2020 Election Analysis

[Little Raven]

When will my fellow liberals learn?

A significant factor in the Democrats’ defeat, I argued, was a style of politics that prevented them from developing an ambitious vision of America’s future — one that was capable of inspiring people from all walks of life. Indeed, it seemed that ever since the 1980s, American liberals had gotten out of the vision business altogether. They redirected their energies from party politics to movement politics, focusing attention in particular on minority and gender identity movements.

While that shift was morally comprehensible, it made it harder for liberals to speak of the common good across group lines. It also ingrained the habit of forgetting large constituencies that did not fit into the liberal-Left identity narrative, such as working-class whites and evangelicals — the latter group making up about a quarter of the adult population. If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. Otherwise you give your opponent the opportunity to, as Donald Trump did with great success.

This movement politics mindset proved to be electorally suicidal. From the 1980s on we witnessed a massive transfer of political power, in large sections of the country, from the Democrats to an increasingly radical Republican Party. The most perverse consequence was that as Democrats ceded ever more geographical ground to Republicans, particularly in state and local governments, they lost the ability to protect the very identity groups they professed to care about — in particular, their right to vote. More than half of all African Americans, for instance, live in the deep red South.

Yet Democrats resisted the obvious lessons to be drawn from these developments: that you cannot help anyone if you do not hold institutional power. And you cannot acquire that power without a vision that transcends group attachments, without denying them.

Democrats have had four years to ponder their defeat as America crumbled around them. Now that hopes of a Democratic landslide have been dashed and defeat is within the realm of possibility, the question remains as to whether they have drawn the right lessons from their electoral performance. The signs are decidedly mixed.

There's more. I don't know if he's right, but it's worth a read.

[Grifman]

I already detailed a fix.

I'm sorry but I haven't seen it somehow. Can you copy/paste here what you fix is? I would appreciate it. Thanks.

The straight forward fix to remove the EC - the easiest path is the Popular Vote Compact. Another path is to convince states to go to ranked choice voting or both. And ranked choice is only a maybe. It might help squeeze out some of the extremism at the state level. The contra case is this is how we end up with people like Susan Collins. In any case, this is all a difficult ask and probably impossible without the Senate. You'd need a bipartisan group to walk us back from the brink and pass laws/spending to encourage reform. I don't see it happening. That is why I predict increasing chaos.

Ok, and I want puppies and rainbows too. Sure, this would fix it, but that is not going to happen anytime soon. So your real answer is that you don’t have a practical answer. Fair enough, you see continued chaos, and I see the need for new tactics and strategy. We just disagree on this.

[Grifman]

Regarding Little Raven’s post above - yes, identity politics is not the winning hand. It limits your reach and rubs many people wrong. Making people feel guilty through wokeism and CRT wins you no friends. It’s a view of the political/academic elite which just backfires in the end.

[malchior]

Double post

[malchior]

Ok, and I want puppies and rainbows too. Sure, this would fix it, but that is not going to happen anytime soon. So your real answer is that you don’t have a practical answer. Fair enough, you see continued chaos, and I see the need for new tactics and strategy. We just disagree on this.

Not really but you simply aren't getting it. That said, I challenge you to step outside your worldview. I think you have huge blinders up. You think as a white, male "moderate" that Democrats need to move to the right and essentially comport to *your worldview* and chase a Demographic that is essentially becoming more extreme over time. You are saying that Democrats should avoid playing to their big tent and try to somehow co-opt elements of an extreme right-wing position while somehow not alienating the rest of the coalition. I think that is impossible as the "Casino" odds get worse and worse for them and you are completely missing the reality of the systemic breakdown.

Regarding Little Raven’s post above - yes, identity politics is not the winning hand. It limits your reach and rubs many people wrong. Making people feel guilty through wokeism and CRT wins you no friends. It’s a view of the political/academic elite which just backfires in the end.

Said the white, moderate male in NC. You folks are so tied up in your worldview that you think this is the reason the Democrats are losing and there is pretty much no evidence of it at this point considering how the actual election outcomes played out. This is what you want to use to order your world damned be the evidence.

[Defiant]

See, I don't get what people mean when they say "identity politics". I view that as looking at the identities of different groups (race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, rural vs suburban vs urban, young vs old, education level, type of employment, etc) and seeing the priorities of those groups (or at least, the priority of the majority of those groups), and trying to build a platform that can help to build a winning coalition.

And that just strikes me as just generally good politics.

(The flip side is attacking people for their identities, in order to rally your base, like Trump does. But even if that's effective, it's not something you should want to do).

[Defiant]

Some possible (if maybe unrealistic) ideas going forward:

If the Senate is close (51-49), it may be possible to bribe a Senator to switch parties. Or to nominate a Senator in a blue state to a position in the administration and get them replaced with a Democrat.

Bring back earmarks to help with bipartisanship.

Move a million or two Democratic voters into very small Republican states. I'm only half joking.

[malchior]

I'll be clear here. I'm not a fan of so-called "identity politic" purity tests either or the Democratic party. I think they are incompetent bunglers but I simply acknowledge they have a tough position. That said the idea that identity politics or whatever is the problem is essentially evidence free malarkey. It avoids the fundamental truth that White identity politics are the dominant factor in this election. Any challenge to that is met with disapproval and/or framed as the downfall of 'democracy' and a reason why the GOP is winning. When Folks say that identity politics are the problem they are unintentionally supporting that narrative in favor of one that is quantifiable. The EC math advantage is unmistakable and the consequences of it are pretty clean if you game it out. This isn't a huge leap here.

[Little Raven]

If the Senate is close (51-49), it may be possible to bribe a Senator to switch parties. Or to nominate a Senator in a blue state to a position in the administration and get them replaced with a Democrat.

Humorous, but unlikely to succeed.

Bring back earmarks to help with bipartisanship.

Yes, PLEASE. I am increasingly convinced that getting rid of earmarks was one of the stupidest things we've ever done. Earmarks were the oil that helped lubricate the machine, and without them, everything has ground to a halt. Bring them back, post-haste. I even think this one is realistic.

Move a million or two Democratic voters into very small Republican states. I'm only half joking.

It's no joke, and I'm not even sure we'll have to move people - they might very well move themselves. COVID has suddenly wrenched open the door to remote work. If people don't have to be in cities for their jobs any more, why wouldn't they move to lower cost of living areas, that often have lower taxes as well? The only question will be - do they keep voting Democratic once they move to the sticks, or do they find their voting preferences changing as their environment does?

[malchior]

Double post

[malchior]

Bring back earmarks to help with bipartisanship.

Yes, PLEASE. I am convinced that getting rid of earmarks was one of the stupidest things we've ever done. Earmarks were the oil that helped lubricate the machine, and without them, everything has ground to a halt. Bring them back, post-haste. I even think this one is realistic.

I'd be all for it but the core tea party zealots who pretty much run leadership in the caucuses will never go for it.

Move a million or two Democratic voters into very small Republican states. I'm only half joking.

It's no joke, and I'm not even sure we'll have to move people - they might very well move themselves. COVID has suddenly wrenched open the door to remote work. If people don't have to be in cities for their jobs any more, why wouldn't they move to lower cost of living areas, that often have lower taxes as well? The only question will be - do they keep voting Democratic once they move to the sticks, or do they find their voting preferences changing as their environment does?

This is a solution but less workable than reforming the system. Also, there probably isn't enough real estate to support the redistribution. We're seeing flight from NYC and house prices went crazy here. It is a blue-to-blue move and doesn't help but more just indicates that you have to be able to sell your home and buy another...and that isn't easy in large scale. We aren't China and have the capacity to build a city overnight.

[Grifman]

Not really but you simply aren't getting it. That said, I challenge you to step outside your worldview. I think you have huge blinders up. You think as a white, male "moderate" that Democrats need to move to the right and essentially comport to *your worldview* and chase a Demographic that is essentially becoming more extreme over time. You are saying that Democrats should avoid playing to their big tent and try to somehow co-opt elements of an extreme right-wing position while somehow not alienating the rest of the coalition. I think that is impossible as the "Casino" odds get worse and worse for them and you are completely missing the reality of the systemic breakdown.

Seriously, I do get it, you don't have a solution, fine. I'll keep fighting while you sit there and shout "systemic breakdown". And you don't know me well enough or my background to assume that I can't or haven't stepped outside of my world view. So let me enlighten you. I spent the summer after college living in an African-American neighborhood in Mississippi working in urban ministry, seeing what African American people dealt with every day. It was also my first experience with a racist police officer who mocked us for the work we were doing. I also through my 20's and 30's worked as a volunteer in an African American church working with teen age kids, African American and Hispanic. So don't speak to me about not stepping outside of my worldview.

Said the white, moderate male in NC. You folks are so tied up in your worldview that you think this is the reason the Democrats are losing and there is pretty much no evidence of it at this point considering how the actual election outcomes played out. This is what you want to use to order your world damned be the evidence.

See, this is why you will continue to lose. I'm an ally, I'm on your side, we're trying to have a reasonable discussion and all you can see if that I am a "white moderate" male and you throw that in my face as if that should really matter. You can't have an agreement to disagree, you have to attack me. Why can't we talk about this without the insinuations and attacks? If this is the way you treat someone on your side, no wonder you'll never win. If this is your attitude, you're getting in this too deep - if you care so much that you're attacking someone on your side, you probably need to draw back, take a deep breath and rethink things. Until you do, I'd prefer you not respond to anything I post - I'd rather not discuss anything with you further. I hate that because I appreciate your perspective but I don't like being your punching bag at this point.

[Grifman]

See, I don't get what people mean when they say "identity politics". I view that as looking at the identities of different groups (race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, rural vs suburban vs urban, young vs old, education level, type of employment, etc) and seeing the priorities of those groups (or at least, the priority of the majority of those groups), and trying to build a platform that can help to build a winning coalition.

And that just strikes me as just generally good politics.

(The flip side is attacking people for their identities, in order to rally your base, like Trump does. But even if that's effective, it's not something you should want to do).

Go back and read the article on Tammy Baldwin I posted a link to on the prior page. She's an LBGTQ Representative in a red state and she supports those causes but it's about how she does it. She does it without it being the end all and her defining characteristic.

[gbasden]

See, this is why you will continue to lose. I'm an ally, I'm on your side, we're trying to have a reasonable discussion and all you can see if that I am a "white moderate" male and you throw that in my face as if that should really matter. You can't have an agreement to disagree, you have to attack me. Why can't we talk about this without the insinuations and attacks? If this is the way you treat someone on your side, no wonder you'll never win. If this is your attitude, you're getting in this too deep - if you care so much that you're attacking someone on your side, you probably need to draw back, take a deep breath and rethink things. Until you do, I'd prefer you not respond to anything I post - I'd rather not discuss anything with you further. I hate that because I appreciate your perspective but I don't like being your punching bag at this point.

I think the issue, at least for me, is that the advice feels a lot like "ignore or deny all of the things that are important to you." I don't understand the identity politics argument - is it that the Democratic Party should stop acknowledging the fact that systemic racism exists? That feels to me like telling a family member to pretend to be straight in order not to offend bigoted Aunt Martha. I really appreciate *your* perspective, because I know you are seeing things I don't, but I don't know that I would want my party to become more Trumplike just to win.

[noxiousdog]

See, this is why you will continue to lose. I'm an ally, I'm on your side, we're trying to have a reasonable discussion and all you can see if that I am a "white moderate" male and you throw that in my face as if that should really matter. You can't have an agreement to disagree, you have to attack me. Why can't we talk about this without the insinuations and attacks? If this is the way you treat someone on your side, no wonder you'll never win. If this is your attitude, you're getting in this too deep - if you care so much that you're attacking someone on your side, you probably need to draw back, take a deep breath and rethink things. Until you do, I'd prefer you not respond to anything I post - I'd rather not discuss anything with you further. I hate that because I appreciate your perspective but I don't like being your punching bag at this point.

FWIW, Trump and Trumpism have driven me crazy. It's one thing to support Republicans. It's completely irrational to support Trump.

Maybe with him gone we can go back to normal levels Republican disdain?

[Little Raven]

A slightly more upbeat take from another writer at NR.

There was a fairly unanimous pre-election consensus among the media, entertainment, and artistic elite who dominate American public discussion — and among active social-media users — that Donald Trump and the entire Republican Party were headed to a colossal defeat, repudiating the rule of a tiny, isolated minority of the population and sure to be swamped in a high-turnout election. It didn’t happen. Trump may well lose — at this writing, that seems the likely outcome — but Republicans appear to have held control of the Senate, gained seats in the House, won all but one of the seriously contested gubernatorial races, and generally seem to have done quite respectably down the ticket across the land.

They did so in an extremely high-turnout environment, maybe the highest in over a century. Trump got 1.2 million more votes in Texas than he did in 2016, burying the idea that Republican strength in the state is solely a feature of its historically low voter turnout. He got a million more votes in Florida, too. There was a blue wave, but there was a red wave to meet it. Republican senators who were supposed to face close races against lavishly funded opponents instead won in blowouts, such as Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, John Cornyn in Texas, Steve Daines in Montana, and Dan Sullivan in Alaska. Joni Ernst was fairly easily reelected in Iowa, and it appears that Thom Tillis in North Carolina, Susan Collins in Maine, and David Perdue in Georgia may all have survived. Exit polls suggested an electorate that was not consumed by monolithic rage at Trump, and did not see the COVID-19 pandemic as his unique fault.

The Republican coalition that came out of the woodwork was neither the Mitt Romney coalition of 2012, full of well-heeled white suburbanites, nor the angry little mass of toothless rednecks that your Facebook friends see as the only possible Republican voter. Florida Hispanics, who had shunned Trump in 2016 while many voted for Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, backed the president in large numbers, and shifted House seats in the Miami area (including ejecting former Clinton cabinet secretary Donna Shalala from the House). Early indicators show the best Republican performance among non-white voters in over half a century, while the party bled support among white voters and suburbanites. Trump’s flaws and missteps may have cost him the presidency, but many, many millions of working-class Americans saw him as their champion.

We hear a lot, and rightly so, about increased polarization and the decline of ticket-splitting. Yet, somehow, we are likely to end up with a divided Congress and a Senate at odds with the White House. There were clearly a lot of voters this year who switched sides from where they were not very long ago — some going one way, some going the other. The significant non-white vote for Donald Trump, of all people, should make many of us rethink the simplistic categories of voters and the left-wing habit of casting every Republican as a white supremacist. Instead, some incensed progressives last night were already trying to read Hispanics out of the coalition of color. If the American electorate is becoming a little less polarized along racial and ethnic lines, that can only be a good thing.

...

Objectively speaking, there were many reasons why Republicans should have been discouraged by Trump, why Democrats should have been uninspired by Biden, and why a pandemic should have suppressed the vote. But instead, new voters poured into the system from every direction, eager to make their voices heard, and willing to line up behind these two creaky old men. Trump will likely end with the most votes of any Republican in history, and maybe the largest share of eligible voters of any Republican in decades. On the Democratic side, the same may be true of Biden.

In the end, if Trump has lost, it will not be because the Democrats have some sort of natural, permanent majority coalition, or because the battle lines have been set in stone. If the counting leaves Trump short in a handful of key states, it will simply be a matter of the old American prerogative to make a choice every four years and judge an incumbent on his record, with a crucial swing of persuadable voters at the margin making all the difference. And if Biden takes office with a Republican-controlled Senate, he will do so not as a conqueror tasked with putting the defeated to the sword, establishing truth and reconciliation committees and de-Nazification style purges, and rewriting the rules to prevent a future Republican revival. No, he will do so as an old veteran of a bygone Senate who will need to cut a lot of deals that will be unsatisfying to everyone. Welcome to American democracy: same as it ever was.

[Defiant]

If the Senate is close (51-49), it may be possible to bribe a Senator to switch parties. Or to nominate a Senator in a blue state to a position in the administration and get them replaced with a Democrat.

Humorous, but unlikely to succeed.

I don't think it's likely. But I do think it's in the realm of possibility since we've seen it happen before quite recently (Jim Jeffords, giving Democrats a majority, and Arlen Spector, giving the Democrats 60 votes). I hope Democrats at least make overtures.

Move a million or two Democratic voters into very small Republican states. I'm only half joking.

It's no joke, and I'm not even sure we'll have to move people - they might very well move themselves. COVID has suddenly wrenched open the door to remote work. If people don't have to be in cities for their jobs any more, why wouldn't they move to lower cost of living areas, that often have lower taxes as well? The only question will be - do they keep voting Democratic once they move to the sticks, or do they find their voting preferences changing as their environment does?

Would Democrats voluntarily want to live in small, rural conservative Republican states, though? Personally, I wouldn't see the appeal, even if I could live where I want to without any other considerations. But then, I'd probably fit in less well than most.

Also, even if it is happening, it sure as hell isn't happening fast enough.

[hitbyambulance]

I need whatever analysis that's going to happen to include a deep-dive into the Jo Jorgensen voters. I need to understand the America they live in right now.

the 'smoke weed and gettin' laid' America. where 'America' is their couch

[Smoove_B]

From the Atlantic. a large portion of the electorate chose the sociopath:

But no matter how this election concludes, America is now a different country. Nearly half of the voters have seen Trump in all of his splendor—his infantile tirades, his disastrous and lethal policies, his contempt for democracy in all its forms—and they decided that they wanted more of it. His voters can no longer hide behind excuses about the corruption of Hillary Clinton or their willingness to take a chance on an unproven political novice. They cannot feign ignorance about how Trump would rule. They know, and they have embraced him.

...

My greatest fear, aside from an eventual Trump victory over the coming days, is that no matter the outcome, both parties will rush to draw the wrong lesson from this close election. The Republicans will conclude that just a bit more overt racism (but less tweeting about it) will carry the day the next time. They will see the exit polls that called for a “strong national leader,” and they will replace the childish and whiny Trump with someone who projects even more authoritarian determination. They will latch on to the charge that democracy is a rigged game, and they will openly despise its rules even more than Trump has.

The Democrats, for their part, might look at this near-death experience, and, as they sometimes have in the past, conclude that moving left, including more talk of socialism and more social-justice activism is just the tonic they’ll need to shore up their coalition. Some Democrats tend to believe that almost every election confirms the need to lurch to the left, when in fact the 2020 election should be a reminder that Trump would have beaten anyone left of Biden.

[malchior]

Seriously, I do get it, you don't have a solution, fine.

I honestly really think you don't get it.

And you don't know me well enough or my background to assume that I can't or haven't stepped outside of my world view. So let me enlighten you. I spent the summer after college living in an African-American neighborhood in Mississippi working in urban ministry, seeing what African American people dealt with every day. It was also my first experience with a racist police officer who mocked us for the work we were doing. I also through my 20's and 30's worked as a volunteer in an African American church working with teen age kids, African American and Hispanic. So don't speak to me about not stepping outside of my worldview.

Fair but all I'm seeing is that you are here pushing that white worldview and saying that is the reason that the Democrats are struggling. And it is simply fact free. It is an opinion. There is little evidence of it despite being discussed for...what 25 years. I see it as the modern re-branding of Conservatives complaining about "political correctness" in the 90s. It isn't far from it.

See, this is why you will continue to lose. I'm an ally, I'm on your side, we're trying to have a reasonable discussion and all you can see if that I am a "white moderate" male and you throw that in my face as if that should really matter.

I'm saying that you are using that as a shield to essentially tacitly support the white dominant worldview and you can't see it at all. It's a blind spot and I don't think you see it.

You can't have an agreement to disagree, you have to attack me. Why can't we talk about this without the insinuations and attacks? If this is the way you treat someone on your side, no wonder you'll never win. If this is your attitude, you're getting in this too deep - if you care so much that you're attacking someone on your side, you probably need to draw back, take a deep breath and rethink things. Until you do, I'd prefer you not respond to anything I post - I'd rather not discuss anything with you further. I hate that because I appreciate your perspective but I don't like being your punching bag at this point.

I'm your punching bag? What I see is someone who is challenged with a reality that they don't agree with and reacts by derisively tone policing me. The references to complaining and shouting. But I'm being a bit of a dick to be honest too because I'm sort of through with the people ignoring how bad the situation is.

What I see is that we've got a party running towards white nationalist fascism at full speed and your particular response is to reach out to them because we well ... too bad .. that is just is how the system works. And there is no universe that is a workable solution either despite your belief to that effect. We've suffered through years of people tone policing like this as the situation deteriorated and we're now in the middle of a pandemic, the most corrupt President in modern history, white nationalists marching in the streets, and riots. We're way past fixing the problems inside this system and the 'adults in the room' bullshit.

See, this is why you will continue to lose. I'm an ally, I'm on your side, we're trying to have a reasonable discussion and all you can see if that I am a "white moderate" male and you throw that in my face as if that should really matter. You can't have an agreement to disagree, you have to attack me. Why can't we talk about this without the insinuations and attacks? If this is the way you treat someone on your side, no wonder you'll never win. If this is your attitude, you're getting in this too deep - if you care so much that you're attacking someone on your side, you probably need to draw back, take a deep breath and rethink things. Until you do, I'd prefer you not respond to anything I post - I'd rather not discuss anything with you further. I hate that because I appreciate your perspective but I don't like being your punching bag at this point.

I think the issue, at least for me, is that the advice feels a lot like "ignore or deny all of the things that are important to you." I don't understand the identity politics argument - is it that the Democratic Party should stop acknowledging the fact that systemic racism exists? That feels to me like telling a family member to pretend to be straight in order not to offend bigoted Aunt Martha. I really appreciate *your* perspective, because I know you are seeing things I don't, but I don't know that I would want my party to become more Trumplike just to win.

Thank you for this. This is a great way to put it. Ideally we need to somehow make peace with these people but we need a statesman who you can actually engage. And we won't have one to deal with until Trump is out of the picture. Which in honestly is probably when he is dead. Meanwhile the Democrats have to somehow win elections while the system is concentrating power away from them. It is a no win situation if Democrats try to court them. How do you pull these people out of a cult?

[noxiousdog]

What I see is that we've got a party running towards white nationalist fascism at full speed and your particular response is to reach out to them because we well ... too bad .. that is just is how the system works. And there is no universe that is a workable solution either despite your belief to that effect. We've suffered through years of people tone policing like this as the situation deteriorated and we're now in the middle of a pandemic, the most corrupt President in modern history, white nationalists marching in the streets, and riots. We're way past fixing the problems inside this system and the 'adults in the room' bullshit.

I could have sworn just 4 years ago, we had eight years of a black president.

[malchior]

What I see is that we've got a party running towards white nationalist fascism at full speed and your particular response is to reach out to them because we well ... too bad .. that is just is how the system works. And there is no universe that is a workable solution either despite your belief to that effect. We've suffered through years of people tone policing like this as the situation deteriorated and we're now in the middle of a pandemic, the most corrupt President in modern history, white nationalists marching in the streets, and riots. We're way past fixing the problems inside this system and the 'adults in the room' bullshit.

I could have sworn just 4 years ago, we had eight years of a black president.

Yes and look what it unlocked. We live now in the middle of a governmental collapse. It is also interesting how dysfunctional the majority of the Federal Government was during the Obama Presidency.

[Combustible Lemur]

What I see is that we've got a party running towards white nationalist fascism at full speed and your particular response is to reach out to them because we well ... too bad .. that is just is how the system works. And there is no universe that is a workable solution either despite your belief to that effect. We've suffered through years of people tone policing like this as the situation deteriorated and we're now in the middle of a pandemic, the most corrupt President in modern history, white nationalists marching in the streets, and riots. We're way past fixing the problems inside this system and the 'adults in the room' bullshit.

I could have sworn just 4 years ago, we had eight years of a black president.

An elliptical orbit can both be both close to the sun and way the hell out in the cold.

Obama helped creep left toward equity, he also inspired the tea party, trump, a surge of fascism, and a hard lurch of the supreme court to the right.

Gay people have more rights, and militias that are the #1 terrorists threat in the USA are the allies of the president.

While trump pushed you left, a more savvy politician might get you and the machismos, and the evangelicals.

Mainstream Democrats should NOT cheat right but they should absolutely be screaming populist economy and jobs from every rooftop in the country. While quietly legislating justice and ecology.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Smoove_B]

Some stats:

As polling locations across the country begin reporting turnout numbers, signs are indicating that voter turnout in the 2020 election will be the highest seen in 120 years since the 1900 election, when turnout was 73.7 percent.

The voting-eligible population in the U.S. ahead of the November 3 election was just over 239 million people, according to the U.S. Elections Project, with 160 million people having voted, making 2020 turnout a predicted 66.9 percent.

[Grifman]

Some stats:

As polling locations across the country begin reporting turnout numbers, signs are indicating that voter turnout in the 2020 election will be the highest seen in 120 years since the 1900 election, when turnout was 73.7 percent.

The voting-eligible population in the U.S. ahead of the November 3 election was just over 239 million people, according to the U.S. Elections Project, with 160 million people having voted, making 2020 turnout a predicted 66.9 percent.

I think anyone seeing this beforehand would have assumed a Democratic landslide, but instead Trump got more voters than he did last time. An interesting question is - how did he do this? How did he get people who don't usually vote to vote this time. Everyone thought all he could do is try to maximize his base and turn out as many of those who voted for him last time. No one saw this coming and it probably accounted for the polling errors. These weren't "shy" Trump voters, these were Trump voters that never existed before. A deep dive will be interesting. Big question - can it be sustained? Or is it a one time event tied to his person?

[LordMortis]

What I see is that we've got a party running towards white nationalist fascism at full speed and your particular response is to reach out to them because we well ... too bad .. that is just is how the system works. And there is no universe that is a workable solution either despite your belief to that effect. We've suffered through years of people tone policing like this as the situation deteriorated and we're now in the middle of a pandemic, the most corrupt President in modern history, white nationalists marching in the streets, and riots. We're way past fixing the problems inside this system and the 'adults in the room' bullshit.

I could have sworn just 4 years ago, we had eight years of a black president.

An elliptical orbit can both be both close to the sun and way the hell out in the cold.

Obama helped creep left toward equity, he also inspired the tea party, trump, a surge of fascism, and a hard lurch of the supreme court to the right.

Gay people have more rights, and militias that are the #1 terrorists threat in the USA are the allies of the president.

While trump pushed you left, a more savvy politician might get you and the machismos, and the evangelicals.

Mainstream Democrats should NOT cheat right but they should absolutely be screaming populist economy and jobs from every rooftop in the country. While quietly legislating justice and ecology.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

I had stupidly convinced myself the post Obama experience were last gasps of an old guard. 2020 has shown, no matter the outcome, no matter how stupid I know myself to be, I'm actually stupider. I came to terms with Americans being disinterested and that 1/3 of us can steer the train toward our own destruction in 2016. Biden can win and Trump can admit defeat tomorrow, but the numbers were huge. The US recognized the seriousness of this election and when called, nearly 50% voted that their view of Trump's positive qualities and Biden's negative qualities was enough to say that courting NAZI votes is an acceptable negative position to hold.

America may not collapse under Trump in four years. The Supreme Court may not shit on nearly 300 years of legal progression to hold together a 250 year old set of laws meant let farmers rule themselves for coming of the next generation. But I don't know how I come back. Seriously, how do I engage nearly half of Americans, and surely more than half who surround me, when the best case scenario is they see this as an acceptable cost. I guess I'm a one issue voter and this issue informs my day to day sense of reality.

[Combustible Lemur]

I just heard an interesting statistic on political campaigns and demographics.

Democrats in order to win a presidential must reach a baked in 40% white people and 75% POC.

In such a marginal industry it says something that six in ten white people dont care who is in charge as long as he's republican.

And while democrats know some POC will siphon off, they are where you MUST run up the numbers.

Fwiw, it was Nicole Wallace. In her former political career, Wallace served as the White House Communications Director during the presidency of George W. Bush and in his 2004 re-election campaign. Wallace also served as a senior advisor for John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. In addition, she is the author of the contemporary political novels Eighteen Acres, It's Classified, and Madam President. currently an msnbc host.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Grifman]

Democrats have some work to do:

[tjg_marantz]

Analysis: America is broken.

Hot takes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk

[Little Raven]

But I don't know how I come back. Seriously, how do I engage nearly half of Americans, and surely more than half who surround me, when the best case scenario is they see this as an acceptable cost. I guess I'm a one issue voter and this issue informs my day to day sense of reality.

I don't think it's possible to simultaneously believe that 48.5% of your fellow countrymen are corrupt beyond redemption AND believe that government should be of the people, by the people, for the people. If "the people" are as bad as all that, then they have no business being anywhere near government.

I'm not ready to give up on Lincoln, so I'm going to jettison the former belief instead, and accept that in a two party system, people often end up voting for people they don't actually completely agree with.

[LordMortis]

But I don't know how I come back. Seriously, how do I engage nearly half of Americans, and surely more than half who surround me, when the best case scenario is they see this as an acceptable cost. I guess I'm a one issue voter and this issue informs my day to day sense of reality.

I don't think it's possible to simultaneously believe that 48.5% of your fellow countrymen are corrupt beyond redemption AND believe that government should be of the people, by the people, for the people. If "the people" are as bad as all that, then they have no business being anywhere near government.

I'm not ready to give up on Lincoln, so I'm going to jettison the former belief instead, and accept that in a two party system, people often end up voting for people they don't actually completely agree with.

I don't think they are corrupt beyond redemption. I can't get on the same page as someone who was exposed to "Stand down, Stand by" with no evidence in 4 years to support this was a gaffe and no immediate clarification and think it's not a deal breaker from everything else they know about the two candidates. I guess having 0 tolerance for American Nazi-ism as my single issue. I mean there has to be some point at which I would go, "well, even though you won't repudiate American Nazis and denounce their support for you, you're better than the alternative." I mean if you could have changed the Biden as letch perception (which may have merit and may be a negative, I'm not informed enough about his life to know) into Biden shown to molest children. That could knock my off being a single issue voter looking at other voters with dismay. But I've hit a failure in my ability empathize.

[Little Raven]

I don't think they are corrupt beyond redemption. I can't get on the same page as someone who was exposed to "Stand down, Stand by" with no evidence in 4 years to support this was a gaffe and no immediate clarification and think it's not a deal breaker from everything else they know about the two candidates.

Uh...ok. I don't mean to be rube, but this strikes me as a distinction without a difference. You don't think they're beyond redemption, you just don't see how you can ever align yourself with them ever again?

At any rate, while it falls to each of us to draw our own moral lines in the sand, I personally feel that approach is...counterproductive...when it comes to politics. Politics, after all, is the art of getting people to work towards a common goal. You should always been looking for the similarities, and emphasizing the points of compromise, even as you acknowledge the differences. Tens of millions of Americans voted for Trump. They are our neighbors, our friends, our family. Trump will win or lose in the next few days, and will be gone in months or years depending, but they will remain, and we will need their help to face the formidable challenges ahead.

I look forward to trying to convince them to vote Blue next time around.

[gameoverman]

This country once had legal slavery. That took a war to end. After the war both sides started working together again. So it IS possible to bring people who aren't just enemies but actually killing each other back together.

However, in the time after the war, and up until this very day, there has still been a lot of unresolved racism motivated issues haunting the country. The war was technically over 150 years ago but in some ways it's still being fought today.

This turn of the Republican party by Trump and his personality cult might have long lingering effects in a similar way. We might see people wearing MAGA hats for the next 100 years, the way people still display the confederate flag, and trying to build a consensus with them will go just about as well as it does with wannabe rebels.

[raydude]

If you want to win in red states, stop complaining and listen to Tammy Baldwin:

https://www.vox.com/2020/8/24/21395668/ ... my-baldwin

In their hearts, they don’t want to cater to right-of-center voters’ preferences and sensibilities, in part because they feel it’s unfair that they should have to. And it really is unfair! Polling averages suggest that North Carolina, the Senate tipping-point state, is about 7 points to the right of the country. The Senate badly underrepresents nonwhite citizens and overrepresents white voters without a college degree.

I read the article and I get where Grifman is coming from. And to be honest I don't see the message as saying Democrats have to abandon their inclusivity at all. The main point I took away was this:

Democrats who have won in Republican territory in recent years pitch messages that emphasize popular policies, like better health care, job creation, and raising the minimum wage, while deemphasizing race, immigration, gender, and other cultural values.

Tammy Baldwin could have run on a platform that emphasized her LGBTQ-ness. She could have been like "I'm LGBTQ and proud of it bitches! Let my rainbow flag fly" and prominently featured LGBTQ actors in all her ads. She didn't. She emphasized health care and her work in the dairy industry instead. And as the article mentions that doesn't mean she throws LGBTQ policies under the bus. She still votes positively on those issues - it's just that she doesn't throw that in voters faces like it's a "PRO" vs "CON" of what they will get if voting for her.

And yeah, it's extremely unfair because ultimately It means that Democrats will probably have to run milky-white candidates in red states until they get majority Senate control, but that's what you have to do because without control of the Senate we can't do shit. At least this is better than the other alternative, which is to sink to Republican ways of doing things and trying to find loopholes or exploiting gaps in the law.

Bottom line it comes down to meeting basic needs. Tell voters you will help them meet their needs for jobs, health care, education; no matter what their creed or belief. Yes it sucks because you know some of those same voters broke for a sociopathic POTUS, but maybe even if you can't reach the unreachable you'll turn around the folks who did get their needs met and they will remember that.

That may be the key to winning.

[LordMortis]

I don't think they are corrupt beyond redemption. I can't get on the same page as someone who was exposed to "Stand down, Stand by" with no evidence in 4 years to support this was a gaffe and no immediate clarification and think it's not a deal breaker from everything else they know about the two candidates.

Uh...ok. I don't mean to be rube, but this strikes me as a distinction without a difference. You don't think they're beyond redemption, you just don't see how you can ever align yourself with them ever again?

At any rate, while it falls to each of us to draw our own moral lines in the sand, I personally feel that approach is...counterproductive...when it comes to politics. Politics, after all, is the art of getting people to work towards a common goal. You should always been looking for the similarities, and emphasizing the points of compromise, even as you acknowledge the differences. Tens of millions of Americans voted for Trump. They are our neighbors, our friends, our family. Trump will win or lose in the next few days, and will be gone in months or years depending, but they will remain, and we will need their help to face the formidable challenges ahead.

I look forward to trying to convince them to vote Blue next time around.

1) Corrupt is the key word. I don't think they are corrupt
2) If redemption is the key then I am not their redeemer. I can't any more. I don't know how.
3) I've given up "convincing" which to me is actually holding reasonable conversations. The only convincing I ever wanted were of facts as the demonstrable occurence of things happening are the things get me to go "ah ha. Look at that. I'm wrong." That's what eventually moved me from magenta to purple to periwinkle to functionally blue.

I totally empathize with the sentiment you are trying to convey. This is where I'm broken. How do I get along? This is on me. I have to function in this US. And where I'm at emotionally and in my internal thought process isn't working.

[Grifman]

Further support for what I have been saying as to what Democrats need to do to win:

[RunningMn9]

we will need their help to face the formidable challenges ahead.

You’re never getting it. They’ve learned two very important lessons:

1) The only way to get their help is to do exactly what they always wanted to do, right or wrong.

2) They are free to exercise power at all times, and you aren’t, ever.

You won the Presidency? McConnell has already said that if the GOP holds the Senate, he is effectively picking Biden’s cabinet, and it will include 0 “liberals” (by his definition).

They will ALWAYS exercise power. No matter how much or little they have. And they will ALWAYS shame you for using the power given to you, and you’ll always buckle, because norms (that only you have to follow).

The only way to move forward was to break the GOP hold on the Senate and that didn’t happen.

They will not work with you, they will not help you solve challenges. Every minute of every day from now until Election Day 2022 will be spent with a singular focus - destroying the Biden Presidency.

You can’t work with people like that to solve problems because the only problem they are trying to solve is the fact that you won an election. Nothing else matters to them.

[malchior]

Further support for what I have been saying as to what Democrats need to do to win:

One last word on this. Don't you see how huge a blind spot this is? They won the middle and will --hopefully -- barely win by the thinnest of margins. Essentially the same margins that Trump won by. This is literally evidence staring you in the face that the middle isn't reliably enough and you think they should dig in more? They need to get more of the "middle". He won it by huge margins compared to Clinton. The knife's edge just happened to fall his way -- hopefully! And he is essentially in the same spot as Clinton. The right moved the goal post to much more extreme in just 4 years.

My opinion is many are taking the wrong lesson from this. The Democrats are splitting about being more left wing or more centrist. That is a pressure that might splinter them. The Republicans from their safe coalition with less lifting to do and a propaganda engine keeping the base in line will apply pressure to those weak spots. For example, there is word that McConnell is already talking about not confirming Biden cabinet choices unless they are "centrist enough". That is within the system and sounds reasonable on the surface, but again the GOP is the one of the most right-wing parties in the world. What McConnell considers centrist is not going to work for a good portion of the Democratic party. In the end it signals that his agenda is to attack that weak coalition right from the get go and then fight, fight, fight any progress in a strategic hold. He knows that the left will see a system that stubbornly resists change and potentially fracture.

Anyway, if I'd boil all this down, the centrist blind spot is wanting to take the lesson from a distorting system and apply the last lesson to the next election. And it just keeps missing the mark. This form of government has been wobbling for 2 or more decades now. Now it is barely functional. In the proper context, a strategy hoping the center is enough ignores that the concentrating power on the right is forming a political black hole that is gobbling up all the power. And they'll have more freedom to shatter the Democratic coalition or just steal tactically enough to keep power.

What are the outcomes of this? The left is talking general strikes and forming militias now. It might be all talk but people are showing up every day to get beaten by the NYPD and Portland Police every day. The right is showing up armed to polling locations chanting the President's twitter commands. This is dystopia. The middle is where we should return but it *for now* is not the tonic. It only leans into the current problem.

[noxiousdog]

You won the Presidency? McConnell has already said that if the GOP holds the Senate, he is effectively picking Biden’s cabinet, and it will include 0 “liberals” (by his definition).

FWIW, while I believe most government rules should be obeyed, I'd be totally in favor of copying Trump's playbook of interim appointments. Just put them to work until the Senate confirms your list. I can't imagine that McConnell could keep 100% of Republicans from confirming a cabinet position.

[Combustible Lemur]

You won the Presidency? McConnell has already said that if the GOP holds the Senate, he is effectively picking Biden’s cabinet, and it will include 0 “liberals” (by his definition).

FWIW, while I believe most government rules should be obeyed, I'd be totally in favor of copying Trump's playbook of interim appointments. Just put them to work until the Senate confirms your list. I can't imagine that McConnell could keep 100% of Republicans from confirming a cabinet position.

It worked for the judiciary.

Its the pirate code. "Take what you can, give nothing back."

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk