It's official: Trump Is History, Says The Prediction Professor

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, Suckrates said:

Trump AINT gonna let Biden win....One way or another, Trump will wreak havoc and not go quietly.  And then we need to deal with those crazy Trumpers who wont accept their Gods loss !   Its gonna be a mess, and a long way to a confirmed Biden victory. 

Okay.  I'll run with you on this one.

But do we at least get to have a big old orgasm by the time it's all over?

Or is this going to be one of those ghastly episodes where we basically all end up getting fucked in the end?  If it is, you know me.  I at least want to make sure I'm stocked up with lots of lube.  

[Pete1111]

 

2 hours ago, Suckrates said:

Trump AINT gonna let Biden win....One way or another, Trump will wreak havoc and not go quietly.  And then we need to deal with those crazy Trumpers who wont accept their Gods loss !   Its gonna be a mess, and a long way to a confirmed Biden victory. 

Trump is wreaking havoc now.  He has messed up most everything he touched.

Not conceding to Biden is almost to be expected.

Getting worked up about it now is one option. 

Hopefully our democracy has enough chutzpah to wade through whatever unfolds under BabyDumbDumb at the end, his end.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Pete1111
Pic

[AdamSmith]

Here is an odd skew view, though not maybe so very much:

I suspect polls may be getting less & representative not more so.

Here in Raleigh NC the sub-millennials employed (very gainfully) by Citrix, Red Hat, SAS, etc etc appear to me not to give a shit about flipping their lip about the public debate theatre.

But I think a lot of them have had about enough of the current clusterfuck.

 

 

 

 

[tassojunior]

@stevenkesslar

It's a good quality to keep up with polls, and to filter the noise ones out and to see trends.

The article with polls from Gallup you cite is a fine one for my contention. Averaged out by years a majority of people disapprove of both the Democratic and the Republican parties and that is a trend that has exploded within the past twenty years. There are plenty of other polls on party approval that get onto RCP daily and the disapproval rate of both parties, and both houses of Congress is consistently horrible. The people are fed up with political parties. But largely because of the Electoral College the 2 parties (which are private corporations) own our government. And as someone who works to overrule the Electoral College I can tell you the people who stand in our way are the power brokers from both parties who would lose influence under a less party-oriented system. Even the ones who smile and publicly say they "agree".   

People are vastly more educated than they used to be and take offense that they need a party to tell them what to believe or support or that the parties think they don't see through the misleading postering and defense of corruption, inefficiency and incompetence people are very aware of. And the corporate media owned 90% by 6 corporations of billionaires has become a laughing stock of a "4th estate" it's so transparent and condescending.   

	Republicans	Independents	Democrats
	%	%	%
2020 Jul 30-Aug 12	26	41	31

 

And the most meaningful statistic of all is that in 2016 with the choice of Clinton or Trump, more Americans. most of whom are independents, chose not to participate in this ridiculous farce than chose to vote for both of them combined.  

Trump won by getting many independents to vote for him even though it lost some Republicans. The Dems were, and are, too stupid to bring independents into the party. The DNC purges them ruthlessly and intentionally makes enemies of them. Trump should be back 20 points minimum. 

[Buddy2]

Did Trump attend the official opening of the Eisenhower Memorial in Washington.

 

Answer:  No

. Trump surely wonders what was in for Eisenhower.

[stevenkesslar]

56 minutes ago, AdamSmith said:

I suspect polls may be getting less & representative not more so.

They are stunningly accurate lately.

I'm being schizo.  Because I do believe Lichtman is right.  Polls don't matter.  And barring extraordinary circumstances, President Toxic will lose base on fundamentals.  And yet, I keep wetting my pants about the polls.

So the one freaking me out now is Rasmussen.  As of yesterday, they showed President Toxic with a + 6 % net approval rating  (52/46).  That's an outlier for even Rasmussen.  It's about 15 points off from the 538 average Trump approval rating, which is now about - 9 % net disapproval (43/52). 

I'm pretty sure Rasmussen's sample is screwed up.  I read somewhere Rasmussen is saying 1 in 4 or even 1 in 3 Blacks approve of President Toxic.  That's wildly higher Black approval than almost any other poll.

So I checked.  In this Dec. 2016 article Rasmussen bragged about calling it right.  Their final polling (Nov 2- 6, 2016) showed Hillary would win the popular vote by 2 %.  She won by 2 %.  The final RCP average showed that Hillary would win by 3 %.  That was close, too.  Part of the issue is these averages use polls taken usually over the last week.  With state polls, which have larger margins of error, the polls may be more than a week old.  In a race like 2016, where we know BEFORE Election Day that the final trend was moving in President Toxic's favor, a week can make a big difference.

In 2018, on the other hand, Rasmussen did the worst of anyone.  Harry Enten aka "The Wizard Of Odds" at CNN pointed out that "the President's favorite pollster was the least accurate in the midterms."   They said Republicans would win the Congressional vote by 1 %.  Democrats won the Congressional vote by 8.4 %.  They were off by almost 10 points.

Meanwhile, in 2018 the RCP Congressional average in 2018 predicted the Democrats would win by 7.3 % .  So they were one point off.  The 538 Congressional average was almost right on the money.  Their final poll average was that Democrats would win by 8.7 %.

Obviously all these pollsters are making different assumptions about who is going to vote.  And obviously nobody knows for sure.  In 2016, reality aligned well with Rasmussen's Republican-friendly model.  In 2018, Rasmussen and Republicans blew it.

In practice, it has worked out lately that the poll averages have been remarkably close to the actual results.  Especially in the well polled national races.  The easiest explanation is that it's the wisdom of crowds.  Right now it probably helps the pollsters that the country is so polarized.  The vast majority of voters are cemented on one side or the other.  That's even true with Independents and Millennials who don't identify with either party.

RCP has now had these poll averages going back to I believe 2004.  So I checked.  In the 2004, 2008, and 2016 elections the final average correctly predicted the national vote winner.  And they got the winning margin right within about 1 % of the final national vote total.

The only exception was 2012.  The final poll average showed Obama winning by 0.7 %.   He won by 3.9 %.  Even that's not very remarkable.  Romney had a big surge starting late September after Obama bombed the first debate.  So through much of October the race was basically tied.  At various points in October Romney had a slight lead.  But the final average showed the race slightly for Obama at 49/48.  It ended up at 51/47.  Obama basically seems to have gotten most of the undecided vote.  And if you look at the trend in the last seven days of polling, Obama was the one who had the trend at the end.  He gained two points in the final week of the race that was polled, from Oct. 28 to Nov. 5.  Romney just went sideways.

2016 was very different.  And anyone who was surprised was just engaged in wishful thinking.  I remember this extremely well.  I was in Puerto Vallarta with a Republican.  (Sadly, that will never happen again on Election Day, I suspect.)  On October 28th, the day of The Second Coming Of Comey, Hillary had a lead of almost 5 % in the RCP average.  To be very precise, it was 47.1/42.5.  By Nov. 2, she had a 1 % lead of 46.6/45.3.  If the election had been held a few days earlier, it's possible Hillary might have lost Minnesota.  This was the period her staff described as being when Comey "blocked out the sun".  Nothing else could get through.  

The thing that freaked me out was that on that linked chart for about four days - right before the election - Trump's poll numbers were a straight line going straight up.  And Hillary was a straight line coming down.  Anybody who knows "the trend is your friend" would know this was not good news for Hillary.  If you look at those numbers above it also seemed clear that the undecided were starting to break.  And they were headed in President Toxic's direction.  Again, not good news for Hillary.

This last part is very relevant to 2020.  That post about Sean Trende above says that for Trump to be in the ballpark of winning, his approval needs to go up to 46 to 47 % by November.  As I said above, there's only one time he cracked 47 % in his Presidency:  in March 2020 when COVID hit hard and the approval rating of leaders all over the world were going up due to the "rally around the flag" effect.  I don't think it's very likely President Toxic will crack 47 % again before November.

That said, what actually happened in 2016 is he ended up with 46 % when all the votes were counted.  That's the percentage he got only one time in the entire year of polling in 2016.  He was at 46 % in July 2016, right at the end of his post-convention peak.  So when it all was said and done, he managed to end up at exactly the highest point he'd been in the polls all year.  Everyone who at any point approved of him or considered voting for him ended up voting for him.

It could happen again.  Trump's at 43 % in the horse race polls.  The highest his horse race number has been this year is 46 %.  Again, his highest approval rating was 47 %.  If he did it in 2016, he can do it in 2020.  President Toxic  could end up at 47 %.  Whether that's good for an electoral college win if Biden has a 3 or 4 or 5 % winning margin is a whole different matter.

I'd rather be safe than sorry.  All of this stuff I'm posting is obviously my own intellectual masturbation.  But if I was working on a Democratic campaign, I'd be sounding the fire alarm and shouting, "Trump can win!"  All I'm doing instead is masturbating and sending money to Democrats.  Better them than porn, I figure.  

 

[Suckrates]

Polls, schmoles... IF Trump were running a FAIR race, they might matter...but he's NOT.... He's playing dirty, trying to disrupt and destroy the election in any way he can for HIS OWN benefit: propaganda, post office, fear, Lies, and a big hand from his Russian Daddy.  So polls mean jack here, and YES he could probably win, and probably Will, at least in his OWN mind...

Of course Trumps entire existence is occurring inside his OWN mind, and even if election night results show he lost, he will still claim the win, and convince his "hangers-on" that he has WON..... and any poll that even in the slightest indicated that he would win will be used as EVIDENCE and PROOF.....   The man is a psycho, and when you are dealing with CRAZY, its a whole different ball-game. 

[Pete1111]

55 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

They are stunningly accurate lately.

I'm being schizo.  Because I do believe Lichtman is right.  Polls don't matter.  And barring extraordinary circumstances, President Toxic will lose base on fundamentals.  And yet, I keep wetting my pants about the polls.

So the one freaking me out now is Rasmussen.  As of yesterday, they showed President Toxic with a + 6 % net approval rating  (52/46).  That's an outlier for even Rasmussen.  It's about 15 points off from the 538 average Trump approval rating, which is now about - 9 % net disapproval (43/52). 

I'm pretty sure Rasmussen's sample is screwed up.  I read somewhere Rasmussen is saying 1 in 4 or even 1 in 3 Blacks approve of President Toxic.  That's wildly higher Black approval than almost any other poll.

So I checked.  In this Dec. 2016 article Rasmussen bragged about calling it right.  Their final polling (Nov 2- 6, 2016) showed Hillary would win the popular vote by 2 %.  She won by 2 %.  The final RCP average showed that Hillary would win by 3 %.  That was close, too.  Part of the issue is these averages use polls taken usually over the last week.  With state polls, which have larger margins of error, the polls may be more than a week old.  In a race like 2016, where we know BEFORE Election Day that the final trend was moving in President Toxic's favor, a week can make a big difference.

In 2018, on the other hand, Rasmussen did the worst of anyone.  Harry Enten aka "The Wizard Of Odds" at CNN pointed out that "the President's favorite pollster was the least accurate in the midterms."   They said Republicans would win the Congressional vote by 1 %.  Democrats won the Congressional vote by 8.4 %.  They were off by almost 10 points.

Meanwhile, in 2018 the RCP Congressional average in 2018 predicted the Democrats would win by 7.3 % .  So they were one point off.  The 538 Congressional average was almost right on the money.  Their final poll average was that Democrats would win by 8.7 %.

Obviously all these pollsters are making different assumptions about who is going to vote.  And obviously nobody knows for sure.  In 2016, reality aligned well with Rasmussen's Republican-friendly model.  In 2018, Rasmussen and Republicans blew it.

In practice, it has worked out lately that the poll averages have been remarkably close to the actual results.  Especially in the well polled national races.  The easiest explanation is that it's the wisdom of crowds.  Right now it probably helps the pollsters that the country is so polarized.  The vast majority of voters are cemented on one side or the other.  That's even true with Independents and Millennials who don't identify with either party.

RCP has now had these poll averages going back to I believe 2004.  So I checked.  In the 2004, 2008, and 2016 elections the final average correctly predicted the national vote winner.  And they got the winning margin right within about 1 % of the final national vote total.

The only exception was 2012.  The final poll average showed Obama winning by 0.7 %.   He won by 3.9 %.  Even that's not very remarkable.  Romney had a big surge starting late September after Obama bombed the first debate.  So through much of October the race was basically tied.  At various points in October Romney had a slight lead.  But the final average showed the race slightly for Obama at 49/48.  It ended up at 51/47.  Obama basically seems to have gotten most of the undecided vote.  And if you look at the trend in the last seven days of polling, Obama was the one who had the trend at the end.  He gained two points in the final week of the race that was polled, from Oct. 28 to Nov. 5.  Romney just went sideways.

2016 was very different.  And anyone who was surprised was just engaged in wishful thinking.  I remember this extremely well.  I was in Puerto Vallarta with a Republican.  (Sadly, that will never happen again on Election Day, I suspect.)  On October 28th, the day of The Second Coming Of Comey, Hillary had a lead of almost 5 % in the RCP average.  To be very precise, it was 47.1/42.5.  By Nov. 2, she had a 1 % lead of 46.6/45.3.  If the election had been held a few days earlier, it's possible Hillary might have lost Minnesota.  This was the period her staff described as being when Comey "blocked out the sun".  Nothing else could get through.  

The thing that freaked me out was that on that linked chart for about four days - right before the election - Trump's poll numbers were a straight line going straight up.  And Hillary was a straight line coming down.  Anybody who knows "the trend is your friend" would know this was not good news for Hillary.  If you look at those numbers above it also seemed clear that the undecided were starting to break.  And they were headed in President Toxic's direction.  Again, not good news for Hillary.

This last part is very relevant to 2020.  That post about Sean Trende above says that for Trump to be in the ballpark of winning, his approval needs to go up to 46 to 47 % by November.  As I said above, there's only one time he cracked 47 % in his Presidency:  in March 2020 when COVID hit hard and the approval rating of leaders all over the world were going up due to the "rally around the flag" effect.  I don't think it's very likely President Toxic will crack 47 % again before November.

That said, what actually happened in 2016 is he ended up with 46 % when all the votes were counted.  That's the percentage he got only one time in the entire year of polling in 2016.  He was at 46 % in July 2016, right at the end of his post-convention peak.  So when it all was said and done, he managed to end up at exactly the highest point he'd been in the polls all year.  Everyone who at any point approved of him or considered voting for him ended up voting for him.

It could happen again.  Trump's at 43 % in the horse race polls.  The highest his horse race number has been this year is 46 %.  Again, his highest approval rating was 47 %.  If he did it in 2016, he can do it in 2020.  President Toxic  could end up at 47 %.  Whether that's good for an electoral college win if Biden has a 3 or 4 or 5 % winning margin is a whole different matter.

I'd rather be safe than sorry.  All of this stuff I'm posting is obviously my own intellectual masturbation.  But if I was working on a Democratic campaign, I'd be sounding the fire alarm and shouting, "Trump can win!"  All I'm doing instead is masturbating and sending money to Democrats.  Better them than porn, I figure.  

 

I also continue sending $$ to the Dems.  

I worry a lot how Trump could win too many swing states, again.  The poll numbers worry me.

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

Hopefully our democracy has enough chutzpah to wade through whatever unfolds under BabyDumbDumb at the end, his end.

There was voting data in that article I posted above by Reggie Jackson that I think is a silver lining on this cloud.  He chronicled voter participation going back to the beginning of popular voting for President in the US.  So back when America was great, or something like that, White men who owned slaves, like Andrew Jackson, won the Presidency with the support of as little as 11.5 % of the voting age population.

Too bad poor President Toxic can't figure out a way to make America that great again!  It would solve all his problems.

The all time high in the US was the 1960 election, when 62.8 % of all Americans of voting age voted.  It fell to a low of 49 % in 1996.  Obama was elected in 2008 with 58.2 % of the voting age population.  Interestingly, we beat that in 2016 when 59.3 % of the voting age population voted.  A lot of people think 2020 will break all turnout records.  So it's possible that we could break the 1960 record of 62.8 % this year.

On the face of it, that's good for democracy.  On the face of it, whatever I think about the Slavery Electoral College, this deep conflict between two tribes has probably helped drive turnout up.  Better to cast a ballot than pick up a musket like we did in the Civil War.  So, arguably, this is all relatively good news.  Democracy is alive and well.  Maybe.

I think for anyone who says they believe in democracy, it's interesting to compare those voting participation numbers to the chart above.  It's from Pew research that tracks the percentage of Americans that trust "the government in Washington".  Probably most people would agree with the idea that a healthy democracy is one in which most people vote.  And in which people feel they are voting for a government they can actually trust.

Not surprisingly, partisanship factors into this.  This other chart which asks the question somewhat differently shows that when there's a Republican President, Republicans feel better about government.  When there's a Democratic President, Democrats feel better.  That's been more true in the 21st century than in the less polarized 1990's.

So there's two big things that jump out at me, that are divergent trends. 

From about 1960 to 2000, trust in government gradually went down.  And voting participation mostly tracked it.  The big decline in voting, as Jackson documents in his essay, happened between 1960 and 1980.  From 1980 to 2000 or so it went sideways.  Same with trust in government.  It makes sense that people who trusted government less might have had less motivation to even bother with voting.

There's only two Presidents in my lifetime who increased trust in government during their time in office:  Reagan, and then Clinton.  It's not clear that people feeling better about government made them more likely to vote.  1996, at 49 % voting participation, was a low point in voting during this 60 year period.  Even though it was relatively good times.  Maybe people felt they didn't need to vote, because things were going well.

Since 9/11, the two trends - trust in government, and voting participation - seem to have diverged.  The level of public trust in government only gets worse.  Again, if you look at the other chart I hyperlinked there were partisan differences.  But the way I feel about it is that trust in government is about as low as it gets.  Under President Toxic, we are scraping along the bottom of the barrel.  The bizarre thing to me is that Republicans seem to trust President Toxic not because he's there to lead an effective government.  It's more like he's there to torment government agencies Trump supporters don't trust.  That said, under President Toxic the majority of Republicans do feel they trust the federal government to "handle domestic problems".  Before COVID-19, at least.

Meanwhile, voting participation is clearly heading back up.  It broke a near-term record in 2008 with Obama, and then again in 2016.  I'm pretty sure that if we break the 1960 record in 2020, that means Biden wins.  Simply because there are more Democrats than Republicans.  Republicans do well mostly when Democrats don't vote.

It's not 100 % clear that the surge in voting participation has anything to do with government, or trust in government.  But I'd argue it probably does.  Blacks broke records in 2008 and then broke them again in 2012 because under Obama I think they were looking for a government that represented and worked for them.  Despite their distaste for "The Deep State", it seems like that's what Trump voters wanted in 2016.  And are planning to vote for again in 2020.  That said, the chart above suggests that we're not doing very well at actually electing a government that most people trust.

I have a theory of what a political version of "survival of the fittest" is trying to work out here, in a very messy way.  My theory is no doubt colored by my liberal pro-government bias.  But my theory is that we're trying to work out how to get back to feeling like people did in 1960.  How do we get to a place where most Americans vote, and most Americans feel they are voting for a government they trust?  

Here's another way I think about the long-term problem.  I don't believe Putin has been trying to destroy US democracy ever since he came to power in 2000.  But just imagine for a minute that he's been at this for 20 years now.  If he's trying to destroy democracy, he's not doing a very good job.  We went from 49 % voting participation in 1996 to 59 % in 2016.  If the goal was to make people feel like democracy and voting aren't worth it, that just hasn't happened.  US democracy may be a mess.  Everyone I know in Canada looks down with sympathy and says, "What the fuck is happening to you poor people?".  But we are probably preparing to break voter participation records in 2020.

Here's another thought I've had for years which I feel is hysterical, but also does get to the nature of our long-term challenge. Why don't we just go ahead and have World War III with China, and let them win?  If American democratic capitalism now means the predatory lending meltdown, the Great Recession, and electing Donald Trump, could being a colony of China actually be worse?

I've doubled down on this hysterical thought since COVID-19.  Like him or not, Xi stamped out a plague (for now) and got the Chinese economy growing again.  He did that with minimal deaths.  Some of it was heavy handed.  But most reports I've read - mostly from Western journalists - state that in Asia in general, and China in  particular, there was a huge degree of civic/communal spirit and national pride that went into wearing masks and following reasonable measures to contain the virus. 

Meanwhile, in the US, maybe 1 in 3 Americans believe freedom means never having to say you're sorry for not wearing a mask.  Even if it could kill someone.  When told that 100,000 fewer Americans would have died if we wore masks, and over 100,000 won't die by year's end if we start now, many people feel that's fake news.  Or socialism.

Please, Chairman Xi.  Just bomb the fuck out of us, okay?  At least then we'll all have to wear masks and we can go to work.

Again, I'm being dramatic and hysterical.  But this thinking does reflect our real, huge national challenges.  More than ever before, I feel like if we have either a Cold War or a hot war with China, the US is just going to lose.  And the main driver is that we can't get out shit together.  You can't win World War III when you don't trust your government to fight it.  And if anyone thinks President Toxic could be a good Commander In Chief!  Let's not even go there.

I know how I hope this goes.  But I don't have a clue how we get there.  I hope that in 20 years we have Millennial Presidents and Governors.  I hope we have a national and global consensus that we do have serious common threats, and climate change tops the list.  I hope in the US we have a majority of people in both parties that trust their national government to work with industries and citizens to create technologies and jobs that deal with our problems.  I hope Republicans feel that while they didn't vote for Democratic President Harris, she did a reasonably good job.  I hope Democrats feel that while they didn't vote for Republican President Hogan, he did a reasonably good job.  (Please, leave Tom Cotton and the entire Trump family out of my fantasy.)

The goal I like is that we end up back where we were in 1960.  Again, if we're saying democracy is a good thing, it seems like we should be saying that most people should vote.  And most people should feel they are voting for a competent government that they trust.

I read a comment by a Republican Senator a few years ago that stuck with me.  I can't recall which one.  But I know it was a non-Trumpian Republican I've always thought of as being a decent and smart leader.  He was talking about the huge degree of polarization today.  And the fact that the country is basically split in two.  He said at some point something is going to happen that will force people to come back together.  He didn't speculate about what it might be, or when it might happen.  But he said that it's inevitable that at some point it will.

I wondered when COVID-19 started if that could be the thing.  You'd think the combination of a once-in-a-century pandemic and a Greater Recession - if not a Depression - would do the trick.  It hasn't.  We can't even agree about wearing a mask.  As a Democrat, I wonder if it would have been different if Biden were President.  We'll find out soon enough, I think.  My guess is that the Toxic Trumpian types will double down on the idea that masks are bad, guns are good, we don't trust a vaccine if it's a Democrat vaccine, and we'll just obstruct and wait it out.

In my wildest liberal dreams, I'd like to think that we're headed into a realignment election like 1932 or 1980.  Lots of Democrats, and more than a few Republicans pols I respect, are using the New Deal to describe where we may be headed.  And in my dreams, I'd like to think that such a thing would get us back to a point where at least half of all Americans actually felt they trusted their government, and voted on that basis. 

My Dad's generation went through the New Deal and World War II and the Cold War.  I'm pretty sure that did build this feeling that whether you're a Democrat or Republican, we fundamentally trust our government.  That's my explanation for why the polling in the late 50's and early 60's shows that something like 3 in 4 Americans trusted their government. 

Obama tried that "we're all Americans" stuff in 2008, at least on a rhetorical level.  According to Pew, we didn't crack 1 in 4 Americans actually trusting government under Obama.  "Make America Great Again" is an even bigger flop.  We haven't cracked 1 in 5 Americans trusting government under President Toxic.  Although some "Deep State" haters would perhaps argue that was actually the goal.

Historical Timeline

That's an interesting tool that lets you quickly click through the Slavery Electoral College outcome for every US Presidential election.  Check out 1854 to 1900.  It's a different way to think about a country divided in two.  There's several things about that period that seem relevant to today.  More than anything,  it's a model for how a nation can remain fundamentally divided for a long time.

In that period, the basic division was geographic:  North and South, free states and former slave states.  There were nine Republican Presidents from 1860 to 1900, with interruptions by two nonconsecutive terms of Democrat Grover Cleveland.  Race, slavery, The Civil War, Reconstruction, and resistance to Reconstruction were all at the core of the conflict. Norm Brownstein's words for the two tribes in our current conflict - the "coalition of transformation" and the "coalition of restoration" - actually describe a lot of the economic, political, and racial conflicts of that  period as well.

Earlier in this thread I posted this article by Sean Trende about why Minnesota has stayed Democratic.  It offers a theory that fits in well here.  In a nutshell, it's the geography, stupid. 

It's a bit more complicated than the geography from 1860 to 1990, when it was almost as simple as "North and South".  All you had to do then is draw one straight line to show the key geographic variable.  Today, you need to know the concentration of large cities and what Trende calls "mega cities".  (Rahm Emmanuel's political phrase for the same concept is "metropolitan alliances" between cities and suburbs.)  That's the geography of the future for Democrats, Trende argues.  Where those exist, Democrats will do well. 

Since so much of Minnesota's population is in The Twin Cities, it will tilt hard to Democrats, Trende argues.  Iowa, where there's a much higher percentage of rural areas and small towns, and no megacity, will more likely continue its trend the other way.  There are clear racial and "identity politics" elements to this formulation.  Blacks, Muslims, and drag queens live in one part of America.  Old White cowboys with bug gun collections live in another.  One part has Silicon Valley.  The other part has small towns, and many smaller cities with dead factories, and feels left behind.  People in mostly White areas fear mosques and Black Lives Matter.  Even though the nearest mosque or Black protester may be 100 miles away. 

If you buy that, which I mostly do, you can extrapolate out an electoral map something like the one from 1860 to 1900.  There was no year like 1932 or 1936 or 1980 or 1984, when one coalition was so dominant it pretty much won it all.  But there was a dominant party, the Republican Party, rooted in the North.  Several of the Never Trump Lincoln Project types basically see a long period of Democratic nomination, rooted as it has been on the technocratic and liberal coasts.  My read of what they are doing is a play for some role in what they view as the dominant coalition, at least for a while.

It's very hard for me to imagine a Republican Party in the next decade or two that gets excited about the idea of a Green New Deal.  Or racial justice as most Blacks would define it.  Or "immigration reform" as most mainstream immigrants would define it.  As I posted earlier in this thread, climate change and racial justice are at the absolute bottom of the Republican's list of priorities in 2020.  They're more interested in law and order, and the right to bear arms.  Black Lives Matter?  They probably mostly feel like President Toxic.  "You sure drank the Kool Aid, didn't you?"

To go back to my point about trust in government, this does not paint a very rosy or unifying picture.  If you imagine a dominant Democratic coalition that pursues a Green New Deal and racial justice, among other priorities, a future Republican Party would have to completely reject Trumpism to feel like that's a government they trusted.  If anything, it would be a reason for them to double down on the idea that they don't trust government at all. 

Which is pretty much what eight years of Obama and Obamacare made them feel, I now think.  It wasn't red America or blue America.  It was socialist, radical America.  They don't want anything to do with it.  This is a recipe for continued division.  Not unity.

If Biden does in fact win, maybe after a few years of Uncle Joe Decent things will look and feel very different.  But I won't be holding my breath.  I'd bet on deep irreconcilable differences.  And an electoral map that is something like the ones that played out for decades in the late 19th century.  Not a clean line between North and South.  But race, rural and small town versus urban, and transformation versus restoration would be some of the same core dynamics I would bet on.

If any of this is right, I won't get my wish.  As an American and a patriot, I feel like it would be a nice thing to have 3 in 4 Americans saying they trust their government again before I die.  It would also be nice to have 3 in 4 Americans who are of voting age actually vote.  I'm less confident than I was in the Glory Days of Fall 2008 that I will ever get my wish of the America that I thought I saw back then.  

[stevenkesslar]

6 hours ago, tassojunior said:

And the most meaningful statistic of all is that in 2016 with the choice of Clinton or Trump, more Americans. most of whom are independents, chose not to participate in this ridiculous farce than chose to vote for both of them combined.  

Trump won by getting many independents to vote for him even though it lost some Republicans. The Dems were, and are, too stupid to bring independents into the party. The DNC purges them ruthlessly and intentionally makes enemies of them. Trump should be back 20 points minimum. 

Fact check time.

This first one is just a repeat from the post directly above.  But it did surprise me.  Jackson in his article on the Slavery Electoral College says turnout was higher in 2016 than 2008.  In 2008 it was 58.2 % of voting age Americans.  In 2016 it was 59.3 % of voting age Americans.  So if you're saying most Americans chose not to participate in 2016, that's false. Turnout was higher than normal in 2016 by US standards.  And it will be higher still in 2020 most likely.

I think this makes your point about Independents, albeit in a sideways sort of way.  And President Toxic gets credit for this.  As a former Democrat/ maybe Republican/maybe Independent who ran as a Republican, he had Independent appeal in 2016 in two ways that mattered.  First, he won the Independent vote over Hillary, 46/42 according to the CNN exit polls.  Second, he got 2 million more "Republicans" to vote than Romney did.  I say "Republicans" because some of them were former Democrats.  And some were no doubt people attracted to his Independent spirit.

The notion that Democrats "purge" Independents is absurd.  Hillary lost in 2016 because she lost Independents and President Toxic got more Republicans to vote.  Obama won decisively in 2008 because he won Independents and he got more Democrats to vote.  Do you detect a formula there?  Why would any Democrat purge Independents, since that means losing?

Now let me go off on Independents for a minute.  This is really more about a very smart Independent client and friend of 20 years.  At some point I started telling him he's not an Independent.  He's a dilettante.  He can't make up his mind.  He stands for nothing.  He believes in nothing.  He thinks one candidate is a turd sandwich.  The other is a giant douche.  One year he votes for the turd sandwich and feels like he ate shit.  Then he votes for the giant douche and feels like he got fucked.  He has no consistent goal or strategy.  Other than to be a dilettante and alternate being feeling like he ate shit and feeling like he got fucked.  It simply ensures that nothing gets done.  Every step forward is matched by a step back when he changes his mind.  That's what an "Independent" is.  It's a strategy for gridlock.

Obama 2012 is a good case in point to me.  As I said, Obama won Independents 2008.  But in 2012, Obama lost the Independent vote by 5 % to Romney.  How could Obama win anyway?  Because Romney's Republican turnout was inferior to Trump's.  And Democratic turnout in 2012 was good.  I've read several analyses that said that Blacks, who exceeded even their record 2008 turnout, really carried Obama over the top in 2012.  And Obama would publicly say that in thanking them at Black events. It's the opposite of dilettante to me.  Blacks were screwed by The Great Recession more than anyone else.  You might argue that Obama himself and his corporate pals like Summers and Geithner screwed Black home owners by bailing banks out, but not Blacks.  I might partly agree.  And yet they were loyal to Obama.  Part of the reason Obama couldn't get things done from 2010 to 2016 is in 2010, 2012, and 2014 the Independents who supported him in  2008 turned on him.

My question is this: if Independents flip from Obama to Romney to Trump to Biden, how the fuck do you ever get anything important done?  Like Obamacare?  Independents I know will blame it on all kinds of things other than themselves.  And I agree with some of the things they blame.  But the practical impact of Independents on US politics is to create gridlock and make sure nothing can get done.  And if somethings does get done, in two years everything is reversed and we just try go right back to where we started.

I think 2020 is the Tea Party/Trump people's turn to get fucked by the Dilettante Party.  In 2016 Independents gave Republicans what they needed to do tax cuts for the fat cats and conservative judges.  In 2018, they took it back.  In 2020, my guess is they'll wipe it out.  Some polls say Biden is leading with Independents.  Other say President Toxic is.  I'd bet that Biden will win Independents narrowly, like 5 % more than what Trump gets. If I'm right, in 2022 they'll probably turn around and punish Biden for whatever he actually got done.

President Toxic is another example of something else.  Anybody even remotely "Independent" from the left or right has to run as a Democrat or Republican.  Trump and Bernie are both perfect examples.  So outside the two political parties, they can't run for office and they can't win.  Of course, Bernie tried to.  And failed.  And failed.  And failed.  And failed.  You can argue that all that would change if we could just elect more Independents.  That was tried, too.  It failed.  And failed.  And failed.  So an "Independent" like AOC can run and win.  But, to date, only in a place that is a solid Democratic powerhouse.  So what they do is take some Establishment White liberal Democrat or Establishment Black Democrat out.  Good for them.  But that's not a strategy for building an Independent Party.  It's a strategy for replacing a small number of Democrats who are left of center with "Independents" elected as Democrats who are even further left of center.

Part of the reason I think Independents are dilettantes is they are all over the map.  There's no evidence that Democrats would be doing better with Independents if Bernie were the nominee.  In Florida, where 18 % of voters in the Democratic primary were Independents, that group voted for Biden 48/32.  In North Carolina, where 27 % of primary voters were Independents, they went Bernie 34 %. Biden 29 %,  Bloomberg 15 %, Warren 10 %.  My read is that's an even split between centrists and left wingers.  In Michigan, where 29 % of voters were Independents, Bernie won them narrowly over Biden, 46 % to 42 %.  Unfortunately, there's no exit polls for Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, since that was after COVID hit I'm guessing.

I don't see any of that as evidence that either Bernie or Biden give Democrats some advantage with Independents voters.  What I still don't fully understand is why Biden trounced Bernie in every county in Michigan (and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania).  Maybe those Bernie 2016/Biden 2020 voters are mostly Democrats who didn't like Hillary.  But my impression is some of those people were Independents who for some reason liked Bernie better than Hillary, but Biden better than Bernie.  I've read a theory that they voted for Bernie in 2016 because they are low information voters who preferred the old White guy who talked about union stuff to the woman who talked about implicit racism.  How progressive is that? 

Here's another little factoid.  In Michigan the 29 % of primary voters from a union household voted for Biden over Bernie 56/36.  The 71 % who are non-union households voted for Biden 51/38.  Either way, Bernie got clobbered.  But if the idea is to build a bottom up coalition of Democrats and Independents who are for the working people, shouldn't Bernie be winning the union vote?

I focused here on all the things I think suck about Independents, looking at it as a loyal Democrat.  I could make endless abstract arguments about the great things about Independents.  They are part of the checks and balances.  They are less inclined to buy into any party's orthodoxy.  Whether they are centrists or not, the net effect of their going back and forth is they do tend to draw things to the center rather than the extremes.

More than anything, if you don't have Independents, you just lose.  My sense is that both Biden and Bernie, having survived for half a century, know that deep in their bones.  It seemed clear to me that they both ran primary campaigns that would allow them to reach out to Independents in the general election.

Bernie's problem was the opposite.  I think one of the bigger nails in his coffin was one he drove in himself.  It just didn't work well to run for Democratic nominee by attacking the Democratic Party.  The biggest thing that I think killed him on Super Tuesday was that lots of Democrats just decided that Biden was the better shot at beating President Toxic than Bernie.  I think Biden played every card he could with endorsements and media and the stampede of schmooze with Klo and Pete and Kamala to help that along.  But that's when Bernie was saying that he was running against the Democratic Establishment.  How well did that work for him?

My hope is that Bernie will be a prophet.  I can now look back and say that Harold Washington for Chicago Mayor in the 80's and Jesse Jackson for President in the 90's were part of the chain that led to Barack Obama in 2008.  In 20 years if we have a Democratic Socialist President I hope I can look back and say Bernie 2016 and 2020 laid the groundwork to get there.  That right there was why I voted for Bernie this year.  It was more a vote for the future than the present.

I also give Bernie this.  Whatever he did to help pave the way to a more progressive Democratic Party, or a democratic socialist movement, he did it in the Democratic Party.  As I said, I think his anti-party rhetoric mostly hurt him, not Biden or the party.   But the big difference is with Nader and Stein.  Sorry, but a vote for Nader in Florida in 2000 was a vote for President Bush. A vote for Stein in the Rust Belt in 2016 was a vote for President Toxic.  Bernie did not do that to Democrats in either 2016 or 2020.  Hopefully, he helped set up Biden to win, and Schumer to be Majority Leader.  Which means Bernie set himself up to be a serious power broker and legislator in 2021.

Maybe somewhere down the line, some strategy for a third party that can actually take power and move agenda will make sense in America. Like the Green Party has in parts of Europe,   But in this last 20 years, all it does is help Republicans win.  And thwart the agendas the Naders and Steins say they are running to advance.

 

 

[Suckrates]

The Trump voters DONT care about issues.  They just want to rant, curse, holla, be Racist and carry their guns... As long as Trump continues to allow them to do it, and supports them doing it, they are a lock...  And there are also a shitload of stupid, gullible people that are gonna believe his bullshit about  "rioters coming to your neighborhoods and burning down your homes"... You know, those trailers and winnebagos are valuable !  

All I'm saying is, dont get yer hopes up about a Trump LOSS, no matter what the polls say.... As much as I want to see that turd flushed, it just may float back up to the top?  

This wait till election time is torture........

Edited September 18, 2020 by Suckrates

[Riobard]

Was datum; were data. 
Let’s call the whole thing off. 

I do it myself all the time too. LOL

[tassojunior]

11 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

They are stunningly accurate lately.

I'm being schizo.  Because I do believe Lichtman is right.  Polls don't matter.  And barring extraordinary circumstances, President Toxic will lose base on fundamentals.  And yet, I keep wetting my pants about the polls.

 

I don't have the stats right before me but I've heard for a while that Approval/Disapproval and poll numbers almost always conflate and it's unusual for a cycle like this where Trump's approval rating is high (higher than many recent presidents) and his election poll numbers are low. I've even heard it described as a "canary in a coalmine" for pollsters to be careful of their numbers if the poll % and approval % is too far off. Pollsters all claim they have "adjusted" their methods and pools after 2016, but I really wonder. 

You're right to stick mostly with the RCP averages which are much more accurate. I'd also suggest the Battleground pool over specific states. If there's one major flaw in polling it's that individual states can be terribly wrong and it's the individual states that matter in the EC, not the national average. That's why I just mostly follow trends in the Battleground Pool compared to Hillary. (I doubt anyone who disliked Hillary likes Kamala). And that tells me Biden is doing 1.8 pts better than Hillary was at this point on 9/18.  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/

 I've been skeptical of the FL, NC, and AZ %'s for weeks now and sure enough, the pollsters are drastically correcting FL and NC downward to what I could believe. I knew from a couple months in Florida's bellwether dodging Trumpsters on every sidewalk and seeing nothing but a sea of Trump flags everywhere while not daring say anything negative about him, that Florida was no +6 Biden. That was a surreal experience of what your eyes see and what polls say. 

Anyway the national RCP averages are probably very accurate. But state polls are much further off and some are very wrong and state results are all that matter.

 

5 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

My question is this: if Independents flip from Obama to Romney to Trump to Biden, how the fuck do you ever get anything important done?  Like Obamacare?  Independents I know will blame it on all kinds of things other than themselves.  And I agree with some of the things they blame.  But the practical impact of Independents on US politics is to create gridlock and make sure nothing can get done.  And if somethings does get done, in two years everything is reversed and we just try go right back to where we started.

It's inconceivable to most of us who have lived through a party-oriented government but intelligent , educated adults can in fact , and normally do, have consensus on broad issues that really matter and you may be surprised how many of  those issues have 70% and upwards support. It's really inconceivable with a system as rigged as the American system with a docile Congress and a strongman corporate presidency that much gets done to ever better the lives of the common people.  What is abnormal is to being forced to choose a party where neither agrees with the 70+% on most important issues.  That's because you are dealing with the same product being marketed under two different brand labels. As Biden said "We will change nothing". Chelsea and Ivanka are best friends. The Pelosi's go to New Years with the Trumps. Kamala let Mnuchin off for illegally foreclosing on a million homeowners and Obama helped the banks take away most Black homes. And the list of corporate owners of both political parties goes right down the list from Goldman-Sachs to Facebook to McDonnel-Douglas. Remember how important it was to get LBJ in because that crazy Goldwater would expand VietNam into a major war?  The illusion of a choice keeps people from realizing that issues on which there is broad consensus are ignored. 

I think the fatal mistake was allowing people to become educated to such a high level that they realize our government is very unresponsive to the will of the people but instead tries to propagandize people into accepting it's will. Whether authoritarianism is by one person, one party or a corporate cabal makes little difference. It's still government by the few trying to dictate to the masses and preserve the power of the owner class. Now that  people are educated that's not working so well. The @50% who reject participating thinking  it's a meaningless charade are probably right.

 

6 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

The notion that Democrats "purge" Independents is absurd.  Hillary lost in 2016 because she lost Independents and President Toxic got more Republicans to vote.  Obama won decisively in 2008 because he won Independents and he got more Democrats to vote.  Do you detect a formula there?  Why would any Democrat purge Independents, since that means losing?

 Not even going to the vitriol Hillary spewed all over Bernie after he did much more campaigning for her than she ever did for Obama, or in fact any losing candidate not nominated for VP has ever done for any winning nominee, the Dem convention this year was a huge "FU" to Bernie, Tulsi, Yang, Latinos, progressives, reformers, young people, and oddly for Clintonistas to the "Me-Too" movement. I know this may be an earth-shaking revelation to many, but reformers trying to reform an institution do not get appreciation normally from those that control an institution. That is unless they are smart enough to understand that you must be gracious and make a union with the losing side (usually as VP) to win in November. Either the right-wing Democrats are incredibly stupid (and they are very dumb), or more likely, keeping reformers out of government is more important than beating the "other side". (Being the big fish in the big pond is nice but being the big fish in a smaller pond is still a hell of a lot better than being a dead fish on the dock). 

Maybe you don't follow the Twitter world of the progressive bloggers but it's been a horrible tirade of threats, including many death threats, by Emhoff-supported KHivers  against Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski, Krystal Ball, Susan Sarandon, Bernie and Jane Sanders, Tulsi, Andy Yang, Marianne Williamson, Brihana Joy Gray, and many others not even in the ballpark of the "Clintonista" or "Bernie Bro" perceived insults. Obscene threats and even death threats Twitter has had to patrol and take down. There's general agreement that it's a orchestrated harassment campaign against progressives and reformers by KHive sanctioned by the party to purge them from participating in the party or being listened to by party followers.

It costs a lot of votes but it insures ownership of one of the two parties.      

 

 

   

[stevenkesslar]

9 hours ago, Suckrates said:

The Trump voters DONT care about issues.  They just want to rant, curse, holla, be Racist and carry their guns... As long as Trump continues to allow them to do it, and supports them doing it, they are a lock...  And there are also a shitload of stupid, gullible people that are gonna believe his bullshit about  "rioters coming to your neighborhoods and burning down your homes"... You know, those trailers and winnebagos are valuable !  

All I'm saying is, dont get yer hopes up about a Trump LOSS, no matter what the polls say.... As much as I want to see that turd flushed, it just may float back up to the top?  

This wait till election time is torture........

Thanks for the hot GIF.

But you know you had me at "rant".

[tassojunior]

THIS could  be a disaster if it comes down to MI and PA.....Judge says Michigan ballots received up to two weeks after election day must be counted. 

https://reut.rs/2EehXZZ

A Pennsylvania judge had already ruled that PA must accept ballots received up until 3 days after election day. 

Let's hope there's no Gore v Bush over PA or MI.

Edited September 18, 2020 by tassojunior

[stevenkesslar]

They were talking on Morning Joe today about how Florida may know who won by 11 PM Election Night.  They're used to mail in voting, the argument went.  Florida 2020 could be the opposite of 2000.  Instead of being the mess, they may be the island of clarity in the middle of a mess.

As I recall, Gillum and I think Nelson led in early returns in 2018.  As more ballots were counted, which I assume were the ones cast in person that day, it looked better and better for De Santis and Scott.  Maybe it will all be different in 2020.  But I'm going with the theory that swing states that count mail-in or early voting ballots early will come out of the box with Biden in the lead.

The main point on Morning Joe was that if Biden wins Florida on Election Night or early the next morning, it's game over.   We might not know the results in Michigan for weeks.  And in theory if President Toxic won Michigan two weeks later ............ blah blah blah.  But that's only a credible argument to his base.

If Trump wins Florida, it will certainly power the argument that it's his election to lose, as long as we don't let Democrats cheat.  But I think anyone paying attention knows Florida is a must win state for President Toxic and a can lose state for Biden.  Meanwhile, whatever trend drives Florida will be showing up in Election Night returns in North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Arizona.

There was another interesting point made by some data guy from WaPo about Pennsylvania.  Joe was going off about how the polls in Pennsylvania surprise him.  This is all talk inside the political hack bubble.  But he keeps saying Wisconsin is the state that is supposed to be close.  Why Pennsylvania?  The WaPo guy said go back and check the numbers from 2008.  Even back then Obama won by some margin in the teens in Michigan and Wisconsin, but by about 10 in Pennsylvania.

So I checked this morning.  Here's the Democrat's winning margin in each election from 2000 to 2012

2012:  Obama +9.5 % Michigan, + 7 % Wisconsin, + 5.5 % Pennsylvania

2008:  Obama +16.5 % Michigan, + 14 % Wisconsin, + 10 % Pennsylvania

2004  Kerry  + 3.5 % Michigan, + 0.5 % Wisconsin, + 2.5 % Pennsylvania

2000  Gore  + 5 % Michigan, + 0.2 % Wisconsin, + 4 % Pennsylvania

And here's where Biden is right now in the state polling averages on 538:

2020  Biden  +7.7 % Michigan, +6.7 % Wisconsin, + 4.9 % Pennsylvania

Especially if you compare Michigan to Pennsylvania, it's clear that Pennsylvania is clearly a wobblier brick in the Blue Wall.  I think the best explanation is Jim Carville's word:  "Pennsyltucky".  The central part of the state is more like Appalachia than technocratic Pittsburgh or urban Philadelphia. 

Michigan has no equivalent concept of "Michissippi", really.  They do have Macomb County, and "Reagan Democrats".  The thing that jumps out at me is that going from a 16 % win in 2008 in Michigan to a narrow loss in 2016 really is a devastating verdict on Obama/Biden.  What it says to me is that Democrats need to get their shit together on jobs, jobs, jobs in a way they just didn't under Obama/Biden.  Arguably, Biden is the worst guy to do that because he was part of it.  Arguably, Biden is the best guy to do it because he was part of it.  And you don't have to be a genius to figure out where they want wrong.  If he gets a redo, there's reason to think he learned from the mistakes that led to 2016.

I'm going to start a thread on jobs and trade and Biden and President Toxic.  But let me throw one thought about it in here.  President Toxic is running as if he is not really President.  It didn't work on law and order.  Now he's trying to do it on jobs.  But I don't think it will work, either.  The best thing you can say about the track record of Obama/Biden on factory jobs in these three states is that they did enormously better than President Toxic, who destroyed factory jobs.  And Obama and Biden didn't have to fork over trillions in tax cuts to the corporations who destroyed the jobs in order to get them to give hollow promises that they'd bring the jobs back.  Which they didn't.   The potshots President Toxic took at Hillary in 2016 as an outside agitator are almost certain to fail when he takes them as President Toxic.

The one other thing that surprised me about those numbers above is Wisconsin.  Obama did better in Wisconsin than Pennsylvania.  But for both Gore and Kerry Wisconsin was the wobbliest brick in the Blue Wall.  As you can see, Gore almost lost Wisconsin in 2000.  That's now two decades ago.  So it's probably safe to assume that the 2020 polls are right, and Wisconsin is less wobbly than Pennsylvania but more wobbly than Michigan.

Here's the equivalent poll numbers for where Hillary was in these three states as of September 18, 2016:

2016 polls (9/18/2016):  Hillary +5.2 % Michigan,   + 4 % Wisconsin, + 6.6 % Pennsylvania.

That data doesn't fit as neatly into the picture.  By Oct. 1 2016, Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania was down to 2 %.  I think the takeaway is that Biden probably has a consistently larger margin than Hillary did in these states.  But it's not large enough to ensure he'll actually win.  

I'll keep being broken record on this.  For those who say the polls were wrong, the last poll in Michigan and Pennsylvania right before the election was from Republican pollster Trafalgar.  Both showed a razor thin Trump lead.  They simply had a set up of assumptions, like Rasmussen, that worked very well in 2016 but very badly in 2018.

This is way more about turnout than persuasion at this point.  Depending on which poll you believe, Independents could still go either way.  So persuasion matters.  But what really matters is who votes.  2 million more people voted for President Toxic in 2016 than voted for Romney in 2012.  Meanwhile, Hillary's turnout went down 100,000 votes from Obama 2012.  She also lost Independents, but by almost the same margin Obama did in 2012.  So it's all about turnout.

Biden struggles to close enthusiasm gap with Latino voters

I'll throw that in this post as well.  It fits in in terms of thinking of this as a problem of getting to 270 votes, until we dump the Slavery Electoral College.  The article is one of many lately that quote one of Bernie's top Latino gurus about how the Democrats are just blowing it.

I agree with his analysis.  Whether the numbers are accurate or not, it doesn't sound good or smart to spend 500 times more to persuade Whites in the Rust Belt than to persuade Latinos in Arizona.   Reading this article I just decided the easy way to think about 2020 is that we (Democrats) just fucked this up completely.  We should have been doing what worked for Bernie six months ago.  We didn't.  It's now too late.  We fucked up.

That said, hopefully in 2020 it doesn't matter.  Unlike 2016, I'd rather just make sure we win those three Rust Belt states. That said, it's a reason I'm sending money to Mark Kelly.  If Kelly wins, Biden probably wins Arizona, too.  

I think part of the post mortem from 2020 for Democrats should be that we just fucked up royally with Latinos, period.  And if we keep fucking up, they'll at some point be why a Republican wins.  They were why W. won in 2000 and 2004.  So it's happened already.

If the Republicans are smart, if Biden wins they'll nominate Rubio in 2024.  He may not be the single best choice.  But if the idea is to focus on Latinos and do it by running a Latino who doesn't have the shit of Trump smeared all over him, Rubio is the guy.  And Florida is the lab for how Republicans kill Democratic dreams.  Whether that means taking out old White guys like Nelson or Biden, or blocking the rising tide of politicians like Gillum or Harris.  

Our immediate and most urgent problem is the Blue Wall.  But even if Democrats do great in 2020 we have to have a long term strategy we don't have for Latino outreach and leadership development.

[tassojunior]

The Dems just put out a vid of long lines in Fairfax County on 1st day of early voting. Upscale suburban DC, it went for Clinton by 63%. Unfortunately, to me these people look very much more like Trump voters than D's. (But then I'm obviously not buying the rich Republican suburbanites shifting to (D) strategy ).

 

and the UM supermarket survey (a 100% predictor until 2016 was way off) predicts 48% to 47% (D) win. 

https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/trump-biden-consumers-win-november-200918163124196.html

Edited September 18, 2020 by tassojunior

[stevenkesslar]

9 hours ago, Riobard said:

Was datum; were data. 
Let’s call the whole thing off. 

Can't we just go on a date instead?

And now i'm more confused.  If it goes well, is it a second date?  Or a data?

[tassojunior]

2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

They were talking on Morning Joe today about how Florida may know who won by 11 PM Election Night.  They're used to mail in voting, the argument went.  Florida 2020 could be the opposite of 2000.  Instead of being the mess, they may be the island of clarity in the middle of a mess.

As I recall, Gillum and I think Nelson led in early returns in 2018.  As more ballots were counted, which I assume were the ones cast in person that day, it looked better and better for De Santis and Scott.  Maybe it will all be different in 2020.  But I'm going with the theory that swing states that count mail-in or early voting ballots early will come out of the box with Biden in the lead.

The main point on Morning Joe was that if Biden wins Florida on Election Night or early the next morning, it's game over.   We might not know the results in Michigan for weeks.  And in theory if President Toxic won Michigan two weeks later ............ blah blah blah.  But that's only a credible argument to his base.

If Trump wins Florida, it will certainly power the argument that it's his election to lose, as long as we don't let Democrats cheat.  But I think anyone paying attention knows Florida is a must win state for President Toxic and a can lose state for Biden.  Meanwhile, whatever trend drives Florida will be showing up in Election Night returns in North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Arizona.

There was another interesting point made by some data guy from WaPo about Pennsylvania.  Joe was going off about how the polls in Pennsylvania surprise him.  This is all talk inside the political hack bubble.  But he keeps saying Wisconsin is the state that is supposed to be close.  Why Pennsylvania?  The WaPo guy said go back and check the numbers from 2008.  Even back then Obama won by some margin in the teens in Michigan and Wisconsin, but by about 10 in Pennsylvania.

So I checked this morning.  Here's the Democrat's winning margin in each election from 2000 to 2012

2012:  Obama +9.5 % Michigan, + 7 % Wisconsin, + 5.5 % Pennsylvania

2008:  Obama +16.5 % Michigan, + 14 % Wisconsin, + 10 % Pennsylvania

2004  Kerry  + 3.5 % Michigan, + 0.5 % Wisconsin, + 2.5 % Pennsylvania

2000  Gore  + 5 % Michigan, + 0.2 % Wisconsin, + 4 % Pennsylvania

And here's where Biden is right now in the state polling averages on 538:

2020  Biden  +7.7 % Michigan, +6.7 % Wisconsin, + 4.9 % Pennsylvania

Especially if you compare Michigan to Pennsylvania, it's clear that Pennsylvania is clearly a wobblier brick in the Blue Wall.  I think the best explanation is Jim Carville's word:  "Pennsyltucky".  The central part of the state is more like Appalachia than technocratic Pittsburgh or urban Philadelphia. 

Michigan has no equivalent concept of "Michissippi", really.  They do have Macomb County, and "Reagan Democrats".  The thing that jumps out at me is that going from a 16 % win in 2008 in Michigan to a narrow loss in 2016 really is a devastating verdict on Obama/Biden.  What it says to me is that Democrats need to get their shit together on jobs, jobs, jobs in a way they just didn't under Obama/Biden.  Arguably, Biden is the worst guy to do that because he was part of it.  Arguably, Biden is the best guy to do it because he was part of it.  And you don't have to be a genius to figure out where they want wrong.  If he gets a redo, there's reason to think he learned from the mistakes that led to 2016.

I'm going to start a thread on jobs and trade and Biden and President Toxic.  But let me throw one thought about it in here.  President Toxic is running as if he is not really President.  It didn't work on law and order.  Now he's trying to do it on jobs.  But I don't think it will work, either.  The best thing you can say about the track record of Obama/Biden on factory jobs in these three states is that they did enormously better than President Toxic, who destroyed factory jobs.  And Obama and Biden didn't have to fork over trillions in tax cuts to the corporations who destroyed the jobs in order to get them to give hollow promises that they'd bring the jobs back.  Which they didn't.   The potshots President Toxic took at Hillary in 2016 as an outside agitator are almost certain to fail when he takes them as President Toxic.

The one other thing that surprised me about those numbers above is Wisconsin.  Obama did better in Wisconsin than Pennsylvania.  But for both Gore and Kerry Wisconsin was the wobbliest brick in the Blue Wall.  As you can see, Gore almost lost Wisconsin in 2000.  That's now two decades ago.  So it's probably safe to assume that the 2020 polls are right, and Wisconsin is less wobbly than Pennsylvania but more wobbly than Michigan.

Here's the equivalent poll numbers for where Hillary was in these three states as of September 18, 2016:

2016 polls (9/18/2016):  Hillary +5.2 % Michigan,   + 4 % Wisconsin, + 6.6 % Pennsylvania.

That data doesn't fit as neatly into the picture.  By Oct. 1 2016, Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania was down to 2 %.  I think the takeaway is that Biden probably has a consistently larger margin than Hillary did in these states.  But it's not large enough to ensure he'll actually win.  

I'll keep being broken record on this.  For those who say the polls were wrong, the last poll in Michigan and Pennsylvania right before the election was from Republican pollster Trafalgar.  Both showed a razor thin Trump lead.  They simply had a set up of assumptions, like Rasmussen, that worked very well in 2016 but very badly in 2018.

This is way more about turnout than persuasion at this point.  Depending on which poll you believe, Independents could still go either way.  So persuasion matters.  But what really matters is who votes.  2 million more people voted for President Toxic in 2016 than voted for Romney in 2012.  Meanwhile, Hillary's turnout went down 100,000 votes from Obama 2012.  She also lost Independents, but by almost the same margin Obama did in 2012.  So it's all about turnout.

Biden struggles to close enthusiasm gap with Latino voters

I'll throw that in this post as well.  It fits in in terms of thinking of this as a problem of getting to 270 votes, until we dump the Slavery Electoral College.  The article is one of many lately that quote one of Bernie's top Latino gurus about how the Democrats are just blowing it.

I agree with his analysis.  Whether the numbers are accurate or not, it doesn't sound good or smart to spend 500 times more to persuade Whites in the Rust Belt than to persuade Latinos in Arizona.   Reading this article I just decided the easy way to think about 2020 is that we (Democrats) just fucked this up completely.  We should have been doing what worked for Bernie six months ago.  We didn't.  It's now too late.  We fucked up.

That said, hopefully in 2020 it doesn't matter.  Unlike 2016, I'd rather just make sure we win those three Rust Belt states. That said, it's a reason I'm sending money to Mark Kelly.  If Kelly wins, Biden probably wins Arizona, too.  

I think part of the post mortem from 2020 for Democrats should be that we just fucked up royally with Latinos, period.  And if we keep fucking up, they'll at some point be why a Republican wins.  They were why W. won in 2000 and 2004.  So it's happened already.

If the Republicans are smart, if Biden wins they'll nominate Rubio in 2024.  He may not be the single best choice.  But if the idea is to focus on Latinos and do it by running a Latino who doesn't have the shit of Trump smeared all over him, Rubio is the guy.  And Florida is the lab for how Republicans kill Democratic dreams.  Whether that means taking out old White guys like Nelson or Biden, or blocking the rising tide of politicians like Gillum or Harris.  

Our immediate and most urgent problem is the Blue Wall.  But even if Democrats do great in 2020 we have to have a long term strategy we don't have for Latino outreach and leadership development.

Wasn't it last election when Hertz found thousands of ballots in one car returned by a Broward County election worker a week later? Broward's incompetence in printing the ballots with Nelson's name on a seperate page from the rest of the ballot probably cost Dems 1 Senate seat. Never underestimate Broward's startling incompetence ability. 

 

 

and a pro-Dem summary by Nate today:

 

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by tassojunior

[Riobard]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

Can't we just go on a date instead?

And now i'm more confused.  If it goes well, is it a second date?  Or a data?

Datum on a single date, data for two or more, by the fourth date single unless the third is a marriage date, so say the data, says the datum. 

[stevenkesslar]

14 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

If Biden does in fact win, maybe after a few years of Uncle Joe Decent things will look and feel very different.  But I won't be holding my breath.  I'd bet on deep irreconcilable differences.  And an electoral map that is something like the ones that played out for decades in the late 19th century.  Not a clean line between North and South.  But race, rural and small town versus urban, and transformation versus restoration would be some of the same core dynamics I would bet on.

I think that's a great video about why irreconcilable differences may continue to dominate US politics for a long time - the 2020's, and possibly beyond.  And color the electoral map as well.

The most interesting fact in it is a poll that 49 % of Republicans identify as "Trump supporters".  Only 39 % identify as "GOP supporters".  Of the Trump supporters, 99 % approve of Trump.  Of the GOP supporters, only 69 % approve of Trump.  That explains why many "party" Republicans have already left.  It also predicts that between now and November, more may leave.

That chart is from another article that gives a deeper view into the splits in the Republican Party.  I'd argue that the entire 39 % who support the party are candidates to become "Biden Republicans".  Most won't, of course.  But if 5 % do, it's enough for a Biden landslide.  The fact is that Republicans are now outnumbered by both Democrats and Independents.  So it's great that President Toxic has essentially 100 % support from Trump Republicans.  But if they are 60 % of the smallest of three voting blocs, that's not winning math.  And if what you have to do to get that 60 % to vote alienates the other 40 %, not to mention most people in the two larger voting blocs, you have a huge problem.

It does not surprise me that they are two pieces of very solid glue holding "party" Republicans to the GOP.  Institutionally, they want a Republican-controlled Congress.  86 % of "party" Republicans want that.  90 % of them approve of President Toxic on the economy.  Once again, it's the economy, stupid.

I'm now convinced that the one thing between President Toxic and a landslide defeat is the economy.  Much of what happens in the next six weeks is beyond Biden's control.  If COVID-19 has a Fall spike, the economic numbers look worse, many more Americans die, and the cut-off of $600 a week support to millions of Americans really slows or stops any recovery, it's all more nails in Trump's coffin.  It's possible that all those factors could get better in the next six weeks.  They pretty much have to for Trump to even have a chance to win.  Lichtman and Abramowitz would say the verdict is already in, and President Toxic will lose on the economy. 

Whatever you believe, I think there is mostly upside in Biden thrashing President Toxic on the economy and jobs for the next six weeks.  The main downside to me is Biden doesn't want this to be a  choice.  Certainly not a choice between capitalism and socialism.  But he's proving to be quite capable of talking about his ideas and plans in a way that mostly communicates this:  Donald Trump has failed, and failed, and failed.  Period.  One of the biggest perceptions or fears about Biden is that he's weak and maybe senile.  He doesn't have a lot to lose in going for Trump's jugular.  Mostly I think it makes him look stronger, and focused.

Outside the economy, at least one in three and in some cases over half of "party" Republicans are turned off by Trump.  They don't approve of him in general.  They don't approve of his handling of COVID-19 or race.  They are open to voting for Biden.  If they can be detached from President Toxic, their perceptions on the economy are the cords that need to be cut.  I assume these Republicans, like the vast majority of Republicans, don't see climate change, or racial justice, or income equality as big priorities.  So I doubt there is a lifelong marriage with Democrats on the horizon.  But they could choose to separate from their party for a while, until it seeks treatment and finds a better leader.

Meanwhile, if half of Republicans are now "Trump Republicans" and 99 % of them think he's swell, I think we can forget about trying to move them.  If I had to gamble, I would bet these Republicans will dominate their party for at least the next few election cycles.  If they lose again in 2024, that may be the end of the "Trump Republicans". 

To argue against myself, if they lose badly this year maybe that creates an opening for someone like Marco Rubio.  But about half the party is now basically cemented into Team Toxic.  The ones that are not are fleeing.  And the new ones joining have been saying things like this all year:  "I want to be part of the Trump Party!"  If he loses, President Toxic will likely say the election was stolen.  And people need to join his crusade to make this right.  If he loses, I would not be shocked if he is going to run again in 2024.  Or promote Don Jr. as the way to take back power.

@lookin, I think this is the problem with defusing authoritarianism.  The fact that half of Republicans are "Trump Republicans" and 99 % of them approve of President Toxic is a perfect example of authoritarian follower behavior.  And from Dean's data, this is the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades.  Obama's election in 2008 probably accelerated it.  And President Toxic running in 2016 put it on steroids.  Even between 2018 and now there is evidence that more Whites with colleges degrees have shifted to the Democrats, and more White Democrats without college degrees have shifted to the Republicans. 

I don't see how you break through that trend.  I don't see how you get 99 % of these people - or even 9 % - to disapprove of President Toxic.  Do you?  I'm stuck on the idea that what we need to focus on for now is one thing: make sure they lose.  They understand defeat.  And to some degree what matters most is how they respond to defeat.  Like "party" Republicans, they are certainly able to shift over to the Biden camp after they lose.  Or decide they need to nominate a Kasich or a Hogan in 2024.  I hope some of them do.  But, again, I'd bet on them starting to talk up Don, Jr. as their perfect hero in 2024.  Beating Don Jr. to it may be what guys like Pompeo and Tom Cotton have in mind.

I think it's a misnomer to use the phrase "identity politics" to describe this phenomenon, for two reasons.  First, saying "I'm With Trump" is not like saying, "I'm Gay" or "I'm Black" or "I'm a woman."  Second, no Trumpian even likes the jargon "identity politics", I suspect.  There's a funny moment in that video above where a Trump guy is asked if Trump is now part of his identity.  His first reaction is to laugh.  That said, the video makes a strong case that all these various layers of issues - which include the economy, views about law and order, views about race, an inclination to follow authoritarian leaders - have now had years to gel around a particular type of identity: the  "Trump Republican".   I have a very hard time believing they will simply change their mind, or identities, the day after President Toxic loses.  

The final part of that ten minute piece does provide an alternative route.  It's an anecdote about a Black guy in Ohio that says every bad condition - lost jobs, closed storefronts - that led him to vote for President Toxic in 2016 is now much, much worse.  And that's before you add COVID-19. 

That's a perfect metaphor for what Biden now needs to do for the next six weeks.  President Toxic will go after Biden as the root cause of all job losses in America.  The facts are clear.  Whatever their flaws, Obama and Biden created jobs.  President Toxic has now destroyed them.  That has to be Biden's relentless message.  He can tie it with COVID-19 and health.  And any time Biden goes after President Toxic for failing on COVID-19 he's got at least 55 % of Americans who agree with him. 

If President Toxic argues "it is what it is" and 200,000 dead and millions of lost jobs are simply the very best he could do, he'll be making Biden's case that he is a weak and failed leader.

But don't tell that to a Trump Republican.  99 % of them will say that's you just drank the Kool Aid.

 

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

On 9/18/2020 at 11:28 AM, tassojunior said:

Maybe you don't follow the Twitter world of the progressive bloggers but it's been a horrible tirade of threats, including many death threats, by Emhoff-supported KHivers  against Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski, Krystal Ball, Susan Sarandon, Bernie and Jane Sanders, Tulsi, Andy Yang, Marianne Williamson, Brihana Joy Gray, and many others not even in the ballpark of the "Clintonista" or "Bernie Bro" perceived insults. Obscene threats and even death threats Twitter has had to patrol and take down. There's general agreement that it's a orchestrated harassment campaign against progressives and reformers by KHive sanctioned by the party to purge them from participating in the party or being listened to by party followers.

Seriously?

I hope you had fun writing that.  Because it makes no sense.

I agree with some of your less hysterical points in your longer post.  I'll go to the grave thinking that if Hillary had chosen Warren, she would have won.  Arguably, Clinton/Sanders would have been an even better choice.  President Toxic himself was taped saying that's the ticket he most feared.  I kept looking for reasons to feel excited about Hillary in 2016.  When she chose Kaine it felt like a kick in the guts to me.  Which is not a criticism of Kaine, who I like.  It just made me feel like Hillary was once again being tone deaf.

The people who feel Biden is tone deaf aren't really listening.  Like you, they feel that Biden and Harris are more or less evil. 

It's now clear that Blacks don't seem to think that about Biden picking Kamala.  As far as progressives go, I thought the DNC erred on the side of progressive messages.  I think you can actually measure that in polling.  The week of Biden's convention, President Toxic's daily approval rating went slightly up.  The week of Trump's convention, his approval rating went slightly down.  What I'm about to say is a theory, not a fact.  My theory is that people in the middle didn't like all the talk about climate change and Green New Deal and Bernie at the DNC.  Then the next week they reacted against rich White fat cats going on about how they were right to wave guns at unarmed Black women they consider a menacing threat.

I thought Biden's response at the CNN town hall reflected reality, and was a politically astute response.  When asked about the Green New Deal, he said him and Bernie worked out a plan which is now in the Democratic platform.  He referred to it as "my own deal".  He's has 50+ years of experience in not giving assholes like President Toxic the red meat he wants:  "Joe Biden is for making you wear masks because he's against eating hamburgers."

As far as death threats on social media, it's why I don't have a Twitter account.  What else would anyone who equates tweeting with thinking expect?  If there were a referendum to ban Twitter, I'd vote for it.  Don't blame that on Biden.

The real problem that the twitterverse can't handle is this:  What to do with Joe Manchin?  Or Doug Jones?

If we assume Biden wins and he does want to get any version of The Green New Deal passed, he needs 50 Senate votes.  It's now extremely likely Doug Jones won't even be an option, because he'll lose.  So if Biden has 51 Democrats, he could maybe say I don't need Joe Manchin on this.  Lose one more vote and that means he needs Kamala - a Black liberal - to break a tie.  So if you start with this premise that the KHive is the nest of all evil in the galaxy, it kind of fucks up that whole Green New Deal thing.  If you follow my political logic.  

There is a generational political problem yet to be solved.  The error made by Millennials, which is understandable and innocent, was that electing Obama was enough.  In 2010 the Tea Party voted, while college students partied.  That right there determined that they'll pay for it with a conservative SCOTUS they don't like and could have blocked if they bothered to vote for a majority Democratic Senate.  As President Toxic would say, it is what it is.

Arguably, things are slightly worse since then because maybe many progressives think that politics is Twitter.  Thankfully, progressives like AOC know Twitter is a tool you use to win real power, which involves things like winning House and Senate seats.

I'm actually fairly confident that the 2020's will be the era when Millennials and Gen Z begin to make their voices and votes really heard.  Meaning in terms of enacted laws on issues like climate change.  That's as long as Biden wins and we have 50 Democratic Senators.  At the simplest level, you can do Twitter and have a great time calling Joe Manchin evil, and get nothing done.  Or you can do politics and get shit done.  That involves Joe Joe Manchin and compromise.  Everything I think I know about young progressives is that they actually want to get things done.

My own compromise position with the left-wing version of Twitter morons you're referring to is I'm more than happy to let them have their tweets.  As long as they leave me alone and just go fucking vote.

[tassojunior]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

Seriously?

I hope you had fun writing that.  Because it makes no sense.

I agree with some of your less hysterical points in your longer post.  I'll go to the grave thinking that if Hillary had chosen Warren, she would have won.  Arguably, Clinton/Sanders would have been an even better choice.  President Toxic himself was taped saying that's the ticket he most feared.  I kept looking for reasons to feel excited about Hillary in 2016.  When she chose Kaine it felt like a kick in the guts to me.  Which is not a criticism of Kaine, who I like.  It just made me feel like Hillary was once again being tone deaf.

The people who feel Biden is tone deaf aren't really listening.  Like you, they feel that Biden and Harris are more or less evil. 

It's now clear that Blacks don't seem to think that about Biden picking Kamala.  As far as progressives go, I thought the DNC erred on the side of progressive messages.  I think you can actually measure that in polling.  The week of Biden's convention, President Toxic's daily approval rating went slightly up.  The week of Trump's convention, his approval rating went slightly down.  What I'm about to say is a theory, not a fact.  My theory is that people in the middle didn't like all the talk about climate change and Green New Deal and Bernie at the DNC.  Then the next week they reacted against rich White fat cats going on about how they were right to wave guns at unarmed Black women they consider a menacing threat.

I thought Biden's response at the CNN town hall reflected reality, and was a politically astute response.  When asked about the Green New Deal, he said him and Bernie worked out a plan which is now in the Democratic platform.  He referred to it as "my own deal".  He's has 50+ years of experience in not giving assholes like President Toxic the red meat he wants:  "Joe Biden is for making you wear masks because he's against eating hamburgers."

As far as death threats on social media, it's why I don't have a Twitter account.  What else would anyone who equates tweeting with thinking expect?  If there were a referendum to ban Twitter, I'd vote for it.  Don't blame that on Biden.

The real problem that the twitterverse can't handle is this:  What to do with Joe Manchin?  Or Doug Jones?

If we assume Biden wins and he does want to get any version of The Green New Deal passed, he needs 50 Senate votes.  It's now extremely likely Doug Jones won't even be an option, because he'll lose.  So if Biden has 51 Democrats, he could maybe say I don't need Joe Manchin on this.  Lose one more vote and that means he needs Kamala - a Black liberal - to break a tie.  So if you start with this premise that the KHive is the nest of all evil in the galaxy, it kind of fucks up that whole Green New Deal thing.  If you follow my political logic.  

There is a generational political problem yet to be solved.  The error made by Millennials, which is understandable and innocent, was that electing Obama was enough.  In 2010 the Tea Party voted, while college students partied.  That right there determined that they'll pay for it with a conservative SCOTUS they don't like and could have blocked if they bothered to vote for a majority Democratic Senate.  As President Toxic would say, it is what it is.

Arguably, things are slightly worse since then because maybe many progressives think that politics is Twitter.  Thankfully, progressives like AOC know Twitter is a tool you use to win real power, which involves things like winning House and Senate seats.

I'm actually fairly confident that the 2020's will be the era when Millennials and Gen Z begin to make their voices and votes really heard.  Meaning in terms of enacted laws on issues like climate change.  That's as long as Biden wins and we have 50 Democratic Senators.  At the simplest level, you can do Twitter and have a great time calling Joe Manchin evil, and get nothing done.  Or you can do politics and get shit done.  That involves Joe Joe Manchin and compromise.  Everything I think I know about young progressives is that they actually want to get things done.

My own compromise position with the left-wing version of Twitter morons you're referring to is I'm more than happy to let them have their tweets.  As long as they leave me alone and just go fucking vote.

The generational change you aren't getting is that Millennials and Gen Z's want common sense workable solutions, especially where there's 70+% public support (that's called consensus-something we lost a while ago). They are 100% not interested in Democratic Party politics or Republican Party politics or Whig Party politics. Those 70+% consensus issues sometimes work against Democratic Party positions too.  And it's not even just a US thing, left-populists are against corporate liberals worldwide as being the voice of the elite and find like economic cause with the right-populists who also unfortunately are often too xenophobic and racist in their otherwise justified anti-globalism/nationalism. But as a Trumpist Marine told me when I suggested guillotines on Wall Street: "Chop, Chop, When do we start?" 

Economics should be 95% of politics but in the US we're indoctrinated into thinking superficial social issues are what matter most. I'm pretty certain that the average working-class African-American would more appreciate a $15 minimum wage and national healthcare than the word "Black" being capitalized and a couple statues being removed. Better yet, for them and everyone else in the working class, a $2000/month UBI per person. Talk and symbolic actions are cheap. Show us the money.

But the old "centrist" (ie: right-wing) Democrats are stuck in the '70's with Clinton triangulation. They think "consensus" means being Republican-lite (or pure Republican in 2020). Be exactly like the other side ("Won't change a thing") and that must be consensus so you win ! Except 70+% of the people don't agree with the policies they want being ignored. Maybe the Dems can revert to their original name of the Democratic-Republican Party; that'll get them. The pure economic fact is that the "triangulation" works very well financially for the party leaders. Plenty of "speaking fees" and multiple $50 million mansions and lake houses around the country for those Big-D Democrats. Small-D democracy doesn't pay so well for them. No wonder they can be so vicious in keeping reformers out of the party at all cost. 

And again, the traditional way to unite a political party and win is to take the 2nd place side as VP and bend over backwards to unite the party.  That has always been the #1 rule of presidential elections. The surest way to lose is like Goldwater, tell the losing side to fuck off and get out of "my" party. That's the Democrats' 2020 strategy. Maybe Trump is so horrible it will work. This year.

 

In summary: Democrats don't lose because they don't appeal to Republicans enough. They lose because they are too much like Republicans and don't appeal to educated and independent young voters enough.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by tassojunior

[stevenkesslar]

21 hours ago, tassojunior said:

The generational change you aren't getting is that Millennials and Gen Z's want common sense workable solutions, especially where there's 70+% public support (that's called consensus-something we lost a while ago).

What you're describing is real.  On the left, it is particularly true among the part of Millennials and Gen Z that support Bernie or candidates like him.  The polls and reporting make it clear that they don't particularly  identify as Democrats.  Even if they end up voting Democratic.  And views of capitalism and oligarchy and income inequality have a lot to do with it. 

To go to the left rather than right end of the spectrum,  this is why "AOC" type candidates can win in New York City.  Or "Black AOCs" like Cori Bush who White conservatives wielding guns call "Marxists" can win a Black House seat in St. Louis.  If you notice, it didn't get Bernie the Democratic nomination.  He did worse in Michigan and Wisconsin than in 2016.  So whatever direction Millennials and Gen Z are going, there is a monumental political math problem for them which we saw play out this year.

21 hours ago, tassojunior said:

But the old "centrist" (ie: right-wing) Democrats are stuck in the '70's with Clinton triangulation. They think "consensus" means being Republican-lite (or pure Republican in 2020). Be exactly like the other side ("Won't change a thing") and that must be consensus so you win ! Except 70+% of the people don't agree with the policies they want being ignored. Maybe the Dems can revert to their original name of the Democratic-Republican Party; that'll get them. The pure economic fact is that the "triangulation" works very well financially for the party leaders. Plenty of "speaking fees" and multiple $50 million mansions and lake houses around the country for those Big-D Democrats. Small-D democracy doesn't pay so well for them. No wonder they can be so vicious in keeping reformers out of the party at all cost. 

Could you name me the list of "rural AOCs" who have won in states like West Virginia?  It's all well and good to argue that Joe Manchin or Sen. Shelley Moore Capito are Clinton triangulators or corporate conservatives who only wish to spare the heads of Jim Justice and Wall Steet fat cats from the guillotine.  But the last time I checked , they were the elected US Senators from West Virginia.  Which "rural AOC"s will be taking them out in the next election cycle?  

I'm guessing that what Manchin and Capito do is more relevant to whether we have a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court than what our imaginary "rural AOC" does.  Do Millennials care about that?  That 6-3 conservative majority is the one likely to try to block anything Democrats do on: 1) climate change, 2) election reform, 3) Black and Hispanic voting rights, 4) women's right to choose 5) LGBTQ issues, 6) income inequality, 7) immigration reform.  Are these issues the ones the "70 percent" Millennial consensus cares about?  Out of curiosity, lots of young voters in states like West Virginia like guns.  Does that mean they lose their Millennial card?

My guess is that if Manchin had not voted for Justice Rapist, Republicans would now have 54 potential Republican votes to nominate and confirm a conservative.  Had "Clinton triangulator" Democrats McCaskill and Donnelly voted FOR Justice Rapist, like Manchin did, it is possible that they would have survived in 2018.  They may be "Clinton triangulators".  But it would mean that with Collins and Murkowski against it, Democrats would be in a better position to block McConnell.  Just like they did on Obamacare.  I'm focusing on one vote.  But it is one with enormous impact on just about everything Millennials and Gen Z cares about.

My real point is that one thing 2020 made clear to me is that there is no politician in America that can put together what I'll call a "Green New Deal" majority or an "Income Inequality" majority or a "Class War" majority.  Bernie tried.  Elizabeth tried.  I wish Warren had been nominated.  And I voted for Bernie.  By the time I cast my vote, it was more a vote for the future than the present.  Warren talked about wealth taxes.  The polls show overwhelming support for wealth taxes - particularly among the young, but even among the majority Republicans.  I'll be happy if we elect Joe Biden and he raises taxes on Amazon and other corporations and people who make over $400,000 a year.  We at least know the "pay your fair share" argument worked well under both Clinton and Obama.  Beyond that, no one has shown they can even win a Democratic primary running on wealth taxes.  Let alone a general election.

I fundamentally agree with many of your points.  Like I said, my vote for Bernie was essentially me saying I hope for a future where Millennials and Gen Z figure it out.  But they haven't yet.  And they're not even close.  So for now I'm going with the majority of my party, which is Joe Biden.  And if Millennials are arguing we'll just forget about West Virginia and pretend the US is Brooklyn and St. Louis, that's a losing argument.  Speaking of losers, Cynthia Nixon didn't even come close to taking out "Clinton triangulator" Andrew Cuomo in royal blue New York.  What does that tell us?