Like their wannabee boss they have ZERO shame. People who think that Republicans are going to change their behavior if they lose are only fooling themselves. This is Orange Slob's party.
Just filled up my tank for my weekend trip; I paid $2.70\gal; I am in New Smyrna Beach, Florida for reference; what are the gas prices for you folks? (And where); thanks for your posts
Waiting for a price spike with the significant jump in crude prices this week. Paid $4.54 for mid-grade in South Orange County, CA. Interesting side note that at Chevron stations here there are advertisements from Chevron blaming CA politicians for the high prices and Chevron stations have far and away the highest of them all...at least in SOC.
Just filled up for $2.68 on Thursday in Des Moines. Nervous about the the Middle East situation disrupting the decline at exactly the wrong time. Oil prices are up like $7 per barrel in the past week.
In Florida; obviously the big race is the Senate race; but, I'm really hoping that the Democratic candidate against Anna Paulina Luna can prevail(it's one of those difficult but not impossible races); and there is always the chance that Luna will do something batshit crazy between now and November 5
When I saw recently that one of her opponents was charged with planning to murder her (or something), I was afraid it was her Democratic opponent. Glad it turned out to be her 2022 GOP opponent.
Whitney Fox, her current Democratic opponent, is a great candidate. And it's not that Republican a district (R+6 according to Cook Political).
Yes. The 13th is the best opportunity for a House seat flip in Florida, both because its partisan lean is only R+6 and because Luna is an absolute loon.
But In think the best Florida opportunity overall -- and by far the biggest prize -- is in the Senate race. Polls show Murcasel-Powell about 4 points behind unpopular incumbent Voldemort Scott, there's an abortion referendum on the ballot. If she wins and Brown, Tester or Allred win, we likely keep control of the Senate.
Those numbers seem very reasonable. My optimistic side tells me there is going to be a shift toward our side, particularly re the house--and hopefully toward Harris.
"What if he is right" is not a compelling reason to give credence to someone's predictions.
Everyone here wants Kamala Harris to be our next president. I'm pretty sure no one here needs to be convinced that she can win. Even if anyone feels there's a strong tilt in the election towards one candidate or another, it's hard to argue that the election is locked up at this stage.
I think you have a different interpretation of what I am arguing.
Gore won the election (even Nader knows this) but he didn’t run the best campaign. That’s my overall point. He also ran away from President Clinton a bit by choosing Joe Lieberman to appeal to conservative voters. He could have gotten more of the voters on the left that would have otherwise voted Green. Gore also became more liberal and a global warming alarmist after the 2000 election.
Agree with what you’re saying about Gore combating global warming. Just mentioning I’m talking about Gore’s campaign, not about voting for him or not.
That's about where I am, but I might have the Senate around 30%. Tester's clearly trailing in the polls. Similarly, I think at this point Trump needs either a systematic polling error or a favorable October surprise. Pennsylvania isn't nearly as close as 538 says it is once you take out the GOP troll polls.
Partly because the allocation of votes per Congressional district now seems to tilt in favor of narrow Democratic victories in more places. It used to be that Democratic voters were so concentrated in cities that it greatly diluted their strength elsewhere. Now Republican voters are so concentrated in rural areas that it's diluting their strength in the suburbs at least as much. Add in the fact that places like Louisiana and Alabama are poised to get new Democratic members of Congress and I think House control is as much or even more of a coin flip than Harris winning.
Interesting to me to see the wide discrepancy in predictions here so far with the three people who have given percentages. I can see the argument for the pessimistic, optimistic, and middle-ground views expressed here. There's a reasonable path for any of them to be correct.
I'm terrible at making straight up predictions and go out of my way to avoid doing so. I prefer looking at things from a more hierarchical view.
My hierarchical view: we're slightly more likely to win the presidency than to win the house, and we're far more likely to win the house than the senate. Presidency > House >> Senate.
I like doing it this way as it forces me to look at it without my emotional preferences biasing my view. The criticality of winning the presidency every four years biases my ability to assign any reasonable probability to winning, and any attempt to correct for my preferences risks over-adjusting in the opposite direction, or missing that things actually are as good as I want them to be.
But this approach doesn't have that problem. Winning everything is important, and it's just viewing which is more likely to happen. I like this for individual races and states too.
Hey everyone, A big plus this site has over DKE is that you can edit your comments after posting. No more embarrasing typos. And when you really screw up (as I have done), or reply at the wrong place, you can delete your comment or cut and paste it where it belongs.
Click “Edit” then write and rewrite as to your heart’s content!
I’m not entirely sure what’s making you believe you can’t edit posts, but I thought I should let you know that after you edit a post here, the edited post does NOT show up for you on your screen right away. You must refresh the page for the edited version to show up. I was confused at first myself thinking it was weird I couldn’t edit until figuring that out.
Now that we're a month out from the election, I'm curious what peoples' thoughts are on which counties will flip at the presidential level this year. In 2020, there were 555 Biden counties and 2588 Trump counties, ranging from Kalawao County, HI (23-1 Biden) to Roberts County, TX (529-17 Trump). (County meaning county-equivalent throughout this thread.) Adjusting for counties that were eliminated in 2013 and added in 2019, we have 473 Obama-Clinton-Biden, 17 Romney-Clinton-Biden, 30 Obama-Trump-Biden, 35 Romney-Trump-Biden, 15 Obama-Clinton-Trump, 1 Romney-Clinton-Trump, 191 Obama-Trump-Trump, and 2380 Romney-Trump-Trump counties. That makes for a total of 18 Romney-Clinton and 221 Obama-Trump flips, then 65 Trump-Biden and 16 Clinton-Trump flips. There are 69 Trump and 64 Biden counties that flip under at least one of four scenarios: direct trends from 2016 to 2020 via 2-party % and raw vote, and 3/2 trends from 2012 to 2020 via 2-party % and raw vote. Those 69 Trump counties cast 7.2 million votes in 2020 and the 64 Biden Counties cast 4.5 million; counties projected to flip by median projection cast 4.3 million and 2.0 million, although the latter would drop to 2.1 million if Harris can retain Pinellas and Stanislaus, whose projected flips are by less than 0.3%. A few notes: some COVID migration patterns have stopped or reversed, potentially reducing the leftward trend of some beautiful but not commuter-friendly counties; some of what Trump did should be near-impossible to duplicate (e.g. in Biden's worst-performance county by %-trend, Starr County, TX, Biden nearly matched Hillary's vote total, but Trump added 6k to his, more than tripling his previous vote total; I suspect he'll flip the county, but not by near as much as trendlines would indicate).
Below I've listed out those counties by the median projected 2-party%, along with the number of scenarios under which it flips, the 2020 2-party margin with the projection, the number of votes it cast in 2020, and the last year that it voted the other way presidentially.
"Mintt, a mail tracking firm, found that in September, 81 percent of all direct mail sent was promoting Mr. Trump or attacking Ms. Harris. In August, the imbalance had been even more severe: 96 percent of all direct mail relating to the presidential race was sent by Republican groups, the firm found."
Direct mail is a huge part of the republican campaign related graft industry and conservatives also lean heavily on it for fundraising despite the huge costs associated with it.
It's main purpose is to keep the grift going; guaranteed that Trump\family is getting a certain percentage of all mailings that have RNC\associated Committee links plus a certain percentage off of all WinRed fees as well as all contributions to RNC various campaign committees
One thing I want to get off my chest is my strong belief that the description of conservatives and MAGA fans in particular as "low-trust" is a huge misnomer. I find these sorts of people to be extraordinarily trusting. They just put all their trust in the stupidest, least-deserving people on the planet. I've seen true genuine "don't trust anyone" types. They are too few in number and have beliefs that are far too inscrutable to ever align as unquestioningly and formidably with anyone as MAGA types have with Donald Trump. (Some of those types may vote Trump anyway, some may vote Harris, both for reasons that can't be easily understood, but that's all besides the point.)
What I'm getting at here is that it's foolish and counterproductive to approach people as if they're not easily capable of trusting anyone, when in reality it's just that they don't trust *us*. And they won't ever trust us as long as the people they do trust tell them we're not trustworthy.
You're absolutely right. It's bizarre how people disbelieve in science but believe their pastor or some other crackpot who tells them to take ivermectin for COVID.
You're pretty close with the statement "they don't trust 'us.'" They trust people identified with their group - the people who adhere to the "correct" social hierarchy, and don't trust people, institutions, etc, that they identify as being out of the "correct" bounds.
It's low institutional trust, and the credulous are both more susceptible to the intentional creation of such distrust by malign actors as well as to allowing the vacuum of idea space created by such distrust to be filled by, unavoidably, less credible sources. Absent acceptance of institutional authority, other sources of apparent legitimacy, such as group affinity, take a larger share in filling the space.
I would again say that imo it's not really a lack of institutional trust; they fully trust institutions (and certainly enjoy flexing institutional power) just as long as people they trust are running them.
I always thought of "institutional trust" as "belief that an institution can do what it's supposed to do", and that one can have low trust in an institution even if someone they have high regard for is in control of it. But I see MAGA not really doing that. They seem to believe the institutions they control are capable of achieving what they want to achieve.
“Hurricane Helene hit especially hard in heavily Republican areas of Georgia and North Carolina — a fact that could work to Donald Trump’s disadvantage in the two swing states,” Politico reports.
New York Times: “Despite the many debunked falsehoods about widespread voting by noncitizens, liberal Latino advocacy groups say they are being trailed by conservative activists with cameras and accused of registering undocumented immigrants.”
Back when CA had precinct voting and I had been a roving district supervisor, at our training class, a to be maga person asked about the Democrats committing voter fraud. The class was being taught by a higher up at the ROV and in the last election he said there had been exactly 4 cases of voter fraud. All 4 were Republicans who registered late, but had already gotten ballots elsewhere. 2 in Maricopa County AZ, 1 in Clark County NV, one in LA county and he indicated the ability to do that within CA had been fixed.
All 4 were turned over to the DA who settled for a several thousand dollar civil settlement in lieu of criminal prosecution. A pretty good deterrent for fraudulently casting one illegal vote.
Wow. This part of AZ does have a reputation for electing unhinged crazies on the GOP side, even in competitive seats, but their nomination of said nutjobs has been our superpower in terms of overcoming GOP lean here more often than we otherwise would. Crane is working hard to give us a shot...
R+6 is out of reach even for a first tier candidate here unless Crane is first destroyed with the narrow margin of GOP folks to whom sanity still matters. Our candidate is former Prez of the Navajo Nation, he’s first tier but not ideal electorally given the anti-Indian bias in much of the swing voter population.
“Venture capitalist Ben Horowitz and his wife Felicia plan to make a ‘significant’ personal donation to Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign" after endorsing and giving money to Trump in July. Some rich people are real weirdos!
According to the cited Axios' article's Horowitz and his wife's change of heart isn't so weird. He's donating to Harris because he's known her for a decade unlike Biden and Harris has been doing outreach to Silicon Valley (again not hard for Harris seeing as she's from San Francisco) who've been unnerved by the aggressive anti monopoly agenda coming out of the Biden Administration especially by one Lina Khan.
Let's just say the stated rationale isn't the only potential reason for such a donation. Remember Horowitz is a primary funder of Fairshake, which is putting 9 figures into positioning itself as a kingmaker this cycle. After going 33-2 in the primaries (on both sides of the aisle) and putting in major money against Sherrod Brown and Biden, they've more recently donated to Gallego and Slotkin and now Horowitz is plumping for Harris. I'd call that jumping on the bandwagon of the winning team to maintain a high winning percentage, maintain a credible threat, and maintain first tier access.
"Okla. is buying schools 55,000 Bibles. Specs match the $60 Trump Bible."
Well Ryan Walters bid for Secretary of Education is in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/10/04/oklahoma-schools-trump-bible/
Didn’t think there could be anyone worse than Betsy DeVos.
There's always someone worse.
They flock to power.
Like their wannabee boss they have ZERO shame. People who think that Republicans are going to change their behavior if they lose are only fooling themselves. This is Orange Slob's party.
That's why it's imperative to defeat him; a second term would be his first term on steroids
No disagreement here.
Top ad spending in September and top reserved time in October.
Oh both lists: CA 22, OR 5, NC 1, NY 17, NY 19, PA 8, ME 2, MI 8, AZ 6, CO 8, WA 3.
Looks like Dems are making a big late play in WI 3 and Republicans in PA 7.
https://x.com/DavidWright_7/status/1842295626656350540
3.15/3.19 in my area, 45 minutes to an hour north of NYC. Probably a little more expensive than that around in other towns.
Sorry, that was meant for Jonathan's post below.
Just filled up my tank for my weekend trip; I paid $2.70\gal; I am in New Smyrna Beach, Florida for reference; what are the gas prices for you folks? (And where); thanks for your posts
I have an EV so I only note gas prices superficially. In southern NH it looks like prices are hovering a bit under $3. Maybe $2.90ish?
I have an EV too. I calculate that fuel costs me about 25% of what a gas car costs.
Waiting for a price spike with the significant jump in crude prices this week. Paid $4.54 for mid-grade in South Orange County, CA. Interesting side note that at Chevron stations here there are advertisements from Chevron blaming CA politicians for the high prices and Chevron stations have far and away the highest of them all...at least in SOC.
OC has a wide range of gas prices. Costco in Huntington Beach is $3.77, although I've got under $3 gas currently in my tank from Arizona.
The real bargain is I took a trip from Tustin (OC) to west LA (about 50 miles)via commuter train, subway and bus for $10 roundtrip (senior/disabled).
It's still well over $4 anywhere in the Bay Area.
The arrogance of oil companies is truly a sight to behold
Just filled up for $2.68 on Thursday in Des Moines. Nervous about the the Middle East situation disrupting the decline at exactly the wrong time. Oil prices are up like $7 per barrel in the past week.
$4.07 at Sam's Club in Folsom.
In Florida; obviously the big race is the Senate race; but, I'm really hoping that the Democratic candidate against Anna Paulina Luna can prevail(it's one of those difficult but not impossible races); and there is always the chance that Luna will do something batshit crazy between now and November 5
When I saw recently that one of her opponents was charged with planning to murder her (or something), I was afraid it was her Democratic opponent. Glad it turned out to be her 2022 GOP opponent.
Whitney Fox, her current Democratic opponent, is a great candidate. And it's not that Republican a district (R+6 according to Cook Political).
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/wlf-web
Yeah, Paulina Luna’s GOP opponent was truly crazy.
Here’s hoping Fox can unseat her so we have one less QaNon type in the House.
Would this be the best opportunity in Florida? Seems the bottom falling out for dems helped rep Lunatic.
Yes. The 13th is the best opportunity for a House seat flip in Florida, both because its partisan lean is only R+6 and because Luna is an absolute loon.
But In think the best Florida opportunity overall -- and by far the biggest prize -- is in the Senate race. Polls show Murcasel-Powell about 4 points behind unpopular incumbent Voldemort Scott, there's an abortion referendum on the ballot. If she wins and Brown, Tester or Allred win, we likely keep control of the Senate.
Not that it would be easy but Rep. Paulina Luna represents a Lean GOP district. Not out of the realm of possibilities.
Thought in my mind - averaging my moods, rough guess poll-watching, etc. These are my rough percentage chances that Dems will control the followiing:
White House - 55%
Congress (HoR) - 70%
Senate - 15%
Numbers are always comforting to me, even if that leaves lots of room for the unthinkable.
Those numbers seem very reasonable. My optimistic side tells me there is going to be a shift toward our side, particularly re the house--and hopefully toward Harris.
Well, if you believe Michael Moore the race for the WH will not be close and KH will be #47.
I ignore Michael Moore because he aggressively pushed for Nader in 2000.
that sad fact notwithstanding, what if he is right. That was 24 years ago
Broken clocks, twice a day, etc.
"What if he is right" is not a compelling reason to give credence to someone's predictions.
Everyone here wants Kamala Harris to be our next president. I'm pretty sure no one here needs to be convinced that she can win. Even if anyone feels there's a strong tilt in the election towards one candidate or another, it's hard to argue that the election is locked up at this stage.
And Moore pleaded for Nader to not run again in 2004. Al Gore was also not exactly running the most inspired campaign.
More of the left base that exists now in the Democratic Party was the Green Party’s base back in 2000.
Al Gore would have prevented global warming from getting this severe this quickly. "Not inspired campaign" my ass!
I think you have a different interpretation of what I am arguing.
Gore won the election (even Nader knows this) but he didn’t run the best campaign. That’s my overall point. He also ran away from President Clinton a bit by choosing Joe Lieberman to appeal to conservative voters. He could have gotten more of the voters on the left that would have otherwise voted Green. Gore also became more liberal and a global warming alarmist after the 2000 election.
Agree with what you’re saying about Gore combating global warming. Just mentioning I’m talking about Gore’s campaign, not about voting for him or not.
Remember, I've been a socialist since 1979. No-one had any excuse for not voting for him because he he was "no different from Bush."
With everything going on and who the candidate is, those numbers are actually pretty depressing. It should be much higher for all three.
I'll go higher:
WH: 70%
House: 75%
Senate: 40%
That's about where I am, but I might have the Senate around 30%. Tester's clearly trailing in the polls. Similarly, I think at this point Trump needs either a systematic polling error or a favorable October surprise. Pennsylvania isn't nearly as close as 538 says it is once you take out the GOP troll polls.
WH: 45%
House: 50%
Senate: 2%
Why does everyone think a House flip is more likely than a presidential victory? Strictly because of the Electoral College?
Partly because the allocation of votes per Congressional district now seems to tilt in favor of narrow Democratic victories in more places. It used to be that Democratic voters were so concentrated in cities that it greatly diluted their strength elsewhere. Now Republican voters are so concentrated in rural areas that it's diluting their strength in the suburbs at least as much. Add in the fact that places like Louisiana and Alabama are poised to get new Democratic members of Congress and I think House control is as much or even more of a coin flip than Harris winning.
yes
Interesting to me to see the wide discrepancy in predictions here so far with the three people who have given percentages. I can see the argument for the pessimistic, optimistic, and middle-ground views expressed here. There's a reasonable path for any of them to be correct.
I'm terrible at making straight up predictions and go out of my way to avoid doing so. I prefer looking at things from a more hierarchical view.
My hierarchical view: we're slightly more likely to win the presidency than to win the house, and we're far more likely to win the house than the senate. Presidency > House >> Senate.
I like doing it this way as it forces me to look at it without my emotional preferences biasing my view. The criticality of winning the presidency every four years biases my ability to assign any reasonable probability to winning, and any attempt to correct for my preferences risks over-adjusting in the opposite direction, or missing that things actually are as good as I want them to be.
But this approach doesn't have that problem. Winning everything is important, and it's just viewing which is more likely to happen. I like this for individual races and states too.
WH--75%
House--85%
Senate--35%
Wow; I just noticed your post(directly above mine own; we basically agree on all three percentages); hoping that we are both wrong on the Senate🙃
WH-73%
House-84%
Senate-32%
Hey everyone, A big plus this site has over DKE is that you can edit your comments after posting. No more embarrasing typos. And when you really screw up (as I have done), or reply at the wrong place, you can delete your comment or cut and paste it where it belongs.
You can edit your comments only on the computer. On the phone, you have to delete and repost. But yeah, that's superior to DKE.
One thing I miss is that I see no way to add italics or bold or hyperlinks to text. Silver lining, it prevents me from overusing italics as emphasis.
Well said. I miss the Italics and Bolding functions. Hope they get added to Substack comments eventually.
I edit my posts on my phone all the time on my Samsung phone. Maybe iPhone has an issue?
You mean maybe Substack doesn't enable editing for iPhones.
I can edit fine on my iPhone and it’s the only way I view here.
EDIT: Just edited 😉
Is that something paid subscribers get?
I’m not a paid subscriber.
To edit a comment:
Click the … on the right side of “SHARE”
Click “Edit” then write and rewrite as to your heart’s content!
I’m not entirely sure what’s making you believe you can’t edit posts, but I thought I should let you know that after you edit a post here, the edited post does NOT show up for you on your screen right away. You must refresh the page for the edited version to show up. I was confused at first myself thinking it was weird I couldn’t edit until figuring that out.
Lmk if you’re still stuck and I’ll try to assist.
Thanks for the heads up. That will be a nice change.
Now that we're a month out from the election, I'm curious what peoples' thoughts are on which counties will flip at the presidential level this year. In 2020, there were 555 Biden counties and 2588 Trump counties, ranging from Kalawao County, HI (23-1 Biden) to Roberts County, TX (529-17 Trump). (County meaning county-equivalent throughout this thread.) Adjusting for counties that were eliminated in 2013 and added in 2019, we have 473 Obama-Clinton-Biden, 17 Romney-Clinton-Biden, 30 Obama-Trump-Biden, 35 Romney-Trump-Biden, 15 Obama-Clinton-Trump, 1 Romney-Clinton-Trump, 191 Obama-Trump-Trump, and 2380 Romney-Trump-Trump counties. That makes for a total of 18 Romney-Clinton and 221 Obama-Trump flips, then 65 Trump-Biden and 16 Clinton-Trump flips. There are 69 Trump and 64 Biden counties that flip under at least one of four scenarios: direct trends from 2016 to 2020 via 2-party % and raw vote, and 3/2 trends from 2012 to 2020 via 2-party % and raw vote. Those 69 Trump counties cast 7.2 million votes in 2020 and the 64 Biden Counties cast 4.5 million; counties projected to flip by median projection cast 4.3 million and 2.0 million, although the latter would drop to 2.1 million if Harris can retain Pinellas and Stanislaus, whose projected flips are by less than 0.3%. A few notes: some COVID migration patterns have stopped or reversed, potentially reducing the leftward trend of some beautiful but not commuter-friendly counties; some of what Trump did should be near-impossible to duplicate (e.g. in Biden's worst-performance county by %-trend, Starr County, TX, Biden nearly matched Hillary's vote total, but Trump added 6k to his, more than tripling his previous vote total; I suspect he'll flip the county, but not by near as much as trendlines would indicate).
Below I've listed out those counties by the median projected 2-party%, along with the number of scenarios under which it flips, the 2020 2-party margin with the projection, the number of votes it cast in 2020, and the last year that it voted the other way presidentially.
Trump counties:
Oklahoma, OK (Oklahoma City): 4, 49.4%→53.4%, 295k, 1964
Collin, TX (DFW burbs): 4, 47.8%→52.9%, 491k, 1964
Hamilton, IN (Indy burbs): 4, 46.5%→52.2%, 194k, 1912
Monongalia, WV (Morgantown): 4, 49.4%→52.1%, 42k, 2008
Fayette, GA (Atlanta burbs): 4, 46.6%→52.0%, 72k, 1976
Grand, CO (Western Slope): 4, 49.1%→52.0%, 10k, 1964
Ontario, NY (Rochester burbs): 4, 49.99%→51.6%, 60k, 1996
Platte, MO (KC burbs): 4, 48.5%→51.5%, 57k, 1992
Grand Traverse, MI (Traverse City): 4, 48.5%→51.3%, 60k, 1964
Warren, NY (Albany burbs): 2, 49.9%→51.2%, 36k, 2012
Hunterdon, NJ (NYC burbs): 4, 47.8%→51.2%, 84k, 1964
Dallas, IA (Des Moines burbs): 4, 49.0%→51.2%, 56k, 1996
Wicomico, MD (Salisbury): 2, 49.0%→51.1%, 46k, 1964
Suffolk, NY (NYC burbs): 2, 49.98%→51.0%, 772k, 2012
Carver, MN (MSP burbs): 4, 47.5%→51.0%, 66k, 1932
Anoka, MN (MSP burbs): 2, 49.0%→50.6%, 211k, 1996
Douglas, CO (Denver burbs): 3, 46.3%→50.6%, 232k, 1964
Denton, TX (DFW burbs): 2, 45.9%→50.6%, 418k, 1964
York, VA (Newport News burbs): 3, 46.6%→50.5%, 39k, 1964
McHenry, IL (Chicago burbs): 3, 48.7%→50.5%, 164k, 2008
Orange, NY (NYC burbs): 2, 49.9%→50.4%, 172k, 2012
Cass, ND (Fargo): 2, 48.6%→50.3%, 86k, 2008
Washington, AR (Fayetteville): 3, 48.0%→50.3%, 94k, 1996
Polk, OR (Salem burbs): 2, 49.1%→50.3%, 48k, 1964
Delaware, OH (Columbus burbs): 2, 46.5%→50.2%, 126k, 1916
Franklin, KY (Frankfort): 2, 49.5%→50.1%, 26k, 2012
Monmouth, NJ (Jersey Shore): 2, 48.6%→50.1%, 378k, 2000
Calvert, MD (DC burbs): 2, 47.1%→49.99%, 49k, 1976
Eaton, MI (Lansing burbs): 2, 49.6%→49.97%, 64k, 2012
Clay, MO (KC burbs): 2, 47.9%→49.8%, 127k, 2000
Ada, ID (Boise): 1, 48.0%→49.8%, 260k, 1936
Rice, MN (Faribault): 2, 49.9%→49.6%, 36k, 2012
Sangamon, IL (Springfield): 1, 47.8%→49.4%, 105k, 2008
Jackson, OR (Medford): 2, 48.2%→49.4%, 127k, 2008
Lancaster, VA (Northern Neck): 1, 47.7%→49.3%, 7k, 1948
Waynesboro, VA (Shenandoah Valley): 1, 47.4%→49.3%, 11k, 1964
San Juan, UT (Reservation): 1, 46.8%→49.3%, 7k, 1936
Scott, MN (MSP burbs): 1, 46.6%→49.3%, 88k, 1996
Tillamook, OR (North Coast): 2, 49.1%→49.2%, 17k, 2012
Pacific, WA (Willapa Hills): 2, 49.4%→49.2%, 14k, 2012
Wasco, OR (The Gorge): 2, 48.4%→49.2%, 14k, 2008
Florence, SC (Florence): 1, 48.9%→49.2%, 65k, 1976
Essex, VA (Middle Peninsula): 2, 49.7%→49.1%, 6k, 2012
Lowndes, MS (Columbus): 2, 48.7%→49.1%, 27k, 1956
Litchfield, CT (Torrington): 2, 47.4%→49.1%, 108k, 2008
Yamhill, OR (Portland burbs): 1, 47.9%→49.0%, 59k, 1964
Spotsylvania, VA (Fredericksburg burbs): 2, 46.5%→48.9%, 75k, 1976
Madison, AL (Huntsville): 1, 45.9%→48.8%, 195k, 1976
Park, MT (Bozeman burbs): 1, 46.7%→48.7%, 12k, 1964
Fluvanna, VA (Charlottesville burbs): 1, 47.6%→48.7%, 16k, 1976
Spokane, WA (Spokane): 1, 47.7%→48.6%, 295k, 1996
Cortland, NY (Cortland): 2, 49.0%→48.6%, 22k, 2012
Androscoggin, ME (Lewiston): 2, 48.5%→48.3%, 59k, 2012
Chelan, WA (Wenatchee): 1, 46.0%→48.3%, 43k, 1964
Cabarrus, NC (Charlotte burbs): 1, 45.2%→48.3%, 117k, 1948
Beltrami, MN (Reservation): 2, 48.4%→48.3%, 24k, 2012
Huerfano, CO (Pueblo burbs): 1, 48.5%→48.1%, 4k, 2012
Corson, SD (Reservation): 2, 49.0%→48.1%, 1k, 2012
Otsego, NY (Cooperstown): 2, 47.4%→48.0%, 28k, 2012
Putnam, NY (NYC burbs): 1, 46.0%→47.9%, 55k, 1964
Trinity, CA (Shasta): 1, 47.2%→47.8%, 6k, 2008
El Paso, CO (Colorado Springs): 1, 44.4%→47.8%, 379k, 1964
Clinton, MI (Lansing burbs): 1, 46.7%→47.8%, 48k, 2008
Roosevelt, MT (Reservation): 2, 48.9%→47.8%, 4k, 2012
Sarpy, NE (Omaha burbs): 1, 44.2%→47.6%, 96k, 1964
Thurston, NE (Reservation): 2, 48.7%→47.5%, 2k, 2012
Mahnomen, MN (Reservation): 2, 49.3%→47.3%, 2k, 2012
Franklin, NY (Plattsburgh burbs): 2, 48.9%→46.8%, 19k, 2012
Sussex, DE (Delaware Beaches): 1, 44.3%→46.4%, 129k, 1996
And the ten closest counties in 2020 without a projected flip scenario:
St. Lucie, FL (Port St. Lucie): 0, 49.2%→48.6%, 172k, 2012
Jefferson, TX (Beaumont): 0, 49.2%→48.6%, 95k, 2012
Columbia, WI (Madison burbs): 0, 49.2%→47.7%, 34k, 2012
Clarendon, SC (Sumter burbs): 0, 49.7%→47.3%, 17k, 2016
Alamosa, CO (San Luis Valley): 0, 49.6%→47.1%, 8k, 2016
Jefferson, IA (Fairfield): 0, 49.3%→47.0%, 9k, 2012
Kleberg, TX (Corpus Christi burbs): 0, 49.1%→46.9%, 11k, 2016
Dillon, SC (Florence burbs): 0, 49.4%→46.6%, 13k, 2016
Burke, GA (Augusta burbs): 0, 49.1%→46.6%, 11k, 2016
Mahoning, OH (Youngstown): 0, 49.0%→43.9%, 119k, 2016
Biden counties:
Starr, TX (RGV): 4, 52.5%→36.9%, 18k, 1892
Duval, TX (Laredo burbs): 4, 51.3%→39.1%, 5k, 1904
Maverick, TX (Eagle Pass): 4, 54.8%→39.5%, 15k, 1928
Culberson, TX (El Paso burbs): 4, 51.3%→43.7%, 1k, 2004
Jim Hogg, TX (RGV): 3, 59.0%→44.0%, 2k, never (est. 1913)
Lee, AR (Memphis burbs): 4, 52.5%→46.0%, 3k, 1972
Brooks, TX (RGV): 3, 59.6%→46.6%, 2k, never (est. 1911)
Willacy, TX (RGV): 4, 56.0%→46.9%, 6k, 1972
Anson, NC (Charlotte burbs): 4, 52.1%→47.2%, 11k, 1972
Miami-Dade, FL (Miami): 3, 53.7%→47.6%, 1157k, 1988
Jasper, SC (Black Belt): 4, 50.4%→47.7%, 14k, 1972
Marshall, MS (Memphis burbs): 4, 51.6%→47.8%, 16k, 1972
Carlton, MN (Duluth burbs): 2, 50.8%→48.0%, 20k, 1928
Pasquotank, NC (Elizabeth City): 4, 50.2%→48.0%, 20k, 1988
Dillingham, AK (Southwest): 4, 53.3%→48.1%, 2k, 2008
Jasper, MS (Black Belt): 4, 50.2%→48.2%, 9k, 2000
Muskegon, MI (Muskegon): 4, 50.3%→48.4%, 92k, 1988
Jackson, IL (Carbondale): 4, 50.7%→48.4%, 23k, 1984
Desha, AR (Black Belt): 4, 51.2%→48.5%, 4k, 1972
Copiah, MS (Jackson burbs): 4, 50.9%→48.9%, 13k, 2004
Saginaw, MI (Saginaw): 2, 50.1%→49.1%, 103k, 2016
Aleutians West, AK (Southwest): 3, 55.1%→49.1%, 1k, 2008
St. Francis, AR (Memphis burbs): 4, 52.6%→49.3%, 7k, 1984
Winona, MN (Winona): 2, 50.2%→49.3%, 27k, 2016
Rockland, NY (NYC burbs): 4, 50.9%→49.3%, 150k, 2004
Marengo, AL (Black Belt): 4, 50.7%→49.4%, 11k, 2004
Sauk, WI (Madison burbs): 2, 50.9%→49.5%, 36k, 2016
Erie, PA (Erie): 2, 50.5%→49.5%, 137k, 2016
Kennebec, ME (Augusta): 2, 50.1%→49.5%, 72k, 2016
Washington, GA (Milledgeville burbs): 2, 50.4%→49.6%, 9k, 2004
Issaquena, MS (Vicksburg burbs): 3, 53.5%→49.7%, 1k, 1984
Pike, MS (Black Belt): 2, 50.5%→49.7%, 17k, 2004
Pinellas, FL (St. Pete): 2, 50.1%→49.9%, 560k, 2016
Portage, WI (Stevens Point): 2, 51.4%→49.9%, 41k, 1956
Lake, MI (Duluth burbs): 2, 51.8%→49.96%, 7k, 1932
Stanislaus, CA (Modesto): 2, 50.4%→49.97%, 215k, 2004
Iberville, LA (Baton Rouge burbs): 2, 51.9%→50.02%, 17k, 1972
St. James, LA (NOLA burbs): 2, 52.2%→50.02%, 13k, 1972
Pueblo, CO (Pueblo): 2, 50.9%→50.03%, 88k, 2016
Baldwin, GA (Milledgeville): 2, 50.7%→50.1%, 18k, 2004
Nash, NC (Rocky Mount): 2, 50.1%→50.1%, 52k, 2016
Green, WI (Madison burbs): 2, 51.6%→50.2%, 21k, 1988
Big Horn, MT (Billings burbs): 2, 53.0%→50.5%, 5k, 1980
Gloucester, NJ (Delaware Valley): 2, 51.0%→50.6%, 173k, 2016
Warren, MS (Vicksburg): 2, 50.2%→50.7%, 21k, 2016
Prince of Wales-Hyder, AK (Inside Passage): 2, 50.2%→50.8%, 4k, 2016
Northampton, PA (Bethlehem): 2, 50.4%→50.8%, 171k, 2016
Scott, IA (Davenport): 2, 51.8%→50.9%, 93k, 1984
Door, WI (Green Bay burbs): 2, 50.7%→51.0%, 20k, 2016
Orleans, VT (Northeast Kingdom): 2, 52.3%→51.1%, 14k, 2000
Cameron, TX (RGV): 1, 56.6%→51.1%, 114k, 2004
Cumberland, NJ (Delaware Valley): 2, 53.1%→51.1%, 62k, 1988
Clinton, NY (Plattsburgh): 2, 52.7%→51.1%, 35k, 1992
Deer Lodge, MT (Butte burbs): 2, 54.0%→51.3%, 5k, 1924
Guadalupe, NM (Northeast): 1, 57.4%→51.5%, 2k, 1984
Hidalgo, TX (RGV): 1, 58.6%→51.7%, 221k, 1972
Blaine, MT (Havre burbs): 2, 52.0%→51.8%, 3k, 2016
Northwest Arctic, AK (Far North): 1, 58.4%→52.0%, 2k, 2008
Sullivan, NH (Upper Valley): 2, 51.8%→52.1%, 24k, 2016
Essex, NY (Plattsburgh burbs): 2, 52.6%→52.3%, 19k, 2016
Douglas, WI (Duluth burbs): 2, 54.8%→52.5%, 25k, 1928
Genesee, MI (Flint): 1, 54.7%→52.5%, 221k, 1984
Webb, TX (Laredo): 1, 61.8%→52.8%, 68k, 1912
Lackawanna, PA (Scranton): 1, 54.2%→53.3%, 115k, 1984
And the ten closest counties in 2020 without a projected flip scenario:
Kent, MD (Upper Eastern Shore): 0, 50.6%→51.7%, 11k, 2016
Marion, OR (Salem): 0, 50.6%→52.0%, 166k, 2016
Tippecanoe, IN (Lafayette): 0, 50.3%→52.0%, 71k, 2016
Carroll, NH (Lakes): 0, 50.8%→52.4%, 33k, 2016
Butte, CA (Chico): 0, 50.9%→52.5%, 102k, 2016
Tarrant, TX (Fort Worth): 0, 50.1%→53.6%, 835k, 2016
Anchorage, AK (Anchorage): 0, 51.0%→54.0%, 145k, 2016
Inyo, CA (Sierra Nevadas): 0, 50.1%→54.1%, 9k, 2016
Talbot, MD (Easton): 0, 50.3%→54.1%, 23k, 2016
Williamson, TX (Austin burbs): 0, 50.7%→55.1%, 290k, 2016
What's the Romney-Clinton-Trump county?
That would be Kenedy County, Texas, which only has a few hundred voters. Obama won by 14 votes, then Romney by 2, Hillary by 15, and Trump by 62.
Ah yes. Forgot about that one.
"Mintt, a mail tracking firm, found that in September, 81 percent of all direct mail sent was promoting Mr. Trump or attacking Ms. Harris. In August, the imbalance had been even more severe: 96 percent of all direct mail relating to the presidential race was sent by Republican groups, the firm found."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/05/us/politics/trump-harris-30-days-to-election.html
Is there a reason why the Harris campaign hasn't invested more in direct mail?
They probably have concluded it's a waste of money or even counterproductive.
most direct mailings end up in the trash bin very quickly
Direct mail is a huge part of the republican campaign related graft industry and conservatives also lean heavily on it for fundraising despite the huge costs associated with it.
This is the main reason; the grift
Yep. The only piece of direct mail I didn't throw away was the endorsements for my county's local Democratic Party.
I get direct mail pieces all the time for local races and propositions, none for federal races.
Frankly, this marketing method should be used selectively for targeting rural voters.
Direct mail is by far the lowest return on investment for campaigns. Any difference made is very negligible.
It's main purpose is to keep the grift going; guaranteed that Trump\family is getting a certain percentage of all mailings that have RNC\associated Committee links plus a certain percentage off of all WinRed fees as well as all contributions to RNC various campaign committees
One poster here commented a few days ago about Trump's huge burn rate compared to Harris; direct mail is responsible for that
One thing I want to get off my chest is my strong belief that the description of conservatives and MAGA fans in particular as "low-trust" is a huge misnomer. I find these sorts of people to be extraordinarily trusting. They just put all their trust in the stupidest, least-deserving people on the planet. I've seen true genuine "don't trust anyone" types. They are too few in number and have beliefs that are far too inscrutable to ever align as unquestioningly and formidably with anyone as MAGA types have with Donald Trump. (Some of those types may vote Trump anyway, some may vote Harris, both for reasons that can't be easily understood, but that's all besides the point.)
What I'm getting at here is that it's foolish and counterproductive to approach people as if they're not easily capable of trusting anyone, when in reality it's just that they don't trust *us*. And they won't ever trust us as long as the people they do trust tell them we're not trustworthy.
You're absolutely right. It's bizarre how people disbelieve in science but believe their pastor or some other crackpot who tells them to take ivermectin for COVID.
They also may be living more comfortably than those who are not in their positions, ideology and stature.
Absolutely. It's more accurate to say they have no critical thinking skills, but that probably sounds more insulting.
They're critical of experts and believe hokum from crackpot authorities they follow.
You're pretty close with the statement "they don't trust 'us.'" They trust people identified with their group - the people who adhere to the "correct" social hierarchy, and don't trust people, institutions, etc, that they identify as being out of the "correct" bounds.
It's low institutional trust, and the credulous are both more susceptible to the intentional creation of such distrust by malign actors as well as to allowing the vacuum of idea space created by such distrust to be filled by, unavoidably, less credible sources. Absent acceptance of institutional authority, other sources of apparent legitimacy, such as group affinity, take a larger share in filling the space.
I would again say that imo it's not really a lack of institutional trust; they fully trust institutions (and certainly enjoy flexing institutional power) just as long as people they trust are running them.
Thats the opposite of institutional trust, actually.
Do you trust the Suoreme Court?
I always thought of "institutional trust" as "belief that an institution can do what it's supposed to do", and that one can have low trust in an institution even if someone they have high regard for is in control of it. But I see MAGA not really doing that. They seem to believe the institutions they control are capable of achieving what they want to achieve.
https://politicalwire.com/2024/10/05/hurricane-hit-trump-strongholds/
“Hurricane Helene hit especially hard in heavily Republican areas of Georgia and North Carolina — a fact that could work to Donald Trump’s disadvantage in the two swing states,” Politico reports.
https://politicalwire.com/2024/10/05/harris-holds-edge-in-nevada/
Not sure whether this was mentioned yesterday. 47%-44% Harris.
https://politicalwire.com/2024/10/05/conservative-monitor-voter-registration-sites/
New York Times: “Despite the many debunked falsehoods about widespread voting by noncitizens, liberal Latino advocacy groups say they are being trailed by conservative activists with cameras and accused of registering undocumented immigrants.”
Back when CA had precinct voting and I had been a roving district supervisor, at our training class, a to be maga person asked about the Democrats committing voter fraud. The class was being taught by a higher up at the ROV and in the last election he said there had been exactly 4 cases of voter fraud. All 4 were Republicans who registered late, but had already gotten ballots elsewhere. 2 in Maricopa County AZ, 1 in Clark County NV, one in LA county and he indicated the ability to do that within CA had been fixed.
All 4 were turned over to the DA who settled for a several thousand dollar civil settlement in lieu of criminal prosecution. A pretty good deterrent for fraudulently casting one illegal vote.
Good story. What does ROV stand for?
Registrar of voters
https://politicalwire.com/2024/10/05/judge-tosses-lawsuit-over-georgia-voting-machines/
https://politicalwire.com/2024/10/05/battle-for-the-house-goes-down-to-the-wire/
Wall St. Journal. New York, California and Iowa are mentioned.
https://politicalwire.com/2024/10/05/gop-lawmaker-claims-shooting-was-inside-job/
Eli Crane (R-AZ) has been given a platform by "Republican leaders" to spread this bullshit.
Wow. This part of AZ does have a reputation for electing unhinged crazies on the GOP side, even in competitive seats, but their nomination of said nutjobs has been our superpower in terms of overcoming GOP lean here more often than we otherwise would. Crane is working hard to give us a shot...
AZ-2 is R+6 per Wikipedia. Is his opponent this year any good?
R+6 is out of reach even for a first tier candidate here unless Crane is first destroyed with the narrow margin of GOP folks to whom sanity still matters. Our candidate is former Prez of the Navajo Nation, he’s first tier but not ideal electorally given the anti-Indian bias in much of the swing voter population.
https://politicalwire.com/2024/10/05/venture-capital-titan-dumps-trump/
“Venture capitalist Ben Horowitz and his wife Felicia plan to make a ‘significant’ personal donation to Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign" after endorsing and giving money to Trump in July. Some rich people are real weirdos!
According to the cited Axios' article's Horowitz and his wife's change of heart isn't so weird. He's donating to Harris because he's known her for a decade unlike Biden and Harris has been doing outreach to Silicon Valley (again not hard for Harris seeing as she's from San Francisco) who've been unnerved by the aggressive anti monopoly agenda coming out of the Biden Administration especially by one Lina Khan.
OK. Well, I hope if she gets into office, she will maintain an aggressive anti-monopoly agenda...
Let's just say the stated rationale isn't the only potential reason for such a donation. Remember Horowitz is a primary funder of Fairshake, which is putting 9 figures into positioning itself as a kingmaker this cycle. After going 33-2 in the primaries (on both sides of the aisle) and putting in major money against Sherrod Brown and Biden, they've more recently donated to Gallego and Slotkin and now Horowitz is plumping for Harris. I'd call that jumping on the bandwagon of the winning team to maintain a high winning percentage, maintain a credible threat, and maintain first tier access.
Could you possibly give a little more background? Fairshake?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/26/crypto-pac-house-senate-elections.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/republicans-claim-betrayal-cryptocurrency-pac-backs-democrats-rcna166470
Thank you (personally, I'm wary of crypto and it's backers)