Here's how Biden won in 2020, according to new numbers from Catalist:

1) A surge in turnout among black voters that pushed him over the line in AZ + GA
2) A shift toward Ds among whites, especially suburban college-educated ones, all over the country

economist.com/united-states/…
A lot of press has focused on Democratic losses among Hispanics, but important to look at the other side of the coin too (especially given that, uh, Biden won?). But R losses among whites amounted to far more votes, since they are a larger share of the electorate.
Catalist's numbers suggest a bigger problem for Rs. New voters in 2020 were about as blue as you'd expect based on their age, but much younger than the overall pop. GenZ will only continue to grow as a % of the electorate, & R gains with Latinos will not offset these deficits.
Rs managed to find a marginally winning message with Latinos last year. It may have been Trump-specific, maybe not, but "Ds are socialists and we'll give you jobs" only pushed Trump to 36% of the vote anyhow. They will have to adjust their message for a new generation.
2020 was the first election ever in which Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z made up a larger share of the electorate than Boomers + older generations. By 2032 (which is closer than it sounds!) Millennials + Gen Z will make up a majority of the electorate. They currently vote at D+20.
None of this is to say that the Republicans are doomed to permanent minority status. But we should not see Trump's modest gains with Latinos as proof that they have solved their demography problem. Their deficit with young people runs much deeper. /END
Just an FYI for people, when I say "minority" here I mean in the popular vote for presidential elections.

As to the math, even if Rs inch up to 40% of Latinos, the net gain on raw margin from growing Gen Y/Z share in a decade will still favor Ds.

(The point is NOT that Republicans gains among Latinos shouldn't concern Democrats, because any losses are worth re-evaluating, but that they aren't enough on their own to change the projected electoral future for the party. Meaningful gains will have to come from young ppl.)

• • •

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!

PDF

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

13 May
I have done a lot of math & my final answer is that the difference between a precinct in Kenosha, WI and an identical one 300 miles away was a 1.5-2% decrease in votes for Joe Biden. The police violence & protests in WI last summer almost certainly helped Trump, all else equal.
As with any activism, you have to weigh electoral consequences w/ political gains/messaging, so what I'm not saying here is that "Democrats shouldn't talk about race and policing" or that "Black people shouldn't protest being shot in the back by police" — just validating numbers.
If anything, the dynamic whereby the police can shoot unarmed black ppl point blank, subsequently inflame tensions w/ rioters, plaster the coverage on Fox News and then have their allied political party gain from the fallout is an incredibly distressing & important finding
Read 4 tweets
13 May
Moderates might be willing to run in an open primary **with different voting rules** but political scientists have no historical evidence for this re: open v closed.

If the pool of people running is more polarized, that polarization has to come from somewhere—eg media + elites.
It is weird to me that some people are so dedicated to arguing with an enormous volume of political science literature on this subject
I’d be really interested in seeing a qualitative study of this — maybe the quant lit has missed something. But the best explanation is that candidates are more polarized because everyone is more polarized, not because primaries are pushing them far left/righr
Read 5 tweets
8 May
Won’t be a popular tweet, but I think political scientists mostly disagree that closed partisan primaries are the root cause of ideological polarization.

andre-baechtiger.ch/tl_files/baech…

escholarship.org/content/qt5pz0…

pitt.edu/~woon/papers/w…
TED Talks are great. But I think I’m gonna stick with people who actually study politics, not a cheese factory owner, on this one
As a general rule, I tend to tune out people who say “x is the ONE single REAL reason that things are bad, and all your other nuanced explanations are wrong”
Read 4 tweets
5 May
There is no evidence that the J&J pause last month has led to a decrease in Americans' willingness to get vaccinated
One explanation is that the share of people actually getting_vaccinated decreased (perhaps for additional reasons than the J&J pause!) but those people are telling pollsters they'll get it later
(though this has not shown up in survey data)
Read 4 tweets
4 May
The central conflict between "radical" and "moderate" Republican candidates/elected officials today is not over politics or policy, but evidently whether the party should have any commitment to free and fair elections at all
gelliottmorris.substack.com/p/the-big-lie-…
What Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, and Adam Kinzinger all have in common is not that they favor the same policies or cultural war items, but that they believe in democracy and validated election results. Yet they are a fringe in a growing anti-democracy party.
"Can the center hold?" is a tired question in American politics — but it has evolved a much more serious framing over the past six months.
Read 4 tweets
4 May
Eh..

1) A "durable majority" might not translate into electoral victory due to minoritarian institutions. Some might say that's the whole point of the critique!
2) Don't throw out the turnout -> D gains hypothesis yet. There is a clear county-lvl correlation in 2020 pres results
In general, the 'demographics is destiny' thing has always been dumb and short-sighted, but the fact that Trump made gains with Hispanics doesn't invalidate the magnitude of their vote for Biden or lower turnout rate. The lowest propensity voters are still probably D voters
This tweet really does miss the point, though -- Republican electoral laws right now are clearly *designed* to make voting harder for minorities and city-dwellers, probably to the gain of the R party. Looking at aggregate demo patterns isn't helpful here.

Read 6 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!

:(