,
6 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
According to @Catalist user @PatBayerNC when compared to the 2014 midterm, the more appropriate baseline, Catalist study by @yghitza shows turnout accounts for majority of Dem vote gain in 2018. In response to @Redistrict's tweets on the "debate" yesterday: 
I'll add, and this has been affirmed in convos w study author @yghitza: vote switching here is pure Indies that voted for Trump in '16 swinging to Ds in '18. @Redistrict is right that these voters are imp to getting Ds to 40 seats-which is why their "swing" is part of my theory
As Pat points out, no one is arguing that swing voters don't matter. The new theory is arguing they are a necessary, BUT NOT SUFFICIENT, electoral strategy and MY theory specifically argues you can swing this group by activating turnout among latent Indies. I will show this
happened in 2018 in swing districts in 2018 and together with large turnout surges among Dem voters, combined to flip those districts. So different Inds & large turnout among partisan Ds overwhelmed the "normal" R-friendly compositions of those districts. And it will happen again
in 2020, whether the nominees in those competitive districts are moderates or liberals, or even progressives so long as the DCCC supports them & signals to others to do so (see KS-2 in 2018 for what happens in winnable places when they don't). However, assuming a D wins the WH
in 2020, 2022 it'll be a whole diff ball game, bc the natural surge that's giving Ds these Ws, the natural turnout bumps of Indies & Ds, will roll back. And the inherent weakness of over reliance on persuasion (esp as Dem pers. messaging is currently construed) will be revealed.
