SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[AniThyng]

I was reading some comments on the terminal Lance (the webcomic by an ex marine) Facebook page and the Republican leaning commentators were all about telling the democratic leaning commentators to enjoy being sucked into new wars, e.g. a narrative where it was the democrats ( and bush/Cheney) that simultaneously neglect the military and use it to fight pointless wars...

[Nicholas]

My bet is on very few, and those who do are going to switch parties not stay Republicans. Win or lose Trump has created a GOP coalition that has a real possibility to be a long term majority party. He is not going to be abandoned by the party until and unless that possibility proves to be a mirage.

Trump built a coalition consisting of:

Social Conservatives - who are desperate to control the courts in order to protect the laws they want in areas where they are still a majority and prevent the courts or the national majority from outlawing their beliefs as racism has been outlawed.
American Nationalists - there are white supremists here, but also people who believe that America has generally been good and want American history to be presented as a steady improvement and people who believe American culture is superior and immigrants should embrace it.
The Middle/Working Class - by this I mean the middle 60% of the US population income wise. These voters support trade and immigration restrictions because both threaten to cut their wages and favor entitlements for themselves but tend to feel those who refuse to work are ripping the system off and that the wealthy are being protected from the consequences of their actions and they resent both groups.

This coalition proved quite loyal and resilient in this election and also capable of attracting non-white voters to the GOP. The exit polls I have seen say that Trump won about 35% of the non-white vote, which is the highest the GOP share of the minority vote has been since 1960. This despite Trump's racism. If Republicans can raise that to 40% there is a Republican majority here, Trump won't be abandoned while this possibility is in play.

Nicholas

Oh, the coalition and policies will remain. I'm pretty sure that what you outlined is also the coalition that got Reagan and Bush into power. It's Trump himself that a lot of people will try to pretend never existed. Stuff will likely be co-opted by an establishment figure like Christie or Cruz.

Admittedly, this is largely based on how few Republicans I see who'll own their votes for Bush in 2000/2004, despite being rabid followers at the time. Fucked if I know if it will be right, but guessing is fun.

Yep, guessing is fun.

Ignoring the bits of Trump that were unpopular isn't the same thing at all as disavowing him. Every president has things he did that members of his party don't like, they just don't talk about those while talking about the parts that advance their current interests. No Republican will say Trump's lack of organization and discipline is to be imitated any more then any Democrat will say that Bill Clinton's treatment of Monica Lewinsky is to be imitated. Trump might be ignored, but even that isn't the same as disavowed.

As for the coalition, the first yes. The other two, no. The coalition that elected Regan the Social Conservatives, the anti-Communists and the Upper Class. The coalition that elected (and especially reelected) Bush II was the Social Conservatives, the Neo-Conservatives (who thought the US should be much more active abroad), and the upper class. The huge change Trump has catalyzed is the shift in the class structure of the parties. The rich are now leaning strongly Democratic while the working class is leaning Republican (obviously there are a lot of other factors that complicate this). I predict that the appeal of Trump to those new Republican voters will remain. Since Trump's favorite part of being President appeared to be his rallies I expect he will be happy to hold them in support of other Republican candidates and that Trump is going to stay popular enough that a lot of Republican candidates will want to have rallies with former President Trump.

Nicholas

[Dalton]

Hopefully once he assumes office, Biden doesn't do a Ford and issue a blanket pardon for all the shit Trump has done, and instead leave him to face justice or whatever passes for it.

Not gonna help with NYAG. Letitia James is going to ravage him.

[Gandalf]

I'd be curious to see a breakdown of the effect of the 2020 Republican coddling. The Lincoln Project did a bunch of ads aimed at flipping Republicans, and the DNC gave Kasich a big block of time at the convention. To what outcome? Kasich certainly didn't flip Ohio.

[Soontir C'boath]

I'd be curious to see a breakdown of the effect of the 2020 Republican coddling. The Lincoln Project did a bunch of ads aimed at flipping Republicans, and the DNC gave Kasich a big block of time at the convention. To what outcome? Kasich certainly didn't flip Ohio.

Yea, the Democratic Party at this point, is gaslighting its own constituents.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I'd be curious to see a breakdown of the effect of the 2020 Republican coddling. The Lincoln Project did a bunch of ads aimed at flipping Republicans, and the DNC gave Kasich a big block of time at the convention. To what outcome? Kasich certainly didn't flip Ohio.

I'd guess that mostly just gave some Republican voters cover to split their tickets. Given the strong headwinds against them, the GOP did really well this election cycle ... they've put themselves into a position of dominance at the state level, just in time for redistricting. They cut the Democrats' House majority to a tiny sliver. They're on-track to retain their Senate majority (unless Georgia Democrats can pull off a January turnout miracle.)

Sure, they lost the Presidency, but 2020's election was all-but-guaranteed to be a referendum on Donald Trump; and he sealed his fate with his shambolic response to COVID-19.

[Ziggy Stardust]

No one in the military would answer his call. Partly because of military discipline and largely because they don't want to disappoint their fellow soldiers. Militia types within the army would actually support the new government because they would love an opportunity to shoot at someone, even if it is their former militia buddies.

Trump has been busy the past few days sacking the Defense Secretary and other top Pentagon officials and replacing them with lackies who will do his bidding. The most recent numbers I can find put Trump's support in the military at around 38%. By no means a tiny minority who may gleefully go along with orders from the new leadership to ensure a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'd guess that mostly just gave some Republican voters cover to split their tickets. Given the strong headwinds against them, the GOP did really well this election cycle ... they've put themselves into a position of dominance at the state level, just in time for redistricting. They cut the Democrats' House majority to a tiny sliver. They're on-track to retain their Senate majority (unless Georgia Democrats can pull off a January turnout miracle.)

Sure, they lost the Presidency, but 2020's election was all-but-guaranteed to be a referendum on Donald Trump; and he sealed his fate with his shambolic response to COVID-19.

Yeah, it seems like there were some anti-Trump down-ballot Republican votes in Michigan and Wisconsin, particularly. Ultimately the electoral map doesn't look that much different from 2012. The big flip for Dems compared to 2012 is Georgia, but at the cost of losing Ohio and Illinois. Basically, not much has really happened to shift the electoral battle-lines. The numbers I am seeing indicate that Republicans desertions played a very small role in this election, this was really about high turnout.

If anything, the big worry sign for the Democrats is how well the Republicans did at expanding their base, as they are doing a lot better among Hispanics (and not just Cubans) and African-Americans this time around. For a long time the basic assumption of the Democrats was that demography would inevitably favor them; as the country gets more diverse, there would be more people opposed to an anti-diversity party like the Republicans. Unfortunately, diversity brings with it diversity of opinions as well, and what this election has shown is that this assumption about demography was ill-founded and the Democrats can't assume that minorities will automatically vote for them just because the Republicans are more racist.

[His Divine Shadow]

AOC has already commented on it and given guidelines for how to combat it. The DNC won't be having it though, too busy huffing their own farts right now and calling for more moderate politics. They just don't want to realize brunch isn't coming back.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's pretty amazing that most of the seats the Dems lost were those held by moderate/centrists candidates and a variety of progressive ballot measures passed even in deep red states like Mississippi and Florida, and yet the DNC still blames the "far left" for everything. The cognitive dissonance in the DNC is almost as strong as that among the Trumpists.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Once again the Dems begin their inevitable Post Election meltdown of screaming
"WE DIDN'T DO AS WELL BECAUSE WE WERE TOO LIBERAL AND NOT MODERATE ENOUGH!!"
Even though literally every metric is showing it is the opposite of what actually happened.
I remember back after the pasting Obama got from the Teaparty, when they started purging all THEIR moderates.
Back then for most of us the message was clear... "Get rid of wishy-washy people who are only 'sometimes' on your side"

[Highlord Laan]

As a party, the Democrats won't change from their pathetic, mindless centrism until more of the old guard and their boomer base finally die.

And until that happens, things like the 2020 election will be the exception, not the rule. The younger voters the Dems rely on are beyond sick of their do-nothing shit and flat out refusals to change. The only reason Biden made it is because his opponent was fucking trump. Had the republican party turned on that grandstanding shithead manchild and put someone sane on the ballot, the election probably would have gone differently.

The DNC will keep continually and deliberately ignoring this until either they're crushed out of political relevance, or the country burns down at the command of subhuman scum like mcconnel.

[His Divine Shadow]

The future of the DNC is not up to the DNC but people like AOC, Omar, Tlaib and Abrams doing grassroots work and organising a base independently of the central democratic party (but which will vote for progressive democratic candidates).

[FireNexus]

The future of the DNC is not up to the DNC but people like AOC, Omar, Tlaib and Abrams doing grassroots work and organising a base independently of the central democratic party (but which will vote for progressive democratic candidates).

AOC, Omar, and Tlaib are in Dem +20 or higher districts. They’re certainly the future of safe Democratic seats, but I’d have to see some kind of proof that they have had any meaningful positive impact in less solid seats. So far, all I see are consistent claims (provided without evidence) that they are somehow doing great things for Democrats writ large. Perhaps the claims that they are actually hurting are overblown, but it’s in no way clear that they are helping right now. They appear to have as much claim to the Democratic as in this year as the Lincoln Project, which ain’t much.

Abrams has indisputably delivered Georgia, but I’m not sure why she belongs in the same category as the other three. It looks awfully like just a desire on your part to lend them unearned clout by rhetorically tying them to her meaningful organizing successes since they have none. Which is a neat trick to use on dumb people who already agree with your contentions that they are the future, I guess, but doesn’t actually make the case that they have done any good at all or that their brand of progressivism is now or soon to be politically viable in most of the country.

[FireNexus]

Once again the Dems begin their inevitable Post Election meltdown of screaming
"WE DIDN'T DO AS WELL BECAUSE WE WERE TOO LIBERAL AND NOT MODERATE ENOUGH!!"
Even though literally every metric is showing it is the opposite of what actually happened.
I remember back after the pasting Obama got from the Teaparty, when they started purging all THEIR moderates.
Back then for most of us the message was clear... "Get rid of wishy-washy people who are only 'sometimes' on your side"

Which metrics? Literally every metric that I can see shows that Democrats downballot underperformed Biden pretty much everywhere beside very blue places where they run about even with him. I think it may be premature to claim that the progressives threw the downballot, but there is no evidence I’m aware of that the opposite happened.

I’ve seen claims about the meaning of certain ballot initiatives progressives tend to like overperforming Democrats in a few states. This is the same election where exploitation of poor people won an overwhelming popular vote victory in California, though, so it might be a little complicated to find a straight line from ballot measure performance to candidates or unrelated policies.

[Darth Yan]

The future of the DNC is not up to the DNC but people like AOC, Omar, Tlaib and Abrams doing grassroots work and organising a base independently of the central democratic party (but which will vote for progressive democratic candidates).

AOC, Omar, and Tlaib are in Dem +20 or higher districts. They’re certainly the future of safe Democratic seats, but I’d have to see some kind of proof that they have had any meaningful positive impact in less solid seats. So far, all I see are consistent claims (provided without evidence) that they are somehow doing great things for Democrats writ large. Perhaps the claims that they are actually hurting are overblown, but it’s in no way clear that they are helping right now. They appear to have as much claim to the Democratic as in this year as the Lincoln Project, which ain’t much.

Abrams has indisputably delivered Georgia, but I’m not sure why she belongs in the same category as the other three. It looks awfully like just a desire on your part to lend them unearned clout by rhetorically tying them to her meaningful organizing successes since they have none. Which is a neat trick to use on dumb people who already agree with your contentions that they are the future, I guess, but doesn’t actually make the case that they have done any good at all or that their brand of progressivism is now or soon to be politically viable in most of the country.

In Florida a minimum wage initiative did very well on the ballot. Biden could have gotten a better showing if he'd pushed it. By and large progressive policies are popular amongst a lot of voters, and yet Pelosi and the old guard are constantly ignoring that. They're timid as hell and it's irritating

[FireNexus]

In Florida a minimum wage initiative did very well on the ballot. Biden could have gotten a better showing if he'd pushed it.

I addressed that just above:

I’ve seen claims about the meaning of certain ballot initiatives progressives tend to like overperforming Democrats in a few states. This is the same election where exploitation of poor people won an overwhelming popular vote victory in California, though, so it might be a little complicated to find a straight line from ballot measure performance to candidates or unrelated policies.

[Ziggy Stardust]

AOC, Omar, and Tlaib are in Dem +20 or higher districts. They’re certainly the future of safe Democratic seats, but I’d have to see some kind of proof that they have had any meaningful positive impact in less solid seats. So far, all I see are consistent claims (provided without evidence) that they are somehow doing great things for Democrats writ large. Perhaps the claims that they are actually hurting are overblown, but it’s in no way clear that they are helping right now. They appear to have as much claim to the Democratic as in this year as the Lincoln Project, which ain’t much.

Abrams has indisputably delivered Georgia, but I’m not sure why she belongs in the same category as the other three. It looks awfully like just a desire on your part to lend them unearned clout by rhetorically tying them to her meaningful organizing successes since they have none. Which is a neat trick to use on dumb people who already agree with your contentions that they are the future, I guess, but doesn’t actually make the case that they have done any good at all or that their brand of progressivism is now or soon to be politically viable in most of the country.

Do you actually have an argument other than "progressives are dumb"? Given your very vocal history of blind rabid hatred for Bernie Sanders it's difficult for me to accept that you are saying any of this in good faith.

I mean seriously, dude, can you get a grip? You are acting like this is the first time anybody has ever mentioned AOC and Abrams in the same breath (clearly you don't watch the news, because this is super common) and implying the only possible reason to do so is as some sort of dirty trick to make progressives look better. This is almost TRR levels of hyperventilation.

[Soontir C'boath]

The future of the DNC is not up to the DNC but people like AOC, Omar, Tlaib and Abrams doing grassroots work and organising a base independently of the central democratic party (but which will vote for progressive democratic candidates).

AOC, Omar, and Tlaib are in Dem +20 or higher districts. They’re certainly the future of safe Democratic seats, but I’d have to see some kind of proof that they have had any meaningful positive impact in less solid seats. So far, all I see are consistent claims (provided without evidence) that they are somehow doing great things for Democrats writ large. Perhaps the claims that they are actually hurting are overblown, but it’s in no way clear that they are helping right now. They appear to have as much claim to the Democratic as in this year as the Lincoln Project, which ain’t much.

Perhaps that as more safe seats become more progressive and the issues continue to be more popular (as if polling hasn't shown that already), the lesser safe seats can campaign on having an actual message that is not "we're just Republican lite, I swear" and maybe actually give Democrats something to vote for.

On the other hand, we've already seen the same centrist policies took a bloodbath back in 2010 and have ridiculously lost a few House seats this year. Also, not sure how it helps to have say an Amy McGrath, who had campaigned on wooing Trump supporters by pretty much saying McConnell doesn't support Trump's agenda.

Abrams has indisputably delivered Georgia, but I’m not sure why she belongs in the same category as the other three. It looks awfully like just a desire on your part to lend them unearned clout by rhetorically tying them to her meaningful organizing successes since they have none. Which is a neat trick to use on dumb people who already agree with your contentions that they are the future, I guess, but doesn’t actually make the case that they have done any good at all or that their brand of progressivism is now or soon to be politically viable in most of the country.

I wouldn't put Abrams in line with the squad and progressive policies. However, to presume Black Lives Matters, Defund the Police, etc didn't play a huge role that Pelosi and Co. paid only lip service to would be utterly disrespectful.

[FireNexus]

Do you actually have an argument other than "progressives are dumb"?

Yes. It’s “I don’t see evidence for the claims of progressives that just not being sufficiently progressive is why Democrats lost”. And I don’t. Please provide some.

Given your very vocal history of blind rabid hatred for Bernie Sanders it's difficult for me to accept that you are saying any of this in good faith.

Why? I’m always operating in good faith about my rabid hatred of Bernie Sanders. And that had much less to do with policy than Bernie himself being a particularly big asshole.

But I’ll admit that I am reflexively skeptical of progressives claiming that it’s obvious Democrats lost by being insufficiently progressive. And that it is because the same basic shape of those claims (though with such a difference of degree that it is one of kind) got made in all manner of ways to make excuses for the weakness of Bernie Sanders/to justify his behavior during both runs.

Still, I’m skeptical. Not immune. Perhaps if you were to provide the evidence I’d asked for rather than attack me personally over some shit we aren’t talking about, I would be convinced.

mean seriously, dude, can you get a grip? You are acting like this is the first time anybody has ever mentioned AOC and Abrams in the same breath

No, I’m acting like tying them together in a statement about “the future of the party” is simultaneously overstating AOC’s contributions and understating Abrams’. The former are unclear and disputed, the latter are indisputable and obvious. Am I wrong? Just pointing to the evidence I previously stated wasn’t around would help to prove it if so.

and implying the only possible reason to do so is as some sort of dirty trick to make progressives look better. This is almost TRR levels of hyperventilation.

Let me clarify. I think mentioning them in the context of “high profile Democratic women of color” or “rising stars in the party” or something like that is fine, and common as you say. But the specific context in question was “the people who have been doing grassroots work and building the base”. Then there were three people who have brought a lot of National small cash into safe dem districts and shown strength in safe dem primaries, and one person who flipped a previously safe red state by spending years battling the disenfranchisement machine of the old south in the era of a gutted Voting Rights Act. They’re not in the same league. They’re not even playing the same sport.

I don’t think it’s intentionally dishonest. I think it’s a bunch of Very Online Left types getting into their bubbles and sniffing their own farts and the message sort of evolving because it makes them feel good about themselves and confirms their priors. I should have been more clear. The implication of a grand conspiracy rather than regular groupthink stupidity was very TRR. Thanks for the criticism, I really appreciate it.

[Darth Yan]

Who registered new black voters in Georgia? That would be progressive groups like BLM. Omar also mobilized Detroit, which was critical to Biden’s success.

I honestly think you would ignore evidence even if it was presented. Progressive groups have offered help in other areas and were told to fuck off by the DNC

A lot of people LIKE Medicare for all, even republicans.

[FireNexus]

Perhaps that as more safe seats become more progressive and the issues continue to be more popular (as if polling hasn't shown that already), the lesser safe seats can campaign on having an actual message that is not "we're just Republican lite, I swear" and maybe actually give Democrats something to vote for.

This is supposition, not evidence.

On the other hand, we've already seen the same centrist policies took a bloodbath back in 2010 and have ridiculously lost a few House seats this year.

The party of the sitting President losing seats during a depression is hardly unusual. It’s also a heavy lift to tie it to being insufficiently progressive when it was the birth of the tea party (which successfully campaigned on shit like highways being socialist).

As far as this year, yes. I understand you believe it was due to insufficiently progressive policies. But you believing that something is right and people who don’t agree losing is correlation rather than causation.

Also, not sure how it helps to have say an Amy McGrath, who had campaigned on wooing Trump supporters by pretty much saying McConnell doesn't support Trump's agenda.

It helps because Amy McGrath can be whipped and is beholden to the party at least marginally. Republicans said the same shit about their “moderates”. But theirs got with the program where it counted and ours would, too. They won’t campaign on Medicare for all because it’s a bad strategy where they are. Perhaps there is too much timidity on that point in less marginal places, but Arizona ain’t the Bronx. At least not yet.

I wouldn't put Abrams in line with the squad and progressive policies. However, to presume Black Lives Matters, Defund the Police, etc didn't play a huge role that Pelosi and Co. paid only lip service to would be utterly disrespectful.

It seemed to play that role by running up the score in black areas where voter suppression was able to be overcome. Which is good, and desirable. But if you’re in a situation where even a large majority of black people polled don’t support your slogan ostensibly designed to help them (defund the police) and you spend six months explaining over and over how “defund the police” doesn’t mean what it’s detractors are saying (unsuccessfully, because it’s still unpopular) then lose a bunch of seats due to a historically motivated turnout from the opposition...

It just seems weird that you would be more willing to tie that loss of seats to the party leadership not getting on board with the slogan rather than the party leadership not getting on board because it was obviously a losing slogan. If you were good at politics you would take a look inside and rebrand that shit to something that at least a majority of the people police are still murdering approve of. Maybe party leadership getting on board would have provided critical mass. Or maybe it would have blown up in everyone’s face and we’d be hearing about how they didn’t get on board enough after losing the Presidency to an unpopular message.

Like, defund the police ain’t Black Lives Matter. It’s much less popular, and considered much more extreme while also playing directly into the base fears of the VERY fear-motivated opposition. And it didn’t even win over a majority of black people.

[Darth Yan]

Older black voters tend to skew centrist. Younger black voters overwhelming skew progressive. Those younger voters are a large chunk of the people who gave Biden Georgia.

At this point I honestly think you’d rather lop your own arm off than admit progressives have done a lot of good.

[FireNexus]

Who registered new black voters in Georgia? That would be progressive groups like BLM.

And that effort was spearheaded by Abrams and based on grassroots organizing she has been doing since 2013. Progressive groups did awesome in Georgia. But the credit doesn’t roll up to every politician progressives like everywhere in America.

Omar also mobilized Detroit, which was critical to Biden’s success.

Tell me more, please. Did she “mobilize Detroit” because she spoke and also detroit had high turnout? Or did she have a demonstrable grassroots impact on the level of Abrams? I’m not being sarcastic. I’m legitimately willing to be proven incorrect here.

I honestly think you would ignore evidence even if it was presented. Progressive groups have offered help in other areas and were told to fuck off by the DNC

Is that why you didn’t bother to provide any?

A lot of people LIKE Medicare for all, even republicans.

See, that really depends very heavily on how you word the question. And they sure don’t seem to vote like they do.

[FireNexus]

Older black voters tend to skew centrist. Younger black voters overwhelming skew progressive. Those younger voters are a large chunk of the people who gave Biden Georgia.

One, show your work.

Two, polls of black people without a voter screen show it is unpopular. Your statement of “old people are more conservative and than young people” is the kind of thing that sound meaningful but isn’t. Old people vote, more consistently and more numerously than young people. Ignoring that with hand waived “but young people” doesn’t erase the electoral realities.

At this point I honestly think you’d rather lop your own arm off than admit progressives have done a lot of good.

I would like you to just provide any data at all. You just keep adding fucking claims without evidence. And they’re all from the stock list of excuses why elections were lost that were not about the demonstrably unpopular nature of the hills you choose to die on every election cycle. It’s always that The Establishment didn’t back you up.