How High The Wave? How High The Wave? How Many Republicans Will Drown In It?

You see that chart up top; the GOP is desperate to get it done-- and get it done fast. They sense what's coming. It's called a wave... and it's already building. If it's like one of the recent mega-waves-- in 2006 the Republicans lost a net of 30 seats. Their congressional vote went from 49.4% of the popular vote in 2004 to 44.3%, a precipitous 5.1% drop. In 2010 the shoe was on the other foot. The Democrats had netted another 21 red-districts when Obama was elected in 2008 but two years later was catastrophic for them. Largely because the DCCC had recruited so many lousy Blue Dogs and New Dems who proved so disappointing to Democratic voters, the Democratic congressional share of the vote dropped from 53.2% to 44.9% in 2010, down 8.3 point! They lost 63 seats, more than they had picked up in 2006 and 2008 combined. To this day, the DCCC denies they did anything wrong by recruiting all those Blue Dogs-- and one of the stupidest people to ever head the DCCC, Ben Ray Lujan, is doing the exact same thing again-- proudly and blatantly. He's counting on a wave to make him look like he knew what he was doing. But what will happen in 2022 when the Democrats lose all those Blue Dog and New Dem seats? No one cares-- literally. Since they're all basically a bunch of career pols with no experience in the real world, none of them think beyond what's in front of their noses and do absolutely ZERO planning for the future-- other than buying plenty of booze.

Brian Stryker and Zac McCrary, partners at, ALG Research, a Democratic polling firm, penned a fascinating post on the building 2018 wave. They see all the indications in the special legislative elections that have occurred since Trump occupied the Oval Office. "Over 29 contested special elections at the state level," the wrote, "Democrats have substantially over-performed both Hillary Clinton’s 2016 performance and Barack Obama’s 2012 performance. If that continues apace, it will be enough to flip almost a thousand state legislative races, give Democrats control of more state houses than Republicans, and most likely have similar impacts on up-ticket races like Congress/Governor/Senate... In those 29 elections, Democrats have substantially overperformed past results. To be more exact, since Trump’s inauguration Democrats have run an average of 12.1 points ahead of Hillary Clinton’s margin and 6.0 points ahead of Barack Obama’s 2012 margin. That includes Democrats flipping 8 of 20 Republican-held districts while holding all 9 of their own open seats." Sound good for a late Saturday night? Keep reading.

Almost without exception, Democrats are punching well above their usual weight in these races. If this pattern held across every state legislative election in the country in the next three and a half years, Democrats would:

• Add about 850 legislative seats, going from their current ~1100-seat deficit nationally to a ~700-seat advantage
• Take control of 20 new state chambers, moving from total control in only 12 states to total control in 25 (1 would be split, 23 would be GOP-controlled, and 1 is non-partisan Nebraska)

Additionally, many Beltway pundits continue to debate whether Democrats should target so-called blue-collar Obama-Trump type districts or more white-collar, suburban Romney-Clinton districts. The answer so far on the legislative level, is “Yes”; Democrats need not acquiesce to that false choice.

...[A] lean Obama district that swung heavily to Trump is just as ripe an opportunity as a strongly Romney district that shifted to Clinton. Republican legislators who hold either of those types of districts--  as well as a much broader swath of GOP districts--  should be very worried by what has occurred at the legislative level over the past several months. Likewise, Democrats do not necessarily need to choose between targeting state houses in places like Iowa where Trump did well in 2016 or states like Arizona or Virginia, where Trump is generally weaker than other recent Republicans.

For example, in Iowa Democrats have already done well in special elections with a 45-point rout in HD89 (Clinton +11, Obama +28) and a hold by 9 points in HD82 (Clinton -21, Obama +2). If Iowa Democrats continued to perform at the national 2017 average compared to Hillary Clinton, they would gain 5 seats in the State Senate and 12 in the State House by the time every seat is up. Under this scenario, the State Senate would move from a 10-seat GOP majority (20 D / 30 R) to a two-seat advantage (24 D / 26 R) and an 18-seat Republican advantage in the House (41 D / 59 R) to a 6-seat Democratic lead (53 D / 47 R).

More alarming for Iowa Republicans would be if legislative Democrats continue their ability to outpace not just Hillary Clinton’s 2016 share but the average of that and Barack Obama’s 2012 performance at the rate that’s been happening nationally. In Iowa, in the next three years this would leave Iowa Democrats with a 20-seat lead in the Senate and a 22-seat lead in the House. That’s not meant to predict Democratic dominance of the Iowa legislature, but it does show the expansive playing field available to legislative Democrats playing offense as well as how well Democrats have done in special elections to this point.

Another state that drives home Democratic opportunities is Virginia, which will be an early test with State House of Delegate elections in November 2017. Virginia Republicans currently hold a roughly 2:1 House advantage (34 D / 66 R). Using the more conservative baseline of outperforming Barack Obama’s 2012 vote share (whose margin was slightly more narrow than Clinton’s) would result in a 10-seat Democratic majority (55 D / 45 R). Using an average of the outperforming 2012 and 2016 would provide Democrats with more than 60 State House seats (61 D / 39 R).

There are numerous reasons why special elections may not translate to on-year elections, including the distinction between open-seat versus incumbent/challenger races and midterm turnout dynamics versus largely one-off special elections. We’re also not making race-by-race or even chamber-by-chamber predictions. State dynamics will be meaningful: so far in 2017 Democrats have flipped three deep-red seats in Oklahoma where GOP Governor Mary Fallin is unpopular, but in Connecticut Democrats have performed below Clinton’s and Obama’s performance on average. Other factors including the number of open seats, top-of-the-ticket performance and campaign spending, make specific projections a fools’ errand. A look at two of those specific factors:

1. Incumbency. Unlike special elections which are open seats by definition, incumbency will matter in 2018 and beyond. Republicans hold about 1100 more legislative seats than Democrats nationwide, so they benefit more fro incumbency. Many Republicans have already survived elections in blue/purple seats, and they’ll be tougher to knock off than winning an open-seat race.

...2. Turnout. There’s no question that Democrats are turning out at higher rates than Republicans right now, and a theory goes that this gets negated or attenuated in higher-turnout midterm elections compared to very-low-turnout special elections. So far, the average special election has had 44% of the total votes that were cast in the same district in 2014 (calculated for districts had contested 2014 legislative races). Democrats have overperformed less as special-election turnout has climbed.

...A wave election is already building, judging by the dozens of races that have already taken place. These elections also indicate sizable Democratic gains are on the table at the legislative level that could dramatically reshuffle the map of national partisan control ahead of redistricting. Our recommendation for Democratic legislative caucuses is that at minimum, anywhere either Clinton or Obama ran within single digits or better should be on their 2018 target lists at this early stage. And while these state legislative elections are crucial on their own-- they play a big part in redistricting in many states-- these results also should spook Republican candidates and operatives at the statewide and congressional level.

This is no time for complacency... and, rest assured that there won't be any on the GOP side. The DCCC is stupider and far less competent than the NRCC, which isn't exactly populated by brain surgeons either. But this is a time to get involved with primaries and to make sure the worst of the garbage the DCCC and DSCC are trying to pass off as real Democrats-- Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- do not get party nominations. We've been exposing them and we'll keep exposing them... but it's up to people in their districts to make sure they are defeated. And it's important not to fall for the DCCC identity politics claptrap. Vote for her because she's a veteran or because she's a woman or because she's this color or that religion-- all a crock. Vote for her because she's got a good record of accomplishment and an honest character and would make a great member of Congress. As I like to remind people, the Democrat with the best voting record in Congress this cycle is Pramila Jayapal (WA), a woman. The Democrat with the worst voting record in Congress this cycle is Kirsten Sinema (AZ). Pramila's ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is 100%. Sinema, who votes far more with the Republicans than with the Democrats on crucial issues, had, until Schumer picked her as the Democratic nominee for the Arizona Senate seat-- sorry Arizona-- had a 19. Pramila is an "A." Sinema is an "F." They're both women.