NATIONAL SENATE/HOUSE RESULTS THREAD (LATE RESULTS/POSTMORTEM)

[Meeker]

What's with the bizarrely low turnout in CA-47? The latest returns are:

Sanchez: 35,792
Tran: 29,996
Iglesias: 4,974

That's only about 70,000 votes. Vote-by-mail counting may be causing somewhat of a lag, yes, but all the neighboring districts report turnout at least double that and there's no reason why one district should experience such a lag and not the others.

That is what happens when you have a district with tons of folks who are not citizens.

Apparently so. This actually doesn't look that odd when you consider that only 75,619 votes were cast here in 2006.

[Lief 🗽]

CA-20 is potentially even worse: only about 64,000 votes at the moment.

[Torie]

CA-20 is potentially even worse: only about 64,000 votes at the moment.

That district, in addition to the citizen issue, has a lot of empty houses.

[Vepres]

I made a map of third party strength around the county in the Senate elections. >40% = total third party support >5%, >50% = total third party support 10%, etc.

[nclib]

AP called it for Giffords. Vidak's lead is down to 1,091 votes. McNerney's lead is at 441. Larsen's has expanded to 3,872.

Where is AP's link to recent calls? Their website is hard to navigate.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

AP called it for Giffords. Vidak's lead is down to 1,091 votes. McNerney's lead is at 441. Larsen's has expanded to 3,872.

Where is AP's link to recent calls? Their website is hard to navigate.

The results page for House races is here:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2010/general/by_county/us_house/AZ.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS

You just have to replace AZ with the appropriate state. I don't think they have a general page like that, I just hear this stuff either here or on SSP.

[Lunar]

I never realized how weird Carly sounded in her own ads, it's like she's thinking hard about each punctuation mark.  Here's an example:

http://www.youtube.com/user/CarlyforCalifornia#p/u/11/yc1aXp0sGAE

Maybe it's because what she's actually saying is just a series of unrelated clauses.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Larsen is still leading by nearly 4,000 votes. I don't really see how Koster could overcome that margin at this point.

[tmthforu94]

Question:
Would Shelly Capito have defeated Manchin if she had decided to run?

Personally, I think she could have. She has more name recognition and wouldn't have made the "hick" gaffe. Her only disadvantage would be that she isn't as socially conservative as Raese.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Given the results, no. Manchin might have found it easier to run against her; his lack of electoral experience would have been less of a problem as there are issues on which he could attack her over while distancing himself from the unpopular administration at the same time. If she could have beaten him in the Charleston area - possible - she could have made it considerably closer, but she'd have found it hard to find the extra votes elsewhere.

[Torie]

It would have been tough to beat Manchin, by anyone, after he decided to cut his ties basically to the national Dem party. And he will continue to do that, since he has to run in two years. And after having done it for that long, it may brand him, and how that will work long term for him is problematical. He may end up being one unhappy Dem, and move on. Politics can be a tough sport these days.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The AP has called WA-02 for Larsen.

McNerney's lead has continued to slowly expand in CA-11; he's up to a 624 vote lead now. Vidak is down to a 145-vote lead in CA-20, and Fresno will be reporting on Wednesday, which will probably put Costa over the top.

[Torie]

The AP has called WA-02 for Larsen.

McNerney's lead has continued to slowly expand in CA-11; he's up to a 624 vote lead now. Vidak is down to a 145-vote lead in CA-20, and Fresno will be reporting on Wednesday, which will probably put Costa over the top.

Do you have a link to the CA-11 number?  And I can't find that neat AP link. I want to know what counties came in today. San Joaquin County's registrar of voters is not showing any new votes. If the new numbers are from San Joaquin, McNerney is going to win. If not, we will have to await San Joaquin to give some late absentee numbers, to see if the late ballots are more Dem than the earlier ballots phenomenon at least in California and Washington, obtains here. (The additions from CA-11 from late last week were also all from counties other than San Joaquin, all of which McNerney was ahead in as of last Wednesday.)

Costa will win CA-20. There is next to nothing to count as someone noted from Kings, which is the Pubbie's base. So it looks like probably the GOP will pick up 62 seats net, assuming that they bag NY-1 and NY-25.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

No idea where the votes have come from; none of the articles I've found specify.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2010/general/by_county/us_house/CA.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS

Just replace CA with whatever state abbreviation you like.

[Ronnie]

Costa will win CA-20. There is next to nothing to count as someone noted from Kings, which is the Pubbie's base. So it looks like probably the GOP will pick up 62 seats net, assuming that they bag NY-1 and NY-25.

If they win both NY-01 and NY-25, they will pick up 63 seats (remember, TX-27 was recently called for the GOP).

They might even be able to pick up 64 if they win in IL-08 (what's going on with that, by the way?).

[Smash255]

Costa will win CA-20. There is next to nothing to count as someone noted from Kings, which is the Pubbie's base. So it looks like probably the GOP will pick up 62 seats net, assuming that they bag NY-1 and NY-25.

If they win both NY-01 and NY-25, they will pick up 63 seats (remember, TX-27 was recently called for the GOP).

They might even be able to pick up 64 if they win in IL-08 (what's going on with that, by the way?).

Based off the breakout of the absentees Bishop likely wins.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Fimian is conceding in VA-11.

[Torie]

No idea where the votes have come from; none of the articles I've found specify.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2010/general/by_county/us_house/CA.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS

Just replace CA with whatever state abbreviation you like.

Actually, the thousand votes or so that came in today for CA-11, all from Santa Clara County, vis a vis what was counted by last Wednesday, were a slight improvement for Harmer. Harmer is still alive - for the moment.

   Santa   Clara                     
54.04%   5285   6912   1627   55.45%   7,463    551   53.70%      
45.96%   4495   5802   1307   44.55%   6,277    475   46.30%      
8.08%   9780   12714   2934   10.91%              1026     7.41%    -0.34%   Dem decline

[Torie]

Costa will win CA-20. There is next to nothing to count as someone noted from Kings, which is the Pubbie's base. So it looks like probably the GOP will pick up 62 seats net, assuming that they bag NY-1 and NY-25.

If they win both NY-01 and NY-25, they will pick up 63 seats (remember, TX-27 was recently called for the GOP).

They might even be able to pick up 64 if they win in IL-08 (what's going on with that, by the way?).

Based off the breakout of the absentees Bishop likely wins.

Assuming the partisan breakdown was the same as what was counted so far vis a vis party registration. But the absentees from Wayne County in NY-25 were considerably more GOP than what came before, giving the Pubbie about 500-600 votes more than anticipated. New York is on the East coast, not the West coast.

[Torie]

In CA-11, Harmer had a very rough day yesterday, as votes came in from Alameda, replicating its earlier swing to McNerney plus a bit. Harmer will need to pull a rabbit out of the hat in San Joaquin, the one place where he won, by having the late absentees and provisionals swing to him by perhaps 6%, plus have a turnout that matches the balance of the district with its late reporting, to get back to even.. That is highly unlikely. Harmer is really on the ropes now.

   Alameda               11/9/2010   
57.32%   15688   16086   398   59.49%   21024   4938   59.96%
42.68%   11679   11950   271   40.51%   15247   3297   40.04%
14.65%  27367  28036   669   18.98%   36271   8235   19.93%   5.28%   Dem Gain

[minionofmidas]

What else is still open - NY1, NY25, IL8, CA20 and officially KY6 because they take their time for a routine recanvass - is that correct?

[Sam Spade]

Personally, I think IL-8 is over barring a miracle/mistake in recount.  Cook County absentee counting is basically over (only 500 absentee ballots have not been returned and there are only about 200 provisionals) whereas Lake and McHenry still have ballots left (Lake has 600 definite absentees and a few hundred provisionals whereas McHenry certainly has some absentees) and Bean is still down 347.

[Landslide Lyndon]

In CA-11, Harmer had a very rough day yesterday, as votes came in from Alameda, replicating its earlier swing to McNerney plus a bit. Harmer will need to pull a rabbit out of the hat in San Joaquin, the one place where he won, by having the late absentees and provisionals swing to him by perhaps 6%, plus have a turnout that matches the balance of the district with its late reporting, to get back to even.. That is highly unlikely. Harmer is really on the ropes now.

   Alameda               11/9/2010   
57.32%   15688   16086   398   59.49%   21024   4938   59.96%
42.68%   11679   11950   271   40.51%   15247   3297   40.04%
14.65%  27367  28036   669   18.98%   36271   8235   19.93%   5.28%   Dem Gain

So after three consecutive wave elections, only one of California's seats changed hands when McNerney defeated Pombo in 2006.
Whoever gerrymandered the state did a spectacular job.

Personally, I think IL-8 is over barring a miracle/mistake in recount.  Cook County absentee counting is basically over (only 500 absentee ballots have not been returned and there are only about 200 provisionals) whereas Lake and McHenry still have ballots left (Lake has 600 definite absentees and a few hundred provisionals whereas McHenry certainly has some absentees) and Bean is still down 347.

Illinois will probably be the only state where Democrats are going to have a LOT of fun with redistricting.

[minionofmidas]

In CA-11, Harmer had a very rough day yesterday, as votes came in from Alameda, replicating its earlier swing to McNerney plus a bit. Harmer will need to pull a rabbit out of the hat in San Joaquin, the one place where he won, by having the late absentees and provisionals swing to him by perhaps 6%, plus have a turnout that matches the balance of the district with its late reporting, to get back to even.. That is highly unlikely. Harmer is really on the ropes now.

   Alameda               11/9/2010   
57.32%   15688   16086   398   59.49%   21024   4938   59.96%
42.68%   11679   11950   271   40.51%   15247   3297   40.04%
14.65%  27367  28036   669   18.98%   36271   8235   19.93%   5.28%   Dem Gain

So after three consecutive wave elections, only one of California's seats changed hands when McNerney defeated Pombo in 2006.
Whoever gerrymandered the state did a spectacular job.

Compare the 90s:

1992 30 D, 22 R
1994 27 D, 25 R
1995 26 D, 26 R (by-election)
1996 29 D, 23 R
1998 28 D, 24 R (three seats changed hands, two gains one way, one the other)
2000 32 D, 20 R, which (plus a new, democratic seat) is the distribution set into stone by the redistricting.
Although, compared to the size of the 94 wave and the size of the state, that's less-than-impressive movement. A lot of the state simply is safe for one party or the other.

Also, have a look at Washington, with its nonpartisan redistricting:
1992 8 D, 1 R
1994 7 R, 2 D
1996 6 R, 3 D
1998 5 D, 4 R
2000 6 D, 3 R
and no change since. The 2000's waves just weren't that big on the west coast.

[Associate Justice PiT]

In CA-11, Harmer had a very rough day yesterday, as votes came in from Alameda, replicating its earlier swing to McNerney plus a bit. Harmer will need to pull a rabbit out of the hat in San Joaquin, the one place where he won, by having the late absentees and provisionals swing to him by perhaps 6%, plus have a turnout that matches the balance of the district with its late reporting, to get back to even.. That is highly unlikely. Harmer is really on the ropes now.

   Alameda               11/9/2010   
57.32%   15688   16086   398   59.49%   21024   4938   59.96%
42.68%   11679   11950   271   40.51%   15247   3297   40.04%
14.65%  27367  28036   669   18.98%   36271   8235   19.93%   5.28%   Dem Gain

So after three consecutive wave elections, only one of California's seats changed hands when McNerney defeated Pombo in 2006.
Whoever gerrymandered the state did a spectacular job.

Compare the 90s:

1992 30 D, 22 R
1994 27 D, 25 R
1995 26 D, 26 R (by-election)
1996 29 D, 23 R
1998 28 D, 24 R (three seats changed hands, two gains one way, one the other)
2000 32 D, 20 R, which (plus a new, democratic seat) is the distribution set into stone by the redistricting.
Although, compared to the size of the 94 wave and the size of the state, that's less-than-impressive movement. A lot of the state simply is safe for one party or the other.

Also, have a look at Washington, with its nonpartisan redistricting:
1992 8 D, 1 R
1994 7 R, 2 D
1996 6 R, 3 D
1998 5 D, 4 R
2000 6 D, 3 R
and no change since. The 2000's waves just weren't that big on the west coast.

     I suspect that the political landscape on the West Coast has solidified to an extent not seen in most other parts of the country. Who knows how long that will last.