[ad_1]
There is so much coverage there. So many races and candidates.
But these mid-term elections could be a turning point: a reaffirmation of the leadership of the Republican party by President Trump or a demonstration against the party G.O.P. which doubles as an expression of support for Democrats.
This is where our national political correspondent, Alex Burns and The Campaign Reporter intervene. The Campaign Reporter is a messaging project in which readers regularly receive Alex's dispatches while it covers some of the most important elections in the United States, from the Dallas suburbs to Concord. , NH
It's also a place where readers can weigh on our blanket.
For example, readers of The Campaign Reporter recently voted in favor of sending Alex to Georgia for the first debate between the candidates for the position of governor of the state, Stacey Abrams and Brian Kemp (instead of attending the debate between Florida presidential candidates or events presenting presidential candidates). .
And every day, between long trips to phone banks in a community center or a night of debate, Alex answers questions from readers. Here is a selection of some of the the most common since we started last month.
Is the number of anticipated votes a good indicator of who will win?
Many of you ask questions about these advance poll numbers. …
I'll be honest, it's a traumatic subject for me because of 2016.
At the beginning of the vote, many tea leaves – especially in Florida – seemed to indicate that Hillary Clinton was clearly going to win.
More than other polls, that's what misplaced me two years ago. I am very suspicious of the analysis of early voting.
That said, the following points should be kept in mind when reading about advance voting.
This can certainly be a guarantee of enthusiasm. But a massive advance vote for one party or the other does not necessarily mean more votes for all.
And Republicans and Democrats tend to vote differently. Republicans like to vote by mail, Democrats like to vote early in person.
Nevertheless, you can learn more about how parties see the election, where the nationalization of a race might be helpful. Barack Obama went to Nevada to encourage early voting in this country. President Trump went to Texas for the same reason.
How does a super PAC "support" the candidates?
Here's how super PACs flex their muscles.
Meredith from Oregon and Andrea from Boca Raton wanted to know more about the super PACs.
The main thing they do is paid advertising, although some also fund the organization's field of voting.
At this stage of the election, you see these extremely well funded groups transferring money all over the map to get the message on their side on television. In most cases, the ads are negative.
This is because Democratic and Republican strategists believe that candidates must tell their own positive stories. If you see a candidate talking in front of the camera, it's almost never a super PAC advertisement.
So when the PAC at the Senate majority, a Democratic super-democrat, announced that he would spend millions of dollars to reinforce Bob Menendez, a vulnerable Senator from New Jersey, you might have guessed that it would be for offensive ads against his Republican opponent, Bob Hugin.
And of course, that's what it was – ads attacking Hugin as a leader in the pro-Trump pharmaceutical sector.
You see a ton of late attacking ads the last weeks. These groups have a lot of leeway to spend money and will move it a lot as they see new weaknesses.
Do TV campaign ads really work?
Katey from Illinois asked what was the importance of TV commercials and whether they were influencing people.
My unsatisfactory answer is: It depends on the ads!
As you watch them, think about what new viewers are learning – and see if that sounds credible.
If an ad just says "Candidate X is excellent / bad," it probably matters less. But if you have never heard of a candidate and the first thing you learn is that it is a veteran or a teacher, it probably leaves a good impression.
If you've heard of a candidate who seems vaguely kind and then see an announcement that he has endorsed in the Social Security cut, or if he has been charged with sexual harassment – well, that changes the things.
Most voters do not follow the elections as close as you all. The general impressions of candidates and political parties really matter.
Why is their money so important?
Good question from Kira to Cornwall (in Great Britain!) About why the number of fundraisers is so important. She asked, "Is not it more important to focus on polls?"
For starters, we can do both!
But seriously, money tells us things that polls can not.
During the election, you saw G.O.P. Super PACs are exerting tremendous and targeted pressure with an avalanche of TV commercials in tight-running districts.
If the Democrats had not amassed these huge war chests with money from small donors, this super PAC attack could have overwhelmed them.
The money numbers tell us who will be able to send a strong message on television and online in the last few weeks of an election. This is important when so many races are in the sampling error margin in the polls.
One thing to know about TV advertising in the US is that candidates can buy less expensive airtime than super PACs. They benefit from preferential rates.
The number of candidate fundraisers is therefore particularly important because the money of the candidates goes further than the outside money.
Can I even trust polls?
Many of you have asked questions about polls and what to trust after 2016.
The short answer is: trust the big picture. When you see really consistent trends, such as women swinging against the G.O.P. or Trump being very popular with Republicans, you can assume that it is reliable.
Personally, the polls, I hope most, are those that are consistent with the actual election results we have seen recently. When a poll shows that Democrats are doing very well in the suburbs of BC and Richmond, that makes sense – that's exactly what happened in the 2017 election in Virginia.
But you should not take any survey as authoritative.
One thing to remember is that political parties and campaigns have MUCH more survey information and other data than us.
Thus, their strategic choices are based on much more information than the media interviewed, you and me.
As a campaign reporter, I try in part to understand the private (and very expensive) polls that parties use. In many cases, private Democratic and Republican polls are quite similar, although both parties can draw very different conclusions from the same numbers.
What is the effect of celebrity endorsements?
So let's talk about Taylor Swift!
She has approved two Democrats, including Phil Bredesen for the Senate of Tennessee. Dallas-based Eron wondered if celebrity participation could make a difference to young people.
I would be skeptical that it will help Bredesen, who seems to be falling behind and not really counting on young voters.
But the mid-term commitment is rather weak, especially among young people. In 2014, only 13% of voters were under 30 years old.
So, if Taylor Swift talking about the vote to MA, informs people that the elections even take place, this could be of importance to some people. And it's probably good for democracy.
How are moderate Republicans doing?
I should really say "relatively moderate Republicans".
Allison from Syracuse asked about John Katko's representative from central New York, who appears to be in good shape to be re-elected.
Few Republicans in the House can be described as moderate and almost all face tough reelection fights in their purple suburbs.
A couple of Republicans pointed out to me that this was one of the ironies of the election: if the Democrats come to the House, they will do so by beating many Republicans who were willing, from time to time, to break with Trump.
Thus, the Republican caucus could become Trumpier as it would become smaller and members like Mike Coffman in Colorado and Jeff Denham in California would lose.
But Katko is also a good example, with Will Hurd of Texas, of a democratic wave even of decent size.
These Republicans have never been able to take their re-election for granted, and they have worked hard to project an image different from that of their national counterparts. The Republicans of the pale red districts have for the most part not done this, and they are therefore more at risk this year.
What about democratic districts that could tip over?
Interesting questions today! Ed from Rochester, Minnesota, asked about seats in the House that Democrats could lose.
It is no coincidence that this question comes from a Minnesotan: the two most at-risk seats held by Democrats are both in Minnesota. These are the first and eighth districts, where the incumbents are not candidates for re-election.
If one of these two turns, it is probably the eighth. The First, in southern Minnesota, has a weaker Republican candidate, and the current Democratic Congressman, Tim Walz, is running a bitter run for the governorship and should probably lift the entire ticket.
But the G.O.P. Try to take these two seats and a few others, including the seat of Rep. Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania. But these areas occupied by the Democrats voted for Trump in 2016.
The card is mainly composed of Republicans playing defense, thanks to the unpopularity of Trump. But we must not forget that the Democrats must obtain a gain of 23 seats, not just 23 seats held. So, if Republicans win one or both of Minnesota's districts, Democrats must catch up elsewhere.
Does anyone talk about climate change?
Shosh from Chicago asks if climate will affect elections. Conventional wisdom and polls say it will not, but I disagree with that.
I think climate is part of a group of issues – including gun control and gun rights – that send a strong cultural signal about the type of person who is a candidate.
You see advertisements on the climate and the environment in places like California and Minnesota, where voters may not focus on climatology, but where the environment is important to people.
What I am checking is whether the climate is becoming a significant issue for voters in places hit by extreme weather conditions, such as Florida.
How far are races dominated by national issues?
All elections are not about Trump.
I would like to point out some urgent local and state issues, which are not as obvious as national issues and even play a role in some federal elections.
Most of these campaigns are dominated by national issues – Trump, health care, the Supreme Court – with a few exceptions.
The first is the financing of education in states where schools and teachers are in poor condition. I'm sure you remember the strikes and teacher strikes this year in a number of red states, like West Virginia and Oklahoma.
There are also environmental problems that have a more local resonance than national: toxic algae, mainly in Florida but also in states like Ohio.
And it's a bit of a national problem, but there are states where infrastructure – roads and bridges – is just an urgent concern. I've heard a lot about this in the Midwest and I'm sure a lot of people have seen candidates talk about it in their commercials.
Why do leading personalities make appearances for candidates who are so far behind?
Hello from New Hampshire! I did not dress warm enough (sorry, Mom).
Bob from Iowa wanted to know who was testing the presidential waters here. I'm glad you asked!
In a short time, I will see New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand campaigning with Molly Kelly, Democrat Governor of New Hampshire.
Kelly is neglected, but she got help from a group of national democrats who wish to run for president, including Cory Booker.
This is also happening in other presidential states. Joe Biden traveled to South Carolina for James Smith, the Democratic nominee for the governorship, although Smith is unlikely to win.
But it is useful to make friends in these states even if they do not win. They always have local credibility and networks of supporters to lend.
And why bother to cover these events?
So I'm heading to South Carolina.
Kamala Harris is campaigning for the Democrats there. This is another 2018 time that ends in 2020.
The purpose of these trips is not just to check the early stages of the presidential race. (The idea of covering another election season makes me think of that.)
It is also here that you can see a part of it and try to define its identity.
I spent a lot of time looking at the G.O.P. to go through there when Obama was president. You see competing themes and visions emerge mid-way, long before they are sorted in the presidential primaries.
Source link
