|
Why is it assumed that it being a non-Trump election is less favorable to Democrats? Aren't the 2018 midterms a pretty strong counterexample? Dem voters are still motivated to vote out Trump-adjacent Republicans, whereas a portion of would-be Republican voters don't turn out as much if daddy's not on the ballot? Bigger picture, I don't think the premise that this is a post-Trump election is valid, either in terms of how the general electorate likely views it or how the candidates should treat it. Trump is still president today and will be on the runoff election day, he's still crowing about voting fraud (which I'm sure many Georgians know is basically a dog whistle for minority voter disenfranchisement) and refusing to concede, and GOP Senators are still not acknowledging Biden as the president-elect. I think Warnock and Ossoff both seeming to make healthcare their #1 talking point so far makes sense insofar as it kind of threads all the needles of a motivating issue that cuts across lots of demographics, hammering the GOP threat to healthcare from all branches of government, hammering the McConnell Senate for withholding Covid relief in order to secure liability waivers for businesses... Do I wish that they were going farther and endorsing M4A explicitly? Yes, but unfortunately the choice isn't between Ossoff/Warnock or better Dem candidates, it's between Ossoff/Warnock or Perdue/Loeffler, and I don't see a single issue where the latter would deliver better material conditions to Georgians.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:
Hope it doesn't cost them this election, as the "trump effect" likely varies from state to state, Dems don't historically win Georgia, and these individual Dems each got the smaller share of votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
There's an excellent interview with Killer Mike on the Bad Faith podcast, where he talks a lot about politics and perceptions in Georgia. Very worth a listen for people interested in this topic, IMO!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:I know you’re going for a gotcha but it’s totally possible imo that it makes sense to broadcast regionally if money funnelling into ga makes local buys expensive. it’s probably still just them maximizing every last bit of ga coverage, though Fwiw wasn’t going for a gotcha, just making a dumb joke about the sorry state of political advertising in the US, not targeted at you
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 07:52
|
|
|
I feel like the candidates are making the right call playing to the center. Your urban core in the state is locked-in D and your rural areas are blood red. So in addition to depending hard on urban and suburban turnout you’re going to see the election decided by squishy moderate suburban ppl. You want to win them over with good sounding platitudes without getting branded as a socialist. I think with trump off the ballot we might see a drop in r turnout. But I think Dems are still juiced up after suffering for four years under Trump and are excited about making the Biden administration happen successfully. I think the black voters in the state have been absolutely miserable with the 12 punch of Trump and Covid and are still going to be motivated to turn out for the special election. So I think we’ve got a real chance at winning both races if we keep our eyes on the ball.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 09:09
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Fwiw wasn’t going for a gotcha, just making a dumb joke about the sorry state of political advertising in the US, not targeted at you Cheers friend DeeplyConcerned posted:I feel like the candidates are making the right call playing to the center. Your urban core in the state is locked-in D and your rural areas are blood red. So in addition to depending hard on urban and suburban turnout you’re going to see the election decided by squishy moderate suburban ppl. You want to win them over with good sounding platitudes without getting branded as a socialist. One hopes. I expect failure but still hope for more, especially with abrams running a gotv program.i have some reservations about her politics but there’s no denying she’s good
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 11:06
|
|
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:I feel like the candidates are making the right call playing to the center. Your urban core in the state is locked-in D and your rural areas are blood red. So in addition to depending hard on urban and suburban turnout you’re going to see the election decided by squishy moderate suburban ppl. You want to win them over with good sounding platitudes without getting branded as a socialist. In the event of a dem loss here, do you think the candidates' inadequate policies might be credited for that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:In the event of a dem loss here, do you think the candidates' inadequate policies might be credited for that? Did Sara Gideon lose Maine because of her inadequate policies? Edit: to post in more good faith: what specific policies are Georgians looking that Ossof/Warnock should adopt in the weeks between now and the runoff to improve their campaigns? Evidence based on other winning candidates from the state would be welcome! whydirt fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Nov 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 15:41
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Did Sara Gideon lose Maine because of her inadequate policies? There's also that chart where M4A supporters did better, I'll see if I can find it again in another thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 15:59
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Did Sara Gideon lose Maine because of her inadequate policies? Maybe? I'm not seeing articles that credit it to that though. I just did a quick Google search though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:In the event of a dem loss here, do you think the candidates' inadequate policies might be credited for that? No, if the Dems lose in the runoff, I think it's far more likely that the loss can be attributed to other causes rather than the candidates failure to adopt the GND or M4A. Without a presidential race at the top of the ticket, turnout is likely to be down across the board, and historically Republicans are more likely to vote in non-presidential elections, so it's reasonable to assume they might not be as affected as Democrats are by the lack of a presidential election. Adopting leftist policies equally risks engaging the far right as it does the left, blunting any turnout advantage. The question then, is how do you get those former D voters to wake up and get engaged again? How do you rebuild that coalition that just won the state in the presidential election? Given that winning the state required substantial movement in the suburbs among former R voters, you need the entire political spectrum from deep blue to light red to pull off a repeat. As a campaign, you have to figure out how to thread that needle. You can do one of the following: 1) Adopt leftist policies to drive turnout among your deep blue supporters, and hope that the light red folks in the suburbs stick around; or 2) Tack to the middle and hope the super-activated folks on the left understand how important it is to take control of the senate and vote for you since you are clearly better than Perdue/Loeffler. The campaigns are clearly attempting to do option 1, on the hope that the folks in the cities still turn out. However, just because it doesn't work doesn't mean option 2 would have worked. It might! Especially if Trump's loss depresses the Republicans but the Democrats turn out over the Senate, then engaging D voters might be a productive path forward. However, you also run the risk of energizing the Republicans by pushing more leftist policies, which cancels out your turnout advantage. It's entirely possible there just aren't enough potential D senate votes in Georgia right now for the Dem candidates to get to 50% + 1 regardless of their policies. It seems like the path to a D win in the runoffs in this particular election cycle is to tack to the middle to depress R turnout, hope your coalition from 11/3 sticks around through GOTV efforts, stressing the importance of a senate majority, and by giving Stacey Abrams whatever she wants, and then hope that the Republican base stays home with Trump off the ticket. You don't want to poke the bear by advocating for "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE  " when the Republican base is miserable and downcast from just losing a presidential election.Now, in the mid-long term, I 100% believe the path forward is attempting to socialize leftist policies with the folks in the suburbs such that they are less likely to be repulsed by good ideas like the GND and M4A, which opens a wider path. However, as Stacey Abrams, Doug Jones, Beto Orourke, and others have been pointing out, this is something that takes long term organizing over years. In a 2 month runoff, you work with the electorate that you have, which, at least to win the most recent statewide election in Georgia, required a bunch of Republican voters you risk alienating with support of the GND/etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
What was the voting participation for this last election for the 18-24 crowd? I wonder if focusing on some of the college campuses to get first time voters to vote in this runoff would move the needle any appreciable amount.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:In the event of a dem loss here, do you think the candidates' inadequate policies might be credited for that? You're really desperate to turn this thread into a food fight over Democratic policies, aren't you. This isn't about the Democratic party generally, it's about Georgia and what works there. The point is to win the election, not score ideological points. It's mostly going to be about turnout, anyway. Everybody already knows the candidates and what they're running on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:You're really desperate to turn this thread into a food fight over Democratic policies, aren't you. Is this a bit? People are having a serious discussion of the issues and how they may affect turnout and you reduce it all to an ideological foodfight? gently caress you (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Is this a bit? People are having a serious discussion of the issues and how they may affect turnout and you reduce it all to an ideological foodfight? gently caress you I don't take it to be a bit. It seems we have two common points of discussion going through this thread. Those who want to talk policy positions of the candidates and how that might effect voter turnout. The other being those who want to talk strategy about how to maximize turnout and get people to cast votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 17:30
|
|
|
NJ Deac posted:Adopting leftist policies equally risks engaging the far right as it does the left, blunting any turnout advantage. This sounds reasonable in theory, but if it were a significant factor in practice, it seems to me like the best strategy then would be to have the candidate simply say they are for the same exact platform as the republican then do the progressive stuff once elected anyway? Clearly at some point, you do improve your odds by having a distinctive platform. The question is what point that is, and how can we know? My argument is that being supporting of something like M4A is on the "improves" side of this curve. But if we can't even allow ourselves to consider that as something we could infer due to a loss, then we are not taking this seriously as a learning experience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:This sounds reasonable in theory, but if it were a significant factor in practice, it seems to me like the best strategy then would be to have the candidate simply say they are for the same exact platform as the republican then do the progressive stuff once elected anyway? Again, please get specific with evidence relevant to this runoff election. Either from other recent races in Georgia (I'd settle for demographically similar southern states!) or other Senate races.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 17:57
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Again, please get specific with evidence relevant to this runoff election. Either from other recent races in Georgia (I'd settle for demographically similar southern states!) or other Senate races. I'm speaking hypothetically, and I can't gather evidence from possible worlds  Edit: Oh, I see you edited your other post while I was typing my reply. I don't think the candidates can at this current time make any changes to their policies which would improve their situtation, since their policies are, as other posters have said, "already known". I am interested in why people think it is reasonable to credit the policy choices for a potential win but not a potential loss unless one has already assumed the conclusion that the policies chosen here can not be responsible for underperformance. I think that is not a sufficiently productive way of improving future campaigns, if we want to factor in the policies of candidates when choosing one we think who is more or less likely to win. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Nov 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Again, please get specific with evidence relevant to this runoff election. Either from other recent races in Georgia (I'd settle for demographically similar southern states!) or other Senate races. Neither Warnock nor Ossoff are facing an opponent who's a pedophile, so the whole idea of a winning (post-Southern Switcheroo) Democratic coalition in the south is kind of uncharted territory. Virginia might be the closest (though NoVa is closer to the Mid-Atlantic in terms of demographics and voting patterns than the south) and going by that your best bet would in fact be centrists. Democrats have won house seats in Georgia but again, these have been centrists with the possible exception of Hank Johnson. None of them support Medicare for All.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:This sounds reasonable in theory, but if it were a significant factor in practice, it seems to me like the best strategy then would be to have the candidate simply say they are for the same exact platform as the republican then do the progressive stuff once elected anyway? I agree that every candidate is working with a curve that defines an output of votes based on a number of input factors, including policy, but I don't think you can simplify it down to a parabola where there is some set of policies that maximize the overall vote share such that any candidate who adopts those policies will get the most votes as any other candidate with those policies. In a frictionless vacuum with spherical candidates (i.e., all we're evaluating candidates on is policy), it does stand to reason that there is some set of policies that is most palatable to the greatest segment of the population that can optimize for the greater number of votes (amount of population to whom policies are palatable * turnout/enthusiam = total votes), such that adopting those policies would necessarily translate into the most votes and thus a win in the election. However, I think the analysis is far more complex such that rather than a parabola, you end up with two separate curves with different peaks and valleys - one curve for each candidate, since they are each dealing with different universes of "gettable" voters and with different effects on the other side's turnout. There are some folks that would never consider voting for a republican even if they otherwise had ideal policies, and vice-versa for democrats. Furthermore, each party infrastructure has their own data sets, GOTV operations, volunteer networks, geographical biases and theories for which voters are likely/possible to turn out based on GOTV operations and the like. The job of organization building and community organizing is to grow those curves and expand the battlefield for election time, then in election time you do the best you can with what you think you know about the electorate. This is all theoretical of course so I'm certainly open to considering data that indicates otherwise, but I think it's reasonable to think that each candidate is trying to craft their messages within the boundaries of the policy allowed by their party to maximize the number of votes they receive from their own gettable voters. That calculation likely looks very different for a Democrat based on their geography (i.e., what works in Georgia is going to be different from what works in California), but the ultimate set of policies that work for a Democrat in Georgia is going to look different than those that work for a Republican in Georgia, such that I don't think it's fair to say that the best thing for a Democrat to do is adopt Republican policies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
Have people seen this already? AP "exit" polls, obviously with a methodology tailored for more early & mail-in voting:quote:AP VoteCast is a survey of the American electorate conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for Fox News, NPR, PBS NewsHour, Univision News, USA Today Network, The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press. The survey of 3,291 voters in Georgia was conducted for eight days, concluding as polls closed. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. The survey combines a random sample of registered voters drawn from the state voter file and self-identified registered voters selected from nonprobability online panels. The margin of sampling error for voters is estimated to be plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. Find more details about AP VoteCast’s methodology at https://ap.org/votecast. NYT has a nice layout of the results in Georgia: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/ap-polls-georgia.html?searchResultPosition=24  I don't think this provides any clear support for the idea that Ossoff/Warnock are making a strategic misstep by not focusing on the GND, either as part of their original campaign or for the runoff. In aggregate about 60% of the sampled voters thought the pandemic, healthcare or racism are the most important issues facing the country, and these were all winning issues for Biden. It's an extrapolation to assume that they're winning issues for Ossoff/Warnock purely on a partisan basis, but I think it's a reasonable extrapolation. (edit: especially without Trump at the top of the ballot to provide "cover" for right-centrists to ticket split) Now an interesting question is whether Biden could have drawn more support among the 10% that prioritized healthcare if he had been in favor of M4A; I want to say yes, but honestly I find it completely baffling that 42% of the people who prioritized healthcare as the most important issue went for Trump, so I don't know what to make of that. The fact that only 2% of voters consider climate change to be the most important issue is distressing. I think WE all know that just about every other issue will ultimately be dependent on addressing climate change, but that requires a degree of big picture, long-term thinking on policy that doesn't seem to be prevalent among the electorate today. And this isn't unique to Georgia, I didn't check every state but of all the obvious solid blue states the highest I could find for climate change was 9% in Oregon. Beyond the runoff, I absolutely 100% believe that the Dems' job is to provide a platform for climate change that's more immediate and tangible to your average schlub, and I do think the GND is a great starting point. What I'm not so sure about is how much the focus should explicitly be on addressing climate change itself, vs. on transforming the economy to a more innovative and technologically advanced model and how that brings in more jobs, etc. Sharks Eat Bear fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Nov 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
Those people 'know' that the ACA isn't helping them and believe Trump when he says he will
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:I don't think this provides any clear support for the idea that Ossoff/Warnock are making a strategic misstep by not focusing on the GND, either as part of their original campaign or for the runoff. I think the picture is murkier when it comes to last week's election, but I actually agree as far as the runoff is concerned. Loss aversion is a powerful political tool, and that being the case, the most powerful thing for the Democratic candidates to run on will be people's fear of losing their healthcare. "Trump's gonna take away your healthcare" was an incredibly effective motivation for people to turn out and vote in 2018, and "SCOTUS is gonna overturn the ACA" could be, too. If I were running communications on either campaign, that's what I'd be hyperfocusing on, given how little time there is between now and the runoffs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Those people 'know' that the ACA isn't helping them and believe Trump when he says he will We’ve also had people this year in D&D literally swearing that the ACA never did anything for anybody
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
Ok Comboomer posted:We’ve also had people this year in D&D literally swearing that the ACA never did anything for anybody A, I don't think that's actually true, and B, this isn't the thread to rehash that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
Georgia went for Biden officially, so that's....good news for the runoff?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
I don't know actually. I honestly think Trump being on the card was a lot of motivation for both sides to get out to vote. Now that's he's done for I worry about the democrats showing up in numbers to match the republicans. I also wonder if the usps is fully recovered from the fuckery inflicted by Dejoy and if early voting isn't the way to go instead of mail-in. I did early voting myself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
Coredump posted:I don't know actually. I honestly think Trump being on the card was a lot of motivation for both sides to get out to vote. Now that's he's done for I worry about the democrats showing up in numbers to match the republicans. I also wonder if the usps is fully recovered from the fuckery inflicted by Dejoy and if early voting isn't the way to go instead of mail-in. I did early voting myself. democrats never turn out for special elections
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:In the event of a dem loss here, do you think the candidates' inadequate policies might be credited for that? I wouldn’t be 100% sure either way a priori. I would want to look at the data post-election. I think if black turn out dropped precipitously compared to the presidential race that would be pretty strong evidence of a messaging failure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 03:29
|
|
|
Edward Mass posted:Georgia went for Biden officially, so that's....good news for the runoff? I wouldn't be too sure. Speaking as a GA resident I know there are a fair share of center leaning conservatives who tipped the balance in Biden's favor (such as my father). They like Republicans, but guys like Trump disgust them personally. There could still be hope though. I think if Dems hammer home that losing the senate could result in the lack of a proper Covid relief bill they could still squeeze out another win. We'll see though. I've got the early voting start date set on my calendar so here's to hoping for the best.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 03:39
|
|
|
Edward Mass posted:Georgia went for Biden officially, so that's....good news for the runoff? Yes - unless Republican crossovers were what put Biden over the finish line. I think we have the data yet to say whether or not that’s the case but if it is we’re in trouble because those never trump Republicans are going to go ahead and vote for their R Senate candidate with Trump off the ballot. What I’m really hoping for is a huge chunk of Republican voters to buy trumps election fraud line hook line and sinker. Because if that’s the case then why vote? Loeffler & Perdue have been cheerleading trumps election fraud claims in the hopes of staying on his good side or at least off his bad side. The ideal one-two punch would be The election fraud narrative plus the rhinos are disloyal narrative. I think with good turnout that would give us enough depressed R turn out to get over the finish line for both races. But it’s definitely going to be a nailbiter either way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
business republicans will turn out, the question is whether yokel republicans will (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
What Trump ultimately does about losing and what his cult ultimately intuits about the Republican Party and elections in General from that ultimate endgame is going to be probably the single most decisive factor in the Georgia runoff. One can only hope he succeeds in either discrediting the entire notion of elections forever for these psychos or gets them to blame the Republicans so that they hand the Senate seats over to us to Own The RINOs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 10:25
|
|
|
2018 was not a Presidential election year and Dems still turned out. I think either way Georgia is going to tell us a lot about the election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
Edward Mass posted:Georgia went for Biden officially, so that's....good news for the runoff? Given how badly the Dems did in the downballot (nationwide), there may have been a large number of Biden/Republican split tickets
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 02:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:2018 was not a Presidential election year and Dems still turned out. I think either way Georgia is going to tell us a lot about the election. I think it's also going to tell us a lot about how the national Dems try and run campaigns in the next cycle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
Georgia Sen. David Perdue declines to debate opponent ahead of January 5 runoffquote:Georgia Republican Sen. David Perdue has declined an invitation to debate Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff ahead of the January runoff election for his seat, CNN has learned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
Purdue didn't seem to pay a price for bailing on the remaining debates after getting bodied at the first one in the general election, so it's probably smart for him to avoid them this time. And frankly (and unfortunately), I can't see Ossoff being able to make this into anything that changes turnout dramatically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2020 17:08
|
|
|
Ossoff needs to make an ad of that debate exchange and run it 24/7
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
BitcoinRockefeller posted:Can you cite any prominent examples of a democrat campaigning on right wing positions, getting elected, then switching to much further left positions? I can think of a whole bunch that go the other way and quite frankly ascribing Ossoff's positions as 4-D chess sounds exactly like what people who though Biden would win 400 electoral votes by not taking a single left position were saying about 8 days ago. FDR, 1932
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 12:20
|
|