CPRM, Pt 3: LA 11/6

[Adam Griffin]

This is still close, this looks like it will really come down to the last percent of votes. But seriously, is there even a difference?

The two less-capable candidates IMO are winning. McBath and Bourdeaux will bring more outside resources and raise more money, respectively.

[Adam Griffin]

I have a hard time believing that there could be so many more votes cast in GA-06 than in GA-07.

GA-06 is heavily-white and one of the richest congressional districts in the country. While GA-07 also has money, it has a lot of low-propensity voters (in particular, Latinos and Asians).

[Adam Griffin]

Also, I have no idea if NYT has more votes counted for these races than SoS, but here are the up-to-date SoS figures (95/207 precincts reporting in GA-6; 120/124 precincts reporting in GA-7):

[Adam Griffin]

Just in case anybody missed my edit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

I have a hard time believing that there could be so many more votes cast in GA-06 than in GA-07.

GA-06 is heavily-white and one of the richest congressional districts in the country. While GA-07 also has money, it has a lot of low-propensity voters (in particular, Latinos and Asians).

This is a difference of 50,000 to 15,000. And 40,000 of the votes in GA-06 is coming from Fulton. It doesnt make sense.

To be fair, GA-06 is like 80% white and GA-07 is majority-minority + GA-06 has had $30m worth of organizing pumped into it. NYT often has more updated results than GA SoS for some reason, so those numbers may not be as off as they appear in the end.

[Adam Griffin]

GA-6 just went up by 5k votes on SoS while GA-7 remains the same:

[Adam Griffin]

I have a hard time believing that there could be so many more votes cast in GA-06 than in GA-07.

GA-06 is heavily-white and one of the richest congressional districts in the country. While GA-07 also has money, it has a lot of low-propensity voters (in particular, Latinos and Asians).

This is a difference of 50,000 to 15,000. And 40,000 of the votes in GA-06 is coming from Fulton. It doesnt make sense.

To be fair, GA-06 is like 80% white and GA-07 is majority-minority + GA-06 has had $30m worth of organizing pumped into it. NYT often has more updated results than GA SoS for some reason, so those numbers may not be as off as they appear in the end.

I think I might be right.

Dave Weigel is saying that the NYT numbers are wrong, but I dont know how to posts Tweets, so RIP.
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1021947408052379648

Just speculating here based on what SoS is showing, but it wouldn't surprise me if Ables' "21073" is supposed to be "11073" or "12073". NYT mis-enters election results on practically every election night, LOL.

[Adam Griffin]

NYT has already projected Bourdeaux as the winner in GA-7 despite it being half the margin of GA-6 (and both districts are 97-98% reporting)...

[Adam Griffin]

^ I wouldn't call people of districts in question "inelastic". They had shown this by switching in droves from Romney to Clinton. And if so - there must be substantial number of centrists (the type i described - fiscally conservative, but socially - moderate, to even liberal) in these districts, which Democrats must attract if they want to flip these districts. And if a base wouldn't vote for moderate liberal because he/she is "not progressive enough" - it's base's problem: they may have their present Republican congressmen for few more years and be proud of their "purity"....

Or, the more likely reason, is that major demographic and economic shifts in the Atlanta Metro had an effect on the vote in the district. Especially considering that these shifts only occurred in the Atlanta Metro and not the suburbs surrounding Savanna or other major cities in GA.

Demography alone was responsible for approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the swing in metro ATL. The rest was actual R-to-D defections. We know this because unlike in almost every other state, GA publishes turnout by race, gender and age all the way down to the precinct level.

That basically means GA would have went from Romney +8 to Trump +7 without the persuasion factor. Of course there were also persuadables outside the metro; they were simply swamped by the D-to-R defections and voters staying home.

[Adam Griffin]

In the special election with Jon Ossoff, the margin was almost the exact same as in 2016. This makes sense, as Trump was not the most controversial back then(still bad, but hes much worse now), and suburban seats are very inelastic. But  if it truly was a suburban switch, they should have voted for Handal, as she was a "normal" R. This inelasticity suggests to me that it was more of a permanent shift, rather than a suburban shift.

In the special election with Jon Ossoff, the margin was almost the exact same as in 2016. This makes sense, as Trump was not the most controversial back then(still bad, but hes much worse now), and suburban seats are very inelastic. But  if it truly was a suburban switch, they should have voted for Handal, as she was a "normal" R. This inelasticity suggests to me that it was more of a permanent shift, rather than a suburban shift.

I'm honestly not really sure what you're saying here. GA, TX & AZ's major metros swung to the extent that they did because they are massive enough to where past GOP performance was an anomaly. Of the top 10 largest metro areas, there are only 4 on the list that aren't/haven't been immensely Democratic: Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas and Houston. Virtually every other large US metro area had already been generating Democratic performance at levels strong enough to where the kind of gains made in GA/TX/AZ in 2016 was impossible. Trump was the catalyst that finally shook these areas loose (at least in that race specifically). There really aren't any other comparable metros in the South size-wise, and no other comparable metros nationally that weren't already firmly Democratic.

Nevertheless and as far as Ossoff's race, I think you're conflating coincidence with correlation. The special election electorate had a higher percentage of "strong Democrats" show up to vote than 2016's electorate had. The Democratic energy and money galvanized loyal Democrats to vote (just like in AL), with the main difference between that the GOP was caught flat-footed in the race initially. Metro ATL (particularly the area centered around CD 6) has a history going back to at least 2004 where Democratic presidential candidates would overperform congressional and down-ballot candidates by 10-20 points or more; there are dozens of precincts in places like North Fulton, Dekalb, Cobb and Gwinnett where Obama got 55% or more in 2008, but the average downballot Dem didn't break 40%.

If I gave percentages, I would say 1/4-1/3 was caused by defections, while the rest was caused by transplants, demographic changes, and other factors.

I mean, you could give those percentages, but they wouldn't be accurate. I'm not sure what "other factors" would even entail, but in discussions about elasticity and the like, there are two main factors: persuasion and turnout. Persuasion involves flipping voters and turnout involves getting your solid supporters to vote. Even within the dynamic of fresh arrivals, they fall into one of those two categories effectively. ATL's growing rapidly but not that rapidly - and not massively more than between 2008-12 - and surely you're not counting people who moved to the metro 10+ years ago and who had been voting GOP until 2016 as "transplants" in such an assessment?. Most transplant growth in the metro is minority growth and vice-versa (at least among adults), so it's largely accounted for in the demographic assessment of the swing.

[Adam Griffin]

Because the field is so fractured and due to the historic nature of TN GOP voters not being extremists, I could see Lee coming in first with like 25-30% if he's truly resonating. Black is just so off-putting, negative and defensive in her ads, Boyd is getting beaten black and blue, and Harwell is a woman (and TN voters don't like electing women).

I keep saying it: GOP women running against Democratic men in Southern states with relatively recent Democratic voting habits are going to under-perform this cycle.

[Adam Griffin]

ITT Tender shows his lack of understanding of Southern politics and primaries.

In the vast majority of TN - both geographically and population-wise - the GOP rules. Everywhere else, Dems already dominate; virtually no competitive areas. That's important to understand in the context of primaries, as many voters from the opposing party vote in the dominant party's primary for influence. However, throughout most of the South, it's a one-way affair; i.e. GOP voters in Democratic areas vote in the GOP primary, and DEM voters in GOP areas also vote in the GOP primary. That's because the GOP top-ticket contests are always either important or contested, whereas the DEM contests aren't. That's why GOP ballots are 43% in Shelby County, 70% in Knox County, 74% in Williamson County and 5-15 points more GOP than in general elections everywhere else.

With nothing remotely competitive at the top of the ballot in the Democratic primary, of course practically every GOP voter + like one-third of Dems are going to pull a GOP ballot. It's very important to also point out that a huge element of this trend has nothing to do with whether DEM/GOP primaries have contested top-ticket races: much of it is fueled by local offices. People want to influence who is going to represent them, and in the vast majority of TN, that means voting in the GOP primary to pick the de-facto winner. This happens almost everywhere in the South, and it's nothing new.

A little-known secret is that 20-25% of Southern GOP primary voters in open states are actually Democrats, lol.

[Adam Griffin]

^^^ It also wouldn't surprise me if the state party and its associated orgs purposefully wanted or indirectly tried to suppress Democratic turnout in the primary. TN is an especially egregious example of how low-information Democratic voters often wander into the booth and pick literally the first name on the ballot (Mark Clayton, Charlie Brown, Gordon Ball, etc) - though at least in the top-ticket races in this election, it would have had no impact.

[Adam Griffin]

GOP primary ballots in MO only make up 53.5% of the two-way count as of now; with 123 precincts remaining, 111 are in St Louis County, Boone County (Columbia) and Jackson County (Kansas City): 3 of the 4 counties Clinton won.

[Adam Griffin]

I've been using the top-ticket primary contest (or in cases where raw turnout is reported, that) to calculate the two-way primary turnout figures for 2018. With Democratic wins tonight in MI & WA, Democrats now have officially secured a majority in the Primary Electoral College!*



*Includes obvious future D wins in NY & MA; also includes an almost-certain D win in KY, for which we do not have raw turnout figures yet from SoS, but even without it, throwing in VT & HI get Democrats to 270

[Adam Griffin]

It's here!

Here's Griff's patented Election Day Hysteria Generator!

Have fun

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

WULFRIC PROJECTION

As an election nerd myself. I get it, I really do. But its very cringy

It's even cringier when you realize he's not doing it ironically.

[Adam Griffin]

Looks like Anoka and Hennepin are mostly in; Ramsey barely reporting. Will Murphy do well in Ramsey and how much vote does Walz likely have outstanding outside the Twin Cities?

[Adam Griffin]

Hopefully there's a lot of Democratic vote outstanding in WI. As much as people say it doesn't matter, the GOP being at 56% of counted ballots thus far wouldn't be an optimistic final number for Democrats.

[Adam Griffin]

Hopefully there's a lot of Democratic vote outstanding in WI. As much as people say it doesn't matter, the GOP being at 56% of counted ballots thus far wouldn't be an optimistic final number for Democrats.

And just like that, Democrats take the lead with a Milwaukee dump (Dems now 53% of ballots statewide).

[Adam Griffin]

Hopefully there's a lot of Democratic vote outstanding in WI. As much as people say it doesn't matter, the GOP being at 56% of counted ballots thus far wouldn't be an optimistic final number for Democrats.

They're even now. And there's still nothing in from Dane County.

I don't know why I keep forgetting that Dane County exists, but I do!

[Adam Griffin]

So, 80% of WOW precincts and 84% of Milwaukee County precincts are in, 0% from Dane & maybe 20% from SW Wisconsin.

[Adam Griffin]

Just some comparisons on fully-reported WI counties:

2016 Presidential vs 2018 Primary (margin):
Door: GOP +3 / DEM +10
Fond du Lac: GOP +26 / GOP +36
Walworth: GOP +20 / GOP +18

[Adam Griffin]

Does Murphy still have a chance?

She might make up around 5k net votes in what's left of Ramsey, but with the rest of the state filling in now, it's very unlikely.

[Adam Griffin]

CT 2016 Presidential vs 2018 Primary (margin):

New London: DEM +7 / DEM +18
Windham: GOP +8 / DEM +10

VT 2016 Presidential vs 2018 Primary (margin):
Essex: GOP +1 / GOP +40