Tuesday's Primaries - Good news for Democrats

Thanks, OP, I was waiting for someone to sum it up like that.

Hallelujah! I hope this continues.

If you're interested in turnout numbers, John Couvillon has them from all across the country. Well worth a quick scan. Good news for Democrats pretty much across the board.

For the Missouri race, here's the summary from a local (obviously partisan, so take with some skepticism):

Both campaigns were extremely well funded and well run. Arthur painted Corlew as being part of the problem in Jefferson City and closely tied to some billionaire Republican donors who own the state government. Arthur presented herself as being a teacher strong on educational issues. Corlew, true to his billionaire Republican donor roots painted Arthur as being a wild eyed ultra liberal, socialist baby killer. He presented himself as being good for business.

My sense is the general public is getting tired of Dems being painted as wild eyed, ultra liberal, socialist baby killers. They are looking for somebody who will look out for them.

I thought the race was going to be close. The district is traditionally solid Republican. Republicans should be worried about Missouri. While Arthur referenced Greitens she did it in a way that tied both of them to some pretty sleazy Jefferson City republican operatives. Of course the local TV stations are very conservative. They took Arthur's ad money but the coverage was decidedly pro Corlew.

Note that Arthur, contrary to what our hand-wringing concern trolls would like us to believe about Democratic candidates, did not run on Trump or on any of those other issues that these trolls would like us to believe will doom (DOOM, I SAY!!!) the Democratic Party later this year.

Let's not get cocky and/or complacent.

We need to obliterate these assholes. No office at any level ever again. Vote every rethug out at every level. No mercy. No quarter.

Do what you can to help D's win in November.

Chris Hayes, via Twitter:

[quote]two big themes I've seen from D voters so far: 1) Huge huge enthusiasm for women candidates; 2) no real rebellion against establishment or party-macher-endorsed nominees, ala GOP in 2010.

Josh Marshall, in response, also via Twitter:

[quote]iow, tough night for concern trolls. And it was. So much for all of those "Democrats in disarray!!!" stories.

Those counter-tariffs can't come soon enough to shit up the economic stats in time for the midterms.

Good. Let's wipe the lazy white American trash off the map of political relevance. Sorry you couldn't get ahead on your own and want to blame a diverse nation!

Bump

[quote] 45 out of 65 female candidates winning (in 65 contests that featured at least one man, one woman, and no incumbent on the ballot)

And why so that "good"? If all Dems, why is it better that a woman win instead of a man?

Because of the under-representation of women in Congress, R11, and because there are more women voters than men, and because we're seeing women energized in ways we haven't seen for quite a while.

[quote] we're seeing women energized in ways we haven't seen for quite a while

Oh great.

R11 is one of those "why should I vote for Hillary just because she has a vagina" progressives.

And the answer to that question is what, R14?

I doubt R11 is a progressive.

More good news for Democrats:

[quote]WsJ/NBC poll: "By a whopping 25-point margin, voters say they're more likely to back a congressional candidate who promises to serve as a check on President Donald Trump"

The same poll showed that Democrats are up 10% in the generic Congressional ballot. And that Democrats are more enthusiastic about the upcoming midterms:

[quote]What’s more, Democrats are more enthusiastic about the upcoming midterms, with 63 percent of them registering either a “9” or “10” on a 10-point scale of interest, while just 47 percent of Republicans signal the same level of enthusiasm.

The most recent polls at RCP on the generic Congressional vote:

Fox: Democrats +9

NBC/WSJ: Democrats +10

Economist/YouGov: Democrats +6

Reuters/Ipsos: Democrats +11 (This is the one that briefly had Democrats and Republicans tied)

Quinnipiac: Democrats +7

IBD/TIPP: Democrats +7

Rasmussen: Democrats +4 (of course)

Harvard-Harris: Democrats +7

I loved this, although I would have phrased it a bit differently:

(scene: a restaurant somewhere)

Waiter: Ready to order?

Dem: I'll have the steak.

Pundit: You can't just be AGAINST pork! You have to be FOR something!

Dem: I'm FOR steak.

Pundit: Being ANTI-PORK isn't enough to win!

Dem: I just...

Pundit: This is why Trump won, ya know.

My own version of it would be something like:

(scene: the smoldering ruins of a house)

Dem: I'm going to vote against the idiots who burned down my house.

Pundit: You can't just be AGAINST arsonists! You have to be FOR something!

Dem: But....

Pundit: This is why Trump won, ya know.

Yep, that's exactly it, R18.

@AP_Politics

[quote]BREAKING: Democrat Mike Levin advances to November election in California's 49th congressional district. @AP race call at 7:33 p.m. PDT. #Election2018 #APracecall #CAprimary

Nice. With good chances in California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, we're halfway to the total we need to retake the House.

@AlexMohajer

[quote]BREAKING: It looks as though, with all precincts reporting, as of 5:00pm PST Democrat @DrHansKeirstead has narrowly surpassed Harley Rouda to take on @DanaRohrabacher this November in CA-48 by a margin of TWENTY VOTES. 20. #EveryVoteCounts

well, shit.

I was hoping for rouda. I donated to him.

Hope the Russian asset gets booted anyway.

There are still thousands of ballots left to count, R23, so that race is still too close to call.

In my district, a Democrat who sounds like a drunk and has been airing the worst political commercials I’ve ever seen is running against a Republican I thought was easily beatable until this guy got the democratic nomination. In a mostly working class congressional district, the guy who sounds like a cross between Tom Carvel and Larry “Bud” Mehlman is from one of the richest towns in the US, filled with Hollywood actors, directors, producers and oh yeah, the offspring of the Russian mob. Oh — and did I mention he registered to vote in this district for the first time a only a few months ago?

How did this happen? Seventy percent of the district drives pickup trucks or minivans, is obsessed with getting rid of immigrants and has “Jesus is the reason for the season” under a stenciled manger scene on the back windows of their vehicles year-round. And the guy has been running ads for 2 months already. The election is in November. It’s like he wants to make sure every redneck is thoroughly annoyed by midsummer so they’ll storm the election booths this fall.

How could they mess this up so badly? I can only guess that millions of dollars of disguised NRA/Koch/Mercer/Mormon/Adelson money was used somehow fish this guy out of the political equivalent of a carnival claw machine

It’s not as if the democrats have never won the district before. We had a democratic rep less than 10 years ago. We could have won this time, too.

Maybe someone thought he was a good "fit" for that district?

The democrats fell flat on their faces here, R26. If they’d run a middle of the road candidate with roots in the area we could have won. We are in a pivot county (voted for Trump after having voted for obama in 2012). A military veteran would have won. But instead they handed the nom to a Manhattanite with a summer home in the area. Just the kind of person who gets beaten by 20,000 votes. Like I said, if there was no hope of winning I could understand the DNC not giving a shit. But we’ve won before and could have won again with a little effort. All they had to do was pay attention and try. The Republican would have been a dead duck.

Meanwhile, Ohio (Republicans) is purging more and more voters from the rolls.

r28 But haven't you heard? This is America, bitch! Greatest democracy on Earth!

R11 - let's just look at the House. Start with some basic info. Women are in the majority in the US. I think they are 50.8% of the population. However in the House they make up just over 19% of the total representatives. On top of that there are five states that have never elected a woman to the House.

Unless you have some evidence unknown to the world that shows woman have a genetic flaw which makes they terrible legislators the above numbers indicate there is a problem. Looking at the big picture and not individual races the lack of women has to mean there are would be qualified candidates who aren't making it to the ballot.

As we see representation that, as others have said, looks more like American we know we are getting the best candidates. As in many things when your people at the top of the organization are diverse it means your entire workforce is probably diverse. It indicates no one is being excluded based upon a criteria that has nothing to do with their ability to the job.

That's the progressive goal.

Any questions?

June 12

@kylegriffin1

[quote]DLCC says that Democrat Caleb Frostman has won the Wisconsin special election for Senate District 1, a district Trump carried by 18-points in 2016.

[quote]This is the 44th seat that's flipped from red to blue this cycle, according to the DLCC.

R22 posted this quote from Mohajer's twitter :

[quote]BREAKING: It looks as though, with all precincts reporting, as of 5:00pm PST Democrat @DrHansKeirstead has narrowly surpassed Harley Rouda to take on @DanaRohrabacher this November in CA-48 by a margin of TWENTY VOTES. 20. #EveryVoteCounts

The irony here is almost poetic. Hans Keirstead is [bold]Canadian[/bold].

Can you imagine if Putin/Trump's fave Dana Rohrabacher is ousted by a Canadian scientist ??? hehehe Let that sink for a moment....

The update from the LA Times yesterday is that Keirstead had pulled ahead by 456 votes. They haven't called the race yet, as there are 100,000 ballots still to be counted.

There were two special elections in Wisconsin yesterday; we won one and lost one. Both districts were heavily-red districts where Trump and Walker had each won by double digits.

The RCP generic ballot aggregate poll has Democrats up by 7.6% over Republicans. The equivalent aggregate at 538, which adjusts for polling bias, has Democrats up by 8.3%.

Moderately good news for Democrats yesterday in Virginia. Analysis from 538:

[quote]In Virginia, unapologetic Trumpist Corey Stewart narrowly won the Republican nomination for Senate. This is pretty bad news for the national GOP, which is worried that a controversial nominee like Stewart could drag down the party brand statewide, where they have up to four vulnerable House seats. In one of those House seats, the 10th District, Democrats nominated establishment favorite Jennifer Wexton, while incumbent Rep. Barbara Comstock beat back a conservative primary challenger by just 22 percentage points — a weaker than expected showing.

Stewart is the idiot who defended the racists marching in Charlottesville last year. He's unlikely to be able to muster the votes to defeat incumbent Democrat Tim Kaine. And last night (courtesy of the Washington Post):

[quote]Virginia Republican Senate nominee Corey A. Stewart suggested Hillary Clinton and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) could be put in jail after supporters chanted “lock her up” during a victory rally on June 12.

Bring it on, dumbshit.

For better or worse, it looks like the Republican base is pretty much all in on Trump. Representative Mark Sanford lost his primary to a much less well-known challenger whose basic platform was Sanford's lack of devotion to Trump.

This is going to result in a few more-extreme Republican candidates, which is likely to favor Democrats, since the polls have indicated that voters are more likely to vote for someone who will stand up to Trump.

R34 writes,

[quote]There were two special elections in Wisconsin yesterday; [bold]we[/bold] won one and lost one. Both districts were heavily-red districts where Trump and Walker had each won by double digits.

Who is ‘we’?

The 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team, Rose.

Pick a side, R37. But what do you think "we" means in a thread titled, "Tuesday's Primaries - Good news for Democrats?"

Having to always say "we" shows insecurity in your beliefs.

Nah, it just means that we know which side supports those beliefs. And us.