Its pretty convenient to pick a non falsifiable argument and present is as gospel.
"Didn't try hard enough" is a straight up GOP tactic.
2018 Beto did a lot of mid year outreach and campaigning and got within a few percentage points of cruz.
2020 the same mid year outreach and campaigning wasn't done and corny beat Hegar by 9.2.
Pick at my argument instead of putting words in my mouth like I'm treating this as gospel
Hegar recieved 20% more votes than Beto did. The issue is that Republicans turned out even more.
Right, so even in a year with higher turnout the spread still got worse. Some of that certainly could be chalked up to the party not being organized across campaigns, which they really aren't as per the tactics I outlined above.
Also worth pointing out that Beto did his campaigning with little support from the DNC/DCCC and was running an almost entirely grassroots campaign, so he's not really even indicative of the Dem party working together on these things.
Beto is literally the only person available to do that work, too, so fuck him for not doing it.
Is this supposed to be some kind of gotcha? I'm not even remotely saying that?
Also worth pointing out that my original comment on this was "Texas is not good evidence of Dem party organizing/campaigning infrastructure in fact it's maybe evidence of the opposite" and not "Dems suck at organizing and campaigning" so maybe y'all can slow your fucking roll a bit
Its pretty convenient to pick a non falsifiable argument and present is as gospel.
"Didn't try hard enough" is a straight up GOP tactic.
2018 Beto did a lot of mid year outreach and campaigning and got within a few percentage points of cruz.
2020 the same mid year outreach and campaigning wasn't done and corny beat Hegar by 9.2.
Pick at my argument instead of putting words in my mouth like I'm treating this as gospel
Yeah, but you can't prove Beto tried, he just showed up. Didn't put the effort in.
Sorry, I'm not really understanding what you're saying here. If I'm reading right I think you mean that I can't disprove that Beto tried and can't prove that he didn't put the effort in to the campaigns, to which I would say that his 2018 work went on for more than a year, was well publicized, and with a grassroots organization really humming along that was basically dissolved shortly after his loss and didn't get recreated until roughly August/September of this year when he began a "get out the vote" campaign. Which also isn't the same as organizing the Dem party in Texas into a battle formation to work together on their campaigns.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Its pretty convenient to pick a non falsifiable argument and present is as gospel.
"Didn't try hard enough" is a straight up GOP tactic.
2018 Beto did a lot of mid year outreach and campaigning and got within a few percentage points of cruz.
2020 the same mid year outreach and campaigning wasn't done and corny beat Hegar by 9.2.
Pick at my argument instead of putting words in my mouth like I'm treating this as gospel
Yeah, but you can't prove Beto tried, he just showed up. Didn't put the effort in.
Sorry, I'm not really understanding what you're saying here. If I'm reading right I think you mean that I can't disprove that Beto tried and can't prove that he didn't put the effort in to the campaigns, to which I would say that his 2018 work went on for more than a year, was well publicized, and with a grassroots organization really humming along that was basically dissolved shortly after his loss and didn't get recreated until roughly August/September of this year when he began a "get out the vote" campaign. Which also isn't the same as organizing the Dem party in Texas into a battle formation to work together on their campaigns.
Yeah, imagine me pretending to be able to psychically infer what people actually meant, even if it was diametrically opposed to any and all evidence to the contrary.
Its pretty convenient to pick a non falsifiable argument and present is as gospel.
"Didn't try hard enough" is a straight up GOP tactic.
2018 Beto did a lot of mid year outreach and campaigning and got within a few percentage points of cruz.
2020 the same mid year outreach and campaigning wasn't done and corny beat Hegar by 9.2.
Pick at my argument instead of putting words in my mouth like I'm treating this as gospel
Yeah, but you can't prove Beto tried, he just showed up. Didn't put the effort in.
Sorry, I'm not really understanding what you're saying here. If I'm reading right I think you mean that I can't disprove that Beto tried and can't prove that he didn't put the effort in to the campaigns, to which I would say that his 2018 work went on for more than a year, was well publicized, and with a grassroots organization really humming along that was basically dissolved shortly after his loss and didn't get recreated until roughly August/September of this year when he began a "get out the vote" campaign. Which also isn't the same as organizing the Dem party in Texas into a battle formation to work together on their campaigns.
Yeah, imagine me pretending to be able to psychically infer what people actually meant, even if it was diametrically opposed to any and all evidence to the contrary.
Thing is people have to come to grips that there was a huge uptick in GOP turnout. Some of that is likely tied to the pandemic and the resulting economic crash. That resulted in early voting being made more accessible and the crash resulted in people no longer having all their available time eaten up working 2+ shitty jobs to survive. Also while improved turnout didn't save many down ballot democrats. It's worth keeping in mind that Biden improved more on Clinton's numbers than Trump improved upon his numbers. Add in the fact that time doesn't completely erode bullshit gerrymandering nonsense, at least not in ten years and the Senate is currently bullshit for democrats.
Again, probably the big things the democrats need to do. Clear house on a ton of old DC consultants because their advice is bad. Be less candidate centrist, you need an electorate because you don't want a race being at the mercy of a candidates qualities. The candidates that the DNC has backed often don't stay in places where they need candidates because those types of candidates have an ambition that isn't going to be served running impossible elections in red country. Building up an electorate means you will get candidates in those areas that are willing to run, knowing full well they likely will lose, but their interest is forcing the GOP to have to fight for the seat, building up the base and sending a message that democrats in those districts haven't been forgotten. Have like zero cases of the DNC picking a candidate, let one natural emerge from the local pool and only step in if it looks like an unacceptable turd is going to win (by unacceptable turd, I mean someone completely at odds with human decency). Figure out the national message. Also stop with all the god damn doom e-mails, ideally that stops when the consultants get jettisoned.
Finally, we need to stop making a mistake, that I've been guilty of at times myself. We need to stop viewing Trump as only be able to be one of a symptom, accelerant or anomaly. After thinking things through, I think the answer is that Trump is all three. He was able to get into power because the GOP stopped given a shit about decency. Given that he has gotten away with some much, this has likely embolden shitty people to be even more openly shitty within the party. He also isn't something that can be replicated. The GOP doesn't have another vile, unapologetic piece of shit. That spend decades embedding themselves into the culture of the nation, like a cancerous tumor. That convinced a ton of low information people that they aren't fucking terrible. That downs conspiracy theories like they are going out of business. That has a means to easily get free advertising, donations and grift to sustain their bullshit image to those low information voters. I believe AngelHedgie posted in this very thread that the GOP is afraid they are going to lose a ton of Trump voters, once he is off the ballot. They likely do because they don't have anyone that fills all that shit and won't be able to keep those voters because those Voters like Trump. They think Trump is there guy, who has their best interests. They don't trust the GOP, like they don't trust democrats. The GOP will probably wait until the last moment to turn on Trump because they don't want to alienate those voters, but it's going to happen when they realize that Trump isn't going to back the GOP.
Wisconsin is next up in the “GOP Deadlocks the Election Board to delay or prevent certifications” maneuver.
Election news goes in the election thread.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Its pretty convenient to pick a non falsifiable argument and present is as gospel.
"Didn't try hard enough" is a straight up GOP tactic.
2018 Beto did a lot of mid year outreach and campaigning and got within a few percentage points of cruz.
2020 the same mid year outreach and campaigning wasn't done and corny beat Hegar by 9.2.
Pick at my argument instead of putting words in my mouth like I'm treating this as gospel
Hegar recieved 20% more votes than Beto did. The issue is that Republicans turned out even more.
Which is the same story all over the map. Republican turnout surged in ways that weren't represented in polling in a lot of places. It put a lot of pressure on districts the Dems barely picked up in 2018 and made a lot of the pickups that looked possible out of reach.
I wonder if the ongoing Trump tantrum and the GOP machinery rushing to aid him might help retain some of those people who held their nose for Biden to get rid of Trump (and maybe split their vote).
Like, even if they aren't usually D voters or are true swing voters, maybe some of them rethink that after watching the party apparatus rush to disenfranchise everyone who voted against Trump. Disenfranchise THEM, not those other people! Make up lies about THEIR votes!
...c'mon I'm always the cynic just let me hope for a moment.
For a lot of people, if the bubble breaks and they see reality for a few moments that's all it really takes.
President-Elect met with the Governor's association. Currently discussing Covid Vaccine distribution plans, bottlenecks, and timelines.
National Mask Mandate.
They just asked him a question about relatively complex aspects of dollar valuation and interest rates as proxy stimulus and he ACTUALLY GAVE THEM AN ANSWER GROUNDED IN ECONOMIC THEORY. Like, a genuine off the cuff opinion representing real thought on the issue and an underlying understanding of how the economy actually works both for the rich and the poor.
President-Elect met with the Governor's association. Currently discussing Covid Vaccine distribution plans, bottlenecks, and timelines.
National Mask Mandate.
They just asked him a question about relatively complex aspects of dollar valuation and interest rates as proxy stimulus and he ACTUALLY GAVE THEM AN ANSWER GROUNDED IN ECONOMIC THEORY. Like, a genuine off the cuff opinion representing real thought on the issue and an underlying understanding of how the economy actually works both for the rich and the poor.
AN ACTUAL POLICY QUESTION AND ANSWER.
Turns out when you shoot for the moon called "wishing the president knew about object permanence", you sometimes reach the stars of "knows things and can talk about them".
The fascinating has happened, so fascinating that I am posting in D&D after months (or possible years) absence outside of "I saw this movie, 'twas good."
In Taiwan (R.O.C.), the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (part of the generic "Pan-Green" political coalition, known semi-accurately in the United States as the pro-Taiwanese independence party), after attempting to avoid politicizing the United States election...politicized the United States election in October and early November.
This isn't very surprising. After all, within a human lifetime, the Republic of China in Taiwan was effectively a U.S. satellite state, but I digress. More recently (in the last 30 to 40 years), the government in Taipei has largely preferred Republican presidents, and Republican legislators, over Democratic presidents and Democratic legislatures, across both political coalitions. It's been an enduring feature of the democratic period, since the capitalist dictatorship came to a close in the early-to-mid 1990s. There are a number of complex reasons for this that far predate George W. Bush, much less Donald Trump, but this has held true among the last four presidents.
And, it would seem, has held true for President-Elect Biden. Public polls in Formosa magazine, corroborated by news network, noted that while Taiwanese overwhelmingly (59% to 25%) considered Donald Trump to be "of an untrustworthy character", they also even more overwhelmingly (53% to 16%) considered a Biden presidency to a worse outcome for Taiwan than a second term of the Trump presidency. Beyond a historical preference for Republicans over Democrats (which itself didn't just magically appear), the reasoning that this holds true among young Taiwanese likely has to do with a strong sense of disappointment with U.S.-Taiwan ties during the Obama government (2009-2017), and a sharp uptake in arms sales and diplomatic agreements during Trump's (only) term (2017-2021), starting with a diplomatic call with ruling party chairwoman and now second-term Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen that then President-elect Trump agreed to take. This (very cynically I'd argue) includes the U.S.-Chinese trade war, which while presumably disastrous fort the American economy has been a substantial boon for Taiwanese exports, up through the pandemic. Donald Trump's erratic and untrustworthy behavior, tenure, etc., have less weight, among political Taiwanese, because there is a strong assumption that American presidents, for the last two decades approximately, are untrustworthy and unreliable partners to Taipei.
And thanks to Twitter, this has spread to DPP lawmakers in the Legislative Yuan (the congress), a number of whom publicly posted in support of Trump (one, notably, wore a Trump campaign-themed breathing mask, which probably seems ironic to an American audience) and hoped for a Biden defeat in the presidential race. Since, you know, the actual outcome of the presidential election, Tsai as party chair has been attempting to implement some degree of damage control, insisting that the ruling party had no official stance on the American election (even if they clearly preferred one side to another, as did the public), issuing formal congratulations to the Bidden campaign for its win, and seeking another leader-to-leader phone call repeat of four years ago (that they are probably not going to get), and that whoever wins the November election, Taiwan is a "bipartisan" issue in the United States (the Taiwanese public does not particularly believe her apparently--good thing they don't decide who gets to be U.S. president).
What makes this fascinating is that, amid this fiasco, the opposition Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party, part of the "Pan-Blue" coalition) which previously controlled the presidency until 2016, has decided to opportunistically stick their finger into it, calling out said DPP lawmakers for their antics. Some lawmakers like the KMT legislative whip, in a very contrarian manner, stated their hope for a clear Joe Biden win immediately after the election when the outcome was still projected--this is somewhat unprecedented for opposing Taiwanese political parties to express favor for opposing American political parties, but it also falls on the background of the highly-unpopular deal that would legalize importation of U.S. Pork due to ractopamine bans--Taiwan, like the China, Russia, and the EU, has long restricted U.S. pork due to use of ractopamine--that Tsai pushed through in the wake of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Azar's visit to Taiwan, the highest-ranking U.S. cabinet visit to Taiwan in decades. It's a badly-kept secret that the DPP now hopes lifting the ractopamine ban could be a step to a free-trade agreement with the US, except it looks exceptionally bad since in 2015/2016, Tsai Ing-wen ran against her KMT opponent for "unfairly pushing through foreign trade deals" and previously endorsed the ractopamine ban she hopes to quietly lift today. So the opposition KMT has double downed, with it's chair endorsing ractopamine/U.S.-pork protests and suggesting that Biden's taking office will allow for a good opportunity to renegotiate the Trump-era trade deal Tsai hoped to sneak through. While the KMT's opposition to ractopamine is clearly popular, their preference for Biden over Trump presently is not.
This shit is fascinating*, like Game of Thrones-style intrigue, except instead of knights and dragons it involves a bunch of nerdy politicians and city councilors and protesting health experts and instead of murder and rape, it's yelling angrily at the presidency.
*OK, not very fascinating as many people, understandably, do not give a shit what a small foreign country thinks about the election.
+17
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited November 2020
I'm gonna quote a tweet here but build something on it, and yeah we kinda fought over it already but I mean... things are happening and it's silly that people argue otherwise.
AOC casually raised $75K+ for low-income families by playing video games for a few hours while educating current & future young voters on the GOP Senate's indifference to pandemic economics. The kind of outreach that Dems typically spend millions in consulting fees to figure out.
So, she actually raised $200k last night playing on Twitch again, though the money was being split among several efforts.
More to the point though... The world is different, and outreach through the internet is a pretty nifty and relatively inexpensive tool to wield. It just needs to actually be wielded. There's something to be said about the old guard of Democrats trying to run the party and the country's politics like a business. Consulting fees, focus groups. I know people are going to say those are necessary tools and like yeah, they are, but they are being used in a funky way. It's one thing when you're collecting data and legal expertise for legislative crafting and mending. But using it for voter outreach is very 1980s.
Going beyond elected officials and the part they should play in, y'know, actually talking to their constituents on their constituents' level, famous people of varying degrees need to take some responsibility and do their own part. One of the things that's sickened me in my adult life is how a lot of internet personalities (in particular) say "no politics" in their communities and they avoid talking about it. There's so much wrong with that sentiment. It simultaneously perpetuates the norm or status quo by way of not challenging it, it reinforces toxic peoples' odd perception that some forms of media or properties are "apolitical" and being 'ruined' by the introduction of politics into them (even though they've always had them), and very importantly and overlooked, it makes people in the fanbase or community wary or unsure or afraid that maybe the person they look up to and enjoy isn't actually great. Hence the "canceling" hysteria, when we find out for the worse what someone's political leanings are. And that would be avoided if people were actually just... up front about their views on current events, instead of trying to hide it. I'm partially sympathetic to people who want mental breaks from the news cycle and constant existential crises that is living in America, but there's a difference between taking a break from those things and pretending none of it exists / is happening whatsoever.
2020 fascinated me to some extent because a lot of previously low key or absolutely hushed people broke their "no politics" rules and urged people to vote and provided spaces for people to talk about their worries or frustrations. And now I'm staring down the next year in fear that all of that will get reined in with "okay election is over problems solved never speak of it again." Trying to be "apolitical" as a famous person is a cowardly and selfish act, a dance meant to preserve mass appeal and thus preserve - to be honest - a level of income. I've met people who argue to me that everyone has a right to be worried about their income level, which is true, but you can't so easily declare that a famous person's income is the same as people in poverty. They have room to take a possible hit and still... thrive. The rest of us can't survive like that. But that's a tangent, sorry.
So, I dunno. I'm sorry to resurrect this thread after a week of it laying dormant, and the election shenanigans mostly wrapping up. But that's my post-mortem on it. That there's definitely ability to adapt and embrace the future (and present), the only problem is willingness. Everything about this election's success was contingent on a desperate play for survival, which isn't the best motivator, especially when an entire generation haunted by mass depression is involved. Things becoming better is the best motivator, and I really wish that became the norm for non-Republican voters and elected officials and political pundits. "Survival is good enough" is a hell of a low bar to be excited about, but it's fucking evil when people insist that other should be excited about it as well.
Sorry. I've had a lot on my mind.
Edit - I know there's a split on this forum when it comes to people posting from personal / emotional perspectives, and people posting from data-driven perspectives. Please understand this post was made by and for the former, 100%.
Henroid on
+16
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited November 2020
The one thing I want to say is that one reason why a lot of Dem Reps don't do this sort of thing is actually because she isn't talking to just her constituents. She has figured out real quick that races have nationalized, even if electorates haven't, for obvious reasons. Traditionally, Reps talking to nonconstituents has been seen as a waste of time and resources at best, which is why there is such inertia, even in the face of communication that is obviously effective. And that probably isn't going to change at a leadership level until the generational change, which is one reason why that turnover needs to happen soon.
Edit: Also, playing games, especially video games, as a job is not something a lot of people are familiar with.
In addition to raising over $200k by playing Among Us AOC also, while making it very clear that she was not making any promises, said she would possibly talk to Bernie Sanders about possibly streaming Among Us with her for charity sometime in the future.
The very thought of which had me laughing so hard that I died and am now posting as a ghost.
The one thing I want to say is that one reason why a lot of Dem Reps don't do this sort of thing is actually because she isn't talking to just her constituents. She has figured out real quick that races have nationalized, even if electorates haven't, for obvious reasons. Traditionally, Reps talking to nonconstituents has been seen as a waste of time and resources at best, which is why there is such inertia, even in the face of communication that is obviously effective. And that probably isn't going to change at a leadership level until the generational change, which is one reason why that turnover needs to happen soon.
Edit: Also, playing games, especially video games, as a job is not something a lot of people are familiar with.
Races haven't nationalized that way. You can get tied way more to your national party and your fortunes go up or down with them but you still need to motivate and connect with the actual people who are directly voting for you. It's why I think what we've actually seen a lot of recently is how being a national cause celebre is not itself a sign of electoral strength.
And for general applicability there's a real question as to the overlap between voters and people watching that stream. When there's talk about how much influence social media has on voter's perceptions of politics, they ain't really talking about twitch. They are talking about, like, Facebook.
The one thing I want to say is that one reason why a lot of Dem Reps don't do this sort of thing is actually because she isn't talking to just her constituents. She has figured out real quick that races have nationalized, even if electorates haven't, for obvious reasons. Traditionally, Reps talking to nonconstituents has been seen as a waste of time and resources at best, which is why there is such inertia, even in the face of communication that is obviously effective. And that probably isn't going to change at a leadership level until the generational change, which is one reason why that turnover needs to happen soon.
Edit: Also, playing games, especially video games, as a job is not something a lot of people are familiar with.
Races haven't nationalized that way. You can get tied way more to your national party and your fortunes go up or down with them but you still need to motivate and connect with the actual people who are directly voting for you. It's why I think what we've actually seen a lot of recently is how being a national cause celebre is not itself a sign of electoral strength.
And for general applicability there's a real question as to the overlap between voters and people watching that stream. When there's talk about how much influence social media has on voter's perceptions of politics, they ain't really talking about twitch. They are talking about, like, Facebook.
I think it's a dual edged sword, both good and bad. AOC having such a magnetic personality probably does have benefits for the national party in that it gives the far-left wing voters (not specifically of the Democratic party) hope that someone, anyone, in the party is actively working towards the goals they care about. It probably has a not-insignificant effect on the national voter turnout of these voters who otherwise might "both sides are bad" not vote, or vote third party such as Socialist or Green parties. The magnitude of that effect is not easily measured. She is also probably fairly safe from getting primaried, given her home district.
It probably also does have a negative effect as well, since her popularity and messaging probably also drive turnout for the GOP in the more reddish-purple districts. For all that the GOP paints Pelosi as the socialist boogieman, I don't think the conservative leaning on-the-fence voters really see her that way, the way they do AOC.
The good thing though is that even if the nationalizing of the message has short-term deleterious effects for the Democratic party in the House, the long-term goal of normalizing the policies at the national level will produce more long-term good gained through them, I think. Long-term it will make it easier for the blue dogs to at least support the more liberal policies just through sheer osmosis in their home districts. I don't have the time to pull the numbers, but I bet you'd see a huge shift in public perception of some policies, such as cannabis legalization, same-sex marriage, and the ACA, in those reddish-purple districts as compared to 10-15 years ago just through constant exposure of national public opinion on the issues.
On the nationalizing of races. Worth repeating there are two key things to consider.
-The platform is going to get nationalized and candidates are going to get tied to that. So he behooves them and their party to figure out what parts of the platform resonate best and make that the forward facing part of the campaign. Democrats really need to do this because the GOP will and the GOP are also bad faith actors, so they'll run with absolute horseshit.
-On the opposite end, this doesn't mean the DNC, DSCC and DCCC should feel a need to pick winners and losers. In fact, they shouldn't because that alienates the voters they need. They need to let the people that actual vote in the race pick their candidate within reason. By reason, I don't mean what the useless ass consultants think or what the donors want (I'm highly suspicious of some of the high dollar donors because many; especially, companies donate to both parties. So some of the whining about candidates may very well be intentional attempts at sabotage, while claiming money gives them a say on candidates, but secretly said donor prefers GOP rule). What I mean is making sure the candidates meet a moral and ethical standard that won't shame the party. If a spouse/partner abuser starts to take the lead, then yes, the party should shut that shit down. Same deal if they are rapist, sexual assaulter, Nazi or other other vile shit you don't want attached to the party. Only risk torpedoing the party's chances in a race, if the state, district or locality is showing signs that what they want, is something you don't want any part of. I'd even argue that state parties should be careful in how they intervene in races because sometimes what they party thinks is a good candidate, might not be for a particularly district or locality and picking a winner could alienate voters that didn't need to be alienated.
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I hate that I’ve had to look up the specific state laws involving elector certification in Wisconsin and Arizona. This knowledge should be unnecessary for me.
I hate that I’ve had to look up the specific state laws involving elector certification in Wisconsin and Arizona. This knowledge should be unnecessary for me.
My personal election post mortem is going to be not knowing individual state elector laws or what the GSA is.
In addition to raising over $200k by playing Among Us AOC also, while making it very clear that she was not making any promises, said she would possibly talk to Bernie Sanders about possibly streaming Among Us with her for charity sometime in the future.
The very thought of which had me laughing so hard that I died and am now posting as a ghost.
“1% of the players get 86% of the Imposter matches! The system is rigged!”
I hate that I’ve had to look up the specific state laws involving elector certification in Wisconsin and Arizona. This knowledge should be unnecessary for me.
2016: I voted, I even phonebanked, I did all I could do.
2020: The Michigan election certification board meets on 11/23, with a short lunch break at 1 pm. If Aaron Von Langefeld orders the ham sandwich option, it can be safely assumed he’ll vote to certify with the Democrats, but if he gets the ceaser salad he’s settling in for a long night and we might wind up with another court situation...
I hate that I’ve had to look up the specific state laws involving elector certification in Wisconsin and Arizona. This knowledge should be unnecessary for me.
2016: I voted, I even phonebanked, I did all I could do.
2020: The Michigan election certification board meets on 11/23, with a short lunch break at 1 pm. If Aaron Von Langefeld orders the ham sandwich option, it can be safely assumed he’ll vote to certify with the Democrats, but if he gets the ceaser salad he’s settling in for a long night and we might wind up with another court situation...
So, as John Oliver put it, we already had stupid Watergate. Is this the MI version of stupid pope election?
Arizona has certified the vote for Biden today (today was the deadline for AZ). Wisconsin has a deadline tomorrow, but reports are that they will certify this afternoon.
After those 2, here are the remaining states that Biden won that still have to certify: Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Nebraska (NE-2), DC, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, California
Which leaves...zero close states (except maybe NE-02)
I hate that I’ve had to look up the specific state laws involving elector certification in Wisconsin and Arizona. This knowledge should be unnecessary for me.
2016: I voted, I even phonebanked, I did all I could do.
2020: The Michigan election certification board meets on 11/23, with a short lunch break at 1 pm. If Aaron Von Langefeld orders the ham sandwich option, it can be safely assumed he’ll vote to certify with the Democrats, but if he gets the ceaser salad he’s settling in for a long night and we might wind up with another court situation...
So, as John Oliver put it, we already had stupid Watergate. Is this the MI version of stupid pope election?
Stupid Watergate may have been stupid, but unlike real Watergate, it worked. So was it really so stupid?
+2
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I hate that I’ve had to look up the specific state laws involving elector certification in Wisconsin and Arizona. This knowledge should be unnecessary for me.
2016: I voted, I even phonebanked, I did all I could do.
2020: The Michigan election certification board meets on 11/23, with a short lunch break at 1 pm. If Aaron Von Langefeld orders the ham sandwich option, it can be safely assumed he’ll vote to certify with the Democrats, but if he gets the ceaser salad he’s settling in for a long night and we might wind up with another court situation...
So, as John Oliver put it, we already had stupid Watergate. Is this the MI version of stupid pope election?
Stupid Watergate may have been stupid, but unlike real Watergate, it worked. So was it really so stupid?
They didn't plan for Mueller to be tapped nor did they plan on him turning chicken-shit. In the end Trump had to fire Sessions so that his replacement could fire Mueller in slow-motion and he still had to pardon Flynn because they couldn't properly coverup his crimes.
The scandals didn't bring the President down but I wouldn't call Stupid Watergate successful.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Joe Biden confirmed as winner in Wisconsin ahead of promised lawsuit from President Donald Trump.
+23
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Necropost baby!
So turns out that the Democratic polling groups decided to do a post-mortem on just what happened with the polls in 2020. Bad news is that they're a tad iffy on what happened.
The memo floats at least three possible causes: late movement toward Trump and Republican candidates that polls conducted in the run-up to the election failed to catch, the Covid pandemic causing people who stayed home to answer the phone at a greater rate than those who did not follow restrictions, and the decline of social trust and faith in institutions.
The last one is not great, because I'm not sure what you can do to account for a certain percentage of your sample bullshitting you.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+2
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
It's not great but it should at least enlighten the DNC on what NOT to put too much money into e.g. a Kentucky Senate race
Posts
Yeah, but you can't prove Beto tried, he just showed up. Didn't put the effort in.
Right, so even in a year with higher turnout the spread still got worse. Some of that certainly could be chalked up to the party not being organized across campaigns, which they really aren't as per the tactics I outlined above.
Also worth pointing out that Beto did his campaigning with little support from the DNC/DCCC and was running an almost entirely grassroots campaign, so he's not really even indicative of the Dem party working together on these things.
Is this supposed to be some kind of gotcha? I'm not even remotely saying that?
Also worth pointing out that my original comment on this was "Texas is not good evidence of Dem party organizing/campaigning infrastructure in fact it's maybe evidence of the opposite" and not "Dems suck at organizing and campaigning" so maybe y'all can slow your fucking roll a bit
Sorry, I'm not really understanding what you're saying here. If I'm reading right I think you mean that I can't disprove that Beto tried and can't prove that he didn't put the effort in to the campaigns, to which I would say that his 2018 work went on for more than a year, was well publicized, and with a grassroots organization really humming along that was basically dissolved shortly after his loss and didn't get recreated until roughly August/September of this year when he began a "get out the vote" campaign. Which also isn't the same as organizing the Dem party in Texas into a battle formation to work together on their campaigns.
Yeah, imagine me pretending to be able to psychically infer what people actually meant, even if it was diametrically opposed to any and all evidence to the contrary.
Could you imagine having a discussion like that?
What are you on about
AP Correspondent- Focus on Wisconsin politics
Wisconsin is next up in the “GOP Deadlocks the Election Board to delay or prevent certifications” maneuver.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Again, probably the big things the democrats need to do. Clear house on a ton of old DC consultants because their advice is bad. Be less candidate centrist, you need an electorate because you don't want a race being at the mercy of a candidates qualities. The candidates that the DNC has backed often don't stay in places where they need candidates because those types of candidates have an ambition that isn't going to be served running impossible elections in red country. Building up an electorate means you will get candidates in those areas that are willing to run, knowing full well they likely will lose, but their interest is forcing the GOP to have to fight for the seat, building up the base and sending a message that democrats in those districts haven't been forgotten. Have like zero cases of the DNC picking a candidate, let one natural emerge from the local pool and only step in if it looks like an unacceptable turd is going to win (by unacceptable turd, I mean someone completely at odds with human decency). Figure out the national message. Also stop with all the god damn doom e-mails, ideally that stops when the consultants get jettisoned.
Finally, we need to stop making a mistake, that I've been guilty of at times myself. We need to stop viewing Trump as only be able to be one of a symptom, accelerant or anomaly. After thinking things through, I think the answer is that Trump is all three. He was able to get into power because the GOP stopped given a shit about decency. Given that he has gotten away with some much, this has likely embolden shitty people to be even more openly shitty within the party. He also isn't something that can be replicated. The GOP doesn't have another vile, unapologetic piece of shit. That spend decades embedding themselves into the culture of the nation, like a cancerous tumor. That convinced a ton of low information people that they aren't fucking terrible. That downs conspiracy theories like they are going out of business. That has a means to easily get free advertising, donations and grift to sustain their bullshit image to those low information voters. I believe AngelHedgie posted in this very thread that the GOP is afraid they are going to lose a ton of Trump voters, once he is off the ballot. They likely do because they don't have anyone that fills all that shit and won't be able to keep those voters because those Voters like Trump. They think Trump is there guy, who has their best interests. They don't trust the GOP, like they don't trust democrats. The GOP will probably wait until the last moment to turn on Trump because they don't want to alienate those voters, but it's going to happen when they realize that Trump isn't going to back the GOP.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Election news goes in the election thread.
Dangit, wrong election thread! Apologies.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Two threads that begin with 2020 has tricked me into thinking I was in the right thread for awhile now.
Which is the same story all over the map. Republican turnout surged in ways that weren't represented in polling in a lot of places. It put a lot of pressure on districts the Dems barely picked up in 2018 and made a lot of the pickups that looked possible out of reach.
Like, even if they aren't usually D voters or are true swing voters, maybe some of them rethink that after watching the party apparatus rush to disenfranchise everyone who voted against Trump. Disenfranchise THEM, not those other people! Make up lies about THEIR votes!
...c'mon I'm always the cynic just let me hope for a moment.
For a lot of people, if the bubble breaks and they see reality for a few moments that's all it really takes.
President-Elect met with the Governor's association. Currently discussing Covid Vaccine distribution plans, bottlenecks, and timelines.
National Mask Mandate.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
After posting it I literally thought wait... that's a word, right? *google* Ok, whew.
They just asked him a question about relatively complex aspects of dollar valuation and interest rates as proxy stimulus and he ACTUALLY GAVE THEM AN ANSWER GROUNDED IN ECONOMIC THEORY. Like, a genuine off the cuff opinion representing real thought on the issue and an underlying understanding of how the economy actually works both for the rich and the poor.
AN ACTUAL POLICY QUESTION AND ANSWER.
Turns out when you shoot for the moon called "wishing the president knew about object permanence", you sometimes reach the stars of "knows things and can talk about them".
In Taiwan (R.O.C.), the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (part of the generic "Pan-Green" political coalition, known semi-accurately in the United States as the pro-Taiwanese independence party), after attempting to avoid politicizing the United States election...politicized the United States election in October and early November.
This isn't very surprising. After all, within a human lifetime, the Republic of China in Taiwan was effectively a U.S. satellite state, but I digress. More recently (in the last 30 to 40 years), the government in Taipei has largely preferred Republican presidents, and Republican legislators, over Democratic presidents and Democratic legislatures, across both political coalitions. It's been an enduring feature of the democratic period, since the capitalist dictatorship came to a close in the early-to-mid 1990s. There are a number of complex reasons for this that far predate George W. Bush, much less Donald Trump, but this has held true among the last four presidents.
And, it would seem, has held true for President-Elect Biden. Public polls in Formosa magazine, corroborated by news network, noted that while Taiwanese overwhelmingly (59% to 25%) considered Donald Trump to be "of an untrustworthy character", they also even more overwhelmingly (53% to 16%) considered a Biden presidency to a worse outcome for Taiwan than a second term of the Trump presidency. Beyond a historical preference for Republicans over Democrats (which itself didn't just magically appear), the reasoning that this holds true among young Taiwanese likely has to do with a strong sense of disappointment with U.S.-Taiwan ties during the Obama government (2009-2017), and a sharp uptake in arms sales and diplomatic agreements during Trump's (only) term (2017-2021), starting with a diplomatic call with ruling party chairwoman and now second-term Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen that then President-elect Trump agreed to take. This (very cynically I'd argue) includes the U.S.-Chinese trade war, which while presumably disastrous fort the American economy has been a substantial boon for Taiwanese exports, up through the pandemic. Donald Trump's erratic and untrustworthy behavior, tenure, etc., have less weight, among political Taiwanese, because there is a strong assumption that American presidents, for the last two decades approximately, are untrustworthy and unreliable partners to Taipei.
And thanks to Twitter, this has spread to DPP lawmakers in the Legislative Yuan (the congress), a number of whom publicly posted in support of Trump (one, notably, wore a Trump campaign-themed breathing mask, which probably seems ironic to an American audience) and hoped for a Biden defeat in the presidential race. Since, you know, the actual outcome of the presidential election, Tsai as party chair has been attempting to implement some degree of damage control, insisting that the ruling party had no official stance on the American election (even if they clearly preferred one side to another, as did the public), issuing formal congratulations to the Bidden campaign for its win, and seeking another leader-to-leader phone call repeat of four years ago (that they are probably not going to get), and that whoever wins the November election, Taiwan is a "bipartisan" issue in the United States (the Taiwanese public does not particularly believe her apparently--good thing they don't decide who gets to be U.S. president).
What makes this fascinating is that, amid this fiasco, the opposition Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party, part of the "Pan-Blue" coalition) which previously controlled the presidency until 2016, has decided to opportunistically stick their finger into it, calling out said DPP lawmakers for their antics. Some lawmakers like the KMT legislative whip, in a very contrarian manner, stated their hope for a clear Joe Biden win immediately after the election when the outcome was still projected--this is somewhat unprecedented for opposing Taiwanese political parties to express favor for opposing American political parties, but it also falls on the background of the highly-unpopular deal that would legalize importation of U.S. Pork due to ractopamine bans--Taiwan, like the China, Russia, and the EU, has long restricted U.S. pork due to use of ractopamine--that Tsai pushed through in the wake of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Azar's visit to Taiwan, the highest-ranking U.S. cabinet visit to Taiwan in decades. It's a badly-kept secret that the DPP now hopes lifting the ractopamine ban could be a step to a free-trade agreement with the US, except it looks exceptionally bad since in 2015/2016, Tsai Ing-wen ran against her KMT opponent for "unfairly pushing through foreign trade deals" and previously endorsed the ractopamine ban she hopes to quietly lift today. So the opposition KMT has double downed, with it's chair endorsing ractopamine/U.S.-pork protests and suggesting that Biden's taking office will allow for a good opportunity to renegotiate the Trump-era trade deal Tsai hoped to sneak through. While the KMT's opposition to ractopamine is clearly popular, their preference for Biden over Trump presently is not.
This shit is fascinating*, like Game of Thrones-style intrigue, except instead of knights and dragons it involves a bunch of nerdy politicians and city councilors and protesting health experts and instead of murder and rape, it's yelling angrily at the presidency.
*OK, not very fascinating as many people, understandably, do not give a shit what a small foreign country thinks about the election.
More to the point though... The world is different, and outreach through the internet is a pretty nifty and relatively inexpensive tool to wield. It just needs to actually be wielded. There's something to be said about the old guard of Democrats trying to run the party and the country's politics like a business. Consulting fees, focus groups. I know people are going to say those are necessary tools and like yeah, they are, but they are being used in a funky way. It's one thing when you're collecting data and legal expertise for legislative crafting and mending. But using it for voter outreach is very 1980s.
Going beyond elected officials and the part they should play in, y'know, actually talking to their constituents on their constituents' level, famous people of varying degrees need to take some responsibility and do their own part. One of the things that's sickened me in my adult life is how a lot of internet personalities (in particular) say "no politics" in their communities and they avoid talking about it. There's so much wrong with that sentiment. It simultaneously perpetuates the norm or status quo by way of not challenging it, it reinforces toxic peoples' odd perception that some forms of media or properties are "apolitical" and being 'ruined' by the introduction of politics into them (even though they've always had them), and very importantly and overlooked, it makes people in the fanbase or community wary or unsure or afraid that maybe the person they look up to and enjoy isn't actually great. Hence the "canceling" hysteria, when we find out for the worse what someone's political leanings are. And that would be avoided if people were actually just... up front about their views on current events, instead of trying to hide it. I'm partially sympathetic to people who want mental breaks from the news cycle and constant existential crises that is living in America, but there's a difference between taking a break from those things and pretending none of it exists / is happening whatsoever.
2020 fascinated me to some extent because a lot of previously low key or absolutely hushed people broke their "no politics" rules and urged people to vote and provided spaces for people to talk about their worries or frustrations. And now I'm staring down the next year in fear that all of that will get reined in with "okay election is over problems solved never speak of it again." Trying to be "apolitical" as a famous person is a cowardly and selfish act, a dance meant to preserve mass appeal and thus preserve - to be honest - a level of income. I've met people who argue to me that everyone has a right to be worried about their income level, which is true, but you can't so easily declare that a famous person's income is the same as people in poverty. They have room to take a possible hit and still... thrive. The rest of us can't survive like that. But that's a tangent, sorry.
So, I dunno. I'm sorry to resurrect this thread after a week of it laying dormant, and the election shenanigans mostly wrapping up. But that's my post-mortem on it. That there's definitely ability to adapt and embrace the future (and present), the only problem is willingness. Everything about this election's success was contingent on a desperate play for survival, which isn't the best motivator, especially when an entire generation haunted by mass depression is involved. Things becoming better is the best motivator, and I really wish that became the norm for non-Republican voters and elected officials and political pundits. "Survival is good enough" is a hell of a low bar to be excited about, but it's fucking evil when people insist that other should be excited about it as well.
Sorry. I've had a lot on my mind.
Edit - I know there's a split on this forum when it comes to people posting from personal / emotional perspectives, and people posting from data-driven perspectives. Please understand this post was made by and for the former, 100%.
Edit: Also, playing games, especially video games, as a job is not something a lot of people are familiar with.
The very thought of which had me laughing so hard that I died and am now posting as a ghost.
Races haven't nationalized that way. You can get tied way more to your national party and your fortunes go up or down with them but you still need to motivate and connect with the actual people who are directly voting for you. It's why I think what we've actually seen a lot of recently is how being a national cause celebre is not itself a sign of electoral strength.
And for general applicability there's a real question as to the overlap between voters and people watching that stream. When there's talk about how much influence social media has on voter's perceptions of politics, they ain't really talking about twitch. They are talking about, like, Facebook.
I think it's a dual edged sword, both good and bad. AOC having such a magnetic personality probably does have benefits for the national party in that it gives the far-left wing voters (not specifically of the Democratic party) hope that someone, anyone, in the party is actively working towards the goals they care about. It probably has a not-insignificant effect on the national voter turnout of these voters who otherwise might "both sides are bad" not vote, or vote third party such as Socialist or Green parties. The magnitude of that effect is not easily measured. She is also probably fairly safe from getting primaried, given her home district.
It probably also does have a negative effect as well, since her popularity and messaging probably also drive turnout for the GOP in the more reddish-purple districts. For all that the GOP paints Pelosi as the socialist boogieman, I don't think the conservative leaning on-the-fence voters really see her that way, the way they do AOC.
The good thing though is that even if the nationalizing of the message has short-term deleterious effects for the Democratic party in the House, the long-term goal of normalizing the policies at the national level will produce more long-term good gained through them, I think. Long-term it will make it easier for the blue dogs to at least support the more liberal policies just through sheer osmosis in their home districts. I don't have the time to pull the numbers, but I bet you'd see a huge shift in public perception of some policies, such as cannabis legalization, same-sex marriage, and the ACA, in those reddish-purple districts as compared to 10-15 years ago just through constant exposure of national public opinion on the issues.
EDIT: Just for posterity, here are the remaining certification deadlines for states:
Here is a map of states that have certified so far (dark blue/red is certified, light blue/red is uncertified voting results):
-The platform is going to get nationalized and candidates are going to get tied to that. So he behooves them and their party to figure out what parts of the platform resonate best and make that the forward facing part of the campaign. Democrats really need to do this because the GOP will and the GOP are also bad faith actors, so they'll run with absolute horseshit.
-On the opposite end, this doesn't mean the DNC, DSCC and DCCC should feel a need to pick winners and losers. In fact, they shouldn't because that alienates the voters they need. They need to let the people that actual vote in the race pick their candidate within reason. By reason, I don't mean what the useless ass consultants think or what the donors want (I'm highly suspicious of some of the high dollar donors because many; especially, companies donate to both parties. So some of the whining about candidates may very well be intentional attempts at sabotage, while claiming money gives them a say on candidates, but secretly said donor prefers GOP rule). What I mean is making sure the candidates meet a moral and ethical standard that won't shame the party. If a spouse/partner abuser starts to take the lead, then yes, the party should shut that shit down. Same deal if they are rapist, sexual assaulter, Nazi or other other vile shit you don't want attached to the party. Only risk torpedoing the party's chances in a race, if the state, district or locality is showing signs that what they want, is something you don't want any part of. I'd even argue that state parties should be careful in how they intervene in races because sometimes what they party thinks is a good candidate, might not be for a particularly district or locality and picking a winner could alienate voters that didn't need to be alienated.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
My personal election post mortem is going to be not knowing individual state elector laws or what the GSA is.
“1% of the players get 86% of the Imposter matches! The system is rigged!”
2016: I voted, I even phonebanked, I did all I could do.
2020: The Michigan election certification board meets on 11/23, with a short lunch break at 1 pm. If Aaron Von Langefeld orders the ham sandwich option, it can be safely assumed he’ll vote to certify with the Democrats, but if he gets the ceaser salad he’s settling in for a long night and we might wind up with another court situation...
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
So, as John Oliver put it, we already had stupid Watergate. Is this the MI version of stupid pope election?
After those 2, here are the remaining states that Biden won that still have to certify: Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Nebraska (NE-2), DC, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, California
Which leaves...zero close states (except maybe NE-02)
Stupid Watergate may have been stupid, but unlike real Watergate, it worked. So was it really so stupid?
They didn't plan for Mueller to be tapped nor did they plan on him turning chicken-shit. In the end Trump had to fire Sessions so that his replacement could fire Mueller in slow-motion and he still had to pardon Flynn because they couldn't properly coverup his crimes.
The scandals didn't bring the President down but I wouldn't call Stupid Watergate successful.
So turns out that the Democratic polling groups decided to do a post-mortem on just what happened with the polls in 2020. Bad news is that they're a tad iffy on what happened. The last one is not great, because I'm not sure what you can do to account for a certain percentage of your sample bullshitting you.