California is about to experience a political earthquake. Here's why

[James Bond 007]

Originally Posted by shelato

This is a misleading argument. In the CA 03 (and I suspect the other districts you are discussing above ) there is no incumbent Republican candidate and the district attracted three fairly competitive Republican candidates which split the Republican vote whereas the Democratic vote consolidated around one candidate in the primary. Because the vote is split three ways, no single Republican candidate did as well as the leading Democratic candidate in that district in the open primary, but that doesn't mean in the general election in November that the Democrats are going to carry the CA 03.

I was looking at the CNN page, which for some reason, showed 3rd and 4th candidates for some races but not others. So I assumed the 2 candidates CNN was showing for the 3rd were the only 2 running in that district. I stand corrected.

Here are the official results for CA-03:
https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/r...rep/district/3

As I write this, the 2 dem candidates have 41,560 votes combined, and the 2 GOP candidates have 47,877 votes combined. So the dems are at about 46.5% to the GOP's 53.5% ... which would make their totals pretty close to their 538 rating.

[shelato]

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

I was looking at the CNN page, which for some reason, showed 3rd and 4th candidates for some races but not others. So I assumed the 2 candidates CNN was showing for the 3rd were the only 2 running in that district. I stand corrected.

Here are the official results for CA-03:
https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/r...rep/district/3

As I write this, the 2 dem candidates have 41,560 votes combined, and the 2 GOP candidates have 47,877 votes combined. So the dems are at about 46.5% to the GOP's 53.5% ... which would make their totals pretty close to their 538 rating.

Fair enough, for local races CNN doesn't always give the proper context, I see how you could make that assumption.