Charlotte Swasey

@charlotteeffect.bsky.social

Data witch for good causes and bad datasets

"They’re also preemptively blaming the party for a general election loss, as if 'losing to a highly successful Republican incumbent after your primary dissolved into chaos' is a fun situation the Maine Party chose on purpose."

Charlotte Swasey @charlotteeffect.bsky.social · 4w ago

The shadow of the 2016 primary hangs over every election since, and I am extremely tired of it. We should try having a different argument for once. cauldronllc.substack.com/p/platner-be...

I barely have opinions on the potential replacements for Platner, but everyone should be asking them if they're willing to make a full break from him and the people who elevated him. A replacement candidate unwilling to denounce him would be an electoral disaster.

are any of the 'ohhh sorry is REAL PERSON too much for you apple polishing hall monitor HR ladies' types gonna exhibit any contrition or reflection that the guy with the very obvious red flags did in fact turn out to have extremely serious weaknesses as a candidate?

This graph is super misleading- OF COURSE democratic vote share is higher when the ratio of D to R voters is higher. The second graph uses *average ideological midpoint* between the two parties, not D ideology, and so shows Dems do better when the *midpoint* between the parties is more left.

Adam Bonica@adambonica.bsky.social · last mo.

A friendly empirical note for those losing it over progressive primary wins: ideological positioning barely explains Democratic vote shares since 2006. Turnout explains a lot. The party can run to the center all it wants. It won’t help if the base doesn’t show up.

Here’s alt text for the chart:

Two scatterplots titled “What Drives Democratic Success in House Elections? Analysis of U.S. House Elections (2006-2024).” Each plots the Democratic share of the two-party vote (ranging from about 46% to 56%) for individual election years, with blue points marking years Democrats won a House majority and red points marking Republican-majority years.

The left panel, “Closing the Partisan Turnout Gap,” plots vote share against the Democratic-to-Republican turnout ratio. The points trend upward: as Democratic turnout approaches Republican levels (ratio nearing 1.0), Democratic vote share rises. 2008 sits highest at the top right (ratio ~1.0, ~55.5%), while 2010 and 2014 sit low and left (ratio ~0.91, ~46-47%). All years show a ratio below 1.0, indicating Democrats consistently turned out at lower rates than Republicans. (2006 and 2024 are excluded for lack of turnout data.)

The right panel, “Strategic Party-level Ideological Positioning,” plots vote share against party positioning on a liberal-conservative scale. The points trend downward: Democrats performed better when positioned further left. 2008, 2006, and 2018 cluster at the upper left (more liberal, ~54-55.5%), while 2010, 2022, and 2024 fall to the lower right (more conservative, ~46-49%).

A note beneath the panels explains the turnout ratio is drawn from L2 voter files and that ideology is measured with a composite of established scores (CFscores, DW-NOMINATE, DW-DIME, Hall-Snyder, GGUM, Shor-McCarty), citing Bonica, Rhee, and Studen (2025).

this is true but it's true in a different way than people think the report NEVER MENTIONS INFLATION the word "inflation" appears 18 times, but exclusively for "inflation-adjusted" statistics on media spending the report ignores *all* the decisive issues of 2024 www.motherjones.com/politics/202...

There are 50,000 words in the DNC autopsy. 'Gaza" isn't one.

The report appears to omit any policy reasons why some Democratic voters might not have chosen Harris.

motherjones.com