How Democrats are dominating special elections -- in one graph

[DonViejo]

By John Sides December 13 at 6:00 AM

So you may have heard — possibly — that Democrat Doug Jones beat Republican Roy Moore in Tuesday night’s special election for the U.S. Senate in Alabama.

The victory was predicated on many things: bad choices by Republican leaders, a drop-off in Republican turnout, strong African American turnout and shifts to Jones among college-educated whites, write-in votes that exceeded Jones’s margin of victory, and, needless to say, the work of reporters here at The Washington Post who broke the allegations of Moore’s behavior toward young women.

The victory looks all the more notable in context. Daily Kos Elections data on 68 special elections since Donald Trump’s victory show just how frequently Democratic candidates have exceeded Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory in 2016.

The victory looks all the more notable in context. Daily Kos Elections data on 68 special elections since Donald Trump’s victory show just how frequently Democratic candidates have exceeded Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory in 2016.


In 63 percent (43 out of 68) of these races, the Democratic candidate’s margin was larger than Clinton’s. Across all 68 races, the average shift was 10 points in the Democrats’ favor.

In Alabama, however, the Democrats did much better: a 30-point shift. This is a larger shift than in all but nine of the previous 2017 special elections — one made even more significant because it actually elected Jones.

And the special elections don’t capture all the Democrats’ recent successes either:

Link to tweet

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/12/13/how-democrats-are-dominating-special-elections-in-one-graph

[Glorfindel]

1. Interesting, but what does "exceeded Hillary Clintons margin of victory in 2016" mean?

As my broken heart and the internet keep reminding me, Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. Am I missing some subtle point here?

[bullwinkle428]

2. The axes of the graph include negative numbers, so technically, a

loss is defined as a "negative margin of victory" for the purposes of graphical illustration.

[Glorfindel]

3. Thank you! That sounds so much better than "margin of defeat," doesn't it?

I'm so glad that Democrats are winning again, wherever it happens.