Y'all gotta remember, the GOP is ruthless. They will napalm him. Hard to hit 50% yes? ABSOLUTELY
Impossible? Not for the GOP
I should add, they'll try to get to that 50% by running ads against Newsome from the Left to get progressives to vote yes on the recall AND likely sneak logistic support to any progressive candidate.
The GOP does not f; around.
Turnout in that 2003 recall was about 45% of VEP. Should be better this time due to the small l liberalization of voter access in CA. Still, that didn't help that CA 25 special bc the GOP made good use of the system to boost party turnout, Ds....DID NOT
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Its a 50 yr pattern broken just twice, once under extraordinary conditions (2002, right after 9/11 where GOP benefitted from a rally around the flag effect that could STILL HAPPEN 1. bc mass polarization was just beginning & 2. D voters far less polarized) and then in 1998 in
2. what we (political scientists) attribute to a backlash about trying to impeach Clinton about lying about an affair. That's it though, in every other midterm, POTUS' party loses seats. Plus, right now we have a pattern of stronger midterm effects, which I believe is a product
3. of hyperpartisanship, party sorting, coalitional realignments for both parties, & changes in geographic strongholds for both parties.
That all said @jakehteach it IS possible we'd see a disruption in 2022 if D's carpe diem extremism & racism in the GOP & turn the referendum
1. I'm going to open a convo w @RadioFreeTom about this.
Yes, 40% didn't graduate & no owe tons of $ but likely still have bad job prospects & although some didn't grad bc tough circumstance/med issues, as a once prof I can tell you, that's NOT the majority. Most didn't bc
2. they didn't like doing, or prioritize enough, the college part of college & end up failing out.
Now here's the thing- just some context- your college record is permanent so if you fail out somewhere at 19 or 20 you can't "transfer" out that shitty GPA & its very hard to get
3. access to loans/aid again to go back when you're in your late 20s when you have a worth ethic & better understand living in poverty (as I did- though lucky, I didn't START until I was that age). So they're stuck w loans they can't pay AND they can't continue on to finish. BUT
1. I ♥️ the findings of this study & I think their approach is cool (nat experiments > anything else) but I worry the entire analysis in built on selection bias bc it doesn't seem like they consider non-prosecution DISCRETION which may distort the entire pool they sample from.
2. By this I mean maybe prosecutors are just good at identifying likely "1 & doners? Better test would be to analyze all the data from someplace that has already stopped all prosecution of "low-level" misdemeanors the compare before & after data to see if 1. reoffenses decrease
3. overall from before & after AND be able to control for really imp factors like race, place/geographic location/income, gender, etc AND eliminate that potential front-end selection bias. In other words we can't be sure from this analysis bc of the "discretion" bias.
I posted this once before & many of you took issue w the topic of the analysis, some w/o reading the article I'd add.
The economists who launched the OG study did so bc data suggested there was a relationship between child gender & divorce. They wanted to test that hypo &
2.found that indeed, divorce rates were higher for families w girls than boys.
The economists that REASSESSED this OG work, to verify it & better understand it, did verify relationship BUT added IMP nuance: effect is refined to 1st kid & soon- the effect disappears as kid ages.
3. And here's where it gets interesting: there's enough men out there who divorce their wives when she fails to produce a male "heir" on the 1st try STILL for there to be a statistically significant "divorce" effect if you have a girl instead of a boy on child 1.
Again, the theory & model I invented & debuted in 2018 was unique bc it argued the two party vote share could be modeled off of PVI, college edu, & diversity.
This is what this model builds off of. And very nicely I might add.
Predicting vote share, not party.
You can recap that modeling and the theory that drove it here, when I first use the same method to forecast Ds winning the WH in 2020... more than a year out of the election. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
1. At a time period when democracy everywhere was already pressured, in part by active measures deployed both by conservatives & by Putin-making use of tech, a global pandemic was pretty much a worst-case scenario to heighten tensions which after party/ideo play out on edu lines
2. That's why its not an accident that the recent CIA report, which confirmed RUSSIA, not China (Trump Admin officials directly lied about this in Oct & Nov of 2020) interfered in the 2020 election- working hard to reelect Trump who was dismantling democracy in the U.S. also is
3. also hard at work in the U.S. and elsewhere trying to spread misinfo about the vaccines and the virus. If they can keep the pandemic going, they can thwart economic recovery. They are using us to destroy ourselves & we seem incapable of dealing w it, bc the party that benefits