two are taken together, that's quite a shift.

[Gass3268]

Any way we can get this stickied? Seems to make sense to have one giant results thread.

[Young Conservative]

So excited for Democrats to waste millions in Texas for nothing but virtue victories. I doubt they have a chance at any seat other than Hurd's

[Landslide Lyndon]

So excited for Democrats to waste millions in Texas for nothing but virtue victories. I doubt they have a chance at any seat other than Hurd's

I bet you were excited when they were spending millions in Alabama and PA-18 too.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Dear God, no wonder that woman sank like a rock with the voters despite the millions she spend. Maybe next time she should consider running for something more to her league, like dogcatcher.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=113&v=eWHKUW77Eps

[Gass3268]

So excited for Democrats to waste millions in Texas for nothing but virtue victories. I doubt they have a chance at any seat other than Hurd's

lol

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

At the end of the day, I think dems net one house race in tx this year.

[smoltchanov]

At the end of the day, I think dems net one house race in tx this year.

My present prediction - 1-2... With 1 being more likely... Especially with some moonbats getting into Democratic run-offs (hope they will be defeated there, but still - ...)

[136or142]

As long as TX whites vote 70+ for GOP then it will not be competitive for the near future. VA/CO flipped mainly because whites, every TX blue scenario relies on Latinos and misses the white voters in the equation.

Clinton made gains in Texas mainly on the backs of whites.

No she made gains in the margins due to many Never Trump Republicans voting for Gary Johnson

I mean, a lot of Republicans in TX also crossed over for Hillary. You don't just go from -17 to -9 because of Gary Johnson (who only got 3% of the vote). Some of the suburban districts shifted over 20 points over for Hillary.

There was a pretty big margin shift (17 point margin shift in fact) among college educated whites to Hillary, so yeah, Hillary did make gains due to college educated whites.

Obama won 41.4% of vote in 2012 , Hillary won 43.2%(thats not much of an increase).

It is if you consider that she lost three points compared to Obama nationally.

It also ignores that third party vote surged.   Romney won 57% of the vote, Trump won 52%.   When the two are taken together, that's quite a shift.

1.Hillary Clinton got a higher share of the vote than Barack Obama in 2012 in just five states.

2.These are the Texas numbers from 2016:

Total Presidential votes: 8,969,226

2016 Total Aggregate U.S House votes (I think I'm missing some votes from those who voted for write in candidates)
Total Votes: 8,528,526
Republican: 4,877,605, 57.19%
Democrats: 3,160,535, 37.06%

2014 Texas aggregate U.S House percentages:
Republican: 60.3%
Democratic: 33.1%

2016 Aggregate national U.S House vote total percentages:
Republican: 49.13%
Democratic: 48.04%

2014 Aggregate national U.S House vote total percentages:
Republican: 51.2%
Democratic: 45.5%

3.Nationally the Democrats cut the Republican vote margin by 4.6% while cutting the Republican vote margin by 7.1% in Texas from 2014 to 2016.

So, I think it's fair to say that while the Democrats increased by more in Texas than nationally in 2016, that there is still considerable room for additional movement, especially with those who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

4.If we assume that mid term election turnout is about 2/3 of Presidential year turnout (roughly 40% turnout compared to 60%) then about 6 million people will vote in Texas in the midterms and the primary turnout was around 2.7 million.  So, primary turnout is about half of what the general election turnout will be. I don't think making broad conclusions of potentially close races with half the number of voters is a very logical thing to do.

[Gass3268]

Posted the 2018 Congressional Primary Schedule to the OP.

[Bidenworth2020]

So excited for Democrats to waste millions in Texas for nothing but virtue victories. I doubt they have a chance at any seat other than Hurd's

sadly, I likely agree, but Hurd's seat will be a relatively easy pickup, and our candidates in the 21,7, and 32 are very good wave insurance. If I were dems, I would lock up the 23rd just for good measure and spend lightly in the other places, with the 7th being the priority

[Gass3268]

So excited for Democrats to waste millions in Texas for nothing but virtue victories. I doubt they have a chance at any seat other than Hurd's

sadly, I likely agree, but Hurd's seat will be a relatively easy pickup, and our candidates in the 21,7, and 32 are very good wave insurance. If I were dems, I would lock up the 23rd just for good measure and spend lightly in the other places, with the 7th being the priority

32 >>>> 7

[Tekken_Guy]

They should win all 3 IMO. It's a wave year and nothing's going to stop them. They should go after the 21st and 2nd as well. Not sure why the former is considered vulnerable but not the latter. They had similar presidential margins and are both open seats, and Kopser and Litton are both very well-funded candidates. Maybe the 6th as well, as Hillary topped 40% of the vote there and the Democrat leads in funding.

[Oryxslayer]

 

So here are my IL maps. For the purposes of this analysis, we will only discuss the congressional primary, gubernatorial analysis is  in its thread. Also, I am sorry for the poor quality district map, but since there is no close up black district map, I just grabbed a DRA screenshot and refined it. A yellow cross means that there was no opposition candidate from another party at the time of the primary.

 First off, we see that the distribution of the primary electorate for both parties in 2016, the more comparable election, has a different map than the final one. The share of the electorate was mostly the same as the final result 59/41 D/R in November and 58.5/41.5 in March. However, the distribution was not. The Republican vote is stronger in the suburbs than in the final election, and the democrats have a bunch of soft voters in the deep south of downstate. This trend is still visible in the 2014 election where  dissatisfaction with Pat Quinn, a close R primary, and the building 2014 wave, all resulted in a 2:1 R vote advantage in a Safe D state. Rauner racked up huge margins in the collar counties, and the margins were well around 90% of the voters going R. Meanwhile, in the Quad Cities and the Deep south, dems didn't get blown out of the water and instead even won some solid R counties.

As I discussed in the gubernatorial thread, the fact that the Republicans are probably going to loose their Collar advantage thanks to the dem enthusiasm gap. This will probably flip most of the Clinton counties around the suburbs, and could potentially decide the gubernatorial races. However, on the House level, this means less. Madigan's map neatly divides up the primary vote and gives each of the suburb seats small lesser cities like Aurora and Joliet so as to ensure democratic victory. As the 2016 map shows, despite Republicans winning most of the Collar counties, they lost all of the present Dem seats in the primary.

Like some other states, the primary electorate's results in parts of the state have little influence on the final result. The previously mentioned collars all went for the Dem (expect Il-10) in 2014, despite the R-Primary vote being stronger there. The Dems meanwhile have a consistent base around IL-12, despite losing it in 2014 and not even coming close in 2016. Therefore, if we see some oddities tomorrow, it will probably make sense in the context of a historically R collar and a historically D downstate.

I am confident that the dems will win all of their current seats in Illinois in tomorrows primary. Unless the Rauner v Ives pulls more turnout then the dem contest, the Dem enthusiasm gap should see the democrats maintain winning margins in all their seats. Some of these margins may be smaller or larger then what we expect though, depending on regional biases. IL-17, despite seeing Republicans win most of the rural counties in 2016, still saw the Democrats carry the seat. Therefore, dems should have all 11 seats go blue, with IL-10 and Il-17 being the only ones worth watching.

The Republican seats are more interesting. I am confident that due to the democrats historic primary strength that democrats will carry IL-12, even though the seat is probably beyond number 30 on the path to a majority. IL-06 is more of a tossup. even though I consider this a easier pickup then IL-12, I have a harder time seeing R's lose this seat than IL-12. While the suburban primary strength may dissipate somewhat tomorrow, IL-06 is still a light-R-pack, and grabs a bunch of R territory in these suburbs. IL-14 will easily still go R, it has even more republican parts of the suburbs. IL-13 should also o R, unless there is a huge enthusiasm gap.

[Tender Branson]

IL results page:

https://elections.ap.org/cbslocalmedia/election_results/2018-03-20

[Tender Branson]

I wouldn't completely rule out a defeat for Gov. Rauner today ...

My prediction: A very close race.

51% Rauner
49% Ives

Dems: 35% Pritzker, 31% Kennedy, 30% Biss, 4% Others

IL-03: 53% Newman, 47% Lipinski

[Oryxslayer]

NYT is up: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/elections/results-illinois-primary-elections.html

[Gass3268]

NYT is up: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/elections/results-illinois-primary-elections.html

Bummer, I was hoping for a live precinct map of IL-3.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

NYT is up: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/elections/results-illinois-primary-elections.html

Bummer, I was hoping for a live precinct map of IL-3.

[Oryxslayer]

NYT is up: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/elections/results-illinois-primary-elections.html

Bummer, I was hoping for a live precinct map of IL-3.

Did you know that IL charges money to check the county-by-county party registration? While compiled the primary data above, I went searching for this data and...yeah. yes, the state is in a budget hole and needs to nickle and dime themselves to stay afloat, but Like PA put this data on their SoS for free. I wouldn't be surprised if precinct results are  just as hard to obtain.