Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hate to play devil's advocate, but what if Republican turn-out was lower than usual simply because they were more used to the previous incumbent winning by 25+% Whereas Democrat turn-out was higher because they were more enthusiastic about making the seat a Trump referendum?
Something like 80% of the vote was by mail. All anyone had to do was check a ballot and send it back. Half of the early vote came from registered Republicans which indicates that a good deal of them switched and voted for the Democrat. Trump was not prominent in the advertising etc. The Dem ran on health care, the Republican on fiscal issues. The RCCC ads at the end of the campaign played the illegal card.
Something like 80% of the vote was by mail. All anyone had to do was check a ballot and send it back. Half of the early vote came from registered Republicans which indicates that a good deal of them switched and voted for the Democrat. Trump was not prominent in the advertising etc. The Dem ran on health care, the Republican on fiscal issues. The RCCC ads at the end of the campaign played the illegal card.
No, it does not indicate anything except the race was close: What you are overlooking is mail in or show up to vote, the mid term elections do favor the party not in office so there is no reason to assume people switched to vote for the other party. Of course a few probably did but the more likely reason the race was relatively close had more to do with dems voting period and republicans not so much so as the republicans figured it would be a shoe in. Many probably didn't bother to vote. Add to this, April is a huge travel month, especially for seniors so most likely there were a lot of Republicans traveling and they didn't even think about the special election.
No, it does not indicate anything except the race was close: What you are overlooking is mail in or show up to vote, the mid term elections do favor the party not in office so there is no reason to assume people switched to vote for the other party. Of course a few probably did but the more likely reason the race was relatively close had more to do with dems voting period and republicans not so much so as the republicans figured it would be a shoe in. Many probably didn't bother to vote. Add to this, April is a huge travel month, especially for seniors so most likely there were a lot of Republicans traveling and they didn't even think about the special election.
Yup. If the snowbirds were the deciding factor, April is the month when most of them are preparing to leave Arizona for the summer, and voting might not have been a big concern.
During the election years, though, the snowbirds do return to Arizona earlier than in other years. They do vote in big numbers in a general election.
It's far easier to put up with some extra late-season heat in November than it is to get stuck in Arizona well into the spring when things heat up. April in Arizona was a lousy month to hold an election.
Yup. If the snowbirds were the deciding factor, April is the month when most of them are preparing to leave Arizona for the summer, and voting might not have been a big concern.
During the election years, though, the snowbirds do return to Arizona earlier than in other years. They do vote in big numbers in a general election.
It's far easier to put up with some extra late-season heat in November than it is to get stuck in Arizona well into the spring when things heat up. April in Arizona was a lousy month to hold an election.
Snowbirds don't vote unless they are residents. I would hazard a guess that most of them reside in other states by the license plates we see.
No, it does not indicate anything except the race was close: What you are overlooking is mail in or show up to vote, the mid term elections do favor the party not in office so there is no reason to assume people switched to vote for the other party. Of course a few probably did but the more likely reason the race was relatively close had more to do with dems voting period and republicans not so much so as the republicans figured it would be a shoe in. Many probably didn't bother to vote. Add to this, April is a huge travel month, especially for seniors so most likely there were a lot of Republicans traveling and they didn't even think about the special election.
The average age of the mail in vote (which was the bulk of the vote in the race) was 68. If anything the Special Election skewed older than what you would likely see in November, even in this district.
This was a close race in a district the GOP Presidential candidate has won by 20+ in the last several cycles. This should not have been a close race, combine that with the other heavily GOP districts that have been real close or that they have lost in the Special Elections this could be a tough one come November. Republicans hold a bunch of seats that are much closer to swing districts than the districts the Special Elections have primarily been held in and even hold some Dem leaning districts. While I don't think you can look at any one Special Election as a barometer, we are seeing a clear pattern.
I think the Trump supporters are really missing the point. Democrats are not expecting to flip 20+ point GOP districts. But there are a whole lot of 12 point and below districts and with swings of 15 points on some of these deep deep red districts, it means that the 12 point and below districts are vulnerable. Every single one of them will be contested. That is going to take GOP money and resources that formerly could go to more competitive districts and not these previously safe seats. The 20 point districts are going to be contested too, but that's not where the flips are going to come from.
There was a tweet by David Wasserman of Cook Political Report a couple of days ago that I though was interesting and relevant to the subject of this years Special Congressional Elections. Wasserman is the guy that calculates the Partisan Voter Index (PVI) for every state and Congressional District. The PVI calculates how more Republican or Democrat a CD or state has been over the past 2 elections as compared to the national popular POTUS vote.
The Democrats need to flip 24 seats to Flip the House.
He said that by his calculations,
1. If you average the overperformance for the Democrat in all of the specials thus far
2. Then assume a universal swing of that amount to the Democrats nationally in November
The result would be a Democratic gain of 88 seats.
Quote:
If you were to apply Dems' average overperformance in 7 House specials so far this cycle to the entire House in Nov., Dems would win 283/435 seats (+88). (for many reasons, incumbency etc., this is very unlikely to actually occur)
.
In an answering tweet, Nate Silver says the swing would be 90 seats by his methodology.
Quote:
Using what I'm sure is a similar method to Dave, I show Democrats gaining ~90 seats if they achieved their special election margins and there was no incumbency bonus. With a small-ish incumbency bonus, the gains are reduced to ~70 seats. With a larger one, more like ~55.
Neither Wasserman or Silver are predicting Republican losses of that magnitude, but it does illustrate just how terrible the Republican performance has been thus far in the Specials YTD.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
