Cumulative House Results by State

[IceSpear]

PA voting more Democratic than Michigan feels odd. It certainly hasn't happened in presidential elections in a while, IIRC.

Agreed. I will say, however, that I think Wolf’s margins in the Philly suburbs are what a lot of us probably thought Hillary was going to get in 2016. The suburban vote that came out this year was something that never materialized for Hillary. I imagine the House results aren’t too dissimilar to Wolf’s (apart from Bucks County).

Well actually, in PA-14 Wolf came within 3 points of winning the district while the GOP won the congressional seat by 16.

Yeah, that is true. That’s a strange area of the state though, where some statewide Dems overperform and others not so much. Like many areas, those trends predate Trump, but have just been massively accelerated. But even that district looks to have shifted based on urban/rural trends. Wolf lost rural Greene and Fayette Counties, while more suburban Washington and Westmoreland swung towards him. Casey seems to have only marginally dropped in the more rural counties relative to his overall statewide performance.

A thought experiment, but does anyone think Lamb could’ve won the new PA-14? Personally, I doubt it, in part based on his performance in March, but I imagine it would’ve been a very close result.

Nah, there's no way Lamb would've won that when he only beat a much worse opponent in a much friendlier district by a razor thin margin. The fact that Wolf and Casey couldn't carry it either only confirms that. He definitely would've had a pretty good showing though. Maybe something like a 5 point loss?

[Person Man]

Florida numbers?

[Crumpets]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I'm working on a map of House results by county. I don't think I'm going to finish it entirely just because it's thousands of data points and I don't have a ready-made map for all of the counties divided between districts, but this is as far as I've gotten so far.

A couple of notes:
 - This only shows the two-party percentages, so all counties are 50%+
 - Elections where a major party did not nominate a candidate are automatically 100%, even if there was a third party candidate running. This is just because Politico only gives results at this level of detail.
 - Counties are divided between districts when district lines don't follow county lines

[Kodak]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I'm working on a map of House results by county. I don't think I'm going to finish it entirely just because it's thousands of data points and I don't have a ready-made map for all of the counties divided between districts, but this is as far as I've gotten so far.

A couple of notes:
 - This only shows the two-party percentages, so all counties are 50%+
 - Elections where a major party did not nominate a candidate are automatically 100%, even if there was a third party candidate running. This is just because Politico only gives results at this level of detail.
 - Counties are divided between districts when district lines don't follow county lines

Here's a map (Pennsylvania is out of date).

[Crumpets]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I'm working on a map of House results by county. I don't think I'm going to finish it entirely just because it's thousands of data points and I don't have a ready-made map for all of the counties divided between districts, but this is as far as I've gotten so far.

A couple of notes:
 - This only shows the two-party percentages, so all counties are 50%+
 - Elections where a major party did not nominate a candidate are automatically 100%, even if there was a third party candidate running. This is just because Politico only gives results at this level of detail.
 - Counties are divided between districts when district lines don't follow county lines

Here's a map (Pennsylvania is out of date).

Nice! Thank you!

[ElectionsGuy]

Florida is now on and I updated results in California, Arizona, and Washington (three western states known for slow reporting). Democrats have a majority in Arizona and Republicans are below 1/3 of the vote in California.

[Person Man]

Florida is now on and I updated results in California, Arizona, and Washington (three western states known for slow reporting). Democrats have a majority in Arizona and Republicans are below 1/3 of the vote in California.

So what is the effect on the tally on having uncontested races?

[ElectionsGuy]

Florida is now on and I updated results in California, Arizona, and Washington (three western states known for slow reporting). Democrats have a majority in Arizona and Republicans are below 1/3 of the vote in California.

So what is the effect on the tally on having uncontested races?

It mostly hurt Republicans since they were the ones to not contest most of the time. I imagine it would be a point or two higher for Republicans overall if they had run in every race.

[Person Man]

Florida is now on and I updated results in California, Arizona, and Washington (three western states known for slow reporting). Democrats have a majority in Arizona and Republicans are below 1/3 of the vote in California.

So what is the effect on the tally on having uncontested races?

It mostly hurt Republicans since they were the ones to not contest most of the time. I imagine it would be a point or two higher for Republicans overall if they had run in every race.

It amazing that the House delegation ended up being 13-14 then.

[Badger]

A thing to remember about the results of uncontested races, many Democratic districts would even with a filed Republican go close to 9010 Democratic. Or at least well over 80 20. Even the most Sapphire Atlas blue districts can usually scrape up hi 20s to low 30% for even a sacrificial lamb Democrat. Though admittedly that's changing with increased polarization and rural areas becoming crazy.

[Person Man]

Florida is now on and I updated results in California, Arizona, and Washington (three western states known for slow reporting). Democrats have a majority in Arizona and Republicans are below 1/3 of the vote in California.

So what is the effect on the tally on having uncontested races?

It mostly hurt Republicans since they were the ones to not contest most of the time. I imagine it would be a point or two higher for Republicans overall if they had run in every race.

It amazing that the House delegation ended up being 13-14 then.

Then again, hundreds of thousands of D votes weren't counted in this tally so...

[Skill and Chance]

This makes me wonder if the presidential results in Kansas and Montana will tighten significantly in 2020?  Not to the point of being competitive, but ~10% Trump wins instead of ~20% last time?

[136or142]

Florida is now on and I updated results in California, Arizona, and Washington (three western states known for slow reporting). Democrats have a majority in Arizona and Republicans are below 1/3 of the vote in California.

So what is the effect on the tally on having uncontested races?

It mostly hurt Republicans since they were the ones to not contest most of the time. I imagine it would be a point or two higher for Republicans overall if they had run in every race.

It amazing that the House delegation ended up being 13-14 then.

In regards to Florida, this is absolutely not correct.  There were 4 districts where the Democratic incumbents faced no challenger at all so the race was simply not on the general election ballot.

Had these 4 Democrats been on the ballot they likely would have received over 800,000 votes.  I think that cancels out a good deal of the other races in the U.S where the Republicans ran no candidates.

Edit to add: I see Snek! added that point with a follow up post.

[136or142]

These are the seven states that still have not posted official results (or, at least, their website has not been updated to indicate the results are official.)  North Carolina would have posted official results, of course.

1.Arizona
2.California
3.Connecticut
4.New York
5.North Carolina
6.South Dakota
7.West Virginia

[Gass3268]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I'm working on a map of House results by county. I don't think I'm going to finish it entirely just because it's thousands of data points and I don't have a ready-made map for all of the counties divided between districts, but this is as far as I've gotten so far.

A couple of notes:
 - This only shows the two-party percentages, so all counties are 50%+
 - Elections where a major party did not nominate a candidate are automatically 100%, even if there was a third party candidate running. This is just because Politico only gives results at this level of detail.
 - Counties are divided between districts when district lines don't follow county lines

I can get you the Wisconsin data later tonight.

[136or142]

These are the seven states that still have not posted official results (or, at least, their website has not been updated to indicate the results are official.)  North Carolina would have posted official results, of course.
1.Connecticut
2.North Carolina

Arizona, California and New York have now posted official results.

South Dakota has the official canvas posted with the unofficial results up as well.  Odd.  The two results are slightly different.

West Virginia has had their official results up for a while.  It's just they are only accessible through downloading them. However, the unofficial results are the same as the official results.

[136or142]

Connecticut has the same problem as North Carolina:
Due to pending litigation regarding the 120th District of the Connecticut House of Representatives, all results are official and all races have been certified, except for the 120th House District.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

You all can probably tell by now that I like visuals so,

[136or142]

Added up the aggregate total for each state.  Both parties won the popular vote in 25 states.  However, not taking into account the individual Congressional District thing for Nebraska and Maine, the Democrats won the Electoral College 296 to 242 (including Washington D.C)

The five states that flipped from the 2016 Presidential vote are:
1.Arizona
2.Iowa
3.Michigan
4.Pennsylvania
5.Wisconsin

[SaneDemocrat]

Wouldn't be surprised if that is the map

[ElectionsGuy]

All numbers are finalized. In most cases, it helped Democrats slightly. Don't know why it finally took me until today to fix them, but I also added maps for partisan leans.

[Non Swing Voter]

Wisconsin's numbers are the most surprising to me. 

Someone noted that the dam really broke in NJ for Republicans.  This isn't that surprising.  Their Republicans rested on the moderate Republican base in the state, which is a lot smaller nowadays and I think the Trump "tax cut" which really hurt UMC people in blue states like New Jersey put Dems over the top there.  I bet if not for that tax cut, Republicans would have held on to a couple districts there.

I think these numbers are the most telling in Pennsylvania because they had a fairish map and fewer incumbents.  But Dems also had good candidates like Conor Lamb who did better than the Dem nominee will likely do in that district.

[Gracile]

Wisconsin's numbers are the most surprising to me. 

Someone noted that the dam really broke in NJ for Republicans.  This isn't that surprising.  Their Republicans rested on the moderate Republican base in the state, which is a lot smaller nowadays and I think the Trump "tax cut" which really hurt UMC people in blue states like New Jersey put Dems over the top there.  I bet if not for that tax cut, Republicans would have held on to a couple districts there.

I think these numbers are the most telling in Pennsylvania because they had a fairish map and fewer incumbents.  But Dems also had good candidates like Conor Lamb who did better than the Dem nominee will likely do in that district.

Although the tax bill was certainly one factor that contributed to certain districts flipping, I would hardly consider it to be the predominant issue that the seats you mentioned hinged on (healthcare + Trump's personal unpopularity with that demographic were probably far more decisive).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Wisconsin's numbers are the most surprising to me. 

Someone noted that the dam really broke in NJ for Republicans.  This isn't that surprising.  Their Republicans rested on the moderate Republican base in the state, which is a lot smaller nowadays and I think the Trump "tax cut" which really hurt UMC people in blue states like New Jersey put Dems over the top there.  I bet if not for that tax cut, Republicans would have held on to a couple districts there.

I think these numbers are the most telling in Pennsylvania because they had a fairish map and fewer incumbents.  But Dems also had good candidates like Conor Lamb who did better than the Dem nominee will likely do in that district.

Although the tax bill was certainly one factor that contributed to certain districts flipping, I would hardly consider it to be the predominant issue that the seats you mentioned hinged on (healthcare + Trump's personal unpopularity with that demographic were probably far more decisive).

I think if either the tax bill or the attempted Obamacare repeal isn't a factor, MacArthur holds on; if both aren't factors, Lance holds on; if both aren't factors and Trump is either not President or not personally repulsive to the upper middle class, Frelinghuysen doesn't retire and either beats Sherrill by a hair or loses by a hair (depending on whether it's still a midterm with an unpopular Republican President or not). The dynamics of the race to succeed LoBiondo were such that I don't feel comfortable speculating on counterfactuals for it.

[ElectionsGuy]

- Democratic
+ Republican

AL: -3.3
AK: -1.6
AZ: +1.3
AR: +7.0
CA: +3.5
CO: +1.0
CT: -3.8
DE: -11.1
FL: +10.5
GA: +6.0
HI: -13.8
ID: +1.7
IL: +1.5
IN: -1.7
IA: -6.9
KS: -4.7
KY: -2.7
LA: +6.2
ME: -5.5
MD: -0.1
MA: -24.5
MI: -1.5
MN: -3.4
MS: -3.6
MO: +0.4
MT: -9.2
NE: +5.5
NV: +3.6
NH: -3.7
NJ: -0.6
NM: -5.4
NY: -6.9
NC: +4.9
ND: -4.6
OH: +3.1
OK: -4.9
OR: -1.9
PA: -4.4
RI: -8.2
SC: +2.1
SD: +1.0
TN: +0.5
TX: +0.9
UT: +11.6
VT: -10.4
VA: -2.1
WA: -5.6
WV: -17.9
WI: -1.9
WY: -6.0

Trend From 2016 Presidential Election

>30: 0-1.9% Trend
>40: 2.0-3.9%
>50: 4.0-5.9%
>60: 6.0-7.9%
>70: 8.0-9.9%
>80: 10.0-11.9%
>90: 12.0%+

Really not much to take from this, just made this because I was curious. I'll be making another one for 2016 house --> 2018 house.