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

[justfollowingtheelections]

A couple updates.

CA-21
TJ Cox (D) 50.3%%
David Valadao (R) 49.7%

CA-39
Gil Cisneros (D) 51.5%
Young Kim (R) 48.5%

CD-45
Katie Porter (D) 52.0%
Mimi Walters (R) 48.0%

CA-48
Harley Rouda (D) 53.5%
Dana Rohrabacher (R) 46.5%

CA-49
Mike Levin (D) 56.1%
Diane Harkey (R) 43.9%

Complete annihilation.  These are some huge differences.  Even Cox is going to win by more than .5%.  In CA-49 the Democrat won by more than 12 percentage points!!!  Issa knew what he was doing when he decided to retire.

[MAINEiac4434]

Democrats are the part of all Americans:

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/1068298612466167808

Isolated anomalies don't make a trend.

lol

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also:

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1068190105347792898


(#1 was Cook/Wasserman)

Although it looks like Wasserman was indeed the most accurate, it's worth noting that 538 was the most unbiased, since all of Wasserman's errors underestimated Democrats while 538's went in either direction.

Even 538 was 10-2. The 2 seats they had Democrats winning that Went GOP were KS-2 and MN-1.

The 10 seats that Went the other way were CA-21, NM-2, TX-32, OK-5, GA-6, SC-1, IL-6, VA-2, VA-7, NY-11.

Right, 538's modal prediction was biased too. However, since 538 uses probabilities, they make it possible to calculate an average prediction, and that one was pretty spot on (predicted D+39, actual D+40). In other words, while 538 didn't see all winning Democrats as favored, they recognized that there was enough uncertainty on the Republican end that at least a few of the non-favored Democrats would still eke it out.

[Badger]

Democrats are the part of all Americans:

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/1068298612466167808

Isolated anomalies don't make a trend.

Kindly remember that theory the next time you want to Swoon over Tim Scott or John James.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The GOP dipped below 45% of the vote today.

[wbrocks67]

This election really is something. You could've argued that Dems did better because of low turnout or that Trump's base didn't show up -- but nope, this was presidential level turnout, with Dems turning out 60 million votes, and even WITH Trump's base being awakened, they nearly took the house by 10 million votes. That's incredible.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

This election really is something. You could've argued that Dems did better because of low turnout or that Trump's base didn't show up -- but nope, this was presidential level turnout, with Dems turning out 60 million votes, and even WITH Trump's base being awakened, they nearly took the house by 10 million votes. That's incredible.

Which leads me to think that this election is some indication of 2020. You couldn't argue that 2010 meant the defeat of Obama since the turnout was pretty low, but this election signaled mass enthusiasm in the opposition with the Democrats beating the GOP by nearly 10 mill in such a turnout.

[wbrocks67]

This election really is something. You could've argued that Dems did better because of low turnout or that Trump's base didn't show up -- but nope, this was presidential level turnout, with Dems turning out 60 million votes, and even WITH Trump's base being awakened, they nearly took the house by 10 million votes. That's incredible.

Which leads me to think that this election is some indication of 2020. You couldn't argue that 2010 meant the defeat of Obama since the turnout was pretty low, but this election signaled mass enthusiasm in the opposition with the Democrats beating the GOP by nearly 10 mill in such a turnout.

Essentially, the Dem candidate in 2020 needs to live in PA, WI, and MI. Based on 2018, we have a good starting point.

[Stranger in a strange land]

This election really is something. You could've argued that Dems did better because of low turnout or that Trump's base didn't show up -- but nope, this was presidential level turnout, with Dems turning out 60 million votes, and even WITH Trump's base being awakened, they nearly took the house by 10 million votes. That's incredible.

Which leads me to think that this election is some indication of 2020. You couldn't argue that 2010 meant the defeat of Obama since the turnout was pretty low, but this election signaled mass enthusiasm in the opposition with the Democrats beating the GOP by nearly 10 mill in such a turnout.

Essentially, the Dem candidate in 2020 needs to live in PA, WI, and MI. Based on 2018, we have a good starting point.

Yes, keep in mind that if this had been a presidential election with Trump vs generic D, Trump would have lost.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This election really is something. You could've argued that Dems did better because of low turnout or that Trump's base didn't show up -- but nope, this was presidential level turnout, with Dems turning out 60 million votes, and even WITH Trump's base being awakened, they nearly took the house by 10 million votes. That's incredible.

Which leads me to think that this election is some indication of 2020. You couldn't argue that 2010 meant the defeat of Obama since the turnout was pretty low, but this election signaled mass enthusiasm in the opposition with the Democrats beating the GOP by nearly 10 mill in such a turnout.

Essentially, the Dem candidate in 2020 needs to live in PA, WI, and MI. Based on 2018, we have a good starting point.

Yes, keep in mind that if this had been a presidential election with Trump vs generic D, Trump would have lost.

There was one Democratic candidate who was consistently leading in the polls, but the pundit class declared him unelectable anyway.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

This election really is something. You could've argued that Dems did better because of low turnout or that Trump's base didn't show up -- but nope, this was presidential level turnout, with Dems turning out 60 million votes, and even WITH Trump's base being awakened, they nearly took the house by 10 million votes. That's incredible.

Which leads me to think that this election is some indication of 2020. You couldn't argue that 2010 meant the defeat of Obama since the turnout was pretty low, but this election signaled mass enthusiasm in the opposition with the Democrats beating the GOP by nearly 10 mill in such a turnout.

For all of the coddling of Obama/Trump voters, Macomb Democrats, diner denizens, etc. we've done in the last two years, low turnout for Clinton that trickled down-ballot is one of the best explanations for Trump's 2016 win we have. As long as Democrats can turn out those voters who stayed home in '16 they are starting from a good baseline for 2020. Some portion of the 7 million in the margin between 2016 and 2020 turned out in 2018 but not two years ago.

Definitely not an argument for complacency, though, as everybody underestimated enthusiasm and turnout for Trump in 2016 and overestimated Hillary's favorables, and that could just as easily happen again. But, I still think it's more likely than not that we'll see better turnout in 2020, especially given what we saw in 2020.

Also LOL at the idea that Trump would improve on his 2016 numbers as Orange County and New Jersey suburbanites flocked to Trump once they realized he was a standard conservative candidate. This election blew that narrative out of the water, thankfully.

[NOVA Green]

This election really is something. You could've argued that Dems did better because of low turnout or that Trump's base didn't show up -- but nope, this was presidential level turnout, with Dems turning out 60 million votes, and even WITH Trump's base being awakened, they nearly took the house by 10 million votes. That's incredible.

Which leads me to think that this election is some indication of 2020. You couldn't argue that 2010 meant the defeat of Obama since the turnout was pretty low, but this election signaled mass enthusiasm in the opposition with the Democrats beating the GOP by nearly 10 mill in such a turnout.

For all of the coddling of Obama/Trump voters, Macomb Democrats, diner denizens, etc. we've done in the last two years, low turnout for Clinton that trickled down-ballot is one of the best explanations for Trump's 2016 win we have. As long as Democrats can turn out those voters who stayed home in '16 they are starting from a good baseline for 2020. Some portion of the 7 million in the margin between 2016 and 2020 turned out in 2018 but not two years ago.

Definitely not an argument for complacency, though, as everybody underestimated enthusiasm and turnout for Trump in 2016 and overestimated Hillary's favorables, and that could just as easily happen again. But, I still think it's more likely than not that we'll see better turnout in 2020, especially given what we saw in 2020.

Also LOL at the idea that Trump would improve on his 2016 numbers as Orange County and New Jersey suburbanites flocked to Trump once they realized he was a standard conservative candidate. This election blew that narrative out of the water, thankfully.

I am starting to lean towards the opinion that the "Trump Tax Cuts", which disproportionately targeted "Upper Income Households", and eliminated a local State Tax deduction for FED income taxes, might well have played a disproportionate roll in some of the major swings we observed in many House Districts in 2018...

Part of the difficulty with attempting to isolate exactly where and on what issues DEM-House Candidates over-performed is extremely difficult, since it appears that there were massive swings among older White Voters, Middle-Class Suburban Voters, Younger White Voters, etc...

It's not confined to any one narrow demographic, but still it does appear the Upper-Middle Class Communities particularly hard hit by the "Trump Tax Increase in Democratic Leaning States" swung some of the hardest against their local PUB House REPs, compared to similar places in Texas, and the South, and parts of the MidWest, least impacted by these massive Republican Tax hikes....

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=11920.msg264844#msg264844

^^ how times have changed since 2004, it gonna be extremely hard to the republicans to win back the house in the near future,
Nothing is certain in politics..

lol, the party that controls every branch of government except the House is suddenly "incapable to win a national election". Sure.

I've seen this movie before. It doesn't end well for the party that's gloating about their inevitable triumph.

[ON Progressive]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=11920.msg264844#msg264844

^^ how times have changed since 2004, it gonna be extremely hard to the republicans to win back the house in the near future,
Nothing is certain in politics..

lol, the party that controls every branch of government except the House is suddenly "incapable to win a national election". Sure.

I've seen this movie before. It doesn't end well for the party that's gloating about their inevitable triumph.

Exactly. To me, the #1 rule of American elections is that the pendulum always swings back. It's absurd to call either party "dead" or "incapable of winning an election" because it always ends up being completely wrong within 2 years of the person's claiming it anyhow.

[smoltchanov]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=11920.msg264844#msg264844

^^ how times have changed since 2004, it gonna be extremely hard to the republicans to win back the house in the near future,
Nothing is certain in politics..

lol, the party that controls every branch of government except the House is suddenly "incapable to win a national election". Sure.

I've seen this movie before. It doesn't end well for the party that's gloating about their inevitable triumph.

Exactly. To me, the #1 rule of American elections is that the pendulum always swings back. It's absurd to call either party "dead" or "incapable of winning an election" because it always ends up being completely wrong within 2 years of the person's claiming it anyhow.

+100. The only problem from my point of view - with radicalization of both parties these swings become more and more potentially dangerous. More "unstable" people, like Trump, suddenly get a chance for real power, which they wouldn't get before.

[IceSpear]

In CA-49 the Democrat won by more than 12 percentage points!!!  Issa knew what he was doing when he decided to retire.

Remember when Issa was supposedly leading by double digits in his internals and only retired to spend more time with his family?

Yes, some Atlas posters literally believed this.

[Landslide Lyndon]

In CA-49 the Democrat won by more than 12 percentage points!!!  Issa knew what he was doing when he decided to retire.

Remember when Issa was supposedly leading by double digits in his internals and only retired to spend more time with his family?

Yes, some Atlas posters literally believed this.

And they started sh**tting on Cisneros after a Kim internal showed her up by double digits.

[politicallefty]

In CA-49 the Democrat won by more than 12 percentage points!!!  Issa knew what he was doing when he decided to retire.

Remember when Issa was supposedly leading by double digits in his internals and only retired to spend more time with his family?

Yes, some Atlas posters literally believed this.

Haha. I’m only disappointed that Issa didn’t give us the satisfaction of actually defeating him. I can settle for Scott Walker’s defeat though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=11920.msg264844#msg264844

^^ how times have changed since 2004, it gonna be extremely hard to the republicans to win back the house in the near future,
Nothing is certain in politics..

lol, the party that controls every branch of government except the House is suddenly "incapable to win a national election". Sure.

I've seen this movie before. It doesn't end well for the party that's gloating about their inevitable triumph.

You're missing my point Tony,
From 1994-2006 many claimed it was pretty difficult for dems to gain the house,
They did in 2006 and kept it in 2008,
After 2010 and 2012 people claimed dems won't regain the house any time soon and all the gerrymandering stuff,
Dems gained the house this year and broke the gerrymandering,
And if the swings in the suburbs are stable, it gonna take a while for republicans to retake the house ...

And regarding the national election, republicans won the popular vote only once since 1988 (30 years),
Walter's prediction wasn't very wrong in that regard...

Democrats weren’t locked out post-1994 per se. In fact, some of those majorities were among the closest in history.

Gerrymandering is probably the only reason Dems didn’t take back the House in 2012. However, gerrymandering loses its effectiveness over time. We’re pretty far removed from the Census at this point and perhaps in the midst of a political realignment. I was predicting the House would fall over a year ago (actually, the midterm was my one source of hope after what happened in 2016). There’s a very good chance Republicans would’ve lost the House in 2014 had President Obama been defeated in 2012.

[lfromnj]

In CA-49 the Democrat won by more than 12 percentage points!!!  Issa knew what he was doing when he decided to retire.

Remember when Issa was supposedly leading by double digits in his internals and only retired to spend more time with his family?

Yes, some Atlas posters literally believed this.

Link me to it plz I want a laugh.

[2016]

I think worth noting that CA Sen. Dianne Feinstein's lead over Kevin De Leon has been cut to 8.4%. Feinstein now leads by under 100K Votes.

CA will probably become more Progressive in the years to come. I'd say Feinstein although she already filed for Re-Election in 2024 is TOAST if she makes it that far.

[Calthrina950]

I think worth noting that CA Sen. Dianne Feinstein's lead over Kevin De Leon has been cut to 8.4%. Feinstein now leads by under 100K Votes.

CA will probably become more Progressive in the years to come. I'd say Feinstein although she already filed for Re-Election in 2024 is TOAST if she makes it that far.

De Leon's overperformance was one of this year's biggest surprises. And I definitely do believe that this will be Feinstein's last term.

[2016]

I think worth noting that CA Sen. Dianne Feinstein's lead over Kevin De Leon has been cut to 8.4%. Feinstein now leads by under 100K Votes.

CA will probably become more Progressive in the years to come. I'd say Feinstein although she already filed for Re-Election in 2024 is TOAST if she makes it that far.

De Leon's overperformance was one of this year's biggest surprises. And I definitely do believe that this will be Feinstein's last term.

I certainly didn't expect it under 10% Points BUT

Feinstein 5,910,066 54,2%
De Leon 4,986,925 45,8%

Difference: 923,141

[smoltchanov]

I think worth noting that CA Sen. Dianne Feinstein's lead over Kevin De Leon has been cut to 8.4%. Feinstein now leads by under 100K Votes.

CA will probably become more Progressive in the years to come. I'd say Feinstein although she already filed for Re-Election in 2024 is TOAST if she makes it that far.

De Leon's overperformance was one of this year's biggest surprises. And I definitely do believe that this will be Feinstein's last term.

I certainly didn't expect it under 10% Points BUT

Feinstein 5,910,066 54,2%
De Leon 4,986,925 45,8%

Difference: 923,141

When i see 70+% vote for "progressive" de Leon in ultraconservative Modock and Lassen counties - it's crystal clear, that it's mostly protest vote. So, i wouldn't be so sure in "progressives" victory over "establishment" in 2024.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=11920.msg264844#msg264844

^^ how times have changed since 2004, it gonna be extremely hard to the republicans to win back the house in the near future,
Nothing is certain in politics..

lol, the party that controls every branch of government except the House is suddenly "incapable to win a national election". Sure.

I've seen this movie before. It doesn't end well for the party that's gloating about their inevitable triumph.

You're missing my point Tony,
From 1994-2006 many claimed it was pretty difficult for dems to gain the house,
They did in 2006 and kept it in 2008,
After 2010 and 2012 people claimed dems won't regain the house any time soon and all the gerrymandering stuff,
Dems gained the house this year and broke the gerrymandering,
And if the swings in the suburbs are stable, it gonna take a while for republicans to retake the house ...

And regarding the national election, republicans won the popular vote only once since 1988 (30 years),
Walter's prediction wasn't very wrong in that regard...

What bizarro alternate reality are you talking about? It's gonna be extremely easy for Republicans to take back the House. Just winning every seat that had a Republican PVI in 2016 gets them to 236 seats...

The House is only Lean D in 2020 (Tossup if T***p is reelected, though obviously Likely or Safe D if he loses), and is almost guaranteed to flip back the next time we have a midterm election under a Democratic President.

[lfromnj]

House isn't flipping until the next R wave which I doubt happens with trump on the ballot in 2020(too polarizing)
Trump could have won back the house if he had a different campaign strategy. He sacrificed Randy Hultgren to save Mike bost,Steve Russel for Carol Miller etc. Now most of the seats he lost even if they are republican are not very trumpy so he may not be able to coattail over them over the incumbents.