1. Correct. As I wrote my book diagnosing @HillaryClinton's loss (I'd argue singularly properly, no other book/analysis gets this right) I began to formulate the theory that would eventually become popularly known as "the negative partisanship model/theory." As a pollster in VA https://twitter.com/RonBrownstein/status/1323644768807628802

2. in 2017 I had the good fortune to have the ability to run my own horserace polls (& even greater fortune to draw a colleague in @QuentinKidd who is a true gender-egalitarian & who believed in the theory) who gave me permission to build a turnout model for an electorate that

3. had never existed in VA before, and one that conflicted w Nate Cohn's polling. I did not issue a formal prediction or theory in terms of a forecast- I had the polling which predicted a large, & most imp STEADY, win for the Dem nominee, but I did not put out a forecast so when

4. election happened, I was yelling at my car's radio: "I knew it! I KNEW it! And went on to give the most obnoxious @wamu885 int in the station's history about my new theory about elections & how it KNEW this giant wave was coming. So I committed myself right then & right there

5. to figuring out a way to add a math element to my theory- bc that's what you need to make one of these things matter. Problem is/was, of course, that I'm actually quite limited at math genes. But I figured something out- something that was good enough for govn't work. And it

6. allowed me to model what my theory was arguing about hyperpartisanship, vote choice, negative partisanship, & turnout, about the party's coalitions & realignment-about this upcoming massive surge of college-educated voters, esp women that would redefine the map. As you know-

7. that effort allowed me to anticipate the size of the 2018 Blue Wave months in advance of Election Day & identify places of competition that were not yet on the radar. As you know, the theory/system has also delivered the same function for the 2020 cycle. Read back the orginal

8. forecast, posted on July 1, 2019 today & it argued that by fall of 2020 we'd see a very solid D adv in the Midwest & competition in the sunbelt. We'd see massive turnout surges of Ds and Is. This is exactly what we see. So, we already know that this part of the election is in

9. in the bank- so at the very least, we should see a tight Biden win. BUT we may see additional vote going to Biden due to a 2nd effect that emerged after that original forecast- due to the pandemic. The mismanagement of the pandemic at the very least has increased Biden's

10. adv among pure Indies by pushing seniors and women- even non-college edu women away. And there may be, we don't know yet, but there may be what I'll call a @ProjectLincoln Effect: Trump may underperform a couple points with right-leaning Rs or even actual Republicans. If so

11. then we really could be looking at a scenario more like the 2008 map- except instead of MO and IN- you're looking at TX and GA. I have seen AZ flipping to the Ds for months.

That said, my forecast, the others, we measure voter sentiment & fundamentals based on the principle

12. of free & fair elections. That everyone who wants to cast a vote can, & all votes are counted. Trump & his party have postured quite a bit about not counting all the ballots. There's also the possibility of massive GOP turnout- but if that's happening- I'm not hearing it.