Karen Handel Leads Early Poll to Replace 6th District’s Tom Price

Georgiapol.com ^ | December 1, 2016 | Jon Richards

[Impy]

Well, hopefully we win the NM elections in 2018 and 2020. Need to hold the Governorship (John Sanchez?) take back the House and get that pesky Senate for the first time since ??? (Our campaigns only has the Senate results as far back as ‘96)

[Impy]

Doh, yes, I forgot to mention Lance’s district.

“RI will lose a CD and become a single-district state”

C’est la vie.

Michigan Shilly/Trump/Bama/Romney

MI-01 Bergman, Jack (R) 36.6 57.9 45.3 53.6
MI-02 Huizenga, Bill (R) 38.2 55.8 43.1 56.0
MI-03 Amash, Justin (R) 42.2 51.6 45.8 53.1
MI-04 Moolenaar, John (R) 34.7 59.5 45.5 53.5
MI-05 Kildee, Dan (D) 49.7 45.5 60.7 38.3
MI-06 Upton, Fred (R) 42.9 51.3 48.8 50.2
MI-07 Walberg, Tim (R) 38.7 55.7 47.9 51.0
MI-08 Bishop, Mike (R) 43.9 50.6 48.0 51.1
MI-09 Levin, Sander (D) 51.5 43.7 57.2 41.9
MI-10 Mitchell, Paul (R) 31.6 63.8 43.7 55.3
MI-11 Trott, Dave (R) 45.3 49.7 46.9 52.3
MI-12 Dingell, Debbie (D) 60.8 34.5 66.2 32.8
MI-13 Conyers, John (D) 78.8 18.1 85.2 14.3
MI-14 Lawrence, Brenda (D) 79.2 18.3 81.0 18.6

Nice gain in the 1st, and it was an easy win in the House race, with the weak (why?) Dan Benishek gone we hopefully should not have to worry about that seat anymore.

Nice gain in the 4th, and the 7th, the 10th is insane! 64%!

The 5th was close but held for Shilly, as we previously discussed.

As you may have guessed the GOP margin narrowed in the 11th. Unbeknownst to me, Kerry Benvitolio ran as an indie there, what a jerk. He got around 4%, Trott won easily.

Good thing Kerry B was ousted, can’t have weak candidates.

[Impy]

I can’t believe we couldn’t take MN-8, even with fraud.

Damn Stewart Mills was a bad fit for the district.

An “A” candidate can pick that sucker up and keep it.

If we can win the MN governorship and hold the leg we can do good things there. Gonna suck if they lose a seat though, I don’t think you can cram the Twin city rats into only 1.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Given NM likes to flip back and forth, I’d give Dems a slim edge at reclaiming the Governorship in ‘18. Sanchez ran before in 2002 and fared poorly and he hasn’t left much of a mark as Lt Governor. This isn’t unusual because Lt. Governor is such a dead-end job that only ONE occupant, Ezequiel Cabeza De Baca, has ever won the Governorship while holding the #2 job, and that was in 1916 (some have succeeded to the office, but never elected in their own right).

So Sanchez starts off with that strike against him. Also, the Albuquerque Mayor R.J. Berry might also run in the GOP primary (although preferable to any Dem, Berry hasn’t been a rousing success in his job). Berry’s 2nd term is up next year, and I don’t know if he’s decided to run for a 3rd term. A big primary between the two of them could get ugly and harmful. The 800-lb gorilla, however, is neither Berry or Sanchez, but Congressman Steve Pearce. Pearce ran for Senator and lost. He has to weigh whether it’s better to stay in a safe seat assuring he gets to direct all federal GOP patronage and power or to make a risky run for Governor.

Conversely, the Dems may have a battle royale between the Attorney General Balderas and Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham (and a few others may run, including the Santa Fe Mayor Javier Gonzales and the son of ex-Gov. Jerry Apodaca). The 800-lb. gorilla was Sen. Tom Udall, but he appears to be passing on running (ditto Sen. Heinrich). If the candidates go nuclear, that would benefit the GOP nominee.

I’m not sure the last time the GOP won the State Senate at a regular election, though via a party switch in the mid ‘80s, they were able to either tie or gain a narrow majority, but it went back to the Dems in 1988, I believe.

[fieldmarshaldj]

With redistricting in 2022, the MI GOP should target the 5th and 9th to flip (although I assume the state may lose another seat or two, so that might be rendered moot).

[fieldmarshaldj]

You could put Minneapolis and St. Paul cities proper into one district, but the close-in DFLer suburbs wouldn’t alter the equation much, so probably better to cram them into the two seats as much as possible. The other 6 districts should be Republican, though.

[AuH2ORepublican]

MI will lose a CD, and the MI-09 is the one that should be gotten rid of (it should have been eliminated after the 2010 Census but Republicans chickened out). The heavily RAT parts of Macomb should be added to Conyers’s black-najority CD, and the white RAT parts of Oakland should be added to Lawrence’s black-majority CD (which already includes black parts of Oakland all the way up to Pontiac). The MI-07 in Jackson and Lenawee Counties, which already extends to Monroe County, should be stretched to take in the Downriver communities in southern Wayne (which voted for Trump). The MI-10 can be drawn from the GOP and marginal parts of Macomb plus the Grosse Pointes in Wayne plus as much of St. Clair County as needed to meet the required population. The MI-05 should be unpacked by sending Saginaw and Bay City to the MI-04 and substituting them with the Thumb counties (including the portion of St. Clair County that won’t be in MI-10), which would have given Trump a solid victory in 2016. Such map likely would give us 10 Republicans and just 3 Democrats.

[AuH2ORepublican]

First of all, MN definitely will lose a CD after 2020 (unless it becomes the new ND of the oil and gas industry).

Trying to draw Minneapolis and St. Paul into a single district would be foolosh, since we’d likely lose three suburban districts surrounding it. We’re better off drawing an über-RAT MN-05 in Minneapolis and Hennepin County, and an almost as heavily RAT MN-04 in the most RAT parts of Ramsey (including St. Paul), Anoka, Dakota and Washington Counties (plus going south to take in Northville in Rice County). The three suburban counties surrounding the Twin Cities can be given GOP majorities by (i) having the Hennepin-based MN-03 go west to Wright County and take in sone GOP suburbs north of Hennepin in Anoka and southern Sherburbe), (ii) having the MN-02 add some GOP counties to the west and lose Northfield and its portion of Washington County, and (iii) have the heavily Republican MN-06 go from St. Cloud to almost all of Washington County and marginal parts of Dakota County, skipping over Anoka but adding Chisago and maybe some RAT areas like Pine County. The two remaining CDs would be rural and have given Trump comfortable majorities, with the Duluth-based MN-08 (held by RAT Nolan) losing its southern counties but moving west to the ND border (and taking in like half of Collin Peterson’s CD), while the southern MN-01 (held by RAT Walz) moving west and tgen north to taje in the other half of Peterson’s CD. Peterson likely would retire or lose the RAT primary wherever he ran, and the likeliest result woukd be a 5R, 2D House delegation from MN (a huge improvement from the current 5D, 3R delegation with two Republicans in CDs that only gave Trump between 40%-47%).

[fieldmarshaldj]

Sounds good on both MI & MN. ;-D

[Impy]

Anyone else hate how irrelevant third party votes disrupt mathematical purity? I loved how OK had no 3rd party votes for President recently until Johnson made last year’s ballot.

I present to you the 2 party share of the vote for Trump and Romney along with % change

WY 75.71% 71.16% +4.55%
WV 72.16% 63.67% +8.49%
ND 69.81% 60.12% +9.69%
OK 69.30% 66.77% +2.53%
ID 68.31% 66.42% +1.89%
SD 65.97% 59.22% +6.75%
KY 65.67% 61.54% +4.13%
AL 64.37% 61.22% +3.15%
AR 64.29% 62.15% +2.14%
TN 63.62% 60.35% +3.27%
NE 63.55% 61.12% +2.43%
UT 62.38% 74.63% -12.25%
KS 61.11% 61.06% +0.05%
MT 61.11% 57.03% +4.08%
LA 60.17% 58.75% +1.42%
IN 60.12% 55.21% +4.91%
MO 59.82% 54.78% +5.03%
MS 59.09% 55.80% +3.29%
AK 58.39% 57.32% +1.07%
SC 57.46% 55.31% +2.15%
IA 55.06% 47.04% +8.04%
TX 54.71% 58.01% -3.30%
OH 54.27% 48.49% +5.78%
GA 52.66% 53.96% -1.30%
NC 51.90% 51.03% +0.87%
AZ 51.89% 54.61% -2.72%
FL 50.62% 49.56% +1.06%
WI 50.41% 46.48% +3.93%
PA 50.38% 47.27% +3.11%
MI 50.12% 45.20% +4.92%
NH 49.80% 47.17% +2.63%
MN 49.17% 46.06% +3.11%
NV 48.71% 46.59% +2.12%
ME 48.40% 42.14% +6.26%
CO 47.32% 47.25% +0.07%
VA 47.17% 48.03% -0.86%
NM 45.35% 44.70% +0.65%
DE 44.00% 40.55% +3.45%
OR 43.84% 43.73% +0.11%
CT 42.86% 41.23% +1.63%
NJ 42.72% 41.02% +1.70%
RI 41.69% 35.98% +5.71%
WA 41.21% 42.37% -1.15%
IL 40.98% 41.42% -0.44%
NY 38.23% 35.70% +2.53%
MD 35.98% 36.68% -0.70%
MA 35.35% 38.21% -2.86%
VT 34.81% 31.75% +3.06%
CA 33.87% 38.13% -4.26%
HI 32.56% 28.30% +4.26%
DC 4.31% 7.41% -3.10%

Maine/Nebraska CD Results

n3 78.93% 71.63% +7.30%
n1 61.30% 58.45% +2.85%
M2 55.71% 45.64% +10.07%
n2 51.22% 53.63% -2.41%
M1 42.21% 39.11% +3.01%

US 48.89% 48.04% +0.85%
CF 50.61% 49.14% +1.47%

CF=California Free, US without Cali
1,404,903 margin for Trump outside Cali

For math reasons the order not exactly the same as % margin of victory including all candidates. Utah for example shot up a couple places.

Only 10 of 50 states (and DC and NE-2) saw a decrease.

IL (F you very much DuPage County), MA, CA, MD, AZ, TX (Iowa inched ahead of them!), WA, UT, GA, and VA (suspicious, Kaine or no)

Biggest loss, Utah, though Shillery barely improved on Obama’s total vote share obviously with the McMuffin vote Trump didn’t do as well as Mormon Mitt. McCain’s 2008 2 party vote % was 64.53%, so it was only a little worse than that. Idaho stills sees a gain despite the McMuffin vote there.

Biggest gain in any unit was Maine-2, the biggest gain in a State, North Dakota, land of my ancestors. Iowa the biggest gain in a swing state.

Rhode Island gets out of the basement. Cali worse than MA and VT. OR was alone seeing a gain on a the west coast, though a very small one, they were a fringe swing state but didn’t quite beat out DE.

WV gets the silver medal. They have come a long way. Everywhere but Governor.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“Only 10 of 50 states (and DC and NE-2) saw a decrease.

IL (F you very much DuPage County), MA, CA, MD, AZ, TX (Iowa inched ahead of them!), WA, UT, GA, and VA (suspicious, Kaine or no).”

Trump greatly underperformed Romney among high-income suburbanites (plus among Mormons, many of whom voted for Egg McMuffin instead). Even in the states that you listed, Trump outperformed Romney in blue-collar suburbs and in (non-Mormon) rural areas.

BTW, I do not find the VA numbers suspicious; given Trump’s performance among high-income suburbanites nationwide, and particularly in the DC area, Loudon, Fairfax and PW falling further to the Dark Side was not unexpected anymore than was the further swing towards the GOP of the state’s Appalachian counties.

Our goal for future elections is to get back our suburban support (if not to 2004 levels, at least to 2012 levels) while retaining our gains among blue-collar voters. That would lock up the 306 EVs earned by Trump (his 1% victories in swing states would turn into 3% victories, and GA and AZ would be safely GOP once again) and add MN, NH, VA, CO and maybe NV, ME and NM for a total of 355 EVs.

[campaignPete R-CT]

NE 2
was 51 to 49? 2% margin?
could have thrown it into HOUSE.
why aint NEB leg do something bout that? change house district lines

[Impy]

Indeed, with the turd parties added it was 47.16% Trump 44.92% Clinton. Only MI, PA, WI, and FL were closer wins.

My initial reaction was “abolish the damn splitting law” but I was all “duh” after Auh2o offered the far better solution of changing the lines, after all the rats captured the seat in 2014 and we only narrowly took it back. Having such a close district while the 3rd district is so HEAVILY Republican is absolutely absurd. I blame the lamewad “non-partisan” nature of the GOP majority legislature for their failure to do anything about it in 2012.

[Impy]

I don’t know, Trump lead VA impressively earlier in the counting due to strong rural gains and even though everyone knew that most of NOVA wasn’t in yet, talking heads were openly fearful that she might not be able to close the gap. And then Maryland-South rushes in and she ends up doing better than Obama overall in the state, where Terry McAwful’s #1 goal for his entire administration was to carry the state for her. A little suspicious to me.

Progtards have been highly critical of Clinton’s choice of Kaine as her running mate and strategy of going after higher income suburbanites, but the results indicate the strategy was sound and very nearly successful. Liz Warren as her RM would have greatly undermined it. I don’t know if she takes VA without Kaine on her ticket.

I also think if Bernie were the nominee he’d have done badly in these areas, more than making up for any improvement he would have posted with blue collar voters.

“Our goal for future elections is to get back our suburban support (if not to 2004 levels, at least to 2012 levels) while retaining our gains among blue-collar voters. “

No doubt. And even slight improvements with Hispanic (especially) and Black voters could really F the democrats.

[Impy]

The Kos Swine did Texas

Clinton captured 3 GOP districts, you won’t be surprised by which 3.

The only real swing district in the state, Will Hurd’s 23rd had her make a slight gain and win

Clinton/Trump/Obama/Romney

49.8 46.4 48.1 50.7

I figured she would win that district and was afraid Hurd would lose but he held on 48-47. So we lost it in 2012 when Romney carried it but hold it despite Trump losing it.

The others were the 7th in the Houston burbs, and part of the city itself, the seat has been trending the wrong way and seen GOP margins decline, as I recall. This was HW Bush’s district.

48.5 47.1 38.6 59.9

John Culberson won reelection 56-44. His narrowest margin, his next closest was winning 55.9 to 42.4 in 2008.

And finally the 32nd in the Dallas burbs

48.5 46.6 41.5 57.0

Pete Sessions did not have a rat opponent and won over 70% against a Libertarian and a Green.

As you’ve pointed out, twas upper class Whites and not Hispanics that swung Texas toward Clinton.

Several other districts narrowed, Clinton’s next best GOP district was the 24th (next door to the 32nd) which she lost by 6

44.5 50.7 38.0 60.4

Incumbent Kenny Marchant won 56-39.

I was afraid of a decline in the 12th district (Fort Worth and environs) but it wasn’t major, the rattiest part of Fort Worth is in the 33rd and the 12th’s large other territory swung towards Trump.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I went to the page to look:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/19/1163009/-Daily-Kos-Elections-presidential-results-by-congressional-district-for-the-2012-2008-elections

Some of those swings are crazy (re: TX). How on earth could the execrable Willard, a fake ringer, have that much appeal in TX in those districts while Trump bled off somewhere of 1/5th from him ? It simply doesn’t make sense. I can understand some upscale Whites going squishy, but you’d think a REAL candidate would engender an increase.

I mean, here in TN, Trump declined in only 1 GOP district out of 7 (Knoxville-area 2nd) by 2%, but even Hillary dropped by 1%. TX had a Trump increase only in the 1st and 4th districts and a decline in 33 other districts, both Dem and GOP ?! Either Kos made a big boo-boo or TX is starting to go down a very dark path.

[AuH2ORepublican]

With all due respect, DJ, you obviously overestimate Trump’s popularity among conservative voters, particularly those with high incomes and a Reaganite outlook. A Republican presidential candidate doesn’t get trounced in Orange County, CA, DuPage County, IL, Gwinnett County, GA, Chester County, PA, etc., and badly underperform weak candidates such as John McCain and Mitt Romney in high-income, über-Republican suburbs in WI, MI, TX, GA, etc. if he is popular among conservatives who believe in low spending, free trade and a strong defense.

While I am sure that Trump would run much better with those suburban voters if there was a do-over election today, since his Cabinet picks and most of his statements and actions have allayed fears that he’d be Mike Huckabee on economic issues, Rand Paul on defense and Rudy Giuliani on social issues, the lack of enthusiasm (and, in many cases, outright revulsion) for Trump among high-income, suburban Reaganites was apparent since Trump first started speaking in terms of economic populism and increasing military isolationism, and, while the apprehension towards Trump did decrease somewhat after he won the nomination, it was obvious to anyone that looked at polls that this group, along with Mormons, was Trump’s biggest lagger when compared to prior Republican nominees.

Thank God that Trump’s historic overperformance among blue-collar voters in suburbs, small cities and rural areas more than made up for his underperformance among high-incone suburbanites in key states such as MI, WI, PA, OH and FL (and came close to giving him MN and NH), and he was able to ride that to victory—a victory not only for him and those that voted for him, but for conservatives that didn’t but have (or will) come to realize that he will govern as more of a conservative than his populist message made it appear. But there is no doubt in my mind that the votes reported in recently heavily GOP suburbs in TX and the like were not doctored, and that we’re going to need to recover those votes going forward if we’re to have a permanent majority.

[fieldmarshaldj]

This map was one most concerning. The red/purple counties are those trending Democrat (Hillary) in TX from 2012-2016. Maybe I'm viewing it through jaundiced Tennessee eyes, since there were only 7 counties out of 99 which voted at a higher % for Hillary over Zero in 2012 in my state. I can understand some upscale suburban areas, but there were clearly a lot of areas across Texas that trended Democrat which just has me stumped. I cannot possibly fathom what appeal a fake like Willard (whom, as anyone on FR since after 2005 can attest to, I found viscerally revolting) could/would be more appealing to non-BS Texans than Trump.

Even in adjacent Arkansas, just 9 counties trended Dem and a modest 13 in OK. It just seems TX's reaction to Trump was out of character. Maybe the Bush effect and their visceral hostility to Trump. But Hillary gaining a whopping 569k votes to Trump's paltry 115k ? Disturbing. Hopefully this will be just a one-time aberration.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Seems to me that the counties with big swings towards the D nominee (in terms of percentage margin) between 2012 and 2016 are (i) those around Dallas, (ii) those around Houston, (iii) those around Austin, and (iv) El Paso. That sounds like underperformance among high-income suburbanites and Mexican-Americans. The counties with smaller swings probably can be explained by Gary Johnson and Egg McMuffin getting far more votes than did right-of-center third-party candidates four years ago.

Trump’s vote percentage in GA-06 (the original subject of this thread) was 48%, down from 61% for Romney. The GA-06 are the high-income suburbs north of Atlanta, the area represented by Johnny Isakson and Newt Gingrich prior to Tom Price. Less populist Republicans than Trump did much better in high-income suburbs in 2016, although obviously they did worse than Trump in blue-collar areas (compare the victory maps for Ron Johnson in WI and Pat Toomey in PA to those of Trump). We need to combine Trump’s performance in blue-collar areas with traditional GOP performance in high-income suburbs, or our control of Congress, the presidency, key state governorships and key state legislatures will be brief.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I just was alarmed with noting that Trump failed to increase his % performance over Willard in 33 out of 35 TX CDs. I found it to be an astonishing fact, given the opposition and contrasting that with other GOP states. Hopefully this will just be a one-off and 2020 will see Trump break through 60% there.