Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

It's particularly remarkable in this case because the jurisdiction in question--Milwaukee--was transparent about how exactly many mail ballots they had to tabulate and when they would be tabulated. There was zero surprise. It's also how they've always done it, including in 2016 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

The 'vote dumps,' OTOH, are an inevitable artifact of how jurisdiction reports their votes in batches, rather than updating their tally vote by vote. There's really nothing you can do to avoid this. Taking issue with it just means you don't believe election results, period — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Take mail voting, for instance. If you wanted to restore the credibility of the electoral process, you could eliminate no-excuse mail voting on the grounds that it's no longer credible to a wide swath of the electorate, even if you thought their concerns were completely wrong — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

The thing that's most dispiriting about the 'vote dump' charts (which purport to show irregularities, but just show large Dem. cities reporting), is that it's in such complete bad faith that there's no way the electoral process could be reformed to guard against it going forward — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

The Upshot NFL playoff simulator is back, and after extensive analysis it finds that this SEA-AZ game is pretty important https://t.co/HWAgy2BTpz — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

And since a surprising number of you dispute that this was so at the time — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@TreatDevourer @AdamCohen538 the number of absentee ballots in Milwaukee was known preelection. honestly I stopped looking at the state at a certain point — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@AdamCohen538 GA/AZ weren't definite--though wisconsin was. you can look at my feed at the time — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@eazystormborn @bronxbaumer a call indicates that you believe there's a ~100% chance of an outcome. i thought biden was favored to win--as that estimate of a, what, 1-2 pt win implies--but i had no evidence to support a 100% proposition — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@bronxbaumer no, I rejected the call—it was my determination — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

At the time, yes, I thought Biden was pretty clear favored. In retrospect, I was wrong about that—and I was against/rejected the AP call. At the time, I thought Biden would win by 40-50k in the end — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

It was clear by 3AM or so on Election Night that we were probably headed to Biden at 306, and the 2020 gods have pulled out every stop to keep things even vaguely interesting for as long as possible — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Breaking — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

The president won more votes in Detroit than he did in 2016, while Biden won fewer votes than Clinton. The turnout was essentially unchanged--even as it rose greatly elsewhere--and stood at a paltry 49.6% of registered voters. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Joe Biden will still be the president, despite attempts to subvert the will of the electorate. But it's not so hard to imagine a slightly different world--a closer race, a few more Wayne-ish dissenters--where similar efforts could threaten continuity of constitutional government — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Joe Biden will still be the president come January, despite deliberate efforts to subvert the will of the electorate. But it's no longer so hard to imagine a slightly different world, where similar, subversive efforts threaten continuity of constitutional government — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@jbarro I definitely think that's a factor, especially in the blue checkmark crowd. But I also think there are a lot of ordinary readers who earnestly feel left out! — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

So while you're entitled to be a SEA fan who ignores boring defensive personnel moves and basks in Wilson, you absolutely cannot do the same in politics. Those boring defensive personnel moves effect millions of lives and are, ultimately, the real consequences of elections — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Trying to figure out how to create or undo change is the basically the whole goal of electoral strategy. It determines the messages of candidates, the policies they support, and ultimately the actions pursued by our government — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

A fan can basically choose to ignore the fact that the Seahawks GM can pencil in Wilson at QB and work to improve on everything else. A political observer absolutely cannot do that. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

But although Mr. Wilson might not like it, change is the most important consideration when we talk about strategy--and strategy matters a lot more in a democracy than it does to a football fan. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

After all, Russell Wilson would be pretty miffed if he could only make headlines when he stepped up to throw a sixth touchdown in a game (and if that sixth touchdown represented the margin of victory) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

In my coverage, I almost always focus on change--and there are good reasons why, at least good to my satisfaction. But based on my replies about GA or tweets about Latino voters, the tension here definitely leaves a lot of people feeling cold--and that makes sense to me too — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

You can frame the same thing two very different ways. If you're writing the story of how did Biden win Georgia, maybe you'd frame it as 'he won just enough white voters.' If you're writing about how Georgia flipped, maybe you'd emphasis 'huge gains among white suburbanites' — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

This winds up leading to some takes that seem odd. In Georgia, it's quite clear that shifts among white voters are the most significant reason the state shifted from red to light blue. But Biden lost white voters there by 40 points! — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

There's a fairly straightforward reason for that: partisanship. Candidates inherit the loyalties of voters. If there's a demographic that contributes the equiv of 5 TDs for a party one year, you can pencil it in for the next in a way you can't with Wilson performance — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

In electoral analysis, that's definitely not how we'd cover it. We'd say that the Seattle defense made huge strides and/or that the opponent's offense fared worse. Wilson would almost be taken as a given — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

In electoral analysis, that's definitely not how we'd cover it. We'd say that the Seatthe defense made huge strides and/or that the opponent's offense fared worse. Wilson would almost be taken as a given — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Take a football game. If a few weeks ago, Seattle loses to football game, 42-35, and then a few weeks later, Seattle beats the same team 35-28, with Wilson throwing 5 TDs, the headline is probably about Wilson throwing 5 TDs and the offense winning them the game — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

One thing that's fairly unique about election analysis--and that rubs people the wrong way, I think--is the emphasis on the components of change from one election to the next — PolitiTweet.org