I do want to explain this in more detail, so here’s a thread:
1) this bot is centered around the 2012/16/20 elections. In that set, Democrats win the popular vote, so your median environment projected onto 2024 demographics is D-leaning. But the PV doesn’t choose the winner!
2) Democrats have seen their support vanish in many rural areas but have seen pretty consistent suburban swings towards them. So the bot naturally thinks this will continue. The way the GOP wins the PV is by suburban reversion, which, if the UK showed anything, isn’t likely.
3) The GOP coalition wins are driven by a pretty structural bias in the electoral college and one that doesn’t look like it’ll vanish for a while. It’s remarkably efficient. And do long as Texas stays redder than the nation, I don’t see that advantage going away.
Lastly, there is no consolation prize for winning the popular vote other than some sad headlines and some angry tweets. There’s absolutely no reason to have the bot sample popular vote wins when the GOP has won that exactly once since 1988. And they aren’t optimizing for that.
So if you’re a Very Online Reagan/Bush Stan mad that our bot has the GOP rarely winning the PV, just remember that the electoral college is what matters.
Just don’t pretend there’s any evidence suggesting the GOP wins the popular vote in 2024. Nothing implies that this is likely
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
You get the Hispanic reversion people have been discussing in this simulation, but a map like this really shows how even slight slippage with the white vote electorally dooms Democrats because of the racial balance of the United States and the electoral college.
That's not something anyone likes to hear, but the reality is that if the Democrats want a majority coalition in the near future, they probably need to continue making some serious gains with the educated white vote, especially if Hispanic margins continue to shrink.
The reality, as @Nate_Cohn mentioned, is that the diversification of the United States hasn't necessarily resulted in the overwhelmingly pro-Democratic electorate everyone thought it'd give. But their small gains with the white vote have outsized effects.
Model update -- @bot_2024 V3.0 is out! @notkavi and I have completely rebuilt it to use more generic data across elections and better model partisanship and turnout on a demographic level, which should give us more interesting and realistic coalitions for 2024. Details in thread!
This model projects 2024 demographics from the available 2012, 2016, and 2020 demographic data. It then takes in county-level demographic data for 2012, 2016, and 2020 and uses it to construct underlying demographic features for the electorate.
We use pretty interesting demographic features commonly available across the 2012/2016/2020 electorates, such as CVAP with racial breakdown, poverty, income, religion, and education. That also helps us get more information about what's happening with the underlying electorate.
Come on. Not every nation has the resources to do what the United Stares can. As a world leader, it’s incumbent upon the USA to help those in need, especially because their safety and ours are so intertwined.
India, Brazil, and other poorer nations literally do not have the resources to fund and purchase 600M extra doses and leave them sitting in ultra-cold storage. This is where countries need a hand up more than ever.
Strange to see the replies to @bot_2024. Some insist 2024 could be an R+2 year, but then dismiss the possibility of a D+10 year in the same breath. But both basically consist of parties getting electoral reversion with one demographic while accelerating their gains with another.
There's more evidence for Hispanics reverting than there is for white suburbanites doing so, but it's still not prudent for Democrats to toss Hispanic reversion around as a given. It's not! That's why Biden's approval rating staying high with Hispanic voters is so important.
With regards to white suburbanites and the GOP, I honestly don't think the GOP has shown that they're intent on doing anything but doubling down on the Trump electoral strategy any time soon. So no, I don't find that scenario likely right now unless they nominate Charlie Baker.
What happens if you project the 2020 electorate onto a midterm?
Here's the 2020 electorate for a variety of swing states projected across the last 4 midterms. The blue wave of 2006 being worse in a geographic projection than the 2010 red wave shows the realignment quite starkly.
Geographic projections miss the individual voter shift, but are a correlate of that effect, so it's an okay first-order approximation. Dem midterm edge among educated voters is clearest in Georgia, where the GOP base relies disproportionately on non-college whites.
Additionally, the explosive growth of metro areas in Georgia, Texas and North Carolina, combined with population loss in the rurals, might actually show an overly-friendly GOP edge in the older midterm years in those states.
Lot of misconceptions about who HR-1 benefits with higher voter turnout.
Here's a simple regression of how a county's turnout change from 2012 (as a % of 2012 votes) correlates with 2020 Democratic margin (weighted by votes cast). Not *at all* clear that the GOP is hurt by this.
I'm sharing this with caution because of ecological fallacy risk; we don't know who is the surge voter from this regression. I'm just trying to see if there's an obvious correlation about which party gains with higher turnout in presidential years benefits. I can't see any.
This is actually suggesting that there is an ever-so-slight correlation between higher turnout and a small Republican lean, but I really don't feel comfortable drawing that conclusion given that the granularity of the data points is only at a county level. Use this with caution.