State Legislature Special Election Megathread v2

[Nyvin]

The Connecticut results are kinda surprising, and concerning I guess (sort of).    Voter apathy I guess?

[Bidenworth2020]

The Connecticut results are kinda surprising, and concerning I guess (sort of).    Voter apathy I guess?

Yeah, the turnout was utterly pitiful. Like honestly it makes me concerned.

[Nyvin]

I don't care much about the HD-99 seat, but losing a 59.69% Clinton district (SD-6) is really weird, and worrying.  

[choclatechip45]

Lamont backlash maybe? Honestly I have no idea what happened.

New Britain is surrounded by highways I-84, Route 9 and Route 72. Lamont went back on his pledge to only toll trucks. So all 3 highways could have tolls and it looks the Democratic field operation was non existent since turnout was super low.

[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...

[Ebsy]

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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

The classic response to a warning sign of a problem - disregard and pretend everything is fine. The Problem - everything is not fine.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Schedule through 4/2

3/5 - TX HD 145 Runoff (D v D), KY SD 31, RI HD 68
3/12 - GA HD 176 Runoff (R v R), TX HD 125 Runoff, ME HD 124, MS HD 32, 71, 101 , PA HD 114, 190 , TN SD 32
3/19 - IA SD 30, MN HD 11B
3/26 - SC SD 6, CA SD 1 & 33 JUNGLE
3/30 - LA Runoffs - HD 17 (D v D), 18, 62 (R v I)
4/2 - ME HD 52, PA SD 37, and any needed MS Runoffs

[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...

[Sestak]

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.

[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..

[Ebsy]

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.

The classic response to a warning sign of a problem - disregard and pretend everything is fine. The Problem - everything is not fine.

What problem would this be exactly? Losing seats in the Connecticut legislature is hardly worth losing sleep over.

[UncleSam]

The takeaway from CT is clear: if you want to flip a PVI+11 seat from the opposing party, nominate someone named Bizzarro.

[IceSpear]

Remember when LimoLiberal insisted that the Texas special election like a month before 2018 meant Hurd was safe, Cruz would win by double digits, and Republicans would hold the House? I also remember when Oklahoma special elections meant Gov. Edmondson was inevitable.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Remember when LimoLiberal insisted that the Texas special election like a month before 2018 meant Hurd was safe, Cruz would win by double digits, and Republicans would hold the House? I also remember when Oklahoma special elections meant Gov. Edmondson was inevitable.

Now, this kind of inflammatory rhetoric is why people want you banned from Atlas.

[Bidenworth2020]

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.

The classic response to a warning sign of a problem - disregard and pretend everything is fine. The Problem - everything is not fine.

The trend of special elections is worrying, yes, but I do not think it is time to go into panic mode yet. I would start to ig dems dont pick up the PA seat, though.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

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.

2018 was not a successful election by any stretch of the imagination for Democrats. They missed the mark on all the parameters that measure Democratic success tooled for the 2018 elections:

Success in House: Do Democrats have 243 or more seats in the House? No, failure of a cycle.
Success in Senate: Do Democrats have 51 or more seats in the Senate? No, failure of a cycle.
Success in Governorships: Do Democrats have 30 or more total Governorships? No, failure of a cycle.

2018 was a complete failure for the Democrats on every level.

[Sestak]

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.

2018 was not a successful election by any stretch of the imagination for Democrats. They missed the mark on all the parameters that measure Democratic success tooled for the 2018 elections:

Success in House: Do Democrats have 243 or more seats in the House? No, failure of a cycle.
Success in Senate: Do Democrats have 51 or more seats in the Senate? No, failure of a cycle.
Success in Governorships: Do Democrats have 30 or more total Governorships? No, failure of a cycle.

2018 was a complete failure for the Democrats on every level.

Uh, what kind of idiotic benchmarks are those? Dems only hit one of those in 2006 (the Senate one), and Republicans only one (the Governorship one, and number of governorships is something in which Republicans have a systemic edge) in 2010.

[Canis]

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.

2018 was not a successful election by any stretch of the imagination for Democrats. They missed the mark on all the parameters that measure Democratic success tooled for the 2018 elections:

Success in House: Do Democrats have 243 or more seats in the House? No, failure of a cycle.
Success in Senate: Do Democrats have 51 or more seats in the Senate? No, failure of a cycle.
Success in Governorships: Do Democrats have 30 or more total Governorships? No, failure of a cycle.

2018 was a complete failure for the Democrats on every level.

ok no
the benchmarks for 2018 was controlling the house which we do and holding down the senate and gaining governorships the only one that was a slight failure was the senate where we net lost a seat but we also won the popular vote in the senate 53%-38%  and we picked up 7 governorships 2018 was a success .

[Nyvin]

Okay, after reading more about Lamont, I'm not as surprised about losing in Connecticut anymore. 

Raising taxes on groceries?

Having all vehicles pay tolls?

Eliminating the estate tax?

This governor is awful, no wonder people are at pissed at CT Dems.   They deserved this loss. 

[Bidenworth2020]

Okay, after reading more about Lamont, I'm not as surprised about losing in Connecticut anymore. 

Raising taxes on groceries?

Having all vehicles pay tolls?

Eliminating the estate tax?

This governor is awful, no wonder people are at pissed at CT Dems.   They deserved this loss. 

On the other hand, though, he managed to get a surplus. So pretty impressive in my book.

[Matty]

It’s not surprising that dems in CT underperformed

It’s the blue version of Kansas....state is in fiscal shambles. Incumbent party blamed

Remember, this 55-42 Clinton state almost went red in a 2018 blue wave year

[Politician]

Okay, after reading more about Lamont, I'm not as surprised about losing in Connecticut anymore. 

Raising taxes on groceries?

Having all vehicles pay tolls?

Eliminating the estate tax?

This governor is awful, no wonder people are at pissed at CT Dems.   They deserved this loss. 

Lol, I remember when he was the "progressive" candidate against Lieberman.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Okay, after reading more about Lamont, I'm not as surprised about losing in Connecticut anymore. 

Raising taxes on groceries?

Having all vehicles pay tolls?

Eliminating the estate tax?

This governor is awful, no wonder people are at pissed at CT Dems.   They deserved this loss. 

Lol, I remember when he was the "progressive" candidate against Lieberman.

Ha was the anti-war candidate. Other than that I don't remember any other issues where the two of them fundamentally disagreed.

[IceSpear]

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.

2018 was not a successful election by any stretch of the imagination for Democrats. They missed the mark on all the parameters that measure Democratic success tooled for the 2018 elections:

Success in House: Do Democrats have 243 or more seats in the House? No, failure of a cycle.
Success in Senate: Do Democrats have 51 or more seats in the Senate? No, failure of a cycle.
Success in Governorships: Do Democrats have 30 or more total Governorships? No, failure of a cycle.

2018 was a complete failure for the Democrats on every level.

Uh, what kind of idiotic benchmarks are those? Dems only hit one of those in 2006 (the Senate one), and Republicans only one (the Governorship one, and number of governorships is something in which Republicans have a systemic edge) in 2010.

Solid thought WI-01 was lean D, clearly his expectations were a tad too high.