CPRM, Pt 2: AL (RO) 7/17; GA (RO) 7/24; TN 8/2; 274K ballots left in CA

[Smash255]

I have received numerous mailers a call and text for Liuba Grechen Shirley for the Primary in NY-2, also received a call for DuWayne Gregory from State Senator John Brooks.

[Tintrlvr]

Issa got 51% in the 2016 primary and won the general by 1.6k votes.

Hmmm... Wish I could find the original post. Maybe the point was 9/10 excluding 2016, since 2016 had the presidential primary where only the Dem side was competitive so the Dems did much relatively better than they otherwise would have downballot?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Looks like CA-48 is just about done; there were only a handful of votes added tonight.  Rouda gained 10 and Keirstead 9, so Rouda now leads by 126.

* DANA ROHRABACHER (REP)   52,734   30.3%
HARLEY ROUDA (DEM)   30,099   17.3%
HANS KEIRSTEAD (DEM)   29,973   17.2%
SCOTT BAUGH (REP)   27,513   15.8%

[Antonio the Sixth]

Even in CA-48, where two candidates split the Dem vote perfectly evenly, they both distanced the closest Republican by 2.5K votes. Tell me again how the muh dem lockout scenario wasn't overblown...

[136or142]

Even in CA-48, where two candidates split the Dem vote perfectly evenly, they both distanced the closest Republican by 2.5K votes. Tell me again how the muh dem lockout scenario wasn't overblown...

This post is fake news! The Democrats were locked out of the 8th district.  Red Wave coming!   (sorry)  (Although it is a fact that the Democrats were locked out in the 8th district.)

Also, in regards to California 48th, let me repeat: Baugh humbug!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Even in CA-48, where two candidates split the Dem vote perfectly evenly, they both distanced the closest Republican by 2.5K votes. Tell me again how the muh dem lockout scenario wasn't overblown...

This post is fake news! The Democrats were locked out of the 8th district.  Red Wave coming!  (sorry)  (Although it is a fact that the Democrats were locked out in the 8th district.)

Yeah, I find it kind of annoying just because I'd have loved to say Democrats qualified in all 53 seats. Still, it's a solid R seat anyway so whatevs.

[136or142]

Even in CA-48, where two candidates split the Dem vote perfectly evenly, they both distanced the closest Republican by 2.5K votes. Tell me again how the muh dem lockout scenario wasn't overblown...

This post is fake news! The Democrats were locked out of the 8th district.  Red Wave coming!  (sorry)  (Although it is a fact that the Democrats were locked out in the 8th district.)

Yeah, I find it kind of annoying just because I'd have loved to say Democrats qualified in all 53 seats. Still, it's a solid R seat anyway so whatevs.

Yes, especially since the Democrats did qualify in all 53 seats in 2016. Red Wave Coming!!!!!!

[Hindsight was 2020]

It’s official Hans conceded to Rouda on Facebook https://m.facebook.com/drhanskeirstead/posts/2034400476631592

[Badger]

Even in CA-48, where two candidates split the Dem vote perfectly evenly, they both distanced the closest Republican by 2.5K votes. Tell me again how the muh dem lockout scenario wasn't overblown...

B a u g h only fell behind the winner by 1.5%. That's close. From a pre-election standpoint lacking 20-20 hindsight, this was a real threat.

[136or142]

Even in CA-48, where two candidates split the Dem vote perfectly evenly, they both distanced the closest Republican by 2.5K votes. Tell me again how the muh dem lockout scenario wasn't overblown...

B a u g h only fell behind the winner by 1.5%. That's close. From a pre-election standpoint lacking 20-20 hindsight, this was a real threat.

This is actually one of the many cases in statistics where there are different ways to look at the same numbers.  It is 1.5% in terms of all the votes, but if it's looked at in terms of  how close Baugh came to making second, it's close, but not really super close.

Two candidate peferred
Harley Rouda 30,099. 52.2%
Scott Baugh  27,513, 47.8%

[Landslide Lyndon]

There should be a period after the filing deadline and before the printing of ballots where candidates can withdraw their names from the ballot.

[136or142]

Even in CA-48, where two candidates split the Dem vote perfectly evenly, they both distanced the closest Republican by 2.5K votes. Tell me again how the muh dem lockout scenario wasn't overblown...

B a u g h only fell behind the winner by 1.5%. That's close. From a pre-election standpoint lacking 20-20 hindsight, this was a real threat.

This is actually one of the many cases in statistics where there are different ways to look at the same numbers.  It is 1.5% in terms of all the votes, but if it's looked at in terms of  how close Baugh came to making second, it's close, but not really super close.

Two candidate peferred
Harley Rouda 30,099. 52.2%
Scott Baugh  27,513, 47.8%

3 Dems who had dropped out after the filing deadline still got over three times as many votes as the margin between Baugh and Rouda combined.

It’s crystal clear a slightly more crowded Dem field could’ve easily given Baugh second place given the performances of literal ghost candidates.

I know that, but these 'Democrats in disarray' type stories came out after those three candidates dropped out.  We can all decide for ourselves seeing those results whether those stories were over the top or not (and the other two districts where this was supposedly a concern, the 39th and the 49th didn't even end up being close.)  For me, I think those stories were over the top.


Which is not to say that I don't think that these jungle primaries can produce perverse results like that (one party with 5 candidates gets 55% or so of the vote, and the other party with 2 candidates come in first and second) or that these jungle primaries are stupid.  If for no other reason, than they force other credible candidates to drop out to prevent these perverse outcomes.

[136or142]

Even in CA-48, where two candidates split the Dem vote perfectly evenly, they both distanced the closest Republican by 2.5K votes. Tell me again how the muh dem lockout scenario wasn't overblown...

B a u g h only fell behind the winner by 1.5%. That's close. From a pre-election standpoint lacking 20-20 hindsight, this was a real threat.

This is actually one of the many cases in statistics where there are different ways to look at the same numbers.  It is 1.5% in terms of all the votes, but if it's looked at in terms of  how close Baugh came to making second, it's close, but not really super close.

Two candidate peferred
Harley Rouda 30,099. 52.2%
Scott Baugh  27,513, 47.8%

3 Dems who had dropped out after the filing deadline still got over three times as many votes as the margin between Baugh and Rouda combined.

It’s crystal clear a slightly more crowded Dem field could’ve easily given Baugh second place given the performances of literal ghost candidates.

I know that, but these 'Democrats in disarray' type stories came out after those three candidates dropped out.  We can all decide for ourselves seeing those results whether those stories were over the top or not (and the other two districts where this was supposedly a concern, the 39th and the 49th didn't even end up being close.)  For me, I think those stories were over the top.

FWIW I didn’t comment on the races concerning the 49th and 39th districts at all. And I never even bothered to read the “Disaster in California” articles the media was pushing out since anybody who’s followed more than 1 election in their lifetimes knows full well the media has a vested interest in creating horse race narratives at all costs.

But in the case of the 48th with its very high R-D registration advantage (relative to most Hillary won districts), it was fairly obvious to anybody following it that the entry of the former OC GOP chair would shake things up. The primary polling and the DCCC’s 647,000 dollar ad buy last minute against Baugh were proof of this (as was the final tally when looking at how many votes ghost Dem candidates alone took from Rouda and Keirstead).

If you check my posting history I wasn’t too sold on the idea that Baugh could make the top two until the last couple weeks when it became clear he had a shot. And these final results show there was a pathway for him.

This, actually to me, is why this district isn't that big of a deal.  I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if Rohrabacher was reelected (I like to think there are a lot of Republicans who are at  least anti Putin)  and, while I appreciate that every seat counts, I think it will be difficult for the Democrats to hold this seat in 2020, yet alone 2022.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

This, actually to me, is why this district isn't that big of a deal.  I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if Rohrabacher was reelected (I like to think there are a lot of Republicans who are at  least anti Putin)  and, while I appreciate that every seat counts, I think it will be difficult for the Democrats to hold this seat in 2020, yet alone 2022.

In 2020 Trump will (probably?) be on the ballot again. In 2022 it won't be the same seat because of redistricting, but yes it will be harder to hold then if there is a D President.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is just one seat, and it was easily the worst-case scenario for Dems (two equally popular candidates splitting the vote almost evenly) and they still made it pretty comfortably. 1.5 points might not seem like a lot, but in this day and age there are few things in a campaign that move the needle by as much. And again, it's just one seat where this was even a possibility. Compare this to the media narrative that suggested Dems were probably about to get shut out everywhere (including in CA-49 where they took the 2nd, 3rd and 4th spots)...

[Arkansas Yankee]

This, actually to me, is why this district isn't that big of a deal.  I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if Rohrabacher was reelected (I like to think there are a lot of Republicans who are at  least anti Putin)  and, while I appreciate that every seat counts, I think  it will be difficult for the Democrats to hold this seat in 2020, yet alone 2022.

In 2020 Trump will (probably?) be on the ballot again. In 2022 it won't be the same seat because of redistricting, but yes it will be harder to hold then if there is a D President.

Actually you give me a good reason to not support Rohrabacher.  He is too pro Putin.  

But then the main reason I support Trump is that in action he is the most anti Russian President since Reagan.  Obama in action was the most pro.  I do not care what they say.  I care how they act.  If Trump had carried on Obama’s actual Russian policies I would become anti Trump.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

This, actually to me, is why this district isn't that big of a deal.  I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if Rohrabacher was reelected (I like to think there are a lot of Republicans who are at  least anti Putin)  and, while I appreciate that every seat counts, I think  it will be difficult for the Democrats to hold this seat in 2020, yet alone 2022.

In 2020 Trump will (probably?) be on the ballot again. In 2022 it won't be the same seat because of redistricting, but yes it will be harder to hold then if there is a D President.

Actually you give me a good reason to not support Rohrabacher.  He is too pro Putin.  

But then the main reason I support Trump is that in action he is the most anti Russian President since Reagan.  Obama in action was the most pro.  I do not care what they say.  I care how they act.  If Trump had carried on Obama’s actual Russian policies I would become anti Trump.

Trump refused to sign bipartisan Russian sanctions that got over 400 votes in Congress.

[Kodak]

This, actually to me, is why this district isn't that big of a deal.  I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if Rohrabacher was reelected (I like to think there are a lot of Republicans who are at  least anti Putin)  and, while I appreciate that every seat counts, I think  it will be difficult for the Democrats to hold this seat in 2020, yet alone 2022.

In 2020 Trump will (probably?) be on the ballot again. In 2022 it won't be the same seat because of redistricting, but yes it will be harder to hold then if there is a D President.

Actually you give me a good reason to not support Rohrabacher.  He is too pro Putin.  

But then the main reason I support Trump is that in action he is the most anti Russian President since Reagan.  Obama in action was the most pro.  I do not care what they say.  I care how they act.  If Trump had carried on Obama’s actual Russian policies I would become anti Trump.

Trump refused to sign bipartisan Russian sanctions that got over 400 votes in Congress.

[Virginiá]

This is just one seat, and it was easily the worst-case scenario for Dems (two equally popular candidates splitting the vote almost evenly) and they still made it pretty comfortably. 1.5 points might not seem like a lot, but in this day and age there are few things in a campaign that move the needle by as much. And again, it's just one seat where this was even a possibility. Compare this to the media narrative that suggested Dems were probably about to get shut out everywhere (including in CA-49 where they took the 2nd, 3rd and 4th spots)...

It is hard to move the needle when each candidate has consolidated support in a general election, but we're talking about races where each candidate was only pulling in like 15, 16, 17 points or so, with an incredible number of candidates. It could have easily gone one way or another, and with Republicans only trailing by <4 points in at least 3 races, I really have to disagree that lockouts were not a real concern in those districts. I don't know if all the hype it got was warranted, but it's not like CA-10, CA-39 and CA-48 did not have close races that could have a different way under slightly different circumstances.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is just one seat, and it was easily the worst-case scenario for Dems (two equally popular candidates splitting the vote almost evenly) and they still made it pretty comfortably. 1.5 points might not seem like a lot, but in this day and age there are few things in a campaign that move the needle by as much. And again, it's just one seat where this was even a possibility. Compare this to the media narrative that suggested Dems were probably about to get shut out everywhere (including in CA-49 where they took the 2nd, 3rd and 4th spots)...

It is hard to move the needle when each candidate has consolidated support in a general election, but we're talking about races where each candidate was only pulling in like 15, 16, 17 points or so, with an incredible number of candidates. It could have easily gone one way or another, and with Republicans only trailing by <4 points in at least 3 races, I really have to disagree that lockouts were not a real concern in those districts. I don't know if all the hype it got was warranted, but it's not like CA-10, CA-39 and CA-48 did not have close races that could have a different way under slightly different circumstances.

I mean yeah, there definitely was a small but real possibility that one of the seats ended up in a lockout, but given that the sort of factors that could have brought that outcome would have to be a district-specific factor, the probability of it happening in more than one seat was minimal. And honestly, it wouldn't have been that big of a tragedy if Democrats lost one seat that was never a top pickup to begin with. In probabilistic terms, it would have amounted to a loss of 0.4 or 0.5 seats. Which, yes, I would have found frustrating, but definitely not enough to warrant the panicky op-eds or (what bothers me especially) the unfair attacks on the top-two system.

[I’m not Stu]

The only runoff poll in CA-48 with Rouda shows him leading Rohrabacher. When will the California vote totals be officially certified?

[GeorgiaModerate]

The only runoff poll in CA-48 with Rouda shows him leading Rohrabacher. When will the California vote totals be officially certified?

Wasserman said the CA-48 results would be certified today.

[Virginiá]

I mean yeah, there definitely was a small but real possibility that one of the seats ended up in a lockout, but given that the sort of factors that could have brought that outcome would have to be a district-specific factor, the probability of it happening in more than one seat was minimal. And honestly, it wouldn't have been that big of a tragedy if Democrats lost one seat that was never a top pickup to begin with. In probabilistic terms, it would have amounted to a loss of 0.4 or 0.5 seats. Which, yes, I would have found frustrating, but definitely not enough to warrant the panicky op-eds or (what bothers me especially) the unfair attacks on the top-two system.

Fair enough, although I still think the CA's top-two has brought this on itself. It's an incomplete reform, imo, and I don't understand why this wasn't a big concern when the policy was being crafted. It really needs ranked choice voting to complete it, at which point it'd be a superior voting system. But the way it is now, I just fail to see how it is superior outside of maybe D/R+20 districts where the results are always destined to be a member of the district's dominant party, in which case it is better to just give a choice between two candidates of the same party in the general election. My ideal version of this is a system where people can still do that in safe districts, but also elect the party that most people in a competitive district prefer, even if a ton of candidates run. That we even had to worry about a lockout despite the winds blowing decidedly against Republicans in some of these districts is really not good.

I'm just hoping this election cycle will push either the legislature or some other group to push a ballot initiative adding some form of RCV. That would be a very good system.

[Bumaye]

This, actually to me, is why this district isn't that big of a deal.  I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if Rohrabacher was reelected (I like to think there are a lot of Republicans who are at  least anti Putin)  and, while I appreciate that every seat counts, I think  it will be difficult for the Democrats to hold this seat in 2020, yet alone 2022.

In 2020 Trump will (probably?) be on the ballot again. In 2022 it won't be the same seat because of redistricting, but yes it will be harder to hold then if there is a D President.

Actually you give me a good reason to not support Rohrabacher.  He is too pro Putin.  

But then the main reason I support Trump is that in action he is the most anti Russian President since Reagan.  Obama in action was the most pro.  I do not care what they say.  I care how they act.  If Trump had carried on Obama’s actual Russian policies I would become anti Trump.

What are you smoking? Obama kicked Russia from the G8 and imposed sanctions on Russia after they invaded Ukraine while Trump wanted to get Russia back into the G8 because everyone on Crimea speaks Russian.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I agree that RCV would be a superior system, and I hope California eventually gets there, but in the meantime, I maintain that it's better than reverting to the default of FPP. What parties need to do is ramp up their efforts to coordinate with candidates and impose some discipline on the races. 2018 is, if anything, a testament to the fact that the Democratic party is capable of doing just that. Sure, it didn't go perfectly, but I bet it will only get better at it from there. So things are more or less working themselves out as they should, and there's no need to complain so much about the system.