Election 2018 Open Thread - Part 1

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

It's obviously a really big deal that your party lost the House, even though the districts were gerrymandered back in ~2011 for this not to be possible this decade.

Not only lost the house, but lost ground in the three states that put the president over the top.

Pennsylvania is a complete catastrophe for Trump.

[Tintrlvr]

One thing that I think should be heartening for the Democrats from this result is that this looks like a pretty durable House majority. There are very few seats that they won in very Republican territory (really only Kendra Horn's shock victory in OK-05 comes to mind) that would be vulnerable in 2020 or guaranteed losses in a Republican wave, while the Democrats have a number of opportunities where they came close this year with weaker candidates or where attention was not focused to build on the majority further in 2020.

[IceSpear]

Tammy Baldwin put up some unexpectedly amazing numbers in the WOW counties...

[Yank2133]

It's obviously a really big deal that your party lost the House, even though the districts were gerrymandered back in ~2011 for this not to be possible this decade.

Not only lost the house, but lost ground in the three states that put the president over the top.

Pennsylvania is a complete catastrophe for Trump.

Yeah, but no one in the media is going to say anything about it. Democrats improvement in PA and teh midwest for that matter should be a bigger story.

[lfromnj]

Tammy Baldwin put up some unexpectedly amazing numbers in the WOW counties...

Dems will need Ozaukee soon if they want to win Wisconsin. Not like RN but maybe by 2028.

[Storr]

CNN still has Evers up 49.2-48.9 with 92% in.

[Calthrina950]

James only took 8% of the black vote in MI.

But he still managed to keep Stabenow within single digits. He is the first Republican in Michigan to come within that range since Spencer Abraham in 2000.

Overall, though, this election has been a bizarre one. Democrats picked up the House, as many expected, but they have lost three seats in the Senate and did not do as well in many of the gubernatorial and state level-races. Bright spots for Democrats, I would say, include the victories of Kelly and Davids in Kansas and the upset in Oklahoma-5. But Donnelly, Heitkamp, O'Rourke, McCaskill (presumably), and even Nelson (also presumably) losing, along with the gubernatorial putdowns in Georgia and Florida, are the bright spots for Republicans.

[Jeffster]

Democrats really messed up in the Senate this year, and it will make it extremely tough to win it in 2020. Depending on how Arizona, Montana, and Nevada break tonight you could have anywhere from 53-56 Republicans in the Senate for the next two years. The 2020 map isn't so great for Democrats either, and they will most likely lose Alabama so long as the Republicans nominate someone who wasn't dating under age girls. They'd need to pick up Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, and North Carolina in 2020 to have a chance.

[J. J.]

Fox projects Scott wins in FL.

It's officially not a wave, and just a weird election.

It is ludicrous to call an election in which Dems win the popular vote by 7-10% or whatever it turns out to be anything but a wave.

A wave where a 3 term Democratic incumbent senator loses in a state that voted twice for Obama and that Hillary only narrowly lost?

A lot of this was due to expectations not being met.  This, like 2016, was supposed to be a great victory.  It wasn't, though it was still a victory. 

Your question implicitly concedes that "states" are what matter rather than representing the will of the people as expressed through their votes. I do not concede that. If the electoral system does not represent the people's will as they express them through their votes, then the problem lies with the electoral system, not with the people's votes.

But in any case, yes, you always have a certain number of tough losses in a wave. For example, Rs losing NV and CO senate races in 2010, and generally performing badly on the West coast despite doing very well elsewhere in the East and Midwest. This is not really characteristically different from that at all. So if 2010 was a wave, than this is as well. And it is not really reasonable to say 2010 was not a wave, I don't think.

NV and CO were both Democratic held seats. Wave elections don't usally have one party losing 4+ Senate seats and gaining at most 2 Senate seats.

[lfromnj]

James only took 8% of the black vote in MI.

But he still managed to keep Stabenow within single digits. He is the first Republican to come within that range since Spencer Abraham in 2000.

Overall, though, this election has been a bizarre one. Democrats picked up the House, as many expected, but they have lost three seats in the Senate and did not do as well in many of the gubernatorial and state level-races. Bright spots for Democrats, I would say, include the victories of Kelly and Davids in Kansas and the upset in Oklahoma-5. But Donnelly, Heitkamp, O'Rourke, McCaskill (presumably), and even Nelson (also presumably) losing, along with the gubernatorial putdowns in Georgia and Florida, are the bright sports for Republicans.

Yeah I agree with all of this besides Davids(not really a bright spot it was expected) and Texas . Texas raises fire alarms for the GOP. AG and LG are within 5 and Beto is within 3. Beto was expected to lose and he probably overperformed.

[Yank2133]

James only took 8% of the black vote in MI.

But he still managed to keep Stabenow within single digits. He is the first Republican to come within that range since Spencer Abraham in 2000.

Overall, though, this election has been a bizarre one. Democrats picked up the House, as many expected, but they have lost three seats in the Senate and did not do as well in many of the gubernatorial and state level-races. Bright spots for Democrats, I would say, include the victories of Kelly and Davids in Kansas and the upset in Oklahoma-5. But Donnelly, Heitkamp, O'Rourke, McCaskill (presumably), and even Nelson (also presumably) losing, along with the gubernatorial putdowns in Georgia and Florida, are the bright sports for Republicans.

Yeah I agree with all of this besides Davids(not really a bright spot it was expected) and Texas . Texas raises fire alarms for the GOP. AG and LG are within 5 and Beto is within 3. Beto was expected to lose and he probably overperformed.

I think TX is more about Cruz's quality as a candidate then anything significant long-term.

[Crumpets]

Is Jon Tester vulnerable? Also, Arizona is going to be crazy close.

Tester's hope lies in Gallatin County. No where else is likely to be notably pro-Tester.

Not true. Although they're smaller counties, he will likely win Glacier, Blaine, Park, and possibly Roosevelt Counties. Park is Livingston, so that has at least some chance to get him some votes. But yes, he needs to run up the margin in Gallatin as much as possible.

[OSR stands with Israel]

James only took 8% of the black vote in MI.

But he still managed to keep Stabenow within single digits. He is the first Republican to come within that range since Spencer Abraham in 2000.

Overall, though, this election has been a bizarre one. Democrats picked up the House, as many expected, but they have lost three seats in the Senate and did not do as well in many of the gubernatorial and state level-races. Bright spots for Democrats, I would say, include the victories of Kelly and Davids in Kansas and the upset in Oklahoma-5. But Donnelly, Heitkamp, O'Rourke, McCaskill (presumably), and even Nelson (also presumably) losing, along with the gubernatorial putdowns in Georgia and Florida, are the bright sports for Republicans.

Yeah I agree with all of this besides Davids(not really a bright spot it was expected) and Texas . Texas raises fire alarms for the GOP. AG and LG are within 5 and Beto is within 3. Beto was expected to lose and he probably overperformed.

I think TX is more about Cruz's quality as a candidate then anything significant long-term.

[emailking]

The real loser tonight was third party candidates. They were repudiated pretty much everywhere, even worse than in 2016. Neal Simon, Gary Johnson, Sam McCann, and Stephanie Miner were the biggest losers.

Because voters are smart and vote strategically. Other than very rare flukes, 3rd party candidates will only win if we change to a ranked voting system.

[RI]

Is Jon Tester vulnerable? Also, Arizona is going to be crazy close.

Tester's hope lies in Gallatin County. No where else is likely to be notably pro-Tester.

Not true. Although they're smaller counties, he will likely win Glacier, Blaine, Park, and possibly Roosevelt Counties. Park is Livingston, so that has at least some chance to get him some votes. But yes, he needs to run up the margin in Gallatin as much as possible.

None of those counties have that many votes.

[7,052,770]

Nevada results coming in

http://www.silverstateelection.com/

[lfromnj]

UTDH UP by 50 POINTS. CALLING FOR HELLER. Its impossible for weak rosen to win this

[emailking]

Democrats really messed up in the Senate this year, and it will make it extremely tough to win it in 2020. Depending on how Arizona, Montana, and Nevada break tonight you could have anywhere from 53-56 Republicans in the Senate for the next two years. The 2020 map isn't so great for Democrats either, and they will most likely lose Alabama so long as the Republicans nominate someone who wasn't dating under age girls. They'd need to pick up Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, and North Carolina in 2020 to have a chance.

All they have to do is win the seats they lost in 2014, in what will probably be a much more favorable environment to them.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Cam Cavasso getting destroyed. Thought he would do better.

[pops]

The real loser tonight was third party candidates. They were repudiated pretty much everywhere, even worse than in 2016. Neal Simon, Gary Johnson, Sam McCann, and Stephanie Miner were the biggest losers.

Because voters are smart and vote strategically. Other than very rare flukes, 3rd party candidates will only win if we change to a ranked voting system.

I'm not talking about literally winning, they underperformed polling worse than most third party candidates. Joe Trillo gets a shoutout for this too.

[RI]

Rural counties looking pretty good for Heller.

[Crumpets]

https://twitter.com/DanielBice/status/1060043412135731200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7C...

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

One thing that I think should be heartening for the Democrats from this result is that this looks like a pretty durable House majority. There are very few seats that they won in very Republican territory (really only Kendra Horn's shock victory in OK-05 comes to mind) that would be vulnerable in 2020 or guaranteed losses in a Republican wave, while the Democrats have a number of opportunities where they came close this year with weaker candidates or where attention was not focused to build on the majority further in 2020.

Yeah, this is a good point. And there are a large # of TX Congressional incumbents who are going to be looking very leery at the TX-SEN result when it comes time for the next redistricting - especially if Dems also contest TX in 2020 (which seems all but certain now) and if they do at least reasonably well there.

It is not likely that the Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio megalopolises are going to trend R, and that is going to limit future R gerrymanering in TX, which means more Dem House seats there.

Williamson county voting for Beto... Tarrant county voting for Beto... Collin County and Denton giving such small R margins... Fort Bend going 10 points for Beto...

And there are so many more voters just waiting to be registered and turned out.

[MasterJedi]

https://twitter.com/DanielBice/status/1060043412135731200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7C...

I believe also city of LaCrosse and city of Green Bay fully out too which is expected slightly for Evers. Rest remaining is probably Walker.

[Tintrlvr]

James only took 8% of the black vote in MI.

But he still managed to keep Stabenow within single digits. He is the first Republican to come within that range since Spencer Abraham in 2000.

Overall, though, this election has been a bizarre one. Democrats picked up the House, as many expected, but they have lost three seats in the Senate and did not do as well in many of the gubernatorial and state level-races. Bright spots for Democrats, I would say, include the victories of Kelly and Davids in Kansas and the upset in Oklahoma-5. But Donnelly, Heitkamp, O'Rourke, McCaskill (presumably), and even Nelson (also presumably) losing, along with the gubernatorial putdowns in Georgia and Florida, are the bright sports for Republicans.

Yeah I agree with all of this besides Davids(not really a bright spot it was expected) and Texas . Texas raises fire alarms for the GOP. AG and LG are within 5 and Beto is within 3. Beto was expected to lose and he probably overperformed.

I think TX is more about Cruz's quality as a candidate then anything significant long-term.

The Democrats came within 5 points or less of winning *five* more House seats in Texas, which would have taken them to a *majority* of the Texas House delegation. They didn't manage it, but I wouldn't want to be the one to tell John Carter, Kevin Marchand, Michael McCaul, Will Hurd or Chip Roy -- or, for that matter, Pete Olson, Dan Crenshaw, Roger Williams or Ron Wright, who all won by less than 10 points -- to relax, don't worry, this will all blow over, they're safe long-term, it was just about Cruz.

This wasn't just about Cruz.