Alright, folks, we've got a special election today in #NM01. The early vote appears to be ~D+28 based on partisan affiliation, so what can we expect for the results? I'll break it down in this thread below.
For the sake of this exercise, we'll assume that party registration matches up with voting preference.
Via Alex Ross, we see that Democrats hold a substantial edge in both the mail and the early in-person vote. With a 50/50 NPA skew, that'd be a D+28 EV.
In November, the early vote was D+19 for Haaland's race, which she won by 16.
89% of the vote was cast early. The election day vote in November was R+6.3, and the early vote was R+4. The thing is, the early vote here is D+25.8 based on partisan affiliation of returned ballots!
As we saw in Georgia, assuming November splits for election day votes is extremely dangerous and often doesn't work. What we do know is that the Democrats have absolutely clobbered the GOP in spending, and there's rain forecasted over parts of the district today.
All those factors play into making what, I think, is a decent assumption based only on the indications we see thus far -- the election day vote is probably not going to see a massive surge for the GOP, so the bigger question is whether Democrats clear Haaland's D+16.4 margin.
I think that is a very likely scenario based on what we know, and it would be more surprising than not for me if Democrats did not clear a 20 point margin here. I expect them to run closer to Biden's D+23 than Haaland's D+16.4. That said, I've been wrong before and could be here!
The polls Joe cites indicate a ~D+15 electorate. The EV data points to a ~D+23 electorate. So, what gives? Well, it's possible we see NPAs break significantly more GOP (Florida!), or e-day turnout is greater than the 10% of the total vote (unlike November)
Ultimately, I find it safer to go on the returned voting data, but it's a special -- anything could happen, and it's a mistake to think that we know it all. Democrats would be happy with beating Haaland's D+16.4, but they should aim to hit D+20, and the EV data suggests they can.
(1) People underestimate how much time most bills take to get anywhere. The GOP didn't get their healthcare vote until the last week of July.
(2) Biden's not going to abandon everything they wanted in the compromise bill when they've already hinted at reconciliation for the rest
I keep seeing the "Manchin and Sinema" argument, and my answer to this is that the opposition to a lot of things is almost never just Joe Manchin, as the Post said the other day. This caucus isn't as liberal on every issue as Twitter likes to think it is.
Suffice to say that when Manchin has already said that they should go to 4T for infrastructure previously, it's not like he's just abandoned the idea of $$ flooding into WV. And I would be very, very surprised if the Democrats didn't use reconciliation for the rest like they said
Since January, the response has been incredible from a public health POV as well; it cannot be overstated as to just how good the Biden administration has been in terms of vaccine rollout and distribution, which has undoubtedly contributed heavily to the rapid rebound
you can't have sustained economic growth without the virus actually fading out, which only happens through good public health policy, so the Biden admin deserves a lot of credit for that *and* the ARP. That one-two combination has been incredible and extremely consequential.
One last note on #NM01 -- Democrats saw absolutely no "suburban reversion" against them, but they did see Hispanics come back to some degree; Stansbury improved on Biden's margins across the board.
But it's important to remember that they outspent the GOP by several degrees here
You can't win elections without spending money at some level. Without a high-dollar race at some level that defines the party and environment, you're going to see a lot more importance placed on spending as a result. It's a big reason Democrats got destroyed in #TX06 as well.
If it's any comfort, Democrats are not going to be lacking for money in this upcoming cycle in the slightest, and per @Redistrict's analysis, they do appear to represent way more wealthy suburban districts than the GOP do, which probably helps them out a lot here.
So, #NM01 is finally done counting. Stansbury wins, and the district's margin is D+24.5, which is a 1.7 point Democratic improvement on Joe Biden's margin (D+22.8). Turnout was roughly 41% of November's, making it the largest turnout special since January, by some distance.
Needless to say, that is a really, really positive results for Democrats, who massively outspent the GOP on this race and saw themselves rewarded for it. Stansbury improved across the board on Biden's margins and blew Haaland's D+16.4 margin out of the water.
Flatly, the GOP didn't turn out, and unaffiliated folks don't seem to have penalized the Democrats for Biden being in the White House (surprise!! not really), as Stansbury appears to have won the NPAs by a bit more than Biden did.
Early voting metrics provide a window rather than an exact measurement. That said, I think it's fair to say that the electorate for #NM01 is between D+22 and D+26 at the time of the last data drop (2PM MST) from @Alexrosstweets; I'd split the difference at D+24.
This will almost certainly shrink significantly; the question is just how much. I believe the result window we're looking at is between D+18 and D+24. My prediction is D+22, but that's really a rough estimation, so take it w/ a grain of salt
literally all of these estimates are just that: estimates. I could be horribly, horribly wrong and it wouldn't be the first time. standard disclaimer that if you're using it for betting advice or whatever, that's entirely on you because I don't recommend that.
A notion that a lot of Twitter seems set on is that few educated whites who voted for Trump in 2020 could possibly vote Democratic in 2024, especially if Kamala Harris is the nominee. Trouble is, this ignores that voters often move based on factors beyond just the candidates.
Now, it's true that one of the biggest factors for individual candidates is the national environment they induce, and everything else now largely flows from it.
The question is, is the national environment Harris induces substantially different from the one Biden induces?
There's an argument for this, in that Harris seems to poll worse than Biden right now. But four years in the vice presidency can do a *lot* for image, and if polarization increases, candidate quality might begin to matter even less, narrowing the gap more.