Jump to content

2022 House Elections


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

That‚Äôs bc they don‚Äôt have the full data to do it yet.¬†¬†And won‚Äôt until September 30. ¬†Hard to say ‚Äúthis is what we are doing‚ÄĚ if the block data doesn‚Äôt back up. May be hard decisions if Hispanics were indeed undercounted and cost FL, TX and AZ a seat ¬†

Some of the nasty gerrymandering by both sides may be moot bc courts may have to step in and do it.  Oh and Marc Elias said they will be stepping in to protect VRA districts everywhere the GOP controls the whole process  

Oklahoma is, I believe, the only state to release maps. And it’s already a 100% GOP house delegation 

Yeah man, I get all that. But you'd think we'd be hearing rumblings or subtle references in more articles and twitter. I'm just hoping this doesn't end up being another foregone conclusion that ends up never materializing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

This is the conversation a lot of republican states are going to be having with the purpling of the suburbs. When you lean so heavily on the rural population for dominance, it makes drawing lines tricky.  

@bolverk I think Austin has gotten so population rich that they are going to have to pack at least one district in central Austin before they can start cracking the suburbs. 

It think it is really hard to predict who is voting in what elections when it is plain that we are in the midst of a realignment of the parties.

If you're a Republican, do you assume that you're going to continue to be competitive in the Valley (by which I mean that you don't get your ass handed to you)?  Or do you think that's going to be a one-off because the Democrats didn't do any door-knocking or other organizing during a pandemic?  

And for that matter, if you're a Republican, do you assume that a bunch of these people who never voted before in their lives, but who turned out in 2016 and 2020 are going to continue to show up and vote Republican?  

And finally, do you expect that a lot of the people in the suburbs come home to the GOP now that Trump is off the ballot and somewhat out of the headlines?  

From about 1980 to 2010, it was pretty damned easy to gerrymander because you could reliably predict how people were going to vote.  But I think there's been a whole lot of new uncertainty thrown into the process.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yeah man, I get all that. But you'd think we'd be hearing rumblings or subtle references in more articles and twitter. I'm just hoping this doesn't end up being another foregone conclusion that ends up never materializing. 

(Illinois, which can do some funny shit bc there’s no legal requirement in IL to have contiguous boundaries)

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

(Illinois, which can do some funny shit bc there’s no legal requirement in IL to have contiguous boundaries)

We should be rooting for states like Illinois and New York to be as aggressive as humanly possible to offset the shenanigans that will happen in Texas, Florida, and North Carolina.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

It think it is really hard to predict who is voting in what elections when it is plain that we are in the midst of a realignment of the parties.

If you're a Republican, do you assume that you're going to continue to be competitive in the Valley (by which I mean that you don't get your ass handed to you)?  Or do you think that's going to be a one-off because the Democrats didn't do any door-knocking or other organizing during a pandemic?  

And for that matter, if you're a Republican, do you assume that a bunch of these people who never voted before in their lives, but who turned out in 2016 and 2020 are going to continue to show up and vote Republican?  

And finally, do you expect that a lot of the people in the suburbs come home to the GOP now that Trump is off the ballot and somewhat out of the headlines?  

From about 1980 to 2010, it was pretty damned easy to gerrymander because you could reliably predict how people were going to vote.  But I think there's been a whole lot of new uncertainty thrown into the process.

 

I think this is partially true. The lack of door knocking and boots on the ground really really really hurt the democrats in down ballot elections. I also think that both¬†the RGV and Miami dade will flip back to solid blue. The republicans successfully convinced people in these counties that the shut downs are ‚Äú all the democrats fault‚ÄĚ and these people voted Republican because they just want to work and don‚Äôt care about much else.¬†

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

 


Democrats control the governorship, Supreme Court, and Board of Elections.

 

Gov can’t veto maps and SC is only 4-3 D. But there’s hope 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

I think this is partially true. The lack of door knocking and boots on the ground really really really hurt the democrats in down ballot elections. I also think that both¬†the RGV and Miami dade will flip back to solid blue. The republicans successfully convinced people in these counties that the shut downs are ‚Äú all the democrats fault‚ÄĚ and these people voted Republican because they just want to work and don‚Äôt care about much else.¬†

And I also think there will be some regression in the suburbs back toward the GOP.

But how much, I don't know.  And if I'm a legislator, I wouldn't be too keen on betting my job on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

Once again,  we need New York to play hard ball here to offset GOP advantages elsewhere. If I were the democrats, I’d try really hard to get rid of Elise Stefanik.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

Once again,  we need New York to play hard ball here to offset GOP advantages elsewhere. If I were the democrats, I’d try really hard to get rid of Elise Stefanik.

Sadly, she’s likely going to survive as the sole red upstate district.  Tom Reed isn’t just retiring because of the honk-honk squeeze squeeze. 

Ive said for years, the democrats need to stop fucking themselves with nonpartisan redistricting until Texas and Florida also agree to disarm.

Edited by Bateshorn
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

 

I actually root for this guy to win every year because he’s a red state Republican who supports the legalization of marijuana. If / when he dies they will probably replace him with some tea party stiff who votes no on everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jana Lynne Sanchez (the leading Dem) is currently in 3rd place, where she trails #2, Jake Ellzey, by 366 votes.

Only 9% of Tarrant county precincts are left to report. Pretending these precincts are identical to the ones that already reported in Tarrant County, there are 4723 votes still left to count. She is pulling 15.7% of the vote there currently while Ellzey is getting 8.1%. Assuming the remainder break the same way, she'll net another 741 votes compared to 382 for Ellzey. This will put her behind Ellzey by 8 votes.

She needs to hope those final precincts are in populous areas of Fort Worth or the Dems are going to be locked out of the runoff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The DCCC didn’t invest in this race bc this district, as is, won’t exist in 2022. No idea what it’ll look like. 

Will suck to get locked out. So many no name Dems ran for no reason. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dems collectively beaten in votes by almost 2 to 1. Total turnout only 23% of November numbers, and only 31% of 2018 turnout. So those new Democratic suburban high propensity voters who were supposed to turn out failed to turn out. We have our first data point showing that one of our key assumptions of the post-Trump electoral landscape may be flawed. Either those voters who switched allegiance the last few years aren't dying to head to the polls, or they didn't switch after all.

Meanwhile, this bullshit was posted on DailyKos yesterday. Idiots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was an off year election timed with a bunch of municipal races on a Saturday in April.  With like 24 candidates.

RE. LAX.

The National party also didn’t touch this race due to: redistricting bc the seat as it will be drawn differently in a few months, minimum $1m investment likely needed to flip it for only a few months and the fucking widow of the dead rep was running. If the Dem somehow advanced and won, the Texas GOP would have carved this seat into pieces and the DCCC would be out a million bucks needed for 2022. 

This race itself got like zero publicity. I think I forgot it was even happening this past weekend. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Js1 said:
 

This race was extremely low-key. There’s not even GOP gloating this morning. The amount of GAF is/was zero. 

Option 2 should have happened. It would have been valuable for party leadership and activists to learn, early on and unequivocally, that their base has a motivation problem. Instead, this election gets swept under the rug, excuses are made, and we don't hear anything until Virginia later this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

Option 2 should have happened. It would have been valuable for party leadership and activists to learn, early on and unequivocally, that their base has a motivation problem. Instead, this election gets swept under the rug, excuses are made, and we don't hear anything until Virginia later this year.

We have that New Mexico special on June 1. Traditional 1-v-1 race 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, berlinerbaer said:

Dems collectively beaten in votes by almost 2 to 1. Total turnout only 23% of November numbers, and only 31% of 2018 turnout. So those new Democratic suburban high propensity voters who were supposed to turn out failed to turn out. We have our first data point showing that one of our key assumptions of the post-Trump electoral landscape may be flawed. Either those voters who switched allegiance the last few years aren't dying to head to the polls, or they didn't switch after all.

Meanwhile, this bullshit was posted on DailyKos yesterday. Idiots.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2021 at 10:16 AM, Js1 said:

It was an off year election timed with a bunch of municipal races on a Saturday in April.  With like 24 candidates.

RE. LAX.

The National party also didn’t touch this race due to: redistricting bc the seat as it will be drawn differently in a few months, minimum $1m investment likely needed to flip it for only a few months and the fucking widow of the dead rep was running. If the Dem somehow advanced and won, the Texas GOP would have carved this seat into pieces and the DCCC would be out a million bucks needed for 2022. 

This race itself got like zero publicity. I think I forgot it was even happening this past weekend. 

Este. 

It was high risk, low reward.  By staying out of the race, they also avoided creating an early latina vs. black vs. white progressive vs. labor shit fight that would have feed back on their already tender DC coalition. 

 

Also: Pelosi has an iron grip on her caucus. 

Edited by Bateshorn
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2021 at 1:01 PM, berlinerbaer said:

Option 2 should have happened. It would have been valuable for party leadership and activists to learn, early on and unequivocally, that their base has a motivation problem. Instead, this election gets swept under the rug, excuses are made, and we don't hear anything until Virginia later this year.

Did you know Democrats won virtually every house special in 2009 in the run up to 2010?  The GOP in 2017 in advance of 2018? 

Remember when the GOP was putting their nuts on the table after Ossoff lost to Karen Handel?  Specials this early in a presidency don’t mean shit.  Now, if the Democrats lose the VA governors race, then they may want to start worrying.

Edited by Bateshorn
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Este. 

It was high risk, low reward.  By staying out of the race, they also avoided creating an early latina vs. black vs. white progressive vs. labor shit fight that would have feed back on their already tender DC coalition. 

 

Also: Pelosi has an iron grip on her caucus. 

I'd buy an argument that the national party didn't want to make this into a race since they knew voter enthusiasm was minimal, although I'd point out that a single tweet from Biden (fuck, where was Beto?) would have sent Sanchez to the runoff. No need to endorse anyone. Just remind people to vote. An extra 1500 blue votes would have done it.

I'd rather not focus on the national party anyway, as I'm most concerned about Dem voter enthusiasm, or lack thereof. The fact is that the national party wasn't needed to win elections for Democrats during the Trump era. Add to the fact that it's more difficult for the Democratic party to manufacture enthusiasm among its supporters than it is for Republicans, and I'm not convinced things are just going to work themselves out in 2022.

 

8 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Did you know Democrats won virtually every house special in 2009 in the run up to 2010?  The GOP in 2017 in advance of 2018? 

Remember when the GOP was putting their nuts on the table after Ossoff lost to Karen Handel?  Specials this early in a presidency don’t mean shit.  Now, if the Democrats lose the VA governors race, then they may want to start worrying.

You can't just look at the win column. Democrats outperformed across the board in 2017, even if they came up short in flipping some deeply red districts left vacant by Trump appointees. Tom Price won GA-6 by 23 points in 2016. Ossoff came short by only 4 points a year later. Kansas, Montana, the VA elections, and of course Alabama Senate. Not all wins, but the trend was obvious.

2009 was a similar story for the Republicans. They lost close races trying to fill vacancies of Obama appointees, but those races shouldn't have been close on paper. It didn't take long for them to start winning.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

34 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

I'd buy an argument that the national party didn't want to make this into a race since they knew voter enthusiasm was minimal, although I'd point out that a single tweet from Biden (fuck, where was Beto?) would have sent Sanchez to the runoff. No need to endorse anyone. Just remind people to vote. An extra 1500 blue votes would have done it.

I'd rather not focus on the national party anyway, as I'm most concerned about Dem voter enthusiasm, or lack thereof. The fact is that the national party wasn't needed to win elections for Democrats during the Trump era. Add to the fact that it's more difficult for the Democratic party to manufacture enthusiasm among its supporters than it is for Republicans, and I'm not convinced things are just going to work themselves out in 2022.

 

You can't just look at the win column. Democrats outperformed across the board in 2017, even if they came up short in flipping some deeply red districts left vacant by Trump appointees. Tom Price won GA-6 by 23 points in 2016. Ossoff came short by only 4 points a year later. Kansas, Montana, the VA elections, and of course Alabama Senate. Not all wins, but the trend was obvious.

2009 was a similar story for the Republicans. They lost close races trying to fill vacancies of Obama appointees, but those races shouldn't have been close on paper. It didn't take long for them to start winning.

If you want to believe a special election 100 days into Biden’s presidency in a district that won’t exist in November of 2022 is a preview of elections to come, go wild. 

 

Edited by Bateshorn
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, berlinerbaer said:

I'd buy an argument that the national party didn't want to make this into a race since they knew voter enthusiasm was minimal, although I'd point out that a single tweet from Biden (fuck, where was Beto?) would have sent Sanchez to the runoff. No need to endorse anyone. Just remind people to vote. An extra 1500 blue votes would have done it.

I'd rather not focus on the national party anyway, as I'm most concerned about Dem voter enthusiasm, or lack thereof. The fact is that the national party wasn't needed to win elections for Democrats during the Trump era. Add to the fact that it's more difficult for the Democratic party to manufacture enthusiasm among its supporters than it is for Republicans, and I'm not convinced things are just going to work themselves out in 2022.

 

You can't just look at the win column. Democrats outperformed across the board in 2017, even if they came up short in flipping some deeply red districts left vacant by Trump appointees. Tom Price won GA-6 by 23 points in 2016. Ossoff came short by only 4 points a year later. Kansas, Montana, the VA elections, and of course Alabama Senate. Not all wins, but the trend was obvious.

2009 was a similar story for the Republicans. They lost close races trying to fill vacancies of Obama appointees, but those races shouldn't have been close on paper. It didn't take long for them to start winning.

I still think 2009-2010 will be much worse.  The republicans won a historic number of house seats what was it close to 70?  It won’t be that bad this time. The republicans also won a senate seat in Massachusetts. I think there was just an unprecedented huge Obama euphoria hangover amongst blue voters that didn’t clear up until Obama’s political career was on the line in 2012. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

 

If you want to believe a special election 100 days into Biden’s presidency in a district that won’t exist in November of 2022 is a preview of elections to come, go wild. 

 

Well, the Democrats won collectively something like 38% of the vote in a district in which Trump beat Biden by only 3 points.  That's . . . not a great showing.

I'm not saying that it's a previous of elections to come.  But I also don't think it's meaningless.  There's obviously some drop-off in Democratic-voter enthusiasm, as is to be expected.  

We'll see how this plays out later this year in other special elections and in the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia.  For now, I'm very mildly concerned--i.e., kind of my level of concern when we give up a field goal on the opening drive against some Louisiana directional school.

10 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

I still think 2009-2010 will be much worse.  The republicans won a historic number of house seats what was it close to 70?  It won’t be that bad this time. The republicans also won a senate seat in Massachusetts. I think there was just an unprecedented huge Obama euphoria hangover amongst blue voters that didn’t clear up until Obama’s political career was on the line in 2012. 

It was three things in 2010: (1) Democratic apathy, (2) Republican energy, and (3) a complete collapse of support for Democrats among Independents.

Perhaps the results in TX06 reflect Democratic apathy.  It's hard to tell yet.  As my post on the GQP thread discusses, I think there are reasons to think the opposite based on some school board elections.

I don't see much evidence of Republican energy.  Maybe you can convince me that the school board elections in Carroll ISD indicate some coming GQP wave.  I don't know.  But in 2011, you already had Tea Party protests against Obama.  In 2017, you already had the Women's March and a bunch of Resistance groups forming.  You have absolutely none of that now.

And there's no polling out there reflecting an Independent swing against Biden.  The polling strongly reflects the opposite.

We're a long way out.  But there's really no indication of a building blue wave out there.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well, the Democrats won collectively something like 38% of the vote in a district in which Trump beat Biden by only 3 points.  That's . . . not a great showing.

I'm not saying that it's a previous of elections to come.  But I also don't think it's meaningless.  There's obviously some drop-off in Democratic-voter enthusiasm, as is to be expected.  

We'll see how this plays out later this year in other special elections and in the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia.  For now, I'm very mildly concerned--i.e., kind of my level of concern when we give up a field goal on the opening drive against some Louisiana directional school.

Dave Wasserman wasn't wrong - there's a huge difference between college-education suburban voters who vote all the time and non-white voters who are not reliable voters.  Relying on those types of voters in an off-year election on a Saturday in April is.... not ideal. 

I absolutely also understand why the Dems did not engage in this race - high risk (blowing a shit ton of money and having to nationalize a race against a widow), low reward (the seat only lasting less than 18 months). 

Edited by Js1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2021 at 11:20 PM, Voldemort86 said:

Once again,  we need New York to play hard ball here to offset GOP advantages elsewhere. If I were the democrats, I’d try really hard to get rid of Elise Stefanik.

On 4/28/2021 at 6:50 AM, Bateshorn said:

Sadly, she’s likely going to survive as the sole red upstate district.  Tom Reed isn’t just retiring because of the honk-honk squeeze squeeze. 

Did somebody say Elise Stefanik?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/04/politics/elise-stefanik-running-republican-conference-chair/index.html

Quote

New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, a staunch defender of former President Donald Trump, is working behind the scenes to lock down enough support to replace Rep. Liz Cheney as the No. 3 in GOP leadership, multiple Republican sources said, moving swiftly to clear the field to ascend to the powerful position.

"The fix is in," said one Republican lawmaker who spoke to Stefanik on Tuesday. 

Quote

So far, no GOP challenger to Stefanik has emerged -- and at least two potential candidates have indicated they won't mount bids, increasing the likelihood that Stefanik will take the influential position. And members of the House GOP leadership are quietly backing Stefanik's ascent to the post, the sources said, a rapid turn of events amid Cheney's bitter feud with Trump, which has left her increasingly isolated in the House GOP Conference.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
√ó
√ó
  • Create New...