dagblog - Comments for "The 2020 electoral map could be the smallest in years. Here’s why."

Nate Silver:

artappraiser — Tue, 03 Sep 2019 04:09:24 +0000

In reply to The 2020 electoral map could be the smallest in years. Here’s why.

Nate Silver:

I don't buy that the 2020 map will necessary be so small. If I were Trump or one of the Democrats, my initial plan would involve probably trying to compete in AZ FL MI WI PA NV NH TX MN CO VA GA NC ME OH IA NM and NE-2. The list would get culled down but that's where I'd begin.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 1, 2019

They are incompetent at this

artappraiser — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 18:14:05 +0000

In reply to The 2020 electoral map could be the smallest in years. Here’s why.

They are incompetent at this game. https://t.co/tdnbHmKpdj
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) September 2, 2019

But as regards the (far more

artappraiser — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 21:21:19 +0000

In reply to The 2020 electoral map could be the smallest in years. Here’s why.

But as regards the (far more important, mho) Senate:

“Democrats need to net only 4 seats to get to a 51-49 majority in the Senate, and the list of seats that Republicans need to defend is growing.” #Election2020 https://t.co/HXJyV0yLnj
— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) September 1, 2019

Balz's colleague at the

artappraiser — Sun, 01 Sep 2019 19:20:53 +0000

In reply to The 2020 electoral map could be the smallest in years. Here’s why.

Balz's colleague at the NYTimes recommends him as "the master" at this kind of thing:

When all is said and done, the presidential race looks likely to come down to just four states — Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. One possible scenario: Trump wins 270-268. The master @danbalz
breaks it all down. https://t.co/Xp4mKIYaNG
— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) September 1, 2019