One thing that's fairly unique about election analysis--and that rubs people the wrong way, I think--is the emphasis on the components of change from one election to the next

Take a football game. If a few weeks ago, Seattle loses to football game, 42-35, and then a few weeks later, Seattle beats the same team 35-28, with Wilson throwing 5 TDs, the headline is probably about Wilson throwing 5 TDs and the offense winning them the game

In electoral analysis, that's definitely not how we'd cover it. We'd say that the Seattle defense made huge strides and/or that the opponent's offense fared worse. Wilson would almost be taken as a given

There's a fairly straightforward reason for that: partisanship. Candidates inherit the loyalties of voters. If there's a demographic that contributes the equiv of 5 TDs for a party one year, you can pencil it in for the next in a way you can't with Wilson performance

This winds up leading to some takes that seem odd. In Georgia, it's quite clear that shifts among white voters are the most significant reason the state shifted from red to light blue. But Biden lost white voters there by 40 points!

You can frame the same thing two very different ways. If you're writing the story of how did Biden win Georgia, maybe you'd frame it as 'he won just enough white voters.' If you're writing about how Georgia flipped, maybe you'd emphasis 'huge gains among white suburbanites'

In my coverage, I almost always focus on change--and there are good reasons why, at least good to my satisfaction. But based on my replies about GA or tweets about Latino voters, the tension here definitely leaves a lot of people feeling cold--and that makes sense to me too

After all, Russell Wilson would be pretty miffed if he could only make headlines when he stepped up to throw a sixth touchdown in a game (and if that sixth touchdown represented the margin of victory)

But although Mr. Wilson might not like it, change is the most important consideration when we talk about strategy--and strategy matters a lot more in a democracy than it does to a football fan.

A fan can basically choose to ignore the fact that the Seahawks GM can pencil in Wilson at QB and work to improve on everything else.
A political observer absolutely cannot do that.

Trying to figure out how to create or undo change is the basically the whole goal of electoral strategy. It determines the messages of candidates, the policies they support, and ultimately the actions pursued by our government

So while you're entitled to be a SEA fan who ignores boring defensive personnel moves and basks in Wilson, you absolutely cannot do the same in politics. Those boring defensive personnel moves effect millions of lives and are, ultimately, the real consequences of elections