Tag Archives: Virginia

Election Night Preview — Part 1 (6 PM to 8 PM EST)

Election Night in the U.S. is always different from how things play out in most other countries.  The U.S. is one of a handful of countries that have more than two time zones.  And, in most of those other countries, all areas within the same time zone close at the same time.  Voting hours in these countries are set by federal law.  In the U.S., however, voting hours are set by state law.   And that creates a weird sequence of poll closing times.

In addition, poll closing times are, in some sense, tentative.  While you need to be in line to vote by the time that polls close, anybody in line to vote gets to vote.  For states that close in the early evening, long lines at closing time are nor unusual as there is not much of a window to vote after getting home from work resulting in many people attempting to vote after work still being in line when the polls cloase.  And there is always the possibility of an emergency order permitting certain precincts to stay open late to compensate for problems earlier in the day.  Even after polls close, many jurisdictions use a centralized counting location.   That means that there is a lag time between the polls closing and the ballots getting to the counting location.  In my county, the closest precincts are still only getting to the county seat about thirty minutes after polls close and the far edges of the county are getting there around an hour after the polls close.  As a result, it typically takes ninety minutes for my small (eighteen precinct) county to report all of the results.  Large urban counties can take three to four hours to report all of their election night results.  This delay in reporting (which is pretty much the same in most states) is one thing that traditionally makes it difficult to project result.  If the three largest counties in a state have only reported 10% of the vote while the rest of the state is 80% in, there is still a large number of votes that can change who wins a close race.

The other issue that will impact this election is the number of mail-in votes.  As we have previously discussed, every state has different rules for counting mail-in votes.  In most states, early in-person votes will be released around the same time (if not before) the election day votes, but mail-in votes will be reportedly differently in different states.  As such, with each state, the big questions will be:  1) is the reported vote just the early vote or also the election day vote; 2) if we have full early vote and partial election day vote, how much does the election day vote differ from the early vote; and 3) how much of the mail-in vote has been counted and how much may remain to be counted or still be “in the mail”?  The early count from a state may appear to be lopsided, but — without knowing the answers to these questions — it will be more difficult to determine if we have enough of the vote counted to know who is going to win.  In states that are used to large mail-in vote totals, it is not unusual to not know the winner of the closest race for a day or two after the election as we finally get enough mail-in votes counted. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, General Election Forecast | Also tagged , , , , , , , , Comments Off on Election Night Preview — Part 1 (6 PM to 8 PM EST)

Delegate Math 2020 — Super Tuesday (Part 1 — Early States and Territories)

Super Tuesday is always a hard day for delegate math.  There are fifteen contests ranging from a territorial caucus in American Samoa (which given the time gaps will actually be taking while it is still Monday in most of the United States) to the massive primary in California in which a final count will not be available for several weeks.  Every candidate still running (and this post is going live while we are still waiting for the results in South Carolina) can point to some contest in which they might win delegates.  Super Tuesday is also the day on which we will see if Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s strategy of skipping the early caucuses and primaries worked.

As with the first four states in the “early” window,  these contests are complicated by the number of candidates running.  While the states differ from each other, in all of them, there is the question of how many candidates will reach the 15% threshold (either state-wide) or in a single district.  In Iowa (with the exception of the Second District in which only three candidates won delegates) every district and the state-wide results had four candidates break 15%.  In New Hampshire, in every district and state-wide, three candidates broke 15%.  In Nevada, one district had three viable candidates but the other districts and the state-wide results had only two viable candidates .  It seems likely that — in at least some districts and states — three or more candidates will reach that 15% threshold.  And multiple candidates reaching 15% will cause weird fractional issues.  Additionally, the possibility of some candidates getting between 10-13% could allow the viable candidates to gain more delegates than the minimum numbers discussed below.

Trying to do things chronologically, the first four contests to end (not necessarily the first four contests to report the results) are American Samoa, North Carolina, Virginia, and Vermont.  All of these contests close by 7:30 p.m. EST.  Part 2 will deal with the contests that close at 8 p.m. EST/7 p.m. CST,   Part 3 will deal with the states that close after 8 p.m. EST (excluding Texas and California).  Part 4 will deal with Texas and California. Continue Reading...

Posted in Delegates, Primary Elections | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on Delegate Math 2020 — Super Tuesday (Part 1 — Early States and Territories)

Louisiana Elections

The off-year general elections kicked off yesterday with the “jungle primary” in Louisiana.  Louisiana’s jungle primary is similar to, but not quite the same as, the “top two” primaries that California and Washington use.  Like the top two primary, a jungle primary is “semi-partisan.”  By semi-partisan, I mean that, like a non-partisan election, all candidates run in the same election regardless of party but, unlike the typical non-partisan election, candidates are identified by their designated party.  Thus, you could have three Democrats, four Republicans, a Libertarian, a Green, and an independent on the ballot.  A jungle primary differs from a top two primary in that a jungle primary is actually a general election with the possibility of a run-off rather than a true primary.  In other words, in a true top two primary, the top two candidates advance to the general election even if one of the candidates gets a majority of the vote in the primary.  In a jungle primary, if one candidate gets a majority of the vote, that candidate is elected.

Thanks, in part, to the scandals surrounding former Senator David Vitter, Louisiana has a Democratic governor.  And Governor Edwards has done a decent job of threading the needle in a red state.  (Of course, threading the needle in a red state means conceding certain issues that you can’t win in order to win on some issues even though such concessions may aggravate those who believe in purity and attack any person who deviates as a DINO.)  Heading into yesterday’s election, the two questions was whether Governor Edwards could reach 50% and which Republican would take second (a more traditional Republican legislator or a self-funding Trumpish candidate).  With the unofficial results in, Governor Edwards fell just short of 50% getting 47% of he vote, and Eddie Risponse (the self-funding candidate) eked out second place by a 27% to 24% margin.  So there will be a run-off for governor in mid-November.  The real issue for the run-off is how much the national parties will put into the race.  For Risponse to win, he needs to absolutely unify those who voted for the three Republican candidates (the third Republican got less than one percent of the vote).  While the Republicans would like to win this race given how red Louisiana is, it will have little impact going forward.  After the first round of voting, the Republicans are guaranteed to win at least 26 of the state senate races (out of 39) and at least 63 of the 105 state house races.  And, even if Democrats can get enough seats in the state house to block a veto override, there is very little chance that there will be any significant impact on congressional district lines in 2021 given the geography of Louisiana and the Voting Rights Act.

It would probably benefit the Democrats if the Republicans did put money into Louisiana.  There are two other governor’s races in November — Kentucky and Mississippi.  While both states are red, the Democrats do have chances in both.  Mississippi may be a step too far given Mississippi’s Jim Crow era law that requires a candidate to win not only the state-wide popular vote but also win the popular vote in the majority of the state house districts.  So even if the Democrat manages to win the popular vote, the election would probably go to the state legislature barring a landslide win.  In both states, it is unlikely that Democrats will win the state legislatures and, in any case, it is hard seeing how the congressional district lines in either state could be substantially altered in a way that would create a significant chance of electing a second Democrat to congress in either state (although in a wave year, there is the possibility of that happening in Kentucky) as the least Republican district currently held by Republicans in both states is more Republican than the sole Democratic district is Democrat.  In other words, there are not enough extra Democrats in the Democratic district to swing a single Republican seats even if the two districts adjoined. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on Louisiana Elections

Virginia and the Problem with Looking Back

This week, with controversy swirling around the top three Democrats in Virginia, former FBI Director James Comey gave a reminder that he spent most of his career working for Republican Administrations by writing an op-ed claiming that it was clear in the 1980s that blackface was offensive.  Of course, taken to its logical conclusion, this position would mean that two of the top three Democrats should resign for having worn blackface and, since the third currently has a sexual assault scandal, the coincidental effect of Comey’s opinion that everyone knew that blackface was wrong in the 1980s would be placing the Republican Speaker of the House in the Governor’s mansion even though Democrats swept the statewide vote and the Republicans only have the majority in the House due to winning a coin toss to break a tie in one race.  My memory of growing up in the 70s and early 80s in the South is very different from the picture painted by James Comey.

When I was very young, my father’s job made him relocate from his family’s home city to a new city.  For most of the early and mid 70s, we would drive once or twice a year over the partially completed Interstate 10 to visit the grandparents and other relatives.  On the way back home, we would typically stop for breakfast at Sambo’s.  This restaurant chain was actually named after its owners.  However, the restaurant had noticed that Sambo was the main character in a British book written in the late nineteenth century called “My Little Black Sambo.”  This book was your typical British Imperialism book from that era about a Hindu boy and a tiger.  Looked at in hindsight, the book and the restaurant décor was very offensive.  But in the early 70s, Sambo’s was actually very successful and uncontroversial.  That would end by 1980, and the restaurant chain mostly disappeared in the early 80s — either changing the name to another franchise within the same company or going out of business.  It is easy to look back and ask how anybody ever thought that the association of the restaurant with the story was a good idea, but, notwithstanding the fact that I was a voracious reader as a child who was interested in politics and the civil rights movement from a young age, it was not clear to me at the time that we were frequenting this restaurant.

The same is unfortunately true about black face.  While today it is clear that black face (originating from an era when blacks were not allowed in the arts for a variety of reasons meaning that whites would put on black make-up to portray black characters — usually depicted in stereotypical fashion) was wrong for a variety of reasons, this realization came very late.  As a counter to James Comey, I offer the movie “Trading Places” — one of the top comedies of the early 80s (released in 1983).  What does “Trading Places” have to do with the current controversy?  One of the key portions of the movie has our four main character (a WASP stockbroker, the stockbroker’s butler, an African-American petty criminal, and a hooker) boarding a train having a New Year’s party to steal a crop report from a private investigator working for the two villains of the movies (the two brothers who run the brokerage firm).  To hide their identities, our heroes pretend to have different identities.  Jaime Lee Curtis (playing the hooker) dresses up as a slightly ditzy Swedish exchange student; Denholm Elliott (playing the butler) dresses up as a drunk Irish priest; Eddie Murphy (as the petty criminal) dresses up as an African exchange student in traditional tribal clothing; and — significant for this post — Dan Aykroyd playing the stockbroker dresses up in blackface as a Jamaican exchange student.  Needless to say, this scene would never be written that way today.  It is chock full of the worst stereotypes.   Back in the 1980s, however, there was no controversy about this scene, and the movie itself was critically acclaimed receiving a Golden Globe nomination as Best Comedy of the year.  Continue Reading...

Posted in Democrats, The Politics of Hate | Also tagged , Comments Off on Virginia and the Problem with Looking Back

2018 Mid-term Election Preview — Atlantic South

There is an old joke about Pennsylvania that (at least politically) it is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama in the middle.  The same joke, in many ways, can be made about the five southern states that border the Atlantic Coast, particularly Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida.  All three states are divided between regions that very much resemble the Democratic areas in the Northeast and Pacific Coast, and regions that are very much still the rural South.  These divisions have made all three states very purplish at the state level and have made the drawing of district lines very crucial to the race for Congress.

Starting with Virginia, Tim Kaine has a solid lead against the Confederate Republican nominee Corey Stewart.   The real battle in Virginia will be for House seats.  Democrats currently hold four seats (out of eleven seats).  Democrats are currently looking at taking anywhere between one and four seats.  The key to Democratic growth in Virginia has been the D.C. suburbs and the Republican disrespect for any type of expertise.   These districts are a model of how Trump is driving moderate Republicans to the Democratic Party.

In North Carolina, Republicans in the state legislature have stated that the current map was drawn as it is (a 10-3 Republican advantage) because it was impossible to draw a map that would have allowed the Republicans to reliably win eleven seats.  While the local federal court struck down the current map less than two months ago, there was not enough time to redraw the lines for this year (and the Supreme Court would probably have intervened if the judges had tried).  Fighting against this stacked deck, the Democrats have a decent shot at one seat due to Republican divisions in that district (the incumbent lost in the Republican primary).  There are two other districts were, with good results, the Democrats might be able to pick up the seat.  Like Virginia, North Carolina is another state where the hostility of the Republican Party to basic science is driving college educated votes associated with is research corridor into the Democratic Party.

South Carolina is the one state in this region that is still reliably Republican.  The current Republican governor is likely to win re-election.  The Republicans are likely to keep all six seats that they currently hold, although Democrats do have an outside chance to take the First  District (where Mark Sanford lost in the primary).

In Georgia, the big race is for Governor where Secretary of State Brian Kemp has engaged in tactics that would make most dictators blush.  He was caught over this weekend commenting that, if Democrats actually vote, he would have trouble winning.  He has tried to defend his actions trying to impose barriers to people voting by comparing it to ads trying to persuade Republicans not to support him.   A key factor in this race is that Georgia requires an actual majority in the general election.  Georgia is the only state that uses a true run-off in its general election.  (Other states use variations on the jungle primary.)  There is a very good chance that third party candidates will win enough votes to force a run-off.  Like in South Carolina, the most likely result in the Congressional races is the status quo.  There is an outside chance that Democrats could force run-off in the Sixth and Seventh Districts.

Florida is the big state in the region — both in terms of the raw number of seats and in the potential for change.  It would be easy to divide Florida into two states — one solidly Republican and one solidly Democratic — by drawing an east-west line somewhere down the middle of the state.  This year, it looks like Democrats have narrow leads in the race for Governor (currently held by Republican health care crook and Senate candidate Rick Scott) and in the race for U.S. Senate.  Of course, the state is still recovering from the recent hurricane which could impact turnout making the polls less reliable than normal.  As in many other purple states in which Republicans controlled redistricting, the U.S. House delegation is somewhat lopsided with Republicans holding a 16-11 advantage currently.  However, the very features that allow the Republicans to win those seats when the state-wide vote is close to 50-50 make them vulnerable to a blue wave.  The Democrats should gain at least one seat although anything between the status quo and a seven seat gain is within the realm of possibility.

There are several major ballot issues on the ballot.  In Florida, you have issues that could favor both parties.  On the one hand, Florida could pass a constitutional amendment relaxing its current very strict restrictions on ex-felons voting and another amendment that bars offshore drilling.  On the other hand, Florida could pass amendments requiring a super-majority for tax increases and prohibiting courts from deferring to administrative agencies.

In North Carolina, the Republican legislature has stacked the ballot with provisions designed to reduce the power of the governor and other conservative wish list proposals including:  a right to fish and hunt, a cap on the maximum income tax, requiring photo ID to vote, placing the power to appoint local election officials in the legislature, and giving the legislature a role in judicial appointments.

Looking at the region as a whole, the election’s reflect the power of redistricting.  Democrats could get the majority state-wide in three or four of the states and yet only gain three seats.  On the other hand, with a very good night, Democrats could gain seventeen seats.  Turnout will be key.

 

Posted in Elections, General Election Forecast | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on 2018 Mid-term Election Preview — Atlantic South

Primary Season — Late Spring

Because each state gets to set its own primary date, primary season is a gradual thing.  Putting aside a handful of exceptions (and run-offs), most primaries fall into two clusters.  The first cluster occurs in May and June (starting on May 8 and ending on June 26).  The second cluster occurs in August and September (starting on August 2 and ending on September 13).  During both clusters, most primaries occur on Tuesday, and there is at least one state on each Tuesday (other than May 29).

On May 8, there are primaries in Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia.  Key primaries are the Republican Senate primary in Indiana and West Virginia.  Both are states won by Trump in which Democratic Senators are running for re-election.  In Indiana, you have three candidates running for the Republican nomination.  It’s not clear that it really matters who wins or that there is much difference between the candidates.  West Virginia is a different matter.  The Republicans are scared to death that Don Blankenship could get the nomination.  Blankenship is the former CEO of one of the state’s larger coal miner and did time in prison related to miners who died due to unsafe mining practices.  The national GOP has (through super-pacs) been running adds against Blankenship.  In Ohio, the key races are for Governor with both parties having primaries in the race to replace term-limited John Kasich and Ohio’s 12th District in which there is both a regular primary and a special election primary (most of the candidates are the same in both, so both parties should have the same winner for both primaries, but there is always the chance in a close race that there could be a split result).

On May 15, there are primaries in Idaho, Nebraska, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.  The big story is likely to be the new congressional districts in Pennsylvania.   Amazingly, there are no incumbent against incumbent primaries although there could be an incumbent against incumbent general election.  Given the newness of the lines, it will be interesting to see how the local interests will influence the candidates chosen.

On May 22, there are primaries in Arkansas, Georgia, and Kentucky, and a run-off in Texas.   In Texas, there are key run-offs on the Democratic side for Governor and the Seventh District.  In both contests, the Republicans will be favored but Democrats have a shot.   The question for local Democrats will be whether to go with the “purer” candidate ideologically or with the candidate who could win over college-educated Republicans who do not like being part of the Party of Trump.

June 5 is the big day with primaries in Alabama, California, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota.  California is the tough one to call given its “first two system.”  Particularly in close districts, it matters how many strong candidates each party has.   In a district (or state-wide for the Democrats) that your party should win, you want a second strong candidate so that you can lock the other party out of the general.  If you are slightly behind in the district, you want one strong candidate to assure yourself of a place in the general (and hope that the other party nominate a divisive candidate that gives you a chance to pick up independents and moderates).  What you don’t want is three strong candidates which create the possibility (as has happened in the past) that your party could get the most primary votes but still not finish in the top two due to your vote being split too much.  (Districts where Democrats could find themselves locked out of the general include the 1st, 4th, 8th, 10th, 39th, 48th, 49th, 50th.  The last three are districts that would be targets in November if a Democrat makes it to the final two.)  Particularly with Governor being an open seat, the other big question will be whether the Democrats can get both of the general election slots (as they did for Senate in 2016) for Governor and Senate.  (The primaries in Mississippi do not include the special election for Senate which will be a “non-partisan” race in November with a run-off if nobody wins a majority.)

June 12 has primaries in Maine, North Dakota, Nevada, South Carolina, and Virginia.  In Maine, you have an open race for Governor.  In Nevada, you have an open race for Governor and two congressional seats (3rd and 4th).   In Virginia, Republicans have a three-way Senate race.  You also have an open seat in Virginia 6th and a very important Democratic primary in District 10 which will be a target race in November.

June 19 is the calm week with the only certain primary being for D.C. but the chance at a run-off in Arkansas.

The spring primaries end on June 26 with contests in Colorado, Maryland, New York (federal offices only), Oklahoma, and Utah.   There could be a run-off in Mississippi, North Carolina (depending on whether any of the federal offices need a run-off), and/or South Carolina.  In Colorado, Governor is an open seat.  Additionally, the 2nd District will be an open seat as the Democratic incumbent is running for governor and the 5th District might be an open seat as the incumbent Republican failed to get enough signatures on his petition.  (That issue is still being fought in court.)  In New York, the interesting race might be the Republican Primary for the 11th district where disgraced former Congressman Michael Grimm is challenging incumbent Congressman Daniel Donovan.  In Utah, the big race is the open seat for the U.S. Senate where Mitt Romney is hoping/expecting to do better with primary voters than he did at the Republican state convention with activists.

While technically not a primary, the special election (as in Mississippi, Texas special elections are nominally non-partisan with a run-off in nobody wins) for Texas’s 27th District will take place on June 30.  All four of the candidates who will compete in the run-offs on May 22 are on the ballot for the special election.  (Whether anybody will drop out after May 22 is to be seen, but you could have the unusual result that a candidate loses on May 22 but makes it to the run-off in the special election due to cross-over votes.)

There could also be run-offs in some states in July depending upon the results in the primaries noted above.

 

Posted in Democrats, Elections, GOP, House of Representatives, Senate | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Fall Elections

In most of the world, the practice is to limit the number of races being contested on any given election day.  Thus, regional elections are held on a separate day from national elections.  In the U.S., however, most states opt to hold state elections on the same day as national elections.  Thus, in most states, the election for governor either falls on the same day as the mid-term election or on the same day as the presidential election.  In a small number of states, however, the election for governor occurs in an odd-year.

Two states — Virginia and New Jersey — hold the election in the year after the presidential election.  (Three states — Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi — hold the elections in the year before the presidential election.)  Both New Jersey and Virginia have a tendency — not absolute, but a tendency — to elect a governor from the party not in the White House.  In New Jersey, the last time that the party in the White House won the governor’s race was 1985.  In Virginia, while the party in the White House won in 2013, the last previous time that the party in the White House won was 1973.  There are a lot of reasons for these results — including. similar to the problem that the party in the White House faces in mid-term elections, the simple fact that governing is much harder than running for office, so supporters of the party in power tend to be disappointed with the actual fruits of their victory while those out of power tend to be angry and motivated.

As things currently stand, things are looking very good for the Democratic candidates in New Jersey.  Aside from New Jersey’s normal Democratic lean and the tendency for the party not in the White House to win, the Republicans nominated the current Lieutenant Governor, making it hard to separate the current Republican ticket from the corruption of the current administration of term-limited governor Chris Christie.  The Democratic candidate, Ambassador Phil Murphy, leads by double digits in every poll this fall.  While some of the polls show enough undecided voters to leave a theoretical opening for the Republican candidate, the race in New Jersey is not particularly close.

Virginia looks to be closer.  The Democratic candidate, Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam, seems to have a lead in the polls — the typical poll shows a lead of around 5% — but there is one recent poll showing the Republican candidate leading.  (The difference in the polls is mostly driven by their estimate of the composition of the likely voter pool.  Given recent elections in Virginia and the tendency of the party in the White House to underperform, the one poll favoring the Republicans almost certainly over-estimates the number of Republican voters.)  My hunch is that the Democratic candidate will win, but this race is not a sure thing.

In addition to the two governor’s races — and the down ballot races — in New Jersey and Virginia, there will be a special election in Utah’s third district.  As with most of the other special elections this year, the special election is in a relatively safe district (partisan vote index of R +25, sixteenth most Republican district in the country).  As such, the chances of a Democratic win are slim, but it is likely that the race will be closer than those numbers would indicate.

Besides the Utah election on November 7, there are two later state-wide special elections — the run-off in Louisiana for State Treasurer (to fill the vacancy created when the previous Treasurer won the U.S. Senate race in 2016) which will occur on November 18 (a Saturday as is typical for state elections in Louisiana) and the U.S. Senate election in Alabama on December 12.  In Louisiana, the Democrat (Derrick Edwards) finished first in the top two primary with 31% of the vote, but that was with three Republicans finishing close to 20% each, all getting more than 18% each.  In short, as is typical in Louisiana, the Republicans definitely have an advantage, but in a low turn-out election anything is possible.

Finally, in Alabama, the polls seem to show a narrow lead for the Republican candidate.  However, the Republican candidate is so extreme that the Democratic candidate — former U.S. Attorney Doug Jones — has a fighting chance.  We will probably be revisiting this race in early December.

In short, the next two months feature two races in which the Democrats should win, and three races with uphill odds — ranging from slightly uphill to very steeply uphill.  And that’s not counting three state legislative special elections (two in Republican districts and one in a Democratic district along with the regular legislative elections in New Jersey and Virginia.

Of course, the races for Governor in Virginia and New Jersey are the first of several elections over the next four years that will have an impact on redistricting in 2021.  The Republicans winning the Governor’s office in both states in 2009 played a significant role in state congressional district maps that are favorable to the Republicans.  (In Virginia — where Republicans controlled both houses of the legislature and the governorship, the Republicans have 7 representatives in the U.S. House to 4 representatives for the Democrats despite Clinton winning Virginia by a significant number.  The lines in New Jersey — where Democrats have more power in the legislature — more closely resemble a proportional result  with the Democrats having a 7 to 5 advantage, but that advantage comes from winning a very close seat that had been held by the Republicans in both 2012 and 2014. )  In short, the battle for fair lines in 2022 starts now, and these two races are crucial to getting and keeping a Democratic majority for the next President.

 

Posted in Elections | Also tagged , , , , , Comments Off on Fall Elections

Election Update

May and June were significant months for elections, both in the United States and Europe.  While the news media tends to overhype some elections and ignore others, there are some conclusions that can be drawn from those elections.

Starting with the United States, the big news has been a series of special elections — focusing mostly on three Congressional seats held by the Republicans.  Neither party can be particularly happy with the results at the Congressional level, but certain things need to be noted.

First, except when caused by death or sudden resignation due to scandal, most vacancies occur in what the parties consider to be “safe” seats.  With the exception of the upcoming special election in Utah, the special elections for the House are all the results of an executive of their own party “promoting” the member of Congress to an executive office.  In California, you have to go back to 2012 to see the last time that a Republican even ran in the 34th district.  The four Republican seats were solid wins for the Republican incumbents in 2016 with the closest margin being 16% in Montana.  All five of these districts were double-digit wins for their party’s candidate in 2012.  The only district that was arguably winnable by the “out” party was Georgia 6 and that is only if you looked solely at the 2016 presidential election.  By the partisan vote index, Georgia 6 is still R+8, meaning that the Democrats would need to get around 58% nationally to win that seat.

Second, while national trends have a significant role to play in Congressional election results (as the number of true swing voters declines), races still involve actual candidates running actual campaigns.  Unlike regular elections, in which the parties have a significant period of time between the last election and the start of filing to recruit solid candidates for winnable seats, special elections require getting candidates to file (or choosing a candidate in some states like Kansas and Montana) in a matter of weeks from the announcement of the election to the close of filing.   The candidates for both parties are the ones who are ready to run, not necessarily the “best” candidate.  (That is especially true in Montana where both parties ran flawed candidates.)

Third, special elections are almost never about which party controls Congress.  While the media focuses on wins and losses (and parties will find consolation/disappointment in the wins and losses), the more significant story is whether the results show anything about swings since the last election.

It is in those trends that any discussion of these elections has to begin and it leads to the bigger question — has Trump yet made the Republican Party his party.  In the 2016 election, Trump exceeded expectations in some rural and blue collar districts but underperformed in certain suburban white collar districts.  A question going forward is whether Trump has driven voters with college degrees who, in the past, have leaned Republican from the Republican party or if these voters merely oppose Trump.  On the other side, the question is whether rural and blue collar voters have been permanently lost to the Democratic Party or if they merely disliked President Obama and Secretary Clinton.  Assuming that the results from the special elections so far has any meaning for 2018, it seems likely that the Democrats are looking at getting a result near the 53-54% national vote needed to win a majority in the House.

Another issue from these elections is that, in each of the races in the Republican districts (except perhaps in South Carolina), the polls showed the Democratic candidate either leading or in a close race shortly before the election.  After those polls showing a closer than expected race, the national Republicans intervened in the races and local Republican activists woke up to the need to work hard to keep the seat.  In all of these seats, the Republicans slightly over-performed these polls to barely keep the seat.  Obviously, the mid-term election will be quite different than these special elections.  With 435 seats up for grabs, there will not be polling for every seat (so people will not necessarily know which seats are at risk of an upset).  Additionally, neither party will be able to pour money into every close race — at least not at the overkill levels seen in Georgia 6 — a race that shows that there is such a thing as too much money.    On the other hand, traditional Republican voters did come home in these seats despite any potential problems that they might have with President Trump.

Of course, there are still more elections to come this year — the regularly scheduled off-year elections in New Jersey and Virginia and the special election for Utah 3 are all scheduled for November.

Internationally, the big elections were in the United Kingdom and France.  In the United Kingdom, the election law is supposed to make it difficult to call an early election.  However, the Conservatives called an early election barely two years into a five-year term.   The traditional thought in the United Kingdom — from the days when the election law placed no limits on the ability of the government to call an early election — is that calling an early election (i.e. before the last year of the term) when the government has a working majority is generally viewed as opportunist and the government is punished.  This election followed that general rule.  Despite the early polling showing the Conservatives gaining a significant number of seats, the Conservatives actually lost seats and their majority.

Equally big from the United Kingdom were the continued developments in Northern Ireland.  This election saw the Ulster Unionists and the Social Democratic and Labour Party lose their last seats in Parliament.  In the old days, when there was still fighting between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, these two parties were the two leading parties in Northern Ireland.  Since the Good Friday Agreement brought peace to Northern Ireland, these two centrists parties that pushed for peace have lost votes and seats to the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Fein — the two parties that represent the extremes of the two communities.  After the last election, the Democratic Unionists held ten seats and Sinn Fein held seven seats with one seat held by an independent who was originally elected as an Ulster Unionist.  (In comparison, before the Good Friday Agreement, the Ulster Unionists and SDLP held thirteen seats.)  Given that the Conservatives fell just short of a majority, the overall election results mean that the Democratic Unionists hold the balance of power.  Given that the DUP is a socially conservative party and the fact that the rest of the UK has managed to stay above the unique regional disputes of Northern Ireland, the DUP being power brokers is not a good thing.

Another development worthy of note from this election is that the DUP is only in this position because the Conservatives rebounded in Scotland.  Before the election, the Conservatives held only one seat from Scotland with the Scottish Nationalists holding 56 of 59 seats.  The SNP fell to 35 seats with the Conservatives gaining twelve seats (compared to a gain of six by Labour) leaving the Conservatives with a total of thirteen seats.  Given that the Conservatives fell six short of a majority (forcing them to rely on the DUP’s ten votes to survive any motion of no confidence), the gain of twelve in Scotland is the only thing letting them form a minority government that has any chance of surviving more than a couple of months.  (It will also be interesting to see what will happen.  In the past, a minority government would probably call an election within several months in the hopes of winning a working majority.  Now, calling an election would require the support of the opposition parties.)

The stated reason for the Conservatives calling the election was to receive a mandate to pursue a certain strategy in Brexit negotiations.  The attempt to get a mandate for a very Trumpian approach to those negotiations failed “bigly.”  Additionally, the most Trumpian party lost its only seat in parliament.

Across the English Channel in France, the election results show the significance of “personality politics.”  A political party that did not exist in the last general election has now won the presidency and an overwhelming majority in Parliament.  While the new president is not quite the newcomer that he is sometimes portrayed in the media — he served in the last government — the ability to build a movement from scratch is somewhat foreign to U.S. politics.  Other countries make it much easier for parties to get on the ballot leading to more fractured political loyalty and a chance for a new party to accumulate a significant percentage of votes.  In the first round of voting (for both president and the legislature), this new party managed to get in the mid-20s.  Given the number of parties in France, those numbers were enough to make the run-off for president and the run-off in almost all of the legislative seats.  In the U.S. (or even the U.K.) with two major parties and no run-off, those numbers would be an electoral disaster rather than winning numbers.  While the Trumpian party made the presidential run-off, it got crushed and only won eight seats in parliament.

As in the U.S., major international elections are not done for the year.  Even  if there is not a second election in the U.K., German elections are scheduled for late September.  In the beginning of the year, it looked like a far right Trumpian party might win a significant number of seats (polling in double digits).  Now it looks like, they are polling in the single digits.  While currently they are polling over the 5% necessary to qualify for seats (having fallen just short in 2013), they have dropped 3-4% since earlier in the year and may ultimately fall short again.  (The most recent polls have them between 6% and 9% compared to polls showing them near 15% at the start of the year.)  As would be expected, most of the voters that flirted with the far right have returned to the center-right meaning that Chancellor Angela Merkel is looking likely to win another term in office.  While Chancellor Merkel’s party is polling slightly under its result in 2013, its main ally (who failed to get the necessary 5% in the last election) is polling around 8%.  As a result (as compared to a grand coalition after the 2013 election), it looks likely that Chancellor Merkel will be able to form a center-right coalition after this election (like after the 2009 elections).

Of course, the big story from Europe is that the Trump brand of politics is not doing well in European elections.  The far right populism peaked in Europe last year and Trump’s example of poorly run government is turning off European voters.  For the United States, the bigger problem is that Europe’s leaders are getting the message that they are on their own.  The United States has been able to get rather favorable deals internationally (regardless of how domestic opposition mischaracterize them) because the United States was in a leadership role and seen as indispensable to making any arrangement work.  If our traditional allies get used to having to do things for themselves, it may be hard for the U.S. to reclaim that position after Trump is shown the door.

Posted in Elections | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on Election Update

Election Night 2016 — What to Look for (Part Two)

VotingBoothImage_0As with many other details of election law, each state gets to choose their voting hours on election day.  Thus, unlike a place like the United Kingdom where all polls close at the same time and when results are announced is a matter of how long it takes to count the vote, there is a slow progression across the country as the different states close.  A complicating factor is that some states are split down the middle by time zones.  In most of the states with multiple time zones, the polls close based on the local time (i.e. the polls in the eastern part of the state close an hour earlier than the polls in the western part of the state) rather than all polls in the state closing simultaneously.  Another complicating factor is that all states only require that you be in line to vote at the time that the polls close; so, in larger precincts, there can be a long line delaying the report of votes from that precinct.  As noted in Part One,  part of the projection process is looking at what precincts are still outstanding.  In a close state, the long lines at urban precincts (which are likely to favor Democrats) can make it hard to figure how strong the Democratic vote in a state is for an extended period.

In terms of interest, not every state is the same.   A lot of states and districts are considered “safe” for President or Senate or Governor or U.S. Representative.  Of course, if something surprising happens in those areas, it could be a sign of a wave developing, but most of the attention will be focused on the “battleground” areas that will decide a close election.  What follows in the rest of this part and the rest of this series is a review in chronological order of closing time (using Eastern Standard Time) at what to look for as the evening progresses.

Posted in Elections, General Election Forecast | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on Election Night 2016 — What to Look for (Part Two)