Kathleen rice retiring

[Matty]

https://mobile.twitter.com/RepKathleenRice/status/1493616990786928641


Safe D, but this is a type of retirement that shows that she thinks she’ll be in minority next year

[Roll Roons]

I thought it was like Biden +12? Could be in play in a big wave, especially since the GOP did really well in Long Island local elections last fall.

[GALeftist]

So long, moron.

[ElectionsGuy]

This is actually NOT Safe D. Another instance of people not recognizing potentially vulnerable blue-leaning seats.

This is a Clinton +9, Biden +12 district. The current county executive, Bruce Blakeman, defeated a Democratic incumbent in the county (only +2.5% more R in 2020 than this district) in last November's election and ran for this congressional district in 2014, to be defeated by now congresswoman Rice by a 5.6% margin.

I would expect a single-digit race here, but obviously, Democrats would be favored. This is one of those districts to put on upset watch (like OK-05 in 2018)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is actually NOT Safe D. Another instance of people not recognizing potentially vulnerable blue-leaning seats.

This is a Clinton +9, Biden +12 district. The current county executive, Bruce Blakeman, defeated a Democratic incumbent in the county (only +2.5% more R in 2020 than this district) in last November's election and ran for this congressional district in 2014, to be defeated by now congresswoman Rice by a 5.6% margin.

I would expect a single-digit race here, but obviously, Democrats would be favored. This is one of those districts to put on upset watch (like OK-05 in 2018)

Local elections are not national elections. Stop comparing apples and oranges.

[Gracile]

I think a Biden +12 district that's not trending away from the party that won it (an important distinction between this seat and OK-05) is probably still likely to be a hold, although the margin will obviously be closer.

[ElectionsGuy]

This is actually NOT Safe D. Another instance of people not recognizing potentially vulnerable blue-leaning seats.

This is a Clinton +9, Biden +12 district. The current county executive, Bruce Blakeman, defeated a Democratic incumbent in the county (only +2.5% more R in 2020 than this district) in last November's election and ran for this congressional district in 2014, to be defeated by now congresswoman Rice by a 5.6% margin.

I would expect a single-digit race here, but obviously, Democrats would be favored. This is one of those districts to put on upset watch (like OK-05 in 2018)

Local elections are not national elections. Stop comparing apples and oranges.

The executive Blakewon defeated, was a moderate who has since excoriated more left-wing Democrats. That's why it was somewhat remarkable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Curran

She attributed her loss to her name being on the same ballot as State Senator Todd Kaminsky, Democrat of Long Beach, for Nassau County District Attorney. He was the author of the bail reform law that disgruntled many Long Islanders.

I think you're aware that even local elections are getting nationalized or "statized" these days, especially in a county of over a million. I don't see how her loss wasn't at least an indictment on the Democratic Party in the state if not the country.

And for some reason, I don't think people would have a problem with this analogy if it were... let's say a Republican who lost in Morris County New Jersey.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is actually NOT Safe D. Another instance of people not recognizing potentially vulnerable blue-leaning seats.

This is a Clinton +9, Biden +12 district. The current county executive, Bruce Blakeman, defeated a Democratic incumbent in the county (only +2.5% more R in 2020 than this district) in last November's election and ran for this congressional district in 2014, to be defeated by now congresswoman Rice by a 5.6% margin.

I would expect a single-digit race here, but obviously, Democrats would be favored. This is one of those districts to put on upset watch (like OK-05 in 2018)

Local elections are not national elections. Stop comparing apples and oranges.

The executive Blakewon defeated, was a moderate who has since excoriated more left-wing Democrats. That's why it was somewhat remarkable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Curran

She attributed her loss to her name being on the same ballot as State Senator Todd Kaminsky, Democrat of Long Beach, for Nassau County District Attorney. He was the author of the bail reform law that disgruntled many Long Islanders.

I think you're aware that even local elections are getting nationalized or "statized" these days, especially in a county of over a million. I don't see how her loss wasn't at least an indictment on the Democratic Party in the state if not the country.

And for some reason, I don't think people would have a problem with this analogy if it were... let's say a Republican who lost in Morris County New Jersey.

This argument makes...some...sense until you realize that actually Long Island has an organizationally strong local GOP that has found it easy to corner the conversation on matters of importance on local level. Local politics means things get more atomized and distinct from the national picture.
Republicans have had a strong hand in Nassau County politics for at least four decades, despite the county's turn towards the Democrats since the 80s.
Some people, you are right, would claim that if this happened in Morris County then people would raise relatively minimal objections. But just because less people would object to it doesn't make the comparison any less dumb.
I'd rate this as Likely D but only because of the uncertainty. We don't know what the climate in 2022 will be. R wave, neutral, even good year for Dems are possible. We just don't know yet.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

I have no respect for grifting assholes like her who stab their constituents in the back and scurry off like the cowards they are to the cushy lobbying job their donors promised them.

Good f**king riddance. It's a shame the Democrats didn't ruin these assholes like they did Sinema. At least she comes from swing territory!

[TML]

This is my current home district - it's unfortunate that she didn't get a primary challenger in her last three election cycles. I can only hope that national progressive organizations can find a primary candidate they can endorse - I will only vote in the primary if there is a candidate with such endorsements.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

This is my current home district - it's unfortunate that she didn't get a primary challenger in her last three election cycles. I can only hope that national progressive organizations can find a primary candidate they can endorse - I will only vote in the primary if there is a candidate with such endorsements.

At this point with what Curran said about Democrats I would consider voting GOP for long-term harm reduction if she was the candidate. We don't need to replace one Gottheimercrat with another - especially one that is to Rice's economic right.

[MT Treasurer]

We don't know what the climate in 2022 will be. R wave, neutral, even good year for Dems are possible. We just don't know yet.

Yeah, right...

[Horus]

Good riddance.

[ElectionsGuy]

This is actually NOT Safe D. Another instance of people not recognizing potentially vulnerable blue-leaning seats.

This is a Clinton +9, Biden +12 district. The current county executive, Bruce Blakeman, defeated a Democratic incumbent in the county (only +2.5% more R in 2020 than this district) in last November's election and ran for this congressional district in 2014, to be defeated by now congresswoman Rice by a 5.6% margin.

I would expect a single-digit race here, but obviously, Democrats would be favored. This is one of those districts to put on upset watch (like OK-05 in 2018)

Local elections are not national elections. Stop comparing apples and oranges.

The executive Blakewon defeated, was a moderate who has since excoriated more left-wing Democrats. That's why it was somewhat remarkable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Curran

She attributed her loss to her name being on the same ballot as State Senator Todd Kaminsky, Democrat of Long Beach, for Nassau County District Attorney. He was the author of the bail reform law that disgruntled many Long Islanders.

I think you're aware that even local elections are getting nationalized or "statized" these days, especially in a county of over a million. I don't see how her loss wasn't at least an indictment on the Democratic Party in the state if not the country.

And for some reason, I don't think people would have a problem with this analogy if it were... let's say a Republican who lost in Morris County New Jersey.

This argument makes...some...sense until you realize that actually Long Island has an organizationally strong local GOP that has found it easy to corner the conversation on matters of importance on local level. Local politics means things get more atomized and distinct from the national picture.
Republicans have had a strong hand in Nassau County politics for at least four decades, despite the county's turn towards the Democrats since the 80s.
Some people, you are right, would claim that if this happened in Morris County then people would raise relatively minimal objections. But just because less people would object to it doesn't make the comparison any less dumb.
I'd rate this as Likely D but only because of the uncertainty. We don't know what the climate in 2022 will be. R wave, neutral, even good year for Dems are possible. We just don't know yet.

This is I think the crux of the contention. I don't think we should entertain a "good year for Democrats" as equally likely as an R wave. We know based on at least 100 years of history that midterm elections are elections where the incumbent party loses seats and margins from their presidential year performance, only intercepted with very few exceptions of high approval and historical rallying cries. While we sit here in February, there is only a few months left for Democrats to improve their odds, change their strategy, and take credit for any accomplishments before campaign season kicks into full gear. So far, on paper, Democrats may be having their least popular period of time since the late 70's, with losses being limited only due to such high geographic polarization and partisan gerrymandering. How does that completely reverse in half a year?

But I would also contest the local elections claim. Local elections can be somewhat predictive of trends in some areas, and in fact they were before 2018. And the point wasn't to say what happens locally is going to happen nationally, it is to contest the idea that this seat is not a feasible Republican pickup, in any circumstance. It was Rice +13 in 2020. We saw swings as large or larger than that from 2016 to 2018, and it wasn't only in D-trending suburban districts. It was a 9.5% swing on average.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

We don't know what the climate in 2022 will be. R wave, neutral, even good year for Dems are possible. We just don't know yet.

Yeah, right...

(Gallup)
At this point in 2010, polls showed a strong showing for the GOP but still an overall Dem victory. (Disclosure: in November 2010 Rs won the House NPV by seven points)
I didn't think it had to be said that American politics is unpredictable, dynamic, and can change in unexpected ways, just over five years since the electoral map was surprisingly remade in November 2016, but here we are.
Polls around ten months before the election can fail to be reproduced in the actual result in November. Wouldn't you agree? Or does this only happen in ways that favor the GOP?

[2016]

This is actually NOT Safe D. Another instance of people not recognizing potentially vulnerable blue-leaning seats.

This is a Clinton +9, Biden +12 district. The current county executive, Bruce Blakeman, defeated a Democratic incumbent in the county (only +2.5% more R in 2020 than this district) in last November's election and ran for this congressional district in 2014, to be defeated by now congresswoman Rice by a 5.6% margin.

I would expect a single-digit race here, but obviously, Democrats would be favored. This is one of those districts to put on upset watch (like OK-05 in 2018)

Local elections are not national elections. Stop comparing apples and oranges.

The National Environment will be heavily favoured towards Republicans this year.

[Vosem]

The redrawn seat is still narrowly right of the pivot in the VA/NJ elections in 2021, yes, but just barely so and the demographic makeup is suggestive of an area that swung less than the states as a whole. Assuming the environment hasn't changed (even though Biden's approval rating has declined further), this should be an intensely competitive seat, maybe a Pure Tossup.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

God damn it!!!!!!! I can't stand her but she probably would have won even in this environment

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

And lol at people who think this is safe D.

[Suburbia]

Long Island is a pro-police suburb, she does not want to go down the way Kaminsky and Curran went down...LI is not a Republican stronghold, it is a swing area.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is I think the crux of the contention. I don't think we should entertain a "good year for Democrats" as equally likely as an R wave. We know based on at least 100 years of history that midterm elections are elections where the incumbent party loses seats and margins from their presidential year performance, only intercepted with very few exceptions of high approval and historical rallying cries. While we sit here in February, there is only a few months left for Democrats to improve their odds, change their strategy, and take credit for any accomplishments before campaign season kicks into full gear. So far, on paper, Democrats may be having their least popular period of time since the late 70's, with losses being limited only due to such high geographic polarization and partisan gerrymandering. How does that completely reverse in half a year?

But I would also contest the local elections claim. Local elections can be somewhat predictive of trends in some areas, and in fact they were before 2018. And the point wasn't to say what happens locally is going to happen nationally, it is to contest the idea that this seat is not a feasible Republican pickup, in any circumstance. It was Rice +13 in 2020. We saw swings as large or larger than that from 2016 to 2018, and it wasn't only in D-trending suburban districts. It was a 9.5% swing on average.

You're right this is the main point of contention.
The problem is that there are too many pieces still out of place for us to have any certainty about where things will go. And in fact, Ds have more than just a few months to better (or worsen) their chances. It's nine months till Election Day. Per the 2010 chart I posted - Ds were leading by not too much of a margin as late as the latter half of the year and ended up losing by high single digits. A big chunk of what is likely to influence of the results in 2022 will rely on the state of the economy and people's pocketbooks. Who can speak with certainty on what the state of the economy is in November 2022? That's just one example of a factor I'd consider. I have my own expectations but I don't cling to them too much this early.

I agree with you that local elections can mean something, but that's a point that needs to be finessed. Internal migration between jurisdictions makes it much likelier for a party long out of power to gain, as we saw in North Texas quite recently - D-friendly migrants voted in politically aligned local representatives. The same thing happened in the same area in (I would guess) the 1960s and 1970s as the GOP began to win in the area; R-friendly migrants elected R-friendly local pols as the area changed.

Long Island on the other hand has a very long history of Rs being trusted on issues like  property taxes, which, in an area with a lot of UMC and GOP machine politics, has led to a long history of Republicans getting elected. There are absolutely people who vote R locally and D nationally, not entirely sure how many though. Local elections mean local factors and oftentimes localized impacts and all this leads to limits on what one can extrapolate, though these can and probably do tend to have impacts on state-level elections (the 2009 R landslide in Long Island local elections portended the Ds narrowly losing the State Senate in 2010).

[Smash255]

This is actually NOT Safe D. Another instance of people not recognizing potentially vulnerable blue-leaning seats.

This is a Clinton +9, Biden +12 district. The current county executive, Bruce Blakeman, defeated a Democratic incumbent in the county (only +2.5% more R in 2020 than this district) in last November's election and ran for this congressional district in 2014, to be defeated by now congresswoman Rice by a 5.6% margin.

I would expect a single-digit race here, but obviously, Democrats would be favored. This is one of those districts to put on upset watch (like OK-05 in 2018)

Local elections are not national elections. Stop comparing apples and oranges.

The executive Blakewon defeated, was a moderate who has since excoriated more left-wing Democrats. That's why it was somewhat remarkable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Curran

She attributed her loss to her name being on the same ballot as State Senator Todd Kaminsky, Democrat of Long Beach, for Nassau County District Attorney. He was the author of the bail reform law that disgruntled many Long Islanders.

I think you're aware that even local elections are getting nationalized or "statized" these days, especially in a county of over a million. I don't see how her loss wasn't at least an indictment on the Democratic Party in the state if not the country.

And for some reason, I don't think people would have a problem with this analogy if it were... let's say a Republican who lost in Morris County New Jersey.

The election was fairly localized.  Blakeman ran a hard and effective campaign on lying about the much needed assessment overhaul that Curran spearheaded.

[S019]

I agree that this should be on wave watch, but Democrats should probably be at least somewhat favored, Likely D for now seems fair, I could also see an argument for Lean D.

[MT Treasurer]

*SNIP*
At this point in 2010, polls showed a strong showing for the GOP but still an overall Dem victory. (Disclosure: in November 2010 Rs won the House NPV by seven points)
I didn't think it had to be said that American politics is unpredictable, dynamic, and can change in unexpected ways, just over five years since the electoral map was surprisingly remade in November 2016, but here we are.
Polls around ten months before the election can fail to be reproduced in the actual result in November. Wouldn't you agree? Or does this only happen in ways that favor the GOP?

I could just as well cite Rasmussen's numbers from that time, which showed fewer fluctuations and very much pointed to a Republican wave election — you’d dismiss those as a Republican outlier (even if you did, there was no shortage of polls of individual Senate races suggesting a very R-leaning environment) while accepting/presenting Gallup's because it fits your narrative, but the approach would be equally 'fruitful.' Besides, we don’t need to get lost in the data of one pollster from a time when we have actual election results to work with — the GOP had just won VA-GOV (by a blowout), NJ-GOV (beating a D incumbent in a deep blue state), and MA-SEN — surely sounds like an unpredictable environment, doesn’t it? While you could maybe downplay the importance of one of those individual races due to local factors or fluke-ish turnout patterns, taken together those three races (much like AL/VA/NJ in 2017) painted a very clear picture. It was obvious to anyone paying even the slightest attention to politics/cable news what type of year 2010 was going to be, and while it is true that Republicans underperformed pre-election expectations in many Senate races a little that year, it was nonetheless a decisive Republican victory across the board (but obviously more so in the House/state legislatures/governorships than in the Senate).

Not sure what your other digressions have to do with this. Again, we have many indicators (retirements, fundraising, turnout patterns/base enthusiasm in recent elections, approval numbers, etc.) that we can factor into our predictions, none of which have to do with polling, which I personally don’t pay much attention to anymore when assessing individual races due to its extreme unreliability in recent years and its undeniable tendency to increasingly favor one side in virtually every single state. Also, the main changes to the 2016 electoral map weren’t that "surprising" to anyone who had been paying attention to basic trends/demographics and in many cases (OH, IA, ME-02, etc.) the 2014 results — the margins and swings were certainly overwhelming in many districts and states, I agree with that, but the underlying trend lines were not.

Here’s the thing: We spent the last year unironically arguing about whether Republican turnout would be unusually low and whether the Republican base would come out to vote against local and national Democrats/Biden because they were supposedly only loyal to Trump, a man with abysmal favorability numbers who underperformed the fundamentals of both of his races in a remarkable manner, blowing an extremely winnable election (2020) and almost losing a race that should have never been close in the first place (2016). You were among the most vocal posters in arguing that we "had no way of knowing" what was going to happen with R turnout in this midterm election (while at the same time continually emphasizing how 'high-propensity' the Democratic base has become!) just like you’re now arguing that we have no way of knowing what the environment will (roughly) be like in November 2022. Something tells me that the tenor of the "debates" we are having and shifting narratives we are entertaining (low-propensity Trumpists won’t turn out in 2022, extremist Republican in state/race xyz will underperform because [I don’t like them/Trumpists are unelectable], Democrats have a good chance of holding the Senate even on a night when they’re losing the House badly, Biden has a rock-solid floor of 45% who will approve of him no matter what, ...) is very one-sided, which has been the case for almost a decade now. This problem has been dramatically exacerbated since Obama's reelection, when the left interpreted their admittedly impressive victories that year as a vindication of the polling industry, their 'demographics are destiny' narrative, and their 'enlightened' worldview in general and began treating dissenting narratives with outright contempt and feigned outrage. The problem is that your side isn’t just in control of most major institutions and media outlets in this country but that it’s gotten to the point where every single narrative on virtually every single issue is constructed on liberal terms (with your side laying down the premises), and the Republican (or conservative/libertarian) position (be it on COVID policy, inflation, election forecasting, gerrymandering, etc.) is always deemed an 'irrational' outlier because it deviates from the liberal-shaped consensus, even when the narratives promoted by the liberal side eventually ("surprisingly") turn out to be completely false! You honestly couldn’t ask for a better illustration of this phenomenon than the whole redistricting discourse, which according to the vast majority of media and election prognosticators was going to provide a big boost to the ruthless GOP that would once again "rig the game" this cycle but in the end featured 'surprisingly' many D victories.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

[snip]

There's a lot to unpack here (and you really need to put more paragraphs in what you post), I'll just note that you are cherrypicking election results from the 2009-2010 period for sake of your argument. There were other elections where Ds actually won. They won a special election in a district in Upstate New York gerrymandered for Republican congressman John E Sweeney, they won another special election in New York State to fill the seat of John McHugh, and evidence at the time showed localized factors were important factors in Democratic defeats (Corzine was literally under indictment for corruption and facing a GOP opponent who had a law-and-order background, and Coakley needs no introduction).
The picture going into the 2010 elections was not at all as clear as you are making it out to be.
The reality was that a last-few-months polling swing, as well as turnout factors, were decisive in deciding 2010.