-
@eScarry @dcexaminer 1/ Headline a little ambiguous. If one interprets "win" broadly, i.e. "pick up seats relative to last time," that doesn't really fit my piece. But it's ok if one interprets "win" as meaning "while losing some seats, still win a majority of them & so keep control of the House"Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +10 🙂
-
@eScarry @dcexaminer 2/ But I didn't write the headline and the interpretation you're putting on it is the expansive one. So I dispute that "Savage said it was even possible that Republicans 'win' in the midterms, even though the party that controls that White House usually loses seats in Congress."Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -2 🙁
-
@eScarry @dcexaminer 3/ I also dispute framing my essay (which I've been thinking about for a long time and started drafting after the Feb 13 SSCI hearing, and which the NYT published on March 3) as a reaction to a poll that Axios published on March 8.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -2 🙁
-
@eScarry @dcexaminer 4/ -- or to the observed partisan turnout in Texas' March 3 primary. It's just false to cite a piece published before those things happened as if they were a reaction to them.On twitter.com
Mood -1 🙁
-
@eScarry @dcexaminer *March 6 primaryPermalink On twitter.com
Mood 0
-
@eScarry @dcexaminer 5/ More broadly, my piece was not horserace journalism. It was not a prediction that a wave will or won't happen. It was an attempt to think through how the expectations of a wave are helping to keep the peace & what the consequences may be if one doesn't turn out to materialize.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +4 🙂