|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 15, 2020 17:20:55 GMT
There is a tendency in all of this to attribute responsibility for all successes and failures to the Democrats, which is probably the wrong way to look at it given how much any incumbent president's reelection becomes a referendum on them rather than the opposition. Nate Cohn has an interesting thread on how Trump shook up electoral politics:
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 15, 2020 17:16:54 GMT
Jesus wept, who cares about the context of his remarks. This isn't a bloody academic debate, this is politics and stuff like this is damaging. It certainly looks it, but I wonder if being a pastor somewhat mitigates accusations of being a bit too sanctimonious (alternatively, whether it makes them even worse).
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 15, 2020 17:11:33 GMT
Biden actually did better in a number of white, rural areas than Abrams and Clinton while losing strength in the black belt. That is partly a function of population decline in the black belt but also apparently a result of a swing to Trump amongst rural black voters even in polarised GA. In the rural parts of northern GA where there was a shift in favour of Biden, voters moved into his camp as they did not elsewhere in the country but that is partly a result of him starting from a much lower base in the region.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 14, 2020 0:24:02 GMT
Doesn't it come down to whether someone has charisma or not, that's the reason that Hilary Clinton lost to Barak Obama, he had bucket loads she didn't.
Also, and this is just anecdotally from my American relatives and others I know, she's widely seen as a liar, a creature of Washington and corrupt. She is despised by many Americans. She's lucky she was against Trump in 2016, anyone else and I don't think she'd have won the popular vote. I think we can now dismiss the idea that Trump was a weak candidate.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 13, 2020 1:08:08 GMT
I've yet to see a persuasive case for why an AOC tweet was far more likely than actual lockdown measures to make voters think, "Democrats have gone too far." In some states, these measures are much more ridiculous than our own (e.g. Cuomo's bizarre 10pm rule) and widely celebrated by media entities which are probably not in good standing with the massive wave of low-propensity voters Trump turned out, many of whom were pretty off the grid until these came into force and the grid came to them.
It's not as if e.g. Rep. Steve King's nuttiness was a huge drag on Republicans across the country in 2018. Clyburn and AOC would wage their own intraparty wars regardless of whether either was hurting the other's electability.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 12, 2020 1:16:11 GMT
The Alaska and North Carolina Senate races have been called for Republican incumbents. This means Democrats need to win both Georgia seats to flip the Senate, although given how polarised the state is, that probably isn't a much steeper climb than winning just one of them.
NC-PRES remains uncalled, for now.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 11, 2020 18:18:17 GMT
I'm beginning to wonder if the Trumpian Right and the hard-left of the Democrats realise that they will probably end up not in securing power in the long-term, but unleashing a centrist independent who will knock both parties out of the White House in the future and probably take a few governors' mansions along the way. The 2016 results, rising polarisation and lack of evident electoral reward for "moderation" make that scenario pretty much impossible, but if Howard Schultz wants to run "CHUK: American Edition," he's free to embarrass himself.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 11, 2020 11:27:21 GMT
Not by percentage and not by EV total (<100 EVs if Biden doesn't end up getting NC). It is barely any better than Trump's own razor thin 2016 victory.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 10, 2020 19:49:09 GMT
This is where the 'fight election fraud' donations are being rerouted to. The thread goes on to say he'll be serious about 2024 if the election is certified for Biden.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 10, 2020 13:03:33 GMT
Not so sure about that. North Carolina continues to trend to the Democrats, the vote registration and get out efforts by the Democrats in Georgia adding hundreds of thousands of votes since 2016. I think the sitting Senators will hold in January, but it is trending away. It certainly was but the process seems to have slowed if not outright stopped. Even Gov Cooper has only won re-election by about 5 points Strictly speaking, it did not trend Democratic in 2016 or this election relative to the national popular vote. As it becomes a bigger retirement destination, this isn't necessarily going to get any better for Democrats. Another dtorm cloud here was their Native American underperformance - nationally, they did much better than last time with Native voters, but in Robeson County, Trump only gained ground on his 2016 numbers.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 10, 2020 10:54:12 GMT
This may have been commented on before, but it's remarkable that the number of "mixed" Senate delegations fell by a third from 9 to just 6 (AL, AZ, CO flipping and no D gain in NC). Has the number of bipartisan Senate delegations ever been lower? WV seems destined to get a one-party delegation next time, and likely also OH and MT, and the Democrats are probably favoured to win a second PA seat in 2022 with Toomey retiring, so we could be down to ME and WI by 2025 (maybe just WI if 2024 is a good year for the GOP and Baldwin is voted out). D-delegations: AZ, CA, CO, CN, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, VA, WA (21, counting Bernie Sanders as D) R-delegations: AL, AK, AR, FL, ID, IN, IO, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, NE, NC, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WY (22) Mixed: ME, MT, OH, PA, WV, WI Undecided: GA (likely R) One bright spot for fans of mixed delegations was Collins' reelection: Maine was a state in which a Senator and a president from the opposite parties were simultaneously elected. That happened in zero states in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 10, 2020 10:09:36 GMT
A lot of this is performative so that Barr can avoid the sack and remain in favour in the next Republican/Trump administration. The problem is, that if a critical amount of spineless lackeys all get together to "go through the motions" they will create their own echo chamber of reinforcement and it will stop being about remaining in favour, and it was start being a fantasy they believe and can no longer let go of. If they march all their troops up the hill, the loss of face from finally admitting it was all a farce will become too great and they will be unable to march back down again, and will genuinely refuse to go. What then?... Then it will be as we saw with the Fox reporter cutting off the Republican accusing mass election fraud in a panic. The revolution will eat its own children.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 10, 2020 0:57:42 GMT
Looks like the GOP are going to go full tin-foil... A lot of this is performative so that Barr can avoid the sack and remain in favour in the next Republican/Trump administration.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 10, 2020 0:55:37 GMT
It should be abundantly clear from the way McConnell is handling this that Biden is not going to get serious legislative compromise through carrots alone. It should also be clear from the Obama presidency that Republicans know "voters punish obstructionism" isn't much of a stick.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 9, 2020 22:23:31 GMT
Also, a couple of quite progressive Democrats like Harley Rouda seem to be losing this time although - in general - these incumbents do seem to be doing a slightly better job of holding on in swing districts. Rouda is actually pretty moderate. He donated to Kasich in 2016 and tweeted about how Trump praising of specifically communist leaders was unacceptable. Agree with rest of the post though. He also backed Medicare for All. He certainly plays to the moderate aesthetic but much of that is just different messaging for a fairly progressive package. I'd wager he's to the left of the average Congressional Democrat while also occupying a Trumpier seat.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 9, 2020 20:51:11 GMT
Cheri Bustos will not run for another term as DCCC chair next year. Her own close race was alleged to have played a role in this decision along with blame for somewhat disappointing House results.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 9, 2020 20:41:05 GMT
That is simplifying it a lot because the PVIs of these districts probably aren't as relevant as the Trump % this time and the margins are still changing in some of them. In terms of over/underperformance, it looks like rural Democrats (progressive or otherwise) tend to be a lot more likely to have overperformed Biden than suburban ones this time around. Also, a couple of quite progressive Democrats like Harley Rouda seem to be losing this time although - in general - these incumbents do seem to be doing a slightly better job of holding on in swing districts.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 9, 2020 19:48:18 GMT
Selzer, one of the best pollsters already who got the race pretty much correct this time in spite of epic failures by most everyone else, suggests the following factors might have helped Republicans keep such a firm grip on Iowa: - The economy (I'm spitballing here, but potentially the pre-coronavirus growth, the CARES act and objections to the economic impacts of the lockdowns all factored into this) - Better organisation (Democrats abandoned door-to-door campaigning for most of election season because of coronavirus; Republicans did not) - Tying into the last point, doing a better job of firing up and turning out their party's base
Her less directly data-driven prognostications: - Social issues, especially in the absence of acute "pocketbook" problems - To an extent, economic programs for rural areas and farmers in particular
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 9, 2020 19:20:00 GMT
Trump has been planning this narrative for months and it's embarrassing to see so many actually buying into it. He told his supporters to vote on election Day precisely because those votes are counted first, so then when his overnight lead started to shrink when the mail-in ballots came in, he can claim it's being "stolen" from him. He's taking people for mugs and they're falling for it. To be fair, Jack, I don't think anyone is falling for it other than those desperate for it be true, though of course you are correct on the transparent pre-meditation of the ploy. What is more worrying is the collusion of elements of the GOP with such a blatant attempt to undermine the democratic process, as if they doubt their ability to win any other way (oddly, given the down-ballot results)` There's nothing odd about this - it lays the groundwork for introducing new and defending existing voter suppression methods. Defending Trump right now may also be considered probably integral to winning a Republican primary by a lot of these elected officials.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 9, 2020 19:13:43 GMT
At this point, the Democrats can only blame themselves (and their leadership) for falling for this kind of rhetoric where it's wrong (and where the GOP, thanks to better political instincts and outside influences, does not). There are issues where it ought to "moderate" and drastically change its messaging and that varies depending on the district (a lot of it comes down to virtue signalling) , the candidate and the national environment, but in the main, so many of the talking points pushed by the ex-DLC types and bought into by mainstream Democrats have just led to worse governance in the long run. No, winnable rural voters weren't concerned that Glass-Steagall banking reform was a little too strict and it's a bad idea to abandon universal healthcare proposals on the off-chance that some guy wearing a 'Lock her up' t-shirt decides to vote blue next time. The GOP has proven time and again that a lot of what's suggested just isn't necessary or even helpful. Fool them twice, shame on the blue team.
|
|