Election 2018 Open Thread v2 - Mia, Mimi, Gil, and T.J.

[Xing]

If Democrats win CA-21 and UT-04, that would be a 40-seat gain, assuming that NY-22 holds for Brindisi (which it almost certainly will.) They would need GA-07 and/or NY-27 to get to 41 or 42.

The Democrats already have 233 if you count NM-2.  With CA-21, and UT-4 they're up to 235, which would be a 41-seat gain (the Democrats had won 194 in 2016).  If you're counting Lamb's seat as D, that's ridiculous because the Democrats never had 195 representatives in the 115th Congress.

It's 233 with NM-02 AND NY-22. CNN hasn't called NM-02, and the NYT hasn't called NY-22.

[lfromnj]

What do they even have left other than their rump of rural Central Valley and far north districts?  If TJ Cox wins, I don’t know of any Republican seats that could fall even in a tsunami, unless Duncan Hunter sticks around.  At the same time, I can point to at least five Democratic seats that could feasibly fall in a good national year for Republicans.

Dems might be able to pick off a few more seats in the state assembly or state senate, but it doesn’t really matter.  Republicans are powerless on the state level.

I called my friend who lives in Cali tonight and ended it with "your state is now boring" (more or less )

Not much left there. Democrats already control a much higher % of seats in Congress and the legislature than their vote share would suggest too. It's probably all defense from here on out.

Not necessarily; there is still some room for the Republican Party to fall.

I mean excluding a hunter special election is there any other house seats the Cali GOP can lose.
Anyway the future of the Cali GOP is Poizner.

[justfollowingtheelections]

If Democrats win CA-21 and UT-04, that would be a 40-seat gain, assuming that NY-22 holds for Brindisi (which it almost certainly will.) They would need GA-07 and/or NY-27 to get to 41 or 42.

The Democrats already have 233 if you count NM-2.  With CA-21, and UT-4 they're up to 235, which would be a 41-seat gain (the Democrats had won 194 in 2016).  If you're counting Lamb's seat as D, that's ridiculous because the Democrats never had 195 representatives in the 115th Congress.

It's 233 with NM-02 AND NY-22. CNN hasn't called NM-02, and the NYT hasn't called NY-22.

Well yes, but NY-22 is certainly a (very) likely D-pick up at the moment.  Unless something changes dramatically, I'm counting it as a pick up.  GA-7 hasn't been called yet in favor of the Republican either, and we're all assuming that it's an R hold.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

It appears McAdams has declared victory-

https://twitter.com/benwinslow/status/1064694577414602753?s=21

[Oryxslayer]

Lets fix this confusion:

Dems have 41 seats gains from pre-election, if you consider the only outstanding seats to be UT04, CA21, NY27, GA07. If they get UT and CA, then they will hit 43.

The number that most people care about though is the Net, which is currently at 38. Getting UT and CA would be 40 net.

Either way you calc it, dems hit 235-200, which is nice and round.

[Tintrlvr]

What do they even have left other than their rump of rural Central Valley and far north districts?  If TJ Cox wins, I don’t know of any Republican seats that could fall even in a tsunami, unless Duncan Hunter sticks around.  At the same time, I can point to at least five Democratic seats that could feasibly fall in a good national year for Republicans.

Dems might be able to pick off a few more seats in the state assembly or state senate, but it doesn’t really matter.  Republicans are powerless on the state level.

I called my friend who lives in Cali tonight and ended it with "your state is now boring" (more or less )

Not much left there. Democrats already control a much higher % of seats in Congress and the legislature than their vote share would suggest too. It's probably all defense from here on out.

Not necessarily; there is still some room for the Republican Party to fall.

I mean excluding a hunter special election is there any other house seats the Cali GOP can lose.
Anyway the future of the Cali GOP is Poizner.

Not in the House, at least until redistricting, assuming CA-21 flips. But there are still some state legislative seats that could flip to the Dems.

And Poizner has been around for a while, is 61 and hasn't won an election since 2006 (and that to a tertiary office). He's hardly the future of anything; that's like saying Dino Rossi is the future of the WA GOP.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Why did AP call CA-21 for Valadao? Have they retracted it?

[justfollowingtheelections]

Lets fix this confusion:

Dems have 41 seats gains from pre-election, if you consider the only outstanding seats to be UT04, CA21, NY27, GA07. If they get UT and CA, then they will hit 43.

The number that most people care about though is the Net, which is currently at 38. Getting UT and CA would be 40 net.

Either way you calc it, dems hit 235-200, which is nice and round.

I don't mean to continue this discussion but I'm trying to understand how that becomes a 40-seat gain instead of a 41-seat one.  What are you comparing exactly?  The Democrats won 194 seats in 2016, and 235-194=41.  Are you including Lamb's seat as Democratic?  I wouldn't because while Democrats picked that seat up in a special election, due to Becerra, Slaughter and Conyers resigning, they never had 195 seats in the 115th Congress.  So comparing the 2018 results to the 2016 ones makes much more sense.

[Tintrlvr]

Why did AP call CA-21 for Valadao? Have they retracted it?

He was up by almost ten points on election night. It was called on election night IIRC. A lot of people, including the AP, have appeared ignorant of the way late-counted California ballots always favor the Democrats, often quite strongly. And that ignorance is not a new phenomenon, either.

I'm not aware of them retracting the call. They're probably not paying much attention.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Why did AP call CA-21 for Valadao? Have they retracted it?

He was up by almost ten points on election night. It was called on election night IIRC. A lot of people, including the AP, have appeared ignorant of the way late-counted California ballots always favor the Democrats, often quite strongly. And that ignorance is not a new phenomenon, either.

I'm not aware of them retracting the call. They're probably not paying much attention.

I don't think most of the networks really give a sh**t at this point.

[OneJ]

Why did AP call CA-21 for Valadao? Have they retracted it?

He was up by almost ten points on election night. It was called on election night IIRC. A lot of people, including the AP, have appeared ignorant of the way late-counted California ballots always favor the Democrats, often quite strongly. And that ignorance is not a new phenomenon, either.

I'm not aware of them retracting the call. They're probably not paying much attention.

I don't think most of the networks really give a sh**t at this point.

CNN should. They’ve had to retract IL-13 and NM-02.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The real question is why CNN refuses to call NM-2. There are no votes left to count there and the Democrat leads by 2700.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The real question is why CNN refuses to call NM-2. There are no votes left to count there and the Democrat leads by 2700.

They probably have forgotten about it.

[Tintrlvr]

The real question is why CNN refuses to call NM-2. There are no votes left to count there and the Democrat leads by 2700.

Hey, at least they managed to un-call it!

As I recall, some networks simply leave certain races uncalled and never call them. After a while, they stop caring entirely and don't bother updating. CNN, with its obsession with the latest news story, is especially prone to this.

[Oryxslayer]

Lets fix this confusion:

Dems have 41 seats gains from pre-election, if you consider the only outstanding seats to be UT04, CA21, NY27, GA07. If they get UT and CA, then they will hit 43.

The number that most people care about though is the Net, which is currently at 38. Getting UT and CA would be 40 net.

Either way you calc it, dems hit 235-200, which is nice and round.

I don't mean to continue this discussion but I'm trying to understand how that becomes a 40-seat gain instead of a 41-seat one.  What are you comparing exactly?  The Democrats won 194 seats in 2016, and 235-194=41.  Are you including Lamb's seat as Democratic?  I wouldn't because while Democrats picked that seat up in a special election, due to Becerra, Slaughter and Conyers resigning, they never had 195 seats in the 115th Congress.  So comparing the 2018 results to the 2016 ones makes much more sense.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Its basically a semantics argument - I always say the dems at 195 pre-election.

Anyway, onto the topic at hand:

Why did AP call CA-21 for Valadao? Have they retracted it?

He was up by almost ten points on election night. It was called on election night IIRC. A lot of people, including the AP, have appeared ignorant of the way late-counted California ballots always favor the Democrats, often quite strongly. And that ignorance is not a new phenomenon, either.

I'm not aware of them retracting the call. They're probably not paying much attention.

If they do retract their call, it will be when Cox takes the lead. Similar to the AZ SOS, the race remained called until the dem had a confident lead. This is because the only thing more embarrassing then making a call would be retracting said call only to see the end result prove your previous call true.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

What do they even have left other than their rump of rural Central Valley and far north districts?  If TJ Cox wins, I don’t know of any Republican seats that could fall even in a tsunami, unless Duncan Hunter sticks around.  At the same time, I can point to at least five Democratic seats that could feasibly fall in a good national year for Republicans.

Dems might be able to pick off a few more seats in the state assembly or state senate, but it doesn’t really matter.  Republicans are powerless on the state level.

I called my friend who lives in Cali tonight and ended it with "your state is now boring" (more or less )

Not much left there. Democrats already control a much higher % of seats in Congress and the legislature than their vote share would suggest too. It's probably all defense from here on out.

Not necessarily; there is still some room for the Republican Party to fall.

I mean excluding a hunter special election is there any other house seats the Cali GOP can lose.
Anyway the future of the Cali GOP is Poizner.

Eventually, trends will push CA-42 and CA-50 into the Dem Column. Give it a decade.

[smoltchanov]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1064685454556127232

OOGA BOOGA!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, another blue dog plox!

Thanks God if so. I like Blue Dogs a lot..

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1064685454556127232

OOGA BOOGA!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, another blue dog plox!

Thanks God if so. I like Blue Dogs a lot..

Me too. I'll just be honest and blunt and say that what helped McAdams over the top is that he is that non-controversial pro life conservadem who is a straight white mormon male born and raised in Utah. While the same could not be said for Love. Like it or not, identity politics influences contests.

[NOVA Green]

Not sure exactly what the Utah returns are looking like from Provisional Ballots in Utah County, but here's what they are looking like in Salt Lake County by Place...



If I were a Republican, obviously the numbers coming out of South Jordan should be of concern in this election, considering how 'PUBs barely gained any votes in their strongest Vote Bank, and sure they have some minor gains out of Bluffdale, Herriman, and Riverton, but still numbers aren't really adding up for PUBs in SLC....

[IceSpear]

Yeah, I never understood why people thought Valadao and Hurd were unbeatable juggernauts. I didn’t even move these races out of the Toss-up category when it appeared that Democrats had given up on CA-21/TX-23.

Valadao made sense given his past margins and his 28 point win in the jungle primary. Hurd... not sure what they were smoking there with the absurd Hurd +15 polls in samples where Trump was popular

It seems like the California jungle primary is nowhere near as predictive of the eventual result as the Washington jungle primary is.

[smoltchanov]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1064685454556127232

OOGA BOOGA!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, another blue dog plox!

Thanks God if so. I like Blue Dogs a lot..

Me too. I'll just be honest and blunt and say that what helped McAdams over the top is that he is that non-controversial pro life conservadem who is a straight white mormon male born and raised in Utah. While the same could not be said for Love. Like it or not, identity politics influences contests.

I would formulate slightly differently: in conservative-leaning districts (and UT-4 is, usually, one of them) Democrats will win more if they will run McAdams-type candidates: somewhat conservative, may be - pro-life, and so on, instead of running "bold progressives" in them. No one calls for running conservadems (though i repeat - there are NO more real conservatives in the party, even among state legislators, only - of moderate type) in San Francisco, then - why vice versa? TBH - the same is even more true for Republicans, who run ultraconservatives even in very liberal districts.

[IceSpear]

NE-02 is now down to a 51.0-49.0 Bacon win. Along with TX-23 (and maybe CA-21) another black eye for the moronic Dems that triaged this race because MUH weak candidate Kara Eastman and MUH unbeatable titan Don Bacon.

[wesmoorenerd]

NE-02 is now down to a 51.0-49.0 Bacon win. Along with TX-23 (and maybe CA-21) another black eye for the moronic Dems that triaged this race because MUH weak candidate Kara Eastman and MUH unbeatable titan Don Bacon.

Speaking of moronic DCCC decisions, IL-13. Why exactly did we NOT target Davis? That race just sat at Lean R the entire cycle despite it being a Trump +5 or so district with a completely unremarkable incumbent. Unsurprisingly, Londrigan lost by around a point with minimal support.

[IceSpear]

NE-02 is now down to a 51.0-49.0 Bacon win. Along with TX-23 (and maybe CA-21) another black eye for the moronic Dems that triaged this race because MUH weak candidate Kara Eastman and MUH unbeatable titan Don Bacon.

Speaking of moronic DCCC decisions, IL-13. Why exactly did we NOT target Davis? That race just sat at Lean R the entire cycle despite it being a Trump +5 or so district with a completely unremarkable incumbent. Unsurprisingly, Londrigan lost by around a point with minimal support.

They were too busy making sure Wexton won by 12 rather than 10 to target these seats.

[smoltchanov]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1064685454556127232

OOGA BOOGA!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, another blue dog plox!

Thanks God if so. I like Blue Dogs a lot..

Me too. I'll just be honest and blunt and say that what helped McAdams over the top is that he is that non-controversial pro life conservadem who is a straight white mormon male born and raised in Utah. While the same could not be said for Love. Like it or not, identity politics influences contests.

I would formulate slightly differently: in conservative-leaning districts (and UT-4 is, usually, one of them) Democrats will win more if they will run McAdams-type candidates: somewhat conservative, may be - pro-life, and so on, instead of running "bold progressives" in them. No one calls for running conservadems (though i repeat - there are NO more real conservatives in the party, even among state legislators, only - of moderate type) in San Francisco, then - why vice versa? TBH - the same is even more true for Republicans, who run ultraconservatives even in very liberal districts.

You are out of your element "dude"...

Reality is that "pro-life" doesn't amount to crap in West Coast and Mountain West CDs in these types of districts....

A Country Boy Can Survive

When did i say, that i mean West Coast and (most, at least) of the Mountain West CD?  Never, as i see my post (though in Utah or, may be, Idaho, that could be helpful). But in lots of Southern and substantial number of Midwestern districts being pro-life is a plus (and i state it as pro-choice man). In some districts (and here - including Mountain West), being pro-gun is a plus. And so on. So, dude, you either misundertood me, or intentionaly changed what i had to say...