He just doesn't resonate with Republicans.

Ammar Campa-Najjar's interview with Rolling Stone


FML, this guy is going to lose, and he's literally as charismatic and informed as Beto (who's also gonna lose, but Ammar could have had a chance if the national dems actually gave him ANY help) UGH

I'd pull out a quote, but i can't choose.

First paragraph hooked me:

“I worked at the White House for a little bit – working on those 10 letters a day that the president would read, back when we had a President who read,” he tells Rolling Stone. Campa-Najjar is half-Latino, half-Arab — and Christian.

Is this real life?

Wow

just

wow

is that diamond/silk?

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/stat...01677702602754

took my brothers bet. He offered me 4-1 I say Republicans hold the house. Gave him 3-1 That they hold senate also. I love USA politics

That was good.


Whenever someone just breaks out the "Pelosi" line, I would love to see their opponent ask them if they actually know what Pelosi's stances are on issues or if that's just a canned talking point.

Republicans hold everything. Progressives just don't get what is happening.

I thought about this pretty hard but decided its best if i just admit I'm not actually a "100%" 100% confident.

fair enough

Early voting in my county does not begin until October 27th, and runs through November 4th.

Nine ****ing days. Unreal.

at least your state has early voting

https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/...63732984807427

The odds are amazingly accurate I think fivethirtyeight has this one nailed.

I've lost tons of 1/7s playin poker I don't feel good at all with this bull****

That’s why they’re accurate.

This isn't a house election, but this article written about the GOP candidate for Nevada governor is super scathing. Written by 12 of his relatives.

https://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/vo...hy/1733253002/

A lot of the possible outcomes the 538 model treats as non-zero are zero. Dems are not going to gain more than 60 seats, come on.

This is true of almost everyone who uses Gaussian probabilities to model things. Like, if you do a textbook exercise and make a distribution of human heights you'll wind up with a non-zero probability that someone will be 100 feet tall even though that really should be a zero probability. It's an oversimplification, but the amount of error it introduces is negligible. I guess Nate could make the probability be a hard zero out past 3-4 sigma, but it's probably not worth the hassle --I mean where and how do you draw the line.




Edit: I guess there are some clear hard limits to how many seats you can ever possibly win, but beyond 435 it's not obvious what the line should be.

Democrats gaining 60+ seats doesn't seem impossible to me. Polling error is a thing, and enthusiasm in this race might be particularly difficult for pollsters to guess (going both ways).

I think it's something like a 3 or 4 point error in favor of the Democrats for some of those gerrymandered states to start backfiring on the Repbulicans.

I agree. I think there are a lot of left-leaning folks in red states who never show up to vote because they think there's no point - they think it's hopeless to win in their location. If all these people suddenly turn out to vote, it's possible Dems outperform their polling and these folks prove that the actual makeup of the state is not as solidly red as the past voter turnout showed it to be.

And when looking at possible outcomes of the nationwide result, you have to keep in mind that they're correlated. In other words, it's not likely that a bunch of these folks turn out in Iowa and Nebraska, but not Kansas or Oklahoma.

I may be setting the line incorrectly, but you get what I'm saying.

435-0 won't happen
434-1 won't happen
433-2 won't happen
etc.

In this case, I'd say Republicans are better than 1/7 to retain control. Historically no party has ever had more than ~75% of the House and greater than 60% hasn't been seen since the early 90s.