June 3, 2014: Super Tuesday primary thread (8 states)

[jon_berzerk]

In Iowa, Joni Ernst won the GOP Senatorial primary with 56%.

Joni Ernst won the GOP Senatorial primary with 56%.

i dont follow this stuff all that much

is that the castration lady by chance

Yes, that is her.

The GOP just threw away this Senatorial race, imo.

maybe maybe not

we will see

mike rounds won out here

 

[Statistikhengst]

In South Dakota, Susan Wismer won the D gubernatorial primary with 55%. About 27,600 votes were cast.

On the Republican side, incumbent Dennis Daugaard won his primary with 81%. About 74,200 votes were cast.

That's a 2.7 to 1 ratio for the Rs in SD.

Mike Rounds won the GOP senatorial primary with 56% and a +38% margin over the next competitor. Circa 74,500 votes were cast in that primary, just maybe 300 more than in the GOP gubernatorial primary.

Rick Weiland was unopposed in the Democratic senatorial primary.

SD and WV are the two states where the Senate seats are most likely to switch from D to R.

 

[jon_berzerk]

In South Dakota, Susan Wismer won the D gubernatorial primary with 55%. About 27,600 votes were cast.

On the Republican side, incumbent Dennis Daugaard won his primary with 81%. About 74,200 votes were cast.

That's a 2.7 to 1 ratio for the Rs in SD.

Mike Rounds won the GOP senatorial primary with 56% and a +38% margin over the next competitor. Circa 74,500 votes were cast in that primary, just maybe 300 more than in the GOP gubernatorial primary.

Rick Weiland was unopposed in the Democratic senatorial primary.

SD and WV are the two states where the Senate seats are most likely to switch from D to R.

thanks for the update

it might be harder then expected to swap the seat

there are a lot of dems in the rapid city black hills area

 

[Statistikhengst]

Wait and see.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wait and see.

yes

Johnson had a strong following

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am glad you bring it up, for I have written this a number of times, but some people, especially some Righties, just don't get it: when it comes to electoral numbers, I am brutally neutral and report positive statistics for the GOP with the same veracity as for the DEMS or an Independent.

Polling is already showing that the DEM candidates in both WV and SD are in serious trouble.

But polling is also showing a slight lead for the D's in most generic ballots - that lead is not enough to overcome the latest round of gerrymandering.

Polling is not yet confirming a GOP wave for the Fall - yet - but it could happen. What we are seeing happening in PA and AR goes AGAINST a GOP wave, but things could change again.

When it comes to actual election numbers, I am rooting for no one - just putting the data out there.

And last night pretty much happened exactly as the polling was predicting. There were no surprises at all, even in Mississippi, for the last four completely different polls of the McDaniels-Cochran primary battle were showing statistical tie, and that is exactly what we have right now.

Electoral history is STRONGLY on the side of the GOP in this coming election because electoral history has been STRONGLY on the side of the challenger party in practically every single mid-term since 1854, or a 160 year time-span.

Which is why for me, often the best answer is:

"Wait and see".

 

[bendog]

Word this morning in Miss is that Cochran and McDaniel will have a run off in three weeks. Total ad spending is already over $4 per registered voter .... not people who voted, total registered voters. I've lived in some batsht crazy places ... orange county, ca and places in Wyo where Reagan wasn't conservative enough during the early 80s, but this place takes the cake hands down.

 

[Pogo]

Word this morning in Miss is that Cochran and McDaniel will have a run off in three weeks. Total ad spending is already over $4 per registered voter .... not people who voted, total registered voters. I've lived in some batsht crazy places ... orange county, ca and places in Wyo where Reagan wasn't conservative enough during the early 80s, but this place takes the cake hands down.

There's a reason for that: once we uh, "cleared" the Indians out in the 1830s, Mississippi was "settled" by ...South Carolinians.

Of course that was only the best and brightest; the rest stayed behind...

 

[rightwinger]

This is one of the most exciting primary days so far.

I hope Cochran wins as that would secure MS in the GOP column (McDaniel's a bit too risky for the state).
I'm also rooting for Lonegan to win the NJ primary for Congress as I really like him and wish he beat Cory Booker in 2013.

Steve Loseagain?

Are you fucking crazy? He is one of the biggest oddballs in Jersey politics....and that is saying alot

 

[Pogo]

In South Dakota, Susan Wismer won the D gubernatorial primary with 55%. About 27,600 votes were cast.

On the Republican side, incumbent Dennis Daugaard won his primary with 81%. About 74,200 votes were cast.

That's a 2.7 to 1 ratio for the Rs in SD.

Mike Rounds won the GOP senatorial primary with 56% and a +38% margin over the next competitor. Circa 74,500 votes were cast in that primary, just maybe 300 more than in the GOP gubernatorial primary.

Rick Weiland was unopposed in the Democratic senatorial primary.

SD and WV are the two states where the Senate seats are most likely to switch from D to R.

Is that (bold) a realistic comparator though? Seems to me going out to vote in this or that party's primary doesn't in any way equate to how one votes in a GE. One is likely to vote in a primary only if there's a contest one is interested in. I don't know what kind of intra-competition the SD candidates had or what its state laws are but around here I can vote in whichever party's primary I want to, so I'll ignore the one that's a safe lock and vote in the closer contest in order to nudge toward a menu of two choices I like.

For instance in 2012 I put a vote in for Jon Huntsman since the Rep race was a contest while the Dem was a given.

 

[Statistikhengst]

In South Dakota, Susan Wismer won the D gubernatorial primary with 55%. About 27,600 votes were cast.

On the Republican side, incumbent Dennis Daugaard won his primary with 81%. About 74,200 votes were cast.

That's a 2.7 to 1 ratio for the Rs in SD.

Mike Rounds won the GOP senatorial primary with 56% and a +38% margin over the next competitor. Circa 74,500 votes were cast in that primary, just maybe 300 more than in the GOP gubernatorial primary.

Rick Weiland was unopposed in the Democratic senatorial primary.

SD and WV are the two states where the Senate seats are most likely to switch from D to R.

Is that (bold) a realistic comparator though? Seems to me going out to vote in this or that party's primary doesn't in any way equate to how one votes in a GE. One is likely to vote in a primary only if there's a contest one is interested in. I don't know what kind of intra-competition the SD candidates had or what its state laws are but around here I can vote in whichever party's primary I want to, so I'll ignore the one that's a safe lock and vote in the closer contest in order to nudge toward a menu of two choices I like.

For instance in 2012 I put a vote in for Jon Huntsman since the Rep race was a contest while the Dem was a given.

Your question is an outstanding one, [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]

I usually wait until the final canvasses are in and then I will compare the total vote data from this primary to the last primary to see how many raw votes were cast then, and what the VT (voter turnout) was.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Word this morning in Miss is that Cochran and McDaniel will have a run off in three weeks. Total ad spending is already over $4 per registered voter .... not people who voted, total registered voters. I've lived in some batsht crazy places ... orange county, ca and places in Wyo where Reagan wasn't conservative enough during the early 80s, but this place takes the cake hands down.

There are two ways to look at this:

in one way, it means more time and energy for a primary battle (also, $$$) while Childers can build his warchest.

But it can also actually help the winner of the GOP primary to build more intensity among voters.

No doubt about it, the GOP is likely to have the edge in this race in the Fall. Against an incumbent Cochran, Childers would probably have no chance.

But against McDaniel, even recent polling shows the race much, much closer.

Facit: If McDaniels win, the RNC will likely have to sock money into this state to make sure to hold the seat, money it would probably prefer to spend elsewhere.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well the primary is done here in New Mexico with no surprises. In answer to Stat's inquiry about our DUI and criminal record stuff, I thought I was obvious that it is a standing joke in New Mexico because so many folks elected to office here seem to have that on their records. But I was not referring to anybody in particular on this year's ballot.

But the primary was so predictable even our local news folks spent a limited amount of time reporting the results. Boring for them to report. Boring for us who had to hear it more than once.

I don't think Weh has a prayer against Heinrich for the Senate race. . .BUT. . . he has been running for so long now, without winning, that he at least has developed a name recognition of sorts, and anything is possible. He won by a large margin in the primary, but that is just with Republicans voting. If the local electorate is disgusted enough with the status quo by late October and November when we go back to the polls, I suppose anything is possible.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well the primary is done here in New Mexico with no surprises. In answer to Stat's inquiry about our DUI and criminal record stuff, I thought I was obvious that it is a standing joke in New Mexico because so many folks elected to office here seem to have that on their records. But I was not referring to anybody in particular on this year's ballot.

But the primary was so predictable even our local news folks spent a limited amount of time reporting the results. Boring for them to report. Boring for us who had to hear it more than once.

I don't think Weh has a prayer against Heinrich for the Senate race. . .BUT. . . he has been running for so long now, without winning, that he at least has developed a name recognition of sorts, and anything is possible. He won by a large margin in the primary, but that is just with Republicans voting. If the local electorate is disgusted enough with the status quo by late October and November when we go back to the polls, I suppose anything is possible.

You know, Foxfyre, I really didn't know that.

Must be all those desert mirages....

 

[Pogo]

In South Dakota, Susan Wismer won the D gubernatorial primary with 55%. About 27,600 votes were cast.

On the Republican side, incumbent Dennis Daugaard won his primary with 81%. About 74,200 votes were cast.

That's a 2.7 to 1 ratio for the Rs in SD.

Mike Rounds won the GOP senatorial primary with 56% and a +38% margin over the next competitor. Circa 74,500 votes were cast in that primary, just maybe 300 more than in the GOP gubernatorial primary.

Rick Weiland was unopposed in the Democratic senatorial primary.

SD and WV are the two states where the Senate seats are most likely to switch from D to R.

Is that (bold) a realistic comparator though? Seems to me going out to vote in this or that party's primary doesn't in any way equate to how one votes in a GE. One is likely to vote in a primary only if there's a contest one is interested in. I don't know what kind of intra-competition the SD candidates had or what its state laws are but around here I can vote in whichever party's primary I want to, so I'll ignore the one that's a safe lock and vote in the closer contest in order to nudge toward a menu of two choices I like.

For instance in 2012 I put a vote in for Jon Huntsman since the Rep race was a contest while the Dem was a given.

Your question is an outstanding one, [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]

I usually wait until the final canvasses are in and then I will compare the total vote data from this primary to the last primary to see how many raw votes were cast then, and what the VT (voter turnout) was.

Still seems like apples and oranges regardless how the numbers compare. If your incumbent Schlomo is a lock for his primary, and you intend to vote for him in the GE, you don't bother with the primary. If you don't like Schlomo and you like his opponent Gummo, but Gummo doesn't have a lock, you might show up for that one just to give yourself a choice. Or, you could go the opposite Rush Limbaugh route and vote in Wacko in the primary, because Wacko doesn't have a chance against Schlomo.

Just seems to me the rationale for voting in a primary are significantly different than that for voting in a GE. So the question of how many of Party X show up for the primary seems to be far more about how tight the contest is than who one ultimately wants in office. In the latter you're choosing who your public official will be; in the former you're choosing what the ballot will look like.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Is that (bold) a realistic comparator though? Seems to me going out to vote in this or that party's primary doesn't in any way equate to how one votes in a GE. One is likely to vote in a primary only if there's a contest one is interested in. I don't know what kind of intra-competition the SD candidates had or what its state laws are but around here I can vote in whichever party's primary I want to, so I'll ignore the one that's a safe lock and vote in the closer contest in order to nudge toward a menu of two choices I like.

For instance in 2012 I put a vote in for Jon Huntsman since the Rep race was a contest while the Dem was a given.

Your question is an outstanding one, [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]

I usually wait until the final canvasses are in and then I will compare the total vote data from this primary to the last primary to see how many raw votes were cast then, and what the VT (voter turnout) was.

Still seems like apples and oranges regardless how the numbers compare. If your incumbent Schlomo is a lock for his primary, and you intend to vote for him in the GE, you don't bother with the primary. If you don't like Schlomo and you like his opponent Gummo, but Gummo doesn't have a lock, you might show up for that one just to give yourself a choice. Or, you could go the opposite Rush Limbaugh route and vote in Wacko in the primary, because Wacko doesn't have a chance against Schlomo.

Just seems to me the rationale for voting in a primary are significantly different than that for voting in a GE. So the question of how many of Party X show up for the primary seems to be far more about how tight the contest is than who one ultimately wants in office. In the latter you're choosing who your public official will be; in the former you're choosing what the ballot will look like.

Still, voter intensity based on total votes cast in a primary, and the VT % compared to past cycles (comparable cycles, I mean) can be useful data.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Oh, here's a small detail that went right by me:

Look who got 3.1% of the AG vote in California....

 

[bendog]

Word this morning in Miss is that Cochran and McDaniel will have a run off in three weeks. Total ad spending is already over $4 per registered voter .... not people who voted, total registered voters. I've lived in some batsht crazy places ... orange county, ca and places in Wyo where Reagan wasn't conservative enough during the early 80s, but this place takes the cake hands down.

There are two ways to look at this:

in one way, it means more time and energy for a primary battle (also, $$$) while Childers can build his warchest.

But it can also actually help the winner of the GOP primary to build more intensity among voters.

No doubt about it, the GOP is likely to have the edge in this race in the Fall. Against an incumbent Cochran, Childers would probably have no chance.

But against McDaniel, even recent polling shows the race much, much closer.

Facit: If McDaniels win, the RNC will likely have to sock money into this state to make sure to hold the seat, money it would probably prefer to spend elsewhere.

Cochran was barely visible during the campaign, aside from actually insulting the TPM by saying he'd never heard of it. It's not so much the TPM, though this place is batshite crazy, but it's a total clsterfk by the establishment party. Cochran wanted to retire, but they said "no thad we need you as chair of appropriations and we'll make sure you have no opposition." So nobody this this very strange man from the strangest place in the state, Jones County, qualified. And the tea party spend over five million.

Jones County actually seceded from BOTH the North and South during the civil war. McDaniels got like 12K out of 150K from just that loony bin. Last time I had to go there, I took my customary 9mm pistol, but added my .38 snubby. And that ain't no joke. Fcking Deliverance territory.

I don't see how Cochran has snowball's chance in hell. The Dem, Childers, is actually a decent guy ... for a Dem. But Obamacare is such an issue that no dem will ever be elected statewide, outside the black district, for the foreseeable future. My kid was at Cochran HQ last night, and she said many said they'd rather vote Childers, but they won't.

We'll see if the TPM sends money. I doubt many Missisippians give McDaniel much. Maybe the natl party will. One effect may be that with Mike Lee and Cruz and now this guy, even if there's a gop potus, these guys will not vote for stuff like aid for Ukraine and Syria, that a gop potus will have to ask for. So, if we get a senate with a 53 gop majority, it'll take Dem votes to move stuff ..... like roads. Reid might just say FU.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What party was Orly Taitz on the ballot for?

"NPD" was on the ballot - I believe that means "No Party declared", but am still researching it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Looked it up on wikipedia it has nonpartisan beside her name...so I dunno..

I would think that "No Party Declared" and "nonpartisan" could mean the same thing.