|
zoux posted:That reminds me, the Census Bureau said yesterday they don't expect to release redistricting data until the end of July so I don't know how state legislatures are supposed to get maps ready for the '22 primaries. Normally they'd be out by February or early March. Is there a deadline for redistricting or something? I don't get why that'd be an issue.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Rea posted:Is there a deadline for redistricting or something? I don't get why that'd be an issue. It takes a finite amount of time to redraw them and get the new districts approved in state legislatures. If you want it all set in time for the '22 elections, they've only got a few months. It doesn't have to be done then, but everyone expects it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Legal fights over the 2010 map pushed back the '12 primaries in Texas. Had they taken place on the normal date instead of the later date, it's quite likely that former Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, not some little known Tea Party candidate named Ted Cruz, would've won.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
zoux posted:Legal fights over the 2010 map pushed back the '12 primaries in Texas. Had they taken place on the normal date instead of the later date, it's quite likely that former Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, not some little known Tea Party candidate named Ted Cruz, would've won. Wasn't that a statewide election? How would redistricting have changed the outcome?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Wasn't that a statewide election? How would redistricting have changed the outcome? Dewhurst was massively ahead in the polls in early March, when the primaries would normally be held. Since they weren't going to do a separate primary for just the statewide races, they all got moved to May 29, and Ted Cruz used that time to come back (also Dewhurst's campaign manager was embezzling millions in funds over that time which probably led to a less than ideal campaign)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
zoux posted:I'll point out this is just an introduced bill (one of our dudes just filed a bill to let Wee the Peeple decide if Texas should secede, for example) and it may not even get a hearing. But there are at least some in the GOP who are cool with not being in a democracy anymore. It's more than some. Dismantling democracy and turning the US into a tyranny that protects its capitalist lords has been the long game for the party since 1994. In the same way that the racism went from mask on to mask off, disdain for democracy will follow suit, because it is clear that nationally, they are outnumbered. They lost the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential contests. Same for the Senate and the House. It's only through a concerted effort to gerrymander the House, and through a geographic edge their base enjoys under the Senate and EC, that they aren't already reduced to a regional party. That said, some in the democratic party have been complicit in this. Bodyholes fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jan 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
I am suspecting that there's reason to suspect that results in 2022 could be different even if some Republican dominated legislatures get another crack at it; the Trump Effect could for example result in a new normal for high Democratic turnout, and lower Republican turnout in non-President years; especially if we factor in Millennials locking in their voting habits as Obama Democrats in the same way Greatest Generation were locked in as FDR dems. A reversal of what was typical the past decade, if so I think the House is more up in the air than people think. Hopefully the Biden DOJ holds the line in the worst case scenario to prevent the worst gerrymandering should Congress fail to pass HR.1. Biden is doing the right moves in his 100 Days so I think Dem enthusiasm is on track to be good for 2022.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2021 04:59
|
|
|
Not even necessarily that, but simply a lot of young people registered to vote. They now know how and can do so again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2021 07:33
|
|
|
Pick posted:Not even necessarily that, but simply a lot of young people registered to vote. They now know how and can do so again. They don't even need to unless they move!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2021 08:05
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:They don't even need to unless they move! States will find a way to throw out their registrations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
I meant they could vote again, but yeah that too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:They don't even need to unless they move! I honestly suspect that this is a big party of why young people have lower turnout numbers. I'm in my early 30s, and I've voted in every presidential and midterm election since 2008. The only time I haven't had to update my address was in 2016, because I lived in the same place as in 2014. I can't imagine that my experience is particularly uncommon. Young people move around a lot, and I think the extra paperwork of having to keep your address up to date (and the increased chance of moving right before an election) probably accounts for a big chunk of the youth turnout gap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:I honestly suspect that this is a big party of why young people have lower turnout numbers. I'm in my early 30s, and I've voted in every presidential and midterm election since 2008. The only time I haven't had to update my address was in 2016, because I lived in the same place as in 2014. I can't imagine that my experience is particularly uncommon. Young people move around a lot, and I think the extra paperwork of having to keep your address up to date (and the increased chance of moving right before an election) probably accounts for a big chunk of the youth turnout gap. So what do you do about changing your address, say for bills or for your drivers license (assuming you have one)? I assume you’re moving around but at least staying in the same county or close by for a majority of those moves, not like moving across country or from state to state every two years. It seems to me that’s where the weak link is and where we should concentrate our efforts, like the motor voter bill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
Oracle posted:So what do you do about changing your address, say for bills or for your drivers license (assuming you have one)? I assume you’re moving around but at least staying in the same county or close by for a majority of those moves, not like moving across country or from state to state every two years. It seems to me that’s where the weak link is and where we should concentrate our efforts, like the motor voter bill. So, I personally keep all of my addresses (including my voter registration) current, but my experience is that a lot of young people just keep their drivers license, car registration, voter registration, etc set to their parents' house. I think most young people get their bills online so the address isn't important there (unless it's a house-specific bill, e.g. utilities). That last point has actually occasionally been an issue when I need to prove that I live somewhere. Getting my residential parking sticker was a yearly hassle, as was getting my RealID, because it was hard to find two pieces of official mail with my current address on it (often utilities were paid by the landlords, so that mail wouldn't always work). I don't really know what the solution here is, and again this is all anecdotal so you'd probably want some hard data on how widespread these situations are before proposing policy. I'd also be curious if other young people in this thread have had similar experiences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
For those who want one last shot of number, we have the Trump campaign's post-mortem: https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/1356419136017080320?s=20 Whole thing is here: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-6046-de2d-a57f-7a6e8c950000 A lot of it is "Well, duh," like Biden doing better in the states that took coronavirus more seriously, but there's some really interesting tidbits in there, including: quote:
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 06:01
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:For those who want one last shot of number, we have the Trump campaign's post-mortem: quote:Meanwhile, advisers to former Vice President Mike Pence brought in multiple pollsters to brief him on their conclusions after the election, according to a person familiar with the discussions. Among the takeaways was that Trump was gaining during the final weeks of the race and that his rallies had helped propel Republicans running in House and Senate races. But the pollsters also made clear that while there was substantial support for Trump’s policies, there was widespread exhaustion with the president. Now this poo poo fascinates me because it implies that if he spent more time talking about downballot candidates at his superspreader rallies like Tulsa the Dems might not have the Senate majority they have now. Which is admittedly some Gay Black Trump territory, he can't not talk about himself at length, but it's an interesting thing to ponder
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 06:57
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Now this poo poo fascinates me because it implies that if he spent more time talking about downballot candidates at his superspreader rallies like Tulsa the Dems might not have the Senate majority they have now. Which is admittedly some Gay Black Trump territory, he can't not talk about himself at length, but it's an interesting thing to ponder Hell if you're going into "what ifs", then by those polls, if he'd waited to replace RBG, he could have had enough of an edge in swing states to have won re-election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 08:21
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:For those who want one last shot of number, we have the Trump campaign's post-mortem: Lots of takeaways from this, but looking forward, Harris has a lot of work to do if she wants to run for President again. She had worse approval ratings than loving Mike Pence, and had a negative approval rating in all of the states they polled. If you can't beat out the most generic, boring rear end white man in America, you have no hope. I still want to see if some of the trends away from Republicans hold, or swing back. In the flipped states, Trump won white college voters by 9 in 2016, but lost them by 5 in 2020. Even in the states he held, white college voters swung hard away from Trump. If they have abandoned the GOP forever, that's very bad for them. If they swing back to the GOP in 2 or 4 years, then the Dems are screwed unless they find lots of new voters. My only complaint on this was they asked if people decided in the last month or before that. What I'd really like to know is actually when people decided who to vote for. I thought I read somewhere that only like 15% of the voting population is really undecided at all, and most people pretty much will vote for the candidate of their party, no matter what. I'm struggling to find that number again though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/lbarronlopez/status/1356585916748431361?s=20 Good luck finding someone more liberal than Machin in West Virginia and can win an election as a Democrat. I don't know much about Arizona but that seems more feasible?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
Yeah you could say that Swearengin was backed by Justice Dems (note that this new group isn't Justice Dems, but rather ex-JD staff) and lost the primary vs Manchin in 2018. But she did win the Democratic primary in 2020! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
I could see Arizona, but West Virginia is a waste of their time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
Yea, that's my take as well. West Virginia seems like a huge uphill battle and best fought somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
It's literally a strategy so bad that I have to genuinely question either the motives or the intelligence of anyone involved. Better off flipping other seats in like North Carolina.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:https://twitter.com/lbarronlopez/status/1356585916748431361?s=20 maybe they could demonstrate their ability to elect a liberal in one of the reddest states of America by going after their republican senator, as a highly useful proof of concept, before trying to give republicans a senate seat they desperately want. but I think they know that would fail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
Pick posted:It's literally a strategy so bad that I have to genuinely question either the motives or the intelligence of anyone involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Some people saw just how much dumb money you could rake in by running a no-hope race against a prominent villain figure (like Amy McGrath did againt Mitch McConnell) and wanted in on that hustle. Was their any hope for McGrath? She didn't strike me a grifter but honestly exceptionality talented and I mean that as I could see her being a great politician. Maybe it's just my gut feeling but her running against McConnell doesn't seem crazy even if it's a long shot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
People like to slam on it, but it's not like there was any lack of money in the 2020 race. I do think it was genuinely unwinnable, but people gave her money to try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Was their any hope for McGrath? She didn't strike me a grifter but honestly exceptionality talented and I mean that as I could see her being a great politician. Maybe it's just my gut feeling but her running against McConnell doesn't seem crazy even if it's a long shot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I'm not saying McGrath was a grifter, but rather that her campaign showed that people will throw a ton of money at a longshot race just because it has a satisfying villain, and the grifters have take note. Point taken. Do we still think she still should have ran? Or I guess what could she have done differently to prevent people from exploiting this opportunity?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Point taken. Do we still think she still should have ran? Or I guess what could she have done differently to prevent people from exploiting this opportunity?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
Harrison in SC is another prime example of raising money on a no hope election. Although polls actually showed him close to Graham, the end result was he lost by 11. Not even close. The lack of split tickets means that in the future, any senate race is likely to mirror the presidential race. So it's not really worth spending money unless the presidential race is also competitive. Obviously, this doesn't apply in the mid-terms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1356661158757994497 Reconciliation is a go. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1356643570824937475 Actual election takes are also a go. 2020 vote on the left - change from '16 on the right, for Texas  Limited data for Texas, but most states are all there. zoux fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Feb 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:For those who want one last shot of number, we have the Trump campaign's post-mortem: quote:The report also indirectly raises questions about the reelection campaign’s decision to pause advertising on TV over the summer and save resources until the fall. According to the findings, nearly 9-in-10 voters had made up their minds about whom to support by the final month of the race. Personally, this is the bit that interests me most. I don't doubt that TV ads have a minor effect at best on races, but this election could've been pushed in Trump's favor through minor effects.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
Wasn't the actual "decision" that Trumpco burnt through all the money they started fundraising from the start of the inauguration and essentially had to wait until fall to spend again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Wasn't the actual "decision" that Trumpco burnt through all the money they started fundraising from the start of the inauguration and essentially had to wait until fall to spend again? Well the funny thing about that is, their campaign didn't really run out of money because of something as simple as "Incompetence" or "Bad planning" but more because of how Trump's narcissistic brain works. Basically he wanted to project the image that working for the Trump 2020 campaign (And thus, answering to his every whim) was the bestest, coolest job you could ever have. Which meant that if Brad Parscale wanted 24/7 Limo service, he was gonna get it, and we'll figure out how to pay for everything in January. Everything kept coming back to the extremely transactional way Trump views employment
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2021 23:31
|
|
|
Pick posted:It's literally a strategy so bad that I have to genuinely question either the motives or the intelligence of anyone involved. The problem is, if you approach the electorate as a strictly economically-driven, derived-by-standard-class-theory set, West Virginia should be winnable, as it is heavily blue collar/working class. By classical economic political theory, appealing to the working class with economic relief, union rights, and solidarity against the rich exploitive class should gain you a victory. This drives a subset of leftists to slam their heads into WV again and again because the alternative is to have to change their point of view to meet the facts on the ground rather than classical economic political theory. And if the last ten years have proven anything, it’s that lots of people across the spectrum will put insane amounts of effort into hopelessly doubling down rather than actually adjust to new facts. skeleton warrior fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Feb 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HolmesJosh/status/1356716654613454849
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 03:42
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:By classical economic political theory, appealing to the working class with economic relief, union rights, and solidarity against the rich exploitive class should gain you a victory. To be fair, when was the last time Democrats tried to appeal to West Virginians by offering economic relief, unionization, and solidarity against the rich?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 07:38
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:To be fair, when was the last time Democrats tried to appeal to West Virginians by offering economic relief, unionization, and solidarity against the rich? Paula Jean Swearengin, 2020.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 07:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Worth noting that McGrath lost by a wider margin than Grimes did in 2014, which was an awful year for Democrats. Given turnout elsewhere it probably would have been impossible for any Dem to win in Kentucky against McConnell, but she was particularly Not Great. If there's a lesson to be learned, it's twofold: 1. Don't anoint a challenger before the primary has even started. McGrath got a ton of attention and money to challenge McConnell mostly because she declared early, and that momentum ended up carrying her in the primary over a much stronger candidate in Charles Booker. Booker almost certainly wouldn't have won, but it's very, very likely he would have done a hell of a lot better at motivating Kentucky's democratic base as opposed to McGrath, who seemed mainly focused on (nonexistent, as it turned out) crossover votes. 2. Money should be directed at organizations, not candidates. Related to the above, point, Dems have a huge problem with falling in love with savior candidates and showering them with money and media attention—but that money is only going to go so far, and may not help out other candidates on the ticket. And more importantly, it wasn't some special quality of Ossoff or Warnock that won the Georgia Senate races—it was Fair Fight and other voting rights orgs and activists that put in the time and effort to organize and fight for expanded voter access. If the Dems are going to win going forward, they need to stop focusing on donations for individual candidates and instead spread money around to state and regional level organizations that can support long-term electoral success.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2021 08:09
|
|