House popular vote so far: GOP: 51.7% Dem: 46.8%

[BlueCheeseAgain]

As DUer former9thward pointed out in another thread, as of now, Republicans actually lead the House popular vote by around 5 points.

(Source: https://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/house-charts/national-house-vote-tracker/2022)

It may be odd, but this is of some comfort to me. It aggravates me to no end that the GOP probably won the gerrymandering battle, but in the end, they actually did get more votes than we did, and so them winning the House isn't the most unjust thing in the world. In fact, they're on track (right now) to get about 52% of the two-party vote and fewer than 51% of the House seats. (Yes, the numbers are a little off since California isn't done counting, and there are some races where there were no Democrats or no Republicans on the ballot, but those probably aren't enough to flip this.)

By comparison, Dems won the House vote in 2020 by 3.1%, and the House vote in 2018 by 8.6%.

[Walleye]

1. Maybe they will get a taste of how we felt when Hillary lost

[LeftInTX]

26. They are likely to win the House

OP is about the House...

I can't see the senate vote because it appears to be paywalled.

[Walleye]

29. I just meant about their anticipated red wave

[In It to Win It]

2. It seems though that Democratic turnout was lower, generally, across the country

in much of the large urban areas that Dems rely on.

In my state, Democrats should have easily squeezed out about 1 million more votes, but they didn't turn out so the large cities and big blue areas look red, or less blue.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

3. Turnout in general was down from 2018

At least that's what I've read.

[In It to Win It]

6. Yes, the numbers appear that way so far

[mnhtnbb]

34. They didn't turn out in NC, either.

Beasley would have won the Senate seat to replace Burr if they had. We also lost control of the State Supreme Court (elected office) and Republicans continued control of both Legislative bodies in NC.

When are Dems going to learn they MUST vote in every election?

[In It to Win It]

36. Those state Supreme Court races were definitely disappointing

[Lovie777]

4. Nope . . ...

more bullshit.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. This is simply addition from all of the House races

are you claiming these are made up numbers? Or nope as in this will change once all of the votes are counted?

[blm]

5. The gerrymandering suppresses the vote of Dems

by DEPRESSING the votes. Too many voters won’t even bother to vote in solid red districts. Too depressing. In my district not one Dem won, and I voted for all of them.

They come out more for presidential cycles. Hopefully things will change.

[ITAL]

13. By the same token

I know a few conservatives who don't go out in vote in liberal Los Angeles for the same reason -- too depressing to vote in an area that is so blue.

[Amishman]

27. The most uneven districts are all blue districts in blue states

Geography is a huge problem for us, given that our vote is so intensely concentrated in urban cores.

What is alarming to me is that roughly 1.5% is Florida alone. That state is very large and took an insane hard right turn this cycle.

DeSantis won by 1.5 million votes, Rubio by 1.3 million votes.

[Sympthsical]

46. My district is 2:1 blue

Democrats win with 80% of the vote frequently. There's a lot of surrounding rural area full of Trump supporters. They honestly just don't bother. Being a Republican anywhere in the Bay Area is pretty much a wasted effort.

[onecaliberal]

7. There are millions of votes not even counted yet.

[RockRaven]

8. There are a lot of votes left to count in CA in races which were *called* already because they

were very lopsided, and because they are very lopsided they will add large D margins to the total as they are counted. The outcomes won't change but the vote totals will, including the net popular vote difference. There isn't much point engaging in this type of analysis until the vote counting is finished.

[spooky3]

9. Agree. Most of us remember how Clinton's popular vote total

Increased much more than did TFG’s after many west coast votes were counted.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

10. I did mention California's uncounted ballots so far...

But did a deeper dive because I was curious.

As of Thursday evening (four days ago), California had 4.8 million unprocessed ballots. Probably a lot of them have been counted since then, but let's take that as a starting point.

Governor Newsom is currently leading by 17 points. At that rate, Dems would add about 800,000 votes to their margin. Even at double that, Dems would add 1.6 million.

Repubs currently lead the House vote by nearly five million votes. So this wouldn't overturn their lead.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

11. Source on CA's unprocessed ballots

https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2022-general/unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf?_ga=2.224438622.576991267.1668454723-1520884722.1667441981

[onecaliberal]

12. You think we're only getting 800,000 out of 4 million? Nope.

In a royal blue state. Nope.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

14. I'm saying we'd get a margin of 800K at Newsom's current percentage.

Right now, there have been 7.2 million votes counted, and Newsom has a margin of 1.2 million votes.

So 800K out of the remaining 5 million isn't unreasonable.

But even if we got twice that, the GOP would still have the lead. In fact, we could get all of the remaining 4.8 million votes, and it would barely be a tie.

[onecaliberal]

20. You can't average it because the margins are going to differ depending on the district.

I'm in a red district. The margin here is low, to the north of me it's going to be astronomically higher than here, because ALOT more dems.

The gerrymandering is out of control.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

32. Are you talking about California?

California isn't gerrymandered?

[onecaliberal]

39. California is not the only place with outstanding votes to be counted.

And yes we are. Look at the maps. I’m in one.

[regnaD kciN]

22. WA (and probably OR) as well...

…because they’re vote-by-mail only states. It generally takes until the end of the month for the final total to become known.

[obamanut2012]

15. And, so what?

What is your actual point?

[BlueCheeseAgain]

16. First, who says I need to have a point? It's just a fact.

But second, as I mentioned, it makes me feel a little better about the prospect of losing the House. I'd feel worse if it felt like we were completely cheated out of it. If we got outvoted, then, well, that's something we can do something about. I was hoping that maybe it would help other DUers as well.

[Trueblue1968]

17. BUT THEY ARE NOT DONE COUNTING BALLOTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[former9thward]

21. There are not that many ballots left.

Democrats will probably reduce the current margin (five million) by about a million more but that is it. Republicans will still have about a four million ballot advantage.

[bucolic_frolic]

18. Looks to me like Dems didn't vote enough, but Republicans don't have any gas in the tank

[liberalmuse]

19. Some states Republicans won by a lot more votes than Democrats won in other states.

It's not the same as the popular vote for President where there are only 2 people. Very deceptive.

[triron]

23. Americans are stupid. Voting for Republicans is against their

Interests. Unless they want autocracy.

[Mariana]

37. It is not against their interests.

Their interests aren't what you think they should be.

Unless they want autocracy.

That is one of their interests. A lot of them would love to have a Trump dictatorship.

[Farmer-Rick]

24. I've seen this map before and it isn't accurate

Note the furthest corner of East TN. It is all red. But many Democratic voting people live there. It includes Johnson City, ETSU, Knoxville and ETU. Those college towns are very liberal. And between them is my liberal Democratic group.

If both areas were combined (as it use to be before gerrymandering became the norm) it would be a Blue area.

So where is the 25 to 30% Dems who voted in the far east of TN? Yeah, there are more GOPers there but there are a hell of a lot of liberals too.

So, this in no way represents the number of people voting for GOPers or Dems. This represents the number of people represented by GOPers or Dems. Not the actual voter count.

So, no, 51.7% did not vote for GOPers, they are represented by GOPers but no we didn't all vote red in TN.

And if TN is wrong, how many other states are wrong too.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. Um, they're using the actual number of votes, not representations of votes

Any one of us could go online and add the numbers up from CNN, if we really wanted to go through 435 districts.

[Farmer-Rick]

41. So where are all the Dem votes in TN?

We are not and never have been 100% GOPer voters. Yet all the state is red, except a very small pinkish very red area in middle TN.

I think they used a short cut. That is if 50+% or 70+%, or whatever, in a district went red, they counted all voters in that district as GOP votes. Not sure they would do that with Dem voters though.

If you are a member, you have access to how they calculated votes. Can you post it?

This is very fishy. It does not pass the smell test.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

43. No, they didn't

If you hover over different parts of the map, it actually provides actual vote counts for each Congressional district.

And you don't need to be a subscriber to see where they got the numbers...it says how they did it right at the top of the page.

"We'll update this page often as more votes are counted, using results compiled from official sources."

[karynnj]

30. Fascinating that they could be in the position we usually are with regards to House seats

One possible reason cited by a few people in things I read is that where we AWAYS had urban areas with supermajorities where the excess votes are "wasted". However, the rural areas are becoming Republican supermajorities. In those places, they have "wasted" votes. Looking at various states - especially Nevada and Arizona - as those races SLOWLY come in, it is amazing to see some districts coming in over 65%.

[Kingofalldems]

31. Should we give up?

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. Thsnk God for young Democratic Voters who showed up for us this time n/t

[BlueCheeseAgain]

35. On uncontested races skewing the count.

I looked more into this.

There were 36 House races in which only one major party was on the ballot: 24 R, 12 D. So in this case, simply summing the total votes for R and D candidates runs up the total on the R side.

For what it's worth, Nate Cohn of NYT says that if we tried to model what a hypothetical challenger would get, the total House popular vote would probably come out to +2 R, not the +4.9 seen above.

[triron]

38. Good point.

[Samrob]

40. If we had run a candidate in all the uncontested areas, we may have won a few. nt

[Farmer-Rick]

42. Exactly

They are using a short cut instead of calculating all the Dem voters in a district where only one party was on the ballot for the House, they counted ALL the votes as going to that party.

I voted for Dems but in cases where there was no Dem, I didn't vote. So they probably either didn't count me or counted me as a GOP voter.

So the map is not an accurate representation of actual voters. Dems probably show fewer voters because they have fewer unchallenged districts. It in no way accounts for Dems or GOPers who voted.

It's a mirage.

[ITAL]

44. No, hover over the image

It tells you how many votes each person/party got in each district.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. You are 100% wrong

It absolutely accounts for all the votes that have been counted so far. Which party the voter belongs to is irrelevant, it's how many votes for Democrats and how many votes for Republicans.

This is only for House votes, so if you didn't vote for dog catcher because no Democrat was running, it wouldn't matter.