2020 Election Analysis

[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.

It worked for the judiciary.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Way less important position and temporary. Also, he now needs 100% compliance.

[LordMortis]

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.

I was dumbfounded when I heard this on the news last night or this morning (It's all blending together). I don't agree with using the Trump playbook but McConnell needs to be bitchslapped out of office and the Senate needs to know that shit is over forever. These aren't the GOP makes the rules every two years.

Even now, as he finally stands up to President for the time with his proclamation at least in words that every vote should be counted, McConnell is still actively working to destroy the republic. When I woke up and saw 5 senate seats still under dispute, I wanted the Senate shift more than the Presidency.

[Jaymann]

So let me get this straight: Biden wins without Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania. What sorcery is this? Haven't seen the like of this since:

[Grifman]

Democrats need to figure out how to defend against this stuff.

[raydude]

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.

Maybe you're talking about the Presidency but I think Grifman's concern was how to win more seats in the Senate. And to that, I don't know what's so wrong about telling people you will meet their basic needs first, and shaming them into being better Americans second (or third/fourth). Does it suck that a candidate has to swallow their tongue and not talk about racial injustice or systemic racism or gun control when running for a Senate seat? Sure, but why not focus on what will improve the average American's lot in life in their state? Kentucky as an example: shitty educational system, low job prospects. Why not talk about how you will fix those things, get people hoping they can get a better life for themselves first - then once you have majority Senatorial rule you can think about improving prospects for all Americans, not just the ones in your state.

If your argument is that it doesn't work, then how the hell did an LGBTQ candidate win a Senate seat in a red state?

[LawBeefaroni]

Not wrong.

[noxiousdog]

Maybe you're talking about the Presidency but I think Grifman's concern was how to win more seats in the Senate. And to that, I don't know what's so wrong about telling people you will meet their basic needs first, and shaming them into being better Americans second (or third/fourth). Does it suck that a candidate has to swallow their tongue and not talk about racial injustice or systemic racism or gun control when running for a Senate seat? Sure, but why not focus on what will improve the average American's lot in life in their state? Kentucky as an example: shitty educational system, low job prospects. Why not talk about how you will fix those things, get people hoping they can get a better life for themselves first - then once you have majority Senatorial rule you can think about improving prospects for all Americans, not just the ones in your state.

You can say there are systemic problems in the police without saying it's because white people hate black people.

Which isn't to say you shouldn't talk about racism. You absolutely should. But don't make it sound like blame. The "uncomfortable conversations with a black man" series was an excellent way to accomplish this.

You can say we need a cleaner future and that green energy without banning fracking now. It's not even a reasonable thing to say, as the Biden campaign addressed his sound bite.

Those are just a couple of examples off the top of my head.

[malchior]

Not wrong.

Absolutely true. This is a side effect of what I've been talking. Local races have completely different dynamics but that's the rub. The Republican political attack surface has been spit shined down to a hardened core and buffered by propaganda. And they don't have much variance between local, state, and national. It's all bread and butter populism now with the essential social elements (religion/abotion/etc.) melded in.

Meanwhile, Democrats have to defend against every marginal voice being weaponized against them by the right-wing propaganda machine because their coalition is so large and much more challenging to maintain. And they need that large national coalition to beat the worsening EC disadvantage. It's obviously more complicated than that but I reckon it is significant factor.

[Grifman]

[Defiant]

I saw a good status:

I feel like half the country is trying to leave an abusive relationship after four years, and the other half still doesn't realize it's in one.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Not wrong.

Not surprisingly, there are different takes (its a long thread):

Spoiler:

There are folks running around on TV blaming progressivism for Dem underperformance.

I was curious, so I decided to open the hood on struggling campaigns of candidates who are blaming progressives for their problems.

Almost all had awful execution on digital. DURING A PANDEMIC.

I think jumping on the progressive message is an easy tact that doesn't necessarily have much evidence behind it. Really what we saw is that Trump is such a pull for his supporters that it inevitably swamped these congressional races. When Trump wasn't on the ballot, in 2018 for instance, progressive candidates did great.

[Little Raven]

Geez man, don't hold back.

On the menu today: If President Trump and his campaign have compelling evidence of an election being stolen, the venue for it is a courtroom, not angry tirades on social media or cable news; an update on the vote count; follow-ups on some of the intriguing news items from yesterday; and word of a potential dramatic turn of events overseas.

If You’ve Got Evidence of Election-Related Crimes, It’s Put Up or Shut Up Time

...

Donald Trump Jr. fumes that “the total lack of action from virtually all of the ‘2024 GOP hopefuls’ is pretty amazing.” Brad Parscale made a similar complaint. What do they want the Nikki Haleys or Tom Cottons of the world to do? Tweet a lot? Go out and give an angry speech? None of that will change anything involving the vote-counting. If you want to change something — readmit ballots that were rejected, remove ballots you think are fraudulent — you need a judge’s order. If you want a judge to issue an order that changes how the votes are being counted, you have to persuade them with evidence.

If there’s such abundant evidence of manufacturing tens of thousands of votes, or destroying tens of thousands of legitimate votes, stop complaining on social media and put it before a judge.

And if you don’t have the evidence . . . stop going on television and making accusations that you can’t prove.

And this is from that far-left rag, The National Review.

[Little Raven]

I think jumping on the progressive message is an easy tact that doesn't necessarily have much evidence behind it.

I found this article on The Intercept from the day before the election about PROGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS COULD SHATTER A WASHINGTON NARRATIVE ON TUESDAY. They had a whole list of Progressives running in competitive districts. So how did they do?

• Kara Eastman - Narrow loss.
• Dana Balter - Blown out.
• J.D. Scholten - Blown out.
• Mike Siegel - Solid loss.
• Julie Oliver - Blown out.
• Candace Valenzuela - Very narrow loss.
• Cameron Webb - Narrow loss.
• Sima Ladjevardian - Blown out.
• Christy Smith - behind, but still too close to call.
• Jon Hoadley - Blown out.
• Hillary Scholten - Narrow loss.
• Amy Kennedy - Narrow loss.
• Sri Kulkarni - Narrow loss.
• Max Rose - Blown out.
• Anthony Brindisi - Blown out.

As far as I can tell, the only Progressives that won this time around were ones that knocked off Democrats in ultra-blue districts. Not exactly a confidence builder for the brand.

[Defiant]

I think jumping on the progressive message is an easy tact that doesn't necessarily have much evidence behind it.

I found this article on The Intercept from the day before the election about PROGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS COULD SHATTER A WASHINGTON NARRATIVE ON TUESDAY. They had a whole list of Progressives running in competitive districts. So how did they do?

• Kara Eastman - Narrow loss.
• Dana Balter - Blown out.
• J.D. Scholten - Blown out.
• Mike Siegel - Solid loss.
• Julie Oliver - Blown out.
• Candace Valenzuela - Very narrow loss.
• Cameron Webb - Narrow loss.
• Sima Ladjevardian - Blown out.
• Christy Smith - behind, but still too close to call.
• Jon Hoadley - Blown out.
• Hillary Scholten - Narrow loss.
• Amy Kennedy - Narrow loss.
• Sri Kulkarni - Narrow loss.
• Max Rose - Blown out.
• Anthony Brindisi - Blown out.

I'm confused, because the last two are current representatives (not challengers) and voteview shows them to be on the conservative end of the Democratic party.

As far as I can tell, the only Progressives that won this time around were ones that knocked off Democrats in ultra-blue districts. Not exactly a confidence builder for the brand.

Well, some of them replaced retiring Democrats in ultra-blue districts, so there's that.

[Little Raven]

I'm confused, because the last two are current representatives (not challengers) and voteview shows them to be on the conservative end of the Democratic party.

My bad, the original article had them separated out into a different section.

IN A COUPLE of other races, Democrats who flipped red districts in 2018 are fighting to retain their seats in the face of a concerted effort from national Republicans to vote them out.

And yeah, they don't appear to have been particularly progressive.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

The whole Squad won re-election despite the GOP putting tons of money into their races (even against AOC, which doesn't make any sense) and they're often considered some of the most progressive members of the House.

[Little Raven]

Nobody questions that Progressives can win. The question is whether they can win in purple districts.

[Defiant]

One hopes people have learned that money doesn't equal winning an election. They're very useful when you've got nothing and are trying to get your message out, but at some point there's diminishing returns, and that point is well, well below the ludicrous amounts being poured into these high profile elections.

[Little Raven]

What went wrong in Indiana?

Indiana Democratic Party Chairman John Zody said Friday he does not plan to seek another term following bruising losses at the ballot box this week, as Hoosier Democrats called for a new direction for the party—from messaging to fundraising.

“I think that’s easier sort of said than done,” Zody said. “People say we need a new direction with a new plan but, like, show me some details about what you’re thinking because I’m all about changing plans and I think we’ve done that, over the years.”

Ahead of his comments, Democrats lamented what they saw as a lost campaign cycle, including losing statewide races for governor and attorney general, a contested 5th Congressional District race, and a slew of state legislative seats.

“There’s a lot of blame to go around: on candidates like myself, historically wrong polling, Trump sucking the oxygen out of any nuanced political discourse, and the stunning irrelevance of the Indiana Democratic Party,” said Chris Chyung, Indiana’s first Asian-American state lawmaker, who has been hailed as an example of the party’s future and represents House District 15 but lost to Republican Hal Slager who held the seat from 2012 to 2018.

Chyung, of Dyer, attributed some of the party’s poor performance in this week’s elections to a lack of relevant messaging and a perceived tilt to the left.

“Even the folks who were endorsed by the police, like myself, got branded as ‘defund the police-ers,” Chyung said. “The state party had no message to bridge the divide between Black Lives Matter and law enforcement supporters. It’s no wonder that so many incumbents went down when the top of the ticket couldn’t even get a third of the damn vote. It’s a miracle that more seats were not lost. We need to focus on pocketbook issues that actually matter, not purity tests.”

[Kurth]

"Defund the police . . ." I can only shake my head. As I think others have already mentioned, one of the fundamental problems with the Democratic party is a lack of message discipline. The fact that "defund the police" became a perceived Democratic rallying cry during this past year is a sad joke. Should have never been permitted to happen. Party leaders should have come out forcefully and unequivocally against it.

But I feel like this is something we've seen over and over again. It's something the Republicans excel at while the Democrats flounder.

[geezer]

"Defund the police . . ." I can only shake my head. As I think others have already mentioned, one of the fundamental problems with the Democratic party is a lack of message discipline. The fact that "defund the police" became a perceived Democratic rallying cry during this past year is a sad joke. Should have never been permitted to happen. Party leaders should have come out forcefully and unequivocally against it.

But I feel like this is something we've seen over and over again. It's something the Republicans excel at while the Democrats flounder.

Indeed. We all understand that "defund the police" means "reallocate funds to other support systems," but suppose they had been saying "help the police" instead.

[Little Raven]

We've engaged in much discussion of how the Democrats are a very wide party and how difficult it will be for a Democratic administration to keep them together. But what if the Republicans are actually two parties as well?

Why did Republicans do so well but Trump didn’t? Over at The Federalist, Joy Pullman notices how much better Republicans did in the House and Senate compared to the pre-election polling and wonders why it isn’t enough for Donald Trump.

...

The horrible performance of Republicans in House races in 2018 and the surprisingly strong performance of Republicans in House races in 2020 does suggest something. We’re going to need more and better data, but I think the result makes some intuitive sense.

Dan McLaughlin mentioned to me on our morning editorial call that there might be a Paul Ryan party, and there is a Donald Trump party. Taken by themselves, they are minority parties. It makes some sense.

The vast majority of members of each party are the same people. But, there is a significant portion of the Paul Ryan party (upwardly mobile) that does not like Donald Trump very much at all. There is a significant portion of the Trump party (in rural areas, in the Rust Belt states, among some Hispanics and blacks) that doesn’t quite hate the Paul Ryan party, but is rarely excited enough to vote by the Paul Ryan party alone.

In 2016, the prospect of Hillary Clinton made for a nearly unanimous and unified front of the Paul Ryan party and the Donald Trump party.

In 2018, the Paul Ryan party ran for their House seats, having passed a Paul Ryan tax cut, and they got wiped out.

In 2020, most of the Paul Ryan party came out to vote in their House and Senate races. They performed much better, because they were joined by almost the entirety of the Trump party voters. Donald Trump was on top of the ballot, and those Trump party guys who aren’t members of the Paul Ryan party shrugged and voted for the Paul Ryan party guys down their ballot.

But, without Hillary Clinton, many Paul Ryan party people did not mark their ballot for Donald Trump. Or they did, but in places not well-distributed to help Donald Trump. Thus, the party was able to grow in the House in places such as Western New York State, where the Trump party had no chance of triumphing at the top.

And if this is true, what happens to the Trump party once Trump is no more?

[Defiant]

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

You've got sixty days, people (actually, probably significantly less, since you'll have to get registered in time). Get to it.

[Little Raven]

I'd like a Democratic Senate. But not enough to move to Georgia.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Spoiler:

Democratic co-sponsors of Medicare for All who just won re-election in swing districts:

Jared Golden (ME-02; R+2)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-02; R+1)
Mike Levin (CA-49; R+1)
Katie Porter (CA-45; R+3)

Susan Wild (PA-07; D+1) and Matt Cartwright (PA-08; R+1) seem on track to win as well

Seems like at least some of the progressive candidates in swing districts did well.

[gameoverman]

I think a lot of voters are open to the idea that there are problems and we need to fix them. I think where many voters get scared away is when the fix is presented as something radical. Most people don't want to tear everything down and start over. That's why something like 'defund the police' costs votes. As a battlecry if you're in the trenches fighting the fight, it's brilliant. It's something that can rally more people to your side and increase the power of your protests. It's destructive in elections though.

The challenge for the Democratic party is to make clear to voters what is a Democratic position and what is a grassroots movement. This means risking angering the grassroots movement by distancing yourself from them in certain situations. It might help to remind the grassroots movements that if they insist the party endorse their movement, they will kill the chances to win elections which is ultimately going to render their movement impotent.

[hitbyambulance]

Kentucky as an example: shitty educational system, low job prospects. Why not talk about how you will fix those things, get people hoping they can get a better life for themselves first - then once you have majority Senatorial rule you can think about improving prospects for all Americans, not just the ones in your state.

we really have to find solutions here - i think a lot of the Trump-leaning populace do feel left behind in modern, international culture.

* education system reform is of the most importance. everything else is futile without education.
* job opportunities - setting up "Green New Deal" programs in swathes of Appalachia, the Rust Belt, the Sun Belt and such is something i'm definitely for.

this is worth an extended discussion

[Little Raven]

Joe Biden has won: Here's what comes next.

For Biden and Harris, the victory marks the end of the campaign — but the beginning of an even more daunting challenge. Biden, who enters the White House as both the chief executive with the most experience in public service in US history and the oldest man to assume the presidency, will take on his duties amid a historic crisis, a pandemic that has already claimed more American lives than World War I, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined and has produced the highest unemployment rates since the Great Depression.

And Biden and Harris may have to take power with a Republican Senate. As of this writing, the small chance of a Democratic Senate hinges on runoff elections in Georgia in January and uncalled races in North Carolina and Alaska. A slight majority for Republicans is very likely. A Democratic failure to take the upper house — even if they hang on to the House of Representatives as expected — could effectively end Biden’s agenda before it has a chance to take form.

As the scale of the pandemic and its economic damage started becoming clear earlier this year, the Biden campaign signaled that the candidate wanted an “FDR-sized” administration. He touted a plan to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic by expanding testing, fostering better coordination between states, and organizing rapid development and deployment of a vaccine. He put forward a program to fight the economic crisis created by Covid-19, including funding for states and localities, cash and unemployment insurance for individuals and households, and grants and loans to small businesses like bars and restaurants.

All that seems fairly doable under unified Democratic control — but much, much harder if Sen. Mitch McConnell keeps the Senate. In 2009, McConnell decided that a posture of absolute obstruction, meant to block any and all Obama legislation meant to rescue or reform the economy, was the best approach for Senate Republicans. At that time, his Republicans were in the minority, so total obstruction was harder. This time, he may have a Senate majority — and he is likely to take that posture again.

Without the Senate, Biden’s ability to enact his agenda will be severely constrained, even if there are executive actions he can take to move the ball on a few fronts. He will have a little more latitude in foreign affairs, where he’ll seek to undo Trump’s reversal of the Obama-Biden foreign policy by re-engaging with Cuba and Iran, negotiating a new arms control deal with Russia, and addressing the threat North Korea poses to South Korea and Japan.

Biden will also have to decide how to handle the legacy of his predecessor: whether to let bygones be bygones, as was the Obama-Biden attitude toward George W. Bush, or to seek to prosecute, or at least investigate wrongdoing from the Trump years under a new attorney general.

All these questions will have to wait until we know the outcome in the Senate. For now, at least, Democrats can celebrate winning the presidency.

[Enough]

This tweet makes a solid point that feeds into some of the convos we've had here:



https://twitter.com/tbonier/status/1324687796016218112

[Ralph-Wiggum]

More data suggesting that Dems moving towards the center does not necessarily help their electability.

Spoiler:

New data analysis from @justicedems and @sunrisemvmt shows vote share for House Democrats actually declined in swing districts as candidates adopted more conservative views.

[Jaymann]

Trump got 5.2% of the vote in Washington DC.

[Defiant]

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

You've got sixty days, people (actually, probably significantly less, since you'll have to get registered in time). Get to it.

Well, here's one guy doing it

[malchior]

More data suggesting that Dems moving towards the center does not necessarily help their electability.

The possibility is that "the center" is sort of amorphous to begin with. Limiting things to a left/right axis might be too limiting. Overlay a populist/meritocracy axis and this might make some sense. In the end, Trump was essentially a fake populist. A right-wing populist to be clear. It really feels like the problem in America could be populism and the simplest explanation is income/wealthy inequality. Unfortunately a lot of people believed his bullshit lies about what he'd do for them and the cause (dirty browns stealing their jobs!). They didn't recognize what he actually was doing because he didn't do much for them at all and in the end made it worse.

[Defiant]

You know, according to the exit polls, for an election that was considered a "referendum on Trump", the overwhelming majority of people voted *for* the candidate they voted for.

Vote for president mainly:	For your candidate 71%	Against his opponent 24%
Biden	46%	68%
Trump	53%	30%

[LordMortis]

I started out voting against Trump but I came around to voting for Biden. I voted against James in the Senate and against Dudeh..... in the House... sort of... I think Talib has been a mixed bag. I know there's better after seeing her these last couple of years but I'm not wholly unhappy with her. I'm particularly angry I had to vote for her, like I will be when Stabenow's time comes around again or simply unhappy that I had to vote for Peters.

[El Guapo]

You know, according to the exit polls, for an election that was considered a "referendum on Trump", the overwhelming majority of people voted *for* the candidate they voted for.

Vote for president mainly:	For your candidate 71%	Against his opponent 24%
Biden	46%	68%
Trump	53%	30%

114% of Biden voters had reasons for their support.

[Defiant]

114% of Biden voters had reasons for their support.

On the off chance this was meant seriously. you're reading it the wrong way. 71% voted for the candidate, and of those that did, 46% voted for Biden.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

All exit polls are crap this year. Since the majority of Dems voted early and the majority of GOP voters voted the day of, these exit polls are heavily skewed.

[RunningMn9]

All exit polls are crap this year. Since the majority of Dems voted early and the majority of GOP voters voted the day of, these exit polls are heavily skewed.

According to reports that I saw, the exit polling includes folks that voted early.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Some (but certainly not all) include those as well, but they’re different beasts, especially when it comes to people that voted by mail. Asking someone questions in person as they leave the voting booth and asking someone who voted by mail those questions on the telephone perhaps weeks after they voted just aren’t the same. And often the poll reporting doesn’t make it easy to tease those two apart.