|
Trump's lead in Georgia is down to 87,000 votes. Estimated 383,651 left count.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
spunkshui posted:Why? You're forgetting that this forum purity tests everyone to death 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It is pretty tiring that people keep trying to use the "Biden didn't offer ANYTHING" argument when that is provably untrue. You can argue he didn't get the message out there or wasn't believable enough but Biden's healthcare plan had more detail than anything Trump has offered in the past four years and was a center part of the debates. there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. When people say "you need to offer people something to win their votes" they don't mean that people will vote for whichever candidate whose mediocre at best healthcare plan has more pages. they mean that people are excited by candidates who say "I will get you free healthcare, I will give you clean water, I will fix your infrastructure" because ultimately trump's empty promises that he pulls out of nowhere and obviously doesn't intend to follow up on are still more exciting to people than "I promise to create a committee to examine the possibility of maybe giving a low-interest loan to people who have owned a small business for 5 years and make under $40k a year and hire 10 employees or less if it's a tuesday and Mars is in line with Jupiter "
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
Someone posted that there was a county in Penn that wasn't counting mail ins because they'd be hard to "uncount" if it went to court. Which county was this and was that total bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Ok, then you can look at all the referendums that vastly outpaced Biden's vote share that did things like raise the minimum wage and legalize weed Just because 60% vote for min wage and 60% vote for legal weed does mean it's the same 60%. If you put every progressive issue in a ballot and they all individually win, that doesn't mean that a candidate with that exact combination of policies would win, because the people who voted yes on one might vote no on the other and looking at single-issue polling doesn't tell you anything about the weighted importance of those issues relative to one another.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't see what stops democratic candidates from campaigning on the positive things they want to do for people and are enthusiastic about the chance to enact? Like what is hard about every chance you get telling people how good healthcare could be, how people could just go to the hospital and get checked out if there's anything wrong with them, no stress about bills, no nothing, it's just there, it works, imagine taking your kids there, imagine taking your parents there, loving connect with people? A large issue there is once again voter demographic. If the Democrats promise to do something and are unable to do it, they will be marked as failures and inept and incompetent. If they make promises and break them it gets remembered for years. If the Republicans do it their voters don't care as long as they get enough red meat to go gently caress You. This does NOT mean I think the Democrats shouldn't do that but it isn't as simple as it sounds. There needs to be at least some plausibility and actual plans. Obama was a wet fart but the ACA *was* a positive step for a lot of people. Sanders spoke of high-minded stuff but he also has genuine plans and policy even if they were pretty implausibly optimistic. (And even then people called him too policy-focused because lol.) You can't just say good things and then not back them up and while a good portion of that is on the Democrats it's worth noting that the current makeup of the government makes it nearly impossible to succeed even if they wanted to, and the Democrats absolutely bear the brunt of that failure. This does not mean "oh those poor Democrats treated so unfairly" but that the "run the Republican playbook" stuff only works if your party is unified and completely willing to ignore broken promises and objectively worse situations as long as they feel good, and at least a significant minority of Democratic voters don't feel that way and will hold Democrats to their failures. (As they absolutely should.) Augus posted:there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. When people say "you need to offer people something to win their votes" they don't mean that people will vote for whichever candidate whose mediocre at best healthcare plan has more pages. they mean that people are excited by candidates who say "I will get you free healthcare, I will give you clean water, I will fix your infrastructure" Right, and the assumption here seems to be "and Democratic voters will be absolutely okay if they fail at that" which I don't think is true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Totally. Biden sits behind the big desk going blblblblblb, the GOP takes over the Congress in 2022, then any progressive momentum in 2024 gets shot down by either Biden re-election or Harris coronation, and either of them lose to the Republican because the anti-Trump 'coalition' vanishes once Trump's gone. How does the meteor that falls directly onto the white house flagpole on Decembruary 93rd, 2020 factor into this prediction?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't see what stops democratic candidates from campaigning on the positive things they want to do for people and are enthusiastic about the chance to enact? Like what is hard about every chance you get telling people how good healthcare could be, how people could just go to the hospital and get checked out if there's anything wrong with them, no stress about bills, no nothing, it's just there, it works, imagine taking your kids there, imagine taking your parents there, loving connect with people? They could, but they aren't because they're too convinced that if they find the right sort of triangulation that will bring the votes and the primary voters vote for people with the charisma of a stump. And this isn't a "Bernie would have won" thing either. I voted Bernie in the primary and hate Biden, but I frequently had people I know tell me that he came off like an angry grandpa. I think this is also a huge problem with left-leaning media as well. My perception is that Fox news, as an example, is just more positive in general when they're not attacking Democrats and the left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:If the Democrats promise to do something and are unable to do it, they will be marked as failures and inept and incompetent. If they make promises and break them it gets remembered for years. ImpAtom posted:This does NOT mean I think the Democrats shouldn't do that but it isn't as simple as it sounds. There needs to be at least some plausibility and actual plans. Obama was a wet fart but the ACA *was* a positive step for a lot of people. Sanders spoke of high-minded stuff but he also has genuine plans and policy even if they were pretty implausibly optimistic. (And even then people called him too policy-focused because lol.) FDR did not get people to vote for him by standing at a pulpit and reading a three-inch-thick document called The New Deal. This preoccupation with "detailed plans" was crafted by media strategists and is taking up storage space in your head, rent-free. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Nov 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:Progressive policies always poll well - Progressive Candidates absolutely don't lol. The other thing is that sometimes people support things like this at a high level, but once you start discussing specifics, there’s disagreement over certain aspects and it’s hard to get everybody on board.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:We do, 22 will be the first election on the new maps oh phew. almost gave me a heart attack there. cause 2022 is indeed more than likely gonna be a bloodbath for dems
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
My called shot is that Cory Booker is on the ballot in 2024 in the DNC’s attempt to recreate Obama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Trump's lead in Georgia is down to 87,000 votes. Estimated 383,651 left count. How did that effect the needle
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:A large issue there is once again voter demographic. If the party can't even pick one issue to campaign on enthusiastically and get done in a way that actually helps people unambiguously then... what even is the point in them? It doesn't have to be everything, but if they campaign on something and get it done that is how you build credibility. If they have so little credibility isn't that just a result of decades of terrible lack of delivery?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Trump's lead in Georgia is down to 87,000 votes. Estimated 383,651 left count. I like those odds https://mobile.twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1324039323335929858
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
spunkshui posted:Why? Just an opinion but she will have the Dem ticket in 2024. If progressives gain a lot of seats in 2022 then she'll stay progressive. If they don't gain any seats or lose some the party will take it as the country is still not ready for going that far left and will start moving her more moderate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:How did that effect the needle The needle was turned off at 6am. RIP the needle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:How did that effect the needle I know this is probably a joke but it's actually 64% Biden right now lmao e: oh they turned it off? that's hilarious
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Bashez posted:Someone posted that there was a county in Penn that wasn't counting mail ins because they'd be hard to "uncount" if it went to court. Which county was this and was that total bullshit? Lancaster county, it’s full of chuds and Amish which are also pretty chudish
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Does anybody have a quick summary of why the blue shift that turned 2018 into a belated landslide won't be happening with the House this year? My impression: Because we did so well in 2018 there are many more very vulnerable Democratic house seats in overall R districts, and very few vulnerable Republican house seats relative to in 2018. Combine w/ high turnout from republicans as well this year relative to 2018 and I think it’s not that surprising - it seems very hard to get that much above the high watermark set two years ago. But I guess there are still a lot of uncalled races so 🤷🏻♂️
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:So as long as everyone's throwing around conjecture during this state of limbo... Do something local to get involved in your community and improve lives on that level and let national politics go for a while, imo. Nobody knows what will happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Does anybody have a quick summary of why the blue shift that turned 2018 into a belated landslide won't be happening with the House this year? House Democrats spent the last two years balking at doing anything of significance, passed nearly all of Trump's requested budgets and appointees, speedran the narrowest impeachment possible, and then told anyone who criticized them or complained that we have to vote extra hard this year and bmaybe if we're lucky some stuff might change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If the party can't even pick one issue to campaign on enthusiastically and get done in a way that actually helps people unambiguously then... what even is the point in them? It doesn't have to be everything, but if they campaign on something and get it done that is how you build credibility. If they have so little credibility isn't that just a result of decades of terrible lack of delivery? You can't campaign on a single issue because there are 50 states and they don't all care about all the issues. The Republicans get a free pass on this because 40% of the voters are "no to literally every good thing", but for Dems the voters can be "yes to one good thing, no to the rest" or "yes to everything but abortion, and if you say anything about abortion I'll vote for the republican" and there's sometimes no way to thread the needle there in a way that counts to 50% Mat Cauthon posted:House Democrats spent the last two years balking at doing anything of significance, passed nearly all of Trump's requested budgets and appointees, speedran the narrowest impeachment possible, and then told anyone who criticized them or complained that we have to vote extra hard this year and bmaybe if we're lucky some stuff might change. They passed a bunch of good poo poo, including voter re-enfranchisement, unemployment extension, and emergency universal income checks, but turns out you actually need the senate to pass laws.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
Bashez posted:Someone posted that there was a county in Penn that wasn't counting mail ins because they'd be hard to "uncount" if it went to court. Which county was this and was that total bullshit? Amish county that Trump led by like 20 points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:Policy is meaningless. 75% of people can want m4a but at least 25 of that 75% is qanon poisoned and isn't going to vote dem no matter what. Yes, and? 75% handily beats 25%. Augus posted:there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. When people say "you need to offer people something to win their votes" they don't mean that people will vote for whichever candidate whose mediocre at best healthcare plan has more pages. they mean that people are excited by candidates who say "I will get you free healthcare, I will give you clean water, I will fix your infrastructure" It's this, yes. We'll never know though because the dems refuse to run an actual progressive politician.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
Secret Machine posted:Lancaster county, it’s full of chuds and Amish which are also pretty chudish it's worth pointing out that amish generally don't vote, as part of the whole theology of remaining separated from the world. likewise, amish generally don't seek political office if they DID vote in large numbers, they would probably lean R being religious conservatives. but even 20% turnout among amish would be shockingly high
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Does anybody have a quick summary of why the blue shift that turned 2018 into a belated landslide won't be happening with the House this year? Some initial impressions: -There actually was a small GOP wave to mirror the blue wave. Turnout was really high on both sides, the polls were really loving wrong. -Dem leadership has been fairly lovely, partly because they were relying on those polls as correct and weren't investing in the right races and places. Not the House, but two big examples are the huge amounts of money poured into Senate races that Dems thought were contestable but they ended up losing in a landslide. McGrath in Kentucky got I think $60mil, mostly outside donations, and lost by loving 20 points to Mitch McConnell. Harrison raised like $100mil and lost by 15 points to Lindsey Graham in SC. Really there are a lot of similiarities with 2016, except Biden did slightly better than Clinton. The polls were wrong, Dems were overconfident and invested time and money in the wrong places. There was a surge in voting on both sides, not just Dems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
Secret Machine posted:Lancaster county, it’s full of chuds and Amish which are also pretty chudish I was hoping it was bumfuck nowhere holding like 20 ballots but that's actually big, yeeesh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Does anybody have a quick summary of why the blue shift that turned 2018 into a belated landslide won't be happening with the House this year? Pelosi is one of the worst public communicators in history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
I blame the media really. The house was giving speeches almost every day about the pile of legislation being held up by the senate, but you wouldn't know it based on our trash media.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
Any place to get an update on the AZ count? NYT hasn't really updated the count for a couple of hours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Just because 60% vote for min wage and 60% vote for legal weed does mean it's the same 60%. If you put every progressive issue in a ballot and they all individually win, that doesn't mean that a candidate with that exact combination of policies would win, because the people who voted yes on one might vote no on the other and looking at single-issue polling doesn't tell you anything about the weighted importance of those issues relative to one another. Yeah that's why it's a better idea to run a centrist dipshit who believes in none of the policies and vastly underperforms oh whoops lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Have you ever heard of the Tea Party? Did you follow Trump's 2016 campaign, like, at all? Do you have any explanation for why Jeb Bush isn't president right now beyond "not enough red meat?" FDR didn't exist in the era where massive social media companies have unprecedented control over the American psyche and have proven to be able to craft completely alternate realities. OwlFancier posted:If the party can't even pick one issue to campaign on enthusiastically and get done in a way that actually helps people unambiguously then... what even is the point in them? It doesn't have to be everything, but if they campaign on something and get it done that is how you build credibility. If they have so little credibility isn't that just a result of decades of terrible lack of delivery? "Get it done" involves having the ability to actually do things. It turns out that if one third of the government dedicates itself entirely to obstructing everything a party does that is pretty hard. This does not mean trying is bad but the argument of "why don't they just do the good things" is that at least one party has figured out that obstructing literally everything is an entirely effective and valid tactic. You can argue they should be louder about it (and I agree) but being louder about it still involves being able to get the message through the modern mess of discourse and even provenly political junkies like people on these threads often miss things because Trump decided to fart on a prime minister that day and one gets more ratings than the other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
Small White Dragon posted:The other thing is that sometimes people support things like this at a high level, but once you start discussing specifics, there’s disagreement over certain aspects and it’s hard to get everybody on board. Isn't there also a not-insignificant chunk of white people who are very supportive of strong social safety nets and the like on the condition that only white people benefit from it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
Just Chamber posted:Hopefully this will wake some people up into not viewing a group of people (in this case Hispanics) as a monolith and realise that actually there's a proportion of humans of any color that a racist cocky bigot like trump just appeals to. In a way its good for future dem campaigns because they now know they have to work hard on these communities rather than assume they all think the same and will vote blue. As long as Dem leadership is the way it is, it seems like it'll be a struggle for that to happen. They need to fix their poo poo and fix it soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Trump's lead in Georgia is down to 87,000 votes. Estimated 383,651 left count. If my napkin math is right (and those numbers are accurate), that means Biden needs about 65-70% of those outstanding votes to swing in his favor. I guess it's not impossible with how other mail-in votes have been trending, but it's still frustratingly close.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:You can't campaign on a single issue because there are 50 states and they don't all care about all the issues. The Republicans get a free pass on this because 40% of the voters are "no to literally every good thing", but for Dems the voters can be "yes to one good thing, no to the rest" or "yes to everything but abortion, and if you say anything about abortion I'll vote for the republican" and there's sometimes no way to thread the needle there in a way that counts to 50% You say that, but Republicans do a good job campaigning on ending abortion and that gets them a ton of votes nationwide
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Does that include the ranked choice stuff? Should. Politico says there are more votes than NYT https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-maine.html and there's less of a gap, but I don't know... Looks like 65% mail in for maine
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:I have been. It's not working. I pushed and got an extremely progressive candidate elected in a special election. He won by like 12 votes. I then pushed and got a slate of 4 progressive candidates running for this cycle. I spent hundreds of hours phone banking and chatting up people, marketing fliers with policy positions that seem like common loving sense, and the result was they all lost by hundreds of votes. Every single one of them. I consider my local area to be mostly progressive, and you get that when you talk to people. The things they want are aligned closely with progressive goals and ideals. Then the area goes 49% for Trump and I feel like I'm living on another loving planet. Same. Everything I've worked for locally has gotten completely blown the gently caress out in the most favorable environment for progressive change that I've ever seen. We picked a marine who trained death squads in Panama over progressive alternatives championing MfA, killed ranked choice voting, picked a "actually, we should murder more coloreds" guy for sheriff... I'm done with voters forever, I'm redirecting all my work to mutual aid and a couple interest groups for affordable housing and green initiatives. BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Nov 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Just because 60% vote for min wage and 60% vote for legal weed does mean it's the same 60%. If you put every progressive issue in a ballot and they all individually win, that doesn't mean that a candidate with that exact combination of policies would win, because the people who voted yes on one might vote no on the other and looking at single-issue polling doesn't tell you anything about the weighted importance of those issues relative to one another. many people want to make more money and also hate, e.g, abortion. you're correct that these outcomes give insight but nothing concrete.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:37
|
|