|
It’s too early to say for sure, but with elections last night having some super high turnout, it’s probably safe to say that Republicans are still showing up to vote, even if Trump isn’t on the ballot.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 11:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 08:34 |
|
|
That wasn't what Trump was doing. What Trump accomplished was getting people who normally stayed at home to show up and vote for him. High turn out for R's during a election is typical. That is part of the reason they do so well in mid terms. Their turn out is more consistent and higher than with D's.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:That wasn't what Trump was doing. Yea, but turnout was higher across the board vs. 2017. My quick math says it went from 47% to 55% overall, and that wasn't all just Republicans. So both parties turned out, but Republicans turned out even more. There had been some thought that the increased R turnout in 2020 was just because of Trump voters, not necessarily Republican voters. This seems to show that at least some of those Trump voters are still showing up for regular Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
I dunno what numbers you're looking at but it seemed turnout was all over the place. Higher in some areas than usual and about the same elsewhere. There were other special elections earlier in the year that weren't really showing signs of necessarily higher R turnout in general. There were polls suggesting that the sorts of people Trump got to vote for him wouldn't show up for anyone else though. The bigger issue is that D's aren't doing what they said they would, inflation, and continued COVID19 crap means their voters are much less interested in showing up. That is why Biden's and D's numbers in general have been plummeting lately. And yeah that will definitely show up in a election. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Nov 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:It’s too early to say for sure, but with elections last night having some super high turnout, it’s probably safe to say that Republicans are still Turnout appears to be incredibly low in NJ (37%), perhaps because no one thought this was going to be a race. When you had motivated Republicans coming out it made for a much closer race than anyone anticipated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 04:52
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:Turnout appears to be incredibly low in NJ (37%), perhaps because no one thought this was going to be a race. When you had motivated Republicans coming out it made for a much closer race than anyone anticipated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 05:00
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, why was the race in New Jersey so tight? (Virginia I get with the schools/lack of schooling anger) Covid restrictions resulting in a general unhappiness amongst the populace? Any other factors?GoutPatrol posted:Turnout appears to be incredibly low in NJ (37%), perhaps because no one thought this was going to be a race. When you had motivated Republicans coming out it made for a much closer race than anyone anticipated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:Turnout appears to be incredibly low in NJ (37%), perhaps because no one thought this was going to be a race. When you had motivated Republicans coming out it made for a much closer race than anyone anticipated. And apparently it cost them at the Statehouse. Real bummer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 05:45
|
|
|
Honestly, while local factors matter, here they seem to have been kind of swallowed up in national trends to a large degree. New Jersey and VA saw similar surges in Republican turnout that overwhelmed highish but comparatively lackluster Democratic turnout, resulting in similar rightward shifts-- the Dems held NJ because it's a few critical points bluer. That's a bad sign for the midterms, because it suggests that it's a feature of the national mood rather than a fluke in one or two states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 12:04
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Honestly, while local factors matter, here they seem to have been kind of swallowed up in national trends to a large degree. New Jersey and VA saw similar surges in Republican turnout that overwhelmed highish but comparatively lackluster Democratic turnout, resulting in similar rightward shifts-- the Dems held NJ because it's a few critical points bluer. That's a bad sign for the midterms, because it suggests that it's a feature of the national mood rather than a fluke in one or two states. The bottom line is: we're not in a normally predictive environment period. Covid remains a huge spanner; but for dems this fall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 12:23
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:when the massive infrastructure bills have passed and begun implementation, It takes a long time for projects like that to be designed, bid out, purchased, and started. Years. And then with some of the projects all most people see is more traffic while a road is under construction, etc. If these new infrastructure projects aren’t marketed expertly (and the White House doesn’t seem good at all about marketing), they won’t get credit for it. The time to score political points on the infrastructure bill was months ago when it could have been spun as a bipartisan effort that would appeal to swing voters, but that’s dead and buried now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 12:38
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:I dunno what numbers you're looking at but it seemed turnout was all over the place. Higher in some areas than usual and about the same elsewhere. I couldn't find an easy database for the 2021 election, so I just pulled some semi-random counties and compared them to 2017. Republicans in every single county I looked at had bigger gains in votes than Dems. Even in Democratic stronghold areas like Alexandria, the Republicans grew their votes at a higher rate than the Dems. I guess I could look at what the drop off was from 2020 to 2021 to see what that difference was too. Aside from a couple of small counties, the Dems still grew their vote, Republicans just grew theirs more. If there are still Trump only voters in the Republican base, they must not be that much for Republicans to grow their votes by this much. code:
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 13:27
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:It takes a long time for projects like that to be designed, bid out, purchased, and started. Years. And then with some of the projects all most people see is more traffic while a road is under construction, etc. If these new infrastructure projects aren’t marketed expertly (and the White House doesn’t seem good at all about marketing), they won’t get credit for it. The time to score political points on the infrastructure bill was months ago when it could have been spun as a bipartisan effort that would appeal to swing voters, but that’s dead and buried now. I believe plenty of states have projects ready to go (to some extent) once they get a budget. And as you say it's more about the marketing - local and state newspapers announcing the projects - than anything else. I think it could have an impact but it does require actual effort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 13:38
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:I couldn't find an easy database for the 2021 election, so I just pulled some semi-random counties and compared them to 2017. Republicans in every single county I looked at had bigger gains in votes than Dems. Even in Democratic stronghold areas like Alexandria, the Republicans grew their votes at a higher rate than the Dems. I guess I could look at what the drop off was from 2020 to 2021 to see what that difference was too. Aside from a couple of small counties, the Dems still grew their vote, Republicans just grew theirs more. What will bring people back is normalcy. For the current covid waves to become insignificant. And lifting the covid restrictions besides vaccinations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 14:45
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Out of curiosity, why was the race in New Jersey so tight? (Virginia I get with the schools/lack of schooling anger) Covid restrictions resulting in a general unhappiness amongst the populace? Any other factors? Maybe it just goes to show how we successfully used the Virginia Model as a model for the nation
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Like i've mentioned before, Virginia had the longest school lockdowns of any state during covid, parents were pissed that their children were performing terribly, so they blame the Northam govt for maladministration and vote enthusiastically for the opposition. OK, I'll back off from my ledge and admit that maybe I'm reading too much into one state. It still doesn't give me any warm and fuzzy feelings about what is coming the Dems way next year. Maybe this turns into a slightly good thing as it kicks the Dems in the rear end to get some poo poo done that they can run on for 2022.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
I didn't want to post this on election night and while the VA turn is bad... isn't the Republicans barely squeaking out a victory in VA not exactly a good sign for them either? Like, VA has been going blue but still relatively split? During the 2009 election the Republicans blew the Democratic candidate out of the water. I am not saying its not a bad sign for the Democrats but its not a Tea Party sign either I guess?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 15:47
|
|
|
SixFigureSandwich posted:I believe plenty of states have projects ready to go (to some extent) once they get a budget. And as you say it's more about the marketing - local and state newspapers announcing the projects - than anything else. I think it could have an impact but it does require actual effort. I’ve been involved in state and federal procurement for 20 years. These projects haven’t started without funding. States might know *what* they want to do and what needs to be done, but design and engineering is expensive and you need a budget to start that. You can’t put a job out to bid until you have drawings and specs. And if you’re relying on newspapers to do the messaging you already lost. They suck at messaging.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 15:50
|
|
|
BigFactory posted:I’ve been involved in state and federal procurement for 20 years. These projects haven’t started without funding. States might know *what* they want to do and what needs to be done, but design and engineering is expensive and you need a budget to start that. You can’t put a job out to bid until you have drawings and specs. To expand think about this: Money is appropriated -> Secretaries come to their plans in 30 to 180 days -> RFP/Funding Announcements/RFI's take another 60 - 90 at least -> review -> project starts. That is the simplest line, it can get much more complicated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I didn't want to post this on election night and while the VA turn is bad... I mean Virginia broke for Biden by 10 points just a year ago, so this is a really hard and really fast shift. But one of the bigger stories is going to be that white suburban women - whom the Dems have spent a lot of time trying to court and credited as playing a large role in Biden's victory - flipped back red over the CRT bullshit. McAuliffe ran a bad campaign but the Dems have a bunch of McAuliffes kicking around and the Republicans have learned that drumming up a panic over CRT is a good way to get back a critical voting bloc they lost. And when centrist Dems lose they, often bolstered by voices in news organizations, blame progressives and not the actual candidates. History doesn't inspire confidence that the party will actually course correct in time for the midterms, which generally trend against the party in power anyhow. TGLT fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Nov 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
TGLT posted:I mean Virginia broke for Biden by 10 points just a year ago, so this is a really hard and really fast shift. Like it's totally consistent to have wildly different high-turnout presidential votes and off-year governor votes, that's exactly why these states have kept their off-year elections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Couldn't it just be more indicative that the Biden coalition (or anti-Trump coalition) is prone to more turnout falloff in an off-year election? I forgot the comparison between Biden's turnout in Virginia and McAuliffe's turnout earlier this week, but McAuliffe actually got great turnout (for a non-presidential year at least), but Youngkin just blew it out the park with the turnout he got in the loyal GOP rural areas. Youngkin overperformed to the extent that McAuliffe needed to reach insanely crushing margins in his own strongholds and that just didn't happen. A big part of this is Biden's general unpopularity and the fact that more and more, politics on all levels is going to be affected by what's happening on the federal level. Also, reports indicate massive defections from 2020 in the white suburban female demographic, and that could mean an opening for GOP identity politics shenanigans because Youngkin got insane amounts of momentum and negative coverage for McAuliffe by exploiting that demographic's fears regarding education. At the risk of making a massive overgeneralization, the suburbs tend to vote Democratic to the extent it fits their pocketbook/every day life needs, but there's a lot of social/racial sentiment that is not quite in line with what many Democrats think is the party mainstream dogma. Given the dysfunction in federal congress and the Virginia Dems' own failures to do stuff like eliminate "right to work" laws, the Dems just were not hitting the pocketbook issues hard enough (and McAuliffe's anti-Trump fixation did not help at all in that respect). https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-virginia-election-2020-campaign-2016-1e50b5d47eac70e65bed5be5b9fa7fa4 TGLT posted:And when centrist Dems lose they, often bolstered by voices in news organizations, blame progressives and not the actual candidates. History doesn't inspire confidence that the party will actually course correct in time for the midterms, which generally trend against the party in power anyhow. I feel like the centrists are aging out of power or otherwise just not able to get reelected as their tactics get less effective in the purple areas, but this would be my major concern. The party is taking forever to learn lessons that should have been learned back in 2004 or 2016, let alone this year when all the historical patterns indicate bad odds to begin with. Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Nov 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I forgot the comparison between Biden's turnout in Virginia and McAuliffe's turnout earlier this week, but McAuliffe actually got great turnout (for a non-presidential year at least), but Youngkin just blew it out the park with the turnout he got in the loyal GOP rural areas. Youngkin overperformed to the extent that McAuliffe needed to reach insanely crushing margins in his own strongholds and that just didn't happen. Clinton being the Democrat version of Reagan has carried a lot of water as the way forward even after it was clear that centrism was out of gas. Neither political party is particularly hip these days to modern concerns, given that Congress is almost indescribably old. McAuliffe ran on ORANGE MAN BAD which is not really how to win an election even if you are running directly against ORANGE MAN.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
New Jersey might not actually be that close. Turns out, New Jersey decided to let a 2020 law allowing for the early count of mail ballots to expire. As a result, the roughly 500,000 mail ballots are being counted extremely slowly. We don't have an accurate accounting of how many are left, but these are likely overwhelmingly D-leaning, and should pad Murphy's margin (currently at 1.4% and rising). Overnight, there were a number of small updates to county tallies, and all of them (other than a minor one in Burlington) improved the spread for Murphy. The county-by-county totals still suggest to me that a lot of votes are left out. Like, for example, Murphy is right now only doing 2.6% worse in Mercer County (Trenton) and doing 0.4% better in Hunterdon (wealthy GOP suburbs) than in 2017. However, he's doing 24.7% worse in Atlantic County (Atlantic City). And I looked last night, and Atlantic County hasn't counted a single absentee ballot as of yet. The CW seems to be that Murphy will win by about 2%, but the numbers suggest to me something more like a 5%-10% win ultimately - which wouldn't be that far off from polling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1455902793043267590?s=20 https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1456285548058927106?s=20 https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1455924372800262150?s=20  Sounds like it's time to get some more non-political hobbies!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:New Jersey might not actually be that close. Given what the pandemic has done for tourism, I can imagine anyone not being fully on the "open it up!" train is going to do pretty badly in Atlantic City.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Also, reports indicate massive defections from 2020 in the white suburban female demographic, and that could mean an opening for GOP identity politics shenanigans because Youngkin got insane amounts of momentum and negative coverage for McAuliffe by exploiting that demographic's fears regarding education. At the risk of making a massive overgeneralization, the suburbs tend to vote Democratic to the extent it fits their pocketbook/every day life needs, but there's a lot of social/racial sentiment that is not quite in line with what many Democrats think is the party mainstream dogma. Republicans have been making huge inroads with the crystal magic/natural healing types in recent years thanks to a certain letter based conspiracy theory and vaccine mandate backlash. Ranting about CRT definitely got a few suburban moms to flip but that had to be a factor too
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1455902793043267590?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:For me McAuliffe's failure again emphasizes a couple of basic principles that beltway "experts" tend to talk themselves out of: Epinephrine posted:I agree on points (1) and (2), but not sure I agree on (3). It certainly depends on how long they've been out of politics. How long of a retirement is too long in your view? Eric Cantonese posted:That's a fair point. I haven't thought of any other candidates who took a 4-year cycle off (Biden technically didn't leave politics for 4 years because he left office in January 2016 and launched his campaign in April 2019) and won. But I can add two data points, both in your favor. Walter Mondale, after about two decades of retirement, took over in the final days of Paul Wellstone's 2002 campaign after he died. Mondale lost. Not the best data point through because Mondale was only in the campaign for about a week. Mark Sandford, of Appalachian trail fame and who resigned as SC governor in 2011, did make a successful comeback in 2013 taking over SC-1 from Tim Scott. But Sandford's a Republican and the break from politics was less than two years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I didn't want to post this on election night and while the VA turn is bad... Strong indicator of positive demographic change, but also a strong indicator of negative ideological motivation gaps that favor republicans. It's a slow demographic tide working in the favor of democrats, but it doesn't matter if you can be drowned before the water's out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:I'm moving this conversation over here because it's relevant to the thread and sorta got drowned out by everything else in Current Events. I wasn't following the conversation in the CE thread but I want to point out a few things in the chain you have going. I say this as a guy whose run/been staff on a few campaigns in his ttime. 1) Having a candidate stand for something matters the higher up you go and I get irritated when candidates are unwilling to take a stand on anything. It allows your opponents campaign to define you. 2) I am not sure how I feel about the outsider/insider thing and I really hate that experience is frowned upon by the electorate. 3) If you want a modern example , Allen West ran three times in Florida, Lost, Won, and Lost. Osoff failed in his house run and became Senator. Point being its always context dependent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
Kavros posted:Strong indicator of positive demographic change, but also a strong indicator of negative ideological motivation gaps that favor republicans. It's a slow demographic tide working in the favor of democrats, but it doesn't matter if you can be drowned before the water's out. Difference between the 2016 and 2020 elections: (https://www.npr.org/2020/09/03/907433511/trumps-base-is-shrinking-as-whites-without-a-college-degree-continue-to-decline)  You can see the number of non-college whites decreasing as a share of the electorate, but they still significantly outnumber everybody else. The drowning analogy is a good one - we're locked in a storage container filled with water with a small hole poked in the side and trying to hold our breath for long enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:So Democrats will lose forever in these states. Basically and they've now made it literally impossible. I fully expect the narrative next year to be something like Biden and Democrats fumble and lose Congress not because the game is rigged - and rigged it is - but because whatever sensational reason that gets people glued to the TV or whatever internet clickbait. The only saving grace might be if Murkowski somehow pushes voting rights legislation over the filibuster along with continued COVID-19 recovery. https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1455709997887787009?s=20 Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
The only thing that will save Democrats in those states is a national retail of the redistricting process. I think the current voting rights bill is supposed to address that, but they can’t pass it in the senate. On the other hand, blue states are also doing the same to Republicans. Illinois is in the process of killing off a couple Republican seats. CA, NY, and the other strong blue states need to do the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 04:21
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:The only thing that will save Democrats in those states is a national retail of the redistricting process. I think the current voting rights bill is supposed to address that, but they can’t pass it in the senate. When you are cutting your districts as fine as the republicans are there is very little margin for error. An 10R 4D district might have margin for swings in voting, a few extra points to absorb variance. The same area but with 12R-2D districting has to be spread so thin that it becomes an opportunity. It could swing to something like 6R 8D on a low R turnout or good get out the vote campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
Murgos posted:When you are cutting your districts as fine as the republicans are there is very little margin for error. That really depends on the map. Illinois's new map is something like 14D-3R and yet there is one solitary D district that went for Biden by single digits. Even a 10-point swing towards the Republicans would only turn that 14D-3R map into a 13D-4R map. https://twitter.com/ILElectionData/status/1452043902320586755 If Republicans can draw similar maps for their own states, they can be protected against anything but the biggest waves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 14:18
|
|
|
Yeah, any silver lining there is still a long-term thing--freshly drawn gerrymanders are generally pretty solid, it generally takes some years of demographic drift to put them in reach.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 15:28
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:If Republicans can draw similar maps for their own states, they can be protected against anything but the biggest waves. Yeah unfortunately this is absolutely correct. They'll do the state version of REDMAP a la 2010. They can probably get another solid gerrymander that will last years easily in many states. I dunno if they can get it to last 10yr or so like REDMAP did if only because of a combo of Boomers dying off + moving to retirement states like FL where they'll hyper concentrate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 15:28
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Yeah unfortunately this is absolutely correct. Any silver lining here is definitely a longer term thing. Freshly drawn gerrymanders are generally pretty solid, it takes years of demographic drift for them to become vulnerable. There were wonks talking about gerrymanders flipping in 2018 because it was a blue wave and a lot of districts were not as packed as they were when they were drawn in 2011.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 08:34 |
|
|
vyelkin posted:That really depends on the map. Illinois's new map is something like 14D-3R and yet there is one solitary D district that went for Biden by single digits. Even a 10-point swing towards the Republicans would only turn that 14D-3R map into a 13D-4R map. They probably can't though, that works in Illinois because you have the sheer numbers of people in and around Chicago that have historically been compressed into a couple districts, but trying to do the reverse in OH should be impossible - you can't draw a district that snakes from Cincinnati to Columbus to Cleveland. The reason it works in Illinois is because you can reverse the "natural gerrymander" of an 80-90% D urban core, but the Rs advantage has always been owning huge sq mi of nothing, and districts are based on population, not area Edit: so based on the map they are throwing 4 and 11 to the Dems as the "Cleveland" and "Columbus" write-offs, but they have Cinci split between two, the weird snake of suburbs southeast of Cleveland, another to the west, and then a couple around Columbus that I'm less sure on. My guess is at least 3 of those will be within 8, but I'm sure someone will be able to provide the analysis like the IL map soon BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 16:04
|
|
