NickS writes: In addition to immediate post-election polling there are some organizations that do a deeper analysis of election results compared to voter files. Catalist released their report this week.

It looks like Pew will release something similar within the next couple of months.

Overall that is similar to the data from exit polls but it has some of the best charts that I've seen showing differences between the national election and battleground states. You can also see a comparison between their data and two major exit polls here.

The things I would highlight are:

1) Exit polls showed a significant decline in non-white voter turnout, they think that decline was much smaller.
2) They have some of the best charts I've seen showing differences between the national race and battleground states.
3) They show a slightly larger gender gap than I had thought and I appreciate them breaking it out by age and race:

The gender gap widened across age cohorts in each election, with the largest movements in the youngest age group each cycle. In 2024 the gender gap among 18 to 29 year olds widened to 17 points as women dropped slightly from 66% Democratic support in 2020 to 63% in 2024 while men dropped much further from 55% Democratic support in 2020 to 46% in 2024. Similar patterns in battleground states resulted in a similar gender gap. These are the largest gender gaps observed in recent years and are far larger than among older voters.

These trends varied significantly by race. Support among young male Latino voters aged 18 to 29 dropped the most at 16 points, from 63% to 47%. AAPI voters saw similarly large drops, both nationally and in battleground states. Black men dropped from 86% to 79% nationally; in battleground states, the drop in support was more muted, falling by three points from 89% to 84%. Among white male voters, support fell by 4 points, from 40% to 36% nationally, and from 37% to 35% in the battleground states.

4) Something that is distinctive to their analysis is the breakdown by how regularly someone votes.

Figure 41 shows recent presidential electorates divided by how frequently people voted in prior elections. . . .

In 2016, super voters leaned Republican, with only 47% supporting Clinton. In 2020 and 2024, they shifted towards Democrats, with 49% supporting Biden in 2020 and just under 50% supporting Harris in 2024. Neither of these are majority support, but they trended toward Democrats. These voters - older, more likely to be homeowners - have historically been Republican, so it is notable that Democrats have gained among this group.

The other groups (0/4 to 3/4 elections) were Democratic-leaning in past years, but moved towards Republicans, particularly in 2024. In 2016 and even 2020, these irregular voters were at least in the low 50s in support for Democrats. But in 2024, they were in the 48 to 50% Democratic support range.

Part of this shift is compositional. In 2016, a super voter was someone who voted in 2010 and 2014: midterm elections with high Republican turnout. In 2024, a super voter was someone who voted in 2018 and 2022 - an exceptionally Democratic midterm and another that was more evenly split. Because of these dynamics, a 2024 super voter happens to be more Democratic now than in the past.

I'm curious what other people would highlight from the report.

Heebie's take: I note that they did not break out the 18-21 year olds from the 22-26 year olds, even though I'm convinced there's something to unpack there.

I start to sound hysterical and unglued very quickly on this topic, but I am very freaked out at the idea that The Algorithms are turning young men into rightwing women-haters.

Also I return to the Sarah McBride notion that Republicans are cast as Men rhetorically - powerful, allowed to be angry, given the benefit of the doubt when they spout bullshit - while Democrats are cast as Women rhetorically - boring, responsible, will clean up the messes but then please leave. I hate everything.

Mossy writes: Pope Leo XIV's link to Haiti is part of a broader American story of race, citizenship and migration.

on the New Orleans side.

Heebie's take: Sadly, the video where the family discovers their mom had hooked up with the pope as a young adult is a hoax.

Local pre-emption laws have been coming up a LOT in Texas. I mean, this is true for the past decade, but like everything else Republicans do, they constantly need to accelerate because there's no actual goal they're trying to achieve beside pwn the libs.

Republicans in the Texas Legislature want to give the state the authority to effectively torpedo cities' budgets if they pursue local rules that might conflict with state law -- intended to deter them from adopting left-leaning ideas in the first place. GOP legislators have targeted financial assistance programs for needy families, measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and initiatives to promote diversity, equity and inclusion. They've sought to overturn moves in cities like Austin and Dallas to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. No issue is too small. Some Republicans even want to make it harder for cities to install bike and bus lanes.

Anyway, one thing I think is interesting is that progressive causes also want to use local pre-emption in sympathetic ways in blue states, eg to enable jurisdictions to build more housing in Colorado.

Qualitatively, the two cases are not the same. In Texas, local preemption laws are just another State's Rights thing. Obviously this is literally true, but I also mean it on this level: No one has ever actually cared about State vs. Federal rights as a matter of passion on the proper radius of governance. It's always just wanting to have more power at whichever level your cause controls. They don't have a philosophical argument about why certain issues are better dealt with at the state. They just want to dominate blue cities.

But sometimes state pre-emption laws are justified - namely when it's a collective action problem that needs large-scale, coordinated solutions to solve it. So the anti-NIMBY legislation in Colorado is justified in a way that the Texas bullshit is not.

Even just the phrase "big beautiful bill" makes my blood boil, and it just occurred to me that they're trying to retake BBB from Build Back Better or something?

Anyway, Paul Krugman on the deliberate cruelty of the bill.

My predicition - just general pessimism - is that yes, they fall in line and ram it through.

Snarkout writes: This starts as a fun little investigation into a the disappearance of minor Brooklyn icon -- a pink dinosaur billboard to advertise fuel oil, real sexy just like you said, boss! -- and turns into a story about just how long people could keep doing blatant deed theft if they chose victims who didn't have the social capital to fight back. The answer will (not) surprise you!

Heebie's take: Fascinating, but the type of thing that just makes me want to go back to bed and pull the covers over my head. Something about theft-by-legal-obfuscation or maybe theft-by-red-tape-and-paperwork is especially upsetting to me. It's like a cross between The Godfather and Brazil.