Rate 2019 November elections from 1-10 for D's

[lfromnj]

Im going with a 8, spectacular success in Kentucky,managing to hold on LA while not letting R's get a super majority and also getting a majority in VA
However the margin in VA was kinda dissapointing tbh along with pretty bad results in NJ, they did hold on in the 2nd district but failed to pick up the Romney Menendez district etc.
MS was a wash, it was pretty close overall for Hood but pretty bad at a legislative level(that includes SD 22 which they barely picked up despite requiring the courts  to gerrymander it for them because they only want safe seats rather than 2 competetive)

[Brittain33]

8. As good as could be expected with the current environment where Republicans are outnumbered but white rural areas are still reasonably pumped for Trump. The headlines and media outcomes as a black eye for Trump are very good, almost too good out of proportion to the actual wins. Below the Dems' gubernatorial wins, we still have Republicans dominating state and legislative elections with few exceptions in KY, MS, and LA. VA was good for Dems especially in light of the scandals but they narrowly lost a bunch of senate seats they would have benefited from winning.

[Badger]

Agree with the above two posts.

[MT Treasurer]

8, if only because MS was a disaster and they could have done a little better in VA/NJ.

But overall definitely a great year for Democrats, although they got really lucky in KY.

[windjammer]

7 : the outcome for the gubernatorial elections couldn't have been better.
Downballot this wasn't a success at all: the VA state senate outcome was disappointing, we lost seats or executive offices in NJ, KY and LA.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

In the context of beating Trump then 8/9 seems good but for long-term prospects where Ds aren't running against a man-child then I'm not as positive. Ds still are bleeding outstate support in lower-profile downballot races and suburban gains aren't enough to offset these (yet). Winning the trifecta in VA, blocking a supermajority in LA House, and winning over county control outside Philly is good but they still ceded some seats in LA-Leg, lost a couple of winnable seats in VA-Leg, lost control of some ancestral D PA counties, and got swept downballot in KY. I'd put these results at a six. It's a great first start to win over races at the top of the ticket and maybe one day that will translate into more downballot success; it isn't happening fast enough though.

I still think that "Bevin was uniquely unpopular and therefore there's no applicability to Trump" is a dumb argument because many high-profile R candidates will mess up by taking dumb culture war stances and gutting state services. The problem is that when nobody-candidates do it downballot they aren't getting punished for it.

[Xing]

Probably somewhere between 7 and 8. KY and LA were narrow wins (especially KY, but a win is a win) at the gubernatorial level, though of course Democrats had very little success in those states outside of the gubernatorial races themselves. The VA results were pretty good, but Democrats probably could've done even better.

These results don't tell us much about 2020, since a ton can happen in a year, but if there's any takeaway point, it's that impeachment doesn't seem to be an incredibly toxic issue for Democrats (right now, at least), and Trump's 2016 performance isn't his floor for 2020. I think both of those were already pretty obvious to most people paying attention, though.

[Frenchrepublican]

8/10

On the positive side :

-KY-GOV
-LA-GOV
-VA legislature
-the local elections in southeastern PA
-Fort Wayne + Indianapolis mayoral/council elections
-the LA legislature where democrats were able to prevent a R supermajority

On the negative side :

-the KY downballot races
-the local elections in southwestern PA

[We Live in Black and White]

About as good as they possibly could have gone barring an unexpected paradigm shift also putting Hood over the top, so 8/10. I feel like we could have put more effort into really bringing Virginia home, but otherwise we accomplished everything that could have feasibly been expected of us, with Louisiana (reelecting Edwards and denying the GOP a supermajority) arguably being the jewel in our crown.

[Brittain33]

I forgot about NJ and PA elections. They don’t change my vote. NJ Dems are overextended as it is and did well to defend.

[Pericles]

I feel like it's an 8.5 so maybe I should've rounded up but it isn't quite a 9 so I went with 8. Pretty good results and no major concerns for Democrats though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1 of course. #DemsInDisarray

Seriously, 7 or 8 sounds right.

[Nyvin]

8.   Would be a 9 if they did better in the VA Senate elections.

[Progressive Pessimist]

8/10. New Jersey and Virginia weren't as good as they could have been, but nearly every other election met or exceeded expectations.

Hot take: this election year was better to me than 2018 was.

[Skill and Chance]

8/10. New Jersey and Virginia weren't as good as they could have been, but nearly every other election met or exceeded expectations.

Hot take: this election year was better to me than 2018 was.

I suppose it sort of makes up for the 3 highly consequential narrow losses in GA/FL for Dem partisans?

[Progressive Pessimist]

8/10. New Jersey and Virginia weren't as good as they could have been, but nearly every other election met or exceeded expectations.

Hot take: this election year was better to me than 2018 was.

I suppose it sort of makes up for the 3 highly consequential narrow losses in GA/FL for Dem partisans?

Florida really ruined everything last year. I can't get over it. Having a net loss of just the one Senate seat wouldn't have been ideal, but more tolerable than a net loss of two.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Dems outdid expectations overall.

[Annatar]

6/10.

In New Jersey the dems lost 3 legislative seats, 1 in the upper chamber and 2 in the lower chamber, the losses in the lower chamber breaking their super-majority.

In Virginia dems had a map which if they only matched Clinton's margins would give them 23/40 senate seats and 56/100 house seats, they basically ran even with Clinton in the house and but ran 1.5% behind in the Senate managing as a result only to get to 21/40 senate seats. Overall though they picked up 8 legislative seats, 2 in the upper chamber and 6 in the lower chamber so the outcome was fairly good.

In Kentucky the results outside of the governor race were very bad for dems, they had controlled 2/6 statewide officers going in and now control only 1, they won the governor's office but lost both the SOS & AG's office. The average dem margin of defeat also in races rose from 8.5% in 2015 to 12.5% in 2019 and it went from 8.5% to 15% if you exclude the governor's race.

Mississippi was a very bad outcome for dems without any mitigating factors, they lost the AG's office which was the last statewide elected office Dems had and also lost lost a net of 3 senate seats which allowed the Republicans to get a super-majority in the state senate.

In Louisiana the dems again lost every statewide race by big margins except the governor's and lost a net of 1 senate seat allowing the Republican to form a super-majority in the State Senate. In the house dems lost a net of 7 seats.

Overall the outcome of the regular elections was basically this:

Legislative Seats: GOP net gain of 6 seats.

Statewide Offices: GOP net gain of 2, lose KY Governor, win KY SOS, AG & MS AG.

Overall I would say dems did okay considering the circumstances but the continued bleeding in statewide offices as well as legislative seats in small town and & rural areas continues.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

8. I expect NJ losses from party fatigue and mehdiocre Murphy approvals, and while VA wasn’t as big as it should have been, I also still roughly expected the outcome, and they did enough to grab control and make it so their margins in seat control will be even winder then next time.

[Orser67]

8, like everyone else. I'd add that I'm pretty happy with the results in PA. Democrats lost control of some western counties in PA, but they gained control of all the heavily-populated SEPA counties for the first time ever and also did pretty well in other parts of the state. On the other hand, the results in NJ, MS, and (to a lesser extent) VA are all closer to 7-8 than to 9-10.

8/10. New Jersey and Virginia weren't as good as they could have been, but nearly every other election met or exceeded expectations.

Hot take: this election year was better to me than 2018 was.

I suppose it sort of makes up for the 3 highly consequential narrow losses in GA/FL for Dem partisans?

Florida really ruined everything last year. I can't get over it. Having a net loss of just the one Senate seat wouldn't have been ideal, but more tolerable than a net loss of two.

FL was definitely the worst, but GA and OH were also really disappointing for me, mostly because of the redistricting implications.

[Progressive Pessimist]

8, like everyone else. I'd add that I'm pretty happy with the results in PA. Democrats lost control of some western counties in PA, but they gained control of all the heavily-populated SEPA counties for the first time ever and also did pretty well in other parts of the state. On the other hand, the results in NJ, MS, and (to a lesser extent) VA are all closer to 7-8 than to 9-10.

8/10. New Jersey and Virginia weren't as good as they could have been, but nearly every other election met or exceeded expectations.

Hot take: this election year was better to me than 2018 was.

I suppose it sort of makes up for the 3 highly consequential narrow losses in GA/FL for Dem partisans?

Florida really ruined everything last year. I can't get over it. Having a net loss of just the one Senate seat wouldn't have been ideal, but more tolerable than a net loss of two.

FL was definitely the worst, but GA and OH were also really disappointing for me, mostly because of the redistricting implications.

They were disappointments for sure, but they were disappointments I was expecting. I never thought that Abrams or Cordray would have won.

Florida though had some consistently optimistic polling, and as the swingiest state of those three, it wasn't completely out of bounds for the state to be swept up in what looked like an inevitable blue wave...until election night that is when it disappointed once again as it probably always will now.

[Lechasseur]

8/10

[Calthrina950]

5/10. The results were decidedly mixed, in my opinion. The only real successes which the Democrats had in Kentucky and Louisiana (albeit, the most significant ones) were to win the respective gubernatorial races. Aside from that, things did not go particularly well for them. They suffered further losses in the Louisiana legislature, although they were narrowly able to deny the Republicans a supermajority in the State House. Moreover, they lost all other statewide races besides the governorship by double-digit margins. In Kentucky, a similar story. Democrats lost both the Attorney General's office and the Secretary of State's office, and won the governorship by only about 5,000 votes. Thus, Kentucky and Louisiana are still well on their way to becoming staunchly Republican states at every level, though Beshear's result against Bevin, and Edwards' result against Rispone, suggests that a realignment might revive Democratic fortunes in those states, in the future.

Mississippi was an unmitigated disaster for the Democrats. They lost the governorship, lost their last remaining statewide office (the Attorney Generalship), and suffered net losses in the state legislature. That state is now firmly Republican at every level. In Virginia, Democrats took control of the General Assembly, but it is clear that the scandals of Northam, Fairfax, and Herring limited the extent of their gains. In New Jersey, Democrats lost seats, and continued their slide in South Jersey. Finally, Pennsylvania was mixed, with Democrats consolidating their grip over the Philadelphia suburbs, and losing yet more ground in the ancestrally Democratic counties around Pittsburgh.

This cycle, however, tells us little about 2020, aside from this: that the urban-rural trends we have been seeing will continue, and that the campaign against Trump will be an arduous one, that will require much effort on the Democrats' part.

[smoltchanov]

5/10. The results were decidedly mixed, in my opinion. The only real successes which the Democrats had in Kentucky and Louisiana (albeit, the most significant ones) were to win the respective gubernatorial races. Aside from that, things did not go particularly well for them. They suffered further losses in the Louisiana legislature, although they were narrowly able to deny the Republicans a supermajority in the State House. Moreover, they lost all other statewide races besides the governorship by double-digit margins. In Kentucky, a similar story. Democrats lost both the Attorney General's office and the Secretary of State's office, and won the governorship by only about 5,000 votes. Thus, Kentucky and Louisiana are still well on their way to becoming staunchly Republican states at every level, though Beshear's result against Bevin, and Edwards' result against Rispone, suggests that a realignment might revive Democratic fortunes in those states, in the future.

Mississippi was an unmitigated disaster for the Democrats. They lost the governorship, lost their last remaining statewide office (the Attorney Generalship), and suffered net losses in the state legislature. That state is now firmly Republican at every level. In Virginia, Democrats took control of the General Assembly, but it is clear that the scandals of Northam, Fairfax, and Herring limited the extent of their gains. In New Jersey, Democrats lost seats, and continued their slide in South Jersey. Finally, Pennsylvania was mixed, with Democrats consolidating their grip over the Philadelphia suburbs, and losing yet more ground in the ancestrally Democratic counties around Pittsburgh.

This cycle, however, tells us little about 2020, aside from this: that the urban-rural trends we have been seeing will continue, and that the campaign against Trump will be an arduous one, that will require much effort on the Democrats' part.

Disagree. Simply because bets were tooo stacked against Democrats. Essentially, all 3 states - Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi - are deeply Republican now in almost all cases. In such situation to win 2 of 3 governorships, deny majority party in Louisiana supermajority status, and so on - is a sort of achievement by itself. It's a sort of Republican party winning 2 of 3 in Vermont, Massachusetts and Hawaii. They did it in 2018, but it wasn't because of party, it was despite it...

[Annatar]

Winning governors races is good but it hardly compensates for getting crushed in legislative races and getting blown out in other statewide races. The dems have lost 2 AG offices and a SOS office which collectively mean more than Beshear managing to win.

Denying the republicans a supermajority in the Louisiana house wasn’t some great achievement though, dems got crushed in house races, they lost 7 seats getting wiped out across small town Louisiana, they fact they only lost 7 instead of 9 seats doesn’t make it better. In Mississippi it was also a brutal wipeout, including the primary the dems lost 5 senate seats getting blown out in rural Mississippi, a large remnant of their downballot support which they had relied on in the Deep South basically disappeared.