I do think there's a lot more uncertainty here than people think
For starters, +4 on the generic ballot is probably around where Democrats need to be to keep the House. For another thing, we don't really know how passing a bunch of laws with 70% support and saving the country from the pandemic is going to go politically (but it probably helps)
Biden's approval rating is not where it would normally need to be for Dems to hold the House -- but those past rules probably don't fit right now, given polarization. you can probably pack a similar punch with a lower number these days v in 1950
I would say Democrats are underdogs to hold the House. But by how much? It's too early to tell, and fundamentals might not be as useful as always. This could conceivably be somewhere between 1934, 1998, and 1986, right?
I don't think anyone is under the illusion that they can really tell -- it's just a matter of how shruggie the ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ is

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with G. Elliott Morris

G. Elliott Morris Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @gelliottmorris

7 Apr
Lots of right-leaning commentary on democracy recently has advocated for restricting the franchise to people who are “better” at making decisions, with very little — if any — attention paid to the vast social science literature on this topic. Some things worth thinking about:
Obviously, these arguments are situated in a context of historical racism — whites used the exact same justification to disenfranchise black voters throughout the Jim Crow south. Oh, if they can’t pass literacy tests, why should they get to vote? *wink*
In addition to that, tho:
The fundamental problem with this is that, in a democracy, “majority rules” really is the only legitimate decision rule for government action. You can talk about the dangers of crowds, etc, but those fears are relatively unfounded in representative govs. gelliottmorris.substack.com/p/democracy-is…
Read 8 tweets
7 Apr
It will be impossible to enact federal laws/rules preventing state election subversion — or at least substantially lowering the risk of it from the current (relatively) high level — so long as Republicans are driving partisan radicalization against democracy and free outcomes.
I view the point from @Nate_Cohn and others that Dems have missed the mark on HR1 bc of an overestimation of harms to turnout as a valid , tho maybe a bit beside the point that the gov cannot pass reasonable remedies so long as (a) our institutions are biased toward a party...
...that (b) views their opponent’s victories as illegitimate regardless of the conditions of their victory. HR1 probably won’t save democracy, but the solution is probably not attainable right now anyway. It is better to go ahead and reduce harms to voters in light of that.
Read 5 tweets
6 Apr
Job approval of Obama, Biden and Trump among whites, from our The Economist/YouGov polling archive Image
Senior support for Biden is 👀👀 Image
Gen x too! Image
Read 4 tweets
3 Apr
A blog post: Poli sci only offers limited evidence to forecast the impacts of new voting laws in places like GA & TX.

Regardless of those effects, the fabricated motivation and clear intent to bias outcomes toward the GOP is a necessary part of the story. gelliottmorris.substack.com/p/electoral-ma…
This is my preferred take on voting laws.

Any attempts to restrict the franchise are normatively bad, regardless of their effects. Coverage should reflect that.
To be clear, I think Nate is right on the poli sci evidence he discusses, but other work (cc @hill_charlotte) shows bigger fx and I'm wary of (a) applying it to GA & other states, and (b) conditioning on the worst parts of the law to focus on the numbers.
Read 13 tweets
1 Apr
More examples of public opinion polls helping the people get what they want out of government, this time from Psaki. In comparison to past administrations, the Biden White House seems particularly keen on giving the impression they’re responsive to the attitudes of the people.
George Bush’s anti-poll campaign was transparently bogus, given [checks notes] everything about Karl Rove’s political operation. If a politician isn’t looking at polls, they’re listening to people who are.
The criticism of Bill Clinton and Greenberg (his pollster) was also always pretty rich, considering Gingrich and the GOP were pursuing their own ideological goals (impeachment) in face of obvious public backlash. One option is clearly better than the other!
Read 5 tweets
26 Mar
sorry, but this is literally the ideology of competitive authoritarianism
coincidentally, the people walsh thinks are qualified to vote are disproportionately white elites who think like him
there's a legacy of racism angle here, but for now i'll just share my blog post on how public opinion scholars have thought about the "quality" of a person's attitudes from the last time prominent conservatives proposed restrictions for restriction's sake gelliottmorris.substack.com/p/democracy-is…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!