Assume Covid never happened, because it threw everything for a toss & changed the race completely, if everything proceeded just as it was doing but without COVID, what would have been the 2020 result?

View Poll

Chart of Oldest Representatives

The chart above lists the Representatives that will be older than 75 years old at the start of the next Congressional term in January. 26 of them are Democrats and 8 of them are Republicans.

The Republicans will begin the term with an incredibly slim majority of 220-215, and could spend the first months with a majority as small as 217-215 due to Trump's cabinet appointments. However, they could get some reprieve from the elderly Democrats. While I do not know the health status of any of these representatives, it seems like the Democrats are much more likely to have members missing votes or passing away in office.

During the current Congressional term (which began January 3, 2023), 3 representatives have died, and they were all Democrats: Donald Payne Jr (65, heart attack), Sheila Jackson Lee (74, cancer), and Bill Pascrell (87, fever).

Taken from Gallup, which measures US satisfaction. Which is defined as:

''In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?''

https://news.gallup.com/610757/2024-presidential-election-center.aspx#ite-610778

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1669/general-mood-country.aspx

US satisfaction started at 26% when Trump took office in Jan 2017, but over the course of his first term, gradually rose. In 2020, it reached a high of 45% in the Feb/March of 2020. Then COVID hit and it completely tanked, never really recovering

For reference, this figure is significantly higher than any figure during the two Obama terms. The highest Obama got was 37%, which was right at the end of his term

In spite of Trump's term having higher peak US satisfaction, Trump's job approval while in office never came close to Obama's peak (50+% approval)

Had COVID not happened, it does seem like Trump was on an upward trajectory and had momentum

This is just anecdotal evidence, but many people have told me that the Vance/Walz debate really helped change their minds, as while they thought Trump was too old, having Vance as a backup helped. (This is from many people who were reluctant to vote for Trump originally). Is there any polling on this issue?

Big big miss. It sounds like Harris internals tended to match Trafalgar and Rasmussen more. As a lefty populist I'm conflicted about putting on my tinfoil hat. If the polls were honest, could Harris have raised a billion? The rich don't bet on losers

Trump v Harris polling averages held pretty steady for a long while, around October 12-15 Trump started an upward trend. What was the cause of that? His McDonald's moment didn't happen until the 20th.

Preamble: perhaps the most shocking result this cycle was also foretold by the polls - that being the shift in NJ, which went for the Harris campaign by by 5.9 points.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fivethirtyeight/comments/1cy01t8/siena_college_is_currently_showing_a_16point/

Ultimately, Biden was swapped out as the candidate, and Harris carried all three of NY, NJ, and CT. But now that we have the final vote tallies (pending certification) out of these states, it has become clear that the rest of the Rust Belt states (also including IL) are now shifting HEAVILY towards the Republicans in what is likely not a blip, but a re-alignment.

Firstly, let's take a look at how NY, NJ, and CT have voted since 1980.

2024: NY H+11.6, CT H+14.4, NJ H+5.9 (CT +2.8, NJ -5.7)

2020: NY B+23, CT B+20, NJ B+16 (CT -3, NJ -9)

2016: NY H+23, CT B+14, NJ H+14 (CT -9, NJ -9)

2012: NY O+28, CT O+17, NJ O +17 (CT -11, NJ -11)

2008: NY O+26, CT O+23, NJ O+15 (CT -3, NJ -8)

2004: NY K+18, CT K+10, NJ K+6 (CT -8, NJ -12)

2000: NY G+25, CT G+18, NJ G+16 (CT -7, NJ -9)

1996: NY C+28, CT C+18, NJ C+18 (CT -10, NJ -10)

1992: NY C+16, CT C+6, NJ C+2 (CT -10, NJ -14)

1988: NY D+4, CT R+5, NJ, R+14 (CT -9, NJ -18)

1984: NY R+8, CT R+22, NJ, R+21 (CT -14, NJ -13)

1980: NY R+4, CT R+9, NJ, R+13 (CT -5, NJ -8)

NJ has been no less than 8 points further right than NY in any election since 1980, CT has been no less than 3 points. NJ has been up to 18 points further right, and CT has been up to 14 points. The median since 2000 is 9 points right of NY for NJ and 7.5 points right for CT.

2024 has flipped the script on how the states comprising the USA's largest metropolitan region vote. There were several elections in the 50s 60s and 70s where CT and NY were within a point of each other, but 2024 is the FIRST TIME NY has voted to the right of CT since 1944 (when CT went .35% more for FDR than NY).

The last time a presidential election came close to competitive in any one of these states was 2004 when John Kerry won NJ by 6 points, however, in that election CT was won by 10 points and NY by 18 points. The real analog to now, in the opposite direction, seems to be 1988->1992, when these three states were shifting hard to the Democrats.

It should be very much noted that between the elections of Reagan and Clinton, NY's Democrats did NOT see some kind of massive surge in voting. Let's compare numbers below -

1984: Reagan (3.67M votes, 53.84%), Mondale (3.12M, 45.83%)

1996: Dole (1.93M votes, 30.61%) Clinton (3.76M, 59.47%)

Between Republicans' last win in NY State and the Democrats hitting 60% of the state's vote, the Democrats only actually increased their numeric tally by 640K votes. In stark contrast, Republicans' total plummeted, by 1.74M votes.

What happened in NY between 2020 and 2024?

2020: Biden (5.24M votes, 60.87%), Trump (3.25M, 37.74%)

2024: Harris (4.39M votes, 55.13%), Trump (3.47M, 43.57%)

I would argue we are now seeing the same phenomenon that occurred with the collapse of the NY Republican party in the late 80s, however, this time is is happening to the Democrats in NY. The state shifted the farthest of any in the country this cycle (and was followed by NJ and CA). This is not so much due to Trump's popularity as it is due to distaste and disdain for what Democrats have done at the state and local levels.

While many have poo-poo'd the 2024 results as "disaffected voters" and "low turnout", THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED in the 1980s as we saw generational shifts in states switching from toss-up / Republican to SOLIDLY Democrat. The first step in the process of a re-alignment is a massive enthusiasm gap, and in fact, that enthusiasm gap has become so large in NY that it voted to the right of CT for the first time IN EIGHTY YEARS.

Is it possible Trump tanks the economy and this election was a 2004 blip for Ds and not a seismic shift like 1988-1996 was? I think it is unlikely, check out the state of the local parties in NJ + NY for the reason why. NY literally has Cuomo throwing his hat in the contenders for Mayor, after everything that happened with his Governorship. Hochul is historically unpopular and won her election by a few points BEFORE this cycle, while Mayor Adams is currently under indictment.

I think the NJ Governor's Race is perhaps the best upcoming bellwether on whether or not this trend will be sustained in the future, but IMO, the numbers this cycle point to a re-alignment of the remaining "Blue Wall" Rust Belt states that are increasingly diverse. That is also why CT was the least affected of the Tri-state region.

TLDR; decreasing turnout portends a shift back to Republicans or swing-status in NY, NJ, and probably IL by 2028. Historically, disaffection with a party precedes outright desertion, and if past trends are any indicator, the seismic shift we saw in the 2024 cycle is NOT a blip, but a harbinger of a radical shift in these states that is now underway.

The Harris campaign ran an impeccable operation. They had the upper hand in terms of volunteers, field offices, staff, canvassing, fundraising, etc. Yet, it was not enough. Trump's unusual tactics of leveraging social media and having sketchy outside groups conduct outreach proved successful after all.

Could we be looking at a fundamental shift with respect to how campaigns are run? What would this new reality entail for future cycles? Can Democrats adapt their strategy, or will they cling to old adages that no longer hold value?

Edit: when I said "impeccable," I was referring to campaign logistics, infrastructure, fundraising efforts, organization, etc. That sort of operational stuff.

https://www.cookpolitical.com/vote-tracker/2024/electoral-college You can see the map if you go to "Margin change from 2020."

When was the last time that every state all shifted to one direction? I saw that even 2008 didn't have every state shift to the left. Pretty incredible when you think about it. Originally it was every state except Washington state, but when more ballots were counted, Washington shifted to the right as well- although the smallest percentage compared to the others.

1. Pete Buttigieg. He's a little bit too McKinsey, but he does have the gift of the gab, and could definitely fill three hours with plaintive anecdotes about his time in the army, and his time growing up in Indiana, and he can sound charming and learned at the same time, and he might do well.

2. Seth Moulton. Not sure if he's going to jump into the 2028 primary, but he can bring some of the machismo and the manliness that Rogan admires. And I think he and Rogan could catch up on a lot of things and agree a lot as well.

3. AOC. I actually think AOC is a good talker and would do well in this format. She has shown that she can kind of play the room. I don't know if she's good with jokes and anecdotes and moving away from prepared talking points, but I think she could come into her own and be really engaging and entertaining in this format.

4. Tim Waltz I think he could be extremely relatable and seem like a common person you hang out with, which is what Rogan's audiences so much like.

5. Ro Khanna. We actually have evidence that Khanna would absolutely kill this, absolutely kill this interview. He is routinely on right-wing or right-wing adjacent media and he's able to be extremely agreeable and accommodating and also himself not compromising his principles. He's very smart, he's very engaging, and he would be perfect in this setting.

Others - Gavin Newsome (too sleazy, too smarmy, he'll try too hard to impress Rogan with his machismo bonafides & will come across as off putting), Bernie (can ace it but won't run obviously), Michelle Obama (won't do it for fear that it would somehow compromise her image & standing and think that Rogan is beneath her), Gretchen Whitmer (might do well but it is a very testosterone fueled environment), Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, Andy Beshar, Pritzkar, Cory Booker could do well, Kamala Harris (frankly she'd be terrible, will come across as try hard and inauthentic & fall into her word salad mode), Hillary Clinton (would be an absolute disaster), Marianne Williamson (Rogan would get bored with her).

Who've you got?

I’ve got the inspiration from this post by u/post_appt_bliss

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/Rl3Tk8MiYD

If we compare 2024 and 2020 with 2016 there’s a clear red shift that even goes against the general blue trend from 2016 to 2020.

What are your theories for and interpretations of this?

I’ve always been fascinated with how fast US elections are counted! As an Irish citizen our elections use the transferable vote. I feel it’s a super democratic way to vote, but it does take aaaaages to count.

1. Josh Shapiro - Of candidates I'm pretty sure is running, I give him the best chance even though he has some weaknesses like progressive voters (albeit Israel is likely a less in vogue subject by 2028) and I'm not seeing it right now with black voters for him. Still he is one of the best speech givers since Obama, is from a rust belt state, and everyone else has weaknesses so it's enough to be soft #1.
2. Wes Moore - Something about Moore makes me less sure he Wants It as much as Shapiro, Newsom and Beshear, he hasn't gone out of his way to be on TV often. Still if he does run, a black male could be what Democrats are interested in to run a moderate platform but appeal to progressives. 10 years ago, he'd be doomed to be one of the lesser known guys at 2% vote, and that could still happen, but he could get social media momentum for him especially if people are rooting against Shapiro and Newsom. His strengths and weaknesses cancel out with Shapiro but the latter is more likely to run so has highest overall probabilty.
3. Gavin Newsom - Newsom is the biggest guarantee to run, will likely have the most expensive campaign and seems like he's connected to the right people internally like Pelosi, so even if you are soft on his chances because nobody is rooting for him, it's hard to put him much lower probability wise. Newsom's look drips rich guy and has more "masculine energy" than people like Walz and Buttigieg in my opinion which could open up some new voters to cancel out some of the Bernie bros rooting against him. You can quibble over that but it's my feeling.
4. Kamala Harris - Harris is leading the early polls and she is releasing videos leading to rumors she's still interested in running with a less rushed campaign. We just saw a period where the losing presidential candidate was an "opposition leader" type figure for four years so there is a chance Harris or someone else emerges in same way. Her last primary went poorly but if the alternatives are Newsom and Shapiro she could rally the progressive voters as opposition to them. And no, she wouldn't be dead in the general election, all that would have to happen is staying level and Vance underperforming Trump.
5. Gretchen Whitmer - Whitmer would have to get them to believe in nominating a female again after 2016 and 2024 disasters but has the blue collar rust belt appeal and if Shapiro and Newsom both flop could emerge as the other one standing. I put her over Walz because of likelihood she runs, but if they both run I like his chances more.

Other candidates

Pete Buttigieg - I believe his ceiling was reached in 2020 primary.

Tim Walz - As mentioned not in the top 5 probability due to so-so chance of running especially if Harris is in it, may not have the most expensive campaign behind him. But if he ran he'd have a chance if people found him more likeable than the alternatives.

Andy Beshear - While he's running for sure I don't see it, he talks like a religious southern person to me and it doesn't seem like a fit for Democrats. One of the other guys in the primary.

JB Pritzker - He seems too connected to trans issue with how it's partly blamed for their 2024 loss.

Michelle Obama - Would be almost a lock if she ran but she already told us it's not in her soul.

AOC - They would rally around a moderate candidate over her.

I feel like this sub has kind of lost a lot as it's moved away from actually discussing the podcasts or content to being a more generic political sub.

Thankfully after the election I think a lot of the /r/politics users have left which has made this sub more analytical and reflective again, but it still feels like no one really talks much about the podcasts anymore. We've kind of lost our actual connection to fivethirtyeight and even Nate as most discussion these days revolve around either self posts or Tweets. Basically stuff people can engage with on a super surface level

I'm not saying we need to delete these posts ofc but actual discussion of podcast episodes would be nice for those who actually listen

I know that the response will probably just be "why don't you post them" and that's because I am very, very lazy lol

Anyways, I found this guide on how to do this for free apparently, so would appreciate if you guys could consider automatically posting all podcasts

Also as a separate note I think in addition to 538 politics podcast we should also post Risky Business podcasts, since Nate is still fairly relevant on this sub

In an alternate universe where Trump didn’t become the GOP nominee, do you think either of these likely alt nominees would have lost to Harris? Or would they have beaten her more decisively?

I can understand why rich urbanites in Upper East Side want to prop up their home values. Or why people with detached homes in LA are so keen to stop building (since their $1m home may be $2m in 10 years). But why aren't blue state politicians just plowing through this opposition in states that are safe blue no matter what?

The Electoral College will already kill off the Blue Wall in 2030. Trump won 206 EVs in double-digit Trump 2024 states and red states historically add ~12 electoral votes to their tally each decade just through demographic churn.

Yet here we are in Year 27 of California debating housing reform and New York arguing whether they can force Long Island to increase housing stock by 3%. I can absolutely understand why young people and people of color (who are keenly aware of the housing crisis) are pissed off. I just don't understand why the Party strategists are so OK with this being the sword they die on.

Why is it so hard to just follow what Washington State is doing and building tons of highrises in Seattle?

Red states are gaining people AND Trump is winning over disenchanted POC/young people in Blue states. This should be a 5-alarm fire but nobody seems to care.