political connections

Democrats Look to Rack Up Blue-State Wins

The midterms will be decided, in part, by which party does a better job defending its home court.

AP Photo/Lorin Eleni Gill
June 6, 2018, 8 p.m.

Over the past quarter-century, the unmistakable trend in American elections is toward greater alignment between the way states vote for president and the delegations they send to Congress. After Democrats’ strong night in Tuesday’s primaries, the November midterms increasingly look like a test of which party can better defend its natural home-court advantage.

The night’s biggest headline was that the Democrats appear to have placed candidates for November in all of the California congressional districts where they feared being locked out. That unexpected outcome—reinforced by the party’s success at nominating its preferred candidate in each competitive seat in New Jersey—means the Democrats still have an opportunity to recapture the House this fall primarily by winning seats in states that voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in 2016.

At the same time, Republicans are positioned to defend or expand their majority in the Senate if they can beat some of the 10 Democrats defending seats in states that voted for Trump. The GOP has chosen strong challengers in those states that have selected nominees so far, a pattern that continued Tuesday with the victory of Montana state Auditor Matt Rosendale for the Republican Senate nomination against Democratic Sen. Jon Tester.

The question of which party can best defy the other’s home-court advantage is most urgent in the House, because the chamber has a much greater chance of switching party control. After their apparent success in California, Democrats can come close to retaking the House majority just by sweeping away the last remaining Republicans in otherwise Democratic-leaning states.

The Cook Political Report’s rankings show that many of the Democrats’ top House opportunities are concentrated in blue states; among the seats that Cook rates as toss-ups or leaning toward the Democrats are five in California; three in New Jersey; two each in New York, Illinois, and Minnesota; and one each in Colorado, Virginia, and Washington. Cook rates another five seats in Pennsylvania, which Trump carried by only about 40,000 votes, as toss-ups or Democratic-leaning.

California offered Republicans their best opportunity to reduce their blue-state risk. But they failed to seize the unique opening that the state’s odd primary system presented them. Under that system, the top two finishers in each primary advance to the general election, regardless of party. That created two big advantages for Republicans. One is that Republicans are usually disproportionately represented in California primaries, because younger and Latino voters usually turn out at much lower rates compared with their numbers in general elections.

That advantage was reinforced by another: the surge of Democratic candidates whose opposition to Trump inspired them to run. In one sense, that tide measured rising Democratic energy. But, the combination of more Democratic candidates and relatively fewer Democratic voters exposed the party to a very real risk—that it could be shut out of the top two in several competitive congressional districts.

Instead, pending the final vote counts that may stretch on for weeks, it appears likely that the Democrats weren’t shut out in any California House seats. That result is a testament, in part, to the extraordinary targeting efforts by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and state party. But the outcome also reflected the party’s underlying growth in the five Republican-held suburban House districts around Los Angeles where Clinton beat Trump in 2016.

Overall, the California primary generated a very modest turnout: Though the final vote count will increase the total, the secretary of state reported Wednesday that only about one in five registered voters participated. But Democratic candidates on Tuesday tallied significantly more votes in each of the crucial L.A.-area seats than their counterparts did in 2014, the last midterm primary.

For instance: Democrats on Tuesday amassed nearly 37,000 votes in the district held by Republican Rep. Steve Knight. That compares to only about 20,000 votes in 2014. The overall increase was similar for Democrat Gil Cisneros’s win in the seat that Republican Rep. Ed Royce is vacating. Democrats tallied nearly 56,000 votes in the seat that Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is giving up; in 2014, they polled just below 35,000. In Rep. Mimi Walters’s seat, Democrats increased their vote from about 24,000 in 2014 to nearly 44,000. And in Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s seat, Democrats expanded from about 30,000 votes in 2014 to nearly 49,000 Tuesday. All of these numbers will grow as the final tallies drift in.

Though Republican candidates, at this counting, still polled more primary votes than Democrats in most of these seats, their numbers generally remained static or slightly declined from 2014. None of these Los Angeles-area districts are sure things for Democrats in November. But the big Democratic turnout gains there underscore how far the party can progress toward retaking the House just by channeling the resistance to Trump in the places that have been most dubious of him from the start.

What We're Following See More »
Biden Announces
23 hours ago
Trump Opposes White House Aides Giving Congressional Testimony
1 days ago

"President Trump on Tuesday said he is opposed to current and former White House aides providing testimony to congressional panels in the wake of the special counsel report, intensifying a power struggle between his administration and House Democrats. In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said that complying with congressional requests was unnecessary after the White House cooperated with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of Russian interference and the president’s own conduct in office."

Nadler Subpoenas Unredacted Report
6 days ago
Mueller Made 14 Criminal Referrals
1 weeks ago
The Report Is Here
1 weeks ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.