2017 Special Elections

[AZGrizFan]

Just like a fucking democrat to want a "participation trophy".

Scoreboard, motherfucker.

[CAA Flagship]

[CAA Flagship]

[Col Hogan]

Now I don't care who you are...that there is funny

[Ivytalk]

Funny, but I think she cribbed it from someone else.

[BDKJMU]

Just like a **** democrat to want a "participation trophy".

Scoreboard, motherfucker.

Last year when NAU started off 0-4 vs Div I he was probably like "We're not losing by as much as we should."..

[JohnStOnge]

Just like a **** democrat to want a "participation trophy".

Scoreboard, motherfucker.

It's not about a participation trophy. It's about the fact that it was ridiculous to be looking at losses in those four districts in special elections as disastrous for Democrats. Again: If the Republicans hadn't thought those districts were locks Trump would not have vacated them by selecting the Republican Congressmen there for appointed positions.

There actually was one more special House election. It was in California 34. It was held by a Democrat. The incumbent left to become State Attorney General. And can you guess what happened in the Special election? A Democrat beat another Democrat because no Republican even made the runoff.

The Republican margins did decline a lot between the regular election and the special election in each case where a Republican vacated what the Republicans thought was a completely safe district. It's fair to say that the Republican not being the incumbent was a factor in that. But I don't know if it's fair to say it can account for the extent of each decline. Each decline in Republican support was pretty darned large.

Meanwhile the RealClearPolitics average for the 2018 House elections generic vote has the Democrats up by 6.2 percentage points. To put that in perspective: the RealClearPolitics average for that the day before the 2016 election had the Democrats up by 0.6 percentage points. The actual result was Republicans by 1.1 percentage points. The difference is well within any reasonable margin of error one would wish to construct. Dismissing the Democrats being up by 6.2 percentage points in the 2018 generic House poll right now because of that popular perception that the 2016 election polls were wrong would, for the Republicans, be a mistake. And those of them who are informed enough to be able to intelligently interpret polling data and who are being honest with themselves about what polls are indicating right now know it.

Plenty of time to change the situation with respect to public opinion. But public opinion does not look good for the Republicans right now.

Sure, the Democrats would be a lot happier if they could've picked off at least one of those seats during the special elections. But it was always the case that it was unlikely. If the Republicans had lost ANY of those races it would've been panic mode time and I'm sure the Democrats would've loved to have seen that. But the Democrats losing those races against Republicans in "safe" Republican districts by margins way smaller than they lost them in November shouldn't invoke panic mode for the Democrats. Not at all. Not optimum. But the very substantial narrowing of the margins along with the 2018 generic House polls should actually be pretty encouraging to them.

[Ibanez]

Just like a **** democrat to want a "participation trophy".

Scoreboard, motherfucker.

It's not about a participation trophy. It's about the fact that it was ridiculous to be looking at losses in those four districts in special elections as disastrous for Democrats. Again: If the Republicans hadn't thought those districts were locks Trump would not have vacated them by selecting the Republican Congressmen there for appointed positions.

There actually was one more special House election. It was in California 34. It was held by a Democrat. The incumbent left to become State Attorney General. And can you guess what happened in the Special election? A Democrat beat another Democrat because no Republican even made the runoff.

The Republican margins did decline a lot between the regular election and the special election in each case where a Republican vacated what the Republicans thought was a completely safe district. It's fair to say that the Republican not being the incumbent was a factor in that. But I don't know if it's fair to say it can account for the extent of each decline. Each decline in Republican support was pretty darned large.

Meanwhile the RealClearPolitics average for the 2018 House elections generic vote has the Democrats up by 6.2 percentage points. To put that in perspective: the RealClearPolitics average for that the day before the 2016 election had the Democrats up by 0.6 percentage points. The actual result was Republicans by 1.1 percentage points. The difference is well within any reasonable margin of error one would wish to construct. Dismissing the Democrats being up by 6.2 percentage points in the 2018 generic House poll right now because of that popular perception that the 2016 election polls were wrong would, for the Republicans, be a mistake. And those of them who are informed enough to be able to intelligently interpret polling data and who are being honest with themselves about what polls are indicating right now know it.

Plenty of time to change the situation with respect to public opinion. But public opinion does not look good for the Republicans right now.

Sure, the Democrats would be a lot happier if they could've picked off at least one of those seats during the special elections. But it was always the case that it was unlikely. If the Republicans had lost ANY of those races it would've been panic mode time and I'm sure the Democrats would've loved to have seen that. But the Democrats losing those races against Republicans in "safe" Republican districts by margins way smaller than they lost them in November shouldn't invoke panic mode for the Democrats. Not at all. Not optimum. But the very substantial narrowing of the margins along with the 2018 generic House polls should actually be pretty encouraging to them.

Brevity, dawg. Brevity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Brevity, dawg. Brevity.

Ok. The four races we're talking about are heavily Republican Districts that the Republicans would never have vacated if they didn't think they were safe. In each case, the races became unexpectedly competitive and the Democrat did much better than one would've expected the Democrat to do. Meanwhile, the 2018 generic House polls have the Democrats doing very well. And oh by the way the one special election that was held for a seat vacated by a Democrat was won by a Democrat under circumstances where no Republican never made the runoff.

[UNI88]

Brevity, dawg. Brevity.

Ok. The four races we're talking about are heavily Republican Districts that the Republicans would never have vacated if they didn't think they were safe. In each case, the races became unexpectedly competitive and the Democrat did much better than one would've expected the Democrat to do. Meanwhile, the 2018 generic House polls have the Democrats doing very well. And oh by the way the one special election that was held for a seat vacated by a Democrat was won by a Democrat under circumstances where no Republican never made the runoff.

Nice work John. There's hope for you yet.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Ok. The four races we're talking about are heavily Republican Districts that the Republicans would never have vacated if they didn't think they were safe. In each case, the races became unexpectedly competitive and the Democrat did much better than one would've expected the Democrat to do. Meanwhile, the 2018 generic House polls have the Democrats doing very well. And oh by the way the one special election that was held for a seat vacated by a Democrat was won by a Democrat under circumstances where no Republican never made the runoff.

Nice work John. There's hope for you yet.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

No, really there isn't. Just not. It is what it is.

[Ivytalk]

Brevity, dawg. Brevity.

Ok. The four races we're talking about are heavily Republican Districts that the Republicans would never have vacated if they didn't think they were safe. In each case, the races became unexpectedly competitive and the Democrat did much better than one would've expected the Democrat to do. Meanwhile, the 2018 generic House polls have the Democrats doing very well. And oh by the way the one special election that was held for a seat vacated by a Democrat was won by a Democrat under circumstances where no Republican never made the runoff.

JSO preparing resume for vacancy on the DNC.

[kalm]

Just like a fucking democrat to want a "participation trophy".

Scoreboard, motherfucker.

The Griz will be fine! SFPA is WAY better than advertised, the NEC is up, and that Jerome kid made some lucky plays. It really shouldn't have been that close. We'll be fine. Probably run the conference table and get a seed...

[kalm]

The Repukes have scared a large part of the population. This is the only reason they are victorious. Fear has caused so much suffering throughout History. But we would elect the Devil himself of he said he loves America.

Oh that's bullshit. If the Republicans have scared people...then why aren't the Democrats standing up for what's right and winning elections? Easy...b/c the Democrats have FAILED their base. They've gone hard left and are no longer understood as the Part of Tolerance or Inclusion. From the DNC's rigging the nomination to all the snowflakes on college campuses, they have shown their true colors. The Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves.

So they've gone "hard left" by rigging a primary in favor of Hillary Clinton?

All establishment Democrats have proven lately is that they can ALMOST win elections when running as Republican Lite.

But hey, now they can focus on simply being opposition just like the Republicans did with Obama. Oh wait...Republicans controlled houses of congress. Ooops!

This flashed across my timeline this morning. Let's have a Resistance BBQ!!! Like we're members of a resistance!!!

[kalm]

Oh that's bullshit. If the Republicans have scared people...then why aren't the Democrats standing up for what's right and winning elections? Easy...b/c the Democrats have FAILED their base. They've gone hard left and are no longer understood as the Part of Tolerance or Inclusion. From the DNC's rigging the nomination to all the snowflakes on college campuses, they have shown their true colors. The Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves.

So they've gone "hard left" by rigging a primary in favor of Hillary Clinton?

All establishment Democrats have proven lately is that they can ALMOST win elections when running as Republican Lite.

But hey, now they can focus on simply being opposition just like the Republicans did with Obama. Oh wait...Republicans controlled houses of congress. Ooops!

This flashed across my timeline this morning. Let's have a Resistance BBQ!!! Like we're members of a resistance!!!

https://act.moveon.org/event/cookout_attend/12451

[Ibanez]

Brevity, dawg. Brevity.

Ok. The four races we're talking about are heavily Republican Districts that the Republicans would never have vacated if they didn't think they were safe. In each case, the races became unexpectedly competitive and the Democrat did much better than one would've expected the Democrat to do. Meanwhile, the 2018 generic House polls have the Democrats doing very well. And oh by the way the one special election that was held for a seat vacated by a Democrat was won by a Democrat under circumstances where no Republican never made the runoff.

I agree. And let's remember a couple of things:

1. 2018 elections are a lifetime away so much can happen between now and then.
2. The strength of a district in 2016 for a Presidential election shouldn't be compared to that district 8 months in a special election. The voter behaviors are too different.

[Gil Dobie]

phpBB [video]

[JohnStOnge]

The main point is that it's clear that public opinion has moved somewhat away from Republicans since the November 2016 national election. Whether the trend continues or not remains to be seen. But that's what the trend has been up to now.

As far as the overall population goes the Republicans didn't really have an edge in November either. The overall popular vote in the Presidential election favored the Democrat by 2.1 percentage points. The overall combined popular vote in the House elections favored the Republicans by 1.1 percentage points. The Electoral College system put the Republican in the White House in spite of the fact that more people voted for the Democrat and successful gerrymandering translated a narrow edge in the overall House vote into a substantial edge in House representation. But it's not like the 2016 election indicated overwhelming public support for the Republican Party in terms of how the population voted.

And all indications to any objective person are that the demographic as well as the cultural trends bode well for the Democrats in the future. Panic on the part of the Democrats right now is totally unwarranted.

[CAA Flagship]

The main point is that it's clear that public opinion has moved somewhat away from Republicans since the November 2016 national election. Whether the trend continues or not remains to be seen. But that's what the trend has been up to now.

As far as the overall population goes the Republicans didn't really have an edge in November either. The overall popular vote in the Presidential election favored the Democrat by 2.1 percentage points. The overall combined popular vote in the House elections favored the Republicans by 1.1 percentage points. The Electoral College system put the Republican in the White House in spite of the fact that more people voted for the Democrat and successful gerrymandering translated a narrow edge in the overall House vote into a substantial edge in House representation. But it's not like the 2016 election indicated overwhelming public support for the Republican Party in terms of how the population voted.

And all indications to any objective person are that the demographic as well as the cultural trends bode well for the Democrats in the future. Panic on the part of the Democrats right now is totally unwarranted.

Where's the breakdown of the last Georgia polls vs. the results? Surely you have done the statistical gymnastics on this already.

[houndawg]

Ok. The four races we're talking about are heavily Republican Districts that the Republicans would never have vacated if they didn't think they were safe. In each case, the races became unexpectedly competitive and the Democrat did much better than one would've expected the Democrat to do. Meanwhile, the 2018 generic House polls have the Democrats doing very well. And oh by the way the one special election that was held for a seat vacated by a Democrat was won by a Democrat under circumstances where no Republican never made the runoff.

JSO preparing resume for vacancy on the DNC.

He couldn't do any worse. They fvcked up so badly last year that I won't be surprised in the slightest if they're unable to get a majority in the House next year.

[SDHornet]

So donks roll out Pelosi as their leader and wonder why they keep losing?

[kalm]

So donks roll out Pelosi as their leader and wonder why they keep losing?

This.

[AZGrizFan]

Just like a **** democrat to want a "participation trophy".

Scoreboard, motherfucker.

It's not about a participation trophy. It's about the fact that it was ridiculous to be looking at losses in those four districts in special elections as disastrous for Democrats. Again: If the Republicans hadn't thought those districts were locks Trump would not have vacated them by selecting the Republican Congressmen there for appointed positions.

There actually was one more special House election. It was in California 34. It was held by a Democrat. The incumbent left to become State Attorney General. And can you guess what happened in the Special election? A Democrat beat another Democrat because no Republican even made the runoff.

The Republican margins did decline a lot between the regular election and the special election in each case where a Republican vacated what the Republicans thought was a completely safe district. It's fair to say that the Republican not being the incumbent was a factor in that. But I don't know if it's fair to say it can account for the extent of each decline. Each decline in Republican support was pretty darned large.

Meanwhile the RealClearPolitics average for the 2018 House elections generic vote has the Democrats up by 6.2 percentage points. To put that in perspective: the RealClearPolitics average for that the day before the 2016 election had the Democrats up by 0.6 percentage points. The actual result was Republicans by 1.1 percentage points. The difference is well within any reasonable margin of error one would wish to construct. Dismissing the Democrats being up by 6.2 percentage points in the 2018 generic House poll right now because of that popular perception that the 2016 election polls were wrong would, for the Republicans, be a mistake. And those of them who are informed enough to be able to intelligently interpret polling data and who are being honest with themselves about what polls are indicating right now know it.

Plenty of time to change the situation with respect to public opinion. But public opinion does not look good for the Republicans right now.

Sure, the Democrats would be a lot happier if they could've picked off at least one of those seats during the special elections. But it was always the case that it was unlikely. If the Republicans had lost ANY of those races it would've been panic mode time and I'm sure the Democrats would've loved to have seen that. But the Democrats losing those races against Republicans in "safe" Republican districts by margins way smaller than they lost them in November shouldn't invoke panic mode for the Democrats. Not at all. Not optimum. But the very substantial narrowing of the margins along with the 2018 generic House polls should actually be pretty encouraging to them.

In 2016, the democrat got 124,917 votes.
In the Special Election the democrat got 124,893 votes.

Should that invoke panic? I'm fairly certain (in EVERY special election case) Conks didn't come out to vote because they were pretty fucking confident they had them in the bag. donk's didn't pick up a single vote in the special election....

[Skjellyfetti]

In 2016, the democrat got 124,917 votes.
In the Special Election the democrat got 124,893 votes.

Well, you're comparing a Presidential election year race vs. a runoff election in the middle of June. There is usually higher turnout for an election with a President on the ballot than one without. Essentially equaling the turnout with a President on the ballot isn't a bad thing.

On the other hand:

In 2016, the Republican got 201,088 votes
In the special election, the Republican got 134,595

Yeah, it was still enough to win. But ~70k less Republicans showed up.

[Baldy]

In 2016, the democrat got 124,917 votes.
In the Special Election the democrat got 124,893 votes.

Well, you're comparing a Presidential election year race vs. a runoff election in the middle of June. There is usually higher turnout for an election with a President on the ballot than one without. Essentially equaling the turnout with a President on the ballot isn't a bad thing.

On the other hand:

In 2016, the Republican got 201,088 votes
In the special election, the Republican got 134,595

Yeah, it was still enough to win. But ~70k less Republicans showed up.

70K less showed up because Handel was a horrible candidate.