This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 1587 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us and participate via our donation page, which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we’re doing this fundraiser and what we’ve accomplished in the last year, and our current goal, more original reporting.

By Lambert Strether of Corrente

Here is the latest iteration of my “Table 1” for the 2018 primaries. The structure is the same as the last iteration (‘‘Worksheet for the 2018 Midterms (Status Quo, with a Look at the Winners So Far)”). The districts in play as of July 25 are listed[1]. There are 80, and surely, if the Democrats are to win the 23 seats they need to win to take control of the House, those 23 are in that 80. All challenger data, except backers, is now updated, including backers and winners. As requested, winners are marked (with a blue star). As usual, the horserace information is the latest available from the Inside Elections and Cook Reports tipsheets. I’m going to use this data to answer three questions:

1) Who are the winnners?

2) What about the horserace? Even though my focus is institutional, everybody wants to know the answer to this question!

3) What about the left?

There are also other questions I hope to ask, but I’m under the gun to run my queries and get this enormous post up, so I may have to answer them in UPDATEs. I hope you will also feel free to ask questions in comments, and if I can cudgel the database into answering, I’ll post the answer.

Table 1: Worksheet on House Races, Election 2018 (10-25).

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, GS, IN, JD, OR, and DCCC, Brand New Congress, Emily’s List, Great Slate, 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.

Table 2: The Winners, Election 2018 (10-25).

District Candidate Backers Endorsed By Bio Policies AR-02 Tucker DCCC,DP fM AZ-02 Kirkpatrick EL,DCCC,DP fM AZ-08 Tipirneni EL,IN h fM CA-04 Morse EL,GS m fM CA-10 Harder DCCC Obama,Clinton (OT) e M CA-21 Cox DCCC Obama,Clinton (OT) CA-25 Hill EL Obama,Clinton (OT) fM CA-39 Cisneros DCCC m CA-45 Porter DFA,EL,PCCC,DCCC Obama,Clinton (OT) M CA-48 Rouda IN,DCCC Obama,Clinton (OT) CA-49 Levin DFA,PCCC,DCCC,DP Obama,Clinton (OT) M CA-50 Campa-Najjar DFA,IN,JD,OR,PCCC,DP Obama M CO-06 Crow DCCC,DP Clinton (OT) m FL-26 Mucarsel-Powell EL,DCCC FL-27 Shalala EL,DP GA-06 McBath EL,DCCC Clinton (OT) GA-07 Bourdeaux EL,DP e IA-01 Finkenauer EL,DCCC,DP IA-03 Axne EL,DCCC fM IL-06 Casten DCCC Obama,Clinton (OT) fM IL-12 Kelly DCCC Obama m,in,l IL-13 Londrigan EL,DCCC,DP w fM IN-02 Hall OR,DP h KS-02 Davis DCCC,DP KS-03 Davids EL KY-06 McGrath DCCC,DP m ME-02 Golden GS,DCCC,DP m M MI-06 Longjohn h MI-07 Driskell EL,DCCC,DP MI-08 Slotkin EL,DCCC,DP m,in fM MI-11 Stevens EL,DP MN-01 Feehan DCCC,DP m MN-02 Craig EL,DCCC MN-03 Phillips DCCC MN-08 Radinovich DCCC,DP MT-01 Williams EL,DP NC-09 McCready DCCC m NC-13 Manning EL,DCCC NM-02 Small EL,DCCC,DP NE-02 Eastman DFA,EL,IN,JD,PCCC,DCCC e M NH-01 Pappas DP NJ-02 Van Drew DCCC,DP NJ-03 Kim PCCC,DCCC Obama m,in NJ-07 Malinowski IN,DCCC,DP Obama NJ-11 Sherrill EL,DCCC m,l M NV-03 Lee EL,DCCC Obama e NV-04 Horsford DCCC,DP Obama,Clinton (OT) NY-11 Rose DCCC m,l fM NY-19 Delgado IN,DCCC Obama fM NY-22 Brindisi DCCC,DP fM NY-24 Balter DFA,EL,IN,GS,OR,PCCC,DCCC,DP e M OH-01 Pureval DCCC Obama,Clinton (OT) l OH-12 O’Connor DP OH-14 Rader EL,DCCC PA-01 Wallace IN,DCCC,DP Clinton (OT) PA-05 Scanlon EL Clinton (OT) PA-07 Clark PA-07 Daugherty DP PA-07 Edwards JD Sanders M PA-07 Wild EL,DCCC Obama,Clinton (OT) l PA-10 Scott IN m,in fM PA-17 Lamb m,l TX-07 Fletcher EL,DCCC TX-21 Kopser m fM TX-23 Jones DFA,EL,DCCC,DP Clinton (OT) m,l M TX-32 Allred DCCC,DP Obama fM UT-04 McAdams DCCC,DP UT-04 McDonald JD s M VA-02 Luria EL,DCCC m VA-05 Cockburn EL M VA-07 Spanberger EL,DCCC in,l,e VA-10 Wexton EL,DCCC,DP Clinton (OT) l WA-05 Brown EL,IN,DCCC,DP e WA-08 Schrier EL,IN h WI-01 Bryce DFA,JD,PCCC,DCCC Sanders fM WV-03 Davis DCCC

A quick scan of the table may yield some disturbing implications, depending on your political viewpoint, which I will address in Figure 3, and in subsequent updates.

Figure 2 (a): The Horserace

I’ve been dilatory about producing new worksheets — partly workload, partly because I think I already know the institutional story — but that gives us the opportunity of seeing shifts over a two-month span. Of the 80 districts we have been tracking, 43 have changed. I have shaded the seats where the handicappers’ ratings changed; for example, from Tossup to Lean-D. As you can see, the shift toward the Democrats (“Blue”) is enormous. I’ve sorted the table by districts so readers can check their own:

That’s a lot of bluel! Of course, the Democrats need to do more than shift districts; they need to win them. Of these districts that have shifted toward the Ds, how many are have actually moved into the D column? Let’s see:

Figure 2 (b): The Horserace and Likely Winners

Big caveat: This data comes from the 80 races I’ve been tracking from the beginning of this project, and I picked those 80 because handicappers, at the beginning of this election season, said those were the most likely to flip from Republican to Democrat (thus flipping the House, if the Democrats win 23 of the 80). It seemed to me further that these districts were where liberal Democrats would concentrate their resources (and where the left would challenge liberals, should they choose to do so.) However, the map may have expanded (see again note [1]), and districts may be in play now that are not members of the 80. So my sample could be bad for horserace purposes (even if useful for institutional purposes). Starting from this sample, if the Democrats are to pick up 23, they need to pick up the 15 listed above — the districts that have shifted into the D column from the R — plus 8 more from somewhere on the expanded map. Based on Figure 2 (b) the odds certainly look sketchier than most media coverage conveys.

As ever, the question is not “Can Democrats win?” but “Can these Democrats win?” Notice that Figure 2(b) divides neatly into two halves: The top half (A) where Clinton won the district in 2016 (HRC > 0), and the bottom half (B) where she did not. The top half (A) has 8 members of the 23 needed. Note also that the bottom half (B) of the table — the districts Clinton lost, though mostly not by much — is where the “pivot” districts are located; the districts that voted for Obama, and then flipped to Trump. Note that volatility is still concentrated in this part of the table: 8 toss-ups in the 8 rows of (A); 12 toss-ups in the 7 rows of (B). (I’m counting both current and previous toss-ups on the assumption that the district could flip back to its previous state.) In other words, the districts that flipped to Trump in 2016 have not “come home,” as we say. If the universe of districts is like Figure 2(b), the Democrats are right to be nervous that the “Blue Wave” might break before it reaches shore.

Figure 3(a): The Left (Medicare for All)

I view one effect of the 2016 as a split in the party between dominant liberal faction that controls the party machinery, and an insurgent left faction that, well, does not. (In fact, Obama punched the left right in the mouth when he booted Ellison and replaced him with Perez, and then the rest of the liberals joined in the stomping by removing all the Sanders supporters from the Rules and Bylaws Committee.) So, in our universe of 80, where is the left? Well, it seems to me that one good proxy for being on the left is support for Medicare for All (and not faux Medicare for All, either). Here are the winners of the 2016 Democrat Party primaries who support Medicare for All:

12 of 80; 15%.

Suppose we further refine the query by ruling out “MILO” candidates, on the theory that military, intelligence, and law enforcement officials are unlikely to be on the left:

Figure 3(b): The Left (Medicare for All and No MILOs

6 of 80; 7.50% (three of educational background; 1 of science).

Now let’s assume that the DCCC would “never, ever” back a candidate on the left, and filter out all those candidates:

Figure 3(c): The Left (Medicare for All and No MILOs and no DCCC)

2 of 80; 3.50% (and kudos to Justice Democrats).

Caveat: This exercise doesn’t imply that the left is not successfully challenging liberals elsewhere, in other districts, or at other levels of government, like state level races or school boards, etc. It does show that the left has not successfully challenged liberals in races that could reasonably be thought crucial to flipping control of the House in 2018. This exercise also doesn’t imply that challenges from the left are useless or to be avoided. All it shows is that this cycle the left is not going to gain control of the party machinery, or anything like it. (Which is not to say that left voices, especially voices like AOC, aren’t important; they are. Rome wasn’t burnt in a day, after all.) And two weeks is a long time in politics, as yesterday’s pipe bomb episode, however resolved, makes crystal clear!

* * *

Working through these queries has made me think of all sorts of other ideas; for example, I’d like to lay out liberal candidates and left candidates to see if they really challenged each other, how dominant DCCC (and Emily’s List) were, and all sorts of other questions. If you spot errors, please let me know, and I’ll fix them. And if you have other questions, please ask them, and perhaps I can formulate a query to answer them.

NOTES

[1] Both the horserace enthusiasts I use expanded their maps, I’m guessing from an abundance of caution, in case the “Blue Wave” turns out to be a tsunami. Inside Elections: NC-02, NY-27, FL-15, FL-16, FL-18, FL-06, IA-04, PA-14, PA-16, TX-31, and WA-03. Cook Report: CA-16, FL-15, FL-16, IL-14, MO-02, NC-02, NY-27, PA-16, SC-01, TX-31, WA-03, AK-01, AZ-06, CO-03, FL-06, FL-18, FL-25, IA-04, MI-01, MI-03, NC-08, NY-01, NY-02, NY-21, OH-10, PA-14, TX-02, TX-22, TX-24, and WI-06. I simply don’t have the capacity to expand the table by that many rows, and for my purpose, which is not calling the horserace, but understanding the Democrat Party as an institution, I did not feel I needed to. So I didn’t.