Your NY Mets no longer have the distinction of being the worst team in baseball history. And with 6 games remaining, the Chicago White Sox are all but assured to break the tie to have lost more than the current 120 games. Apologies to Sox fans.
My naïve baseball question: When will we finally see a non-American baseball team making its debut in the World Series? You know, to make it an actual World Series...
Now THAT would be historic! (Even more so if they’re playing the Mets.)
I didn't think it would come to this for the 2024 White Sox. Their sluggish start seemed unsustainable but when you have three losing streaks that add up to 47 losses, every loss beyond that adds up quickly. It's gonna be incredibly hard for this record to be broken in the future, even if the Sox manage to play above .500 for their remaining games.
I’m skeptical anything has happened from their previous pre debate polls that would move the race in Trumps direction and the Siena polls seem to be on the right end of “credible” polls. Doesn’t mean they’re for sure off the mark but seems like the outlier from the rest of the pack.
AZ Hispanic sub-sample is only Harris +8. I mean, I suppose we could see the entire state of Arizona pull a Rio Grande Valley, but it didn't in 2020, so I'm not sure why we should expect it to now...
Kelly in 2022 was +18 with latinos so depends on the race. Not sure what was so appealing by that evil creature Lake. Has there been slippage amongst Latinos across the board, yes.
Yeah, Hobbs won Santa Cruz county (83% Latino) by 33 points. No way that happens if Latinos are just D+4 statewide, especially as urban Latinos as a group consistently vote to the left of rural Latinos.
We lost more statewide races than we won in AZ in 2022, but traded up to Gov and AG. Most of our losing candidates, including SPI, made the mistake of going with AZ’s obsolete public funding system and got massively outspent.
We also have to elect candidates that can raise an adequate amount of money to compete for positions that are well funded by business interests (state mine inspector, corporation commission).
Of course there is work to do and these are probably Harris' 3 toughest swing states, but the NYT has been very much trying to drive a horse race narrative and the Siena polls often move contrary to other polling firms.
We do ourselves no favors by just rejecting polls we don't like. We were absolutely right to trash the "unskewed polls" nonsense that the Romney camp made in 2012. Let's not turn around and do the same thing.
It’s fair to point out a 10 point swing to Trump pre to post disaster debate is unlikely. That may mean the first Harris +5 poll was too optimistic or the more recent +5 Trump poll is too pessimistic or both are off. Pointing out werid swings is not the same as saying everything is fine do no work and ignore the polls (though in general that might be healthy). The article itself states that polling average is to the left of sienas polls. Siena May be more accurate than the average or less.
Their PA Harris +4 and national tied from a bit back is literaallly impossible in the physical universe we occupy.
A combo of bad sample, having to make 10,000 calls per respones, small minority responses with extrapolations, and, IMHO, a flawed model of the 2024 electorate.
Meanwhile, another day, another deeply unimpressive poll for Amy Klobuchar given her track record of domination against previous opponents far less awful than her current one.
There have been a handful of other polls all showing Klobuchar leading by similarly underwhelming margins. Seems like she's on the same trajectory as Chuck Schumer, who also used to win dominating bipartisan majorities but now doing little better than the typical partisan advantage of her state in a given cycle. Late-stage polarization rearing its ugly head.
I anticipated her rural support would be gone but figured she'd still manage a 20-point win based on her domination in the metro area with places like Scott and Carver counties onboard.
Take this with a grain of salt, but this morning on Morning Joe the usual pundits were talking about what they are hearing in private from Harris’ campaign…they are confident about Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and North Carolina. Less so about Arizona and Georgia. And PA is a pure tossup.
They are making a concerted push there and Robinson may be dragging down the entire GOP brand in the state. Charlotte is just exploding with growth and Raleigh/Durham is one of the most highly educated metros in the country.
The only kind of voters that care deeply enough about those details are partisan diehards to begin with. It could be that many PA voters could have been persuaded by choosing Shapiro, but there won't be any serious number of them that will refuse to vote for Harris because they're angry that she didn't choose Shapiro.
Surprising to hear that about North Carolina. For several cycles it's been an elusive target, but close enough in all manner of races (no Florida 2022 style Dem implosion) to keep firmly in sight. Their internal polling must be looking better than most public polling which shows it tied at best. and I don't think Mark Robinson's apparent implosion has THAT much upballot impact. Still, it's a big improvement from several months ago when the biggest question seemed to be if Trump coattails would carry Robinson through.
OTOH, their Pennsylvania polling must be less favourable than most public polling, which increasingly has shown the state moving out of "pure tossup" status, though far from locked up.
Really we have to win one of the following 3- Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina to win if we win Michigan,Wisconsin, and Nevada, where we have the best polls right now. Trump has to sweep these states.
This is the correct answer. Harris can't win without either PA, GA, or NC. These are the true tipping-point states. Most people have considered PA to be the main tipping-point state, since historically it has been bluer, but it's certainly possible for any of these three to become the state that pushes the winner over the line.
I think it has marginal up ballot impact and it's always been a marginal race, so campaign hard and let the chips fall where they may(I think the Robinson mess will manifest itself in the ground game, with the NCDP absolutely dominant)
I have nothing to base the following thought on other than hearing this talk for 20 years:
It seems like when you hear this talk, when it comes from Republicans it usually means they're one tick more pessimistic than what they're saying and when it comes from Democrats they're one tick more optimistic than what they're saying.
Always been this way in my over 40years of campaigns; Democrats are notorious bedwetters and Republicans are notorious blowhards(I actually think this is a good thing because Republicans a lot of times become complacent as a result)
Which shows you just how bad a national campaign she ran; and even then, Trump basically hit an inside straight(to use a poker term); while losing the popular vote by almost 3 Million votes
When you're talking to people who are on Morning Joe its more about the type of message you're trying to put forth than an accurate representation of how you actually feel.
Last time, Wisconsin was the closest, with a substantial margin between them and Pennsylvania, at least in terms of raw votes, but of course Pennsylvania is a much more populous state.
And the time before that was 1976; interesting to me is that in 1976, Carter won Pennsylvania, and lost New Jersey and Connecticut(had Carter lost Pennsylvania, the electoral college would have been Carter 270\Ford 267; there was a faithless elector I assume)
I can see how you get to a 3-4 point win in Wisconsin, Trump has largely crested in the rural areas, the suburbs continue to turn blue and the Dane population growth continues. I think if you get that, even with a slight improvement in PA, you could still very easily have a bigger margin in WI than PA.
1) State chair Ben Wikler is the best Dem chair in the country, IMHO.
2) WI Dems, after taking back the state SCT, and getting fair districts for the state (but not Congressional!) lines, really have a shot at taking back the state Assembly and have a shot to make Senate 8nroads as well.
3) Kamala spent some time Madison as a child. A chance to vote for one of your own usually helps.
4) Walz will have a bit more impact in WI than PA.
Glad that changing it right before the election looks dead in the water.
That said, if they change to winner take all in 2025 and Maine follows suite, I'd consider it a net gain. Removes uncertainty from the system so that we never need to go through this again. It also gets rid of the last vestiges of a failed experiment on electoral vote allocation. One of the last things we want is for more states to consider adopting the EV-by-CD system.
On paper I agree, but then I think about how complex it would be in practice that I start to dislike it. If we're going to change the system it should be to make it a straight up national popular vote.
The issue with per-state proportionality is that EVs represent individual voters in the EC, so fractional EVs do not exist. Each state would instead have EV thresholds that determine how the EVs are allocated. Depending on how those allocations work out, it could end up even less democratic than the current system. It does have the potential to be better, too, but it's a lot of change for minimal upside even if it does work well.
The risk/reward ratio is bad, and the risk/reward/difficulty is even worse. The difficulty of achieving a national popular vote is arguably lower while having far greater reward for the country.
I agree! And I meant the experiment as a transition to straight-up national popular vote.
The problem now is that voters in more than 40 states are essentially disenfranchised with regards to their presidential vote. The result in their state is given and thus their vote is irrelevant. Seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that concentrates presidential campaigning to less than ten swing states – while sidelining the rest of the country.
Or just do away with it completely! No need to make weird fixes around the edges that would take a constitutional amendment when you could just get rid of the electoral college with a constitutional amendment
Truth Social market update; selling at $12.15 at closing(it's lowest market closing to date; and still falling); also, the S& P closed today at an all-time high in comparison
NEW: Rep Anthony D'Esposito had an affair — and put his lover on his congressional payroll, according to three people familiar w/the relationship + the mistress's ex-husband.
It was one of a pair of hires that may violate House ethics rules.
It's a great question; imo it's a combination of candidate quality, money, and especially campaign organization(Trump has foolishly outsourced GOTV to grifters; while the Reid machine\Culinary Union is famous for its efficiency); I try to read Ralston about every other week to keep updated(and Sabato weekly as well as this site daily)
"This coalition that’s being created right now by Kamala Harris and Tim Walz is not just one to watch, but it’s going to be one that the history books will study, when, I think, she takes this thing to victory,” Steele said in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart.”
The diarist wonders "what insider polls Michael Steele has access to." Is there any reason for us to think he has access to any? I'm skeptical.
Democratic Candidate Lucas Kunce's rally is getting packed attendees. Based on the pictures with a recent tweet by Kunce, these attendees are fired up. This on top of a recent internal poll showing Kunce is four points behind and the fact that he's consistently outraised Josh Hawley, this is not a race that's a fool's gold.
I am rating this Likely Republican. Feel free to disagree if you may but I have no reason to believe this is race with an extremely low chance of Kunce winning.
I think it is fool's gold. I recall that Mondale had big crowds at his rallies late in the 1984 election campaign. Likely-R is generous but might be warranted. Race to watch only, IMO, and presumptively safe R.
Imo if(this is huuuuuuge if); MO Senate is even competitive; then, Florida and Texas are already won by the Democratic candidate; honestly, I think all 3 are unlikely to say the least
Yes, if we're winning Missouri, we've already had a phenomenal night that utterly shatters all even vaguely realistic expectations - our 99.9th percentile, so to speak.
I think we have less than a one half of one percent chance to win Missouri. It would be just shy of a literal miracle. Nothing to even vaguely worry about or hope for.
Regardless of the outcome of the race, there's something important that often gets ignored here - actually having prolific campaigns with credible candidates means that both the party and candidate get more visibility. Moreover, it means that voters are more engaged on the issues and future campaign infrastructure is set up. This is the true value of the 50 state strategy - no one gets left behind and written off. As we've seen countless times in the past, constituents and voters that are neglected are at risk of losing engagement and are often easily influenced and manipulated by dubious media platforms like conservative radio and sites like Newsmax. It's much easier to push back against those influences and narratives when you have a popular candidate, especially if they're well funded and willing to do the hands on outreach.
Off topic, but congratulations to David Nir.
Your NY Mets no longer have the distinction of being the worst team in baseball history. And with 6 games remaining, the Chicago White Sox are all but assured to break the tie to have lost more than the current 120 games. Apologies to Sox fans.
My naïve baseball question: When will we finally see a non-American baseball team making its debut in the World Series? You know, to make it an actual World Series...
Now THAT would be historic! (Even more so if they’re playing the Mets.)
The Toronto Blue Jays won in 1992 & 1993.
yeah, but a Canadian is just an American without a gun (h/t, Dave Foley)
I didn't think it would come to this for the 2024 White Sox. Their sluggish start seemed unsustainable but when you have three losing streaks that add up to 47 losses, every loss beyond that adds up quickly. It's gonna be incredibly hard for this record to be broken in the future, even if the Sox manage to play above .500 for their remaining games.
NYTimes polls
AZ Trump +5
GA Trump +4
NC Trump +2
I’m skeptical anything has happened from their previous pre debate polls that would move the race in Trumps direction and the Siena polls seem to be on the right end of “credible” polls. Doesn’t mean they’re for sure off the mark but seems like the outlier from the rest of the pack.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/us/politics/times-siena-polls-arizona-georgia-north-carolina.html?unlocked_article_code=1.M04.8WFl.4SE9eKAiq7S6&smid=url-share
I’d say far-right end of credible.
That said, I keep hoping to see national polls and polls in a handful of swing states move to +5 Harris.
AZ Hispanic sub-sample is only Harris +8. I mean, I suppose we could see the entire state of Arizona pull a Rio Grande Valley, but it didn't in 2020, so I'm not sure why we should expect it to now...
It also didn't in 2022, when the only major statewide race we lost was superintendent of education.
We also lost the AZ Treasurer race, but that was never expected to be competitive.
They also ran a normal Republican that we didn't legitimately challenge.
Actually exit polls said Hobbs only won Latinos by +4, she increased her percentage of whites compared to Biden which she only lost by a point 49-50
Does that track that Arizona Latinos have become that Republican?
Kelly in 2022 was +18 with latinos so depends on the race. Not sure what was so appealing by that evil creature Lake. Has there been slippage amongst Latinos across the board, yes.
I don't think so, not if you look at precinct-level data.
Just another indication that exit polls not designed to accurately sub sample minorities will not do so.
I can tell you right now there is no way that accurately reflects actual voting.
Yeah, Hobbs won Santa Cruz county (83% Latino) by 33 points. No way that happens if Latinos are just D+4 statewide, especially as urban Latinos as a group consistently vote to the left of rural Latinos.
We lost more statewide races than we won in AZ in 2022, but traded up to Gov and AG. Most of our losing candidates, including SPI, made the mistake of going with AZ’s obsolete public funding system and got massively outspent.
Hopefully a lesson learned
Only if we nominate candidates who give up this notion of public funding because “right thing to do.”
We also have to elect candidates that can raise an adequate amount of money to compete for positions that are well funded by business interests (state mine inspector, corporation commission).
There's work to do. Ignoring polls because they aren't positive is a bad idea.
Yeah never said there was no work to do or to ignore the polls just pointing out what’s In The article.
More like work should continue as opposed to arguing Harris is behind.
Of course there is work to do and these are probably Harris' 3 toughest swing states, but the NYT has been very much trying to drive a horse race narrative and the Siena polls often move contrary to other polling firms.
The swing of AZ from +5 Harris pre debate to +5 Trump post-debate is nonsensical.
Now seems like a good time to start ignoring the polls and just focus on GOTV in any of the 7 key swing states.
We do ourselves no favors by just rejecting polls we don't like. We were absolutely right to trash the "unskewed polls" nonsense that the Romney camp made in 2012. Let's not turn around and do the same thing.
It’s fair to point out a 10 point swing to Trump pre to post disaster debate is unlikely. That may mean the first Harris +5 poll was too optimistic or the more recent +5 Trump poll is too pessimistic or both are off. Pointing out werid swings is not the same as saying everything is fine do no work and ignore the polls (though in general that might be healthy). The article itself states that polling average is to the left of sienas polls. Siena May be more accurate than the average or less.
I'll take door #3 (both off). Harris probably isn't behind in AZ by 5 now, and likely never was or will be up by 5 there either.
Less than a point win in both 2020 and 2022 lends one to believe neither is correct.
Nah, just NYT.
Their PA Harris +4 and national tied from a bit back is literaallly impossible in the physical universe we occupy.
A combo of bad sample, having to make 10,000 calls per respones, small minority responses with extrapolations, and, IMHO, a flawed model of the 2024 electorate.
Harris +6 in Wisconsin (+7 two/way) per MassINC (A+ rating on FiveThirtyEight):
https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/09/harris-trump-wisconsin-watch-poll-voters-election-president/
Minnesota Star Tribune Poll. Not sure if this has been covered yet or not.
Harris 48
Trump 43
https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-poll-harris-leads-trump-in-close-presidential-race/601150023
Meanwhile, another day, another deeply unimpressive poll for Amy Klobuchar given her track record of domination against previous opponents far less awful than her current one.
Klobuchar 51
White 40
https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-poll-harris-leads-trump-in-close-presidential-race/601150023
That's underestimating Klobuchar, which makes me think the poll as a whole is a bit too R-heavy.
There have been a handful of other polls all showing Klobuchar leading by similarly underwhelming margins. Seems like she's on the same trajectory as Chuck Schumer, who also used to win dominating bipartisan majorities but now doing little better than the typical partisan advantage of her state in a given cycle. Late-stage polarization rearing its ugly head.
I'm guessing her rural support dried up just like everywhere else, this is where we are in 2024.
I anticipated her rural support would be gone but figured she'd still manage a 20-point win based on her domination in the metro area with places like Scott and Carver counties onboard.
It'll be interesting to see what the actual election results are. I'll look forward to your analysis of them.
Her current opponent is a smarter but lesser known Mark Robinson; I think klobuchar crushes this Clown in the end
Take this with a grain of salt, but this morning on Morning Joe the usual pundits were talking about what they are hearing in private from Harris’ campaign…they are confident about Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and North Carolina. Less so about Arizona and Georgia. And PA is a pure tossup.
Interesting. I'd have figured a little more confidence about Georgia and less about Wisconsin and North Carolina.
I still think Georgia is more likely than North Carolina.
I think Mark Robinson is a God send
Confident about North Carolina? That's a surprise.
They are making a concerted push there and Robinson may be dragging down the entire GOP brand in the state. Charlotte is just exploding with growth and Raleigh/Durham is one of the most highly educated metros in the country.
thats definitely good information to know, but of course their judgements could be wrong. I'd be more bullish on PA and perhaps less on NC.
There may still be hard feelings in PA over Harris choosing Walz and not Shapiro as VP.
Doubt this; Pennsylvania was\is a marginal race and hopefully we win the all important ground war
The only kind of voters that care deeply enough about those details are partisan diehards to begin with. It could be that many PA voters could have been persuaded by choosing Shapiro, but there won't be any serious number of them that will refuse to vote for Harris because they're angry that she didn't choose Shapiro.
The alternative is Trump; by election day, defeating Trump will take precedence
We'll take NC and NV which total 22 electoral votes, because if we get Wisconsin and Michigan, Pennsylvania wouldn't matter, nor would Nebraska.
Imo if we win NC; we've already won Pennsylvania
For those curious: MI+WI+NV+NC is 272 & ballgame. (273 if we still count NE-2)
Surprising to hear that about North Carolina. For several cycles it's been an elusive target, but close enough in all manner of races (no Florida 2022 style Dem implosion) to keep firmly in sight. Their internal polling must be looking better than most public polling which shows it tied at best. and I don't think Mark Robinson's apparent implosion has THAT much upballot impact. Still, it's a big improvement from several months ago when the biggest question seemed to be if Trump coattails would carry Robinson through.
OTOH, their Pennsylvania polling must be less favourable than most public polling, which increasingly has shown the state moving out of "pure tossup" status, though far from locked up.
Pennsylvania is the whole ballgame, so saying it is anything but a tossup would be political malpractice.
It's only the whole ballgame if we don't get NC though.
Really we have to win one of the following 3- Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina to win if we win Michigan,Wisconsin, and Nevada, where we have the best polls right now. Trump has to sweep these states.
This is the correct answer. Harris can't win without either PA, GA, or NC. These are the true tipping-point states. Most people have considered PA to be the main tipping-point state, since historically it has been bluer, but it's certainly possible for any of these three to become the state that pushes the winner over the line.
Is it, if it's stated privately, without attribution?
I think it has marginal up ballot impact and it's always been a marginal race, so campaign hard and let the chips fall where they may(I think the Robinson mess will manifest itself in the ground game, with the NCDP absolutely dominant)
I have nothing to base the following thought on other than hearing this talk for 20 years:
It seems like when you hear this talk, when it comes from Republicans it usually means they're one tick more pessimistic than what they're saying and when it comes from Democrats they're one tick more optimistic than what they're saying.
Always been this way in my over 40years of campaigns; Democrats are notorious bedwetters and Republicans are notorious blowhards(I actually think this is a good thing because Republicans a lot of times become complacent as a result)
With the exception of the Hillary Clinton campaign, right?
Which shows you just how bad a national campaign she ran; and even then, Trump basically hit an inside straight(to use a poker term); while losing the popular vote by almost 3 Million votes
When you're talking to people who are on Morning Joe its more about the type of message you're trying to put forth than an accurate representation of how you actually feel.
That's close to how I'd view it.
Very good: MI
Good: WI, NV
Better than OK: PA, NC
Tossup: AZ, GA
Very good:MI, WI
Good: NV
Better than Ok:PA, AZ
Tossup:NC, GA
What would account for a better performance in Wisconsin than Pennsylvania?
Not speaking for climate hawk, but imo Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will eventually vote all the same way(with marginal differences)
Last time, Wisconsin was the closest, with a substantial margin between them and Pennsylvania, at least in terms of raw votes, but of course Pennsylvania is a much more populous state.
I am going to work backwards and see the last time that they didn't vote the same(I honestly can't recall, so might be telling); and then I will post
In 1988 the 3 didn't vote the same; imo the pattern will be same this year
And the time before that was 1976; interesting to me is that in 1976, Carter won Pennsylvania, and lost New Jersey and Connecticut(had Carter lost Pennsylvania, the electoral college would have been Carter 270\Ford 267; there was a faithless elector I assume)
I can see how you get to a 3-4 point win in Wisconsin, Trump has largely crested in the rural areas, the suburbs continue to turn blue and the Dane population growth continues. I think if you get that, even with a slight improvement in PA, you could still very easily have a bigger margin in WI than PA.
For me, a couple things.
1) State chair Ben Wikler is the best Dem chair in the country, IMHO.
2) WI Dems, after taking back the state SCT, and getting fair districts for the state (but not Congressional!) lines, really have a shot at taking back the state Assembly and have a shot to make Senate 8nroads as well.
3) Kamala spent some time Madison as a child. A chance to vote for one of your own usually helps.
4) Walz will have a bit more impact in WI than PA.
McDonnell says he won't vote to change electoral college rules before the election. Winner-take-all seems to be dead. https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/23/politics/nebraska-election-law-trump/index.html
It was my understanding that there were always 3 non negotiable votes(holding the balance of power)
Glad that changing it right before the election looks dead in the water.
That said, if they change to winner take all in 2025 and Maine follows suite, I'd consider it a net gain. Removes uncertainty from the system so that we never need to go through this again. It also gets rid of the last vestiges of a failed experiment on electoral vote allocation. One of the last things we want is for more states to consider adopting the EV-by-CD system.
A better experiment is for states to allocate Electoral Votes proportionally to the popular vote.
On paper I agree, but then I think about how complex it would be in practice that I start to dislike it. If we're going to change the system it should be to make it a straight up national popular vote.
The issue with per-state proportionality is that EVs represent individual voters in the EC, so fractional EVs do not exist. Each state would instead have EV thresholds that determine how the EVs are allocated. Depending on how those allocations work out, it could end up even less democratic than the current system. It does have the potential to be better, too, but it's a lot of change for minimal upside even if it does work well.
The risk/reward ratio is bad, and the risk/reward/difficulty is even worse. The difficulty of achieving a national popular vote is arguably lower while having far greater reward for the country.
I agree! And I meant the experiment as a transition to straight-up national popular vote.
The problem now is that voters in more than 40 states are essentially disenfranchised with regards to their presidential vote. The result in their state is given and thus their vote is irrelevant. Seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that concentrates presidential campaigning to less than ten swing states – while sidelining the rest of the country.
The better experiment is abolition imo
Or just do away with it completely! No need to make weird fixes around the edges that would take a constitutional amendment when you could just get rid of the electoral college with a constitutional amendment
Except the chances of passing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College are ... exactly Zero.
Well, yes, but they are also zero for making the EC proportional, which was the original suggestion
That can be done state by state. Likewise with joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
https://politicalwire.com/2024/09/23/republican-governors-pull-plug-on-north-carolina/ The Republican Governors Association plans no additional spending there. I think we can say now that that race is well and truly over.
Truth Social market update; selling at $12.15 at closing(it's lowest market closing to date; and still falling); also, the S& P closed today at an all-time high in comparison
In the day in worm-eaten brains, we have https://politicalwire.com/2024/09/23/rfk-jr-wants-his-name-put-back-on-new-york-ballot/ Huh?
https://politicalwire.com/2024/09/23/woman-charged-with-murder-after-losing-her-pregnancy/ In South Carolina. Miscarriage is murder. The Democrats have to campaign on this, and fuck the Supreme Court for doing this to us, and to her.
https://politicalwire.com/2024/09/23/former-maine-gop-chairs-endorse-harris/
Three former chairs of the Maine Republican Party “enthusiastically” endorsed Kamala Harris for president in the Bangor Daily News.
https://politicalwire.com/2024/09/23/democrats-are-outspending-republicans-nationwide/ The differential on political ads is "about a half-billion dollars since Aug. 1". Wow! Just as long as they're not relying on those over personal contacts with voters.
NEW: Rep Anthony D'Esposito had an affair — and put his lover on his congressional payroll, according to three people familiar w/the relationship + the mistress's ex-husband.
It was one of a pair of hires that may violate House ethics rules.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/nyregion/anthony-desposito-affair-congress.html?unlocked_article_code=1.M04.6sdO.bAftmaRnv2Fq&smid=url-share
Seems to me D’Esposito just blew his re-election chances here.
Isn’t NY-04 a Lean Blue District?
Yes. Good chance he would have lost anyway.
Excellent! One House seat coming up for Democrats.
Keep 'em coming.
Maybe, because of the corruption and probably not so much the affair per se.
I have to think having Santos next door so recently that tolerance for corruption/affairs is lower than usual.
Corruption, yes. I don't know if New Yorkers are prudes.
Imo putting her on the payroll is the actual killer
Thank you for the Ralston Nevada updates; seems likely that the Senate race might get triaged by the Republicans
Why are they so bearish on Nevada?
It's a great question; imo it's a combination of candidate quality, money, and especially campaign organization(Trump has foolishly outsourced GOTV to grifters; while the Reid machine\Culinary Union is famous for its efficiency); I try to read Ralston about every other week to keep updated(and Sabato weekly as well as this site daily)
A diary on Daily Kos is playing up these remarks by former RNC Chairman and current critic of the Republicans, Michael Steele:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/23/2272375/-Former-RNC-Chair-Michael-Steele-Says-Kamala-Will-Win-Florida-North-Carolina-and-Georgia
"This coalition that’s being created right now by Kamala Harris and Tim Walz is not just one to watch, but it’s going to be one that the history books will study, when, I think, she takes this thing to victory,” Steele said in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart.”
The diarist wonders "what insider polls Michael Steele has access to." Is there any reason for us to think he has access to any? I'm skeptical.
MO-SEN Race:
Democratic Candidate Lucas Kunce's rally is getting packed attendees. Based on the pictures with a recent tweet by Kunce, these attendees are fired up. This on top of a recent internal poll showing Kunce is four points behind and the fact that he's consistently outraised Josh Hawley, this is not a race that's a fool's gold.
I am rating this Likely Republican. Feel free to disagree if you may but I have no reason to believe this is race with an extremely low chance of Kunce winning.
https://x.com/LucasKunceMO/status/1837562255946240012?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
I think it is fool's gold. I recall that Mondale had big crowds at his rallies late in the 1984 election campaign. Likely-R is generous but might be warranted. Race to watch only, IMO, and presumptively safe R.
Imo if(this is huuuuuuge if); MO Senate is even competitive; then, Florida and Texas are already won by the Democratic candidate; honestly, I think all 3 are unlikely to say the least
Yes, if we're winning Missouri, we've already had a phenomenal night that utterly shatters all even vaguely realistic expectations - our 99.9th percentile, so to speak.
I think we have less than a one half of one percent chance to win Missouri. It would be just shy of a literal miracle. Nothing to even vaguely worry about or hope for.
Kunce should be praised for his efforts and maybe even given a post in the Harris administration
Regardless of the outcome of the race, there's something important that often gets ignored here - actually having prolific campaigns with credible candidates means that both the party and candidate get more visibility. Moreover, it means that voters are more engaged on the issues and future campaign infrastructure is set up. This is the true value of the 50 state strategy - no one gets left behind and written off. As we've seen countless times in the past, constituents and voters that are neglected are at risk of losing engagement and are often easily influenced and manipulated by dubious media platforms like conservative radio and sites like Newsmax. It's much easier to push back against those influences and narratives when you have a popular candidate, especially if they're well funded and willing to do the hands on outreach.