Worksheet for the 2018 Midterms (“The Wave”; the DCCC)

By Lambert Strether of .

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 ).

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).

District Primary Date Party Status Incumbent Horserace Horserace (Previous) Challengers
AZ-01 08-28 D O’Halleran Tilt-D Tilt-D [DP]
AZ-02 08-28 R Open McSally Tilt-D Tilt-D , [DP; h], (, ) [EL, DCCC, DP][M], , () [JD; m][fM], () , () [DP][M], [DP][M]
CA-07 06-05 D Bera Likely-D Likely-D [No challenger]
CA-10 06-05 R Denham Tilt-R Tilt-R [DP; m][M], , [e][M], [fM], [M],
CA-25 06-05 R Knight Tilt-R Tilt-R [M], [fM], Mary Pallant () ,
CA-39 06-05 R Open Royce Toss-Up Toss-Up (; ) [DCCC; m], () [DP][M], [DP], , Cybil Steed () [e], () [OR; e][M], (, ) [EL; h]
CA-45 06-05 R Walters Lean-R Lean-R [DP; s], John Graham , [M], (CAP.) , [M]
CA-48 06-05 R Rohrabacher Tilt-R Tilt-R [h][fM], (Googler; ) [EL; s], , Deanie Schaarsmith , [in][fM], [m][M]
CA-49 06-05 R Open Issa Toss-Up Toss-Up [JD; m][M], () [EL, DP][M], ( ) [m][M], () [DP][M]
CO-06 06-26 R Coffman Tilt-R Tilt-R [DCCC, DP; m], [M], [M]
FL-07 08-28 D Murphy Lean-D Lean-D [BN, JD; m][M]
FL-13 08-28 D Crist Likely-D Likely-D [No challenger]
FL-26 08-28 R Curbelo Tilt-R Tilt-R [m], () , Steven Machat [M], , [m]
FL-27 08-28 R Open Ros-Lehtinen Lean-D Lean-D [EL], () [DP; e], , () [BN, JD; e], , (, ) [DP][M], () [DP], [DP], (; ) [DP]
IA-01 06-05 R Blum Tilt-R Tilt-R Abby Finkenauer , , [m, l], [JD; m][M]
IL-06 03-20 R Roskam Tilt-R Tilt-R Becky Anderson () , () [fM], , [DP; e], [M], (“A Medicare-for-all public option.”) [fM], Becky Anderson Wilkins () , Becky Anderson Wilkins () ,
IL-12 03-20 R Bost Lean-R Lean-R [m], () [DCCC; m, in, l]
KS-02 08-07 R Open Jenkins Lean-R Lean-R , Nathan Schmidt ()
KS-03 08-07 R Yoder Lean-R Lean-R Sharice Davids () , , (“Create a single-payer Option”) [s], Tom Niermann [e], , [M],
KY-06 05-22 R Barr Lean-R Lean-R Jim Gray () , , , [DP; m], [DP; e], ()
MI-08 08-27 R Bishop Lean-R Lean-R (; ; .) [EL, DCCC, DP; m, in][fM],
MI-11 08-27 R Open Trott Tilt-R Tilt-R (Site not responsive.) , , [fM], Fayrouz Saad [M],
MN-01 08-14 D Open Walz Toss-Up Toss-Up [M], (, , ) [DCCC, DP; m], [DP], () [m], , () [DP; m, l][M]
MN-02 08-14 R Lewis Toss-Up Toss-Up () [EL, DCCC], () [e][M]
MN-03 08-14 R Paulsen Lean-R Lean-R [M], Adam Jennings () [m],
MN-07 08-14 D Peterson Likely-D Lean-D [No challenger]
MN-08 08-14 D Open Nolan Toss-Up Toss-Up () [DP], [M], () [DP], () [in][M], [DP]
NE-02 05-15 R Bacon Tilt-R Tilt-R , (; .) [JD; e][M]
NH-01 09-11 D Open Shea-Porter Tilt-D Tilt-D (, ) [DP], () [DP], () [BN; s][M], [m, l][M], () [DP], (; ) [M], [l], () [EL, DP; m]
NJ-02 06-05 R Open LoBiondo Toss-Up Toss-Up () [DP], () [e][M], () [DCCC, DP], () [e]
NJ-05 06-05 D Gottheimer Tilt-D Tilt-D [No challenger]
NJ-07 06-05 R Lance Lean-R Lean-R (; ) [M], ,
NJ-11 06-05 R Open Frelinghuysen Toss-Up Toss-Up [l], () [m], () , Alison Heslin , () [EL, DCCC; m, l][M], [e][M]
NV-03 06-12 D Open Rosen Tilt-D Tilt-D , (; )) [EL, DCCC; e], [M], () [s], , Eric Stoltz , () [M]
NV-04 06-12 D Open Kihuen Likely-D Likely-D () [e], () [DCCC, DP], () [DP; m][M], () [DP; e], () [BN, JD][M], [m, in]
NY-19 06-26 R Faso Tilt-R Tilt-R [JD; in, e][M], [M], Erin Collier () , [fM], Brian Flynn [M], , [m, in]
NY-22 06-26 R Tenney Tilt-R Tilt-R
PA-01 05-15 R Fitzpatrick Tilt-R Tilt-R [DP; e][M], [EL; m], Scott Wallace ()
PA-05 05-15 R Open Meehan Likely-D Likely-D [e], () [DP], () [in][fM], [DP], [DP], () [DP][M], () , () [l], (; ) [DP], , () [s][M], () [DP], ,
PA-06 05-15 R Costello Likely-D Likely-D (; ) [EL, DCCC; m]
PA-07 05-15 R Open Dent Tilt-D Tilt-D , [DP], [JD][M], [DP; l], () [e], (; ) [EL; l]
PA-08 05-15 R Fitzpatrick Likely-D Likely-D [No challenger]
PA-17 05-15 R Rothfus Tilt-R Tilt-R [m, l], Ray Linsenmayer (Dropped out (oddly). ; ; .)
TX-07 03-06 R Culberson Tilt-R Tilt-R [h, e], [DP], , , Ivan Sanchez [fM], , (; ) [h]
TX-23 03-06 R Hurd Toss-Up Toss-Up [EL, DCCC, DP; m, l][M], [JD, OR, DP][M]
UT-04 06-26 R Love Lean-R Lean-R () , , [JD; s][M], Morgan Shepherd , [s][M]
VA-10 06-12 R Comstock Toss-Up Toss-Up [DP; h], () [s], () [DP; in], () [m][M], , () [l], () , () [DP], () [DP; l]
WA-08 08-07 R Open Reichert Toss-Up Toss-Up , [M], () [h], () [M], [M], () [IN; l][M], () [EL, IN; h]
WI-01 08-14 R Open Ryan Lean-R Lean-R () [fM], () [e][M]

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, 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.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Politics on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.

26 comments

  1. ambrit

    Just throwing this in there Lambert to show how “innovative” and “disruptive” Mississippi can be.
    We’ll be voting to fill both U.S. Senate seats this November.
    One, is the seat presently held by Republican Roger Wicker, a one term senator. Wicker has 3.44 mil on hand, and has spent almost 3 mil so far. His only primary opponent is a businessman. The other practicing politician opposing Wicker in the primary withdrew.
    The Democrat side has a varied bunch vying for the slot. The biggest money pile is with a businessman named Howerd Sherman. He has half a mil. The ‘official’ Democrat running is State House Minority Leader David Baria, also originally a businessman, with 120k. No Democrat running seems to have any ‘official’ Dem Party endorsements.
    The other seat is the one vacated by the ever duplicitous Thad Cochran. (He’s the one who, though a Republican, made deals with regional Black Church leaders to swing the usually Democrat voting black church patrons into voting for Cochran in the Republican open primary to defeat Tea Party clone Chris McDaniel in 2014.)
    An unreliable Republican, Cindy Hyde Smith, who was a Democrat up to 2010, was appointed to fill the Senate seat until the ‘jungle election’ this fall to permanently fill the seat for the rest of the present term. She is running to retain the seat. Her main opponent is the aforementioned Chris McDaniel, the Tea Party associated conservative. Special elections in Mississippi are non partisan, so, anything goes.
    The main Democrat contender for the rump of the seat is Mike Espy, a Democrat with a checkered career. He was tried and acquitted of corruption in 1998, and famously endorsed Arch Republican Haley Barbour for state governor in 2007.
    Two polls taken, one in late March and one in early April show Espy barely beating Hyde-Smith ( Chism Strategies (Espy) 34% to 27%,) or a dead heat, (Triumph Campaigns 33% to 33%.) Both polls show McDaniel still in the race with double digit percentages.
    Polls from mid April from Mason Dixon and again Triumph showcasing just Hyde-Smith and Espy show Hyde-Smith beating Espy, ( 46% to 34% and 42% to 36%,) but the undecideds are running about 20% across the polls. This could be a knock down drag out of a race. There’s a lot of foul smelling ooze and mud to be thrown in all directions. So far, no ‘official’ Democrat Party endorsements to be seen for this race.
    Stock up on flavoured popcorns.

    Reply
      1. ambrit

        Yep, he’s one of the ‘Misleadership’ class. Supposedly in tight with the Clinton Gang, but no endorsement yet.
        The Dems seem to be writing both seats off. Shame. This is a racially, half and half state, and could be in play if the Democrat Party put a little effort into these races. The older black community remembers the Democrat Party fondly, the old Great Society Democrat Party that is. These New Democrats aren’t promising the blacks anything at all now. Double shame.

        Reply
  2. Utah

    Thanks Lambert! I love the worksheets.
    UT-04 is down to Ben McAdams- we had our caucus/convention on Saturday and he won with 72% of the vote. He is a DCCC candidate.

    Reply
  3. John k

    Thanks for all the work.
    My guess is that a dccc candidate that now supports M in a busy primary thick with M supporters will waffle in the general and turn in office.
    He’d have no choice, he’s running for office because of the financial payoffs during and after office. Better than working at McDonald…
    And the dccc has multi seminars before and after winning teaching exactly how you maximize fundraising. M is a contradiction of terms for them.

    Reply
    1. JacobiteInTraining

      Can we provide add’tl data, I assume so? In my case, I see my district WA-09 isn’t listed, with a local candidate Sarah Smith running against the incumbent D Adam Smith. (no relation, lol) In this case i believe the primary is August 7, 2018

      Sarah would be here:

      She first came to my attention through the Brand New Congress thing, and I give her $27 donations where possible. Her emails and tweets and positions sure seem to be good to me.

      Can’t find any polls….

      Reply
    2. Lambert Strether Post author

      I have to limit the scope. So I’m using the Inside Elections list, presented as it is on the assumption that the 23 votes needed to swing the House are in this subset of all elections. I can’t track the entire election.

      I’m also assuming that all the contending forces will invest heavily in these districts as well, since this is where the battle to control the House will be fought.

      Reply
  4. sharonsj

    Here in PA the primaries are in two weeks and I have yet to see anything on local TV. I don’t buy the local newspapers (they’re useless). The state also completely remapped the districts and I can’t even find out who is running in mine. It’s all a joke but the joke is on us.

    Reply
  5. Oregoncharles

    FWIW, the Oregon primary is May 15. We already have the ballots.

    I’m not suggesting you cover the Oregon primaries – pretty boring, as far as I know. I just heard that Domenici in dist. 1 has a couple of primary challengers, but I haven’t heard that they’re much of a threat. Even DeFazio in Dist. 4 (mine) has a challenger, but not serious enough to put something in the Voters’ Pamphlet. Same goes for Schrader in the 5th. Don’t know about the other two – the major-party primaries aren’t a focus for me.

    Reply
  6. edmondo

    One more time:

    Ann Kirkpatrick does NOT support Medicare for all:

    Kirkpatrick knows the job, having served in Congress from 2013 to 2017 in northern Arizona. Impressively, she has raised a record $750,000 in the campaign’s first five months, with $465,000 cash on hand. She has the endorsement of former Congress members Gabby Giffords and Ron Barber, and she has the backing of the national Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

    She disagreed with all the other candidates on the subject of Medicare for All, an idea that Progressives cheer but which has no known funding source. “I don’t support Medicare for all in a single-payer system because I don’t see a way to pay for it all,” she said, noting that 140 million people already get health insurance from their employers.

    Reply
      1. edmondo

        60% of her contributions this cycle come from Emily’s List, DCCC, the “red-to-blue” PAC and Nancy Pelosi’s “Leadership” PAC, She will do as she is told. I guess I admire her for not lying about her position anyway,

        Reply
      2. DonCoyote

        Lambert,

        With all due respect, I think you are reading that HR-676 link wrong. The AZ sponsers are Ruben Gallegos (AZ-07) and Raul Grijalva (AZ-03), since their names are in bold. Not every name on that document co-sponsered, only the bolded ones. That AZ list is (or was) all AZ representatives. Martha McSally is on that list and I guarantee she has nevered co-sponsered HR 676.

        Reply
        1. DonCoyote

          In fact, I’ll offer a $25 Water cooler donation (per candidate) if you can produce evidence for Kirkpatrick or Mikey Sherrill actually support #MedicareForAll. I looked at both pretty extensively after the last worksheet and concluded no on both.

          As linked above, Kirkpatrick explicitly rejected recently and never signed on to HR 676.

          “Moving toward” = “Strengthening the ACA” = “Fighting for” does not equal #MedicareForAll. No mention of single payer. Or on her website.

          Reply
          1. Larry Y

            For NJ-11, Mikie Sherrill floated up the idea of a limited Medicare buy-in for those over 55, couched in terms of fiscally responsible. Otherwise, I agree, it’s hard to get a firm read. I mean, she also offered the idea of Medicare negotiating drug prices (offers VA as an example!), and has explicitly ruled out privatization… .

            Reply
  7. edmondo

    In TX-23, here are the two candidates’ positions:

    Gina Ortiz Jones:
    In Congress, Gina will make affordable, accessible, quality healthcare for every American – regardless of sex, age, income, or employment status – a top priority. Gina supports a single payer system and understands that with our country’s health, there can only be one incentive: a healthy population.

    Rick Trevino:
    Rick believes that healthcare is a right of all people and not a privilege. In the United States of America no one should die because they can’t afford to see a doctor. America’s health care system is broken. Rick will fight for a single-payer Medicare for All system that will lower health care costs and provide better services to all.

    If you believe that these two statements are equal, I guess that they both believe in M4A. Mr. Trevino
    s statement seems a lot less “lawyerly” to me though.

    Reply
    1. Lambert Strether Post author

      Both use the “single payer system.” That, to me, is the dividing line (because it’s nerdy language that signals to the already committed on the left, unlike, as so many have pointed out, “Medicare for All.”)

      I don’t believe those statements are “equal”; I’m not sure where that comes from. For reasons stated, I throw both candidates in the “M” not “fM” bucket. If the language was vague handwaving about “universal” “access,” no, or “buy in,” no.

      Reply
  8. allan

    Not on your list, but NY-24 should be close and has been in the news due to DCCC bigfooting.
    Sadly, the DCCC’s chosen prog-blocker has (barely) survived a ballot petition challenge and
    will be on the ballot for the June 26 primary:
    [Syracuse.com]
    As a reminder,

    Balter won the Democratic designation in February from party committee members in the four-county district. But Perez Williams launched a last-minute effort in April to force a primary, backed by Democrats from the national party in Washington.

    And now,

    Juanita Perez Williams survived a challenge Tuesday to disqualify her from appearing on the Democratic ballot for Congress, and now will likely face Dana Balter in a June 26 primary election.

    Lawyers representing Perez Williams spent more than five hours at a hearing at the state Board of Elections in Albany, arguing that she had enough valid signatures on nominating petitions to appear on the ballot.

    Before the hearing, local Democrats who support Balter had succeeded in proving that 1,884 of Perez Williams’ signatures were invalid — leaving her with only 143 more than the minimum 1,250 needed to appear on the ballot.

    But the effort failed to gain additional traction at the hearing Tuesday as lawyers for Perez Williams succeeded in defending the validity of her remaining petition signatures. …

    And who is paying the lawyers for Perez Williams? But wait, there’s more …

    … “If Dana Balter and [GOP incumbent] John Katko want to continue working together to fight the state of New York and overturn the will of thousands of voters, that’s a real shame,” Perez Williams said in a statement. …

    There’s a special place in h-e-doublematchsticks …

    [Just to be clear: Balter’s healthcare “Medicare for All” stance is a little wishy-washy,
    but apparently is too far left for the DCCC.]

    Reply
  9. Colin Spenncer

    “I don’t support Medicare for all in a single-payer system because I don’t see a way to pay for it all,”

    How about:

    1- Rescinding the latest tax law passed by the GOP
    2- Raising the corporate tax rate, including the multinationals that do not pay any corporate tax at all.
    3- Taxing the casino called Wall Street

    There is plenty of money out there to pay for Medicare for All but there is very little to no courage and backbone from Democrats.

    Reply
  10. rcv4usa2sos

    Thanks for synthesizing this, Lambert. Really valuable information. (I would recommend putting the key at the top, though, for future posts, so people who are seeing it for the first time won’t be confused by the notation.)

    I thought of you and this when I received an unfortunate email yesterday: In MN-02, the CD2 DFL endorsed Angie Craig, so although Minnesota’s primaries aren’t until 8/14, you can call that one for the Democratic establishment… Interestingly, when I read the email, the first thing I did was go to his website (to seek clarification with respect to the nomination in conventions vs. primaries), only to get a “Your connection is not private” message, redirected so I can’t access the site. I guess I could use the Wayback Machine, but I know the answer to the question I was seeking now, so why bother?

    And in getting an answer to that question, I stumbled across results from MN-08 as well: Jason Metsa and Leah Pfifer can be removed, though convention-goers were ultimately unable to choose between endorsing either Kirsten Kennedy or Joe Radinovich, so those two, as well as Michelle Lee, will advance to the primary. (Michelle was eliminated in contention for nomination at the convention, but she refused to drop out when it moved to the primary. I am not familiar with the lay of the land there on the ground, nor her as a candidate or person, but this could actually work in the Left’s favor, since she will be one candidate supporting Medicare-for-All against two candidates who do not in the primary. We shall see.)

    I would bet the other 6 districts also have had their conventions if necessary, but while I’m here, I’ll at least share the results of the other MN targeted districts. (I hope this is helpful?)

    MN-03: Brian Santa Maria dropped out beforehand, and Dean Phillips was nominated after defeating Adam Jennings.

    MN-01: Dan Feehan . I can’t speak to what happened to the other candidates. Just finding the winner was more difficult than I would have expected.

    (Full disclosure: have not had a chance to review the other comments, so apologies for any potential duplication.)

    And finally, Lambert, if there’s a way you’d prefer for us to help you determine nominated, eliminated, and dropped out candidates, just let us know!

    Reply

Leave a Reply