Posted on 04/11/2017 5:12:46 PM PDT by SMGFan
Not an overwhelming victory, but still a win. Estes failed to get his voters out in the same percentages that Thompson did. It was a special election, which usually pushes voter participation down, but still, Estes needs to do a better job of getting the GOP voters to turn out.
From the NYT:
But after internal Republican polling last week revealed Mr. Estes’s lead was in only the single digits, the national party scrambled to rescue his campaign — and effectively conceded that even seats in the reddest corners of the United States are not safe at a time when Democrats are so energized against Mr. Trump.
While Mr. Thompson fell short, his unexpected strength represents a warning shot toward Republicans. And it will galvanize Democrats’ candidate-recruitment efforts for next year’s campaign.
The surging energy on the left was on display on Tuesday night when the early and absentee vote returns were tallied in the district’s largest county and revealed Mr. Thompson to have staked out a considerable lead. But Mr. Estes overcame that deficit thanks to his strength in the more rural parts of the district and among Election Day voters.
Even less: 240,000 to 100,000
That sounds vaguely familiar. I can't quite place it...
In any event, Estes ends up winning by 9%? That seems pretty respectable, all in all...
Chautauqua just quit clowning around and posted their final numbers, which are a 592/127/14 win for Estes.
Estes wins, 63,505 to 55,310, or by 8,195 votes. In percentage terms, 52.53% to 45.75%, a 6.78% win (source: Kansas SOS website).
Final totals indicate a 7% win. Pompeo won by 31% in 2016. The vote total was 40% of what it was in 2016. Estes received 100,000 less votes than Pompeo.
I'd like to see the figures on how much money was spent by the respective campaigns.
Also, since turnout was so low on the R side, that needs to be looked at.
Interesting how apparently the early vote went heavy for the D, but notwithstanding that, the same-day vote pushed Estes to a 7% victory.
Let's hope the GOP does a better job in Georgia...
Sounds like it was closer then it should have been.
120,000 votes were cast last night, versus 275,000 votes in November. There is reasonable to believe that a higher turnout would have meant a BIGGER win for the Republican.
No, not that extreme, but if he had got elected....http://www.votejamesthompson.com/issues
Many of the immigrants in the small TX towns have not yet organized politically. Even in Democrat South TX, turnout is always low.
I had read that the Estes campaign was lackluster; so I was surprised with his victory, which apparently came from rural America to some extent.
“The new, Common Core math I guess.”
If the D was at 50.7% and the R at 47.6% and the L at 1.7%, then that adds up to 100.0%, but if you had rounded up each total to the nearest percentage you get 51% + 48% + 2%, which would give you 101%. So it was an issue of rounding in the Secretary of State’s presentation, not of funky “math.”
But I liked the final numbers a lot better (53% R, 46% D).
“Republican Charles Djou won the [Hawaii] 1st District 2010 special election only to lose in November.”
Of course, Djou only won because there were two prominent RATs running and no run-off, so his 39% was enough to win; in November, he only faced one Democrat, so his 44% or so wasn’t nearly high enough to survive. But, yes, special elections usually have very low turnout, which can yield weird results.
Me too. The Demon Rats are loco if they think this election was good news for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.