2018 Congressional Recruitment/Fundraising/Ratings Megathread v2

[Landslide Lyndon]

Uh Oh!

https://twitter.com/hellofasandwich/status/977289060036182016

[Progressive Pessimist]

Not directly relevant to congressional races but...

https://twitter.com/MattFriedmanNJ/status/977238455607578626

This could be. I'm iffy on Lance's chances (hey that rhymes!) in November. It is quite funny though how post redistricting his district was meant to have been made safer for him but now there is a real chance that he's in danger if the town of Millburn, Union, and Somerset counties vote for his opponent by similar numbers that they did for Clinton.

[Tekken_Guy]

Not directly relevant to congressional races but...

https://twitter.com/MattFriedmanNJ/status/977238455607578626

This could be. I'm iffy on Lance's chances (hey that rhymes!) in November. It is quite funny though how post redistricting his district was meant to have been made safer for him but now there is a real chance that he's in danger if the town of Millburn, Union, and Somerset counties vote for his opponent by similar numbers that they did for Clinton.

Lance has virtually no chance of winning. Malinowski will be the next congressman from NJ-7. He'll get crushed in places like Millburn, Summit, and Westfield. And honestly I see him doing very poorly in Somerset. He'll underperform in Hunterdon but still win. His best hopes lie in Morris and Warren counties.

[136or142]

Filing deadline was a few days ago in Pennsylvania.  Obviously there was some confusion caused by the redistricting (www.politics1.com still hasn't provided a final update or moved the candidates who switched districts into their correct districts) so it took awhile (for me at least) to get final information.

Democrats have a full slate while Republicans have candidates in 17/18 districts.  They ended up getting candidates in both of the Philadelphia districts (and the third district that tips into Philadelphia) but they didn't get a candidate in the Pittsburgh based 18th district.  The woman who had the affair with Tim Murphy who was going to run for the Republicans in that district never filed in the end.

[Hindsight was 2020]

GOP in Kansas is very concerned they are going to lose the 2nd to Paul Davis http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article205359664.html

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

I think Pete Sessions is now more vulnerable than Atlas thinks. This race has really changed since over a year ago. This thing has gone from Likely R to Weak Lean R. Either Allred or Salerno will have a good chance to knock down Sessions, though Allred will probably be the challenger. For Pete's sake (no pun intended) Democrats won the Dallas county part of this district this primary over republicans, just the slim part of Collin put them over the top. Also, GE results in Texas almost always turn out to be a little more democrat friendly than primary ballot matchups. I'm encouraged by this result, and might start knocking on doors later this fall in my precinct, since I believe it could make a difference, especially since my precinct went for Sessions in this primary over democrats and Trump by underwhelming margins in the teens. Margins here are supposed to be 40 points or so for the GOP. And it is starting to reduce, even slightly so downballot. My precinct also finally got a Democratic chairperson here after a long absence of one, enthusiasm folks.

[136or142]

Latest filing deadlines:  Democrats have a full slate in South Carolina and Virginia.

Republicans have a full slate in South Carolina (they have a candidate against Jim Clyburn) and have 10/11 candidates in Virginia having not fielded a challenger to Bobby Scott.

http://www.politics1.com/sc.htm
http://www.politics1.com/va.htm

[Badger]

I think Pete Sessions is now more vulnerable than Atlas thinks. This race has really changed since over a year ago. This thing has gone from Likely R to Weak Lean R. Either Allred or Salerno will have a good chance to knock down Sessions, though Allred will probably be the challenger. For Pete's sake (no pun intended) Democrats won the Dallas county part of this district this primary over republicans, just the slim part of Collin put them over the top. Also, GE results in Texas almost always turn out to be a little more democrat friendly than primary ballot matchups. I'm encouraged by this result, and might start knocking on doors later this fall in my precinct, since I believe it could make a difference, especially since my precinct went for Sessions in this primary over democrats and Trump by underwhelming margins in the teens. Margins here are supposed to be 40 points or so for the GOP. And it is starting to reduce, even slightly so downballot. My precinct also finally got a Democratic chairperson here after a long absence of one, enthusiasm folks.

I have to admit, I'm having a hard time envisioning a Clinton 16 sessions 18 voter. Or any Clinton 2016 voter supporting any Texas Republican Congress crater with the possible exception of will Hurd

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Sessions is still favored by far. The primary turnout measure thing isn't as indicative as Bagel suggests and Sessions himself is a pretty good fit for the seat. This is country club R territory, and Sessions fits that description to the T.

Sessions (for now) looks set to pick up a decent share* of Clinton 16 voters. It's important to note that many voters in TX-32 went for Clinton but generally voted GOP downballot; these are the people who will determine the race, ancestrally Republican suburban voters. Not every one of them is rebelling in 2018, at least on House level, especially if a good incumbent is on the ballot. Sessions certainly looks set to have something of a competitive race considering the national environment but I remain deeply skeptical he'd actually lose at this stage. I may revise this if I see fit later on.

The area covered by TX-32 was among the first parts of the state to elect Republicans reliably on House level. If this isn't ancestrally Republican territory, few other areas in Texas qualify.

*=decent share by Republican standards (meaning, still a tiny amount). I'd bet that a bigger-than-usual chunk of Clinton voters here are self-identifying Republicans.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Sessions is still favored by far. The primary turnout measure thing isn't as indicative as Bagel suggests and Sessions himself is a pretty good fit for the seat. This is country club R territory, and Sessions fits that description to the T.

Sessions (for now) looks set to pick up a decent share* of Clinton 16 voters. It's important to note that many voters in TX-32 went for Clinton but generally voted GOP downballot; these are the people who will determine the race, ancestrally Republican suburban voters. Not every one of them is rebelling in 2018, at least on House level, especially if a good incumbent is on the ballot. Sessions certainly looks set to have something of a competitive race considering the national environment but I remain deeply skeptical he'd actually lose at this stage. I may revise this if I see fit later on.

The area covered by TX-32 was among the first parts of the state to elect Republicans reliably on House level. If this isn't ancestrally Republican territory, few other areas in Texas qualify.

*=decent share by Republican standards (meaning, still a tiny amount). I'd bet that a bigger-than-usual chunk of Clinton voters here are self-identifying Republicans.

No, no lol. He should be somewhat favored, but no where near a lot. Whil primary turnout figures are somewhat iffy, almost always in Texas GE electorates are at least a little more Democrat friendly than yhe primaries. Sessions is actually pretty bad, there has just been either NO democrats, or inexperienced sacrificial lambs in the past opposing him, so they never got pointed out. Sessions is by no means a solid incumbent, and in a debate, if he even accepts one, well... his record alone would slaughter him in there. The thing giving him the main advantage is his long incumbency, name rec, money, etc. Pete Sessions is quite vulnerable, favored, but vulnerable.

[Virginiá]

Sessions (for now) looks set to pick up a decent share* of Clinton 16 voters. It's important to note that many voters in TX-32 went for Clinton but generally voted GOP downballot; these are the people who will determine the race, ancestrally Republican suburban voters. Not every one of them is rebelling in 2018, at least on House level, especially if a good incumbent is on the ballot. Sessions certainly looks set to have something of a competitive race considering the national environment but I remain deeply skeptical he'd actually lose at this stage. I may revise this if I see fit later on.

He could certainly hold on, and I view Texas House races with more skepticism than most, but I don't think this is good to go by. A lot of Republican House Reps won in Clinton seats, and many won very comfortably or by landslides. So there isn't anything unique about Sessions in that regard. Historically speaking, their performance in a past election is not the best guide to their future performance, particularly if there is a switch in control of the White House. 2006 and 2010 is littered with examples of Republicans and Democrats who won comfortably or by landslides in the previous election, only to get wiped out in the next.

[Young Conservative]

Sessions (for now) looks set to pick up a decent share* of Clinton 16 voters. It's important to note that many voters in TX-32 went for Clinton but generally voted GOP downballot; these are the people who will determine the race, ancestrally Republican suburban voters. Not every one of them is rebelling in 2018, at least on House level, especially if a good incumbent is on the ballot. Sessions certainly looks set to have something of a competitive race considering the national environment but I remain deeply skeptical he'd actually lose at this stage. I may revise this if I see fit later on.

He could certainly hold on, and I view Texas House races with more skepticism than most, but I don't think this is good to go by. A lot of Republican House Reps won in Clinton seats, and many won very comfortably or by landslides. So there isn't anything unique about Sessions in that regard. Historically speaking, their performance in a past election is not the best guide to their future performance, particularly if there is a switch in control of the White House. 2006 and 2010 is littered with examples of Republicans and Democrats who won comfortably or by landslides in the previous election, only to get wiped out in the next.

I don’t think Clinton won a majority in This district either.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Sessions (for now) looks set to pick up a decent share* of Clinton 16 voters. It's important to note that many voters in TX-32 went for Clinton but generally voted GOP downballot; these are the people who will determine the race, ancestrally Republican suburban voters. Not every one of them is rebelling in 2018, at least on House level, especially if a good incumbent is on the ballot. Sessions certainly looks set to have something of a competitive race considering the national environment but I remain deeply skeptical he'd actually lose at this stage. I may revise this if I see fit later on.

He could certainly hold on, and I view Texas House races with more skepticism than most, but I don't think this is good to go by. A lot of Republican House Reps won in Clinton seats, and many won very comfortably or by landslides. So there isn't anything unique about Sessions in that regard. Historically speaking, their performance in a past election is not the best guide to their future performance, particularly if there is a switch in control of the White House. 2006 and 2010 is littered with examples of Republicans and Democrats who won comfortably or by landslides in the previous election, only to get wiped out in the next.

I don’t think Clinton won a majority in This district either.

Correct.

[136or142]

As I pointed out before, there is a lot of possible additional support for the Congressional Democratic candidates in Texas.  While Hillary Clinton lost Texas 52-43% to Donald Trump, the Congressional Democrats lost in aggregate 57-39% whereas they lost 61-34% in 2014.  No doubt the number of Texas districts where the Democrats did not run a candidate in 2016 (especially this one) skews the numbers somewhat, but I think there is no question the Democrats can still gain significant votes in 2018 in Texas.

[Virginiá]

I don’t think Clinton won a majority in This district either.

Clinton won a plurality in TX-32: 48.5-46.6.

In this context, it doesn't really matter whether she won a plurality or a straight up majority. It still means the same thing - that support in this area is eroding for Republicans, at least until Trump leaves office, but probably further into the future.

[Young Conservative]

I don’t think Clinton won a majority in This district either.

Clinton won a plurality in TX-32: 48.5-46.6.

In this context, it doesn't really matter whether she won a plurality or a straight up majority. It still means the same thing - that support in this area is eroding for Republicans, at least until Trump leaves office, but probably further into the future.

Lol it doesn’t mean it’s eroding for all Republicans. A plurality and majority are a huge difference.

[Virginiá]

Lol it doesn’t mean it’s eroding for all Republicans. A plurality and majority are a huge difference.

That is your opinion. Despite Clinton's weaker national performance, these districts still swung bigly away from Trump, and there is evidence in other districts in the country that experienced similarly large swings that the results are actually sticking. So you can argue that her performance in these Texas districts is a fluke, and that Republicans are in no danger there, but there is more than enough reason to believe that you could be wrong.

In this case, the difference between a plurality and a majority isn't that big. 48.5 is 1.5+1 points shy of a majority. That is hardly anything. I don't see how you could argue that it is.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I don’t think Clinton won a majority in This district either.

Clinton won a plurality in TX-32: 48.5-46.6.

In this context, it doesn't really matter whether she won a plurality or a straight up majority. It still means the same thing - that support in this area is eroding for Republicans, at least until Trump leaves office, but probably further into the future.

Lol it doesn’t mean it’s eroding for all Republicans. A plurality and majority are a huge difference.

third party voters have been leaning dem by 66-33 minimum in every poll i've seen (usually 75-25). this is because third party voters did not vote for trump and most still do not support him and are thus voting against him by supporting dems

the only exception to this is utah where third party voters are slightly leaning gop

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Sessions (for now) looks set to pick up a decent share* of Clinton 16 voters. It's important to note that many voters in TX-32 went for Clinton but generally voted GOP downballot; these are the people who will determine the race, ancestrally Republican suburban voters. Not every one of them is rebelling in 2018, at least on House level, especially if a good incumbent is on the ballot. Sessions certainly looks set to have something of a competitive race considering the national environment but I remain deeply skeptical he'd actually lose at this stage. I may revise this if I see fit later on.

He could certainly hold on, and I view Texas House races with more skepticism than most, but I don't think this is good to go by. A lot of Republican House Reps won in Clinton seats, and many won very comfortably or by landslides. So there isn't anything unique about Sessions in that regard. Historically speaking, their performance in a past election is not the best guide to their future performance, particularly if there is a switch in control of the White House. 2006 and 2010 is littered with examples of Republicans and Democrats who won comfortably or by landslides in the previous election, only to get wiped out in the next.

This is a seat predominantly populated by country club Republicans.
Moreover, many of the seats that flipped in 2010 were areas like VA-09 and MS-04 that flipped on presidential level years or even decades ago. I don't think it's really a good comparison since TX-32 is not as far along that process. The area covering TX-32 probably went Democratic on presidential level for the first time since the 60s just two years ago.
Sessions can obviously lose but this is probably 1) among the places the Republican congress is relatively the most popular, tax cuts etc; and 2) a seat that, if it flips by a truly significant margin, it's a sign the bottom has really fell out for the GOP.

[Gustaf]

Not sure if this is the right place but 538 analyzed the races so far and looked at whether suburban districts have swung more Democrat than other areas, compared to 2016. They find a weak negative correlation. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/be-skeptical-of-anyone-who-tells-you-they-know-how-democrats-can-win-in-november/

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Sessions (for now) looks set to pick up a decent share* of Clinton 16 voters. It's important to note that many voters in TX-32 went for Clinton but generally voted GOP downballot; these are the people who will determine the race, ancestrally Republican suburban voters. Not every one of them is rebelling in 2018, at least on House level, especially if a good incumbent is on the ballot. Sessions certainly looks set to have something of a competitive race considering the national environment but I remain deeply skeptical he'd actually lose at this stage. I may revise this if I see fit later on.

He could certainly hold on, and I view Texas House races with more skepticism than most, but I don't think this is good to go by. A lot of Republican House Reps won in Clinton seats, and many won very comfortably or by landslides. So there isn't anything unique about Sessions in that regard. Historically speaking, their performance in a past election is not the best guide to their future performance, particularly if there is a switch in control of the White House. 2006 and 2010 is littered with examples of Republicans and Democrats who won comfortably or by landslides in the previous election, only to get wiped out in the next.

This is a seat predominantly populated by country club Republicans.
Moreover, many of the seats that flipped in 2010 were areas like VA-09 and MS-04 that flipped on presidential level years or even decades ago. I don't think it's really a good comparison since TX-32 is not as far along that process. The area covering TX-32 probably went Democratic on presidential level for the first time since the 60s just two years ago.
Sessions can obviously lose but this is probably 1) among the places the Republican congress is relatively the most popular, tax cuts etc; and 2) a seat that, if it flips by a truly significant margin, it's a sign the bottom has really fell out for the GOP.

It’ll be a really tough fight and he could definitely win (really a shame Rawlings didn’t run), but I think Sessions will narrowly lose by something like 1-3%.  He’s a great fundraiser and a relatively strong campaigner, but he’s not all that good a fit for the seat right now (he’s a rabidly partisan SoCon bomb-thrower rather than a calm, Starbucks bigot with radically right-wing economic views).  Plus, there’s gonna be a really big anti-Trump swing here.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Beto O'Rourke raised $6.7 million on 141,000 contributions in the first quarter: https://www.texastribune.org/2018/04/03/orourke-says-he-raised-staggering-67m-first-quarter-2018/

[LimoLiberal]

Aftab Pureval (D) in OH-01 raises $660,000 in his race against GOP incumbent Steve Chabot.

https://twitter.com/allymutnick/status/981166425212518401

[Gass3268]

Beto O'Rourke raised $6.7 million on 141,000 contributions in the first quarter: https://www.texastribune.org/2018/04/03/orourke-says-he-raised-staggering-67m-first-quarter-2018/

He's raising money almost like an incumbant. That's freaking nuts.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Andy Kim who is running against MacArthur in NJ-03 raised $530,000 last quarter with 820,000 on habd in total. For all the focus Cali gets NJ could get really bad for reps. https://mobile.twitter.com/DKElections/status/981191503203721217