Official 2022 Congressional Election Results Thread

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Finally, Tennessee has released precinct results (strangely for everything but the gubernatorial race).  I was fascinated to see how Downtown Franklin (wealthy, but full of historic downtown homes instead of typical suburban McMansions) votes.  In the past, it had been in a narrowly Republican precinct that included a lot of lower-middle class areas to the west of Downtown Franklin.  Following redistricting, it was made its own precinct.

Downtown Franklin (Williamson County Precinct 11-2):

TN-7:
Mark Green (R, inc.): 64.3%
Odessa Kelly (D): 32.5%

TN-HD-61:
Gino Bulso (R): 62.3%
Steven Cervantes (D): 37.7%

TN-SD-27 (unopposed, calculating undervote):
Jack Johnson (R, inc.): 100%
Undervote: 31.8% from US House or 29.1% from State House

Overall, that's significantly more Republican than I expected.  Depending on the race, it seems to vote similarly to Williamson County as a whole.  I expected it to still lean Republican, but be much closer than the overall county results.

[Del Tachi]

Was D+8.6 the final result in 2018 before or after accounting for uncontested races?

before

[kwabbit]

Finally, Tennessee has released precinct results (strangely for everything but the gubernatorial race).  I was fascinated to see how Downtown Franklin (wealthy, but full of historic downtown homes instead of typical suburban McMansions) votes.  In the past, it had been in a narrowly Republican precinct that included a lot of lower-middle class areas to the west of Downtown Franklin.  Following redistricting, it was made its own precinct.

Downtown Franklin (Williamson County Precinct 11-2):

TN-7:
Mark Green (R, inc.): 64.3%
Odessa Kelly (D): 32.5%

TN-HD-61:
Gino Bulso (R): 62.3%
Steven Cervantes (D): 37.7%

TN-SD-27 (unopposed, calculating undervote):
Jack Johnson (R, inc.): 100%
Undervote: 31.8% from US House or 29.1% from State House

Overall, that's significantly more Republican than I expected.  Depending on the race, it seems to vote similarly to Williamson County as a whole.  I expected it to still lean Republican, but be much closer than the overall county results.

Did you expect it to be narrower because Democrats are assumed to place an emphasis on architectural value in a house instead of just size?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Completely disagree. If Trump had barely won Wisconsin/Arizona/Georgia, or if those 5 House races had barely gone the other way, with ALL other vote count results literally exactly the same, we wouldn't say "This is all wrong. From the way elections work, these other results imply Biden should have won Wisconsin/Arizona/Georgia and Reps should have won the House." We would have just accepted it. Those margins are close enough that just local weather could have swung things. So given that, it's completely fair to say Biden won by the skin of his teeth. And if things were imperceptibly different ("luck"), Dems could have won the House.

What kind of weather event would impact specifically Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia, but none of the states nearby? Or all the specific CDs that happened to be close R wins scattered across the country from NY to CA but none of those in between? And impact them all in a very specific way that would result in Democrats doing better and/or Republicans doing worse? No, this wouldn't be "random luck" - it's beyond implausible.

And it's completely nonsensical to go "well, if those were the actual results we would just accept them". Of course we would, because then they would be actual results. You can justify every single hypothetical with this logic. But sound hypotheticals are those that are grounded in reality and make plausible assumptions about what would need to change to produce a different outcome. "All the right votes shift in just the right direction by just the right amount in just the right places to happen to produce a D house majority" is not a plausible assumption. It's reverse-engineering a result from the benefit of hindsight.

[Kabam]

Is there a map, which tries to show the results of this house election with the old congressional districts?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Biden is likely to get a bump in the polls when the Debt Ceiling is signed 20 percent Corporate taxes, Border wall and WVA pipeline, it's the Boehner and Obama agreement the Border wall was established during Obama Prez not Trump with 247 RH

So, all those Gallup polls showing Biden at 40 are gonna be wrong again because it's gonna be a big compromise coming, Biden didn't enforce the wall because Pelosi was Speaker not McCarthy , Biden is already at 50 percent, I would ask my R users if Biden enforces the Debt Ceiling what would Prez DeSantis do anything different except more White judges and more tax CUTS

Biden will compromise he already invited McCarthy to WH and they can't shut down govt I'm a pandemic either

[wbrocks67]

Maybe Gray should run again in CA-13? He seemed to really outperform Newsom, and likely Padilla too.

https://twitter.com/rpyers/status/1602783012118089728

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Finally, Tennessee has released precinct results (strangely for everything but the gubernatorial race).  I was fascinated to see how Downtown Franklin (wealthy, but full of historic downtown homes instead of typical suburban McMansions) votes.  In the past, it had been in a narrowly Republican precinct that included a lot of lower-middle class areas to the west of Downtown Franklin.  Following redistricting, it was made its own precinct.

Downtown Franklin (Williamson County Precinct 11-2):

TN-7:
Mark Green (R, inc.): 64.3%
Odessa Kelly (D): 32.5%

TN-HD-61:
Gino Bulso (R): 62.3%
Steven Cervantes (D): 37.7%

TN-SD-27 (unopposed, calculating undervote):
Jack Johnson (R, inc.): 100%
Undervote: 31.8% from US House or 29.1% from State House

Overall, that's significantly more Republican than I expected.  Depending on the race, it seems to vote similarly to Williamson County as a whole.  I expected it to still lean Republican, but be much closer than the overall county results.

Did you expect it to be narrower because Democrats are assumed to place an emphasis on architectural value in a house instead of just size?

The bigger factor was that Downtown Franklin is a downtown, highly walkable neighborhood with lots of independent/botique stores and restaurants.  Even outside of major cities, Democrats are often drawn to such areas.  I'd be curious to see Trump-Biden results there (which are unfortunately impossible to infer due to the demographic mismatch of its old precinct), but it definitely was a little more Republican than my expectation for it this year.

[Torie]

Maybe Gray should run again in CA-13? He seemed to really outperform Newsom, and likely Padilla too.

https://twitter.com/rpyers/status/1602783012118089728

The difference between the two CD's might be the incumbency factor.

[wbrocks67]

Interesting, Beasley got the highest vote share for a Dem in a senate race since 2008.

https://twitter.com/mattholt33/status/1603036112360034305

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Interesting, Beasley got the highest vote share for a Dem in a senate race since 2008.

https://twitter.com/mattholt33/status/1603036112360034305

Obviously, we are better advantaged in 24 because we have D Incumbents in red states all our D Incumbents have 46/30 Approvals and likewise in 22 that's why they won and Laura Kelly won as an incumbent obviously, we lost H Incumbents but the Sen we lost none

Ryan, DEMINGS and Beasley and Ryan were D challengers in red states and it was a 303 map amyways  and they lost.

But, it's gonna be very differently in 24 with Brown, Tester, Stein, Beshear and Manchin all except Stein are Incumbents and stellar Approvals and survived since 2006

With low unemployment and gas prices it's very hard to defeat especially a D Incumbent that's why Matt Boswell can beat Scott if he in because Scott is an R Incumbents and like DeSantis they don't have the Rubio coalition that's the only reason why DeSantis won by 20 the jury is out on Sancrainte but I wouldn't underestimate him either, just because he is Gay

[emailking]

What kind of weather event would impact specifically Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia, but none of the states nearby?

I don't know? I was thinking sunny or raining, cold or hot, etc. I'm not talking about a blizzard or something.
.

Or all the specific CDs that happened to be close R wins scattered across the country from NY to CA but none of those in between? And impact them all in a very specific way that would result in Democrats doing better and/or Republicans doing worse? No, this wouldn't be "random luck" - it's beyond implausible.

I doubt that. Any specific scenario is unlikely on its own, the actual results in particular, but that doesn't make them implausible. If the dems barely won those 5 seats you'd be making the same argument in reverse how it would be so unlikely for everything to have gone just right for the Reps to win them, but they did.

And it's completely nonsensical to go "well, if those were the actual results we would just accept them". Of course we would, because then they would be actual results. You can justify every single hypothetical with this logic. But sound hypotheticals are those that are grounded in reality and make plausible assumptions about what would need to change to produce a different outcome.

It's perfectly plausible that Dems could have won those seats with no other changes lol.

We're both just guessing here about what's plausible. The only thing we know is possible is what happened. A national election has never been rerun to see if some races could have changed while
others don't. I guess you're saying that can't happen. And I disagree. But it's untestable anyway so I don't even see what it matters. It remains those races are super close, and a small perturbation would have yielded a very different result. That's not something you should just ignore say, when evaluating how the campaign went and where the electorate is.

"All the right votes shift in just the right direction by just the right amount in just the right places to happen to produce a D house majority" is not a plausible assumption. It's reverse-engineering a result from the benefit of hindsight.

I don't agree. Such a result would have been perfectly consistent with all modeling predictions, and that is not obviated because we got something close to but not quite that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What kind of weather event would impact specifically Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia, but none of the states nearby?

I don't know? I was thinking sunny or raining, cold or hot, etc. I'm not talking about a blizzard or something.
.

Or all the specific CDs that happened to be close R wins scattered across the country from NY to CA but none of those in between? And impact them all in a very specific way that would result in Democrats doing better and/or Republicans doing worse? No, this wouldn't be "random luck" - it's beyond implausible.

I doubt that. Any specific scenario is unlikely on its own, the actual results in particular, but that doesn't make them implausible. If the dems barely won those 5 seats you'd be making the same argument in reverse how it would be so unlikely for everything to have gone just right for the Reps to win them, but they did.

And it's completely nonsensical to go "well, if those were the actual results we would just accept them". Of course we would, because then they would be actual results. You can justify every single hypothetical with this logic. But sound hypotheticals are those that are grounded in reality and make plausible assumptions about what would need to change to produce a different outcome.

It's perfectly plausible that Dems could have won those seats with no other changes lol.

We're both just guessing here about what's plausible. The only thing we know is possible is what happened. A national election has never been rerun to see if some races could have changed while
others don't. I guess you're saying that can't happen. And I disagree. But it's untestable anyway so I don't even see what it matters. It remains those races are super close, and a small perturbation would have yielded a very different result. That's not something you should just ignore say, when evaluating how the campaign went and where the electorate is.

"All the right votes shift in just the right direction by just the right amount in just the right places to happen to produce a D house majority" is not a plausible assumption. It's reverse-engineering a result from the benefit of hindsight.

I don't agree. Such a result would have been perfectly consistent with all modeling predictions, and that is not obviated because we got something close to but not quite that.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding what a model is and how it should be used. Of course a model includes all sorts of potentially random variations acting in a myriad different ways that could potentially combine to result in a particular outcome. That's how randomness works. But there's a fundamental difference between understanding that such an outcome could happen in the abstract, and singling it out specifically as a potential outcome and acting like the fact it was "only X votes away" tell us anything. There billions and billions of outcomes that were "just a few votes away", but there's no meaningful reason to focus on them.

The issue here isn't the specific outcome, it's the actual logic that leads you to single it out. In this case, you are reverse-engineering the closest possible win without any a-priori understanding of how to get there. If you actually tried to get there "blind", without relying on the hindsight of the outcome you want to create, you would need to make a ridiculously large amount of assumptions to explain what moved the votes specifically in those places in those directions but not anywhere else. This is the opposite of the sound way to use a model. It's actually the mirror image of that time in 2020 when posters here would cherry-pick one of the potential maps 538 showcased in order to laugh at it, without understanding that this was just one map out of 100 they were choosing to focus on precisely because the outcome seemed off. If all you take from a model is an output without a sense for its internal logic, you're using it wrong.

If you want to show how close the House was in 2022, it's really not that hard: just use UNS. UNS is a coarse model, but it's a sound one, because it relies on a simple and straightforward assumption: that there are national-level factors that shift votes at an equal rate everywhere. Of course it's a simplistic description of reality, as no event actually swings all voters everywhere at exactly the same rate. But it's close enough to reality and conceptually parsimonious enough that, in most circumstances, it works perfectly fine. According to this calculation, it would take just a 0.8-point swing to flip the House. Which, yes, is pretty damn close, but not the ridiculously small number that you get from cherry-picking the votes in specific House seats.

Edit: I just noticed that the OP on the thread I linked cites the same idiotic "only 7000 votes away" talking point, so to be clear I'm not endorsing that. Just focus on the percentage margin ffs.

[kwabbit]

Maybe Gray should run again in CA-13? He seemed to really outperform Newsom, and likely Padilla too.

https://twitter.com/rpyers/status/1602783012118089728

Gray was considered to be good recruit. He was not the reason why they lost in CA-13. Of course, Democrats should run Hispanic or Portuguese people for the Central Valley seats, but Gray was a good recruit for a non-Hispanic White candidate.

[emailking]

The issue here isn't the specific outcome, it's the actual logic that leads you to single it out. In this case, you are reverse-engineering the closest possible win without any a-priori understanding of how to get there. If you actually tried to get there "blind", without relying on the hindsight of the outcome you want to create, you would need to make a ridiculously large amount of assumptions to explain what moved the votes specifically in those places in those directions but not anywhere else.

No I don't think I do. We don't know all of the factors that led to the actual result we have. So it's not hard for me to imagine that it could plausibly have been slightly different.

Now if you actually had a detailed debriefing from every single registered voter about why they voted, or not, and why they voted the way they did, and if you had a way of processing all of that data, maybe it would fall out the perturbation we're talking about was execcdingly unlikely, or impossible. Or maybe it would show that it could have happened quite easily. We just don't know.

This is the opposite of the sound way to use a model. It's actually the mirror image of that time in 2020 when posters here would cherry-pick one of the potential maps 538 showcased in order to laugh at it, without understanding that this was just one map out of 100 they were choosing to focus on precisely because the outcome seemed off. If all you take from a model is an output without a sense for its internal logic, you're using it wrong.

I'm not using the model. At least I don't think I am. I'm saying this hypothetical result would not have called the models into question.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No I don't think I do. We don't know all of the factors that led to the actual result we have. So it's not hard for me to imagine that it could plausibly have been slightly different.

You're just not listening to what I'm saying. Of course it could plausibly have been slightly different, in all sorts of possible directions. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about it being slightly different in a highly specific, microtargeted way. This outcome, as you yourself noted, is extremely unlikely because any given, specific outcome is. So it's only relevant to discuss if you can posit an actual mechanism for how it would come to pass.

Now if you actually had a detailed debriefing from every single registered voter about why they voted, or not, and why they voted the way they did, and if you had a way of processing all of that data, maybe it would fall out the perturbation we're talking about was execcdingly unlikely, or impossible. Or maybe it would show that it could have happened quite easily. We just don't know.

You don't need to know the exact motivations of every single voter to figure that out. The whole point of statistics is that it allows us to predict the behavior of complex systems with some degree of accuracy (or at least, with a measurable degree of accuracy) even when the individual components of that system aren't understood. You'll never know what moves one single voter, but you can come pretty far in figuring out what moves 10, 5 or even 1-2% of an electorate. And in particular, all you need here is an understanding of the correlations between electoral shifts across districts. If you understand that, you can easily conclude that there's almost nothing that will move JUST the voters in districts that happen to have been narrow Republican wins, and all by the right amounts needed to ensure a Democratic win instead. It genuinely boggles my mind that I have to explain this to you.

I'm not using the model. At least I don't think I am. I'm saying this hypothetical result would not have called the models into question.

I never said this outcome would have called the models into question. If this outcome had actually happened, it would certainly have been a remarkable stroke of luck for Democrats and we'd all frankly be a little bemused, but at the end of the day it would have been the actual result. But it wasn't, the actual result was something else, and given that it was what it was, you have no story to tell for how it could have been that specific result. You can shrug your shoulders about muh randomness all you want, but "muh randomness" just doesn't work when you're trying to engineer a specific outcome.

[emailking]

You're just not listening to what I'm saying.

Oh trust me, the feeling is mutual

This outcome, as you yourself noted, is extremely unlikely because any given, specific outcome is. So it's only relevant to discuss if you can posit an actual mechanism for how it would come to pass.

I don't agree with that. You could make the same argument for literally any alternative scenario at all. So no hypotheticals can be entertained unless you can rigorously justify them. By the way, I did give a reason they could have been different (weather) but you poopooed it.

You don't need to know the exact motivations of every single voter to figure that out. The whole point of statistics is that it allows us to predict the behavior of complex systems with some degree of accuracy (or at least, with a measurable degree of accuracy) even when the individual components of that system aren't understood. You'll never know what moves one single voter, but you can come pretty far in figuring out what moves 10, 5 or even 1-2% of an electorate. And in particular, all you need here is an understanding of the correlations between electoral shifts across districts. If you understand that, you can easily conclude that there's almost nothing that will move JUST the voters in districts that happen to have been narrow Republican wins, and all by the right amounts needed to ensure a Democratic win instead.

I do understand it and don't conclude that. However, I will note it is not actually necessary that nothing else would be different vote wise, just that no other races flip.

I never said this outcome would have called the models into question. If this outcome had actually happened, it would certainly have been a remarkable stroke of luck for Democrats and we'd all frankly be a little bemused, but at the end of the day it would have been the actual result. But it wasn't, the actual result was something else, and given that it was what it was, you have no story to tell for how it could have been that specific result.

And I don't care. Do you agree other results were possible? If no, ok we can discuss that. If yes, do you have a story to tell for those? Why is this not possible like those are? You don't know any better than I do. I don't need to prove it could have happened to say, oh look what almost happened, wow.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Whatever, this is a pointless argument. I mean, feel free to entertain whatever far-fetched hypotheticals you want. I think it's a waste of time, but you do you.

[emailking]

I don't think it's far fetched lol.

[Annatar]

Its interesting according to Split ticket's estimate of the congressional vote adjusting for uncontested seats that of the 3 Republican states Trump did significantly worse than Romney in, GA, TX & AZ, in TX the GOP house vote exceeded Trump's 2016 margin of 8.9%, it was R+13, whereas in both GA & AZ, the house vote was under the 2016 margin. It was not much worse than Romney's 15.8% in TX, GA also was not much worse but going from R+15.8 to R+13 is not as problematic as going from R+7.8 in 2012 to R+4.6 as was the case in GA.

Relative to the nation, the house vote in Texas also did not trend democratic in 2022 unlike both GA & AZ.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Cruz has a 43)48 Approval ratings of course we are looking at both FL or TX as Senate pickups because the Secular Trifecta is gonna go thru TX and FL this time because Ds don't have any pickups anywhere else because D Incumbents are in swing states this time not R Incumbents, there are still non Cuban Latinos that want DC statehood , news flash to Rs these Latinos live elsewhere aside from FL and TX that want DC statehood like AOC is PR and her constituents want PR STATEHOOD


It's not gonna be easy to win OH, MT and WVA as Rs think because Laura Kelly won , and all our incumbents have stellar approvals that's why CCM didn't lose she has the exact Approvals as BROWN

There is a Border wall in place already at the Border but due to Debt Ceiling compromise it will be in there more Border funding along with Aid to Ukraine, this was the Obama Boehner compromise of 2015 anyways so Biden not enforcing the wall is strictly political because Pelosi not McCarthy was Speaker, the Ds of course are gonna fight Rs but they don't have the votes in the H from getting an R budget, we on a R Budget anyways since Corporate taxes are still 20 percent, and John Love is stronger than Matthew Sancrainte because Sancrainte is gay and it's probably DeSantis v Biden anyways but DeSantis is vulnerable he is an Ivy League Lawyer and against Student Loan Discharge Rs think the Pandemic is over and we can return to life of normalcy in not giving Student Loan Discharges,, news flash we are out of Pandemic but it's a Post Pandemic world not a Pre Pandemic world and income inequality, just like they dint acknowledge that Native Americans get Per Capita and they don't want to give blks reparations and it's gonna happen Ds are gonna eventually get a Filibuster proof Trifecta gas prices aren't 7 it's 3

Watch Ron Johnson go off like he did during the 140o checks and say we can't afford this reparations and they are giving Per Capita to Native Americans

[wbrocks67]

Youth turnout in Michigan was even better than 2018

https://twitter.com/tbonier/status/1603384179500236800

[wbrocks67]

More on the youth vote - it was also higher in NV than in 2018 too.

https://twitter.com/tbonier/status/1603398670489210880

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Just saw a marquee on CNN as I was passing through my apartment building lobby:

Dems panic as black turnout plummets in 2022

:Eyeroll:

Do better, CNN.  

[wbrocks67]

Just saw a marquee on CNN as I was passing through my apartment building lobby:

Dems panic as black turnout plummets in 2022

:Eyeroll:

Do better, CNN.  

I swear to god, sometimes I can't tell if the people running these stories are just trying to be sensationalistic or actually believe this stuff and are ignorant. I would say the former but given CNN and MSNBC's awful coverage of how simple elections in GA work on election night two weeks ago, it may be the latter.

It's like .... yeah, black turnout was going to fall. It's literally a Democratic Midterm! What the hell did you expect? Core base minority turnout always does that every midterm like clockwork, just like every other base in a midterm.