The NYT has no clue about the diversity of terrain and climate in our state. I have completely lost my patience with idiot 'experts'. Builders on the Outer Banks or Wrightsville *should* have different building codes than those in the Piedmont and mountains, period. Only a pure fool would look at a redirected river that washed away 40 vertical feet of mountain underneath the road and houses and contemptuously sniff, 'Those dumb hillbillies didn't have the right building codes in place'. Codes are more than onerous enough already. A statewide building code across NC to cover every contingency and potential point of weakness under every imaginable circumstance or fluke of nature is not only impractical: conforming to it would make every house, shack, and shed unaffordable for all of us. We don't need more bureaucracy and centralization. NC to NYT: Drop dead.
Nice work on the model, by the way, and especially on explaining your process so clearly. Great use of available data. Voter ID has traditionally been a good rule of thumb, as you say, although last time (2020, I mean) and this one aren't likely to be squarely in the 'normal' zone.
Just one historical point on the model: Our primary rules have changed from time to time. I know at one point (decades ago) I registered as a Dem for a few(?) cycles because they closed primaries & the Dem primary was the only vote that mattered in NC. Before and now, as an independent I can pick which ballot I want to vote in primaries and run-offs. (R gets R, D gets D, Independent can pick R or D.) If or when they change the rules again, I'd pick a party, but it wouldn't signal party ID but rather where I'm guessing my vote would be less insignificant. At this moment in time I'd probably pick R because the D machine still dominates candidate selection (my impression), while R primaries seem currently less predetermined. Not that it would be a huge factor in the model, but a small amount of shift from Dem to Independent might be people realizing the same (not necessarily signalling lack of D affiliation).
The NYT has no clue about the diversity of terrain and climate in our state. I have completely lost my patience with idiot 'experts'. Builders on the Outer Banks or Wrightsville *should* have different building codes than those in the Piedmont and mountains, period. Only a pure fool would look at a redirected river that washed away 40 vertical feet of mountain underneath the road and houses and contemptuously sniff, 'Those dumb hillbillies didn't have the right building codes in place'. Codes are more than onerous enough already. A statewide building code across NC to cover every contingency and potential point of weakness under every imaginable circumstance or fluke of nature is not only impractical: conforming to it would make every house, shack, and shed unaffordable for all of us. We don't need more bureaucracy and centralization. NC to NYT: Drop dead.
Nice work on the model, by the way, and especially on explaining your process so clearly. Great use of available data. Voter ID has traditionally been a good rule of thumb, as you say, although last time (2020, I mean) and this one aren't likely to be squarely in the 'normal' zone.
Just one historical point on the model: Our primary rules have changed from time to time. I know at one point (decades ago) I registered as a Dem for a few(?) cycles because they closed primaries & the Dem primary was the only vote that mattered in NC. Before and now, as an independent I can pick which ballot I want to vote in primaries and run-offs. (R gets R, D gets D, Independent can pick R or D.) If or when they change the rules again, I'd pick a party, but it wouldn't signal party ID but rather where I'm guessing my vote would be less insignificant. At this moment in time I'd probably pick R because the D machine still dominates candidate selection (my impression), while R primaries seem currently less predetermined. Not that it would be a huge factor in the model, but a small amount of shift from Dem to Independent might be people realizing the same (not necessarily signalling lack of D affiliation).