The three scholars that the state of Florida is forbidding to testify on the effects of the state's new voting restrictions are: Dan Smith (@electionsmith), Michael McDonald (@ElectProject), and Sharon Wright Austin.
“The university does not exist to protect the governor."
Last night I had not found the Twitter handle of the third scholar being targeted by the state of Florida for her expertise in voter restrictions, but here she is to support as well: @SharonA82707528 (alongside @ElectProject & @electionsmith)
More context: "Morteza Hosseini, the head of the UF board of trustees, co-chaired DeSantis’ 2018 transition team and has made major donations to the Republican Party."
The University of Florida backtracks -- though the underlying issues here (voting restrictions, and a DeSantis state apparatus geared to protect them) remain:
Moment of instability today again in France (not that the crisis ever stopped since Macron called snap elections), which may lead the new conservative government to fall. That'd pretty much leave the country in uncharted territory, again.
Quick thread to explain:
1. The (unnecessary) July snap elections resulted in a wildly fragmented Assembly — as you'll know well if you were following me.
The Left coalition got roughly 190 seats. The Macronist parties got roughly 170. The far-right (RN) got roughly 140. Conservatives got roughly 40.
2. In French, coalition that controls the Assembly gets to be Prime Minister — & effectively govern the country with little input from the president (if the PM + president are in different camps).
But no election in current regime had never resulted in such a fragmented chamber.
Pam Bondi was Florida's attorney general during Trump's first campaign & some of his first first term—and that generated plenty of stories on her legal decisions.
Here's just a slice of what you should know, featuring great reporting from the mid-2010s:
1—As Florida AG, Bondi nixed suing Trump over Trump U after she solicited a contribution from him & he gave $25,000: floridapolitics.com/archives/21237…
2—Bondi's office justified nixing Trump U suit by saying she'd only receiving only one customer complaint, but the AP found this: jacksonville.com/story/news/201…
Abortion is big in the presidential race, of course, & there are many referendums on it.
But there's more: there are many races that are too overlooked where abortion rights is a key issue, for downballot offices that really matter to abortion policy.
My thread of the top 5: ⬇️
1️⃣ I have to start with Arizona's judicial elections.
Two things simultaneously: 1. Two of the 4 justices who voted to revive a near-total abortion ban this spring are up for retention. 2. GOP has advanced a measure to nullify these judicial elections. boltsmag.org/proposition-13…
2️⃣ DeSantis removed Tampa's elected prosecutor from office, citing in part the prosecutor's decision to sign a letter saying he wouldn't prosecute abortion. cases. (DeSantis has signed strict restrictions.)
Harris is up 47% to 44%.
(Not a typo. Last DMR poll had Trump up 47/43 in September.)
In 2016 & 2020, Selzer’s final poll looked like an outlier in opposite direction; days after, we learned it was actually not off, & had foreshadowed polling error in Rust Belt.
This, again, is just one poll; we’ll see soon enough whether it captured something no one else did.
Other details in poll:
—Poll was this Monday through Thursday.
—Margin is within MoE of 3.4%, of course (though this is a looooot more off from expectations).
—Harris up 28% among independent women, though Trump up among men.
—RFK at 3%
Here's what I'd say about why people care about the Selzer poll, besides the mythologizing. In final days of both 2016 & 2020, as polling had Dems in strong shape (well, esp. in 2020), it was the rare sign that something could be amiss in other polling. (1/3)
Extent to which Rust Belt white voters swung to Trump was just not understood before we saw results in 2016, tho Selzer gave a preview. (She also was first to capture IA changed in 2014.) There was this idea in 2020 that had swung back; her poll was clearest cold shower.
But of course: IT'S JUST ONE POLL! It's subject to the same margin of error, can be off in any direction, and in the moment it wasn't clear what they meant.
Same today: IT'S JUST ONE POLL.
But that gets to other thing about Selzer poll: it's clearly uninterested in herding.