The interesting thing about Steve Garvey entering #CASen and running a well-funded campaign is that this changes the calculus for the Democrats running.
Garvey likely advances to the general, so the round-1 leader between Schiff/Porter/Lee would be the de-facto next Senator.
*However*, if Garvey didn't get in, you could see a scenario in which a Dem-on-Dem second round would result in all kinds of coalitions being formed between the voters of the eliminated candidates.
Like, if it's Schiff vs Porter, who would Barbara Lee's supporters break for?
And so if Garvey gets in and locks up the GOP vote, that means the first round becomes way more important for the Democratic candidates, because whoever leads this one would likely be the only Dem candidate advancing. Which may result in totally different campaign strategies.
It is not the job of Republicans to elect Democrats (though they do an amazing job of that lately), but Garvey would be a boon to Adam Schiff. Rs would almost certainly break for whichever candidate opposes him in round 2, which would have made his task vs Porter/Lee harder.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@SplitTicket_ Went back and forth a lot on these ratings, but I think it makes no sense to assume we know what the 2024 environment will be, in which a Trump-Biden rematch is likely to happen but polling and signals are all over the place. So the current baseline is a 2020 redux.
@SplitTicket_ I don't think it makes sense to play the uncertainty angle for the sake of it, so we're not putting Virginia or Maine at Likely Democratic, nor are we putting Michigan at tossup (because like...why?). But I think there is enough uncertainty in PA, WI, and NC to warrant caution.
@Nate_Cohn In our first @SplitTicket_ piece on young voters and their Democratic leans, we noted the same thing in exit polling. But the fact remains that millennials are ahistorically Dem, and even the largest swing right observed does not erase this gap.
@Nate_Cohn@SplitTicket_ The problem with millennials being insanely blue isn't necessarily that they *won't* shift to the right. It's that political affiliation seems much more stable than people think, so the traditional aging shift to the right is not big enough to fix this gap.
Under every data lens taken on this topic, the story is clear: election denial is really unpopular, and quantifiably so. At @SplitTicket_, we find the performance difference between election acceptors and deniers to be ~4 points in margin in battlegrounds
@SplitTicket_ That's true whether you look at stuff done by us, the @UpshotNYT, @gelliottmorris, or @Catalist_US. This is a fantastic way for a party to keep losing winnable races and it's likely part of what cost the GOP the senate in 2022.
We estimated it only for federal races (as we have WAR scores for this), but Ron DeSantis has famously avoided answering basically anything to do with the 2020 election for now, so it's anyone's guess as to how (or if) he does tackle it when pressed on it at debates. But...
Twenty years ago, both parties came up with conflicting theories on how they were entering a new age of dominance.
Neither of them panned out, so now everyone is determined to ignore *any* signs of danger for either party because things always work themselves out automatically.
I have written many times about how I think the fact that there are only two parties means that neither the GOP nor the Dems are likely to ever really be locked out of power for too long — the vacuum created by dissatisfied voters is usually filled by someone eventually. But...
How is that filled? By one party pivoting their messaging to fill take in groups of dissatisfied voters. Rs haven't done that yet. Increasingly, what they've done is appeal to seniors at the cost of decreasing margins with Millennials/Gen-z. This is not a sustainable strategy.
It is preposterous that arguably the biggest elections website in the world can create a misleading, multi-thousand word article on the Red Wave That Wasn't which simply says that the GOP ran decent candidates and was blindsided by Democratic money and mail-in ballot harvesting.
I'm sorry, I really do hate to be critical of any forecaster or analyst, because I know how hard elections analysis is. But we also have a duty to stay factual and honest, and all this article does is skirt around and wrongly dismiss things that we have obvious data.
What irritates me is that this is the same site that built a "poll unskewer" in 2022 despite having absolutely no factual or historical basis to suggest that this was a good or serious idea. Hundreds of thousands of people read them, and it's borderline misrepresentation of data.