Special Election megathread (4/30: NY-26)

[Adam Griffin]

There's a lot to be said about such a race and it's obvious the breakdowns here aren't as neatly sorted along racial lines as some expected, but I do think it's worth pointing out that this shouldn't really be considered an upset:

We had no unbiased polling in the race, or even up-to-date internal polling. I don't think Turner ever had more than 45% in one of her own released polls, and she appears to have received that. In the end, the vast majority of non-Turner voters decided to unite behind the most viable establishment-supported candidate. It's another one of these situations where the perceived outcome from the get-go seemed too good to be true (a la Bernie winning the presidential nomination as a front-runner with 25% of the vote). Turner had the largest and most solid base of supporters, but all other factions were pretty much opposed to a candidate like her. In retrospect, obviously both sides saw the winds changing in June, which is why so much establishment money began pouring into the district and why Turner started calling in national progressives.

Probably the worst outcome of all of this is that we have to continue suffering from the Terminally Online crowd's belief that Clyburn is some sort of kingmaker, instead of an opportunist who waits to see which way the wind is blowing and comes into town at the last minute, long after rank-and-file Democratic infrastructure makes its move.

And perhaps this will be the election where people figure out - hopefully - that Clyburn isn't some kingmaker in Democratic primaries, and that his endorsement is a lagging indicator rather than a leading one: that he almost always endorses the candidate who has the best chance of winning (and the rest of the time, as is likely the case here, endorses a candidate out of sheer pettiness).

[pppolitics]

There's a lot to be said about such a race and it's obvious the breakdowns here aren't as neatly sorted along racial lines as some expected, but I do think it's worth pointing out that this shouldn't really be considered an upset:

We had no unbiased polling in the race, or even up-to-date internal polling. I don't think Turner ever had more than 45% in one of her own released polls, and she appears to have received that. In the end, the vast majority of non-Turner voters decided to unite behind the most viable establishment-supported candidate. It's another one of these situations where the perceived outcome from the get-go seemed too good to be true (a la Bernie winning the presidential nomination as a front-runner with 25% of the vote). Turner had the largest and most solid base of supporters, but all other factions were pretty much opposed to a candidate like her. In retrospect, obviously both sides saw the winds changing in June, which is why so much establishment money began pouring into the district and why Turner started calling in national progressives.

Probably the worst outcome of all of this is that we have to continue suffering from the Terminally Online crowd's belief that Clyburn is some sort of kingmaker, instead of an opportunist who waits to see which way the wind is blowing and comes into town at the last minute, long after rank-and-file Democratic infrastructure makes its move.

And perhaps this will be the election where people figure out - hopefully - that Clyburn isn't some kingmaker in Democratic primaries, and that his endorsement is a lagging indicator rather than a leading one: that he almost always endorses the candidate who has the best chance of winning (and the rest of the time, as is likely the case here, endorses a candidate out of sheer pettiness).

Turner dragged Clyburn into this.

[wbrocks67]

There's a lot to be said about such a race and it's obvious the breakdowns here aren't as neatly sorted along racial lines as some expected, but I do think it's worth pointing out that this shouldn't really be considered an upset:

We had no unbiased polling in the race, or even up-to-date internal polling. I don't think Turner ever had more than 45% in one of her own released polls, and she appears to have received that. In the end, the vast majority of non-Turner voters decided to unite behind the most viable establishment-supported candidate. It's another one of these situations where the perceived outcome from the get-go seemed too good to be true (a la Bernie winning the presidential nomination as a front-runner with 25% of the vote). Turner had the largest and most solid base of supporters, but all other factions were pretty much opposed to a candidate like her. In retrospect, obviously both sides saw the winds changing in June, which is why so much establishment money began pouring into the district and why Turner started calling in national progressives.

Probably the worst outcome of all of this is that we have to continue suffering from the Terminally Online crowd's belief that Clyburn is some sort of kingmaker, instead of an opportunist who waits to see which way the wind is blowing and comes into town at the last minute, long after rank-and-file Democratic infrastructure makes its move.

And perhaps this will be the election where people figure out - hopefully - that Clyburn isn't some kingmaker in Democratic primaries, and that his endorsement is a lagging indicator rather than a leading one: that he almost always endorses the candidate who has the best chance of winning (and the rest of the time, as is likely the case here, endorses a candidate out of sheer pettiness).

Turner dragged Clyburn into this

Yeah, I don't think the read on Clyburn just "riding into town for Brown" at the last minute after he figured she would win is accurate.

[pppolitics]

There's a lot to be said about such a race and it's obvious the breakdowns here aren't as neatly sorted along racial lines as some expected, but I do think it's worth pointing out that this shouldn't really be considered an upset:

We had no unbiased polling in the race, or even up-to-date internal polling. I don't think Turner ever had more than 45% in one of her own released polls, and she appears to have received that. In the end, the vast majority of non-Turner voters decided to unite behind the most viable establishment-supported candidate. It's another one of these situations where the perceived outcome from the get-go seemed too good to be true (a la Bernie winning the presidential nomination as a front-runner with 25% of the vote). Turner had the largest and most solid base of supporters, but all other factions were pretty much opposed to a candidate like her. In retrospect, obviously both sides saw the winds changing in June, which is why so much establishment money began pouring into the district and why Turner started calling in national progressives.

Probably the worst outcome of all of this is that we have to continue suffering from the Terminally Online crowd's belief that Clyburn is some sort of kingmaker, instead of an opportunist who waits to see which way the wind is blowing and comes into town at the last minute, long after rank-and-file Democratic infrastructure makes its move.

And perhaps this will be the election where people figure out - hopefully - that Clyburn isn't some kingmaker in Democratic primaries, and that his endorsement is a lagging indicator rather than a leading one: that he almost always endorses the candidate who has the best chance of winning (and the rest of the time, as is likely the case here, endorses a candidate out of sheer pettiness).

Turner dragged Clyburn into this

Yeah, I don't think the read on Clyburn just "riding into town for Brown" at the last minute after he figured she would win is accurate.

Clyburn actually said why he got involved:

The most senior CBC member in Congress—House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn—got personally involved, too. At a June event with Turner, rapper and activist Killer Mike suggested it was “stupid” for Clyburn to have endorsed Biden in the presidential primary when all he got out of it was making Juneteenth a federal holiday, a sentiment which Turner—who had been trying to show off how she could work with people she’s had harsh words for in the past—appeared to approve. Clyburn endorsed Brown shortly after, and didn’t hide that the remark set him off.

“I personally got involved … when I was invited by the Turner campaign,” Clyburn said in a recent interview with The State. They “talked about my stupidity for endorsing Joe Biden, and I just kind of decided if I’m going to be stupid, might as well be stupid.”

[Ferguson97]

Glad Turner lost. She is an absolute clown. That “concession” speech is pathetic.

I don't know what she was talking about when she mentioned "evil money".

She means the Jews.

[Lief 🗽]

Literally all she had to do was lie that she voted for Clinton and not say that Jim Clyburn was stupid and she probably wins. And she couldn’t even do that!

[Adam Griffin]

Again, y'all: Clyburn doesn't pick winners. He sides with them. Of course he gets petty about whomever doesn't heap praise on him but if it's a truly unwinnable outcome, he isn't going to endorse. That's why it took a month or more after the race narrowed & Democratic establishment infrastructure pouring in for him to jump into OH-11 & was also why he didn't endorse Biden - even though Biden was always going to win SC - until he was sure there was an opening/pending consolidation of establishment support around Biden in the days following the SC primary (or do you think Klobuchar, Buttigieg, etc all endorsing Biden in the same 24 hours just happened organically that day?).

He picks the winning team or keeps his mouth shut, pure and simple. Doubtful even 20% of Democratic voters outside of SC even would recognize his name when prompted. let alone care about what he has to say in out-of-state races (same goes for progressives wading into similar contests).

[wbrocks67]

Literally all she had to do was lie that she voted for Clinton and not say that Jim Clyburn was stupid and she probably wins. And she couldn’t even do that!

Exactly. If she actually did a convincing "i'm not *THAT* Nina Turner from 2016 anymore" schtick, and didn't railroad Clinton and Biden, she could've easily won. But she proved she's the same old whack job Nina.

[Adam Griffin]

Put it another way: does anybody unilaterally credit an old congressional dinosaur like Bernie Sanders with electing Cori Bush, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, Mondaire Jones, etc? No, because it sounds f[inks]ing stupid.

Same goes for Clyburn and his (much more selective, because he wants to be perceived as a winner) endorsements. Terminal Onlineness and Severe Pundit Brain shouldn't be a prime feature on this forum.

[Brittain33]

Put it another way: does anybody unilaterally credit an old congressional dinosaur like Bernie Sanders with electing Cori Bush, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, Mondaire Jones, etc? No, because it sounds f[inks]ing stupid.

Same goes for Clyburn and his (much more selective, because he wants to be perceived as a winner) endorsements. Terminal Onlineness and Severe Pundit Brain shouldn't be a prime feature on this forum.

The problem with the framing that he picks the winning team or he shuts up is that Brown won narrowly with low turnout so it’s not like this was a safe bet for him to ride a winner’s coattails.

[Adam Griffin]

Put it another way: does anybody unilaterally credit an old congressional dinosaur like Bernie Sanders with electing Cori Bush, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, Mondaire Jones, etc? No, because it sounds f[inks]ing stupid.

Same goes for Clyburn and his (much more selective, because he wants to be perceived as a winner) endorsements. Terminal Onlineness and Severe Pundit Brain shouldn't be a prime feature on this forum.

The problem with the framing that he picks the winning team or he shuts up is that Brown won narrowly with low turnout so it’s not like this was a safe bet for him to ride a winner’s coattails.

We'll never know for sure what actual internal polling for Brown or DCCC etc showed: result could have been closer or wider than expected. Obviously national establishment orgs began seeing an opening sometime around Memorial Day at the latest, though.

But as I've expressed prior, I do think that pettiness is another variable in the equation for a guy that maybe faced one single somewhat-competitive [primary] election in his life and isn't used to any viable criticism or pushback whatsoever (i.e. "[likelihood of win] + [how much they talked smack about me] / 2 = probability of endorsement"). It's not that he's entirely unwilling to go out on a limb, but he's definitely not going to bother doing so if it's anything other than competitive.

[The Mikado]

Put it another way: does anybody unilaterally credit an old congressional dinosaur like Bernie Sanders with electing Cori Bush, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, Mondaire Jones, etc? No, because it sounds f[inks]ing stupid.

Same goes for Clyburn and his (much more selective, because he wants to be perceived as a winner) endorsements. Terminal Onlineness and Severe Pundit Brain shouldn't be a prime feature on this forum.

The problem with the framing that he picks the winning team or he shuts up is that Brown won narrowly with low turnout so it’s not like this was a safe bet for him to ride a winner’s coattails.

75k votes cast is not bad turnout for an off off year special Congressional primary.

[Brittain33]

Put it another way: does anybody unilaterally credit an old congressional dinosaur like Bernie Sanders with electing Cori Bush, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, Mondaire Jones, etc? No, because it sounds f[inks]ing stupid.

Same goes for Clyburn and his (much more selective, because he wants to be perceived as a winner) endorsements. Terminal Onlineness and Severe Pundit Brain shouldn't be a prime feature on this forum.

The problem with the framing that he picks the winning team or he shuts up is that Brown won narrowly with low turnout so it’s not like this was a safe bet for him to ride a winner’s coattails.

75k votes cast is not bad turnout for an off off year special Congressional primary.

Fair enough, it’s not low turnout for a primary like some others we’ve seen. I just meant it was low enough that there was high uncertainty about the outcome.

[Adam Griffin]

Put it another way: does anybody unilaterally credit an old congressional dinosaur like Bernie Sanders with electing Cori Bush, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, Mondaire Jones, etc? No, because it sounds f[inks]ing stupid.

Same goes for Clyburn and his (much more selective, because he wants to be perceived as a winner) endorsements. Terminal Onlineness and Severe Pundit Brain shouldn't be a prime feature on this forum.

The problem with the framing that he picks the winning team or he shuts up is that Brown won narrowly with low turnout so it’s not like this was a safe bet for him to ride a winner’s coattails.

75k votes cast is not bad turnout for an off off year special Congressional primary.

Yeah, it was smack-dab in the middle of the 2018 and 2020 Democratic primaries raw vote-wise. It wasn't "high turnout" but definitely not low, either.

[Calthrina950]

Glad Turner lost. She is an absolute clown. That “concession” speech is pathetic.

I don't know what she was talking about when she mentioned "evil money".

She means the Jews.

I see. I've read that Turner has been accused of being an anti-Semite.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Put it another way: does anybody unilaterally credit an old congressional dinosaur like Bernie Sanders with electing Cori Bush, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, Mondaire Jones, etc? No, because it sounds f[inks]ing stupid.

Same goes for Clyburn and his (much more selective, because he wants to be perceived as a winner) endorsements. Terminal Onlineness and Severe Pundit Brain shouldn't be a prime feature on this forum.

The problem with the framing that he picks the winning team or he shuts up is that Brown won narrowly with low turnout so it’s not like this was a safe bet for him to ride a winner’s coattails.

It's utterly bizarre revisionist history.

Shontel Brown was a nobody, running 35 points behind a candidate with universal name recognition, a tremendous financial advantage, and the backing of a national political apparatus, when Clinton/Clyburn decided to endorse her.  I can't get PredictIt's history to work but I'm pretty sure Brown was at <20% on there.  And on here, there's a poll from around then, nobody thought Brown had much of a chance.

[xavier110]

Disappointing to say the least. Another huge loss for the polling industry.

It's interesting to contrast this race and its result with NY-16 last year. Bowman, like Turner, upheld a progressive program, had the animosity of Clinton, Clyburn and the CBC, and was outspent by outside groups incl. DMFI donating millions to the opposing candidate. Bowman was also criticized by Engel and his surrogates for controversial statements about Israel, and rallied endorsements from Sanders and AOC. Yet Bowman crushed Engel by 15 points. Why then did Turner have such an uphill battle? Did it simply come down to perceived loyalty to Biden and the Democrats, and the DMFI/Third Way ads repeating attack ads? Or do we just need to find more out-of-touch incumbents?

Regardless, it's undoubtedly a painful L for progressives. Hopefully we see some primary wins in 2022.

Impression I got was that Engel was a lot more unpopular and it’s much easier to run as a progressive against an incumbent with a sh**t record compared to against some random state legislator.

Those who have won usually leverage the racial demographics of the district to their advantage and/or successfully raise doubts about opponent’s tenure/ corruption

[Adam Griffin]

Put it another way: does anybody unilaterally credit an old congressional dinosaur like Bernie Sanders with electing Cori Bush, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, Mondaire Jones, etc? No, because it sounds f[inks]ing stupid.

Same goes for Clyburn and his (much more selective, because he wants to be perceived as a winner) endorsements. Terminal Onlineness and Severe Pundit Brain shouldn't be a prime feature on this forum.

The problem with the framing that he picks the winning team or he shuts up is that Brown won narrowly with low turnout so it’s not like this was a safe bet for him to ride a winner’s coattails.

It's utterly bizarre revisionist history.

Shontel Brown was a nobody, running 35 points behind a candidate with universal name recognition, a tremendous financial advantage, and the backing of a national political apparatus, when Clinton/Clyburn decided to endorse her.  I can't get PredictIt's history to work but I'm pretty sure Brown was at <20% on there.  And on here, there's a poll from around then, nobody thought Brown had much of a chance.

National orgs had been dumping resources in for more than a month before Clyburn endorsed. Not a single publicly-released poll (internal or otherwise) conducted during the month of June came out. Universally-recognized Democrats (i.e. Hillary Clinton, and not Jim Clyburn) had endorsed weeks prior to him. Stop acting as if I'm the one revising history.

[Adam Griffin]

Disappointing to say the least. Another huge loss for the polling industry.

It's interesting to contrast this race and its result with NY-16 last year. Bowman, like Turner, upheld a progressive program, had the animosity of Clinton, Clyburn and the CBC, and was outspent by outside groups incl. DMFI donating millions to the opposing candidate. Bowman was also criticized by Engel and his surrogates for controversial statements about Israel, and rallied endorsements from Sanders and AOC. Yet Bowman crushed Engel by 15 points. Why then did Turner have such an uphill battle? Did it simply come down to perceived loyalty to Biden and the Democrats, and the DMFI/Third Way ads repeating attack ads? Or do we just need to find more out-of-touch incumbents?

Regardless, it's undoubtedly a painful L for progressives. Hopefully we see some primary wins in 2022.

Impression I got was that Engel was a lot more unpopular and it’s much easier to run as a progressive against an incumbent with a sh**t record compared to against some random state legislator.

Those who have won usually leverage the racial demographics of the district to their advantage and/or successfully raise doubts about opponent’s tenure/ corruption

Literally Cori Bush is the only progressive congressional candidate as of late who has managed to defy concrete trends thus far in any majority-minority (in particular, majority-black) district. Everybody else either won a plurality in a very crowded field and/or with very low turnout, ran against absolutely toxic white incumbents in majority-minority districts, didn't attract notable establishment involvement until the very end/not at all, or lost. Even for Bush, one could argue her name recognition, her opponent's disregard in general and the establishment not taking the contest seriously until the very end were all variables that helped her overcome an otherwise inevitable reality.

For most districts like this, it is obvious that any victory for a progressive involves running against a damaged incumbent and not setting off too many alarm bells (i.e. massive fundraising numbers or Big Online Followings) until the end of the campaign. Bush, AOC and Bowman all managed to pull this off to varying degrees.

[MT Treasurer]

Literally Cori Bush is the only progressive congressional candidate as of late who has managed to defy concrete trends thus far in any majority-minority (in particular, majority-black) district. Everybody else either won a plurality in a very crowded field and/or with very low turnout, ran against absolutely toxic white incumbents in majority-minority districts, didn't attract notable establishment involvement until the very end/not at all, or lost. Even for Bush, one could argue her name recognition, her opponent's disregard in general and the establishment not taking the contest seriously until the very end were all variables that helped her overcome an otherwise inevitable reality.

For most districts like this, it is obvious that any victory for a progressive involves running against a damaged incumbent and not setting off too many alarm bells (i.e. massive fundraising numbers or Big Online Followings) until the end of the campaign. Bush, AOC and Bowman all managed to pull this off to varying degrees.

I agree with this completely, and the idea that any Democrat from SC of all places wouldn’t be aware of those dynamics is funny. Turner was always going to be in trouble as soon as 'establishment'-aligned groups put a target on her back and the race became more and more nationalized.

[Adam Griffin]

Literally Cori Bush is the only progressive congressional candidate as of late who has managed to defy concrete trends thus far in any majority-minority (in particular, majority-black) district. Everybody else either won a plurality in a very crowded field and/or with very low turnout, ran against absolutely toxic white incumbents in majority-minority districts, didn't attract notable establishment involvement until the very end/not at all, or lost. Even for Bush, one could argue her name recognition, her opponent's disregard in general and the establishment not taking the contest seriously until the very end were all variables that helped her overcome an otherwise inevitable reality.

For most districts like this, it is obvious that any victory for a progressive involves running against a damaged incumbent and not setting off too many alarm bells (i.e. massive fundraising numbers or Big Online Followings) until the end of the campaign. Bush, AOC and Bowman all managed to pull this off to varying degrees.

I agree with this completely, and the idea that any Democrat from SC of all places wouldn’t be aware of those dynamics is funny. Turner was always going to be in trouble as soon as 'establishment'-aligned groups put a target on her back and the race became more and more nationalized.

But wait: Clyburn won his most competitive election 21 years ago with 55% in a 5-person (primary) race! Thank God every establishment Democratic org in the country had his cunning electoral skills to salvage their months-long investment in OH-11! #QweenMaker

[Badger]

Writing something up after I do some gaming. Suffice to say it's clear that certain factions of the Democratic establishment didn't get Biden/Schumer's memo and still believe we're Public Enemy #1B.

If Turner would have endorsed/voted for Hillary and Biden, like nearly every other elected Berniecrat did she would have won tonight.

This.

Nina Turner: "Biden is sh**t!"

Almost 90% of Democrats: " I like him" or at least " he's alright".

[Badger]

source

Explains a lot, I think.

Other than why Ron Hood still only managed an effective tie for second, technically third place.

The answer is, too many people actually know Ron Hood.

[Badger]

source

Explains a lot, I think.

Other than why Ron Hood still only managed an effective tie for second, technically third place.

The answer is, too many people actually know Ron Hood.

I will also comment that this race is a prime example of how lawn signs are a piss poor indicator of polling strength. I had driven through Perry County a couple times in the last few weeks and saw Bunches of cooperrider signs. I swear his ratio of votes to lawn signs was only about 15 to 1. Likewise I traveled through Jeff larae District Affair bit and saw massive numbers of signs for him. Even in those areas though, Carey signs were relatively rare even compared to those four say Bob Peterson and some of the others who've finished well back in the pack.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Writing something up after I do some gaming. Suffice to say it's clear that certain factions of the Democratic establishment didn't get Biden/Schumer's memo and still believe we're Public Enemy #1B.

If Turner would have endorsed/voted for Hillary and Biden, like nearly every other elected Berniecrat did she would have won tonight.

This.

Nina Turner: "Biden is sh**t!"

Almost 90% of Democrats: " I like him" or at least " he's alright".

Like the scorpion said to the frog, "I couldn't help it, it's in my nature".