Special Election megathread (6/11: OH-6, 6/25: CO-4)

[GALeftist]

So it is looking increasingly likely that Ettinger outperforms Biden, right? Pretty unambiguously bullish for Democrats if he does imo. Even if you completely throw the presidential topline out the window anything less than Finstad+10 suggests a roof of R+3 for the HPV in November.

[GALeftist]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1557199749262057472

With 13% in? OK Dave, you're the expert I suppose

[GALeftist]

So it is looking increasingly likely that Ettinger outperforms Biden, right? Pretty unambiguously bullish for Democrats if he does imo. Even if you completely throw the presidential topline out the window anything less than Finstad+10 suggests a roof of R+3 for the HPV in November.

The Rs are already preparing the copium (probably that Dan Feehan almost won in 2020, but that was as a more well-known candidate against a worse R).

Yup. On the most recent Wasserman tweet, almost every single reply is a Republican desperately trying to expectation set downwards. "This district is much bluer downballot, high single digit win is good for Rs" ad infinitum. I was told that 2022 would be R+4 at least? How am I supposed to square the national environment shifting at least 7 points right with Finstad not even managing 7 points of improvement over Hagedorn?

[GALeftist]

Walz was literally the second Democrat since the Civil War to represent that district. It's definitely not some ancestral Democratic heartland.

Yeah downballot strength =/= ancestral strength. Also I think people make too much of it honestly. It would be one thing if it was some West Virginia Trump+5 seat that can reasonably be called Safe D because downballot dems have been running ahead of the top of the ticket since time immemorial, but Democrats have only been overperforming here since like 2006. That sort of overperformance seems a lot less durable to me and I'd bet it's on its way out within the next few cycles.

[GALeftist]

I'm comparing it to literally every statewide democrat apart from one (Keith Ellison) who has outperformed Biden/Clinton in the district, in recent years.

I won't remain silent any longer, this analysis is just straight up trash. If you're arguing that this district is just permanently blue downballot you need to explain why it is that this long history of Democratic sympathies is only observable between 2006 and now. Yes Ettinger is probably benefitting somewhat from downballot strength but unless that downballot strength has increased between 2020 and now it doesn't even explain the differential between this and the 2020 congressional race if we're assuming an R leaning national environment, let alone the presidential one. Winning this district by single digits this cycle is bad for Republicans, point blank, period.

[GALeftist]

I'm comparing it to literally every statewide democrat apart from one (Keith Ellison) who has outperformed Biden/Clinton in the district, in recent years.

I won't remain silent any longer, this analysis is just straight up trash. If you're arguing that this district is just permanently blue downballot you need to explain why it is that this long history of Democratic sympathies is only observable between 2006 and now. Yes Ettinger is probably benefitting somewhat from downballot strength but unless that downballot strength has increased between 2020 and now it doesn't even explain the differential between this and the 2020 congressional race if we're assuming an R leaning national environment, let alone the presidential one. Winning this district by single digits this cycle is bad for Republicans, point blank, period.

You're making assumptions on the basis that I've said it reflects a R+8 environment.. or whatever.. I haven't.

High single digits would be more akin to R+1 or +2.

Firstly that is very much on the low side of November HPV predictions both on this site and elsewhere. Most people think it will be R+4 to R+6. Secondly it would only indicate an R+1 or R+2 environment if I'm assuming uniform shift and the same downballot dem strength as 2020, but why would I assume that? After all, in 2018, a D+8.5ish year, this district was R+0.4 – 9ish points right of the nation. Is there any reason why I should prioritize Democrats' abnormally strong 2020 showing and say that the district is just 6 points right of the nation on the congressional level always and forever? This is a serious question.

[GALeftist]

You know I'm just not going to argue with cons coping about how great this MN-01 result is for them anymore. All I'm gonna say is that I truly hope that the NRCC agrees with you that there are no warning signs here because if they do I'm going to have a very fun November.

[GALeftist]

You know I'm just not going to argue with cons coping about how great this MN-01 result is for them anymore. All I'm gonna say is that I truly hope that the NRCC agrees with you that there are no warning signs here because if they do I'm going to have a very fun November.

No "con" is saying that this is a "great" result for Republicans, but there have been many contradictory signs this cycle. I’m still trying to make sense of it, but one suspicion which I’ve had for quite some time is that people are seriously underestimating how much the party coalitions are actually shifting and how reliable the GOP has become on high turnout (this is hard for many to accept because the media has been equating high turnout with Democratic strength for over two decades, including whenever the subject of "voter suppression" comes up). There are two consistent patterns here: (a) Democrats surpassing expectations in special election after special election; (b) Republicans winning the turnout race handily in virtually all swing state primaries (by margins which cannot be explained away by there being fewer competitive primaries on the R side or voters somehow being sufficiently tuned in to know which primary is "important" or which general election is "truly competitive").

The big problem with all the analyses which place great emphasis on special elections in general and highlight the 2020-PRES -> 2021/2022-SE swing in particular is that they implicitly assume that the electorate that tends to turn out for these special elections actually reflects the November electorate. If that’s the case, then yes, November is going to be very disappointing for the GOP. If that’s not the case, however, I suspect we may be looking at yet another traditional indicator (ground game, fundraising, polling, etc.) which has been shattered in the Trump era.

But Democrats aren't surpassing expectations in special after special. They are surpassing expectations specifically in elections after Dobbs. Have we all forgotten about TX-34 so soon? It's not like Dems were doing great in CA-22 or OH-15 or anything either.

Anyway the obsession with "Republicans winning the turnout race handily in virtually all swing state primaries" is odd to me, especially because it, too, is a "traditional indicator," and a historically less reliable one than specials or top two primaries at that, which might have "been shattered in the Trump era." If we're just tossing one of two inconsistent indicators arbitrarily I'd sooner toss primary turnout than specials or top-two primaries.

To be clear I'm not saying here that I'm anticipating a 2022 that is bluer than 2020, which is what these results indicate if you take them at face value. What I am saying is that they are straight up inconsistent with an R+4-6 nation, especially given that these have all had pretty historically high turnout.

[GALeftist]

I recall having been reliably informed by the good blue avatars of this wonderful forum that the NE-01 underperformance was solely due to Fortenberry's scandal carrying over to the next special election somehow. I wonder what the excuse will be this time. Perhaps this time, too, voters confused Finstad with the old representative and thought he was dead.

[GALeftist]

Also given how close this ended up being I probably would've waited longer than Dave to call it lol.

[GALeftist]

To be fair to Molinaro, in addition to winning his 2019 county executive race by ~17 points, he did win NY-19 by 11 in 2018. Not too shabby at all. However, I think this was mostly down to Cuomo's being a weirdo in that election, honestly. As evidence for this, (old) NY-20 went from Cuomo+0.3 to Biden+19, a much larger shift, even though it has none of Dutchess in it.

You also need to keep in mind that all of Dutchess is not in NY-19, and the county with the most votes (by quite a lot, actually, it logged 95k votes in 2020 to Dutchess's 60k) in the NY-19 race is therefore Ulster County, which Pat Ryan is executive of. He, too, overperformed by a lot in his county executive race, winning by like 48 points in 2019. Now, obviously that won't be the case in this special, but by the same token Molinaro won't overperform by as much, either.

Because I'm a pessimist, I'll say that Molinaro will overperform generic R by a point or two, but if you're strictly looking at the data I think it's basically a wash. Both candidates seem popular in their home bases. Molinaro might have some infrastructure from 2018, but Ryan's home base comprises more of the district. As such, especially since Democrats have been doing so well in specials recently, I would say Democrats have a very real shot of winning this special election.

[GALeftist]

It has been two entire minutes since polls closed and I'm getting sleepy. Where are the results BRANDON

[GALeftist]

I think these are supposed to exclude mail-ins? If that's the case, I'd probably rather be Begich. EDIT: Although apparently in 2020 this drop was "only" 61-39 Trump so I'd say Palin is definitely still in it, especially since that drop was less of the total vote than this drop was. Nailbiter for slot 2 if I had to guess

[GALeftist]

I'm thinking I'd maybe rather be Palin now? Begich is making up ground pretty slowly and he's running out of real estate in which to make it up pretty quickly. Probably still a nailbiter though.

[GALeftist]

FWIW, NYT's estimate of "% Reported" just dropped from 65% to 50%. If that's even somewhat accurate, then Begich definitely still has a chance of second place here.

Also points (assuming it's accurate) toward a turnout slightly north of 40% of RVs.

If that's real, Begich definitely has the upper hand.

[GALeftist]

Said it in the other thread, but it appears that nearly everything out is likely to be more blue, so Peltola should be able to top 40% when all is said and done in the final round, which certainly gives her a shot at beating Palin.

First preferences also probably have the highest predictive value here. If Peltola clears 40% that's great news for Democrats. Not sure how you'd square that with a Likely R NY-19.

[GALeftist]

My benchmarks for a tied race in NY-19:

Ulster: Ryan+23
Dutchess: Molinaro+2.1
Rensselaer: Molinaro+14.7
Columbia: Ryan+15.6
Sullivan: Molinaro+13.7
Otsego: Molinaro+9.5
Greene: Molinaro+23
Delaware: Molinaro+25.9
Schoharie: Molinaro+33.5
Montgomery: Molinaro+42.2
Broome: Molinaro+42.1

[GALeftist]

I'd say these returns suggest a nailbiter. Long way to go...

[GALeftist]

Molinaro is actually doing worse than my benchmarks in Schoharie rn. However, I did adjust for the fact that I thought we would see more polarization like in other recent specials, and therefore greater Molinaro margins in red counties. I would say this is anyone's race.

[GALeftist]

Again slightly below what I'd like to see in Greene if I were Molinaro. Biggest question marks to me rn are Ulster and Dutchess. Saw someone suggest Molinaro was on track to win Dutchess by 8; if so, that would take an equally insane performance by Ryan in Ulster to offset.

[GALeftist]

Board of Elections has Dutchess at Molinaro+2.7. I don't think that will get to +8 or anything, but Molinaro will probably outperform my benchmark for a tied race (Molinaro+2 or so). Not super out of line with my expectations though. Good rule of thumb is that Ryan needs ~3 points of overperformance to cancel out 5 points of Molinaro's in Dutchess.

[GALeftist]

Is Columbia truly done? Bc if so Ryan+26 seems *insanely* good for Ryan, right?

[GALeftist]

Ulster looking pretty darn good for Ryan thus far. Subject to change still but...

[GALeftist]

538 blog is estimating 120K votes in this race.

We're almost done then, we're at 113k in NYT now

119k now. Ryan leads by 3.4 points. Democrats are super duper stupid for allowing Molinaro to get a cash advantage in this race.

[GALeftist]

I agree with Trende. Remember, anything less than Molinaro+3 was supposed to be bad for Republicans. Doesn't seem like there's any conceivable way for Molinaro to get that kind of lead.