@ethan the overall analysis is worth noting. Less so the conclusions for THIS district. Logic feels a little stretched. First of all 0.4 to 1.7 is a huge almost 3X difference, meaningful when every point counts. Moreover you won't look at national averages alone when you have data for THIS incumbent and it's indicating a 0.4 incumbency advantage. Secondly while yes a state CAN be above national baseline but if any state comes in below the national swing towards D, it's Alabama. Trump approval is still net positive in Alabama and many disapprovers will still vote R. (WWC evangelicals etc where D brand is too toxic to switch)
Overall I would say this is borderline between Likely R and Safe R and Cook is right to wait for evidence of a bigger national swing or quality local polling before changing.
Part 2 will be about debunking the notion the Deep South doesn’t swing as much as the rest of the country.
But more pertinently, 2024 was an open race - Figures was not yet an incumbent. I did not even include any candidate overperformance in my calculations.
Finally, it should be noted that atm, Dems are actually gaining MUCH more ground with the white working class than white college ed in 2026, both in polls and actual elections. This notion of the WWC is about 10 years outdated.
Okay, will look forward to part 2. Have subscribed.
True on incumbency, let's assume a 3% incumbency advantage, still need a national D+11 and we aren't there yet.
Am aware of WWC swings which are a big part of current D+8 but it's not going to be even across the country. Factors like evangelical religiousity will be differentiators.
Look forward to evidence that the deep south could see higher than the national swing. (Assuming average R candidate not Moore type disasters)
Alright, will do! Tho to nitpick, the base math technically requires D+10 nationally (11.5% bluer than 2024, a Trump+1.5 year). And ofc, the 3% gap I projected from a D+7 year can also be overcome by superior candidates or messaging.
@ethan the overall analysis is worth noting. Less so the conclusions for THIS district. Logic feels a little stretched. First of all 0.4 to 1.7 is a huge almost 3X difference, meaningful when every point counts. Moreover you won't look at national averages alone when you have data for THIS incumbent and it's indicating a 0.4 incumbency advantage. Secondly while yes a state CAN be above national baseline but if any state comes in below the national swing towards D, it's Alabama. Trump approval is still net positive in Alabama and many disapprovers will still vote R. (WWC evangelicals etc where D brand is too toxic to switch)
Overall I would say this is borderline between Likely R and Safe R and Cook is right to wait for evidence of a bigger national swing or quality local polling before changing.
Part 2 will be about debunking the notion the Deep South doesn’t swing as much as the rest of the country.
But more pertinently, 2024 was an open race - Figures was not yet an incumbent. I did not even include any candidate overperformance in my calculations.
Finally, it should be noted that atm, Dems are actually gaining MUCH more ground with the white working class than white college ed in 2026, both in polls and actual elections. This notion of the WWC is about 10 years outdated.
Okay, will look forward to part 2. Have subscribed.
True on incumbency, let's assume a 3% incumbency advantage, still need a national D+11 and we aren't there yet.
Am aware of WWC swings which are a big part of current D+8 but it's not going to be even across the country. Factors like evangelical religiousity will be differentiators.
Look forward to evidence that the deep south could see higher than the national swing. (Assuming average R candidate not Moore type disasters)
Alright, will do! Tho to nitpick, the base math technically requires D+10 nationally (11.5% bluer than 2024, a Trump+1.5 year). And ofc, the 3% gap I projected from a D+7 year can also be overcome by superior candidates or messaging.
WI-08 (Green Bay) could use some analysis too. Though Wisconsin primaries are so late that it may be hard to assess candidate strength
Incumbency was one reason why the SC Senate decided not to gerrymander.
The new 6th was the least Republican district in the redraw.
Clyburn announced his intention to run in the new 6th and Republicans had nobody to take him on.
Republicans already have two open seats to defend because Nancy Mace and Ralph Norman ran for governor.