Congressional Special Elections Results Thread (OLD, PLEASE UNSTICKY)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I mean, it would be fair to take from this result some pessimism on Beto O'Rourke's chances, given that he'd need some kind of major shift in Texas voting patterns that might be unexpected Hispanic turnout which didn't show up here.

Well, given that O'Rourke never had a shot at winning in the first place, this really isn't news.

Lmao he's down 5 in the latest poll. If being down 5 means you have no shot then we might as well call WV, MT, and MO Safe D at this point.

Polling isn't everything, as we learned in 2016.

Polling was fine in 2016.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I mean, it would be fair to take from this result some pessimism on Beto O'Rourke's chances, given that he'd need some kind of major shift in Texas voting patterns that might be unexpected Hispanic turnout which didn't show up here.

Well, given that O'Rourke never had a shot at winning in the first place, this really isn't news.

Lmao he's down 5 in the latest poll. If being down 5 means you have no shot then we might as well call WV, MT, and MO Safe D at this point.

Polling isn't everything, as we learned in 2016.

You would think a forum which is solely dedicated to US elections would stop peddling garbage like this that you see from Youtube comment sections.

I made a post a while ago that "STATEWIDE POLLS WERE OFF A LOT" was mostly not true. I won't quote it here since it's a long list, but just know that the only states with polling errors above 4% were OH (Trump was leading in the polling average anyway), IA (Trump was also leading in the polling average anyway), and WI.

Well, 4% more than made the difference in a bunch of states, so a 4% error allowance seems big to me.

[ON Progressive]

I mean, it would be fair to take from this result some pessimism on Beto O'Rourke's chances, given that he'd need some kind of major shift in Texas voting patterns that might be unexpected Hispanic turnout which didn't show up here.

Well, given that O'Rourke never had a shot at winning in the first place, this really isn't news.

Lmao he's down 5 in the latest poll. If being down 5 means you have no shot then we might as well call WV, MT, and MO Safe D at this point.

Polling isn't everything, as we learned in 2016.

You would think a forum which is solely dedicated to US elections would stop peddling garbage like this that you see from Youtube comment sections.

I made a post a while ago that "STATEWIDE POLLS WERE OFF A LOT" was mostly not true. I won't quote it here since it's a long list, but just know that the only states with polling errors above 4% were OH (Trump was leading in the polling average anyway), IA (Trump was also leading in the polling average anyway), and WI.

Well, 4% more than made the difference in a bunch of states, so a 4% error allowance seems big to me.

Literally the only state with a polling error above 4% that changed the result from the polling average was Wisconsin. PA didn't require even a 3% polling error to flip from the polling average.

Your narrative is easily annihilated the moment it faces actual scrutiny.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I mean, it would be fair to take from this result some pessimism on Beto O'Rourke's chances, given that he'd need some kind of major shift in Texas voting patterns that might be unexpected Hispanic turnout which didn't show up here.

Well, given that O'Rourke never had a shot at winning in the first place, this really isn't news.

Lmao he's down 5 in the latest poll. If being down 5 means you have no shot then we might as well call WV, MT, and MO Safe D at this point.

Polling isn't everything, as we learned in 2016.

You would think a forum which is solely dedicated to US elections would stop peddling garbage like this that you see from Youtube comment sections.

I made a post a while ago that "STATEWIDE POLLS WERE OFF A LOT" was mostly not true. I won't quote it here since it's a long list, but just know that the only states with polling errors above 4% were OH (Trump was leading in the polling average anyway), IA (Trump was also leading in the polling average anyway), and WI.

Well, 4% more than made the difference in a bunch of states, so a 4% error allowance seems big to me.

Literally the only state with a polling error above 4% that changed the result from the polling average was Wisconsin. PA didn't require even a 3% polling error to flip from the polling average.

Your narrative is easily annihilated the moment it faces actual scrutiny.

What about Michigan? And my point was that such a study should only allow a 2% error or so, not 4%, given the extreme closeness of the election.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Polls are not magic. You simply can't get estimates of election outcomes that are THAT precise. Maybe some day people will invent a better tool to predict election results, but that day isn't today.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Polls are not magic. You simply can't get estimates of election outcomes that are THAT precise. Maybe some day people will invent a better tool to predict election results, but that day isn't today.

And if that is the case, then it should be very easy to understand why my ratings are more than a reflection of the RCP average.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

O'Connor has a decent shot at pulling off the upset

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

O'Connor has a decent shot at pulling off the upset

And why do you say that?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

It would be an upset if Balderson won.

O Connor winning is the expected result.

[Alabama_Indy10]

It would be an upset if Balderson won.

O Connor winning is the expected result.

Reported for trolling

[Bidenworth2020]

It would be an upset if Balderson won.

O Connor winning is the expected result.

Reported for trolling

u really think he doesnt believe it?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I never said this election indicated a disaster for Democrats.  I merely pointed out there was no 6 point swing. I also stated the voter enthusiasm was about the same for both parties..   I stated some reasons why this might be so.  There may be other reasons.

For now the election in Texas 27 stands alone.  It is a anomaly.  To be a harbinger it must be confirmed.  

I am late posting this, as I went to church.

Those are fair statements.  As you said, it's just one data point among others.  There have been Congressional specials this cycle with some small swings, some large ones (all toward the Democrats).  There's naturally going to be some variation in results among the entire set of such elections.  The point is that the final margin in November is likely to be closer to the average of these results, rather than to an extreme on either end.

This is the list of results compiled by Harry Enten (who, incidentally, defines swing as the change from the district's partisan lean):



Source: https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1013418919363858433

(No, I don't think the final margin in November will be D+16.  As I've said elsewhere, I think this is a reasonable upper bound on the likely Democratic margin, with the GCB average as a reasonable lower bound. )

Before 2006 the special election swing average was like D+18, and resulted in a D+7 house vote. The reason that special election swing is correlated to final swing but not particularly predictive of the final margin is that it is a great measure of enthusiasm, but neglects two key factors. First, that there is an incumbent running in most districts (which in and of itself is worth about five points) and second that more people show up to vote in a midterm than just the motivated portion of your base, thus diluting the influence of an enthusiasm gap (though obviously not erasing it in any way).

Based on the special election performance I think a prediction of D+16 is very silly, even as a ‘ceiling’. There’s no reason to think Democrats will even come close to that unless they have a great campaign cycle and the generic ballot lead opens up a lot wider. Unfortunately such a swing would be impossible to see in special election results because there is only one more prior to November.

The incumbency advantage has collapsed since 2006, going from about 10% to 4%. That, in and of itself, indicates why Democrats underperformed the special election swing by 11.
Meanwhile, Democratic overperformance is essentially uncorrelated to turnout.

I'd guess Democrats are currently on track to win the house PV by about 12 points.

[BuckeyeNut]

No one is really excited or talking about OH-12 on the ground. It just hasn't captured the imagination like the past special elections over the year. The election is just a month away. I think this is a race Democrats could win -- if they knew it was happening.

[Maxwell]

No one is really excited or talking about OH-12 on the ground. It just hasn't captured the imagination like the past special elections over the year. The election is just a month away. I think this is a race Democrats could win -- if they knew it was happening.

that's... worrisome.

Tell me this then - do you think it's more likely that O'Connor wins in a shocker or that Balderson scores a double digit victory?

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

No one is really excited or talking about OH-12 on the ground. It just hasn't captured the imagination like the past special elections over the year. The election is just a month away. I think this is a race Democrats could win -- if they knew it was happening.

that's... worrisome.

Tell me this then - do you think it's more likely that O'Connor wins in a shocker or that Balderson scores a double digit victory?

Troy Balderson.

[Tintrlvr]

No one is really excited or talking about OH-12 on the ground. It just hasn't captured the imagination like the past special elections over the year. The election is just a month away. I think this is a race Democrats could win -- if they knew it was happening.

The biggest Democratic outperformances thus far this cycle have been in seats everyone was ignoring until the last minute. True, none of them were actual victories, but still.

[BuckeyeNut]

No one is really excited or talking about OH-12 on the ground. It just hasn't captured the imagination like the past special elections over the year. The election is just a month away. I think this is a race Democrats could win -- if they knew it was happening.

that's... worrisome.

Tell me this then - do you think it's more likely that O'Connor wins in a shocker or that Balderson scores a double digit victory?

O'Connor. Balderson may be favored, but not for a double-digit dunk.

[Badger]

No one is really excited or talking about OH-12 on the ground. It just hasn't captured the imagination like the past special elections over the year. The election is just a month away. I think this is a race Democrats could win -- if they knew it was happening.

that's... worrisome.

Tell me this then - do you think it's more likely that O'Connor wins in a shocker or that Balderson scores a double digit victory?

O'Connor. Balderson may be favored, but not for a double-digit dunk.

This.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Balderson wins by 7

[Hindsight was 2020]

O’Connor up 2-1 in early voting https://mobile.twitter.com/darreldrowland/status/1017200227298791425

[GeorgiaModerate]

O’Connor up 2-1 in early voting https://mobile.twitter.com/darreldrowland/status/1017200227298791425

That is not a correct conclusion from the data.  Nobody knows who those votes were cast for until they are counted.

[Gass3268]

O’Connor up 2-1 in early voting https://mobile.twitter.com/darreldrowland/status/1017200227298791425

That is not a correct conclusion from the data.  Nobody knows who those votes were cast for until they are counted.

Also this is just in Franklin County.

[ON Progressive]

O’Connor up 2-1 in early voting https://mobile.twitter.com/darreldrowland/status/1017200227298791425

That is not a correct conclusion from the data.  Nobody knows who those votes were cast for until they are counted.

Also this is just in Franklin County.

'
Also, this isn't even partisan registration (Ohio doesn't have that). It's just what party you voted for the last primary you voted in IIRC.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

O’Connor up 2-1 in early voting https://mobile.twitter.com/darreldrowland/status/1017200227298791425

That is not a correct conclusion from the data.  Nobody knows who those votes were cast for until they are counted.

Also this is just in Franklin County.

'
Also, this isn't even partisan registration (Ohio doesn't have that). It's just what party you voted for the last primary you voted in IIRC.

Which if anything, is probably skewed towards Republicans.

[KingSweden]

O’Connor up 2-1 in early voting https://mobile.twitter.com/darreldrowland/status/1017200227298791425

That is not a correct conclusion from the data.  Nobody knows who those votes were cast for until they are counted.

Also this is just in Franklin County.

'
Also, this isn't even partisan registration (Ohio doesn't have that). It's just what party you voted for the last primary you voted in IIRC.

Which if anything, is probably skewed towards Republicans.

Our collective point here is that it’s a nice data point but not worth over-interpreting