ZZL's Election Coverage & Results Thread

[Zsa Zsa's leg 884]

Didn't want my election coverage posts to clog up the political rants thread, so I think an election coverage thread is necessary since we're in a midterm election year and Presidential candidates will begin announcing later this year and early next year. Admins feel free to merge this back to the rants thread if they feel this isn't adequate.

Anyways, tonight's primary elections brought some of the usual and expected results, but in some cases, key races were completely different than what I and most political analysts expected. Ultimately, a theme I saw tonight was a rebellion on both sides against the current national and state administrations where the primaries were held, especially in states like Oklahoma and New York where the current Governors are uniquely unpopular.

 

Let's start.

 

South Carolina (runoff)

Not many races tonight, and only one of them, the gubernatorial race, was high profile. This is because South Carolina, like multiple southern states and South Dakota, have a system where if a candidate doesn't receive over 50% of the vote, a separate election is held on a later date. The only race worth discussing is the race for Governor, where Trump-endorsed Governor Henry McMaster failed to clear 50% on June 12th, and went into a runoff with fellow Republican John Warren. This outcome was expected, but the margins were closer than expected. I assume the close result is due to McMaster not actually being elected Governor before. Despite being an incumbent, he only assumed office when Governor Nikki Haley resigned to become the U.S. Ambassador to The U.N.. McMaster, the Lieutenant Governor at the time of Haley's resignation assumed the office due to the line of succession.

South Carolina Governor: GOP Primary RO

98% of precincts reporting.

Henry McMaster* - 53.3% (Winner)

John Warren - 46.7%

 

Mississippi (runoff)

Nothing really to see here other than the Republican runoff in the 3rd Congressional District to replace outgoing incumbent Gregg Harper, who is retiring. Because of MS-03's partisan lean, whoever won the GOP primary was almost certain to succeed Harper. Having passed through Mississippi on the drive to the beach, I can testify that Michael Guest signs were on every corner and in every small to medium sized town in MS-03. Surprised he didn't clear 50% initially. The other high profile race in MS was the Democratic runoff for the normally scheduled Senate election, between David Baria and Howard Sherman. IMO, Roger Wicker, the incumbent Republican Senator is much more safe than Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith, who was appointed by Governor Phil Bryant to replace Thad Cochran, who resigned from ill health.

Mississippi Senator: DEM Primary RO

99% of precincts reporting.

David Baria - 58.5% (Winner)

Howard Sherman - 41.5%

MS-03: GOP Primary RO

Michael Guest - 65.1% (Winner)

Whit Hughes - 34.9%

 

Maryland

No big federal primaries here. Chelsea Manning flopped miserably against Ben Cardin in the Democratic Senate Primary, she only got around 6% of the vote (lol). Only other important race was in the 6th District vacated by Rep. John Delaney, who retired to run for President in 2020. His likely replacement is Democrat David Trone, who won the Democratic Primary with 40% of the vote. Although, Democratic Former NAACP Chairman Ben Jealous took the Democratic nod for Governor against popular-moderate-blue-state-governor-number-35, Larry Hogan, who may be familiar to this forum for battling cancer some years ago. 

Maryland Governor: DEM Primary

Ben Jealous - 39.8% (Winner)

Rushern Baker - 29.3%

Jim Shea - 8.3%

Others - 22.5%

 

Oklahoma

Unlikely a Democrat will win statewide in Oklahoma, especially since the more electable Republican, Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett, took the lead in the GOP Primary for Governor, and I personally think he's the favorite to take the  nomination now. Despite this, Oklahoma, like South Carolina and Mississippi, requires runoff elections for races where a candidate can't reach 50%. This is definitely a blow to Lieutenant Governor Todd Lamb, who won't qualify for the runoff as he only made it to 3rd place. Lamb is the Lieutenant Governor under horribly unpopular Governor Mary Fallin. 

Oklahoma Governor: GOP Primary

Mick Cornett - 29.3% (Runoff)

Kevin Stitt - 24.4% (Runoff)

Todd Lamb - 23.9%

Others - 22.4%

 

New York

New York was a big state tonight, 3 incumbent Democrats, yes THREE were at risk of losing their House primaries, with one actually losing, one narrowly surviving, and the other winning by a small, but comfortable margin. On the Republican side, a Roy Moore magnitude disaster was avoided in the 11th District with Representative Dan Donovan defeating his predecessor and convicted felon Michael Grimm by around a 65-35 margin. The only incumbent defeated tonight, and the first Democrat of the cycle to lose renomination, was Congressman Joe Crowley, a prominent Democratic Congressman once speculated as a possible replacement for Nancy Pelosi as the House Democratic Leader. This is giving me flashbacks to tea party Republican Dave Brat's upset against House Majority Leader Eric Cantor back in 2014. Crowley's opponent who defeated him is Justice Democrat and 28-year-old first time campaigner Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I'm excited to see Ocasio-Cortez enter Congress, being so far the only Justice Democrat to defeat an incumbent Congressman. 

NY-09: Democratic Primary

Yvette Clarke* - 51.9% (Winner)

Adem Bunkeddeko - 48.1%

NY-12: Democratic Primary

Carolyn Maloney* - 58.8% (Winner)

Suraj Patel - 41.2%

NY-14: Democratic Primary

Joe Crowley* - 42.5%

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - 57.5% (Winner)

 

Utah

Nothing to see here in this solidly Republican and mormon state. Mitt Romney defeated a conservative challenger in his Senate race.

 

Colorado

Walker Stapleton and Jared Polis, the two favorites from the Democratic and Republican parties respectively, both won their primaries. Likely to win in November, Jared Polis will be Colorado's first gay Governor and will be one of the nation's richest Governors. In CO-06, DCCC favorite Jason Crow easily dispatched Justice Democrat Levi Tillemann despite Tillemann using the DCCC telling him to drop out so Crow could win to his advantage. 

[Joey Russ 7,229]

34 minutes ago, Zsa Zsa's leg said:

Oklahoma

Unlikely a Democrat will win statewide in Oklahoma, especially since the more electable Republican, Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett, took the lead in the GOP Primary for Governor, and I personally think he's the favorite to take the  nomination now. Despite this, Oklahoma, like South Carolina and Mississippi, requires runoff elections for races where a candidate can't reach 50%. This is definitely a blow to Lieutenant Governor Todd Lamb, who won't qualify for the runoff as he only made it to 3rd place. Lamb is the Lieutenant Governor under horribly unpopular Governor Mary Fallin. 

Oklahoma Governor: GOP Primary

Mick Cornett - 29.3% (Runoff)

Kevin Stitt - 24.4% (Runoff)

Todd Lamb - 23.9%

Others - 22.4%

I think Edmondson definitely has a chance. Since Stitt and Cornett aren’t popular with teachers and there were a lot more of them voting than in the past, he could become the next governor. Besides, they already had a Democratic governor as recently as the early 2000’s...

[Zsa Zsa's leg 884]

18 minutes ago, Joey Russ said:

I think Edmondson definitely has a chance. Since Stitt and Cornett aren’t popular with teachers and there were a lot more of them voting than in the past, he could become the next governor. Besides, they already had a Democratic governor as recently as the early 2000’s...

True, but Cornett is definitely a better candidate than Lamb. Brad Henry was only elected because back in 2002, Democrats didn't just focus on swing states and districts, they focused on every district and state. Today's Democratic Party however is prioritizing a "red to blue" list for their midterm operations, meaning rural states and districts won't receive party funds and the outside chance that one gets elected is essentially thrown out the window. I'm not seeing much attention being thrown to Edmondson, albeit it is the primary season. I'll be surprised, but definitely happy if Edmondson wins, because Oklahoma surely needs a good Governor after Mary Fallin' Apart is done with her term.

[RadGuy 1,614]

Not sure about this thread. I know you weren't around back then, but we did have separate threads for the 2016 primaries and 2016 general election. So the same can be expected in 2020 for the primaries and general.
Perhaps rename this the "2018 midterms" thread or sum'n like that.

 

As for Ocasio-Cortez's victory, I'm overjoyed. Joe Crowley was the incumbent with all the name recognition, and he spent 10 times as much money as her. But lost. Oh, how glorious. 

 

Watching how shocked all the pundits and number-crunchers are after last night is beautiful. Joy Ann Reid even admitted she never heard of Ocasio-Cortez before she won. 

 

Of course, they're already making excuses about how this doesn't mean anything and the fact she was a progressive and a democratic socialist and a Berniecrat doesn't mean anything. But it does show that far-left candidates who focus on economic justice can do well in a country that is predominately made up of working class people.

 

But no, the pundits say, that socialist Ocasio-Cortez only won because it was the Bronx and Queens. She wouldn't stand a chance in West Virginia; Democratic candidates in conservative places need to be centrist and centre-right!

 

That's not exactly true either. First of all, it's not an issue of "centrist vs. far-left". It's an issue of "corrupt/corporatist vs. pro-working people". The moderate Democrats are moderate on economic issues because they take money from corporations and big pharma and such. So obviously they're not gonna fight for a working class agenda. 

 

The working class social conservatives of the South could definitely support Berniecrats and progressives, but with a couple of 'requirements'.

1. Little emphasis on identity politics 
2. Don't call yourself a 'socialist' because people are ignorant and are scared of that word and think it means you're a full blown dirty Soviet commie.
3. Be socially conservative, or at least don't bring up social issues like gay rights or gun laws.

 

What's the proof? Richard Ojeda is a Democrat running for Congress in West Virginia's 3rd district. He is endorsed by the Bernie wing of the party, he supports medicare for all, and is a big union guy. But he's also pro-mining, and doesn't discuss social issues.
He currently has a 6-point lead in the polls on his Republican opponent.

 

Basically, far-left progressives CAN succeed in poor, conservative areas. They just need to put the emphasis on stuff like healthcare, welfare, and prosperity. The ruby red state of Kansas had a Democratic governor a mere 15 years ago because she focused her campaign on the economy, healthcare, and Social Security, rather than being liberal on social issues. 

 

Unfortunately, a lot of working class Southerners and Midwesterns have been voting against their best economic interests, because they've been fed the propaganda that the Democrats are lunatics who wanna turn your kids gay, steal everyone's guns, make veganism mandatory, and open the borders for all the illegal immigrant criminals to rape your wives and steal your jobs. Progressives who don't focus on those issues can easily win running on populist economic issues. 

 

So, when the hacky pundits tell you only "moderate Democrats" can win in Republican areas, they're not giving you the full picture. By "moderate", they mean people who won't stand up for raising the minimum wage or for universal healthcare. But this couldn't be further from the truth. 

 

Poor rednecks in the heartland don't vote Republican because of their corporate economic message, I mean why would they? They're broke as fuck! They vote Republican because neither the Republicans nor the moderate Democrats actually give a fuck about them, so they might as well vote Republican based on social issues and conservative "traditional American" culture.

 

Progressives who don't take corporate donations and who will fight for working people can win anywhere, whether it's New York City or West Virginia. Except of course for a handful of rich neighborhoods and towns - the only places that actually like the status quo and corporatist policies. But those places are in the minority.

[Zsa Zsa's leg 884]

3 hours ago, Phantom of the Midway said:

Not sure about this thread. I know you weren't around back then, but we did have separate threads for the 2016 primaries and 2016 general election. So the same can be expected in 2020 for the primaries and general.
Perhaps rename this the "2018 midterms" thread or sum'n like that.

 

As for Ocasio-Cortez's victory, I'm overjoyed. Joe Crowley was the incumbent with all the name recognition, and he spent 10 times as much money as her. But lost. Oh, how glorious. 

 

Watching how shocked all the pundits and number-crunchers are after last night is beautiful. Joy Ann Reid even admitted she never heard of Ocasio-Cortez before she won. 

 

Of course, they're already making excuses about how this doesn't mean anything and the fact she was a progressive and a democratic socialist and a Berniecrat doesn't mean anything. But it does show that far-left candidates who focus on economic justice can do well in a country that is predominately made up of working class people.

 

But no, the pundits say, that socialist Ocasio-Cortez only won because it was the Bronx and Queens. She wouldn't stand a chance in West Virginia; Democratic candidates in conservative places need to be centrist and centre-right!

 

That's not exactly true either. First of all, it's not an issue of "centrist vs. far-left". It's an issue of "corrupt/corporatist vs. pro-working people". The moderate Democrats are moderate on economic issues because they take money from corporations and big pharma and such. So obviously they're not gonna fight for a working class agenda. 

 

The working class social conservatives of the South could definitely support Berniecrats and progressives, but with a couple of 'requirements'.

1. Little emphasis on identity politics 
2. Don't call yourself a 'socialist' because people are ignorant and are scared of that word and think it means you're a full blown dirty Soviet commie.
3. Be socially conservative, or at least don't bring up social issues like gay rights or gun laws.

 

What's the proof? Richard Ojeda is a Democrat running for Congress in West Virginia's 3rd district. He is endorsed by the Bernie wing of the party, he supports medicare for all, and is a big union guy. But he's also pro-mining, and doesn't discuss social issues.
He currently has a 6-point lead in the polls on his Republican opponent.

 

Basically, far-left progressives CAN succeed in poor, conservative areas. They just need to put the emphasis on stuff like healthcare, welfare, and prosperity. The ruby red state of Kansas had a Democratic governor a mere 15 years ago because she focused her campaign on the economy, healthcare, and Social Security, rather than being liberal on social issues. 

 

Unfortunately, a lot of working class Southerners and Midwesterns have been voting against their best economic interests, because they've been fed the propaganda that the Democrats are lunatics who wanna turn your kids gay, steal everyone's guns, make veganism mandatory, and open the borders for all the illegal immigrant criminals to rape your wives and steal your jobs. Progressives who don't focus on those issues can easily win running on populist economic issues. 

 

So, when the hacky pundits tell you only "moderate Democrats" can win in Republican areas, they're not giving you the full picture. By "moderate", they mean people who won't stand up for raising the minimum wage or for universal healthcare. But this couldn't be further from the truth. 

 

Poor rednecks in the heartland don't vote Republican because of their corporate economic message, I mean why would they? They're broke as fuck! They vote Republican because neither the Republicans nor the moderate Democrats actually give a fuck about them, so they might as well vote Republican based on social issues and conservative "traditional American" culture.

 

Progressives who don't take corporate donations and who will fight for working people can win anywhere, whether it's New York City or West Virginia. Except of course for a handful of rich neighborhoods and towns - the only places that actually like the status quo and corporatist policies. But those places are in the minority.

I was very excited over Ocasio's victory too, but do I think this means that the Democratic party will embrace Berniecrats and Justice Dem's? No. Upsets happen, just like the one I mentioned with Eric Cantor and Dave Brat in VA-07, and one almost happened in IL-03 with Dan Lipinski and Marie Newman. I guess minority voters got tired of Crowley's machine politics, ties to Democratic leadership, and his refusal to even live or send his kids to school in the district. His sh!tty debate performance didn't help either. 

I do think that AOC's victory sends a message to progressives and JD's just like her: stop focusing on swing districts and try taking swings at incumbent, white Democrats in heavily minority districts, that are sick of their representation. The populist tone definitely leaves a vacuum for upsets like AOC's 15-point victory last night. I say that Steve Cohen, Pete Visclosky, Dan Lipinski, David Price, Basically the entire Democratic delegation of California, and plenty others should be terrified of this movement, especially if they don't regularly hold town halls and reach out to their constituents.

[Zsa Zsa's leg 884]

3 hours ago, Phantom of the Midway said:

Poor rednecks in the heartland don't vote Republican because of their corporate economic message, I mean why would they? They're broke as fuck! They vote Republican because neither the Republicans nor the moderate Democrats actually give a fuck about them, so they might as well vote Republican based on social issues and conservative "traditional American" culture.

You'd be surprised. At Trump's recent South Carolina rally (not the.... wealthiest state), he bragged about his tax bill eliminating O'Care's individual mandate, which helps insure at least half of that crowd. 

[DeathClock 379]

7 hours ago, Zsa Zsa's leg said:

I was very excited over Ocasio's victory too, but do I think this means that the Democratic party will embrace Berniecrats and Justice Dem's? No. Upsets happen, just like the one I mentioned with Eric Cantor and Dave Brat in VA-07, and one almost happened in IL-03 with Dan Lipinski and Marie Newman. I guess minority voters got tired of Crowley's machine politics, ties to Democratic leadership, and his refusal to even live or send his kids to school in the district. His sh!tty debate performance didn't help either. 

I do think that AOC's victory sends a message to progressives and JD's just like her: stop focusing on swing districts and try taking swings at incumbent, white Democrats in heavily minority districts, that are sick of their representation. The populist tone definitely leaves a vacuum for upsets like AOC's 15-point victory last night. I say that Steve Cohen, Pete Visclosky, Dan Lipinski, David Price, Basically the entire Democratic delegation of California, and plenty others should be terrified of this movement, especially if they don't regularly hold town halls and reach out to their constituents.

Couldn't agree more, I actually do live in New York 14th congressional district and voted for AOC. Over the last couple of years my friends and I started to realize that Crowley was hardly ever in the district. We felt like he was too caught up with the, “Speaker of the House” hype. Despite all of this, I still planned on voting for him until that debate. It became obvious he toke everybody’s vote for granted, and that he only care’s about becoming a powerful politician. 

 

In the meantime, AOC was always in the district and generally seemed to care about everyone who lives in the area. But, I have yet to met a die hard supporter of her’s. Honestly, this was more about replacing Crowley then electing her, tbh.

 

I hope this sends a message to all politicians that you can’t ever take anyone’s vote for granted. You must help the people you represent first, and then you can advance your political career. 

 

I leave you guys with 3 words: Watch out Cuomo!!!

[Joey Russ 7,229]

I do agree with Phantom that this should be more of a 2018 midterms thread rather than a thread of your own predictions. Otherwise, would it be okay if every single person be allowed to make their own political predictions thread, or a “How will I do in this dead pool” thread type? 

[Zsa Zsa's leg 884]

1 hour ago, Joey Russ said:

I do agree with Phantom that this should be more of a 2018 midterms thread rather than a thread of your own predictions. Otherwise, would it be okay if every single person be allowed to make their own political predictions thread, or a “How will I do in this dead pool” thread type? 

Not my predictions, haven't made any predictions in here. This is an election coverage and analysis thread. The mods can feel free to change the title if people are that mad.

[Zsa Zsa's leg 884]

1 hour ago, DeathClock said:

Couldn't agree more, I actually do live in New York 14th congressional district and voted for AOC. Over the last couple of years my friends and I started to realize that Crowley was hardly ever in the district. We felt like he was too caught up with the, “Speaker of the House” hype. Despite all of this, I still planned on voting for him until that debate. It became obvious he toke everybody’s vote for granted, and that he only care’s about becoming a powerful politician. 

 

In the meantime, AOC was always in the district and generally seemed to care about everyone who lives in the area. But, I have yet to met a die hard supporter of her’s. Honestly, this was more about replacing Crowley then electing her, tbh.

 

I hope this sends a message to all politicians that you can’t ever take anyone’s vote for granted. You must help the people you represent first, and then you can advance your political career. 

 

I leave you guys with 3 words: Watch out Cuomo!!!

Very interesting to have somebody from the district have input on this race. I do have a few questions.

1. Were you bombarded with campaign mail and flyers from the Crowley campaign? I've seen pictures of piles of mail from Joe Crowley and wanted to know if it was an isolated incident or if it was true. Also, did Crowley absorb the airways? And did AOC even come close to Crowley's amount of campaigning?

2. Do you really think Nixon has a shot at beating Cuomo? and do you think Cuomo will hold onto minority voters in NYC or more voters in upstate NY, or which area will Nixon do the best in?

3. Did you vote for Crowley in the past? And why do you think Crowley lost by a 15 point margin when some pundits predicted a 70-30 win for Crowley?

[DeathClock 379]

10 hours ago, Zsa Zsa's leg said:

Very interesting to have somebody from the district have input on this race. I do have a few questions.

1. Were you bombarded with campaign mail and flyers from the Crowley campaign? I've seen pictures of piles of mail from Joe Crowley and wanted to know if it was an isolated incident or if it was true. Also, did Crowley absorb the airways? And did AOC even come close to Crowley's amount of campaigning?

2. Do you really think Nixon has a shot at beating Cuomo? and do you think Cuomo will hold onto minority voters in NYC or more voters in upstate NY, or which area will Nixon do the best in?

3. Did you vote for Crowley in the past? And why do you think Crowley lost by a 15 point margin when some pundits predicted a 70-30 win for Crowley?

1. Yes, kinda. It was more like a continue reminder to get out and vote for him. All the mail from Crowley lacked substance of what he would do if re-elected. I got some mail from the AOC’s campaign and their’s were very informative. They both ran their campaign in a totally different way. 95% of Crowley’s campaign was spending a lot of money on TV ads and mail. Their main message was, “I have been in Congress forever, why change anything”. He did hold a few events in the district, but was way overmatched by AOC. AOC only had one ad (which you probably saw). But, she was talking to people in the district everyday, all day long. 

2. Do I think Nixon will win? No. The upper part of the state has always seemed to love Cuomo, for some reason. My Latino friends lately have disliked him more and more especially with the news with the news of a kids detention center in NY. So, Cuomo will  lose the city, but get re-elected because of all the whites in the upper part of the state. 

3. I voted for Crowley last time. (It was the first time I was able to vote). I think the news that their was a kids detention center in NY, really gaved AOC a real chance. You have to remember that this district is 50% Latino. 

[Zsa Zsa's leg 884]

A recent poll has shown that Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle's lead has substantially narrowed in the Republican Primary Runoff for Governor of Georgia against gun-toting State Secretary of State Brian Kemp. Lieutenant Governor Cagle has apparently been caught up in a few scandals recently, and Brian Kemp is Brian Kemp, whoever wins this Primary will probably have a difficult time against Democratic Nominee Stacey Abrams, who could be the country's first black female Governor if elected, and the first Democratic Governor in Georgia since Roy Barnes in 2003. Georgia is trending heavily Democratic, with Atlanta growing and rural populations narrowing, pundits seem to agree Georgia could be a pivotal swing state in the next few election cycles. 

In my opinion, Cagle deserves to lose after he refused a tax cut for Delta Airlines because they ended discounts for NRA members after the MSD Shooting ; although, Brian Kemp agrees with Cagle on the Delta issue.

My rating for this race: Lean GOP. Downgrade from Likely GOP due to the collapse of Cagle's lead and Kemp being Kemp. This certainly can't hurt Abrams.

[En Passant 3,743]

On 27/06/2018 at 05:22, Zsa Zsa's leg said:

Let's start.

 

Lets not.

[Zsa Zsa's leg 884]

5 minutes ago, En Passant said:

Lets not.

We did, four days ago. If you want to constantly complain, at least be on time with your passive agressive remarks. I'm sure they'll be welcome somewhere else.

[En Passant 3,743]

9 minutes ago, Zsa Zsa's leg said:

We did, four days ago. If you want to constantly complain, at least be on time with your passive agressive remarks. I'm sure they'll be welcome somewhere else.

Oh I leave most of the thread complaining to SC he's had more practice.

Just throwing in a fuck at the americentrism, for balance.

That and the ludicrous assertions that some reality bod is more famous than god because you've seen every show.

[Zsa Zsa's leg 884]

54 minutes ago, En Passant said:

Oh I leave most of the thread complaining to SC he's had more practice.

Just throwing in a fuck at the americentrism, for balance.

That and the ludicrous assertions that some reality bod is more famous than god because you've seen every show.

Never actually seen her show, just the gifs, and is this the appropriate thread to discuss that?

[En Passant 3,743]

9 minutes ago, Zsa Zsa's leg said:

Never actually seen her show, just the gifs, and is this the appropriate thread to discuss that?

And on that basis she's 20x more famous than the combined fame of 20 seemingly randomly selected other people?

 

Sure it should be here, at least it's peripherally what the board is about unlike the minutiae of American regional politics.

 

Look, I don't actually give two hoots, I threw in a two word response for a laugh, because it's a counterpoint to 14 tedious paragraphs about a subject that is meaningless to anyone not american.

[Zsa Zsa's leg 884]

9 hours ago, En Passant said:

And on that basis she's 20x more famous than the combined fame of 20 seemingly randomly selected other people?

 

Sure it should be here, at least it's peripherally what the board is about unlike the minutiae of American regional politics.

 

Look, I don't actually give two hoots, I threw in a two word response for a laugh, because it's a counterpoint to 14 tedious paragraphs about a subject that is meaningless to anyone not american.

Then why post in here? Lol

[En Passant 3,743]

Civic duty.