Scrutable

ABC House projection currently standing at D 205-211 R with 19 outstanding races.

Of those races:

• 2 solid Democrat, both voting Dem
• 6 likely or leaning Democrat, all currently with Dems ahead
• 2 toss-ups, Alaska-at-large and Oregon-5. Alaska has a run-off system, but the Dem is currently on 47% and won last time in the final round, so it seems likely she'll win there. OR-5 is currently Rep, with a lead of less than 7,000 votes and 15% left to count. Assume Rep though.
• 5 likely or leaning Republican, all currently with Reps ahead
• 5 solid Republican, two of which are actually voting in that direction, one (Colorado-3) is Lauren Boebert's district, and there's less than 2,000 votes in it, but less than 1% left to count. The other two, Arizona-1 and Washington-3, are currently voting Dem. The former there has 15% of votes left to count, and the latter 8%. Not certain how it'll go, but every chance the Dems will win there.

If things stay as they are, the House will end up D 216-219 R. Which will be fun.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 12, 2022 9:20 am

ABC House projection currently standing at D 205-211 R with 19 outstanding races.

Of those races:

• 2 solid Democrat, both voting Dem
• 6 likely or leaning Democrat, all currently with Dems ahead
• 2 toss-ups, Alaska-at-large and Oregon-5. Alaska has a run-off system, but the Dem is currently on 47% and won last time in the final round, so it seems likely she'll win there. OR-5 is currently Rep, with a lead of less than 7,000 votes and 15% left to count. Assume Rep though.
• 5 likely or leaning Republican, all currently with Reps ahead
• 5 solid Republican, two of which are actually voting in that direction, one (Colorado-3) is Lauren Boebert's district, and there's less than 2,000 votes in it, but less than 1% left to count. The other two, Arizona-1 and Washington-3, are currently voting Dem. The former there has 15% of votes left to count, and the latter 8%. Not certain how it'll go, but every chance the Dems will win there.

If things stay as they are, the House will end up D 216-219 R. Which will be fun.

The question is, of the R how many are really tR?

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 12, 2022 9:20 am

If things stay as they are, the House will end up D 216-219 R. Which will be fun.

Especially as we can expect that some of those from either party will die or resign in disgrace over the next two years.

Your numbers don't add up right, EPD.

It would come out more like 213-222 on your summary.

NBC are copying EPD and predict 219-216

WA-3 has been called for the D.

ETA 219 + or - 4

And it's looking more and more like the D will win the Arizona Governorship

Nevada is now called for Democrats, meaning they hold the Senate (and judicial appointments), even without Georgia.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:24 am

Nevada is now called for Democrats, meaning they hold the Senate (and judicial appointments), even without Georgia.

Was just on my way to post that. Fantastic news, hopefully it won't lead to complacency in the Georgia runoffs.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:27 am

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:24 am

Nevada is now called for Democrats, meaning they hold the Senate (and judicial appointments), even without Georgia.

Was just on my way to post that. Fantastic news, hopefully it won't lead to complacency in the Georgia runoffs.

I hope not, because Manchin and Sinema vote Republican as often as Democrat. In fact, I wonder sometimes why those two are in the Democratic party. If your day to day person is willing to risk their time and job to go stand in line for hours to vote again though...more so than the Republicans...we'll see...

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:27 am

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:24 am

Nevada is now called for Democrats, meaning they hold the Senate (and judicial appointments), even without Georgia.

Was just on my way to post that. Fantastic news, hopefully it won't lead to complacency in the Georgia runoffs.

I think it's the Rs who have that problem more than the Ds.

What percentage of Republican voters in Georgia are going to go out and vote for a black man who happens to be able to barely string a sentence together, is on record as lying a lot, and paying for abortions while running on banning abortion, when there are no other R candidates on the ballot and the race won't affect control of the Senate?

It is interesting that R is doing better in the house than the senate. The demography of senate elections in principle favours R, because it is mostly 2 senators per state regardless of the state's population, and sparser populations are typically more R-leaning. House constituencies have more even population, though are often gerrymandered at a state level. At the moment, it looking like state-level gerrymandering is more useful tool for R than the "natural" demographic advantage of the senate.

The Senate is more determined by the split between the 2/4/6 year cycle. 2024 is bad for Democrats, which is where the geography will assert itself. They are only at the current 50/50 or 51/49 due to the anomalies like West Virginia.

lpm wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 14, 2022 11:30 am

The Senate is more determined by the split between the 2/4/6 year cycle. 2024 is bad for Democrats, which is where the geography will assert itself. They are only at the current 50/50 or 51/49 due to the anomalies like West Virginia.

Although it was only 2009 when the Ds had 60 senators (once Al Franken was finally seated after 6 months legal wrangling over the result in Minnesota)

Do US Senators or Congressman ever defect during their term ("Cross the Floor" in UK language). If so do they keep their seats or is it automatic special election?

ed - typo

2009 seems a different world, with Democrat Senators from places like Arkansas and Louisiana.

In 2020 Biden won the vote 51.3%-46.9%. The states won were split 25-25, showing what's needed merely to counter geography.

2024 Democrat Senators at serious risk are West Virginia (Trump +39 in 2020), Montana (Trump +16) and Ohio (Trump +8). Plus the usual battlegrounds of PA, WI, MI, NV, AZ.

No real targets in 2024, assuming Florida is lost to sanity and Texas will never go purple.

So highly likely, under the current extreme division into red and blue states, to end up Republicans winning at least 52-48 in 2024.

Imrael wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 14, 2022 12:36 pm

Do US Senators or Congressman ever defect during their term ("Cross the Floor" in UK language). If so do they keep their seats or is it automatic special election?

Yes, they keep their seats. Happens quite a lot. Mostly from Rep/Dem to Independent rather than directly across.

There was a Pennsylvania Senator, Arlen Specter, who switched Rep to Dem a few years ago. Joe Manchin is a definite risk in the next two years.

There's quite a steady flow in the House. If it ends up 219-215 on paper, it will never be that in reality. In the last two years there has never at any point been the full 435 members - there's always been a death or resignation leaving a seat pending.

At the state level, f.cking Charlie Crist in Florida was a Republican governor, then a Dem Congressman, now fights and loses elections as a Democrat.

IvanV wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 14, 2022 10:50 am

At the moment, it looking like state-level gerrymandering is more useful tool for R than the "natural" demographic advantage of the senate.

Is there anywhere that has quantified the effect? I was reading an article a while back that stated that the Democrats won the popular vote in 2016 not only in the presidential but also both Senate and House elections, but my google fu is weak at the moment, and I can't find any actual vote counts that might highlight how big the overall effect is.

lpm wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 12, 2022 11:54 am

Your numbers don't add up right, EPD.

It would come out more like 213-222 on your summary.

Well, the numbers definitely didn't add up right, but mainly because there seem to be too many states in the ABC projection. It currently stands at 206-211, and of the remainder, 2 are solid Dem (CA-21, CA-34), 6 are leaning Dem (CA-9, CA-13, CA-47, CA-49, ME-2, OR-6), 2 are toss-ups (AK-1, OR-5), 5 are leaning Rep (AZ-6, CA-22, CA-27, CA-45, NY-22), and 4 are solid Rep (AZ-1, CA-3, CA-41, CO-3).

Add on those 19 seats and there's one too many, so something has gone awry - possibly CA-34 which still hasn't been called despite not having a Republican candidate.

The Dems have now won WA-3, which was solid Rep before; they're now 900 votes behind in AZ-1, so may well lose that. Assuming nothing changes, and ignoring CA-34, the Dems are ahead in CA-21, OR-6, CA-9, CA-47, CA-49, ME-2, OR-6, and AK-1, which puts them on 214, and the Reps on 221. They're losing but within 2 points in CA-13, OR-5, AZ-1, AZ-6, NY-22, CA-41 and CO-3.

Finally, ABC news can't do a text sort which treats 9 as a smaller number than 10.

philbo wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 14, 2022 4:33 pm

IvanV wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 14, 2022 10:50 am

At the moment, it looking like state-level gerrymandering is more useful tool for R than the "natural" demographic advantage of the senate.

Is there anywhere that has quantified the effect? I was reading an article a while back that stated that the Democrats won the popular vote in 2016 not only in the presidential but also both Senate and House elections, but my google fu is weak at the moment, and I can't find any actual vote counts that might highlight how big the overall effect is.

You can try these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Unit ... l_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Unit ... _elections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Unit ... _elections

Hilary Clinton got nearly 3 million more votes than Trump (48.2% v 46.1%, because of independents) but Trump won the electoral college 304-227.

In the House, the Republicans won the popular vote (63.2 million to 61.8 million, or 49.1% to 48.0%) and they won 241 seats to 194, but the Democrats made a gain of 6 seats on a ~2.5% vote swing.

For the Senate it's more complicated. The Democrats got 10.5 million more senate votes in 2016 than the Republicans, but only 34 of the 100 seats were in play and 24 of the 34 had been Republican seats to start with. The Democrats took 2 seats with their 10.5 million vote advantage (51.3 million to 40.8 million) but only won 12 seats while the Republicans won 22. (4.3 million votes per seat (D) vs 1.8 million votes per seat (R).)

One of the issues with the Senate is that in 2016 it took 12.2 million votes for the Democrats to hold California, but only 135,000 votes for the Republicans to hold Alaska, and each senate seat is worth the same once you get to DC, and many of the lower population states where senate seats are "easier" to win are Republican. The electoral college weighting system is supposed to even that out to some extent.

Martin_B wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:33 am

You can try these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Unit ... l_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Unit ... _elections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Unit ... _elections

Hilary Clinton got nearly 3 million more votes than Trump (48.2% v 46.1%, because of independents) but Trump won the electoral college 304-227.

In the House, the Republicans won the popular vote (63.2 million to 61.8 million, or 49.1% to 48.0%) and they won 241 seats to 194, but the Democrats made a gain of 6 seats on a ~2.5% vote swing.

For the Senate it's more complicated. The Democrats got 10.5 million more senate votes in 2016 than the Republicans, but only 34 of the 100 seats were in play and 24 of the 34 had been Republican seats to start with. The Democrats took 2 seats with their 10.5 million vote advantage (51.3 million to 40.8 million) but only won 12 seats while the Republicans won 22. (4.3 million votes per seat (D) vs 1.8 million votes per seat (R).)

One of the issues with the Senate is that in 2016 it took 12.2 million votes for the Democrats to hold California, but only 135,000 votes for the Republicans to hold Alaska, and each senate seat is worth the same once you get to DC, and many of the lower population states where senate seats are "easier" to win are Republican. The electoral college weighting system is supposed to even that out to some extent.

Ah, yes - those pages do have the sort of information I was looking for, though it gets particularly confused as I'd kind of forgotten that they don't vote for all in one go.

The presidential stuff, relating to popular vote and the electoral college is the one I was aware of (obvs ); and was aware of the huge disparity in Senate representation (though the 2016 figures are a little shocking: winning just over half the seats with 25% more votes does make it look grossly unfair; it was House district gerrymandering that I was thinking about.. and the House is more proportional than the Senate, but historically still quite heavily loaded in favour of Republicans - though looking at the 2022 House wiki page, it's showing (current tallies.. still a handful to go):
Seats won: R217, D209
Popular vote: R52,902,005, D48,514,183
..so votes per seat: R244k, D232k
The Democrats outperformed in seats their polling percentage. Which didn't happen in the last few I've had a quick look at.

My guess would be that this is somewhat related to some of the negativity towards election-denying candidates, who managed to lose what should be comfortable Republican wins - the popular vote would suggest more of a "red wave" than the resulting seat count.

Good to see the dem win again in Georgia. Republicans won’t be able to lean on Senator Coaly McCoalface

I failed to be elected Speaker today. I'm not the only one.

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 03, 2023 7:10 pm

I failed to be elected Speaker today. I'm not the only one.

But did you fail twice?