In a swing race, a five point win is a blowout. No one wins by more than that. Four points is big. Three points is solid. Any pundit who says it’s bad news for the Democrats because Warnock “only” won by three points, has no idea what they’re talking about, or how elections work.
Fetterman and John Kelly won by five points. Those were blowouts.
Warnock won by three points. That was a sizable win.
Cortez Masto won by 0.8 points. Now that was a close race.
You see the difference, right?
Warnock won by three points. That was a sizable win.
Cortez Masto won by 0.8 points. Now that was a close race.
You see the difference, right?
Every candidate, manager, and strategist who’s ever won or lost a competitive election knows this.
Yet most political pundits and analysts, on TV and Twitter, either don’t understand this or pretend not to understand this for effect.
Yet most political pundits and analysts, on TV and Twitter, either don’t understand this or pretend not to understand this for effect.
The overwhelming majority of people vote along party lines. So if the party line breakdown in an electorate is 50-50, of course you’re going to see results that are close to 50-50. You want to win those races, you have to do it narrowly. Always true for either side.
You motivate a few extra people on your side to turn out, you embarrass a few people on the other side not to turn out for their bad candidate, and that’s how you win by 51.5 to 48.5 in a 50-50 electorate. It’s how Warnock won. It’s the only way swing races are won.
It’s for that same reason that races with a 65-35 electorate are literally unwinnable for the party with 35. There aren’t enough people on your side to turn out, and you’re not getting that many on the other side to cross party lines or stay home.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
