It should.
So … this is what I’m seeing, right? At the moment, with 53% in, Ossoff is just over at 50.4%?
I mean … that’s kinda pushing the threshold of “wow.”
Their reporters in the live analysis are still predicting around 48% when it’s all said and done.
[quote]Nate Cohn
Reporter with The Upshot
10:17 PM ET
So here’s some basic math for you. Right now, I’d guess there’s around 57,000 votes left. If that’s right, Ossoff can’t afford to get less than 49 percent of those votes. Based on what’s in so far, I’d guess he’ll get 45 percent — which would give him something over 48 percent over all.[/quote]
For perspective, here’s TPM’s take
Nobody really knows anything about the turnout of a single congressional district, including Nate Cohn. This was always something of a long-shot, but I’m willing to be surprised.
So it’s all down to Fulton. Cobb and DeKalb are 100% in, and Ossoff is at 50.3%
Really really.
Consolidate the Democrats and you get to 49. Consolidate the Republicans and you get to 51.
But…Jon Ossoff got 48.1% of the vote and needs to get just 1.9%. That last two percent is the hard part.
Karen Handel needs to get 30%. I’m guessing she gets about 25% of that fairly easy, and finds getting the last 5-7% to put her over to be a chore. She is not particularly popular in the Georgia GOP…but that may be subject to change, too if it means preventing the seat from flipping.
Looks like Nate Cohn was dead-on.
No surprise, but just more grist:
At a GOP breakfast on the district’s eastern DeKalb outskirts, state Sen. Fran Millar criticized Democrats who think it’s a “done deal that this kid’s going to become the Congressman.”
“I’ll be very blunt: These lines were not drawn to get Hank Johnson’s protégé to be my representative. And you didn’t hear that,” said Millar. “They were not drawn for that purpose, OK? They were not drawn for that purpose.”
Your daily reminder that if you vote Republican, you’re literally Hitler!
So it looks like Ossoff improved on Clinton’s margin by about 1.5%. If every Democrat in the 2018 election gets Clinton +1.5%, how much would that shift the House? It seems like it would not be enough to cause a Democratic takeover.
Jason Chaffetz won’t seek re-election.
I wonder what he’s going to move on to - a position in the administration, another elected spot like governor, or something in the private sector.
That’s a not-so-good way to look at it. James Thompson improved on Clinton’s numbers in the KS-04 by 23%. How much will that shift the House?
(I don’t think applying numbers from these individual districts onto a larger map is going to get you much accuracy, especially since approaching 50% tends to reduce the delta pretty dramatically. And each district is very different also…to make an obvious point)
Takeaway here should be geared towards first noting that HRC ran about 5-7 points better in this district than Obama.
Jason, Jason Chaffetz, I’d like to thank you for everything. Primarily throwing rocks while living in your glass house.
Chaffetz Facebook post confirms:
The number of seats that went for Clinton, but are held by Republicans? 22
The number of seats held by Democrats in Trump districts? 11.
Now a 1.5% shift is hard to say, and this article won’t give you that, but it has some interesting charts
You can see the breakdown. The median congressional district went Trump +3.5%. So if you wanted to swing the house fully, that’s about the universal shift you’d need.
Republican tax reform plans may eliminate State and Local tax deductions, because they primarily benefit the enemies of American democracy: i.e. Democratic voters.
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/the-deduction-for-state-and-local-taxes/
Chaffetz finally came to the conclusion that the best way for him to “Do his job” was to quit.
Why is being complicated deemed inherently bad? In finance, there are an untold number of ways to make and lose money, and to be able to properly tax based on that in the most efficient and fair manner (regardless of what you consider fair) seems to take a lot of consideration and rules.