POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[ReluctantSamurai]

but whatever happened its proving hard to shake off that narrative which the media decided to run with. And its not a Biden issue, the media definitely treats Dems differently as a whole

Agreed.

The article you posted from 2 years ago feels a bit disingenuous since while the national Dem stance was "oppose the GOP as much as possible"[...]the individual candidates had strong messages that would be tailored to their districts.

Point taken. I wasn't attempting to go down the rabbit hole of "remember what happened in 2016" as 2020 is definitely not. But when was the last time the Dems said or did something to get in Trump's head? The Lincoln Project certainly did, but dealing with them is likely a deal with the devil.

makes me think that the media isn't really interested in the bills or the messaging- just the drama.

As I said earlier, the media seems to have gone the way of many Americans...weary of COVID-19, and weary of the BS in Congress at not getting anything done. Burning buildings, shootings, right-wingers vs. left-wingers, all the crap that grabs ratings (not that it shouldn't get press, but press to the exclusion of a lot of other things). And right now it seems to me that Fearless Leader is dictating the pace, and the circumstances. That needs to change......

[Hooahguy]

Point taken. I wasn't attempting to go down the rabbit hole of "remember what happened in 2016" as 2020 is definitely not. But when was the last time the Dems said or did something to get in Trump's head? The Lincoln Project certainly did, but dealing with them is likely a deal with the devil.

I mean I think impeachment really got to him. I remember his unhinged rants rather well.

And one might argue that Hillary is still living rent-free in his head too.

As I said earlier, the media seems to have gone the way of many Americans...weary of COVID-19, and weary of the BS in Congress at not getting anything done. Burning buildings, shootings, right-wingers vs. left-wingers, all the crap that grabs ratings (not that it shouldn't get press, but press to the exclusion of a lot of other things). And right now it seems to me that Fearless Leader is dictating the pace, and the circumstances. That needs to change......

I think the media has learned absolutely nothing from the past four years. If they haven't learned by now they aren't going to magically change in the next two months.

Edit: on the topic of effective ads, I think this new Biden ad really does a good job.

Edit #2: interesting data out of the most recent Fox News poll (in a day that is already packed with new polls)- it seems like Trump's approval post-Kenosha on handling policing and criminal justice is down 5 points in Wisconsin. So perhaps racial unrest doesnt automatically mean its better for Trump.

[Montmorency]

I got their meaning behind it, its just absurd to me. I just find it weird that he is arguing that he can fix all this, but for some reason isnt fixing it now. Or does he just not think his voters will care? Im guessing thats the case.

From an article two years ago:

More on why the presidential race is static in terms of sentiment. What you have to understand is that when Trumpists say Trump is doing a good job, aside from any lies or delusions what is meant is that Trump is leading an uprising against threats to White Power (the more perverse of the alt-right have called it a Warsaw Ghetto uprising.)

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020...acy-study.html

One explanation for Republican indifference to such deeds is that Republicans aren’t aware of them: Fox News’s programming and Facebook’s algorithm have simply kept red America blissfully ignorant of the commander-in-chief’s most tyrannical moods. (If a president executes a political prisoner in the middle of Fifth Avenue and no right-wing pundit is inclined to report it, does his shot make a sound?)

But a new paper from Vanderbilt University political scientist Larry Bartels suggests an alternative hypothesis: Many Republican voters value “keeping America great” more than they value democracy — and, by “keeping America great,” such voters typically mean “keeping America’s power structure white.”

In a January 2020 survey fielded by YouGov, a slim majority of GOP voters agreed with the statement “The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” Nearly three-fourths agreed with “It is hard to trust the results of elections when so many people will vote for anyone who offers a handout.” More than 40 percent agreed that “a time will come when patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands.” More than 47 percent concurred with the premise that “strong leaders sometimes have to bend the rules in order to get things done.” And on all of these questions, most of those who did not agree were merely unsure.

The reality is, as I've sometimes pointed out over the years, that right-wing Americans have about as much regard for democracy as the most radical Salafist extremists have.

Bartels’s study therefore aimed to discern the nature of popular indifference to liberal democracy on the American right. Which is to say: What ideological or cultural forces lead Republican voters to subordinate democracy to their desired political outcomes?

The study entertains a range of possibilities. By examining the answers that YouGov’s respondents gave to other survey questions, Bartels explored the degree of correlation between six voter dispositions and anti-democratic sentiment: partisan affect (i.e., a voter’s level of avowed love for Republicans and hostility for Democrats), enthusiasm for President Trump, cynicism about actually existing democracy, ideological commitment to economic conservatism, ideological commitment to cultural conservatism, and white “ethnic antagonism.” That last category refers to a voter’s level of concern about the political and cultural power of nonwhites in the United States. For example, if respondents agreed that “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country,” that “discrimination against whites is as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities,” and that speaking English is “essential for being a true American,” they would post a high score on the ethnic-antagonism scale.

Of course, many of these dispositions are heavily correlated. To gauge the independent influence of each factor, Bartels controlled for five of the dispositions (freezing them at the average value among Republican voters) and then looked at how closely a high score on the remaining one correlated with anti-democratic sentiment. Applying this method to all six variables, he found that ethnic antagonism is a better predictor of a Republican’s indifference to democratic niceties than anything else.

Notably, what Bartels calls “cultural conservatism” (essentially, attitudes on all “culture war” issues except those concerning race, such as “patriotism, traditional morality … and disdain for big cities, rich people, journalists, and college professors”) is actually negatively correlated with anti-democratic attitudes. In other words: A GOP voter who espouses average levels of ethnic antagonism, partisan affect, and support for Trump — but exceptionally high levels of cultural conservatism — is less likely to agree that defending America’s traditional way of life justifies the use of force than the average Republican is. This suggests that popular support for authoritarianism within the GOP is not animated primarily by concerns with conservative Christianity’s declining influence over public life but rather with that of the white race.

This result has been discovered in I-don't-know-how-many studies over the past few years. The definitive struggle with American Darkness is that over malignant Whiteness. Without Whiteness, no army of evangelical hucksters or grasping plutocrats can maintain dominion, and they know it. I don't say this in allusion to the old trope that racism is a trick used by the elites to deceive the common folk, because the "elites" feel the same way to their bones. (The failure, then, of populism is that its inherent dichotomies between Elites and The People have always been incomplete and self-soothing.)

Point taken. I wasn't attempting to go down the rabbit hole of "remember what happened in 2016" as 2020 is definitely not. But when was the last time the Dems said or did something to get in Trump's head? The Lincoln Project certainly did, but dealing with them is likely a deal with the devil.

Pelosi has gained a reputation for trolling Trump in their dealings since 2017, latest example being her dismissiveness of Trump's stature vis-a-vis debates. As to how distemperate that makes Trump or what it achieves, it's probably impossible to say.

He was demonstrably angered and shaken by all the inquiries into his finances and dealings with Russia, to the point that much of his rhetoric has been geared around them. Also, many of the crimes he's committed in office. In these - especially in 2019 - there may have been too much of a reliance on the maxim of 'allowing the enemy to make mistakes,' in the absence of clear alternatives within our power. It's more that we can hold a minimal measure of relief in Trump's bungling and incompetence - it's not actually good or helpful that he feels he has and does have impunity to do whatever he whims.

As I said earlier, the media seems to have gone the way of many Americans...weary of COVID-19, and weary of the BS in Congress at not getting anything done. Burning buildings, shootings, right-wingers vs. left-wingers, all the crap that grabs ratings (not that it shouldn't get press, but press to the exclusion of a lot of other things). And right now it seems to me that Fearless Leader is dictating the pace, and the circumstances. That needs to change......

It's a nice thing to have, I just don't think there's a way to configure it toward extracting material advantage. One of the things one comes to realize over time paying attention to politics is that, as a truism, media coverage of a candidate's platform, attitudes, actions, and the like is wholly determined by how media entities choose to portray them. A political actor has very little control over that. Trump doesn't get anywhere without the media giving him a leg up.

Regarding my stance wishing the Democrats would get militant and speak of the fascist threat in the tenor Republicans use for black women suggesting children eat vegetables, all I can say with confidence about its media representation to the public is that it would certainly take command of the discourse in the way you'd like. The quality of the effects themselves is more debatable.

weary of the BS in Congress at not getting anything done.

Speaking of media narratives, to the extent this isn't being reported as "Republicans refuse to negotiate" or "Republicans have made the affirmative decision not to legislate pandemic/economic relief" it is a disservice done by the media.

[Hooahguy]

The reality is, as I've sometimes pointed out over the years, that right-wing Americans have about as much regard for democracy as the most radical Salafist extremists have.

I think David Frum of all people put it best:

If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.

Sadly we are seeing this coming true now right before our eyes.

Regarding my stance wishing the Democrats would get militant and speak of the fascist threat in the tenor Republicans use for black women suggesting children eat vegetables, all I can say with confidence about its media representation to the public is that it would certainly take command of the discourse in the way you'd like. The quality of the effects themselves is more debatable.

Speaking of media narratives, to the extent this isn't being reported as "Republicans refuse to negotiate" or "Republicans have made the affirmative decision not to legislate pandemic/economic relief" it is a disservice done by the media.

The problem seems to me that when Dems do refer to the GOP as being fascist (or similar terms), people accuse them of being apoplectic. But then when the GOP does something out of the control of the Dems, the pundits start yelling at the Dems "to do something." Example A of this is when the eviction moratorium ran out recently, and my god were all the pundits screaming "DO SOMETHING" at the Dems, seemingly unaware that the Dems in the House passed a longer term eviction moratorium a couple months ago and that it was sitting on McConnell's desk. I mean I guess the House could hold more hearings about it but unfortunately that doesn't do much to solve the issue.

I don't know the root cause of the problem, but I will say that if I was in the media right now I'd be very embarrassed for the profession.

Or maybe they just don't know how the legislative process works?

Also quick bit about the betting market thing, is there any data to show that its accurate in any way, or is it just random people placing bets depending on how they feel that day?

In about 30 mins it will be exactly 2 months until election day. Trump trails Biden by an average of 7.4 points. In the battleground states he trails Biden by at least an average of 4.2 points (Florida), with most of the other battleground states Biden is leading by a number of points more. The last 3 incumbent presidents who trailed after the conventions were defeated, but this isn't a normal election so its anybody's game.

[Montmorency]

I think David Frum of all people put it best:

Sadly we are seeing this coming true now right before our eyes.


The problem seems to me that when Dems do refer to the GOP as being fascist (or similar terms), people accuse them of being apoplectic. But then when the GOP does something out of the control of the Dems, the pundits start yelling at the Dems "to do something." Example A of this is when the eviction moratorium ran out recently, and my god were all the pundits screaming "DO SOMETHING" at the Dems, seemingly unaware that the Dems in the House passed a longer term eviction moratorium a couple months ago and that it was sitting on McConnell's desk. I mean I guess the House could hold more hearings about it but unfortunately that doesn't do much to solve the issue.

I'm not aware of a Democratic elected who has called Republicans a fascist threat to the existence of the country. I'd be surprised if there's even a state Assemblyperson who's come close, and if one did they'd be lucky not to be expelled/forced to resign, to say nothing of being denounced by their caucus. There is a clear and massive disparity between parties.

The leadership needs to be top-down to start because only then can the discourse broaden through the ranks. Elite signalling. To illustrate what I have in mind:


Alternative Obama DNC 2020 Address

[Hooahguy]

Well I was referring in general to Dems as a whole, not necessarily just elected officials. But then again, we aren't sure of what is being said behind closed doors:

Barack Obama called Donald Trump a "fascist" in a phone conversation with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia during the 2016 presidential election, Kaine says in a video clip featured in an upcoming documentary about Hillary Clinton.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Persuadable voters have long been persuaded by now, and the cohort that remains - maybe as little as 1% of people who vote - are habitual late deciders because they have no coherent ideology or grasp of issues; their vote, if at all, is decided by essentially random stimuli at the last minute.

Even if 1% is accurate (far too low an estimate, IMHO), that means, using voter turnout numbers in 2016, that about 1.4 million voters are 'late deciders'. Even not considering how those who didn't vote at all impacted the 2016 election, a look at the 10 closest races from 2016:

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-...-2016-election

Adding up the margin of difference for the entire list of ten, the number comes to 585,319. So in 2016, your 'late deciders' could have carried 10 states and then some.

I think it's a safe bet to say that SCOTUS will be deciding the outcome of the presidential election in 2020

all I can say with confidence about its media representation to the public is that it would certainly take command of the discourse in the way you'd like. The quality of the effects themselves is more debatable.

Not suggesting that Dems go all King Leonidas (though the imagery of Kamala Harris giving the nod, and Biden kicking Trump into the Abyss is enticing). As an example, NOW Biden is going to Kenosha, AFTER Trump has already been there. Now it's still possible Biden/Harris gain some gravitas if they meet personally (and sincerely) with the Blake family, and just as importantly, with leaders of the protests. But they should have already been there.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think the lack of any "bounces" post convention is indicative of most folks having decided. The chronic late deciders don't bother paying attention at all until after Labor Day, and usually not until mid-October.

[Hooahguy]

I think it's a safe bet to say that SCOTUS will be deciding the outcome of the presidential election in 2020

At least when it comes to states counting mail-in ballots, yeah. Its a sobering thought that our democracy might end up in the hands of John Roberts, who will probably be the swing vote. Unless Gorsush pulls another upset which he might end up doing, who knows. But what I am fairly sure of is that there is a low chance we will know who won on election night.

[Montmorency]

Well I was referring in general to Dems as a whole, not necessarily just elected officials. But then again, we aren't sure of what is being said behind closed doors:

The point is that Obama-types refuse to say this out loud. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton has been more aggressive since her retirement, but in an inconsistent way and from the sidelines. If it were possible for Obama to say "We are occupied by an illegitimate usurpation of popular sovereignty. Arise now to throw off the fascist yoke or we face one-hundred years of darkness. From this day on all patriotic Americans must commit themselves to all peaceful means of resistance against the mortal threat" - that could change a lot of patterns of thinking.

I don't believe Obama is capable of such rhetoric, and it probably is too extreme for the electorate in practical terms, and as I said it may even be too late to pivot from the normal party line. But I wish the consensus were somewhere in that vicinity. I value directness personally. The CNN headlines about such a statement might be 'Former President Obama sees "mortal threat" in "fascist" Trump,' or it might be 'Obama agitates for partisan rage in caustic rant against Republicans.' Obviously all the chinstroking MSM centrist pundits would condemn such rhetoric out of hand. The Republicans might take it as license to even more openly pursue single-party rule. But it sure feels appropriate to the situation.

Even if 1% is accurate (far too low an estimate, IMHO),

I'm talking about the subset of people who: actually vote; are actually swing voters; who remain undecided up to Election Day or shortly before. That's a very small population and studying them - as well as more qualitative political fieldwork - indicates that they're very idiosyncratic and have few similarities to each other as a group. Putting all that together, you have a small, inconsistent group of people whom you can't reliably influence - so why base a strategy around them? Here's some relevant articles.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...dle-is-a-myth/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ers-are-there/

that means, using voter turnout numbers in 2016, that about 1.4 million voters are 'late deciders'. Even not considering how those who didn't vote at all impacted the 2016 election, a look at the 10 closest races from 2016:

Turnout is important! But it's generally seen as a separate issue from capturing "swing" voters.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-...-2016-election

Adding up the margin of difference for the entire list of ten, the number comes to 585,319. So in 2016, your 'late deciders' could have carried 10 states and then some.

Since votes are by state and not distributed around the country, assuming every state had a similar proportion of late deciders, they might only have had an effect in the tipping point midwestern states, if also assuming that they overwhelmingly broke for Republicans over Dems/3P.

I think it's a safe bet to say that SCOTUS will be deciding the outcome of the presidential election in 2020

Well, it is likely they will have some role to play, but I wouldn't use that wording, "decide." If Biden wins because of the Supreme Court, it will be according to its non-interference basically.

Notwithstanding my prior analyses, if the Supreme Court really overturns the electoral process in favor of Trump, and Biden and the Dems decide to gut it out and refuse to concede, there are five ways this can go down in order of decreasing preference.

1
2
3: Actually we just give up and slink away as Trump deploys the standard move of despots and waits for the opposition to exhaust its outrage.
4
5

[ReluctantSamurai]

Putting all that together, you have a small, inconsistent group of people whom you can't reliably influence - so why base a strategy around them?

Since votes are by state and not distributed around the country, assuming every state had a similar proportion of late deciders, they might only have had an effect in the tipping point midwestern states

Methinks you understate these "undecided". Am I overstating their importance? Perhaps. However, when one looks at many potential maps of election results, those Rust Belt states may very well decide the election, as they did in 2016. Basing a strategy around these undecided? Of course not, but ignoring them or considering them insignificant, is done at peril, IMHO.

Interesting that this has gone completely under media radar:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/antifa-...acist-threats/

Such "fine people".