Too Late To Start Thinking About 2018?

[LordMortis]

It's too early for polls

[hepcat]

Those were hilarious posts.

[Isgrimnur]

Texas

If most Texas House Republican primary runoffs split the party into two warring factions, voters on Tuesday clearly chose a side.

Establishment Republicans backed by groups like the Associated Republicans of Texas fell on one side; on the other were Tea Party-aligned candidates funded generously by conservative groups like Empower Texans and the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life.

And the voters on Tuesday firmly backed the center-right candidates — to the tune of well over 10 percent in most cases.

In one of the state’s most closely watched Republican races, the campaign to replace retiring House Speaker Joe Straus, hard-line conservative Matt Beebe fell to the more moderate Steve Allison by about 14 points.
...
And in a similarly bitter and even more expensive race a couple hundred miles northeast, further-right candidate Thomas McNutt lost to the more moderate Cody Harris by a wide margin.
...
“The results in these runoffs and in the March primaries clearly demonstrate that Republican voters want constructive and pragmatic leadership for our fast-growing state,” Straus said.
...
This week’s runoff elections recall similar results from the March 6 Republican primaries, when nearly all Empower Texans-backed challengers suffered defeats, and two of Gov. Greg Abbott’s further-right picks — Hollywood Park Mayor Chris Fails and Susanna Dokupil, who was challenging Republican state Rep. Sarah Davis and who had the support of the anti-vaccine movement — fell to more moderate incumbents. Abbott had also endorsed McNutt.

Governor's race

After a tight race throughout much of the evening Tuesday, Lupe Valdez pulled ahead late to comfortably defeat Andrew White in the Democratic runoff for governor, according to unofficial returns.

Valdez goes into the November general election as the first openly lesbian and first Latina candidate to win a major party gubernatorial nomination in Texas. She told cheering supporters in Dallas that she's not deterred by conventional wisdom that she faces long odds against Gov. Greg Abbott, a well-funded incumbent.
...
Valdez rode a strong showing in Dallas County, where she had served as sheriff, and neighboring Tarrant County. She also won big in populous border counties like El Paso, Hidalgo and Webb.
...
To become governor she'll have to topple Abbott, who boasts high approval ratings and a $41 million war chest. Abbott's campaign wasted no time attacking Valdez, releasing a video Tuesday night that recapped some of her stumbles during the nominating contest. Among them: Her backtracking on whether she'd be open to raising taxes as governor.
...
With the nomination in hand, Valdez will also be up against recent Texas history: The state's voters have not elected a Democrat to statewide office in more than two decades.

[Defiant]

The Drive to Elect Women Is Defining 2018's Democratic Primaries

As of this week, 149 of 435 House districts have held primaries, so we're about a third of the way through the season — a good time to gauge emerging trends. So far, Democrats have nominated candidates of all kinds of ideological stripes, from Eastman to pragmatic prosecutor Brendan Kelly (IL-12) to Trump-voting state Sen. Richard Ojeda (WV-03). But the success of female candidates in Democratic primaries is what stands out most.

There have been 65 contests featuring at least one man, one woman and no incumbent on a Democratic primary ballot. Women have defeated men in 45 of those 65 races, and women were the top vote-getters in an additional two Georgia races headed to runoffs. Men defeated women in just 18 cases. In Illinois's 14th CD, for example, former nurse Lauren Underwood defeated six male opponents with a whopping 57 percent of the vote.

[El Guapo]

In a week California has its congressional primaries, and we'll get to find out whether Democrats get locked out of any of the three seats where that might (according to polling) happen, all in districts that should lean heavily democratic in the general (if a democrat makes it to the general). Jungle primaries are stupid.

FWIW the current consensus seems to be that the Democrats will likely escape getting locked out in all three, but that there's a significant (40%+) chance of at least one lockout.

[Defiant]

Rep. Tom Garrett, R-Va., announced on May 28 that he would not seek re-election as he battles with alcoholism.

On average, 22 House members retire each cycle, Roll Call reported. But this year has seen a record number of GOP lawmakers leaving Capitol Hill

So far, 44 Republicans have either resigned, retired, been appointed to another position, lost elections or announced gubernatorial bids.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05 ... tions.html

[LordMortis]

In editorials masking as news (Only I find this interesting)

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3907 ... ust-recess

A source familiar with the talks said McConnell privately told Schumer that members should make their August plans for the latter part of the recess, before backtracking.

Democrats immediately cried foul over the move, arguing it was a clear political play by McConnell.

"The fact that the Republicans have resorted to keeping Democrats off the campaign trail in August shows you just how nervous they are about November," said a senior Democratic aide.

David Bergstein, a spokesman for the DSCC, added that McConnell is "terrified" about letting Democrats campaign.

"Given his horrendous recruits, Senator McConnell is right to be terrified of Senate Democrats on the campaign trail, but whenever the GOP Congress is in session they find new ways to alienate and disgust voters," he said.

[Defiant]

Going to look at the other two districts with potential shutouts.

[Defiant]

Still a bit early for #39, but looking good so far:

[Defiant]

48 not looking as good

[Defiant]

Not sure if performance in the primary will translate to a win in the general, but this isn't a bad thing:

[Defiant]

Looks like Democrats are doing OK in CA, so far. Republicans not so much.

[ImLawBoy]

Not sure if performance in the primary will translate to a win in the general, but this isn't a bad thing:

That can depend on whether those districts have competitive R ballots or not, I'd guess. If the R is running unopposed, that's going to lead to lower voter turnout.

[El Guapo]

Looks like Democrats are doing OK in CA, so far. Republicans not so much.

Yeah, it looks like they'll avoid any lockouts (though 48 at least came close, as you noted), although California takes forever to count votes, so I don't know that we'll know for sure until the end of the week.

The good news for the Republicans in CA is that they avoided getting locked out of the governor's race (though they were still locked out of the Senate race), which wasn't a sure thing. There was some justifiable concern that if they were locked out of both the governor's and Senate race, that that could severely depress GOP turnout in CA for the mid-term.

[Kraken]

Not that anyone cares (even including Massholes), but in MA 22 incumbents in the 40-seat Senate will formally run unopposed, as will 83 current representatives in the 160-seat House. Unopposed candidates include both Democrats and Republicans (but mostly Ds, simply because they hold comfortable majorities in both chambers). It's no wonder voter turnout was a whopping 8.8% in the 2016 primaries.

Republican officials point out that they are fielding more candidates this year than they did in '16, when more than 100 House seats were unopposed. They're hoping that Trump mania will overcome Democratic apathy to flip a few seats.

IDK yet if my district will have any contests. I have a longstanding rule against rubber-stamping unopposed candidates unless they are someone that I actively know and support, so there's an even chance I'll be among the 91% of voters who say "meh" and stay home.

[El Guapo]

Not that anyone cares (even including Massholes), but in MA 22 incumbents in the 40-seat Senate will formally run unopposed, as will 83 current representatives in the 160-seat House. Unopposed candidates include both Democrats and Republicans (but mostly Ds, simply because they hold comfortable majorities in both chambers). It's no wonder voter turnout was a whopping 8.8% in the 2016 primaries.

Republican officials point out that they are fielding more candidates this year than they did in '16, when more than 100 House seats were unopposed. They're hoping that Trump mania will overcome Democratic apathy to flip a few seats.

IDK yet if my district will have any contests. I have a longstanding rule against rubber-stamping unopposed candidates unless they are someone that I actively know and support, so there's an even chance I'll be among the 91% of voters who say "meh" and stay home.

There's also the governor's race, although it seems like Baker will probably cruise to an easy re-election.

[Kraken]

Not that anyone cares (even including Massholes), but in MA 22 incumbents in the 40-seat Senate will formally run unopposed, as will 83 current representatives in the 160-seat House. Unopposed candidates include both Democrats and Republicans (but mostly Ds, simply because they hold comfortable majorities in both chambers). It's no wonder voter turnout was a whopping 8.8% in the 2016 primaries.

Republican officials point out that they are fielding more candidates this year than they did in '16, when more than 100 House seats were unopposed. They're hoping that Trump mania will overcome Democratic apathy to flip a few seats.

IDK yet if my district will have any contests. I have a longstanding rule against rubber-stamping unopposed candidates unless they are someone that I actively know and support, so there's an even chance I'll be among the 91% of voters who say "meh" and stay home.

There's also the governor's race, although it seems like Baker will probably cruise to an easy re-election.

I suppose I could take a R ballot and vote for cartoon villain Scott Lively -- can you prove that gay Nazis didn't carry out the Holocaust? But I don't oppose Baker. If there is to be any hope of salvaging the R Party, it's by supporting RINOs like Baker. The worst thing you can say about him is that he's insufficiently anti Trump.

[El Guapo]

One other thing from last night is that a virtually unknown, barely funded challenger in the NJ Democratic primary got 38% of the vote against Menendez. Suggests that a better funded more capable candidate could have been viable, and also makes me nervous that there may be enough anti-Menendez sentiment in NJ (for good reason!) to make the general at least competitive.

People have been knocking on the California Democratic party for the potential lockout mess (though they seem to have come through that fairly well overall), but really, if there were any place where there really should have been a strong primary challenge it's NJ. Blue state in a blue year, so pretty much any generic mainstream democrat should be able to hold onto that seat. Having an incumbent with credible corruption allegations in the race seems to greatly increase the risk. And, you know, we should avoid supporting corrupt candidates, especially where there are better alternatives.

Oh well. Now we just have to hope that this doesn't blow up in the Democrats' faces in November.

[pr0ner]

Yeah, if Menendez loses in November, the DNC needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, if Menendez loses in November, the DNC needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

I'm not sure how much blame the DNC deserves versus the state Democratic party. It sounds like the latter did the work of clearing the field for Menendez (though maybe if the DNC had pushed harder they could have stopped that, but that's where it gets more complicated I would imagine).

Menendez is still an overwhelming favorite to win, but if nothing else this would have been a great chance to dump Menendez and his baggage.

[YellowKing]

I really hate that the GOP is actively colluding and propping up the most corrupt, traitorous President in history, and it's the Democrats who are perceived to have a marketing problem.

[LordMortis]

I really hate that the GOP is actively colluding and propping up the most corrupt, traitorous President in history, and it's the Democrats who are perceived to have a marketing problem.

They do have a marketing problem as we have the he most corrupt, traitorous President in history and people look at the GOP who are propping him up and responding "yeahbut..."

[Defiant]

[Jeff V]

Fun fact: I was on a little league baseball team with Pete d'Alessandro during the dead-ball era. I had no idea he got into politics until someone from my grammar school class started stumping for him on Facebook. The last time I saw either of them, Ford was president.

It's still my hope that Sanders partners with a more viable candidate and abandons thought of making another go. I think what we saw in 2016 was the apex of his political support -- against a less polarizing candidate, he's going to come off as nutty as Ross Perot did during his second attempt. This Iowa election is an early indication that Bernie is not going to be the presumptive party nominee.

[pr0ner]

Anecdote from my Virginia Republican Primary for Senate experience today (while they're all Trump supporters, I couldn't pass up the chance to vote against Corey Stewart again).

As I live in Northern Virginia, this is a very heavily Democratic area. The only race on the ballot in my precinct was the Republican primary. The guy who checked me in had to make it clear that the election was only a Republican primary, because a lot of people had arrived to vote earlier in the morning and immediately turned around and left when they found out it was only a Republican primary. At the time I had cast my ballot around 10 AM, I was only the 27th person to vote in about 4 hours.

I think it's a very bad sign if, in a heavily Democratic area, there were that many people unaware of exactly what was on the ballot in their area for a primary day. A lot of us here bash Republicans for being uneducated voters and drinking the Trump Kool-Aid straight from the teat. But uninformed voters are on both sides, and uninformed voters are bad.

[El Guapo]

Anecdote from my Virginia Republican Primary for Senate experience today (while they're all Trump supporters, I couldn't pass up the chance to vote against Corey Stewart again).

As I live in Northern Virginia, this is a very heavily Democratic area. The only race on the ballot in my precinct was the Republican primary. The guy who checked me in had to make it clear that the election was only a Republican primary, because a lot of people had arrived to vote earlier in the morning and immediately turned around and left when they found out it was only a Republican primary. At the time I had cast my ballot around 10 AM, I was only the 27th person to vote in about 4 hours.

I think it's a very bad sign if, in a heavily Democratic area, there were that many people unaware of exactly what was on the ballot in their area for a primary day. A lot of us here bash Republicans for being uneducated voters and drinking the Trump Kool-Aid straight from the teat. But uninformed voters are on both sides, and uninformed voters are bad.

Oh, sure. But you'll get rid of "uninformed voters" about as soon as you'll get rid of the Sun.

Otherwise, seems like a bad sign for Republicans that Democratic voters (uninformed or otherwise) are so eager to vote against Trump / the GOP that they show up in large numbers on a primary mid-term day, because that sounded like an opportunity to vote non-Republican.

[Holman]

Was there nothing else on the ballot for Dems to address?

Everytime I vote I see the headliners, sure, but then are a dozen or more local officials and proposals and etc. Habitual voters might have shown up expecting those.

Or do the Dems have a different primary day where those items will appear?

[GreenGoo]

I really hate that the GOP is actively colluding and propping up the most corrupt, traitorous President in history, and it's the Democrats who are perceived to have a marketing problem.

That's what marketing is. It's almost literally the very definition of it.

No one thinks marketing is the problem when your product is flying off the shelves.

[Defiant]

[Kraken]

If you want to draw in young voters, you have to let them do it on their phones.

Srsly, I know youngsters have always been the least-engaged demo, but have they always been THAT disengaged or are they trending down recently?

[pr0ner]

Oh, sure. But you'll get rid of "uninformed voters" about as soon as you'll get rid of the Sun.

Otherwise, seems like a bad sign for Republicans that Democratic voters (uninformed or otherwise) are so eager to vote against Trump / the GOP that they show up in large numbers on a primary mid-term day, because that sounded like an opportunity to vote non-Republican.

I think they were genuinely unaware of what was on the ballot, showed up to vote, found out it was a Republican primary, and just left. Primaries in Virginia are open, too, so they could have voted in it if they wanted to. You'd think they would take the time to look up who was on the ballot before showing up. It's not that hard.

Was there nothing else on the ballot for Dems to address?

Everytime I vote I see the headliners, sure, but then are a dozen or more local officials and proposals and etc. Habitual voters might have shown up expecting those.

Or do the Dems have a different primary day where those items will appear?

There's no separate primary day - both Democratic and Republican primaries, if any, were today.

At my precinct there was nothing else on the ballot because there are no House primaries for my district (Don Beyer is running unopposed, and the Republicans aren't having a primary), there's no Democratic Senate primary (Tim Kaine is the Democratic incumbent) and there are no local elections for Fairfax County right now. The Republican Senate primary was it.

[noxiousdog]

If you want to draw in young voters, you have to let them do it on their phones.

Srsly, I know youngsters have always been the least-engaged demo, but have they always been THAT disengaged or are they trending down recently?

I think this is the evidence that shows millenials are indeed ruining the country.

[El Guapo]

If you want to draw in young voters, you have to let them do it on their phones.

Srsly, I know youngsters have always been the least-engaged demo, but have they always been THAT disengaged or are they trending down recently?

I think this is the evidence that shows millenials are indeed ruining the country.

To be fair to millennials, young people voting in inadequate numbers is more defensible than old people voting for people who will get us all killed.

[Kraken]

If you want to draw in young voters, you have to let them do it on their phones.

Srsly, I know youngsters have always been the least-engaged demo, but have they always been THAT disengaged or are they trending down recently?

I think this is the evidence that shows snake people are indeed ruining the country.

Well it certainly dispels any hope that they will save it. Notice that the table measures "interest" in the midterms. Not everyone who's interested will actually take the trouble to vote, so participation will be even lower.

[gilraen]

Anecdote from my Virginia Republican Primary for Senate experience today (while they're all Trump supporters, I couldn't pass up the chance to vote against Corey Stewart again).

Corey Stewart won in Virginia, although by a small margin - but it might say something about the demographic who did turn out to vote.

[pr0ner]

Here's to hoping Stewart gets smoked in November, but months worth of insane, hateful ads won't be fun.

In other news, Trump actively Tweeted against incumbent Mark Stanford (remember him?) in his primary race in South Carolina. Stanford lost. I can't remember the last time a president campaigned against a sitting Congressman of his own party.

[Rip]

Here's to hoping Stewart gets smoked in November, but months worth of insane, hateful ads won't be fun.

In other news, Trump actively Tweeted against incumbent Mark Stanford (remember him?) in his primary race in South Carolina. Stanford lost. I can't remember the last time a president campaigned against a sitting Congressman of his own party.

I wish I couldn't remember the last time a sitting congressman attacked a president from his own party. But you would have to be an absolute moron to not expect Trump to attack back. He hitched his horse to that wagon all on his own.

[GreenGoo]

Because toddler's gonna toddle.

I can't think of a President besides the current one that would get into muck throwing when there is nothing at stake but their ego. What am I saying? He lives in the muck. He's at his happiest when people give him something to throw muck at.

[pr0ner]

Here's to hoping Stewart gets smoked in November, but months worth of insane, hateful ads won't be fun.

In other news, Trump actively Tweeted against incumbent Mark Stanford (remember him?) in his primary race in South Carolina. Stanford lost. I can't remember the last time a president campaigned against a sitting Congressman of his own party.

I wish I couldn't remember the last time a sitting congressman attacked a president from his own party. But you would have to be an absolute moron to not expect Trump to attack back. He hitched his horse to that wagon all on his own.

Trump's antics are worth being criticized and attacked by members of his own party.

Trump has corrupted the Republican party even more than the Tea Party corrupted it.

[Holman]

Here's to hoping Stewart gets smoked in November, but months worth of insane, hateful ads won't be fun.

In other news, Trump actively Tweeted against incumbent Mark Stanford (remember him?) in his primary race in South Carolina. Stanford lost. I can't remember the last time a president campaigned against a sitting Congressman of his own party.

The only thing Trumpier than dancing on the grave of your party's incumbent is waiting till 4 pm on primary day, when your aides say he's toast, and suddenly pretending to have led the attack.