Christopher Devine

Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Dayton. Author, "I'm Here to Ask for Your Vote" & "Do Running Mates Matter?"

[Christopher Devine @ProfDevine]

@BookNoteApp The author is Annie Jacobsen, not Michael Lewis.

[UD Arts and Sciences @UDaytonCAS]

'Second in Command,' a new book edited by @univofdayton political scientist @ProfDevine, brings together leading scholars to trace the growing influence of vice presidents and running mates in American politics: https://t.co/TstcwydkCV

[Christopher Devine @ProfDevine]

@terrygatwood Congratulations, Terry! That’s awesome.

[Christopher Devine @ProfDevine]

@terrygatwood That just be a challenge, given the wide sweep of the book. Enjoy the chase—and merry Christmas!

[Christopher Devine @ProfDevine]

Me, too! Thanks, @bjrottinghaus--part of an all-star lineup of VP/presidency scholars contributing to this this volume. Can't wait for you all to have a chance to read it soon (spring 2026).

[Brandon Rottinghaus @bjrottinghaus]

Excited for this excellent volume on vice presidents from @UofMPress edited by @premontk_rine and @ProfDevine! Justin Vaughn (@CCUChanticleers) and I contributed a chapter on scholarly assessments of vice presidential greatness.

[Catherine McNicol Stock @cmsto]

Excited to announce the formal release of our second collection of essays on politics in the postwar Midwest. It was a dream of mine to put essays in conversation with each other across two volumes. Thx to my co editor @jlauck1941, our amazing contributors, and @kansas_press!

[Christopher Devine @ProfDevine]

@awmannes @huzzahmpls @KyleKopko Yeah I suspect no home state VP would’ve flipped a state. Only WI was within 1%, right? Maybe, maybe more moderate VP ( Shapiro, Beshear) could’ve helped across swing states by shifting perceptions of Harris toward center. But I can’t believe any VP would’ve changed the outcome.

[Benjy Sarlin @BenjySarlin]

A very simple prescription for Democrats: Just wait.

There's reason to be skeptical toward early campaign-based explanations for Harris' loss. And the issues that might propel a Dem comeback are likely unknown until Trump starts governing.

https://t.co/Qvv2iepSDO

[Nathaniel Rakich @baseballot]

People always doubt the future viability of parties that lose big elections. But then the pressure goes on the new party in power, voters sour on them, and the circle of life continues.

[Dave Wasserman @Redistrict]

Latest numbers: across the seven battleground states, the '20-'24 swing towards Trump was ~3.1 pts. Across the other 43 states (+DC), it was ~6.7 pts.

Bottom line: the Harris campaign swam impressively against some very strong underlying currents.

[University of Dayton News @UDaytonNews]

“... if someone is looking for someone or something to blame for Kamala Harris’ loss, I don’t think Tim Walz is the right person to focus on.��� @ProfDevine tells @StarTribune https://t.co/kCoAYgkjsu #Election2024

[University of Dayton News @UDaytonNews]

Vance could be a more influential VP than Pence, who handled some high-profile tasks but ultimately didn't hold sway with Trump, @ProfDevine told @DispatchAlerts https://t.co/pcF7LVpn9C

[John Sides @johnmsides]

My initial take on Trump's win:

https://t.co/OagyPxsFFg

His gains were widespread, so explanations should start with the broadest factors -- not with bespoke stories about states, cities, counties, and groups.

The simplest explanation: party of unpopular incumbent loses.

1/2

[Dominik Stecuła @decustecu]

This doesn’t strike as “if only we put forward this other candidate” or “if only more people knocked on doors in PA” or “Harris should’ve talked more about [insert pet issue here].”

This is much deeper than that

[Alexander Agadjanian @A_agadjanian]

2024 polling error in historical context (for key states):

1. Much better in most of Midwest + NC vs. 16/20.
2. IA big exception. Along w/FL + TX, worst polling misses over last 2 decades.
3. Same direction of error for ~every state for 3rd straight year--this is not normal.

[John Sides @johnmsides]

I cannot say this enough:

- Early exits are not suitable for demographic analysis or comparisons.

- AP/Votecast is still preliminary -- should be adjusted for final vote counts.

- We don't have Catalist. Or Pew validated voters.

It's just too early to have confident takes!

[Jeff Stein @jstein_star]

Staggering class realignment/shift in working class

Harris lost DESPITE major shift of affluent voters her way

2020: Trump wins voters over $100K, 54-52
2024: *Harris* wins voters over $100K, 54-45

2020: Biden wins voters $50K-$100K, 57-42
2024: *Trump* w/ voters $50K-$100K, 49-47

2020: Biden wins voters under $50K, 55-45
2024: Trump massive improvement w/ voters under $50K, 49-48

[Christopher Devine @ProfDevine]

If your take on the election starts with the VP pick anywhere in the top 3, you weren’t paying attention last night.

[Christopher Devine @ProfDevine]

But Josh Shapiro!!

[Lakshya Jain @lxeagle17]

Harris is on track to underperform Biden by 5 points in Minnesota, despite picking Tim Walz as her VP. If there's a home state VP effect, we're just not seeing it — that's basically exactly her national underperformance on Biden and is, in fact, worse than the rest of the Midwest