Breaking: Republican Debbie Lesko wins special general election to replace Franks

a reply to: network dude

And trends aren't something you discount either. The Republicans' win here won't mean a thing if the Democrats continue to overperform by 17 points on average. They will absolutely sweep the midterms and take control of Congress.

If you want to call this special election a victory for the Right it is definitely a pyrrhic victory at best.

a reply to: Xcalibur254


I find it fascinating the different takes people take on the same information.


Some facts, last election for the 8th district in 2016 a total of 298,971 votes were cast. 68% for the republican 31% for the democrat. In this special election only 156,254 votes were cast. 52% for the republicans and 47% for the democrat. That's a huge amount of no show voters.

Now lets break it down further:


The 2016 total dem vote was 93,954 the 2018 dem vote was 82,318. So no "More dems" did not come to the polls

The 2016 repub vote was 204,942 the 2018 repub vote was 91,390. Vastly more Republicans stayed home this election and still won.


So those at the facts, now you can interpret that however you like. It was a special election so there wasn't much turn out at all, and there will have to be another election in November for the same seat. My belief(no longer talking facts here) is that people will come out for the "real" election" and then you will see the huge "20%" swing you are used to.

a reply to: PsychoEmperor

First off, it should be noted there wasn't a Democrat Congressional candidate for the 8th district in the 2016 election. There was a Green Party candidate. That said, it can pretty much be assumed that most that would vote Democrat would vote for the Green Party candidate.

With that out of the way, the numbers you mentioned above are actually another part of the trend we've seen in all these special elections. The Dems are retaining more voters between elections than the Republicans by a large margin. We're seeing the Dems retain around 80% while the Republicans are lucky if they retain 50%.

Analysts generally use these numbers to gauge voter enthusiasm. In this case the Democrats are much more enthusiastic than the Republicans. And let's be fair while we may see a greater turnout for the midterms it generally doesn't have the turnout of a Presidential election.

So if the Dems are retaining 80% of voters in a special election they may be close to retaining 100% of the voters they had in 2016. The Republicans may retain 70% of the voters they had in 2016. That still gives the Democrats the same margin we're seeing in these special elections.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Interesting report. 180K voted. 155K voted early. Median age of early voters was 68. So, If I were a Democrat strategist, Id push for a law that severely curtails early voting forcing the elderly to show up to vote on election day. Run some stories about Black Panthers showing up at polling sites and you can suppress the elderly vote.

Problem solved.

a reply to: PsychoEmperor

If you're a Dem, you can be enthused about the retention gap. It's not exactly inspiring for the GOP, BUT...

The odds of that many R's staying home for a general election are slim, so I don't think anyone is panicked on the other side of the aisle. Lesko is not particularly charismatic if you've seen any footage of her. Probably didn't help. This was also a very moderate D candidate, so unless the party halts its push left I'm not sure it extrapolates well nationally for a 10-15 point swing.

Shows the importance of a good ground game, and the D's did better than the R's in that regard, as they often do.

a reply to: RadioRobert

But the odds of the Dems not picking up more people is also slim. Like I said above, the Dems could be looking at having close to 100% retention compared to 2016 based off the numbers we're seeing in these special elections. The Republicans might be able to hit 75%. That gives the Democrats they same kind of advantage they have had in these special elections.

As for your comments about Lesko, Romney also wasn't charismatic and he still took the district by over 20 points.

or you can wait for the caravan from Mexico to engage in the next election...

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I don't think turn out for a special election is indicative of turnout for the general. Romney didn't run in a special election. That's the bottom line for me. People that wouldn't show up just to vote Lesko, are far more likely to show up in a general election that has broader implications. That isn't, or at least shouldn't be, a debate.

Again, it bodes well for Dems that they managed their ground game so well in the special election(s). They've maintained high level of enthusiasm or engagement in these specials. That's hard to do. I said on the first page, that this isn't a grand victory for the GOP, and it was good news for Dems that she overperformed the demo. I'd just pump the brakes trying to extrapolate this performance into some sort of 10 point swing across the board.

a reply to: RadioRobert

It's Arizona.

The largest voting group is Independents.

Not Reps. Not Dems.

Many still have an Old West attitude. They vote when they have a valid reason to vote.

The high Dem vote in Maricopa County is quite interesting.

a reply to: RadioRobert

If we compare the Republican's numbers from this district for 2012 to 2014 they retained 75% of their voters. That's where my 75% number from above came from. The Dems are already retaining more than that in special elections and by your own reasoning they should expect to pick up more retention in the midterms.

Now the actual odds of the Republicans pulling out 75% retention I would say is pretty low. The party in power always has a harder time getting people out to vote. Especially when the President isn't well liked. The Dems on the other hand do have a strong possibility of hitting near 100% retention.

So I would say that even though these were special elections I think the difference between retention rates is going to stay pretty much the same. So unless the Republicans can field some absolutely fantastic candidates I think the Dems are pretty much guaranteed to get at least a 10 point swing. Which is enough to give them the House.

The reliably conservative district was expected to go to Lesko, who won with 53 percent of the vote, but 47 percent of residents voted for Democrat Dr. Hiral Tipirneni.

If you think this is a big win you're mistaken. I'd take it as a warning if I was ya'll.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Reverbs

I take no special joy in having a republican win other than the fact that they beat a democrat.


There is a very valid reason why congress approval numbers are in the single digits.


They all suck. Some just suck a little less than others. It depends on the day who sucks a little less.

We need to have a Daily Suckage Meter to help track which party sucks the most on any given day.

originally posted by: buckwhizzle

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Reverbs

I take no special joy in having a republican win other than the fact that they beat a democrat.


There is a very valid reason why congress approval numbers are in the single digits.


They all suck. Some just suck a little less than others. It depends on the day who sucks a little less.

We need to have a Daily Suckage Meter to help track which party sucks the most on any given day.

There you go.

BTW I don't recommend image searching suck meter if you are the least bit prudish.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: 0311Warrior
a reply to: DBCowboy

The Blue Wave is all of us former Democrats voting for Republicans this midterm hahaha Dems are so done. I’ve never seen so much anger towards them ever. My Spybook is filled with Democrat friends and family who are openly stating they will vote for MAGA candidates. It’s surreal. They were almost all pro HRC or Sanders (like I was until I found out about the superdelegates = no chance = real collusion/rigging)

NO

And the largest voting group in AZ is Independents - - not Republicans.

Got proof?
And , your statement just reinforced the post instead of denying it
The Blue wave IS Democrats voting as Independents....
I mean Real , True Democrats. Not that fake ProgLib group

originally posted by: Annee
It's District 8 - - which is most of Maricopa County

Kinda like San Francisco is to the Dems in CA.

It IS NOT most of Maricopa County. It's the NW suburbs. Surprise, Peoria, Waddell, Youngtown, Sun City, and Wittman. It's than 20% of the population of Maricopa county.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: Grambler
Now lets be fair, this is one election and wouldnt conclsuively prove anything about the midterms either way.

If the dmeocrats had won here, I would have told those saying this proved a blue wave was coming that they were wrong.

So I feel i must also say I dont think this proves there isnt a blue wave coming.

OK, lets be fair here.

Trent Franks won EVERY election in that district by more than 30%. He has usually run unopposed because it just wasn't worth it to spend money on. It WAS one of the safest seats in the country; not just Arizona. In 2016 Franks won by 37.2% while Trump won in that district by 21% and the state by less than 5%.

The Democrats brought that result down to just over 5%, a swing of over 25%. That constitutes a huge punch in the face for the Republicans and a 25% swing in the midterms will mean that Arizona will go solid blue.

The Democrats were hoping for a win, sure, but knew that it was a very long row to hoe. The Republicans spent four times on the campaign than the Democrats. The Democrat National committee didn't get involved with much money, while the Republicans were so afraid it made the race one of the most expensive in history.

Whether they get hit by a 'Blue Wave' or by a 'Rising Tide' makes no difference; Republicans are going to take a bath in the midterms.

Some of your post has merit, but let's be fair.. Lesko is not exactly an inspiring candidate. Turnout was lower than usual for GOP voters and way higher for the opposition than normal. If someone approaching Franks' stature had run it would have been a double digit win.

District 8 breakdown is 455,615 total registered voters: 41% R (187,129) 24% D (109,555). Leaving 35% "other, Green, Libertarian".


ETA: I can't find a breakdown of votes cast by registration, but if we assume it is proportional turnout GOP picked up 13 points from the 35% other. Making a 13/22 split on "other" for the Dems. The thread already covered enthusiasm and Dem turnout, so I don't think turnout for the GOP was as high as their registration, so that cuts into that number. Anybody find a break down of # votes by registration affiliation?

a reply to: Arizonaguy

As I mentioned above, Romney wasn't an inspiring candidate either and he still took the district by over 20 points.

Let's also not forget that Tipirneni wasn't really any better a candidate for the Democrats yet they still managed to retain around 80% of their voters from 2016.

And if it's ultimately coming down to quality of candidate then clearly the Republicans don't have any good ones. The Dems are consistently overperforming by 17 points. So if the Right can't put forward anyone other than trash candidates in these special elections, what expectation is there that they'll put forward great ones come November?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I live in the next district over in North Phoenix. My boss and two co-workers live in this district. All 3 stayed away from the polls. All 3 thought Lesko was a poor candidate. All 3 voted for Franks and would have again had he un again. She was a bad candidate plain and simple..and she still won easily with only half of normal turnout.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

And if this was just a single data point I would agree with you that it means nothing. But this is a continuing trend that we've seen in every special election. So are the Republicans only capable of putting forward terrible candidates or are the Dems more motivated to vote?

Either way it means trouble for the Republicans come November.