Official 2022 Congressional Election Results Thread

[politicallefty]

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.

You'd have a very different election with fair lines though. Certain incumbents may decide to run for reelection and other seats may get stronger candidates. That is a factor you have to consider in a conversation like this. That would certainly change the popular vote to help the party more adversely affected. If you're going to bring up states like IL and NM, why not TX? Imagine how much a fair Texas map would change the overall landscape.

The other issue is that hack Republican judges in Florida and Ohio prevented those states from having maps that reflected the intent of the voters. Democrats did well in Ohio despite the map or statewide vote, but that was just to crawl back to a 5D-10R deficit. The Florida Supreme Court is even worse, allowing a map that was in open defiance of the Florida Constitution (at least Ohio Republicans paid minimal lip service to the Ohio Constitution). I'm sure most people supporting the quick overturning of NY's maps were supporting the same thing in FL, right? Right?

Democrats also won the House popular vote in both 1996 and 2012, 10 seats and 17 seats short of the majority, respectively. Clinton's disappointing (or lazy, if you prefer) reelection campaign probably cost Democrats the House in 1996. However, the failure to take the majority in 2012 can almost entirely be blamed on gerrymandering (particularly in the Midwest/Rust Belt). Ohio's 12R-4D held up for the entire decade and Pennsylvania's 13R-5D held up until it was struck down by the PA Supreme Court in 2018. There were other major offenders across the country, but those two were probably the biggest.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Okay my election nerdlings: with Iowa swinging from 75% Democratic representation from 2019-2021 to 0% Democratic representation from 2023-(?), is this the biggest percentage swing in terms of House delegation for any state between 2018 and 2022?

This, of course, discounts at-large seats and takes into account redistricting.  

--

EDIT: Just for fun, here's Iowa's House delegation numbers from 2012-2022.  

2013-2015: 2R - 2D
2015-2017: 3R - 1D
2017-2019: 3R - 1D
2019-2021: 1R - 3D
2021-2023: 3R - 1D
2023-XXXX: 4R - 0D

[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

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.

Eh, the big thing with Nevada was the unknown, but none of the pundits were willing to basically say "we don't know what we don't know." Ralston admitted he was a bit unsure, but even he constantly went over the top with the dooming a lot of the time. We knew Democrats were going to vote largely by mail (and dropbox). We just didn't know if it would be enough. But to say "the early vote is a disaster" without any additional context just proves how horrific both Taylor and Todd are at their jobs. Especially someone like Taylor, whose job it is to have some nuance in their breakdowns.

[tagimaucia]

Anyone in the weeds enough to answer these questions?


- Cook Political Report says the national house popular vote is currently at R +3.0%.  Is this still likely to change much at all?  Just how many votes are still left in California or elsewhere?  Any at all? 

- And if you do a rigorous adjustment for uncontested seats, how much further to the left is the national environment likely to end up?  I'd guess somewhere around R+2 or R+1?

[wbrocks67]

Just truly ugly turnout from Ds in FL, as expected

https://twitter.com/L2political/status/1597211188357890050

[wbrocks67]

Holy crap: just realized that John Fetterman got more votes in Montgomery County, PA than Hillary did in 2016. Damn.

The problem for Republicans in PA is that the bottom continues to fall out for them in places like Montco, and these are the places that are the fastest-growing areas in the state.

[wbrocks67]

This is....

better than I thought ?

Got ANNIHILATED in swing state Florida

No one cares. FL is where old racists, pedocons, and fascist Cubans go to die. Real America is experiencing a beautiful BLUE WAVE!

This is still my favorite post from this entire thread.

[ottermax]

Anyone in the weeds enough to answer these questions?


- Cook Political Report says the national house popular vote is currently at R +3.0%.  Is this still likely to change much at all?  Just how many votes are still left in California or elsewhere?  Any at all? 

- And if you do a rigorous adjustment for uncontested seats, how much further to the left is the national environment likely to end up?  I'd guess somewhere around R+2 or R+1?

240,000 ballots left to count in CA mostly out of Sacramento and Placer counties which will probably be evenly divided (shouldn't change the national vote at this point).

There might be some other states that aren't fully counted.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Laxalt now leading in Washoe, it's over. Georgia run-off to decide it all.

[Ferguson97]

lmao

https://twitter.com/Nomads4Pritzker/status/1591477177476083719

Prtizker is a really funny dude, he definitely has the charisma to be a strong contender in 2028.

[wbrocks67]

Do we have a thread for statewide races by congressional district?

[emailking]

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

They're actually not wrong yet. Right now it's 50 - 49 so there is no empirical evidence that 50 - 50 is not the Dems' best case scenario.

[South Dakota Democrat]

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

They're actually not wrong yet. Right now it's 50 - 49 so there is no empirical evidence that 50 - 50 is not the Dems' best case scenario.

They wrote off Nevada, though.  They were saying the best case scenario was a 50-50 Senate with the GOP flipping NV and Dems holding GA.  Even if it ends up being 50-50, they would still be wrong.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/DrewLinzer/status/1597277749302874112

[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

They're actually not wrong yet. Right now it's 50 - 49 so there is no empirical evidence that 50 - 50 is not the Dems' best case scenario.

... Dems have a chance to win in GA so no, 50-50 is NOT the best case scenario... 51-49 would be, and that is very clearly in sight. not sure how this is confusing?

They were also terribly wrong on a lot of the specific states and their analysis, especially Nevada.

[emailking]

I think you meant to put that outside the quote, but the runoff hasn't happened yet so we don't know if Dems can win, so we don't know if 50-50 is their best case scneario or not. Granted they got Nevada wrong.

[Dead Parrot]

I've compiled a Google Sheet of NJ's House races by municipality.

[Kamala's side hoe]

2022 House with 2010s Districts
https://twitter.com/TadeuszMrozek2/status/1596996514680754176
Palm Springs district is an error, Ken Calvert would've won in his old district. Also I guess we'll never know if Kurt Schrader would've survived had he won his primary. My gut says no, given what happened in Clackamas County in the GE and how he underperformed Biden in 2020.

For example, OR-5, which was broken apart into OR-5 and -6.  Chavez DeRemer would have been strong enough to win under the old lines, but Salinas would too.  In the end, I decided to average them & account for where the lines were drawn, and came out with a bare Salinas victory.

Notably, in Georgia applying a swing in GA-6 from Trump+15 to Biden+11 AND in GA-7 from Biden+25 to Biden+6 would both have seen narrow Dem wins in this mathematical exercise.  The suburbs, at least in Atlanta, emphatically did NOT shift back.  It was all gerrymandering.

Amazing how much stronger every narrative would've been under the old maps. The "Republicans lost because of extremists narrative" would've been stronger, because Republicans would've lost a strange connection of seats around the country united by united by unusual candidates, or having had anti-Trump incumbents pushed out; also, a world where the wave (still) mostly doesn't hit the Midwest but the GOP gains in Orlando, South Texas, Vegas, and the Central Valley is a world where "the GOP is gaining with Hispanics" is a much more obvious and hard-to-deny phenomenon. (Also, the AZ meltdown would've been even worse; Tadeusz is right that neither House gain would've connected, and I think under the old maps Democrats would've outright seized an AZ trifecta. OTOH, Republicans would of course have held both houses of the MI legislature).

[wbrocks67]

I think you meant to put that outside the quote, but the runoff hasn't happened yet so we don't know if Dems can win, so we don't know if 50-50 is their best case scneario or not. Granted they got Nevada wrong.

I'm not sure you're understanding what they're saying. "Best case scenario" is the possible best case scenario that is reasonably possible. That would be 51-49 D Senate right now, not 50-50. If 50-50 was Dems "best case scenario" that means they would 100% be losing the GA runoff with no chance to win it.

[emailking]

I think you meant to put that outside the quote, but the runoff hasn't happened yet so we don't know if Dems can win, so we don't know if 50-50 is their best case scneario or not. Granted they got Nevada wrong.

I'm not sure you're understanding what they're saying. "Best case scenario" is the possible best case scenario that is reasonably possible. That would be 51-49 D Senate right now, not 50-50. If 50-50 was Dems "best case scenario" that means they would 100% be losing the GA runoff with no chance to win it.

I think they meant the literal best case scenario and thus were explicitly ruling out remote possibilities like Dems winning Oklahoma.

Just because there's a run off doesn't mean the Dems can win it. There's a bayesian chance they could win it sure. But it might not actually be possible for them to win it. And if they don't, we'll never know.

So yeah I'm sticking by there is no empirical evidence, right now, that the claim that 50 seats for the Dems is their best case scenario is incorrect.

But I do expect Warnock to win lol.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I think you meant to put that outside the quote, but the runoff hasn't happened yet so we don't know if Dems can win, so we don't know if 50-50 is their best case scneario or not. Granted they got Nevada wrong.

I'm not sure you're understanding what they're saying. "Best case scenario" is the possible best case scenario that is reasonably possible. That would be 51-49 D Senate right now, not 50-50. If 50-50 was Dems "best case scenario" that means they would 100% be losing the GA runoff with no chance to win it.

I think they meant the literal best case scenario and thus were explicitly ruling out remote possibilities like Dems winning Oklahoma.

Just because there's a run off doesn't mean the Dems can win it. There's a bayesian chance they could win it sure. But it might not actually be possible for them to win it. And if they don't, we'll never know.

So yeah I'm sticking by there is no empirical evidence, right now, that the claim that 50 seats for the Dems is their best case scenario is incorrect.

But I do expect Warnock to win lol.

Sorry, but you’re simply wrong on this. It’s not complicated. There are only two possible outcomes left, neither of which is very unlikely. The Senate will be either 50-50 or 51D-49R. As  such, the best case scenario for the Democrats is 51-49; 50-50 is their worst case at this point. To say that it’s not is twisting the definition beyond recognition. This is true at this time no matter how the runoff turns out. Since these outcomes were well within the range of plausible outcomes at the time the on-air comment was made, the commentators were wrong about it then too — because they made some incorrect assumptions.

[emailking]

No I don't think I'm wrong but we may be talking past each other.

There's 2 possible outcomes in a Bayesian sense yes. 1 of them may be impossible. We don't know if that's the case. We'll never know. But they're not wrong for claiming 51-49 is impossible until that manifests.

[GeorgiaModerate]

No I don't think I'm wrong but we may be talking past each other.

There's 2 possible outcomes in a Bayesian sense yes. 1 of them may be impossible. We don't know if that's the case. We'll never know. But they're not wrong for claiming 51-49 is impossible until that manifests.

You are overthinking this. Let’s play a game. We’ll flip two coins. You get a point for each one that turns up heads. I get a point for each tails.

1. Before any coins have been flipped, what is your best case scenario? What is mine?

2. We’ll flip the first coin; it’s heads, so you have one point and I have none. At this point, what is your best case scenario? What is mine?

[emailking]

2. 2. 2. 1. But I don't think that applies at all to this lol.

[GeorgiaModerate]

2. 2. 2. 1. But I don't think that applies at all to this lol.

Then the burden is on you to demonstrate why it doesn’t.