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.
That might be true to an extent, but keep in mind the districts we have had these special elections in have been in traditionally very Republican districts. Control of the House is not going to be determined by who wins a district like OH-12 in which has been solidly Republican and Trump and Romney both won by 11 points.
Control of the House is generally going to come down to results in districts Republicans hold that Trump lost in or won fairly narrowly in.
There was a special congressional election in western Pa. where Trump won by 19+%. Trump showed up to campaign for Republican Rick Saccone and Saccone lost.
Tom Price's old district should have a heavy Republican lean. Handel winning by less than 4% is a win but it also shows that Republicans have an uphill climb. If all the suburban races show the swing in votes from R to D that we saw with Handle, Balderson and Conor Lamb that will be a big problem for Republicans. Its the equivalent of Hilary 'only' losing a couple of percentage points from Obama's totals. Those couple of percent put WI, MI and PA in the R column. If the trend continues for house races Ds will not win solid R districts but they will be able to take enough swing and slightly R districts to put together a House Majority.
She still outperformed Trump in the district. That election was supposed to be a referendum on Trump, who barely carried the district. While the closeness of some of these races may be a sign that Republicans have an uphill to climb, I'm not convinced that this is the case. No one disputes that Democrats have been more excited than Republicans during this special election season, which has seen them come closer than that would have otherwise (arguably) in some of these districts. But, even with this increased enthusiasm, they haven't been able to close the deal in the overwhelming majority of cases. When GOP turnout returns to its historical norms during the November general, I'm not convinced that increased Dem enthusiasm will be able to blunt GOP turnout, especially in these heavily gerrymandered districts. Heck, it hasn't been enough to turn the tide during the special elections.
There was a special congressional election in western Pa. where Trump won by 19+%. Trump showed up to campaign for Republican Rick Saccone and Saccone lost.
And the GOP has won every other contested special election for Congress this cycle. I repeat that I'm not convinced of a so-called Dem wave coming. The generic ballot doesn't point to such a wave and actual election results (for special elections) don't point to a wave coming . . . indeed, for evidence of a wave, we'd expect to actually see Democrats turning the tide and winning many of these districts, which hasn't been the case.
And the GOP has won every other contested special election for Congress this cycle. I repeat that I'm not convinced of a so-called Dem wave coming. The generic ballot doesn't point to such a wave and actual election results (for special elections) don't point to a wave coming . . . indeed, for evidence of a wave, we'd expect to actually see Democrats turning the tide and winning many of these districts, which hasn't been the case.
Certainly there is no guarantee of a Democratic wave in the midterms. But prior to the 2010 midterm, Republicans did not succeed in flipping a single House seat in special elections. That didn't prevent them from having an extremely successful outcome that November, and thwarting many of Obama's priorities for the remainder of his presidency.
Every district is different and success in one does not necessarily translate into winning in another district. I think some posters (no one specific in this thread in particular) on both sides have a tendency to conflate what they WANT to happen with what they EXPECT will occur.
Certainly there is no guarantee of a Democratic wave in the midterms. But prior to the 2010 midterm, Republicans did not succeed in flipping a single House seat in special elections. That didn't prevent them from having an extremely successful outcome that November, and thwarting many of Obama's priorities for the remainder of his presidency.
Every district is different and success in one does not necessarily translate into winning in another district. I think some posters (no one specific in this thread in particular) on both sides have a tendency to conflate what they WANT to happen with what they EXPECT will occur.
That is not the case. In fact, the GOP won quite a few special elections before the 2010 cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specia...tates_Congress This includes two US Senate seats (IL and MA), and a few House elections. I will say that they had a stronger, more consistent lead in the generic ballot. That, and they were still benefiting from many districts that were drawn by GOP legislatures after the 2000 Census; but the same holds true today.
Note, its true that the Dems won a Senate seat in a traditionally GOP state during this cycle, but that was hardly a sign of Dem strength and, instead, more of a sign of a terribly flawed GOP candidate who was accused of rape, pedophilia, and who, even before these allegations surfaced, struggled to win over 50% of the vote during his previous statewide judicial races.
A lot can still change, but I'm not convinced at this stage based on what we know.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 08-12-2018 at 03:33 PM..
That is not the case. In fact, the GOP won quite a few special elections before the 2010 cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specia...tates_Congress This includes two US Senate seats (IL and MA), and a few House elections. I will say that they had a stronger, more consistent lead in the generic ballot. That, and they were still benefiting from many districts that were drawn by GOP legislatures after the 2000 Census; but the same holds true today.
Note, its true that the Dems won a Senate seat in a traditionally GOP state during this cycle, but that was hardly a sign of Dem strength and, instead, more of a sign of a terribly flawed GOP candidate who was accused of rape, pedophilia, and who, even before these allegations surfaced, struggled to win over 50% of the vote during his previous statewide judicial races.
A lot can still change, but I'm not convinced at this stage based on what we know.
My post was referring to House elections only, and did not include Scott Brown's Senate victory in Massachusetts. The Wikipedia link indicates that the Illinois Senate election took place on the same date as the regular midterm races on November 2, 2010.
Likewise in the House, the one special election that resulted in a seat switching parties was in Hawaii's 1st district won by Charles Djou on May 22, 2010. The previous year, New York's 23rd district actually flipped from Republican to Democrat in their special election. None of the other seats switched parties before the midterm, so there was (aside from vacancies) no net change in the House until the regular elections took place.
I do believe that the Alabama Senate seat is going to switch back to Republicans in 2020 (unless Roy Moore gets nominated again), just like the Massachusetts Senate seat switched back to Democrats in 2012. But that is out of scope for analysis of the 2018 midterms. Basically in many respects, 2018 is shaping up as a mirror image of 2010, although Democrats have much less potential for large scale gains than Republicans did eight years ago. But the potential for gaining enough seats to flip the House, or at least narrow the Republican majority substantially, certainly exists.
My post was referring to House elections only, and did not include Scott Brown's Senate victory in Massachusetts. The Wikipedia link indicates that the Illinois Senate election took place on the same date as the regular midterm races on November 2, 2010.
Likewise in the House, the one special election that resulted in a seat switching parties was in Hawaii's 1st district won by Charles Djou on May 22, 2010. The previous year, New York's 23rd district actually flipped from Republican to Democrat in their special election. None of the other seats switched parties before the midterm, so there was (aside from vacancies) no net change in the House until the regular elections took place.
I do believe that the Alabama Senate seat is going to switch back to Republicans in 2020 (unless Roy Moore gets nominated again), just like the Massachusetts Senate seat switched back to Democrats in 2012. But that is out of scope for analysis of the 2018 midterms. Basically in many respects, 2018 is shaping up as a mirror image of 2010, although Democrats have much less potential for large scale gains than Republicans did eight years ago. But the potential for gaining enough seats to flip the House, or at least narrow the Republican majority substantially, certainly exists.
Fair enough on Senate races, though Kirk won the special election to fill the seat, which just happened to be held on the same day as general election (he took off that same November).
Djou was, indeed, the only GOPer to win a special election held prior to the general election day.
The GOP held a nearly 10% advantage going into election day in 2010. While a lot can happen between now and November, Dems only hold an advantage of 3.9%; for comparison, the GOP was still in a much stronger position on the generic at the same point in time in 2010 vs where Dems are today.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 19 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,533,663 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
She still outperformed Trump in the district. That election was supposed to be a referendum on Trump, who barely carried the district. While the closeness of some of these races may be a sign that Republicans have an uphill to climb, I'm not convinced that this is the case. No one disputes that Democrats have been more excited than Republicans during this special election season, which has seen them come closer than that would have otherwise (arguably) in some of these districts. But, even with this increased enthusiasm, they haven't been able to close the deal in the overwhelming majority of cases. When GOP turnout returns to its historical norms during the November general, I'm not convinced that increased Dem enthusiasm will be able to blunt GOP turnout, especially in these heavily gerrymandered districts. Heck, it hasn't been enough to turn the tide during the special elections.
I think you are missing a bigger point.
She may have outperformed Trump, but she didnt outperform the Republican who had previously held the seat.
Thats a problem when national races start to mimic congressional ones. It means people are tying everyone together up and down the ballot.
That helps Republicans in the short run because of Gerrymandering, but what happens when North Carolina has to redraw their districts before 2020. Democrats are going to pick up atleast 2 seats in Pennsylvania, and could pick up as many as 5.
In North Carolina, many think that number could be 2 more permanent Democratic seats, and 2 to 4 toss up seats.
If districts vote party line,and districts are drawn more fairly, the Republican and Democratic parties are in for a fight.
She may have outperformed Trump, but she didnt outperform the Republican who had previously held the seat.
Thats a problem when national races start to mimic congressional ones. It means people are tying everyone together up and down the ballot.
That helps Republicans in the short run because of Gerrymandering, but what happens when North Carolina has to redraw their districts before 2020. Democrats are going to pick up atleast 2 seats in Pennsylvania, and could pick up as many as 5.
In North Carolina, many think that number could be 2 more permanent Democratic seats, and 2 to 4 toss up seats.
If districts vote party line,and districts are drawn more fairly, the Republican and Democratic parties are in for a fight.
The Republican who previously held the seat was the incumbent. Special elections are often weird and quirky events where the unexpected happens. Still, as I mentioned before, in an election that had been pegged as a referendum on POTUS, the baseline wasn't the percentage that an incumbent won the district by, but rather by Trump's performance in the district. Note, I fully expect Handel, as the incumbent, to win handily in November.
As for NC redrawing congressional districts, the good thing is that, in NC, the legislature alone draws districts. The governor plays no role and cannot veto maps. I think NC is one of less than a handful (if not the only state) where redistricting is controlled entirely by the legislature. I don't expect the GOP to be voted out of power in the NC legislature anytime soon. https://www.brennancenter.org/analys...north-carolina
As for PA, while the GOP no longer controls the entire redistricting process given that they have a Dem governor who will likely be reelected, I expect the districts to be drawn by the courts. But the courts tend not to deviate from the most recent approved redistricting maps, which was controlled by the GOP.
As for districts being drawn more "fairly," I think there's something to be said for keeping things the way they are. Note, many of the districts that Republicans became competitive in throughout the south, as an example, were gerrymandered by Democrats when they controlled the region at the state level up until 2014 in many cases. But they couldn't gerrymander away political-demographic changes in politics as the population in those areas started to embrace the GOP at the state level. Also, many people choose to move to or live in a district precisely because it has a GOP or Dem tilt. I think it would be disastrous for policy wonks to try to invalidate these people's intentions by working to make the districts more "fair." I, for one, don't want to live in a "fair" district. I want my districts controlled by conservatives and will settle in a conservative city/state to get my result.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 19 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,533,663 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
The Republican who previously held the seat was the incumbent. Special elections are often weird and quirky events where the unexpected happens. Still, as I mentioned before, in an election that had been pegged as a referendum on POTUS, the baseline wasn't the percentage that an incumbent won the district by, but rather by Trump's performance in the district. Note, I fully expect Handel, as the incumbent, to win handily in November.
As for NC redrawing congressional districts, the good thing is that, in NC, the legislature alone draws districts. The governor plays no role and cannot veto maps. I think NC is one of less than a handful (if not the only state) where redistricting is controlled entirely by the legislature. I don't expect the GOP to be voted out of power in the NC legislature anytime soon. https://www.brennancenter.org/analys...north-carolina
As for PA, while the GOP no longer controls the entire redistricting process given that they have a Dem governor who will likely be reelected, I expect the districts to be drawn by the courts. But the courts tend not to deviate from the most recent approved redistricting maps, which was controlled by the GOP.
As for districts being drawn more "fairly," I think there's something to be said for keeping things the way they are. Note, many of the districts that Republicans became competitive in throughout the south, as an example, were gerrymandered by Democrats when they controlled the region at the state level up until 2014 in many cases. But they couldn't gerrymander away political-demographic changes in politics as the population in those areas started to embrace the GOP at the state level. Also, many people choose to move to or live in a district precisely because it has a GOP or Dem tilt. I think it would be disastrous for policy wonks to try to invalidate these people's intentions by working to make the districts more "fair." I, for one, don't want to live in a "fair" district. I want my districts controlled by conservatives and will settle in a conservative city/state to get my result.
The only state that Democrats controlled in 2014 on the legislative level in the South was Kentucky. All the rest were controlled by Republicans as of 2010 and redrawn between than and 2014.
As for "fair", im not even defining it by policy wonks, although, it can be said that the GOP is doing so now;
What Im saying is(using my own state as an example) that someone in Northern Birmingham shouldnt be voting for the same congressmen as someone in Washington County or Monroe county
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.
