TX-06: Dems in Disarray!

[President Johnson]

As usual, Atlas is overreacting. It's one special election with lower turnout so far away from the midterms. This means nothing one way or the other.

[Bootes Void]

As usual, Atlas is overreacting. It's one special election with lower turnout so far away from the midterms. This means nothing one way or the other.

Agreed

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Lol Rodimer got 3%

[Devils30]

As usual, Atlas is overreacting. It's one special election with lower turnout so far away from the midterms. This means nothing one way or the other.

Agreed

Turnout patterns are why TX will first turn blue at the presidential level. 2024 can't be ruled out but 2028 more realistic of a target. Until then the state is still a good R+10 compared to the country.

[OSR stands with Israel]

As usual, Atlas is overreacting. It's one special election with lower turnout so far away from the midterms. This means nothing one way or the other.

Well, it probably does put to bed the myth that the Trump era meant that Democrats now had more high propensity voters than the GOP does which is something democrats were counting on for 2022.

[It’s so Joever]

After today, the only question now is whether Democrats lose 20 or 50 seats.

They aren’t gonna lose 50 seats as they don’t have the amount of seats currently to lose that much

Dems could EASILY lose 50 seats.

[OSR stands with Israel]

After today, the only question now is whether Democrats lose 20 or 50 seats.

They aren’t gonna lose 50 seats as they don’t have the amount of seats currently to lose that much

Dems could EASILY lose 50 seats.

Um let’s do the math then :


In 2010 democrats losing 63 seats left them with 193 seats , while losing 50 today would leave them with 172. A 2010 style defeat in 2022 would mean a loss of 29 seats which is a lot less than 50.

At the end of the day the reason democrats lost 63 seats in 2020 is they just had way more seats to lose given the fact they had 256 house seats instead of 222. I think a worst case scenario for the democrats is a loss of 35 seats which still would mean they have 187 seats which would be lower than the amount they had after 2014.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

A major reason for two out of the last three bad Dem midterms was the extinction of rural Dixiecrats and Blue Dogs, most of which had been voting Republican at the top of the ticket since 1968.

Gun to my head: both the House and Senate are tossups which either party could win by no more than a handful of seats. The days of wave elections are likely over. But predicting the outcome of the House before the new districts have even been drawn is peak Atlas stupidity.

[Vosem]

A major reason for two out of the last three bad Dem midterms was the extinction of rural Dixiecrats and Blue Dogs, most of which had been voting Republican at the top of the ticket since 1968.

Gun to my head: both the House and Senate are tossups which either party could win by no more than a handful of seats. The days of wave elections are likely over. But predicting the outcome of the House before the new districts have even been drawn is peak Atlas stupidity.

"Democrats will lose 50 seats" is a ridiculous projection -- modern gerrymandering makes so many seats safe that this probably wouldn't be the outcome even in a 2010-style landslide -- but it also feels odd to say the House and Senate are tossups. Assuming universal swing from 2020 results*, Democrats need a generic congressional ballot of D+4 to keep the Senate, and given widespread Republican control of redistricting they probably need a stronger number (D+6-7) to keep the House. Given that 2020 was a pretty strong Democratic year by modern standards, but also only D+3 in the GCB, it feels hard to say Republicans aren't strongly favored to take the Senate and very strongly favored to take the House.

This special election says very little or nothing, though. State legislative specials this year have actually mostly had pretty good results for Democrats, and there are multiple reasons why Republicans might do well in Texas's 6th in spite of a nationally good environment for Democrats. But the thing is that Republicans are still favored to take Congress even if the national environment is quite good for Democrats.

*Which, yes, is always wrong, but your errors at least tend to cancel out.

[President Johnson]

A major reason for two out of the last three bad Dem midterms was the extinction of rural Dixiecrats and Blue Dogs, most of which had been voting Republican at the top of the ticket since 1968.

Gun to my head: both the House and Senate are tossups which either party could win by no more than a handful of seats. The days of wave elections are likely over. But predicting the outcome of the House before the new districts have even been drawn is peak Atlas stupidity.

Agreed. And I think there's a case to make the first part now applies to Republicans vise versa if you replace "rurals" with "suburbs". Some of the 2018 flips like VA-10 or even GA-06 will stay Democratic even if Republicans take majority back. It's an ongoing realignment with changing voter coalitions.

[Skill and Chance]

After today, the only question now is whether Democrats lose 20 or 50 seats.

They aren’t gonna lose 50 seats as they don’t have the amount of seats currently to lose that much

Dems could EASILY lose 50 seats.

Um let’s do the math then :


In 2010 democrats losing 63 seats left them with 193 seats , while losing 50 today would leave them with 172. A 2010 style defeat in 2022 would mean a loss of 29 seats which is a lot less than 50.

At the end of the day the reason democrats lost 63 seats in 2020 is they just had way more seats to lose given the fact they had 256 house seats instead of 222. I think a worst case scenario for the democrats is a loss of 35 seats which still would mean they have 187 seats which would be lower than the amount they had after 2014.

Yes, in 2010, Dems were massively overextended in McCain +15-25 seats that only needed the slightest national attention to flip.  The most right leaning districts they hold this time are a couple Trump +5-10 seats in the NE and there are about as many Reps sitting in Biden +5-10 seats. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

D's aren't in disarray it's not gonna be a 2010 style Election, that Election was about Obamacare.

The Rs ready don't believe that Rs and D's are thankful for the 1400 Bucks that D's passed without a single R vote

This was an R seat, the Rs gotta net 7 seats in the H, and they trail on Generic ballot 47:42


A Neutral Environment can have Ds still holding the H and a 52/48 Senate, setting up DC Statehood

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

After today, the only question now is whether Democrats lose 20 or 50 seats.

They aren’t gonna lose 50 seats as they don’t have the amount of seats currently to lose that much

Dems could EASILY lose 50 seats.

Lol, a wave haven't blossomed yet, we still have 500 days, we don't have any polls

[Roll Roons]

Also, this is the kind of thing I mean when I talk about my hatred of the media:

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1388691471407144960

STOP. GIVING. UNSERIOUS. PEOPLE. UNDESERVED. COVERAGE. FOR F**KS SAKE.

That's how you get another Trump. That's how you get MTG in Congress.

[Brittain33]

After today, the only question now is whether Democrats lose 20 or 50 seats.

They aren’t gonna lose 50 seats as they don’t have the amount of seats currently to lose that much

Dems could EASILY lose 50 seats.

Dropping below 170 seats would give Democrats their smallest House caucus since the 1920s and be 20 fewer seats than after the 2014 rout. That's a bold call, Cotton.  

[Annatar]

One thing the 3 congressional special elections so far make clear is Republican turnout relative to democratic turnout is quite high, in Louisiana, turnout relative to 2020 was higher in LA 5 than LA 2, with LA5 being the more republican district.

In TX 6, turnout was higher in the more Republican areas of the district, this is a good sign for Republicans as a turnout advantage in congressional special elections often means a turnout advantage in the coming midterm.

[Roll Roons]

After today, the only question now is whether Democrats lose 20 or 50 seats.

They aren’t gonna lose 50 seats as they don’t have the amount of seats currently to lose that much

Dems could EASILY lose 50 seats.

Dropping below 170 seats would give Democrats their smallest House caucus since the 1920s and be 20 fewer seats than after the 2014 rout. That's a bold call, Cotton.  

Yup. As of now, I think the most likely scenario is the GOP netting 20-30 seats.

[Progressive Pessimist]

As usual, Atlas is overreacting. It's one special election with lower turnout so far away from the midterms. This means nothing one way or the other.

Agreed, but for different reasons. This is hardly a canary in a coal mine for the 2022 midterms because even if this special election did go better the 2022 midterms will still be a Republican wave anyway.

[NHI]

As usual, Atlas is overreacting. It's one special election with lower turnout so far away from the midterms. This means nothing one way or the other.

[DINGO Joe]

One thing the 3 congressional special elections so far make clear is Republican turnout relative to democratic turnout is quite high, in Louisiana, turnout relative to 2020 was higher in LA 5 than LA 2, with LA5 being the more republican district.

In TX 6, turnout was higher in the more Republican areas of the district, this is a good sign for Republicans as a turnout advantage in congressional special elections often means a turnout advantage in the coming midterm.

Well, turnout is generally higher in every election in LA 5 vs LA 2 because minority turnout almost never matches white turnout. 

Although LA 2 did manage a higher turnout than TX 06.  Go figure.

[Annatar]

One thing the 3 congressional special elections so far make clear is Republican turnout relative to democratic turnout is quite high, in Louisiana, turnout relative to 2020 was higher in LA 5 than LA 2, with LA5 being the more republican district.

In TX 6, turnout was higher in the more Republican areas of the district, this is a good sign for Republicans as a turnout advantage in congressional special elections often means a turnout advantage in the coming midterm.

Well, turnout is generally higher in every election in LA 5 vs LA 2 because minority turnout almost never matches white turnout. 

Although LA 2 did manage a higher turnout than TX 06.  Go figure.

That is why I said relative to 2020, turnout dropped off more in LA2 than LA5, I was not talking about absolute turnout.

As for LA 2 having higher turnout than TX 6, that is an irrelevant point, I didn't compare turnout in TX 6 to LA2, I stated that turnout in the Republican areas of the district was higher than the less Republican areas.

[sting in the rafters]

Let's not overreact, most polling had it as a tight race for the 2nd spot. We will know more after the fall NJ/VA state races. That said, this election result is an indicator Ds must remain vigilant on the ground and the R base is fired up.

[Chips]

As usual, Atlas is overreacting. It's one special election with lower turnout so far away from the midterms. This means nothing one way or the other.

This, Special elections tend to be weird anyway. This is definitely not something to be pleased about if you're a Dem but don't panic just yet.

[Chips]

Here were the vote totals for combined D's and R's:

GOP: 61.9%
DEM: 37.4%

24.5% margin in favor of GOP. Not good but don't panic just yet if you're a Dem. Special elections are known for being plain weird in a lot of ways.

[It’s so Joever]

As usual, Atlas is overreacting. It's one special election with lower turnout so far away from the midterms. This means nothing one way or the other.

This, Special elections tend to be weird anyway. This is definitely not something to be pleased about if you're a Dem but don't panic just yet.

But panicking is my hobby!