mtutiger

One thing that would be an interesting addition to the discussion is the noticeable break between Trump's performance and Senate candidates in this cycle, as well as the fact that in the House, Dems are performing well enough that it could potentially lead to an even smaller majority. There might be a signal there for Dems... some of it Trump related, but some of it also a recalibration of it's thinking on allowing for more heterodox thought within the caucus. I don't think it's a coincidence that two Trump district Ds with heterodox thought compared to the caucus (Jared Golden and Marie Glueskamp Perez), both thought to be in the upper echelon of endangered Ds, are likely to hold on in their races. I understand why this is uncomfortable, but this truly is a country, for better or worse, where culture seems to be downstream of politics. Working class politics isn't enough.

Nobody is upset, I just don't think Scott Jennings (or CNN panels writ large) add much of anything to this discussion. They are a big problem we are in this mess.

Well, we're gonna find out aren't we?

Excellent thread.... seems more valuable than listening to Scott Jennings.

All cable news is garbage. And I don't need some panelist who spends his day shouting at other panelists to tell me what to think.

The House is going to be very very interesting... Like 218-217 in either direction interesting

North Carolina was overall a bright spot for Ds, although Robinson probably had a lot to do with that

Maybe somewhat related, but shifts among immigrant groups happen beyond the first generation quite a bit as they start to identify more as Americans and less as whatever their country of origin was. Muslims and Arabs are no different in this regard, IMO. This is particularly the case with Hispanic Americans, and to the extent that there are lessons to figure out coming out of this election, this is one that Democrats are really going to need to grapple with. By the time 2030 rolls around, the blue wall plus all the other states (assuming no huge behavioral changes beyond what we saw today) isn't going to be enough; the party is simply going to, at the very least, have to stanch the bleeding. If not build back trust and retake ground. The wildcard in all of this as well is what happens when Trump leaves the scene as well.... the sooner that happens, the easier the task IMO

But ultimately, the shift in rural areas and stagnation in the suburbs/exurbs are what did her in more than anything else, at least in Michigan.

I think this is right.... it's just really hard for me to look at what happened last night and see how running, say, Gretchen Whitmer or Josh Shapiro, changes much. Maybe a little on the margins, maybe Bob Casey wins the PA Senate seat if Shapiro is the nominee, but this was a referendum on the last four years of Biden, and I think any other candidates would have faced considerable headwinds in this environment. Also, if Biden had stayed in, this would have been much much worse. I think the switch, even if she isn't the ideal candidate, did provide some energy that helped in downballot races.

Also, the House majority is likely to be really really thin... assuming they pull it out. As we've learned this cycle, it's a really fractious caucus. Holding onto MI/WI/NV in the Senate is a big win considering how everything played out last night

Maybe he's just what the voters wanted this time?

Harris on average outrunning the rest of the states in the battleground states by margin of 1-2 points. I accept what Tigeraholic is saying as his own perspective, but the fact that she's doing better where she was campaigning/spending money suggests to me that it wasn't how she campaigned, it was a general anti-incumbent environment that no alternate candidate was likely to fix

As far as the blue wall is concerned, it's a question of whether what's left can save Casey, Baldwin and Slotkin. My guess is that it probably can, but it will be razor thin...

https://x.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1854020174464348615 Incredible if it happens

Personally think the US House could be very close...

Minnesota may land close to where NH did... It seems more decoupled from the rest of the Midwest than in 2016

I wouldn't be surprised if Michigan is the only one that holds, but even that is hard to tell at this point.

I'm sad, but I honestly cannot complain about the campaign she ran.... it just wasn't going to work with this electorate and with what is on the electorate's mind. Dark days ahead.

Trump seems to be overperforming House and Senate candidates in some races, so there may be a chance.... I wouldn't count on it tho.

Depends on what assumptions they are making on remaining votes...

Definitely not great

Mayor of Philly now saying up to 50-100k more votes than in 2020. That's right on track, pending what the rest of the commonwealth does.

Given how many votes were cast in early voting in GA, state will likely exceed 2020 turnout.

Another thing that's important to note, particularly on the point about black voters: we (pollsters, pundits and amateurs like us) focus on the margins *a lot* (ie. candidate X has lost 3% versus candidate Y compared to 2020). But.... if you take that margin and apply an increase in turnout across that group.... depending how large that increase in turnout is, candidate X will end up netting more raw votes among that group. Depending on how big that turnout is, potentially a lot of them. (Would also add that basically the only EV metric I ever focused or posted about on here was Detroit turnout - this is why) I think a lot of pundits and pollsters do a really terrible job of explaining this concept to people, to be blunt.