If us Indian Americans are trying to "assimilate and get ahead", we're probably not doing a very good job of it considering that people in my Bay Area neighborhood literally harassed and yelled at us to "keep a low profile" when we moved in here a decade ago.
Trust me, I would like nothing more than to be viewed as just an American by everyone else, but I'm under no pretenses about that when someone in 5th grade got up when I sat down and say "aw hell nah, I ain't sitting next to an Indian!"
I am very, very fortunate to be in the Bay Area, where shit like this happens very rarely, but I don't think I could ever make it in a lot of red states. And to be clear, I'm not equating the (rather rare) instances of racism that we face to the struggles of other communities.
I don't honestly even think of myself as a minority in the Bay Area -- I just think of myself as an American with strong Indian roots. And I'm lucky for that. But this is one of the only places in America I can do so, and *that* should speak volumes about so-called "assimilation"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A roughly 3% underperformance in Durham, 1% underperformance in Wake/Mecklenberg, and an absolutely *awful* performance in Eastern NC.
But even w/ that, Biden only underperformed by about 0.75% in NC, partially because of his strength in the West...so now what?
I'll let @stewroel's *excellent* thread speak more about this, but Democrats have got to start overperforming in North Carolina metros and suburbs like they did in Georgia. If NC Dems overperformed like GA Dems did (GA: +1.90), Democrats would have won NC.
The problem is that the NC metros have proven stubbornly resistant to change on the scale that the Georgia metros have exhibited. It could break soon, of course; different areas swing at different rates, but it'll require a fair bit of smart investment in the state
It is a bad idea to seat Rita Hart in #IA02 if there is no clear and convincing evidence supporting the unseating of Miller-Meeks. But comparisons to 1985 don't work; firstly, it won't be something to unite the GOP, and secondly, swing voters won't be basing their vote off this.
The entire GOP has spent months yelling about election fraud etc, so the argument that the Democrats are the ones doing it doesn't hold water with most people. Because many have no idea what the hell #IA02 is, and even fewer care. But they all saw January 6th.
So essentially, I'm not convinced that this is something that will "kill the Democrats with swing voters", making the optics *electorally* untenable -- the larger problem is in the precedents it sets and the ethical issues arising if this is done unfairly...
Hey all! I'm uncomfortable with my own model right now, because I think, after a lot of debugging and analysis, that it overfits *quite a bit* in areas like Zapata (in TX).
I'm not comfortable leaving it up till I fix it, so I'll spend some time doing so. Taking it down for now
While I really enjoy doing analysis, one thing I absolutely cannot and will not do is leave out something that I think may be off or wrong in any way, shape, or form.
If it overfits that much in Zapata, why would it not overfit elsewhere?
I'm absolutely and completely uncomfortable leaving it up if that's the case. A fix for this is something that I need to figure out (thanks @rainbow_jeremy_ for the catch). Demographic change alone shouldn't explain it. So perhaps the model is just overfitting.
Cal Cunningham would not have won even if he kept his zipper up.
Biden didn't win the state and shouldn't have, based on the national environment, and in an inelastic state like NC, expecting the senate candidate to run >1.5% of Biden in an open seat is just unrealistic.
Biden only did 0.4% below average in NC. It's not as if he had some shocking underperformance there! He would still have lost by around a percent if everything went to plan in the state and it went exactly according to the national environment.
So why would we expect the downballot candidate to outrun Biden by a percent against a sitting incumbent? That's a tall ask for any normal candidate anyways.
Cunningham isn't great, but that's not why we lost the seat.
Ran a model on the South -- the map below shows the partisan performance by county *relative to what was expected given the 2020 environment* when using race, religion, education, and 2016 partisanship as underlying variables.
The Florida-Georgia contrast is striking.
Florida is a complete disaster. Democrats underperformed in Broward by 4.5%, Palm Beach by 5.1%, and Miami-Dade by 13.2%. Nowhere did they exceed the modeled swing by more than 3.3%.
Doesn't matter if the opponent is Trump, DeSantis, or Rubio. If this is how you do, you're toast
"Well, Hispanics swung right everywhere! The national environment we were dealing with was way different from what was expected!"
No. *Even accounting for all that*, Democrats absolutely collapsed in Florida this year and were below replacement level. There is no defending this.
Ossoff outran Abrams in the vast majority of counties and unseated a popular incumbent in a race nobody wanted to initially even contest, whereas Abrams couldn't win an open seat.
Abrams lost Georgia by 2 points in a blue wave and she should have won that race.
I have nothing but respect for her work fighting voter suppression and I immensely appreciate the effort of organizers, but stop pretending Abrams was some electoral goddess. There is nothing to suggest anything of the kind and a lot that suggests she underperformed in 2018.