CPRM, Pt 3: LA 11/6

[ON Progressive]

Not congressional, but here's a link to the LG/AG runoff results since I can't find it anywhere else.

LG - http://data.montgomeryadvertiser.com/election-results/race/al-lieutenant-governor--gop-runoff/20180717AL1022/

AG - http://data.montgomeryadvertiser.com/election-results/race/al-attorney-general--gop-runoff/20180717AL2031/

[ON Progressive]

The LG race looks quite competitive. 52-48 Ainsworth. He'll probably hold on, but it'll be a lot closer than the other races tonight.

[ON Progressive]

Both are very close indeed.

McBath only ahead by 31 votes and Bourdeaux by 44 votes.

[ON Progressive]

Georgia 6 just jumped from around 11,000 votes to 48,000 votes.  Is that even possible?

Probably an error.

Fulton county had a big dump in the last 20 minutes, and Cobb was at just 5% reporting for a lot of the night (it's now more than half in). Anyways, there's a more important reason I'm posting.

------------------------


WULFRIC PROJECTION:

U.S. House District 6
Democratic Primary Runoff

CANDIDATE   VOTE   PCT.   
Kevin Abel
26,735   53.9%   
Lucy McBath
22,883   46.1   
49,618 votes, 89% reporting (184 of 207 precincts)

It is absolutely an error. Look at the GA SOS website. There's no out-of-nowhere surge in Fulton like on the NY Times website.

[ON Progressive]

The SOS tally only has 62/114 fulton precincts in vs the NYT at 113/114. That plus the fact that the count has updated from 87% to 89% to 91% in without any 'correction' to Fulton makes me think it's more likely the SOS just isn't getting its data as fast. This has happened before, in the TX-27 special election a few weeks back the NYT got the vote from the city of corpus christi well before the SOS did.

It's an input error. Explain why a Dem primary with only the House primary would have equal turnout to a Republican primary with three statewide races on the ballot. Explain why GA-06 would have over 3x the turnout of next door GA-07.

You can't. It makes zero sense.

[ON Progressive]

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

Kemp had been favoured ever since the tapes of him admitting to supporting education policies he knew were bad and describing the campaign as "who could be the craziest" came out. This made him be not only seen as corrupt, it also made him viewed as someone who hated voters at the same time.

The tapes meant he was already toast, but the Trump endorsement of Kemp made sure it was going to be a massive blowout.

[ON Progressive]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

Of course that may happen. But as a general rule ("candidate must fit a distirict") i don't consider "bold progressives" the best candidates in swingy districts with strong Republican past, and not especially problematic Republican incumbents.

True, but "stronger, grassroots-backed women" doesn't necessarily imply "bold progressives" (although in this case, it does.)

Agree, but, speaking about these particular districts and election results, i am reasonably sure, that results increased Republican chances of holding these districts. Exactly because in this case "stronger, grassroots-backed women" are "bold progressives" in non-progressive districts.

Can we stop with the myth that average voters actually vote on ideology? A literal socialist won a VA State House seat against the GOP Caucus Whip in a district that MITT ROMNEY carried. I doubt most of his voters were socialists themselves too.

A progressive who has great candidate qualities (good fundraiser, charismatic, background that connects to voters, etc) will do a lot better than a moderate who is mediocre/bad in regards to candidate qualities.

[ON Progressive]

Glad to see the stronger, grassroots-backed women candidates defeat the useless, milquetoast, business-friendly, moderate-heroish men. The Democratic party seems to finally be getting a clue.

Also, how come Kemp won so massively? Did anyone see that coming? I thought Cagle was favored.

The problem is, that Republicans are also glad. To have "stronger, grassroots-backed women" as their opponents))) in these districts.

This conventional wisdom may not hold in 2018. Remember that Dems were happy to have Donald Trump as our opponent, only to find the rules had changed.

Of course that may happen. But as a general rule ("candidate must fit a distirict") i don't consider "bold progressives" the best candidates in swingy districts with strong Republican past, and not especially problematic Republican incumbents.

Riiiight.Its not like every GOP congressperson is exactly the same, and many Blue Dogs are in Safe Dem seats, and many Progressives are in tossup or lean R seats.

There is no conventional wisdom for this. In fact, the two women were better choices because of their more socially progressive values. Atlanta suburbs hate guns, as do most suburbs. Just because someone is more liberal doesnt make them weaker. The only people to have gotten close or won in Alabama state elections was Doug Jones(who was famously pro-choice) and Ron Sparks(who famously said he was as Liberal as the president).

The myth about matching a district by being centrist has never worked for Democrats in the past, and is just an excuse for leadership to keep pushing centrist ideas.

In short - idiocy. Try to elect your "beloved progressives" in most southern districts. Many of them became solidly Republican exactly after such attempts. MS-03 happily elected Sonny Montgomery for many years, but switched immediately after his retirement. The same with AL-4 and Tom Bevill, with a lot of districts in fact. You elected "progressive" Josh Newman to California state Senate and heralded it as a "new dawn in Orange county", where he is NOW??? And so on. Jones won mostly because of Moore, not because he was a "progressive and pro-choice", in fact - he won despite all this because his opponent turned to be Moore. Atlanta suburbs are "purple", not "solid Blue"......

1) Districts like MS-03 and AL-04 are rural white Southern districts which are dark red. Even a Blue Dog has zero chance of winning either. AL-04 was Moore's best CD (he won it 68-31 against a moderate Dem!)

2) Newman was recalled because it was seen as a way to punish the state legislature for a gas tax, not because he was too "progressive" for a 53-41 Clinton district.

3) There's no proof that purple areas will be turned off by liberal candidates. Again, a socialist won a VA House seat that voted for Mitt Romney literally within this decade.

[ON Progressive]

What is with the Fitzhugh County group in the west?

Fitzhugh's State House district is in there.

[ON Progressive]

Is Tennessee closed primary?

Open.

[ON Progressive]

https://twitter.com/BrentWelder/status/1025908868864528386

Looks like this race is going to be thrown away by dumb primary voters.

A guy from St. Louis, Missouri who only came into the district a few months before his campaign has zero chance in hell of winning a district in Kansas.

[ON Progressive]

https://twitter.com/BrentWelder/status/1025908868864528386

Looks like this race is going to be thrown away by dumb primary voters.

A guy from St. Louis, Missouri who only came into the district a few months before his campaign has zero chance in hell of winning a district in Kansas.

sigh, no, he is favored to win because this district is the most D friendly district, trended D hard in both 2012 and 2016, is being impacted by a large blue wave, has the lowest approvals for Trump in the state of KS, and has a rather average, not noticeable incumbent, not to mention the likely close race for governor.
I really doubt that the issue will really play well, as carpetbaggers do have a pretty good shot at winning elections. Usually, it needs something else, like the original state being from the coast, or the guy previously working for big money there, but he just lived in the neighboring state, not really anything there.

He lived on the other side of the state. Also, out of state carpetbaggers can only win if other fundamentals aren’t only in their favour, but hugely so.

Alex Mooney still does like 20 points worse than the top of the ticket as an incumbent in deep red WV-02, and he barely won in 2014. McClintock nearly lost in 2008 in a McCain +10 seat with zero Democratic ancestry.

If Welder is such a great candidate, then why are Republican donors meddling to try to get him as their opponent?

[ON Progressive]

Of f**king course Whitmer won. F**k this.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Whitmer though.

[ON Progressive]

Welp, there goes Michigan...Schuette just got a better shot at winning now thanks to a demotivated base.

I mean she'll probably pull it out, but it's probably gonna look like 2014 in reverse (maybe 2002 being kind) when it should've looked like 2006.

As for Ohio, it appears Balderson is gonna take it. It's a mini Pennsylvania '16 all over again.

This is an absolutely terrible take.

[ON Progressive]

Washington Republicans can't be liking these returns. Dems are 50/50 in WA-03 and Rossi isn't even at 45% in WA-08.

As for WA-05, I'll hold my judgement until Spokane and Whitman come in.

[ON Progressive]

WOAH. CMR only beating the Democrat by 0.4 in WA-05...

FOR GOD'S SAKE

STOP WITH THE PRIMARY TURNOUT OBSESSION

ESPECIALLY IN SEATS WITH INCUMBENTS

A jungle primary isn’t something the incumbents can waltz through, they need their voters to turn out. This is not good for WA GOP.

[ON Progressive]

Dems outvoting Republicans 56-43 in MO-02. Caveats about primary turnout, but that seems very strong for Democrats in a seat like MO-02.

[ON Progressive]

Let's take a look at the Amazing Senate Primary Turnout Map! In Missouri, Republicans won by a silm margin of 53%-47%, a great sign for McCaskill! In Washington State, Dems cast 58% of the votes in the Jungle Primary to Republicans 37%. Still need some more results before coloring MI.

Why isn’t New York colored Red?

No statewide primary in NY until September.

[ON Progressive]

Looks like Sharice Davids should win KS-03’s Democratic primary. She’s done extremely well in the Election Day vote. She carried the JoCo early vote by about 4, but is winning the election day vote by 13.5% from my math.

[ON Progressive]

Congrats to EmilysList for securing a Republican vs. Republican match-up in KS-03.

LMAO. You’re ridiculous if you think Davids isn’t progressive. At least she didn’t move into the district in April unlike Welder.

[ON Progressive]

Thankfully Kansas has a sore loser law, otherwise we'd be seeing an independent run for the Sanders candidate.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

-tweet-

Not to mention Ocasio-Cortez's endorsement of Davids on Twitter.

I love this narrative that Sanders supporters refuse to unite behind the general election candidate when we have large parts of the Democratic establishment in Maryland refusing to campaign with or endorse Jealous, and a LITERAL INDEPENDENT RUN from a centrist Democrat against Marc Elrich in the Mont. County race in the same state.

Montgomery County resident here. Let me calm your fears about Nancy Floreen, there's a zero percent chance Elrich isn't going to be the next Montgomery County Executive. Nobody likes Floreen, people here are partisan and aren't going to vote for a centrist spoiler.

How low Montgomery county has fallen)))) Not long ago it elected a sensible politicians of all sorts (sometimes - even sensible Republicans of very sane variety). Now it's simply a hyperparisan army of "bold progressives", who doesn't know, how to think, and simply press one familiar button))))))

The smugness of moderate heroism is reeking out of this post.

[ON Progressive]

Too bad the Assad sympathizer had to win big.

[ON Progressive]

Too bad the Assad sympathizer had to win big.

Who else do you want to win ? The Islamo-Fascist so-called "rebels" ?

I support neither side in the Syrian Civil War. Gabbard goes beyond merely perferring the Assad regime to the rebels. She outright supports them.

[ON Progressive]

Too bad the Assad sympathizer had to win big.

Who else do you want to win ? The Islamo-Fascist so-called "rebels" ?

I support neither side in the Syrian Civil War. Gabbard goes beyond merely perferring the Assad regime to the rebels. She outright supports them.

Ah ok, have not read about her preferences or support for Assad.

But she's not wrong: While Assad can be charged before the Criminal Court in the Hague later on, it's really important right now to rally around him and liquidate the remaining so-called "rebels" in the remaining areas of Syria and kick the invading megalomaniac Turks out as well to where they belong.

It would be good if the US also abandons these filthy so-called "rebels" and join the good side.

She literally denies that Assad ever committed war crimes though, and even went on a trip to Syria sponsored by Assad.

[ON Progressive]

No, sir. I hope that US is a clever country. An idiots, like those in DSA, usually don't win too much in clever countries)))). Sometimes, somewhere - yes. But - not more.

You know socialism is not going away anytime soon? We've scored wins in the VA State House (Lee Carter), primary wins in the PA State House (Sara Innamorato, Summer Lee), AOC in New York and Rashida Tlaib in Michigan.

So what, the centrists got Ed Case tonight. There's going to be DSA members in congress in January, probably going to be a sizable socialist caucus in Congress by 2020, and plenty of wins for the left on the state legislative level. The Blue Dogs have been disappearing from the halls of Congress with each election cycle, and not a whole lot of them are gonna get elected in November. The "pasokification" we've seen in Europe, the decline of the centre-left, is occurring in America right now. The New Dem strategy crashed and burned in 2016, and we saw the rise of a right-wing populist movement in America. We've also seen the rise of a new left-wing movement in America. And as the recent Third Way conference shows, the center is struggling to come up with a response to "Sanderism" or "Trumpism" because

I think Democrats are gonna excel in 2018 without a cohesive ideology or party leader for its voters to get behind, but just wait until those 2020 primaries start. Whoever emerges from that 20-candidate pileup that's bound to occur will be the face of the Democratic Party, and most of the candidates running in downballot races are going to be influenced by the policies that presidential candidate supports. Don't believe me, look at Trump and the Republican Party. GOP voters can't get enough of him, and GOP politicians are standing by him and supporting his policies and cabinet picks without hesitation.

Spoiler alert: that candidate is not gonna be a Joe Manchin or Andrew Cuomo "sensible moderate" type. It's either going to be one of Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand, Harris, Booker or even Brown. Because what kind of Democratic Party where a majority of its members support single-payer healthcare, free college, a $15/hr min. wage or even a federal job guarantee is going to support centrism for the sake of centrism?

Not every candidate AOC endorses will win, just like not every young Democrat hotshot that has the support of the DCCC will win this year. Or that not every Blue Dog will win this year by virtue of their glorious, invalauble C E N T R I S M. Parties and movements have wins and losses, and the DSA is a fledgling movement. But socialists have won primaries and even general elections against Republicans across America, since last year. So I wouldn't say that AOC's win was a fluke in the Bronx. It is a part of a growing progressive socialist movement in America that continues to gain ground with each passing day.

I lived under socialism for almost 35 years, so, i, probably know better what it is. And don't want to live under socialism even a day anymore. No "democratic" adjectives will convince me. Some people are surprised, that Russians in NYC vote the way they do - i don't. Of course - there are exceptions, but you will hardly find more militanly anti-socialist group then we are. Even Cubans in Miami are, probably, less so now.

Thinking the DSA is the same as the USSR is hilariously stupid. But of course, according to you, only centrists are intelligent and anyone else is an idiot.