#midterm elections prediction

[todoroki-tina]

The fact that so many Republicans are rallying to raise the Voting age to 21 shows two things how much voting really matters and the GOP are scared of Gen Z. Gen Z came out this midterm, young voter turnout are always low especially during midterms but the fact that turnout exceeded 2020 in some states is great. The GOP knows their main support are older and white Americans (they also know their support is shrinking), more young people are making their voice heard and they dont want that.

[nosferdoc]

“It’s not looking great. The best we can hope for right now is a 50-50 Senate, but the House is long gone.”

— Democratic strategist who advises major party donors quoted in Politico, 10/17/2022.

[manhattan-gamestop]

The past 24 hours have made me feel like I'm chewing glass

[ID: A two-panel meme of a woman with a headband on the verge of tears seeming to present something to her presumed mother. There is overlaid text on each of the panels, the first reading, "Me explaining the significance of the Fetterman v. Oz Pennsylvania Senate race (and also that it's funny Boebert is losing)", and the second with the text on the mother, "My sister in the ER". End ID]

[sobeautifullyobsessed]

I posted a few days ago that I used to be a political junkie. I’m recovered now, thank heavens. But it pisses me off to see vicious name calling from either side. A mutual of mine just reblogged something where a political candidate was called a ‘cunt’. C’MON PEOPLE - WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT, CAN’T WE? If we can’t do better, then how can we expect our leaders to?

I thought one of the chief vibes of tumblr was to support women wherever we can. You may despise someone, but you debase yourself by using and supporting that kind of language.

[lesspopped]

since I’ve spoken to a few different people who were disappointed by the outcome of the elections, especially people who haven’t voted in many elections previously, and so were surprised to hear this: y’all, this election actually went shockingly well for the democratic party. as a rule, the sitting president’s party does not do well in midterms, especially the first midterm after that president is elected. this is the best a sitting president’s party has done in the midterm in twenty years. the last time it went this well for the sitting president’s party was 2002, when the republicans were still riding the post-9/11 jingoism wave. in the first midterm after obama was elected, the democratic party lost 63 house seats; last I checked the nyt's final projection for them to lose this time was somewhere in the neighborhood of 12.

yes, it sucks that we’re likely losing the house and it sucks that the senate is still up in the air and it super sucks that the democrats have basically given up on bothering to campaign in florida. but losing the house was always likely and we have not lost it by nearly as much as we were predicted to, and honestly, without a filibuster-proof majority, even having both chambers of congress isn’t a guarantee of being able to get much done there. there are definitely disappointments, but this is nowhere near a disaster. ultimately, from what I can tell, there are a lot more republicans disappointed by this election than democrats, because this was supposed to be a massive blowout for the republicans and it very much has not been. like, at all. 

again I am not saying there are not things to be disappointed by, and it sucks immeasurably that we have to take “this didn’t go as badly as it could have” as a victory, but also, it really, really is a victory. at the very least, it’s not a flat-out defeat, and there are a lot of reasons not to feel despair. the smaller, state-level victories are not as flashy and dramatic as the higher-profile ones like the house or senate, but they’re extremely important, and will make a huge difference in a lot of people’s lives — in many cases a greater difference, day-to-day, than the senate or house elections will make. it’s really important not to lose sight of these wins.

(personally, what was really keeping me up at night was a) abortion referendums and b) the number of 2020 election deniers who were running for state- or local-level seats that would have put them in the position of being in charge of election administration in 2024 and beyond, making it much easier for them to rig future elections. well, republicans have pretty soundly gotten their asses handed to them on both counts, which is fan-fucking-tastic. like I said, these are not necessarily the things that get a lot of attention on the national level, but they’re so, so important and will make a big difference for a lot of people in the coming years.)

[wstickevers]

2022 Midterm Election Predictions

2022 Midterm Election Predictions

Since 2008, I’ve been predicting the U.S. Midterm and General Presidential Elections, using Political Contest Horary technique: 519 predictions 444 correct 85.5% Accuracy Track Record For the 2022 U.S. Midterm Election, I’m predicting the: the party to control the Senate the party to control the House of Representatives the outcome of the closely contested Governor Elections the outcome…

[mariacallous]

The nomination of Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential candidate has shaken up the race in ways that have yet to fully play out. However, given the fact that she could become the first woman U.S. president, it is surely worthwhile to consider the role of the women’s vote in November’s election.

One need only look back to the 2022 midterm election, where the women’s vote was arguably instrumental in rebuffing a predicted “red wave,” leading Democrats to exceed electoral expectations. That election occurred less than five months after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing states to greatly restrict access to abortion. This led to a greater-than-expected Democratic vote among women, especially young women, for House of Representatives and other state candidates.

Now, just weeks after most polls had President Joe Biden trailing his Republican rival Donald Trump, the emergence of Vice President Harris as the Democratic candidate has already injected enthusiasm among many Democrats, especially women. As my Brookings colleague Elaine Kamarck has argued, women’s health, abortion, and reproductive freedom—issues Harris has championed—will once again be leading issues for this election. Harris has also voiced support for issues important to women including paid parental leave, child care, and the economy, as well as other policies that have the support of many younger and minority women. Indeed, the broader support of women’s groups for Harris’s candidacy has already been evident in funding and outreach.

With Harris’s nomination, will new enthusiasm and a voting surge among women be enough to power her to victory in November? To address this question, this analysis first reviews the role of women’s votes in recent presidential elections and which women’s demographic groups were most favorable to Democratic candidates. It next shows how gender differences in voter turnout have provided women with a numerical electoral advantage over men. The analysis proceeds to look at changes in the demographic make-up of women voters, from 2012 through the present, showing the rise of Democratic-favorable groups within their ranks. It concludes with a voter simulation of 2024 election results showing what recent polls imply, if we assume that the new enthusiasm for Harris translates into higher voter turnout and increased Democratic support among women, both dynamics that could help increase her chances for victory in November.

Women have a history of backing Democratic candidates in presidential elections

Examining gender differences in presidential voting preferences shows that women have voted for Democrats over Republicans in every presidential election since 1984.1

This is evident for recent elections, as seen in Figure 1, which shows the D-R (Democratic minus Republican) vote margins by gender for presidential elections between 2000 and 2020. In each case, the D-R margins are positive for women and generally (though not always) negative for men, and women voted more strongly Democratic than men, regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican ultimately won the presidency.

Election year 2020 showed sharp gender disparities for the seven battleground states, displayed in Figure 2. In each of these states, only one of which (North Carolina) Trump carried, women registered positive D-R margins compared with negative margins for men. The widest gender disparities were in the three “blue wall” states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, as well the southern state of Georgia.

Gender differences also pervaded demographic groups in the 2020 presidential election (see figure 3), as was the case in earlier elections. D-R margins are higher for women than for men in groups where women voted strongly Democratic: Black voters, Hispanic voters, and voters aged 18 to 29. Even for non-college white women voters—who favored Republicans—the negative D-R margins are not as large as those of men. Only among Asian American voters were men’s D-R margins higher than women’s.

Women’s turnout rates are higher

Perhaps even more important than partisan preferences, turnout rates—the share of eligible voters who vote—will help dictate women’s influence in the coming election. Turnout rates for women have exceeded those for men in presidential elections dating back to 1980. Figure 4 depicts gender differences in turnout for presidential elections since 2000. The 2020 election showed the highest overall turnout rates in decades. Because of their higher turnout rates, and the fact that women live longer than men, the 2020 election had 9.7 million more female than male voters.

Largely because of their higher turnout rates, women comprised more than half of all voters (53%) in 2020. Yet their shares vary across demographic groups (see Figure 5).  Women comprised 58% of all Black voters, 55% of Asian voters and 54% of Hispanic voters. Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters aged 65 and older were also women. And among white non-college graduate voters, a group that tends to vote Republican, women still comprised a majority (52%).

The female electorate is becoming more diverse and highly educated

As the size of the female electorate increases, its demographic makeup is changing. Figure 6 shows the shifts in the profile of eligible women voters between 2012 and 2024 by race and education. Notably, there are gains in women’s groups that tend to vote Democratic—white college graduates and people of color—and a decline in the women’s group that tends to vote Republican—white non-college graduates. For the first time in a presidential election, the latter group will make up less than 40% of the women’s electorate.

The seven battleground states, shown in Figure 7, also display similar shifts in the demographic profiles of their female electorates. In each, there is a decline in the share of white non-college graduate women, and an increase in the share of women of color. This is occurring in the “whiter” states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, as well as the more diverse states of Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina. In Nevada, for example, the share of women who identify as white non-college graduates declined from 48% in 2012 to 35% in 2024, while at the same time the share of women who identify as Black, Hispanic, Asian or other nonwhite races rose from 36% in 2012 to 47% in 2024. Thus, with respect to demographic attributes, the female electorates in each state have become more Democratic-leaning in their voter profiles.

Simulating the 2024 election after Harris announcement

Polls taken both before and after the shift from Biden to Harris as the likely Democratic nominee offer crude indications of what the 2024 election might hold. Three polls of likely voters conducted by the New York Times/Siena College on June 26, July 3, and July 25—after Biden bowed out of the race and endorsed Harris—reveal the changes that took place in men’s and women’s D-R voting margins (see Figure 8).

The D-R margins for women–at 14% for Harris vs. Trump on July 25, were especially high, though countered by a still-high negative D-R margin of 17% for men.

Still, the high women’s D-R margin favoring Harris greatly reduced the overall D-R margin compared with the earlier two Biden vs. Trump margins shown in Table 1. That is, in the two polls taken while Biden was still the assumed Democratic nominee, the negative D-R margins of -4% and -6% (44%  Biden vs. 48% Trump on June 26; and 43% Biden vs. 49% Trump on July 3) strongly favored Trump. Yet, the July 25 poll for Harris vs. Trump reduced the D-R margin to just -0.6% (47.5 for Harris vs. 48.1 for Trump) when we applied this to a simulation model discussed below.

Of course, the July 25 poll was taken just after Biden withdrew and endorsed Harris as the likely Democratic nominee. Clearly, Harris’s campaign had not yet fully begun and the immediate support from many women’s groups suggests that both female turnout and voting preference could increase on Harris’s behalf in the weeks and months ahead. To estimate these likely effects, we conducted simulations of national D-R margins—a base simulation—and two additional simulations based on assumptions of greater women’s turnout and a stronger voter preference for Harris (see Table 1).

All three simulations begin with the 2024 national female and male eligible voter populations reported in the Census Bureau’s monthly Current Population Survey. The “base” simulation applies the 2020 election female and male voter turnout rates, presented above, and the Harris vs. Trump voter margins from the July 25 poll shown in Figure 8. The second simulation alters the base simulation by increasing women’s turnout rate by 10%, from 68.4% to 75.2%, larger than the 5.1% rise in female turnout which occurred between 2016 and 2020. The third simulation alters the second simulation by also increasing the female D-R voting margin by 5 percentage points.

The results in Table 1 show that while the base simulation yields a small Trump advantage, a 10% rise in women’s turnout would bring a small Harris advantage. Moreover, both increasing women’s turnout by 10% and the women’s D-R vote advantage by 5 percentage points would yield a clear Harris win (49.2% Harris vs. 46.3% Trump). These assumptions, reflecting a rise in women’s enthusiasm for Harris between now and Election Day, could put a popular vote win for her well within reach. It is also possible that the strong Trump voter preference for men, reported in the New York Times/Siena College poll, could shift as more male voters become familiar with her campaign.

The impact of an energized women’s voting base

The simulations conducted here make plain that rising women’s enthusiasm for Kamala Harris’s candidacy could lead to consequential shifts in the 2024 election through increases in voter turnout and voter preference. This is especially notable given the recent history of women’s support of Democratic candidates in national and congressional elections. Beyond looking at polls alone, simulations such as these show how taking into account the eligible voter base and rising voter turnout rates can affect election results.

These simulations should not be viewed as predictions; much will depend on how well Harris can continue to energize an already favorable female voter base. It also depends on her performance in crucial battleground states, which will determine how she fares in the Electoral College. What these simulations do show is how an enthusiastic voting bloc, when translated into voter turnout and voting preferences, could impact the final election result this coming November.

[tanadrin]

do polls of the whole country tell us anything? don't you need to look at swing states?

National polls aren't useless, because movement in polls tends to correlate. If a national poll moves a couple points in one direction or another, that will tend to correlate with some degree of movement in several states. As I understand it, though, certain subgroups of states (e.g., ones with similar demographics) have much closer correlations in how their polls move, so that a shift in the polls in one Sun Belt state should correspond to a similar shift in the polls in another. This means you can make predictions like "If Donald Trump wins Virginia, he's probably winning a crushing victory nationally," because his performance in Virginia should correlate to his performance in many other states.

Swing state polls are very valuable, but keeping those correlations in mind helps to understand whether a swing state poll is an outlier or not. If a poll shows a shift in a certain direction, but that's not correlated with similar movement in similar states, it's worth questioning of that poll is accurate. Ditto if the poll shows unusual breakdown of results in demographic subgroups: if Trump is winning (say) 30% of young black voters, given the way demographics and party alignment usually break down, he should be winning a massive margin with other groups.

One reason I am not so bearish on Biden is that my understanding is that a lot of polls have had these demographic anomalies, with Trump's lead coming largely from support among younger, politically disengaged voters of color, and Biden, apparently, doing well with demographics like older whites. It is not a coincidence, in this view, that Trump seems to be performing unusually well with demographics that are particularly hard to poll in the modern polling landscape--response rates to telephone polls are very low among millennials and gen Z--and while there are various ways you can try to compensate for non-response bias, those depend on your model of the electorate.

Now, I am not extremely confident about this, because I am the furthest thing in the world from a polling expert, but as I understand it, there are two possible situations here:

One: the polls are broadly correct, and Trump is ahead. The election in November, if current trends continue, will feature a historic realignment of voters along demographic lines like age and race of the likes not seen since the 1960s (called "depolarization" by some commentators), perhaps driven by the rise in far-right internet media and social media.

Two: the polls are broadly incorrect, and we should be more agnostic about the state of the race, or even assume Biden is a little ahead, because such a massive realignment is extremely unlikely to have occurred in only two years since the 2022 midterms (where no such realignment was in evidence, and Democrats broadly overperformed polls), and polling right now is plagued by historically low response rates in the same key demographics that give Trump his lead.

Some commentators, including commentators whose field is polling, seem to want to have it both ways: the demographic crosstabs are wrong, but the top-line polling numbers are right. I'm not sure how this can be true. On top of that, big political realignments usually take time (i.e., we should have at minimum seen some evidence of this coming in 2022), and are unlikely to occur in a race where both candidates have been president before.

So on balance I think the second scenario is more likely. Now, I am not a stats person, nor particularly knowledgeable about polls; all of this opinion is second-hand from other commentators. As such, I am not going to claim any kind if ironclad certainty about this, and you're perfectly entitled to rub it in my face if I turn out to be totally wrong. And if I do stumble across someone who does know the polls really well with an explanation of why I'm wrong (even just at the level of "you are factually wrong, here's why the crosstabs are actually perfectly normal") I may well revise my opinion.

[redistrictgirl]

Hello there. I’m Redistrict Girl, and I make election maps and forecasts. I also have a Bluesky account of the same name - before I moved my analysis there, I also made some models of the 2022 midterms on Twitter - including a House of Representatives forecast that predicted the chamber’s exact partisan composition.

As we’re less than three months away from the 2024 election, expect to see an evolved version of the model this year. The longer-form structure of Tumblr will allow me to provide more detailed analysis and insights. My Bluesky will also be updated. If you enjoy strategic electoral analysis, don’t hesitate to reach out and connect!

[ingek73]

Interview

Michael Moore on how Harris-Walz can defeat Trump: ‘Do weird and cringe until the debate, then nail him’

Edward Helmore

Progressive film-maker says he’s more optimistic than he’s ever been since Trump announced first run eight years ago

Thu 15 Aug 2024 11.00 BST

With Joe Biden looking for re-election Democrats feared they were looking at an electoral catastrophe. Now, with Biden dropping out and Vice-President Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket, it suddenly feels like it is Donald Trump who is staring at possible defeat.

The liberal film-maker and Democratic whisperer Michael Moore says he’s more optimistic than he has ever been since Trump stepped on to the escalator in Trump Tower to announce his first run for the presidency eight years ago.

“This isn’t just a sugar-high or what [recovering] heroin addicts call a pink cloud,” Moore says. “It was so depressing for so many weeks and then it was instantly not depressing. I am hopeful now but it’s ours to blow – and we have a history of blowing it.”

Moore, 70, has in recent years become something of an electoral sage. He predicted Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, in part because of the sense of political-cultural superiority Democrats emanated and because he had noticed that the campaign was fearful of inspiring Maga supporters. He predicted, too, that Democrats would buck the trend and be fine in the 2022 midterms.

In this election cycle he is in some ways in line with the pollster Nate Silver, who recently said that “the strategy of the Harris campaign should be to triangulate the strategy of Hillary 2016, the Harris 2020 primary campaign, and Biden 2024, and do the exact opposite.”

But Moore says he understands why Democrats are nervous that the Harris-Walz ticket could come apart, though it shows no current signs of doing so, particularly if Harris gets tarred with Biden’s unpopular “Bidenomics” or responsibility for his full-throated support of Israel’s war in Gaza.

“Biden, sadly, is going to be remembered for funding the war in Gaza and providing the armaments to Netanyahu, not arms for protecting Israel, but extra money to kill Palestinian civilians,” Moore says. He remains “saddened and surprised” that Biden, who had refused to meet Netanyahu last September, flew to Tel Aviv after the 7 October Hamas cross-border attack and hugged him.

“You can say what’s in a hug?” he says. “But ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce Neville Chamberlain to you. It doesn’t take much for history to see that in the moment you needed to display courage you did the opposite.”

But he’s cautiously optimistic that Harris is signaling a change of direction. She did not pick as expected the Pennsylvania governor, Josh Shapiro, who had harshly called out student protesters against the war in Gaza and settled a former employee’s claim that she was sexually harassed by a senior aide.

Harris, he applauds, went against the conventional wisdom, upending the predictions of many TV pundits, and chose “this guy from the midwest, a football coach who had offered to be adviser to the gay student group. It’s pretty stunning.”

And while as vice-president Harris has no power to speak against Biden on Israel, Harris has made her feelings plain. She declined to sit in on Netanyahu’s address to Congress, which echoed Pope Urban II’s 1095 call for the first crusade, instead traveling to a Zeta Phi Beta sorority meeting in Indianapolis.

“Couldn’t they have made up something that sounded important with foreign policy attached to it? No, She’s busy at a sorority meeting … and she refused the traditional diplomatic “grip-and-grin” after meeting with Netanyahu. It was very public.”

The first days of the Harris-Walz ticket have shown precisely the change of direction that Moore has argued for. The ominous but complicated “threat to democracy” anti-Trump platform has been dropped for “threat to freedom”. Trump’s folk story confabulations resist fact-checking, so that’s been refined to a kind of medieval textual charm, “weird”.

Jibes over JD Vance’s “couch capers” and eyeliner discussions work in much the same way. What Harris-Walz are doing is much as Moore advocated when he offered the Clinton campaign “satirical support” to come up with lines that would get under Trump’s thin skin, especially in a televised debate.

“I think I’m going to see what I was hoping for for eight years,” he says. “Once anybody gets under that thin skin anything can happen. On live TV? Trump could explode, start talking like a 12-year-old, though no offense to 12-year-olds, or get up and leave.”

But didn’t Democrats bet on the Biden-Trump debate being a success? And the Trump prosecution in New York? The Republican candidate’s polling and fundraising went up after both.

“It’s a holding pattern until she gets on that stage with him. I understand why people are nervous it might be a sugar high but Harris and Walz are people of substance. They’re being slow and cautious enough to get it together. It’s just been a couple of weeks. They are going to have to tell us what they’re going to do and hopefully come up with the right thing. And there will be mistakes.”

As the Harris-Walz campaign “humanize” the ticket it is clear that the November election represents, on the Democratic side, a generational shift.

“I’m so happy to hear Gen Z and X are over half the vote because it’s called facts and data,” Moore says, pointing out that the number of boomers over 65 who have died since 2016 is exceeded by Gen Z and millennials who have become eligible to vote. “How many of them do you think are going around in hats saying Make America Great Again”? They’ve never known it to be “great”, let alone “again”.

“It’s not just a cultural shift – it’s a generational shift. The boomers may not be the No 1 voters in this election. And that’s why Gaza is so important. Young people hate war and they’re totally against Biden and his support of the war.” Harris, he says, needs to tap into “affordable housing, student debt, peace and the dying planet”.

His prescription? “Do weird and cringe until the debate and then nail him,” Moore said. “But nail him with irony, satire and a simple way to point out the beyond weird absolute idiocy and insanity of what these two men are talking about. Reach them on a commonsense level so it doesn’t matter if you’re Democrat or Republican.”

“Once anybody gets under that thin skin anything can happen. On live TV? Trump could explode, start talking like a 12-year-old, though no offense to 12-year-olds, or get up and leave.”

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Why I remain hopeful about 2024

July 11, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

I remain hopeful about Democratic prospects up and down the ballot in 2024—including retaining the presidency under Joe Biden. I explain my reasons, below.

One of the unexpected blessings of writing this daily newsletter is the opportunity to meet with grassroots groups and Democratic candidates running for office. The meetings are almost always Zoom presentations designed to explain and promote the work of grassroots groups and raise money for candidates. On Wednesday, I hosted a fundraiser for Kari Lerner, who is challenging MAGA extremist Byron Donalds in Florida’s 19th congressional district and co-hosted a fundraiser for Blue CD2 New Mexico, a PAC devoted to re-electing Rep. Gabe Vasquez in New Mexico’s 2nd congressional district.

Like you, I have been weighed down by the relentless media attacks on Joe Biden and the “next-shoe-to-drop” statements by an increasingly long line of Democratic officials, pundits, and celebrities. It has been unsettling and dispiriting, even for me.

But after the two meetings today, I felt like a weight had been lifted from my shoulders. I was reminded once again of the Democratic Party's secret weapon: the millions of grassroots volunteers who began as members of “the resistance” in 2017 and have matured into a seasoned, professional, battle-tested citizen army ready to defend democracy.

I meet with grassroots groups a few times a week. There are usually a hundred or so volunteers on each call. Multiply those meetings and attendees by thousands of similar groups, and you will be looking at hundreds of thousands (or millions) of motivated volunteers. None of those volunteers were politically engaged before the 2016 election.

The sophistication and planning of the grassroots groups are impressive. They are data-focused, message-centric, and mission-driven. The grassroots groups are why political pollsters repeatedly missed predictions in the 2022 midterms and special elections in 2023 and 2024. As pollsters and pundits scratched their heads trying to figure out why they were wrong, the answer was staring them in the face: The under-appreciated, under-reported, and frequently disrespected grassroots movement.

Professional consultants and advisors often resent and fear grassroots groups because the groups do for free what the consultants and advisors get paid a fortune to do (often not as well as the grassroots groups).

There is nothing like viewing screenfuls of faces of dedicated volunteers who haven’t given up and aren’t buying the B.S. the media is selling. While I am frequently asked to provide inspirational and motivating remarks to the groups, I take inspiration and motivation from them every time I meet with a group.

What is so gratifying and confidence-inspiring is that the volunteers remain focused on the grinding work of neighborhood-level get-out-the-vote efforts despite the firestorm in the media over Joe Biden. Such efforts are the secret sauce and secret weapon of the unexpected Democratic success since 2022.

There is one more aspect to the grassroots movement that must be acknowledged. It is the 90% Rule. Like other constants in nature—the speed of light (c) and the gravitational constant (g)—the 90% Rule applies across all grassroots organizations. The 90% Rule describes the fact that on every call, in every meeting, in every action, women constitute 90% of the grassroots volunteer movement.

Women have been the backbone of “the resistance” and the pro-democracy movement since the Women’s March unleashed their collective power in 2017. And Black women have been at the center of the women’s resistance movement.

The overwhelming presence of women in the grassroots movement gives me great hope. It gives me hope because they understand and live the pain of being demoted to second-class citizens by the Dobbs decision. They are denied basic healthcare because gynecologists and obstetricians are fleeing hostile jurisdictions or refusing to practice their specialty for fear of prosecution or civil penalties. They feel most acutely the pain and trauma of LGBTQ children struggling to navigate an increasingly anti-LGBTQ world. They are the caregivers for elderly parents reliant on Medicare and Social Security to maintain their health and dignity in retirement.

If grassroots groups are the secret weapon of democracy, women are the not-so-secret weapon of grassroots groups. They feel the suffering and pain of our nation in a way that others do not. An attendee at the Blue CD2 New Mexico meeting today posted this saying by Coretta Scott King:

Women, if the soul of the nation is to be saved, I believe that you must become its soul.

Women in the grassroots movement have become the soul of the nation. While I hope and believe that Democrats will show up in overwhelming numbers in November, women will be motivated more than any other group to protect their liberty, their children, and their parents.

The volunteers on the two calls I attended today aren’t giving up. They continue in their effort to win the 2024 election one voter at a time. They are anxious and worried like the rest of us, but they act while many in the political world dither.

Action is the antidote to anxiety. And action in community is a sacred act that is uplifting and affirming. If you are not a member of a grassroots group, join one ASAP! You will feel more optimistic, and you will increase the chances of Democratic success up and down the ballot in November.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[sabakos]

I do still predict that the "next" political culture war issue will be polyamory. Probably a hot button issue of the 2034 midterm elections here in the U.S I think.

You might be skeptical if you note that this is at best a marginal issue that only affects 1-2% of Americans but have you seen what they've been saying about gender?

[planetofsnarfs]

Allan Lichtman, who has a near-perfect record of predicting presidential elections over the past 40 years, announced his pick this week for November’s showdown between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris.

The American University history professor told The New York Times he analyzes 13 “keys,” including midterm election gains, social unrest, charisma and scandal. The party and candidate to come out on top in seven or more of them is the winner. Lichtman says his election prediction system has correctly called almost every presidential election since 1984 — the exception being the results in 2000.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

By Jess Coleman

When, in December 2021, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin announced he would vote “no” on President Biden’s signature legislative proposal, the Build Back Better Act, the reaction boiled down to: “Well, what did you expect?” After all, Manchin, despite being a Democrat, is from deep-red West Virginia, and politicians from deep-red states simply cannot vote in favor of major progressive policies championed by the leader of the Democratic Party. That’s just politics, dummy. That Biden and his fellow Democrats even tried was treated in some circles as painfully naïve: Unless Democrats learn that basic lesson and bring centrists into the fold, they’ll never achieve a vibrant, sustainable majority. Or so sayeth the conventional wisdom.

So when Manchin announced last week that he is considering leaving the Democratic Party to become an independent, his rationale was hardly difficult to predict. “The brand has become so bad,” he said, drawing on the oft-repeated talking point that the Democrats have lept too far left. In other words—and in contravention of all logic, given the results of the 2022 midterms—Manchin simply cannot in good conscience remain with a party that, in substance and style, provides no room for leaders seeking to appeal to a moderate, bipartisan electorate.

Don’t be fooled. Manchin’s charade is hardly one of principle. It’s one of total desperation.

There are no secrets about Manchin’s political situation at home. After being reelected in 2018 by just 3%, in a year in which Democrats vastly outperformed expectations nationally, Manchin has an enormous hill to climb with his reelection looming in 2024. But the West Virginia Senator doesn’t seem to have much interest in taking responsibility for the electoral crisis in which he has enmeshed himself. Instead, he’d like us to believe the political forces around him have simply left him no choice: Both sides have drawn too far to the extremes, leaving no political home for the critical mass of centrist West Virginians who sent him to Washington. Hence the need to chart a new path on his own.

The framing echoes a convenient perspective that is adored by the media and political establishment: Elections are not won with base voters, but through a small slice of persuadable, moderate swing voters, perpetually lurking just outside of frame. Democrats, in turn, need to have some Joe Manchins—those politicians who embody the voters who are key to electoral success—lying around to be taken seriously. The failure to keep these soi-disant moderate saviors on hand reveals a fundamental structural deficiency for the party writ large.

But if it’s true that Manchin is such a political genius—uniquely capable of surviving as a Democrat in a deep red state—you would expect that his victory is owed to a broad cross section of voters from a variety of political camps. Alas, that’s the complete opposite of what happened in 2018. According to CNN exit polls, Manchin garnered the votes of 64% of those who identify as moderates, and just 23% of conservatives. Those numbers are roughly in line with what New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand achieved that same year: 70% and 18%, respectively. The reality is Manchin barely made it over the finish line in roughly the same way Democrats all around the country win their seats: by running up the numbers with voters on the political left—Manchin won 80% of self-identified liberals in 2018.

Indeed, as The New Republic’s Alex Pareene observed in 2021, Manchin is actually far more reliant on Democratic voters than many of his blue state counterparts. While someone like Gillibrand can afford to lose large swaths of Democrats in a state where they are in ample supply, Manchin needs to pull virtually every registered Democrat in his state to win. Against all logic, Manchin approached Biden’s first term as if the rules that governed his electoral hopes were precisely opposite to reality. Instead of rewarding his most loyal voters—dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrats—by delivering for them in Washington, Manchin has spent his latest term going out of his way to alienate his base and position himself in a political no man’s land: personally steamrolling key Democratic priorities while siding with his party on most routine issues and appointments.

In short, Manchin made a bet. He believed he could rely on the support of Democrats and spent nearly all his time trying to appeal to a tiny, if not nonexistent, group of voters who are up for grabs and have no real allegiance to either of the two dominant political parties. It hasn’t worked out the way Manchin anticipated, and this is where he now finds himself—orchestrating a last-ditch, hopeless effort to create a new political reality from thin air.

It is possible Manchin never had a shot at reelection, had fortune and circumstance not permitted him to avail himself of 2018’s political trends, we’d already have a Republican holding that West Virginia Senate seat. But the broader lesson is crucial for those in the media and elected leadership who constantly insist that disregarding the Democratic base in service of pursuing the allegedly vast rewards that come from focusing solely on the views of the so-called centrist, swing voters is the only viable path to victory in American politics. Those who subscribe to this view should explain why the two most notable Democrats who aggressively pursued this approach—Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin—are currently fighting for their political lives, while other red-state Democratic senators such as Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Jon Tester of Montana have consistently survived—and remain loyal to the party’s big priorities even when their electoral hopes face massive headwinds.

Mostly, we have to understand something simple about Manchin: We are not watching a political genius at work. He’s not on the verge of revealing a masterful plan to pull off another miracle in West Virginia. This is a desperate politician squirming for his political life after making a series of catastrophic political decisions. Manchin has hardly proven that the Democratic Party is mortally wounded due to its failure to leave room for the center left. All he’s done is reinforce a very basic rule in politics: Doing the opposite of what your voters want is an idiotic election strategy.

[originalleftist]

Why I Support Joe Biden:

Well, there are a lot of reasons. Like his infrastructure bill. Or support for marriage rights. Or the strong economy. Or his support for Ukraine. But there's one that really (pun not intended). trumps all the others.

In May of 2020, during the height of the election, Donald Trump retweeted "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat". He used his platform as President to call for the murder of tens of millions of his fellow citizens who's rights he'd sworn an oath to uphold. I will never forget the moment of realization that the President of my country had declared a war of extermination against me and my family, along with millions of other people. Nor will I forget that over 70 million people voted for him afterwards.

And then, on January 6th, they put that violent philosophy into practice in the most horrific possible way, when Trump incited and enabled an armed mob to invade the US Capitol and attempt to lynch members of Congress and his own Vice President. Several people died. Hundreds were injured. And it could have been so, so much worse. If they'd broken in a little faster, if the Congress had evacuated a little slower. I can imagine what might have been, if the timeline had been just a minute or two different. Members of Congress held hostage on live streaming, or lynched on the Capitol lawn. Congresswomen and their female staffers r*ped by the mob. The God Damn nuclear football, which the VP carries with him, in the hands of the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers. Any of which could have given Trump, the instigator, ample pretext to do what he really wanted, and invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy the military to remain in power.

I don't believe everyone would have gone along with that. But the likely outcome would then have been a civil war.

Look at images from Syria, or Sudan, or any other country in the middle of a civil war. Imagine those are your streets. Your home. Imagine a civil war in a nuclear power, something the world has never really experienced. We came so close to the brink. Just a minute, maybe.

"But Biden is old"- So what? He was fit enough to take a secret train ride into Ukraine. And if something happens to him, if he dies or falls ill or has to step down, that's literally what the VP is for. It's a possibility with every President. Or are you suddenly scared of the prospect of the VP taking over because she's a non-white woman (even that doesn't really make sense, because America already voted for her as VP in 2020, knowing it was possible she'd have to step in).

"I want someone younger"- Fair enough, but if you vote for Biden now, you can vote for someone younger in four years. Or you can let literal fascists win, and never vote again.

"I don't think Biden can win, his poll numbers are really bad"-Fuck the polls. Polls are, even at their best, just what a small number of voters thinks at that time. They are not prophecy. Polls predicted a red wave in the Midterms. They were wrong. Polls predicted Democrats would do badly a week ago. They were wrong. Democrats, led by Biden, have been excelling in every election cycle and special election since he took office.

The only poll that really counts is the one on Election Day.

Also, who exactly is the more electable alternative to Biden? If you want to believe polls, his three primary opponents COMBINED are currently polling at 16%.

"Biden/the Democrats don't get enough done."-The President is not a dictator. He cannot unilaterally do whatever he wants by decree. If you want Democrats to pass a strong progressive platform into legislation, give them clear majorities in the House and Senate to do so.

"Biden supports Israel's genocide of Gaza"-In fact, while expressing support for Israel following Hamas's brutal attack (which literally any president would have done, and rightly so), Biden has worked to avoid escalation, sought to delay the ground invasion of Gaza, pressured the Netanyahu regime for humanitarian aid and pauses, negotiated to get hostages released, opposed a long-term Israeli occupation of Gaza, and maintained support for a Palestinian state. Republicans, meanwhile, have been calling for a Muslim ban (one of Trump's signature policies), censuring the only Palestinian-American in Congress (a few Democrats voted with them, but the large majority did not), and even calling for the extermination of all Palestinians (in the case of one Florida legislator). Trump was strongly supported by Netanyahu.

"We made it through one Trump term." Well, one, a lot of people didn't (Covid deaths alone, Jesus). And two, just because you survived your first round of Russian roulette doesn't mean it's safe to go again.

"Both parties are the same"- Simply false, a narrative based on appeals to public cynicism and frustration and careful cherry picking of which issues to focus on. One party wants to violently overthrow the Constitution. The other does not. Also see abortion rights, gun violence, and a whole host of other issues.

"Democrats have to earn my vote"- What about the millions of people, in America and around the world, who will be stripped of their rights and even their lives if Republicans win? What do they have to do to earn your votes?

"I voted Democrat in 2020 and it didn't solve all these problems."-Frustration is fair, but systemic change does not happen overnight. It takes time, and hard work. It took America over a decade, and a world war, to get out of the Great Depression. It took most of a decade to win the Second World War. And that was with one party, one president, in the White House for most of that time. Even at the best of times, flipping back and forth between parties every four years because you're frustrated at the slow pace of progress is counterproductive. It's catastrophic when one of the parties is fascist, and has no intention of ever allowing the pendulum to swing back.

"I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils"- Okay, so leaving aside the fact that we all know a third party candidate is not going to win, who do you think is the better alternative? The corporate front that is No Labels? The Kremlin-sympathizing Cornell West? The literal Steve Bannon plant RFK Jr? Just being a third party candidate doesn't automatically make you a better option than the major parties. If Biden is the lesser evil, he is the least of many, not the lesser of two.

And, again, and I cannot stress this enough:

HE DOESN'T OPENLY PLAN TO MURDER HIS OPPONENTS.

"My one vote won't make a difference."- Nearly every major human achievement is a collaboration of many people. That does not make each individual contribution worthless. The Presidential election may not be decided by one vote (though local elections very well can be), but if enough people decide their one vote won't make a difference, boy, does it make a difference.

Them's the facts, America. And there's your mission. Don't fuck it up.

[mariacallous]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1810387774329204925.html

Joe Biden headed into the 2022 midterms with historically high numbers of voters saying the country and the economy were headed in the wrong direction. His approval ratings were at, or near, historic lows for a President in the midterms. Yet Dems did historically well. Why? Voters on both sides of the aisle believe their worldview is under threat and attack. The threat is existential. The candidates and party’s who lead the fights to protect them are far less important than the world view they’re trying to preserve.

This is why Republicans vote for the most flawed candidate in US history. No matter his deficiencies Trump is the candidate who fought and won for their side. Same for Biden. Elites and the media have been fueling an apocalyptic narrative for a decade. Why are they surprised that the base resents being told who they should be supporting because of a stylistic, or even substantive failing? For many pundits this is just a DC parlor game. Another exercise in following the insider herd mentality of politics. This hierarchal structure of politics has worked for most of our country’s history - but it’s collapsing in the digital age where voters are tired of being bullied by these gatekeepers. All politics is national now. The hierarchical structure of politics is gone. Republicans went through this process in 2016. A horrifically flawed candidate won a multi candidate field and became the nominee. The pundits & media said he could not win. The polling showed he could not win. Historical trend lines showed he could not win. He won.

Trump won because his base was intact. All campaigns in a negatively charged environment are base elections. If you don’t have a secure energized base you don’t have a campaign. You can’t appeal to swing or Independent voters until your base is secure. Ironically, the backlash of Dem base voters to the media and pundit meltdown might have the effect of firing up the base for Biden in a way nothing else could have. And if you have a fired up base four months before an election anyone saying you can’t win isn’t a serious person Biden has consistently outperformed his polling on Election Day throughout 2024, usually by wide margins. Trump has consistently underperformed his polling on Election Day throughout 2024, usually by wide margins. These are significant data points in assessing base support.

The recent polling shows Trump picking up GOP support. Ok, that’s expected. Same polls show Biden picking up Independent support. Extremely important data point. But what about Democrats? The after debate polls show Biden losing Dem support and going to…undecided. It’s a damn good bet that this vote comes back - probably very soon - but just in November. What’s the best way to get them back? Attack. Attack. Attack. For all the reasons outlined above there is every reason to believe that Biden begins to close the polling gap as Trump becomes the issue in the campaign. So when the naysayers point out Biden’s weaknesses and hammer them home continually they’re driving down Dem support levels

The WSJ poll shows Biden getting 86% of Dem voter support. Good numbers but down from 93% in February. If Biden consolidates this 7%+ of the base AND continues to pick up IND voters (both more likely than not) the race becomes not only competitive but begins to advantage him So when people ask “What’s the plan?” That’s the freakin plan. It all happens when the issue becomes Trump and the campaign goes on offense rather than listening to the arsonists lighting their own house on fire. This isn’t hypothetical btw. It’s predictable voter behavior. This isn’t some grand bank shot theory. It’s how voters are predisposed to vote anyway. The race is gonna bounce around for a bit. That’s normal. But it will consolidate along these lines and narrow.

Throwing a Hail Mary pass is sometimes a good idea in the last desparate throes of imminent defeat. But that’s never the case at the start of the second quarter. That’s essentially where the campaign is at.