I don't agree with much of the conclusions presented in this piece but it does give you some good information.
amgreatness.com/2018/10/16/blu…
amgreatness.com/2018/10/16/blu…
2. First. GOP congress critters only hold 25 districts that Clinton won in 2016 and only 11 districts that voted for Obama and Trump. That's placed an upper limit because of voting patterns of only 36 house seats in play for the GOP.
3. The Dems have to win 23 of these 36 without losing any of theirs. The article doesn't mention any Dem seats in danger but that's wrong. There are a couple in MN, AZ and other states that are flippable.
4. In other words the Dems have to win 2/3rds of the seats in play while not losing any of theirs. That's a tough row to hoe.
5. The author also contends that campaigns should focus on Indies. Even though the data is showing that it's a base election.
5. The author also contends that campaigns should focus on Indies. Even though the data is showing that it's a base election.
6. The fact is Indies aren't really Indies. They are mostly Dems/reps that are tired of party politics. Their core beliefs don't change when they become Indies. Indies are different then moderates. So driving your base to the polls will also capture the Indies.
7. The author correctly states that moderates will go with the winner/the person leading in the polls. So he basically gives reasons why his plan to go for the Indies won't work but for whatever reason still pushes that strategy. Go figure....
8. His prediction for a Dem win in the house and a gop win in the Senate is based on the polling of the NYT which is using the same polling firm and methodology for each district polled. Which is fine and better imo than using an avg of poll results.
9. A key take away from the data is that the midterms has become nationalized for the most part. With some local differences from Trump/Dem party policy playing a roll as well as the candidates themselves.
10. Basically if Trump is liked in the districts it's a keeper if not, not. However, many of the polls and data was before Kavanaugh and thus worthless.
11. Regardless. Running the table with a 66% win rate of must win districts is hard. It's not a sure thing. The article also downplays turnout even though he describes a text book base election....again go figure.
12. The fact of the matter is for every % increase of gop turnout in these at risk GOP districts and the red states electing governors and senators means less of a chance the Dem's base can overcome their starting disadvantage.
13. Think of it as a scale. Every 1% increase of gop/right leaning Indies turnout will take one or more at risk gop seats(house, Senate, governor, state houses) out of the danger zone and on the reverse side start to place more Dem seats in play.
14. The house is far from decided & every GOP vote counts.While the Senate looks increasingly good for the GOP to hold it too is not decided and it too falls under the same rule increasing GOP turnout will add more GOP senators as well as governors, state houses & local offices.
15. So go vote.
