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.
The problem with these concerns and facts is that the district was +21 for Donald Trump . . . it hasn't been anywhere near as lopsided in prior elections (Cook Partisan Voting Index is GOP +13). Donald Trump outperformed many GOP presidential candidates in many districts throughout the country (though he fared worse in a few). Donald Trump flipped districts (and lopsidedly so) that went lopsidedly to Barack Obama. To see Democrats competitive in many of these areas where they dominated or were otherwise more competitive for decades (and longer) before Trump shouldn't be a major warning sign to Republicans.
AZ-8 is a district that has shunned the GOP in the past during wave Democrat elections. Indeed, Gabby Giffords won the district in what was an upset in the Dem wave election year of 2006 (and she won it by a very healthy margin, too, though the GOP won it two years prior in a landslide: https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona%27s_...ional_District). If we were seeing signs of a true wave, I'd have expected the Dem to carry the district during the special election . . . instead, the Dem got fewer votes than the 95,000 or so votes the Dem candidate got in 2016.
Now, I do think that the Dems are more motivated than the GOP. But I think we'd need to see consistent/sustained major leads in the generic congressional ballot in their favor before I truly start to sweat things.
I honestly think that Trump is going to have a somewhat similar impact that Obama had on the electoral process and consistently perform very well among his base, even though other members of his party running for lessor offices are not as successful. Still, the real problem for Dems going into 2018, however, is that in many of the districts that will be competitive, the Dem primary base is far left. And far left candidates won't be as successful in many of the competitive districts in a general election. Simply put, most Dem nominees will not be of the mold of Connor Lamb.
Few things on this, you do not properly understand Cook's ratings. A PVI of 13 is the district is about 13 points more Republican than the Presidential average, but that is basically a 26 point margin.
Trump won the district by 21.2, Romney won the district by 24.8 in 2012, McCain won the district under the current lines by 22.2 in 2008
Also this was not Giffords's district. The district #'s are the same, but the districts themselves totally changed after redistricting. Giffords represented the previous version of AZ-8 which was based in the SE portion of the state. The current version of AZ-8 is based in the west and northwest suburbs of Phoenix. None of the district Giffords represented is in the current AZ-08, about 90% of the previous AZ-08 which Giffords represented is in the current AZ-02, and it remains a swing district. Likewise almost 90% of the current AZ-08 was in AZ-02 prior to redistricting.
Few things on this, you do not properly understand Cook's ratings. A PVI of 13 is the district is about 13 points more Republican than the Presidential average, but that is basically a 26 point margin.
Trump won the district by 21.2, Romney won the district by 24.8 in 2012, McCain won the district under the current lines by 22.2 in 2008
Also this was not Giffords's district. The district #'s are the same, but the districts themselves totally changed after redistricting. Giffords represented the previous version of AZ-8 which was based in the SE portion of the state. The current version of AZ-8 is based in the west and northwest suburbs of Phoenix. None of the district Giffords represented is in the current AZ-08, about 90% of the previous AZ-08 which Giffords represented is in the current AZ-02, and it remains a swing district. Likewise almost 90% of the current AZ-08 was in AZ-02 prior to redistricting.
Per Wiki, PVI GOP+13 means that the district is 13 points more Republican than the country is as a whole, so I'm confused somewhat. President Trump won the district by 21 points, despite the GOP nominee (Trump) getting fewer popular votes than the Dem nominee (Hillary). Do you have the source for the district results? I thought that President Trump won the district by a larger margin than previous GOP presidential nominees did, but appear to be wrong on that.
As, yep, I looked at the fact that Giffords stepped down in 2012 (after redistricting would've occurred following the 2010 Census), but didn't factor in the fact that she had not actually stand for election in the newly redrawn districts!
The problem with these concerns and facts is that the district was +21 for Donald Trump . . . it hasn't been anywhere near as lopsided in prior elections (Cook Partisan Voting Index is GOP +13). Donald Trump outperformed many GOP presidential candidates in many districts throughout the country (though he fared worse in a few). Donald Trump flipped districts (and lopsidedly so) that went lopsidedly to Barack Obama. To see Democrats competitive in many of these areas where they dominated or were otherwise more competitive for decades (and longer) before Trump shouldn't be a major warning sign to Republicans.
AZ-8 is a district that has shunned the GOP in the past during wave Democrat elections. Indeed, Gabby Giffords won the district in what was an upset in the Dem wave election year of 2006 (and she won it by a very healthy margin, too, though the GOP won it two years prior in a landslide: https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona%27s_...ional_District). If we were seeing signs of a true wave, I'd have expected the Dem to carry the district during the special election . . . instead, the Dem got fewer votes than the 95,000 or so votes the Dem candidate got in 2016.
Now, I do think that the Dems are more motivated than the GOP. But I think we'd need to see consistent/sustained major leads in the generic congressional ballot in their favor before I truly start to sweat things.
I honestly think that Trump is going to have a somewhat similar impact that Obama had on the electoral process and consistently perform very well among his base, even though other members of his party running for lessor offices are not as successful. Still, the real problem for Dems going into 2018, however, is that in many of the districts that will be competitive, the Dem primary base is far left. And far left candidates won't be as successful in many of the competitive districts in a general election. Simply put, most Dem nominees will not be of the mold of Connor Lamb.
The Dem advantage in the generic congressional ballot is nowhere close to 11 points on average.
Your research is seriously flawed. The district boundaries were redrawn. Most of the 8th became the 2nd (Giffords) while parts of the 2nd combined with the conservative part of Maricopa Country to become the 8th. In other words, you just can't draw the conclusions your source lead you to. The part of Maricopa county that is now the 8th has not voted for a democratic since 1980. Trump won here by LESS than Romney or Bush. There was no dem candidate in 2016. Point being this was an ominous sign for the GOP no ifs, ands, or buts.
Per Wiki, PVI GOP+13 means that the district is 13 points more Republican than the country is as a whole, so I'm confused somewhat. President Trump won the district by 21 points, despite the GOP nominee (Trump) getting fewer popular votes than the Dem nominee (Hillary). Do you have the source for the district results? I thought that President Trump won the district by a larger margin than previous GOP presidential nominees did, but appear to be wrong on that.
As, yep, I looked at the fact that Giffords stepped down in 2012 (after redistricting would've occurred following the 2010 Census), but didn't factor in the fact that she had not actually stand for election in the newly redrawn districts!
13 points more Republican than the nation, but also 13 points Dem than the nation which in turn is basically a 26 point margin. If you look at the most Democratic districts you will see PVI's in the 40 range even though the Democrats won them by 80% +.
Link below shows the Presidential margins under the current lines for 2012 and 2016, also did the calculations for the margins in 2008 under the current lines.
Your research is seriously flawed. The district boundaries were redrawn. Most of the 8th became the 2nd (Giffords) while parts of the 2nd combined with the conservative part of Maricopa Country to become the 8th. In other words, you just can't draw the conclusions your source lead you to. The part of Maricopa county that is now the 8th has not voted for a democratic since 1980. Trump won here by LESS than Romney or Bush. There was no dem candidate in 2016. Point being this was an ominous sign for the GOP no ifs, ands, or buts.
The flaw has already been established. Still doesn't take away from the left wing Brennnan Center report I posted that shows just how well Dems need to do to retake the house. And they are not averaging 11% above GOP and id be floored if they did that well in these gerrymandered districts. In short, the incorrect points do not change my analysis much and I am still not sweating.
The flaw has already been established. Still doesn't take away from the left wing Brennnan Center report I posted that shows just how well Dems need to do to retake the house. And they are not averaging 11% above GOP and id be floored if they did that well in these gerrymandered districts. In short, the incorrect points do not change my analysis much and I am still not sweating.
Others have had it in the +6-+8 range.
With that being said a race with a 5 point margin between 2 generic candidates in a district the GOP has been winning by 20+ points on the Presidential level isn't a good sign for them in November.
If ruby red districts are this close, what does that say for the swing districts held by the GOP?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,635,677 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
The problem with these concerns and facts is that the district was +21 for Donald Trump . . . it hasn't been anywhere near as lopsided in prior elections (Cook Partisan Voting Index is GOP +13). Donald Trump outperformed many GOP presidential candidates in many districts throughout the country (though he fared worse in a few). Donald Trump flipped districts (and lopsidedly so) that went lopsidedly to Barack Obama. To see Democrats competitive in many of these areas where they dominated or were otherwise more competitive for decades (and longer) before Trump shouldn't be a major warning sign to Republicans.
AZ-8 is a district that has shunned the GOP in the past during wave Democrat elections. Indeed, Gabby Giffords won the district in what was an upset in the Dem wave election year of 2006 (and she won it by a very healthy margin, too, though the GOP won it two years prior in a landslide: https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona%27s_...ional_District). If we were seeing signs of a true wave, I'd have expected the Dem to carry the district during the special election . . . instead, the Dem got fewer votes than the 95,000 or so votes the Dem candidate got in 2016.
Now, I do think that the Dems are more motivated than the GOP. But I think we'd need to see consistent/sustained major leads in the generic congressional ballot in their favor before I truly start to sweat things.
I honestly think that Trump is going to have a somewhat similar impact that Obama had on the electoral process and consistently perform very well among his base, even though other members of his party running for lessor offices are not as successful. Still, the real problem for Dems going into 2018, however, is that in many of the districts that will be competitive, the Dem primary base is far left. And far left candidates won't be as successful in many of the competitive districts in a general election. Simply put, most Dem nominees will not be of the mold of Connor Lamb.
The Dem advantage in the generic congressional ballot is nowhere close to 11 points on average.
That was a different 8th district that Gifford's won that covered a different part of the state. That area is now part of the 2nd district, which is a swing district. The area Trent Franks covered, which is what we are talking about, has NEVER been competitive for Democrats, they haven't even fielded candidates in some years
Back when I was teaching Econ, we used the phrase "ceteris paribus" as a disclaimer/qualifier when talking about markets. I also reminded my students that in the real world, "ceteris" is almost never "paribus".
The same idea applies to all of the election predictions because elections/voting are essentially market driven transactions.
All I can say with any confidence, "your guess is as good as mine".
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?
AZ08 has been a very strong GOP district for a while now. Trent Franks won by 37 in 2016, ran unopposed by a Dem in 2014, won by 28 in 2012. Just because Cook assessed it as +13 in light of the current political climate doesn't change that history.
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.
