If you're looking for another signal that there is a change in the environment, we have a second post-Dobbs special election in which Dems are set to outperform Biden's 2020 numbers. The first one was #NE01, where they outperformed by 6. In #MN01, it'll likely be by a couple.
Polling has shown a 2-3 point shift towards Democrats since the Dobbs decision, and that remains the single best indicator that there has been a change. But if you're looking for another sign because you're worried about nonresponse bias, then this is another confirmation.
For what it's worth, the difference between an R+4 and an R+1 year might be as many as 20 House seats and three Senate seats, depending on the scenario that pans out. Let's see how the rest of the cycle plays out and how the LV screens shift things after Labor Day.
Yes, there are other reasons for individual election results that can be down to candidate quality, but when you see a consistent shift across polling, special elections, and fundraising, it's more likely than not that something exists as an underlying cause rather than noise.
And that's not a guarantee that things continue this way; all we can discuss is the data that we do have. Things very well could change, and nobody is saying they can't, but it's quite clear that the picture *currently* looks better for Dems now than it did three months ago.
Looks like this was a bit early. Dems will very likely outperform by a margin similar to their 5 point overperformance in Nebraska's 1st CD.
Olmstead drops, and we can say that this will be an overperformance that might even be a few points *greater* than the one in #NE01. Looks like Democrats will lose by ~3 points at this rate, outperforming Joe Biden's 2020 numbers by 7.
Not much evidence of a red wave of late.
With Brown County in (and a strong GOP performance there, winning by 40 as compared to Trump's 33), it appears that Democrats should lose this race by a shade over 4 points, going by the numbers on DDHQ. This is a 6 point swing left from Trump's 10 point victory in 2020.
(Deleted a previous tweet speculating about margins that really undershot Brown's eventual results).
Solid night for Democrats. If you'd have offered them this result yesterday, they'd have taken it. #NY19 in a narrow Biden seat will be the most interesting special in a while.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After a solid string of predictions, we did take a couple Ls @SplitTicket_ tonight by missing the #VTSen (Likely Nolan) and #CTSen (Lean Klarides) GOP primary calls. Sorry, guys -- low-salience primaries with limited polling are just hard to predict. I'll do better for next time.
@SplitTicket_ For Vermont, my internal logic was that the Scott and McConnell endorsements indicated serious establishment backing for Nolan, which I thought would carry her over the line in a state GOP that was probably more moderate than most. Can't say I saw that loss coming.
For Connecticut, I thought Klarides was only slightly favored and stressed that a Levy win wouldn't be a shock at all because she was endorsed by Trump a week ago -- I felt, however, that Klarides had enough cash and name ID to carry her and that Trump's endorsement was late.
As someone who lives in the Bay Area, something extremely disconcerting about JD Vance is that he's running a campaign using the type of rhetoric that people in San Francisco think appeals to people in Ohio.
It's weird. If you ask a lot of elites in SF what they think about Ohio or Indiana, you'll probably get a whole ton of stereotypes about the place being the northern equivalent of Alabama. They absolutely *despise* them, look down on it, and view them as backwards wastelands.
Now ask those people what you'd need to appeal to voters in Ohio. They'll probably come up with random stuff about needing to sound very racist and having to use regressive rhetoric on women's rights, abortion, and LGBTQ policies.
This is almost certainly because Ryan has spent more than Vance has, as the article notes, but one thing of note for Ryan is being close to 50 in a state like Ohio, where white undecideds usually break disproportionately Republican.
It is also important to note that it is a Ryan internal, and that we haven’t really gotten a public R internal to counter it; with that said, the NRSC and GOP groups wouldn’t be buying ads and leaking if they didn’t also find it currently close in their polling.
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