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

[Torie]

California just doesn't have enough blue collar Catholic Anglos. They were the group that swung, and swung hard, against the Dems this year. Joe Biden was chatting about that. As someone noted in a post, the candidate the Dems fear most is Christie.

The problem for the Republicans in California, and this was especially true for the statewide races, was that the few blue collar whites left in the state didn't swing hard Republican. Republicans experienced a nice wave among the upper middle class, as results from OC make quite clear. But the swing the Republicans needed amongst blue collar folks, that happened basically everywhere in the country, just didn't occur here.

 And you can't blame it entirely on demographic changes either. Look at the Central Valley results for Brown. Obviously he didn't do that well just due to the Hispanic vote (who voted more heavily for Boxer according to exit polls). So Brown must have done quite well amongst lower income whites in this state, while Whitman did better amongst minorities. And she could have done even better if it wasn't for the illegal housekeeper controversy. In fact if minorities voted for Brown at the same rate as Boxer, he would have won by about 15-16 points. But why didn't Whitman do better amongst those blue collar whites in the Central Valley and the IE? I understand why she did better with minorities (because she actually asked for their vote), but what happened with the blue collar white vote? That is what I find most surprising about this election.

That is all quite fascinating. The exit polls showed Brown doing much better than Boxer among white voters?  I didn't know that. Part of it may be because culturally conservative blue collar types might not have related well to a woman who is a billionaire, with an almost mid-Atlantic upper class accent which is now largely gone in the US, hired an illegal alien maid, and was just not their cup of tea. I suppose the answer could be found in other races. Did Whitman run behind white voters as compared to the entire slate of GOP candidates, both state and local, in general?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

California just doesn't have enough blue collar Catholic Anglos. They were the group that swung, and swung hard, against the Dems this year.

That's always the group highlighted whenever there's a major swing against the Democrats, but this time round I don't think it was entirely true. While the swing within that group was high, I don't think it was outside the general pattern for whites outside the liberal enclaves; Critz, Altmire, Kucinich and Sutton were all re-elected and had a swing amongst the old ethnic Catholic working class been particularly notable, all would have lost. There were also quite a few other districts heavy on that demographic that would have been 'shockingly' tight had an ethnic-worker swing been the main feature, but weren't; IN-1, NY-27, IL-12, numerous districts in MA and so on. The working class districts the Democrats actually lost tended to be more Protestant than anything else, with a few exceptions. And most of those go when you phase out the white Catholic workers who don't fit into the old ethnic worker substrata (all those Germans in Wisconsin, say). Must stress that I'm certainly not making the opposite case - for a pattern of resilience - either. That would be insane.

What California lacks are large numbers of the people that form the main swing blocks, in general. Including the group you mentioned, obviously. The swing to the Democrats there in 2006 was not exactly notable either. Affluent white liberal professionals, affluent white managerial conservatives, working class minorities, a significant agricultural/etc element, and that's almost everyone in the state covered, if gross generalisation is permitted. And those are the bedrock groups of the two parties these days (Obama's overperformance in the one group being treated as just that).

[Sam Spade]

Why is Barone held in such high regard?

It's because he used to be the best, or at least close to it. Not a David Butler or anything, but someone who turned out solid, respectable analytical work, and that's always been too rare in the U.S. His decline into intellectual dishonesty has been pretty depressing.

I basically agree with both you and Torie.

Of course, intellectual dishonesty is generally looked upon favorably today by so-called intellectual elites today, so it's no wonder that even halfway-decent minds fall for the allure.  Kinda goes along with what are viewed as positive intellectual pursuits as well.

I find it very difficult to stay away from myself - the only solution I've found is by acknowledging my own biases in what I analyze because we all have them.

[tpfkaw]

California just doesn't have enough blue collar Catholic Anglos. They were the group that swung, and swung hard, against the Dems this year. Joe Biden was chatting about that. As someone noted in a post, the candidate the Dems fear most is Christie.

Which is why Republicans were swept into unprecedented victories here in Massachusetts.

(Granted, that did happen in the Senate special, but certainly not in the general).

Aren't most Catholics in MA Irish? Though I don't know where there are that many blue-collar Catholic Anglos. Probably more of a swing among Catholics of German descent in the midwest.

For better or worse, we here in CA at least, use the term "Anglo" to refer to those who are not Hispanic, Asian or black. And that is how I use the term - and for no other purpose.  I guess part of it is to use the term "white," in the context of excluding Hispanics, just rubs me the wrong way. Indeed, I find it almost offensive for some reason. Thus I embraced the term.

Well, I didn't comment before, but most white Catholics (i.e. Italians and especially the Irish) would be far more offended by your calling them "Anglo" than Hispanics would by your calling non-Hispanic Caucasians "white."

[Sbane]

California just doesn't have enough blue collar Catholic Anglos. They were the group that swung, and swung hard, against the Dems this year. Joe Biden was chatting about that. As someone noted in a post, the candidate the Dems fear most is Christie.

The problem for the Republicans in California, and this was especially true for the statewide races, was that the few blue collar whites left in the state didn't swing hard Republican. Republicans experienced a nice wave among the upper middle class, as results from OC make quite clear. But the swing the Republicans needed amongst blue collar folks, that happened basically everywhere in the country, just didn't occur here.

 And you can't blame it entirely on demographic changes either. Look at the Central Valley results for Brown. Obviously he didn't do that well just due to the Hispanic vote (who voted more heavily for Boxer according to exit polls). So Brown must have done quite well amongst lower income whites in this state, while Whitman did better amongst minorities. And she could have done even better if it wasn't for the illegal housekeeper controversy. In fact if minorities voted for Brown at the same rate as Boxer, he would have won by about 15-16 points. But why didn't Whitman do better amongst those blue collar whites in the Central Valley and the IE? I understand why she did better with minorities (because she actually asked for their vote), but what happened with the blue collar white vote? That is what I find most surprising about this election.

That is all quite fascinating. The exit polls showed Brown doing much better than Boxer among white voters?  I didn't know that. Part of it may be because culturally conservative blue collar types might not have related well to a woman who is a billionaire, with an almost mid-Atlantic upper class accent which is now largely gone in the US, hired an illegal alien maid, and was just not their cup of tea. I suppose the answer could be found in other races. Did Whitman run behind white voters as compared to the entire slate of GOP candidates, both state and local, in general?

I don't want to overstate it, since the difference between the Senate and Governor's race wasn't that much, but whites (or Anglos or whatever) did vote at a greater clip for Brown than the overall difference would suggest. The difference could be attributed just to margin of error, but the county results make me wonder if there is something to it. I don't think whites in the bay area, LA, SD or OC voted that differently in the two races. Yet those whites who live in the more inland parts of the state didn't seem to warm to Whitman. And your explanation for the phenomenon, if it exists, makes sense to me.

The other explanation could be that Hispanics who live in the inland parts of the state were really enthusiastic for Brown but didn't like Boxer, and were more than balanced out by greater support for Boxer amongst Hispanics in the cities. We have to wait for the supplement before we can be sure of what exactly happened.

[ag]

California just doesn't have enough blue collar Catholic Anglos. They were the group that swung, and swung hard, against the Dems this year. Joe Biden was chatting about that. As someone noted in a post, the candidate the Dems fear most is Christie.

Which is why Republicans were swept into unprecedented victories here in Massachusetts.

(Granted, that did happen in the Senate special, but certainly not in the general).

Aren't most Catholics in MA Irish? Though I don't know where there are that many blue-collar Catholic Anglos. Probably more of a swing among Catholics of German descent in the midwest.

For better or worse, we here in CA at least, use the term "Anglo" to refer to those who are not Hispanic, Asian or black. And that is how I use the term - and for no other purpose.  I guess part of it is to use the term "white," in the context of excluding Hispanics, just rubs me the wrong way. Indeed, I find it almost offensive for some reason. Thus I embraced the term.

Well, I didn't comment before, but most white Catholics (i.e. Italians and especially the Irish) would be far more offended by your calling them "Anglo" than Hispanics would by your calling non-Hispanic Caucasians "white."

Nevertheless, from the standpoint of their Hispanic neighbors they are all Anglo, even if they are Greek ))

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The term Anglo in the context is kind of silly, but it makes sense in the terms of Texas and New Mexico where tons of Hispanics are just descendants of early Spanish settlers and have just as pure European ancestry as stereotypical WASP people. Ken Salazar (Colorado but same thing) is a great example of one of these.

[Torie]

Well, I lost the rather detailed post that I had been typing, because my computer is sick. Anyway, for now, to add to this discussion, we might look at the net swing over the past two election cycles from Bush 2004.  

Suffice it to say, in mostly Catholic white working to lower middle class to middle, middle class, but not upper middle class, Wayne County (the area does not include the Gross Pointes), the swing to Obama was under 4% in the area I am putting in a new GOP CD in my redistricting map, and the swing against Dingell from 2008 in his portion of Wayne, which includes a somewhat more downscale version of what I put in my GOP CD (it has next to no lower middle class) was17% (and looking at the precincts, I can see a big swing against the Dems there, up and down the line), for a net swing against the Dems of 13% since Bush 2004.  Where else can that be replicated in the North outside perhaps some bits of the Copperhead belt (Southern Ohio (outside Cincy, except to the extent Cincy has migrants for Kentucky), Indiana and Illinois) and the fossil fuel districts?

Where are the white working class Protestant areas outside the South and copperhead and fossil fuel districts?  The iron range?  What areas did you have in mind where you posit massive swings against the Dems this year?  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Gubernatorial:


Senatorial:


Not much difference.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Suffice it to say, in mostly Catholic white working to lower middle class to middle, middle class, but not upper middle class, Wayne County (the area does not include the Gross Pointes), the swing to Obama was under 4% in the area I am putting in a new GOP CD in my redistricting map, and the swing against Dingell from 2008 in his portion of Wayne, which includes a somewhat more downscale version of what I put in my GOP CD (it has next to no lower middle class) was17% (and looking at the precincts, I can see a big swing against the Dems there, up and down the line), for a net swing against the Dems of 13% since Bush 2004.  Where else can that be replicated in the North outside perhaps some bits of the Copperhead belt (Southern Ohio (outside Cincy, except to the extent Cincy has migrants for Kentucky), Indiana and Illinois) and the fossil fuel districts?

That doesn't come as a major surprise as the white working class parts of Michigan were disaster areas for the Democrats this year, owing to material discontent. I don't think ethnic/religious background had much to do with it and I don't think you can extrapolate into large national generalisations from it, given the failure to fall of districts that certainly would have done had that group been the swing group of the election.

Though I'm not sure what exactly it is you're measuring. Swing from the 2004 Presidential election, or from Congressional elections in 2004?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think there really was a defining group, as such. Which is one of the more interesting aspects of the election.

[Sbane]

Gubernatorial:


Senatorial:


Not much difference.

The difference was mostly in the margins, and it didn't flip many counties. Only San Joaquin flipped, and Merced was close. Brown certainly did better in the whole Central Valley, as well as inland parts of the LA area. Compare that to the urban coastal areas, which voted about the same for both races.

[Verily]

<snip>

Not much difference.

The difference was mostly in the margins, and it didn't flip many counties. Only San Joaquin flipped, and Merced was close. Brown certainly did better in the whole Central Valley, as well as inland parts of the LA area. Compare that to the urban coastal areas, which voted about the same for both races.

Del Norte flipped, too, and it didn't even vote for Obama. Loggers and prison workers for Brown?

[J. J.]

<snip>

Not much difference.

The difference was mostly in the margins, and it didn't flip many counties. Only San Joaquin flipped, and Merced was close. Brown certainly did better in the whole Central Valley, as well as inland parts of the LA area. Compare that to the urban coastal areas, which voted about the same for both races.

Del Norte flipped, too, and it didn't even vote for Obama. Loggers and prison workers for Brown?

Prison workers unionized?

[JohnnyLongtorso]

<snip>

Not much difference.

The difference was mostly in the margins, and it didn't flip many counties. Only San Joaquin flipped, and Merced was close. Brown certainly did better in the whole Central Valley, as well as inland parts of the LA area. Compare that to the urban coastal areas, which voted about the same for both races.

Del Norte flipped, too, and it didn't even vote for Obama. Loggers and prison workers for Brown?

Prison workers unionized?

Yes, and it's one union that needs to be busted. They have an inordinate amount of influence in Sacramento.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This explanation feels right to me, without having looked at the numbers. Sure Hispanics might not warm to a rather shrill pushy woman, who is so passionate about abortion - she's for it. And they are comfortable with the Brown name. Why not?

Sbane, if after having looked the numbers, you have more insights on this, I will be waiting to hear them. Thanks.

 

[Landslide Lyndon]

How come the prison workers union is so powerful especially in California?

[Sbane]

<snip>

Not much difference.

The difference was mostly in the margins, and it didn't flip many counties. Only San Joaquin flipped, and Merced was close. Brown certainly did better in the whole Central Valley, as well as inland parts of the LA area. Compare that to the urban coastal areas, which voted about the same for both races.

Del Norte flipped, too, and it didn't even vote for Obama. Loggers and prison workers for Brown?

Not sure about the loggers but the prison union might have voted for Brown. I know Whitman made some sweetheart deals with a few police unions, but might not have extended that offer to the prison workers.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This explanation feels right to me, without having looked at the numbers. Sure Hispanics might not warm to a rather shrill pushy woman, who is so passionate about abortion - she's for it. And they are comfortable with the Brown name. Why not?

Sbane, if after having looked the numbers, you have more insights on this, I will be waiting to hear them. Thanks.
 

That explanation also feels right to me, but I was surprised by the exit poll. The main difference was amongst the white vote, with minorities voting slightly more for Boxer than Brown, and amongst geographies the only difference was inland. It is possible that shifts in the vote also happened in the more urban areas, but were obscured since the counties are so big. You really can't say anything definitive without looking at results by city. A few counties must have already released that data, no? I'll try and look through them when I can.

[J. J.]

How come the prison workers union is so powerful especially in California?

Well organized?

[minionofmidas]

So, has Altschuler conceded?

[Tender Branson]

So, has Altschuler conceded?

They are currently in court to resolve the election.

There are a few questioned ballots, but Altschuler probably has no chance anymore to win this.

[rbt48]

Maybe Altshuler will end up contesting it in the House a la the Indiana 8th in 1985 between McIntyre and McCloskey.

[Smash255]

So, has Altschuler conceded?

They are currently in court to resolve the election.

There are a few questioned ballots, but Altschuler probably has no chance anymore to win this.

Margin is 215 with the counted Military ballots.  2,051 ballots were challenged and remain uncounted.  Altschuler challenged the majority of those ballots (1,260-791), so if anything once the challenged ballots are ruled on, Bishop likely expands his lead.

[Smash255]

So, has Altschuler conceded?

They are currently in court to resolve the election.

There are a few questioned ballots, but Altschuler probably has no chance anymore to win this.

Margin is 215 with the counted Military ballots.  2,051 ballots were challenged and remain uncounted.  Altschuler challenged the majority of those ballots (1,260-791), so if anything once the challenged ballots are ruled on, Bishop likely expands his lead.

Update.  Both sides agreed to drop 129 challenges each.  Once those ballots were opened and counted, Bishop picked up 6 votes and now leads by 221.   Approx 1,600 challenged ballots remain uncounted, most of which were challenged by Altschuler.

[Smash255]

Well the NY-1 has gone into the bizzaro world of how sealed an envelope was.  Some ballots were thrown out because they were improperly sealed, others were counted over the objections by the Altschuler campaign that they were closed with scotch tape rather than licked closed.  Yes, you read that correctly.   Bishop has increased his lead to 264 votes after 120 more ballots were allowed to be counted.

GOP elections commissioner asked for the vote count to be stopped (for reasons currently unknown) and altschuler and the GOP are now in closed door meetings.


http://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/spin-cycle-1.812042/1st-c-d-how-sticky-is-sticky-enough-1.2511678?showAll=true