August 8, 2018

"Troy Balderson may have claimed victory over Democrat Danny O’Connor (who's not conceding yet), but after out-spending Democrats five-to-one and winning by less than one percentage point, it's not much for Republicans to celebrate."

Axios sums it up nicely, I think. That's the closest I could get to a report that didn't annoyingly lean to one side or the other.
This race was more about Trump vs. Nancy Pelosi than Balderson, and his victory gives Republicans evidence that their tried-and-true playbook still works.

The president campaigned with Balderson just days before the primary and Republicans tied O’Connor to a number of ads tying him to Pelosi.

President Trump immediately claimed victory, tweeting: "When I decided to go to Ohio for Troy Balderson, he was down in early voting 64 to 36. That was not good. After my speech on Saturday night, there was a big turn for the better."

101 comments:

traditionalguy said...

I thought one vote more than the other guy is a Total Victory. That's winner take all. Loser gets nothing. Selah.

tim maguire said...

Maybe it should have been a more comfortable win, but a win is a win. There are no "sort of wins"; moral victories are for losers.

My name goes here. said...

Couple of things.

Republicans should have won this with a comfortable margin. So GOP, take note!

I read that the rural (largely Trump) vote was down significantly from 2016 and the Democrats still could not win. So Dems, take note!

And given the margin it is entirely plausible that Trump and his rally did put the GOP candidate over the hump.

This means that a)Trump (or the GOP) has an analytics group that is on the ball, b)Trump is willing to pivot to rally on short term notice to help a candidate, and c)Trump is proving more adept at this politics thing that many people thought he would be.

All this, imho.

tim maguire said...

Or what traditionalguy said.

Unknown said...

When Hillary lost I thought it proved spending does not win elections.

Now it wins elections when a Blue Wave is predicted.

Science is tricky!

Jersey Fled said...

Still within the margin of cheating for democrats.

tim in vermont said...

I suspect that the “Blue Wave” is going to fizzle just shy too. I think under normal circumstances the Dems would take the House in the fall, but with their drive to impeach a president who is presiding over a great economy, well, I think that Democrats are going to have a hard time of it.

Oso Negro said...

Total moral victory for Democrats! They can have all the moral victories they want.

Jimmy said...

"it's not much for Republicans to celebrate"

Out our way we call that kind of statement "sour grapes"

The Crack Emcee said...

"This race was more about Trump vs. Nancy Pelosi than Balderson, and his victory gives Republicans evidence that their tried-and-true playbook still works."

I don't even know how Republicans come into this. I don't think about the party anymore, except as a distraction - they ain't fixing anything, Trump is. They've been essentially worthless for the last 8 years and got saved by his mojo.

Right now, I don't see anybody but him and Mitch McConnell as worth very much.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The democrats want Medicare for all. The latest scheme to force government-run care on everyone.

That should scare everyone.

tim maguire said...

Going by the Real Clear Politics poll averages (yeah, yeah, that and $5 will get you a cup of bad coffee at Starbucks), the House and the Senate will come out of this election almost perfectly divided. The Republicans will just barely hold on to their majorities but will be at the mercy of the most unreliable members.

Lots of deadlock, which is fine.

wwww said...


wonder if Ohio will figure out which guy won before the next election starts. they're gonna do it all over again in a few weeks.

election, Ohio edition, episode 2.

Bay Area Guy said...

Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming
We're finally on our own
This summer I hear the drumming
More voted in O-HI-O

Roy Lofquist said...

tim in vermont said...
"I think under normal circumstances the Dems would take the House in the fall,"

Actually, no. Since 1980 (19 elections) the Democrats have gained enough seats (22) to take over this House just twice, 1982 and 2006. The Republicans pulled it off three times, 1980, 1994 and 2010.

Francisco D said...

Am I to believe that no local issues played a role in this election?

Tip O'Neill would not agree.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Another way to look at it was that the Dems were filled with passionate intensity and still couldn't pull off a win. Mailman's son and GOPe favorite Kasich endorsed the Republican candidate - which probably cost Balderson a few votes.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

What a waste of money. Why have a special election in August to fill a term that is up for election in November.

tim in vermont said...

Democrats and Republicans only come into this from the point of view that one party is dead set on paralyzing Trump and then the Democrats want to impeach and remove him.

holdfast said...

It’s not all about Trump and national politics. Balderson seemed boring and flat. O’Conner is younger and has more energy. That matters.

wildswan said...

My name goes here. said...
Couple of things.
Republicans should have won this with a comfortable margin. So GOP, take note!
I read that the rural (largely Trump) vote was down significantly from 2016 and the Democrats still could not win. So Dems, take note!
And given the margin it is entirely plausible that Trump and his rally did put the GOP candidate over the hump."

This is my opinion also. The margin, 1700 votes, is so small that it is clear that Trump's rally made the difference.
Only 40% of the Republicans turned out while 87% of the Democrats did. I analyze turnout as a reaction to the unproductive legislative session of the Republican House and to its opposition to many of Trump's initiatives. The Republican big tent includes Trumpsters, GOPers, NeverTrumpers and Rinos. If Republicans lose the House the Dems will impeach Trump so when it comes to election day, it's important to get behind all the elephants including GOPers, NeverTrumpers and Rinos and walk through the giant piles of siht they are dropping on the trail. After all over time, either the work on taxes, regulation and reforming Obamacare into emeritus status or else close elections like this Ohio one will make converts, (albeit shifty resentful backsliding converts), of the GOPers, NeverTrumpers and Rinos. So turn out, stand by your man.

But people who support Trump, aren't necessarily thinking that way. They want legislators who will act to make America great again or else they don't care. For instance, consider immigration: it sometimes seems possible that many Republican small-business owners want Hispanic employees and are using them to replace blacks on minority hiring quotas or goals or what have you. This could never be said openly and since Dems provide cover by making support for collapsing the border a good thing and by ignoring the consequences for the black community, it doesn't need to be said openly or any other way. But it or something else creates a division in the Republican party that is quite evident in the way votes go on immigration legislation. And Trumpsters take the legislative branch seriously and hold it accountable for its votes to the horror of campaign managers. So it's a dilemma.

Ultimately I think Trump will prevail and that will be good. You may say Trump is authoritarian; I say history is likely to show that he and his followers shocked the stopped heart of do-nothing Congress and forced it to start legislating again.

AllenS said...

Impeach Trump? For what?

Big Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Careful Crack - Inga will be along to call you a Trump cultist.

Big Mike said...

Okay, I had read something that claimed the Democrat outspent the Republican. Be nice if knew what the objective facts were before reporting on an election.

rehajm said...

You guys get it- if lefties are encouraged by this result they don’t understand winning. You gave it all you had and still lost. Now go enjoy your moral victory.

Chuck said...

I was in Ohio 12 last weekend; I spoke with some O'Connor voters, some Trump fans and I saw all of the 15 or 20 tv ads that were running on Columbus TV (candidates' and 527's).

Kasich also campaigned for Troy Balderson. It wasn't just Trump.

The 12th District Special Election was a big deal; and a big deal to the rest of the country, but it wasn't even the biggest story in Columbus. Urban Meyer and the start of OSU fall football camp is the biggest story.

Remember; this was not a primary day for Ohio. It was a special election in ONLY the 12th district. So most of metropolitan Columbus, and 90% of Ohio was not even involved. Big turnouts in the anti-Trump areas of Franklin County and the northern Columbus suburbs. (Which are not demographically Democrat; they are overwhelmingly white, educated, upper middle class.)

There is no doubt that this is a moral victory on the numbers for Democrats, and these two guys have to face each other again in the space of about 12 weeks in the 2018 general. This election was for the remainder of Pat Tiberi's term.

rehajm said...

We don’t even have to read Chuck’s comment to know his analysis do we?

CWJ said...

What Crack said.

Chuck said...

rehajm said...
You guys get it- if lefties are encouraged by this result they don’t understand winning. You gave it all you had and still lost. Now go enjoy your moral victory.


No you don't get it. This is a district that previously was not even competitive. The Republicans had to spend 2 or three times as much on this race, to hold even a tiny margin of victory, than they did in any previous election.

There are 50 or 60 currently-held Republican House seats that are even less "Red" than OH-12. And the Dems need to flip only a little more than half of them.

Chuck said...

Big Mike said...
Okay, I had read something that claimed the Democrat outspent the Republican. Be nice if knew what the objective facts were before reporting on an election.


On the ground, it was impossible to tell. Media carpet-bombing by both sides. In particular, there were a lot of independent expenditures so whatever the DCCC spent, and whatever Ohio Republicans spent, is not a clear picture.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...


"Kasich also campaigned for Troy Balderson. It wasn't just Trump."

As I said, Kasich's endorsement probably gave the Dems a few more votes.

CWJ said...

I saw a county by county map of the voting and at first thought "Where's the blue?" Then I saw a little sliver of blue where the district touched Columbus, and that was eenough to get a 50-50 election. It really is a big city vs. everyone else country now. Scary.

Chuck said...

AllenS said...
Impeach Trump? For what?


You'll find out.

tim in vermont said...

Which are not demographically Democrat; they are overwhelmingly white, educated, upper middle class.)

I think you are a. bit out of touch with the Democrat’s demographics these days, white and upper middle class “America is already great!” is their wheelhouse. You should become a Democrat, you know you want to. If you wanted to find Hillary yard signs and bumper stickers last election, wealthy white suburbs was where you went.

rehajm said...

We’re soooo. close lefties- this was Trumps district and we lost just by a little!!! Wait until November when we’ve had a chance to crank up the hate and anger of campagning. We’ll wheel out our Socialist message just when Trumps economy is tanking in the third quarter!!!! It’s IN THE BAG!!!!

tim in vermont said...

Just so you know, Chuck’s link will waste on of your WaPo views for the month.

Fernandistein said...

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s record on Tuesday night for her chosen primary candidates was as bare as a Venezuelan supermarket shelf."

rehajm said...

Our patented and time tested Roy Moore turnout models show us winning it all- the demographics don’t lie!!!!

Chuck said...

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

"Kasich also campaigned for Troy Balderson. It wasn't just Trump."

As I said, Kasich's endorsement probably gave the Dems a few more votes.


So yeah; I understand that kind of Trumprage trashtalk. You guys, listening to Mark Levin and Michael Savage and Sean Hannity raging against Republicans. Hey, thanks a lot. Troy Balderson certainly didn't think that way.

To show you what a weird messaging exercise this campaign was, the Democrat Danny O'Connor ran an ad with a woman who voted for Kasich in 2010 and 2014, and then voted for Trump in 2016 "because [she] didn't like the way things were going in Washington," says into the camera, “John Kasich and Danny O’Connor both don’t worry about the labels of Democrat/Republican. They’re going to go get things done either way.”

http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180705/democrat-danny-oconnor-launches-ad-linking-himself-to--john-kasich

Big Mike said...

Under Priebus the RNC built up a respectable get out the vote capability. Clearly Ronna Romney McDaniel has a lot to learn about GOTV. She has less than three months to learn it.

Original Mike said...

People who voted for Trump didn’t do so because he was a Republican. Often they did so in spite of it.

People aren’t excited to vote for Republicans. Why should they be? What have they done with their majority?

wwww said...


Chuck,

interesting on-the-ground analysis. Did Kasich used to hold this seat?


Liam Donovan's take:
What seems clear is that the rurals will give you the margins you’re looking for, but not necessarily the volume you need to offset the fired up yuppies.

Chuck said...

tim in vermont said...
Which are not demographically Democrat; they are overwhelmingly white, educated, upper middle class.)

I think you are a. bit out of touch with the Democrat’s demographics these days, white and upper middle class “America is already great!” is their wheelhouse. You should become a Democrat, you know you want to. If you wanted to find Hillary yard signs and bumper stickers last election, wealthy white suburbs was where you went.


So with wealthy white suburbs moving away from Trumpist Republicans, the Democrats could flip dozens of seats like OH-12, MI-11, VA-7, NJ-2, etc., etc. And to get started, several of those seats are not even running Republican incumbents. The Republican incumbents have quit.

Chuck said...

wwww said...

Chuck,

interesting on-the-ground analysis. Did Kasich used to hold this seat?


Yes. With slightly different pre-2010 boundaries. It was even less reliably Red (or would be now) when Kasich owned it. It was more tightly crowded into north Columbus 'burbs and Delaware (Ohio Wesleyan) than what we see now.

wwww said...



It's possible that volume for rural Rs was down because this was a special. If it ticks up in November, this seat is no longer a toss up.

AJ Lynch said...

I am skeptical of the 5-1 claim re spending.

Chuck said...

Original Mike said...
People who voted for Trump didn’t do so because he was a Republican. Often they did so in spite of it.

People aren’t excited to vote for Republicans. Why should they be? What have they done with their majority?


They held open Scalia's SCOTUS seat; confirmed Gorsuch, and then passed a big tax cut.

What has Trump done with that majority? Because Trump didn't write that tax bill; he barely knew what was in it, and it was mostly nothing like what he promised during the campaign, where Trump promised that wealthy people like him would not like his tax plan because they'd be "paying more."

wwww said...



what's the agricultural crop in this district? not corn/soybeans?

Original Mike said...

”They held open Scalia's SCOTUS seat; confirmed Gorsuch, and then passed a big tax cut.”

That’s all they’ve done. And it’s not nothing, I’ll give them that. But it’s not enough. What have they done on immigration? What have they done on health care? And we have freaking trillion dollar deficits.

Francisco D said...

Chuckles is working hard today. He is our Stormy Daniels (a lying whore).

Big Daddy George must have sent him a check with a promise of a bonus.

Annie C said...

The Crack Emcee said...

"Right now, I don't see anybody but him and Mitch McConnell as worth very much."

I'm curious Crack, what do you think of Ted Cruz?

Chuck said...

wwww said...


what's the agricultural crop in this district? not corn/soybeans?


That's such a great question!!!!

The top two, by far, are corn and soybeans. Corn is a billion-dollar crop in Ohio. Soybeans are a 2-billion-dollar crop. Morrow, Delaware and Licking Counties may not be the biggest soybean producers in the state, but they're on the list.

wwww said...


RE: soybeans

wow.

ok, so I see 2 possibilities. First possibility is volume was down in rural area because it was a special and it's August so not as many people come out to vote. They will come out in Nov. and seat is no longer in danger.

Second possibility: farmers are staying home due to soybean prices & worry Brazil will pick up the market.

Static Ping said...

The 5-to-1 spending ratio is dubious. Per the Washington Post, about $8 million was spent and O'Connor's campaign spent $2.4 million with the DNC throwing in around $700,000. That's not 5-to-1. Unless the Post's numbers are wrong - which I grant is always possible - it could not even be 2-to-1.

Big Mike said...

Original Mike is quite right. My own Congresscritter is probably doomed this fall. The eastern end of the district, Grest Falls, VA, and Langley, is true limousine liberal country while the western end, where I live, is solid, pro-Trump, working class. She is totally for open borders, which I can understand since it assures her ever-cheaper labor to maintain her estate in Great Falls. Like John McCain she ran against Obamacare in 2016, but she voted against AHCA, giving as her excuse some gobbledegook that amounts to “it wasn’t perfect.” She voted for the tax cuts, which was an act of courage considering property taxes in the east end of her district. So basically she has pissed off both the east and west ends of her district. Not how you win re-election.

readering said...

That quote reminds us of his monstrous ego.

eric said...

I have a theory. Maybe two theories.

Theory 1) Democrats way overperform in special elections when Republicans are in power. They overperform because they are able to focus on one area of the country and get celebrities like Alyssa Milano to drive people to the polls even though she lives in a different state. Democrats seem to have a lot more time on their hands so they can drive to another state and help get out the vote. Drive people, protest, encourage people to vote, etc. The more bodies the more chance to win.

I'll be interested to see how Troy Balderson does in November. I'm guess it won't even be close.

Theory 2) Everyone knows this but they play dumb. They play dumb because of my five step Democrat plan to win in November.

1) Commission polls showing Democrats will win.
2) Share those polls with friendly media who then create a "blue wave" narrative.
3) Take that narrative to certain businesses and say, "Nice Facebook you've got there, would be a shame to lose it."
4) Use that perceived, soon to be real, power to have companies like Facebook silence your competition.
5) Win in November, thus proving the polls right.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

readering said...

That quote reminds us of his monstrous ego.

8/8/18, 10:28 AM

As compared to Obama and Hillary, who are tremendously humble characters, right?

Shrinking violets do not become presidential candidates. And only a man with a monstrous ego could survive and thrive despite the shit that is thrown at Trump everyday.

readering said...

Of course many feed his ego.

Mac McConnell said...

wwww
There aren't enough extra exportable soy beans in all of South America or the world to supply China's needs. China has to make a soy bean deal in the next month or so with the USA.

From personal experience, in my neighborhood everyone with children are at the lake, far from town and voting booths.

Marty said...

Outspent 5 to 1? I don't think so. From what I've read, the dem nominee spent $2.4 million on ads while the repub nominee spend just under $600,000. But National Repub Comgressional Committee spent about $1.4 million on independent expenses or in conjuction with the repub while National Dem Congressional Committee spent about half as much. Then a Pac aligned with Speaker Ryan spent $2.7 million on ads. What I take from all this is that candidate usually can't expect to win unless he and/or his allies spend close to what the other side and/or his allies spend, but spending that much or more won't guarantee a win.

GRW3 said...

The starting number, from early voting, was 69%D vs 31%R. The Dems put their effort into early voting instead of advertising. Doing so in a special is probably a good tactic. Almost worked. Might still work but it would be after the parade has already passed.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

readering said...

Of course many feed his ego."

Like the daily blow jobs Obama got from the media?

bagoh20 said...

This and the coming elections are going to be anger versus fear. Which motivates voters more? The motivations and passions were reversed in 2016. Right now, those in favor of MAGA are not sufficiently scared as they should be of losing what they have, so they are not coming out. The MAGAs are feeling good right now, and that leads to complacency. If the Dems win in November, get ready for a recession. This strong economy is entirely driven by the confidence of business and consumers fueled by policy that makes sense to them. Stop that and it crashes.

Original Mike said...

“If the Dems win in November, get ready for a recession. This strong economy is entirely driven by the confidence of business and consumers fueled by policy that makes sense to them. Stop that and it crashes.”

What could the Dems do that Trump couldn’t veto?

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck wrote both of these sentences in two sequential comments:

"The Republicans had to spend 2 or three times as much on this race"

And

"On the ground, it was impossible to tell. Media carpet-bombing by both sides. In particular, there were a lot of independent expenditures so whatever the DCCC spent, and whatever Ohio Republicans spent, is not a clear picture."

Which is it, Chuck-"impossible to tell" or "Republicans had to spend 2 or three times as much"?

Yancey Ward said...

If you believe the turnout numbers that were reported, Balderson should win easily in November. A special election turnout is going to usually favor the party out of power in any race that the party itself believes it can win. However, a November election is not going to have the lopsided ratio that was reported for yesterday's vote- the Democrats will have a hard time improving their turnout while Republicans should easily better the one reported yesterday.

PackerBronco said...

Since they're going to replay this election contest in a few months, it hardly matters either way. The most motivated voters were those who wanted to make a "statement" as opposed to people who had better things to do with their time, like work.

Limited blogger said...

if you ain't first, you're last

FullMoon said...

No you don't get it. This is a district that previously was not even competitive. The Republicans had to spend 2 or three times as much on this race, to hold even a tiny margin of victory, than they did in any previous election.

There are 50 or 60 currently-held Republican House seats that are even less "Red" than OH-12. And the Dems need to flip only a little more than half of them.


Now, that is actually something to take seriously.

tim in vermont said...

I don’t believe that the national election will have the same resources focused on Dem turnout district by district as they had here, but I could be wrong.

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
Chuck wrote both of these sentences in two sequential comments:

"The Republicans had to spend 2 or three times as much on this race"

And

"On the ground, it was impossible to tell. Media carpet-bombing by both sides. In particular, there were a lot of independent expenditures so whatever the DCCC spent, and whatever Ohio Republicans spent, is not a clear picture."

Which is it, Chuck-"impossible to tell" or "Republicans had to spend 2 or three times as much"?


Gosh I am so glad that you are reading all of my posts and trying to figure out ways to criticize them. It's been profitable for me, to have you do that.

But you're just not very good at the criticism part.

So in this case, I am making the point that this is a race where Republicans are now spending $5 million or more, and this was just a special election for a few final months of Tiberi's unexpired term. They might spend $8 million on this seat before we get to the general in November. When previously, Tiberi (who was a really great fundraiser, among the country club Republicans in Dublin and New Albany) spent about $2 million in an entire election cycle.

Whether it is a Republican candidate, or a Republican PAC, or a Republican 527, is what is hard to tell until later and all of the filings are in. You can tell from media-buy expenditures how much is being spent, and that money is coming from somewhere. What you missed in my previous post was the "independent expenditures" distinction. Now that I have instructed you on how better to read and understand, go back and read my comment again.



Yancey Ward said...

On the balance, I expect the Republicans to lose the House in November, and it will be the Republicans in the House and Senate who are to blame. The take away from the yesterday's election is the lack of enthusiasm of the base voters. It is difficult to put this blame on Trump given that the economy is better than it was when Trump was elected.

The Senate, the Republicans might hold, but again I am doubtful. If they lose Nevada and Arizona, they will need to pick up at least a seat somewhere just to reach 50/50. And right now, Bredesen leads in the polls in TN, so they might need to pick up two seats. Where would those two come from? The best bets are MO, WV, and ND.

Yancey Ward said...

No, Chuck, the criticism is spot on- you both professed certainty about the ratio spent, then said there was no way to know- the two sentences are contradictory. You can't have it both ways. If you had just written the second comment, there would be no criticism at all from me since I have seen absolutely no numbers that I can actually verify, and I have looked in all the usual places.

FullMoon said...

The take away from the yesterday's election is the lack of enthusiasm of the base voters. It is difficult to put this blame on Trump given that the economy is better than it was when Trump was elected.

People who want change are more likely to vote. Satisfied people are less concerned, expect things will stay the same.

Yancey Ward said...

Well, Chuck, you didn't make the distinctions you are claiming in the first sentence- you baldly wrote that Republican spent 2 to 3 times as much- a statement you not only didn't support, but admitted you couldn't support in the second sentence. If you were writing for accuracy rather than propaganda purposes, you would have written that "it looks like, to me, that Republicans might have outspent the Democrats by 2 to 3 times, but I can't be certain."

This is one of the problems I always have with you- you try to fool people with "facts" you actually don't have at hand.

You are, of course, correct with the part that we won't know what the parties spent for some time since not all the filings are done. This was, of course, Mike's point in asking about getting the facts straight, but then you went right out and made an unsupported assertion just like it appears the media article did, too. Unexpectedly.

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
If you believe the turnout numbers that were reported, Balderson should win easily in November. A special election turnout is going to usually favor the party out of power in any race that the party itself believes it can win. However, a November election is not going to have the lopsided ratio that was reported for yesterday's vote- the Democrats will have a hard time improving their turnout while Republicans should easily better the one reported yesterday.


I don't think you are understanding the Ohio 12th. It isn't simply a matter of Republicans versus Democrats.

The district is almost all white. There are lots of rural Republicans in the district, but the group that made it safe for Tiberi and his predecessors are educated upper middle class country club Republicans. Actually, a better way to say it is that when it was Kasich's district, it was a suburban country club Republican district, that was made a bit safer when they added a margin of exurb/rural Republicans.

And in the era of Trump, the country club Republicans are no longer a reliable base for Trump.

And as for turnout, Republicans have always punched above their weight classes in off-year elections. In general elections, Democrats always turn out more. Five Thirty-Eight calculates that Republicans have a 3-point advantage overall in midterms. And if Balderson was typical, he should have gotten a 3-point advantage in this election, and also in the November midterm. But the swing in the Ohio 12th isn't so much a matter of Democrat turnout; it is a matter of country club Republicans defecting; at least that is my perception. Perhaps some exit polling will show. But geeze! This district is supposed to be something like Republican +14! This election result is a numerical catastrophe for Republicans. The candidates were a wash; neither one is a great campaigner; neither one is terrible. It is all about how Trump is playing with educated Republicans.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

No worries, Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire.

I'm quite confident Trump has no path to 270 in 2016.
And he definitely cannot win Michigan.

FullMoon said...

Off topic, not sure why

CrackHead on Wheel of Fortune

eric said...

Chuck wrote;

"And in the era of Trump, the country club Republicans are no longer a reliable base for Trump."

You all are looking at this all wrong.

I have a falsifiable theory. I've even scheduled it on my Droid calendar because I know I'll forget otherwise.

Theory: Balderson is going to win easily in November.

Why do I predict this?

Because special elections allow for too much in the way of hijinks.

Someone like Alyssa Milano can get on a plane, fly to a state she has never been to, and help get out the vote. All these homeless Antifa thug kids can be deployed to these "hot spots" and used to drive people to the polls, encourage others to vote, get on camera and appear to be a groundswell for the candidate, etc. I'm sure if project veritas was ever able to get some undercover video you'd see what I mean.

But in November, the "hot spot" is going to be the entire USA. Alyssa Milano can only be in one place. She won't be able to deploy to Baldersons district to help our his opponent.

So, come November, I plan to revisit this election and see just how one it was then.

And if my theory is correct, he should win easily.

eric said...

Blogger tim in vermont said...
I don’t believe that the national election will have the same resources focused on Dem turnout district by district as they had here, but I could be wrong.


Tim said it more succinctly than I.

Big Mike said...

In general elections, Democrats always turn out more.

The Democrat turnout in OH12 has been reported to be 87%. They aren’t going to increase turnout much come November.

Chuck said...

I think that this is a good time and place to say to my good friend Yancey Ward that it is now time to settle our $100 bet.

We bet on the Detroit congressional race to replace the dearly departed John Conyers Jr. You bet that it would be Conyers' son, John Conyers III, who would win the seat.

As it turned out, III never got enough signatures to get onto the primary ballot. The Michigan primary held yesterday featured an Ohio-like special election to fill Conyers' unexpired term, along with a primary election to determine who will win the next term in the November general election.

Almost precisely as I predicted months ago, Rashida Tlaib was the winner in a very crowded field that even include Conyers' nephew, Ian Conyers. Detroit city councilwoman Brenda Jones may have won the special election which will make her an official Congresscritter for all of five months. Tlaib appears to be headed for the primary win. (Don't ask me, how one candidate won the special and another won the primary.)

As the Democrats' nominee for the general election in a district that is 99% Democrat, Rashida Tlaib is guaranteed victory in the fall, despite the fact that John Conyers III's quixotic run is now apparently devoted to an "Independent" spot on the November general election ballot. Although even that is in serious doubt. Nobody thinks he got the requisite number of signatures for that spot, either. He had until July 19 to do it. He hasn't yet said if he got his signatures. The media are no longer bothering with him; so I haven't seen any news on that.

In lieu of $100 cash, I am willing to accept a 1750 mL (1.75 L) bottle of Hendrick's gin (cost you about $75) at Beverage Warehouse in Beverly Hills MI. Telephone (248) 644-2155. It is a very well-run high-end party store in one of Michigan's most prosperous zip codes. Ask to speak to Junior, tell him what I want and put it on your credit card. Junior is a delightful guy, eager to help customers. Tell him to hold the bottle for "Chuck" and that you are paying off a bet with me. He has done this before. Let me know if you agree to this and I will call him and tell him what to expect. I will pick it up and confirm to the world what a good guy you are and that you have paid your bet off.

Jim at said...

Anybody who's putting a lot of stock into elections on the second week of August - three months out from when it counts - needs their heads examined.

People are on vacations, enjoying summer, time with family and friends. Only the most hardcore of hardcore are wrapped around the political wheel right now.

It's a political lifetime between now and November.

Greg P said...

1: Compare Democrat success in special elections, esp. House special elections, 2009 - 2010 vs GOP success in the 2010 general election

2: Comparing general election results with a long term incumbent and a no-name challenger, to a special election between two equally unknown people, is insane. All you know from the 2016 results is the core base vote for the D.

3: The result DOES matter. The Republican is now "Congressman Balderson" on the ballot. That's, generally, good for a couple of percent right there.

"Just so you know, Chuck’s link will waste on of your WaPo views for the month."

Your browser will have a way to view "local data" / "cookies". Go to it, find all data for the washingtonpost.com, and delete it.

Your count starts over

Chuck said...

Big Mike said...
In general elections, Democrats always turn out more.

The Democrat turnout in OH12 has been reported to be 87%. They aren’t going to increase turnout much come November.


Wow, that is a number I find hard to believe. Where did you find it?

James Smith said...

Dems again can claim the Participation Trophy. Good for them, almost got it this time, maybe next time.

readering said...

Keep those rationalizations coming. I like POTUS's best though. It was a blue district and he dragged the Republican over the finish line!

Birkel said...

readering,
For you I offer the following rationalization:

SCOREBOARD

Jon Ericson said...

Which is it, Chuck-"impossible to tell" or "Republicans had to spend 2 or three times as much"?
He's our own mini Captain Kristol.
I don't think he pals around with big money lobbyists though.
More of a Judge Smails bullshitter type.
Really doesn't like Al Czervik.

Yancey Ward said...

I am not giving anyone over the phone at a liquor store my credit card, Chuck. Just send me a mailing address and name to put on the check to twixella@aol.com, and I will put your $100 in the mail.

Bad Lieutenant said...

In lieu of $100 cash, I am willing to accept a 1750 mL (1.75 L) bottle of Hendrick's gin


OMG a ginfag.

Obvious, really.

On the bright side, now we know how to find you.

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
I am not giving anyone over the phone at a liquor store my credit card, Chuck. Just send me a mailing address and name to put on the check to twixella@aol.com, and I will put your $100 in the mail.


I just want to point out that Fabi paid off his bet with me in this way, and he had no problems. He paid it honorably, and I expect he is satisfied with the transaction.

Bad Lieutenant raises the spectre that concerns me; threats against me by the "we" that he appears to represent if and when I give you my name and address.

Jon Ericson said...

Althouse: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Masters of the Universe: We're shocked! Shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.

[a croupier hands the Masters of the Universe a pile of money]

Croupier: Your winnings, sirs.

Masters of the Universe: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.

[aloud]

Masters of the Universe: Everybody out at once.

Bad Lieutenant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bad Lieutenant said...

threats against me by the "we" that he appears to represent if and when I give you my name and address.


Poor Chuck, living in fear. No, you've already cut your own throat. I could find you now, through the liquor store and "Junior."

But I wouldn't travel to you. I invited you to New York once, and the invitation remains open. I believe you wanted to attack a Fox personality. It would be quite convenient for me to meet you there at their HQ.

Friday mornings during the summer they have a concert series at the plaza outside 1211 AoA, free BBQ from 7-9am. Plenty of witnesses, cameras, they search bags so no weapons. Meet you there, we'll have some chicken and ribs, then we can stroll off someplace quiet. I'll finish up with you then go to work.

But, I'm thinking, not so much to your taste. You may live out your unlovely life in Michigan for all I care. I won't chase you there. I'd subscribe to the pay-per-view if someone else does, however.

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck, I am offering to pay my bet exactly as it was made- by sending you $100. I appreciate that you believe you are giving me a discount, but I don't want or need the discount- I am perfectly willing to send you the money, I just need to know where to do so.

Yancey Ward said...

And, Chuck, do you really think I would dox you? I already have a pretty good idea who you are and have had that knowledge for over a year now, and it wasn't hard to work out. If you really are afraid of such things, you need to get off this site immediately because you left far too much information standing out there.

You have my word- I won't reveal who you are to anyone- I do honor anonymity even when I have already pierced it.

Yancey Ward said...

Again, just send me an address I can mail the check to. My email is twixella@aol.com.