Quick 🧵
Fact: average in-party midterm losses since 1934: 28 House seats and 4 Senate seats.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why Dems will do significantly better than average this year, especially taking into account 8% inflation & Biden approval in low 40s.
Fact: average in-party midterm losses since 1934: 28 House seats and 4 Senate seats.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why Dems will do significantly better than average this year, especially taking into account 8% inflation & Biden approval in low 40s.
Initially, the argument was that Dobbs was a game-changer. I was skeptical of that from the beginning because, while it energized the Dem base in the short term, the data never supported the claim it would supplant the economy as the most important issue. And it hasn't. /2
The other argument was/is that GOP Senate candidates were too problematic. (BTW, that claim doesn't apply to the House, where by and large the GOP has nominated a pretty strong, diverse group of candidates.) /3
But even if you accept the argument that some GOP Senate candidates are flawed - which they are to a degree, as are some Dems like Fetterman in PA - is that enough to buck historical trends in a year like this? I suspect not, but we'll obviously know the answer soon enough.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
