State Legislature Special Election Megathread v2

[smoltchanov]

There’s a special called for Guy Reschenthaler’s old senate seat. Only Trump+6 and per ProudNewEnglander, both Wolf and Casey easily won it by double digits. Key to Dems winning the state senate in 2020. I imagine Dems would be favored there in the special

Surely more Democratic district, then present Congressional Reschenthaler took (PA-14), bu,t again - depends on candidates. Democrats would need young energetic moderate (Conor Lamb-2) here, probably. Whether they have it - another question.

[smoltchanov]

There’s a special called for Guy Reschenthaler’s old senate seat. Only Trump+6 and per ProudNewEnglander, both Wolf and Casey easily won it by double digits. Key to Dems winning the state senate in 2020. I imagine Dems would be favored there in the special

Surely more Democratic district, then present Congressional Reschenthaler took (PA-14), bu,t again - depends on candidates. Democrats would need young energetic moderate (Conor Lamb-2) here, probably. Whether they have it - another question.

No. The district voted 16% for Wolf and 12% for Casey, matching their statewide margins. And it’s 14 points to the left of the old PA-18. A standard Democrat should be perfectly able to win a special, particularly if the Allegheny GOP nominates perennial candidate D Raja again

Disagree. Trump +6 is not too little after all. So - moderate ONLY! If it would be +1 - another matter.. Wolf and Casey had very weak opponents, so their percentages here must be taken with considerable grain of salt.

P.S. Generally in my personal "book" anything R+ is a "natural moderate's pasture" (where else, if not here?) with more difficult areas (around R+10) reserved for few remaining moderate conservatives. "Standard Democrats" begin with D+0. Otherwise risk to lose outweighs doubtful plusus of "ideological purity" (though personally it's not plus, but minus, for me. As i said many times - i strongly dislike "loyal foot soldiers" of ANY sort).

[smoltchanov]

Tim Kaine won Virginia's 33rd Senate District by a 41.1% margin. Tonight, Boysko won it by 39.7%.

Keep in mind, Boysko was going up against a relatively moderate former State House member who had pretty good name ID. Kaine was going up against a neo-Confederate.

Yet another example of "ideology means next to nothing in elections"

Yeah, and that makes elections in America boring formality. No intrigue, no crossover voting, two armies of very predictable robots "compete".....

[smoltchanov]

GOP Candidate for Maine's 124th District Special Election Made Racist, Misogynist Posts on Social Media

Seat is Safe D anyway, but the Maine GOP still isn't sending their best.

May be it preserves them for winnable disticts, and runs idiots in districts like this?

[smoltchanov]

JAMES BURCHETT - REP42.50%1,494
BARBARA GRIFFIN - DEM4.10%144
FRANKLIN PATTEN - REP43.13%1,516
BARBARA SEIDMAN - DEM10.27%361


Another disappointment for the Democratic party.

Well, 65% White, 25% Black and 7% Hispanic rural Southern district, is, of course, Republican now, but - i still expected better performance from Democratic candidates.

[smoltchanov]

JAMES BURCHETT - REP42.50%1,494
BARBARA GRIFFIN - DEM4.10%144
FRANKLIN PATTEN - REP43.13%1,516
BARBARA SEIDMAN - DEM10.27%361


Another disappointment for the Democratic party.

Well, 65% White, 25% Black and 7% Hispanic rural Southern district, is, of course, Republican now, but - i still expected better performance from Democratic candidates.

lol at the idea that rural Hispanics in GA are even registered.  

Even 25 is considerably more, then 15.. AFAIK - Blacks vote freely now. It's not 1950's anymore...

[smoltchanov]

Someone on reddit who lives in GA HD-176 (he's a Democrat, for the record) had this to say about the race that would explain a lot:
"From my point of view this was always a two man race between Patten and Burchett with the majority of people not even knowing that the two Democrats ran. Patten is a Democrat turned moderate Republican (if there's even such a thing anymore) and Burchett is a Trump cultist. The race was framed as the Republican Burchett vs the Democrat Patten so I suspect an inconveniently large number of Democratic votes went to Patten"

Finally - good explanation of results.

[smoltchanov]

Someone on reddit who lives in GA HD-176 (he's a Democrat, for the record) had this to say about the race that would explain a lot:
"From my point of view this was always a two man race between Patten and Burchett with the majority of people not even knowing that the two Democrats ran. Patten is a Democrat turned moderate Republican (if there's even such a thing anymore) and Burchett is a Trump cultist. The race was framed as the Republican Burchett vs the Democrat Patten so I suspect an inconveniently large number of Democratic votes went to Patten"

Or just dem excuses for another sh!t performance.
Finally - good explanation of results.

Democratic label is absolute poison in most non-Black rural South, so - i am not surprised, that relative moderates there prefer to run as Republicans. Vice versa of situation in Hawaii, Vermont or Massachusetts, where even slightly conservative public tends to run as Democrats because of similar reasons.

[smoltchanov]

Someone on reddit who lives in GA HD-176 (he's a Democrat, for the record) had this to say about the race that would explain a lot:
"From my point of view this was always a two man race between Patten and Burchett with the majority of people not even knowing that the two Democrats ran. Patten is a Democrat turned moderate Republican (if there's even such a thing anymore) and Burchett is a Trump cultist. The race was framed as the Republican Burchett vs the Democrat Patten so I suspect an inconveniently large number of Democratic votes went to Patten"

Finally - good explanation of results.

Or just dem excuses for another sh!t performance.

Neither of the Democratic candidates had money to turn out voters and the local Democratic county committees are decimated (if they even exist).

It's surely not a problem of Republicans or even local ordinary voters. It's a problem of local Democratic county committees AND activists (if they even exist)....

[smoltchanov]

Next special election is on the 19th in VA HD 86. It's a safely democratic district that Clinton carried by 35 points - but Republicans are contesting the race, and the margin will tell us a lot about the impact of Northamgate and whether the disappointment we've seen in Minnesota and Georgia is being reflected elsewhere in the country.

Isn't this the election where the Dem candidate posted antisemitic stuff on facebook?
If yes then maybe he'll underperform, so you'll have the chance to declare again the Democrats demise.

Progressive Democrats are antisemits now?? When i began to study US politics these usually were some far-right Republicans (plus some KKK-oriented Southern Democrats)

[smoltchanov]

Another embarrassing underperformance. Get ready for the red wave in 2020, folks.

Not guaranteed. But - possible. Especially if 15-20 Democratic presidential candidates will cut themselves into small pieces and rather unelectable candidate will be a nominee. This may lead to Trump victory, even with Trump being personally unpopular, and this, in turn,  may cause a sort of wave. Not because Republican party and it's candidates will be good (that's highly unlikely), but - because Democratic may be very bad.... Of course - it's only a scenario, but - it's possible...

[smoltchanov]

Big day in Louisiana on Saturday. SEVEN House Seats are up for election - 4 previously held by Republicans (12, 27, 47, and 62), and three previously held by Democrats (17, 18, 26). All are jungle primaries, any needed runoffs would be held March 30.

Less so, then it seems initially. In 12th and 47th both candidates are Republicans, in 26th - two Democrats, in 17th - 4 Democrats. 27th has 1 Republican and 1 Democrat, but, with 86% for Trump, is not especially interesting too. 18th (4D, 2R) and 62th (4D, 1R, 1I), and 59 and 58% Trump, are the only two, where an intrigue (at least from party point of view) exist.

[smoltchanov]

Yeah but I wonder if Lacombe is running as a conservaDem though. Because it makes no sense for Republicans to only be getting 26% of the vote in a district Trump got 59% in in the South. That doesn’t really make sense at all even if it has “ancestral Democrats” or whatever

He MUST run (and really be) as rather conservative Democrat if he wants to win. This is acestrally Democratic, but, at least - moderate conservative district, where only such Democrats have a chance. Two last legislators from it - former congressman Cazayoux (surely - right of center) and Thibaut (who was second conservative Democrat in state House after Danahay by most ratings, and real moderate conservative, with typical ratings about 60 from ACU, about 70 - from LABI, and 100 - from Louisiana "Right to Life"). So, no liberals here, pls! There are enough districts where they fit, but - not here. IMHO - it's one of, may be, three Louisiana districts (with 60th and 75th) most closely resembling (minus open racism, of course) "old Dixie districts".

P.S. i am more surprised by very poor results by Democrats in HD-62, and whether a "grand coalition" will be able to stop a leading Republican...

[smoltchanov]

LA:

12: R win
17: Goes to D v D runoff
18: Goes to D v R runoff
26: D win
27: R win
47: R win
62: Goes to R v I Runoff

Control of these seats before the elections: 4-3 R
Control of these seats after the elections: 3-2 R with 2 seats undecided

Good chances it will remain 4-3. Republican is, probably, favored in 62th, Democrat - in 18th. Though strange things happened sometimes...

[smoltchanov]

It's way too early to judge now, after few specials. But, TBH, i see much less enthusiasm and much more complacency on part of Democrats now, then in 2017-2018 cycle, when they turned out to vote even in seemingly very red districts (like Oklahoma's), sometimes - with absolutely startling results. Who knows, may be after 2 years people became more accustomed to Trump, and he serves as a "lesser irritator", then before? Not sure, but think Democrats will have serious task on hand, trying to hold House, and must pay a lot of attention to it...

[smoltchanov]

I'm not really bothering to follow special anymore, they were of limited utility in predicting the wave in 2018. However, during the 2017-2018 special election cycle, Democrats underperformed in Connecticut as well as the deep south quite a bit.

But they overperformed in Oklahoma, Tennessee and many other states. So, i wouldn't ignore these "warning signs" either...

[smoltchanov]

Guys, OF F[inks]ING COURSE THEY WEREN’T GOING TO KEEP OVDRPERFORMING. That’s generally what happens after you have a successful election. Trend currently is concerning but we’ll see how it goes with time. Worth noting that presidentials do have different dynamics than midterms due to the fact that everything in pretty much every race is swayed by how the national candidates so far.

Also we’ve been sliding in CT for a while; especially considering the margin in the gov race vs national environment.

I’m not entirely relaxed about it; it’s worrisome. But not time for panic mode just yet either.

Well, no one panics. But a matter for concern - exist..

[smoltchanov]

Based off Lawrence county, looks like another devastating loss for Democrats.

You're absolutely insane if you think narrowly losing a district that was 80-17 Trump in 2016 is a devastating loss for Democrats.

Trump percentages are not everything. This districts had extremely strong Democratic tradition, electing Democrats ONLY for state Senate for almost 50 years before now. Essentially the same - with state House and many local offices. That's why this loss is still a sensitive blow for local Democrats at least. For me - it's neither an achievement, nor source of panic. It's only a sign, that Democratic bleeding in rural areas (especially - in Appalachia) - continues. Let's wait until early April, and state Senate election in suburban Pennsylvania. AFTER that - first preliminary conclusions can be made..

[smoltchanov]

Based off Lawrence county, looks like another devastating loss for Democrats.

You're absolutely insane if you think narrowly losing a district that was 80-17 Trump in 2016 is a devastating loss for Democrats.

Trump percentages are not everything. This districts had extremely strong Democratic tradition, electing Democrats ONLY for state Senate for almost 50 years before now. Essentially the same - with state House and many local offices. That's why this loss is still a sensitive blow for local Democrats at least. For me - it's neither an achievement, nor source of panic. It's only a sign, that Democratic bleeding in rural areas (especially - in Appalachia) - continues. Let's wait until early April, and state Senate election in suburban Pennsylvania. AFTER that - first preliminary conclusions can be made..

On behalf of all Democrats anywhere, I don’t care about us losing a Trump 80% district. That bled out several years ago.

And still elected Democrats. Until now....

Well, essentially Democrats conduct "ignore rural areas, because they (people, living there) are reactionary and racist". And count on simple fact, that 51% (people, living in suburbs) is substantially more, then 17% (people, living in rural areas). Yes, it's so. The question is - wheter a process of suburbs moving to Democrats, which became especially clear with Trump election, is a long term, or it's caused in large part by Trump's personality? Well to do subirbs never liked too much high taxes on people like them, which are quite possible with continuing "progressivization" of Democratic party...

P.S. (An example) Be prepared to rather big losses in Lousiana's state legislative elections this year with your approach. Democrats still hold substalntial number of heavily Trump districts (at least 1 in state Senate and 3 in state House are above 70% Trump, with one being 88% Trump, in addition to 65+% Trump districts...). While nimber of Republican held district NOT supporting (or barely supporting) Trump is minimal.....

[smoltchanov]

You don’t see Republicans lamenting about why they don’t win NYC, an 80% Clinton jurisdiction. I don’t know why some Dems are flipping the  out at losing a similar 80% Trump locale then

I am not Dem... There is a difference though. Republicans are non-competitive in NYC since 2000 at least (Bloomberg being sole exception, and very special one), while Kentucky's SD-31 gave 100% (unopposed) to Democratic candidate as recently as 2016. Feel the difference...

[smoltchanov]

While the district was a little winding, it doesn't seem like an egregious gerrymander. Plus, Morgan, Elliot, and Martin all have major prisons, so it could be viewed as the prison guard district.  If it had swung up into Boyd instead of down into Pike it could have had four major prisons (plus the worst county lockup in the country). Maybe redistricting can make that happen.  Since the region can't draw in any other economic development, it becomes one of those places that get packed with state and/or federal prisoners much like WV and SW VA. 

Interesting.... Thanks!

[smoltchanov]

No, letting go of 80% Trump districts with a coal and opioid economy is not the same as “let’s all ignore all rural areas.”

Given percentages Democrats get in most rural districts - it's close. Teton county (WY) is exception, not rule..

[smoltchanov]

The Democrats can't grow until they start appealing to rural areas again. That means expanding healthcare, supporting labor unions, and expanding Social Security.

Exactly. Stress economic, not social, issues here. Many rural residents are populist enough on economy, but - strongly socially conservative. Candidates must reflect that.

[smoltchanov]

The Democrats can't grow until they start appealing to rural areas again. That means expanding healthcare, supporting labor unions, and expanding Social Security.

Exactly. Stress economic, not social, issues here. Many rural residents are populist enough on economy, but - strongly socially conservative. Candidates must reflect that.

So much #populism here

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/maine-ballot-measure-medicaid-expansion


Barely passed in ME 2nd(mind you this isnt even some super republican district) this is a obama district.

And Trump's too. Who ran with many populist slogans in his program. Nevertheless, socially even that district is more conservative, then on economy.. Even some Democrats are pro-life and so on... Republicans - almost uniformly, unlike coastal areas, where even them are, frequently, more moderate.

[smoltchanov]

The Democrats can't grow until they start appealing to rural areas again. That means expanding healthcare, supporting labor unions, and expanding Social Security.

Exactly. Stress economic, not social, issues here. Many rural residents are populist enough on economy, but - strongly socially conservative. Candidates must reflect that.

Someone get IceSpear to respond

You can ignore demands of your voters. The only question is - why they must elect you in such case?.....