Between nine nonpartisan polls, a bevy of information on the ruling's unpopularity, a special election in #NE01, and fundraising data, I think we can say the Supreme Court abortion ruling has had at least a short-term electoral effect.
@SplitTicket_ As @NateSilver538 and @Nate_Cohn have both said, we really just do need more time. An effect might very well fade, but it is notable that seven of the nine nonpartisan polls of ≥ 800 RV/LV show a bounce towards Democrats. Combined with other data, that's not nothing.
Again, nobody is saying that Democrats will be winning the House, or even that the November environment will be Democratic. Absolutely nobody is saying this.
But a two point bounce is not nothing, and data from the last month shows there might actually be some effect.
So give it time, and wait to see what it looks like after Labor Day, which is when the bottom has fallen out for Dems in 2010 and 2014. But what we're analyzing is whether there's been an immediate effect, even if it doesn't last. And I think it's fair to say there has been.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
IMO the single best thing Dems can do is to induce a good national environment for 2024. Or, I guess if we're getting specific, hope for a good economy (and good perception of it) and portray the GOP candidate as a corporate plutocrat who is an extremist on abortion.
I'm not sure there's much else that *can* be done beyond being pro-choice and saying the GOP candidate will roll back the gains of a good economy, given the insanely strong correlation between presidential and downballot results.
I don't really like this "appeal to authority" that much, but a lot of high officials in the Democratic Party are also very online and read the same columns people like us do in terms of electoral bias. If this was an easily solvable issue, there'd probably be more focus on it.
I would be shocked if this bill gets more than 52 votes in the Senate. I don't know why people were expecting it to clear 60. The median Republican Senator votes very much to the right of the median Republican voter on many issues.
(The median Democratic official is also more left-wing than the median Dem voter; this isn't a problem limited to the GOP. But on this issue, 70% of Americans support gay marriage, and the bill won't be failing because of Democrats in the Senate).
I suppose 52 is too low. I could see 53, depending on how certain Senators feel (Portman, Collins, and Murkowski are the three who I think might do it). Perhaps even 54 or 55 if a couple spring surprises (can't think of any, but let's be generous for a second). No path to 60 IMO.
people on this site are way too confident about how a hypothetical Harris-DeSantis matchup in 2024 would go.
actually, way too confident about how any hypothetical 2024 matchup would go in general
There have been so many instances of one party thinking that the nominee will have the next election down on lock several years in advance. To give one example, Democrats thought this in 2013 with Clinton, whose favorables were high then. Some party folks thought she'd win WV.
You can find Republican cases of this too. Clinton looked dead in the water in 1994.
Point is, a lot happens and in times like these, where both parties command a high share of support, being so confident Harris will be the next nominee to lose in a landslide seems ill-advised.
Not sure you can spin the new NYT/Siena poll as good for Biden or Democrats in almost any way except Biden’s 3 point lead over Trump. With a 33% job approval rating and only 26% of Dems supporting renominating him, there’s a real risk of a divisive and contested 2024 primary.
It’s tough to have the nomination on lock while being *that* unpopular. My guess is that either Biden’s popularity rebounds (very possible) or he chooses not to run again to avoid a hotly contested primary challenge.
What’s interesting is that I’m still not sure that any current Democratic candidate is stronger against Trump than an incumbent Biden is, even accounting for polarization. A +3 polling lead isn’t really insubstantial and I am not sure any other Dem would currently get better #’s.
Democrats keeping the House now would be a miracle. They have maybe a ~10% chance of it. And if you go by history, it’d be as big of an upset as Alabama 2017.
Meanwhile in Georgia, as some of us said from the start, they were favored the moment runoffs began.
Democrats are entering a 2022 cycle in which their president has 38% approval and they’re still arguably favored to keep the Senate at the moment, even with an R+5 bias. That is less of a historical anomaly, but still a huge deal. But the House is on the precipice of safe R.
(I still think the median senate outcome is 49D-51R with NV going red, but I don’t have a strong opinion on it and can see arguments for anything from 51D-49R to 48D-52R as the median case right now)
Statewide races are different from federal ones and generally have much more crossover voting. It's why Scott, Baker, and Sununu won in 2018. And it's why Shapiro, Whitmer, and Evers have lanes in 2022, even in a Republican year.
@SplitTicket_ I know I beat this drum a lot, but candidate quality and incumbency really still matter across the board. But if you want to talk about where it matters most, it's probably in statewide races. Here's a table showing how presidential lean alone predicts governor and senate races.
@SplitTicket_ you can go thank Phil Scott, Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker, and Chris Sununu for existing and making 2016 presidential partisanship somewhat useless in predicting the 2018 gubernatorial results. For more, including the impact of incumbency, read the article!