By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

Readers, here is the latest iteration of my “Table 1” for the 2018 primaries. Perhaps, some day, there may even be a Table 2! This iteration is more to build a foundation for future iterations as the primaries heat up; nevertheless, there are some interesting results. This is what I did for structure:

1) I added a column for the primary dates.

2) I added a column for the previous iteration’s horserace ratings, so I can track changes in the tilts, leans, and likelies. (As before, the data is the latest from Inside Elections).

3) I also did more work on the Likely Rs, but it’s not ready to show yet.

And for data:

1) I rechecked all the backers: DCCC, Emily’s List, Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress, and Indivisible. There were very few additions from Our Revolution, who seem to back mostly state and local canidates; very few from Emily’s List, who focus on early money, anyhow; and none from Indivisible, who although they have an endorsement process, have made very few endorsements to date). DCCC, however, was quite active.

2) I rechecked all the horserace ratings (see Figure 2, below).

I did not rework the Challengers column, which means I am behind the curve especially in volatile states like Pennsylvania, but now that I have the primary dates, I can do more “just in time” data entry; it really is too much to check every single challenger every time I put this table together.

So, herewith, the table. After the table, I’ll present some results.

Table 1: Worksheet on House Races, Election 2018 (2018-05-01).

LEGEND

Biography: m, i, l, o (“MILO”) Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Other)

Backers: BN, EL, IN, JD, OR; DCCC; DP; S: Brand New Congress, Emily’s List, Indivisible, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution; DCCC; Democrat Party, whether elected, staffer, official, etc.; inspired by Sanders.

Policies: M, fM, Medicare for All, and faux Medicare for All.

Bio keys are m, i, l, and o) for Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Other (except I didn’t find any Others this time[5]). A candidate who worked for the CIA is keyed i. A candidate who worked in Law enforcement and the military is keyed “lm.” “Law Enforcement” is conceived broadly, including not only police but district attorneys.

Backer keys are BN, EL, IN, JD, OR, and DCCC, Brand New Congress, Emily’s List, Indivisible, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, and (of course) the DCCC. In addition, there is a DP key, for members of the Democrat Party network, elected and otherwise, and S, for challengers inspired by Sanders.

Policy keys are M, fM, for Medicare for All, and any of the various bait-and-switch alternatives proposed by think tanks like CAP, or centrists like Merkeley. Some judgement is involved, based on the verbiage. “Single payer” always merits an “M,” for example.

Figure 1: Primary Dates

As you can see, primaries in IL and TX have already passed (although the TX-07 run-off between Moser and Fletcher will happen on May 22). Anyhow, now that I have this Calendar, I can make Water Cooler coverage a bit more tied to current events. And those of you who contribute to candidates may find this useful for planning.

Figure 2: “The Wave

If indeed there is to be a “wave,” it will show up in the districts. We should expect to see signs of it as Tilt-R districts change to Toss-Ups, Toss-Ups change to Tilt-Ds, and so on. (I grant that the methodology is what it is; I’m summarizing the handicappers. Presumably, however, the handicappers are looking at the polls. I’m including the SQL not to show off, but because it’s so much fun to ask the data a question and get an answer!)

So, MN-07 changed from Lean-D to Likely-D. That is the wave so far.

Of course, 189 days is a long time in politics, and maybe the real effects don’t kick in until after the primaries. I don’t see why that should be so, however; if party enthusiasm is the key factor behind a wave, it should be showing up before any candidates are chosen. Certainly that’s what people — people on the Twitter, and so forth — say is happening, right now.

Figure 3: Medicare for All and the DCCC (Candidates)

You can see that of 23 candidates backed by the DCCC[1], three (13%) support #MedicareForAll. I keep saying that the top priority for liberal Democrats this cycle is preventing #MedicareForAll, and numbers like this provide ample backing for that thesis. You can also see the fallback position: faux Medicare for All, under such vague rubrics as “universal access,” etc.

Figure 4: Medicare for All and the DCCC (Districts)

I wondered what accounted for DCCC-supported candidates who did the right thing; it looks to me that when faced with challenges from the left on #MedicareForAll, they do indeed move left themselves (though of course the bait-and-switch alternatives provide ample scope for betrayal at a later date.

Conclusion

Hopefully, readers find this series of reaonably deep dives useful; suggestions for future topics to look into are welcome. (Spoiler: I’m coming round to the notion that the real wedge issue for the Democrat Party is the nature of the Party itself. As Lampedusa did not say: “If we want things to change, things will have to change.” I know this is meta, but so be it.)

NOTES

[1] The only list of DCCC-backed candidates I can find on the DCCC site is from their flagship “Red to Blue” program. Doubtless there are more.