POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[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/commenti...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...27431178948615

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.

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/5...nds-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

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-c...-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.

[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

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"

[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

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. 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.....

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: 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/preside...-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.

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. 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.

[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: 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.

[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/stat...84432763539456

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...

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?

[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."

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

[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...hless-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), 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.....