Early, but this is an absolutely brutal number for Republicans in the #WASen primary, with Dems beating the GOP 57-40 so far. WA traditionally shifts to the left in the general. In 2010, when Murray won by 5, Republicans actually narrowly *led* in the primary.
Safe Democratic.
It essentially takes one of the marginal seats that some had speculated about off the board. If Rick Scott wants to burn money here, I'm not sure Democrats will stop him, but late results likely won't shift the picture enough to change what is a bit disastrous for Rs.
For context, in order to actually have a shot here in the Senate race, as @BruneElections had pointed out, the Republicans really needed to tie or at least get close to it. Late arrivals may narrow it somewhat, but it likely won't even be close to 50/50, if history is indicative.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Why is it a surprise to so many people On Here that a position that is clearly split along partisan lines and polls underwater nationally by over 15 points might possibly actually have some real, negative effect against the party supporting the unpopular position?
the baseline isn't a D+4 environment, the baseline with a 39% approval rating for Biden is an R+7. If Democrats manage to limit their losses to even an R+2 year, that'd be huge for them and fairly disappointing for Republicans -- makes the Senate a tossup and the House narrowly R
(once again, this isn't the #bluewave nonsense I see on here from others, but margins matter a lot and this is an issue that seems to be moving it ~3 points towards Democrats on margin, depending on who you ask)
Extremely early, but there are some very good signs for the "No"/pro-choice vote in the Kansas abortion referendum's early vote. In polling, Kansas usually very narrowly leans in favor of abortion restrictions, so if this fails, it's a pretty big hit against the GOP position.
One thing to see is how counties vote compared to the benchmarks @BruneElections has assembled. In basically every county, "No" is blowing the doors off in the EV. E-day is far more GOP, but these margins make it a tougher climb for "Yes" right now.
But *with that said*, the KS Secretary of State is reporting that turnout may be at 50%, which would be mind-blowing. If that's the case, we've only seen a small fraction of the votes so far. So while there are good early signs, it's critical to wait, because things could shift.
Both parties have some big red flags for them in the electorate. But maybe the biggest one for Republicans is that they're losing young voters by historic margins, and it's not clear that they'll magically become GOP-leaning with time.
@SplitTicket_ Is it normal for young voters to be this Democratic? The short answer: no. The long answer: absolutely not.
This is, quite simply, the strongest sustained period of age polarization we have seen in the electorate in the last fifty years. It is not at all normal.
@SplitTicket_ The average shift is for a cohort to become ~7 points more Republican over twenty four years, as irregular voters become more regular. That's not nearly enough to wipe out a D+20 youth margin. At some point, Rs either have to win young voters or massively flip millennials/gen-z
Huge GOP margins with the white working-class, a big Hispanic swing right, and drama over the winner.
We’re talking about the 2000 election, not 2020. From me and @HWLavelleMaps for @SplitTicket_, here’s a detailed look back, with demographic estimates.
@HWLavelleMaps@SplitTicket_ Data on this election is very, very hard to find compared to 2020. After searching through a lot of old books and archived websites, we were able to scrape together demographic estimates from VNS/Roper exit polls. They are not perfect, but they do provide a nice rough picture.
@HWLavelleMaps@SplitTicket_ 2000 was likely the first election in the modern era which white non-college voters, a traditionally Democratic demographic, voted to the right of the usually Republican white college-educated voters. This trend would only accelerate over the next 20 years.
Shapiro has a >$10M fundraising advantage on Mastriano. The bigger problem for Mastriano, though, is that he has < $1M in COH and the RGA has no desire to get involved. With polls like this, you see why. Against a candidate like Shapiro with those numbers, that's a tough climb up
You can't get voters to like you or hear of you if you have no money, and the other problem is that virtually everyone who does hear of Mastriano and isn't a Republican seems to hate him. Tough to win a gubernatorial election that way, especially with those Shapiro favorables.
Also, given the extremely sparse number of datapoints in elections (overfitting from 4 datapoints would get you laughed out of most places), people should probably have some pretty large error bars. Cycles share some commonality, but also really do have some unique twists.
So past history is a good *guide* and given that those elections are serious and real datapoints with tens of millions of people voting, it's useful to consider them to inform priors! But do remember that each cycle has its unique twists and that things have changed over 20 years
It's useful (especially right now) to look at past elections and use them as a prior to suggest that this year will likely be Republican-leaning, and use past trends and current data to have a loose bound on the magnitude. But...