|
FMguru posted:IIRC the electoral track record of people running to retain the seat they appointed to is really lousy, and that has to go double for someone who was appointed after being rejected by those same voters.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Alternately, the as-yet-not-Nazis could just... continue to be converted into Nazis, as has been happening steadily over the last two years by your math. This, the through line of this poison and the modern Republican platform being literally just: The Worst Aspects of Human Nature™, goes back quite a ways, certainly at least to the realignment and southern strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2021 22:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AZGOP/status/1348056995216035840 The Arizona Republicans have an interesting plan to win the 2022 election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 07:23
|
|
|
"Let's not and say we did."
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 07:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:3% of Democrats? 3% is about the same as you get for asking if lizardmen run the Earth, i.e. it's probably mostly people loving with the pollster or hitting the wrong button
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 12:01
|
|
|
Belteshazzar posted:3% is about the same as you get for asking if lizardmen run the Earth, i.e. it's probably mostly people loving with the pollster or hitting the wrong button "Ya know those Lizardmen have some great ideas about the minimum wage! Shame about them trying to conquer the surface world though!" TulliusCicero fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Jan 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 14:40
|
|
|
Belteshazzar posted:3% is about the same as you get for asking if lizardmen run the Earth, i.e. it's probably mostly people loving with the pollster or hitting the wrong button 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 15:15
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:https://twitter.com/AZGOP/status/1348056995216035840  Has there been any in-depth look at what happened in the Montana senate race? It may be the most depressing result of 2020. You had a perfect candidate that got blown away by ten points. It pretty much means that you're never going to be able to primary a red state incumbent, which leaves a pretty bleak outlook for the future of the senate. Chemtrailologist fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jan 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:
The take I've heard from Montana democrats is that Montana isn't nearly as purple a state as they thought it was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The take I've heard from Montana democrats is that Montana isn't nearly as purple a state as they thought it was. Montana Democrats have suffered under the delusion for years that the state is a purple one that they keep underperforming in rather than a deep red state they've been overperforming in. Ultimately, they were done in by an enormous surge in turnout - it turns out that sporadic voters in Montana are more GOP leaning than they thought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 20:03
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Montana Democrats have suffered under the delusion for years that the state is a purple one that they keep underperforming in rather than a deep red state they've been overperforming in. Ultimately, they were done in by an enormous surge in turnout - it turns out that sporadic voters in Montana are more GOP leaning than they thought. So basically Texas without the demographic light at the end of the tunnel?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:So basically Texas without the demographic light at the end of the tunnel? Montana is so sparsely populated that all it would take is a single major tech company moving to Bozeman or Missoula and it would flip. Daines' margin was 60k votes, which is comparable to Ossoff's victory over Purdue in Georgia. That's big numbers in Montana, but not much in the larger scheme of things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
Montana could end up being the next Colorado. There's already a ton of city folks moving there from CA and WA, especially to Missoula and Bozeman. If remote working becomes a permanent thing I could see a bunch of tech money moving out there where they can afford a mansion with acreage instead of a 400sqft shitbox in SF. That being said we're at least 5-10 years away from that happening so I wouldn't get your hopes up yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
Seph posted:Montana could end up being the next Colorado. There's already a ton of city folks moving there from CA and WA, especially to Missoula and Bozeman. If remote working becomes a permanent thing I could see a bunch of tech money moving out there where they can afford a mansion with acreage instead of a 400sqft shitbox in SF. That being said we're at least 5-10 years away from that happening so I wouldn't get your hopes up yet. I think it's longer than 5-10 years. There is no doubt that Montana is experiencing an influx of largely liberal residents from blue states in Gallatin, Missoula, and Flathead counties. But this is being more than offset by defecting rural voters and losses in Great Falls, Billings, and Kalispell. You are probably only netting 60-70k new residents in those three counties by 2030, and obviously not all of them will be Democrats. There is no path back to power among Montana Democrats from population growth alone, even if it is part of the puzzle. They need the electorate to realign back toward them. That said, attitudes shift faster than people think. After all, Dems only lost Montana by a couple points in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 21:07
|
|
|
If Montana flips it will be a part of a larger demographic shift in rural inland states as people leave overpriced rent in coastal urban centers, or the nightmare scenario of mass refugees due to rising coastlines + water scarcity. The Piedmont will likely turn blue first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 21:18
|
|
|
Kulkasha posted:If Montana flips it will be a part of a larger demographic shift in rural inland states as people leave overpriced rent in coastal urban centers, or the nightmare scenario of mass refugees due to rising coastlines + water scarcity. The Piedmont will likely turn blue first. I think that demographic shift has been happening for at least a decade and will continue to happen. My point was that remote working has significantly increased the size of the west coast diaspora compared to recent years. In my anecdotal experience Montana is one of the prime targets of that diaspora. It has the somewhat unique combination of outdoor activities; well-educated, liberal cities (Missoula & Bozeman); and relative affordability that is attractive to the west coast tech crowd. I can't think of many other areas that have that combination of amenities - maybe Asheville, NC and Austin, TX? So in terms of potential flips, IMO it's pretty high up there. Maybe even before TX. Californians vote Democrat by roughly a 2:1 margin, so all it would take is about 150,000 people to move there (about 0.4% of the CA population) to flip the state. Over a period of 5-10 years that doesn't seem too difficult to imagine. Big states like TX and NC on the other hand need millions of people to move there to be flipped even though the margins might be tighter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Isn't one of the reasons Vermont went from solid Republican to solid Democrat so fast was because a bunch of New Yorkers moved there in the eighties?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
Demographic change on long timescales is a lot less certain in terms of electoral coalitions than what is commonly acknowledged in the discourse I feel. Before the current "Texas will turn blue in ten years, oh god Hispanics swung nationally by 10% against us" narrative you had the 2000 version of "We may have lost Florida because of the judges, but just wait for it to turn solid blue in the next few years". That said Alaska barely has people in it, but two senators.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
Again, I guess we're going to have to do this every single day, but Biden outperformed Clinton with Hispanics. This is something where it was a function of very specifically in what parts of the country this occurred. People are focusing on a strip of Texas that has some of the least populous counties in the nation (One swing was in a county that had 460 people, not even 460 voters) and Cuban Americans. It's way overly reductive to project that onto all Hispanics in the country. They are not a monolith.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 01:00
|
|
|
Pick posted:Again, I guess we're going to have to do this every single day, but Biden outperformed Clinton with Hispanics. This is something where it was a function of very specifically in what parts of the country this occurred. People are focusing on a strip of Texas that has some of the least populous counties in the nation (One swing was in a county that had 460 people, not even 460 voters) and Cuban Americans. It's way overly reductive to project that onto all Hispanics in the country. They are not a monolith. Dante fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 01:25
|
|
|
Dante posted:Well yes - people of the same ethnicity, gender, age and all sorts of demographic metrics vote differently as individuals, but there's some strong demographic correlations with party identification that people use to project things like Is Texas finally turning blue? based on demographic change. I'm saying I'm skeptical that one can take current demographic correlations as a given (and related to that, that the leftward swing among young voters will stick as they age). Yes, Biden did very slightly better than Clinton with Hispanics. However the reason democrats have been excited about demographic change is because democrats got 54% of the hispanic vote in 2004 which increased to 71% in 2012, but has decreased to 66% now. That's an indictment of the party being less effective at messaging to a demographic compared to the successes 2004-2012. So where does "Hispanics swung nationally against us by 10%" come from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 02:20
|
|
|
I wonder if you could introduce a teleworking subsidy in congress to encourage companies to spread out operations across multiple more rural states as a bit of a ploy to shift those states blue and invest some money there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 03:08
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I wonder if you could introduce a teleworking subsidy in congress to encourage companies to spread out operations across multiple more rural states as a bit of a ploy to shift those states blue and invest some money there? Some states and municipalities are already doing this to try and attract high wage workers. I know some cities in OK will give you relocation money if you buy a place. You need a lot of people to make a difference, but you might see it in 5-10 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 03:41
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:So where does "Hispanics swung nationally against us by 10%" come from? Russian troll farms? Edit: to be less glib, it keeps coming up every few days in this thread, despite being utterly divergent from reality. I can't help but suspect that it's targeted disinformation coming from somewhere. This sort of thing is very much Russia's MO. Lead out in cuffs fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 04:40
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Russian troll farms? I don't think it's targeted disinformation, that's a big assumption. I think it comes from different methodologies of polling and exit polling. For example: The Edison exit poll (the one that the news organizations and Wikipedia use) shows that the Hispanic vote in 2016 was Clinton 65-29 Trump (down from Obama 71-27 Romney), and in 2020 was Biden 65-32 Trump. It also notes that Hispanic voters rose from 11% to 13% of the electorate from 2016 to 2020, so both Biden and Trump will have ended up with substantially more Hispanic voters because turnout was higher and Hispanic voters were a higher proportion of that larger electorate. However, the Edison exit poll has been criticized in the past for being bad at capturing Hispanic voters accurately, and it's possible to find other reads on Hispanic voters that disagree strongly with the Edison exit poll's results. To give just one example, Latino Decisions did a whole writeup of their critiques in 2016, including that Edison disproportionately captures English-speaking and wealthy (and therefore more heavily Republican) Hispanic voters. They estimated based on their final polls that the Hispanic vote was probably more like Clinton 79-18 Trump. For comparison, their final 2020 poll was Biden 70-27 Trump. So if you put stock in their critiques of the Edison poll as not accurately capturing Hispanic voters, you might put more stock in their final election polls that found about a 10% swing towards Trump, but from a more heavily Democratic 2016 baseline than the Edison poll.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
Trump doing better among any group is pretty easily explained by the checks or increased unemployment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
As noted many times, the Edison exit poll is trash and can't even mathematically square with a winning map. The AP Votecast results were extremely different and do square. Here's some comparisons: In particular, the Votecast was not all "day-of", and the n is nearly 10x.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 05:08
|
|
|
Seph posted:
Idaho is probably first, just judging by the housing market, where Boise (capitol) is up by a few hundred percent in as many years. But anecdotally from the area, you want to be careful about demographic internal change because the people leaving California are generally conservative-ish out of proportion to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 05:30
|
|
|
Flappy Bert posted:Idaho is probably first, just judging by the housing market, where Boise (capitol) is up by a few hundred percent in as many years. But anecdotally from the area, you want to be careful about demographic internal change because the people leaving California are generally conservative-ish out of proportion to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 05:48
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Russian troll farms? Nothing that nefarious, and to be clear I think that's pretty silly. It's pretty simple: "I need a reason to be unhappy Biden won and to tell people they're still doomed" Name Change fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 05:53
|
|
|
FMguru posted:That's my read, too - a lot of the Californians moving to ID/MT are conservatives fleeing "Commiefornia". This is also true for New Yorkers moving to NC/GA/FL. On average they tend to be more conservative than the state they came from. Their kids that continue to live in those states often are more left leaning than their parents. It may be the 1st generation offspring that are shifting states in many cases, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 06:48
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:This is also true for New Yorkers moving to NC/GA/FL. On average they tend to be more conservative than the state they came from. Their kids that continue to live in those states often are more left leaning than their parents. It may be the 1st generation offspring that are shifting states in many cases, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 06:56
|
|
|
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/10/politics/poll-impeach-trump-historic-number/index.htmlquote:(CNN)The potential removal of President Donald Trump from office starts out more popular than any other removal process of a president in recent American history. Removing Trump from office remains quite unpopular among Republicans, however.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 07:11
|
|
|
FMguru posted:My understanding of the blueing of NC/GA is that young people (esp. college grads) are moving to the big cities there (Charlotte, Atlanta, etc.) for jobs and to start their lives, and they bring their politics with them. I think this is true for the major cities, though other parts of the states are also growing. Many people move to the rural areas of NC/GA for retirement. I've been thinking about doing a data dump since those are fun.  The rough trend in NC is that it has had a persistent Republican majority since the realignment in the 80s, but has always had a significant Democrat minority. Republicans add 225,000 votes on average each election and Democrats add 285,000 on average, so it is progressing in a democratic direction but at an infinitesimal pace. The votes Republicans added increased steadily while the votes Democrats added increased in greater booms and busts depending on turnout. The good news is that it appears that the votes Democrats add are stable and not being lost in subsequent elections. Raleigh and Charlotte are the main place they're being dumped and there is a very reliable 50-100k increase every election since the 90s when they were considered swing counties. Charlotte (Mecklenburg County)  Raleigh (Wake County)  Republican growth in these counties seems to have stalled to a trickle. Trump lost votes compared to Romney in 2016. But in 2020 those reluctant Romney voters decided "eh, gently caress it, as long as I get tax cuts and guns whatever" and they came home to daddy. Bodyholes fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 07:30
|
|
|
According to the national exit poll the Latino vote moved 8% toward Obama in 2012, 9% toward Bush in 2004, and 15% toward Clinton in 1996. It's not hard to believe that much of it was Trump being a Republican incumbent. A lot of people's takes before and after the election just kind of ignored that Trump is the president and defeating a sitting president is hard. Of course there are probably reasons why people vote for the incumbent, I don't think they just switch from Clinton to Trump because the rules say you vote for the current president.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 07:49
|
|
|
The presidential incumbency advantage would square with a huge Hispanic increase in Dem support during the Georgia runoffs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 07:52
|
|
|
Pick posted:The presidential incumbency advantage would square with a huge Hispanic increase in Dem support during the Georgia runoffs. It also squares with Florida which voted +5% for Bush in 2004 then went back to being a swing state in 2008. It may do the same thing next time.  This kind of reasoning explains what some swing voters are thinking, even if this one ultimately didn't vote Trump. Squares pretty well with what other people said about swing voters having crazy ideas, rather than being principled moderates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 07:59
|
|
|
It reminds me of how statistically the most powerful question in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire is the "ask the audience" question. Because people who don't know anything basically vote randomly, and one column will generally supersede the others based on the marginal number of people who have a loving clue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 08:02
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:So where does "Hispanics swung nationally against us by 10%" come from?   The more accurate statement would have been that Hispanics swung towards Trump, by precisely how much we don't know but potentially by as much as 12%. Hispanics are obviously a very diverse group, but nonetheless there's a strong correlation with party vote/identification (as there are with many demographic variables). There was also a lot concern prior to the election that the democrats were underperforming among hispanics which was covered in 538, Politico, NYT etc before the election and has been widely discussed after the election. It's an interesting polliwonk discussion as hispanics are both the largest ethnic minority in the electorate, but also a rapidly growing minority in several key states for democrats. Regardless of what data point one relies on for the 2016 election, the effect sizes indicate that the democrats had very significant gains among hispanics from 2004 to 2012 which have since declined. That clearly needs to be a priority for dems to address in terms of messaging and outreach. tl;dr: russian disinformation campaign material Dante fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 14:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
FMguru posted:That's my read, too - a lot of the Californians moving to ID/MT are conservatives fleeing "Commiefornia". Yes. Tons of hardcore R's are moving to Idaho. Mostly up in Northern Idaho around Coeur d'Alene and stuff to retire since its relatively cheap and if you like hunting and fishing its actually pretty drat nice. Winter sucks up there though. Southern Idaho around Treasure Valley in particular has gotten stuuuuupid expensive over the last few years which is another part of the reason they're moving up north. Traffic around some areas like Eagle or Boise is almost as bad as in the busier parts of CA at times. Some of that is due to the roads not being built up enough but much of it really is due to the sheer number of people who've moved up here. Some are moving to around Boise (Meridian in particular), and it is one of the most D friendly areas in the whole state, but not enough to make a big difference over all state-wise. I think even by 2028 when the boomer die off should be accelerating rapidly and start to really hurt the GOP on a national level ID will still vote R by large margins.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 16:49
|
|