"Democrats always hit 45% in South Carolina, but they never cross it because that's the threshold" ignores the fact that there's been a lot of variability in vote margins across counties...they just tend to cancel each other out! Here's the elasticity of the state from 2014-2020.
Something interesting, though, is that these changes appear to have stabilized a lot from 2016 onwards -- looking *only* at elections from 2016-20, we see that margins have begun to settle in. So a blue SC is some ways away. But Cunningham's district? That's perpetually close now
I think @kilometerbryman, @SenhorRaposa, and @JMilesColeman have talked about this in more detail with some of their maps and stats, but another classic case of this is Wisconsin. Close in 2004 (D+0.4), close in 2020 (D+0.6)...but with maps that look absolutely *nothing* alike.
(i made the south carolina maps, but in case it isn't obvious, the wisconsin maps are from wikipedia LOL)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Assuming a reversion to the GOP in the 2022 midterms just because Democrats hold a trifecta ignores
- increasing polarization and an increasingly inelastic electorate
- a favorable D Senate map
- a bad COVID recovery
You're as likely to see a 2002 midterm as you are a 2010 one.
It also ignores educational polarization, which has been the bread and butter of the change sustaining the Democratic Party's competitiveness in off-year cycles and elections. Suburbs are overrepresented in midterms, rurals in presidential years (of late).
What Nate Cohn taught us when our model was failing to capture the strength of Ossoff's early lead initially before the rebuild was that geographic correlation was a proxy of the shift in individual voting likelihood.
Even in small towns, voters with college degrees vote more.
Knowing some of the inside workings of both campaigns, IMO it was Ossoff. A lot of the coordination, structure, and planning was provided by Ossoff's campaign, especially in the general election. And I'm almost certain Warnock doesn't hold Perdue under 50% in November.
Absolutely none of this is to say Warnock was not a good candidate, so I'm not claiming that at all.
But how do we define candidate quality? Is it based on coordination, hires, and strategy? Or on some nebulous "I like this person better"? If the former, Ossoff pips Warnock.
There's no question Warnock turned out Black voters like nobody's business, and Ossoff needed that.
But Warnock's campaign was lagging badly in August and he was once in danger of missing the runoff entirely.
Meanwhile, Ossoff had the best statewide digital strategy around.
I’ve studied the early voting data in a lot of detail and talked to several people in the know on this, and in my opinion, Democrats ran a near-perfect campaign that could be studied for years to come.
Black turnout staying super high: ✅
Avoid any type of suburban slippage: ✅
Turn out and contact every single voter: ✅
Let the GOP destroy themselves with infighting: ✅
Build the best statewide digital operation in the nation: ✅
In particular, Jon Ossoff beating David Perdue is a feat that absolutely nobody should be diminishing. Defeating an incumbent who was once relatively popular by over a percentage point in a year of downballot disappointments is nothing short of remarkable.
When this is all over, half these sniveling cowards saying nothing about yesterday will go to firms and media outlets looking for jobs and speaking gigs.
No one who wants their outlet to remain credible should entertain them even for a second.
It was bad enough when they rehabilitated Sean Spicer. Now, if they’re going to legitimize McEnany, Pence, and the others, then they can all fuck off
Sorry to keep posting about this but I don’t think I’ve been this angry about anything in our government since I heard the audio of children in cages at the border. And I might be even angrier here and I didn’t think that was even possible.
This does *not* diminish the incredible organizing work Abrams did one bit.
It does say, though, that if we want to win as a party, we need to understand the underlying reason behind the GA win: huge suburban swing and Black turnout
Abrams had a lot to do with increased Black turnout and should be applauded for it, and this infrastructure should be built on.
She had little to do with swings in places like Henry.