Congressional Special Elections Results Thread (OLD, PLEASE UNSTICKY)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Team Gomez all the way tho. Solidly progressive, not a true leftist ala carrillo and (lol) carmona.

Not really sure what Campoverdi stands for other than generic platitudes.

Agreed, Gomez is easily the best option here.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The Pub will win like by 10 points and will dramatically underperform Trump. But it won't be a close result.

Estes only winning by 7-10% would be huge and should scare the hell out of Republicans if it happens.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Kander did better than the much more conservative/moderate Chris Koster, and did so against an incumbent. Sounds to me like running as a moderate isn't everything.

Kander did so well because he ran the best campaign of any Democratic Senate candidate in 2016 and pretty clearly would've won had he not been running in a Republican wave year where the Democratic Presidential nominee lost the state by nearly 20%.  Koster probably would've also won in even a mildly Republican-leaning non-wave year (i.e. a reverse 2012), for that matter.  We would've still lost the AG and LG races, but I don't think they'd have been blowouts either were it not for the wave. 

On a different note (and this part isn't at all directed at Maxwell), as Ebsy noted elsewhere, it's not really accurate when some folks here act like Kander only did well because Blunt ran a lousy campaign.  Yes, Blunt took the race for granted for a while, but he woke up as the cycle continued.  He still didn't run an amazing campaign, but he didn't run a horrible one either once he started taking Kander seriously.  Kander was a liberal who ran an incredibly strong campaign who ran against a Republican incumbent who ran a campaign that was on par with Richard Burr's 2016 re-election campaign (i.e. a bit lazy and rather unremarkable, but hardly some sort of disaster).  Blunt does strike me as a pretty uninspiring guy, especially when contrasted with someone as likable as Kander (who like Schweitzer has a real knack for articulating liberal views in a way that appeals to conservative voters).  The 2016 Missouri Senate result had far more to do with the quality of Kander's campaign than it did with anything Roy Blunt did or didn't do.

For the record, the worst performance I can find for Republicans since they took the seat in 1994 was in 2000, when Todd Tiahrt won by *only* 12 points.

He only won by like 3% in 1996, IIRC.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The republican Ohio district that has the best prospects of a dem beating the incumbent, based on the pundits, seems to be the 14th (Joyce). While that district wouldn't flip in any normal scenario, in a year where Virginia 1 is flipping along with a ton of Texas seats and Georgia 12 flips back, I'd expect it to flip as well.

OH-14 could definitely be flipped in even a year like 2012 (i.e. a mildly Democratic-leaning year) with an A-list recruit (although it'd probably start as a lean-R race in such a scenario).  Democrats have no excuse for their recruiting failures there; this is the sort of seat where we should be competing in order to expand the playing field.  I should also add that with good candidates, Joyce, Johnson*, Gibbs*, Turner (either as an open seat or in a Democratic wave), and Renacci's seats could all be pretty competitive under the right circumstances.  Of course, it is true that the Ohio gerrymander is absolutely one of the worst in the country despite looking much cleaner than the maps in states like PA, NC, and MD.

*Would probably require a Democratic wave election.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

OH's gerrymander is intense - as shown by my little project of comparing Dem/GOP vote totals across midterms/presidential elections. It's almost as bad as Wisconsin's, and probably would be worse if OH only had a single-digit number of CDs. If you take 2016 Democratic vote totals and stack it up against 2014 GOP midterm vote totals*, only one district flips: OH-1. This is alongside a broader, national scenario where Democrats win the House 271-164.

The thing is that Republicans in OH-1 aren't nearly as elastic as they are in some other districts.  Of course, any remotely reasonable map would have a safe Democratic seat contained entirely within Hamiltin County.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Who's who for thé SC-5 candidates?

For the Dems: Parnell is a Goldman Sachs executive, Frank is a student and army veteran (and African American), Murphy is a marine veteran who now works for the non-profit Carolina Veterans Commission. Essentially, uninspiring candidates that leave little hope for anti-trump forces, unless one of these is really good at campaigning.

As a rule - i don't believe in African American candidates winning majority white southern districts... There are some rare exceptions on state legislative level, but mostly the vote is too polarized by race.  IMHO, even with Trump this is a closest to Safe R special..

Sanford Bishop would like a word.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Who's who for thé SC-5 candidates?

For the Dems: Parnell is a Goldman Sachs executive, Frank is a student and army veteran (and African American), Murphy is a marine veteran who now works for the non-profit Carolina Veterans Commission. Essentially, uninspiring candidates that leave little hope for anti-trump forces, unless one of these is really good at campaigning.

As a rule - i don't believe in African American candidates winning majority white southern districts... There are some rare exceptions on state legislative level, but mostly the vote is too polarized by race.  IMHO, even with Trump this is a closest to Safe R special..

Sanford Bishop would like a word.

His district is about 50-50.  Compare this with SC-05. Democrats need districts to be 40-45% Black minimum, and pray, that 10-15% of whites will still vote Democratic, to have a chance. How many such districts exist? Even Bishop won his district narrowly couple of times (2010, 1996, 2000)..

In the late 90s, he had a 60% white district.  I'm not saying a black Democrat can win SC-5, I'm just saying it's important not to make such sweeping generalizations when evaluating candidates.  I wouldn't have thought an African-American could get elected mayor of Jacksonville and while he narrowly lost re-election, Alvin Brown proved me wrong.  Mike Thurmond was elected to three terms as Georgia Labor Commissioner.  Gary Anderson came about 5% away from being elected MS Treasurer in 2003 IIRC. 

There are races (ex: Harold Ford's 2006 Senate loss, for example) where race-baiting was likely the reason the Democrat lost, but in SC-5 we're gonna lose because we don't have a three unremarkable some dude candidates running in a heavily Republican district.  All I'm saying is that, and I mean this as constructive criticism, you tend to generalize a lot (sometimes you're right, other times you're way off) and it might not be the worst idea to allow for the possibility of exceptions a bit more often. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Who's who for thé SC-5 candidates?

For the Dems: Parnell is a Goldman Sachs executive, Frank is a student and army veteran (and African American), Murphy is a marine veteran who now works for the non-profit Carolina Veterans Commission. Essentially, uninspiring candidates that leave little hope for anti-trump forces, unless one of these is really good at campaigning.

As a rule - i don't believe in African American candidates winning majority white southern districts... There are some rare exceptions on state legislative level, but mostly the vote is too polarized by race.  IMHO, even with Trump this is a closest to Safe R special..

Sanford Bishop would like a word.

His district is about 50-50.  Compare this with SC-05. Democrats need districts to be 40-45% Black minimum, and pray, that 10-15% of whites will still vote Democratic, to have a chance. How many such districts exist? Even Bishop won his district narrowly couple of times (2010, 1996, 2000)..

All I'm saying is that, and I mean this as constructive criticism, you tend to generalize a lot (sometimes you're right, other times you're way off) and it might not be the worst idea to allow for the possibility of exceptions a bit more often. 

Well, if you show me recent examples of such biracial coalition (not pre-2010, but after it, when polarization soared, including - racial one) - i may reconsider my position. Bit so far - i stick to it... It's extremely difficult to elect Black candidate in white-majority Southern districts now. I can fathom that say, in Southern Florida or Research Triangle (which are more or less "non-siuthern" politically), but not in many ither places.. In "typical" southern districts correlation between Democratc aand Black percentages is very strong...

Obama won Florida in 2012

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Who's who for thé SC-5 candidates?

For the Dems: Parnell is a Goldman Sachs executive, Frank is a student and army veteran (and African American), Murphy is a marine veteran who now works for the non-profit Carolina Veterans Commission. Essentially, uninspiring candidates that leave little hope for anti-trump forces, unless one of these is really good at campaigning.

As a rule - i don't believe in African American candidates winning majority white southern districts... There are some rare exceptions on state legislative level, but mostly the vote is too polarized by race.  IMHO, even with Trump this is a closest to Safe R special..

Sanford Bishop would like a word.

His district is about 50-50.  Compare this with SC-05. Democrats need districts to be 40-45% Black minimum, and pray, that 10-15% of whites will still vote Democratic, to have a chance. How many such districts exist? Even Bishop won his district narrowly couple of times (2010, 1996, 2000)..

All I'm saying is that, and I mean this as constructive criticism, you tend to generalize a lot (sometimes you're right, other times you're way off) and it might not be the worst idea to allow for the possibility of exceptions a bit more often. 

Well, if you show me recent examples of such biracial coalition (not pre-2010, but after it, when polarization soared, including - racial one) - i may reconsider my position. Bit so far - i stick to it... It's extremely difficult to elect Black candidate in white-majority Southern districts now. I can fathom that say, in Southern Florida or Research Triangle (which are more or less "non-siuthern" politically), but not in many ither places.. In "typical" southern districts correlation between Democratc aand Black percentages is very strong...

As i said above - Florida, from Orlando down South, is NOT typically southern state. Would he win South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisisana or Arkansas  - another matter (typical southern states without great metropolises). In SC-05 we don't have metropolises or even their close suburbs (as in GA-06), so i consider my reasoning valid..

Obama won Florida in 2012

Please don't put your replies in my post.  Also Orlando is definitely a southern city.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Who's who for thé SC-5 candidates?

For the Dems: Parnell is a Goldman Sachs executive, Frank is a student and army veteran (and African American), Murphy is a marine veteran who now works for the non-profit Carolina Veterans Commission. Essentially, uninspiring candidates that leave little hope for anti-trump forces, unless one of these is really good at campaigning.

As a rule - i don't believe in African American candidates winning majority white southern districts... There are some rare exceptions on state legislative level, but mostly the vote is too polarized by race.  IMHO, even with Trump this is a closest to Safe R special..

Sanford Bishop would like a word.

His district is about 50-50.  Compare this with SC-05. Democrats need districts to be 40-45% Black minimum, and pray, that 10-15% of whites will still vote Democratic, to have a chance. How many such districts exist? Even Bishop won his district narrowly couple of times (2010, 1996, 2000)..

All I'm saying is that, and I mean this as constructive criticism, you tend to generalize a lot (sometimes you're right, other times you're way off) and it might not be the worst idea to allow for the possibility of exceptions a bit more often.  

Well, if you show me recent examples of such biracial coalition (not pre-2010, but after it, when polarization soared, including - racial one) - i may reconsider my position. Bit so far - i stick to it... It's extremely difficult to elect Black candidate in white-majority Southern districts now. I can fathom that say, in Southern Florida or Research Triangle (which are more or less "non-siuthern" politically), but not in many ither places.. In "typical" southern districts correlation between Democratc aand Black percentages is very strong...

As i said above - Florida, from Orlando down South, is NOT typically southern state. Would he win South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisisana or Arkansas  - another matter (typical southern states without great metropolises). In SC-05 we don't have metropolises or even their close suburbs (as in GA-06), so i consider my reasoning valid..

Obama won Florida in 2012

Please don't put your replies in my post.  Also Orlando is definitely a southern city.

When post is so long - it's not difficult to err. About Orlando - i meant in political sense, not geographically... . Well, let's simply agree to disagree: i seem unable to convince you, and you surely (i know that, it's quite difficult thing to do in ANY case, and you don't present too much arguments or numbers...) will not convince me... So - there is no sense to continue..

Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you think my initial claim was? 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Who's who for thé SC-5 candidates?

For the Dems: Parnell is a Goldman Sachs executive, Frank is a student and army veteran (and African American), Murphy is a marine veteran who now works for the non-profit Carolina Veterans Commission. Essentially, uninspiring candidates that leave little hope for anti-trump forces, unless one of these is really good at campaigning.

As a rule - i don't believe in African American candidates winning majority white southern districts... There are some rare exceptions on state legislative level, but mostly the vote is too polarized by race.  IMHO, even with Trump this is a closest to Safe R special..

Sanford Bishop would like a word.

His district is about 50-50.  Compare this with SC-05. Democrats need districts to be 40-45% Black minimum, and pray, that 10-15% of whites will still vote Democratic, to have a chance. How many such districts exist? Even Bishop won his district narrowly couple of times (2010, 1996, 2000)..

All I'm saying is that, and I mean this as constructive criticism, you tend to generalize a lot (sometimes you're right, other times you're way off) and it might not be the worst idea to allow for the possibility of exceptions a bit more often.  

Well, if you show me recent examples of such biracial coalition (not pre-2010, but after it, when polarization soared, including - racial one) - i may reconsider my position. Bit so far - i stick to it... It's extremely difficult to elect Black candidate in white-majority Southern districts now. I can fathom that say, in Southern Florida or Research Triangle (which are more or less "non-siuthern" politically), but not in many ither places.. In "typical" southern districts correlation between Democratc aand Black percentages is very strong...

As i said above - Florida, from Orlando down South, is NOT typically southern state. Would he win South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisisana or Arkansas  - another matter (typical southern states without great metropolises). In SC-05 we don't have metropolises or even their close suburbs (as in GA-06), so i consider my reasoning valid..

Obama won Florida in 2012

Please don't put your replies in my post.  Also Orlando is definitely a southern city.

When post is so long - it's not difficult to err. About Orlando - i meant in political sense, not geographically... . Well, let's simply agree to disagree: i seem unable to convince you, and you surely (i know that, it's quite difficult thing to do in ANY case, and you don't present too much arguments or numbers...) will not convince me... So - there is no sense to continue..

Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you think my initial claim was?  

As i see - that i generalize too much (with Sanford Boshop example, which didn't convince me too much). Well, may be, but i used words "as a rule" (which allows for exceptions, but - relatively rare exceptions).... Urban areas (Charlotte, Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, NoVA, Research Triangle, big Texas metropolises. and so on) have it's own political dynamics, where "metropolization" may trump race. Rural  and small city southern areas - very rare. Yes, they can vote for conservative black Republican (like Scott in South Carolina), but that's almost all. They will NOT (usually) vote for liberal or even moderate Black Democrat... Because of area history and traditions, which they inherited from their ancestors... Hence i usually consider a fact, that such and such  Democratic candidate in the South is Black, as not plus, but rather a minus to his/her electability.. Except, obviously, majority-minority districts, where it can be a BIG plus...

My point was just that it's possible for African-American Democrats to win culturally southern white majority districts, albeit extremely difficult.  I never said being an African-American Democrat in a majority-white southern district is an advantage, only that it isn't always guaranteed to end in said candidate's defeat.  It's like how a white candidate winning a majority African-American district is difficult, but not impossible (ex: Steve Cohen).  The part about you generalizing came later* and I gave examples of exceptions other than Sanford Bishop (albeit not in house seats).  The other thing is that while the south's urban areas obviously have different political dynamics, many of them are still culturally southern. In other words, Nashville and Orlando may not be conservative cities, but they are certainly southern cities in almost every meaningful sense (Nashville is an even better example). 

*Although you do indeed tend to over-generalize

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

^ Well, i know that it's possible for Black candidate to win majority-white Southern district. Sometimes - even a rural one. IIRC - in 2007 Black Democrat won state Senate seat in Mississippi which was rural and more then 95% white (he lost it later, but it's another story). But it's still a big rarity... So, my point was that "being Black" doesn't in any way increases electoral chances of candidate in southern majority-white (especially - more or less rural) districts, and to state that such candidate "would be the best, because he/she is Black" is a mistake. Black candidate can win there, but he/she must have other outstanding qualities and "happen to be Black", not be a "Black candidate".

And when i speak about whether such and such area is "Southern" i mean strictly political tradition and preferences. A words of one North Florida political commentator about his state come to mind: "I'm convinced that the further south you drive, the further north you get"...

P.S. The same about white politicians in majority-Black seats: Steve Cohen now wins convincingly, but was regularily primaried by Black candidates, many of whom spoke about "this being a Black seat", before. The same with members of state legislatures (Patricia Todd in Alabama, and some other). Racial polarization in voting is still high enough..

- I don't disagree that it's a much steeper climb, all I was saying is that it's possible. 

- The only part of Florida I think you could really argue isn't southern is the Gold Coast.

- I forget the results in his first race, but Cohen won in his primaries in a landslide every time he sought re-election in TN-9.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I forget the results in his first race, but Cohen won in his primaries in a landslide every time he sought re-election in TN-9.

Cohen won 30-25-12 in his first primary. AFTER that he really won convincingly (the closest being 66-32), but was primaried every election.

P.S. Well, i literally quoted North Florida columnist from Pensacola..

- Right, but he sailed through the primaries every time, winning landslide victories without breaking a sweat (against the 2006 runner-up, a former Memphis Mayor, and the President of the Memphis Urban League among others).

- That phrase is the sort of clever albeit highly over-simplified one-line that tends to make for a memorable line and decidedly flawed analysis.  There are conservative areas in south Florida (ex: Lee County) and liberal areas of northern Florida (ex: Leon County).  The fact is that the only area of Florida one could really argue is really more northern than southern is the gold coast.

- P.S.: Writing random words in all-caps or bolding them doesn't make your argument more persuasive.  I understand what you're saying perfectly well; I just think it's an oversimplification that could lead to faulty political analysis.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Anh's a ConservaDem, no?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

OH-12 would terrify me if I was a Republican

I'm not quite feeling it over here to be honest. There's a couple important distinctions. First off, it's likely the Republicans will get a decidedly good candidate. Not a C+ grade 1 like let's go who, as noted, has issues, but some well-established state senators and / or a County prosecutor who don't have a history of being bomb-throwing right-wingers. Likewise, while the Democrats may have a decent ish candidate in the Franklin County Recorder or a Delaware business man who is garnering a number of endorsements, they're not getting a Doug Jones,  Connor lamb, or Tipperani (sp?) Quality level candidate. Heck I don't think the candidates here are even up to the level of the candidates running the special elections in Kansas and South Carolina. I'm not sure these folks would be as bad as the Montana Congressional candidate ( assuming Franklin County's former Sheriff doesn't somehow win).

That said, there are not just a ton of candidates running for the Republican side, but a large number of viable candidates. There's at least three or four Hunan any other District would be a consensus choice for the party to nominate. With that said and the state senators and prosecutor at least being non Neanderthal level conservatives and obviously in stablished in types, there is I suppose a reasonable chance in a heavily fractured primary vote that one or two of the well funded wingnutz could worm their way through to a win. If that's the case, either of the Democrats top two candidates would have a competitive chance to win

Speaking as a resident of the district, I think we have a shot if it is Balderson vs. O’Connor.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

OH-12 would terrify me if I was a Republican

I'm not quite feeling it over here to be honest. There's a couple important distinctions. First off, it's likely the Republicans will get a decidedly good candidate. Not a C+ grade 1 like let's go who, as noted, has issues, but some well-established state senators and / or a County prosecutor who don't have a history of being bomb-throwing right-wingers. Likewise, while the Democrats may have a decent ish candidate in the Franklin County Recorder or a Delaware business man who is garnering a number of endorsements, they're not getting a Doug Jones,  Connor lamb, or Tipperani (sp?) Quality level candidate. Heck I don't think the candidates here are even up to the level of the candidates running the special elections in Kansas and South Carolina. I'm not sure these folks would be as bad as the Montana Congressional candidate ( assuming Franklin County's former Sheriff doesn't somehow win).

That said, there are not just a ton of candidates running for the Republican side, but a large number of viable candidates. There's at least three or four Hunan any other District would be a consensus choice for the party to nominate. With that said and the state senators and prosecutor at least being non Neanderthal level conservatives and obviously in stablished in types, there is I suppose a reasonable chance in a heavily fractured primary vote that one or two of the well funded wingnutz could worm their way through to a win. If that's the case, either of the Democrats top two candidates would have a competitive chance to win

Speaking as a resident of the district, I think we have a shot if it is Balderson vs. O’Connor.

Isn't Balderson the one where establishment decided to coalesce around?

For the most part*, but IIRC he's also pretty conservative** (although I could be mistaken) and the only part of his State Senate seat in the district is the Muskingum County part of OH-12 (which consists of about half the county's rural areas and the city of Zanesville, the latter which is less Republican than the rest of the county).  O'Connor seems like a fairly standard-issue Franklin County Democrat which will work against him in the district (Jay Goyal would've been a much better candidate and knowing what we know now, I actually think he'd win), but he's solid wave insurance and I think he's certainly stronger than the candidate we had in AZ-8.  I don't know if he'll get nominated, but I suspect he will and both the swing and Democratic turnout in Franklin County will be absolutely insane no matter who wins. 

Balderson vs. O'Connor would basically generic rural conservative R vs. generic Franklin County D.  In this district, that means Balderson probably wins, but in this environment an upset can't be ruled out either.  Franklin County is gonna be really, really ugly for the Republicans this cycle across the board.  A NoVA circa 2017 beatdown of all Republicans in Franklin County at the federal, state, and local level wouldn't be even remotely surprising and it could be even worse for them than NoVA was in a special election tbh (I can tell you this, even with the ODP being what it is, Franklin County is gonna have insanely high turnout in the GE and probably the special election GE, idk about the primary though). 

*Although I wouldn't say it's a "the fix is in" situation and I think he'd lose the primary if it were a head-to-head with a solid candidate from Franklin or Delaware County.

**Specifically, rural conservative as opposed to a suburban Stivers/Tiberi type of conservative

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Final:

Democratic Primary

Percent   Candidate   Votes   Winner
40.9%   Danny O'Connor   17,966   
16.8%   Zach Scott   7,394   
16.7%   John Russell   7,341   
13.5%   Jackie Patton   5,952   
8.1%   Ed Albertson   3,543   
3.9%   Doug Wilson   1,732   
100% of precincts reporting (603/603)
43,928 total votes

Republican Primary

Percent   Candidate   Votes   Winner
29.2%   Troy Balderson   19,811   
28.2%   Melanie Leneghan   19,159   
17.1%   Tim Kane   11,576   
14.3%   Kevin Bacon   9,694   
6.4%   Carol O'Brien   4,354   
1.5%   Jon Halverstadt   984   
1.2%   Larry Cohen   796   
1.1%   Mick Shoemaker   736   
1.1%   Pat Manley   729   
100% of precincts reporting (603/603)
67,839 total votes

Next Special is in TX-27 on June 30.

We Republicans dodged a bullet nominating Troy over Leneghan. Balderson will keep this Lean R, whereas it would've been at least Lean D with Leneghan.

I’d say it’s tilt-R with Balderson, but right on the border between tilt-R and Lean R.  O’Connor could win and Goyal would’ve put this right in the middle of the tilt-D category with Balderson as the Republican nominee, but for now, Balderson has a small (but significant) advantage.  Turnout is gonna be through the roof in Franklin County, but obviously that won’t be enough by itself.  O’Connor needs to make big inroads in Delaware County while keeping Richland County close (losing it by 5% or less) and not getting completely blown out of the water in Licking County (that last one is the hard part imo).  Morrow County is probably gonna be Balderson’s best county by a country mile, so low turnout there would help too.  I assume Muskingum County will give Balderson a bigger boost than most Republicans, but if O’Connor can keep things to a 5-8% loss in Balderson’s home county (i.e. doing really well in Zanesville and holding some of the ancestrally Democratic WWC folks) then that obviously helps (although it’s not essential).