Nate CohnVerifizierter Account

Returning to the point at the top: there's no need to expect this. But I do think there are some lessons here, perhaps especially in terms of how 'blue Texas' is essential for Dems to compensate if they face another round of losses among white working class voters

The better news for Democrats: the electoral college-popular vote gap basically evaporates, as Texas becomes a singularly important near-US average tipping point state, sort of like NY at various points pre-New Deal

The downside for the Democrats--part of the 'apocalypse Senate' case--is that the Democrats only win 23 states here, down from 25. That said, they're above 49 in two more states so it's not hugely different than the status quo.

One possible middle ground in framing--though not really in substance: certification standards could be construed as an element of whether electoral votes are 'regularly given'

None of this is to say that the Electoral Count Act is irrelevant, but my pretty strongly held view is that the dangers were already allowed to progress to a far, far more dangerous place than 2020 for the ECA to become the relevant factor

I think it's easy to argue both sides--though it does depend on the counterfactual. Clinton/Edwards (lol) had weaknesses of their own compared to a more typical Democrat who might have won without such a powerhouse field McCain's strength also relevanthttps://twitter.com/csilverandgold/status/1448045731353440264?s=20 …

We'll never know what would have happened if the Dems '08 were more like '06. Obama had huge strengths of his own. It's hard to weigh the pros and cons. But it's not hard to imagine a real wipeout. Obama was thought to have underperformed the fundamentals at the time

And despite choosing the 'mobilization' candidate, Obama nonetheless made his biggest gains in... Hawaii, Indiana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Utah. He won Wisconsin by 14 pts, Michigan by 16.

Leaving aside the actual options for Dems in '08, the opportunity was plainly historic. Bush's ratings in the 20s. And the Democrats did understand post-04 that moderation, especially on cultural issues, was a key

Even crazier is that the actual 'persuasion' alternatives--Clinton and Edwards--clearly posed some huge risks for Democrats of their own in hindsight!

Obama won a decisive enough victory, with a great Dem showing downballot. So there's not a lot of reason for Democrats to dwell on how things might have gone differently there. But choosing the mobilization candidate at that moment is a real historical turning point

A lot of the conversation about the fate of the Dems centers on the post-12 era, but this is a reminder that 08 was an inflection point as well--when Dems really did choose the relatively liberal, activist-backed candidate (even if he was tactful about it)https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1447944771389902851?s=20 …

With that case on the difficulty of a northern white working class revival in mind, I'll return to a point I made in a different thread with Shor: popularism may be more compelling as a 'project 54%'--a bid for a larger majority, even realignment--than as 'project win back OH/IA'