Election 2018 Open Thread - Part 1

[Badger]

Scott truly deserves to be senator

Because he's very very rich. Got it

[Tintrlvr]

I'm sorry, they are oddly under the impression that Walters and Kim won in CA:

"Mimi Walters [Republican, Calif.-45] ran a great campaign, won a very tough race in a tough district. She was outspent by almost $3 million. Young Kim [Republican, Calif.-39] was one of our biggest expenditures in Orange County. I think she will be a future superstar of the party, the first Korean-American woman ever elected to Congress."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/09/democratic-republican-majority-house-election-2018-222400

It's amazing how many in the political media, who's job it is to cover congress, have no idea how the different state's voting processes work.

This was an interview, so the quotation is from a Republican political organizer, not Politico themselves. Still, it's pretty incompetent for him to be talking about Walters and Kim as if they actually won; either he's just spinning, or, despite being a lead political organizer for the Republican Party, he doesn't know how vote-counting works (perhaps indicative of how poorly organized the Republican campaign was).

[Badger]

Wow. Honestly, as a Democrat, we all have A LOT to be happy about.

Our strength in the house continues to grow with multiple surprise victories. Kendra Horn in Ok ( !! ), Lucy McBath in GA ( !! ), and more.

We've won 7 governors seats and, let's be honest, the RINO Governors in many blue states aren't really a danger to a Democratic agenda.

It increasingly seems like we'll keep Republicans to a single seat gain in the Senate, - or maybe even keep it to the status quo. That's a HUGE victory. Nevada was won easily. Arizona looks like a likely gain. And Florida is increasingly looking like a surprise HOLD while even the Governors race could, in a recount, flip!

This will make retaking the Senate in 2020, imo, LIKELY.

And if we take the Presidency in 2020, bam, you have Democratic control of all 3 branches of government.

This was entirely a blue wave, maybe not everywhere -- but in enough places to matter.

lol @governor race in Fl flipping. I can see some path for Nelson but Gillum is done. He doesn't even have the voter error.

Didn't you basically LOL Nelson can't win only two or three posts ago?

[Gass3268]

Scott's lead was cut by about another 500 votes:

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1060889221571981314

[Tintrlvr]

Andy Kim's lead in NJ-03 has expanded, he's now up more than 1% (around 3,500 votes). I think it was the remaining Willingboro votes, which he didn't end up needing to take the lead because of absentees but did pad his margin. There are now no precincts outstanding, though maybe a handful of absentees and provisionals. Seems like that race should be called; 1.1% is a significantly wider margin than any other uncalled race outside of California and UT-04 (where a lot of ballots remain to be counted).

[Snipee356]

Andy Kim's lead in NJ-03 has expanded, he's now up more than 1% (around 3,500 votes). I think it was the remaining Willingboro votes, which he didn't end up needing to take the lead because of absentees but did pad his margin. There are now no precincts outstanding, though maybe a handful of absentees and provisionals. Seems like that race should be called; 1.1% is a significantly wider margin than any other uncalled race outside of California and UT-04 (where a lot of ballots remain to be counted).

Congratulations to the real first Korean-American congressperson!

[Brittain33]

Andy Kim's lead in NJ-03 has expanded, he's now up more than 1% (around 3,500 votes). I think it was the remaining Willingboro votes, which he didn't end up needing to take the lead because of absentees but did pad his margin. There are now no precincts outstanding, though maybe a handful of absentees and provisionals. Seems like that race should be called; 1.1% is a significantly wider margin than any other uncalled race outside of California and UT-04 (where a lot of ballots remain to be counted).

Congratulations to the real first Korean-American congressperson!

Some guy was elected in Southern California in the early 1990s... I think in Riverside?

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1060720956123955201

Can't wait until Trump hears about this.

[Badger]

My opinion of the night has steadily gotten better over time.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Is Scott still favoured to win?

[wbrocks67]

My opinion of the night has steadily gotten better over time.

Yep. I was happy about the house but still not entirely satisfied on election night. Now with nearly 40 seats and possibly AZ and even FL (!!!), it's not looking bad at all. Definite wave.

Not sure why NJ-03 hasn't been called yet for Kim.

[J. J.]

35+ seats in the house
At least a 7% popular vote victory
Net loss in senate of 2, maybe even 1 depending on Florida despite the worst possible map
7 governors mansions gained
This is a wave my friends

As soon as the words "net loss" appear, the "wave" argument becomes problematic. 

Normally, the party that doesn't control the presidency loses. This is within the normal range. It is not as strong as the shifts in 1994, 2010, both in terms gains and total numbers of seats.  The gain was a bit better than 2006, by one seat, but the total seats are much lower; in that one the winning party gained 6 Senate seats. 

[KingSweden]

Is Scott still favoured to win?

Probably. If the hand recount shows a big error was made in Broward then Nelson has a shot.

If not, he doesn’t.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

35+ seats in the house
At least a 7% popular vote victory
Net loss in senate of 2, maybe even 1 depending on Florida despite the worst possible map
7 governors mansions gained
This is a wave my friends

As soon as the words "net loss" appear, the "wave" argument becomes problematic. 

Normally, the party that doesn't control the presidency loses. This is within the normal range. It is not as strong as the shifts in 1994, 2010, both in terms gains and total numbers of seats.  The gain was a bit better than 2006, by one seat, but the total seats are much lower; in that one the winning party gained 6 Senate seats. 

I'm still of the view that it wasn't a blue wave, but something else altogether that doesn't have a pre-determined term.

What do you make of people claiming it was a red wave?

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1060905735972896768

[KingSweden]

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1060905735972896768

With so much of Maricopa and Pima Out it’s hard to draw a different conclusion

[cg41386]

Reading all these posts about how Florida’s ballots work make me thankful I live in New Jersey.

[MillennialModerate]

Is Scott still favoured to win?

I’d say it’s 95% Scott wins.

They may be out of votes by now.

[fldemfunds]

Is Scott still favoured to win?

I’d say it’s 95% Scott wins.

They may be out of votes by now.

It's 50/50 at this point given what we know. The trajectory isn't favorable to Scott.

[Virginiá]

35+ seats in the house
At least a 7% popular vote victory
Net loss in senate of 2, maybe even 1 depending on Florida despite the worst possible map
7 governors mansions gained
This is a wave my friends

As soon as the words "net loss" appear, the "wave" argument becomes problematic. 

Normally, the party that doesn't control the presidency loses. This is within the normal range. It is not as strong as the shifts in 1994, 2010, both in terms gains and total numbers of seats.  The gain was a bit better than 2006, by one seat, but the total seats are much lower; in that one the winning party gained 6 Senate seats. 

I'm still of the view that it wasn't a blue wave, but something else altogether that doesn't have a pre-determined term.

What do you make of people claiming it was a red wave?

I honestly don't see how this can be viewed as anything other than a wave. The only comparable midterm for Democrats since 1986 (or maybe 1990 too since the popular vote win was pretty large) is 2006, a wave. You simply do not make these kinds of gains in non-waves, nor do you experience such  a large swing in the House PV.

The Senate is irrelevant in this case. We held so many seats, with many in deeply Republican states, that it was arguably the most lopsided map since the beginning of direct elections for Senators. Holding all these seats was always going to be really hard, although admittedly I thought we'd do a little better myself. Imagine if we held every seat in this class heading into this cycle. We could have theoretically lost upwards of 8 or more seats just based on how ridiculously Republican some of them are, but still gained 70 seats in the House too in what you'd have to be mad to argue was not a wave, going by seat changes and popular vote support at every other level of govt.

The best place to look for a wave is the House, since every seat is up and you can measure the swing in popular vote much more accurately. And this result rarely happens for Democrats anymore. Beyond a certain point, the Senate is not an accurate way to measure this.

[Illini Moderate]

I'd say there's a 90 percent chance Scott will win. The margin is just too large.

[Panda Express]

I'd say there's a 90 percent chance Scott will win. The margin is just too large.

Yeah, we're looking at 90% Scott victory and 90% Sinema victory

[psychprofessor]

I'd say there's a 90 percent chance Scott will win. The margin is just too large.

I'm not so sure about that...once you get into hand recount territory after all the initial ballots are accounted for, a 10-15k gap out of over 8 million isn't too large

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1060905735972896768

[J. J.]

35+ seats in the house
At least a 7% popular vote victory
Net loss in senate of 2, maybe even 1 depending on Florida despite the worst possible map
7 governors mansions gained
This is a wave my friends

As soon as the words "net loss" appear, the "wave" argument becomes problematic. 

Normally, the party that doesn't control the presidency loses. This is within the normal range. It is not as strong as the shifts in 1994, 2010, both in terms gains and total numbers of seats.  The gain was a bit better than 2006, by one seat, but the total seats are much lower; in that one the winning party gained 6 Senate seats. 

I'm still of the view that it wasn't a blue wave, but something else altogether that doesn't have a pre-determined term.

What do you make of people claiming it was a red wave?

Likewise,if the term "net loss" is used in regard to the House, it isn't red wave either.