Thanks for that article. I wondered how the ballots who voted for the ‘other’ Dan Sullivan would rank the other candidates. Now we know, and it looks good.
BOEBERT GOES DOWN
Pun intended
Oh joy! Fuck off, Lauren!!
This may be the first and only time I agree with Ted Cruz.
“2026 was not a blue wave. It was a blue tsunami. It was an ass kicking.”
Definitely fuck off, Lauren! But I haven’t seen the race called anywhere yet. Last I heard, Boebert was trailing by about 3200 votes.
TIL that former NFL kicker Jay Feely has gone into politics.
It did lead to one of the more amusing ads this cycle, an anti-Feely ad repeatedly showing a clip of Feely kicking a ball “wide right” after each cite of a pro-MAGA stance by Feely.
Wikipedia claims that Virginia Foxx (R) lost to Chuck Hubbard (D) in the North Carolina House 5 race, 48.66% to 48.70%, but I haven’t seen that verified, either.
Wikieditor jumping the gun, I think.
According to the AP, Hubbard has a 99-vote lead with 99% of votes tabulated, but they have not declared a winner. The Hill is showing the same vote totals, and also hasn’t declared it.
As expected, Alaska voters aren’t idiots and know how to read names and parties. Those that voted for Decoy Dan did so out of protest, not because they were confused. More of them ranked the libertarian second than the incumbent.
Part of me would delight in the irony of ranked choice voting saving a Republicans.
I just looked up Decoy Dan’s, and Mary’s, position on immigration, and Decoy’s appeals to me more, being more welcoming to newcomers. So a vote for the Decoy does not have to be a protest.
I rarely vote strategically. Probably, if Alaskan, I’d vote first for Peltola, second for Dan J., but I can see honorable reasons to reverse that.
The thinking is that the remaining vote are in very blue areas of the district. It is leaning blue.
That’s fair. I was perhaps being too glib. Instead of “protest vote” I should have aid “anti-incumbent vote”. Very few voters seem to have voted for Dan J as a mistaken attempt to vote for the incumbent.
This has been addressed (big edges in D voters in a district lead to big edges in vote totals) but here are two fun bar bets regarding Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez you might be able to clean up on:
-
Ne York had 26 House races. Five have been called for the Republican, and one leans Republican but hasn’t yet been called. The other twenty were won by the Democrat. Rank all 26 Democratic candidates, winners and losers alike, according to the number of votes they received, greatest number to least. Where on this list does Ocasio-Cortez rank?
-
Now rank all 26 Dem candidates according to the percentage of votes won. Where does AOC rank now?
The answer to 1) is…twenty-second. She was outpolled by almost every winning Democrat, and not by small amounts either, and received fewer votes than five of the six losing Dems.
The answer to 2) is…eighth. Seven Democratic candidates, all in NYC and its immediate environs, had a higher percentage of the total vote in their victories than Ocasio-Cortez.
I want to be clear that I am not throwing shade at Ocasio-Cortez, who is rightfully known as a very skilled politician. But there really is nothing astonishing about her showing in this election, nothing that makes her stand out as more beloved among her constituents than Yvette Clark or Clare Valdez or Gregory Meeks or for that matter Hakeem Jeffries (who beat her in both categories) or others. Context is everything!
Isn’t this part just about the varying size of districts?
That’s how I read it. Of course, maybe she came from the most populous district? It’s a bit of a meaningless stat without more context, something like number of votes per 1000 population.
And also, number 2 still makes her winning percent in the top quarter of those races. Maybe not astonishing, but not shabby.
Context does matter, but #1 needs a lot more context.
To a degree. I just did a spot check: it is smaller than some other districts in the state at least–I guess people have been moving out since the last redistricting. Her district also likely shades younger (lots of kids who can’t vote) and has lots of non-citizens.
Anyway, my main point is that it’s a good bet because many people will assume that a superstar like Ocasio-Cortes must have much better vote totals than those around her. (I tried it out on a relative, who suspected something was up and still guessed fifth on the first question. No, we didn’t bet, alas.)
XKCD pointed out that this is the largest congressional majority any news website has ever reported.
Oh, I agree, not shabby at all! But I think most people would guess it was significantly better than most of her compatriots. That’s all–just thinking about the gap between the reality and the expectation. (Preferably with money changing hands. In my direction.)