Posted on 12/01/2016 3:59:11 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
The first polling is out for the soon to be open 6th district seat held by future Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. In a Landmark Rosetta Stone poll of 500 voters. Former Secretary of State Karen Handel leads at 21.7%, followed by State Rep. and Tom Price’s wife Betty Price at 10%. State Senator Judson Hill, who officially announced his bid, has 8.4%, and State Senator Brandon Beach at 4%. 55.7% are undecided.
There are several caveats to consider when considering the results. First of all, not all potential candidates are listed. Others, including Sen. John Albers and House Speaker Pro Tem Jan Jones were not included, for example. In addition, it is widely believed by insiders that should Handel run, Betty Price would not, and vice versa. IN addition, there were no Democratic names in the poll.
While candidates can explore their options now, Tom Price is unlikely to resign his seat until after he is confirmed by the Senate, which could be in late January. Between qualifying and the election, which is likely to include a runoff, the race may not be settled until June.
(Excerpt) Read more at georgiapol.com ...
Not all Cornhuskers are true “Cornhuskers”.
So could Tom Price be considered Handel’s messiah?
I found this analysis of Trump’s performance in Pennsylvania.
I think the only major surprise for me was that Trump didn’t do better in Allegheny County.
http://www.politicspa.com/analysis-a-complete-breakdown-of-pas-presidential-results-maps/80647/
“I think the only major surprise for me was that Trump didn’t do better in Allegheny County.”
I was wondering about Allegheny too. Look at McCandless, though Trump did still carry it.
The city of ***tsburgh itself went slightly more D.
I said on election night that Lackawanna (lost by only 4.5) and Luzerne (won by 19!) are where he won it.
And while Toomey didn’t run too far behind Trump in those counties, more than made up for by running ahead of him elsewhere, the GOP candidates for the state offices each ran 10-11 points behind there. I was really hoping they’d at least get AG.
Both Toomey and Ron Johnson were able to run just about as well as Romney in high-income areas while doing much better than Romney in blue-collar and rural areas (albeit not nearly as well as Trump ran there), thus allowing them to outoerform Trump statewide. The trick for Republicans nationwide need to harness enough of Trump’s populism to do well in blue-collar and rural areas (although it might be difficult to replicate Trump’s success; it truly was a historic performance for him) without going so far down the populist path so that it impedes them from retaining traditional GOP margins among economically conservative voters. Both Johnson and Toomey threaded the needle pretty well, but we need candidates in 2018 and beyond to do even better because demographics are not moving in our favor.
Ladies and germs, the Kos Kreeps are finally done with the final state, NC. The only GOP seat to see a noteworthy decline was the 2nd district, where George Holding crushed Kevin McCarthy’s mistress Renee Elmers in the primary after re-redistricting (so thanks for that stupid lib courts!!!!), it has rich suburbs surely. Trump lost 3 points there, though Hillary gained none. Holding got over 56%, matching Romney’s 2012 vote share.
Wish we could do better in RINO Walter Jones’ district which went 60.5% Trump.
Though I was certain there would be no split districts in NC, I waited till now to provide this analysis.
241+ districts elected a Republican to Congress, of which 241 took office since the GOP refuses to use their powers to challenge elections like the rats did with that Indiana seat in 1984.
Of those 241 districts, Shillery carried 23
CA-10/21/25/39/45/48/49 (7 GOP districts in the state to Trump’s 5, FU Cali)
TX-7/23/32
PA-6/7
FL-26/27
WA-8, AZ-2, CO-6, KS-3, MN-3, IL-6, VA-10, NJ-7, NY-24
Trump meanwhile carried 12 districts won or “won” by rats
MN-1/7/8
NV-3 (rat gain), AZ-1, IA-2, IL-17, WI-3, PA-17, NJ 5 (rat gain probably our #1 target for 2018), NY-18, NH-1 (rat gain, this is a very slutty acey ducey district that keeps getting back together with Che-Porter)
23 - 12 -= 11, 241 - 11 = 230 districts carried by Trump
MN (4 of 9!), AZ, IL, PA, NY, and NJ saw split districts on both sides.
That rats managed to gain or “gain” 3 seats that Trump carried and that we failed to gain any of the previously rat held seats carried by Trump other than NE-2 and FL-18 (and FL-2 which was certain due to redistricting), is one of the little specs of brown (not chocolate) in a mostly delicious election. That we easily held most of the previously GOP districts that went to Shillery was in contrast, very good, putting us at +11 net.
Now then, I forgot how Romney would have fared if we used the congressional district method in all states.
But lets look at how Trump would have done, he carried 230 districts, plus 30 states ie 60 evs, that’s 290-245. Exactly what he would have gotten had he failed to narrowly win Michigan.
If we use of Auh2’s method of giving 1 electoral vote to the statewide winner and 1 to the winner of the most districts in the state (with statewide as tiebreaker) that would have gained Trump 1 additional vote each from MN (5-3) and VA (6-5) which were carried by Shillery.
292-243
While this distastefully would have gotten Shillery 14 votes closer to winning it would have substantially lowered her chances of getting to 270. Under AuhO’s modified system Trump could have narrowly lost MI, WI, and PA statewide (which in the real world would have given Shillery 278) and lost only 3 votes, still winning with 289 and plenty of room to spare. Lose FL? Still wins at 288! Lose Diaz-Balart’s district in FL? That gives Hillary more districts in the state (GD district map) and thus 2 more votes. But Trump still wins with 286, matching Bush in 2004!
Based on these election results Shillery would have had little chance under this system.
Thanks for the recap, Impy. Excellent job, although I think that you have a typo in your CA snippet: CA has 14 Republicans in the House, 7 from Hillary CDs and thus 7 (not 5) from Trump CDs. I just looked up the CDs carried by Trump in CA: CA-01 (LaMalfa), CA-04 (McClintock), CA-08 (Cook), CA-22 (Nunes), CA-23 (McCarthy), CA-42 (Calvert) and CA-50 (Hunter).
Regarding the adoption of the CD method of EV allocation, there is no way that we’ll ever get multi-district states that are comfortably RAT in presidential elections (such as CA, NY, IL and MD) to adopt such a plan given that the GOP won’t get a trifecta (state house, state senate and governorship) in those states in the foreseeable future. The GOP also is missing complete control in NV, NM, CO, MN, PA, NC, NJ, VA, OR and WA, and Democrats there won’t go along with the CD method because such change would help the GOP. Right now, I guess that we can adopt it in MI, WI, OH, MI, IN and FL, but I wouldn’t do so until we know for sure that we’ll control 2022 redistricting in those states and that several states will be making the change to the CD method. The only “lone wolves” that I would favor adopting the CD nethod even in the absence of of coordination with other states are NH and (if we gain the governorship this year) VA.
And, yes, I would allocate the two non-CD-based EVs by giving one to the statewide winner and one to the winner of the most CDs (and, in case if a tie for most CDs carried, the EV going for the candidate with the most statewide votes among those tied). Allocating an EV to the winner of the most CDs (instead of giving both extra EVs to the statewide winner) could help us in many states (as Impy mentioned, Trump would have gotten one extra EV in MN and VA and would have held on to one of the extra CDs even had he not carried PA, MI, WI or FL), but I would keep at least one EV to be allocated to the statewide winner in order to help us in the obligatory constitutional challenges from Democrats based on alleged violations of one-man, one-vote and equal protection.
Color me thick but what does all this churning accomplish? We do not have this system? Or is there a point here I’m missing?
“Excellent job, although I think that you have a typo in your CA snippet: CA has 14 Republicans in the House, 7 from Hillary CDs and thus 7 (not 5) from Trump CDs”
Yes, thank you for catching that error.
7/7 is bad enough.
It’s just interesting and fun to us nerds. ;d
New separate article with several maps and charts
Getting this thread back on topic after I repeatedly hijacked it, ;d,
Handel is officially running according to Politics1.com
No news articles I can find so I don’t know their source.
Yeah, I saw that Handel is in (The Green Papers also is reporting it). The filing deadline is next week IIRC and, being a GA special election, there will be an all-party jungle primary (it’s scheduled for April 18) with a June run-off among the top two finishers in the almost certain event that no one gets 50%+1. I hope that the four Democrats currently in the race stay in so as to reduce the odds of two Democrats finishing one-two due to a split GOP vote among the many Republicans running.
Since the qualifying period lasts just 3 days, Feb 13, 14 & 15, no one is technically an official candidate until Monday.
Yeah, we wouldn’t want exactly 2 democrats running, the more the merrier.
WA State has a GOP Treasurer right now cause 3 democrats and 2 Republicans ran in the primary.
Poll.
Rat Jon Ossoff, a Caucuasian former aide to Rat Congressman Lewis, is out in front with 32%, the four other rats listed by politics1 don’t appear to be registering much support, Ossoff looks good for a runoff spot. He wants to “Stop Trump” or something. Probably a progtard.
Handel leads Republicans with 32%. Johns Creek (pop 76K) City Councilman Bob Gray (R) is next with 11%. Former State Senator Judson Hill (R) at 9%.
Handel leads Republicans with 25%, my bad.
Ossoff 32%, Handel 25%,
58% of district voters in this poll have a favorable view of President Trump, that’s a great number considering how close the POTUS voting was there.
Barring an upset, it will likely be those two in the runoff. Handel should win it by 60-40% or so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.