Only a handful atm (although the number’s certain to grow) - hopefully there aren’t enough GOP defectors to kill the deal. But these guys aren’t your usual rebels - may be indicative of a lot more discontent.
Mathematically, the deal could survive the floor vote even if like half the House GOP defects, as long as Dems make up the votes.
I’m no expert on House dynamics, but it still seems like to me that the bill should pass, should it come up for a vote. But people might be upset.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Looking back over the 2020 Senate elections atm, and I have to say, I don't think incumbency has ever been as lousy an indicator of strength as in these elections.
Dem incumbents went 7/11 for outperforming Biden.
GOP incumbents went 10/17 for outperforming Trump.
Even open & appointed incumbent seats split 2-4 between outperforming Biden and outperforming Trump.
Might need to rethink the prior that Senate incumbents outperform the top of the ticket by default.
For comparison, in 2016, every Dem senator, and 19/22 GOP senators, outperformed the top of the ticket. And this was more or less the norm for like decades before this.
Remains to be seen if 2020 was an outlier or a paradigm shift, but my gut currently leans toward the latter.
Catalist has released their new analysis on the 2022 electorate (HIGHLY recommend reading), and one of the most interesting findings: Dems actually did BETTER w/ Latinos in 2022 than w/ 2020 Prez, but did WAY WORSE with Asians.
Equally as interesting - for white voters, Dems actually held steady w/ non-college whites, and mostly suffered w/ COLLEGE-ED whites (downballot lag?).
M.w. for black voters, we have the opposite.
The Dem gain w/ Latinos & loss w/ Asians were roughly equal, college-ed or not.
Catalist tries to frame the youth vote as having “exceptional turnout” - however, it’s clear this is simply a function of Gen Z/Millenials aging into a bigger slice of the electorate.
In a general sense, both Walker and Dr. Oz were bad candidates. However, the swing maps in GA and PA look very different - Walker was garbage in the burbs, but held up in the rurals, while the opposite was true for Dr. Oz.
Feels like diff ways of being bad has diff effects.
I know that it's kinda an obvious statement - of course different ways of being bad will have different effects! - but I wanna drill into that.
What kinds of being "bad" disproportionately turns off rurals? What kinds of being "bad" disproportionately turns of suburbs?
Like, there's the narrative that suburban voters didn't like Walker cuz he was unqualified and not a great guy personally. But why wouldnt that turn off rurals?
It might be a bit obfuscated by turnout and demographic shifts, but it seems clear GA rurals didn't mind as much. Why?
As recently as 2018, despite going blue for Prez, the Somerset County Board of Commissioners was still 5-0 GOP. However, by 2020, every seat had flipped to Dems.
Despite GOP efforts to reclaim ground in 2022, commissioner Marano actually IMPROVED upon the Dems' 2020 performance.
Mapping this cuz I'm pretty sure 2022 was the first time I ever received mailers for a countywide race. The Somerset County Dems took these races *very* seriously after nearly losing their commissioner seats in the red wave of 2021.
Wait, I just noticed Marano won a Trump+0.6 town (Millstone Boro) wut
Despite being a Democratic midterm, there were quite a few states House Dems actually outperformed their 2020 margins in, while the GOP notably swept through FL and NY.
After accounting for uncontesteds, this is how each state swung from 2020 House -> 2022 House.
Looking at this, some regional patterns clearly emerge, with Dems performing well in the Great Plains and Upper Midwest, while the GOP dominated in the South and (most) of the West coast.
There’s good evidence that persuasion/turnout patterns by race prob caused some of this.
As Max pointed, we’re still counting ballots in a few states that could change the map - specifically MD and CA come to mind.
There’s also two weird cases, ND-AL and MT-02, where the independent was effectively a Dem imo, so I lumped them w/ the Dem vote.
Wondering whether Biden should take a trip to Anchorage during the 2024 campaign.
You know, not because he can win it, or that it’d be worth much even if he did (3 electoral votes), but for the sake of the Dems’ longterm prospects, which look surprisingly decent there.
After this midterm, Wisconsin no longer looks like obvious doom for the Dems, so they still retain 25 obvious states to get Senate seats in (the 25 Biden won in 2020). But they don’t have many places to expand the map without some long term investment.