1) FL absentees, early voting:

*Dems as expected ("souls to the polls Sunday") had a good day and FINALLY take the early walk-in vote lead by 6,100 votes.

Rs total: 1,151,593
Ds total: 1,092,547

Rs +59,046 combined lead. This is very good for this point in the campaign.

1) Last night I said we have 12 data points (AZ statewide, FL statewide +4 specific counties, IA + 2 counties, OH 2 counties, and NC).

Every single one was showing GOP turnout higher than midterm levels of 2014 and all but one (a county) showing turnout above 2016.

2) If I recall all the data correctly, D turnout/performance was below that of 2016 and, in the case of IA, below that of 2014.

3) Now we have two more data points to add: news out of WY that a net of 10k switched from D/other to R in last six months & turnout #s in Knox Co. TN

3) Out of 12 MEASURABLE data points--not polls which are opinions of what people "might" do in the future---every single one is favors the Rs.

4) I'll admit, I got a tad depressed for a minute yesterday when the latest Siena/NYT polls came out . . . before I was reminded . . .

4) . . they were making 60,000 calls to reach a mere 300 respondents.

SIXTY THOUSAND!

5) Who do you think is NOT responding?

Conservatives, Republicans, people with families & jobs.

6) That means these NYT polls are utterly worthless with a margin of error of 20% or more

7) So once again, we have real world data about what has ALREADY HAPPENED, stuff we can count . . .

and unreliable polls of the opinions of people who won't even vote about what they might do if it doesn't rain or if they don't have a hangnail that day.

1) 538 walks it back:
Right now, in fact, the polls are not showing a Democratic turnout advantage. Instead, based on a comparison of likely-voter and registered-voter polls, they’re projecting roughly equal turnout between the parties,

2) with Republicans’ demographic advantages (older, whiter voters typically vote at higher rates at the midterms) counteracting Democrats’ seemingly higher enthusiasm.”

3) Give little Natey a week and he'll see what we see: An R turnout advantage.

1) Gonna offer a hypothesis. This is NOT a prediction quite yet.

2) In the last couple of days the DNCC went back into IA1 (Blum) and VA10 (Comstock) and began placing ads again.

3) These were races they thought they had won in mid-summer. Barbara Comstock was the . . .

3) contd . . epitome of the endangered R who would lose her seat in the fall. She of course still might.

4) But this race was supposed to be over weeks ago. The fact that the DNCC is now having to fight for this territory tells me something.

5) I think the DemoKKKrat strategists can actually read. Moreover, I think they can read absentee/early voting #s as well as we can.

6) Which means they see they are getting buried. Even in NV, the only state of six where they have a tiny lead, I'm told that . . .

6) contd . . when the rural counties come in, Ds will be a shocking 41,000 short of their 2016 numbers (when Trump only lost by 27,000).

7) What does it mean they are now having to retake the "cities" they supposedly held? It probably means they never held them at all.

8) Their "leads" were always based almost entirely on polls.

9) But I think it means something more. I think the DNC is . . .

SCARED. TO. DEATH.

1) Voting in Cuyahoga County (OH's Manhattan for its blueishness) has dramatically increased.

2) Bad news right?

3) Er, no. "And increases are coming from Republicans and unaffiliated voters."

4) Now, we have to watch unaffiliated voters, but my OH guys--"The Accountant" and "Ohio Wan" developed a statistical model in 2016 that appears to be holding for assessing how Us will vote.

5) It's not bad for us at all.

6) So, here are the raw numbers:

Eighteen days out in 2018:
D 68,760 (44 %)
R 39,080 (25%)
Us 48,206 (30 %)
Total 156,251

2014:
D 75,675 (55 %)
Rs 33,964 (25 %)
•Us 26,854 (19 5)
Total 137,053

"Republicans appear energized" due to the Kavanaugh

The Democrats are at least two parties. The progressive wing of the party (which is by no means unified) and the finance wing of the party, which is also the party leadership.

1/

During the leadership race, the progressive wing was represented by @SenSanders and @SenWarren; the former wants to minimize the role of markets in our lives, the latter wants to redeem markets by regulating them. It's a distinction with a difference, but I donated to both.

2/

Both wings of the party have prominent representatives in Congress; Sandersism are most visibly associated with @AOC (whom I donated to) and Warrenism is embodied by @RepKatiePorter (likewise), who was also one of Warren's law school proteges.

3/

Porter is a force of nature. She is infamous - and celebrated - for her brutal, no-holds-barred questioning of both corporate and administration witnesses, using a white-board to pin them down and eviscerating any attempts at bullshittery.

4/

This isn't just about getting facts into the record (though, she is SO GOOD at getting facts into the record!), it's also about effecting change, like when she single-handedly cornered the CDC's chief into guaranteeing universal, free covid

Pretending that voting for Trump or denying climate change or suggesting the solution to every problem is more guns is a legitimate point of view, worthy of respect is not "how America works." It is how it dies.

People in a free society are entitled to any point of view no matter how obviously wrong or outlandish or destructive provided they do not impose their views on others.

But suggesting that something ignorant or divorced from reality warrants the same kind of treatment in public debate as something based in fact or at least credible is absurd and when done on behalf of a society in public media or academic settings it is self-destructive.

We would not grant media coverage or much bandwidth at all to a group that argued that unicorns exist or that there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Yet views like denying climate change or basing policy decisions on sweeping, obvious lies, are just as unsound.

Somewhere, somehow, judgments must be made. Some behaviors are wrong and must be condemned. Someone must challenge lies and demand facts. Coddling people who embrace idiocies does not help them no matter how loudly they demand to be coddled.

1. (On politics) I was once in a conversation with an elderly friend of mine who is American. He is deeply involved in politics in the States and I asked about what he had learnt. He said, "our movement pushed and mobilised and we got (.........) into the white house."

2. "However, we saw that our interests were not executed by him then we realised in a democratic setting sometimes its the people that surround the president or anyone in executive positions that really matter. Those he speaks to first and last.
We therefore changed our strategy"

3. We do support but now with the intent of placing people around the elected officers.
There is a lot of space for influence in positions that are non elective. Every executive leader leans on people to help in developing ideas and in executing them.

4. The young folks should be looking here. Elective positions like Governorship etc can be very expensive. Legitimate costs will run into hundreds of millions but there are positions for assistants, tech advisers, etc that wield alot of influence in shaping policy and direction.

5. If you want to change things you must get your foot into the room and have a seat at the table. The least position there will wield more power than being an critic on the outside. In positions like this skill, loyalty and confidentiality are the requirements and not money.