Search This Blog

Monday, December 9, 2024

Uncontested Elections

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

Brianna Ryan at Ballotpedia:
Sixty-five percent of more than 40,000 elections across the country on Nov. 5, 2024, were uncontested, meaning that the sole candidates on the ballot were virtually guaranteed to win each election.

In five states—Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, and Michigan—more than 75% of elections were uncontested. Iowa topped the list: of the 1,902 elections held there, 1,614 (85%) were uncontested. Conversely, the five states with the lowest uncontested rate were New Jersey (0%), New Hampshire (11%), Virginia (19%), Connecticut (23%), and Utah (26%).

The map below shows the percentage of uncontested elections by state out of the 40,646 elections we covered on Nov. 5. Of those, 26,218—or 65%—were uncontested.

Congressional and state elections made up 15% of the roughly 40,000 elections covered. Thirty-one percent of those elections were uncontested.

That leaves local elections as the largest group of elections on a given major election day and the level of government with the highest percentage of uncontested elections.

For several office types—including district and city attorneys, who prosecute crimes, and clerks and auditors, who often run elections—more than 90% of elections were uncontested.

Overall, on Nov. 5, a majority of elections were uncontested across every type of local office we covered, except those for boards of regents (46% uncontested), fire boards (46%), and school boards (45%).

Sunday, December 8, 2024

Same-Day Registration Flipped a Seat

 

Trump Wants to Jail the J6 Committee

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Our next book looks at the return of Donald Trump.

He is planning an authoritarian agenda and would take care to eliminate any internal dissent.

Tommy Christopher at Mediaite:

Trump sat for an exclusive interview that aired on Sunday morning’s edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, during which Trump lashed out at the members of the committee that investigated the January 6 riot and the circumstances surrounding it. Trump has nominated staunch loyalists Pam Bondi and Kash Patel to lead the Department of Justice and the FBI, respectively.

After Trump repeatedly said they should “all go to jail,” Welker asked him “Are you going to direct” his Justice Department to move against his opponents, and even as he denied he would Trump said “they’ll have to” look into it:
KRISTEN WELKER: We’re going to —

PRES.-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: For what they did –

KRISTEN WELKER: Yeah –

PRES.-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: – honestly, they should go to jail.

KRISTEN WELKER: So you think Liz Cheney should go to jail?

PRES.-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: For what they did –

KRISTEN WELKER: Everyone on the committee you think –

PRES.-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: I think everybody –

KRISTEN WELKER: – should go to jail?

PRES.-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: – on the — anybody that voted in favor –

KRISTEN WELKER: Are you going to direct your FBI director –

PRES.-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: No.

KRISTEN WELKER: – and your attorney general to send them to jail?

PRES.-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: No, not at all. I think that they’ll have to look at that, but I’m not going to — I’m going to focus on drill, baby, drill.

Watch above via NBC’s Meet the Press.

Saturday, December 7, 2024

Gabbard Is Dangerous

 Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Our next book is about the 2024 election. The consequences of that election are coming into view.  Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's pick for DNI, is a clear and present danger to national security.

Tim Snyder on Tulsi Gabbard:
In June 2015, as a congresswoman from Hawai'i, Gabbard visited Syria. During her stay, she was introduced to girls who had been burned from head to toe by a regime air strike. Her reaction to the situation, according to her translator, was to try to persuade the girls that they had been injured not by Syrian forces, but by the resistance. But this was impossible. Only Syria (at the time of her visit) and Russia (beginning weeks later) were flying planes and dropping bombs.

Either Gabbard was catastrophically uninformed about the most basic elements of the theater of war she was visiting, or she was consciously spreading disinformation. Those are the two possibilities. The first is disqualifying; the second is worse.

And if she was spreading disinformation consciously, she was also doing so with a pathological ruthlessness. Anyone who would lie to the child victims of an air strike to their burned faces would lie to anyone about anything. In January 2017, she visited Syria again, this time to speak to Assad. She began thereafter to deny that his regime had used chemical weapons on its own people. That was a very big lie.

... 

As Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard would do enormous harm, unwillingly or willingly. She is not just completely unqualified for this role -- she is anti-qualified. She is just the sort of person enemies of the American republic would want in this job. This is not a hypothetical -- Gabbard is the specific person that actual enemies of the United States do want in the job. The Russian media refers to Tulsi Gabbard as a "Russian agent" and as "girlfriend," with good reason.

Gabbard is worse than unfit. Her public record is as a disinformer and apologist for mass murderers. And there is nothing on the other side of the ledger. There are no positive qualifications. (Yes, she wrote a bestselling book. It became a bestseller because she scammed her followers into donating to a PAC which bought the book in bulk.)

State Legislative Results

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

Daniel Nichanian at BOLTS:

In the presidential election, the GOP fared better than in 2020 in every state. But in thousands of legislative races across the country, the results were more complicated. The GOP unquestionably had a better night than Democrats in state legislatures, but their gains were also modest and uneven.

Republicans grew their legislative ranks in 20 states, erasing Democratic majorities in two critical chambers in Michigan and Minnesota and soaring in a trio of New England states. But Democrats did the same in 11 states. They coalesced with centrist Republicans to flip the Alaska House away from GOP control, broke the GOP’s ability to override vetoes in North Carolina, and scored double-digit swings in Montana and Wisconsin.

Overall, Republicans gained 58 seats out of the roughly 6,000 races on the ballot, Bolts has determined in its third annual review of each state’s legislative elections.

In 2022, the GOP gained 20 legislative seats, a meager result that deflated their expectations for a Democratic president’s midterms. (Several cycles in the 2010s saw swings that numbered in the hundreds of seats.) Democrats then gained five seats in 2023.

These legislative results fit a broader pattern of short coattails for Trump: The GOP did not surge downballot as it did in the presidential race. The party secured full control of Congress but Democrats added a seat in the U.S. House and salvaged four U.S. Senate seats in states Trump carried. Bolts also reported that results were also mixed in state supreme court elections.

Going forward, the GOP will enjoy a trifecta—one-party control of both legislative chambers and the governorship—in 23 states, a number that did not change after last month’s elections. Democrats meanwhile will hold a trifecta in 15 states after losing one-party control in Michigan and Minnesota.


Thursday, December 5, 2024

How Democrats Gained House Seats in New York

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

 Melanie Mason, Mia McCarthy and Emily Ngo at Politico:
New York Democrats similarly swelled their efforts after being stunned by the loss of four House races in 2022. House Majority PAC plowed $50 million into the state, nearly quadrupling its previous investment, and two separate efforts founded in the wake of the midterm drubbing beefed up the Dems’ ground game.

The New York Democratic Party launched a “coordinated campaign” — led by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Gov. Kathy Hochul, who was blamed for some of the 2022 losses — that knocked three times more doors in battleground districts than in 2022. A coalition of labor unions and left-leaning groups called Battleground New York raised $11 million and focused on turning out three groups: “drop-off voters,” voters of color and newer voters.

As a result, Democrats flipped four seats between a February special election and last month’s contests, reversing their midterm losses.

Two of the newly elected New York House Democrats — Laura Gillen and Josh Riley — won after losing by mere points in 2022, both appealing to independent and Republican voters and voicing their willingness to stand up to their fellow Democrats on border security.

“Frankly, I think in 2022, we, the Democrats, were surprised by some of those races, and certainly had not put a lot of money or organization or attention into those,” Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) said in an interview. “This time around, there was no surprise. … the state party was far more involved. Certainly, we in the delegation in Congress were very actively campaigning in those districts, and you just had high-quality candidates.”

How Democrats Gained House Seats in California

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

Shira Stein at The San Francisco Chronicle:

They underperformed with Latinos — but by less than other Democrats.

Although California Democrats weren't alone in seeing decreasing support from Latino voters, they lost less support from that group.

"Everybody underperformed to a certain level with Latino voters. It was just that these House races underperformed less compared to historical norms in these places," Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha said.

Trump won 43% of the Latino vote this election, an 8-point increase from 2020 and 15 points ahead of his 2016 share, according to the Associated Press.

"Even though Republicans made inroads with nonwhite voters, on balance, higher nonwhite turnout still helped Democrats," especially in the cases of Gray, George Whitesides, who ousted Garcia and Derek Tran, who beat Steel, Dave Wasserman, a House race analyst with the Cook Political Report, told the Chronicle.

"California was ground zero because there were just so many districts with so many Latinos living in one place. But we damn sure saw Latinos perform better in places where there's more college-educated Latinos than rural Latinos," which is why Democrats weren't able to defeat Valadao and almost failed to trump Duarte," Rocha said.

Rocha's firm Solidarity Strategies was hired by the House Majority political action committee, a group that focuses on electing House Democrats, to reach Latino voters with culturally competent ads, he said.

Typically, Spanish-language ads are made by consultants on the coasts who "think that they've read some philosophy book about why Latinos and what Latinos care about, and they go and Google translate their English ad into Spanish and call it a day," Rocha said. He said his firm had conversations within targeted districts early on and continued doing so for several months. It began putting out ads as early as March.

"This is not being overly simplistic … the ads being made for Latinos in these districts in Spanish were literally made by Latinos who grew up in some of these districts in California," Rocha said.

He said quality ads can be far more effective than quantity.

"There's a difference in doing good Spanish ads and showing up early, (rather) than dumping a whole bunch of money into Spanish ads in the last 30 days — which is what Kamala did — and losing," he said.

Rocha's ads framed Garcia, whose district has more college-educated Latinos, as an incumbent who wasn't fighting or standing up for workers, and Duarte, who represents a more rural, non-college educated district, "as a product of the big-time D.C. lobbyist and showing him as out-of-touch with the community," he said.

Weaker support from Latino voters, however, did help two incumbent Republicans — Calvert and Valadao — keep their seats.

"There's been a pattern in these races in California — and the pattern stayed true with somebody like David Valadao, let's be clear — that Democrats have been losing ground with Latino voters," Rocha said. This election, however, Democrats put a "new emphasis on trying to stop and fix the Latino problem."

One of the ways Democrats held on to more Latino voters in California and in New York was by going into those states early on.

"We still have more work to do, but at least we figured out ways to stop the bleeding and now start trying to reverse that trend," Rocha said.

Redistricting helped Democrats.

The new California congressional map, which took effect in 2022, disadvantaged Republicans. Steel and Garcia, in particular, ran in friendlier districts in 2020 than in 2024.

"Those districts were made bluer in redistricting, which only took effect in 2022. So had we been talking about this scenario under the 2020 set of lines, they would likely still be members of Congress," Wasserman said.

Whitesides won his race by nearly 8,000 votes, while Tran and Gray's races were much closer. Tran ultimately won by 615 votes and Gray won by 187 votes.

One consultant argued that the narrow margins are the result of the presidential race.

Duarte won his seat in a close race in 2022 — beating Gray by 594 votes.

"Conventional wisdom would have been that he's (a) dead man walking because with presidential turnout, Gray would have a much greater advantage in a seat that Biden won by 11 points," Acosta said.

Democratic turnout in California — and across the country — dropped, however, and that made these races "closer than they probably should have been," Acosta said. About 1.8 million fewer Democrats voted in California this November than in 2020, according to a Chronicle analysis, and about 6.8 million fewer voted for Vice President Kamala Harris than for President Joe Biden in 2020, according to a CNN analysis.

Democrats benefited from a rise in split-ticket voters.

Mike Madrid, a California-based Republican strategist, attributed some of California Democrats' success to a new trend where voters select one party for president and then the opposite for down-ballot races to hold the party in power accountable.

These largely college-educated voters are in favor of a divided government, Madrid said.

"Voters are getting more methodical as their distrust, lack of confidence and dislike for both parties grows. They're becoming much more strategic" and voting to oppose the party in power, he said.

This has been a more common dynamic in Orange County since 2016, but it's expanding nationally. Ticket splitting was infrequent for many years, with red states getting redder and blue states getting bluer. A similar occurrence happened in 2020, but in reverse. Voters elected Joe Biden president, and also voted in a tied Senate and a Democratic-led House.

This yo-yoing of voting behavior will likely continue in future election cycles, Madrid said.

Challengers outraised incumbents and zeroed in on local issues.

As the saying goes, "all politics is local." The Democratic challengers far outraised the Republican incumbents and focused on issues that mattered to their community, rather than national messaging about democracy and gendered issues.

"Each one of these candidates represented and had their own authentic brand that could differentiate themselves from a mold or caricature that Republicans were desperately trying to paint," Orrin Evans, a Democratic consultant who worked on Tran's campaign, told the Chronicle.

Tran outperformed Harris significantly in Little Saigon, a Vietnamese enclave in Orange County, and other areas where Steel had previously been able to outrun Trump's shadow, Wasserman of the Cook Political Report said.

Evans said Tran's campaign "chose not to just do a broad general audience message, but we were continually re-investing in our outreach efforts within the Vietnamese community." The campaign also emphasized his experience as a veteran, consumer attorney and a small business owner, and not just that he was the child of Vietnamese immigrants.

Gray's deep family roots in Merced and long track record on the ballot helped him succeed in a district that wasn't as familiar with Duarte, several analysts said.

Whitesides' campaign turned out minority voters in higher numbers in the Antelope Valley, pushing him to victory, Wasserman said. Whitesides' most effective communication "was that he had created jobs, not just blue-collar jobs, but jobs of the future in the Antelope and Santa Clarita Valley," Evans said. His campaign was also able to use allegations that Garcia sold stocks based on inside information he obtained as a lawmaker to argue Garcia wasn't focused on voters' needs.

The Democratic challengers also had an added boost from their enormous war chests, according to FEC filings.

Gray raised $5.3 million to Duarte's $4 million and Whitesides raised $9.1 million to Garcia's $5.9 million. The only successful challenger to raise less than the incumbent was Tran, who won with just $4.9 million against Steel's $9.1 million.

Will Rollins, the Democrat who failed to oust Calvert, raised $11.3 million — putting him in the top 10 House fundraisers. Rudy Salas, Valadao's failed challenger, raised $5.6 million to Valadao's $4.5 million.