Official 2022 Congressional Election Results Thread

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My cold take is that 2022 was better for Dems than 2018 was on about every level.

New York went from having a Democrat represent Staten Island to Republicans representing Westchester county. Democrats were winning red suburban seats in Oklahoma City, Charleston, Salt Lake City. They went from holding three seats in Iowa to none after this year.

And Dems won Alaska and WA-03 which went red in 2018, so I don’t understand your point. If it’s to try and paint a picture of 2022 as a red year, that’s a pretty low bar to use Staten Island and gerrymandered seats in OK, UT, and SC as proof.

Well ok, then just look at the seats won. 235 vs 212. Or the PV, which went from D+7 to R+3.

Relative to expectations, 2022 was better for Dems than 2018 was. But in a vacuum, it’s 2018 and not even close.

Part of it is that Dems have beaten expectations so rarely in recent history.  Since Reagan, 2022, 2012, and 1998 have been the only serious Dem overperformances, whereas they nearly blew 2020 and actually blew 2016, 2014, 2002, and 2000.  2018 and 1996 also weren't quite the Dem landslides they were expected to be. 

I don’t think it’s fair to say they blew 2000, 2002, and 2014.  Republicans beat expectations in 2014, but not due to Democratic screwups.  2002 was due to 9/11 rather than anything the Democrats did wrong and Republicans did about as well as they were expected to that cycle. 

IIRC, Dems actually beat expectations in 2000, just not by quite enough.  2000 was expected to be any easy win for Bush and congressional Republicans for most of the cycle (if not an outright wave, then certainly a Republican ripple at the very least).  The Democrats basically ran the table in the Senate*, putting them in position to flip the chamber when Jeffords switched parties.  Gore barely lost an election that was supposed to be a Republican slam dunk and only lost b/c of Nader.  Democrats didn’t flip the House, but iirc they held their own and actually gained a seat (albeit largely due to a major over-performance in CA house races). 

*Senate Democrats picked up DE, GA, FL, MI, MO, MN, and WA and also held an open seat in Nebraska during a Presidential year against a perfectly good Republican nominee with a Democrat who had just lost a Senate race two years ago in a landslide.  By contrast, we lost VA and NV (the latter of which we were never gonna hold). 

[Mr.Phips]

My cold take is that 2022 was better for Dems than 2018 was on about every level.

New York went from having a Democrat represent Staten Island to Republicans representing Westchester county. Democrats were winning red suburban seats in Oklahoma City, Charleston, Salt Lake City. They went from holding three seats in Iowa to none after this year.

And Dems won Alaska and WA-03 which went red in 2018, so I don’t understand your point. If it’s to try and paint a picture of 2022 as a red year, that’s a pretty low bar to use Staten Island and gerrymandered seats in OK, UT, and SC as proof.

Well ok, then just look at the seats won. 235 vs 212. Or the PV, which went from D+7 to R+3.

Relative to expectations, 2022 was better for Dems than 2018 was. But in a vacuum, it’s 2018 and not even close.

Part of it is that Dems have beaten expectations so rarely in recent history.  Since Reagan, 2022, 2012, and 1998 have been the only serious Dem overperformances, whereas they nearly blew 2020 and actually blew 2016, 2014, 2002, and 2000.  2018 and 1996 also weren't quite the Dem landslides they were expected to be. 

I don’t think it’s fair to say they blew 2000, 2002, and 2014.  Republicans beat expectations in 2014, but not due to Democratic screwups.  2002 was due to 9/11 rather than anything the Democrats did wrong and Republicans did about as well as they were expected to that cycle. 

IIRC, Dems actually beat expectations in 2000, just not by quite enough.  2000 was expected to be any easy win for Bush and congressional Republicans for most of the cycle (if not an outright wave, then certainly a Republican ripple at the very least).  The Democrats basically ran the table in the Senate*, putting them in position to flip the chamber when Jeffords switched parties.  Gore barely lost an election that was supposed to be a Republican slam dunk and only lost b/c of Nader.  Democrats didn’t flip the House, but iirc they held their own and actually gained a seat (albeit largely due to a major over-performance in CA house races). 

*Senate Democrats picked up DE, GA, FL, MI, MO, MN, and WA and also held an open seat in Nebraska during a Presidential year against a perfectly good Republican nominee with a Democrat who had just lost a Senate race two years ago in a landslide.  By contrast, we lost VA and NV (the latter of which we were never gonna hold). 

I disagree on 2000, 2002, and 2014. 

In 2000,  the  fundamentals (economy and Clinton’s approval ratings) strongly favored Gore and that race was always expected to be close.  Gore actually opened a decent lead over Bush in September following the DNC, but lost it after he allowed the media to focus on his “sighing” at the debate.  He recovered at the very end, but not quite enough.  The House was seen as a tossup for pretty much all of 2000.  It was the senate where Dems did indeed overperform expectations.

2002 and 2014 were both much worse for Dems than they needed to be given the fundamentals.  In 2002, a better Dem campaign where they keep repeating that Bush ignored warnings prior to 9/11 would have knocked his approvals down a bit and at least help Dems hold MO and MN in the senate, keeping them in control there and keeping them from losing as many seats (6) as they did in the House.

2014 should have been a neutral environment at worst given that the economy was better than in 2012 (when it was good enough for Obama to be re-elected) and that Republicans already held the House.  A better Dem campaign would have further held down losses in the House and allowed them to hold AK, NC, and CO in the senate.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My cold take is that 2022 was better for Dems than 2018 was on about every level.

New York went from having a Democrat represent Staten Island to Republicans representing Westchester county. Democrats were winning red suburban seats in Oklahoma City, Charleston, Salt Lake City. They went from holding three seats in Iowa to none after this year.

And Dems won Alaska and WA-03 which went red in 2018, so I don’t understand your point. If it’s to try and paint a picture of 2022 as a red year, that’s a pretty low bar to use Staten Island and gerrymandered seats in OK, UT, and SC as proof.

Well ok, then just look at the seats won. 235 vs 212. Or the PV, which went from D+7 to R+3.

Relative to expectations, 2022 was better for Dems than 2018 was. But in a vacuum, it’s 2018 and not even close.

Part of it is that Dems have beaten expectations so rarely in recent history.  Since Reagan, 2022, 2012, and 1998 have been the only serious Dem overperformances, whereas they nearly blew 2020 and actually blew 2016, 2014, 2002, and 2000.  2018 and 1996 also weren't quite the Dem landslides they were expected to be. 

I don’t think it’s fair to say they blew 2000, 2002, and 2014.  Republicans beat expectations in 2014, but not due to Democratic screwups.  2002 was due to 9/11 rather than anything the Democrats did wrong and Republicans did about as well as they were expected to that cycle. 

IIRC, Dems actually beat expectations in 2000, just not by quite enough.  2000 was expected to be any easy win for Bush and congressional Republicans for most of the cycle (if not an outright wave, then certainly a Republican ripple at the very least).  The Democrats basically ran the table in the Senate*, putting them in position to flip the chamber when Jeffords switched parties.  Gore barely lost an election that was supposed to be a Republican slam dunk and only lost b/c of Nader.  Democrats didn’t flip the House, but iirc they held their own and actually gained a seat (albeit largely due to a major over-performance in CA house races). 

*Senate Democrats picked up DE, GA, FL, MI, MO, MN, and WA and also held an open seat in Nebraska during a Presidential year against a perfectly good Republican nominee with a Democrat who had just lost a Senate race two years ago in a landslide.  By contrast, we lost VA and NV (the latter of which we were never gonna hold). 

I disagree on 2000, 2002, and 2014. 

In 2000,  the  fundamentals (economy and Clinton’s approval ratings) strongly favored Gore and that race was always expected to be close.  Gore actually opened a decent lead over Bush in September following the DNC, but lost it after he allowed the media to focus on his “sighing” at the debate.  He recovered at the very end, but not quite enough.  The House was seen as a tossup for pretty much all of 2000.  It was the senate where Dems did indeed overperform expectations.

2002 and 2014 were both much worse for Dems than they needed to be given the fundamentals.  In 2002, a better Dem campaign where they keep repeating that Bush ignored warnings prior to 9/11 would have knocked his approvals down a bit and at least help Dems hold MO and MN in the senate, keeping them in control there and keeping them from losing as many seats (6) as they did in the House.

2014 should have been a neutral environment at worst given that the economy was better than in 2012 (when it was good enough for Obama to be re-elected) and that Republicans already held the House.  A better Dem campaign would have further held down losses in the House and allowed them to hold AK, NC, and CO in the senate.

Respectfully, I think you’re falling into the trap of assuming fundamentals equal destiny.  They’re important, but far from outcome determinative.  In any case, I’m talking about expectations rather fundamentals. 

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on 2002.  In fact, I’d argue that talking more about 9/11 would’ve led to an even worse Democratic performance that cycle.  And it certainly wouldn’t have saved us in Minnesota.  We lost that race b/c of the backlash over the perceived politicization of Wellstone’s funeral. 

[Schiff for Senate]

Honestly, I'm still angry at the House results. We'd have won if it wasn't for GOP gerrymanders in FL, GA, TN, and AZ (yes, I know our side did some gerrymandering of its own - such as in IL and NM - but again, the GOP gerrymandered much more, even if a lot of it was defensive and didn't expand their number of seats). Alternatively, I guess you could argue we'd have won if it wasn't for Lee Zeldin's amazing performance and Kathy Hochul's disastrous campaign (so much for her being presidential material!), and chalk the loss up to that.

Honestly, I'm especially bitter over CO03. If I was like, say, Fuzzy Bear, or any GOP election denier who fails to cope with losses of over a point (IIRC Fuzzy denies the result in PA - even if he in particular doesn't, plenty in the GOP do), I would absolutely cry fraud and deny the result. Frisch lost by the narrowest of margins, and if it wasn't for the hacks on the "independent" commission who reddened the seat up, it's very reasonable to assume he'd have made it over the finish line. I know for a fact that had the tables been turned - had the seat been bluened up a bit, and had Frisch won by an equally narrow margin, enough GOPers, including some who post on this site, would cry fraud. But Frisch has handled the situation with a lot of grace (I'll admit there are sore losers on our side too - Hiral Tipernini - and this is especially embarrassing since she's a fellow Indian-American - lost by a lot more back in 2020, and continued to solicit donations, saying she'd contest the result), telling people not to donate any more to the campaign and to focus on their own needs, and conceding to Boebart right on time (IIRC even before the AP called the race) without any drama. I know had Boebart lost by the same margin, she would not have nearly as much class or grace - I'd bet anything on that, especially since she's an election denier who has difficulty coping with election L's. But still. Whenever I think about CO03, and the House results overall (but really CO03 in particular - to tell you the honest truth, I'd rather we won CO03 and lost the House by the same margin we did IRL than us winning the House by a vote but not getting CO03), I just get very irritated and angered.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

lmao

https://twitter.com/Nomads4Pritzker/status/1591477177476083719?cxt=HHwWjsDT-fKDi...

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The incumbent Republican governor of the Northern Mariana Islands lost reelection to an independent in a runoff on Friday.

https://ballotpedia.org/Northern_Mariana_Islands_gubernatorial_and_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election,_2022

The GOP will hold zero territorial governorships come January.

[Farmlands]

Honestly, I'm still angry at the House results. We'd have won if it wasn't for GOP gerrymanders in FL, GA, TN, and AZ. Alternatively, I guess you could argue we'd have won if it wasn't for Lee Zeldin's amazing performance and Kathy Hochul's disastrous campaign (so much for her being presidential material!), and chalk the loss up to that.

The Democrats are not entitled to control of Congress. They lost the popular vote by as much as their opponents did back in 2020, so the result they got is more than fair. Plus it's their fault they got this NY map, by blatantly pushing their luck and hoping the Cuomo judges would just look the other way.

[Holmes]

The incumbent Republican governor of the Northern Mariana Islands lost reelection to an independent in a runoff on Friday.

https://ballotpedia.org/Northern_Mariana_Islands_gubernatorial_and_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election,_2022

A former Republican and actually that governor's former lieutenant governor. Funny. There's definitely more to the story. Lieutenant governor's are elected separately there.

[Mr.Phips]

Honestly, I'm still angry at the House results. We'd have won if it wasn't for GOP gerrymanders in FL, GA, TN, and AZ. Alternatively, I guess you could argue we'd have won if it wasn't for Lee Zeldin's amazing performance and Kathy Hochul's disastrous campaign (so much for her being presidential material!), and chalk the loss up to that.

The Democrats are not entitled to control of Congress. They lost the popular vote by as much as their opponents did back in 2020, so the result they got is more than fair. Plus it's their fault they got this NY map, by blatantly pushing their luck and hoping the Cuomo judges would just look the other way.

They should have done more to influence the decision of one of the Cuomo appointed judges (Madeline Singas to be specific, who Dems helped become Nassau county DA in 2015), such as threatening her with impeachment and the expose of certain personal improprieties if she decided against the Dem drawn maps.  We all know DeSantis would have done this in Florida.  Gotta be as ruthless as Republicans.

[wbrocks67]

As we suspected, the red wave in New York was less about crime or persuasion and simply just more about crappy Dem turnout.

https://twitter.com/therealjsolo/status/1596474620861120512

[wbrocks67]

Fetterman up to +4.9, Shapiro +14.8, and DeLuzio +6.8 on NYT with Allegheny provisionals added.

Are there enough votes left that could get Fetterman to 5 points?

Possibly? I feel like Allegheny may still have a few more provisionals (and Philly may as well), but I'm not 100% sure. He may be able to squeak it out. I'd really like him to so we have the clean +5.0 margin lol

[jamestroll]

My cold take is that 2022 was better for Dems than 2018 was on about every level.

New York went from having a Democrat represent Staten Island to Republicans representing Westchester county. Democrats were winning red suburban seats in Oklahoma City, Charleston, Salt Lake City. They went from holding three seats in Iowa to none after this year.

And Dems won Alaska and WA-03 which went red in 2018, so I don’t understand your point. If it’s to try and paint a picture of 2022 as a red year, that’s a pretty low bar to use Staten Island and gerrymandered seats in OK, UT, and SC as proof.

Well ok, then just look at the seats won. 235 vs 212. Or the PV, which went from D+7 to R+3.

Relative to expectations, 2022 was better for Dems than 2018 was. But in a vacuum, it’s 2018 and not even close.

Part of it is that Dems have beaten expectations so rarely in recent history.  Since Reagan, 2022, 2012, and 1998 have been the only serious Dem overperformances, whereas they nearly blew 2020 and actually blew 2016, 2014, 2002, and 2000.  2018 and 1996 also weren't quite the Dem landslides they were expected to be.  

Please do let an unlucky senate map fool you. 2018 was a near a Democratic landslide.

First, let's not forget that despite the map stacked against Democrats it was not like Democrats in North Dakota, Indiana, and Missouri far outperformed Trump. Democrats only ed up Florida, and they were not necessarily destined to win Arizona that year. Technically, Arizona wasn't really there yet in 2018.

Second, we had a goldilocks era during the first two years of the Trump administration. Unemployment was low, the great recession was finally a distant, no foreign policy conflicts, and most of Trump's scandals, while very numerous, were not life impacting and in fact so numerous that people just brushed them off. People knew Trump was insane.  If someone like Joe Biden said "grab her by the pussy".. the reaction would be far different because no one would expect that of him.

Third, Democrats path to the house was winning over voters who voted against Trump in 2016 but voted GOP down ballot, while running a progressive enough campaign to turn out Democratic voters. That was a quite a hurdle. But Democrats did it and ended up winning a net gain of 41 seats, even in very downballot Republican areas. We saw in 2020 and 2022 house elections that much of the never trump suburban shift went back to the GOP downballot but not to the extent of pre-Trump.

Fourth, in 2018 Democrats faced an extreme geographic disadvantage in the house and senate which continues to this day but finally easing up a bit.


Basically,  I do believe that 2018 was a strongly Democratic year but there was not a lot of reason to throw out the incumbent party and limited the Democrats ability to incur major gains on the state level. Hence why Democrats could not get OH and IA governor.

2018 is the most underrated out party midterm performance in modern history.


But Democrats did over perform the past two midterms. I am old enough to remember that during the Obama years the meme was "Democrats do not do well in midterms"

That aged liked MILK.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

My cold take is that 2022 was better for Dems than 2018 was on about every level.

New York went from having a Democrat represent Staten Island to Republicans representing Westchester county. Democrats were winning red suburban seats in Oklahoma City, Charleston, Salt Lake City. They went from holding three seats in Iowa to none after this year.

And Dems won Alaska and WA-03 which went red in 2018, so I don’t understand your point. If it’s to try and paint a picture of 2022 as a red year, that’s a pretty low bar to use Staten Island and gerrymandered seats in OK, UT, and SC as proof.

Well ok, then just look at the seats won. 235 vs 212. Or the PV, which went from D+7 to R+3.

Relative to expectations, 2022 was better for Dems than 2018 was. But in a vacuum, it’s 2018 and not even close.

Part of it is that Dems have beaten expectations so rarely in recent history.  Since Reagan, 2022, 2012, and 1998 have been the only serious Dem overperformances, whereas they nearly blew 2020 and actually blew 2016, 2014, 2002, and 2000.  2018 and 1996 also weren't quite the Dem landslides they were expected to be.  

Please do let an unlucky senate map fool you. 2018 was a near a Democratic landslide.

First, let's not forget that despite the map stacked against Democrats it was not like Democrats in North Dakota, Indiana, and Missouri far outperformed Trump. Democrats only ed up Florida, and they were not necessarily destined to win Arizona that year. Technically, Arizona wasn't really there yet in 2018.

Second, we had a goldilocks era during the first two years of the Trump administration. Unemployment was low, the great recession was finally a distant, no foreign policy conflicts, and most of Trump's scandals, while very numerous, were not life impacting and in fact so numerous that people just brushed them off. People knew Trump was insane.  If someone like Joe Biden said "grab her by the pussy".. the reaction would be far different because no one would expect that of him.

Third, Democrats path to the house was winning over voters who voted against Trump in 2016 but voted GOP down ballot, while running a progressive enough campaign to turn out Democratic voters. That was a quite a hurdle. But Democrats did it and ended up winning a net gain of 41 seats, even in very downballot Republican areas. We saw in 2020 and 2022 house elections that much of the never trump suburban shift went back to the GOP downballot but not to the extent of pre-Trump.

Fourth, in 2018 Democrats faced an extreme geographic disadvantage in the house and senate which continues to this day but finally easing up a bit.


Basically,  I do believe that 2018 was a strongly Democratic year but there was not a lot of reason to throw out the incumbent party and limited the Democrats ability to incur major gains on the state level. Hence why Democrats could not get OH and IA governor.

2018 is the most underrated out party midterm performance in modern history.


But Democrats did over perform the past two midterms. I am old enough to remember that during the Obama years the meme was "Democrats do not do well in midterms"

That aged liked MILK.

You raise a lot of good points.
Re: IA and OH, I'd note that the Trump administration basically bribed farmers (to oversimplify things a fair bit) to boost their lot in a key election year. That almost certainly did not have decide Ohio (DeWine was a pretty good candidate and Ohio was quite R to begin with), but it might have saved Iowa. Alongside fundamentals helping Rs (trends in 2014 and 2016), it didn't hurt Kim Reynolds in her bid to win a full term.

[Schiff for Senate]

Honestly, I'm still angry at the House results. We'd have won if it wasn't for GOP gerrymanders in FL, GA, TN, and AZ. Alternatively, I guess you could argue we'd have won if it wasn't for Lee Zeldin's amazing performance and Kathy Hochul's disastrous campaign (so much for her being presidential material!), and chalk the loss up to that.

The Democrats are not entitled to control of Congress. They lost the popular vote by as much as their opponents did back in 2020, so the result they got is more than fair. Plus it's their fault they got this NY map, by blatantly pushing their luck and hoping the Cuomo judges would just look the other way.

I absolutely agree on both these counts, that with the GOP’s popular vote performance, they kind of deserved to win the House (however, it’s worth noting that we didn’t contest a number of red seats, and if you adjusted for that, things could look a little different in terms of national House PV). And that one could also assign the blame to NY alone (in other words, Lee Zeldin is arguably the reason the GOP won the House - which is why I believe, and have stated, that he should absolutely be the next RNC Chair as a reward). Of course, when the result is this narrow, there are a number of factor(s) you could attribute the result to. NY is one such very valid factor. But it’s still a fact that if TN, GA, AZ and FL had fair maps, we’d have won the House. And yes, this would still hold true even if you went ahead and replaced the Democrats’ two gerrymanders in IL and NM with fair maps.

[UncleSam]

The take that Dems do badly in midterms was always wrong. It’s not that Dems do badly in midterms, it’s that college-educated voters turn out at increased rates in midterms.

During the Obama years, college-educated voters backed Rs. The result was R waves.

In the Trump years, many of those college educated voters switched parties (while many non-college voters flipped the other way). The result is that midterms now favor Ds, and likely will until Rs claw back some college-educated voters that they lost with Trump.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1596911722111139841

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's important to note all these Conservative users supporting R or saying that Manchin, Tester and Brown are definitely gonna lose number 1 no Incumbent Senator has lost and number 2 Rev Barber is working his heart out in trying to get a Filibuster proof majority and electing Brown and we failed at electing Ryan, is an integral part of our strategy of a Filibuster proof Trifecta

Incumbents are very strong no matter if they are in a blue or red state Ron Johnson and CCM just proved that, Ron Johnson was DOA but that's to SCOTUS R GERRYMANDERING OF WI, HE AON

We are favs to win the H back in 24 all we need in a combo of TX, FL, NC, OH, WVA and MT and Ruben Gallego defeat of Sinema which Rev Barber is recruiting as well so all these Ds aren't alone, Rev Barber is the Ds surrogate just like Don Jr is the surrogate of Vance they got lucky and win based on DeWine winning 60/40

Alot of these same users predicted Evers and Laura Kelly losses and 230 R or more H so why should Ds listen to them

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

The incumbent Republican governor of the Northern Mariana Islands lost reelection to an independent in a runoff on Friday.

https://ballotpedia.org/Northern_Mariana_Islands_gubernatorial_and_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election,_2022

But Guam!

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The incumbent Republican governor of the Northern Mariana Islands lost reelection to an independent in a runoff on Friday.

https://ballotpedia.org/Northern_Mariana_Islands_gubernatorial_and_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election,_2022

But Guam!

Throwback to election night when the Republicans won the delegate race there and MAGA twitter erupted into celebration.

[wbrocks67]

I know I'm posting this again but jesus christ, imagine being as wrong as Jessica Taylor and Chuck Todd are and still having your job afterwards. Just so, so wrong.

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1588632779398516738

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

One of the biggest disgraces in journalism is seeing the most distinguished news program in history hosted by such a feckless cuck.

[S019]

I know I'm posting this again but jesus christ, imagine being as wrong as Jessica Taylor and Chuck Todd are and still having your job afterwards. Just so, so wrong.

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1588632779398516738

I mean it was a bit of a minor miracle that Democrats held on in Nevada this year and that was before the surge in Democratic votes late in the early voting period.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I know I'm posting this again but jesus christ, imagine being as wrong as Jessica Taylor and Chuck Todd are and still having your job afterwards. Just so, so wrong.

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1588632779398516738

Hasn't he been demoted by the NBC?

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

As we suspected, the red wave in New York was less about crime or persuasion and simply just more about crappy Dem turnout.

/tweet

So basically, the California special.

"This one election showed that Democrats have clearly overreached. They're now destined to lose votes and minority support by the millions from here on out! Bad turnout? What's that?"

[Mr. Smith]

Any idea when the rest of CA-13 comes out? And is it Duarte heavy or enough to put Gray over the line?