I think NV, AZ, GA and NH are all going to be pretty dicey if the national environment shifts at all to the right — which is the most likely outcome, given history
-
-
Yep, to be clear it's easy to see how R's gain quite a bit even without a big shift in the political winds. I'd start with them favored. I just think incumbency, lack of House's redistricting issues, potential for demographics to help D's on turnout, Trump, make it less certain.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Less certain -- Sure! I'm just talking about average outcomes here
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
But to get to the original point! One of the biggest reasons I'm uncertain is I don't think the old "economy doesn't affect the midterm, only presidential elections" is going to be a great indicator here if the economy does in fact hit those Goldman Sachs numbers out today
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @BenjySarlin @gelliottmorris and
So I think that's the one disagreement
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
There is always a reason to make the case that a point will deviate from the trend. I'll just say the last time growth was that strong, the party in power lost 15 seats in the House
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gelliottmorris @BenjySarlin and
In 1966 GDP growth was 7-10%, and Dems lost 47 seats in the House
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
This is also an example though that you can't separate from the preceding election. If you have a blowout that exceeds fundamentals you're going to have some retrenchment.
6 replies 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @joshtpm @gelliottmorris and
I’d add the backdrop of civil rights, white backlash, Vietnam, mounting concerns about inflation—all contributed heavily to Democratic losses. (The CA gubernatorial election was about Berkeley and open housing, for instance.) Which isn’t to say ‘22 won’t hinge on culture wars.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @JoshuaMZeitz @joshtpm and
Yes, the point that other things overrode the importance of economic growth in 66 and 78 (and 2006 and 2010 &c!) is exactly the point I'm making — and that this has been true on average across midterms since 1940
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Economy matters, but it matters more in POTUS races. There was a big effort after 2010 to spin it as just the economy.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.