2020 Election Analysis

[Little Raven]

I'm starting a new thread since it looks like tabulating the results may take a while, but people are wasting no time in discussing what the election means.

Let's start with Politico. Geez, tell us how you really feel, why doncha?

TUESDAY WAS AN ABJECT DISASTER for Democrats in Washington. To imagine the amount of soul searching and explaining the party will have to do after Tuesday is absolutely dizzying. The infighting will be bloody -- as it should be. We fielded text after text from Hill Democrats Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning with existential questions about their leadership and the direction of their party.

DEMOCRATS TOLD US in the weeks and months leading up to Election Day that they were on track to win the majority in the Senate, and they don’t appear poised to do that. Donors gave $90 million to lose to Senate Majority Leader MITCH MCCONNELL, $108 million to lose to Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.) and $24 million to lose to Sen. JOHN CORNYN (R-Texas). GOP Sen. STEVE DAINES won in Montana. GOP Sen. THOM TILLIS is up in North Carolina. GOP Sen. DAVID PERDUE is above 50% in Georgia, at the moment. Sen. SUSAN COLLINS is narrowly ahead in Maine -- despite Democrat SARA GIDEON raising $69 million. Iowa Sen. JONI ERNST won her bid for a second term. Andrew Desiderio and James Arkin on the state of play in the Senate

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS TOLD US that Dems would win a dozen seats in the House, and knock off a whole host of Republican incumbents, and that was completely wrong. Instead, Republicans -- powered by the NRCC and CLF -- beat a bunch of Democratic incumbents. The GOP added women to their ranks. They beat Minnesota Rep. COLLIN PETERSON after a few decades of trying. Republicans beat two Democratic incumbents in the Miami area -- DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL and DONNA SHALALA. NANCY MACE beat Rep. JOE CUNNINGHAM in South Carolina. Democratic Rep. MAX ROSE appears to be done in Staten Island. Democratic Reps. XOCHITL TORRES SMALL of New Mexico and KENDRA HORN of Oklahoma both have lost.

INSTEAD OF SITTING SOMEWHERE in the 180s, Republicans have north of 200 House seats, making themselves an extremely powerful minority no matter who wins the White House.

I'm really sad about Torres-Small.

[noxiousdog]

I think we should just yell and scream and blame deplorables. I'm sure that will fix it.

[Little Raven]

And now, from the other side of the aisle... (National Review)

Look, the GOP has its own share of problems. But when Republicans have a lousy year — like 2006, or 2008, or 2018 — they generally see it coming. Almost every time the Republicans have a good year, Democrats get blindsided.

Maybe Democrats should stop assuming that they have African Americans and Latinos locked up, and stop reflexively labeling all opposition to any aspect of their agenda racist. Maybe they should recognize that Americans of all races, creeds, and colors own small businesses or dream of doing so one day and don’t see capitalism as an inherently cruel and unjust system. As I discuss in today’s Morning Jolt, maybe Democrats should realize “socialism” is not a winning message among Cuban Americans, Venezuelan Americans, Nicaraguan Americans, and Colombian Americans.

Maybe Democrats should look at the deranged accusations against Brett Kavanaugh, and the claims that Amy Coney Barrett is some sort of Handmaid’s Tale religious extremist, and realize that to at least half the country, they look unhinged. Democrats are never going to be the pro-life party, but maybe they can treat pro-lifers with respect and inch back towards Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal, and rare” philosophy.

Maybe Democrats should speak up in defense of law-abiding gun owners every now and then.

Maybe when people riot, Democrats should call it a riot. Maybe when a city has been poorly run for a long time, Democrats should say so and demand better results.

...

Maybe Nancy Pelosi isn’t the best leader to have in the House, and maybe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn’t the best person to be the party’s rising star, and maybe Chuck Schumer is not all that great as a Senate minority leader. Maybe Democrats would be better off with a little more spotlight on figures such as Amy Klobuchar and Andrew Yang and John Delaney. They weren’t amazing presidential candidates, but they weren’t instantly antagonistic to everything associated with the opposition.

Maybe the craziest thought of all is that perhaps Democratic officeholders and candidates should interact with people who disagree with them, listen to their arguments and how they see the world, and see if they’ve had some wrong preconceived notions about the . . . er, deplorability of their political opponents.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's almost as if the two party system sucks.

[malchior]

I think we should just yell and scream and blame deplorables. I'm sure that will fix it.

The real answer is there is no realistic fix. This system is going to careen from disaster to disaster until we hit a massive failure point.

[malchior]

And now, from the other side of the aisle... (National Review)

That piece is ... ridiculous ... everything they say the Democrats should do are things that the GOP doesn't do have to do to succeed. They are only succeeding because this system is completely broken. To some of their point, the Democrats are the fucking worst at politics but we also have to acknowledge they have a much harder game to run. You can't take up a pro life position and keep the cities. You can't legitimize white nationalism, etc. The Democrats have to build fragile coalitions because of the EC. That is the story. It is intensifying that effect year after year. This is what a slow grinding failure looks like at nation scale. Who knows what the end game looks like but it will fail at some point. Heck it may fail *TODAY*. We don't know yet.

[Smoove_B]

The one figure I'm really looking to see is how many total ballots were cast this year and how that compares to other years. I need to know more about the people that just couldn't be bothered to vote this year. I need to know what they do and how they exist in such a perfect world to not care about anything in 2020.

[Grifman]

And now, from the other side of the aisle... (National Review)

That piece is ... ridiculous

The article is spot on.

... everything they say the Democrats should do are things that the GOP doesn't do have to do to succeed. They are only succeeding because this system is completely broken. To some of their point, the Democrats are the fucking worst at politics but we also have to acknowledge they have a much harder game to run.

Irrelevant. You have play the hand you are given, not the one you wish you had. Yes, the system is broken because of the EC but whining about it isn't going to do you any good. The rules ARE unfair, the Republicans do have a head start but that's the way it is. Within reason, you need to do what you have to do to win.

You can't take up a pro life position and keep the cities.

Actually you could. Say both parties were pro-life. Are urban dwellers going to suddenly vote Republican? No, other issues would come into play, none of which favor the Republicans. You win them on those issues. I don't think Democrats will ever do this but to say you couldn't do ignores all the other issues important to the cities.

You can't legitimize white nationalism, etc. The Democrats have to build fragile coalitions because of the EC. That is the story. It is intensifying that effect year after year. This is what a slow grinding failure looks like at nation scale. Who knows what the end game looks like but it will fail at some point. Heck it may fail *TODAY*. We don't know yet.

Democrats need to take a deep look at how they can peel back voters in the battleground states in the rural small town areas - that's where the EC is being lost. They also need to stop looking at Hispanics as monolithic and figuring out what to do there because obviously that isn't working. They also need to figure out now to win back the blue collar union types - they should be solidly Democratic yet Trump won them resoundingly in Ohio for example. They don't need more urban votes from CA or NY, that just runs up the popular vote but doesn't help win elections.

This election needs to be a wake up call. Biden was the best candidate the Dems could have run - anyone more "progressive" would have lost worst in the battleground states, which are all that matter. They need to figure out how to win in those states. Again, let me say this, NOTHING else matters.

[Skinypupy]

I don't disagree with the premise that Democrats will have to make significant adjustments due to the nature of the EC.

What disgusts me is the fact that the GOP can continue to wildly accelerate their xenophobia, their racism, their corruption, their systemic injustice, and every other horrific behavior they've shown, and the only collective option/response we have is "well, I guess Democrats need to figure out how to manage that".

At some point, we (the royal "we") have to call that behavior out as simply unacceptable, and it is painfully obvious that we do not possess the spine to do so. Mainly because it might cost people some $$, a fact I find utterly vile.

The number of very well-off people I talked to who said that they hate Trump but can't "risk their 401Ks" to vote for Biden was appalling.

[Little Raven]

At some point, we (the royal "we") have to call that behavior out as simply unacceptable...

I don't think there's any shortage of people calling it out. There's been a more or less constant drumbeat of callouts, even in our little corner of the internet. Heck, here's a callout from Salon.

What is actually known with great certainty about the 2020 presidential election is that white supremacy and racism have been reaffirmed and not repudiated.

Despite hundreds of thousands of people dead in the United States from the coronavirus and Trump's sabotage of the relief efforts, along with his cruelty, violence, tens of thousands of lies, treasonous behavior and destruction of the country's economy; despite the many thousands of brown and Black migrants and refugees held in his concentration camps and other detention centers; despite his vast corruption, lawbreaking, racism, white supremacy, and nativism; despite his destruction of America's and the world's environment, thereby imperiling the survival of the human race; despite being credibly accused of rape and sexual assault by dozens of women; and despite his ignorance, stupidity and overall evil, Donald Trump remains remarkably popular in the United States.

Moreover, Donald Trump has the highest base level of support in the history of modern polling in the United States. His political cult members and other followers love Donald Trump precisely because of how horrible he is and not despite it. It is a form of political sadism. Trumpism and America's current version of right-wing politics is a form of political religion binds its followers to the Great Leader and the movement in a deeply existential way.

More people have voted for Donald Trump so far than did in 2016.

What is also known about Donald Trump, the 2020 presidential campaign, and the results so far is that Trump's enduring popularity and love from his followers can largely be explained as a function of white racism and white supremacy; "racial resentment"; "ethnic antagonism"; social dominance behavior; malignant reality; pathocracy; collective narcissism, existential white racial "anxiety"; the dark triad of sociopathic and psychopathic behavior; white identity politics; and racial authoritarianism, more generally.

The question is - does this actually help us win elections?

[Smoove_B]

The number of very well-off people I talked to who said that they hate Trump but can't "risk their 401Ks" to vote for Biden was appalling.

Yes. Just based on what I posted elsewhere, I think we're going to find money/job/taxes is what people voted on. Children in cages? Supreme Court Justice Seats? Guns? Nope. I've got mine and I wanna keep it might truly have been the X factor here.

[The Meal]

The number of very well-off people I talked to who said that they hate Trump but can't "risk their 401Ks" to vote for Biden was appalling.

And yet...

The delay in a second round of fiscal stimulus was already worrying to economists, Clare. And according to our more than two dozen quantitative macroeconomists survey, they were more likely to think the economy would look better in 2021 if the Democrats won a trifecta, as opposed to having a split government situation where Biden won the White House and Republicans kept the Senate — that’s likely based on the assumption that Democratic control of Congress and the White House would lead to a bigger and possibly swifter stimulus package.

[Skinypupy]

I also think that Trump's "Superspreader 2020" tour - while Biden remained subdued (with good reason) - likely had a significant effect on anyone who had doubts as to Biden's potential weakness around stamina. The fact he was willing to step over dead bodies to do should be a dealbreaker, but given the lack of concern in those groups around COVID, it simply wasn't.

Just another element that is very unique to this specific election cycle.

[Carpet_pissr]

I've got mine and I wanna keep it might truly have been the X factor here.

X factor? That's an enshrined plank of the GOP for as long as I can remember! It's just been sanded, stained and varnished this time around.

[Smoove_B]

X factor? That's an enshrined plank of the GOP for as long as I can remember! It's just been sanded, stained and varnished this time around.

X factor for people that said they were going to vote Biden and why they switched at the last minute and voted for Trump. Or if there's anything to pick apart in the so-called "Independent" voters, if that's why they went with Trump (I don't know if they did).

[malchior]

... everything they say the Democrats should do are things that the GOP doesn't do have to do to succeed. They are only succeeding because this system is completely broken. To some of their point, the Democrats are the fucking worst at politics but we also have to acknowledge they have a much harder game to run.

Irrelevant. You have play the hand you are given, not the one you wish you had. Yes, the system is broken because of the EC but whining about it isn't going to do you any good. The rules ARE unfair, the Republicans do have a head start but that's the way it is. Within reason, you need to do what you have to do to win.

IMO you are not thinking through the current state. A system with first past the post voting will gravitate definitionally to 50/50 coalition splits. If one coalition can maintain itself with less than the 50/50 split it is a certainly that the system will become dominated by the party with less political burden. The Casino always wins in the long-term if the odds are in its favor. The GOP has an escalating advantage year after year and the other side has to keep stretching. It means in very apparent terms now that this system is unsustainable. We had glimpses of it in 2000 and a pretty sharp view in 2016. That it happened again is essentially smoking gun proof that this system is unstable. It isn't whining it is acknowledging systemic failure.

To be clear, the deadly combo so to speak is the EC + first past the post. Replace first past the post with ranked choice and you might be able to mitigate it. Fix the EC and you mitigate it for sure. Either way the scenario we have been seeing is happening over and over again. Republicans now have won the popular vote in 1 election since 1992. And they might have the Presidency for a majority of that time. They've packed the courts. They have the same advantage in the Senate. We're at the end of the road here on this concept. There is no denying this truth anymore. And that is why the piece is wrong. It misses the root cause of this crisis.

You can't take up a pro life position and keep the cities.

Actually you could. Say both parties were pro-life. Are urban dwellers going to suddenly vote Republican? No, other issues would come into play, none of which favor the Republicans. You win them on those issues. I don't think Democrats will ever do this but to say you couldn't do ignores all the other issues important to the cities.

This is completely unrealistic. And it is another Democracy issue. We have to disenfranchise entire blocks of people to get majority rule?

Democrats need to take a deep look at how they can peel back voters in the battleground states in the rural small town areas - that's where the EC is being lost. They also need to stop looking at Hispanics as monolithic and figuring out what to do there because obviously that isn't working. They also need to figure out now to win back the blue collar union types - they should be solidly Democratic yet Trump won them resoundingly in Ohio for example. They don't need more urban votes from CA or NY, that just runs up the popular vote but doesn't help win elections.

Isn't it interesting that only Democrats seem to be chasing some voting block. We need less educated white voters. We need suburban women. We need latinos. They are chasing the tail because the system keeps moving the target for one party solely. The latino vote probably only mattered in one state definitively yet. And that was a state that Trump won before by a decent margin. Giving the Democrats mission after mission to figure out an ever impossible to maintain coalition isn't addressing the problem.

This election needs to be a wake up call. Biden was the best candidate the Dems could have run - anyone more "progressive" would have lost worst in the battleground states, which are all that matter. They need to figure out how to win in those states. Again, let me say this, NOTHING else matters.

Another wake up call you mean. After all the other wake up calls. Heck Biden probably was the only one in a field of 23 who could have come this close. What does that say by itself? We're in a failure state. That is also why that piece is wrong.

[Grifman]

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.

The racial bias of the US Senate is by some margin the clearest and most significant example of “structural racism” in American life: Nonwhite people’s views and interests simply don’t count as much as white people’s. And the gap is large — so large that, according to Data for Progress co-founder Colin McAuliffe’s math, even making DC and Puerto Rico into states would not fully equalize the racial representation gap.

That in turn creates two problems. One is that to remediate the structural racism of the Senate, you need to win a majority first. The other is that precisely because the structural racism is present, talking about “structural racism” on the trail is probably not a good way to win the marginal seats that Democrats need in order to govern. If they want a role model for how to win difficult Senate races in right-of-center states that overrepresent non-college-educated white people, Democrats should pay attention to the brief speech delivered by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), one of the few speakers at the convention who’s actually done it.

Unlike Kamala Harris, who spoke at some length on the historic nature of a Black woman and the child of immigrants on a national ticket, Baldwin didn’t mention anything about her own path-breaking career. She’s the first openly gay person elected to the United States Senate, and at the time she won her House seat, she was the first openly gay woman to serve there.

The Democratic Party base — by which I mean not necessarily the most left-wing people in the country but the people most personally invested in the party — cares, a lot, about this kind of thing. It is a key reason Harris was selected and in turn a key reason her selection has been such a fundraising hit.

But Baldwin wins in a modestly right-of-center state that has a disproportionately large number of non-college-educated white voters by downplaying these kinds of concerns. Not by throwing LGBTQ people — or racial minorities or any other significant demographic group — under the bus on policy, where she has a solidly left-wing record, but by choosing to emphasize issues like health care where the Democratic Party is very broadly popular and by running goofy ads about her service to the Wisconsin dairy industry.

[malchior]

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

Winning within a state is a huge difference from winning a national election. This is too reductive to be taken seriously.

[dbt1949]

I haven't felt this disappointed in my fellow Americans since Vietnam.

[noxiousdog]

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

Winning within a state is a huge difference from winning a national election. This is too reductive to be taken seriously.

You keep saying these things and I don't understand why.

Little Raven and I live in conservative areas. Grifman and I still identify conservative.

I guess you can keep ignoring conservatives and instead scream at them and call them names, but it doesn't seem all that productive.

[Grifman]

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

Winning within a state is a huge difference from winning a national election. This is too reductive to be taken seriously.

If you address red state concerns, the blue states will still come with you automatically. Realistically, they're not going to go anywhere else. Now make an argument that this is too reductive.

[Carpet_pissr]

At some point, we (the royal "we") have to call that behavior out as simply unacceptable, and it is painfully obvious that we do not possess the spine to do so.

Agree with your premise that way too many people (based on my personal world view) vote with their wallet in mind, first.

On the other point though..."at some point"?! Not sure you could call it out more than it was! One of the few silver linings in how I feel about my country for the past 4 years, is how we DID (finally, and yes, of course, WAY too late) call that shit out. And hard. The problem is that there are obviously a LOT of people who don't like being called racists.

[Grifman]

Little Raven and I live in conservative areas. Grifman and I still identify conservative.

Just for the record, I live in a usually conservative state (NC) and I am a political moderate, but I would say the majority of my friends are conservatives (though most family are liberal Sometimes I am conservative on (abortion), other things liberal (global warming). In reality, I struggle with both parties and don't feel at home in either

[malchior]

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

Winning within a state is a huge difference from winning a national election. This is too reductive to be taken seriously.

If you address red state concerns, the blue states will still come with you automatically. Realistically, they're not going to go anywhere else. Now make an argument that this is too reductive.

I wouldn't call it reductive. I'd say it pretty much makes no sense. I already explained why above. Throwing out the issues of the majority to cater to satisfy the increasing power of anti-majoritarian features of the system only will cause more stress over time.

[Lorini]

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

Winning within a state is a huge difference from winning a national election. This is too reductive to be taken seriously.

If you address red state concerns, the blue states will still come with you automatically. Realistically, they're not going to go anywhere else. Now make an argument that this is too reductive.

The biggest red state concern is abortion. The Dems become anything close to anti-abortion and they are done.

[Remus West]

I think where the Democrats fail is not their goals but their messaging. They completely suck at messaging. Take Pro-Life for example. People want to end abortion? The data shows us that legislating it away fails and educating it away works. Message the reduction in abortion rates rather than legislation. Message how supporting our God given freewill with education on preventing pregnancies and maybe you make inroads. Even the "tax increase" message sucks. Go full on attack mode against anyone attacking you on raising taxes on the uber wealthy. Label them as greedy sons of bitches and attack attack attack. Thats all the Republicans do. When was the last time a Republican actually bothered to defend their own positions? They always swerve to the attack. Screw defending yourself and your positions. Attack the crap out of the other side for how bad their position is. Over and over and over. If we learn anything from trump's time it is that a good persistent offense beats a good defense politically.

[Grifman]

... everything they say the Democrats should do are things that the GOP doesn't do have to do to succeed. They are only succeeding because this system is completely broken. To some of their point, the Democrats are the fucking worst at politics but we also have to acknowledge they have a much harder game to run.

Irrelevant. You have play the hand you are given, not the one you wish you had. Yes, the system is broken because of the EC but whining about it isn't going to do you any good. The rules ARE unfair, the Republicans do have a head start but that's the way it is. Within reason, you need to do what you have to do to win.

IMO you are not thinking through the current state. A system with first past the post voting will gravitate definitionally to 50/50 coalition splits. If one coalition can maintain itself with less than the 50/50 split it is a certainly that the system will become dominated by the party with less political burden. The Casino always wins in the long-term if the odds are in its favor. The GOP has an escalating advantage year after year and the other side has to keep stretching. It means in very apparent terms now that this system is unsustainable. We had glimpses of it in 2000 and a pretty sharp view in 2016. That it happened again is essentially smoking gun proof that this system is unstable. It isn't whining it is acknowledging systemic failure.

To be clear, the deadly combo so to speak is the EC + first past the post. Replace first past the post with ranked choice and you might be able to mitigate it. Fix the EC and you mitigate it for sure. Either way the scenario we have been seeing is happening over and over again. Republicans now have won the popular vote in 1 election since 1992. And they might have the Presidency for a majority of that time. They've packed the courts. They have the same advantage in the Senate. We're at the end of the road here on this concept. There is no denying this truth anymore. And that is why the piece is wrong. It misses the root cause of this crisis.

You can't take up a pro life position and keep the cities.

Actually you could. Say both parties were pro-life. Are urban dwellers going to suddenly vote Republican? No, other issues would come into play, none of which favor the Republicans. You win them on those issues. I don't think Democrats will ever do this but to say you couldn't do ignores all the other issues important to the cities.

This is completely unrealistic. And it is another Democracy issue. We have to disenfranchise entire blocks of people to get majority rule?

Democrats need to take a deep look at how they can peel back voters in the battleground states in the rural small town areas - that's where the EC is being lost. They also need to stop looking at Hispanics as monolithic and figuring out what to do there because obviously that isn't working. They also need to figure out now to win back the blue collar union types - they should be solidly Democratic yet Trump won them resoundingly in Ohio for example. They don't need more urban votes from CA or NY, that just runs up the popular vote but doesn't help win elections.

Isn't it interesting that only Democrats seem to be chasing some voting block. We need less educated white voters. We need suburban women. We need latinos. They are chasing the tail because the system keeps moving the target for one party solely. The latino vote probably only mattered in one state definitively yet. And that was a state that Trump won before by a decent margin. Giving the Democrats mission after mission to figure out an ever impossible to maintain coalition isn't addressing the problem.

This election needs to be a wake up call. Biden was the best candidate the Dems could have run - anyone more "progressive" would have lost worst in the battleground states, which are all that matter. They need to figure out how to win in those states. Again, let me say this, NOTHING else matters.

Another wake up call you mean. After all the other wake up calls. Heck Biden probably was the only one in a field of 23 who could have come this close. What does that say by itself? We're in a failure state. That is also why that piece is wrong.

A few points:

1) I think I get what you are saying. You are saying that because of the EC, the Democrats have to create such a large unwieldy coalition to win that it is almost impossible - adding in one faction will end up alienating another. That's why you say it is a crisis and unsustainable. That said, do you have a solution to offer or have you just given up?

2) You say Democrats going pro-life would be "disenfranchising entire blocks of people"?!? I fail to see how that taking that position prevents anyone from voting, seems to make no sense to me.

3) You complain "Isn't it interesting that only Democrats seem to be chasing some voting block". Duh, that's what people who lose elections and/or need more votes need to do. Nothing surprising here.

4) So we're in a "failure state" eight years after two terms of a Democratic President Obama? Does that even make any sense that things could go so bad so fast? That doesn't seem likely to me.

But again, my question to you is, do you have a solution, or have you just given up? If the latter, then, no offense, you and I have nothing further to discuss, and we don't need to go around and around wasting each others time. But if you have ideas for solutions, then I am all ears, but so far I've not heard anything from you.

[noxiousdog]

Little Raven and I live in conservative areas. Grifman and I still identify conservative.

Just for the record, I live in a usually conservative state (NC) and I am a political moderate, but I would say the majority of my friends are conservatives (though most family are liberal Sometimes I am conservative on (abortion), other things liberal (global warming). In reality, I struggle with both parties and don't feel at home in either

I don't consider global warming liberal. It means you aren't stupid.

What we do about it and how aggressively might be liberal/conservative.

Again, I'm not talking party; just philosophy. When you have time and energy, it should be difficult to line up with a party since there are only two. Most people don't have that inclination and not only choose and stick, but also don't actually see if the party they chose actually does what it says it does.

[noxiousdog]

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

Winning within a state is a huge difference from winning a national election. This is too reductive to be taken seriously.

If you address red state concerns, the blue states will still come with you automatically. Realistically, they're not going to go anywhere else. Now make an argument that this is too reductive.

The biggest red state concern is abortion. The Dems become anything close to anti-abortion and they are done.

Actually, it ranks 8th on the list.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's always about money. Keeping yours, getting more. Health care is ultimately about money too. If it were free, it would no longer be an issue.

[malchior]

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

Winning within a state is a huge difference from winning a national election. This is too reductive to be taken seriously.

You keep saying these things and I don't understand why.

Well the screaming obvious thing is that crafting a message to win as a Senator in Wisconsin is *very different* from winning Wisconsin and Michigan and Arizona and Pennsylvania while keeping a bunch of other states in play all which have niche political concerns all their own. Is this really a hard concept to grasp?

Little Raven and I live in conservative areas. Grifman and I still identify conservative.

What does this have to do with the price of tea?

I guess you can keep ignoring conservatives and instead scream at them and call them names, but it doesn't seem all that productive.

This isn't the point being made. The dawning political reality based on multiple elections now is that this system is failing because of EC math. It's clear as day now. We've essentially run the same election as 2016 with massively different inputs (pandemic! corruption! impeachment! open racism! incompetence!) and got almost the same outcome. It'll break on a few thousand votes in the same states as 2016. Biden might still lose and he'll have a better margin than Clinton. Heck it'll probably be a 4 or 5 point win and he will have barely won. Being nice to "Conservatives" isn't the problem.

[noxiousdog]

This isn't the point being made. The dawning political reality based on multiple elections now is that this system is failing because of EC math. It's clear as day now. We've essentially run the same election as 2016 with massively different inputs (pandemic! corruption! impeachment! open racism! incompetence!) and got almost the same outcome. It'll break on a few thousand votes in the same states as 2016. He might still lose and he'll have a better margin than Clinton.

The EC is only about the Presidency. It doesn't help you with the Senate when WI/MI goes red. It doesn't help you in Florida or Arizona. It doesn't help you in Texas or Georgia.

It doesn't help you with credibility when you need conservatives to listen to you when you say wear a mask.

[malchior]

1) I think I get what you are saying. You are saying that because of the EC, the Democrats have to create such a large unwieldy coalition to win that it is almost impossible - adding in one faction will end up alienating another. That's why you say it is a crisis and unsustainable. That said, do you have a solution to offer or have you just given up?

Yes that is the outcome. And I believe there is no fix available *at the moment*. Unless the Democrats pull out a miracle and take the Senate.

2) You say Democrats going pro-life would be "disenfranchising entire blocks of people"?!? I fail to see how that taking that position prevents anyone from voting, seems to make no sense to me.

It is one party rule by another name. If you tell the populace you have to accept the minority view for awhile to overcome the built in EC advantage...how does that work? It doesn't take away their vote but if there is no coalition available for the majority view then that's disenfranchisement by a different mechanism. So why not compromise on these issues? If there was a compromise position I believe it would have been established years ago. There is not compromise because the right won't compromise on them.

3) You complain "Isn't it interesting that only Democrats seem to be chasing some voting block". Duh, that's what people who lose elections and/or need more votes need to do. Nothing surprising here.

It isn't a complaint. It is an observation. Only the Democrats keep being put in the position to do it. The Republicans have to maintain a stable coalition which gives them the freedom to make raids on the Democratic coalition. In the end they only need to steal a point or two. That is because of the EC. It is driving extremism. And the extremism is a feedback loop now. Especially in the right. The Republican party is one of the most extreme right-wing parties in the world now. Only a few are more illiberal or authoritarian and they are tiny compared to the GOP. We have a massive extremism problem and the refrain is always on the Democrats to keep stretching right...right...right chasing some new Demographic that has been pulled into the extremist orbit.

4) So we're in a "failure state" eight years after two terms of a Democratic President Obama? Does that even make any sense that things could go so bad so fast? That doesn't seem likely to me.

Great. If you look around and don't think we are deep in the abyss...I have no words.

But again, my question to you is, do you have a solution, or have you just given up? If the latter, then, no offense, you and I have nothing further to discuss, and we don't need to go around and around wasting each others time. But if you have ideas for solutions, then I am all ears, but so far I've not heard anything from you.

I already detailed a fix.

[gameoverman]

I disregard any analysis that only mentions how Democrats screwed up. Not because Democrats don't screw up, we do, and we're wrong on a regular basis. I disregard that kind of reasoning because it sidesteps what Trump and his Republican partners have done. I'm supposed to believe that an abstract fear of 'socialism' is a justifiable reason to vote a certain way, but seeing with their own eyes how badly this country has been farked up by poor leadership is not something that would affect their vote? Anti-abortion types need to be treated with more respect, but immigrants, gays, and other minorities don't deserve basic rights? No, there must be another explanation.

I think this vote being so close proves one thing beyond a doubt- no amount of civility or outreach or even real life events are enough to win over Republican voters. They band together because that's the nature of how they operate. It explains why when something like an opportunity to appoint a new justice comes up, they do it even if it's an election year and they had previously said they wouldn't do that in an election year. It's like dealing with someone who is defending a family member. They may know their family member committed a crime and they may know you're telling them the truth but they still won't side with you against their family member, no matter how nice you are to them.

The only way I see this being fixed is to write off all Republicans who currently exist. Don't count on them for anything. Instead, focus on building a larger base of Democratic voters. It's going to take awhile and I know we Americans are all about instant gratification but this can't be accomplished except over time. We already see how in red states there are sizable pockets of blue. We need to work to increase the amount of pockets and the size of those pockets.

[dbt1949]

One thing this election has taught me is never put much faith in polls.

[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.

[malchior]

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.

[Smoove_B]

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.

[Zarathud]

I've got mine and I wanna keep it might truly have been the X factor here.

I expect Covid fatigue also pulled rural voters to turn up and vote Trump. I’m not sick so why should I stop working is the short-sighted Y factor.

[LordMortis]

It's always about money. Keeping yours, getting more. Health care is ultimately about money too. If it were free, it would no longer be an issue.

Truth, you know it when Medicare and health care pensions are discussed.