|
NE-02 was another district where Biden ran ahead of the progressive. Biden flipped it and Eastman lost it for the second time. Biden 52.4%, Trump 45.6% Eastman 46.2% Bacon 50.8%
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
doingitwrong posted:Which earned this response from Brittany Packnett Cunningham I want to amplify it in case folks skip past it because it's a link, not a tweet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
doingitwrong posted:I'm wondering how this thread thinks about voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc as parts of the US contestation of elections. As an outsider, it is amazing to me (and a bit terrifying) the extent to which this country seems to be OK with the idea that the question of whether or not people should even be voting is understood to part of the grand democratic contest. To start, that response is excellent. I can't speak for the thread, but I do think this forum and almost everyone else in America underestimates the effects of those things. Our system so pervasively and effectively suppresses voting that it's all people have ever known. And especially white people, who it's far less aimed at, have a tendency to just kinda not deal with it. We have voter registration that isn't automatic. That's voter suppression right there, and nobody ever really talks about it. We need to spend a ton of effort and time on making voting easier and more accessible and combating voter suppression. Everybody spends a ton of time on talking about how "if you just followed my political ideology you would have done better in [election], so get with the program". But the most obvious, fact based, and effective way for us on the left to gain power is probably going whole hog on combating suppression. It's probably the reason that GA went blue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
I mean, I saw the images of 10 miles on horseback. That's a lot of work for a drop in the bucket. But without the Navajo, Biden doesn't win AZ--and the fewer states he wins, the easier it is for shenanigans. I'd argue that him winning the "extraneous" states of GA and AZ had a huge effect on this election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
Aruan posted:The bigger conclusion is that in a high turnout election the newly activated voters aren't progressives. This makes sense to me, especially in the context of MN-05. I wouldn't expect there to be a huge number of progressives in the district that could have but didn't vote in 2018 - when they would have had the chance to actually vote for a progressive candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
It seems pretty basless motivated reasoning to draw conclusions about all progressives in all races based on a result of exactly one race, especially when that result that makes perfect sense in light of Bidens strategy to turnout the nonprogressive suburbanites. I do buy the idea that Omar was near her ceiling, this is not a bad thing as long as she's winning by a healthy margin. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Nov 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:It seems pretty basless motivated reasoning to draw conclusions about all progressives in all races based on a result of exactly one race, especially when that result that makes perfect sense in light of Bidens strategy to turnout the nonprogressive suburbanites. "all politics is local" but I want broad trends from a single race!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:To start, that response is excellent. I don’t think after this election you can keep making the “when we all vote democrats win” argument. Texas had some of the highest turnout in recent history and the result was a narrowing of the presidential race, no house seats gained, and no state lege seats gained. It’s good to make voting easier but I don’t think it’s something to rely on as a Democratic election tool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I don’t think after this election you can keep making the “when we all vote democrats win” argument. Texas had some of the highest turnout in recent history and the result was a narrowing of the presidential race, no house seats gained, and no state lege seats gained. I think there are two different things going on here though: 1) it is important to get more people involved with their government via voting because democracy demands more participation for it to work 2) The Democratic Party and/or leftists need to better organize in communities that are "naturally hostile" to their philosophies. The Democratic Party needs to actually put the investment into organizing and structure if they are to succeed. Far too often the party relies on people just sweeping into the district and not developing a bench of people ready to run. Investing in people who run locally for local office creates good dividends and also shows your policies work on a smaller scale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1331690755090509827?s=20 That's not even the closest race. The current House margin in IA-02 is three.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
Thank goodness this low temperature numbers and facts based thread is back. I'll almost certainly be spending all of my time in on D&D in this thread I imagine. Literally the best thread for US Political discussion on D&D right now and the one I followed the most during the post 2020 General Election roundups.  HandsomeRalph posted:Most of all This thread is not USPOL 2. Post accordingly.  Also Biden's National Popular vote lead is now up over to over 6 million votes. doingitwrong posted:I'm wondering how this thread thinks about voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc as parts of the US contestation of elections. As an outsider, it is amazing to me (and a bit terrifying) the extent to which this country seems to be OK with the idea that the question of whether or not people should even be voting is understood to part of the grand democratic contest. As it turns out mercifully the courts tend to prefer evidence to social media style bluster, noise, complaining and antics when deciding on cases. They're far from perfect, but my god are the judges killing it compared to the hacks running congress and the executive. Handsome Ralph posted:Yeah I think this take is on the money. As I brought up in USPOL I think this split between news and opinion is going to be what keeps Fox News from falling into the same pitfalls that OANN and NewsMax already seem to be ending up in such as OANN getting banned from youtube this week since they unabashedly pass off false information as unbiased news without hiding behind the opinion label. It might not seem like much of a distinction but it's little things like this that can make a difference when working through legal jargon, terms of use clauses and laws on libel and propaganda. Right now I think a lot of people are really overestimating the kind of traction NewsMax and OANN are likely to get due to being at the center of the immediate Republican bluster machine that can change direction on a whim based on whatever Donald Trump feels like saying on twitter the next day. Kale fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Nov 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I don’t think after this election you can keep making the “when we all vote democrats win” argument. Texas had some of the highest turnout in recent history and the result was a narrowing of the presidential race, no house seats gained, and no state lege seats gained. I don't think one election disproves the reality that voter suppression is most historically effective against people who tend to vote for progressive or leftist politics. I also don't think that 'increased turnout always helps the dems" is a true statement, or will always be a true statement. However, especially in local elections, voter suppression is one of the biggest challenges a leftist movement faces. And if you don't think that, it's probably because voter suppression is so normalized in the US that you don't mentally frame it as voter suppression.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
Pick posted:https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1331690755090509827?s=20 NY22 is my parent's district, and they both voted early for Brindisi. It's crazy how close that race is. A week or so ago I saw that the majority of the outstanding votes were in Chenango County and I figured Brindisi was finished. Chenango County is one of those places that time forgot, and he needed to win it by something like 85-15 to close the gap. It seems like he did it!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
Here's how very close votes can go. https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1331703062948421635?s=20 https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1331705489550401536?s=20 https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1331706887138631680?s=20 https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1331708024914927618?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
Pick posted:... Reminds me of that election here in Virginia that came to an exact tie. They resorted to pulling names out of a bowl. That and some elections that came down to single digit margins turned a number of my acquaintances from only voting in presidential elections to voting as often as possible, because you can't say "my vote doesn't matter" when poo poo like that happens every couple is years. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Nov 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Reminds me of that election here in Virginia that came to an exact tie. They resorted to pulling names out of a bowl. That and some elections that came down to single digit margins turned a number of my acquaintances from only voting in presidential elections to voting as often as possible, because you can't say "my vote doesn't matter" when poo poo like that happens every couple is years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Wasn't there a film canister election recently - like 2018 maybe - and they had to scramble because nobody loving makes film canisters anymore? That was the Virginia election Blue Footed Booby was talking about. https://qz.com/1171726/david-yancey-wins-virginias-house-election-in-photos/ https://twitter.com/gmoomaw/status/948947033708224512
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
Evan Osnos' short book Joe Biden: The Life, the Run, and What Matters Now (published Oct 27) provides a really good look at things under the hood during his veep years etc. I recommend it for insight on how Biden is likely to behave as President. Quite a few interesting titbits that are generally indicative. As well as some simply funny stuff.quote:Biden vacillates between embracing the image of a kindly grandfather and bristling at it. The late-night host Stephen Colbert once referred to him on the air as a “nice old man.” It was 2015, and Biden called him the next day, Colbert told me. “He goes, ‘Listen, buddy, you call me a nice old man one more time and I will personally come down there and kick your rear end.’"
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 10:37
|
|
|
Pick posted:Evan Osnos' short book Joe Biden: The Life, the Run, and What Matters Now (published Oct 27) provides a really good look at things under the hood during his veep years etc. I recommend it for insight on how Biden is likely to behave as President. Quite a few interesting titbits that are generally indicative. As well as some simply funny stuff. Does it say if he was aware of the onion's caricature of him?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 10:56
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Does it say if he was aware of the onion's caricature of him? It does indeed. And yes he was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 11:16
|
|
|
Pick posted:It does indeed. And yes he was. You can't just leave us hanging like that! What was his opinion!?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 11:17
|
|
|
Mixed? Slightly annoyed he was portrayed as a drinker but ok with being portrayed as relatable? Also, he is definitely very divorced from his Twitter. Apparently he doesn't give a poo poo about tweets unless one is particularly influential or there's something uniquely significant about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 11:20
|
|
|
Anyway, I thought some of the takeaways were actually pretty close to what I suspected. For example, the book does have a collection of events that show that he tended to take the dovish position, but not really from an ideological standpoint. And to some degree I get the impression that it annoyed Obama, that Biden would hear a lot of details about what was going on in an area, and understand, but ultimately ask the question "but how do we (the US) benefit by being there?" Makes the case pretty strongly that he got stabbed in the back in 2016, and had absolutely intended to run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 11:33
|
|
|
Pick posted:Makes the case pretty strongly that he got stabbed in the back in 2016, and had absolutely intended to run. Stabbed in the back by the Clinton team?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 12:11
|
|
|
A Clinton/Biden/Sanders primary in 2016 would have been interesting as hell. Would’ve meant way less Sanders support though as the anti-Clinton group probably would’ve moved to Biden instead of Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 14:35
|
|
|
Pick posted:
Wasn't his run derailed by the death of his son?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Wasn't his run derailed by the death of his son? Yes, stabbed in the back by that bastard beaux vv how is brunch going (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) i say swears online fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Nov 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 15:50
|
|
|
Pick posted:
Thinking about it, even if he had said literally nothing more than that for the entirety of his campaign, he would absolutely have earned my vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 15:52
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Wasn't his run derailed by the death of his son? There's a Politico article that goes into it, but the short of it is that Obama saw Clinton as a more fitting heir than Biden, and discouraged Joe from running. A ton of people also jumped ship from the White House to the Clinton campaign (Including Biden's then-and-future-Chief of Staff Ron Klain), which effectively undercut Biden's own campaign before he could even announce it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Wasn't his run derailed by the death of his son? From what I remember, Beau's death was the largest factor at play, but there were also signals from other parts of the party that they had already fallen behind Clinton, so Biden thought his candidacy would be a non-starter. Obama wasn't as encouraging about it as people expected either. If he had just run anyway, things could have been a lot different. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/why-joe-biden-didnt-run-for-president-and-why-hes-not-ruling-out-2020 https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/10/21/joe-biden-didnt-run-because-he-couldnt-win From what I understand, Biden never "let go" of wanting to be president back in 2016, but he just was not ready to deal with everything he needed to deal with for it. Also, from what I remember, a big source of the distance (if not animosity) between Julian Castro and Biden was exacerbated by Castro hopping on the Hillary Clinton train very early.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Also, from what I remember, a big source of the distance (if not animosity) between Julian Castro and Biden was exacerbated by Castro hopping on the Hillary Clinton train very early. This is really interesting, thanks for bringing it up. I cheered Castro in the debates but hoo boy did he get backlash for that suicide bomb mid-summer
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
Has this article been discussed yet about the future of the GOP? https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/11/02/the-republican-identity-crisis-after-trump The author has 3 scenarios for what the party might look like post Trump- One in which it doubles down on the Trumpian strategy, one it which it goes back to the pre Trump GOP, and a third which he thinks is the most unlikely but i actually think is kind of probable? quote:The Reversal scenario, though perhaps the least plausible, is the most threatening to the Democratic Party. The parties would essentially switch the roles they have had for the past century: the Republicans would replace the Democrats as the party of the people, the one with a greater emphasis on progressive economic policies for ordinary families. Some Reversalists have praised Elizabeth Warren; criticizing Wall Street and free trade is pretty much a membership requirement. Michael Podhorzer, who works at the A.F.L.-C.I.O., sent me a chart he had made that showed the vote in congressional districts, ranked by median income, from 1960 to today. For most of that time, districts in the bottom forty per cent of income were far more likely to vote Democratic. But by 2010 the lines had crossed—perhaps because of the financial crisis and the Great Recession, perhaps because of the Presidency of Barack Obama—and today poorer districts are far more likely to vote Republican and richer districts are far more likely to vote Democratic. The ten richest congressional districts in the country, and forty-four of the richest fifty, are represented by Democrats. The French economist Thomas Piketty has produced a chart showing that for highly educated voters, who were once mainly Republican, the lines started crossing back in 1968. In 2016, Trump carried non-college-educated whites by thirty-six points, and Hillary Clinton carried college-educated whites by seventeen points. Could Republicans become the working-class party, and Democrats the party of the prosperous? That would bode well for Republicans because, especially in a time of rising inequality, there aren’t enough prosperous people to make up a reliable voting majority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 16:41
|
|
|
The truth of those Reversalists is that when push comes to shove they always support the guys loving the poor anyway. Witness the "Reluctant Trump Supporter" spokesman. They'd rather it wasn't the case, but whatever their reason for voting Republican, it's more important than their economic ideas. And the base is more interested in MAGA and racism. Where's their in?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:Thinking about it, even if he had said literally nothing more than that for the entirety of his campaign, he would absolutely have earned my vote. Just a reminder, this isn't the thread to talk about this. Please refrain from doing so in here. Kale posted:As I brought up in USPOL I think this split between news and opinion is going to be what keeps Fox News from falling into the same pitfalls that OANN and NewsMax already seem to be ending up in such as OANN getting banned from youtube this week since they unabashedly pass off false information as unbiased news without hiding behind the opinion label. It might not seem like much of a distinction but it's little things like this that can make a difference when working through legal jargon, terms of use clauses and laws on libel and propaganda. Right now I think a lot of people are really overestimating the kind of traction NewsMax and OANN are likely to get due to being at the center of the immediate Republican bluster machine that can change direction on a whim based on whatever Donald Trump feels like saying on twitter the next day. NewsMax has been around for six presidential elections, OANN just wrapped up it's second. I don't want to say it'll never happen but I think it's safe to say both of those networks will remain marginalized for most people so long as they continue to frame all of their news coverage in the cloak of whatever Right-Wing bullshit can be manufactured that week. Fox News gets away with it because they manage to toe the line perfectly when reporting on actual news and then letting guys like Hannity or Carlson push whatever stupid narrative they want to push that evening. Apparently another reason Fox News isn't nearly as dumb as those two networks is that Murdoch's sons are seemingly less ring-wingish than their dad and are a lot more nuanced with running the network and not letting the internal parts of the network return to the days of when Roger Ailes ran the network. On the other side of that coin though, they just settled for seven figures with Seth Rich's family due to Hannity's bullshit. They still suck, just not nearly as much as OANN and Newsmax do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
There have been “the GOP will shift to economic policies for working families” think pieces every year I’ve been alive. I’ll believe it when I see it. See “compassionate conservatism” or “Sam’s Club Republicans.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
I don't think the Reversalists situation will occur because I don't think it has to. I do think we're seeing a loving goddamn weird as poo poo situation where the coalitions are swapping (whaaaa!) but not because of the policies or platforms of the party. The Republicans and Democrats can hilariously keep pushing policies that are really for the opposite coalition, just as the biggest campaign moves each made (economic stimulus package, "being Donald Trump") were for the opposite party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
whydirt posted:There have been “the GOP will shift to economic policies for working families” think pieces every year I’ve been alive. I’ll believe it when I see it. See “compassionate conservatism” or “Sam’s Club Republicans.” Yeah. They simply don't have to do that stuff to get enough votes to be valid, and in fact would probably lose votes if they helped the vast majority of their constituents. They benefit by pushing policies for the people their constituents imagine they might someday be, not who they are. I return to this: (article link (bluer they are, proportionately more to Biden; the bigger they are, the more money it represents)  Look at those bottom two, and try to think of two people that the current Republican party helps and respects less. People on disability are more Republican in their giving than loving cops! CFOs/financial advisors/investment/financial managers/banker professions are bluer than caregivers. I mean, again, this is donating, not voting, and many of these circles are no surprise, but... I mean. These are not generally the stereotypes associated with these parties. Look at how blue lawyers are, for example. Imagine saying, "oh yes, well he's a lawyer, not a caregiver. of course he's a democrat!" (admittedly interesting to me that HR is overwhelmingly blue.) CNN article on how blue companies like Goldman Sachs are in their giving. Also, the swing in families making over 100K year was enormously towards Biden. Pick fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Nov 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 17:04
|
|
|
The bubble chart makes clear that Democrats have firmly lost blue collars. Because in general that's what most of those disabled are going to be. But that comports with Democrats generally being people with college educations and any number of other data points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:The bubble chart makes clear that Democrats have firmly lost blue collars. Because in general that's what most of those disabled are going to be. But that comports with Democrats generally being people with college educations and any number of other data points. I'd actually say this appears to indicate more of a filter-by-education than anything. That y-axis could be scrubbed out and replaced with "proportion of people in [career] who read" and it would have passed the smell test.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
It seems to me that if Democrats want to win back the working class they need to stop worrying about moderating their social issue stances and start focusing on building back organized labor. I mean, obviously that's not going to happen under the leadership of the gentlelady from Silicon Valley or the gentleman from Wall Street, but I think progressives would be well served by monomaniacal focus on labor issues, removing barriers to collective bargaining and other laws preventing organization, as well as a national effort to rebuild those expansive unions. We talk about "being in front of these voters every day, engaging them on issues they care about, coming from people they trust", I mean, back in the day that was your union rep, right? I'm not an expert, or even really that conversant, on issues of labor and organizing, I don't know how globalization, the shift to a service economy, and other issues complicate the idea of the old stalwart Democratic Union bloc. And even if you somehow fought through the corporate wing of the Democratic party to become a labor-prioritizing party - then you'd run face first into the GOP and the 6-3 Roberts court. I can't even begin to see how we get there from here, but I'd be interested in hearing ideas from people more informed than me about the place of organized labor in the progressive movement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 18:01
|
|
