Using a county-based demographics model, Biden's underperformance in Kenosha was extremely stark (Trump +5.4% above average), even compared to his Wisconsin statewide underperformance of 1.1%.
Not saying in the slightest that protests are bad or that it's my place to tell people how to protest, and if you're going to use this to argue that people shouldn't protest for racial justice, please take a hike. Not everything can or should be boiled down to electoral politics.
That said, it's worth examining overall how these things tended to play nationwide and how they effected margins locally, if only so we have a clearer picture of the electorate and their voting trends and patterns.
The article in the quoted tweet is really, really good work by @politicalkiwi -- I encourage everyone to read it. It's the best way of quantifying a lot of narrative-driven speculation that emerged after the election
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
From an epidemiological standpoint, travel bans are understandable. But there are a lot of folks whose status has now been thrown into flux as a result of this. It's incumbent on the Biden administration to make sure they aren't lost. [THREAD]
A woman went from New Jersey to India to take care of her dying father. Right after his death, her brother-in-law caught COVID and died.
At the same time back home, her husband was hospitalized with COVID. Before she could return, he died. It appears she's now stranded in India.
The worst part is that at a time when the woman (who left her job to attend to her dying father) and her 20-year-old son should be able to process the immense grief they're going through, they're worried about her visa possibly being invalidated instead.
2014 was a non-voting midterm -- Democrats got screwed over by differential turnout. But again, turnout among whites was decently correlated with education.
The problem? College whites were significantly more Republican than they are now.
Regression plots 2014_votes/2012_votes, weighted by county CVAP. I picked the South, because the educational and racial polarization makes it a fairly insightful case to analyze. The states I considered: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana.
There's another angle to this too -- Hispanics still lean heavily D, and their turnout tends to dip in midterms. That counters the educated voter difference that Democrats have in some states, and they'll need to work heavily to make sure they aren't hurt badly by this.
The question is whether it’s worth spending heavily in a race you’ll likely lose, or whether it’s better to go all-in on the three battleground races in PA/WI/NC for Democrats.
Spending in Ohio has advantages, including forcing the GOP to spend some money there that could go elsewhere. And it’s really about widening the field of play. But another complication is that the more nationalized this gets, the tougher it is for Ds to win.
Ultimately, if Tim Ryan is to pull it off, the election has to avoid being nationalized. There’s just one too many Republicans in Ohio for Democrats to win a high-turnout Senate election here. He should be backed with funds, but the race getting nationalized would be a problem.
There's this myth among several Republicans that John James is an exceptional candidate because he gets them more of the Black vote.
The problem with this narrative is that it is provably false. He got 80 (!) more votes than Trump in the city of Detroit, which is ~80% Black.
James outran Trump in areas like Kent County, which were far more ancestrally friendly to Republicans and have been swinging towards Democrats. This is an area where he'll probably need to do a lot better than expected in 2022 if he is to beat Whitmer.
I seriously think one of the biggest blind spots in political forecasting is the average pundit's unawareness of how uninformed the median voter actually is. Most people don't live and breathe electoral politics. Just because *you* know something doesn't mean everyone else does.
"shifting this state legislature/county commissioner race from likely to tilt D because of a minor scandal where the legislator lived outside his district for 5 years" bro. absolutely *nobody* cares. sorry, but the median voter doesn't even know who the hell that even *is*.
There are very few events of saliency that meaningfully make it to people, and once a party has a certain image, it is very, very difficult to shed it because of how few events even reach the eyes of most voters.
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.