A way to tell when realignment has kind of completed is when an ancestrally Democratic state's elasticity begins to look normal instead of being extremely high.
And aside from Joe Manchin, that's exactly what we get in West Virginia. This state is Republican, through and through
Manchin is the last holdover for WV Dems. There's absolutely nothing left for them here after he's gone. There just aren't many votes left out there.
The good news is that realignment has completed, essentially, and this is their floor. Now comes rebuilding, fueled by DC exurbs.
preemptively asking you to chill with the "yOu CaN'T jUsT iGnoRe JoE mAnChiN" takes please, you absolutely literally cannot replicate his success there, whether you run a Bernie candidate (Swearengin) or a conservative Democrat (John Perdue lost in 2020!).
Looking at the state partisanship from 2016 president, 2020 governor, 2020 president, and 2020 senate is far more instructive on the (lack of) ticket-splitting that exists here and the extent of the realignment in these areas.
Democrats looking at WV for another blue Senate seat in 2024 may borrow a line from Star Wars:
"I want to come with you to the new state of Douglass Commonwealth. There's nothing for me here now".
It will take 20+ years for WV to go blue again.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
no, Marjorie Taylor Greene cheating on her husband with two different people is not a *good* thing, and she should not be immune to criticism for it. she tries to claim a moral high ground on "family values" while pushing awful QAnon conspiracies and railing against LGBTQ folks.
I'm not naive enough to think that even half of Congress is clean with regards to spousal fidelity. They're not, and it's no secret. I didn't think Cunningham's affair, as bad as it was, disqualified him.
I don't judge political fitness on that. A ton of politicians have affairs
But it *does* reflect on you if you center your image around Family Value policies and then try to strip other people of rights by saying they're not following Biblical Values, all while you decide to break someone's trust and cheat on your spouse.
It could take 20-30 years for Missouri to turn blue again. But things change in politics very quickly, and very weird things tend to happen that we could never have foreseen. Cast your mind back 30 years -- did it seem plausible for a Democrat to win Virginia but not Missouri?
You don't need to pour 40 million into unwinnable races, but you definitely should try to run good candidates in every single state, from West Virginia to Nebraska to Hawaii. The point is to build up infrastructure and party strength to expand your message.
Why I'm *highly* skeptical of Democrats unseating Rubio in Florida, in one set of numbers:
Miami-Dade, President 2016 (Trump vs Clinton): D+29.4
Miami-Dade, Senate 2016 (Rubio vs Murphy): D+11.3
Dade has only gotten more Republican since then.
Now, there's an argument to be made that a lot of the 2020 results were those changes flowing downballot, but I don't buy it, because Nelson won Dade by ~20 against Scott. Even accounting for low-propensity voters, the 2018->2020 swing indicates a harder snap to the right.
So I'd expect Dade to likely be single-digit margins for Rubio's race (though I don't know if that's the case with DeSantis), and I personally don't think Democratic gains in Pinellas and Duval will be enough to offset what will likely be a single-digit margin in Dade for Senate.
(a) Newsom has a ~58% approval rating in December, making a recall less likely (though not impossible). Gray Davis had a 24% approval.
(b) California is way more Democratic now than it was in 2003.
To the "Democrats will splinter the vote" field of thought: I don't know if this is as likely. The state Democratic party is far more coordinated, and I have yet to see anything that changes my mind about the GOP not splintering their own vote through 2 or 3 major candidates.
If this is to succeed, their best bet is to hope Newsom's approval tanks, that the vaccine rollout continues to lag instead of accelerating like it has been this week, and then get Faulconer as their only major candidate. Even that might not be enough. It's a very uphill climb
Seriously, Trump won this district by 21 and Democrats lost it by 10.6 two months later. You can read a whole ton of random signals into a low-turnout special, but if you want to reconfirm doomerism, go ahead, I guess.
I honestly think it's a decent result.
Now, it's very true Miller-Meeks won it by 3% only in 2018.
So if you're looking for a sign of presidential changes now persisting at a higher rate in downballot races, this is also some type of validation for that.
"Aren't you worried about rural whites in the northwest getting galvanized by something soon and turning out for the GOP?"
"You assume they remember there's an election"
-a Georgia Dem in the know on Jan 1.
People really underestimate how tuned out of politics many areas are.
This is something I've tried to emphasize very often: the average Twitter user is far, far more tuned in to politics than most people are. Most of the nation doesn't even know who Jamal Khashoggi is, and that dominated Twitter for days.
Where am I going with this?
1) There are very few consequences for nuking the filibuster at the cost of governing, and the Democrats know this. I'd be surprised to see it stay. Checks matter, vote margins don't. 2) The same rural whites don't turn out in midterms for a reason.