Ben McAdams concedes to Burgess Owens.

[Drunken Irishman]

Democrats lose the 4th congressional district in Utah to a former NFL player who believes QAnon conspiracies, was caught plagiarizing his book from Wikipedia and attacks Democrats as Satanists.

Weeeeeeeeeeeee

[CatWoman]

1. oh boy

[jimfields33]

2. My gosh. This is getting ridiculous

Just how many seats are we going to have in January?

[greenjar_01]

3. 222-223

We'll pick up 3 in NY (Delgado, Maloney, and Suozzi will all hold out), 1 in New jersey (AP called and then uncalled NJ7, but I think Malinowski will hold off Kean). Maybe 1 in California. I doubt we'll hold Iowa 2.

On edit: I think if that's it, Pelosi is done.

[jimfields33]

6. Thank you. That's a big close for comfort that's for sure.

[Polybius]

10. I don't think we get past 220

Here's a list of the remaining races. Republicans lead in almost all of them.

https://www.270towin.com/news/2020/11/16/democrats-retain-reduced-majority-house-ten-seats-remain-uncalled_1130.html

[greenjar_01]

16. I literally listed the ones I think we'll win - We're at 220 already according to your own link

Suozzi in NY3: He's taken the lead in a heavily Dem district; he was only behind because NY had not counted mail-ins yet, Republican unlikely to retake lead. He's up by over 12,000 votes (that makes 219)He's already called according to YOUR OWN link!
Antonio Delgado in NY19: He leads by 14,000 votes (that makes 220)He's already called according to YOUR OWN link!

Malinowski in NJ7: He leads by 4,000+ (that makes 221)
Maloney in NY18: he leads by 10,000 votes (that makes 222)
Which two of those do you want to take off the table to get back to 220?

My maybe is Christie Smith in CA25 who is behind by 114 votes.

If you're going to make an argument, try to make it match your own evidence.

[Polybius]

17. The link says we're at 219 now, not 220

That's my evidence, there was no need to be snarky. I certainly wasn't arguing anything. All I said was what I think. You might be proven right. NY Times says we have 218, which is what I was going by. It can get very confusing, if some sites say we have 218, while others say 219 or 220, like you said.

When I saw the link last night, I saw two Democrats ahead. One was listed as called (Suozzi) so I thought that was counted in the 219. Hopefully in the end we'll both be wrong, and we'll get 225.

[greenjar_01]

18. NY Times hasn't called Delgado or Suozzi. Once your link called Suozzi it was at 220

It clearly did so after 8:30 yesterday. So, do you think we should take NY18 and NJ7 where Democrats are leading, unlike your previous claim, off the board?

[Polybius]

19. When I said I didn't think we get to 220, I thought we were at 218

I had just gotten off the NY Times site, and they still list it as 218. I thought we would win two that weren't called, Malinowski (NJ-7) and Maloney (NY-18). I thought the same last night. My mistake was thinking we only had 218, when the link I posted clearly says 219. So to me last night, 218 plus two equals 220.

In my link, it lists Suozzi (NY-3) as called, even though it's listed under uncalled races. I had assumed that since it was listed as called, it would be part of the NY Times 218 claim. Now it looks like it's not even part of that site's 219 number, but the 220th seat. At least I hope.

[greenjar_01]

20. ...

Delgado makes 219, Suozzi 220, Maloney 221, and Malinowski 222. That's my claim. We might also get CA25, which would make it 223.

That was the post you were responding to. Like I said, have your argument match your evidence.

[Polybius]

22. I just did

I said last night I incorrectly thought we were at 218 (based on NY Times site), and the only Democrats leading were Malinowski (NJ-7) and Maloney (NY-18). That's where I got my 220 claim.

The site I originally listed doesn't even mention Delgado in the uncalled races. Suozzi they list as called, so I wasn't counting him in my original list of uncalled races, thinking he was already in the 218.

I'm not really sure what's so hard to understand and why you want to keep trying to bully. I explained everything magnificently, it wasn't my fault. The sites gave me false information. I didn't make any thing up, I just went by NY Time's 218, and saw only two Democrats leading races that weren't called (Maloney and Malinowski) I have already stated that I no longer feel we're at 218. We're likely at 220, and will almost certainly win two more. Possibly up to 4 more.

[Celerity]

13. 221 to 223 by my count nt

[Hermit-The-Prog]

4. Covid is not the only disease spreading like wildfire. The death cult is feasting on disinformation.

[ibegurpard]

5. This a result of gerrymandering

Reasonably drawn districts in Utah would yield one solidly Democratic district and 3 deeply Republican ones.
Winning the district as it is currently drawn in 2018 was a monumental achievement from a stellar candidate.
Let's not forget that as we look at the House races this cycle.

[jimfields33]

7. And now repugs get to gerrymander 27 states. They added New Hampshire

This is the biggest bummer. 27 states!!!!!

[MustLoveBeagles]

8. Some people are idiots

But all the idiots vote.

[jimfields33]

9. Truer words never spoken.

[Celerity]

14. they have 23 Trifectas, not 27 (they had 21, but added MT and NH) We have 15

They might add Alaska as well (split House with power sharing coalition atm, but the Rethugs may take it outright)

edited to add

in the States where we only have the Governorship, they might have supermajorities in a few, not sure, I know they lost it in WI

[jimfields33]

15. Thank you. That's a bit better.

[In It to Win It]

11. I remember him. He's the one that beat GOPer Mia Love after she was battling for a recount IIRC

Shame.. after only 1 term.

[Celerity]

12. fuck! I knew it was going to happen, but just FUCK. Owens is a fucking joke

[Klaralven]

21. RCP has 221 D, 209 R with D leading 1, R leading 2 and dead heats in 2.

So a final count of about 223 D, 212 R seems likely plus or minus one.