Worksheet for the 2018 Midterms (If There Is a Blue Wave, What Next for Democrats?)

This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 1587 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us and participate via our donation page, which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we’re doing this fundraiser and what we’ve accomplished in the last year, and our current goal, more original reporting.

By Lambert Strether of Corrente

Here is the latest iteration of my “Table 1” for the 2018 primaries. The structure is the same as the last iteration (‘‘Worksheet for the 2018 Midterms (Status Quo, with a Look at the Winners So Far)”). The districts in play as of July 25 are listed[1]. There are 80, and surely, if the Democrats are to win the 23 seats they need to win to take control of the House, those 23 are in that 80. All challenger data, except backers, is now updated, including backers and winners. As requested, winners are marked (with a blue star). As usual, the horserace information is the latest available from the Inside Elections and Cook Reports tipsheets. I’m going to use this data to answer three questions:

1) Who are the winnners?

2) What about the horserace? Even though my focus is institutional, everybody wants to know the answer to this question!

3) What about the left?

There are also other questions I hope to ask, but I’m under the gun to run my queries and get this enormous post up, so I may have to answer them in UPDATEs. I hope you will also feel free to ask questions in comments, and if I can cudgel the database into answering, I’ll post the answer.

Table 1: Worksheet on House Races, Election 2018 (10-25).

District Date Party Incumbent Horserace Horserace (Previous) PVI HRC Challengers
AR-02 05-22 R Hill Likely-R Likely-R R+17 -10.70 Gwen Combs (Women’s March; more) [m, e, w], Jonathan Dunkley (more) [e][M], Paul Spencer (Rural broadbamd) [e][M], Clarke Tucker (More) [DCCC, DP][fM]
AZ-01 08-28 D O’Halleran Lean-D Tilt-D R+02 -1.10 Miguel Olivas [DP]
AZ-02 08-28 R McSally Tilt-D Tilt-D R+01 4.90 William Foster, Matt Heinz [DP; h], Ann Kirkpatrick (more, more; but see here; more) [EL, DCCC, DP][fM], Billy Kovacs (More), Mary Matiella (more) [DFA, JD; m][M], Barbara Sherry (more), Bruce Wheeler (more) [DP][M], Yahya Yuksel [DP][M]
AZ-08 08-28 R VACANT Likely-R Likely-R R+13 -21.10 Judith McHale (McHale dropped out prior to the filing deadline), Bob Musselwhite (More) [DP; e], Bob Olsen [m, l], Hiral Tipirneni (More; more) [EL, IN; h][fM], Brianna Westbrook (More; more) [JD, OR][M]
CA-04 06-05 R McClintock Likely-R Likely-R R+10 -14.70 Regina Bateson. (More) [o], Roza Calderon (More. Also DSA-endorsed) [BN, JD, OR; s][M], Robert Lawton (More) [M], Richard Martin (More), Jessica Morse (More; more) [EL, GS; m][fM], Rochelle Wilcox (More) [l]
CA-07 06-05 D Bera Likely-D Likely-D D+03 11.40 No challenger
CA-10 06-05 R Denham Toss-Up Tilt-R EVEN 3.00 Mike Barkley [DP; m][M], Lisa Battista, Mateo Morelos Bedolla (More) [DP][M], Michael Eggman, Josh Harder [DCCC; e][M], Virginia Madueno [EL][fM], Dotty Nygard, Dotty Nygard [M], Seth Vaughn, Sue Zwahlen [DP]
CA-21 06-05 R Valadao Likely-R Likely-R D+05 15.50 TJ Cox (More) [DCCC], Emilio Huerta (More)
CA-25 06-05 R Knight Toss-Up Tilt-R EVEN 6.70 Bryan Caforio [JD, OR][M], Kelan Farrell-Smith (More), Daniel Fleming, Diedra Greenaway (More) [DP], Katie Hill [EL][fM], Michael Masterman-Smith (More) [h], Scott McVarish (More), Mary Pallant (more) [DP], Jess Phoenix [OR]
CA-39 06-05 R Royce Toss-Up Toss-Up EVEN 8.60 Jay Chen (More) [m, in, s, e][M], Gil Cisneros (more; more) [DCCC; m], Sam Jammal (more) [DP][M], Phil Janowicz (More) [e], Suzi Park Leggett [DP], Ted Rusk, Cybil Steed (more) [e], Andy Thorburn (more) [OR; e][M], Mai Khanh Tran (more, more) [EL; h]
CA-45 06-05 R Walters Toss-Up Lean-R R+03 5.40 Brian Forde, Brian Forde [DP; s], John Graham, Kia Hamadanchy [DP][M], Dave Min (CAP) [DP], Katie Porter [DFA, EL, PCCC, DCCC][M], Greg Ramsay, Eric Rywalski, Ron Varasteh
CA-48 06-05 R Rohrabacher Tilt-D Tilt-R R+04 1.70 Hans Keirstead [h][fM], Michael Kotick, Laura Oatman, Rachel Payne (Googler; more) [EL; s], Harley Rouda [IN, DCCC], Deanie Schaarsmith, Omar Siddiqui [in][fM], Tony Zarkades [m][M]
CA-49 06-05 R Issa Lean-D Toss-Up R+01 7.50 Douglas Applegate [JD; m][M], Sara Jacobs (more) [EL, DP][M], Paul Kerr (more ) [m][M], Mike Levin (more) [DFA, PCCC, DCCC, DP][M]
CA-50 06-05 R Hunter Likely-R Likely-R R+11 -15.00 Pierre Beauregard (More) [DP], Josh Butner [m], Ammar Campa-Najjar. (More; more; more) [DFA, IN, JD, OR, PCCC, DP][M], Gloria Chadwick (More) [h, w], Glenn Jensen (More), Patrick Malloy (More; more) [M], Alex Spilger (more)
CO-06 06-26 R Coffman Tilt-D Tilt-R D+02 8.90 Jason Crow [DCCC, DP; m], Erik Stanger, Erik Stanger [M], Levi Tillemann [OR, DP][M]
FL-07 08-28 D Murphy Likely-D Lean-D EVEN 7.30 Chardo Richardson [BN, JD; m][M]
FL-13 08-28 D Crist Safe-D Safe-D D+02 3.20 No challenger
FL-26 08-28 R Curbelo Tilt-R Tilt-R D+06 16.30 Demetries Grimes [m], Ricky Junquera (more), Steven Machat [DP][M], Debbie Mucarsel-Powell [EL, DCCC], Steve Smith [m]
FL-27 08-28 R Ros-Lehtinen Lean-D Lean-D D+05 19.60 Mary Barzee Flores [EL], Kristen Rosen Gonzalez (more) [DP; e], Matt Haggman, Michael Hepburn (more) [BN, JD; e], Mark Anthony Person, David Richardson (more, more) [DP][M], Jose Javier Rodriguez (more) [DP], Ken Russell [DP], Donna Shalala (more; more) [EL, DP]
GA-06 05-22 R Handel Likely-R Likely-R R+08 -1.50 Kevin Abel (Runoff, July 24. Abel), Steven Knight Griffin [h][fM], Bobby Kaple (More; more. ), Lucy McBath (Runoff, July 24. More; more) [EL, DCCC]
GA-07 05-22 R Woodall Likely-R Likely-R R+09 -6.30 Kathleen Allen (More) [h][M], Carolyn Bourdeaux (Run-off July 24. More; more) [EL, DP; e], Melissa Davis (More), David Kim (Run-off July 24. More. ) [e], Ethan Pham [fM], Steve Reilly
IA-01 06-05 R Blum Lean-D Toss-Up D+01 -3.50 Abby Finkenauer [EL, DCCC, DP], Thomas Heckroth [DP], George Ramsey [m, l], Courtney Rowe [JD; m][M]
IA-03 06-05 R Young Toss-Up Likely-R R+01 15.30 Cindy Axne (More) [EL, DCCC][fM], Pete D’Alessandro (More; more) [JD, OR; s][M], Eddie Mauro
IL-06 03-20 R Roskam Tilt-D Tilt-R R+02 7.00 Becky Anderson (Becky Anderson), Sean Casten (more) [DCCC][fM], Carole Cheney [DP], Grace Haaf (More), Amanda Howland [DP; e], Ryan Huffman [DP][M], Kelly Mazeski (“A Medicare-for-all public option.”) [fM], Geoffrey Petzel (More), Austin Songer, Becky Anderson Wilkins (more), Jennifer Zordani
IL-12 03-20 R Bost Tilt-R Lean-R R+05 -14.80 David Bequette [m], Brendan Kelly (more) [DCCC; m, in, l]
IL-13 03-20 R R. Davis Lean-R Likely-R R+03 -5.50 Jonathan Ebel (More) [m, in], David Gill (More; more) [BN; h][M], Erik Jones (More; more) [DP; l][fM], Betsy Londrigan (More) [EL, DCCC, DP; w][fM], Angel Sides (More) [M], Benjamin Webb (More) [e], Mark Wicklund (More)
IN-02 05-08 R Walorski Likely-R Likely-R R+11 -23.20 Aaron Bush, Douglas Carpenter (More) [h][fM], Pat Hackett (More) [fM], Mel Hall (More) [OR, DP; h], Yatish Joshi (More) [DP][fM], Roland Leech, John Petroff (More)
KS-02 08-07 R Jenkins Toss-Up Lean-R R+10 -18.40 Paul Davis [DCCC, DP], Nathan Schmidt (more) [DP]
KS-03 08-07 R Yoder Tilt-D Lean-R R+04 1.30 Sharice Davids (More; more) [EL], Chris Haulmark (More), Reggie Marselus, Mike McCamon (“Create a single-payer Option”) [s], Tom Niermann [e], Andrea Ramsey (More) [EL], Jay Sidie, Brent Welder [BN, JD, OR, PCCC, DP][M], Sylvia Williams
KY-06 05-22 R Barr Toss-Up Toss-Up R+09 -15.30 Jim Gray (more) [DP], Theodore Green, Daniel Kemph, Amy McGrath [DCCC, DP; m], Reggie Thomas [DP; e], Geoff Young (perennial candidate)
ME-02 06-12 R Poliquin Toss-Up Lean-R R+02 -17.60 Phil Cleaves (Dexter rural mail carrier), Jonathan Fulford (more; withdrawal) [DP][fM], Jared Golden (more; ) [GS, DCCC, DP; m][M], Craig Olson (More) [DP][fM], Tim Rich (More), Lucas St. Clair (More; more; more; more) [M]
MI-06 08-07 R Upton Likely-R Likely-R R+04 -8.40 David Benac (More) [BN, JD, DP; e][M], Paul Clements (More) [e][M], Rich Eichholz [s][fM], George Franklin (More) [DP], Eponine Garrod (More; more) [s], Aida Gray [m], Matt Longjohn (More) [h]
MI-07 08-07 R Walberg Likely-R Likely-R R+07 -17.00 Gretchen Driskell (More) [EL, DCCC, DP], Steven Friday (More; more) [m, s][M]
MI-08 08-07 R Bishop Toss-Up Lean-R R+04 -6.70 Elissa Slotkin (Money race; “the real deal”; Biden endorses) [EL, DCCC, DP; m, in][fM], Chris Smith
MI-11 08-07 R Trott Toss-Up Toss-Up R+04 -4.40 Tim Greimel (Site not responsive) [DP], Suneel Gupta, Dan Haberman [fM], Fayrouz Saad [DFA, JD, DP][M], Haley Stevens [EL, DP]
MN-01 08-14 D Walz Toss-Up Toss-Up R+05 -14.90 Johnny Akzam [M], Dan Feehan (more, more, more) [DCCC, DP; m], Vicki Jensen [DP], Bob Ries (more) [m], Joe Sullivan, Rich Wright (more) [DP; m, l][M]
MN-02 08-14 R Lewis Tilt-D Toss-Up R+02 -1.20 Angie Craig (more) [EL, DCCC], Jeff Erdmann (more) [e][M]
MN-03 08-14 R Paulsen Tilt-D Lean-R D+01 9.40 Brian Santa Maria [M], Adam Jennings (more) [m], Dean Phillips [DCCC]
MN-07 08-14 D Peterson Likely-D Likely-D R+12 -30.80 No challenger
MN-08 08-14 D Nolan Toss-Up Toss-Up R+04 -15.60 Kirsten Hagen Kennedy (more) [DP], Michelle Lee [M], Jason Metsa (more) [DP], Leah Phifer (more) [in][M], Joe Radinovich [DCCC, DP]
MT-01 06-05 R Gianforte Likely-R Likely-R R+11 -20.60 John Heenan (More; more; more) [BN; s][M], Grant Kier (More; more) [DP], John Meyer, Lynda Moss (More) [DP], Jared Pettinato (More; ) [DP; l], Kathleen Williams (More; more; more) [EL, DP], Tom Woods (More. ) [DP; e]
NC-09 05-08 R Pittenger Tilt-R Tilt-R R+08 -11.60 Christian Cano (More; more) [fM], Dan McCready (More; more) [DCCC; m], Maria Warren (More) [e]
NC-13 05-08 R Budd Tilt-R Likely-R R+06 -9.40 Adam Coker (More) [DP], Kathy Manning (More; ; more; more) [EL, DCCC], Beniah McMiller
NM-02 06-05 R Pearce Tilt-R Lean-R R+06 -10.20 David Alcon (More), David Baake (More), Ronald Fitzherbert, Madeleine Hildebrandt [m, e], Tony Martinez (More; more) [m], Angel Pena (More; more), Xochitl Torres Small (More; more; more) [EL, DCCC, DP], Adolf Zubia (More)
NE-02 05-15 R Bacon Lean-R Tilt-R R+04 -2.20 Brad Ashford [DP], Kara Eastman (On her conversion to #MedicareForAll; more) [DFA, EL, IN, JD, PCCC, DCCC; e][M]
NH-01 09-11 D Shea-Porter Tilt-D Tilt-D R+02 -1.60 Mark S. Mackenzie (more, more) [DP], Deaglan McEachern (more) [DP], Mindi Messmer (more) [BN; s][M], Terence O’Rourke [m, l][M], Chris Pappas (more) [DP], Levi Sanders (more; more) [M], Lincoln Soldati [l], Maura Sullivan (more) [EL, DP; m]
NJ-02 06-05 R LoBiondo Likely-D Likely-D R+01 -4.60 Will Cunningham (more) [DP], Sean Thom (more) [e][M], Jeff Van Drew (more) [DCCC, DP], Tanzie Youngblood (more) [e]
NJ-03 06-05 R MacArthur Tilt-D Likely-R R+02 -6.20 Rich Dennison (More) [DP], Katherine Hartman (More), Andrew Kim (More; more) [PCCC, DCCC; m, in], Frederick John Lavergne (More) [DP]
NJ-05 06-05 D Gottheimer Safe-D Safe-D R+03 -1.10 No challenger (Now safe D)
NJ-07 06-05 R Lance Tilt-R Tilt-R R+03 1.10 Peter Jacob (On the Justice Democrats; Congressional candidate plans ‘Medicare-for-all’ town hall in Bedminster) [BN, JD, OR][M], Goutam Jois, Tom Malinowski [IN, DCCC, DP]
NJ-11 06-05 R Frelinghuysen Tilt-D Tilt-D R+03 -1.00 Mitchell Cobert [l], Jack Gebbia (more) [m], Tamara Harris (more), Alison Heslin, Mikie Sherrill (more) [EL, DCCC; m, l][M], Mark Washburne [e][M]
NV-03 06-12 D Rosen Tilt-D Tilt-D R+02 -1.00 Richard Hart, Susie Lee (more; more)) [EL, DCCC; e], Jack Love [M], Guy Pinjuv (more) [s], Steve Schiffman, Eric Stoltz, Michael Weiss (more) [M]
NV-04 06-12 D Kihuen Likely-D Likely-D D+03 4.90 John Anzalone (more) [e], Steven Horsford (more) [DCCC, DP], Patricia Spearman (more) [DP; m][M], Allison Stephens (more) [DP; e], Amy Vilela (more) [BN, IN, JD][M], Sid Zeller [m, in]
NY-11 06-26 R Donovan Likely-R Likely-R R+03 -9.80 Michael DeVito, Jr. (More) [m, e][M], Zach Emig (Bond trader; more) [M], Radhakrishna Mohan (More), Max Rose (More; more; more) [DCCC; m, l][fM], Paul Sperling (More), Omar Vaid (More) [fM]
NY-19 06-26 R Faso Tilt-D Tilt-R R+02 -6.80 Jeff Beals [JD; in, e][M], David Clegg [M], Erin Collier (more) [EL, DP], Antonio Delgado [IN, DCCC][fM], Brian Flynn [M], Gareth Rhodes [DP][M], Pat Ryan [m, in][fM]
NY-22 06-26 R Tenney Tilt-D Tilt-R R+06 -15.50 Anthony Brindisi [DCCC, DP][fM]
NY-24 06-26 R Katko Likely-R Likely-R D+03 3.60 Dana Balter (More; more; more) [DFA, EL, IN, GS, OR, PCCC, DCCC, DP; e][M], Scott Comegys (More; more; more) [DP], Philip LaTessa [DP], Anne Messenger (More; more) [fM], Juanita Perez Williams (More; more; more: more) [DP; m, e][fM]
OH-01 05-08 R Chabot Lean-R Likely-R R+05 -6.60 Robert Barr (More), Aftab Pureval (More; more; more) [DCCC; l], Laura Ann Weaver (More) [h][fM]
OH-12 05-08 R VACANT Tilt-R Tilt-R R+07 -11.30 Ed Albertson (More; more) [m][fM], Crystal Lett (More: ) [w], Danny O’Connor (More; more; more) [DP], Jackie Patton (More; more; ) [h, w], John Peters [e], John Russell (More; more) [IN][M], Zach Scott (More; more; more) [l], Doug Wilson [h][M]
OH-14 05-08 R Joyce Likely-R Likely-R R+05 -11.50 Betsy Rader [EL, DCCC]
PA-01 05-15 R Fitzpatrick Toss-Up Tilt-R D+31 61.30 Steve Bacher [DP; e][M], Rachel Reddick [EL; m], Scott Wallace (more) [IN, DCCC, DP]
PA-05 05-15 R Meehan Likely-D Likely-D R+13 -28.80 Larry Arata [e], George Badey (more) [DP], Shelly Chauncey (more) [in][fM], Margo Davidson [DP], Thaddeus Kirkland [DP], Richard Lazer (more) [DP][M], Lindy Li (more), Ashley Lunkenheimer (more) [l], Dan Muroff (more; more) [DP], Mary Gay Scanlon [EL], Molly Sheehan (more) [s][M], Greg Vitali (more) [DP], David Wertime, Theresa Wright
PA-06 05-15 R Costello Likely-D Likely-D R+02 0.60 No challenger
PA-07 05-15 R Dent Lean-D Tilt-D R+01 2.30 David Clark, Rick Daugherty [DP], Greg Edwards [JD][M], John Morganelli [DP; l], Roger Ruggles (more) [e], Susan Wild (more; more) [EL, DCCC; l]
PA-08 05-15 R Cartwright Lean-D Lean-D R+02 -0.20 No challenger
PA-10 05-15 R Perry Lean-R Likely-R R+16 -35.90 Shavonnia Corbin-Johnson (More; more; more; more) [EL, DP; w], Eric Ding (More; more) [s, h][fM], Alan Howe (More; more; more) [m][fM], George Scott (More; more; more) [IN; m, in][fM]
PA-17 05-15 R Rothfus Lean-D Toss-Up R+01 -10.10 Conor Lamb [m, l], Ray Linsenmayer (Dropped out (oddly). More; more; more)
TX-07 03-06 R Culberson Tilt-R Tilt-R R+07 1.40 Joshua Butler [h, e], James Cargas [DP], Lizzie Pannill Fletcher [EL, DCCC], Laura Moser (more) [JD, DP], Ivan Sanchez [DP][fM], Alex Triantaphyllis, Jason Westin (background; reflections on his loss) [h]
TX-21 03-06 R Smith Likely-R Likely-R R+10 -10.00 Derrick Crowe (More; more) [JD, DP][M], Joseph Kopser (More; more; more; more; more; more; more; more) [m][fM], Elliott McFadden (More) [DP][M], Rixi Melton [e][M], Mary Wilson (More; more; more) [e][M]
TX-23 03-06 R Hurd Lean-R Toss-Up R+01 3.40 Gina Ortiz Jones [DFA, EL, DCCC, DP; m, l][M], Rick Trevino [BN, JD, OR, DP][M]
TX-32 03-06 R Sessions Toss-Up Toss-Up R+05 1.90 Colin Allred (More; more; more; more) [DCCC, DP][fM], David Henry, , Steve Love, [m, s], Todd Maternowski, Ed Meier (More; more) [DP][fM], Danielle Pellett (More) [m, s], Chris Suprun, Darrell Rodriguez, George Rodriguez (More) [fM], Lillian Salerno (More: more) [DP][fM], Brett Shipp (More; more) [fM]
UT-04 06-26 R Love Lean-R Lean-R R+13 -6.70 Sheldon Kirkham (more), Ben McAdams [DCCC, DP], Darlene McDonald [JD; s][M], Morgan Shepherd, Tom Taylor [s][M]
VA-02 06-12 R Taylor Tilt-R Likely-R R+03 -3.40 Elaine Luria (More; more) [EL, DCCC; m], Karen Mallard (More) [DP; e]
VA-05 06-12 R Garrett Likely-R Likely-R R+06 -11.10 Leslie Cockburn (More; more) [EL][M], Ben Cullop (More; more; more) [e], (More) [m], Adam Slate, Andrew Sneathern (More; more) [l][fM]
VA-07 06-12 R Brat Toss-Up Lean-R R+06 -6.50 Abigail Spanberger (More; more) [EL, DCCC; in, l, e], Dan Ward (More; more; more) [m]
VA-10 06-12 R Comstock Tilt-D Toss-Up D+01 10.00 Shadi Ayyas [DP; h], Julia Biggins (more) [s], Alison Kiehl Friedman (more) [DP; in], Daniel Helmer (more) [m][fM], Julien Modica, Paul Pelletier (more) [l], Michael Pomerleano (more), Lindsey Davis Stover (more) [DP], Jennifer Wexton (more) [EL, DCCC, DP; l]
WA-05 08-07 R McMorris Rodgers Lean-R Likely-R R+08 -20.10 Lisa Brown (More; more; more) [EL, IN, DCCC, DP; e], Matt Sutherland
WA-08 08-07 R Reichert Toss-Up Toss-Up EVEN 3.00 Poga Ahn, Thomas Cramer [M], Shannon Hader (more) [h], Robert Hunziker (more) [M], Brian Kostenko [M], Jason Rittereiser (more; more) [IN; l][M], Kim Schrier (more) [EL, IN; h]
WI-01 08-14 R Ryan Lean-R Lean-R R+19 -10.30 Randy Bryce (more) [DFA, JD, PCCC, DCCC][fM], Cathy Myers (more) [e][M]
WV-03 05-08 R Jenkins Lean-R Likely-R R+23 -49.20 Paul Davis [DCCC], Janice Hagerman, Shirley Love (More; ) [DP], Richard Ojeda (More; more; more) [DCCC, DP; m][fM]
  • Bio keys are m, i, l, and o) for Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Other (except I didn’t find any Others this time[5]). A candidate who worked for the CIA is keyed i. A candidate who worked in Law enforcement and the military is keyed “lm.” “Law Enforcement” is conceived broadly, including not only police but district attorneys.
  • Backer keys are BN, EL, GS, IN, JD, OR, and DCCC, Brand New Congress, Emily’s List, Great Slate, Indivisible, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, and (of course) the DCCC. In addition, there is a DP key, for members of the Democrat Party network, elected and otherwise, and S, for challengers inspired by Sanders.
  • Policy keys are M, fM, for Medicare for All, and any of the various bait-and-switch alternatives proposed by think tanks like CAP, or centrists like Merkeley. Some judgement is involved, based on the verbiage. “Single payer” always merits an “M,” for example.

Table 2: The Winners, Election 2018 (10-25).

District Candidate Backers Endorsed By Bio Policies
AR-02 Tucker DCCC,DP fM
AZ-02 Kirkpatrick EL,DCCC,DP fM
AZ-08 Tipirneni EL,IN h fM
CA-04 Morse EL,GS m fM
CA-10 Harder DCCC Obama,Clinton (OT) e M
CA-21 Cox DCCC Obama,Clinton (OT)
CA-25 Hill EL Obama,Clinton (OT) fM
CA-39 Cisneros DCCC m
CA-45 Porter DFA,EL,PCCC,DCCC Obama,Clinton (OT) M
CA-48 Rouda IN,DCCC Obama,Clinton (OT)
CA-49 Levin DFA,PCCC,DCCC,DP Obama,Clinton (OT) M
CA-50 Campa-Najjar DFA,IN,JD,OR,PCCC,DP Obama M
CO-06 Crow DCCC,DP Clinton (OT) m
FL-26 Mucarsel-Powell EL,DCCC
FL-27 Shalala EL,DP
GA-06 McBath EL,DCCC Clinton (OT)
GA-07 Bourdeaux EL,DP e
IA-01 Finkenauer EL,DCCC,DP
IA-03 Axne EL,DCCC fM
IL-06 Casten DCCC Obama,Clinton (OT) fM
IL-12 Kelly DCCC Obama m,in,l
IL-13 Londrigan EL,DCCC,DP w fM
IN-02 Hall OR,DP h
KS-02 Davis DCCC,DP
KS-03 Davids EL
KY-06 McGrath DCCC,DP m
ME-02 Golden GS,DCCC,DP m M
MI-06 Longjohn h
MI-07 Driskell EL,DCCC,DP
MI-08 Slotkin EL,DCCC,DP m,in fM
MI-11 Stevens EL,DP
MN-01 Feehan DCCC,DP m
MN-02 Craig EL,DCCC
MN-03 Phillips DCCC
MN-08 Radinovich DCCC,DP
MT-01 Williams EL,DP
NC-09 McCready DCCC m
NC-13 Manning EL,DCCC
NM-02 Small EL,DCCC,DP
NH-01 Pappas DP
NJ-02 Van Drew DCCC,DP
NJ-03 Kim PCCC,DCCC Obama m,in
NJ-07 Malinowski IN,DCCC,DP Obama
NJ-11 Sherrill EL,DCCC m,l M
NV-03 Lee EL,DCCC Obama e
NV-04 Horsford DCCC,DP Obama,Clinton (OT)
NY-11 Rose DCCC m,l fM
NY-19 Delgado IN,DCCC Obama fM
NY-22 Brindisi DCCC,DP fM
OH-01 Pureval DCCC Obama,Clinton (OT) l
OH-12 O’Connor DP
OH-14 Rader EL,DCCC
PA-01 Wallace IN,DCCC,DP Clinton (OT)
PA-05 Scanlon EL Clinton (OT)
PA-07 Clark
PA-07 Daugherty DP
PA-07 Edwards JD Sanders M
PA-07 Wild EL,DCCC Obama,Clinton (OT) l
PA-10 Scott IN m,in fM
PA-17 Lamb m,l
TX-07 Fletcher EL,DCCC
TX-21 Kopser m fM
TX-23 Jones DFA,EL,DCCC,DP Clinton (OT) m,l M
TX-32 Allred DCCC,DP Obama fM
UT-04 McAdams DCCC,DP
UT-04 McDonald JD s M
VA-02 Luria EL,DCCC m
VA-05 Cockburn EL M
VA-07 Spanberger EL,DCCC in,l,e
VA-10 Wexton EL,DCCC,DP Clinton (OT) l
WA-05 Brown EL,IN,DCCC,DP e
WA-08 Schrier EL,IN h
WI-01 Bryce DFA,JD,PCCC,DCCC Sanders fM
WV-03 Davis DCCC

A quick scan of the table may yield some disturbing implications, depending on your political viewpoint, which I will address in Figure 3, and in subsequent updates.

Figure 2 (a): The Horserace

I’ve been dilatory about producing new worksheets — partly workload, partly because I think I already know the institutional story — but that gives us the opportunity of seeing shifts over a two-month span. Of the 80 districts we have been tracking, 43 have changed. I have shaded the seats where the handicappers’ ratings changed; for example, from Tossup to Lean-D. As you can see, the shift toward the Democrats (“Blue”) is enormous. I’ve sorted the table by districts so readers can check their own:

That’s a lot of bluel! Of course, the Democrats need to do more than shift districts; they need to win them. Of these districts that have shifted toward the Ds, how many are have actually moved into the D column? Let’s see:

Figure 2 (b): The Horserace and Likely Winners

Big caveat: This data comes from the 80 races I’ve been tracking from the beginning of this project, and I picked those 80 because handicappers, at the beginning of this election season, said those were the most likely to flip from Republican to Democrat (thus flipping the House, if the Democrats win 23 of the 80). It seemed to me further that these districts were where liberal Democrats would concentrate their resources (and where the left would challenge liberals, should they choose to do so.) However, the map may have expanded (see again note [1]), and districts may be in play now that are not members of the 80. So my sample could be bad for horserace purposes (even if useful for institutional purposes). Starting from this sample, if the Democrats are to pick up 23, they need to pick up the 15 listed above — the districts that have shifted into the D column from the R — plus 8 more from somewhere on the expanded map. Based on Figure 2 (b) the odds certainly look sketchier than most media coverage conveys.

As ever, the question is not “Can Democrats win?” but “Can these Democrats win?” Notice that Figure 2(b) divides neatly into two halves: The top half (A) where Clinton won the district in 2016 (HRC > 0), and the bottom half (B) where she did not. The top half (A) has 8 members of the 23 needed. Note also that the bottom half (B) of the table — the districts Clinton lost, though mostly not by much — is where the “pivot” districts are located; the districts that voted for Obama, and then flipped to Trump. Note that volatility is still concentrated in this part of the table: 8 toss-ups in the 8 rows of (A); 12 toss-ups in the 7 rows of (B). (I’m counting both current and previous toss-ups on the assumption that the district could flip back to its previous state.) In other words, the districts that flipped to Trump in 2016 have not “come home,” as we say. If the universe of districts is like Figure 2(b), the Democrats are right to be nervous that the “Blue Wave” might break before it reaches shore.

Figure 3(a): The Left (Medicare for All)

I view one effect of the 2016 as a split in the party between dominant liberal faction that controls the party machinery, and an insurgent left faction that, well, does not. (In fact, Obama punched the left right in the mouth when he booted Ellison and replaced him with Perez, and then the rest of the liberals joined in the stomping by removing all the Sanders supporters from the Rules and Bylaws Committee.) So, in our universe of 80, where is the left? Well, it seems to me that one good proxy for being on the left is support for Medicare for All (and not faux Medicare for All, either). Here are the winners of the 2016 Democrat Party primaries who support Medicare for All:

12 of 80; 15%.

Suppose we further refine the query by ruling out “MILO” candidates, on the theory that military, intelligence, and law enforcement officials are unlikely to be on the left:

Figure 3(b): The Left (Medicare for All and No MILOs

6 of 80; 7.50% (three of educational background; 1 of science).

Now let’s assume that the DCCC would “never, ever” back a candidate on the left, and filter out all those candidates:

Figure 3(c): The Left (Medicare for All and No MILOs and no DCCC)

2 of 80; 3.50% (and kudos to Justice Democrats).

Caveat: This exercise doesn’t imply that the left is not successfully challenging liberals elsewhere, in other districts, or at other levels of government, like state level races or school boards, etc. It does show that the left has not successfully challenged liberals in races that could reasonably be thought crucial to flipping control of the House in 2018. This exercise also doesn’t imply that challenges from the left are useless or to be avoided. All it shows is that this cycle the left is not going to gain control of the party machinery, or anything like it. (Which is not to say that left voices, especially voices like AOC, aren’t important; they are. Rome wasn’t burnt in a day, after all.) And two weeks is a long time in politics, as yesterday’s pipe bomb episode, however resolved, makes crystal clear!

* * *

Working through these queries has made me think of all sorts of other ideas; for example, I’d like to lay out liberal candidates and left candidates to see if they really challenged each other, how dominant DCCC (and Emily’s List) were, and all sorts of other questions. If you spot errors, please let me know, and I’ll fix them. And if you have other questions, please ask them, and perhaps I can formulate a query to answer them.


[1] Both the horserace enthusiasts I use expanded their maps, I’m guessing from an abundance of caution, in case the “Blue Wave” turns out to be a tsunami. Inside Elections: NC-02, NY-27, FL-15, FL-16, FL-18, FL-06, IA-04, PA-14, PA-16, TX-31, and WA-03. Cook Report: CA-16, FL-15, FL-16, IL-14, MO-02, NC-02, NY-27, PA-16, SC-01, TX-31, WA-03, AK-01, AZ-06, CO-03, FL-06, FL-18, FL-25, IA-04, MI-01, MI-03, NC-08, NY-01, NY-02, NY-21, OH-10, PA-14, TX-02, TX-22, TX-24, and WI-06. I simply don’t have the capacity to expand the table by that many rows, and for my purpose, which is not calling the horserace, but understanding the Democrat Party as an institution, I did not feel I needed to. So I didn’t.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Guest Post on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.


  1. apberusdisvet

    A lot of the analysis seems to be based upon polling which is highly problematic; especially given the 2016 polling fiasco. Too many of the 2016 polls were based upon disingenuous weighting of D responses over Rs; certainly a thumb on the scale to suppress the R vote. In this election, the early voting indicates a greater R response than the polls suggest, especially in the State of Florida.

    1. Yves Smith

      No, the polling in 2016 was accurate. It showed Trump as anywhere from even with Hillary to as much as down 11 on a national basis, with Hillary typically having a 2 to 4 point lead with the margin of error being 2 to 4 points depending on the poll. Hillary was up 4 post Labor Day but the margin tightened in the ten days before the election to IIRC 2 points. She won the popular vote by 3 points, which was completely line with the polls.

      Moreover, Lambert was in a decided minority in focusing on electoral college paths to victory. The supposed experts for the most part couldn’t be bothered to look at both hard data and telling anecdotes in swing states, like turnout at Trump rallies. As we know now, Trump was keenly focused on what it took to win, which was victory in the swing states and used his private jet to great advantage to do far more trips to battleground states, and then also in formats (rallies) designed to get local media coverage, while Clinton too often did her wrapped in tissue paper routine and met in small and/or elite groups.

      Lambert was updating the electoral college game close to daily in Water Cooler. He saw Trump go in the six weeks before the election from having hardly any electoral college paths to victory to having many new routes open up as election day approached. Lambert kept warning that a Trump win was way more likely than MSM reports were suggesting.

      Shorter: Lambert has a very solid track record and you diss him at your peril.

      1. XXYY

        As long as we’re on the subject of polling: The conventional wisdom is that predictive polling is somewhat unreliable because turnout is hard to predict; one can know with great accuracy how a particular segment will vote, but be wildly wrong on what fraction of the electorate consists of that segment. The wisdom is also that exit polling is the gold standard because it includes actual turnout effects.

        Is this in fact what we actually saw in 2016? I have never read a.clear conclusion or report on this.

        1. Skip Intro

          Raw polling information must always be weighted by demographic turnout models to make predictions. These models are rarely discussed but contain a number of important assumptions. I believe that the assumptions of Dem. turnout were based significantly on the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, which everyone but the Clintongang/DNC recognized had a very different dynamic from the 2016 election which featured the two of the least liked/trusted candidates ever to run for the office. These mistaken assumptions, combined with the use of polling as performative rather than predictive, led to massive complacency. It is the embodiment of the Democrat habit of taking certain demographics for granted.

          I believe this was confirmed by various studies, including exit polls, which showed depressed turnout and a number of Obama voters going for Trump. If you take places like Detroit for granted, after their experience, then you are asking for unpleasant surprises.

    2. Lambert Strether Post author

      > A lot of the analysis seems to be based upon polling

      I think the best way to think about the method I’m using is that it’s a meta-analysis of the work of horse-race analysts. (I like Inside Elections and Cook Political Report a lot better than FiveThirtyEight because they’re openly subjective, instead of wrapping their judgment calls in a numeric veneer.) Much like horse race touts, they’re not only using polls as input, but Beltway gossip, reporting from the ground, contacts in the campaigns, and good old seat-of-the-pants judgement. I picture them smoking cigars. So it’s not just polls.)

      I should also say, because the caveats I wrote in didn’t seem to do the job, that my main focus is institutional. I want to use these midterms as a lens to understand the institutional structure of the Democrat Party, which is a harder problem than one might think. So, Tables 2 and 3 are the results that are important to me, for that project. However, people want to know about the horserace! So I put that material first, adding the caveat that it’s repurposing a sample that really was not meant for that purpose. (The districts mentioned in Note [1], for example, may provide the Democrat margin of victory, which I’m not seeing because my sample does not see it.)

      Two weeks is a long time in politics! We’ll see what happens!

  2. a different chris

    Ok I’ve been too embarrassed to ask this question for like a decade now, but here it is:

    Does the rating go “likely, lean, tilt, toss-up” or “likely, tilt, lean, toss-up”???

  3. allan

    FiveThirtyEight has pointed out that there are four races that are at least somewhat competitive
    but (as of Oct. 22) have seen no public polling, and none of these are on Lambert’s list:

    CO-3 Toss-up
    IN-9 Lean R
    NY-2 Lean R
    WI-6 Lean R

    The candidate in NY-02 Liuba Gretchen Shirley, supports Medicare for All:

    I would support HR 676 Medicare for All. Health care is a human right.

    There may be some surprises on Nov. 6

    1. Lambert Strether Post author

      > There may be some surprises on Nov. 6

      Entirely possible!

      CO-03 and NY-02 are in Note [1] (the “expanded map”). See that note for context; it would take a long time to add those districts to the level of detail I’ve done for all the other districts; time I did not have. And while doing the expanded map would help with the horse-race, I don’t think it’s a requirement for understanding the Democrat Party as an institution, which is my primary goal.

  4. cm

    I see WA-03 mentioned in the footnote, but here on the ground, it looks like Long (D) has a good chance of beating Herrera-Beutler.

      1. cm

        This is a good article.

        JHB is in her fifth term, and has been phoning it home for years. She has one of the worst attendance rates in the House, missing many votes. Part of that is due to her child’s health problems, which she is happy to use her Congressional health plan, while trying to gut the ACA, medicaid, and other health programs for the rabble.

        Worst of all, she is too scared to host town halls and actually face her constituents. Instead she brags about her impromptu conference calls, where all questions are pre-screened. This stance has driven even Republicans to want her out.

        In contrast, Long is very well spoken (a college politics prof) and has made pressing the flesh (even w/ hostile crowds) her hallmark.

  5. Utah

    Lambert, you’ve got two people winning UT-04 on your list, and then you attribute that win to McDonald, which is wrong. McAdams won that primary, the DCCC candidate. Though in my opinion McDonald would have made a better challenger.

    1. edmondo

      Ditto PA-07. Edwards was the Bernie acolyte who lost (naturally) to Wild who could be the female version of Hillary Clinton.

        1. edmondo

          One last fix:
          Richard Ojeda is the Dem nominee in WV-03. He beat the DCCC choice (Davis) like a drum in the primary. I find Ojeda to be one of the more interesting Dems running. He voted for Trump in 2016 because Hillary. He supported Red for Ed teachers strike in WV and believes that government should provide “concrete material benefits” (where have I heard that phrase before?) to citizens. Should he win, I could see him being a natural ally with AOC even though he is from one of the reddest states in the Union. He would give Pelosi agita at the very least.

  6. Llewelyn Moss

    I sure hope the Dems take over the House. After McConnel said out loud on teevee that he plans to Gut Social Security and Medicare to fix the deficit (created by the Trump taxcuts for the Rich), Repubs have become a frightening breed. And what else will they attack? The Trump presidency has turned from awful to Nightmarish. I’m not even a fan of the corporate Dems but Congressional gridlock is our only hope.

    1. Other JL

      If I’m completely honest with myself, I think it would be better for Rs to keep the house. The D/R charade just gives hope to leftists while preventing meaningful institutional reform. IMO things need to get worse before they can get better, and having a split Congress will delay that. I think it’ll take 3-4 terms of solid R rule before the left has a chance to make meaningful change.

      Here’s a thought experiment: suppose the Dems had solid control of both houses: what would they do? If you aren’t excited about that outcome, why vote for it?

      1. Prairie Bear

        I have had similar thoughts in wondering what would be best. Maybe a complete humiliation for the Ds in the House, like the GOP gaining 10 seats, but then a flip of the Senate, which doesn’t seem likely. It would have to be by several seats to counter Manchin, etc. I voted straight D. It’s all just speculation on my part; damned if I even know anymore what would be best.

        1. ape

          Historically, “the worse the better” hasn’t worked out, unless you’re hoping for revolutionary conditions.

          Otherwise, most people are pretty unprincipled at the end of the show — they’ll run to join the crowd.

          And the “revolutionary solution” is really, really bad historically. Really bad.

          What you really want is the Dems to kick-ass, even if they’re total sell-outs, to create space on the left. But if they lose? You get a whole lot of people becoming radical right wingers to be on the side of the winners.

          1. Other JL

            I don’t think we need revolutionary conditions. Rather I think the current D leadership is too cozy with a neoliberal agenda, and they’ve got more in common with R congress critters than the majority of the populace. Hence they’re mostly happy to lose, as the desired agenda is still being implemented.

            What would change with a complete loss of power is two things: first, more leftists would realize that the strategy isn’t working at all, and hopefully agitate enough to drive grassroots change.

            Second, the current strategy only works while there’s a semblance of a balance of power. If D’s become an obvious losing brand, money will dry up as lobbyists don’t need to hedge elections and personal donors get tired of throwing away donations. With no money, levers like the DCCC have much less power, creating a leadership vacuum.

    2. Big River Bandido

      If McConnell does attempt to got Social Security and Medicare, he’ll get plenty of help from Democrats. All of the Democrat leadership, and close to half the caucus in each house would support that…among Democrats in the Senate, there would probably be no more than a dozen who would oppose that if push came to shove.

      1. drumlin woodchuckles

        Well . . . McConnell himself said in his statement that “reforming” “entitlements” will have to be a bipartisan effort. The Republicans can not do it alone. And he said that “divided government” would be the necessary condition for Democrats to bipartisanly support the ” entitlements reform” agenda.

        If McConnell is right about that, then a Democratic Takeover of the House would be disastrous for our Social Insurance programs. Because then “just enough” Catfood Democrats would work with the Catfood Republicans to vote Catfood Reform up out of the House and over to the Senate. Whereas if the Dems can be kept to a minority in the House and Senate, the Catfood Dems will pretend to support Social Security and Medicare to keep fooling their voters into re-voting for them.

        The ideal outcome would be for every Catfood Democrat to be defeated and for the SanderSocial Democrats to establish a strict and total monopoly of all Democratic-officeholder-held House and Senate seats.

  7. Mark Gisleson

    MN01 (my new home) is a bit of a surprise, but a yard sign crew told me that a key legislative race is being flipped due to high negatives for an R rep who is being opposed by the husband of a popular county official.

    R’s have been very nasty at the state level in MN, and it’s made them vulnerable. Ironically, the race Minnesotans are now most worried about is Keith Ellison’s. His accuser’s BS has fallen flat (not credible based on her own words which read like they were copied from a handbook), but DFLers were too quiet and the usual Hillbots are pushing venomous memes on social media. Meanwhile a trove of racist/sexist blog posts from his opponent have emerged, leading to desperate pleas on social media from people who’ve forgotten just how unforgiving Hillbots are.

    Heading down to Randy Bryce’s CD in a couple of days; I’ll be counting yard signs.

  8. flora


    Paul Davis (D)
    Steve Watkins (R) (Jenkins is retiring, not running again.)

    with a libertarian candidate thrown in as a 3rd party.

    Trump was in town to rally with Watkins a short while ago. Lot of moderate Rs won’t vote for far-right* Watkins, even though this is an R district. Should be an interesting election. Third party candidates appear to have popped up in important KS races where far-right candidates might not get enough R votes, but where a 3rd party candidate could draw off moderate R votes that might otherwise to go the D candidate. Who is funding these 3rd party candidates remains a mystery.

    *on the same spectrum as Kris Kobach, imo.

  9. Big River Bandido

    I think your approach of filtering out who the real candidates are from the left is correct. Dana Balter and Kara Eastman have been particularly disheartening as general-election candidates; Eastman, especially, talked a great game on health care back in the primary. Since getting the nomination, it seems that they caved to the establishment and diluted their platforms to tripe — Eastman did it within days of winning her primary. Same is true in solid Democrat districts that were never part of this series — I can’t even view the change in MA-07 as much of a win, since on policy at least, Presley appears to have defeated Capuano from the right, not the left. I’m not at all surprised that this process leaves only 2 genuine leftists remaining, plus AOC.

    OTOH, I’m not really discouraged either, for I didn’t expect otherwise. Lambert is right that the big potential for gains on the left is at the state and local levels.

    On that note…perhaps post-election, you could do a special wrapup of races at those lower levels where the left does make gains? It’s really hard to find that info, I know…but having that kind of picture would really be helpful. And probably would give the left some well-needed cheer post-election. I’d like to know what happens to the DSA members running for the PA and NY legislatures, for example…and whether there are similar opportunities on city councils around the country.

    1. Lambert Strether Post author

      > You could do a special wrapup of races at those lower levels where the left does make gains?

      Our Revolution has a really impressive page on this.

      Among other things, running for office is a skill that can only be acquired by doing it. It’s not easy at all. So from the standpoint of building a left infrastructure (assuming that electoral work is something you think the left should be doing) getting out there and campaigning is a good thing, win or lose. Next time comes the win!

  10. Prairie Bear

    I don’t know if it’s an error or I’m just not understanding what’s supposed to be in the tables, but Iowa 03 Axne: she is in tables 1 an 2 as “fM” but not in table 3a as a supporter of MfA/single payer. Maybe table 3a is only supposed to contain “likely winners” from 2a? Not entirely clear to me from the text preceding 3a; sorry if I am not reading correctly.

    Very interesting work, though. And a lot of work I bet!

  11. Tom Doak

    The premise that the Left would make its impact in districts now under Republican control seems wrong to me. Those are the ones where the DCCC is spending all its money to try and push a DINO over the line and “win” a seat, even though that seat may not represent a reliable vote in close votes. (They’ll have to vote conservatively to keep their seat, and keep their powder dry for when they have a full majority.)

    The true Left candidates seem more likely to come from solid D districts where the longtime supporters are fed up with DINO incumbents, as with AOC. The real action was all in the primaries – and in the state elections andcredistricting battles.

    PS. I am just traveling back from Houston where Beto fever is in full swing. Lots of Obama girl types (but not so young) swooning over how handsome and well spoken he is; lots of yard signs; not a word about his policies. I doubt he’ll beat Cruz (they’re running in TX, not IL), but if he does he will be a shoo-in as the 2024 nominee for President.

    1. JohnnyGL

      “The true Left candidates seem more likely to come from solid D districts where the longtime supporters are fed up with DINO incumbents, as with AOC.”

      I’m not sure this is correct. AOC’s opportunity came at least partly from the power of strong organizing work in a place with nearly-Jim-Crow-era-level restrictions on the electoral apparatus.

      Turnout isn’t nearly that reliably low in most true-blue districts. A lot of these places are in coastal citadels where dem party machinery is a lot stronger and is able to squash insurgents more effectively, at least partly because there’s lots of comfortable, relatively wealthy residents who like Team D just fine the way it is.

      I think there’s a number of scenarios that present opportunities for the left, not least of which is competing in communities that have been abandoned by the democratic party almost entirely. JD democrats have won some primaries unopposed. Then, the only challenge is to win the general election.

      As Ben Jealous is finding in true-blue MD, winning the primary is only half the battle. A lot of democrats are defecting over to the Republican side in an attempt to undermine Jealous in the general election. It looks like Hogan’s going to win re-election as Governor.

  12. a different chris

    Oh, everybody seemed to have ignored Lambert’s question right in the header “if…what’s next for Democrats”.

    But Nancy has already answered that: Paygo! And probably a lot of “reaching across the aisle” and all that good stuff. If I wake up on Nov 7th and see the wave I expect, I won’t feel good because I just want everything in DC brought to a halt, basically. And that’s not what I will get.

  13. Jeremy Grimm

    Looking at what’s on offer for my area I’m afraid there will be a lot of undercounts on my ballot.

    The local sheriff’s race seems to have a lot of play but when I did some web searches and talked to my neighbor I didn’t gain any insight into what was going on or who was the best candidate. To find out about candidates and their politics the League of Women Voters suggests examining who endorses candidates, the media coverage, campaign literature, candidate websites, friends and family. The only reliable source I know of is Lambert’s guide.

    1. DonCoyote

      Endorsements as a source of information can be tricky. While they can be telling (i.e. we “learned” from HRC getting endorsed by all the newspapers in 2016 that they and she are neoliberals, and Trump is not), they may be given without being solicited, and, at least in the primary, organizations like Justice Democrats would only endorse one candidate (the first one that asked that met their criteria). And many are just due to the letter after your name, or idpol, not policy.

  14. chicagogal

    Here in the IL-06, what’s surprised me the most is the number of Casten signs I’m seeing vs Roskam signs – especially in uber-conservative Wheaton. Just drove thru there and it’s amazing to see the sign fight amongst neighbors on well-traveled main streets – and not so well-traveled side streets – not to mention the normal sign gathering locations on empty lots. Also interesting is the size of the signs toward the larger end. It’s truly neighbor vs neighbor here, but I honestly don’t hold out any hope that the Dems will beat Roskam since they couldn’t (refused to?) when that seat was completely open in 2006.

  15. DonCoyote

    Table 2(a), the horserace, you seem to have missed a few {select * from elections_analyis where IE .NE. [IE (Old)] or CR .NE. [CR (Old)] }, although maybe you didn’t want to get the red highlighter out :

    IL-06: IE moved two places, from Tilt-R to Tilt-D
    NE-02: [Red highlighter] IE moved from Tilt-R to Lean-R
    OH-12: [Red highlighter] CR moved from Toss-Up to Lean-R
    TX-23: [Red Highlighter] IE moved two places, from Toss-Up to Lean-R (bad news for Ortiz-Jones)

    Trivia: the VA-02 race features not just two m’s against each other, but Navy vs Navy! The Dem, Luria, actually graduated from the Naval Academy.

    Ballotpedia has an interesting report on wave elections. Looking at the data from the last 100 years, Dems would need to be +48 for this to constitute a wave (although if you restrict it to last 70 years, this drops to +30).

Comments are closed.