Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Milchshake]

No, it's not.

It's coming from AOC and other far leftward groups.

Spanzberger's words got leaked from a private call... AOC/DSA/Justice Dems went on blast publicly.

There's a big difference.

It took $14million for her to get under 110k votes in a D+29 district with 235k registered Dems. I’d say she needs help.



I sure hope some of that $4 million on hand goes to help Georgia ... right!

[starlord]

No they didn't.

Progressive down ballot measures won lots of votes.

they cost seats in congress.
kind of the whole point if you want nationwide influence, instead of local down ballot measures.

[kaelleria]

No they didn't.

Progressive down ballot measures won lots of votes.

In safe blue districts...

Katie Porter is like the only "progressive" that won in a less safe district.

[Endus]

This is exactly my point, by the logic of appealing to the middle, Trump should've been the worst performing candidate in history. He wasn't.

The logic is wrong.

The logic of appealing to the middle did make sense. Decades ago. The problem is that the facts have changed, and the Democrats haven't made efforts to try and adjust accordingly; they're still playing by that decades-old playbook.

Here's what I mean; the political landscape among voters used to, roughly, look like a bell curve; most Americans were centrist, and could swing either way depending on the candidate. That's how Lyndon Johnson won more than 60% of the popular vote, as a Democrat, and just 8 years later, Nixon did the same as a Republican. At least 20% of the population was willing to swing their votes, depending on the campaigns and platforms and candidates.

That middle has collapsed. The graph doesn't look like a bell curve anymore; it looks like two bell curves, with two distinct peaks, and a chasm in the middle. That's the "center", and why there's effectively no swing votes and why election results have been so narrow in the 2000s. And yes; just the 2000s. The process started before that, but it wasn't really apparent how significant the shift was until then.

It looked like this, to graph it out;



And that's why appealing to the center is a fool's errand, now. The swing votes aren't there, and if you design your platform to appeal to that center, you risk leaving the larger chunk of your potential electorate out in the cold. The Democrats had a gift, with Donald Trump, in that he presented such a clear danger that people likely overlooked this, but that's not a vote for the Democratic agenda, it's a vote against Donald Trump. Not the same thing.

Nor can you try and drag that population back to the center. That's not how politics works. Politicians represent the people, and refusal to represent the electorate is how you lose elections, and become irrelevant as a party in the long term, and some new party who does takes your place.

The logic of appealing to the center was fine. In the '60s, and even the '80s. In the 2000s? It's willfully ignorant.

[kaelleria]

The logic of appealing to the middle did make sense. Decades ago. The problem is that the facts have changed, and the Democrats haven't made efforts to try and adjust accordingly; they're still playing by that decades-old playbook.

Here's what I mean; the political landscape among voters used to, roughly, look like a bell curve; most Americans were centrist, and could swing either way depending on the candidate. That's how Lyndon Johnson won more than 60% of the popular vote, as a Democrat, and just 8 years later, Nixon did the same as a Republican. At least 20% of the population was willing to swing their votes, depending on the campaigns and platforms and candidates.

That middle has collapsed. The graph doesn't look like a bell curve anymore; it looks like two bell curves, with two distinct peaks, and a chasm in the middle. That's the "center", and why there's effectively no swing votes and why election results have been so narrow in the 2000s. And yes; just the 2000s. The process started before that, but it wasn't really apparent how significant the shift was until then.

It looked like this, to graph it out;



And that's why appealing to the center is a fool's errand, now. The swing votes aren't there, and if you design your platform to appeal to that center, you risk leaving the larger chunk of your potential electorate out in the cold. The Democrats had a gift, with Donald Trump, in that he presented such a clear danger that people likely overlooked this, but that's not a vote for the Democratic agenda, it's a vote against Donald Trump. Not the same thing.

Nor can you try and drag that population back to the center. That's not how politics works. Politicians represent the people, and refusal to represent the electorate is how you lose elections, and become irrelevant as a party in the long term, and some new party who does takes your place.

The logic of appealing to the center was fine. In the '60s, and even the '80s. In the 2000s? It's willfully ignorant.

It's the 10% in the middle that decide the election.

We're not going to appeal to republicans, but we will appeal to independents. Just look at the exit polling from this election... Biden won because he won independants. Trump won in 2016 because he appealed to independants.

[starlord]

The logic of appealing to the middle did make sense. Decades ago. The problem is that the facts have changed, and the Democrats haven't made efforts to try and adjust accordingly; they're still playing by that decades-old playbook.

Here's what I mean; the political landscape among voters used to, roughly, look like a bell curve; most Americans were centrist, and could swing either way depending on the candidate. That's how Lyndon Johnson won more than 60% of the popular vote, as a Democrat, and just 8 years later, Nixon did the same as a Republican. At least 20% of the population was willing to swing their votes, depending on the campaigns and platforms and candidates.

That middle has collapsed. The graph doesn't look like a bell curve anymore; it looks like two bell curves, with two distinct peaks, and a chasm in the middle. That's the "center", and why there's effectively no swing votes and why election results have been so narrow in the 2000s. And yes; just the 2000s. The process started before that, but it wasn't really apparent how significant the shift was until then.

It looked like this, to graph it out;



And that's why appealing to the center is a fool's errand, now. The swing votes aren't there, and if you design your platform to appeal to that center, you risk leaving the larger chunk of your potential electorate out in the cold. The Democrats had a gift, with Donald Trump, in that he presented such a clear danger that people likely overlooked this, but that's not a vote for the Democratic agenda, it's a vote against Donald Trump. Not the same thing.

Nor can you try and drag that population back to the center. That's not how politics works. Politicians represent the people, and refusal to represent the electorate is how you lose elections, and become irrelevant as a party in the long term, and some new party who does takes your place.

The logic of appealing to the center was fine. In the '60s, and even the '80s. In the 2000s? It's willfully ignorant.

i mean, as we just saw the answer to polarization is not necessarily "more polarization, but the other way."
the center is not the same everywhere either.
in texas what's considered a bleeding heart hippie is "center-right" in for example washington.

due to americas voting system there's a pretty broad range of tastes that must be catered to in order to eke out a win nationwide.

[Bodakane]

they cost seats in congress.
kind of the whole point if you want nationwide influence, instead of local down ballot measures.

In safe blue districts...

Katie Porter is like the only "progressive" that won in a less safe district.

Yeah no.

Florida.....FLORIDA....passed progressive legislation.

The DNC is not supporting progressives. they never have.

[Themius]

No, it's not.

It's coming from AOC and other far leftward groups.

Spanzberger's words got leaked from a private call... AOC/DSA/Justice Dems went on blast publicly.

There's a big difference.

Really most of it is coming from progressives? The first shit flung I saw were moderates saying "it's so close we are losing the forgotten white man we have to get away from focussing on lgbt and civil issues and get back to kitchen-table issues."

Yeah... i wonder if this has something to do with the fact we are talking about more normal everyday people of colour (often enough) versus mostly white, well to do establish democrats and different perspectives on what the fucking kitchen table issue is.

[kaid]

alaskans do love their free money tho. by all rights they ought to be a blue state... but for the guns.

i'd be ok if all trumpers moved to alaska, theres a lot of weird communes where they'd fit right in.

I have to say if there is any state for gun culture to be both logical and necessary it is alaska. A lot of people there still hunt for a non trivial amount of their yearly food and there are also a LOT more large predators that could be potentially dangerous than basically any of the lower 48.

[kaelleria]

Yeah no.

Florida.....FLORIDA....passed progressive legislation.

The DNC is not supporting progressives. they never have.

Oh man... almost like you're missing the point completely.

Florida democrats got crushed because Cuban americans believed they were socialists. This is not up for debate.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/pol...247001412.html

The policy didn't matter, the message did.

[Themius]

because progressives hurt the party this past election. they need to remember not everyone is in a true blue state where you can be as ideologically pure as you want.

Oh god, get out of here with that.

Why the fuck do moderates always argue for throwing away their values in exchange for votes THEY NEVER FUCKING GET instead they just lose their own base, and lose the votes they chased because the fucking people they're chasing are running away scared about being replaced by minorities.

You're talking about the fucking Claire McCaskill strategy, guess what she's doing now? She's not in fucking Washington that's for sure.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh man... almost like you're missing the point completely.

Florida democrats got crushed because Cuban americans believed they were socialists. This is not up for debate.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/pol...247001412.html

The policy didn't matter, the message did.

As if that fucking matters when everything is socialist according to republicans and the mush brained people who believed them did...

Conservative policies if backed by a democrat are now "socialist" this isn't a fucking messaging problem from the democrats. It's a one side lies and people eat up the lies

- - - Updated - - -

"Defund the police" was a real winner. /s

"Proud boys stand by" yeah that didn't lose him votes. So no it doesn't matter.

[Shadowferal]

No they didn't.

Progressive down ballot measures won lots of votes.

Imm...where?

[Themius]

Imm...where?

Fucking Ballot measures are you unaware what ballot measures are? Go to google and type in election, you can find ballot measures and then search by state. Shit's easy to do.

[Shadowferal]

Oh god, get out of here with that.

Why the fuck do moderates always argue for throwing away their values in exchange for votes THEY NEVER FUCKING GET instead they just lose their own base, and lose the votes they chased because the fucking people they're chasing are running away scared about being replaced by minorities.

You're talking about the fucking Claire McCaskill strategy, guess what she's doing now? She's not in fucking Washington that's for sure.

- - - Updated - - -



As if that fucking matters when everything is socialist according to republicans and the mush brained people who believed them did...

Conservative policies if backed by a democrat are now "socialist" this isn't a fucking messaging problem from the democrats. It's a one side lies and people eat up the lies

- - - Updated - - -



"Proud boys stand by" yeah that didn't lose him votes. So no it doesn't matter.

Your the one vainly claiming progressives big wins...but if you want to call a few out of the couple dozen "big wins" then go for it.
AOC crying the blues right now saying its not my fault over losses you're blind to see must have you confused at her declamation.

[Leobald]

https://www.politico.eu/article/esto...tion-comments/

This election just keeps on giving.

"The U.S. presidential election claimed another political victim: Estonian Interior Minister Mart Helme.

Helme, of the far-right party EKRE, announced his resignation after comments he made on the election were slammed by government colleagues.

“Looking at the slander and lies produced by the Estonian media, I decided to resign last night,” Helme said in a press conference Monday morning, according to Estonian news agency ERR.

On Sunday, Helme discussed the result of the American election alongside his son, Finance Minister Martin Helme, and MEP Jaak Madison on a radio talk show.

He said the “deep state” operates by pushing forward “dirtbags, corrupt dirtbags that can be blackmailed. Joe Biden and Hunter Biden are corrupt characters,” Helme senior said on the show.

His son, who said on the same show that “there can be no question that these elections were falsified,” remained in the Estonian government as of Monday afternoon.

Prime minister Jüri Ratas lambasted the “absurd” remarks, and Foreign Affairs Minister Urmas Reinsalu said they were “crazy.”

Helme is the sixth EKRE minister to resign since it joined Estonia’s three-party coalition government in April 2019. In a 2019 interview with POLITICO, he said that Donald Trump was “definitely” an inspiration."

[Thepersona]

Oh man... almost like you're missing the point completely.

Florida democrats got crushed because Cuban americans believed they were socialists. This is not up for debate.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/pol...247001412.html

The policy didn't matter, the message did.

Cuban and Venezuelan americans should stop being so fucking easily swayed by right wing propaganda.

[Edge-]

Fucking Ballot measures are you unaware what ballot measures are? Go to google and type in election, you can find ballot measures and then search by state. Shit's easy to do.

I'll repeat myself since it's been a while - Progressive policies and bills are generally pretty fuckin popular. Hell, everything from the Democrats too. Progressive politicials (and Democrats) in many areas...very much not so. Which is why you see a state that voted big for Trump also voting for a progressive policy like $15 minimum wage while not sending tons of progressive candidates to Congress.

History bears this out. Progressive/Democratic policies and bills usually are far more majority popular, either in the immediate or afterward (like the ACA) compared to Republican policies and bills like the latest Republican tax cut (which remains historically unpopular for a tax cut last I checked).

[Endus]

It's the 10% in the middle that decide the election.

We're not going to appeal to republicans, but we will appeal to independents. Just look at the exit polling from this election... Biden won because he won independants. Trump won in 2016 because he appealed to independants.

This is literally untrue. There is no apparent swing vote of independents in American elections, and there hasn't been for decades. The last time the margins in any election were greater than 10%, in the popular vote, was Reagan, in his second term. In the 2000s, the only times the popular vote margins have been greater than 5% were Obama's first term, and apparently Biden, right now ("apparently" because final counts aren't certified, I'm not disputing that's how it will be in the end).

There's no significant presence of swing votes. There's going to be some, but it's certainly not 10%. Particularly when a significant chunk of the margins we do see can get put down to variances in voter turnout; Barack Obama saw a historical turnout because he was the first African-American candidate for President. That motivated voters to the polls, and gave him the largest margin in the popular vote since Reagan. That's not "independents".

There simply isn't evidence of some major bloc of independent voters swaying American elections. Not any more. Not since the '80s, at the latest. The data flatly does not support this.

Pulling my data points from here, FWIW; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ar_vote_margin

i mean, as we just saw the answer to polarization is not necessarily "more polarization, but the other way."
the center is not the same everywhere either.
in texas what's considered a bleeding heart hippie is "center-right" in for example washington.

due to americas voting system there's a pretty broad range of tastes that must be catered to in order to eke out a win nationwide.

I'm not necessarily arguing for "more polarization", but just a decision to focus on your own base, rather than aiming for cross-appeal with an increasingly-extremist opponent. The Republicans figured that out, and that's why they're so difficult to unseat.

If anything, my proposal is "try and pull the extremists on the left back to the center-left table and give them a voice and consideration, rather than trying to appeal to the center-right". It isn't about polarizing further to the left, it's about retaining the votes that exist rather than striving for votes that simply don't exist.

When there's a lot of overlap, trying to sway voters to flip makes sense. That's not the case in the USA, right now, so that strategy won't win you elections. All you can really do at that point is focus on your own base and fire them up, and hope that wins the day. Works for Republicans. This is less about encouraging further polarization (which I'm not suggesting is a good thing), but just the practical necessities of dealing with the extant divide between voters. The cause of that chasm isn't the parties. I'd argue that it's the media divide, more than anything; you can trace a lot of this to the emergence of Fox News in the late '90s, pretty directly.

[Bodakane]

i mean, as we just saw the answer to polarization is not necessarily "more polarization, but the other way."
the center is not the same everywhere either.
in texas what's considered a bleeding heart hippie is "center-right" in for example washington.

due to americas voting system there's a pretty broad range of tastes that must be catered to in order to eke out a win nationwide.

Biden wouldn't have won without Trump's covid failure.

The simple fact of the matter is that the "middle" does not mean moderate. The middle are independents and they are independent because the parties don't represent them anymore, they are disillusioned. They want different.....that's how Trump won 2016.

[Milchshake]

Ya Progressive policies are popular ... among non-voters?

• Kinda a shame progressive spent most of 2016 2020 telling people their votes wont count, both sides somesomething.
• The whole strategy of antagonizing actual voters as "shills", "neoliberals", "corporate shills", "my parents whom I hate for sending me to private schools".
• Failure to mobilize their mythic majorities.
• Again, confusing tweet volume with representing actual people.

For people that followed politics before 2015. All of thee above applies to Ron Paul voters back in the day.

Or every "anti establishment" candidate since Wallace.