It won't matter as much as the generic national political environment will in 2022, but if the GOP reliance on election day votes doesn't let up a little, it's not hard to imagine it being a little costly in some areas where the weather isn't all that great on November 8, 2022.
These types of things are *significantly* less important than the overall national political environment. But let's say a storm hits in an area where a key seat is up for grabs. What then? Not everyone who would have voted will. Rita Hart lost by 6 votes in 2020.
Overall, it's just hard to escape the thought that the GOP have likely cost themselves some close seats somewhere thanks to the lies about mail ballots that they've been pushing among their base. It's just that the ones they do cost will depend on the national environment.
For example, in a D+6 environment, an adverse weather event on election day would probably burn the GOP in North Carolina. In an R+1 situation, it might cost them New Hampshire.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Canadian election is probably a bit more important, but for those curious, @Thorongil16 and I have an update to our #VAGov model with the Washington Post D+3 poll from Friday.
Our forecast is Democrats winning by 7.3, with an 80% chance of victory.
@Thorongil16 This race has stayed remarkably stable, with few real swings in polling. Even the WaPo D+3 poll was really because of an incredibly R-friendly LV screen that appears to have oversampled non-college whites via a new polling technique. The poll of registered voters was D+6.
There is little in my mind that suggests that this race has substantially changed in the last month. If Biden's approval plunges to around ~42% on FiveThirtyEight or something, we could be in for a very real race. But until then, this race remains likely Democratic.
This is also one of the more conservative estimates of the college-educated electorate share -- McAuliffe wins college voters by 22 points (similar to what Biden did) but WaPo's LV screen says the share of college voters *drops* by a few points from 2020. Bit skeptical of that.
If anything, I'd have thought the enthusiasm gap would have been shown more in intra-group turnout differential (e.g. college Rs are more likely to turn out than college Dems), but that's not happening in this poll at all!! It's basically a weird electorate screen.
McAuliffe is winning college voters by a greater margin than Biden did. So it's a bit strange to see, then, that the delta between non-college and college voters is *higher* than it was in 2020, and it cuts counter to most of what we already know re: turnout, hence my skepticism.
We've updated our 2021 #VAGov model with the recent Emerson poll. The projection now has McAuliffe (D) winning by 7.5 points, with an 80% chance of victory in November.
I do expect this to actually move as more polling comes in, but we're currently not seeing many polls, and so due to recency being factored into the model, a newer poll in a polling drought will have a bit more of an effect than you might expect. (someone please poll this race!)
As a reminder, polls are broken into three parts: topline (50%), electorate screen (25%), and crosstabs (25%). We combine this with 2020 margins and education-based turnout fundamentals (calculated via legislative district turnout regressions) to get our projection.
I wrote about midterm electorates, their changes from presidential years, and the partisan implications today in the Crystal Ball. Educated voters seem to turn out more while minorities turn out less, and that makes 2022 fascinatingly complicated.
In states like New Hampshire or Wisconsin, it is plausible that your electorate might be more Biden supporting than it was a year ago, at least in terms of 2020 vote cast, because of how white they are…
But that doesn’t mean Democrats would actually do better, though, because voters could be persuaded to vote R (shown by Biden’s currently low approval ratings) — the picture for a good Democratic 2020 in those states that largely relies upon keeping those suburban gains intact
If I had to take a guess at the #CARecall margin, I’d probably say No wins by 17, based on the available evidence. There’s been some very serious late movement towards Newsom and it’ll take a Herculean lift and a massive polling error for Yes to have a whiff of a chance here.
And once again, it was exceptionally smart of Newsom’s camp to not field a replacement candidate. That’s the only way you keep the Democrats all in line, and if you do that, recall gets squashed.
Anyways, if that does happen, Newsom would emerge stronger than ever before, because the press insistence on making it a horse race would backfire badly and cost the CA GOP their best 2022 candidate in Faulconer, and Newsom would have overperformed public expectations by a lot.
No such question has been settled, considering that non-college rural whites have one of the lowest voting observable propensity rates, and if you think people will let a vaccine mandate from 2021 influence their 2022 voting likelihood, you might be overreacting again.
I feel like the last five years should have taught people not to overreact to a single news cycle and yet here we are every time something happens that conservatives or liberals think will be the death knell for the other party.
FWIW, racial minorities, who still break heavily Dem, have fairly low voting propensity rates too, so the "will the 2022 electorate be more or less Biden-supporting (in terms of presidential vote cast) than 2020?" question probably hinges to some degree on their turnout also.