I don't really see evidence here that House Democrats had a particularly bad campaign. There's always going to be some crossover, some strong challengers or incumbents...
Of the eight Biden/GOP districts so far, four were districts Democrats couldn't even win in 2018 (PA-01, NY-24, TX-24, NE-02). CA-21, CA-39 were wins by 1 and 3 points. So really leaves CA-48 and FL-27.
Does that mean that the DCCC campaigned perfectly or that this will have no negative political consequences for Dems? No...but I continue to think it's a pretty straightforward consequence of a solid-but-not-huge Biden win plus the map not "DCCC spending too much on consultants".
Did Biden over-perform House Ds across the board? Maybe a bit? But we're still talking about Biden winning about two more seats than House Dems will end up with.
And the real question is, how did expectations get where they were? Why did everyone assume Democrats would PICK UP seats relative to 2018?
But the generic ballot polls were below 2018, I mean, also significantly off if you assume the generic ballot should translate to the House popular vote, but not the same or ahead.
Would Aladdin have voted for Trump...well he'd probably wonder why he was in the United States, or what voting was.
Would Woody and Buzz have voted for Trump after the Horrifying Sentient Toys Are Full Citizens Amendment, itself following the nightmares of the Revelation Day.
I wonder what not-ancient show has the highest ratio of initial popularity to streaming popularity. I'm thinking "ER". Does anyone sit around and watch "ER"? But it was very popular.
"ER" was a top show in the 90s, not yesterday but not forever ago, contemporary with many other shows that still have fans today, "Seinfeld", "Friends", "Frasier", "The X-Files"...
Boy NBC was just printing money back then. Just stick literally anything on Thursday night before or after one of their other hits, someone will watch it.
I mean it's fine if you like the movie, and I know you're supposed to review the text as the text, but at some point it's like earnestly praising a novel that was accidentally printed out of order for its unconventional narrative structure choices.
(I think that, of the five Disney "Star Wars" movies, a full three of them, "Rogue One", "Solo", "The Rise Of Skywalker", are so messy that they are very hard for me to think of on their own terms or as...movies.)
It's interesting to me, although very typical, how this article about the "Supernatural" finale completely conflates aesthetics and representation. google.com/amp/s/www.vox.…
Like "the show was bad, because it killed off its female characters and scorned its vocal fans, and then became good, because it had more female characters and liked its vocal fans". I have not seen the show but have very little idea of what it's about from this article.
Which is fine enough, I mean, I would prefer if more shows had more good female characters too. It's just funny to me that it gets called a debate over "themes" or an "aesthetic conflict".
From the 2012/2016 swing map, we're trained to look for big trends, but by definition if things are mostly stable with high correlation, you're not going to find those.
Mostly stable, that is, at a county level. There can be swings that are harder to see at a county level, like among gender, age, and actually, Hispanic population outside of Florida and the Texas border.