POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Until the Dems understand that the GOP are street brawlers who don't fight fair, and adjust their thinking to deal with that, their stay in the White House, should Biden gain it, will be brief.

I think most of the DEM leadership get this. I am not sure about the traditionally diverse (to the point of splintered) vote base for the Dems.

After 20 years of Limbaugh and Hannity "schooling" them in the credo that Liberalism is an evil to be broken and that compromise is defeat, the GOP has chosen a brawling demagogue for its leader, shed the dross (like me) who consider meaningful negotiation as viable, and are relying on their tenacity and numbers to break the Democrat hold on power -- and yes, they see it in exactly those terms. They are David, fighting the good fight against an evil giant Philistine.

[Hooahguy]

California Senator Feinstein on filibuster (https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1308165969022464001): “I don't believe in doing that. I think the filibuster serves a purpose. It is not often used, it's often less used now than when I first came, and I think it's part of the Senate that differentiates itself.” :shame:


Prior to the past few months I thought that the Dems were in the right to be even-keeled and cautious on their approach.

But now? Hearing Dems like Feinstein say that we shouldn’t get rid of the filibuster? Time to vote her out and replace her with someone who will play hardball. I’m tired of Dems being rolled over because we are too nice. Fuck nice. We need to decimate the GOP so that they never hold office higher than county dogcatcher. Bring out the knives because any action less than that has my absolute contempt now. I do not know how much of what Biden is saying now is to "calm" the folks in the center who would be afraid of extreme rhetoric versus what he actually would do. One small bright point is that Kamala stated that she would be open to the idea so perhaps thats the push he would need to support the idea once elected.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Prior to the past few months I thought that the Dems were in the right to be even-keeled and cautious on their approach.

Make no mistake, there are many Dems that need to be part of the house cleaning so desperately needed in Washington. There are far too many Dems that spend their time lashing out at the left-wing portion of the party, and who actually see them (and perhaps rightly so) as more of a threat to their continued hold on their seat and power. They continue to be influenced by big-bucks donors, and are content with the status quo because it's comfortable for them....here's looking at you Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer:stare:

What's really needed is a complete overhaul of the two party system, but that is as likely to happen as snow in the Amazon. The voting process is also badly in need of overhaul, as well. That's as unlikely to happen as the first.

As long as do-the-bare-minimum-to-stay-in-office Democrats remain in office, they will continue to get steam-rolled by Republicans because they do not want to risk the status quo, rather than fight for the people they are supposed to represent.

[Pannonian]

Make no mistake, there are many Dems that need to be part of the house cleaning so desperately needed in Washington. There are far too many Dems that spend their time lashing out at the left-wing portion of the party, and who actually see them (and perhaps rightly so) as more of a threat to their continued hold on their seat and power. They continue to be influenced by big-bucks donors, and are content with the status quo because it's comfortable for them....here's looking at you Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer:stare:

What's really needed is a complete overhaul of the two party system, but that is as likely to happen as snow in the Amazon. The voting process is also badly in need of overhaul, as well. That's as unlikely to happen as the first.

As long as do-the-bare-minimum-to-stay-in-office Democrats remain in office, they will continue to get steam-rolled by Republicans because they do not want to risk the status quo, rather than fight for the people they are supposed to represent.

A bit of advice from this side of the pond. Do not mistake purity of identity with doing good. Don't clean house to the point where you're dropping people who are doing practical good because they don't conform with your idea of the pure ideal. Promote the good stuff you're doing. Don't get caught up in identity politics. The right will always win on identity politics. Make the discussion otherwise. Make it patriotic to do good.

[Hooahguy]

A bit of advice from this side of the pond. Do not mistake purity of identity with doing good. Don't clean house to the point where you're dropping people who are doing practical good because they don't conform with your idea of the pure ideal. Promote the good stuff you're doing. Don't get caught up in identity politics. The right will always win on identity politics. Make the discussion otherwise. Make it patriotic to do good.
This is where I am at. I don't believe in completely cleaning house for the sake of cleaning house, but rather a careful assessment of who isnt pulling their weight and go from there. There needs to be a balance of ideologues and pragmatists- one to dream big, the other to figure out how to actually get it done. For example lets take two freshman House Dems: AOC and Lauren Underwood. AOC is great at the rhetoric, but her legislative accomplishments are rather thin. Zero of her bills have even left committee. Three of Underwood's bills have passed the House, however she isn't really one to make waves in the news. I'd wager that most probably don't even know who she is. I think there is great value in both of these approaches to governance and we need both of them.

[Pannonian]

This is where I am at. I don't believe in completely cleaning house for the sake of cleaning house, but rather a careful assessment of who isnt pulling their weight and go from there. There needs to be a balance of ideologues and pragmatists- one to dream big, the other to figure out how to actually get it done. For example lets take two freshman House Dems: AOC and Lauren Underwood. AOC is great at the rhetoric, but her legislative accomplishments are rather thin. Zero of her bills have even left committee. Three of Underwood's bills have passed the House, however she isn't really one to make waves in the news. I'd wager that most probably don't even know who she is. I think there is great value in both of these approaches to governance and we need both of them.

Over here, the left went through a period of utterly demonising the Labour government as no different from the Tories. It succeeded in getting them control of the Labour party as the narrative went that the Blairites had betrayed them and someone completely different was needed to redress the balance. Unfortunately, while they won the party-internal debate, their stance completely sabotaged the party-external debate.

So while they had control of the party, they alienated the electorate outside the party. Even as they engaged in identity politics and yelling traitor at anyone not subscribing completely to their creed, the Tories were allowed to be as incompetent and repulsive as they liked, as the most substantive arguments against them weren't allowed to be aired as they made the previous Labour government look good, which goes against the raison d'etre of the puritan left. If the Blairite government did so much good, why does there need to be a reaction against it? Hence the Blairite government did nothing good and plenty of harm, goes the leftist argument. And hence there is no answer to the Tories, as even the Labour party are saying that the Labour government was abominable.

So to the liberal left in the US: don't be as stupid as the left in the UK. Find things you've done that even moderate conservatives can be proud of as Americans, and highlight them.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I don't believe in completely cleaning house for the sake of cleaning house, but rather a careful assessment of who isnt pulling their weight and go from there

First of all, let's be real...house cleaning isn't going to happen, at least not to the extent it needs to be done. The top two Dems, Pelosi and Schumer are virtually untouchable because of seniority and that they are both excellent fund raisers. However, name me a single piece of non-emergency legislation of substance that either of them has gotten enacted in the last two years?

Pelosi has three that actually became law: HR 3144, HR 1327, and HR 6655:

https://www.congress.gov/member/nancy-pelosi/P000197?searchResultViewType=expanded

Schumer has three, as well: S 151, S 2047, S 4116:

https://www.congress.gov/member/charles-schumer/S000148?pageSize=100&page=1

Yes Schumer has an uphill battle in the Senate, but still, are any of those bills that made it into law anything of substance?

And then there's this asinine comment:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/20/pelosi-impeachment-option-ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-seat/5844313002/


While she didn't immediately spurn the idea of impeachment, Pelosi did shoot down the possibility of using federal funding as leverage to stall a nominee.

"None of us has any interest in shutting down government. That has such a harmful and painful impact on so many people in our country. So I would hope that we can just proceed with that," she said when asked about that possibility. "There is some enthusiasm among some exuberance on the left to say let's use that, but we're not going to be shutting down government."

Pelosi did not answer directly when asked if she would consider, as some liberals have suggested, of expanding the number of justices on the court – often referred to as court-packing – in retaliation if Trump successfully adds another conservative to the bench before leaving office.

"Well, let's just win the election. Let's hope that the president will see the light," she said.

What light? Oh, you mean this light:


"I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too... So, we'll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute - that's pretty powerful." [Trump statement back in April]

Pelosi has pretty much run up the white flag:surrender2:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wrong at each step. Typically-illiterate contribution. Maybe ACIN would care to lecture you about the political context of Marbury v. Madison.

Deaf ears.

[Montmorency]

Until the Dems understand that the GOP are street brawlers who don't fight fair, and adjust their thinking to deal with that, their stay in the White House, should Biden gain it, will be brief.

There have been accumulating indicators that Biden does understand (by now), and influential House and Senate Dems have been fairly insistent that they will not tolerate obstructionism any longer - even before RBG's death.

Should at least 52 Democratic Senators hold office come January, I'd like to bet the dams will break. (50 or 51 is a little tricky for predictions...)


Prior to the past few months I thought that the Dems were in the right to be even-keeled and cautious on their approach.

But now? Hearing Dems like Feinstein say that we shouldn’t get rid of the filibuster? Time to vote her out and replace her with someone who will play hardball. I’m tired of Dems being rolled over because we are too nice. Fuck nice. We need to decimate the GOP so that they never hold office higher than county dogcatcher. Bring out the knives because any action less than that has my absolute contempt now. I do not know how much of what Biden is saying now is to "calm" the folks in the center who would be afraid of extreme rhetoric versus what he actually would do. One small bright point is that Kamala stated that she would be open to the idea so perhaps thats the push he would need to support the idea once elected.

California had the chance a couple years ago. She won the primary by 8 points. Honestly, she should have retired by now. Ginsburg's age and as California senator she's been acting like she's senator from Missouri or something for however many years.

Look, something else Dems need to understand: it's OK to play the gray man for a soundbite nation. It's not that you have to run on hardball - just do it.


This is where I am at. I don't believe in completely cleaning house for the sake of cleaning house, but rather a careful assessment of who isnt pulling their weight and go from there. There needs to be a balance of ideologues and pragmatists- one to dream big, the other to figure out how to actually get it done. For example lets take two freshman House Dems: AOC and Lauren Underwood. AOC is great at the rhetoric, but her legislative accomplishments are rather thin. Zero of her bills have even left committee. Three of Underwood's bills have passed the House, however she isn't really one to make waves in the news. I'd wager that most probably don't even know who she is. I think there is great value in both of these approaches to governance and we need both of them.

Too much of the bashing of AOC is performative rather than performance-based. The Underwood bills (https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/U000040-lauren-underwood/bills-sponsored/116) that the House discharged are - marginal items of a few hundred words each, whose ratification into law would be of unclear impact. That's not to say that they're necessarily without value, but they don't support a comparative judgement on legislative skill or value.

Granted, the general formula seems to be that running against one's own party is unproductive to the extent one doesn't expect to carry its base on personal loyalty.


However, name me a single piece of non-emergency legislation of substance that either of them has gotten enacted in the last two years?

I don't understand why, categorically speaking, this is a relevant standard under a hostile presidency.


Pelosi has pretty much run up the white flag:surrender2:

I'm pretty sure she's trolling him. She's released a lot of statements mocking Trump over the years.

She may be the single most effective Democrat currently sitting, in her role. Can you think of an available, plausible replacement for Speaker that would be superior in their qualities? She's not the one limiting Democratic electeds, whereas conservative Dems in the caucus could be described as having that effect.

[a completely inoffensive name]

California had the chance a couple years ago. She won the primary by 8 points. Honestly, she should have retired by now. Ginsburg's age and as California senator she's been acting like she's senator from Missouri or something for however many years.


Feinstein is a straight fucking moron. I still remember when she got indignant with fucking children who asked for a green new deal and her mind devolved below that of the children she was talking to.

https://youtu.be/jEPo34LCss8

"I know what I am doing." Why are you defending yourself to kids?
"I got elected by a plurality." Yes that is how elections work.
"How old are you? (girl admits she is 16) Well you didn't vote for me." How fucking petty are you Senator? Arn't you the one with the political power, and you have to make a point on why you are not going to listen to a 16 year old?

She is an absolute moron and if I ever saw her, I would tell her that.

[Crandar]

Too late to change the narrative about Sleepy Joe (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/23/trump-biden-first-debate-420189)?

Really looking forward to the debate. Not that it will seriously affect the outcome of the elections, but the reactions of the cult will be very interesting. Many of them genuinely believe that Biden has Alzheimer and that Trump is a master orator, so the inevitable mental gymnastics of either ignoring the result or trying to spin it into something else promise to generate a lot of comedy material.

My guess is they'll argue that Donald owned his opponent and all that polls suggesting otherwise have been doctored by the lying, liberal media. Let's wait and see...

[ReluctantSamurai]

From the above link:


“Virtually every question for Joe Biden was an invitation for him to attack President Trump, while moderator Anderson Cooper offered almost no pushback, giving Biden a total pass on his lies and misrepresentations,” said the Trump campaign in a statement after Biden’s appearance on the network.

Another Trump supporter accused Biden of receiving advance notice of the questions in a bid to rationalize his performance last week. “Looks to me that Biden had an idea of what the questions would be, at least areas of questioning,” tweeted former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly during the town hall. In a subsequent tweet, O’Reilly said he had “simply tweeted an observation.”

I guess they missed all those softballs that Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham served up to Trump during Fox News interviews:rolleyes:

What a bunch of duplicitous, whinny bitches....:laugh4:


I don't understand why, categorically speaking, this is a relevant standard under a hostile presidency.

So you'd rather give her a free pass because she faces hostile Republicans in the Senate and White House?

[Hooahguy]

Too much of the bashing of AOC is performative rather than performance-based. The Underwood bills (https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/U000040-lauren-underwood/bills-sponsored/116) that the House discharged are - marginal items of a few hundred words each, whose ratification into law would be of unclear impact. That's not to say that they're necessarily without value, but they don't support a comparative judgement on legislative skill or value.
Disagree. As someone who has seen the process first-hand, even getting a bill out of committee and on the House floor for a vote is a big deal. There have been literally thousands of bills introduced this legislative session, very few make it out of committee not because their ideas don't have merit, but because there are so many other things in the way that take precedence. The fact that a freshman congressperson got anything out of committee is a testament to her legislative skill, as it takes persistence and the building of relationships with her colleagues to move the ball forward.



However, name me a single piece of non-emergency legislation of substance that either of them has gotten enacted in the last two years?
I don't understand why, categorically speaking, this is a relevant standard under a hostile presidency.

Agreed.

And if one really thinks that Pelosi hasn't been effective at her job one should really take a look at her record because there's some really important things there. Like raising the federal minimum wage in 2007 under Bush and passing the ACA with a public option (that the Senate removed).



So you'd rather give her a free pass because she faces hostile Republicans in the Senate and White House?

What do you expect her to do? She can't force Mitch to take up House bills nor can she routinely shut down the government.

[ReluctantSamurai]

And if one really thinks that Pelosi hasn't been effective at her job one should really take a look at her record because there's some really important things there.

I would agree with that. I wasn't critiquing her entire career. I specifically mentioned the last two years. So are the Dems that helpless that she can't influence the Senate, or is she simply coasting into the twilight of her career? Given the extreme polarization of our Congress, I understand it's difficult to get anything done these days, which is a gross understatement, IMHO. My point is, if the GOP has such a tight grip on nearly every aspect of our government, you might want to get a wee bit more active in doing things to loosen that. I also realize that it's up to the American people to vote the more corrupt Republicans (and Dems) out of office, and if that can't be done, then we move even further towards an authoritarian state.

This probably doesn't lend itself to party unity:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dccc-promises-to-blacklist-firms-that-work-with-candidates-challenging-incumbents_n_5c95126ae4b01ebeef0ec3ae


One Democratic strategist said that while it’s understandable the DCCC wants to protect its incumbents, it was a bad idea to blacklist firms that work with challengers. There are only a limited number of races, and the party already tends to work with the established firms.

Rebecca Katz, a longtime adviser for progressive Democrats, worried that the move would make the already difficult path for primary challengers that much rockier.

“If there’s a candidate who you know has the opportunity to go far and inspire, but you as a consultant think it will doom your business, you’re going to think twice,” Katz said, before declaring that it would not deter her.

The DCCC is “doing this to send a message. And I think the message sucks,” she added.

Faced with an insurgency several years earlier than Democrats, however, national Republicans took similarly dramatic steps to punish those who would aid primary challengers. In 2013, the National Republican Senatorial Committee barred the firm Jamestown Associates from receiving any NRSC contracts, after Jamestown consulted for the Senate Conservatives Fund, which tried to oust Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

A national Republican strategist applauded his Democratic counterparts for learning from the GOP’s difficulties with an aggressive anti-establishment wing.

“Republicans spent three cycles figuring this out. Democrats have the benefit of seeing what we eventually figured out,” the strategist said. “This might help them defeat the lunacy faster.”

Protecting the status quo, IMHO. And Pelosi gave her unwavering endorsement to this policy.

On the flip side, it will be informative to see how strenuously she supports this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/30/democrats-unveil-sweeping-plan-to-tackle-climate-change-345503

[Hooahguy]

So are the Dems that helpless that she can't influence the Senate, or is she simply coasting into the twilight of her career?
So what actions could she take to influence the Senate? We have seen ample evidence that McConnell just doesnt give a flying fig. And the courts have ruled (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/31/dc-circuit-panel-kills-house-subpoena-power-406140) that the House can't actually enforce subpoenas without a law specifically saying they can, which hasnt been an issue until now since the norms of showing up after a subpoena havent been blatantly ignored like this before.

If anything needs to be redone on the congressional side are the rules around the powers of the Senate majority leader I think.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

F
I guess they missed all those softballs that Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham served up to Trump during Fox News interviews:rolleyes:

What a bunch of duplicitous, whinny bitches....:laugh4:
Biden did get softballs, almost lead-ins, to take shots at the Donald. To be fair, that is not the most challenging of targets.

But yes, Trump tweets and Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter diatribes are very much trying to depict Biden as being mentally "past it." By contrast, they laud Trump for his straightforward and unpretentious speech. The cult adores that he does not speak well, many of the cultists cannot get through a paragraph without using some variant on "fuck" as an intensifier and they are thrilled that he seems on the verge of saying things just that way at any moment. An easy demagogue tool for DJT.

[ReluctantSamurai]

If anything needs to be redone on the congressional side are the rules around the powers of the Senate majority leader I think.

And call it the Mitch McConnell amendment:2thumbsup:


Biden did get softballs, almost lead-ins, to take shots at the Donald. To be fair, that is not the most challenging of targets.

He certainly did. My point is the laughable comments about him getting served up, when Fearless Leader hardly dares to venture outside of Fox News. He knows his lies and mis-leading statements will get challenged.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I'm sure many of you have read a ton of "what if" scenarios for the coming shit storm in November, as I have. I thought this article covered some of the more frightening ones, and is a pretty good summary of all the twists and turns that might occur:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

This description of possible events between Election Day and Inaugural Day is the craziest:


Suppose that caravans of Trump supporters, adorned in Second Amendment accessories, converge on big-city polling places on Election Day. They have come, they say, to investigate reports on social media of voter fraud. Counter­protesters arrive, fistfights break out, shots are fired, and voters flee or cannot reach the polls.

Then suppose the president declares an emergency. Federal personnel in battle dress, staged nearby in advance, move in to restore law and order and secure the balloting. Amid ongoing clashes, they stay to monitor the canvass. They close the streets that lead to the polls. They take custody of uncounted ballots in order to preserve evidence of fraud.

But it gets worse:


December 8 is known as the “safe harbor” deadline for appointing the 538 men and women who make up the Electoral College. The electors do not meet until six days later, December 14, but each state must appoint them by the safe-harbor date to guarantee that Congress will accept their credentials. The controlling statute says that if “any controversy or contest” remains after that, then Congress will decide which electors, if any, may cast the state’s ballots for president.

We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century.

Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.

Not Trump may test this, he most certainly will. But it gets still worse:


In Pennsylvania, three Republican leaders told me they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign.

“I’ve mentioned it to them, and I hope they’re thinking about it too,” Lawrence Tabas, the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s chairman, told me. “I just don’t think this is the right time for me to be discussing those strategies and approaches, but [direct appointment of electors] is one of the options. It is one of the available legal options set forth in the Constitution.” He added that everyone’s preference is to get a swift and accurate count. “If the process, though, is flawed, and has significant flaws, our public may lose faith and confidence” in the election’s integrity.

Jake Corman, the state’s Senate majority leader, preferred to change the subject, emphasizing that he hoped a clean vote count would produce a final tally on Election Night. “The longer it goes on, the more opinions and the more theories and the more conspiracies [are] created,” he told me. If controversy persists as the safe-harbor date nears, he allowed, the legislature will have no choice but to appoint electors. “We don’t want to go down that road, but we understand where the law takes us, and we’ll follow the law.”

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, there's this:


In any of these scenarios, the Electoral College would convene on December 14 without a consensus on who had legitimate claims to cast the deciding votes.

Rival slates of electors could hold mirror-image meetings in Harris­burg, Lansing, Tallahassee, or Phoenix, casting the same electoral votes on opposite sides. Each slate would transmit its ballots, as the Constitution provides, “to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.” The next move would belong to Vice President Mike Pence.

This would be a genuine constitutional crisis, the first but not the last of the Interregnum. “Then we get thrown into a world where anything could happen,” Norm Ornstein says.

Now comes a real Orwellian moment:


Two men are claiming the presidency. The next occasion to settle the matter is more than three weeks away.

January 6 comes just after the new Congress is sworn in. Control of the Senate will be crucial to the presidency now.

Pence, as president of the Senate, would hold in his hands two conflicting electoral certificates from each of several swing states. The Twelfth Amendment says only this about what happens next: “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.”

Note the passive voice. Who does the counting? Which certificates are counted?

The Trump team would take the position that the constitutional language leaves those questions to the vice president. This means that Pence has the unilateral power to announce his own reelection, and a second term for Trump. Democrats and legal scholars would denounce the self-dealing and point out that Congress filled the gaps in the Twelfth Amendment with the Electoral Count Act, which provides instructions for how to resolve this kind of dispute. The trouble with the instructions is that they are widely considered, in Foley’s words, to be “convoluted and impenetrable,” “confusing and ugly,” and “one of the strangest pieces of statutory language ever enacted by Congress.”

If the Interregnum is a contest in search of an umpire, it now has 535 of them, and a rule book that no one is sure how to read. The presiding officer is one of the players on the field.

One reading of the Electoral Count Act says that Congress must recognize the electors certified by the governor, who is a Democrat, unless the House and Senate agree otherwise. The House will not agree otherwise, and so Biden wins Pennsylvania and the White House. But Pence pounds his gavel and rules against this reading of the law, instead favoring another, which holds that Congress must discard both contested slates of electors. The garbled statute can plausibly be read either way.

With Pennsylvania’s electors disqualified, 518 electoral votes remain. If Biden holds a narrow lead among them, he again claims the presidency, because he has “the greatest number of votes,” as the Twelfth Amendment prescribes. But Republicans point out that the same amendment requires “a majority of the whole number of electors.” The whole number of electors, Pence rules, is 538, and Biden is short of the required 270.

On this argument, no one has attained the presidency, and the decision is thrown to the House, with one vote per state. If the current partisan balance holds, 26 out of 50 votes will be for Trump.

Before Pence can move on from Pennsylvania to Rhode Island, which is next on the alphabetical list as Congress counts the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expels all senators from the floor of her chamber. Now Pence is prevented from completing the count “in the presence of” the House, as the Constitution requires. Pelosi announces plans to stall indefinitely. If the count is still incomplete on Inauguration Day, the speaker herself will become acting president.

Pelosi prepares to be sworn in on January 20 unless Pence reverses his ruling and accepts that Biden won. Pence does not budge. He reconvenes the Senate in another venue, with House Republicans squeezing in, and purports to complete the count, making Trump the president-elect. Three people now have supportable claims to the Oval Office.

:jawdrop:

[Hooahguy]

I kind of feel that sussing out every potential outcome is not particularly helpful, especially the more far-fetched ones.

Or maybe its just my own nerves telling me that, idk.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I think the point, as I see it, is that given the unhinged lunacy of this president, one has to be prepared for ANYTHING. If Fearless Leader or his campaign group pursues any of those "far-fetched" scenarios, you don't want to be scrambling on-the-fly with a response. Just be prepared. We all know Trump is a narcissistic individual who absolutely hates to lose. He will lie, he will cheat, he will fight a loss kicking and screaming. People underestimated him in 2016. Underestimating what he is capable of doing in 2020 would be violating a whole bunch of Sun-Tzu rules of engagement, not the least of which might be this one:


“If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected .”

Did I just quote Sun-Tzu to a long time Orgah?

:laugh4:

[Hooahguy]

I don't disagree that we need to be prepared. I have full faith that people in higher places are preparing for such scenarios with plans and lawyers and whatnot. But on my end, its best for my own mental health to not stay awake at night thinking of such possibilities. If it happens I am prepared to take to the streets. But me, personally, worrying about such things does not help anyone. There are people who are paid far more to handle it.

And FWIW I've been saying that the whole emphasis on mail-in ballots was bad and people should be encouraged to wait in lines at the polls with a mask and hand sanitizer. Mail-in ballots should only be for those who absolutely need it like the immunocompromised. Its the surest way to prevent many of those scenarios in the first place.

[Montmorency]

This long article describes in detail explicit Republican plans across the country to put in the fix engineer a favorable result before and after balloting and canvassing, including Republican legislatures pretextually declaring vote counts invalid and assigning slates of Republican electors to the Electoral College. [Samurai has posted about this in more depth just now but I want to re-emphasize it.]
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/?scrolla=5eb6d68b7fedc32c19ef33b4


In Pennsylvania, three Republican leaders told me they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign.

“I’ve mentioned it to them, and I hope they’re thinking about it too,” Lawrence Tabas, the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s chairman, told me. “I just don’t think this is the right time for me to be discussing those strategies and approaches, but [direct appointment of electors] is one of the options. It is one of the available legal options set forth in the Constitution.” He added that everyone’s preference is to get a swift and accurate count. “If the process, though, is flawed, and has significant flaws, our public may lose faith and confidence” in the election’s integrity.

Jake Corman, the state’s Senate majority leader, preferred to change the subject, emphasizing that he hoped a clean vote count would produce a final tally on Election Night. “The longer it goes on, the more opinions and the more theories and the more conspiracies [are] created,” he told me. If controversy persists as the safe-harbor date [December 8, when state-certified electoral slates are presumed as definitive] nears, he allowed, the legislature will have no choice but to appoint electors. “We don’t want to go down that road, but we understand where the law takes us, and we’ll follow the law.”


Trump again with the burst of perspicuity (after repeating on many occasions that he needs a 6th Republican justice confirmed immediately in order to ensure favorable rulings on electoral suits):
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1308902276187262978 [VIDEO]


Reporter: "Win, lose or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?"

President Trump: "We're going to have to see what happens."
"Get rid of the ballots and we'll have a very peaceful — there won't be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation."

It's not that he knows something we don't, we just have a hard time assimilating the overwhelming evidence on a visceral level.


Meanwhile, Florida's government has just proposed an unconstitutional criminalization of protest in the strongman image and has referred a criminal complaint to the FBI against Bloomberg for trying to pay the fines of disenfranchised ex-cons.
https://www.theledger.com/story/news/2020/09/21/gov-ron-desantis-announces-law-and-order-legislation-rioters-and-looters/5852737002/
https://twitter.com/TooMuchMe/status/1308849621041590276


I'm willing to grant some deference for the strategy throughout the Trump term, but I can't forgive Dem electeds if they don't try to build out parallel power structures in civil society and urban communities outside government and 'traditional' channels come 2021, win OR lose. It's equally necessary either way to, in Samurai's words, "get a bit more active in doing things to loosen," or bypass, Republicans' grip on national institutions. No more hedges and legacy liberal ideologies. This is a power struggle of maximal consequence, politics in the oldest register. The 150-year Cold War with the Confederacy has to be decided, to which end the People must be organized to apprehend its conduct. If Biden can rail against China as a threat to American power all throughout his campaign, he can pivot following his election, or even following Election Day, to do at least as much with regard to Republicans. It's time, no more hedging, no more coasting on personal reservations.

And :daisy: all Copperheads!


So you'd rather give her a free pass because she faces hostile Republicans in the Senate and White House?

There is a space between giving a free pass and blaming Pelosi for not holding a gun to McConnell's and Trump's heads in order to implement <>. If there are specific tactical decisions to be criticized I'm all for hearing them, though in the course of learning more and more about the inside baseball and procedure of American politics the more I come to realize that very often it's difficult to make a strong judgement call on how optimal a certain play, a sequence, an act or inaction, was in the moment. A major example we're all familiar with being the debate between a "narrow" or broad impeachment. I favored the latter, and the former has probably only been an achievement for the historical record (I don't think it did much to radicalize the Democratic base in itself), yet at the same time I can't really be confident that my preferences would have been a great value-added if implemented.

One interesting criticism I've heard is that Pelosi and Schumer negotiated their emergency legislation (CARES Act) in March too effective at alleviating pain in the short term, without considering that the act would - proportionate to its initial success - exhaust future leverage over the Republicans/Trump to pass subsequent legislation (which Republicans have indeed not felt pressured to pursue since). But that's some heavy-ass armchair fourth-dimension quarterbacking.


This probably doesn't lend itself to party unity:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dccc-...b01ebeef0ec3ae

I remember that. It was the beginning of the primary season at maximum acceleration. Sanders had just formally declared his candidacy!

This article looks like a relevant followup (https://prospect.org/politics/how-progressives-built-a-campaign-machine-thanks-to-the-dccc/). I haven't read it but my initial impression is that the DCCC policy backfired?


Disagree. As someone who has seen the process first-hand, even getting a bill out of committee and on the House floor for a vote is a big deal. There have been literally thousands of bills introduced this legislative session, very few make it out of committee not because their ideas don't have merit, but because there are so many other things in the way that take precedence. The fact that a freshman congressperson got anything out of committee is a testament to her legislative skill, as it takes persistence and the building of relationships with her colleagues to move the ball forward.

Knowing a little about the process, I understand that committee chairs (https://www.legbranch.org/2018-6-6-the-power-of-committee-chairs/) have a great deal of influence over the movement of bills as a veritable veto point, and that legislators as individuals and coalitions have to coordinate with them, or at least arrange to overcome them, to advance their agenda. But then that inherently biases the process on a personal and ideological level, which is not to my mind what a paramount standard by which to judge legislators should be, not least for permanently handicapping any definitional leftist. Look at how many of Underwood's actions were bipartisan or Republican-led. We would need to think much more carefully about this kind of change than I am at the moment, but I wonder if we shouldn't have one of our procedural reforms be that a given Congressperson shall have the right and privilege to bring one or more bills per session directly to the floor or to the top of the calendar (more unilateral and speedier than motions to discharge).


So what actions could she take to influence the Senate? We have seen ample evidence that McConnell just doesnt give a flying fig. And the courts have ruled (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/31/dc-circuit-panel-kills-house-subpoena-power-406140) that the House can't actually enforce subpoenas without a law specifically saying they can, which hasnt been an issue until now since the norms of showing up after a subpoena havent been blatantly ignored like this before.

If anything needs to be redone on the congressional side are the rules around the powers of the Senate majority leader I think.

The Democrats could have attempted to arrest Barr or another ranking official with their minimalist native enforcement arm, not because it would have worked as a legislative tactic but because I can imagine its generation as a Media Event would have set the tone and perhaps even recommitted the caucus to further procedural extremism (this is all naturally debatable). On the other hand it's pie in the sky since it's one more "arrow in the quiver" that almost no Democrats can really privately stomach drawing, meaning there is never enough internal impetus toward implementation aside from the absence of any concrete resolution that the tactic could achieve. But it remains something that was available, and with a physical power that normatively-laden subpoenas were proven to lack.


I think the point, as I see it, is that given the unhinged lunacy of this president, one has to be prepared for ANYTHING. If Fearless Leader or his campaign group pursues any of those "far-fetched" scenarios, you don't want to be scrambling on-the-fly with a response. Just be prepared. We all know Trump is a narcissistic individual who absolutely hates to lose. He will lie, he will cheat, he will fight a loss kicking and screaming. People underestimated him in 2016. Underestimating what he is capable of doing in 2020 would be violating a whole bunch of Sun-Tzu rules of engagement, not the least of which might be this one:

Crucially we can almost lock Trump as a constant; do not underestimate what the Republicans are capable of. Almost every contention toward their deepening depravity has proven correct over time.


I don't disagree that we need to be prepared. I have full faith that people in higher places are preparing for such scenarios with plans and lawyers and whatnot. But on my end, its best for my own mental health to not stay awake at night thinking of such possibilities. If it happens I am prepared to take to the streets. But me, personally, worrying about such things does not help anyone. There are people who are paid far more to handle it.

And FWIW I've been saying that the whole emphasis on mail-in ballots was bad and people should be encouraged to wait in lines at the polls with a mask and hand sanitizer. Mail-in ballots should only be for those who absolutely need it like the immunocompromised. Its the surest way to prevent many of those scenarios in the first place.

Masochism of catastrophe, doomerism, whatever you want to call it, is a siren. Want to talk about The Plot Againt America yet?

The modality preference gap continues to shrink, though even a 20-33 final split on mail voting (and it could still plausibly be 10-40) is dangerous.

[ReluctantSamurai]

But on my end, its best for my own mental health to not stay awake at night thinking of such possibilities.

It's true that there is nothing any of us can do, once our vote is cast, to influence what happens after. However, I am a sucker for what-if scenarios, but a couple of those scenarios seem extremely plausible, and have actually been tried before. At the top of my list is delegate manipulation.

First there's this ruling:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/06/supreme-court-decision-faithless-electors-2020-chaos-column/5384625002/


In a pair of cases involving so-called faithless electors, the high court unanimously ruled that states have the constitutional power to force people elected to serve in the Electoral College to cast their official ballots for president in accordance with their state's popular vote. States, in other words, can prevent the electors from “going rogue” — as several did in 2016 by casting ballots for Colin Powell, John Kasich and Faith Spotted Eagle.

Thus, if the court has its way, there will be no risk of a faithless elector being a wild card in this year's election. Unfortunately, it is not so simple. The justices’ ruling permits states to prevent faithless electors, but it does not require that they do so.

In a pair of cases involving so-called faithless electors, the high court unanimously ruled that states have the constitutional power to force people elected to serve in the Electoral College to cast their official ballots for president in accordance with their state's popular vote. States, in other words, can prevent the electors from “going rogue” — as several did in 2016 by casting ballots for Colin Powell, John Kasich and Faith Spotted Eagle.

The court clearly was motivated by a desire to avoid destabilizing the system as much as possible. The justices announced as much at the time of oral argument. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, invoked “the avoid-chaos principle of judging,” which he took to mean that the court should not interpret the Constitution “to facilitate or create chaos” if there is a way to interpret it otherwise. Many states still allow 'going rogue'

Monday’s ruling followed through on that approach. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, acknowledged that at the beginning of the republic there was some expectation that electors would exercise independent judgment. But she explained that the actual text of the Constitution does not compel that electors have this autonomy.

She also observed that the original expectation quickly disappeared and soon the contrary expectation developed: that electors would be loyal to their own political parties and thus conform their votes to their party’s presidential nominee. The court was entitled, she explained, to construe the Constitution in accordance with this subsequent practice and thereby have the system act as Americans now generally assume it does.

Only 32 states have laws attempting to bind electors to the state’s popular vote, and not all of them discount the deviant vote. And 18 states still have laws giving electors the freedom to vote independently if they so choose. Thus, absent change between now and November, there is the risk of chaos injecting itself into the system despite the court’s decision. As a practical matter, this particular risk is small. But it is not zero.

Suppose former Vice President Joe Biden wins the popular vote in enough states for an Electoral College victory, but only by counting vote-by-mail ballots — the kind of ballots that President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr have denounced (without substantiation) as inherently unreliable. Imagine, then, Trump and Barr persuading the legislatures of enough states to appoint electors who will vote for Trump, in opposition to the certified popular vote based on the counting of vote-by-mail ballots. That kind of dispute could reach Congress on Jan. 6, with lawmakers ill equipped to handle it because of inadequate existing procedures.

This is the one I can see Fearless Leader trying, considering how long he's been ranting against mail-in votes, and gotten his lap-dog Barr on board with this.

And a possible riposte by the Dems if they've got the cahonees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/05/heres-what-pelosi-could-do-if-republicans-tried-manipulate-presidential-elections-outcome/


Democrats could retaliate if they were willing to play what’s called “constitutional hardball” — stepping outside democratic norms without technically violating the Constitution’s limits, as when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) refused to convene a hearing to consider President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. That’s something some observers claim Democrats are typically reluctant to do. But if Democrats were to play tough, here’s a constitutional curveball they could throw.

Assuming the new House reelects Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as speaker, Pelosi could use the chamber’s power under the Constitution’s Article I, Section 5, to have her majority be the “judge” of contested elections to the House. The House could then seat enough Democrats to give Democrats control of a majority of state delegations before the House votes to select the president in January 2020.

Here’s how this might play out. As the judge of contested elections, the House can entertain any challenge to the election results at the beginning of its session (after choosing the speaker, customarily its first vote). Usually, the House refers these challenges to a committee to investigate. The committee recommends awarding the seat to one or another candidate, and the House votes on that recommendation. If enough Democratic challengers surfaced to allow the Democrats to claim a majority of delegations, then the attempt to manipulate the presidential election could be reversed.

If Republican state officials were to suggest they might withhold slates from the electoral college in November or December, Pelosi could threaten to reconstitute the delegations under Article I, Section 5 to preserve a genuine Biden victory, should one exist — thus signaling that Democrats would meet hardball with hardball. The option, in other words, could be useful even if she never has to use it.

@Monty


There is a space between giving a free pass and blaming Pelosi for not holding a gun to McConnell's and Trump's heads in order to implement <>. If there are specific tactical decisions to be criticized I'm all for hearing them, though in the course of learning more and more about the inside baseball and procedure of American politics the more I come to realize that very often it's difficult to make a strong judgement call on how optimal a certain play, a sequence, an act or inaction, was in the moment.

Wouldn't disagree with any of that. Just sayin' that just because Trump has the majority of the GOP licking his boot heels, doesn't mean the Dems have to follow suit by inaction.


do not underestimate what the Republicans are capable of. Almost every contention toward their deepening depravity has proven correct over time.

And I don't think the Dems are taking that lightly:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/07/02/biden-campaign-deploys-600-lawyers-so-trump-cant-steal-this-election/#1b0112aa1e00

[Montmorency]

I just heard Ginsburg speak for the first time. I was surprised that her voice quality and prosody of speech were almost the same as Pelosi's! Tell me you don't hear it.


OK, this (https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=F3A409F5-6864-4360-9345-7297E22085F3) is the bad stuff that you fear from Dems and I hope there's enough consensus in the caucus to set his ilk straight.


From George Washington to George W. Bush, senators had used the filibuster against 68 presidential nominees. From Washington to Bush, that entire period, 68 filibusters of presidential nominees. During President Obama’s first five years, Republican senators, led by Mitch McConnell, used it against 79 nominees. In five years of a brand new president, they used the filibuster more times than in our history going back to George Washington.

The obstruction was relentless, Madame President, and it finally led Senate Democrats to change the rules in 2013 with a so-called “nuclear option,” allowing us to confirm judicial nominees -- except for the Supreme Court and other executive appointments -- with 51 votes instead of 60 votes. I’m sorry about that vote. I’ve apologized on this floor before, about that vote. It has led us, partly, to where we are today.

Sad, because Bennett (former 2020 Dem presidential primary candidate on a conservative platform) has been relatively good on fiscal support (https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/5/bennet-bicameral-delegation-release-framework-for-legislation-tying-expanded-unemployment-benefits-to-public-health-emergency-economic-conditions) in the recession.


Most importantly (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/postmaster-dejoy-sorting-machines-stripped-for-parts_n_5f6d71d5c5b64deddeeb9107):


Postmaster General Louis DeJoy told a federal court that hundreds of high-speed mail sorting machines he ordered removed cannot be returned to service because they were stripped for parts.

DeJoy and the U.S.Postal Service presented the excuse in a response filed Wednesday to a nationwide order issued by U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian in Yakima, Washington, last week demanding the return of some 700 machines that had been taken out of service.

“Dismantled machines ‘are generally dissembled for their usable parts, with such parts being removed to maintain or enhance other machines,’” DeJoy, a loyalist and major contributor to President Donald Trump’s campaign, stated in his response. “It is therefore not possible to return such machines to service.”

But witnesses reported that many of the expensive machines were quickly dismantled and tossed into dumpsters as scrap. The injunction noted that 72% of the ripped out machines were in counties Hillary Clinton won in the 2016 presidential election.

Even as the importance of timely mail delivery heightens ahead of the election, DeJoy several weeks ago ordered the removal of the sorting machines and hundreds of letter-collection boxes. He also ordered an end to overtime for postal workers and extended delivery time.

The Postal Service then sent letters to 47 states that it could no longer guarantee that mail-in ballots would be delivered on time.

Reminder that DeJoy, following Congressional and media alarm and scrutiny of his practices in August, promised to not screw with the Postal Service until after the election.

This universe is too basic for pop culture. :wall:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFs5kbx8qT8

[Montmorency]

Right, so Biden often wasn't effective in pursuing Trump's flaws. He didn't make him look weak, which is what matters. Let him control the narrative too often. This debate won't have an impact.

[Hooahguy]

Maybe, but I will say that it's hard to do that when the moderator was completely ineffective and Trump is just interrupting and shouting over everyone. :daisy: was embarrassing. I know people like to think of Wallace as one of the few "decent" Fox News people but he's only a bit less bad.

If anything is remembered from this debate it will be that Trump encouraged his voters to go to the polls and "watch the votes."

If we survive election day without violence at a polling place I think it would be a miracle.

[Montmorency]

Maybe, but I will say that it's hard to do that when the moderator was completely ineffective and Trump is just interrupting and shouting over everyone. :daisy: was embarrassing. I know people like to think of Wallace as one of the few "decent" Fox News people but he's only a bit less bad.

If anything is remembered from this debate it will be that Trump encouraged his voters to go to the polls and "watch the votes."

If we survive election day without violence at a polling place I think it would be a miracle.

Wallace was surprisingly fair IMO. There's no way to moderate Trump effectively unless you gonzo full-expletive in his face, and you wouldn't hope for that even from the roughest Democratic nominee let alone a mod.

Some polling:

Monmouth: 44% of Americans not bothered by Trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
Yougov: 30% of Americans believe there will be a peaceful transfer of power in a contested election.

[Hooahguy]

Wallace was surprisingly fair IMO. There's no way to moderate Trump effectively unless you gonzo full-expletive in his face, and you wouldn't hope for that even from the roughest Democratic nominee let alone a mod.
But thats the core of the issue though. Trump is a bully. Coddling a bully gets you nowhere. I think Philippe Reines had a great quote (https://twitter.com/chrissmithnymag/status/1311138084231184384) about trying to debate Trump: "It's like Yo-Yo Ma trying to perform at Carnegie Hall when there's a guy with an air horn 10 feet away."

Gotta take away his airhorn if you want it to be an actual debate.

Edit: the second debate is in the town hall format which absolutely plays to Biden's strengths (empathy and personal connection). I think that one would go far better for Biden.


Some polling:

Monmouth: 44% of Americans not bothered by Trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
Yougov: 30% of Americans believe there will be a peaceful transfer of power in a contested election.
I suppose I shouldnt be surprised how seemingly few Americans are concerned about this.

[Montmorency]

Maybe I'm speaking as a New Yorker, but sometimes I feel like this is the kind of register in which to address Trump:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLcNStHTDjM

But no one is gonna do it, and to do it well you need experience or acculturation on top of the right personality. By all means Trump has dipped into this register many a time in his life behind closed doors...

In the end a proper "debate" of the sort we elevate in American discourse is impossible to hold with Trump as a participant, because you're putting humans against incontinent pigeons.


I suppose I shouldnt be surprised how seemingly few Americans are concerned about this.

Second poll implies a lot of concern, and 44% in the first poll is basically Trump's total support.

[ReluctantSamurai]

First impressions:

Trump never once looked at the camera to address the American people. Biden constantly did so. I think that makes a subliminal impact.

Trump said literally nothing about what he plans for the next four years if re-elected. Biden didn't necessarily do a great job of laying out his plans, but at least he had them.

In order to make up ground with the "Undecided", Trump had to essentially destroy Biden, to which he failed, IMHO. Biden has never been known as a great debater, but he at least held his own. Should he have been more aggressive? Yes. OTOH, I have the feeling that people (except Trump's hardcore base) are tired of the loud-mouthed bully that simply likes to wield the big stick.

And the most ominous part came at the end. When Wallace asked Trump to denounce white supremacy, his answer--- "be on standby". You can guarantee there will be violence.....lots of violence if/when he loses the election.

[Montmorency]

Dave Wasserman had the brilliant idea of mods just cutting off the mic of the candidate whose turn is pending.

Why has that never been tried before?

Has it been tried before?

[Hooahguy]

Dave Wasserman had the brilliant idea of mods just cutting off the mic of the candidate whose turn is pending.

Why has that never been tried before?

Has it been tried before?
I think it has, just not for a Trump debate I dont think. Yang claimed his mic got cut off in one debate but the moderators denied it.

But for this debate, the issue is that it was a Fox News hosted debate. Do you think any of them, even Wallace, would dare cut off his mic? I guess we will see if the other moderators have more guts to do so.

Some more new polling (https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1311149446651170818):


YouGov/CBS
Tonight Debate made you think...

Biden:
Better of him 38% (+6)
Worse of him 32%
.
Trump:
Better of him 24% (-18)
Worse of him 42%

[ReluctantSamurai]

The whole thing was painful to watch. Wallace lost any semblance of control, and one the best lines was:

Biden: “I can’t remember everything he was ranting about.”

Wallace: “I’m having trouble myself.”

I pity Steve Scully, and especially Kristen Welker because, as a woman, she will be wholly dismissed by Trump.


Dave Wasserman had the brilliant idea of mods just cutting off the mic of the candidate whose turn is pending.

Something will need to be done, as I don't think people want to watch another "dumpster fire on top of Burning Tire Mountain during an eruption of Mount Shitshow."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is the way Trump does debates. If you cut off his microphone he will walk closer to the other mic' and raise his voice.

His base loves this -- they view it as someone finally not letting the libs get away with it.

We will see if this has any impact on the last few undecideds.

[ReluctantSamurai]

After watching the rerun (painfully), there were several places where Biden could've scored big, IMHO.

On the pandemic, I would've started with the decision to suppress it's existence...lying to the American public. Then pushing the narrative that it was all a hoax designed to threaten him personally. Then, the pretense that it will all disappear "like a miracle". Then absolving himself of all responsibility, pushing the response onto each state, and then actively hindering their response (especially 'Blue States') by buying up international supplies before states could procure them, and doling them out to states that were 'nice to me'. Then came the touting of questionable 'cures' even to the point of absurdly suggesting using bleach internally. The whole narrative from the very beginning had not a shred of concern for the people he's supposed to lead, but of saving himself from criticism in the face of an ever spreading pandemic.

A 'War President' as Trump has touted himself, must have a plan. No good general ever goes into battle without a plan. Eight months into this pandemic, there is still no national plan to combat the virus. Every insistence to 'open it up' has led to a fresh round of infections...whack-a-mole is the presidents plan.

On the vaccine, when Trump said his experts are wrong, I would've had a simple question. "Mr. President, what are your medical credentials? A degree in epidemiology? One in micro-biology? A medical degree of any kind? Oh, that's right, your degree is in showmanship, from the school of The Apprentice!"

On climate change, and particularly the wild fires in California, when Trump went into his diatribe about cleaning the forest floor, Biden should have reminded him that almost 60% of the forest land in California is federally owned, so perhaps he should start handing out rakes to Department of Agriculture employees and get them to work raking leaves.

Biden should've pointed out that being audited by the IRS does not preclude Trump from releasing his taxes. There is no law on the books that says tax returns have to be held in confidentiality during an audit. Biden did, however, call for Trump to prove the NYT wrong by releasing those tax returns.

There were other places he could have landed good body blows, but I can't bring myself to review that dumpster fire more than once:no:

Anyway, Joe might have held his own, but he could have done a lot more, IMHO.....:shrug:

[Crandar]

I agree, Biden definitely won, but his performance wasn't great. That being said, the cult didn't disappoint. According to the official narrative, asking Trump to denounce white supremacists was a trap. An particularly insidious one. However, there is no unanimous conclusion about whether the Commander-in-Chief fell in it or masterfully evaded it.

[ReluctantSamurai]

However, there is no unanimous conclusion about whether the Commander-in-Chief fell in it or masterfully evaded it.

I don't think it's a matter of falling for it or evading it. The fact that you have a sitting president who refuses to come out against radical right-wingers, despite the DHS stating in recent drafts that white supremacists pose a greater domestic threat than Islamic terrorists, is scary. But as anyone who has followed his presidency the last 3 1/2 years, his favorable view on these groups is nothing new.

On a different note, this could be funny if it wasn't so sad:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/30/how-to-move-to-canada-google-searches-trump-us-debate

Except Canadians want nothing to do with Americans except as a trading partner.....:quiet:

More journalists should do this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmVwPo9COc

Kudos to Jake Tapper:2thumbsup:

[Gilrandir]

All you need to know about the debates.
23969

[CrossLOPER]

All you need to know about the debates.
23969

That's what it devolved to, but it didn't have to be that way. Biden clearly tried to lay out some plans and have an actual debate, while Trump just used his usual aggression. This was Trump's time to shine, but all he did was act like he usually does.

"Beautiful", "China", "fake news". Same as usual.

[Montmorency]

Trump looks and sounds shockingly good here.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1312158400352972800 [VIDEO]

A very helpful cheat-sheet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheat_sheet) for following the elections. Don't forget to save it.

23999

[Hooahguy]

Trump looks and sounds shockingly good here.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1312158400352972800 [VIDEO]


Didnt Boris Johnson also seem fine for a while before he got sent to the ICU?

Also if you look at 1:03 in this video (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1312525833505058816?s=20) he appears to stifle a cough, or it was edited out. hard to tell and I trust nothing that's coming out of the WH. I mean they even lied about the timing of the photos (https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1312616578773446656?s=20) they took.

Edit: its even worse (https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/1312783805263106049): Trump's doctor says he didn't admit yesterday that Trump was put on oxygen because he was trying to be publicly upbeat. "I didn't want to give any information that might steer the illness in another direction."
Which makes zero sense.

[Montmorency]

Didnt Boris Johnson also seem fine for a while before he got sent to the ICU?

Also if you look at 1:03 in this video (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1312525833505058816?s=20) he appears to stifle a cough, or it was edited out. hard to tell and I trust nothing that's coming out of the WH. I mean they even lied about the timing of the photos (https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1312616578773446656?s=20) they took.

Edit: its even worse (https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/1312783805263106049): Trump's doctor says he didn't admit yesterday that Trump was put on oxygen because he was trying to be publicly upbeat. "I didn't want to give any information that might steer the illness in another direction."
Which makes zero sense.

Oh my god, I thought I was posting the video you just posted. I must have scrolled too far and grabbed the link without looking. :wall:

But Trump does look and sound like a "normal person" in that scene. Maybe I'm just too inclined to think well of people.

[Hooahguy]

With Covid and how it plays out, there are good days and bad days so I dont think a video or two are indicative of his overall condition.

More info (https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1312792534020698112)from the briefing:

a) Trump's fever was "high"
b) Trump's lung scans show "expected findings," unclear what that means
c) Trump is on a steroid the WHO recommends only for "severe and critical" COVID cases and
d) Trump's oxygen levels dropped again Saturday

As Maggie Haberman points out, did they overreact and give him the steroid because he is POTUS or did they actually need to use it? I dont think we will ever get a real answer about it, and I would be shocked if he is released on Monday as they are claiming.

The more troubling thing is that Republicans are still skeptical about mask usage. One would think that after their figurehead gets Covid they would be more accepting of mask usage but nope. And yet they wonder why the virus seems to be primarily affecting Republican politicians and not Democrats. :dizzy2:

[ReluctantSamurai]

I get it. Fearless Leader is POTUS, and because he is infected with a potentially life threatening disease, that deserves attention. But just as his entire career has been one "spin-doctor" production after another, this current media circus is as boring as it is predictable. What's not being mentioned often enough is that more than likely, Trump knew he had COVID-19 sometime mid-Wednesday, just hours after the presidential debate. And yet----he knowingly attended not just one but two fundraisers, plus a rally, plus an Air Force One flight, plus several staff meetings, all without masks.

In other words, even after contracting COVID-19, he continued his 'I could care less' attitude towards the disease. I realize, that his opponents can't just come out and say "Serves him right" although I'd bet the farm that's what they are thinking. But I have no such PC convictions. Serves him right. [Monty is still right: "You can't BS a virus"]~:smoking:


And yet they wonder why the virus seems to be primarily affecting Republican politicians and not Democrats.

Like this nonsense?

https://www.reddit.com/r/CovIdiots/comments/j42eox/deanna_lorraine_takes_covidiocy_to_another_level/


Former Republican congressional candidate-turned-Newsmax commentator DeAnna Lorraine floated the idea that a someone on the left deliberately infected Trump.

"I’m just going to say what we’re all thinking. Trump was fine until the debate, where they set up microphones & podiums for him. Incubation period is usually 2-3 days. He tests positive a couple of days after the debate. I put nothing past the left. NOTHING," Lorraine tweeted.

She added: "Does anyone else find it odd that no prominent Democrats have had the virus but the list of Republicans goes on and on?"

[And just to get out my Katie Porter whiteboard on this stupidity: if Trump was infected by the Dems at the debate, he wouldn't have begun showing symptoms until Thursday or Friday morning at the very earliest. His symptoms were evident by the middle of Wednesday, which means his infection happened several days earlier----Rose Garden gathering, anyone?]

[Hooahguy]

In other words, even after contracting COVID-19, he continued his 'I could care less' attitude towards the disease. I realize, that his opponents can't just come out and say "Serves him right" although I'd bet the farm that's what they are thinking. But I have no such PC convictions. Serves him right.~:smoking:
Relevant:

24000

[Montmorency]

With Covid and how it plays out, there are good days and bad days so I dont think a video or two are indicative of his overall condition.

More info (https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1312792534020698112)from the briefing:


As Maggie Haberman points out, did they overreact and give him the steroid because he is POTUS or did they actually need to use it? I dont think we will ever get a real answer about it, and I would be shocked if he is released on Monday as they are claiming.

The more troubling thing is that Republicans are still skeptical about mask usage. One would think that after their figurehead gets Covid they would be more accepting of mask usage but nope. And yet they wonder why the virus seems to be primarily affecting Republican politicians and not Democrats. :dizzy2:

Controversial as it may be, what I'm trying to convey is that Trump in that (longer) video sounds nice, gracious, for once in his life.

As for masks, the Republican treasurer of Wisconsin said: “If the leader of the free world can get this, I think it’s kind of silly for the rest of us to pretend a $3 handkerchief from Walmart is going to protect us."

'If the leader of the free world could burn his wittle fingah by touching the stove, it's kind of silly for the rest of us to pretend a $3 oven mitt from Walmart is going to protect us. And have you noticed how all these Republicans just turned up with burns, but conspicuously few Democrats? Now I'm not saying it was aliens...'

Notice also that this is the same kind of format of putative futility and absurdity the Right adopts toward all manner of ideas it doesn't like, such as the possibility that humans could have an effect on the climate.


I get it. Fearless Leader is POTUS, and because he is infected with a potentially life threatening disease, that deserves attention. But just as his entire career has been one "spin-doctor" production after another, this current media circus is as boring as it is predictable. What's not being mentioned often enough is that more than likely, Trump knew he had COVID-19 sometime mid-Wednesday, just hours after the presidential debate. And yet----he knowingly attended not just one but two fundraisers, plus a rally, plus an Air Force One flight, plus several staff meetings, all without masks.



I mentioned it as a limiter on our sympathy for his position, but as with so many other things it's beyond Trump: it's the Republican way. Republican lawmakers in Congress and the states have on many occasions maliciously - or minimally negligently - exposed their colleagues to the virus.

If the Amy Barrett reception turns out to have been a superspreader event that incapacitates the POTUS and neutralizes the Senate Republican majority needed to confirm her, that would certainly be good writing for a change.


[Ed. From 9/6/20] Long live King Prospero in his White Palace.

https://i.imgur.com/07XuGbk.jpg

[ReluctantSamurai]

I mentioned it as a limiter on our sympathy for his position, but as with so many other things it's beyond Trump: it's the Republican way. Republican lawmakers in Congress and the states have on many occasions maliciously - or minimally negligently - exposed their colleagues to the virus.

I would put that the other way around---it's beyond the Republicans, it's the Trump way. If Fearless Leader had scared the Be-Jezus out of everyone back when he was interviewing with Woodward, much of this Covid Idiocy doesn't happen. The GOP has long since surrendered any semblance of being it's own conservative entity, and simply licks Trump's boot-heels for whatever he says or wants. If he had come out for wearing a mask and social distancing from the start, the GOP would've fell into line.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Is there any other evidence needed that this man deserves absolutely no sympathy for having COVID-19?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/04/trump-walter-reed-drive-by-visit-criticism


James Phillips, doctor of emergency medicine at George Washington University, who is an attending physician at Walter Reed, called the stunt “insanity”.

“Every single person in the vehicle during that completely unnecessary Presidential ‘drive-by’ just now has to be quarantined for 14 days. They might get sick. They may die,” he wrote in a tweet.

“For political theater. Commanded by Trump to put their lives at risk for theater. This is insanity.”

Trump signalled his intention to visit his flag-waving supporters in a video tweet of his own, released only moments before a cavalcade of black SUVs drove through the gates of the Maryland medical center. Trump was seen waving animatedly through a fully-closed window, before the vehicles doubled back into the hospital grounds.

“This is the real school,” Trump said in the video, describing his experience with Covid-19, and his second full day at Walter Reed after being admitted on Friday. “I get it and understand it. [It is] a very interesting thing and I’m going to be letting you know about it.”

No, Mr. President, you don't "get it", and neither do you "understand it". But your personal bodyguards do:


Secret Service agents expressed their anger and frustration to colleagues and friends Friday, saying that the president’s actions have repeatedly put them at risk. “He’s never cared about us,” one agent told a confidant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal reaction.

Former Secret Service agents said it was unheard of for agents to openly complain about their president but that some currently in the ranks had become convinced during the pandemic that Trump was willing to put his protectors in harm’s way.

Agents who work in field offices around the country complained that since late August, they are no longer being tested when they return home from working at a rally for the president.

“This administration doesn’t care about the Secret Service,” one current agent relayed in an internal discussion group. “It’s so obvious.”

Lends further weight to the "losers and suckers" commentary...

:no:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is there any other evidence needed that this man deserves absolutely no sympathy for having COVID-19?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/04/trump-walter-reed-drive-by-visit-criticism



No, Mr. President, you don't "get it", and neither do you "understand it". But your personal bodyguards do:



Lends further weight to the "losers and suckers" commentary...

:no:

Did the Service somehow believe that their status in protecting him would have him caring about them differently? He cares about them no less than he cares about the rest of us and no more. We are all merely "extras" in the only "show" that he frets about.

[rory_20_uk]

I would put that the other way around---it's beyond the Republicans, it's the Trump way. If Fearless Leader had scared the Be-Jezus out of everyone back when he was interviewing with Woodward, much of this Covid Idiocy doesn't happen. The GOP has long since surrendered any semblance of being it's own conservative entity, and simply licks Trump's boot-heels for whatever he says or wants. If he had come out for wearing a mask and social distancing from the start, the GOP would've fell into line.

I don't think it is that one way.

The "religious right" get their Federal Judges. They know he's dreadful but they're life appointments
The very rich have got their tax breaks. Sure, he's scum but money is money.
The white racists have got it as good as they'll ever get it. Yeah he has a long history of being a racist so they can see a kindred spirit.
The second amendment-maxers have broadly not had any issues with gun control so they're happy.
Individuals in the Senate know what the polls say about how their constituents will vote. And therefore will play to keep their seat. The only "rebels" are from states that are Republican but don't like the President


Each group above might love, despise or be indifferent to Dopey Donnie and don't have to agree with each other either. But they all are very aware that their interests are closest to him than anyone else.

All the above groups probably in the main don't have a fixed view on the whole mask / COVID thing. And so probably would have followed his lead.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

We are lucky that Trump is too stupid and narcissistic to realize that excessively alienating the Armed Forces, state intelligence, and one's own quasi-Praetorians is not conducive to securing one's enduring power in office.

The only security forces Trump might be popular with are disparate swathes of local police - over whom Trump has no jurisdiction - and the Department of Homeland Security (e.g. ICE) jackboots, of whom there are only thousands.


The second amendment-maxers have broadly not had any issues with gun control so they're happy.

Hehehehehe (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second)


“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

<laughtears.emoji>

Imagine those words attributed to Obama - who didn't really take any action (https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595), such as was within executive authority, against guns.


Each group above might love, despise or be indifferent to Dopey Donnie and don't have to agree with each other either. But they all are very aware that their interests are closest to him than anyone else.

I would say that the pre-existing (since at least Newt Gingrich's Contract with America) Republican consensus that Democrats are illegitimate socialists, the New Deal must be retrenched, wealth and power are more important than country and democracy, etc. has certainly not diminished under Trump. As we can see. Don't underestimate the depth of fanaticism or delusion among Republican officials, not necessarily for Trump's own sake but for the overlapping worldview. Which worldview will persist even if Republicans try to flush Trump down the memory hole next year.

[Hooahguy]

Interesting polling (https://www.clickondetroit.com/decision-2020/2020/10/06/poll-biden-bolsters-lead-over-trump-in-michigan-after-first-debate/) coming out of Michigan regarding demographic movement-

"There has been a major shift among voters over the age of 65 towards Joe Biden. Older voters now support Biden over Trump by a margin of 59.1%-29.2% -- a nearly 30-point lead for Joe Biden. Biden led senior voters by 7.5% in the Post-Convention survey. Senior voters have shifted by 22 points since early September."

Fascinating. Would not have thought the debate would impact that much. Also crucial since senior citizens are one of the more reliable voting groups.

On another topic, a friend of mine brought this up to me: what happens if Covid takes its toll on Trump and he dies right before the election, or otherwise incapacitated? And With less than a month to go, anything can happen. I guess Pence would take his spot but Im not sure how it would really impact the race. Would the trumpists be turned off because their leader is gone or would they be driven even more to "avenge" him? I could see some violence happening if he dies, as I've seen some trumpists say that they think the Dems purposely infected Trump with Covid.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Interesting polling (https://www.clickondetroit.com/decision-2020/2020/10/06/poll-biden-bolsters-lead-over-trump-in-michigan-after-first-debate/) coming out of Michigan regarding demographic movement-

"There has been a major shift among voters over the age of 65 towards Joe Biden. Older voters now support Biden over Trump by a margin of 59.1%-29.2% -- a nearly 30-point lead for Joe Biden. Biden led senior voters by 7.5% in the Post-Convention survey. Senior voters have shifted by 22 points since early September."

Fascinating. Would not have thought the debate would impact that much. Also crucial since senior citizens are one of the more reliable voting groups.

On another topic, a friend of mine brought this up to me: what happens if Covid takes its toll on Trump and he dies right before the election, or otherwise incapacitated? And With less than a month to go, anything can happen. I guess Pence would take his spot but Im not sure how it would really impact the race. Would the trumpists be turned off because their leader is gone or would they be driven even more to "avenge" him? I could see some violence happening if he dies, as I've seen some trumpists say that they think the Dems purposely infected Trump with Covid.


Right-wing terrorists groups would get violent. They just lost their figurehead. Turnout would collapse at the polls since Trump is the Republican party and there is no one who could fill in the enthusiasm gap.
It's not really a hot take to say that when the leader dies, voters get disillusioned.

[ReluctantSamurai]

All the above groups probably in the main don't have a fixed view on the whole mask / COVID thing. And so probably would have followed his lead.

And they've just been "told" that even if you have contracted COVID-19, and while still contagious, it's ok to “Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life.” Sez the man who's received world-class health care, while at the same time trying to repeal the health care for millions of Americans.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/06/trump-coronavirus-health-empathy


Even if we don’t believe in science, even if we don’t believe in the virus, even if don’t believe in the efficacy of wearing masks, we might, it seems to me, have adopted some version of Pascal’s famous wager. Though the existence of God cannot be definitively proven, posited the 17th-century philosopher, it would be wise to assume and behave as if God does exist: an attitude with no downside (except the fear of sin) and a host of likely benefits (heaven). Regardless of our stance on the course and prevention of the pandemic, why not take the gamble: wear a mask, keep our distance – and protect the lives of other people? But this response presupposes that we care about the lives of other people.

We’d like to believe that suffering instructs and ennobles; that our grief, fear and pain increases our sympathy for the grief, fear and pain of others. But again, Donald Trump seems to be ineducable, impervious to shame, guilt, or any sense of personal responsibility, unaffected by anything except vanity, selfishness and reckless self-regard. Certainly, the experience of having his blood oxygen level drop so low that supplemental oxygen was required must have been alarming, and yet the president continues to believe that bluster is the best medicine.

Unaffected by his illness, undaunted by his own experience, the president’s insistence on putting his own bombastic self-display above the welfare of others reached a new low on Sunday, when he decided to order up in his armor-plated, hermetically sealed SUV and be driven past his supporters outside the hospital, to “pay a little surprise to some of the great patriots we have out on the street”.

Does Trump care? Apparently not. Nothing – not illness, not danger, not the prospect of death – can diminish his posturing, his hubris, his sense of invincibility, his unconscionable lack of concern for others. Waving and smiling, somewhat wanly, at his fans, he cemented his position as – according to a recent study – the number one source of misinformation about the dangers of the virus. And that may be yet another way in which he and his supporters are super-spreaders, discrediting science, widely circulating the idea that we have absolutely no responsibility for the life and safety of our fellow humans and for the planet on which we live – an attitude that may prove to be even more dangerous, more catastrophic the deadliest plague.

Being that it's too early to say whether Trump lives or dies, it's also probably too early for the Dems to hammer all of this home, despite the fact that had roles been reversed with Biden, he'd have been chirping the whole time about how weak Biden was. If he lives, the Dems better be using a five pound ball peen hammer to illustrate this unconscionable behavior.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

270 to win is now shifted toward Biden. However, a number of the polls that include third party candidates are within the margin of error, including PA, which they list as leans Biden. Trafalgar group consistently shows the tightest numbers, though these numbers have slipped over the last week.

[Montmorency]

Inside Trumpworld (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/this-is-spiraling-out-of-control-allies-panic-about-trumps-hospital-stay-as-white-house-deflects), the shock of Trump’s hospitalization is giving way to despair about his prospects in the upcoming election. “They all know it’s over,” a Republican close to the campaign said. “This is spiraling out of control,” a former West Wing official said. Some Trump allies are entertaining conspiracy theories that the White House outbreak was caused by someone with political motives. “It’s weird that all these Republicans are getting it,” a prominent Republican told me. “I don’t know what the fuck is going on. But one thing I’ve learned is: when something major happens thirty days before an election, it usually has to do with the election.” (There is no evidence for this wild claim).

Meanwhile, America’s closest allies are entertaining wild scenarios as well. An outside White House adviser told me that a high-level government official from a G-7 country asked him if Trump would try to appoint Ivanka president instead of Mike Pence. “He’s broken every norm so far, so they think anything is possible,” the source said.


There's a reason Republican partisans and electeds in particular reject the science of epidemiology to the degree that they behave like it's what they believe, even when it puts themselves at risk and Trump isn't even looking: they believe it.

Orwellian doublethink is almost a definitional product and feature of conservative evangelical faith (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2018/04/10/how-faith-breaks-your-thinker/), but it's not strictly associated with the "[religious] faith" element of it. See:

Federalist: How Strong Women Like Amy Coney Barrett Submit To Their Husbands With Joy (https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/05/how-strong-women-like-amy-coney-barrett-submit-to-their-husbands-with-joy/) (the mind boggles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder,_K%C3%BCche,_Kirche) at the allusions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy))
Trump campaign: Trump campaign attacks Joe Biden for not having COVID-19 (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-attacks-joe-biden-not-having-coronavirus-fox-news-2020-10) ("He has experience now fighting the coronavirus as an individual. Those firsthand experiences — Joe Biden, he doesn't have those.")
Fox: Fox host: Trump “took the risk, he got the virus," because “he was doing it for us” (https://www.mediamatters.org/donald-trump/fox-host-trump-took-risk-he-got-virus-because-he-was-doing-it-us) (Greg Gutfeld: “He was going to walk out there on that battlefield with you, and not sit somewhere in a basement”)

Republican voters continue to believe (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/01/upshot/trump-pre-existing-conditions-polls.html) that Republican politicians intend to create/protect health insurance protections for people with pre-existing conditions (as Obamacare did), despite it being a formal and explicit and frequently-attempted policy plank of the Republican Party since 2010 - now Trump admin - to eliminate these protections.


@ samurai: I take your point that on an issue without pre-existing political salience, such as public health protocols, Trump's signalling could set the tone for tens of millions one way or another. However, don't forget the fifth column that is conservative media here. We know Fox and the like experimented with a variety of coverage styles in March, including advocacy for masks and shutdowns, but in the end what we have are lethal propaganda mills that refine and amplify the President's emotional message far better than he could ever articulate.


I guess I'll tune in to tomorrow's debate, just because it is arguably worthwhile to watch our very plausible 2024 candidate perform. I hope she plays a similar role to Biden in 2012 vs. Paul Ryan.

GET HIS ASS HARRIS. If the country can take a woman Veep/President (OK, fine, debatable), then it can take a woman GETTING HIS ASS.*

*Re: Observations that a woman in Biden's position would have received disapprobation for telling Trump to "shut up" (Biden received a notable, in some polls outstanding, boost in the polls for his debate showing). If the observation is true, it's outrageous BS that sets my teeth on edge. Now we have an excellent opportunity to test the case, and hopefully far beyond.

(To be completely sober-minded about it, the Biden campaign will probably have decided from the past experience that sheepish restraint serves their brand better than loosing the attack dog would. So I don't honestly think my preferences will be met in the VP debate, possibly for good reason, but on some level it's a darn shame.)


270 to win is now shifted toward Biden. However, a number of the polls that include third party candidates are within the margin of error, including PA, which they list as leans Biden. Trafalgar group consistently shows the tightest numbers, though these numbers have slipped over the last week.

More reliable polls have shown results like Biden +14 nationally, +8-11 among likely voters in Pennsylvania, and at a supermajority among the +65 demographic. Much of this movement has been since September, or even since the debate.

It really does feel like we're going to get that landslide most of us have been anticipating since at least the beginning of 2020. Even with all the opposition's active measures, a 54-44 blowout looks quite plausible (and there's no turning those numbers around in the EC).

I can't stress this enough: Trump is almost as bad at politics as he is at business.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Republican voters continue to believe that Republican politicians intend to create/protect health insurance protections for people with pre-existing conditions (as Obamacare did), despite it being a formal and explicit and frequently-attempted policy plank of the Republican Party since 2010 - now Trump admin - to eliminate these protections.

What many GOP supporters, outside of the ultra-conservative evangelicals, don't realize is that their own party could care less about them. You have this abject moron stating that "[...] ill or medically infirm senators [will be] wheeled in to cast critical votes on the Senate floor." [referring to the confirmation vote for Amy Coney Barrett]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/tom-cotton-scotus-justice-hearing/2020/10/05/id/990458/

Combine that with Fearless Leader just cancelling COVID stimulus talks until after the election, and voila, the Republicans just flipped the bird to a large proportion of their constituency. He just gave the Dems a great big target to use.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/06/trump-coronavirus-covid-stimulus-election

Are you kidding me?:inquisitive:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would not be surprised at a 55 to 42 vote in the popular vote.

The issue is that cadre of 6-7 swing states. Most/all of them show Biden with a lead of 3-7% but the margins of error vary and one or two feature a number of undecideds.

To be fair, 2016 featured far more undecideds at this juncture, Trump had no record to hang around his neck, and nobody hates Biden as they do H. Clinton.

I am hopeful -- but guarded.


Sadly, I do NOT see the GOP losing 40 house seats, 10 senate seats, and an extra third of the governerships. Which I would LIKE to see so that the GOP is forced to reboot.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The issue is that cadre of 6-7 swing states. Most/all of them show Biden with a lead of 3-7% but the margins of error vary and one or two feature a number of undecideds.

Might as well add my 2cents to what all the talking heads are saying----I think Biden wins the popular vote by a significantly larger proportion than Hillary did in 2016. The BIG question is how that majority vote is distributed. I also think there will be at least one major surprise in how a state votes. Texas, S. Carolina, and Iowa are scrambling to suppress voting to try and insure that surprise doesn't happen in their state. I'd be stunned if Texas or S. Carolina flipped. It'd be all over if either one did. Iowa is a toss-up, which is why the Dept. of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue is busy handing out last-minute cash to farmers:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/05/perdue-trump-ethics-agirculture-425661

His only hope is that several states will be in the "too close to call" category, whereupon he unleashes his lap dog Barr to stop those states from counting remaining ballots, and/or appealing to Republican state legislatures to declare their electoral votes for him. He's already made the statement that he fully expects the election process to end up in SCOTUS, where he expects they rule in his favor.


Sadly, I do NOT see the GOP losing 40 house seats, 10 senate seats, and an extra third of the governerships. Which I would LIKE to see so that the GOP is forced to reboot.

I don't either, but I suspect the GOP carnage could be significant...:shrug:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sadly, I do NOT see the GOP losing 40 house seats, 10 senate seats, and an extra third of the governerships. Which I would LIKE to see so that the GOP is forced to reboot.

So, I've been saying this for a few months now both online and off. The current institutional resilience of the GOP is a house of cards, although most states do not document voter registration by party, the ones that do show give some surprising results.
https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/registering-by-party-where-the-democrats-and-republicans-are-ahead/

North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and even Louisiana have more registered Democrats than Republicans and yet the first two are considered competitive all things being equal and Louisiana is more Red than Blue for statewide elections.
Nationally we know there is a deepening gap of about 2-3% possibly even 5% now between identified Democrats and Republicans. Yet this does not translate in the House of Reps where Republicans are still competitive and have held control more often than not for the past 30 years.

Even in local politics, let's take a look at Ventura County in California since I have commented on the CA-25 race that has been a Republican stronghold with the exception of Katie Hill in 2018. The portion of CA-25 which is located in Ventura county consistently leans more Republican in outcome than the section which resides in Los Angeles County proper. Yet, here are the stats from the Ventura County Clerk-Recorder:
Registered Voters as of 10/07/20


REP: 142,728
DEM: 208,837
NonPartisan: 106,816
Other: 31,410
Total 489,791


As we can see there is a 60,000 lead for Dems in the county which makes a 50/50 split among the Non-Partisan voters a default Dem blowout. Now, this might be because the section of Ventura county in CA-25 might be much more Red than the county as a whole (this is actually partially true), but the effect is not strong enough to suggest that the district should be non-competitive. In fact, the district voted for Hilary Clinton in 2016 and Newsom in 2018. But, it was just in that same 2016 election that the GOP candidate who lost to Katie Hill by 9 points won by 6 points. During the special election earlier this year, the GOP candidate won Katie Hill's vacant seat by almost 10 points. Something very odd is going on here.

You will not see big GOP losses because the system has been sufficiently rigged through institutional practices and rules to allow a very energized minority to dominate politics if the majority are suppressed sufficiently. GOP favor-ability is in the negative for every demographic except white males. But it is white males who vote most of the time. This is inherently unstable as demographics move away each year.

You already know the reasons why this is the case, but suffice to say the point I want to make to you is that this house of cards will crumble once Democrats get the balls to start changing the rules in their favor. If you see any of the following acts taken between 2021 and 2022 you see those massive GOP losses in that respective area in the 2022 elections:

House of Reps
* Set House (or Congress) size to cube root of US Population as of last census.

State Legislatures
* Approve citizen commissions/councils for district boundaries.

Senate
* New Voting Rights Act

SCOTUS
* National Popular Vote Compact

If Dems retain a 52 seat majority after this election, the above should be the only goals along with expanding the judiciary. The above in place would cement the GOP as permanent minority status, which is where they will belong until they can pivot back to their 2012-2016 strategy of catering to Hispanics by dropping the rampant racism.

EDIT: One more relevant point from Nate Silver's twitter regarding what the current polling is telling us:
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1313608860385640448

FWIW, we estimate that a 9-point win today would be tantamount to a 16-point win in 1932 or 17-point win in 1980 given higher polarization. It is not easy to be behind by 9 points as an incumbent in a highly polarized environment.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Btw did the math, current Electoral College Representation (2010):


State
Census Population
Census Population Per Representative for Calculation
House Seats
Electoral College Votes
Census Population Per Representative for Calculation


Texas
25,268,418
701,901
36
38
701,901


Florida
18,900,773
700,029
27
29
700,029


California
37,341,989
704,566
53
55
704,566


North Carolina
9,565,781
735,829
13
15
735,829


New York
19,421,055
719,298
27
29
719,298


Georgia
9,727,566
694,826
14
16
694,826


Virginia
8,037,736
730,703
11
13
730,703


Arizona
6,412,700
712,522
9
11
712,522


Ohio
11,568,495
723,031
16
18
723,031


Pennsylvania
12,734,905
707,495
18
20
707,495


Illinois
12,864,380
714,688
18
20
714,688


New Jersey
8,807,501
733,958
12
14
733,958


Colorado
5,044,930
720,704
7
9
720,704


Washington
6,753,369
675,337
10
12
675,337


Massachusetts
6,559,644
728,849
9
11
728,849


Michigan
9,911,626
707,973
14
16
707,973


Tennessee
6,375,431
708,381
9
11
708,381


Missouri
6,011,478
751,435
8
10
751,435


Indiana
6,501,582
722,398
9
11
722,398


Maryland
5,789,929
723,741
8
10
723,741


Oregon
3,848,606
769,721
5
7
769,721


Louisiana
4,553,962
758,994
6
8
758,994


Wisconsin
5,698,230
712,279
8
10
712,279


South Carolina
4,645,975
663,711
7
9
663,711


Oklahoma
3,764,882
752,976
5
7
752,976


Minnesota
5,314,879
664,360
8
10
664,360


Kentucky
4,350,606
725,101
6
8
725,101


Alabama
4,802,982
686,140
7
9
686,140


Utah
2,770,765
692,691
4
6
692,691


Iowa
3,053,787
763,447
4
6
763,447


Connecticut
3,581,628
716,326
5
7
716,326


Nevada
2,709,432
677,358
4
6
677,358


Arkansas
2,926,229
731,557
4
6
731,557


Mississippi
2,978,240
744,560
4
6
744,560


Kansas
2,863,813
715,953
4
6
715,953


Idaho
1,573,499
786,750
2
4
786,750


New Mexico
2,067,273
689,091
3
5
689,091


Nebraska
1,831,825
610,608
3
5
610,608


West Virginia
1,859,815
619,938
3
5
619,938


Hawaii
1,366,862
683,431
2
4
683,431


Montana
994,416
994,416
1
3
994,416


New Hampshire
1,321,445
660,723
2
4
660,723


Maine
1,333,074
666,537
2
4
666,537


Delaware
900,877
900,877
1
3
900,877


South Dakota
819,761
819,761
1
3
819,761


Rhode Island
1,055,247
527,624
2
4
527,624


North Dakota
675,905
675,905
1
3
675,905


Alaska
721,523
721,523
1
3
721,523


Vermont
630,337
630,337
1
3
630,337


Wyoming
568,300
568,300
1
3
568,300



Cubed Root Rule Applied (690 Member House):


State
Census Population
Census Population Per Representative for Calculation
House Seats
Electoral College Votes
Census Population Per Representative for Calculation


Texas
25,268,418
451,222
56
58
451,222


Florida
18,900,773
450,018
42
44
450,018


California
37,341,989
449,903
83
85
449,903


North Carolina
9,565,781
455,513
21
23
455,513


New York
19,421,055
451,652
43
45
451,652


Georgia
9,727,566
442,162
22
24
442,162


Virginia
8,037,736
446,541
18
20
446,541


Arizona
6,412,700
458,050
14
16
458,050


Ohio
11,568,495
444,942
26
28
444,942


Pennsylvania
12,734,905
454,818
28
30
454,818


Illinois
12,864,380
443,599
29
31
443,599


New Jersey
8,807,501
440,375
20
22
440,375


Colorado
5,044,930
458,630
11
13
458,630


Washington
6,753,369
450,225
15
17
450,225


Massachusetts
6,559,644
437,310
15
17
437,310


Michigan
9,911,626
450,528
22
24
450,528


Tennessee
6,375,431
455,388
14
16
455,388


Missouri
6,011,478
462,421
13
15
462,421


Indiana
6,501,582
433,439
15
17
433,439


Maryland
5,789,929
445,379
13
15
445,379


Oregon
3,848,606
427,623
9
11
427,623


Louisiana
4,553,962
455,396
10
12
455,396


Wisconsin
5,698,230
438,325
13
15
438,325


South Carolina
4,645,975
464,598
10
12
464,598


Oklahoma
3,764,882
470,610
8
10
470,610


Minnesota
5,314,879
442,907
12
14
442,907


Kentucky
4,350,606
435,061
10
12
435,061


Alabama
4,802,982
436,635
11
13
436,635


Utah
2,770,765
461,794
6
8
461,794


Iowa
3,053,787
436,255
7
9
436,255


Connecticut
3,581,628
447,704
8
10
447,704


Nevada
2,709,432
451,572
6
8
451,572


Arkansas
2,926,229
418,033
7
9
418,033


Mississippi
2,978,240
425,463
7
9
425,463


Kansas
2,863,813
477,302
6
8
477,302


Idaho
1,573,499
393,375
4
6
393,375


New Mexico
2,067,273
413,455
5
7
413,455


Nebraska
1,831,825
457,956
4
6
457,956


West Virginia
1,859,815
464,954
4
6
464,954


Hawaii
1,366,862
455,621
3
5
455,621


Montana
994,416
497,208
2
4
497,208


New Hampshire
1,321,445
440,482
3
5
440,482


Maine
1,333,074
444,358
3
5
444,358


Delaware
900,877
450,439
2
4
450,439


South Dakota
819,761
409,881
2
4
409,881


Rhode Island
1,055,247
527,624
2
4
527,624


North Dakota
675,905
337,953
2
4
337,953


Alaska
721,523
360,762
2
4
360,762


Vermont
630,337
630,337
1
3
630,337


Wyoming
568,300
568,300
1
3
568,300



Indiana gets seat #690. Texas would be next in line for theoretical seat #691. Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming do not get any new representatives by expanding the House to 690.

[Montmorency]

Debate was as I predicted in its tone and approach. But I don't understand why Harris didn't have a fuller repertoire of comments about Trump's record. Sure, more to remember, but there are hundreds of details to pepper in there that could be pre-selected from during preparation. Like the Trump admin's grossly-inefficient and Soviet-style population, potentially partisan, quotas for material aid in March and April (at least), or the environmental regulations that were rolled back in literally the past weeks. And she missed some easy rebuttals, such as pointing out that the American people have indeed had to lead the way on protecting themselves, making great sacrifices, but it was precisely because the Trump administration worked hard to mislead them and flood the zone with disinformation, all while enervating the state responses; Trump hurt both the American economy and public health and his own political prospects, all for his own delusions and psychotic disposition (though she perfunctorily reminded us of at least one Woodward interview). Also, easy fact-check on the spot left hanging: before even debating the effectiveness of Trump's "banning all travel from China," we should first recognize that Trump did not in fact ban all travel from China! Meanwhile, most other countries actually have banned travel from us...

I know that the modern debate format is utter trash, but it is what it is, so when you participate at least lean into the evanescence.


@ samurai re: post in other thread: :daisy: As far as I know deployment of non-delegation doctrine to the radical extent Republicans are foreshadowing has existed in our country only in 1935, neither before nor after. Of course the true doctrine is that "Democrats shall not govern" - you could never imagine hearing about it regarding a Republican governor or president's use of power. But if Roberts et al. are prepared to invoke as incoherent a doctrine as a human mind can contemplate, Congress can preempt them even short of court expansion by declaring their Article III powers (Art III, § 2: "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.") to exempt legislation from SCOTUS judicial review.

@ACIN: Electoral reforms are dead letters before Trump's judiciary. Waiting for them to act would be a mistake, as any window we gain (if we do at all) should be priced at only 2 years in expectation; expand the judiciary now or the Federalists will just play Taliban to our Surge.

First order is to add new district and circuit courts (which to some degree the Democratic 2020 platform already pledges to do). Also serves as a warning shot at the SCOTUS. The federal courts are overburdened and understaffed anyway, and need to be expanded apart from partisan considerations.


What many GOP supporters, outside of the ultra-conservative evangelicals, don't realize is that their own party could care less about them. You have this abject moron stating that "[...] ill or medically infirm senators [will be] wheeled in to cast critical votes on the Senate floor." [referring to the confirmation vote for Amy Coney Barrett]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/tom-cotton-scotus-justice-hearing/2020/10/05/id/990458/

Combine that with Fearless Leader just cancelling COVID stimulus talks until after the election, and voila, the Republicans just flipped the bird to a large proportion of their constituency. He just gave the Dems a great big target to use.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/06/trump-coronavirus-covid-stimulus-election

Are you kidding me?:inquisitive:

Let it never be lost on us for the rest of our lives:

Republicans under Obama: Under no circumstances shall you govern
Democrats under Trump: PLEASE let us shower the American people with trillions of dollars in your name!
Republican under Trump to Democrats under Trump: Under no circumstances shall you... wait, uh-



I would not be surprised at a 55 to 42 vote in the popular vote.

The issue is that cadre of 6-7 swing states. Most/all of them show Biden with a lead of 3-7% but the margins of error vary and one or two feature a number of undecideds.

To be fair, 2016 featured far more undecideds at this juncture, Trump had no record to hang around his neck, and nobody hates Biden as they do H. Clinton.

I am hopeful -- but guarded.

Sadly, I do NOT see the GOP losing 40 house seats, 10 senate seats, and an extra third of the governerships. Which I would LIKE to see so that the GOP is forced to reboot.

The original expectation was that Biden might be fortunate enough to reproduce Obama's 2008 margins, but now that's the baseline expectation.

Granted that ours are not 1st-world standard elections, but the level of fraud needed to overcome these leads in enough states is - mathematically onerous. As long as the canvassing proceeds to its conclusion, of course. My real worry is in the Senate, where small differences in margins could cost a couple of leads on invaluable seats. In the House under the circumstances I would expect the Dem majority to fluctuate mildly, either +/- 5 seats. Now some might call me pessimistic here, but a huge proportion of competitive House races are decided by less than 1 point, which is well within striking distance of shenanigans.

As for governorships, there are actually very few notable positions up for this cycle. Out of 11 races total, the only one worth speaking of is the Montana race, where we could expect a Biden landslide (should it unfold) to deliver Democrats a clean sweep of the governorship, Senate seat, and House seat there.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The real winner of tonight's VP debate.....The Fly:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/07/fly-mike-pence-vp-debate-427704

The big question is....was it carrying some disease formulated by the Dems designed to take out Mike Pence and the entire Trump administration.....~D

[Hooahguy]

Predictably, Trump is refusing (https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54465139) to participate in a virtual debate format. A lot can change in the next week though so he might participate by the end. Will be interesting to see what happens.

In the meantime, Trump is also saying that Gold Star families (families of fallen soldiers) might be to blame (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/08/trump-gold-star-families-coronavirus-427875) for giving him Covid. Yikes.

[Montmorency]

For those who are interested in Facebook/Cambridge Analytica-related muckery from 2016 (https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-trump-campaign-strategy-to-deter-millions-of-black-americans-from-voting-in-2016).


Channel 4 News has exclusively obtained a vast cache of data used by Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign on almost 200 million American voters.

It reveals that 3.5 million Black Americans were categorised by Donald Trump’s campaign as ‘Deterrence’ – voters they wanted to stay home on election day.

Tonight, civil rights campaigners said the evidence amounted to a new form of voter “suppression” and called on Facebook to disclose ads and targeting information that has never been made public.

The ‘Deterrence’ project can be revealed after Channel 4 News obtained the database used by Trump’s digital campaign team – credited with helping deliver his shock victory to become president four years ago.

Vast in scale, it contains details on almost 200 million Americans, among more than 5,000 files, which together amass almost 5 terabytes of data – making it one of the biggest leaks in history.



Reminder that they want to do a coup:

https://www.propublica.org/article/doj-frees-federal-prosecutors-to-take-steps-that-could-interfere-with-elections-weakening-long-standing-policy


The Department of Justice has weakened its long-standing prohibition against interfering in elections, according to two department officials.

Avoiding election interference is the overarching principle of DOJ policy on voting-related crimes. In place since at least 1980, the policy generally bars prosecutors not only from making any announcement about ongoing investigations close to an election but also from taking public steps — such as an arrest or a raid — before a vote is finalized because the publicity could tip the balance of a race.

But according to an email sent Friday by an official in the Public Integrity Section in Washington, now if a U.S. attorney’s office suspects election fraud that involves postal workers or military employees, federal investigators will be allowed to take public investigative steps before the polls close, even if those actions risk affecting the outcome of the election.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/07/trump-demands-barr-arrest-foes-427389


Donald Trump mounted an overnight Twitter blitz demanding to jail his political enemies and call out allies he says are failing to arrest his rivals swiftly enough.

Trump twice amplified supporters’ criticisms of Attorney General William Barr, including one featuring a meme calling on him to “arrest somebody!” He wondered aloud why his rivals, like President Barack Obama, Democratic nominee Joe Biden and former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton hadn’t been imprisoned for launching a “coup” against his administration.

“Where are all of the arrests?” Trump said, after several dozen tweets on the subject over the past 24 hours. “Can you imagine if the roles were reversed? Long term sentences would have started two years ago. Shameful!”

By early afternoon, Trump was letting loose his frustrations in an all-caps missive that seemed aimed at nobody in particular.

“DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, THE BIGGEST OF ALL POLITICAL SCANDALS (IN HISTORY)!!! BIDEN, OBAMA AND CROOKED HILLARY LED THIS TREASONOUS PLOT!!! BIDEN SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO RUN - GOT CAUGHT!!!” Trump tweeted.

Trump on Fox calling Kamala Harris a communist monster and declaring his intent to win New York.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1314186938417655808 [VIDEO]


This isn't just the drugs talking.


The way Mike Lee talks about our form of government when he is voting to let a Republican president get away with crimes is VERY different from the way he talks about it when a Republican president is calling for the nullification of mail ballots in an election he is losing.


https://i.imgur.com/o9fl4ru.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/I950Rr7.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/0bkbY9M.jpg



@ Samurai, I hope you don't die over there buddy!

Militia group plotted to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, feds say (https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/10/08/governor-gretchen-whitmer-kidnap-plot-militia/5921409002/)


The federal government has charged six people with conspiring to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, according to newly unsealed court records.

Members of a militia group purchased weapons, conducted surveillance, and held training and planning meetings, but were foiled in part because the FBI was able to infiltrate the group with informants, according to a criminal complaint.

Watch live at 1: Michigan Attorney General to announce charges, operation

The FBI became aware early in 2020, through social media, that a militia group was "discussing the violent overthrow of certain government and law enforcement components," and "agreed to take violent action," according to a sworn affidavit.

Members of the group talked about "murdering ... tyrants" or "taking" a sitting governor, according to the affidavit. One of the relevant meetings the FBI monitored was held June 20 in Grand Rapids. the affidavit alleges. Another meeting was held at a home in Luther, Mich., and in Munith.

Discussions included using 200 men to "storm" the Capitol Building in Lansing, kidnap hostages, including, Whitmer and try the governor for treason, according to the affidavit.

The group met for field exercises and training this year and conducted surveillance of the the governor's vacation home on at least two occasions in late August and September, the affidavit alleges. They also purchased an 800,000-volt Taser and night goggles for use in the kidnapping plot, according to court records. Members of the plot said they wanted to complete the kidnapping before the Nov. 3 election, according to the affidavit.




For levity:

https://i.imgur.com/OWoERgc.png

[Pannonian]

If you ever prosecute the individuals behind Cambridge Analytica, can you spread the investigations a bit wider? I'd like the buttwipes on this side of the water to have to account for their actions too.

[ReluctantSamurai]

@ Samurai, I hope you don't die over there buddy!

I don't think that Big Gretch was ever in any real danger, as authorities have been on to this since the spring. They wanted evidence beyond the initial six Wolverine Watchmen based in Michigan, because the others involved were attempting to do something similar in other states. The interesting part will be if they can "follow the money" behind this. As Grand Rapids seems to be 'ground zero' in the planning of this, will be interesting to see if the money trail leads back to....wait for it....the Devos family, the same Devos family that funded the armed protest rallies at the capital in the spring. And for those who don't know, Betsy Devos is Trump's Secretary of Education.....:inquisitive:

As a side note, it appears the Trump campaign has conceded that they will likely lose here in Spartan land, and need to spend their diminishing funds elsewhere. They've pulled almost all of the ads they had planned for radio and TV. Haven't heard one from the GOP in weeks, though it looks like they're going to throw several million in ads at us for the remainder of the month. The Biden campaign, however, is hammering the crap out of both. He's spent 55.6 million here as opposed to Trump's 21.7 most of which was spent before August.

As for me, I've already voted. I would highly recommend rabid Trump supporters not try harassing folks trying to vote in the Detroit Metro Area. Fearless Leader and the neo-nazi groups have the black voters promising to send their own "poll watchers" in many city districts. Wouldn't be surprised to see a few shootings...

I've got my shotguns oiled...so no worries mate~:)


Trump on Fox calling Kamala Harris a communist monster and declaring his intent to win New York.


He wondered aloud why his rivals, like President Barack Obama, Democratic nominee Joe Biden and former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton hadn’t been imprisoned for launching a “coup” against his administration.

I often deride the Dems for being too passive, and the VP debate was another example of that. KH had the opportunity to nail Pence's ass to his seat on multiple occasions, but she didn't. In fairness, she was probably instructed to not come off as the "angry black woman." OTOH, for this election, at least, all the Dems really have to do is sit back and let Fearless Leader self-destruct, which he has been very good at. However, going forward, one thing Trump has said that is spot on true (also on the Woodward tapes):


"You know what Mitch's biggest thing is in the whole world? His judges," Mr Trump told Woodward in the interview. "He will absolutely ask me, please let's get the judge approved instead of 10 ambassadors."

That's the surest way to see that your party stays in power, and your political agenda is forwarded. The Dems better learn......:stare:

[Montmorency]

With Lissu’s campaign (https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/29117/the-opposition-braces-for-violence-ahead-of-tanzania-elections) on hold, and the opposition still negotiating about forging a united front, the next steps in this high-stakes vote are unclear. Some observers fear that a second term for Magufuli would further erode Tanzania’s democratic norms and institutions. Already, the speaker of the National Assembly, Chama Cha Mapinduzi’s Job Ndugai, has stated he will move to abolish presidential terms limits if Magufuli wins reelection.

Tanzania, once a beacon of stability and democratic aspirations in East Africa, has become increasingly autocratic since Magufuli was elected president in 2015. Nicknamed “the bulldozer” during his days as the minister of public works, Magufuli won support among Tanzanians by promising to nationalize the country’s mining sector and spur infrastructure projects. As president, he has been ruthless in his suppression of dissent.

...Magufuli portrays support for his economic agenda as a key part of Tanzania’s national identity. “Anyone who is critical of his resource nationalism approach is seen as anti-state [and] not patriotic enough,” Jacob told WPR. The ruling party uses similar tactics to tar its critics, including journalists.

At a jubilant rally one recent evening in the town of Geita, in northwestern Tanzania, Tundu Lissu sang along to Bob Marley’s “One Love” as he looked out on the sun setting over a sea of cheering supporters. The opposition firebrand is running to replace incumbent President John Magufuli in a general election later this month; he has been on the campaign trail since late August, drawing massive crowds at each stop.

“Everywhere I’ve gone, I’ve looked people in the eye,” Lissu told World Politics Review in an interview. “Everywhere I’ve gone, people are so happy. It’s unbelievable, and it’s uplifting.” He returned home this summer after three years in exile, part of which was spent recovering after unidentified gunmen shot him 16 times in 2017, in what he suspects was an assassination attempt.

Last Friday, however, the National Electoral Commission suspended his campaign for seven days, accusing Lissu of using “seditious language” and violating election rules. It’s the latest blow to the opposition, with the Oct. 28 elections fast approaching.

Magufuli, of the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi party, appears determined to curtail his opponents’ ability to participate in a free and fair vote. Dozens of opposition hopefuls at the municipal and parliamentary level were disqualified from this year’s race by the National Electoral Commission in August, leaving the ruling party running unopposed in certain areas of the country.

“The harassment is continuous, it is meticulous, it is down to the smallest detail,” said Robert Amsterdam, a lawyer for Lissu, who also defends the popstar-turned-presidential-candidate Bobi Wine in Uganda.

Even campaign posters have been weaponized by the government, which recently enacted a new tax on posting promotional materials, making it too expensive for the opposition to print and share posters, placards and fliers. “A political party should not be subjected to paying taxes on posters,” said Zitto Kabwe, head of the opposition Alliance for Change and Transparency party, or ACT-Wazalendo. “Posters are a public service, where citizens get a chance to know the candidates.”

Kabwe’s party has not been spared in the recent crackdown. Three ACT-Wazalendo members were arrested last month, and while two have since been released, the party’s social media officer, Dotto Rangimoto, remains in police custody for allegedly committing cybercrimes. And according to Human Rights Watch, more than a dozen government critics have been arrested since mid-June.

Violence has also increased as elections draw closer. Police teargassed Lissu’s convoy as he traveled to a rally last week, firing chemicals into the crowd for some 15 minutes. And a disturbing video shared on social media shows people bleeding after apparently having been beaten with sticks in clashes with security forces.

Neither Magufuli’s office nor the electoral commission responded to emails from World Politics Review requesting comment on irregularities in the campaign process, and restrictions imposed on the opposition.

Undeterred by recent attacks, Lissu’s CHADEMA party and ACT-Wazalendo are currently in talks to unite behind Lissu ahead of Election Day. CHADEMA has already endorsed ACT-Wazalendo’s Seif Shariff Hamad, who is running for president of the semi-autonomous Zanzibar archipelago in a concurrent election. But authorities say these efforts could violate the rules. In a recent statement to the press, the deputy registrar for political parties, Sisty Nyahoza, said the law forbids political parties from forming coalitions this late in the election season.

The repressive environment also makes it difficult to hold the government accountable for its response to COVID-19. Since late April, Magufuli’s administration has not released any data about the spread of the coronavirus in Tanzania, maintaining that the country has rid itself of COVID-19 though prayer. It’s hard to challenge that official line for fear of retribution, and newspapers and television stations have been sanctioned for sharing warnings about the virus.

“I grew up in a fairly peaceful country,” said Mwanahamisi Singano, a Tanzanian women’s rights advocate. “I took that for granted,” she added. “Every time you feel this possibly won’t get worse, it gets worse.”

With fears of a rigged vote looming, U.S. Rep. Karen Bass, a Democrat from California, last week introduced a resolution in Congress calling for free and fair elections in Tanzania. “This is a critical moment in history and democratic backsliding must be called out wherever we see it,” she said in a statement. Sen. James Risch, an Idaho Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also condemned the suspension of Lissu’s campaign.

“I fear more police violence in the days and weeks ahead,” Lissu said. “The fear of violence in this election is much greater than in previous elections, and the reason is simple. We are winning. They know it and we know it.”

:sweatdrop: :sweatdrop: :sweatdrop:

~:grouphug:

[ReluctantSamurai]

...Magufuli portrays support for his economic agenda as a key part of Tanzania’s national identity. “Anyone who is critical of his resource nationalism approach is seen as anti-state [and] not patriotic enough,” Jacob told WPR. The ruling party uses similar tactics to tar its critics, including journalists.

Sound familiar?


“Where are all of the arrests?” Trump said, after several dozen tweets on the subject over the past 24 hours. “Can you imagine if the roles were reversed? Long term sentences would have started two years ago. Shameful!”

“DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, THE BIGGEST OF ALL POLITICAL SCANDALS (IN HISTORY)!!! BIDEN, OBAMA AND CROOKED HILLARY LED THIS TREASONOUS PLOT!!! BIDEN SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO RUN - GOT CAUGHT!!!”

However, Fearless Leader would be tagged as "Tonka Toy" rather than "Bulldozer".~D

[Montmorency]

Sound familiar?

"Magufuli." Think real carefully about that one. Roll it around on your tongue.

First as tragedy, second time - won't get fooled again?


However, Fearless Leader would be tagged as "Tonka Toy" rather than "Bulldozer".~D

"Bulldozer" could definitely be a Trumpian epithet.

https://i.imgur.com/IfNM5mM.jpg


Following the election, I really hope the entire Democratic community can get a clue and make it a top theme of their public communications that fascists are not normal and we should stop treating them as normal. These deviant punk don't get to define America. Forget about "clinging to guns" or "deplorables," the salutary thing is to say straight in their faces: "You are not normal."


Anyway, the Minneapolis saga comes to an end - or interregnum - as the Charter Commission declined a month ago to allow any police reform measures to come onto the ballot this year.

[Idaho]

Regarding that cartoon, the one thing you have to give trump is the decline of America as a colonial Imperial power. I hate the guy and everything about him, but he's not been a puppet of the arms industry like every president before him. Maybe this is just Putin pulling strings?

[ReluctantSamurai]

but he's not been a puppet of the arms industry like every president before him.

Not so much:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/trumps-false-military-equipment-claim/


As we said, the budgets signed by Trump (including the fiscal 2017 budget), include an increase in defense spending from Obama’s second term.

The Defense Department report shows the 2017-2020 budgets are 9.3% larger than the 2013-2016 budgets. But the defense budgets signed by Trump are 10.8% lower than the 2009-2012 budgets, in inflation-adjusted dollars. (Again, the 2009 fiscal year defense budget was signed by Bush in September 2008.)

Obama’s second-term budgets were subject to spending caps under the Budget Control Act of 2011, an effort to lower federal deficits. Beginning in fiscal 2013, Congress has raised those caps every year, according to a Congressional Research Service report, and there have been much larger cap increases in the last three defense budgets signed by Trump.

In looking solely at procurement, the budgets for 2017-2020 are 24.8% larger than those in 2013-2016 but 5.8% lower than the 2009-2012 budgets, in inflation-adjusted figures.

So, like pretty much every president since WW2, he's been a sock-puppet for the military...as has Congress.

[Montmorency]

https://twitter.com/stevemorris__/status/1314715904131895296 [VIDEO]


Lindsey Graham, facing a Black challenger: "If you're a young African American...you can go anywhere in this state, you just need to be conservative not liberal."

'N-rs won't have no trouble if they know their place.'

Speaking of white terror, Michigan (and the rest of the country) needs to handle the seditious, supremacist elements among the police.
https://twitter.com/rossjonesWXYZ/status/1314581815815004160 [VIDEO, 1:00+]


ACIN will be interested in this one, but it's more for all the non-Americans who haven't heard this information many times by now.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png

Since 1933, Republicans have only had trifectas (full control of federal government) for 4 years under Eisenhower, 4 years under Bush II, and 2 years under Trump (one of the least productive sessions for major legislation thankfully). Notably, they have never achieved 60% representation in either chamber of Congress since 1930 (technically winter of 1931).

Despite this distribution of democratic tenure, over the past 87 years Democratic presidents and Republican presidents will both have elevated 20 justices each to the SCOTUS (after the coming confirmation), and over the past 50 years almost all of those will have been Republican nominations. Liberals will have only had a relatively-friendly SCOTUS for the 1960s (a mere decade following a full generation of Democratic congressional hammerlock).

The sitting SCOTUS is already the most reactionary since the Lochner era a century ago. Teach them what Jefferson taught the OG Federalists.


At any rate, the idea that the practice of judicial review in the United States requires national governing coalitions to accept an entrenched minority faction in the federal judiciary refusing to let them govern is ahistorical nonsense. There have been three periods in which there were major clashes between a governing coalition and the Supreme Court, and every time the Court backed down.




Regarding that cartoon, the one thing you have to give trump is the decline of America as a colonial Imperial power. I hate the guy and everything about him, but he's not been a puppet of the arms industry like every president before him. Maybe this is just Putin pulling strings?

Beyond the record military budgets (going mostly to procurement of equipment and platforms) mentioned above, Trump has been a thorough chickenhawk of a president, and though troop levels abroad have hardly changed he's done a lot of damage to American interests and influence (you're right in the sense of contributing to the decline of the empire).

Not surprising for a President who, as a private citizen under Obama, affirmed a desire to be in Iraq and Libya "to take the oil," and who redeployed troops from Northern Syria to Southern Syria a year ago - enabling Turkish ethnic cleansing of local Kurds - in order to "protect the oil."

It could always be a rank coincidence that Trump's foreign policy has consistently been above replacement value for Putin, since whatever degrades the American Empire is almost definitionally of benefit to Putin. :P

I should point out though that the interests of empire are much bigger than the relatively-measly arms industry, per se.

[Hooahguy]

Beyond the record military budgets (going mostly to procurement of equipment and platforms) mentioned above, Trump has been a thorough chickenhawk of a president, and though troop levels abroad have hardly changed he's done a lot of damage to American interests and influence (you're right in the sense of contributing to the decline of the empire).

Not surprising for a President who, as a private citizen under Obama, affirmed a desire to be in Iraq and Libya "to take the oil," and who redeployed troops from Northern Syria to Southern Syria a year ago - enabling Turkish ethnic cleansing of local Kurds - in order to "protect the oil."

It could always be a rank coincidence that Trump's foreign policy has consistently been above replacement value for Putin, since whatever degrades the American Empire is almost definitionally of benefit to Putin. :P

I should point out though that the interests of empire are much bigger than the relatively-measly arms industry, per se.
It should also be mentioned that I think the biggest foreign policy hit has been in America's soft power, not hard power. The damage that Tillerson started with hollowing out the State Department and Pompeo continued will last a generation. A friend of mine works for a State Dept contractor and she says shes just barely hanging on. Morale is so low that the only reason people have stopped quitting is because of the pandemic and the subsequent recession. Just under Tillerson, over half of the State's top-ranking career diplomats resigned and many posts still remain vacant or by people who are underqualified. Biden, if he wins, will have to work fast to undo the worst of these changes.

[Montmorency]

You can see how the American armaments industry gets on people's nerves.
https://twitter.com/PFTompkins/status/848982344111280130 [VIDEO]


You can also kind of see why the Taliban just endorsed Trump.

[Montmorency]

I need to make a correction to an earlier post. If you look at the chart of Congressional control over time more carefully than I had, you'll spot that Eisenhower only enjoyed 2 years - a single Congressional session - of full control, not 4. (To further correct an error not of my own, the chart incorrectly codes Lincoln's second term as a Democratic administration; Johnson, while terrible, was not technically a Democrat as Lincoln's VP and successor).

Some more observations: The majority of Republican nominations to the Supreme Court since 1932 were confirmed by Democratic Senates. Meanwhile, a Republican Senate has not confirmed a single Democratic nomination since under Grover Cleveland in 1895.

As Republicans bleat during the upcoming Barrett hearings that they should be afforded unlimited opportunity to hijack insulated institutions to effect their radical and unpopular agenda without democratic review or ratification (said agenda being primarily to block and eliminate all vestiges Democratic governance), let's recall that in the ancient year of the before-times 2016 Republicans up and down their caucus explicitly ran on denying a Hillary Clinton administration any Supreme Court hearings, any federal judicial hearings in general, and even on the threat of legislatively shrinking the Supreme Court from 9 to 6 in order to "thereby reduce the capability of the Court to engage in judicial activism harmful to the Constitution."

2021 better look like:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKl3gPGdtpc

[Hooahguy]

Meanwhile the media is doing its job in turning this yet again (https://popular.info/p/unpacking-the-narrative) into a "both sides" issue:


But there is a tradition in the media to "balance" the coverage between competing candidates. And, in recent days, journalists — with help from Republican operatives — have manufactured a controversy involving Biden. On the trail, Biden is repeatedly asked if he supports expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court, a policy sometimes referred to as "court packing."

In recent days, Biden has declined to explicitly state whether he would support expanding the court, saying he would "stay focused" on Republican efforts to install Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg after early voting has already begun.


The media has largely accepted the Trump campaign's argument that Biden's refusal to definitely answer this question is a scandal.

Now whether or not Biden would actually expand the court is another issue. He has said he wouldn't a couple times during the primary, but that was before RBG died and the GOP rush to nominate a successor. So is Biden playing his cards close to his chest because he wants to conceal his plans or does he not want to demoralize Dem voters? I guess we will find out soon enough.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Definition of scandal: "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage."

Packing the court can hardly be considered legally wrong, as the Constitution doesn't actually specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court, AFAIK. Morally wrong? Good luck with that one. Even defining what's moral or not will create arguing for the next decade. Public outrage? The GOP would certainly be outraged, but you know that if they had the need and the opportunity, they'd do it themselves. Because they've made conservative SCOTUS appointments one of their top priorities the last 20-30 years, they haven't had to consider the tactic. Ramming the ACB nomination through a month before the elections highlights just how "moral" GOP senators are, no matter the Democratic outrage.

Biden should just keep to his plan, and not let this cloud the issues at hand. He's under no moral or legal obligation to say anything, and if it were me, I'd keep the Republicans guessing as to his intentions.

Better yet, Biden could say if Trump releases his taxes to the general public, he'd declare his intentions one way or another.:juggle:


And yes, the media are ratings puppets doing their best to stir up controversy.

[ReluctantSamurai]

As a follow up to the previous several posts...

Court packing has already been happening at the state level, with increasing attempts to do so in recent years. Case in point, Arizona:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/12/where-court-packing-is-already-happening-428601


Arizona’s Supreme Court had five judges for 56 years. But on December 19, 2016, thanks to a GOP-authored bill that was opposed by every Democrat in the state Legislature, Republican Governor Doug Ducey held a ceremony in the Old Capitol building to swear in a sixth justice, and then a seventh.

In all, Ducey has appointed five of the seven justices on the state court, taking a personal interest in vetting candidates with questions designed to ferret out a fidelity to textualism and an inclination to uphold, rather than overturn or tinker with, the law. His appointments, including the addition of the two new justices, have eliminated the court’s progressive caucus and swung it from a more moderate conservative tilt to one that emphasizes libertarianism, populism, and law and order, in line with Ducey’s own views. And the ages of its younger members mean the court likely will stay that way for years.

While Ducey consistently has said he was not packing the court for political purposes, Republicans acknowledge they wouldn’t have proposed the change if it would have meant handing over two seats for a Democratic governor to fill.

If at first you don't succeed, just change the playing field:


After the commission rejected his application for Ducey's fourth vacancy in 2019, Ducey simply replaced the three commissioners who had voted against Montgomery. Soon enough, his name made it to the governor’s desk, and he was seated on the court as Ducey's fifth and likely final appointee.

A body that had four conservatives and one liberal when Ducey took office now consisted of seven conservatives and zero liberals.

Contradiction at its' finest:


Mesnard, the lawmaker who sponsored the expansion bill, maintains that the effort was nothing like the “packing” that Democrats in Washington are considering now. Unlike national Democrats, he says, his motivation wasn’t to change the court’s ideological composition.

“I wasn’t trying to achieve a specific end,” he says. “It wasn’t like, ‘I don’t like the rulings coming out, so I want to add more to tilt it a certain way.’”

Still, he acknowledges that he wouldn’t have pushed the legislation if he were handing over two seats on the high court to a Democratic governor. “It’s impossible to separate the politics from that type of decision,” he said in a recent interview. “I wasn’t going to dance around it or pretend that there weren’t serious political implications.”

While the short-term changes to Arizona law haven't been as drastic as the Dems were forecasting, there's this warning to Arizona's future:


Despite this ruling, Democratic state Senator Martin Quezada, a lawyer who led the fight against the bill in 2016, says Democrats’ fears about the political implications have proved to be “a little overblown,” at least in the short term. Quezada now thinks Republicans were engaged in more of a long-game strategy designed to keep Democrats from enacting progressive policies for another generation, as a bulwark against the voters who are electing Democrats in increasing numbers.

Ducey’s five Supreme Court appointments in his six years in office have cemented a conservative legacy that will long outlive his governorship and, likely, the Republican majorities that have dominated the state capitol for more than 50 years. Three of the five conservative men Ducey has appointed are younger than the 56-year-old governor.

“As we turn blue, I think there’s a belief that we will do radically leftist policies, and those will be challenged and that court will be the backstop,” Quezada says. “And I can’t say it’s a bad strategy on their part. The state is turning blue, and that is a good way to maintain a backstop through the judicial system.”

In addition to the successful court-packing in Arizona, Georgia also succeeded in packing their State Supreme Court:

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=285088095002026120094070071078099091033020039072045089028085121023101114077116080075 0490630970151120230160280791090120890911221110590110780590920940880111221120010810120951200950700890 02008022110111110023083000073088093081107111124122105116125026105&EXT=pdf


Specifically, in 2016, the Republican-controlled Georgia General Assembly considered a sweeping reform bill, intended not only to expand the supreme court from seven to nine justices, but also to restructure the appellate jurisdiction and procedures for the high court and the court of appeals. There was considerable speculation that the Republican governor was interested in expanding the court purely for political reasons; at the time, Georgia had four Democratic appointees and only three Republican ones. And in Georgia,the governor has full autonomy in selecting justices. Over accusations of court packing, the General Assembly passed the bill in the spring of 2016, and the governor promptly signed it. By the next calendar year, the governor had filled the two new seats, resulting in a “more conservative-leaning court."

Other states have tried to pack/unpack their courts, but have so far failed. Florida, Iowa, South Carolina, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, Washington, and Alabama. Beginning to see a pattern here? All states with Republican controlled government, except for Washington. However, even in Washington the proposed reduction in the number of state supreme court justices was initiated by Republicans.

Of further note:


The preceding analysis documents how there have been numerous attempts in the last decade to both increase and decrease the size of state supreme courts for what appears to be political gain. One question that naturally follows is whether anything of a more generalized nature can be said about this set of attempts (and successes)and the state environments in which they arose.

First, one can begin with potential commonalities among the proposed bills and/or states that saw attempts to alter their state supreme courts. The most discernible pattern is also the one that should be least surprising: it appears that various elected officials pushed for changes to their state supreme court when doing so was in their political interest. Specifically, several of the states in which there were proposals to expand or contract the court had the following features: a legislature that was of the same party as the governor; a selection method for justices that hinged on appointment by the governor; and a closely divided supreme court. To be sure, not all of the examples here fit this pattern. To wit, the proposal to expand the Louisiana State Supreme Court would have done so by adding districts for popular election. And the Arizona State Supreme Court was not “ideologically balanced” before its recent expansion; four of the five justices in 2016 were Republican appointees (although the court arguably became more conservative after the change). Notwithstanding these exceptions, the larger point holds: the proposed attempts to alter the courts were often done in ways that would guarantee adding justices from a political party to shift the ideological makeup of the court in a considerable way.

Though elected officials tended to push for judicial change when it appeared to suit them politically, the ultimate proposals took many forms across many states. The final question is what these findings might mean for the larger discourse around court packing.

Finally:


In short, the past decade has seen a significant number of attempts to alter state supreme courts—both through proposed packing and unpacking. Indeed, a few of those attempts have been successful, leading to fundamentally altered state courts of last resort. To be sure, further research is needed to gain a better understanding of why these proposals were made in these states at this time, why some were successful, and why some states saw no such proposals at all. But the preceding analysis does bring to light the variation among proposals and at least some of the circumstances that led to them. Though elected officials tended to push for judicial change when it appeared to suit them politically, the ultimate proposals took many forms across many states.The final question is what these findings might mean for the larger discourse around court packing. While scholars and politicians continue to debate whether Republicans unpacked the Supreme Court in 2016, and whether Democrats should pack the Court if they take the Oval Office and the Senate in 2020, they should not overlook the clear instances of court packing that have recently taken place. As Part II discusses, there were attempts in more than 20 percent of all states in the last decade to alter the size of the state supreme court, with two of them successful. What could this state of play mean for the federal courts? There are different ways to interpret the data from Part II. The most straightforward interpretation, it would seem, is that the norm against court packing might be more vulnerable than some have thought—at least as it concerns the state courts. After all, if court packing and unpacking were considered strictly verboten, one would not expect to see over twenty different bills to pack and unpack the highest court in eleven different states.

So all of this talk of potential court-packing by the Dems being 'scandalous' is BS at its' best. Republicans have repeatedly attempted (and succeeded twice) the very same thing in state supreme courts. :kiss2:

[a completely inoffensive name]

'I support the will of the American people who overwhelmingly wish for the next justice to be picked by the winner of this election. If elected, I will follow the public's mandate and nominate justices to balance the court as directed by the people."

[Hooahguy]

nominate justices to balance the court
See this isn't something that Biden would say though because it obviously implies court packing.

Here is his seemingly most recent statement on the issue:


“I’m not a fan of court packing, but I don’t want to get off on that whole issue. I want to keep focused,” Biden told WKRC, a Cincinnati-area CBS/CW affiliate. “The president would like nothing better than to fight about whether or not I would in fact pack the court or not pack the court, et cetera. The focus is, why is he doing what he’s doing now?”

The former vice president also described Republicans’ push to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court before November's election as a form of court packing.


“Court packing's going on now. Never before, when an election has already begun and millions of votes already cast, has it ever been that a Supreme Court nominee was put forward,” Biden said. “And one of the reasons is the only shot the American people get to determine who will be on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court or federal court is when they pick their senator or their president.”

Biden has previously called questions about his views on court packing a distraction, saying last week that “the moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be on the answer to that question.”

This is the right answer, which I actually see as an indication he will approve a court-packing measure- seeing that the GOP is already doing it, it seems like he would pursue it to "balance things out." But its far more subtle than your statement. Ill expect something more in-depth after the election if he wins, but for now this is enough for me.

Again, its extremely obvious why Biden won't take a firm stance on this. The media and the Trump campaign are looking for red meat and Biden doesnt want to give anything to them, now that we are just 20 days away from the election.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is the right answer, which I actually see as an indication he will approve a court-packing measure- seeing that the GOP is already doing it, it seems like he would pursue it to "balance things out." But its far more subtle than your statement. Ill expect something more in-depth after the election if he wins, but for now this is enough for me.

Again, its extremely obvious why Biden won't take a firm stance on this. The media and the Trump campaign are looking for red meat and Biden doesnt want to give anything to them, now that we are just 20 days away from the election.

It's a deflection and time will tell how long he can deflect until the media starts pumping the narrative that Biden is hiding behind his words.

[Montmorency]

But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your Constitutional rights.

That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right, plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are proposing no such thing.

When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours, to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication.

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.

This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the Court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Court have substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court, by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact - the statement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."
[...]
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"
[...]
Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing.

Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality - its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension - its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?

Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man - such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care - such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance - such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.



As a follow up to the previous several posts...

I think I've mentioned Arizona's case here in the last years, but I didn't know about the rest. (I'm not sure they even had the means to succeed, but we should also note the case (https://www.ncsc.org/newsroom/backgrounder/2018/pennsylvania-impeachment) in which much of the Pennsylvania legislature signed on to impeaching state supremes over their court order requiring non-partisan districting in Pennsylvania. Oh, wait, we're picking up on the wire that they're baa-aa-ack (https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/10/lebanon-county-representatives-bill-seeks-impeachment-of-pa-supreme-court-justice.html) and bigger than ever.)

Meanwhile, as best as I can tell the lawless Trump administration has elected to borderline-nullify federal court rulings (up to the SCOTUS) against them on the DACA rescission.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-to-continue-rejecting-initial-daca-petitions-limit-current-protections/

This is exactly the Republican national strategy - not for judicial control per se, but literally their political strategy writ large - since around the 1980s. It's difficult to gain strong legislative majorities and the presidency, and even harder to push wildly unpopular legislation (as most Republican policies are), but securing the judiciary is relatively achievable and optimal for several reasons. First, it's allows Republican priorities to be laundered through respected institutions; this is less and less the case, but the courts have tended to be one of the most vaunted institutions in the civic consciousness, and one Democrats have tended to see as apolitical and impartial (movement conservatism has hammered the alleged perfidy of the courts, and the need to correct that, to their voters for generations.) Second, most people don't pay as much attention to courts as they do to the other branches, which themselves have most of their activities obscured by substantive abstruseness, public apathy, lack of good/accessible reporting, etc; it is easier to engineer an agenda through the courts without much outcry. Third and most importantly, repealing or passing legislation is hard, and leveraging executive powers takes time, but a ruling in a rigged court can wipe out Democratic programs in no time at all - and the Dems have to eat it like the institutionalists who refuse to politicize judicial processes in the way they would with elected offices that they are.

This has been the lodestone of the conservative project for generations, and is the reason for the existence of such bodies of discipline and indoctrination as the Federalist Society, which clones rigid ideological wreckers like Uruk-hai.

Norms require mutuality to have a function as such. Republican commitment to a fully-staffed federal judiciary and 9-seat SCOTUS has only run as far as their partisan agenda; if Republicans insist on war to the hilt, they must be punished severely for a generation in order that they learn the costs of brinksmanship and zero-sum radicalism. Then maybe we can achieve a functioning society.

https://i.imgur.com/T8BEmca.jpg


Meanwhile, from the ongoing Barrett hearings:


https://twitter.com/mirandayaver/status/1316147949320065024

Amy Coney Barrett punted on whether the president can unilaterally postpone the election.

She punted on whether the President should be committed to a peaceful transfer of power.

Democracy is at stake in this confirmation, and Barrett is failing the most basic test.

https://twitter.com/vanitaguptaCR/status/1316082898244689920 [VIDEO]


WATCH: Senator @amyklobuchar just asked Judge Barrett whether it's illegal under federal law to intimidate voters at the polls.

Barrett refused to answer. Then Klobuchar read her the law. Astonishing.

[Hooahguy]

It's a deflection and time will tell how long he can deflect until the media starts pumping the narrative that Biden is hiding behind his words.
I mean they would do the same thing if he came out definitively either way. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If today's journalists were around in the 70's there would be no Watergate and Nixon would have served out his second term.

[ReluctantSamurai]

but we should also note the case in which much of the Pennsylvania legislature signed on to impeaching state supremes over their court order requiring non-partisan districting in Pennsylvania.

I wish NCSC (from the above link) had provided more background on who initiated, and/or supported the impeachment legislation in the other states besides PA.

From the second link:


“Members should understand that I do not take this first step towards the removal of a Supreme Court justice lightly,” Ryan said in his resolution. “Regrettably, Justice Wecht’s actions undermine the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; betray the trust of the people of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and have brought disrepute to the Unified Judicial System.”

Interesting choice of words---"..undermine the integrity [...] betray the trust of the people."

A little background on Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1249: (yes I know I'm getting off topic, but this speaks to the lengths the GOP goes to ensure its' grip on power through the courts)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_in_Pennsylvania


On September 14, 2011, Republican senate leadership introduced a congressional redistricting bill which contained neither a map nor description of proposed congressional district lines. The proposed lines were added in the senate State Government Committee on December 13, 2011. The committee approved the bill 6-5 along party lines. Breaking with his party, Republican Sen. Mike Folmer opposed the Republican bill, saying "all you have to do is look at (the map)" to see it appeared to be specifically drawn to dilute Democratic votes and was the perfect example of why redistricting reform is needed. Barry Kauffman, lobbyist for Common Cause of Pennsylvania, agreed with Folmer, saying the plan "is a clear-cut case of politicians picking their voters in order to prevent voters from having a meaningful opportunity to pick their elected officials.

Called by the Public Interest Law Center of Pennsylvania "one of the top three starkest partisan gerrymanders in the country and the worst in Pennsylvania's history" Senate Bill 1249 was challenged in court:

https://www.pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/pennsylvania-redistricting-lawsuit/


Our lawsuit contended that in 2011 Pennsylvania elected officials manipulated the congressional district boundaries to entrench a majority Republican delegation in Congress and minimize the ability of Democratic voters to elect U.S. House representatives. Filed in the state’s Commonwealth Court, the complaint alleged the current congressional map was designed to pack as many Democratic voters as possible into Pennsylvania’s 1st, 2nd, 13th, 14th and 17th districts. At the same time, the map was designed to spread the remaining Democratic voters among the other 13 districts so that Democratic voters fall short of a majority in each of these 13 districts. The net effect maximized the number of Pennsylvania congressional seats held by Republicans.

Not precedent setting....gerrymandering has been going on since the US was founded. Which brings us back to Rep. Frank Ryan. In introducing House Resolution 1044 [to impeach Judge Wecht], Ryan stated:

https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/state-rep-calls-for-impeachment-of-supreme-court-justice-wecht/


cited the redistricting case; the case in which the court said the City of Pittsburgh had the right to pass a paid sick leave ordinance; as well as recent cases involving mail-in ballots for the upcoming election and the governor emergency disaster proclamation relative to the covid-19 pandemic.

However:


in all of the cases cited by Ryan, Wecht was joined by a majority of the court.

So why go after just Wecht? Well.....


“He’s an object lesson,” Ledewitz said. “Undoubtedly, they’re upset with the four-justice majority [in the redistricting case].”

But Ryan explained that when Wecht ran for the Supreme Court in 2015, one of the issues he addressed on the campaign trail was redistricting. Therefore, Ryan said, Wecht should have recused from the case when it came before the court in 2018.

“He’s legislating from the bench,” Ryan said. “This is strictly a constitutional issue for me.”

Laughable if it wasn't so sad.

Which brings us to Amy Coney Barrett, and perhaps the 'real' reason behind her nomination:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/there-should-be-no-doubt-why-trump-will-nominate-amy-coney-barrett


But there should be no doubt about why Barrett has been chosen. Much of the commentary about her selection will focus on the issue of abortion, and her likely role in overturning Roe v. Wade. During the 2016 campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to appoint Justices who would vote to overrule that landmark, and with his three selections, including Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, he appears to have delivered. Barrett is not only a member of a conservative organization within the Catholic Church; her legal writings, and the views of some who know her, suggest that she would overturn Roe.

Still, it’s worth remembering the real priorities of Trump and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, in this nomination. They’re happy to accommodate the anti-abortion base of the Republican Party, but an animating passion of McConnell’s career has been the deregulation of political campaigns. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision brought the issue to wide public attention, but McConnell has been crusading about it for decades. He wants the money spigot kept open, so that he can protect his Senate majority and the causes for which it stands. This, too, is why the Federalist Society has been so lavishly funded over the years, and why it has expanded from a mere campus organization into a national behemoth for lawyers and students. Under Republican Presidents, Federalist Society events have come to operate as auditions for judicial appointments. The corporate interests funding the growth of the Federalist Society probably weren’t especially interested in abortion, but they were almost certainly committed to crippling the regulatory state.


It should go without saying that the nomination and the expected confirmation of Barrett in the final days before a Presidential election represent a paramount act of hypocrisy for McConnell and the other Republicans who denied even a hearing to Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court, in 2016. But the fact that these Republicans are willing to risk that charge shows how important the Supreme Court is to them. Far more than a senator, a Supreme Court Justice can deliver on the agenda. The war on abortion is just the start.

Much like just about everything else in America today, SCOTUS is now viewed as a tool for 'delivering the agenda'.

And on something of a 'lighter' note:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/14/biden-star-trek-campaign-event-rally


Pete Buttigieg, who had earlier shared an old photo of himself dressed in a Star Trek costume, tuned in, wielding a Borg action figure as he chatted with Takei about how Star Trek taught viewers equality.

As Trek the vote to victory continued it was the turn of Abrams, a progressive icon who was the Democratic nominee for Georgia governor in 2018, and one of the Trek the vote to victory hosts, to take over hosting duties.

According to the New York Times Abrams “can recite with picayune detail the obscure plot points from incidents buried deep in the [Star Trek] canon”, and the former gubernatorial candidate seemed nervous.

“I literally just tweeted out that I was about to talk to you guys, and therefore do not require Christmas presents this year, or possibly ever again in life,” Abrams told the female Star Trek actors. (She had indeed tweeted.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtEaR1JU-ps

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

[Montmorency]

I mean they would do the same thing if he came out definitively either way. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If today's journalists were around in the 70's there would be no Watergate and Nixon would have served out his second term.

https://i.imgur.com/6MWKgx7.jpg

:wacky:

But taking it on balance, our evaluations of media framing and focus in this campaign should not overlook that Joe Biden is a moderate old white man, rather than a woman named Clinton. Biden counts on a somewhat similar, if diminished, Teflon effect of the sort that Trump has enjoyed/exacted from the media.

In fact, Trump's is kind of a general principle that many politicians will follow from now on, namely that if you ignore the media, flood the zone with nonsense, or tell them to go :daisy: themselves in not-quite-so many words, everyone suddenly stops caring and moves on. Is anyone talking about Biden's Senate papers today? Caginess is rewarded over transparency and forthrightness, and we know politicians are the type to respond to incentives. So it shall be until the MSM finally changes as an institution.

One imminent test may be how the media responds to the fake news of the Hunter Biden emails showing him snorting crack with Burisma hookers.


And on something of a 'lighter' note:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/14/biden-star-trek-campaign-event-rally

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtEaR1JU-ps

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

Abrams is also a single childless romance novelist, locking down the nerd vote.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Abrams is also a single childless romance novelist, locking down the nerd vote.

I'm a Trekkie, of sorts, and I resent being called a nerd...:disguise:

~D

Maybe Andrew Clark just overlooks the obvious...Biden is seen as being more open and telling the truth than not. Doesn't mean he's a perfect angel without hidden agendas, or doesn't make statements that aren't entirely true.

A quick perusal of a couple of respected fact-checker organizations:

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/28/why-do-fact-checkers-find-more-false-statements-from-trump-than-biden/42343935/

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/joe-biden/

:shrug:

[Hooahguy]

Side note, the Biden campaign raised $383 million just in the month of September. Now apparently have over (https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/1316557987708833797?s=20) $400 million cash on hand for the final 20 days. I hope a good chunk of that is for hiring teams of lawyers to mount a firm legal challenge to any ratfucking that might happen.

[Gilrandir]

Now I know who dancing Donny reminds me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS6A7aHHVxg&ab_channel=HistoryTVru

[rory_20_uk]

Side note, the Biden campaign raised $383 million just in the month of September. Now apparently have over (https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/1316557987708833797?s=20) $400 million cash on hand for the final 20 days. I hope a good chunk of that is for hiring teams of lawyers to mount a firm legal challenge to any ratfucking that might happen.

I imagine the lawyers would work for free to get in on the tasty government contracts that will be up for grabs.

~:smoking:

[Crandar]

Trump gains in young Blacks and Hispanics, but loses in Whites (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-losing-ground-with-white-voters-but-gaining-among-black-and-hispanic-americans/). Not very surprised, because that reflects an already noted trend. If the Republican party was clever enough, it could have realised that pandering to racists alienates more potential voters than those it brings. It also demonstrates that the tribal value of Harris, that she should allegedly encourage blacks to vote for Biden, was overestimated. As expected.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Trump gains in young Blacks and Hispanics, but loses in Whites. Not very surprised, because that reflects an already noted trend.

A rather misleading statement, IMHO. Considering the apparent 2% CoviDon has gained in black support to become about 10% of registered black voters, that number is dwarfed by the nearly 90% support enjoyed by Biden/Harris. The white vote, particularly among white women, are defecting to Biden/Harris. CoviDon enjoyed a 16% advantage over Clinton in 2016 amongst white voters, his lead over Biden has shrunk to 5%.


It also demonstrates that the tribal value of Harris, that she should allegedly encourage blacks to vote for Biden, was overestimated. As expected.

There's many things wrong with that statement. Tribal value? You do realize that smacks of racism. Overestimated? As expected? Got some numbers to back that up, and by whom, respectively?

[Montmorency]

This poll is a very strange result, first for the overall magnitude of shift but also for identifying a Trumpward shift among all college-educated and young people, including white, which is not a result I have seen anywhere else AFAIK.

Would need some more evidence that Trump has gained among young people and college-educated people when to my awareness basically every poll and study - including the actual results of the 2018 vote - contradict that.

[Crandar]

My bad, I phrased it badly. I was referring to the Hispanics considerable support for the Republican party. Cuban émigrés compose a large part of that demographic, but Republican influence is also present in other groups of Hispanic males. Hispanics and blacks share many of the conservative values espoused by the Republican party. If its officials didn't parrot racism so often and had actually tempered their anti-immigrant rhetoric, they would have more than covered their losses from the alienated far-right voters.

There's many things wrong with that statement. Tribal value? You do realize that smacks of racism. Overestimated? As expected? Got some numbers to back that up, and by whom, respectively?
I agree completely, it was racist. It was speculated that Kamala Harris will attract more black and women votes for Biden, which I find it an implicitly condescending and derogatory view on blacks. The stagnation of Biden's popularity and Trump's moderate gains indicate that the premise was wrong, despite the president's obvious incompetence, gaffes and inflammatory remarks.

[Hooahguy]

The stagnation of Biden's popularity and Trump's moderate gains indicate that the premise was wrong, despite the president's obvious incompetence, gaffes and inflammatory remarks.
Biden went (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/) from +8.2 to +10.7 since October 1st but go off I guess.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I agree completely, it was racist.

:shakehands:


It was speculated that Kamala Harris will attract more black and women votes for Biden, which I find it an implicitly condescending and derogatory view on blacks.

I suppose it could be viewed that way, OTOH, it could be viewed as an acknowledgement that minorities and women can get representation at the highest level of government:shrug:

I also agree with Hooahguy that Biden's popularity is anything but stagnant. IMHO, it's CoviDon's popularity that is stagnant. Constant appeals to his 'base' have done nothing to attract voters to his side...on the contrary, it appears to have had the opposite effect. A little discussed difference between Election 2020 and Election 2016 is that there are very few, and very insignificant third party candidates to siphon off votes. In 2016, third party candidates got 7.8 million votes, or 6% of the vote. Considering that for the previous three presidential elections (2004, 2008, 2012) the two major party nominees got 99%, 98.6%, and 98.3% respectively, that 4-5% difference made a huge impact.

In 2016, in Pennsylvania, third party candidates garnered 268,000 votes. Trump carried the state by 44,000 votes. In Wisconsin, third party candidates got 188,000 votes. Trump won the state by less than 23,000 votes. Similar situations occurred in Florida and Michigan. In 2016, Trump won 7 states with less than 50% of the popular vote in those states. While not all the third party votes cast in 2016 will vote against Trump in 2020, and indeed some of them may vote for him while others may not vote at all, CoviDon has done very little, IMHO, to appeal to those voters, instead continuing to exhort to his "base" which is looking like it's not going to be enough for him to win.

This article puts it better than I can:

https://www.rollcall.com/2019/07/29/how-third-party-votes-sunk-clinton-what-they-mean-for-trump/


In theory, Trump could have reached out during his presidency to Republican defectors. Instead, he chose to double-down on personal attacks, nationalist rhetoric and divisive appeals to non-college-educated whites, who helped elect him.

That makes it unlikely for Trump to attract many of those who wasted their votes in 2016.

On the other hand, Democrats have the rare opportunity next year to woo progressives, Republicans and swing voters who threw their votes away by supporting third-party nominees.

Progressives now see the damage Trump has done, and Republicans who rejected Trump in 2016 have had their worst fears about him confirmed.

But if Democrats select a nominee who is again unpalatable to many voters, as Clinton was, that could send anti-Trump Republicans and swing voters back to third parties again in 2020.

While it is completely true that the Democrats “waste” large numbers of popular votes in California and New York, that’s not why Clinton lost in 2016.

She failed to mobilize anti-Trump voters, too many of whom decided that they couldn’t support either major-party nominee. Winning those voters who defected from the two major parties would be an important step for either side.

And right now, only the Democrats are in a position to take advantage of that, which is not good news for Trump, not only in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, but also nationally.

In selecting Joe Biden, the Dems have a moderate candidate capable of swinging more of those who voted third party to the Democrats. Granted, it's "another old white guy" as opposed to someone younger and more dynamic, but at least he's viewed as more 'presidential' old white guy who won't be up at night conducting idiotic tweet storms, and at least shows some empathy for what the people of this country are going through, at the moment.

[Hooahguy]

On a related note, these tweets (https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1318580883167825925?s=20):


More people have now early voted in TX than the number of people who voted for Donald Trump in TX in 2016.
Total Trump votes cast in TX in 2016: 4,685,047
Total 2020 votes cast in TX as of last night: 4,706,398


That's honestly astounding. I don't know what this means in terms of results, but as a means of gauging turnout... :stunned:

My hope is that overwhelming numbers will stymie any post-election fuckery that the Trump admin has in store.

And speaking of, SCOTUS had a split 4-4 ruling (https://www.npr.org/2020/10/19/922411176/supreme-court-rules-pennsylvania-can-count-ballots-received-after-election-day) (which means that the PA court ruling against the Pennsylvania GOP stands) to allow for counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after election day as long as they are postmarked by Nov 3. Which makes it really clear as to why the GOP is rushing a new justice onto the bench.

[Crandar]

Biden went (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/) from +8.2 to +10.7 since October 1st but go off I guess.
Oh, come on, I meant the specific demographics mentioned in the cited article, not in general.

I suppose it could be viewed that way, OTOH, it could be viewed as an acknowledgement that minorities and women can get representation at the highest level of government:shrug:
The second statement is fine, but I doubt that this is the reasoning behind the vice-presidential picks. The choice for the vice-president should revolve around his skills and ideas, not his sex and skin complexion. Campaigns tend to focus on the latter, but they usually underestimate the voters' capacity of thinking beyond tribal limitations and of actually assessing each candidate's, without getting stuck into the surface. Not that only the Democrats resort to such pandering, one of the biggest mistakes of the Republicans was to opt for Palin, without even taking a cursory glance on her competence. I know that Hooahguy has been rooting for Harris since the primaries, so he feels a bit strongly about her, but, in my opinion, she's a terrible candidate. She's a populist and demonstrably hypocritical, whose greatest achievement was temporarily bringing Tulsi Gabbard into prominence.

[Hooahguy]

Lol are we relitigating the VP pick again? Harris is fine, certainly hasnt (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/13/voters-approve-kamala-harris-vp-pick-394734) hurt Biden at all. Seems silly to be arguing about this again when the election is literally in 14 days.

Also I dont think we have discussed this much is the Hispanic vote. Interestingly enough, Trump seems (https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1318628703354654729?s=20) to be doing as good or even better with Hispanics in Florida, Texas, and California. However he is doing worse with white voters so we will see what happens. Hispanics tend to be pretty conservative so Im not really surprised by this.

[ReluctantSamurai]

That's honestly astounding. I don't know what this means in terms of results, but as a means of gauging turnout

As of today, statewide polls in Texas have it at a dead heat. Eight months ago, who would've thunk that~:eek: That's why Gov Abbott did what he did in restricting polling stations to one per county, hoping that voters in Houston, Dallas, and other urban areas just say eff it with hours long waits. The GOP is scared shitless that Texas might go Blue, and rightly so. If Texas flips, the fat lady comes on stage for her warm up...:gorgeous:


Interestingly enough, Trump seems to be doing as good or even better with Hispanics in Florida, Texas, and California.

Not enough to sway California; might be enough to rescue Texas; and Florida, where they might actually make a difference. I've never understood Hispanic support for Trump. He despises them and his world view on them is that they're drug pushers, rapists, and trouble makers...:shrug:


The choice for the vice-president should revolve around his skills and ideas, not his sex and skin complexion.

Biden chose her for both...and 14 days out, it's a rather moot point, no?

[Montmorency]

Ronald Reagan's solicitor general admits that Democrats probably have to expand the courts to constrain the attempted repeal of the 20th century.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/opinion/biden-supreme-court.html

Here are some more realistic poll numbers (https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1318555816195203074) for your consumption:


Here's my latest running average of demographic splits in national live-interview polls [Ed. The highest-quality and most reliable method] w/ new NYT/Siena added in. Biden's surged w/ 65+ between Sept. and Oct., but just a big a deal is the steady decline in undecided/third party since June/July (and vs. '16, of course).

https://i.imgur.com/qEBixi7.png



My bad, I phrased it badly. I was referring to the Hispanics considerable support for the Republican party. Cuban émigrés compose a large part of that demographic, but Republican influence is also present in other groups of Hispanic males. Hispanics and blacks share many of the conservative values espoused by the Republican party. If its officials didn't parrot racism so often and had actually tempered their anti-immigrant rhetoric, they would have more than covered their losses from the alienated far-right voters.

Cuban-Americans compose maybe 4% of the national Hispanic population. They are a negligible presence outside Florida.

The "considerable" support of Hispanics for the Republican party is on the order of the support for Democrats among the most Republican states (i.e. ~33%).

I doubt Republicans have ever had a majority of Hispanic voters nationally, or at least in the time since the category was first introduced.


I agree completely, it was racist. It was speculated that Kamala Harris will attract more black and women votes for Biden, which I find it an implicitly condescending and derogatory view on blacks. The stagnation of Biden's popularity and Trump's moderate gains indicate that the premise was wrong, despite the president's obvious incompetence, gaffes and inflammatory remarks.

To proceed from the assumption that women or non-whites are selected in politics to "attract votes" is hard to justify, and evidently insulting. A more accurate rendering would be that e.g. Harris's selection is meant to reward voters by demonstrating awareness of the importance of representation (in principle and to the Democratic base). But even that isn't quite right. The simplest way to understand it is:

2016 was an election that by all right should have resulted in the inauguration of a woman president, but instead led to a monstrous misogynist (among other things) taking the intervening years to achieve the distinction of becoming the worst president in our history. In the contest to select a candidate to eject this man, the Democratic electorate settled on a reputationally-bland old white man over a squadron of female candidates (as well as more motivated men) including ones both qualified and well-liked. This result was admittedly in part due to the reported (arguably misplaced) anxiety among the Democratic electorate that only a white man could defeat the incumbent. Selecting a woman to be Democratic VP in 2020 is consequently at a minimum an exercise of distrainment on executive office. Of the available woman candidates, Harris was the "safest" pick, on top of being both well-qualified* and relatively popular.

Hence, she was picked.

*Of the men, the best-qualified was IMO Inslee, and the most popular - other than Biden - was of course Sanders. But leaving aside all the considerations above they would still be bad Vice Presidential picks on the merits (such as age).


The choice for the vice-president should revolve around his skills and ideas, not his sex and skin complexion.

I am very much of the opinion that white men should not be elevated simply for being white men. We've tried that for a long time.


she's a terrible candidate.

On what grounds? Reasonable criteria on which to judge a VP pick include: readiness to assume an active role in the White House; balancing against some attributes of the presidential nominee; being of no harm to the party's electoral calculus elsewhere (such as by opening a vulnerable seat); being not better used elsewhere; able to succeed the presidential nominee as a candidate themselves in future elections (the era of disposable vice presidents is long over in our system, though ironically since the time of Truman AFAIK the only VP or VP candidate who was explicitly intended never to run for President themselves was Joe Biden himself!)...


She's a populist

I've - never heard that term applied to Harris, so I wonder what you mean by it here.



Some good news lately: Jacinda Ardern's Labour has just won an outright majority in the New Zealand elections, terminating the need for a coalition arrangement with the nationalist New Zealand First party (strongly backed by Brexit architects) - as the party itself was also eliminated from Parliament.

Also, Bolivia just held elections to do over the quasi-coup a year ago, and the Socialists have scored a solid victory. The whole Bolivian right wing appears to accept the result.

[Crandar]

Hispanics vote for the Republican party, not for Trump, something which is not necessarily bad. American politics are still immaturely fixated on specific individuals, instead of party platforms. Republican conservatism is very close to the reactionary and anti-communist beliefs of Cuban émigrés, even if Donald's rants blur the picture. As I said earlier, the Democrats are very lucky that the Republicans are so unwilling to disavow the racist narrative endorsed by so many of its leading members.

To proceed from the assumption that women or non-whites are selected in politics to "attract votes" is hard to justify, and evidently insulting. A more accurate rendering would be that e.g. Harris's selection is meant to reward voters by demonstrating awareness of the importance of representation (in principle and to the Democratic base). But even that isn't quite right. The simplest way to understand it is:
I referred specifically to the vice-presidential picks. Of course it's insulting and racist, but that label applies for those that follow that policy, not for those who point it out. Your interpretation is very optimist, but I don't think it has much basis on reality. Vice-presidents have been traditionally selected, as campaign managers themselves admitted, to pander to the groups, which the president may find difficult to attract. Ideally, that would rely on their ideology, but that's an utopian expectation and Harris confirms the pattern, she doesn't contradict it. She's a populist, because she jumped to the progressive bandwagon, once she noticed the success of Sanders' and Obama's nomination campaigns. Unfortunately, her career (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-kamala-d-harris-defends-record-as-prosecutor-but-skips-some-details/2019/06/08/22cf194c-89ed-11e9-a491-25df61c78dc4_story.html) as a prosecutor (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html) puts her liberal credentials into doubt and she has consistently refused to take a firm (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/kamala-harris-joe-biden-busing/593623/) position (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/upshot/kamala-harris-medicare-for-all-debate.html) on issues that divide moderate and radical Democrats. She criticises her opponents for lack of empathy, but her ideas seem as coherent as those of a big-tent coalition in a post colourful revolution in an Eastern European republic.

2016 was an election that by all right should have resulted in the inauguration of a woman president, but instead led to a monstrous misogynist (among other things) taking the intervening years to achieve the distinction of becoming the worst president in our history.
What do you mean by "should have"? In the sense that she would have prevailed, hadn't been for the Electoral College? Anyway, you can see Hillary's defeat from a more positive angle. If she had won, the historical mark of the first female presidency would have been tainted that she won, because of dynastic connections and nepotism, like Bush Jr. Not an inaccurate observation, given her mediocre record, as a minister of foreign affairs, and her exceptional lack of charisma. Now, thanks to her defeat, there's still the opportunity to see a female politician rise to the presidency through her rhetorical, political and administrative skills.

Some good news lately: Jacinda Ardern's Labour has just won an outright majority in the New Zealand elections, terminating the need for a coalition arrangement with the nationalist New Zealand First party (strongly backed by Brexit architects) - as the party itself was also eliminated from Parliament.
Also, Bolivia just held elections to do over the quasi-coup a year ago, and the Socialists have scored a solid victory. The whole Bolivian right wing appears to accept the result.
Hey, we also put our Nazis in jail! You never mention a good piece of news about Greece, are we all debt to you?!

[ReluctantSamurai]

Hispanics vote for the Republican party, not for Trump, something which is not necessarily bad.

Hispanics are indeed, usually conservative. Voting GOP being not necessarily bad might have been true 15-20 years ago. But the advent of the Tea Party movement in 2010 changed much of that. The state of the GOP today can be partly summed up in Mitch McConnell...he'd rather ram through an unpopular SCOTUS appointment than vote on a relief bill, and has flipped the bird to the American people by stating it openly.


American politics are still immaturely fixated on specific individuals, instead of party platforms.

Which is why our government has to clean house in terms of today's GOP, because the Republican Party has been hijacked by CoviDon. And just as bad, Republicans have no particular platform or plan for the US other than to pander to the idiot in White House. That they have no particular platform was made clear at the RNC where they laughably cut-and-pasted the same platform document they drafted in 2016, including rhetoric about the incompetent current president:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/us/politics/republicans-platform.html


Every four years since 1856, the Republican Party has produced a platform articulating its priorities for the next president.

But like so much else disrupted by President Trump, the Republican National Committee has dispensed with producing a 2020 platform, instead passing a resolution renewing what delegates enacted in 2016, bashing the news media and offering wholehearted support for Mr. Trump.

The only thing new was a "list" put out by CoviDon:


The list functions as a greatest hits of Mr. Trump’s recent proclamations, including, under his plans for confronting the coronavirus crisis, pledges such as “Return to Normal in 2021” and “Develop a Vaccine by The End Of 2020,” which, of course, take place entirely in Mr. Trump’s current term in office.

The priorities document, which for reasons unexplained capitalizes nearly every word in it, also pledges to “Hold China Fully Accountable for Allowing the Virus to Spread around the World.” There is also a pledge to send a manned mission to Mars and “Get Allies to Pay their Fair Share.”

There is no mention of abortion or the Second Amendment, which have long been animating features of the social conservative wing of Republican politics. The only foreign country mentioned by name is China, under a section titled “end our reliance on China.” A section on innovation offers a goal to “Partner with Other Nations to Clean Up our Planet’s Oceans.”

That's the sad part, here's the laughable part:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/politics/republican-platform.html


“The survival of the internet as we know it is at risk,” the platform reads. “Its gravest peril originates in the White House, the current occupant of which has launched a campaign, both at home and internationally, to subjugate it to agents of government.”

The platform censures the “current” president — who in 2016 was, of course, Barack Obama — and his administration for, among other things, imposing “a social and cultural revolution,” causing a “huge increase in the national debt” and damaging relationships with international partners.

“The Middle East is more dangerous now than at any time since the Second World War,” the platform reads. “Whatever their disagreements, presidents of both parties had always prioritized America’s national interests, the trust of friendly governments, and the security of Israel. That sound consensus was replaced with impotent grandstanding on the part of the current President and his Secretaries of State. The results have been ruinous for all parties except Islamic terrorists and their Iranian and other sponsors.”

Oh the irony of those statements:laugh4:

Trying to justify their laziness:


Melody Potter, an R.N.C. member from West Virginia who sat on the party’s platform committee in 2016 and planned to run for a seat on it this August, said she was pleased the platform was being rolled over for 2020.

“The 2016 platform is the best one we’ve had in 40 years, so I’m fine with renewing it and extending it to 2024,” she said. “As a matter of fact, and you can quote me on this, I think it is a ray of sunshine in this whole messy storm.”

Campaign operatives, for their part, defended the old document. “President Trump won in 2016 with this platform and he’ll win again in 2020 with this platform,” said Justin Clark, senior counsel to the campaign.

You are fixating on racism as THE reason CoviDon and the rest of the GOP are likely to lose big in two weeks. That certainly hasn't helped their cause with black voters, but it won't be the singular reason they get voted out of office, if that happens. The opportunity to secure the next decade for the GOP was lost in their abysmal response to the pandemic and the resulting economic debacle. Those two factors are ranked #1 & #2 with voters.

All this talk about Harris being a bad choice for Biden's VP is moot. The choice was made, and the election is two weeks away. Move on.


If she had won, the historical mark of the first female presidency would have been tainted that she won, because of dynastic connections and nepotism, like Bush Jr.

The real question is whether the US would be better off today with Hillary leading the pandemic response, than CoviDon:inquisitive:


Last edited by Crandar; Today at 04:56. Reason: Correcting Montmorency's unprecedented bias against the beacon of civilisation.

:laugh4:

On a lighter note:

https://www.facebook.com/JimmyKimmelLive/videos/handy-don/667311987554598/

[Montmorency]

Hispanics vote for the Republican party, not for Trump, something which is not necessarily bad.

All I know indicates this is not true. It is not a necessity of the universe that it not be true, and maybe it will change in the future somehow, but empirically it has not occurred. Even in 2000-2012, when the Republican party was officially (nominally) committed to courting the Hispanic vote, they didn't post gains among Hispanics beyond the Bush Jr. years.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/02/hispanic-voters-more-engaged-in-2018-than-in-previous-midterms/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/09/how-latinos-voted-in-2018-midterms/
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2012/11/07/latino-voters-in-the-2012-election/

I note you've made a habit of overstating the conservativity of non-whites. Liberal whites are less conservative compared to all non-whites. Duh! But what you should look at is how liberal the liberal non-whites are, and what the proportions are of liberal share among all whites and all non-whites. A more interesting approach is the theory that as American society gradually becomes less segregated (a nonlinear process, nor an inevitable one), more whites will spend time with more non-whites, and vice versa, which is to say that members of a racial or ethnic group will on average spend less time in the social company of co-racials. The effect of this could be expected to be a mutual assimilation of political and partisan habits, as it can already be observed that whites with more non-white friends are more likely to vote Democratic than other whites, and non-whites with more white friends are more likely to vote Republican. How much of this is actually causal is of course unclear, but it is at least an interesting observation and fodder for long-term theories.

(Also, it's very bad for anyone to vote for the Republican Party. They may not yet be as personally, physically brutal as Golden Dawn, but they've done vastly more damage to people and culture and the world than Golden Dawn have. Imagine Greece under a decade of Golden Dawn domination.)


I referred specifically to the vice-presidential picks. Of course it's insulting and racist, but that label applies for those that follow that policy, not for those who point it out.

I mean, the framing is racist. Is it "pandering" to promise or indicate that you will take someone's interests into account? That's the fundamental basis of politics!

I would say, especially as a European, you have blind spots when it comes to American racial politics. (As for gender politics there's no excuse not to engage with that anywhere.)

https://www.prri.org/research/amid-multiple-crises-trump-and-biden-supporters-see-different-realities-and-futures-for-the-nation/

https://i.imgur.com/bpYU3GQ.png
https://i.imgur.com/HfMymsb.png


Your interpretation is very optimist, but I don't think it has much basis on reality. Vice-presidents have been traditionally selected, as campaign managers themselves admitted, to pander to the groups, which the president may find difficult to attract

Of course they do! Abraham Lincoln chose a Democrat for his unity ticket in 1864, to reassure the moderates and Copperheads. Democrats have almost always put Southerners on the ticket, starting with their history as the party of the South and continuing even up to the present day when that was far from being the case. Obama notably chose Biden to reassure white voters and moderates. Hillary Clinton chose Tim Kaine to reassure men and Southerners, as well as for his good standing among both blacks and Hispanics. But that's only one criterion, and not even a very cogent one since VP picks don't actually convert voters historically and the other considerations I mentioned are of practical importance. (Indeed, Andrew Johnson infamously turned out to be the very worst VP pick in American history as he was basically a traitor and seditionist once in office.)


Ideally, that would rely on their ideology, but that's an utopian expectation and Harris confirms the pattern, she doesn't contradict it.

You should look for the connections of the above to ideology and substantive politics. If you're drawing ideology solely in terms of policy platform, I struggle to imagine a world in which that would be a useful and relevant addition given the limitations of the office - and therefore a pick on the basis of "ideology" in those terms would be far from ideal. Except for pandering to certain ideological factions I guess, but there are better ways to accomplish that than to stock a position that is most important for being able to fill the Presidency as needed (About a quarter of all US presidents have either died in office, resigned, or been seriously incapacitated during their terms) with a mere opinion-holder.

These musings of visionary selection resemble, if anything, the naive system set up by the Framers in the late 18th century, where the default assumption was that each candidate would be a pure individual and the vice president would most likely be the runner-up in the presidential election. This system was such a disaster it was immediately reformed.


She's a populist, because she jumped to the progressive bandwagon, once she noticed the success of Sanders' and Obama's nomination campaigns.

I've never heard populism defined as trying to identify and pursue popular policies, which again strikes me as you attempting to exoticize the most basic conceptions of political behavior. Populist, though a nebulous term, is usually thought to minimally feature the rhetoric of elites vs. The People and promises to overturn some putative model of the social power structure. It sounds more like you're trying to contend that she's an opportunist, which is debatable but irrelevant as to the results we seek even if apt.


Unfortunately, her career (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-kamala-d-harris-defends-record-as-prosecutor-but-skips-some-details/2019/06/08/22cf194c-89ed-11e9-a491-25df61c78dc4_story.html) as a prosecutor (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html) puts her liberal credentials into doubt and she has consistently refused to take a firm (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/kamala-harris-joe-biden-busing/593623/) position (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/upshot/kamala-harris-medicare-for-all-debate.html) on issues that divide moderate and radical Democrats. She criticises her opponents for lack of empathy, but her ideas seem as coherent as those of a big-tent coalition in a post colourful revolution in an Eastern European republic.

It's fine to mistrust Harris or disagree with her ideas or policies (though one should also take into account her recent record), but I don't get what your point is here.


What do you mean by "should have"? In the sense that she would have prevailed, hadn't been for the Electoral College? Anyway, you can see Hillary's defeat from a more positive angle. If she had won, the historical mark of the first female presidency would have been tainted that she won, because of dynastic connections and nepotism, like Bush Jr. Not an inaccurate observation, given her mediocre record, as a minister of foreign affairs, and her exceptional lack of charisma.

"Should have" primarily in the sense that Donald Trump was unfit in any capacity to hold any office of public trust.

Doesn't seem like a valid comparison. Notably, Clinton won more votes than Trump, whereas Bush was literally helped along in seizing the election for himself by his brother, then the governor of Florida. Now there's nepotism, among other things. Simply being related to another politician is not a bar for nepotism. Hillary Clinton put in decades of work establishing herself in the party, whether you like her or not. Dark horses like Angela Merkel are one in a million and can't serve as a basis for a political system.


Now, thanks to her defeat, there's still the opportunity to see a female politician rise to the presidency through her rhetorical, political and administrative skills.

Clinton was well-regarded for all the above...


Hey, we also put our Nazis in jail! You never mention a good piece of news about Greece, are we all debt to you?!

Good to know.



The real question is whether the US would be better off today with Hillary leading the pandemic response, than CoviDon:inquisitive:


I have a metaphysical bone to pick with these sorts of counterfactuals, but in setting up a parallel universe similar to ours we could imagine that the conditions facing a Clinton presidency could in some - only some! - ways make it dispreferable to a Trump presidency.

In this blue-sky America with President quasi-Clinton following a close election, Congress would be divided to the point that no legislation or judicial appointments would pass through, leaving the country ungovernable. Who knows if this situation would be resolved or merely exacerbated in the midterms, whether Clinton would be assisted or punished by voters for the lack of action. Certainly the entire conservative movement and all its media apparatuses had for decades been trained on the vilification of Clintons, so it would have been easy for Fox News to whip up an even greater negative frenzy among the Republican base than exists today. A natural disaster, or a pandemic like this, would be well-managed at the top of the executive but there would be even more intense and organized resistance to the dictates of the central or blue state governments among Republican voters and politicians alike (remember the Clinton tyranny, UN black helicopters, and OWG memes of the 1990s? We haven't seen the limits of the militia movement in our reality...). There would also be no legislative disaster aid of any sort forthcoming from a likely-hostile Congress, so the economy would have no cushion, for which the Beltway and conservative media would criticize Clinton for failing to apply leaderly leadership and force Republicans to put country above party. Under such conditions, following 3 terms of Democratic presidential control, a Republican landslide would be available.

But all this doesn't mean we should be 'grateful' that Trump became President, since all we have to go on is the actual event and it sucks.

[ReluctantSamurai]

But all this doesn't mean we should be 'grateful' that Trump became President, since all we have to go on is the actual event and it sucks.

The 'could have/would have' game is rather pointless, but it's hard to imagine anyone with a worse pandemic response than CoviDon. Dubious that there wouldn't be some sort of COVID aid stimulus. The pandemic was always going to wreak havoc with the economy, and that disaster would've cut across party lines. Maybe better oversight in how the money got spent happens? Anyway........:shrug:

[Montmorency]

https://i.imgur.com/0xZrLYr.jpg

As of this morning. By the end of the weekend as many votes will have been recorded as were recorded for Trump in the entire 2016 cycle. The election is Nov. 3.

It doesn't surprise me that New York is a total dead zone on this map, as early voting in New York only begins today and our mail voting administration has been a national disgrace (though maybe it will be better this time...).


:daisy:right off. :daisy:. :daisy:. The last months have really just been too narratively-neat.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/dutch-hacker-trump-twitter-account-password/


A Dutch security researcher says he accessed President Trump’s @realDonaldTrump Twitter account last week by guessing his password: “maga2020!”.

Victor Gevers, a security researcher at the GDI Foundation and chair of the Dutch Institute for Vulnerability Disclosure, which finds and reports security vulnerabilities, told TechCrunch he guessed the president’s account password and was successful on the fifth attempt.

The account was not protected by two-factor authentication, granting Gevers access to the president’s account.

After logging in, he emailed US-CERT, a division of Homeland Security’s cyber unit Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), to disclose the security lapse, which TechCrunch has seen. Gevers said the president’s Twitter password was changed shortly after.

It’s the second time Gevers has gained access to Trump’s Twitter account.

The first time was in 2016, when Gevers and two others extracted and cracked Trump’s password from the 2012 LinkedIn breach. The researchers took his password — “yourefired” — his catchphrase from the television show “The Apprentice” — and found it let them into his Twitter account. Gevers reported the breach to local authorities in the Netherlands, with suggestions on how Trump could improve his password security. One of the passwords he suggested at the time was “maga2020!” he said. Gevers said he “did not expect” the password to work years later.


One of the best arguments for Maoism (https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/local-politics/trailer-park-biden-voter-intimidation-letter/73-56daf9cd-5eb8-49eb-a768-4e3cb08640a3) I've ever seen.

https://i.imgur.com/dwfK9j8.jpg

[Hooahguy]

I've been trying to remember where I saw this (maybe on twitter) of a long line of HBCU alumna and their families marching and singing to the polls in North Carolina to vote early. Honestly was incredibly inspiring to watch. Gives me hope.

Also, on this day a year ago this prescient tweet (https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1187829299207954437?s=20) was made:

Joe Biden: We are not prepared for a pandemic. Trump has rolled back progress President Obama and I made to strengthen global health security. We need leadership that builds public trust, focuses on real threats, and mobilizes the world to stop outbreaks before they reach our shores.

[Montmorency]

Cool voting story.
https://twitter.com/lilianxoxx/status/1318659648447238151


my dad went to go vote and he said that as soon as he got there a woman approached him and asked, rudely, if she could help him and he was like i’m here to vote??? and the lady was like “oh wow YOU can vote? are you SURE? let me see your ID.” after he showed it to her she showed him where to check in and the woman there told him he wasn’t registered. he told her that he was and that he checked before the deadline to register and again the day he went to vote. the woman said “no you aren’t. when was the last time you voted” and he said in 2016 and the lady was like “you’re supposed to vote in local elections too or you’re not registered anymore” and he was like “that’s not true!!!” and she goes “here fill this out and you’ll be able to vote in 2-3 weeks” AND IT WAS A REGISTRATION APPLICATION and so he was like “registration is closed in texas and i KNOW i’m already registered so show me where it says i’m not registered” and he said as soon as they typed his name into the computer ALL of his information popped up my dad understands english (for the most part) and can somewhat speak it (although it’s choppy) so he was lucky he was able to defend himself against these women who OBVIOUSLY didn’t want him to vote and who seemed surprised he was even able to imagine what it’s like for people who can’t understand english or aren’t able to speak it at these polling sites where people actively try to prevent minorities from voting texas loves voter suppression happened at eastfield college pleasant grove campus


OK (https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/absentee-and-early-voting-youth-2020-election), now I'm starting to think early voting could mean something. But what must confirm the result is the number and demographics of voters on Election Day itself. We could see as much as 75% of the 2016 total vote tally by Nov. 3, but I doubt it will reach or exceed that. But even if it does, Election Day determines total turnout. Since there's little basis for making firm predictions, for all we know this is an election where turnout finally reaches 70% in this country; that's only to be settled in a couple weeks. This early voting data is only prescient inasmuch as it carries through Election Day. (If total youth turnout reaches beyond 50% we're easily talking a 400+ EV landslide.)

https://i.imgur.com/eGix2Fw.png

[Xantan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TambSayfCOE

In depth, rather humorous, analysis of 538 about polls.

[Xantan]

Speaking of elections and the current state, a significant problem explained below.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxpHI53T3zs

[Hooahguy]

Fascinating data (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/25/us/politics/trump-biden-campaign-donations.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur) from the NYT: the day Biden decisively overtook Trump in raising money was the day that he picked Harris as his VP. Also Trump only outraised Biden on two days over the past two months.

24023

[Hooahguy]

Has it hit anyone else that the election day is in less than a week? Crazy.

Meanwhile my very conservative university professor/advisor told me today that he voted straight Dem in Georgia today for the first time ever. Pretty amazed. I dont want to get my hopes up, but my former professor cant be the only one.

[edyzmedieval]

Has it hit anyone else that the election day is in less than a week? Crazy.

Meanwhile my very conservative university professor/advisor told me today that he voted straight Dem in Georgia today for the first time ever. Pretty amazed. I dont want to get my hopes up, but my former professor cant be the only one.

Are you throwing an Election Night party? :grin2:

KFC, McDonalds, Domino's... actually wait, Popeye's Chicken Sandwich, since that is the biggest hot topic right now.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Regarding earlier posts about "hispanic" voters in USA.

1. The more recent term of art is Latinex, avoiding a presumption of sex superiority and noting that Spanish, while very common as a language and cultural antecedent of these cultures and co-cultures, is not ubiquitous. Portugese, Nuhuatl (sp?), and Mayan influences along with any number of West African influences are part of the Latinex mix.

2. Latinex voters are not a monolith. Cuban descent, especially among older generations, are staunchly GOP on the basis of hate/opposition for the Castro regime. Most of the other Latinex groups are much more divided and many trend Democratic.

[Hooahguy]

Are you throwing an Election Night party? :grin2:

KFC, McDonalds, Domino's... actually wait, Popeye's Chicken Sandwich, since that is the biggest hot topic right now.
Nah, right now the plan is to order a bunch of food and do a Witcher 3 marathon.

What are everyone elses plans?

[Pannonian]

Has it hit anyone else that the election day is in less than a week? Crazy.

Meanwhile my very conservative university professor/advisor told me today that he voted straight Dem in Georgia today for the first time ever. Pretty amazed. I dont want to get my hopes up, but my former professor cant be the only one.

The current round of UK-EU Brexit talks is due to end on 3rd November. Is anything happening on that date?

[Pannonian]

Regarding earlier posts about "hispanic" voters in USA.

1. The more recent term of art is Latinex, avoiding a presumption of sex superiority and noting that Spanish, while very common as a language and cultural antecedent of these cultures and co-cultures, is not ubiquitous. Portugese, Nuhuatl (sp?), and Mayan influences along with any number of West African influences are part of the Latinex mix.

2. Latinex voters are not a monolith. Cuban descent, especially among older generations, are staunchly GOP on the basis of hate/opposition for the Castro regime. Most of the other Latinex groups are much more divided and many trend Democratic.

When I see the word staunch, this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhUBSrMeue8) comes to mind.

[edyzmedieval]

Nah, right now the plan is to order a bunch of food and do a Witcher 3 marathon.

What are everyone elses plans?

I'm not a particular fan of American Football as an European, but usually for SuperBowl night I would just get a lot of American food and feel American for one evening.

I'll do the same next week.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is American food a plus over British or not, one wonders.

:laugh4:

[Hooahguy]

I've had British food, its no wonder they kept invading France, to get better cooks.

[Pannonian]

I've had British food, its no wonder they kept invading France, to get better cooks.

It's an old joke that Britain took over India so we could get their cuisine.

[Pannonian]

Is American food a plus over British or not, one wonders.

:laugh4:

American portions tend to be bigger, so I guess it's a literal plus.

[Montmorency]

Final predictions from the hip: I think in the end there will be many races that come up frustratingly short. Republican cheating tilts the margins nationally in their favor by a few points, but this will vary wildly state-by-state and can't really be estimated. The SCOTUS has signaled a chilling willingness to demand the cessation of tallying as early as midnight Nov. 4, especially when it comes to Pennsylvania - so who knows? Thus all predictions below regard the certified results in an election as smooth as we can hope for, not votes tout court.

National vote pseudo-confidence intervals (these haven't changed that much from my early 2020 prognosis, maybe the range is a couple points up for Biden and the reverse for Trump):

Biden almost always wins between 51-55%.
Trump almost always wins 41-45%.
I thought earlier on that the third party vote would always be less than 2%, but by now I'll estimate within 1-3% (so, often a little more than 2%).


Biden will take Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, thus securing the Electoral College. He will be certified the winner in one or two of Arizona, Florida, North Carolina. He will win one of Texas, Ohio, Georgia. He will probably win one of the longshot small states: Montana, Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, South Carolina, etc.

In Senate races, Democrats will lose the Alabama seat but gain seats in Colorado and Arizona. They will win one of the Georgia seats (both will almost certainly head to a runoff in January, a less favorable environment) and two of three in Iowa, Maine, and North Carolina*. They will win one of the stretch races among South Carolina, Alaska, Kansas, and Montana. I would be shocked if Dems beat either Cornyn in Texas, McConnell in Kentucky, or Hyde-Smith in Mississippi. Arriving at a total of 52 seats. Maybe +/- 1.

*North Carolina seemed like an easy gain this cycle, but the polls have narrowed to a toss-up since news broke early in the month of the Democrat candidate's disgustingly-PG affair.

In the House, Dems probably expand their majority by fewer than 10 seats.


Montana is one of the most dynamic states because there are close races for Governor, Senate seat, and single House seat that Democrats could sweep together in a landslide. Anything could happen.


All else is a hold.


(Ideally, Biden sweeps all the red and battleground states within striking distance for a 450-EV victory, we hold the Senate seat in Alabama and win all the close or stretch races for 57 or 58 Senate seats, gain 30 House seats, and break Republican trifectas in up to half a dozen states.)


===========


Since the end of Sunday more than 20 million early votes have been recorded. Between the beginning of September and the end of last Sunday, there had been ~60 million early votes: a record high. That is, in 4 days, with 5 to go until Election Day, early votes recorded grew from less than 60 million to 80 million. There were fewer than 140 million votes recorded in 2016.

The early vote in Texas has already exceeded ALL , I repeat, 100%, of votes recorded in Texas in 2016. Florida is not far behind; a MAJORITY of registered voters have already voted in Florida.

It is now quite likely that this election will see the most early votes ever cast, the most mail votes ever cast, and the highest proportion of mail or early votes of the total vote. Depending on just how much turnout there is on Election Day itself, or in late-arriving mail ballots, less than 40% of the total vote could be submitted/accepted on Election Day itself. In-person elections and the idea of a single-day election could be increasingly viewed as anachronistic.

Many are forecasting the highest turnout for a US national election since 1904 or 1900.

So far, polls of early voters suggest a 2-1 advantage for Democrats in the early vote as proceeding, whereas Election Day voters lean something less than that for Republicans. If this split holds, and a rather small minority of ballots are cast on Election Day, then the implications... are shocking.

We should be ready for anything, but sexy times is on the menu.

Just remember where to watch for Supreme Court skulduggery:


In some closely watched battleground states, like Arizona and Florida, elections officials are allowed to start counting mail-in ballots. But in other battleground states, like Wisconsin, Michigan Pennsylvania, they're not allowed to start counting mail-in ballots until Election Day.


Speaking of which, lol:
https://i.imgur.com/bfrS4l3.jpg


Speaking of Gorsuch, the gang have recently issued some very interesting opinions on electoral questions.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/pennsylvania-late-ballots-supreme-court-alito.html
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/north-carolina-pennsylvania-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-ballots.html

Maybe to count votes in some states when counts are completed in other states will turn out to offend the sovereign dignity of the equal protection of all votes. :shrug:

[Montmorency]

Important short video clip.
https://twitter.com/JamaalBowmanNY/status/1321205353250435078 [VIDEO]

Wow, Trump has held more than 60 rallies this year, of which more than a dozen in the past 7 days. Previously I had remarked that the 3 dozen rallies he held ahead of the midterms were the hardest he had ever worked in his life. He's really wilding in the last throes of his political career.


jesus :daisy: - but a reminder that Donald Trump could have cruised to reelection had he not been one of the very worst leaders in world history.


Why Duterte is the world’s most popular leader
(https://asiatimes.com/2020/10/why-duterte-is-the-worlds-most-popular-leader/)Philippine president's approval ratings hit 92% despite widespread perceptions he has bungled nation's health and economic crises


Seems plausible, wonder where it would fall for the 2020 cycle.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/26/republican-party-autocratic-hungary-turkey-study-trump

https://i.imgur.com/aVWqM8M.png


The Republican party has become dramatically more illiberal in the past two decades and now more closely resembles ruling parties in autocratic societies than its former centre-right equivalents in Europe, according to a new international study.

In a significant shift since 2000, the GOP has taken to demonising and encouraging violence against its opponents, adopting attitudes and tactics comparable to ruling nationalist parties in Hungary, India, Poland and Turkey.

The shift has both led to and been driven by the rise of Donald Trump.



Regarding earlier posts about "hispanic" voters in USA.

1. The more recent term of art is Latinex, avoiding a presumption of sex superiority and noting that Spanish, while very common as a language and cultural antecedent of these cultures and co-cultures, is not ubiquitous. Portugese, Nuhuatl (sp?), and Mayan influences along with any number of West African influences are part of the Latinex mix.

2. Latinex voters are not a monolith. Cuban descent, especially among older generations, are staunchly GOP on the basis of hate/opposition for the Castro regime. Most of the other Latinex groups are much more divided and many trend Democratic.

I dislike Latinx because it is phonotactically defective, and almost no actual Hispanics use it (which, to be clear, is itself a wholly-invented category centered on the American bureaucratic lens, is not formally synonymous with Latino, and is as valid as any term when it comes to endonymous usage). One poll found only 3% uptake (https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/). But it is understandable that Latinx would have minimal uptake outside media style manuals and some college-educated youth; it was originated specifically by and for the part of the American Latin(x) transgender demographic who don't find representation in - typically - Spanish gendered inflection. It is unclear that their preference can become a universal standard.

I hear Latine is popular with the transgender demographic in Mexico, and it doesn't have the problems of Latinx; maybe it will catch on.

To be clear to all readers, almost no Hispanic or Latino groups in any state of the Union are anywhere close to voting 40%+ for Republicans, and have never been except for a window of time in the 90s and 2000s. Almost all polling confirms this. Imagine declaiming a demographic consisting of tens of millions as instinctively conservative when it routinely votes against Republicans at all levels by 20-40 points. Follow the numbers! If all Hispanics voted like Cubans and Republicans were less destructively-fascist (cf. the study referenced above), they really might hold permanent majorities. Meanwhile, I could entertain that the modal high-school educated white male in the suburbs is tanned, rested, and ready for the syndicalist revolution...
(Hint: high-school educated white men vote for Republicans in similar proportion to how Hispanics vote for Democrats)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nah, right now the plan is to order a bunch of food and do a Witcher 3 marathon.

What are everyone elses plans?


Probably making myself a Tom Collins and watching Progressive political streamers on twitch.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Meanwhile, I could entertain that the modal high-school educated white male in the suburbs is tanned, rested, and ready for the syndicalist revolution...
(Hint: high-school educated white men vote for Republicans in similar proportion to how Hispanics vote for Democrats)

The same frustration with the state that Trump's tapped into could just as easily been tapped into by syndicalist leftists if the conditions were right. Many people who voted for Trump in 2016 liked Bernie as well, that only can be reconciled by understanding the policies were inconsequential, it was a movement to defer against the status quo and our system of state endorsed winners and losers.

Now, after 4 years of indoctrination many probably stick with Trump because Clinton and Hunter Biden are eating babies in a pizza parlor somewhere in Ukraine... but depending on how the votes turn out it seems like a non-negligible portion of 2016 Trump voters are/have moved to Biden.

[ReluctantSamurai]

but depending on how the votes turn out it seems like a non-negligible portion of 2016 Trump voters are/have moved to Biden

Not sure about that. I have no data to support my belief, but it sure seems that outside of Ever Trumper fanatics, there are a significant number of people like the proverbial white suburban women and the "boomers" who don't like CoviDon as a person even as they might agree with some of his policies...:shrug:

Some election humor:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/oct/31/vote-your-cast-who-is-the-greatest-fictional-us-president

[Gilrandir]

Now, after 4 years of indoctrination many probably stick with Trump because Clinton and Hunter Biden are eating babies in a pizza parlor somewhere in Ukraine...

Objection, your honor. There are no pizza parlors in Ukriane. Otherwise...

[Montmorency]

Essential resource on how long vote counts will take by state. Florida should mercifully give us a result Nov. 3 or 4, but a lot of states will take weeks to count all their ballots (some don't start until a week after E-day with their mail ballots!).
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-results-timing/

As you can see (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-pennsylvanias-vote-count-could-change-after-election-night/), Pennsylvania (https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign-chronicles/in-pennsylvania-republicans-might-only-need-to-stall-to-win) will be rat:daisy: central (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-29/pennsylvania-voting-could-become-an-election-nightmare). Hopefully enough states flip to Biden that Republicans' (also hopefully ineffective) methods will be moot.

https://twitter.com/AmyEGardner/status/1322179010915373058


Background RNC call on legal challenges and accusations that the GOP is making it harder to vote: "We don't like the construct of that narrative."


The US sanctions regime against Iran, such of it as was engaged post-JCPOA, is an illegitimate violation of a consensus international accord and a reckless act of aggression. Nevertheless, those sanctions are American law; Donald Trump has emphasized sanctions one of his central planks in prosecuting his 'successful' containment operation against our foe Iran. The obverse of his rhetoric being the alleged failure and appeasement of previous administrations in obtaining the advantages (of some capacity) he claims to have secured for America.

Nevertheless, Donald Trump took a request from Turkey's Erdogan to squelch federal investigation of the highly politically-connected Turkish state bank Halkbank, investigation over billions in sanctions-violating transfers into Iran. Trump of course had previously sold out our Kurdish partners in Syria to tender Turkish loving just a year ago. The only question is whether Trump has had his Turkish business interests in mind or whether there are more direct kickbacks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/us/politics/trump-erdogan-halkbank.html

Weighting for how much we still don't know, the Trump administration has probably also distinguished itself by becoming the most licentiously-corrupt in American history.



With Lissu’s campaign (https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/29117/the-opposition-braces-for-violence-ahead-of-tanzania-elections) on hold, and the opposition still negotiating about forging a united front, the next steps in this high-stakes vote are unclear. Some observers fear that a second term for Magufuli would further erode Tanzania’s democratic norms and institutions. Already, the speaker of the National Assembly, Chama Cha Mapinduzi’s Job Ndugai, has stated he will move to abolish presidential terms limits if Magufuli wins reelection.

Tanzania, once a beacon of stability and democratic aspirations in East Africa, has become increasingly autocratic since Magufuli was elected president in 2015. Nicknamed “the bulldozer” during his days as the minister of public works, Magufuli won support among Tanzanians by promising to nationalize the country’s mining sector and spur infrastructure projects. As president, he has been ruthless in his suppression of dissent.

...Magufuli portrays support for his economic agenda as a key part of Tanzania’s national identity. “Anyone who is critical of his resource nationalism approach is seen as anti-state [and] not patriotic enough,” Jacob told WPR. The ruling party uses similar tactics to tar its critics, including journalists.

At a jubilant rally one recent evening in the town of Geita, in northwestern Tanzania, Tundu Lissu sang along to Bob Marley’s “One Love” as he looked out on the sun setting over a sea of cheering supporters. The opposition firebrand is running to replace incumbent President John Magufuli in a general election later this month; he has been on the campaign trail since late August, drawing massive crowds at each stop.

“Everywhere I’ve gone, I’ve looked people in the eye,” Lissu told World Politics Review in an interview. “Everywhere I’ve gone, people are so happy. It’s unbelievable, and it’s uplifting.” He returned home this summer after three years in exile, part of which was spent recovering after unidentified gunmen shot him 16 times in 2017, in what he suspects was an assassination attempt.

Last Friday, however, the National Electoral Commission suspended his campaign for seven days, accusing Lissu of using “seditious language” and violating election rules. It’s the latest blow to the opposition, with the Oct. 28 elections fast approaching.

Magufuli, of the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi party, appears determined to curtail his opponents’ ability to participate in a free and fair vote. Dozens of opposition hopefuls at the municipal and parliamentary level were disqualified from this year’s race by the National Electoral Commission in August, leaving the ruling party running unopposed in certain areas of the country.

“The harassment is continuous, it is meticulous, it is down to the smallest detail,” said Robert Amsterdam, a lawyer for Lissu, who also defends the popstar-turned-presidential-candidate Bobi Wine in Uganda.

Even campaign posters have been weaponized by the government, which recently enacted a new tax on posting promotional materials, making it too expensive for the opposition to print and share posters, placards and fliers. “A political party should not be subjected to paying taxes on posters,” said Zitto Kabwe, head of the opposition Alliance for Change and Transparency party, or ACT-Wazalendo. “Posters are a public service, where citizens get a chance to know the candidates.”

Kabwe’s party has not been spared in the recent crackdown. Three ACT-Wazalendo members were arrested last month, and while two have since been released, the party’s social media officer, Dotto Rangimoto, remains in police custody for allegedly committing cybercrimes. And according to Human Rights Watch, more than a dozen government critics have been arrested since mid-June.

Violence has also increased as elections draw closer. Police teargassed Lissu’s convoy as he traveled to a rally last week, firing chemicals into the crowd for some 15 minutes. And a disturbing video shared on social media shows people bleeding after apparently having been beaten with sticks in clashes with security forces.

Neither Magufuli’s office nor the electoral commission responded to emails from World Politics Review requesting comment on irregularities in the campaign process, and restrictions imposed on the opposition.

Undeterred by recent attacks, Lissu’s CHADEMA party and ACT-Wazalendo are currently in talks to unite behind Lissu ahead of Election Day. CHADEMA has already endorsed ACT-Wazalendo’s Seif Shariff Hamad, who is running for president of the semi-autonomous Zanzibar archipelago in a concurrent election. But authorities say these efforts could violate the rules. In a recent statement to the press, the deputy registrar for political parties, Sisty Nyahoza, said the law forbids political parties from forming coalitions this late in the election season.

The repressive environment also makes it difficult to hold the government accountable for its response to COVID-19. Since late April, Magufuli’s administration has not released any data about the spread of the coronavirus in Tanzania, maintaining that the country has rid itself of COVID-19 though prayer. It’s hard to challenge that official line for fear of retribution, and newspapers and television stations have been sanctioned for sharing warnings about the virus.

“I grew up in a fairly peaceful country,” said Mwanahamisi Singano, a Tanzanian women’s rights advocate. “I took that for granted,” she added. “Every time you feel this possibly won’t get worse, it gets worse.”

With fears of a rigged vote looming, U.S. Rep. Karen Bass, a Democrat from California, last week introduced a resolution in Congress calling for free and fair elections in Tanzania. “This is a critical moment in history and democratic backsliding must be called out wherever we see it,” she said in a statement. Sen. James Risch, an Idaho Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also condemned the suspension of Lissu’s campaign.

“I fear more police violence in the days and weeks ahead,” Lissu said. “The fear of violence in this election is much greater than in previous elections, and the reason is simple. We are winning. They know it and we know it.”

President Maga was reelected this week with 84% of the vote.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJxCdh1Ps48

.....

Good thing the federal executive in the United States doesn't administer national elections, I - guess?




The same frustration with the state that Trump's tapped into could just as easily been tapped into by syndicalist leftists if the conditions were right.

"[I]f the conditions were right" is doing an unsupportable amount of work here. Mesoamerica could have colonized Europe if the conditions were right.


Many people who voted for Trump in 2016 liked Bernie as well, that only can be reconciled by understanding the policies were inconsequential, it was a movement to defer against the status quo and our system of state endorsed winners and losers.

Not really. Bernie Sanders is wildly unpopular among Trump's base, and to the extent some of his supporter's "like" him it was out of a sense of respect for his perceived probity. His policies have no traction among that set except perhaps as nice things we can't have because of all the spooks and spics. It would be an interesting thought experiment, if Sanders could do better as a Republican nationally than John Kasich, but I doubt even that. To be a Republican is to prioritize sexism, racism, grievance culture, and performative cruelty to an extent that precludes policy-driven pitches.


Now, after 4 years of indoctrination many probably stick with Trump because Clinton and Hunter Biden are eating babies in a pizza parlor somewhere in Ukraine... but depending on how the votes turn out it seems like a non-negligible portion of 2016 Trump voters are/have moved to Biden.

Will be interesting to see the analysis of turnout vs. persuasion post-election, though we should also keep in mind that both parties -more so Republicans - have undergone a sorting spurt under Trump, meaning they have permanently lost some fraction of their base (who therefore can no longer be counted as swing voters). We saw some of this in 2018, which appears to really have been spurred by the durable defection of white suburban moderates.

[Montmorency]

It should honestly be already granted that Biden will win Florida and North Carolina. Given the following facts, and the speed and promptness with which NC and FL count votes, we should know the outcome there by the end of Nov. 3.
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/FL.html

59% of Florida registered voters have already had their votes recorded.

Party Count Percent
Democrats 3,276,786 39.5
Republicans 3,160,735 38.1
Minor 112,131 1.4
No Party 1,744,463 21.0
TOTAL 8,294,115 100.0

Most unaffiliated voters can be expected to break for Biden, giving him a bare majority. Say, currently, a margin of 200K votes.

What about the remaining vote, especially the in-person E-Day vote that can be expected to lean overwhelmingly Trumpian?

The thing is, before then perhaps 65-70% of all registered Florida voters will have had their votes recorded by early or absentee ballot. The cohort from 59 to 70% will maintain roughly the present margins; after all, most of these are mail ballots that had been cast a while ago. 1.5 million requested mail ballots are still outstanding. In-person early voting in Florida - which has leaned Republican - ends tomorrow I believe. There are active 14 million registered voters in Florida.

If 1 million more mail ballots are counted by the end, and the current 15+ point lead for Democrats persists, that translates to at least 3.1 million Dem votes vs. 2.3 million Repub votes.

If there is a huge surge in in-person early voting on the last day, and the early vote rises to 4.5 million votes but maintains existing margins that are basically the reciprocal of mail vote margins, then that comes out to 1.9 million Dem votes vs. 2.5 Repub votes.

Total early vote margin, out of 9.8 million 2-party votes, of 5 million Dem vs. 4.8 million, a lead of 200K.

In other words, the Democratic lead in Florida will only remain static at worst, and could plausibly expand (if there is not in fact a surge in last-minute early voting), up to the point that in-person votes begin to come in on E-Day.

What about the remaining vote, especially the in-person E-Day vote that can be expected to lean overwhelmingly Trumpian?

So, if we're talking about 70% turnout before the first ballot is cast on E-Day... Florida tends to have high turnout as a battleground state, but there is almost certainly not going to be above 80% total turnout in Florida this cycle. At the VERY outside, 15% of registered voters will vote on E-Day, or as little as 5% (or even less). That translates roughly to:

9 to 10 million Democratic-leaning early votes. A Democratic margin of hundreds of thousands of votes.
0.5 to 2.25 million strongly-Republican E-Day votes.

It is technically possible for Trump to prevail, but one would have to stipulate the absolute highest E-Day turnout with the worst-case partisan ratio (e.g. 2-1 Republican lean). A median scenario of a million 55-43 Republican-lean votes on E-Day still leaves Biden with a healthy margin.

And remember, I'm not even being that optimistic on Biden's behalf because I'm only distributing unaffiliated voters as mild Dem-leans, when in all probability they may be overwhelmingly turning out for Dems. If that is the case then even the best case for Republicans on E-Day can't swamp Biden.


As for North Carolina:
https://vt.ncsbe.gov/RegStat/Results/?date=10%2F31%2F2020
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/NC.html

There are 7.34 million registered voters in NC. As in Florida, ~59% of RV have had their votes recorded (4.35 million).

Early voting in NC has ended, so the remainder will be mail ballot receipts in the following days. About half a million mail ballots remain outstanding.

Party Count Percent
Democrats 1,633,774 37.6
Republicans 1,378,537 31.7
Minor 22,611 0.5
No Party 1,310,505 30.2
TOTAL 4,345,427 100.0

So far in North Carolina, once again applying conservative Dem-lean ratios for unaffiliated voters, Biden will have an even larger lead than in Florida - by proportion. Say, 53-46, or 2.3 million vs. 2 million.

But North Carolina will take some time to count E-Day votes, though, and NC has an especially-long window for receiving late mail ballots. What then?

To have round numbers let's be optimistic and stipulate 440K of the outstanding mail ballots will be counted in the end, and that the same partisan ratio obtains. That would bring turnout in NC to 65% of RV.

So far the parties have actually been close to evenly-matched in in-person early votes (which, again, has ended), so the Dems' current margin is entirely by virtue of the mail vote. Likely more than 3/5 of all mail ballots have been Dem votes, a staggering number. If we add 440K mail votes to the current totals, that would add roughly 280K Dem vs. 160K Repub votes, expanding the margin to more than 400K Dem votes. That would be a more than 8-point lead for Dems, 53 or 54% to 45%.

Such a lead would be even more difficult to overcome than in Florida. We can also grant turbocharged turnout for NC compared to baseline, so let's say that there will be 75% total turnout, going from 65 to 75 on E-Day. That means, say, 750K votes on E-Day, in-person. But we could go wild and distribute 66% of those votes to Republicans and that would only add 500K votes for Repubs compared to 225K for Dems, reducing the Dem lead by 275K. That would still be over a 100K lead for Biden in North Carolina!


Note, also, that in both these states the early vote alone will have reached or exceeded the total 2016 vote. Maybe... maybe when people vote, Republicans lose?

[a completely inoffensive name]

"[I]f the conditions were right" is doing an unsupportable amount of work here. Mesoamerica could have colonized Europe if the conditions were right.
It's not that far off. Left wing tankies and to a lesser extent progressives like to indulge in false victimhood and conspiracy theories just as much as the right. The only difference is that at this point in time, the right had better media penetration online at the right time. Look up Bannon's attempt at being a Hollywood writer before politics, if only Sci-fi had just paid him for a shit script for a b-movie the culture would have been so much different. Even 4-chan at one point was more leftist than not back during the Bush years.



Not really. Bernie Sanders is wildly unpopular among Trump's base, and to the extent some of his supporter's "like" him it was out of a sense of respect for his perceived probity. His policies have no traction among that set except perhaps as nice things we can't have because of all the spooks and spics. It would be an interesting thought experiment, if Sanders could do better as a Republican nationally than John Kasich, but I doubt even that. To be a Republican is to prioritize sexism, racism, grievance culture, and performative cruelty to an extent that precludes policy-driven pitches.
Nah, the sexism, racism, grievance culture only came about because Trump won in 2016 and Bernie bowed out, leaving no voice on the left that spoke to these people's frustrations.
If what you are saying is true, Trump should have been the landside winner in the primaries because he said these things out loud...but he wasn't he only got like 30-40% and plurality rules carried him across the finish line. Now he has 90%+ support because the rest have now taken the cues from the chosen leader and have become very comfortable in the new fascistic culture.

You seem to think people (Republicans) are simply racist and sexist to begin with and eagerly hop into bed with Trump because he is a reflection of them. The truth is most were frustrated, struggling, working class and middle class people who were taught by the Republican Party to hate and to vilify and to dehumanize. You can't tell me that dozens of districts went Obama 2012 to Trump 2016 because the racist residents simply had not found their idol until Trump to channel their hateful energy. Wouldn't these racists have fought tooth and nail to prevent Obama from winning in the first place?

It's a much sadder story than you write, and I feel like I have to push back on you hard on this because dehumanizing Trump voters as the hopelessly deplorable is a good way to get a permanently rebellious and violent faction.




Will be interesting to see the analysis of turnout vs. persuasion post-election, though we should also keep in mind that both parties -more so Republicans - have undergone a sorting spurt under Trump, meaning they have permanently lost some fraction of their base (who therefore can no longer be counted as swing voters). We saw some of this in 2018, which appears to really have been spurred by the durable defection of white suburban moderates.
The Dems still have some sorting to go, which the tricky thing to be scared of once Nancy retires... The tent is too big for Dems. unless the Republican Party apparatus itself crumbles along with its institutional and organizational structure we could have a Lib Dem situation pulling crucial votes away from the centrists and giving minority-majority rule back to the GOP.

If the GOP really does collapse into a regional party, we could have a short era of good feelings again. Although history rhymes and we would still be postponing the inevitable split between the centrists and the progressives.

[Montmorency]

Nah, the sexism, racism, grievance culture only came about because Trump won in 2016 and Bernie bowed out, leaving no voice on the left that spoke to these people's frustrations.
If what you are saying is true, Trump should have been the landside winner in the primaries because he said these things out loud...but he wasn't he only got like 30-40% and plurality rules carried him across the finish line. Now he has 90%+ support because the rest have now taken the cues from the chosen leader and have become very comfortable in the new fascistic culture.

You seem to think people (Republicans) are simply racist and sexist to begin with and eagerly hop into bed with Trump because he is a reflection of them. The truth is most were frustrated, struggling, working class and middle class people who were taught by the Republican Party to hate and to vilify and to dehumanize. You can't tell me that dozens of districts went Obama 2012 to Trump 2016 because the racist residents simply had not found their idol until Trump to channel their hateful energy. Wouldn't these racists have fought tooth and nail to prevent Obama from winning in the first place?

It's a much sadder story than you write, and I feel like I have to push back on you hard on this because dehumanizing Trump voters as the hopelessly deplorable is a good way to get a permanently rebellious and violent faction.

I'm sorry, that's all just wrong. Republican pols and voters disliked Trump insofar as they genuinely feared:

1. He would govern to the left in some ways, e.g. anti-corporate. (The 2016 electorate perceived Trump as more moderate than Clinton!!!)
2. He would not support the GOP infrastructure and judicial project.
3. He would lose.

Once all of that was proven mistaken Republicans rapidly gave Trump 85+% approval through thick and thin.

Your first sentence especially is totally unsupported and detached what we know of historical context.

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated the economic ideology or status have no correlation with Trump support (well, other than conservative economic ideology), but sexist and racist attitudes and cultural anxiety are almost a perfect correlation.

The narrative you're echoing was popular in 2017 but it's been categorically discredited.

The Obama-Trump demographic, who constitute a few million voters, ranked especially high on polls of racist and sexist and xenophobic attitudes - much higher than Romney-Clinton voters for example. We've discussed some of these results over the years on the Org. These voters were more comfortable with Obama when race and immigration had less salience (relatively speaking) as national issues, white Christian dominance was yet stronger, a superlatively-unpopular outgoing 2-term Republican incumbent was presiding over a Great Recession and failed War on Terror, Obama had not yet been thoroughly vilified in RWNJ media, and Fox News wasn't quite so brute-force about its agenda. I will grant you that at least in theory this small sliver of the electorate would have been more receptive to Sanders than other conservatives/"populists" in theory, but even there I am not aware of polling that supports such a theory.


The Dems still have some sorting to go, which the tricky thing to be scared of once Nancy retires... The tent is too big for Dems. unless the Republican Party apparatus itself crumbles along with its institutional and organizational structure we could have a Lib Dem situation pulling crucial votes away from the centrists and giving minority-majority rule back to the GOP.

Not at all. The electoral infrastructure and culture of the country cannot support such a third party. The conservative Dems and never-Trump Republicans will do what they have always done, which is try to influence the party from within. They've tended to have great success with this approach.


If the GOP really does collapse into a regional party, we could have a short era of good feelings again. Although history rhymes and we would still be postponing the inevitable split between the centrists and the progressives.

The GOP cannot collapse into a regional party because there are tens of millions of people responsive to their brand of plutocratic fascism, for one reason or another, spread rather evenly throughout the country. And most of them are very deep in the cult, whether that means QAnon or one of a million other delusions.

[a completely inoffensive name]

1. He would govern to the left in some ways, e.g. anti-corporate. (The 2016 electorate perceived Trump as more moderate than Clinton!!!)
2. He would not support the GOP infrastructure and judicial project.

No one had any idea how he would govern (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-ideology/) besides trying to kick out the Mexicans. With that being the baseline for people, if BUILD THE WALL didn't get the xenophobes all enthusiastic for him early on why the sudden popularity shift. So not only are Republicans really racist, but they are also that lazy about their racism? "I really hate this ethnicity and I love the guy who promises to remove them, but he doesn't look like he will win, so I guess I won't bother trying."

Also, did anyone really think McConnell was not going to drive his judicial project?!?! That Trump wasn't going to just rubber stamp Mitch's picks?

Obama had not yet been thoroughly vilified in RWNJ media, and Fox News wasn't quite so brute-force about its agenda.

Bro (https://youtu.be/dJpPktn4f0M?t=320), come on... in 2012??? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE&feature=emb_title)

Not at all. The electoral infrastructure and culture of the country cannot support such a third party. The conservative Dems and never-Trump Republicans will do what they have always done, which is try to influence the party from within. They've tended to have great success with this approach.

Well given the recent electoral success of the Lib Dems, it doesn't really seem like the UK can support a third party as well, but so it goes.
Whether or not the progressives are ready or able to split, a Dem majority leader that isn't as shrewd as Pelosi at bringing everyone together is at risk of having them split off. Again, they are just vulnerable to the same delusions as the Trump guys (BLOCKING THE FUCKING ROAD FOR THE THIRD STRAIGHT WEEK WITH THEIR TRUCKS IN MY CITY) who think for whatever reason that the momentum is on their side and will carry them forward. I'm not saying conserv. Dems would switch to a third party btw since that seems to be what you are replying to...

The GOP cannot collapse into a regional party because there are tens of millions of people responsive to their brand of plutocratic fascism, for one reason or another, spread rather evenly throughout the country. And most of them are very deep in the cult, whether that means QAnon or one of a million other delusions.

Bet you $100 a proper UBI that dramatically decreases inequality will make all these fascists suddenly a lot more friendly to their neighbors.

[Hooahguy]

Bet you $100 a proper UBI that dramatically decreases inequality will make all these fascists suddenly a lot more friendly to their neighbors.
Yeah sorry I just don't believe this at all. Racists and fascists aren't confined to any one particular socioeconomic group and waving a bunch of money in their faces won't make them go away, they will just take the money and try to get others booted off it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yeah sorry I just don't believe this at all. Racists and fascists aren't confined to any one particular socioeconomic group and waving a bunch of money in their faces won't make them go away, they will just take the money and try to get others booted off it.


I just don't believe the idea that 40% of the country are inherently racist. People think they are getting screwed over and its an easy narrative to say "those people are screwing you over" than trying to explain how globalized markets work.

[Montmorency]

No one had any idea how he would govern (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-ideology/) besides trying to kick out the Mexicans. With that being the baseline for people, if BUILD THE WALL didn't get the xenophobes all enthusiastic for him early on why the sudden popularity shift. So not only are Republicans really racist, but they are also that lazy about their racism? "I really hate this ethnicity and I love the guy who promises to remove them, but he doesn't look like he will win, so I guess I won't bother trying."

Yes, no one knew. I'm talking about common narratives that many Republicans in the base and in elected office held.

Moreover, it's easy to believe that the Republicans for whom racism, sexism ,and grievance were more salient - compared to plutocratic economics or abortion etc. - were the early adopters.

Indeed, Trump increased his support with economically-conservative people in 2016 who otherwise disliked the Republican Party for being anti-abortion and hyper-religious (they perceived Trump as the opposite). In that case it should be easy to see how parts of the Evangelical Christian base would have been hesitant about this Trump character at first.

You should try to account for the fact that Trump massively increased his popularity with Republicans after he won, and conclusively after his first year (that he spent shaking a stick on the world stage and going after Muslims and the ACA, while approving of a highly regressive tax reform).


Also, did anyone really think McConnell was not going to drive his judicial project?!?! That Trump wasn't going to just rubber stamp Mitch's picks?

Yes. This was much discussed among Republicans at the time. People thought of Trump as a libertine Democrat infiltrator!


Bro (https://youtu.be/dJpPktn4f0M?t=320), come on... in 2012??? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE&feature=emb_title)

If you have had any familiarity with Fox News in 2012, in 2016, and since, or with its viewers across those times, then you will know what I'm talking about. They've gone from mere propaganda mill for Republicans to Radio Rwanda.


Well given the recent electoral success of the Lib Dems, it doesn't really seem like the UK can support a third party as well, but so it goes.

I don't understand what you're saying here.


Bet you $100 a proper UBI that dramatically decreases inequality will make all these fascists suddenly a lot more friendly to their neighbors.

I'm going to take what you're saying and take it in another direction. I could be convinced that, if the Democrats were to break Congressional deadlock in 2021 and start aggressively passing a whole raft of reforms without giving a :daisy:, and could keep winning elections and maintain or accelerate the pace of reform for a couple cycles, then the more apathetic elements of the Right would get with the program. They would see Dems as more proactive and "winners," so even if they find it difficult to stomach the social consensus among the Dem base they would drift away from the gravity of the far-right wingnut camp. Maybe they would become swing voters, in large enough numbers as to permanently damage the national prospects of the GOP and leave it as an increasingly-violent and unhinged fringe party (like it has become on the West Coast). But that's a different argument than saying that economic inequality reduction would somehow pacify the modal right-winger.



I just don't believe the idea that 40% of the country are inherently racist. People think they are getting screwed over and its an easy narrative to say "those people are screwing you over" than trying to explain how globalized markets work.

There is more evidence for one proposition than for the other.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't understand what you're saying here.

The Lib Dems haven't been doing well since that coalition with the Cons. I think they only have like a dozen seats in the commons (when I first started watching UK politics they had like 60 something with Clegg) and for the most part are not trusted anymore by their base. Yet, they are still around. Well, I guess they were the only party that came out and said they would reverse Brexit, so maybe there is a role for them?

You should try to account for the fact that Trump massively increased his popularity with Republicans after he won, and conclusively after his first year (that he spent shaking a stick on the world stage and going after Muslims and the ACA, while approving of a highly regressive tax reform).

My accounting is that his actions were normalized and his rhetoric was adopted by mainstream conservative media. Republicans more or less were brainwashed, just like they were brainwashed about Obama. It happened after the election because as you say, many within the party distrusted him and were denouncing him all the way to election day. Once he won, then his voice became the voice inside GOP voters head.

If I recall correctly, on election day Trump's performance on total voter counts relative to Romney wasn't even that good. It seems to me that most Republicans simply did not care for him but once he won and became the leader, the propaganda machine became pro-trump and quickly turned them. I mean, we have talked about the data that shows GOP voters literally 180 flipping on many policies once Trump came into office, from bombing syria to the state of the economy. Average voters are not concerned with the judges, they (except for the single issue voters by definition) not concerned with policies. They operate on feelings, even the economy is just a feeling. No one ever actually checks the 401k and sees the facts that stocks are not doing better under Trump than with Obama: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/business/stock-market-by-president/index.html

I'm going to take what you're saying and take it in another direction. I could be convinced that, if the Democrats were to break Congressional deadlock in 2021 and start aggressively passing a whole raft of reforms without giving a :daisy:, and could keep winning elections and maintain or accelerate the pace of reform for a couple cycles, then the more apathetic elements of the Right would get with the program. They would see Dems as more proactive and "winners," so even if they find it difficult to stomach the social consensus among the Dem base they would drift away from the gravity of the far-right wingnut camp. Maybe they would become swing voters, in large enough numbers as to permanently damage the national prospects of the GOP and leave it as an increasingly-violent and unhinged fringe party (like it has become on the West Coast). But that's a different argument than saying that economic inequality reduction would somehow pacify the modal right-winger.

What I would try to convince you is that unbroken cycles of Democratic rule would produce policies of wealth transfer from the top to the bottom and the middle. Without the typical Republican sabotage of everything good that government does, such benefits would cool off many right wingers who live and breath Q-anon crap cause they are mad about their lives.

[Montmorency]

I don't understand what you're saying here.

The Lib Dems haven't been doing well since that coalition with the Cons. I think they only have like a dozen seats in the commons (when I first started watching UK politics they had like 60 something with Clegg) and for the most part are not trusted anymore by their base. Yet, they are still around. Well, I guess they were the only party that came out and said they would reverse Brexit, so maybe there is a role for them?

I mean, what are you suggesting about third parties in America with reference to LibDems?


My accounting is that his actions were normalized and his rhetoric was adopted by mainstream conservative media. Republicans more or less were brainwashed, just like they were brainwashed about Obama. It happened after the election because as you say, many within the party distrusted him and were denouncing him all the way to election day. Once he won, then his voice became the voice inside GOP voters head.

But this is a pretty notable development. Why did this happen?


If I recall correctly, on election day Trump's performance on total voter counts relative to Romney wasn't even that good. It seems to me that most Republicans simply did not care for him but once he won and became the leader, the propaganda machine became pro-trump and quickly turned them. I mean, we have talked about the data that shows GOP voters literally 180 flipping on many policies once Trump came into office, from bombing syria to the state of the economy. Average voters are not concerned with the judges, they (except for the single issue voters by definition) not concerned with policies.

Republican elites have been concerned with judges for 60 years, and it's trickled down to voters as polling shows. Republican voters very commonly cite "judges" as one of those single issues. This is changing under Trump in that Dems have come to see the courts as more salient than before.

But look at the three reservations I listed above. That the Republican base abandoned those reservations is not a function of propaganda per se, it's something objectively the case! Trump did win, he did govern as an orthodox Republican, with the exception that he was even more racist and sexist and lawless. The clear explanation is that the base loved the novel features, which were not the propaganda (though the propaganda did grow more intense and dangerous as I say) but the relative oversupply of bad behavior.

In other words, Republicans came to worship Trump because he reflected their truest long-standing values (of which there is plenty of independent corroboration over the years).

Why is Trump durably more popular with the Republican base than most other Republican politicians or the generic Republican? Because he's an open white male supremacist who triggers the libs. That's what it comes down to.

Thus the one factor I did fail to mention is that the confluence of all the above - grievance, cruelty, racism, sexism - is the thrill and desire to see the hated liberals and subgroups humiliated and punished. That's what they love Trump as man and president for, perhaps above all.

But again, the racism and sexism and cruelty and grievance are essential to that. The loyalty can't arise without those underlying factors. Republicans and their media were loyal to Bush the so-called "compassionate conservative," but not like this. It's not simply the case that Republicans have no underlying values or beliefs while being very easily tribally-manipulated. It's more the exact reverse in fact, that because they have these attributes and values they are more prone to embracing authoritarianism and especially to authoritarianism in the Trumpist cast.

The "economic anxiety" argument is simply discredited in this day and age.


What I would try to convince you is that unbroken cycles of Democratic rule would produce policies of wealth transfer from the top to the bottom and the middle. Without the typical Republican sabotage of everything good that government does, such benefits would cool off many right wingers who live and breath Q-anon crap cause they are mad about their lives.

Listen, naturally we have a shared goal in reducing inequality and we want to pursue it regardless for many reasons. If we become a premier social democracy, well-governed and respected, and that happens to convince the third+ of Republicans who have economically-interventionist beliefs to not be fascists, fantastic! Their deactivation would help create a virtuous cycle of permanent Left majorities, if only by blocking support from the GOP and any insurrectionist tendencies it may adopt, as opposed to directly persuading converts to vote for leftists. But there's little basis to predicate inequality reduction as a means to influencing Republicans, and even less of one to imagine that trying one more time to make an affirmative policy case to them before the act will acutely change their behavior or mindset.

Republicans are not economically anxious, as surveys repeatedly find, they are culturally anxious. Republicans are not mad about their lives, they're mad about other people's lives. That's who you have to be to be a Republican.*

*Besides pure upward redistribution

[a completely inoffensive name]

I mean, what are you suggesting about third parties in America with reference to LibDems?

So my understanding is that Lib Dem party take positions that make otherwise Labour voters vote for them, this causes Labour to lose more seats and doesn't really gain anything for the Lib Dems, as I said they have few seats but last election had 11.5% of total votes. This helped the Cons get more seats than they deserved per the popular vote.

My analogy is that if the Democratic Progressive faction believes that the Democratic Party is not giving them the policies they want, cause centrism or cause the conservative Dems/Lincoln Republicans are influencing the party, there is a significant chance they would splinter off as a third party depending on how good the majority leader is at doing their job. My original point is that we should be worried about who will follow Pelosi as majority leader, cause such mismanagement would give the GOP an opening to win where they shouldn't if Progressives go rogue. Do you believe the narrative that Bernie Bros potentially cost Hillary the election given how 80,000 people across three states made the difference? If yes, then can you see my point? If not, then disregard.


But this is a pretty notable development. Why did this happen?

I can believe your earlier points to the extent that the party apparatus including Fox and the other propaganda arms did not work explicitly for Trump because they were skeptical of how he would rule. I don't believe that logic comes into play for average GOP voters, to clarify. Once he got in and they saw how well he would advance the agenda, they started working to get the base to rally around him. They don't seem to have a hard time convincing GOP voters of falsehoods, I mean they convinced that poor old woman that Obama was a Muslim before he was even elected and she was so confused in the video when McCain said "No ma'm he's not."


Republican elites have been concerned with judges for 60 years, and it's trickled down to voters as polling shows. Republican voters very commonly cite "judges" as one of those single issues. This is changing under Trump in that Dems have come to see the courts as more salient than before.
As a methodological nit pick, when these surveys go out asking what your priorities are, are they are blank lines to fill in or are they giving voters a pre-determined list of choices and they are checking off judges? GOP propaganda has been bringing up 'activist' judges for decades now, so it is a common talking point. Let me flip it on you, if GOP voters responded to judges strongly wouldn't the better play for the election be to withhold the Barret nomination until after the election?


In other words, Republicans came to worship Trump because he reflected their truest long-standing values (of which there is plenty of independent corroboration over the years).
Why is Trump durably more popular with the Republican base than most other Republican politicians or the generic Republican? Because he's an open white male supremacist who triggers the libs. That's what it comes down to.

Because conservative media radicalized their base into white male supremacists. My notion is that propaganda is actually really, really successful. Especially when you have convinced people that every other news source is propaganda.


“I regret in a way voting for Trump. I really do. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/29/lordstown-ohio-trump-gm-plant-election)” She is still fuming about his do-not-sell-your home remarks in Youngstown. “He promised that nobody was going to have to sell their homes. He said they [GM] were going to stay. That’s why I can’t vote for him this year.”

Her sister still strongly supports Trump. “She says she’s going to put a Trump sign in my yard, and I told her, no she’s not.

“My sister says, ‘You should be watching Fox News. You need to be watching Fox News.’ I really don’t have time. If I’m not at the doctor’s, I’m watching my grandkid.”
Same situation, but one is still a true believer and the other has regrets. The only difference? Fox news.



But again, the racism and sexism and cruelty and grievance are essential to that. The loyalty can't arise without those underlying factors. Republicans and their media were loyal to Bush the so-called "compassionate conservative," but not like this. It's not simply the case that Republicans have no underlying values or beliefs while being very easily tribally-manipulated. It's more the exact reverse in fact, that because they have these attributes and values they are more prone to embracing authoritarianism and especially to authoritarianism in the Trumpist cast.
The anger is needed to turn out the base and the angrier you can make them the better come election time. They have no attributes except what the tv tells them, and the tv has been making them angry for a long time (https://youtu.be/whNDMnr17yM).
Monty, you probably know people who are still Mets fans. Tribal-identity is a very strong thing.


But there's little basis to predicate inequality reduction as a means to influencing Republicans, and even less of one to imagine that trying one more time to make an affirmative policy case to them before the act will acutely change their behavior or mindset.
I disagree, I think the current iteration of the Republican party that started with Reagan came in off of stagflation, when the economy boomed under Clinton we had Bush tout 'compassionate' conservatism like you said, when 07 happened we started to see the conservative culture get crazy and now with Corona we are seeing absolutely degenerate behavior. I think there is a link.


Republicans are not economically anxious, as surveys repeatedly find, they are culturally anxious. Republicans are not mad about their lives, they're mad about other people's lives.
Because culturally we dignify people based on their labor and their wealth. You cannot separate the two so cleanly.

[Hooahguy]

We should pray that Florida goes to Biden quickly because Trump is planning (https://www.axios.com/trump-claim-election-victory-ballots-97eb12b9-5e35-402f-9ea3-0ccfb47f613f.html) on declaring victory if it looks like he is ahead on election night and then try to get the courts to stop the counting.

However, we should all take a deep breath (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/if-trump-declares-victory-election-night-axios-nope.html) and try not to panic:

Trump’s blatant telegraphing of this strategy through leaks to Axios is a blessing in disguise. The public is now going to be hearing from the media about Trump’s plans over the next few days and learn more about why election night vote totals are not likely to reflect the final results if the election is close.

The strategy is not going to work. The networks and news organizations are prepared for this and Americans have learned to discount anything the president says. Most are inoculated from his lies about voting. And assuming there are no major foul-ups in how the rest of election day voting goes, it is hard to imagine any legal strategy that will lead courts to order a halt to the counting of ballots that have arrived before election day (even if there could still be litigation over late arriving ballots). So far, all of the Trump and Republican suits aimed at stopping the easing of voting rules during the pandemic on grounds of a risk of fraud have failed miserably, and any post-election attempt on these grounds should fail too.

The mantra for the next few days is: Count all the ballots arriving legally under state law. Ignore premature victory statements. Take a deep breath.

Due to all this fuckery, I am far more bearish than most others when it comes to the election. Right now I think its a tossup whether or not Trump loses. As I said earlier, I think it was incredibly dumb for the Biden campaign to push mail-in voting when they knew this summer that the postal service was being messed with. Not to mention, the propensity for mail-in ballots to be messed up skyrockets due to dumb mistakes like forgetting to sign the envelope and Americans are morons.

[Montmorency]

https://i.imgur.com/J2ZOI8k.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/UkNhsCd.jpg



So my understanding is that Lib Dem party take positions that make otherwise Labour voters vote for them, this causes Labour to lose more seats and doesn't really gain anything for the Lib Dems, as I said they have few seats but last election had 11.5% of total votes. This helped the Cons get more seats than they deserved per the popular vote.

In principle yes, though IIRC from my rough postmortem of the 2019 UK election the LibDems only 'took' a handful of seats from Labour, and in a couple constituencies you could make the reverse argument (that Labour undermined LibDems).

The LibDems have generally not been a major party for a century.


My analogy is that if the Democratic Progressive faction believes that the Democratic Party is not giving them the policies they want, cause centrism or cause the conservative Dems/Lincoln Republicans are influencing the party, there is a significant chance they would splinter off as a third party depending on how good the majority leader is at doing their job.

This hasn't happened yet, and it can't happen because:
The LibDems exist as a party in the UK, because they have both national and local infrastructure and can get at least some seats up and down the ballot across the country. In parliamentary systems it is typically easy for third parties or even new parties to make some inroads. Third parties in the US essentially have no existence in terms of infrastructure or political representation because the electoral system is inimical to them.

The Democratic party has been around in some form since almost the beginning. The Republicans since the 1850s. The LibDems in the UK are coeval with the Republicans. All spent generations as major parties starting from their inception. The Green and Libertarian parties have never been anything in the United States, unlike elsewhere (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9waJJj2EZ_Q). Even the Socialists have had a more significant presence in elected office.

In our history there have been Independent movements, but they were almost always centered around a single personality (e.g. Ross Perot, Teddy Roosevelt) or single issue (segregation, Prohibition, farmers' populism).

Aside from the aforementioned considerations, there isn't even a paper constituency for an American third party to coalesce around; most Progressives identify their interests with the Democratic Party, to say nothing of the fact that the party has been moving toward them. There isn't even a premise of the party aggressively opposing their faction, around which to conjecture schismatism. (Very Online personalities who have always hated the Democratic Party don't count as constituents, nor are they demographically-significant.)

The more realistic threat, if the Democrats fail to deliver some goods, is of young people deepening in discouragement and disengagement and failing to 'grow into' higher participation to match the Boomers.


If not, then disregard.

:shifty:


I can believe your earlier points to the extent that the party apparatus including Fox and the other propaganda arms did not work explicitly for Trump because they were skeptical of how he would rule. I don't believe that logic comes into play for average GOP voters, to clarify. Once he got in and they saw how well he would advance the agenda, they started working to get the base to rally around him. They don't seem to have a hard time convincing GOP voters of falsehoods, I mean they convinced that poor old woman that Obama was a Muslim before he was even elected and she was so confused in the video when McCain said "No ma'm he's not."

The postulate of the individual Republican voter's entire ideology falling out of elite Republican signalling remains unsupportable. The segment of the base that was suspicious of Trump in 2016 was always a minority anyway! And many of those defected from the party entirely (i.e. true Never-Trumpers). The elites were concerned about Trump's electability in their residual constraint around notions of public legitimacy and proper behavior. By now they've learned that they can throw all that to the winds and go wild - their ecosystem will reward them and to hell with the mainstream.

That is, something that used to hold Republican politicians back was a belief that they couldn't go too far without losing support from the mainstream media and even their base. They still had minimal buy-in to democratic principles and ideas of restraint and respectability. As soon as they saw they were no such constraints or consequences to their behavior that they went full fascist.

The elites and the base have an epistemic symbiosis, often the base drives the elites, and the elites themselves - the current generation - have been entirely educated within the same ecosystem that you might characterize as being a reserve for the rubes; they share a worldview now more than ever.


As a methodological nit pick, when these surveys go out asking what your priorities are, are they are blank lines to fill in or are they giving voters a pre-determined list of choices and they are checking off judges?

This is a very typical sort of question included in dozens of polls and surveys, almost always in the format of presenting a list of options and asking the respondent to select 1 or more top issues, or to rate/rank each issue by importance. For example:
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/08/13/important-issues-in-the-2020-election/


Let me flip it on you, if GOP voters responded to judges strongly wouldn't the better play for the election be to withhold the Barret nomination until after the election?

That's one possible strategic orientation, but it's just as easy to believe that they are impatient to seize the opportunity presented to them.

Part of it depends on what you think the short-term game is for Republicans. If you are Mitch McConnell and believe that Republicans are at serious risk of losing control of the government this year, or that a strong SCOTUS majority could help Republicans retain control, then it could make good, amoral, sense to ram through a justice.

Also, confirming Barrett triggers the libs.


Same situation, but one is still a true believer and the other has regrets. The only difference? Fox news.

Fox News is effective, but it can't work without a base. Fox News did not make the clay; it but molds it.

Fox News in the Age of Trump turns a bigot into a minion. But they had to be a bigot to begin with.

Your account does not accurately capture the history, and it's predictions would always seem to fail if applied retroactively or comparatively.


Tribal-identity is a very strong thing.

Except for the consistent and progressive realignment of voters between the parties over the past 60 years. Tribalism does not explain Republicanism in itself, and it cannot hope to. Look to the content, the value-system.


I disagree, I think the current iteration of the Republican party that started with Reagan came in off of stagflation, when the economy boomed under Clinton we had Bush tout 'compassionate' conservatism like you said, when 07 happened we started to see the conservative culture get crazy and now with Corona we are seeing absolutely degenerate behavior. I think there is a link.

John Birch Society. Affirmative action. Southern strategy. Political correctness. Forced busing. Pat Buchanan. Illegal immigrants. Welfare queens. Japanese ascendance. Iran-Contra. Contract with America. Watergate and the Chennault Affair. The War on Terror. Don't ignore the very long genealogy. The rot of violent oligarchic lawlessness has festered since before we were born. 2008 didn't start the fire.

The same people that helped cover up Iran-Contra were the ones Daddy Bush pardoned, to later end up in the Trump administration. The same people that helped Son Bush steal the 2000 election ended up in Trump's administration and - most critically - on his Supreme Court. And on that last point I'm referring to Barrett and Kavanaugh (https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/bush-v-gore-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts-supreme-court/index.html). Roberts too of course, but Son Bush rewarded him more promptly.

This is not a coincidence. History did not begin in 2008.


Because culturally we dignify people based on their labor and their wealth. You cannot separate the two so cleanly.

Then why don't other people with this unclassifiable sense of economic anxiety untethered to their real material conditions also respond by voting Republican? Why does Republican vote share among whites increase almost linearly across income quantiles? Why are there actually economically-precarious voters who vote Democratic? 85% or so of the Republican electorate is white. They are disproportionately religious and higher in income. There is something to all that.


One of the oddities of this exchange is, why would it surprise you that half of white people in the country are virulent bigots? The historical mean is much higher! A century ago it was nearly all of them. Elements of the Left have been persistently misled by this wishful thinking that reactionaries are potential socialists waiting in the wings. If true it would make the movement, so the impulse is understandable - but it is not true. There is not evidence for it. There just isn't. When you're putting together this story, you have to face down the concrete manifestation, right? It's not enough to stake a theory from ideology, the performance has to be measured. From a neutral perspective, how would someone generate the theory of economic anxiety, and how would they apply and measure it in our context? Once you try it falls apart. An alien anthropologist would not generate this theory. I haven't seen sound case for the idea that doesn't appeal to its convenience or optimism, and any that attempt to argue from data have been clearly refuted by now.

Like I said, its allure is obvious to me. In 2017-18 I was willing to give it a chance to bear fruit. In the end you have to reckon with all the evidence aligning against it. Best to scrap it along with the 2017 dismissal of calls to impeach Trump, on the grounds that Pence would be a worse or more dangerous president somehow.

The path of the Left cannot run through the Right but through absorbing and suborning the Center. Republicans believe they must retrieve "their" country from us. Your blandishments of social provision mean nothing to them, they can't possibly mean anything. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the worldview and priorities.

When that Lebowski fella talked about the tenets of National Socialism being an ethos, I don't know what he was supposed to be communicating - but it probably wasn't his openness to supporting the National Socialist program.



We should pray that Florida goes to Biden quickly because Trump is planning (https://www.axios.com/trump-claim-election-victory-ballots-97eb12b9-5e35-402f-9ea3-0ccfb47f613f.html) on declaring victory if it looks like he is ahead on election night and then try to get the courts to stop the counting.

However, we should all take a deep breath (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/if-trump-declares-victory-election-night-axios-nope.html) and try not to panic:


Due to all this fuckery, I am far more bearish than most others when it comes to the election. Right now I think its a tossup whether or not Trump loses. As I said earlier, I think it was incredibly dumb for the Biden campaign to push mail-in voting when they knew this summer that the postal service was being messed with. Not to mention, the propensity for mail-in ballots to be messed up skyrockets due to dumb mistakes like forgetting to sign the envelope and Americans are morons.

On the other hand, Trump may have played himself by enflaming Democratic turnout, as seen in the hundred million early votes, while hemming the core of his own support in reserve until the last minute. Most absentee ballots have arrived, and the vast majority of outstanding ones are in blue states!

The way to stop a coup is by mass direct action in the event, to raise the political costs to the coupers and to persuade paralyzed or undecided observers that they should not comply with illegitimate authority or directives. Particularly if they occupy a place within the civil or security services.

If the courts tell us to stop counting votes anywhere we have some authority over the canvassing or administration, we should reject the unlawful rulings and dare them to stop us. Sara Nelson and many of the national unions have also been in serious interunion discussions toward organizing a general strike set on the trigger of an attempted coup. I think we are prepared.

At any rate, as my calculations show North Carolina and Florida will very likely be declared for Biden by midnight Nov. 4. If the ratfucking moves forward in Pennsylvania or elsewhere amid that, they're going to fail miserably on all fronts while even Dianne Feinstein is liable to be radicalized. If their Supreme Court participates in any such move, the Roberts 6 are guaranteed to be sitting beside fresh colleagues in a few months' time.

Democrats are in array.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXGUNvIFTQw

[drone]

When that Lebowski fella talked about the tenets of National Socialism being an ethos, I don't know what he was supposed to be communicating - but it probably wasn't his openness to supporting the National Socialist program.
Correction, it was Walter, not the Dude, and it was a comparison between Nazis and nihilists, who believe in nothing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_29yvYpf4w

[ReluctantSamurai]

If you haven't already seen this, it's a fun little game:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/oct/30/build-your-own-us-election-result-plot-a-win-for-biden-or-trump

I've played it in several different ways, being very generous to CoviDon. If Texas flips, which I don't think it will, the Fat Lady sings, because a likely 50/50 split in the "swing states" leads to a blowout for Biden. If N. Carolina and Florida turn blue, the Fat Lady sings. In any case, it's a bit of fun speculating.....

[Hooahguy]

Its eerily quiet in DC. The only ones out are the ones walking their dogs (like me) or getting supplies. Cars arent really out either. Its like the calm before the storm. Here we go boys, election day is upon us.

Edit: oh and there is an eerie wail (https://twitter.com/tylerduchaine/status/1323466571449335808?s=20) outside. Probably just the wind... right?

[Montmorency]

In good news, most of the election cases before the courts at the end of October have not been imminently disastrous.

But I forgot to mention:

During the protests (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/30/philadelphia-fop-posts-toddler/) in Philadelphia a week ago (new police incident, don't ask), a swarm of police attacked a random vehicle passing through the area and removed and savaged the driver. That driver had her young child in the car, and the police used that moment to manufacture some ghoulishly villainous and deceitful copaganda. What an elevated specimen of the "stop hitting yourself" substrate.

https://i.imgur.com/Ncey0Dg.jpg

https://twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/1321871642201567233

It's hard to think of an apter description than "evil." #CopCrimesMatter


More on "warrior cop" training:
https://manualredeye.com/90096/news/local/police-training-hitler-presentation/

Student journalists uncovered some odd training materials used by Kentucky State Police.

https://i.imgur.com/od82WX0.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/H4E3p3N.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/RLYMJeY.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/9vg7HT0.jpg


Hmmm...

I like how they drop all pretense by the end.


The presentation also links to a Hitler page on Goodreads, a database of quotes and books.

In a statement emailed to RedEye reporters, KSP spokesperson Lieutenant Joshua Lawson wrote, “The quotes are used for their content and relevance to the topic addressed in the presentation. The presentation touches on several aspects of service, selflessness, and moral guidance. All of these topics go to the fundamentals of law enforcement such as treating everyone equally, service to the public, and being guided by the law.”

Also, on the first slide - isn't that a Europa Barbarorum model?! Goddamn screenwriters.

Plz deNazify the American government and society. 160 years of civil war is enough.



Correction, it was Walter, not the Dude, and it was a comparison between Nazis and nihilists, who believe in nothing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_29yvYpf4w

Thems the breaks with pop culture osmosis.

[Crandar]

First elections results are in. Donald Trump is winning the TW district (https://www.twcenter.net/forums/poll.php?pollid=22748&do=showresults), but not greatly. Technically, there's a chance that Biden might cover the distance, but most pundits are skeptical. Greens have been evaporated, but Liberals got a considerable part of the vote, which suggests increased aggregation for the Democrats and centrifugal tendencies for the Republicans. Compared to the 2016 results (https://www.twcenter.net/forums/poll.php?pollid=20767&do=showresults) of the same TW district, we notice a dramatic polarisation, in favour of the two major parties, of which however the Democrats benefited disproportionately.

So, Trump is winning the TW race, but how representative is that district of the entirety of the United States? Not much, experts argue. Although young, foreign-born citizens are overwhelmingly over-represented, a demographic traditionally associated with the Democrats, statisticians point out that the vast majority of them are white males of upper or middle class background.

As a personal note, I'd like to underline the unacceptable irregularity of the authorities failing to maintain the secrecy of the vote. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

[edyzmedieval]

Monty, you're not wrong - that's a Rome TW model.

I really really wish gaming would not turn political.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I just don't believe the idea that 40% of the country are inherently racist. People think they are getting screwed over and its an easy narrative to say "those people are screwing you over" than trying to explain how globalized markets work.

This is, ultimately, the factor that most empowers institutional racism. Few of those whose actions empower the system that is are racist in inclination or thought. They support the police and the concept of law and order (while often blind to the cultural mores of those police and the economic holdovers of overt racism that place so many of our 'minority' persons in positions where police confrontation is more frequent), they want their kids to go to good schools (while not really thinking about the fact that they have grouped themselves into enclaves of people who look and sound the same because of the psychological comfort thereof), etc.

The Aryan Nation types are very few and have publicly labeled themselves -- thanks for that as it makes them easier to keep track of -- and the vast bulk of those who support institutional racism (which includes, by the way, any number of those persons who are targeted by this implicit system of restraints and control) are not at all racist themselves. They are simply content with the system as it is and do not question that the system itself has enacted itself in a manner that is functionally racist.

We can spot the "Bull" Connors types readily enough, it is the vast mass of kindly people hidden by 'Foucault's mirror' who do not accurately see their own reflections in the images before their eyes.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Monty, you're not wrong - that's a Rome TW model.

I really really wish gaming would not turn political.

:inquisitive:

You never saw the implicit political tones of the economic systems modeled in the game? Or the authoritarian bent of the whole thing? How can that not be inherently political?

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is, ultimately, the factor that most empowers institutional racism. Few of those whose actions empower the system that is are racist in inclination or thought. They support the police and the concept of law and order (while often blind to the cultural mores of those police and the economic holdovers of overt racism that place so many of our 'minority' persons in positions where police confrontation is more frequent), they want their kids to go to good schools (while not really thinking about the fact that they have grouped themselves into enclaves of people who look and sound the same because of the psychological comfort thereof), etc.

The Aryan Nation types are very few and have publicly labeled themselves -- thanks for that as it makes them easier to keep track of -- and the vast bulk of those who support institutional racism (which includes, by the way, any number of those persons who are targeted by this implicit system of restraints and control) are not at all racist themselves. They are simply content with the system as it is and do not question that the system itself has enacted itself in a manner that is functionally racist.

We can spot the "Bull" Connors types readily enough, it is the vast mass of kindly people hidden by 'Foucault's mirror' who do not accurately see their own reflections in the images before their eyes.

I think we are in agreement. It is in a sense that notion from Socrates that people do not willingly go to the bad, but it is our ignorance that leads our decisions to the bad and it is ignorance that leads people to defend such bad actions.
It is telling that Q anon has sucked so many in under the guise of saving children, that to follow Trump is to save America, that to own the libs is to save their livelihood. They genuinely believe they are on the right side of history.

[a completely inoffensive name]

:inquisitive:

You never saw the implicit political tones of the economic systems modeled in the game? Or the authoritarian bent of the whole thing? How can that not be inherently political?

The entire premise of the game is to role-play as an authoritarian leader in a given time period. In hindsight, I am surprised at the relatively even split. I have hundreds of hours in Stellaris and I have never played as anything but egalitarian/xenophile.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Thems the breaks with pop culture osmosis.

Just watch the movie, it's worth the $2 on Amazon video.

[Montmorency]

This is, ultimately, the factor that most empowers institutional racism. Few of those whose actions empower the system that is are racist in inclination or thought. They support the police and the concept of law and order (while often blind to the cultural mores of those police and the economic holdovers of overt racism that place so many of our 'minority' persons in positions where police confrontation is more frequent), they want their kids to go to good schools (while not really thinking about the fact that they have grouped themselves into enclaves of people who look and sound the same because of the psychological comfort thereof), etc.

The Aryan Nation types are very few and have publicly labeled themselves -- thanks for that as it makes them easier to keep track of -- and the vast bulk of those who support institutional racism (which includes, by the way, any number of those persons who are targeted by this implicit system of restraints and control) are not at all racist themselves. They are simply content with the system as it is and do not question that the system itself has enacted itself in a manner that is functionally racist.

We can spot the "Bull" Connors types readily enough, it is the vast mass of kindly people hidden by 'Foucault's mirror' who do not accurately see their own reflections in the images before their eyes.

The complication is that almost no one self-identifies as "bad guy" or "racist." It takes a real worm-brained reactionary of the sort you can only find on the Internet - and who might be half-troll anyway - to outright declare to your face that "racialist" eugenics has been unjustly repressed by effete liberal bleeding-hearts.

Yet millions have much the same belief system and are willing to put those beliefs in practice with policies that obviously damage the welfare of targeted groups. They just think it's the right thing to do.

The pattern of available facts still makes them bad and leaves them as an obstacle to be stopped and overcome. This is pragmatism.


I think we are in agreement. It is in a sense that notion from Socrates that people do not willingly go to the bad, but it is our ignorance that leads our decisions to the bad and it is ignorance that leads people to defend such bad actions.
It is telling that Q anon has sucked so many in under the guise of saving children, that to follow Trump is to save America, that to own the libs is to save their livelihood. They genuinely believe they are on the right side of history.

An alternative theory is that issues like pedophilia and abortion reaching salience on the Right are really about moral laundering*, an eminence front to excuse themselves for adopting values and policies that contribute to actual harm for and against children (among others). I've even seen the argument that the whole anti-abortion zeitgeist arising among conservatives in the 1970s was camouflage for their increasing anti-welfarism and barely-submerged segregationism. Children and fetuses, particularly as pure abstractions, are a convenient - what's the opposite of a scapegoat? - to pin this game around in the guise of single-issue voting because there are no real commitments to make or consequences to yourself in claiming to care about children. There's nothing to do or sacrifice, unlike with advocating a particular vision of political economy, or demanding that the government disadvantage women in the labor market or whatever. ('We can't be wrong, we can't be bad, we think it's important to protect children after all!')

I wonder if the whole Satanic Panic of the 80s ties into this as well...

*Virtue signalling, avant la lettre


:inquisitive:

You never saw the implicit political tones of the economic systems modeled in the game? Or the authoritarian bent of the whole thing? How can that not be inherently political?

Not sure if being ironic, but this isn't wrong. The philosophical implications of character action and interdynamics in videogames, such as in the common unlimited violence across genres, was possibly the first philosophical question surrounding gaming that reached my consciousness way back when.

S'cool though.


The entire premise of the game is to role-play as an authoritarian leader in a given time period. In hindsight, I am surprised at the relatively even split. I have hundreds of hours in Stellaris and I have never played as anything but egalitarian/xenophile.

I read a media criticism essay once that pointed out that in RPGs players don't often make choices that are philosophically dissonant for themselves. I wonder what that says about the 'kill everything that can be killed' demographic.

[Shaka_Khan]

https://i.imgur.com/J2ZOI8k.jpg

CHINA WANTS BIDEN.

I remember when the People's Republic of China wanted Trump to win during the 2016 election. While it's true that the Obama administration originally wanted to build a closer relationship with China, they changed their minds after China refused to change to a free market economy, did cyberespionage, stole industrial secrets, continued to abuse human rights, attempted to take territories, treated Obama badly when he visited there, etc. Hillary Clinton was the one who led the policy change to pivot towards the United States' Asian allies to prevent China's attempts in expansionism. Obviously, the mainland Chinese I met hated Clinton. I told them that Trump mentioned China once on unfair trade, but they ignored it. They relied on the state-controlled news media from China. They said that Trump was good for Chinese businesses because he's a Republican. At that time, Trump was much more vocal against America's allies, mostly against South Korea, Japan and Germany. And he made it almost seem like he'd withdraw the American military away from South Korea and Japan. This made the PRC love Trump even more. The American Trump supporters treated those Chinese Trump supporters as enlightened friends.

Fast forward to Trump placing tariffs on Chinese imports- I bet the people who advised Xi Jinping that Trump would be on his side got fired. Some of the Chinese who wanted Trump to win became the most anti-Trump posters in a chat room that I'm in. When it comes to diplomacy, I think things will continue, maybe escalate or repeat in similar patterns no matter who becomes the next president.

What I found interesting was that a university student from China told me that he became worried about Xi. This student was originally a supporter of Xi, saying that he was arresting numerous corrupt officials. After he changed his mind about Xi, he told me that Xi wanted to change China back to the time when China was the most powerful civilization in the world, and that Xi turned out to be an expansionist. He said that it was more dangerous because of Trump, and he believed that the two countries might someday go against each other. He said this 3 years ago.

[Hooahguy]

So a bit of election night commentary- Im not particularly surprised by some of the results tonight, especially since Florida is what it is. Sad that Lindsey Graham wasnt kicked out, but that was to be expected in deep red South Carolina. Fox just called Arizona for Biden which makes things a bit easier going forward I think for him. Definitely going to be a close election, which is also a very very sad indictment on Americans as a whole.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Definitely going to be a close election, which is also a very very sad indictment on Americans as a whole.

It's also an indictment of the Democratic Party. Talking softly, and not carrying any kind of a big stick, is obviously not working. With all the eff-ups that CoviDon has made just this year alone, should have made this election a slam dunk. It also looks like the Dems won't gain control of the Senate, making a Biden win problematic as it will be very difficult to get anything done.

But you are absolutely right about Americans as a whole. That CoviDon is a blatant racist, a misogynist, a criminal, is actively working to revoke millions of Americans health care, is actively destroying the environment, actively subverting democracy, and all those other things....and yet people vote for him by the millions, shows just how far democracy has fallen here. It's why I will be leaving as soon as I can.

[Montmorency]

What a horrifying set of results to wake up to. This is just about the worst imaginable outcome within the range of possibilities.

Looking at some of these returns, I'm sincerely shocked to report - and suspect subsequent analysis will elucidate - that Biden's expected advantage among early votes has in most (battleground) states proved minimal. That's genuinely shocking because it implies polling got Independents massively wrong. I'm eager to read about what the heck happened with early votes, because it may have just determined the course of the election. If my assumptions - in the preceding posts - about how Independents break for Biden had been correct he should have won these states.

Biden has improved Dems' performance in Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas, but only by low-single digits: not enough. Another factor in the election, perhaps related to the above, is that Trump's margins in these state imply that he basically vacuumed up almost the entire third party vote from 2016 - at least the vote for conservative third parties. Thus could both parties improve their margins (third parties are as expected at less than 2% nationally).

Wild to me that Texas, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina could all have such similar margins, with bare majorities for the Republican.

Arizona and Nevada are leaning Dem for now and should more or less have a decisive count by the end of today. If Biden loses these he almost certainly loses the Electoral College.

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania will probably decide the election again. The former two are currently near-ties, with a narrow Biden lead in Wisconsin and a narrow Trump lead in Michigan, but Trump leads heavily in Pennsylvania. The hope is that the early votes - which have not really begun to be counted in those states, except Michigan - will deliver them to Biden. But given the stunning closeness of early votes in other states, the uncertainty is high.

If Trump wins 2020 with an even narrower EC margin and wider popular vote loss, especially given that Biden looks set to win a majority of votes, that alone would be injurious to the social fabric. That it's Trump - well, we can see the trends plainly.



It's also an indictment of the Democratic Party. Talking softly, and not carrying any kind of a big stick, is obviously not working. With all the eff-ups that CoviDon has made just this year alone, should have made this election a slam dunk. It also looks like the Dems won't gain control of the Senate, making a Biden win problematic as it will be very difficult to get anything done.

But you are absolutely right about Americans as a whole. That CoviDon is a blatant racist, a misogynist, a criminal, is actively working to revoke millions of Americans health care, is actively destroying the environment, actively subverting democracy, and all those other things....and yet people vote for him by the millions, shows just how far democracy has fallen here. It's why I will be leaving as soon as I can.

I understand, but we'll miss you. If Trump sneaks by there will be no evading the Long Collapse of the modern world anywhere on it.

[Crandar]

In Florida, Biden performed better among whites, but Trump also improved his performance among Latinos. Predictions were again quite off, but I don't think Trump has any real chances anymore. He'll probably win in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia, but that's not still enough. Trend and stats indicate that Biden's lead will increase in Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan. The cult will probably put its last hopes behind rogue electors, but that's not a feasible scenario. Still, quite embarrassing that Donald performed so well, what these elections guarantee is that the narrative of the liberal establishment of scientists and intellectuals sabotaging conservatives will continue at least until 2024. My only fear is the possibility that a mentally unstable fan of the 45th president reacts violently to the news.

As for possible explanations, in 2016, pollsters underestimated those with no college degree, but I wonder if ''shy Republicans'' played a role in the present elections. I know quite a few fans of Trump, who have been defending him since 2015 and who genuinely believe that the Democrats are Bolsheviks in disguise that still pretend that they would vote for the Libertarians and not the Republicans. Of course, that's just anecdotal experience.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/771329937721524224/773552824905891880/El8sCuBXIAMXGNY.png

[Montmorency]

What no one on the left/liberal/center has figured out--how to get voters to connect policy to candidates. (cont)

When Florida passes a $15 minimum wage and votes for Donald Trump and South Dakota votes for legal weed while being a wipeout for Trump shows people like policy but don't make any connections between that and who they vote for.

To be honest, probably the only real answer is frankly that we need more politics. In other words, we need politics to be seen as part of all of our lives all the time. That requires tons of organizing, talking among friends, etc. Maybe it works. Maybe not. But it's all I got.

There's something deep going on, because Democratic candidates are underperforming nationally, in the House and Senate. Biden actually appears to be outperforming his downballot. He's outperformed Clinton in most Florida counties. But Miami fell through for him and the majority in the House is liable to disappear entirely. Final results for the House probably 215-225 for Dems as of now (218 is majority). So Biden likely did about as well as he could have.



In Florida, Biden performed better among whites, but Trump also improved his performance among Latinos. Predictions were again quite off, but I don't think Trump has any real chances anymore. He'll probably win in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia, but that's not still enough. Trend and stats indicate that Biden's lead will increase in Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan. The cult will probably put its last hopes behind rogue electors, but that's not a feasible scenario. Still, quite embarrassing that Donald performed so well, what these elections guarantee is that the narrative of the liberal establishment of scientists and intellectuals sabotaging conservatives will continue at least until 2024. My only fear is the possibility that a mentally unstable fan of the 45th president reacts violently to the news.

As for possible explanations, in 2016, pollsters underestimated those with no college degree, but I wonder if ''shy Republicans'' played a role in the present elections. I know quite a few fans of Trump, who have been defending him since 2015 and who genuinely believe that the Democrats are Bolsheviks in disguise that still pretend that they would vote for the Libertarians and not the Republicans. Of course, that's just anecdotal experience.

If you think polling was very off, I would be extremely wary about relying on preliminary exit polling when the votes aren't all tallied and the majority of the vote was early voting (i.e. exit pollers couldn't wait at the polls to interview people).

3 points up with Latinos wouldn't be nearly enough to explain this result. As I said above, Democrats are underperforming almost everywhere and Biden is overperforming other Democrats.

But yeah, Biden probably ekes out a narrow EC win if all the count proceeds.

The fact that a candidate can win anywhere from 5 to 10 million votes over their rival and still barely win is a wasting disease on the body politic.

[ReluctantSamurai]

If Trump wins 2020 with an even narrower EC margin and wider popular vote loss, especially given that Biden looks set to win a majority of votes, that alone would be injurious to the social fabric. That it's Trump - well, we can see the trends plainly.

Any kind of marginal Biden win signifies that the people of America have not rejected "Trumpism" outright as a danger to our democracy. That Dems under performed in under ticket races and will likely not gain control of the Senate means we get another four years of The Man With the Perpetual Scowl blocking much of what Biden will attempt to do, just like he did with Obama. That that QAnon twit in Georgia won a seat in the House also doesn't bode well for the future of US politics.


Looking at some of these returns, I'm sincerely shocked to report - and suspect subsequent analysis will elucidate - that Biden's expected advantage among early votes has in most (battleground) states proved minimal. That's genuinely shocking because it implies polling got Independents massively wrong. I'm eager to read about what the heck happened with early votes, because it may have just determined the course of the election. If my assumptions - in the preceding posts - about how Independents break for Biden had been correct he should have won these states.

The folks who do polling are one of the clear losers in this election. This is the second national election in a row where they failed to even come close in predicting results.


I understand, but we'll miss you. If Trump sneaks by there will be no evading the Long Collapse of the modern world anywhere on it.

My decision to find another country to call home was hatched long before the pandemic and before the madness and mayhem of 2020. Current events have just solidified my resolve. I'm not so naive to believe there's a paradise out there somewhere where its' all peaches and cream. The Org wouldn't be rid of me that easily, in any case....:laugh4:

[Montmorency]

24025

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not going to lie, my faith in Democracy is shattered. It's a failure of the American people to simultaneously vote for policies in the abstract and yet vote for politicians that would deny them those policies. If America had said we want conservatism full stop, I would accept that at least as a coherent will of the people against liberalism. But $15/hr Florida with a Trump win? legalized marijuana in multiple states with house seats flipping Red?

Even the right wing posters on here can't defend this discrepancy. It all comes down to image and personality. Republican culture seems tough, Trump is a strong individual, the Dems look weak, they appear socialist.

Even a close Biden win the midwest, which is looking more likely than not means nothing to me. It should have been more and the fact it wasn't means politics is no longer politics, its just psychology now.

[Hooahguy]

At the time of this post I am pretty confident that Biden will win the EC barring some crazy legal shenanigans. From what I am seeing, Biden is slowly expanding the margins in Michigan and Wisconsin as the mail-in ballots are counted. While the Senate is probably still under GOP control, there is still a lot of good that Biden can do with the DOJ, EPA, CDC, etc. Legislatively probably not much though, Mitch is going to go back to his old ways of blocking everything that happens.

So this is definitely a bittersweet moment. Yes, Trump will likely be gone in November. But the partisan gridlock will remain and COVID recovery will be stalled as well as Mitch has signaled he wants to swing to austerity (of course). If Peters pulls through in Michigan, which I think he will, that would give Dems an opening in 2022 to retake the Senate, but it will be an uphill battle. No idea whats happening with Maine right now, though I think Collins might somehow survive (wtf Maine). Georgia will probably be a final battle in January as that is when the runoff will be. And who knows what will happen there. But if Dems can get to 49 that would make 2022 much easier.

But there is still a lot up in the air, but the biggest takeaway is that Dems need to do more outreach to Hispanics, and also come to grips that Hispanics differ from regions and value different things, its not just about immigration issues for them. For example, the Hispanics from Central America did seem to break for Biden and helped with Arizona. But those from Cuba and Venezuela, well, the socialist accusation worked even though it held no merit. One Dem in Miami blamed (https://twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/1323795907960254465?s=20) BLM protests and going back and forth on them as a potential reason why Biden lost in Florida, especially with Hispanics. Though whatever Trump did, it worked in Florida. Understanding this electorate better will be key to winning in the future. No more broad brushes. Same goes for African Americans.

Another big issue was mail-in voting. A shockingly huge number of ballots were never delivered and the USPS refused (https://twitter.com/johnkruzel/status/1324004554485211136) to comply with an order to deliver them. I've said it before but I will say it again: the Biden campaign should have never emphasized mail-in ballots the second it was clear that the USPS was fucking with the ballot delivery and that Trump would try to invalidate those ballots. It will definitely go down as a "shooting yourself in the foot" moment.

Also can we agree that this election is likely the thing that does away with polling as a serious profession? I said that this election would be a tossup despite the rosy polls, and if it wasnt for Covid-19 then Trump would have won easily.

My own demographic (Jews) increased (https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/status/1323855737462919169?s=20) its support of Biden by 11 points so I guess thats a small consolation. :yes:

[Montmorency]

At the time of this post I am pretty confident that Biden will win the EC barring some crazy legal shenanigans. From what I am seeing, Biden is slowly expanding the margins in Michigan and Wisconsin as the mail-in ballots are counted. While the Senate is probably still under GOP control, there is still a lot of good that Biden can do with the DOJ, EPA, CDC, etc. Legislatively probably not much though, Mitch is going to go back to his old ways of blocking everything that happens.

So this is definitely a bittersweet moment. Yes, Trump will likely be gone in November. But the partisan gridlock will remain and COVID recovery will be stalled as well as Mitch has signaled he wants to swing to austerity (of course). If Peters pulls through in Michigan, which I think he will, that would give Dems an opening in 2022 to retake the Senate, but it will be an uphill battle. No idea whats happening with Maine right now, though I think Collins might somehow survive (wtf Maine). Georgia will probably be a final battle in January as that is when the runoff will be. And who knows what will happen there. But if Dems can get to 49 that would make 2022 much easier.

But there is still a lot up in the air, but the biggest takeaway is that Dems need to do more outreach to Hispanics, and also come to grips that Hispanics differ from regions and value different things, its not just about immigration issues for them. For example, the Hispanics from Central America did seem to break for Biden and helped with Arizona. But those from Cuba and Venezuela, well, the socialist accusation worked even though it held no merit. One Dem in Miami blamed (https://twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/1323795907960254465?s=20) BLM protests and going back and forth on them as a potential reason why Biden lost in Florida, especially with Hispanics. Though whatever Trump did, it worked in Florida. Understanding this electorate better will be key to winning in the future. No more broad brushes. Same goes for African Americans.

Another big issue was mail-in voting. A shockingly huge number of ballots were never delivered and the USPS refused (https://twitter.com/johnkruzel/status/1324004554485211136) to comply with an order to deliver them. I've said it before but I will say it again: the Biden campaign should have never emphasized mail-in ballots the second it was clear that the USPS was fucking with the ballot delivery and that Trump would try to invalidate those ballots. It will definitely go down as a "shooting yourself in the foot" moment.

Also can we agree that this election is likely the thing that does away with polling as a serious profession? I said that this election would be a tossup despite the rosy polls, and if it wasnt for Covid-19 then Trump would have won easily.

My own demographic (Jews) increased (https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/status/1323855737462919169?s=20) its support of Biden by 11 points so I guess thats a small consolation. :yes:

Trump's campaign initially invested millions in mail balloting itself. :shrug:

I don't think this turnout is indicative of submerged Dem mail votes, other than on the margins in some places (which does matter, but it shouldn't).

If you think there's a problem with the polling here, why are you relying on that poll for Jewish voting behavior? Especially when the exit polls right now are expected to be error-prone, since the canvassing isn't finished and most of the polling is being done with unfamiliar methods on populations that weren't interviewed at the polls.

There's something else at work here IMO, and I'm not even talking about fraud. The polls in 2018 were very accurate, and they continue to be accurate in other countries.

If at all possible I wonder if we can analyze the timecourse of early votes for how the margins developed, pre-election day. The polls did narrow slightly in the final stretch, but there was no indication of major momentum.

And clearly there has been significant ballot-splitting somehow, with Biden benefiting. It's going to take months to hash all the data out.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Republican culture seems tough, Trump is a strong individual, the Dems look weak, they appear socialist.

The problems with the Democratic Party extend well before this election. Dems are not willing to get down in the mud and fight for the people they represent, when that becomes necessary. Not saying they should adopt the nasty tactics that the GOP regularly engages in, but sometimes you've just got to win to get what you want. The Republicans understand this, the Democrats do not.

The media has a large part in all of this. If a Democrat were to go on CNN, ABC, etc. with strong rhetoric, they likely wouldn't get invited back. So many times in the last eight months I've watched commentators ask questions of White House officials, and leading GOP politicians, get a BS reply, and not follow up by questioning the validity of statements. A few do, but Republicans have gotten away with so much mis-information and outright lies without sufficient challenge, all in the name of "being fair" to both sides of the aisle. I'm thoroughly disgusted with the state of journalism and media in this country.

The Democrats are going to have to find a leader that is dynamic and who has the ability to control the narrative. If they don't and Biden manages to win this, the Democrats will not be long in the White House. In looking back at this campaign, if the Democrats had had a candidate with the charisma of a Bill Clinton, or a Barack Obama, we'd not be having this conversation. The 'aw shucks let's have a beer and talk about this' mentality of Biden, and appealing to disenfranchised Republicans, obviously didn't work. Trump controlled the narrative from beginning to end, and the Dems were always playing defense. If it wasn't for COVID-19, this election wouldn't have even been close for CoviDon.

[Crandar]

The narrative has already begun: Blue vertical lines in the graphs indicate the injection of hundreds of thousands of Biden votes.

This is beautiful, though. The look of Lee's eyes, as the blacks are approaching dangerously close to the janitor's keys:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/771329937721524224/773560982504865802/image0.png

[Hooahguy]

If you think there's a problem with the polling here, why are you relying on that poll for Jewish voting behavior? Especially when the exit polls right now are expected to be error-prone, since the canvassing isn't finished and most of the polling is being done with unfamiliar methods on populations that weren't interviewed at the polls.
Ha, I didnt even recognize my own hypocrisy here, thanks for pointing that out! You are right, we should wait until more data comes available.


There's something else at work here IMO, and I'm not even talking about fraud. The polls in 2018 were very accurate, and they continue to be accurate in other countries.

If at all possible I wonder if we can analyze the timecourse of early votes for how the margins developed, pre-election day. The polls did narrow slightly in the final stretch, but there was no indication of major momentum.

And clearly there has been significant ballot-splitting somehow, with Biden benefiting. It's going to take months to hash all the data out.

You are right here as well, and I think this election will be studied for many years because the returns are so puzzling.

Another thing this election has shown is that the "money buys elections" line doesnt seem to hold as much weight as it used to. I mean Dems at all levels raised a buttload of money and it didnt seem to help. But also in the primaries with Bloomberg and Bernie. Does money help? Of course. But not as much as maybe we once thought.

Quick point (https://twitter.com/RubenGallego/status/1324071039085670401?s=20) to be made by a Latino Dem congressman about how to reach Latino voters, responding to a question on how to better reach Hispanics:

First start by not using the term Latinx. Second we have to be in front of them year round not just election years. That is what we did in AZ.
Same goes for the Black community too.

[a completely inoffensive name]

A few more optimistic thoughts now that I have had some time to digest everything that has happened.

1. This election became a battle of turnout with multiple states all within 0.5-1 point difference. Can we say with Trump's re-election on the line that this was the maximum output GOP can muster? 100% enthusiasm, crazy turnout and the dem's still has them narrowly beat (so far).

2. As a follow up, if there is no more Trump in office, who will energize the party? Trump potentially could from the outside, but he will be battling not just state courts over past transgressions but he will be 78 if he decides to run in 2024. Is this the last big hurrah for the GOP coalition?

3. If we take the optimistic view of both above, can Democrats shore up the latino vote to cut off the GOP from expanding their coalition and staying the game? Florida shows us what happens when they fail to do so, Arizona shows us what can happen when we do.

4. In 2024, Biden will be gone. Pelosi will be gone. Schumer will likely win again in 2022. But the democratic field will be increasingly dominated by fresh faces with less baggage. Will this make a difference given the strong evidence we have now that among many voters the feels and personality drive votes not the policy?

[Montmorency]

A series of articles for Biden's D1 agenda, apparently engineered on the assumption that he would not have the Senate.
https://prospect.org/day-one-agenda

Let me relate to you an encounter I had with an older Asian immigrant colleague. She remarked to me that she was worried about the riots - which had no connection to her - and that while she had no problems with White or Asian people, she (and here she hesitated) feels uncomfortable with Blacks and Latinos around. She apparently also counter-protested a BLM protest wearing a Blue Lives Matter hat and complained that they were "hostile" to her. @ Seamus

So that's a pretty modal Trump supporter, someone who has an exaggerated sense of (nonexistent) threat to herself, but no consideration for how intuitively-disfavored groups might feel about concrete threats to themselves. She's also worried about COVID and probably thinks Trump is handing out masks and doing his best. Engagement is untenable, but evidently unavoidable.


Meanwhile, the barbarians are already at the gates.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGBfuEvuDKA



\https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/771329937721524224/773560982504865802/image0.png


https://i.imgur.com/06CiH9y.jpg







A few more optimistic thoughts now that I have had some time to digest everything that has happened.

1. This election became a battle of turnout with multiple states all within 0.5-1 point difference. Can we say with Trump's re-election on the line that this was the maximum output GOP can muster? 100% enthusiasm, crazy turnout and the dem's still has them narrowly beat (so far).

2. As a follow up, if there is no more Trump in office, who will energize the party? Trump potentially could from the outside, but he will be battling not just state courts over past transgressions but he will be 78 if he decides to run in 2024. Is this the last big hurrah for the GOP coalition?

3. If we take the optimistic view of both above, can Democrats shore up the latino vote to cut off the GOP from expanding their coalition and staying the game? Florida shows us what happens when they fail to do so, Arizona shows us what can happen when we do.

4. In 2024, Biden will be gone. Pelosi will be gone. Schumer will likely win again in 2022. But the democratic field will be increasingly dominated by fresh faces with less baggage. Will this make a difference given the strong evidence we have now that among many voters the feels and personality drive votes not the policy?

Oh wait. Shit. I forgot that if Trump is available to run in 2024 he will be eligible and will therefore absolutely do so. Trump-Biden 2024. What a nightmare world.

You can't "shore up" the Latino vote that way because Cubans and Venezuelans - mostly white petite bourgeois remnants themselves - are as lost a cause as rural Evangelicals. If you want to talk about shoring up the ethnic vote, look to the Puerto Ricans and Guatemalans in our coalition.



The problems with the Democratic Party extend well before this election. Dems are not willing to get down in the mud and fight for the people they represent, when that becomes necessary. Not saying they should adopt the nasty tactics that the GOP regularly engages in, but sometimes you've just got to win to get what you want. The Republicans understand this, the Democrats do not.

The media has a large part in all of this. If a Democrat were to go on CNN, ABC, etc. with strong rhetoric, they likely wouldn't get invited back. So many times in the last eight months I've watched commentators ask questions of White House officials, and leading GOP politicians, get a BS reply, and not follow up by questioning the validity of statements. A few do, but Republicans have gotten away with so much mis-information and outright lies without sufficient challenge, all in the name of "being fair" to both sides of the aisle. I'm thoroughly disgusted with the state of journalism and media in this country.

The Democrats are going to have to find a leader that is dynamic and who has the ability to control the narrative. If they don't and Biden manages to win this, the Democrats will not be long in the White House. In looking back at this campaign, if the Democrats had had a candidate with the charisma of a Bill Clinton, or a Barack Obama, we'd not be having this conversation. The 'aw shucks let's have a beer and talk about this' mentality of Biden, and appealing to disenfranchised Republicans, obviously didn't work. Trump controlled the narrative from beginning to end, and the Dems were always playing defense. If it wasn't for COVID-19, this election wouldn't have even been close for CoviDon.

The damnable question is, whatever strong narrative you could conceive of - does it matter? Does it make a difference? Will the media react? Will the public react? Or is it all baked in at the national level (with local progression and regression here and there)?

Let's say Biden were rhetorically like Sanders, as in relentlessly injecting a particular narrative (doesn't have to be Sanders own). I have no idea if it accomplishes anything. The information ecosystems are too divergent.

One thing I would say, because I'm willing to believe there at least won't be any downside, is that Dems should really make clear, at all times they're in front of the media, collectively as a messaging token, that if people expect them to legislate and get things done they need to vote Democrats into office. Educate about House and Senate, even simplistically, in sound bites.

Heck, I don't even care if you mislead the public and suggest that a specific threshold of electeds will result in a specific accomplishment.

[Pannonian]

What's the argument for stopping the vote count before the counters are finished? I saw some comments in the video about how "they have a right to see the process". What's that referring to?

[Montmorency]

What's the argument for stopping the vote count before the counters are finished? I saw some comments in the video about how "they have a right to see the process". What's that referring to?

The argument is that counting the vote after Election Day (a feature of merely every election in American history) is fraud, unless it's in a state that Trump is not leading in. As a site of ongoing electoral fraud, We the People have a right to interpose* ourselves into the process and - if necessary - halt it.

*Every canvassing site has both Democratic and Republican observers in our elections.

That's it. That's the principle of political philosophy at play: heads we win, tails you lose. Just - don't forget that no country is safe from its fascist element. Doom comes to all nations where complacency and decadent dysfunction obtain.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The damnable question is, whatever strong narrative you could conceive of - does it matter? Does it make a difference? Will the media react? Will the public react? Or is it all baked in at the national level (with local progression and regression here and there)?

It's my humble opinion that it does matter. Having said that, charisma and/or rhetoric alone doesn't get the job done either. Another problem with Democrats are the corporate politicians. They want to see things stay at the status quo (ie. large influxes of corporate money) and are willing to do only the bare minimum to satisfy their constituents. Corporate politicians populate both sides of the aisle, but the GOP delivers what their constituents want---conservative judges, tax breaks for the upper 1% income level, favorable (and often criminal) business breaks to their pals in industry, etc. Dems need to deliver what their supporters want, not just talk.


What's the argument for stopping the vote count before the counters are finished? I saw some comments in the video about how "they have a right to see the process". What's that referring to?

Stopping the vote count is an attempt by the GOP to steal the election by invalidating mail-in ballots, which are likely far more numerous votes for Democrats. It's a total bullshit argument fabricated by CoviDon, who's been pushing the narrative that mail-in ballots are steeped in fraud, even though every single study done on instances of voter fraud show extremely low numbers of fraud.

As far as the "right" to see the process of vote counting:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/us/Voting-republicans-trump.html


The Republican program, which has gained steam in recent weeks, envisions recruiting up to 50,000 volunteers in 15 key states to monitor polling places and challenge ballots and voters deemed suspicious. That is part of a $20 million plan that also allots millions to challenge lawsuits by Democrats and voting-rights (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/us/supreme-court-voting-rights.html) advocates seeking to loosen state restrictions on balloting. The party and its allies also intend to use advertising, the internet (https://protectthevote.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pu_48&utm_campaign=20200508_123842_&utm_content=&_ga=2.58845101.124784289.1588967538-1349174632.1588967538) and Mr. Trump’s command of the airwaves to cast Democrats as agents of election theft.

The efforts are bolstered by a 2018 federal court ruling that for the first time in nearly four decades allows the national Republican Party to mount campaigns against purported voter fraud without court approval. The court ban on Republican Party voter-fraud operations was imposed in 1982, and then modified in 1986 and again in 1990, (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-gop-just-received-another-tool-for-suppressing-votes/550052/) each time after courts found instances of Republicans intimidating or working to exclude minority voters in the name of preventing fraud. The party was found to have violated it yet again in 2004.

As for possible explanations, in 2016, pollsters underestimated those with no college degree, but I wonder if ''shy Republicans'' played a role in the present elections. I know quite a few fans of Trump, who have been defending him since 2015 and who genuinely believe that the Democrats are Bolsheviks in disguise that still pretend that they would vote for the Libertarians and not the Republicans. Of course, that's just anecdotal experience.

An interesting take on that:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/04/exit-polls-economy-covid-lockdown-trump

Voters’ fears about the economic impact of coronavirus lockdowns appear to have helped Donald Trump outperform pollsters’ expectations and brought the US election down to a nail-biting finish.
While ballots are still being counted, that performance probably shows the continued resonance of anti-lockdown rhetoric in an election where, especially for Trump voters, economic health came first.

Both a CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/03/politics/exit-polls-2020/index.html)and a New York Times exit poll showed (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html) Trump voters’ main issue was the economy with the coronavirus pandemic in fourth place in the Times survey, behind crime and health policy. Racial inequality beat the coronavirus into second place as the deciding issue for Democratic voters.


Cramer said early data appears to show Trump’s support has actually increased in rural America, and in parts of the south and midwest such as Oklahoma, Mississippi, Arkansas and Iowa.

“Part of it is economics,” she said. “Race is a big element here, but it’s all of that together,” said Cramer. “Standing up for small business and deregulation and white folks has reinforced, for many people, that he is their person.”

[Montmorency]

Hooahguy, one interesting result is that Minnesota - a close state for Clinton and the epicenter of BLM 2020 - has expanded its vote margin for Biden by 10 points (as of now).



Some hypotheses I've heard so far about the results, mutually exclusive or not:

1. Massive influx of new or rare voters turned out to be hard-right.
2. Democrats split tickets (!!!)
3. Many Republicans split tickets (voting against Trump specifically).
4. A lot of people panicked at hearing slogans like "Defund police" or "Pack the Court" on the tee-vee.
5. Democrats looked weak in failing to secure Trump's removal or halt Barrett's confirmation.
6. The correlation of last-quarter GDP growth and presidential election performance for incumbents is actually reflective of some underlying causality, and the unexpectedly-strong recovery off the central bank intervention and stimulus bill led some voters to praise Trump rather than Keynesianism.
7...

About ticket splitting, apparently there is some limited information from South Carolina in the 2010s that it may survive at surprisingly-high levels in some low-level races, on both sides. But for ticket splitting to play a role in this election would be a stark reversal of long-running national trends.



Clearly setting money on fire is not as valuable in political races as it may be in referenda!!

https://i.imgur.com/S6eXlvb.png


In a Biden landslide, Utah (the Mormon motherland) would have been in play.

https://i.imgur.com/5LLfF2u.png

[Hooahguy]

Oh wait. Shit. I forgot that if Trump is available to run in 2024 he will be eligible and will therefore absolutely do so. Trump-Biden 2024. What a nightmare world.

You can't "shore up" the Latino vote that way because Cubans and Venezuelans - mostly white petite bourgeois remnants themselves - are as lost a cause as rural Evangelicals. If you want to talk about shoring up the ethnic vote, look to the Puerto Ricans and Guatemalans in our coalition.
I think it also depends what legal issues hes facing. Which also presents another issue, one which my roommate and I have argued for a very long time about. He (a centrist) believes that Biden should pre-emptively pardon trump to "help bring the country together and heal" like Ford pardoned Nixon. I (not a centrist) think that it would be a dumb and naïve idea and that no amount of good-faith acts from Biden would "bring the country together." In fact I think it would inflame the Dem base and demoralize the base for the 2022/2024 elections.


One thing I would say, because I'm willing to believe there at least won't be any downside, is that Dems should really make clear, at all times they're in front of the media, collectively as a messaging token, that if people expect them to legislate and get things done they need to vote Democrats into office. Educate about House and Senate, even simplistically, in sound bites.

Heck, I don't even care if you mislead the public and suggest that a specific threshold of electeds will result in a specific accomplishment.
I agree with this. Dems need to hammer this incessantly over the next two years to keep the base motivated for the midterms.


Also a really fascinating thing going on (https://twitter.com/BrendanKeefe/status/1324187070198353920?s=20) in Georgia right now. Biden appears very close to winning it by a razor thin margin. Interestingly enough, the polls seem to have been pretty spot on for Georgia, I remember the last polls had Biden and Trump neck and neck by the end, which is exactly what it is. So we need to figure out why the polls were accurate in some places and so egregiously off in others.

Edit: A Cuban-American gives her thoughts (https://twitter.com/nataliemorales/status/1324083909404090374?s=20) as to why so many went hard for Trump. Definitely a good (and short) read.

[Montmorency]

Also a really fascinating thing going on (https://twitter.com/BrendanKeefe/status/1324187070198353920?s=20) in Georgia right now. Biden appears very close to winning it by a razor thin margin. Interestingly enough, the polls seem to have been pretty spot on for Georgia, I remember the last polls had Biden and Trump neck and neck by the end, which is exactly what it is. So we need to figure out why the polls were accurate in some places and so egregiously off in others.

Edit: A Cuban-American gives her thoughts (https://twitter.com/nataliemorales/status/1324083909404090374?s=20) as to why so many went hard for Trump. Definitely a good (and short) read.

Wait hold on..

Polls do at least appear less inaccurate for Georgia downballot than elsewhere, from what I see.

How odd. What a cluster this has been. One of the most unusual elections ever in many ways. 2020 is just amazing. They should call it "Murphy's Year."


As for ticket splitting, this fresh study - though very limited - suggests it may still be going on at relatively-high levels (low single-digits for some races) for both parties.

Ticket Splitting in a Nationalized Era 2020 (https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/bvgz3/)

[Hooahguy]

Wait hold on..

Polls do at least appear less inaccurate for Georgia downballot than elsewhere, from what I see.

How odd. What a cluster this has been. One of the most unusual elections ever in many ways. 2020 is just amazing. They should call it "Murphy's Year."


As for ticket splitting, this fresh study - though very limited - suggests it may still be going on at relatively-high levels (low single-digits for some races) for both parties.

Ticket Splitting in a Nationalized Era 2020 (https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/bvgz3/)
I thought it was settled that this year would be called the gas leak year?

As for ticket splitting, it would explain how Collins held onto her seat, much to everyone's disappointment.

[Montmorency]

Pannonian, this will further answer your question.
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1324200240694648834



https://twitter.com/ClintSmithIII/status/1324122287323385857 [video]


The Black vote in Detroit is the highest it’s ever been, and we will determine the outcome, because we’ve gone from picking cotton to picking presidents.


OK, so some comparison. This first poll was the expectation going in. The exit poll, if accurate, would indicate that Cubans actually swung for Biden while Puerto Ricans performed as expected, the whites being the ones who fell through. That's - another odd result.

https://i.imgur.com/1dkn7Nn.jpg


And speaking of the rout in the House, something I struggle to explain is that - and the millions of uncounted votes shouldn't have any bearing here - the currently-reported vote totals for the presidential election are 72.1 million vs. 68.4 million (Biden-Trump), whereas in the House elections the totals are 67.4 vs. 66.5 million.

That is a gap of MORE THAN 6 MILLION. Did millions of voters simply skip the downballot races and fill out only the presidential bubble?


Doubtless we continue to remain agnostic pending much more data and analysis.


Best case scenario, political polling turns out to be totally incapable of polling the true shadow vote, the diminishing-returns voters who only get activated once in a lifetime or once a decade. If that's the case then pollsters can create contingencies of some sort for the future, maybe. At any rate the venerable live phone poll is probably going the way of the battleship and we just have to make do with various consciously-fallible methods.





As to the final result, Biden will finish with 5-7 million votes over Trump all said. Currently there are 5 battleground states with margins narrow enough that the count might put any of them in either side with only a few thousand votes. The fact that we have to wait for this to come down to a few thousand votes in a handful of states is a profound systemic failure that will continue to bleed the country dry until the Republican Party has been totally disempowered.



@ Samurai: What's the message for this?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/14/florida-latinos-disinformation-413923

They should have started 10 or 20 years ago, but all I can think of is for the Democratic Party to functionally abandon the mindset of bourgeois liberal democracy and begin organizing parallel communities and institutions for a politics of survival under the party infrastructure. You know, like in shithole countries. If we need to get patrimonial, let's get patrimonial. We're going to need a machine and a mutual aid network that can deliver needed assistance to detached Blue populations in the tribal zones. Democratic social clubs, Democratic neighborhoods, Democratic enterprises, embedding into public office. That could come up by the end of the decade...

But let's be honest, no mainstream Democratic politician or voter can stomach that kind of talk even now. Who can implement it, and moreover who would condone it? We should interpret fundamental reorientation around the real American way of life to be among the sorts of development that don't manifest as a corrective until it's too late to avert the peak intensity.

Here's to charisma and messaging:

[video=youtube;RGQUbbSQP_I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGQUbbSQP_I

[Hooahguy]

And speaking of the rout in the House, something I struggle to explain is that - and the millions of uncounted votes shouldn't have any bearing here - the currently-reported vote totals for the presidential election are 72.1 million vs. 68.4 million (Biden-Trump), whereas in the House elections the totals are 67.4 vs. 66.5 million.

That is a gap of MORE THAN 6 MILLION. Did millions of voters simply skip the downballot races and fill out only the presidential bubble?


Doubtless we continue to remain agnostic pending much more data and analysis.


Best case scenario, political polling turns out to be totally incapable of polling the true shadow vote, the diminishing-returns voters who only get activated once in a lifetime or once a decade. If that's the case then pollsters can create contingencies of some sort for the future, maybe. At any rate the venerable live phone poll is probably going the way of the battleship and we just have to make do with various consciously-fallible methods.



Im not sure I'd call it a rout as I think that the R's will gain about 10 seats in the House but the D's will still retain control, if narrowly. At least thats what the current numbers seem to show. But heres the kicker: vote totals were higher for Dems than in 2018, its just that the Trump base was really really activated so they overcame it. Link (https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1324333497042018304)
Definitely a setback though and its going to be a while before we really understand why this happened.

[Montmorency]

Im not sure I'd call it a rout as I think that the R's will gain about 10 seats in the House but the D's will still retain control, if narrowly. At least thats what the current numbers seem to show. But heres the kicker: vote totals were higher for Dems than in 2018, its just that the Trump base was really really activated so they overcame it. Link (https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1324333497042018304)
Definitely a setback though and its going to be a while before we really understand why this happened.

Republicans are almost certain to win 20 seats of the current uncalled races (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-house.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-elections-2020&region=TOP_BANNER&context=election_recirc). That puts them in the 210s. It's more than 50/50 that we keep the majority, but it's hardly going to be any majority at all.

The gap between downballot race vote totals and the presidential race totals, looking at 2016, doesn't seem to be unique. Even then there was a gap of ~9 million votes. It seems a lot of low-info people really do habitually come to vote for President but skip all the alien stuff on the ballot beyond that. So I'm still stumped.

[Hooahguy]

Ah I see that. Dems need 9 seats to retain majority, are on track to win 11 of the remaining races. Im also bullish about some of the California and PA races in which the Dem is trailing, but also they have only counted about ~80% of the ballots with huge numbers of mail-ins to count. But yes I agree it wont be as huge of a margin as in 2018 and I wonder what 2022 will carry. Will be it a repeat of 2010 or another 2018? Clearly Trump being on the ballot carries great weight. Puzzling results indeed.

In Senate news, both the Georgia senate races are headed to a January runoff if the current percentages hold, as Perdue just dipped below 50%. This means that if somehow the Dems pick up both seats, then the Senate would go into Dem control, with VP Harris as tiebreaker. No idea what's going to happen but, to quote something I saw on twitter, the amount of money that will be poured into those runoffs is going to rival the GDP of a small nation.

And to be a debbie downer, from the perspective of a pastor: we were wrong about America (https://johnpavlovitz.com/2020/11/05/we-were-wrong-about-america/?fbclid=IwAR3EpFmpZTrLhCKqDtNdx-zcL7xWyqHGCTMT50jKgux2zGvBUvw0O-pBLqM).


We were wrong about people we know and love and live alongside and work with and study beside; about our parents, spouses, siblings, uncles, best friends, and neighbors: they are not the people we thought they were and we do not live in the country we thought we lived in.

We believed the best about this nation and we were mistaken.

To many oppressed and vulnerable communities, to people who have long known the depth of America’s sickness because they have experienced it in traffic stops and workplace mistreatment and opportunity inequity and the bitter words of strangers—this may be less shocking news than it is to those of us with greater privilege and more buffers to adversity and the luxury of naiveté.

But this is the sober spot in which we stand now: realizing that our optimism about the whole of this nation was misplaced,
our prayers for the better angels of so many white Christians were unanswered,
our childish illusions that people were indeed basically good and decent, seared away in their reaffirmation of something that the rest of the watching world finds reprehensible.

Edit: if the data (https://twitter.com/collinroth/status/1324382932493021188?s=20) is correct, almost 24,000 Republicans in Wisconsin did not vote for Trump but then voted for Republicans downballot, swinging the state to Biden. Huge if true.

[Montmorency]

If Georgia saves our butts it would be a hell of a thing. And both Senate races, including the special election, have the Democratic candidates drawing near-50% in the most bearish national environment for Democrats in a decade or more.

Imagine Biden ends up losing NC, PA, and Arizona but clinches the EC off GA, NV, and WI with fewer net votes than Trump did in 2016. It might be enough to inspire a Republican consensus against the Electoral College. Nah, just kidding - they know they need it.



Edit: if the data is correct, almost 24,000 Republicans in Wisconsin did not vote for Trump but then voted for Republicans downballot, swinging the state to Biden. Huge if true.

For this to be a main thread through the election, it would have to be multiple millions nationally.

[Hooahguy]

If Georgia saves our butts it would be a hell of a thing. And both Senate races, including the special election, have the Democratic candidates drawing near-50% in the most bearish national environment for Democrats in a decade or more.

Yeah it would certainly be something, and it just makes me more mad that I got kicked off the GA voter rolls last year so I couldnt partake in what might be a really amazing flip.


For this to be a main thread through the election, it would have to be multiple millions nationally.
Oh I wasnt trying to extrapolate anything from this for the election as a whole, just pointing out that it was really interesting in Wisconsin.

[Montmorency]

The Republican establishment has so far appeared content to let Trump drift loose, he having outserved his purpose as executive. Doubtless they feel confident at the prospect of overtaking a hamstrung Biden administration in the coming years. At least it's fitting that Trump go out - stabbed in the back - just the way he sent out so many of his minions.

On the other hand, the nithing and his family are even now entreating state Republicans in states where Biden wins narrowly to disregard the vote and select their own slate of electors. It may be the most pathetic coup attempt in history, but it shows just how far Trump can go (much further than this) and how much he depends on the enabling of his party to act.

Sadly, the Rorke's Drift traumatic nearness of the election likely precludes any Biden DOJ prosecution. There's a good chance they'll be too piss-frozen at the evaporation of the polling-indicated mandate to wield power at all, let alone pursue criminal charges against a (most criminal of all time) former president.

[ReluctantSamurai]

@ Samurai: What's the message for this?

Dunno exactly what you're asking here. Latinos and conspiracy theories? Have no clue, not just for Latinos, but ANYONE that buys into this crap. No brain, perhaps?:shrug:

But this, I have an opinion:


A flood of disinformation and deceptive claims is damaging Joe Biden in the nation’s biggest swing state.

The Biden campaign damaged themselves with Florida in general, and Latinos in particular. Florida Amendment 2 passed with 60% of the vote. Lot's of rhetoric from the Biden campaign about a national raising of the minimum wage to $15/hr. Not a peep about it during minimal campaigning in Florida.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/11/5/21549857/florida-minimum-wage-amendment-2


What Florida voters just did for themselves in approving a minimum wage ballot measure, Republican lawmakers in the state wouldn’t have — in fact, they outright opposed it. But Democrats would have, and more voters should be aware of that.

The results out of Florida on Tuesday left some people scratching their heads: Who were these people who voted for both Amendment 2 and Republican candidates, including Trump? Biden supports a nationwide $15 minimum wage; Trump has said it should be a state-by-state decision and that raising wages too much would make businesses close. But the issue isn’t actually super-complicated: People like the idea of paying workers better.

Florida’s vote should also send a signal to Democrats that a $15 minimum wage is something they should talk about more. Not every state will put out a ballot measure for people to vote on it themselves — and if it’s left to lawmakers to address the issue, Americans should be reminded that Democrats say they will.

The Biden campaign basically ignored, or took for granted the Latino vote in Florida, Texas, and Arizona. He paid for that dearly when many of them went for CoviDon, mainly on the economy issue.

[Montmorency]

Dunno exactly what you're asking here. Latinos and conspiracy theories? Have no clue, not just for Latinos, but ANYONE that buys into this crap. No brain, perhaps?:shrug:

But this, I have an opinion:



The Biden campaign damaged themselves with Florida in general, and Latinos in particular. Florida Amendment 2 passed with 60% of the vote. Lot's of rhetoric from the Biden campaign about a national raising of the minimum wage to $15/hr. Not a peep about it during minimal campaigning in Florida.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/11/5/21549857/florida-minimum-wage-amendment-2



I have no idea what Biden did or did not campaign on in Florida, or how, but here's an article (https://fox40.com/news/political-connection/biden-pushes-for-increasing-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour/) noting he promoted a minimum wage increase in Florida while campaigning last month. Evidently he wasn't mum.


The Biden campaign basically ignored, or took for granted the Latino vote in Florida, Texas, and Arizona. He paid for that dearly when many of them went for CoviDon, mainly on the economy issue.

We just don't have enough information yet to conclude that. But we do know that, with Trump (and more so Republicans) somehow enjoying a small wave election in their favor compared to 2018, small-bore technical analysis of a campaign in a particular state isn't adequate to explain the overall results.

What I really want to get across though is that we should be skeptical that the content of any media strategy will prove influential in the future, given the nature of media and society today. Maybe there is something that can be done, but it probably looks more like the Democratic Party popularizing a left-wing propaganda wing and buying up news and radio outlets across the country, rather than adjusting its ad buys for TV or Internet markets.

[ReluctantSamurai]

it probably looks more like the Democratic Party popularizing a left-wing propaganda wing and buying up news and radio outlets across the country, rather than adjusting its ad buys for TV or Internet markets.

Not buying into that line of thinking. The old adage of money talks and bullshit walks is proving to not be the case in this election. Democrats in Senate races outspent their opponents by huge margins in Iowa, Montana, S. Carolina, and Texas...and lost in each case. Most notable was Jaime Harrison spending a mind-boggling $57 MILLION in his campaign against Lindsey Graham---and lost. It's also happened in the House.

Money alone isn't going to cut it. I read an overview of why Trump carried Florida easily, from a GOP organizer in Florida stating that the biggest difference in securing the Latino vote there was because they went door-to-door presenting their case for Trump, and signed up as many unregistered voters as they could find. Biden's campaign didn't really start ramping up there until September, well behind their opponents.

There's one thing you can say about Republicans...at the grass roots level, they are not afraid to go out and put in some hard work. Outside of certain areas like Arizona, Colorado, and Missouri, I'm not sure you can say the same about Democrats.

[edyzmedieval]

I just wanna say John King & Steve Kornacki are doing a masterclass in political analysis.

Master masterclass.

[Hooahguy]

The Biden campaign basically ignored, or took for granted the Latino vote in Florida, Texas, and Arizona. He paid for that dearly when many of them went for CoviDon, mainly on the economy issue.
I dunno, he and Harris both visited multiple times (separately I believe), especially in October. As did Obama. And didnt Bloomberg spend something like $100 million for Biden there too? Biden lost Cubans and Venezuelans for reasons I brought up earlier in this thread. Leftist rhetoric plays extremely poorly in these communities and Trump was able to tie Biden to people like Bernie and AOC which was enough to turn the state decisively to Trump. Florida will be a reliably red state for a generation.

As for the not going door to door thing, there's a pandemic going on so I think its understandable why Dems didnt really start this until September. But even if they started earlier, I do not think it would have been enough to overcome the other major issues.

In a similar vein, some interesting (https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/spanberger-criticizes-democrats-strategy-in-caucus-call/2020/11/05/6ec2b368-258a-4061-9738-d83ee8971c3c_video.html) leaked comments by Rep. Spanberger (flipped a seat in 2018, narrowly held onto her seat this year) during a Dem caucus call. Called the election on a Congressional level a failure for Dems (accurate). I saw this in another place but Pelosi reportedly waived off her comments. I am personally hearing from a friend who works in my old office that people arent really happy with how Pelosi is handling this, so I do wonder if her time as speaker is limited, especially if moderates revolt. I kinda doubt it though, as this is her final term before retirement and I would be surprised if others knock her from being speaker for a final term.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Leftist rhetoric plays extremely poorly in these communities and Trump was able to tie Biden to people like Bernie and AOC which was enough to turn the state decisively to Trump.

Which serves my point. You know, I know, and many people know, Biden/Harris are anything but leftist. In fact, they've done a lot to distance themselves from the Democratic left-wing. IMHO, they didn't do a very good job of communicating this to Floridians. The GOP successfully exploited this mistake.

[Montmorency]

Which serves my point. You know, I know, and many people know, Biden/Harris are anything but leftist. In fact, they've done a lot to distance themselves from the Democratic left-wing. IMHO, they didn't do a very good job of communicating this to Floridians. The GOP successfully exploited this mistake.

The old adage of money talks and bullshit walks is proving to not be the case in this election.

I think you're misunderstanding me, as the quoted are my premise. Simply spending money on ad buys is not enough, tweaking the content of the ads, their themes and focuses, is not enough. There needs to be sustained exposure to and control over the desirable media narratives, and that requires a media apparatus of the sort the Right has. Once this is acknowledged that's the point where one realizes that it isn't about "doing a good job" but actually having the money to buy the media in the first place. I'm sure you are aware that Republicans and billionaires have a monopsony on local news, local TV, local radio...

Effort and skill are not the limiting factor when contesting entrenched propaganda and - conspiracy theories. You need to fight fire with fire in this case. More ads featuring "I'm Joe Democrat and I support a higher minimum wage" is not enough, though I'm glad to see it tried. The upcoming Georgia runoffs are the perfect opportunity to tweak legacy tactics in the way you think can make a difference. Dems and Biden should campaign heavily against Republicans as a party and advertise some good things they intend to do with 50 Senate seats. Such as cut people more checks, perhaps. Good experimental environment.


Money alone isn't going to cut it. I read an overview of why Trump carried Florida easily, from a GOP organizer in Florida stating that the biggest difference in securing the Latino vote there was because they went door-to-door presenting their case for Trump, and signed up as many unregistered voters as they could find. Biden's campaign didn't really start ramping up there until September, well behind their opponents.

Eh...

I've seen a lot of takes this year that "ground game" and street canvassing are not effective uses of money and therefore the Biden campaign was deprioritizing them. I wouldn't take it for granted



I dunno, he and Harris both visited multiple times (separately I believe), especially in October. As did Obama. And didnt Bloomberg spend something like $100 million for Biden there too? Biden lost Cubans and Venezuelans for reasons I brought up earlier in this thread. Leftist rhetoric plays extremely poorly in these communities and Trump was able to tie Biden to people like Bernie and AOC which was enough to turn the state decisively to Trump. Florida will be a reliably red state for a generation.

We should be more careful in making these assumptions. Even Obama, who won or came close to winning Cubans, won the Hispanic vote in Florida in 2012 by 60-40 according to exit polls. And if this cycle is peak Republican performance, it represents
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article1944391.html

Meanwhile, Trump made no gains in Texas, Biden being the primary beneficiary of consolidation from the former third party vote (it was the opposite in many other parts of the country) - improving Clinton's performance by 3 points. Trump's margin in Florida this time is 3 points, less than the 6-point margin in Texas and not much more than Biden's margin in Michigan.

The real problem with Florida, which has been noted for many years, is the inexhaustible stream of aging or elderly conservative migrants from the rest of the US. Florida is of a kind.

Comparing 2020 and 2016 exit polls indicates that Biden lost so much with people in their 30s that it swamped his gains with older voters, which is yet another supremely odd finding that I don't take it for granted. These exit polls also indicate that Biden made a 20-point gain among people in their late 20s, yet lost ground with those in their early 20s. There is so much we have to find out that making strong conclusions from personal theories is perilous.

None of the above is to disparage the desire to increase the salience of Hispanic groups' interests in the party, which is desirable on its own merits and needed in the long-term.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Look folks, I don't fundamentally disagree with what you are saying. But the fact remains, that for the second presidential election in a row, Democrats have severely under performed. Why is that? Is it that America has become a nation of gun-toting, conspiracy-believing bunch of idiots? To a certain degree, yes. There's simply no answer to that. Republicans are willing to accept those people into the fold in their attempt to attain or remain in power. That's not something that leads to a healthy political (or physical) existence. If that's the direction we are headed here, then we are lost no matter what the Democrats do.

I personally believe that we are most definitely going down that road, and I am completely disgusted with all of it. When people get killed over an issue so trivial as the wearing of a piece of cloth on your face during a pandemic, when 70 million people knowingly vote for someone who is a blatant racist, a misogynist, has committed crimes even while in office, and cares more for his bank account and image than for the people he's supposed to lead, then something is seriously wrong here.

Considering all that, this election should have been a slam-dunk. As it is, Biden appears to be on a path to barely squeak by. This speaks to the overall weakness of the Democratic candidate, and certainly as to how they ran their campaign. The 'broad-coalition', middle-of-the-road approach is a failure. Democrats need to take a firm stand on issues, and more importantly, work like hell to see them to fruition.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but it sums up many of my feelings:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/05/trump-should-have-lost-in-a-landslide-the-fact-that-he-didnt-speaks-volumes


But Biden didn’t offer a clear and compelling alternative. He was a weak candidate (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/03/democrats-you-really-do-not-want-to-nominate-joe-biden) from the start, so much so that even some of his allies (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/481116-john-kerry-overheard-discussing-potential-2020-bid-amid-concerns-over) were worried what would happen if he won the primary. Biden, like Hillary Clinton before him, represented the corporate wing of the Democratic party; he loudly defended the private health insurance industry (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/10/biden-says-he-wouldd-veto-medicare-for-all-as-coronavirus-focuses-attention-on-health.html) and the fracking industry (https://www.timesonline.com/story/news/2020/10/15/biden-insists-he-wont-ban-fracking-philadelphia-town-hall/3673154001/) from attacks by the left. He ran away from proposals favored by the Democratic base like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. He didn’t show much interest in courting core constituencies like Latino voters (reportedly, the Biden campaign did not consider them part of its “path to victory (https://news.yahoo.com/biden-campaign-doesnt-consider-latinos-143056489.html)”, which helps explain the losses in Texas and Florida). Biden didn’t even put much energy into the campaign; at crucial moments when Trump’s team were knocking on a million doors a week, Biden’s was reportedly knocking on zero (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/04/trump-joe-biden-campaign-door-knockers-391454). His ground game in important swing states like Michigan was “invisible (https://time.com/5889093/joe-biden-michigan-campaign/)”.

We know how Democrats can win again. Thomas Frank, in his vital book, Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? (https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781627795395), explains that Democrats need to get back to being a party that offers something meaningful to working people. We know that voting Republican is no indication that voters actually want the agenda the Republican party will pursue in office. Fox News polling indicates (https://twitter.com/existentialfish/status/1323752032000450570) voters want universal healthcare, abortion rights and a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants. Florida voters, even as they selected Donald Trump, also opted to increase (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/524379-florida-approves-15-minimum-wage) the state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour. The Democrats do not need to propose insipid half-measures when the data indicates that the public are fully on board with a progressive agenda.

Blaming the voters simply will not do. This is a failure of leadership. Those responsible for it need to be held accountable. Unfortunately, it looks like some in the party will learn the wrong lessons. Even though dozens of democratic socialists (https://twitter.com/DemSocialists/status/1323990303670415360) won their elections this year while centrists struggled, there is a contingent among Democrats whose solution to any problem is the same: become more like Republicans.

It is time for a whole new approach, not a double dose of the existing one. We need to take the right lessons from this election, the ones that didn’t take in 2016. First, don’t trust polls, and don’t get complacent or assume the tides of history will carry you to victory. Second, Trumpism will not “self-destruct”: you can’t simply run against Trump, you need a powerful alternative vision that actually gives people what they say they want and fights for something worth believing in.

Even if Biden wins, he's considering placing corporate GOP people into cabinet positions. Insane. But that's what you get when you elect corporate politicians.

[Idaho]

Considering all that, this election should have been a slam-dunk. As it is, Biden appears to be on a path to barely squeak by. This speaks to the overall weakness of the Democratic candidate...

The democrats have fielded two very poor candidates in a row. Both candidates have been the lead candidate because of internal party seniority combined with blandness. Blandness used to be an asset. It used to be that you wanted a candidate that no one could grab hold of and drag down. But that's changed. You now want a bold and, at times, obnoxious and opinionated candidate.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I personally believe that we are most definitely going down that road, and I am completely disgusted with all of it. When people get killed over an issue so trivial as the wearing of a piece of cloth on your face during a pandemic, when 70 million people knowingly vote for someone who is a blatant racist, a misogynist, has committed crimes even while in office, and cares more for his bank account and image than for the people he's supposed to lead, then something is seriously wrong here.

Can we say this is true for every Trump voter? Not everyone who voted for Trump were putting flags on their trucks and held rallies every other day for months to intimidate people.

If we have reason to believe that many voters don't even know Trump's own positions/policies, then two choices:
A. Monty is correct that Republican voters are at their core signing up for an authoritarian culture wars that keep their class/group above others on the socioeconomic level regardless of whether the overall standard of living rises or falls.
B. People are extremely fucking dumb and too easily suckered in by media bubbles (my theory).

While Monty has shown the statistical correlation between race relations and GOP voters, it's still hard to prove whether this mentality is inherent and attracted to the party or has been carefully cultivated among conservative minded people through a concerted effort since the 1970s and the kickoff of the Southern Strategy.

For the sake of my own sanity, I'm perhaps too attached to my idea of slow but steady indoctrination because there really is no solution if all these people are just...inherently terrible people.

[Pannonian]

The democrats have fielded two very poor candidates in a row. Both candidates have been the lead candidate because of internal party seniority combined with blandness. Blandness used to be an asset. It used to be that you wanted a candidate that no one could grab hold of and drag down. But that's changed. You now want a bold and, at times, obnoxious and opinionated candidate.

Labour went that route in 2015, and look where it went. Maybe it'll work better in the US than it did in the UK.

[ReluctantSamurai]

If we have reason to believe that many voters don't even know Trump's own positions/policies, then two choices:
A. Monty is correct that Republican voters are at their core signing up for an authoritarian culture wars that keep their class/group above others on the socioeconomic level regardless of whether the overall standard of living rises or falls.
B. People are extremely fucking dumb and too easily suckered in by media bubbles (my theory).

I think it's a combination of both. Of course every Republican is not a MAGA-Manic, and you're right that many folks are just idiots seeking to advance their own agenda---hence QAnon. And now those brain-dead morons have put one of their own into Congress. Doesn't bode well.....

On a different note, moderate Democrats are just plain dumb. They are bemoaning the failure to retake the Senate, and the loss of seats in the House, blaming progressives:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/524690-democrats-post-election-family-meeting-descends-into-chaos

And yet, nearly every seat lost in the House was a moderate. Meanwhile, all four members of the"Squad" retained their seats, as well as Jayapal in Washington, and Pocan in Wisconsin, while two other progressives, Jamaal Bowman in New York and Cori Bush in Missouri won their right to go to Congress. Instead of blaming the left, how about evaluating how a moderate stance might not cut it anymore, considering the ever growing number of young people coming of voting age. Ya might want to take a look at what moves the needle for them:idea3:

[Montmorency]

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1324571138790510592

Can Brits imagine a former Speaker of Parliament demanding that the losing PM physically detain electoral workers/officials to halt the counting of votes? And the media still invite the guy for appearances and commentary?

But Trump is reportedly under investigation for Hatch Act violations. Yep, he's toast if this is finally coming up.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/special-counsels-office-opens-hatch-act-investigation-into-trumps-use-of-white-house-for-campaign-events


Glass half full take about the gains Biden has made over Clinton's performance.
https://twitter.com/nberlat/status/1324479139395575810


On Post Office inefficiency (?) leading to tens of thousands of ballots delivered late. Quite bad for it's own sake, but probably not enough to have affected more than a handful of downballot elections at worst.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/05/usps-late-ballots-election/


Looking at the polls again, the aggregates tended to nail Biden's vote share, but - undecided voters once again broke for Trump? Just as they did in 2016? Maybe then "undecided" has just been a stand-in for "shy Trump voter." ~5 points of undecideds is still a lot if they all go to Trump! The polling makes much more sense if you redistribute every undecided voter to Trump (though that isn't strictly applicable in every case).

Now we just need to figure out what happened with the downballot.



https://i.imgur.com/qzuZRIG.jpg

Strike For The South

[Crandar]

Most undecided voters are just shy Trumpists, I have been convinced about that since 2016. I know pollsters don't like that concept, but honestly it looks like the simplest explanation and also confirms a pattern I have been observing everywhere, including online anonymous forums. You know, the guy who claims to dislike both sides, insisting they are both equally wrong (fallacy of moderation), but when things get heated, his criticism focuses exclusively on a specific side. We have them here too, with all that "distanced" apologia for the Nazis of the Golden Dawn.

That doesn't mean it's the only factor, polls might have underestimated Trump's performance among minorities and some pollsters, for mysterious reasons, refused to update their methodology, when 2016 revealed that voters without any college degree were underestimated. Regarding Corbyn, I don't think his failure is a sign that radicalism will get you in trouble in the United Kingdom. Labour was decimated, because Corbyn opportunistically refused to take a side in the Brexit debate, which inevitably led many from both camps to reject him.

P.S. Forgot to reply to Montmorency earlier, but, yes, you are right. What I meant to say about Harris was opportunist, not populist. Major failure in English here, so my apologies.

[edyzmedieval]

Decision Desk HQ, a well known political analysis team, has called it for Joe Biden.

https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1324710866516905984

[ReluctantSamurai]

Decision Desk HQ, a well known political analysis team, has called it for Joe Biden.

Doesn't mean much, at this point. CoviDon will call for recounts in several states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Arizona (if he loses there), and perhaps Michigan. If that fails to alter results, the next phase will be to appeal to Republican legislatures in those states to ignore the popular vote and declare their electoral votes for him. More chaos and more litigation ensues. His final line of defense (which he has stated openly) is that the whole matter ends up in SCOTUS where he's counting on the lapdogs he's placed there to give him the presidency. It ain't over by a long shot....

A bit more on how far QAnon has come in the last four years:

https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-conspiracy-theory/here-are-qanon-supporters-running-congress-2020

I don't have the time or the desire to fact check the validity of the list, but two (not just the one I was aware of) QAnon supporters have made it to Congress. And this is the emerging America? We think things are screwed up now, wait until 2024.....

[edyzmedieval]

Recounting in margins that are over 50.000 are highly improbable and frankly useless. So Michigan no chance. Wisconsin as well, unlikely.

Georgia will go into automatic recount however.

[Montmorency]

Look folks, I don't fundamentally disagree with what you are saying. But the fact remains, that for the second presidential election in a row, Democrats have severely under performed. Why is that? Is it that America has become a nation of gun-toting, conspiracy-believing bunch of idiots? To a certain degree, yes. There's simply no answer to that. Republicans are willing to accept those people into the fold in their attempt to attain or remain in power. That's not something that leads to a healthy political (or physical) existence. If that's the direction we are headed here, then we are lost no matter what the Democrats do.

I personally believe that we are most definitely going down that road, and I am completely disgusted with all of it. When people get killed over an issue so trivial as the wearing of a piece of cloth on your face during a pandemic, when 70 million people knowingly vote for someone who is a blatant racist, a misogynist, has committed crimes even while in office, and cares more for his bank account and image than for the people he's supposed to lead, then something is seriously wrong here.

Considering all that, this election should have been a slam-dunk. As it is, Biden appears to be on a path to barely squeak by. This speaks to the overall weakness of the Democratic candidate, and certainly as to how they ran their campaign. The 'broad-coalition', middle-of-the-road approach is a failure. Democrats need to take a firm stand on issues, and more importantly, work like hell to see them to fruition.

I don't agree with everything in this article, but it sums up many of my feelings:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/05/trump-should-have-lost-in-a-landslide-the-fact-that-he-didnt-speaks-volumes

Dems are a broad and therefore fractious coalition, but I'm sure there are some consensus items (especially if the president is willing to promote them).

One thing I would say is that Biden has only underperformed relative to Bill Clinton (96) and Obama (2008); Biden will end up approximating Obama's own 2012 performance. The House, Senate, and state races have gone badly, being a miniature version of the Republican waves (less than half the size) of 1994 and 2010. The House majority will fall within 220-225 I'm sure. Really, the Republican performance beside Trump is the primary question. You have to separate the two presidential candidates from their parties here, because many millions of voters (perhaps more than there ever existed of Obama-Trump voters) did so.

The notion that conservatives vote conservative because they're holding out for an opinionated leftist is one I struggled to credit even when I thought it had special license to be played out. At the very least it needs strong evidence. I've been reading Robinson (linked op-ed) for years, and he has been disappointing for the past year. The density of circular logic and question-begging on this topic has become typical; I believe once he fixates on a particular idea or commitment he turns into a recklessly-dogmatic asshole of the sort who believes their and only their exact preferences in policy and rhetoric can be the magic key to unlock the electorate and achieve gr8 success. The hell of it is we share the similar goals and preferences for how to conduct national campaigns, but I would urge more humility and caution as to what "works."



The democrats have fielded two very poor candidates in a row. Both candidates have been the lead candidate because of internal party seniority combined with blandness. Blandness used to be an asset. It used to be that you wanted a candidate that no one could grab hold of and drag down. But that's changed. You now want a bold and, at times, obnoxious and opinionated candidate.

Biden will win the vote by a higher margin than any slate Labour has ever fielded in the UK. I just don't feel there is good evidence for this take.
https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1323827431178948615

The notion that conservatives vote conservative because they're holding out for an opinionated leftist is one I struggled to credit even when I thought it had special license to be played out. At the very least it needs strong evidence.




Can we say this is true for every Trump voter? Not everyone who voted for Trump were putting flags on their trucks and held rallies every other day for months to intimidate people.

If we have reason to believe that many voters don't even know Trump's own positions/policies, then two choices:
A. Monty is correct that Republican voters are at their core signing up for an authoritarian culture wars that keep their class/group above others on the socioeconomic level regardless of whether the overall standard of living rises or falls.
B. People are extremely fucking dumb and too easily suckered in by media bubbles (my theory).

While Monty has shown the statistical correlation between race relations and GOP voters, it's still hard to prove whether this mentality is inherent and attracted to the party or has been carefully cultivated among conservative minded people through a concerted effort since the 1970s and the kickoff of the Southern Strategy.

For the sake of my own sanity, I'm perhaps too attached to my idea of slow but steady indoctrination because there really is no solution if all these people are just...inherently terrible people.

The framing here is troublesome. The matter is not one of them being "inherently" terrible, but of holding particular psychological tendencies and values that can most certainly also be cultivated over time; but the thing is the underlying tendency or susceptibility has to be present. Otherwise you could theoretically brainwash Mr. Rogers by giving him a Clockwork Orange treatment of OANN and Alex Jones.

Your two options aren't incompatible anyway, and are interrelated. Compare two voters who have both watched The Apprentice TV show and have both seen 1 hour cumulatively of Trump speaking as a politician since 2015. One falls in love with Trump, one abhors him, both hardly know anything about him or his governance. One thinks Trump is a tough dealmaking businessman who cares about people like them (and maybe gives the 'appropriate' regard to Those People'), the other observes a nasty clown who doesn't know what he's talking about and cares only about himself. What's the difference? Psychology and values. :shrug:

In 1900 almost everyone here was racist. But some were less racist than others. There's a difference between intellectualizing the need to sterilize rural blacks and control them like cattle, and thinking of them as poor and maltreated, if lesser, brutes. This one's harder to demonstrate as a historical exercise, but the sliding scale of attitudes could also reflect underlying moral attributes across times and contexts. For that matter, we may also need to treat Trumpists on a sliding scale, just as people in many countries have been obliged to accommodate elements of their authoritarian regimes in order to promote civil peace. Whether or not all Republicans are the same is beside the point as to how we should relate to the least-bad ones.


Labour went that route in 2015, and look where it went. Maybe it'll work better in the US than it did in the UK.

As politicians qua politicians Clinton and Biden (and even Sanders) are vastly better than Corbyn. He's just a really bad politician that came in with a blank slate and mismanaged the situation and made himself hated in and out of the party. Being a bad politician here is a knock even if you think Corbyn is a saint, because we don't field politicians (or shouldn't) to reflect our attitudes or opinions; they're there to win and wield power on our behalf. That's their job. They're not our friends, they're our implements.

A charismatic hard-lefty who is personally likable to a broad cross-section (exclusive of the media ops against them) would be a good opportunity where available, though of course there's no holding out for the legendary "Johnny Unbeatable."


I think it's a combination of both. Of course every Republican is not a MAGA-Manic, and you're right that many folks are just idiots seeking to advance their own agenda---hence QAnon. And now those brain-dead morons have put one of their own into Congress. Doesn't bode well.....

On a different note, moderate Democrats are just plain dumb. They are bemoaning the failure to retake the Senate, and the loss of seats in the House, blaming progressives:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/524690-democrats-post-election-family-meeting-descends-into-chaos

And yet, nearly every seat lost in the House was a moderate. Meanwhile, all four members of the"Squad" retained their seats, as well as Jayapal in Washington, and Pocan in Wisconsin, while two other progressives, Jamaal Bowman in New York and Cori Bush in Missouri won their right to go to Congress. Instead of blaming the left, how about evaluating how a moderate stance might not cut it anymore, considering the ever growing number of young people coming of voting age. Ya might want to take a look at what moves the needle for them:idea3:

To be fair, the moderates were always correlated with vulnerable seats and the progressives with safe seats. One good data point we can identify is that Kara Eastman in Nebraska had another close defeat in her House race in a competitive district (she ran in 2018), but didn't underperform compared to other Dems AFAIK. And I might be getting this wrong but the husband of her losing primary opponent, a former Congressman, endorsed Eastman's Republican opponent?!

Generally I would say political skills matter at least as much as ideology, so a capable or otherwise suitable progressive should be preferable to a generic centrist or empty suit (not the same thing, the latter is more malleable) in most districts.


Doesn't mean much, at this point. CoviDon will call for recounts in several states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Arizona (if he loses there), and perhaps Michigan. If that fails to alter results, the next phase will be to appeal to Republican legislatures in those states to ignore the popular vote and declare their electoral votes for him. More chaos and more litigation ensues. His final line of defense (which he has stated openly) is that the whole matter ends up in SCOTUS where he's counting on the lapdogs he's placed there to give him the presidency. It ain't over by a long shot....

A bit more on how far QAnon has come in the last four years:

https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-conspiracy-theory/here-are-qanon-supporters-running-congress-2020

I don't have the time or the desire to fact check the validity of the list, but two (not just the one I was aware of) QAnon supporters have made it to Congress. And this is the emerging America? We think things are screwed up now, wait until 2024.....

All signs point to the Republican Party cutting Trump loose. He has outlived his purpose, and only the fanatics and the lapdogs (Graham and Cruz) in elected office are calling for extraordinary measures. I feel pretty good about this one.

QAnon has surprising appeal around the world. It's germinating all over the place.

[rory_20_uk]

Georgia has given me hope - a state with a Republican Governor, and Republican control of both houses in Legislature and of course Republican leaning courts has not made any effort to curtail the process of counting votes - although highly dubious, surely a new law could have been rammed through to try to fix the election with Trump then enthusiastically leaning on the DoJ / Supreme Court to say it was all OK.

Equally, all Federal Agencies seem to have absolutely no interest in getting involved - compared to during the protests where they took a much more heavy handed role.

Outside the Trump bubble, most are prepared to work with Trump for what they want but there are still lines that will not be crossed.

Some have already been saying that Donald might stand again in 2024. I sincerely hope he'd have to run for Office from Federal Prison by that point.

~:smoking:

[ReluctantSamurai]

To be fair, the moderates were always correlated with vulnerable seats and the progressives with safe seats.

So how do you explain Cori Bush in ultra-conservative Missouri? As to vulnerable moderates, blaming progressives and whining doesn't explain why they lost:lost:


I feel pretty good about this one.

It appears that way, but then so did the polls all year long. CoviDon HATES to lose, so he will drag this out as long as possible.


All signs point to the Republican Party cutting Trump loose.

When has that ever mattered? If CoviDon can come up with any kind of reasonable case that can reach SCOTUS, Republicans will lick his boots just as they have throughout his term, and especially this year.


QAnon has surprising appeal around the world. It's germinating all over the place.

Not only surprising, but puzzling, and dangerous to democracy. WTF!?!

OTOH, the sheer stupidity of Trump supporters is on full display in Arizona and Pennsylvania. In both states, the presidential race is extremely tight. However, in Arizona, a larger share of uncounted votes come from Republican dominated districts, so of course Trumpists are chanting "Count All the Votes!". In Pennsylvania, a larger share of uncounted votes come from Democratic dominated districts, so the Trumpists chant "Stop the Vote!".

@ACIN---this lends much credibility to your earlier statement that "People are extremely fucking dumb and too easily suckered in by media bubbles":laugh4:

[Hooahguy]

So how do you explain Cori Bush in ultra-conservative Missouri? As to vulnerable moderates, blaming progressives and whining doesn't explain why they lost:lost:


Lol, MO-1 is an extremely solidly blue district. Has reliably been in Dem hands for over two decades. Bush's predecessor, Lacy Clay, won the 2018 midterms with 80% of the vote. In 2016 it was 75%. In the Dem rout of 2010, he still got like 78%. Hardly an ultra-conservative district. We wont know exactly why Dems got shellacked in those House races until all the votes come in and a proper analysis can be done. I mean Ilhan Omar got 15% less votes than Biden did in her very solidly blue district too last I checked so I dont think its a moderate/progressive issue and just a general downballot problem in swing districts. But I can understand why moderates are mad at progressives because the progressive candidates are pretty much just in safe Dem seats and the moderates in swing districts, so they werent the ones who got voted out. And there is a perception that more radical ideas like defund the police or packing the courts hurt. Did those slogans actually hurt? I dunno. My initial hypothesis is that a number of swing voters wanted Trump gone, but also a GOP check on Biden and the Dems so they voted split ticket.

Also I disagree that Biden was a weak candidate. Bland, yes, but also perfect for the moment. Anyone else who ran in the primaries would have lost. And certainly would not have been leading in Georgia of all places. Bernie would have been crushed too, an American version of Labour's rout in 2019 under Corbyn.

And a final note, I see a lot of Dems being apoplectic because this wasn't a Dem sweep. I too am upset that we didnt get a Dem majority in the Senate, but assuming there's no coup attempt, we won back the White House which is still very big. A lot of good can still be done even with a split government. We should try to enjoy the moment before rolling up our sleeves to try to win the two GA special elections and then the 2022 midterms.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Lol, MO-1 is an extremely solidly blue district. Has reliably been in Dem hands for over two decades.

Overlooks the fact that she is the first black woman ever to be elected to Congress in Missouri, and that her Democratic opponent in the primaries was a well established corporate Democrat in a family that dominated District 1 for nearly 50 years.


Also I disagree that Biden was a weak candidate. Bland, yes, but also perfect for the moment. Anyone else who ran in the primaries would have lost.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I'm in the contingent of folks who voted in this election for Biden/Harris not so much as support for them, but a rejection of Trump/Pence. It's speculation that noone else was capable of defeating Trump, and that Bernie would've gotten crushed.

We'll find out more about a Biden/Harris cabinet when we see his appointees. I suspect there will be more "disenfranchised" Republicans than progressives. I have the sneaky suspicion that it's going to look more like the 80's and 90's, than 2020.

If Biden can restore some semblance of sanity and organization to America's COVID response, and restore some trust with our allies around the world, that makes this election a big win. I don't see much of his economic platform bearing fruit, at least for the first two years, as long as the Grim Reaper is the Senate majority leader.

[edyzmedieval]

Senate is still undecided. Georgia's 2 elections are in runoff territory, to be done in January.

A double win for both seats would make it 51-49 for the Democrats.

[Hooahguy]

Overlooks the fact that she is the first black woman ever to be elected to Congress in Missouri, and that her Democratic opponent in the primaries was a well established corporate Democrat in a family that dominated District 1 for nearly 50 years.
Are you insinuating that the voters who for decades voted for a Black man for congress would all of a sudden reject a Black woman? Im not saying that its not an accomplishment to be the first Black woman ever to be elected to Congress in Missouri, but the election wasn't exactly close to begin with. But now lets take Kara Eastman, a progressive, in Nebraska's 2nd District. She lost her race but Biden won her district, which netted a valuable electoral college vote.


We'll have to agree to disagree here. I'm in the contingent of folks who voted in this election for Biden/Harris not so much as support for them, but a rejection of Trump/Pence. It's speculation that noone else was capable of defeating Trump, and that Bernie would've gotten crushed.

Well considering that Bernie got utterly shellacked in places like Michigan and Wisconsin during the primary, I think we do know how it would have gone.

On the topic of Nebraska-02 though, I saw something last night which suggested that while getting rid of the electoral college wont happen as it requires a constitutional change, a setup like Maine and Nebraska have could be a way forward with proportional EC votes in each state. Thoughts?

[drone]

My uninformed take:

Democrats are complaining about not sweeping everything/poor performance, but I don't think they are giving Trump enough credit. Say what you will about his policies or fitness for the job, he knows how to get his supporters out to vote. Many may have expected a repeat of 2018, but Trump was not on the ballot in 2018. Not all the votes are in nationally, but it's looking like Biden's 7-9% national lead in the polls prior to the election is going to translate to 4% in actuality. Given the inherit disadvantages for the Dems, having a slight lead in the House and not winning the Senate is about the correct result with a 4% differential. Trump overperformed. :shrug: Turnout was high in 2018 and even higher for 2020, Dems were motivated in both, but Trump wasn't really giving it his all in 2018 (hell, he was actively sabotaging some GOP candidates).

On a related note, what will happen in the Georgia Senate runoffs? Trump will not be on the ballot, and may not give a rat's ass about the result by the time that election draws near. He's transactional, he's not really a Republican and there's not much the GOP can give him if he's on the way out, he's already raided them for as much money as he could grab. Republicans may be jumping ship, but they will need to figure out how they plan on winning in the future with a damaged brand and without the enthusiasm he generated. Stacey Abrams delivered Georgia (assuming current result stands) to Biden and managed to get a Perdue-Ossoff runoff, can she pull it out again in January? And where in the Cabinet is she going (because Biden owes her bigly)?

[ReluctantSamurai]

Are you insinuating that the voters who for decades voted for a Black man for congress would all of a sudden reject a Black woman?

To clarify...the more important part (for me) was that she ran a grassroots primary campaign against a corporate Democrat whose family was basically the Godfather of politics in that district.

So I guess the Fox News---Donald Trump relationship is over. It seems pretty obvious who was using who for that tryst.....:creep:

And who becomes Q (no not THAT Q Trekkies) if/when CoviDon is out?

[Montmorency]

Here's the deal with voters and policy. Voters don't pay a lot of attention to policy, but they might like ideas. In isolation, without much detail for baggage (this is what hobbled E. Warren). The cohort of Republicans, perhaps up to half, who are socially-conservative but fiscally-liberal can stomach incremental fiscal liberalism, or even incremental social liberalism, detached from candidates and parties. And some causes are more normalized than ever. They've gotten used to the periodic need to increase the minimum wage. The old standbys of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are popular among them. They can accept gay marriage by now.

But they have decisively associated the Democratic Party with effeminate, contemptuous, eggheads who are trying to put lazy welfare blacks, illegal immigrants, uppity women, and disgusting in-your-face queers up over them (who are the normal, the primary, members of society). They will almost never vote for Democrats as long as an issue that speaks to this anxiety over unfair subordination is salient in an election. Even if the Democratic Party or candidates could manufacture a fantastical alignment with the deepest-held policy preferences of this cohort, the Dem(s) would struggle to attract their votes. It's a matter of longstanding perception and propaganda as well as largely-unconscious psychology and bias.

Once we have a grip on what the case is we can unwishfully think about how to get around it.


Are you insinuating that the voters who for decades voted for a Black man for congress would all of a sudden reject a Black woman? Im not saying that its not an accomplishment to be the first Black woman ever to be elected to Congress in Missouri, but the election wasn't exactly close to begin with. But now lets take Kara Eastman, a progressive, in Nebraska's 2nd District. She lost her race but Biden won her district, which netted a valuable electoral college vote.

Eastman underperformed by 3 points relative to 2018. Let's spare a thought for moderate after moderate sinking by 10, 20 points.


Well considering that Bernie got utterly shellacked in places like Michigan and Wisconsin during the primary, I think we do know how it would have gone.

It is a fair point that Biden had higher actual support among Democrats, but that was a distinct context and the 2020 environment was almost tailor-made for testing the Sandersite theory of politics: Dem vs. Repub rather than Dem vs. Dem. It would be nice to have a test of what kind of tradeoffs really could occur between moderates and economic conservatives, and social conservatives (though I'm equally pessimistic).

It is a kind of lower standard for Biden; a Sanders-like candidate performing exactly like Biden has would not be strenuously defended by modal Democrats in these discussions. Boy, a Sanders Pyrrhic victory (which is what 2020 has been) would be treated by the media as discrediting the left flank for a decade. So yeah, there's a bias independent of performance.


To clarify...the more important part (for me) was that she ran a grassroots primary campaign against a corporate Democrat whose family was basically the Godfather of politics in that district.

And I'm pretty sure they endorsed her Republican opponent...

Speaking of Missouri, it appears Missouri and Kansas have the same exact presidential margins. How poetic.

[Hooahguy]

To clarify...the more important part (for me) was that she ran a grassroots primary campaign against a corporate Democrat whose family was basically the Godfather of politics in that district.


Ok? I mean its not unheard of, but I'd be far more impressed if they could actually flip a seat instead of just beating Dem incumbents. If Bush ran in Spanberger's district she would have lost. Honestly I wish more progressive candidates were like Katie Porter who flipped her district in 2018 and held this year too. Progressive, but also doesnt say and do stupid shit.



Eastman underperformed by 3 points relative to 2018. Let's spare a thought for moderate after moderate sinking by 10, 20 points.

So she did even worse this time around then.

Also theres this fun article (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/11/donald-trump-no-concession?utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&mbid=social_twitter&utm_brand=vf): Trump has signaled to allies that the Secret Service will have to drag him from the White House kicking and screaming.

All I can say is please dont threaten me with a good time. Who has popcorn?

[Montmorency]

https://thehill.com/homenews/presidential-campaign/524860-santorum-urges-giving-trump-time-to-accept-defeat-this-is-a#bottom-story-socials

Santorum urges giving Trump time to accept defeat: 'This is a very emotional time'

What a fucking loser. Every statement about Trump is somehow disqualifying for him to have ever sat in office.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th5uVIhQ8VY&feature=emb_title


So she did even worse this time around then.

Bro, she got 49% of the vote in 2018. She did better than the incumbent who got kicked out in 2016, who endorsed the Republican this cycle (https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-don-bacon-omaha-brad-ashford-general-elections-b9c9bc1d1214559b6cef2f9afc6c6073). Best-boy Conor Lamb dropped by 6 this year.


Like I said, progressives are held to a much higher standard.

[Hooahguy]

Like I said, progressives are held to a much higher standard.
Because if you are going to say that "our approach to winning elections is better" then you have to prove it. And winning in a D+20 district is not proving it. To me anyways.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Because if you are going to say that "our approach to winning elections is better" then you have to prove it. And winning in a D+20 district is not proving it. To me anyways.

They misspoke, meant to say "our approach to taking over the party is successful". Justice dems I think are still 0 wins in purple districts.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Spanberger on the House majority losses (https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/spanberger-criticizes-democrats-strategy-in-caucus-call/2020/11/05/6ec2b368-258a-4061-9738-d83ee8971c3c_video.html).

[edyzmedieval]

Being addicted to Twitter for this Election cycle news, I stumbled upon Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sharply criticising Spanberger's criticism, arguing that the Democratic party had almost no digital outreach compared to the Republicans who performed much much better.

Which if true, I find staggering. It's 2020 - it's a pandemic. People are home, always online. Why would you not have a digital strategy?

[Montmorency]

Because if you are going to say that "our approach to winning elections is better" then you have to prove it. And winning in a D+20 district is not proving it. To me anyways.

Think about what your snide remark implies, that a Democrat is chopped liver for losing vote-share in her rematch, even though almost every Democrat lost vote-share, and she lost a lot less than most. Disparate consideration.

We've already had this conversation. The bare minimum is just that the DCCC and DLCC and rival Dems not actively undermine progressive candidates.


They misspoke, meant to say "our approach to taking over the party is successful". Justice dems I think are still 0 wins in purple districts.

How many wins up are moderate Dems in purple districts this cycle? Lordie, don't ignore the context.

If you want to know which organization has succeeded in storming purple districts this cycle, that would be Stefanik's EPAC (https://elevate-pac.com/): Republican woman recruits have surged into the double digit victories this cycle IIRC.

Maybe since they're so successful we should let them run our primaries.

[ReluctantSamurai]

They will almost never vote for Democrats as long as an issue that speaks to this anxiety over unfair subordination is salient in an election.

That sounds like white supremacy anxiety, to me....


Honestly I wish more progressive candidates were like Katie Porter who flipped her district in 2018 and held this year too. Progressive, but also doesnt say and do stupid shit.

Katie Porter rocks, but what qualifies as "stupid shit"?

Spanberger's remarks are nothing more than looking for a scapegoat, and the left wing is it. The "socialist" and "defund the police" tags were put upon the Democratic Party by Republicans. How about getting off your ass and do something to actually...you know...control the narrative rather playing defense?


Maybe since they're so successful we should let them run our primaries.

:laugh4:

[Hooahguy]

Think about what your snide remark implies, that a Democrat is chopped liver for losing vote-share in her rematch, even though almost every Democrat lost vote-share, and she lost a lot less than most. Disparate consideration.

How many wins up are moderate Dems in purple districts this cycle? Lordie, don't ignore the context.

My point, which I thought has been very clear, was that what flies in a heavily D district wont in one that is purple, and the evidence heavily supports that. I don't think pointing that out is any more snide than the one you closed with.

As for wins, there's GA-07, IA-03, MI-11, MN-02, VA-07, UT-04, IL-14, PA-17, NY-19, NV-03, TX-07. I'm sure Im missing others.



Katie Porter rocks, but what qualifies as "stupid shit"?

Bush going to bat for Linda Sarsour for one, who is at best a polarizing figure. Or any number of Omar's past comments that people accuse of being antisemitic. While I, a Jewish person, do not believe they were (at least not outwardly), a sitting Member of Congress needs to be more careful about one's speech. My opinion anyways. My parents got mailers from the Republican Jewish Coalition tying Biden to those comments of hers so there is definitely an impact on some level.

[a completely inoffensive name]

How many wins up are moderate Dems in purple districts this cycle?
More than zero.

[Montmorency]

That sounds like white supremacy anxiety, to me....


That's part of it, but the general phenomenon is "status threat." There are some people who are fine with throwing marginalized groups a bone, but they can't tolerate feeling like they aren't the dominant partner anymore.


My point, which I thought has been very clear, was that what flies in a heavily D district wont in one that is purple, and the evidence heavily supports that. I don't think pointing that out is any more snide than the one you closed with.

So let the primary electorate decide for themselves, or pick candidates to support based on indicators of quality rather than their policy agenda?

The point is that neither "run more moderates" or "run more progressives" is a winning strategy in itself.


Bush going to bat for Linda Sarsour for one, who is at best a polarizing figure. Or any number of Omar's past comments that people accuse of being antisemitic. While I, a Jewish person, do not believe they were (at least not outwardly), a sitting Member of Congress needs to be more careful about one's speech. My opinion anyways. My parents got mailers from the Republican Jewish Coalition tying Biden to those comments of hers so there is definitely an impact on some level.

Pelosi, for one, says things that are offensive to Republicans, and used in their ads, all the time. She's no backbencher, but is one of the least popular safe seat Dems in the country. Has anyone told her to cool off her rhetoric and consider the damage she may be doing to the party brand? Republicans are always looking for an opening - they would be running on a pro-police platform by default this cycle - and they're the ones one needs to campaign against, not fellow Democrats (unless one is literally running against one for office). From what I could tell Espy and Jones did a fair job of that without resorting to hippie-punching. On the other hand, apparently most purple-district Dems have to run on bashing Pelosi (see the Blue Dog challenges to her leadership in 2018). Is that just normal and expected, but the existence of a Green New Deal is an unacceptable burden for non-supporters?

We can agree that every politician is better off not making 'dumb dumb' gaffes, but the determination is subjective. If it's something recklessly polarizing with no policy dimension or recognizable advantage, such as - for a made-up example - Elizabeth Warren declaring the Republican voter to be a subhuman brute fit only for scratching dirt, we could all agree on its unhelpfulness.

I get that electeds in less-safe seats are by definition less safe, but the existence of a Democrat elsewhere as lowest common denominator can't be limiting on anyone else.

I'm interested to see how Lee Carter, the socialist in Virginia state politics who comfortably won elections in a purple district but who is a genuine slugger on Twitter it turns out, performs in 2021.



More than zero.

This isn't the ringing endorsement you seem to think it is. What are the ratios, 0/1 against 3/+++ ? How many candidates who endorse Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, or whatever, survived in purple districts?

https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1324784432763539456


Here's the Dem vote margin for the 24 vulnerable Democratic House candidates compared to their GovTrack ideology score.

There's of course a million caveats here, but, in the aggregate: the more conservative their record in Congress, the worse they fared at the polls.

Six sponsors of Medicare-for-All won re-election in swing districts. SD, MT, and MS legalized marijuana. Florida raised its minimum wage. There are no majority-centrist districts; the districts are polarized, and the independents aren't centrists.

The issue is the party brand, not shit leftists say. That's not something easily fixed without being in power.

[Crandar]

Meanwhile in QAnon (https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanon-lost-and-confused-after-trumps-election-showing)...

Friendship ended with Storm, now Watermark is my best friend?

[Idaho]

Biden will win the vote by a higher margin than any slate Labour has ever fielded in the UK. I just don't feel there is good evidence for this take.
Record numbers voted for trump and even greater record numbers voted against him. If the Dems had fielded anyone 20 years younger with 5% more charisma, it would have been a landslide.

[Idaho]

Labour went that route in 2015, and look where it went. Maybe it'll work better in the US than it did in the UK.
Oh Jesus Christ. Really? You really managed to shoehorn that in? :laugh4:

[ReluctantSamurai]

This isn't the ringing endorsement you seem to think it is.

I think maybe ACIN's comment was a reference to Trump lawyer Jerome Marcus' statement that "There's a non-zero number of people in the room.":shrug:


Friendship ended with Storm, now Watermark is my best friend?

QAnon will just move on from CoviDon like nothing ever happened. That's how it works. A quote from your link:


“I want to believe the watermark thing,” Beck said. “That doesn’t even make sense logically, it doesn’t work. And before you spread things, you should think that one through.”

Uhmmm....QAnon followers don't think, Mr. Beck, and logic isn't a word in the QAnon vocabulary:crazy:

[ReluctantSamurai]

I expect to see more of this kind of BS as most of the Trump Administration law suits fail to produce meaningful results:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/524799-elections-outcome-could-depend-on-faithless-electors


What matters is that each state’s electors meet in their respective state capitals on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December to cast their votes. The results are counted by Congress, where they are tabulated in the first week of January before a joint meeting of the Senate and House of Representatives, presided over by the vice president, as president of the Senate.

With any luck, Donald Trump will be re-elected president on that day and in that place. The Constitution requires no less.

[edyzmedieval]

I see that more and more people on both sides are getting frustrated that this race is not being called yet.

I've seen pictures & reports that European outlets have called it for Biden already, despite the American media saying not yet.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I've seen pictures & reports that European outlets have called it for Biden already, despite the American media saying not yet.

Tough spot for US media. Georgia is doing a recount; Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and N. Carolina are still counting votes. Declaring a winner before all votes are tabulated will seem to add credence to Trump's "Stealing the Election" mantra. If that happens, expect to see more armed Trumpers showing up at places where the counting is being done, like the recent incident in Philly. OTOH, it's giving Trump more time to delay matters further with nonsensical law suits.

[edyzmedieval]

Joseph R. Biden will become the 46th President of the United States of America.

(race called & confirmed)

[ReluctantSamurai]

(race called & confirmed)

However, the shitshow will continue. If the call stands (currently under NFL review~D), the next level of combat shifts to the electoral college. Uncle Trumpy will call on states with Republican-dominated legislatures to ignore the popular vote, and commit their electoral votes for him. It ain't over yet.....:creep:

[Hooahguy]

The point is that neither "run more moderates" or "run more progressives" is a winning strategy in itself.
I agree with this at face value.


We can agree that every politician is better off not making 'dumb dumb' gaffes, but the determination is subjective. If it's something recklessly polarizing with no policy dimension or recognizable advantage, such as - for a made-up example - Elizabeth Warren declaring the Republican voter to be a subhuman brute fit only for scratching dirt, we could all agree on its unhelpfulness.

I get that electeds in less-safe seats are by definition less safe, but the existence of a Democrat elsewhere as lowest common denominator can't be limiting on anyone else.

The issue is the party brand, not shit leftists say. That's not something easily fixed without being in power.
I saw one analyst say that a big issue nowadays is that because of how online everyone is, its easier to cudgel candidates with what others say because districts arent quite as insulated if you get my drift and that its easy for the party to be rebranded to fit a narrative. My original point though was that if the squad was more like Katie Porter there would be fewer ways to cudgel people.

I also agree that Pelosi does say dumb things at times too which needlessly antagonizes and I wish she wouldnt.



Anyways I am far too happy right now that Biden's win is official to bicker with allies over shit like this lol.

Where I am, cars are honking, people are cheering in the streets, its really something to behold (https://twitter.com/PhilippeReines/status/1325127811418480641?s=20). Might head down to the White House later to celebrate with my fellow disenfranchised citizens. :medievalcheers:


However, the shitshow will continue. If the call stands (currently under NFL review~D), the next level of combat shifts to the electoral college. Uncle Trumpy will call on states with Republican-dominated legislatures to ignore the popular vote, and commit their electoral votes for him. It ain't over yet.....:creep:
Im hoping it wont be an issue as after the dust has settled as I think most Republicans would recognize that this is a really really bad path to go down...
But we will cross that bridge when we get to it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I finally got more than 4 hours of sleep in a single night.


I think maybe ACIN's comment was a reference to Trump lawyer Jerome Marcus' statement that "There's a non-zero number of people in the room.":shrug:
Don't know that reference.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Said something similar to this and got the same reaction Ian (https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1325138804928356352) did.

I get people are happy this happened, but there is literally 48% of the country that supposedly are hopelessly lost deplorable that we should mock (not referencing Monty here but social media), either learn to defend yourself or start converting them.

[Montmorency]

Record numbers voted for trump and even greater record numbers voted against him. If the Dems had fielded anyone 20 years younger with 5% more charisma, it would have been a landslide.

Johnny Unbeatable is never around when you need him. Joe Biden did the job, by all evidence close to as well as could be done. The bigger problem is that there are so many people who are at-minimum tolerant of Trump(ism). That matters a whole lot more than finding the special someone to be the figurehead of a party. (See bottom of post)


I think maybe ACIN's comment was a reference to Trump lawyer Jerome Marcus' statement that "There's a non-zero number of people in the room.":shrug:

QAnon will just move on from CoviDon like nothing ever happened. That's how it works. A quote from your link:

Uhmmm....QAnon followers don't think, Mr. Beck, and logic isn't a word in the QAnon vocabulary:crazy:


You might be interested in the recently-published book A Lot of People Are Saying, which is about the rising tide of "conspiracism without the theory."


Classic conspiracy theory insists that things are not what they seem and gathers evidence―especially facts ominously withheld by official sources―to tease out secret machinations. The new conspiracism is different. There is no demand for evidence, no dots revealed to form a pattern, no close examination of shadowy plotters. Dispensing with the burden of explanation, the new conspiracism imposes its own reality through repetition (exemplified by the Trump catchphrase "a lot of people are saying") and bare assertion ("rigged!").


I expect to see more of this kind of BS as most of the Trump Administration law suits fail to produce meaningful results:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/524799-elections-outcome-could-depend-on-faithless-electors

Not saying the Hill has a phenomenal record, but the decision to publish this alone should be discrediting to them as an outlet. Moreover, the law professor who wrote the piece is not fit to teach law.

Thankfully, there's a huge difference between a no-fooling coup that nullifies hundreds of thousands of votes, and a sneaky decision to stop the count in one state to favor your candidate after a month of contentious process (c.f. Florida 2000). The Republican elites are not Trump superfans, and he has outlived his usefulness to the project. The main thing now is to poison the well for Democrats, maintain the grip on Trump's energized and paranoid base, and plan the next battle.


Tough spot for US media. Georgia is doing a recount; Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and N. Carolina are still counting votes. Declaring a winner before all votes are tabulated will seem to add credence to Trump's "Stealing the Election" mantra. If that happens, expect to see more armed Trumpers showing up at places where the counting is being done, like the recent incident in Philly. OTOH, it's giving Trump more time to delay matters further with nonsensical law suits.

It's moot now, but the election could have been called Thursday afternoon conservatively. If this were any other election the Dem candidate's numbers could have had it called for them sometime Wednesday. I don't know if the media were afraid of getting it wrong, of inciting violence, or just to milk the ratings one last time, but it wasn't strictly justifiable.


Said something similar to this and got the same reaction Ian (https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1325138804928356352) did.

I get people are happy this happened, but there is literally 48% of the country that supposedly are hopelessly lost deplorable that we should mock (not referencing Monty here but social media), either learn to defend yourself or start converting them.

***Biden's victory is a Brexit-tier victory*** (in terms of the spread)


Meaning he should :daisy: rampage to build us as much long-term power, and achieve as many of our priorities, as he can get away with. :shrug:


As far as Bremmer's comment:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz_zAgrA6O0

[Hooahguy]

Bells ringing in Paris
(https://twitter.com/marinhos/status/1325141862500376577?s=20)
Not to be too cliched but this truly is a victory for the global community. Well for most anyways.

Get :daisy: Netanyahu.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Don't know that reference.

I thought you were making a reference to this:

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/06/texas-republicans-trump-results/


The claims from Cruz and Cloud about election watchers are not true. In a court hearing Thursday, a lawyer for Trump acknowledged that the team’s observers were being allowed in the room, according to WHYY in Philadelphia (https://whyy.org/articles/trump-asks-federal-court-to-stop-vote-counting-in-phiadelphia/). When the judge asked if Trump observers were allowed in the room, a Trump attorney answered (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-biden-election-results-11-05-20/h_45e3f9c5aabc500dff82d789926cacf0), “There's a non-zero number of people in the room.”


Anyways I am far too happy right now that Biden's win is official to bicker with allies over shit like this lol.

Hear, hear.....:barrel:


Not saying the Hill has a phenomenal record, but the decision to publish this alone should be discrediting to them as an outlet. Moreover, the law professor who wrote the piece is not fit to teach law.

My thoughts, pretty much. I'm not a big fan of The Hill, but I just happened to come across that piece of crap, and it seemed like the kind of shit someone in this White House would throw against the wall hoping it sticks.

[Pannonian]

Can someone explain why Maine's 4 electoral votes are split between 3 for Biden and 1 for Trump (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/us-election-2020-results-live-map-biden-trump-001218485.html)?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Can someone explain why Maine's 4 electoral votes are split between 3 for Biden and 1 for Trump (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/us-election-2020-results-live-map-biden-trump-001218485.html)?

Maine and Nebraska are the only two states which do not award winner take all for the entire state.

Maine dedicates two points to overall winner of the state, and then gives each congressional district within Maine (there are two) a single point for the winner of that district.
Biden won the vote in District 2 and he won it by such a margin that he also won the overall state count. He lost the other district which went for Trump (it's more rural), so it was split 3 to 1.

[Montmorency]

https://twitter.com/profmusgrave/status/1325048875397378048


Liberals want to evict an elderly, financially troubled Covid survivor and his family from inner-city public housing



Maine and Nebraska are the only two states which do not award winner take all for the entire state.

Maine dedicates two points to overall winner of the state, and then gives each congressional district within Maine (there are two) a single point for the winner of that district.
Biden won the vote in District 2 and he won it by such a margin that he also won the overall state count. He lost the other district which went for Trump (it's more rural), so it was split 3 to 1.

And Biden exchanged it for one in Nebraska. I believe this is actually the first ever election in which the split-district system has produced a split in a state' electors.


Incidentally, I checked the Generic Ballot (overall balance of polling for the House elections) and the same pattern as above appears, namely that the results conform to the polling if you redistribute all the Undecideds to the Republicans, adjusting post-hoc for the small third party share of less than 2%. (With the caveat that as blue states like California and New York release their tallies next week, the Democratic vote share will increase.)

This wasn't quite what happened in 2016, since there were so many Undecideds (and third party voters) that many of them did come to Clinton - they just broke for Trump overall. As far as I'm seeing with 2020 polling, the Undecided-to-Trump/Republican vote is something like 90 to 100% of them (without third party), or maybe 50% Trump/Republican, 40% third party, very roughly. There shouldn't be a reflex to simply categorize Undecideds as de-facto Republicans going forward, since it's quite possible this phenomenon is an artifact of living under Trump. But I will struggle to resist looking at future polling through the lens of Undecided = Republican.

This should also underscore that, contrary to liberal fixations, third parties routinely siphon vastly more votes from Republicans than they do from Democrats. It's a justifiable outrage, but there's maybe 1 election in American history where a third party clearly harmed Democrats*: 2000 Naderism.

Libertarians definitely cost Trump Georgia and Arizona for example.

*Arguably also George Wallace in 1968, but that reflected an actual schism within the party and those white Southerners promptly switched to Republicans permanently under Nixon.

[Hooahguy]

After seeing all the celebrations today I only wish that John Lewis would have been able to see this. I'm not a particularly religious person but if there is a heaven then I'd like to think he is proud of us, especially his fellow Georgians.

Also shoutout to electing our first woman VP. Big day.

Edit: a beautiful video that aired on Irish tv. (https://twitter.com/TimOBrien/status/1325229712910774272?s=20)

[ReluctantSamurai]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/the-other-four-seasons-trump-team-holds-press-conference-at-suburban-garden-centre


On Saturday morning, as Trump played golf and continued to baselessly accuse the Democrats of stealing the election for Joe Biden, he announced, in a Tweet since deleted, that there would be a “Big press conference” at the Four Seasons in Philadelphia.
That was quickly clarified, however. It was not the noted hotel, but Four Seasons Total Landscaping, a suburban business situated between a crematorium and an adult book store on the outskirts of the city.

[Crandar]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/the-other-four-seasons-trump-team-holds-press-conference-at-suburban-garden-centre
https://i.imgur.com/qbvYAmv.jpg

[edyzmedieval]

A very good article from NYT outlining the path to the White House. Long read but excellent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/us/politics/joe-biden-president.html

[spmetla]

I can only hope that Biden's long experience in politics together with such a close count in the Senate encourage some bi-partisan work together in DC. The zero sum politics of take control of the whatever branch and then either dictate terms or obstruct which has been the norm since Harry Reid has not been good for the country. This increased tribalism makes us weak internally and ineffective externally.

I can also only hope that Trump can step out of the lime light once he's out of office. If he's seriously considering start an election campaign for 2024 once he's out of office and we endure 4 more years of constant campaigning it'll be bad for the country. The two year election cycle is bad enough but perpetual campaigning is not sustainable if the government is to function.

[Hooahguy]

It will depend on what happens in Georgia in January. Hard to predict what will happen but I am defaulting to the GOP holding the Senate. Unknown what the relationship between Biden and McConnell will be but I cant imagine it will be too warm.

No idea what happens with Trump. He might try again in 2024 but I think it would also depend on what legal or health issues he is having. Maybe he makes good on his promise and flees the country lol. But the bigger issue we need to worry about is a more competent Trump coming into office. Someone like Josh Hawley or Tom Cotton, who sounds a lot like Trump sometimes but not as much of the buffoonery. My chief worry is that Trump was just the start, and that goal #1 of a Biden administration needs to be strengthening our institutions to prevent undemocratic abuse so we dont become an illiberal democracy like in Hungary or Turkey.

[Pannonian]

I can only hope that Biden's long experience in politics together with such a close count in the Senate encourage some bi-partisan work together in DC. The zero sum politics of take control of the whatever branch and then either dictate terms or obstruct which has been the norm since Harry Reid has not been good for the country. This increased tribalism makes us weak internally and ineffective externally.

I can also only hope that Trump can step out of the lime light once he's out of office. If he's seriously considering start an election campaign for 2024 once he's out of office and we endure 4 more years of constant campaigning it'll be bad for the country. The two year election cycle is bad enough but perpetual campaigning is not sustainable if the government is to function.

The problem, also seen on this side of the water, is when one side sees that electoral advantage is the be all and end all, and this attitude is backed by the electorate. When that happens, as has been the case from the right for the past few years, there is a firm core that will never be convinced by evidence or reality, and all that remains is to add enough to that to get electoral victory. And when in power, stack up the institutional advantages so that the other side is fundamentally handicapped in any presumption of a fair contest.

There needs to either be a drastic cutting back of the right to show that this does not work, or else a prolonged exile of the right from power to restore normality. Anything short of that, and the scenario raised in the Guardian will come about; the strategy of the alt right combined with a less incompetent individual than Trump. A classical tyranny, in other words (see the ancient Greek tyrants like Pesistratus and Dionysius).

[Montmorency]

More New York goodness.
https://twitter.com/MichaelRapaport/status/1324144728472842242 [VIDEO]

I don't know what this is, but it's funny.
https://twitter.com/pgcornwell/status/1324094848572379136


One day after he was defeated by incumbent Gov. Jay Inslee, Republican challenger Loren Culp says he was let go as police chief of the small town of Republic, Wash. The city council voted to defund the police department, which has just one person: Culp.


Now this definitely contradicts a lot of polling before the election. It was a whole thing that a decline in Trump approval was correlated with COVID case or death rate in counties/districts. We talked about it on the Org. For there to be basically no effect on his level of support is disturbing.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/06/930897912/many-places-hard-hit-by-covid-19-leaned-more-toward-trump-in-2020-than-2016

(I had a Twitter link with better graphs but I've lost it.)

Cool.
https://twitter.com/lennecefer/status/1324869453826322438


You want to know how much the Navajo Nation dislikes trump?

1. of the 85,000 registered voters on Navajo 76,000 voted. 89% turn out

2. Of those 76,000 voters 74,000 voted for Biden & 2,000 for Trump

3. Biden’s current lead in Arizona sits at about 40,000 [Ed. Now 20,000]

Ya’ah’teeh MFs

Given the results in the House and Senate, it is not surprising Dems did poorly in the state legislative races. Also, if we don't take control over the Senate Congress won't pass electoral reforms that include provisions to neutralize Republican gerrymandering around the country. Very bad in that passing such legislation first thing in 2021 would allow us to preempt the 2021 redistricting process that will be happening everywhere.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1324461542834757633

https://i.imgur.com/Elxqgd0.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/rTQCsUP.jpg

[Hooahguy]

So Trump is going to try to drag this out as long as possible it seems (https://www.axios.com/trump-legal-strategy-fraud-45ab43eb-c5bd-4710-a227-0dceacebb511.html).


President Trump plans to brandish obituaries of people who supposedly voted but are dead — plus hold campaign-style rallies — in an effort to prolong his fight against apparent insurmountable election results.


Also I kinda resent the pundits who are saying that we now need to play nice with Trumpists. Like yeah we shouldn't needlessly antagonize them but for four years they were all "cry more libtards" and now we are supposed to pretend none of that has happened?

[a completely inoffensive name]

now we are supposed to pretend none of that has happened?

Yes. We need to de-program millions of people and the first step is by at the minimum engaging on an ostensibly equal level.

Or we can race to tear down rules that disadvantage us and build up obstacles for Republicans to keep them at bay, but I am not sure where that will end up.

[Hooahguy]

I'd argue that you cant de-program when the proponents of Trumpism are still going strong, minus their figurehead. Trumpism doesnt die when Trump leaves office, it will just find new figureheads. While the actual denazification program after WW2 saw mixed results at best, it was only possible to consider such a program because the Nazi regime was completely dismantled. We can engage with them without waiving away the fact that they gleefully supported an authoritarian wannabe.