|
And it solidifies the bad parts of their reputations, when they have elections like this that they're predicted to excel in and then get romped by comparison they look incredibly out of touch, and arrogant.
Regardless of the politics of progressive candidates they're proving to be willing to do the sort of work that corporate democrats aren't. Corporate democrats are the "I wouldnt even be out here if it wasnt an election year" types. Incidentally, that that jerkoff got primaried brings my great satisfaction.
Even if we're not going to see Progressive leadership at the Presidential level, Democrats need to start letting them work their magic down ballot, they didnt lose a single race this go around, they're putting up fights against Republicans AND the DNC at the same time and making a serious fight of it, if someone like Booker got the support that someone like McGrath got, we might see a better chance of flipping some of the slightly tougher seats.
|
On November 07 2020 03:40 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 03:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 07 2020 03:32 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 07 2020 03:29 Zambrah wrote:On November 07 2020 03:27 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 07 2020 03:24 Nevuk wrote:On November 07 2020 03:14 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 07 2020 02:58 IyMoon wrote:On November 07 2020 02:57 Diavlo wrote:On November 07 2020 02:40 JimmiC wrote:
I wonder if the Reps are blocking a supreme court nominee with 3 years to go in Bidens term if that will fire up Dems enough to knock them out of the senate 2022, or motivate the rep voters to hold the senate. My guess is what McConnal will do will hinge on how he thinks it will work out for him and his senate power. I think self interest is above their desire to pack the courts. I'm guessing you can't extend the number of SCOTUS judges without 60% of the senate right? not at all. You just need to get rid of the big buster. That only takes 50+1 Practically speaking 50 + 1 isn't enough for bigger, more controversial changes like adding justices or getting rid of the filibuster. You'll usually end up with a few senators getting cold feet (usually Manchin or Sinema). Getting 50 + 1 would be important for Biden's agenda, but wouldn't really mean anything more progressive or controversial getting through. 50 is enough to reform the filibuster rather than a complete nuke, which could resolve the worst abuses. Even McCain pointed out that the 2018 change made it inevitable. It's definitely not enough for changing the courts or the green new deal, though. So uh, China, hope you have a better plan for climate change than the US (I suspect they do, if only because it'd be hard to do worse). On November 07 2020 03:24 FlaShFTW wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This is the change of vote map from 2020 compared to 2016. I think as we look, rural and cities most definitely are shifting into polar opposites, but this isn't necessarily the case in every state. Colorado had a lot of rurals move blue, same with Michigan and Wisconsin that allowed them to land into the Biden column. Same with the surrounding suburbs of the large Texas cities, and even PA we see some rural counties with some blue arrows. I think the map tells us a compelling picture of the future of our democracy and the electorate: a large battle between the rural counties, and the suburbs+urban cities. This brings me to the point of the analysis: anticipating the future of the electorate in Presidential elections. Anything can change in the next 4 years, but here is how I view the potential battle ground map of 2024: + Show Spoiler +Of course, with Trump out of office, Republican strategies must change and change dramatically. No longer will Republicans be picking if they want to be associated with Trump or not. But the ideas of Trump, things like Qanon, immigration, healthcare, will still be a choice for many Republicans. Overall, I believe that states like New Hampshire and Virginia have moved solidly into reliable blue states, while states like Ohio and Iowa have moved into reliable red states. Arizona, Georgia, and Texas, while definitely outliers for this election, will be more heavily contested. I still believe that all are lean red states, but if Dems can run a really strong ticket/good campaigning strategies, Republicans must defend these states rather than ignore them and focus on the normal battle grounds of the "blue wall" and Florida. + Show Spoiler + Florida should definitely be red, imo I think Florida is always a weird state, I don't want to give it a lean red bias just yet, Trump did manage to rile up those older and Cuban voters. We'll have to see if Republican stay on that strategy, or will they change with the changing of the guard for top of the ticket republicans? That's what big question. I think we're going to keep seeing the They're a Commie Socialist attacks basically until it stops being an attack, and I think that Florida might be the state most susceptible to that sort of attack. Most definitely. What are your thoughts on Georgia and Arizona? Part of me suspects that Arizona will be more favorable to your traditional conservatives and still cannot be considered a swing state, while a state like Georgia might also fall in that category but with a larger black demographic, could be turned into a true swing-state as well. Arizona has a growing progressive Latino population (in contrast to Florida's more conservative Latino population). Arizona will be difficult for Dems in the forseeable future but I think it should be feasible in any given election. I think Georgia really rests on turnout and youth activism going forward, and I think holding on to Georgia will be harder for Dems unless they can change who controls the state government so they can reverse all of the voter suppression tactics Republicans have used there. Seems like the consensus is that both Georgia and Arizona are still lean red then, worth attacking but not worth chasing if the election is going to depend on the northern wall. In which case, here's the updated battleground map: ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Gtkl961.png) It's fascinating to see that Reps actually picked up more states (Florida lean, Ohio, Iowa) than Dems (Virginia, NH). Republicans must actually still be quite happy with what they see from the electorate. They know Arizona and Georgia are easily flipped back to red next cycle. Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 03:36 Longshank wrote:
All in all, I think it's remarkable how calm things have been on the streets. So far(!) we haven't seen anything of what people feared comming in to this election. Thumbsup. Well Trump has been more sad than angry, so it really comes down to his mood and how he wants to lash out or just feel pathetic.
I don't think GA will stay red. It's had a massive, dramatic blue shift. It used to be one of the most reliable red states in the country.
The last time it voted for a democrat was Clinton, which had Ross Perot on the ballot, and before that it was in 1980, forty years ago (and Carter is from Georgia).
It's gone from R+10 to R+5 to R+2~3 in the last 3 elections.
Its youth is extremely left leaning and it has high immigration levels from liberal states, who don't appear to be fleeing there mainly to escape liberals (which is a difference from Texas : a lot of the voters moving from Cali to Texas are much more conservative than the average californian, I assume to escape Cali liberals).
MI/WI may drift red, but without Trump we really don't know how the GOP plays in the rust belt.
|
Enjoying a day of watching Fox News. The reality denial is real.
|
While I'm glad it happened, it's not too persuasive to talk about the success of the progressive Democrats not losing without knowing the lean of their seats. Especially since they lost 14 of the 17 seats they tried to primary, so they're self-selecting the most favorable seats.
The challengers were in D +10.7, +29, and +24. It would have been a disaster if they lost.
|
On November 07 2020 03:46 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 03:45 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans are still favored in a basic election imo, like theyll probably win next time if Democrats dont make an effort to prove they give a shit about people and start to shed their Ivory Tower Elite stigma.
GA and AZ could honestly turn into proper Blue Wall type states within a decade if the Democrats stop being so self satisfied and smug about themselves and get to work there. Yes, Dems need to stop taking for granted their minority vote. They are a massively growing demographic but they just expect to gain their trust. Dems have always lacked in this department which allows Republicans, even with arguably worse policies and ideals, to continue to win elections.
I dunno. Republicans are in an easier position than the Democrats in that they don't need to talk to the median voter--they have enough of an electoral college advantage that winning the popular vote isn't critical (they've only done that once in the last eight elections), and an even bigger senate advantage. They can speak for their base and avoid having to compromise about pushing their agenda.
Whereas the Democrats as the big tent party will always either be annoying progressives or more moderate groups of minorities (or both) and risking depressing turnout to their detriment in elections.
|
3/17 is actually a pretty good number for taking out incumbents in primaries. It's extremely difficult to do (moreso than beating them in a general election).
|
United States10579 Posts
On November 07 2020 03:55 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 03:40 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 07 2020 03:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 07 2020 03:32 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 07 2020 03:29 Zambrah wrote:On November 07 2020 03:27 FlaShFTW wrote:On November 07 2020 03:24 Nevuk wrote:On November 07 2020 03:14 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On November 07 2020 02:58 IyMoon wrote:On November 07 2020 02:57 Diavlo wrote:
[quote]
I'm guessing you can't extend the number of SCOTUS judges without 60% of the senate right?
not at all. You just need to get rid of the big buster. That only takes 50+1 Practically speaking 50 + 1 isn't enough for bigger, more controversial changes like adding justices or getting rid of the filibuster. You'll usually end up with a few senators getting cold feet (usually Manchin or Sinema). Getting 50 + 1 would be important for Biden's agenda, but wouldn't really mean anything more progressive or controversial getting through. 50 is enough to reform the filibuster rather than a complete nuke, which could resolve the worst abuses. Even McCain pointed out that the 2018 change made it inevitable. It's definitely not enough for changing the courts or the green new deal, though. So uh, China, hope you have a better plan for climate change than the US (I suspect they do, if only because it'd be hard to do worse). On November 07 2020 03:24 FlaShFTW wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This is the change of vote map from 2020 compared to 2016. I think as we look, rural and cities most definitely are shifting into polar opposites, but this isn't necessarily the case in every state. Colorado had a lot of rurals move blue, same with Michigan and Wisconsin that allowed them to land into the Biden column. Same with the surrounding suburbs of the large Texas cities, and even PA we see some rural counties with some blue arrows. I think the map tells us a compelling picture of the future of our democracy and the electorate: a large battle between the rural counties, and the suburbs+urban cities. This brings me to the point of the analysis: anticipating the future of the electorate in Presidential elections. Anything can change in the next 4 years, but here is how I view the potential battle ground map of 2024: + Show Spoiler +Of course, with Trump out of office, Republican strategies must change and change dramatically. No longer will Republicans be picking if they want to be associated with Trump or not. But the ideas of Trump, things like Qanon, immigration, healthcare, will still be a choice for many Republicans. Overall, I believe that states like New Hampshire and Virginia have moved solidly into reliable blue states, while states like Ohio and Iowa have moved into reliable red states. Arizona, Georgia, and Texas, while definitely outliers for this election, will be more heavily contested. I still believe that all are lean red states, but if Dems can run a really strong ticket/good campaigning strategies, Republicans must defend these states rather than ignore them and focus on the normal battle grounds of the "blue wall" and Florida. + Show Spoiler + Florida should definitely be red, imo I think Florida is always a weird state, I don't want to give it a lean red bias just yet, Trump did manage to rile up those older and Cuban voters. We'll have to see if Republican stay on that strategy, or will they change with the changing of the guard for top of the ticket republicans? That's what big question. I think we're going to keep seeing the They're a Commie Socialist attacks basically until it stops being an attack, and I think that Florida might be the state most susceptible to that sort of attack. Most definitely. What are your thoughts on Georgia and Arizona? Part of me suspects that Arizona will be more favorable to your traditional conservatives and still cannot be considered a swing state, while a state like Georgia might also fall in that category but with a larger black demographic, could be turned into a true swing-state as well. Arizona has a growing progressive Latino population (in contrast to Florida's more conservative Latino population). Arizona will be difficult for Dems in the forseeable future but I think it should be feasible in any given election. I think Georgia really rests on turnout and youth activism going forward, and I think holding on to Georgia will be harder for Dems unless they can change who controls the state government so they can reverse all of the voter suppression tactics Republicans have used there. Seems like the consensus is that both Georgia and Arizona are still lean red then, worth attacking but not worth chasing if the election is going to depend on the northern wall. In which case, here's the updated battleground map: It's fascinating to see that Reps actually picked up more states (Florida lean, Ohio, Iowa) than Dems (Virginia, NH). Republicans must actually still be quite happy with what they see from the electorate. They know Arizona and Georgia are easily flipped back to red next cycle. On November 07 2020 03:36 Longshank wrote:
All in all, I think it's remarkable how calm things have been on the streets. So far(!) we haven't seen anything of what people feared comming in to this election. Thumbsup. Well Trump has been more sad than angry, so it really comes down to his mood and how he wants to lash out or just feel pathetic. I don't think GA will stay red. It's had a massive, dramatic blue shift. It used to be one of the most reliable red states in the country. The last time it voted for a democrat was Clinton, which had Ross Perot on the ballot, and before that it was in 1980, forty years ago (and Carter is from Georgia). It's gone from R+10 to R+5 to R+2~3 in the last 3 elections. Its youth is extremely left leaning and it has high immigration levels from liberal states, who don't appear to be fleeing there mainly to escape liberals (which is a difference from Texas : a lot of the voters moving from Cali to Texas are much more conservative than the average californian, I assume to escape Cali liberals). MI/WI may drift red, but without Trump we really don't know how the GOP plays in the rust belt.
Problem with trying to predict this is that so many variables change when you remove Trump. Each state reacts differently to Trump, but I feel like his super red populist strategy to rural counties is what allowed him to win the north the first time around, and got damn near close again this time around. I think MI/WI are likely to actually be 1/2 points blue on average without Trump, maybe even more.
|
On November 07 2020 03:55 Savant wrote:
Enjoying a day of watching Fox News. The reality denial is real.
Still?
We had different moments, where Fox seemed to be somewhat reasonable.
(meaning not living in a parralel universe, regarding voter fraud and Trumps chances)
|
On November 07 2020 03:57 Nevuk wrote:
3/17 is actually a pretty good number for taking out incumbents in primaries. It's extremely difficult to do (moreso than beating them in a general election).
That's true! But there's still a dramatic selection process such that it's naive at best and misleading at worst to simply extrapolate their success in counties where they won to their hypothetical chances in counties where they lost.
|
United States10579 Posts
|
I'm in favor of progressivism, but I find it hard to believe tilting farther left is the answer when half the electorate proved themselves to be stark racists. Democrats need to work with the electorate we have, not the one we should have. There's nothing to gain from dying on the hill of ideology. It's time to tone down the rhetoric and rein in the extremists. You can explain the nuances of the meaning of "Defund the Police" to me all you want, but here in Texas it's clear you're making it all too easy.
|
I'm not going to say that Booker would've beaten McConnell in Kentucky, it IS Kentucky, but he put up a fight against a Pro Trump Conservative Democrat in Kentucky and he did it against a TON of DNC money, that primary was mad close and it was mad close because he was really connecting to the electorate. Obviously he lost, money is still really powerful in elections, but if Democrats werent trying so hard to fight their progressives we might see a mixture of Money and Groundswell that would work better than the Democrats current strategy. It would at least lay a groundwork to shift states blue. Like, I don't think we see a blue GA without the work that people like Abrams are doing, if she was a Nancy Pelosi Georgia would surely be red.
I reiterate that Progressives arent a shoe-in to win literally any election, but they're making the right efforts and making strides against some pretty rough competition that would see what the US might consider a "normal" candidate crushed imo.
On November 07 2020 04:02 Savant wrote:
I'm in favor of progressivism, but I find it hard to believe tilting farther left is the answer when half the electorate proved themselves to be stark racists. Democrats need to work with the electorate we have, not the one we should have. There's nothing to gain from dying on the hill of ideology. It's time to tone down the rhetoric and rein in the extremists. You can explain the nuances of the meaning of "Defund the Police" to me all you want, but here in Texas it's clear you're making it all too easy.
You're looking at this from the wrong view imo. You're looking at this from a modern Democrat view, look at it from an FDR Democrat view, these people who are voting for the racist party are often going to be poorer people feeling left behind by the economy and country at large. They're not racist because they're inherently that way, they're racist because theyre pushed that way by Republicans pushing the brown people are ruining your lives shit. If Democrats appealed to making their lives better, bringing wages up, bringing strong unions back, etc. I think there are strong, strong inroads to make when it comes to what one might consider a prime Trump voter.
We just need to stop saying, "theyre racist and shitty and we have to give up or become Republicans to appeal to them." You'll never be Republican enough when there are real Republicans around. Better to improve their lives, prove you care, do things people really want to have done, and win their trust.
|
If the Dems should have learned one thing from this election then it is that they need to stop the progressive shift. The loss of Hispanic and Latino voters in Florida is a total disaster, and imagine what would have happened if some hardcore Green New Deal type candidate had run in Pennsylvania. Given the results now it looks like pretty much anyone but Klobuchar maybe would have gotten rolled in this election.
|
United States10579 Posts
|
On November 07 2020 03:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 03:57 Nevuk wrote:
3/17 is actually a pretty good number for taking out incumbents in primaries. It's extremely difficult to do (moreso than beating them in a general election). That's true! But there's still a dramatic selection process such that it's naive at best and misleading at worst to simply extrapolate their success in counties where they won to their hypothetical chances in counties where they lost.
True. It's like the Biden/Bernie theoreticals. Bernie would have done better in the southeast/southwest and IA, but probably worse in OH/FL. PA/MI/WI would still be ???.
On November 07 2020 04:02 Savant wrote:
I'm in favor of progressivism, but I find it hard to believe tilting farther left is the answer when half the electorate proved themselves to be stark racists. Democrats need to work with the electorate we have, not the one we should have. There's nothing to gain from dying on the hill of ideology. It's time to tone down the rhetoric and rein in the extremists. You can explain the nuances of the meaning of "Defund
the Police" to me all you want, but here in Texas it's clear you're making it all too easy.
I think people are missing the key reason why they can't alienate progressives. It's demographic shift (not racially, age-wise). This is the last election that the DNC can even think about winning without exciting millennial and gen z voters. Just because they have something like 70/20 favorables with the GOP doesn't mean they'll vote for a chuck schumer, as they have 55/45 favorables for Socialism/Capitalism too.
They're trying to balance this out, but it'll be rough for both parties. The GOP dies if it keeps these numbers with the <45 voters for another decade and the democrats die if the <40 demographic turnout dips in the meantime.
Progressive economic policies don't generally have a lot to do with racial politics, which yes, that is how we got such a high % of white voters voting for trump.
On November 07 2020 04:05 Nyxisto wrote:
If the Dems should have learned one thing from this election then it is that they need to stop the progressive shift. The loss of Hispanic and Latino voters in Florida is a total disaster, and imagine what would have happened if some hardcore Green New Deal type candidate had run in Pennsylvania. Given the results now it looks like pretty much anyone but Klobuchar maybe would have gotten rolled in this election.
We really don't know. FL has been a lost cause since 2000, imo. Winning it in 2008 and 2012 didn't change the election, and the red shift is too large to overcome.
|
I guess I would just need to see evidence progressive candidates won seats that were worse than R + 3 to think there needs to be a deep dive left. And so far I'm not seeing it as I browse the candidates endorsed by progressive groups listed in this article.
In fact, more than a couple of them got dunked on in heavy R places worse than the partisan lean would suggest.
It's hard, though, since almost across the board they won either districts that were suicide (which nobody cares about) or districts that were shoe-ins (where it wouldn't matter who won except as an effect on up-ticket votes).
|
On November 07 2020 04:05 Nyxisto wrote:
If the Dems should have learned one thing from this election then it is that they need to stop the progressive shift. The loss of Hispanic and Latino voters in Florida is a total disaster, and imagine what would have happened if some hardcore Green New Deal type candidate had run in Pennsylvania. Given the results now it looks like pretty much anyone but Klobuchar maybe would have gotten rolled in this election.
Isn't it the progressives that are actually gaining seats for the democrats?
|
On November 07 2020 04:05 Nyxisto wrote:
If the Dems should have learned one thing from this election then it is that they need to stop the progressive shift. The loss of Hispanic and Latino voters in Florida is a total disaster, and imagine what would have happened if some hardcore Green New Deal type candidate had run in Pennsylvania. Given the results now it looks like pretty much anyone but Klobuchar maybe would have gotten rolled in this election.
I keep hearing people say that Progressives are bad cause Florida but I do have to point this out
You DO know that Biden DID NOT WIN FLORIDA, right?
The Conservative Democrat lost that Hispanic Latino Florida voter.
|
United States10579 Posts
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1324768077939118083?s=20
Jesus what is happening to him? He's basically begging now. No caps anywhere either, dude is really grasping hard. At least before he was somewhat comical if not dangerous to our country, now he's just... well... sad and pathetic. It's like Envy from Fullmetal Alchemist, on the outside he was this massive green indestructible monster, now he's just this squirming little runt.
![[image loading]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/fE_c3BlhnJRmqbI7QSUN72eRdzgjATExEKbWTc0GJHLzB_OyDCeExTN6P_R1PWJY81nDKAjzSq2OL4DgfiIJBiheSAXBLwQjAcNNQdrmw5_6pUHM-yWnkfEEYwbG_Z15BKxRMe_GlX1u2W1E-pcKnQ-_)
EDIT: he hasn't used caps in 11 hours. Someone wanna check on him?
|
On November 07 2020 04:09 lowdice wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 04:05 Nyxisto wrote:
If the Dems should have learned one thing from this election then it is that they need to stop the progressive shift. The loss of Hispanic and Latino voters in Florida is a total disaster, and imagine what would have happened if some hardcore Green New Deal type candidate had run in Pennsylvania. Given the results now it looks like pretty much anyone but Klobuchar maybe would have gotten rolled in this election. Isn't it the progressives that are actually gaining seats for the democrats?
Not from what I'm seeing in the House. Don't see progressive candidates flipping any R seats and don't see any outperforming the lean in red districts. But I could not have gotten to them yet.
Of course, there's another element of them outperforming in blue districts and helping up-ticket performance; that's possible, I haven't looked at that yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CP9ARzy.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/g64glQN.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/XoWbZO7.png)
