As it turns out, Lindsay Graham's struggles in SC are a nice illustration of the ways that political coalitions work, and the difficulty building "coalitions of everyone." 1/
Bringing the upcountry into the Republican coalition seemed to lock down the state, but it also changed the demands on Republican officeholders who had to respond to new voters. 2/
As it turns out, centuries-old geopolitical divides in SC were not erased, and this shift impacted the views that members of the old political coalition had of the Republican Party. 3/
It's just a nice illustration of one of my favorite sayings about politics: coalitions are like water balloons: Push down on one side, and another side pops up. Sometimes, they explode. As they say, read the whole thing.
Smoldering hot take: Because of runoff dynamics, Schumer has a better position of being majority leader under Trump than under Biden.
So this certainly isn't something I care enough about to go to the mattresses over, especially since we aren't living in Rick & Morty (unfortunately) and don't get to explore other timelines. But let me explain: 1/
Let's first assume that if Trump wins the two Georgia Senate seats are very, very difficult holds. He isn't on the ballot, but an African-American and a suburban-friendly candidate are. And suburbs probably continue their leftward march if Trump is POTUS. 2/
I agree in a sense and disagree in a sense. Early voting is tough to read precisely because we're missing three parts of a four part equation: D/R/I breakdown on Election Day, D/R/I voting patterns early, and D/R/I voting patterns on Election Day. 1/
So in that sense I agree. My hesitation is that D/R/I in registration isn't necessarily the same as in the exit polls, and isn't necessarily the same as in all horse race polls, which makes the apples-to-apples trickier. 2/
For me, at least, I've always said that Jon Ralston was the one exception to my "don't pay any attention to early voting numbers," because of his track record and the fact that he knows voting in that state better than just about anyone in America. 3/
I once believed this first sentence. I don't anymore. To be sure, I love the "but Rubio had a boat" joke, but for serious analysis: Aside from Christie exposing Rubio as an empty suit, there's no way Rubio generates the blue collar support in key states that Trump generated. 1/
And you can't underestimate the difficulties that Trump presented for D strategists. The two basic lines of attack that Democrats had deployed against Republican nominees for 24 years were (a) he wants to kill your social security/Medicare and (b) he's a crypto-theocrat. 2/
Trump made (a) more difficult and as for (b), c'mon. As to any of the other Rs, *especially* Rubio? I reverse my basic take on Bernie: It's 1 thing to have an R attack ad run against you, it's another to run on an R attack ad. 3/
So in the wake of my interview with @IChotiner and pieces the past couple of weeks, people have asked why I am bullish on Trump. The answer is . . . I'm not, really. I would not even think to take an even-money bet on Trump winning right now. 1/
I'm probably more bullish on him relative to @NateSilver538 's 14%, but we can debate the relative differences of an 14% chance of someone winning versus, say, a 20-25% chance of someone winning. But let's take Nate's 14% chance. 2/
That translates to about a 1-in-7 chance. Let's call it 1-in-8 to make the math easy. We did this ad nauseum in 2016, seemingly to little effect, but that 1-in-8 chance is roughly the same chance of having three kids, all boys. That's not unusual. Trust me! 3/
So after the "Trump path to victory" piece a couple of weeks ago, I started a "Trump gets blown out" piece. That's pretty much ready to go, but these are two things that I had thought would be part of the "blowout" piece that didn't work out. 1/
We're in a weird situation where, along with the "are you better off than you were four years ago" poll from yesterday, there are actually a fair number of non head-to-head poll info for Trump/Republicans that are fairly decent. The Occam Razor's explanation for this 2/
is that Trump is/Republicans are going to lose, bigly, despite a number of decent indicators precisely because of Trump. This is a referendum on the party in power and Trump is so toxic that his actions/persona overwhelm other considerations. 3/
This is actually a major contingency point in US history. LBJ convinced Goldberg to resign so he could appoint his friend Abe Fortas to the Court, knowing that Fortas would give him a heads' up if the Court was going to find his legislation unconstitutional. 1/
By the end of LBJ's second term, there was an overwhelming liberal majority: Warren, Marshall, Fortas, Douglas, and Brennan. Yes, Brennan was the swing justice on that Court, which did things like declaring shopping malls to be state actors subject to the 1st Amendment. 2/
Warren was afraid he wouldn't make it through Nixon's term if he won, so in June of 1968 he announced his retirement. LBJ quickly nominated Fortas for the position. But the Fortas nomination ran into trouble over allegations of impropriety and 3/